Who can a vampire dominate?

[Cheiromancer]

The SRD entry for the vampire's Dominate ability states

A vampire can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must use a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). The ability has a range of 30 feet.

I read this as saying that the effect of the spell is as dominate person, not that the dominate ability inherits the limitations of the spell. In other words, a vampire can dominate monstrous humanoids, giants, fey, etc..

I am using this reading based on the analogy with the return to nature spell, which refers to reduce person in a way that cannot include the limitations of that spell (otherwise giants would be immune to return to nature).


Duration: Instantaneous

....Giants subjected to this spell become smaller, as
though affected by a reduce person spell (see page 269 of
the Player’s Handbook). A successful Fortitude save negates
this effect....

Based on the text of the dominate ability, all that is required for a target to be affected is that they have eyes that a vampire can look into and they fail a will save. It does not matter if they are a humanoid or not, they are still affected as if by a dominate person. However, this reasoning means that a vampire could dominate anyone with eyes who fails the will save, even constructs or other undead. The ability is not tagged as mind-affecting, so it doesn't follow necessarily that undead etc. are immune.

So I am faced with a dilemma. If the dominate ability inherits the limitations of dominate person, then a vampire minotaur (say) cannot dominate his fellow minotaurs, since they are monstrous humanoids, not humanoids. (Also, return to nature does not work on giants.) On the other hand, if the dominate ability does not share the limitations of dominate person then a vampire can dominate anything that has eyes, even things that would be immune to mind affecting spells.

What am I missing?

[Nich_Critic]

By default, I believe that the restrictions of the spell are carried forward for abilities based on the spell, unless explicitly stated otherwise. So for the vampire's dominate ability, it would have read "as dominate person, except it can affect any creature type and isn't mind affecting", if that's what the author intended.

Return to nature deliberately overrides the restriction, saying specifically that giants can be subject to the effects.

This is an application of the specific > general rule. In general, reduce person can't target giants, but return to nature can. However, the vampire's ability doesn't have any overriding text with regards to targets, so you have to assume that it's the same as the base spell. (Similarly, the duration can't be assumed to be unlimited. The range *is* overwritten, to be 30 feet instead of close, and the casting time has been overwritten to be a standard action instead of one round)

[Pilo]

I agree with Nich_Critic, the vampire's ability works like the spell except for what has been explicitly stated by the ability.
The fluff part does not count.

[Cheiromancer]

By default, I believe that the restrictions of the spell are carried forward for abilities based on the spell, unless explicitly stated otherwise. So for the vampire's dominate ability, it would have read "as dominate person, except it can affect any creature type and isn't mind affecting", if that's what the author intended.

Return to nature deliberately overrides the restriction, saying specifically that giants can be subject to the effects.

This is an application of the specific > general rule. In general, reduce person can't target giants, but return to nature can. However, the vampire's ability doesn't have any overriding text with regards to targets, so you have to assume that it's the same as the base spell. (Similarly, the duration can't be assumed to be unlimited. The range *is* overwritten, to be 30 feet instead of close, and the casting time has been overwritten to be a standard action instead of one round)

Well, return to nature does not specifically say that giants are subject to the effects, otherwise it would have wording something like "as the reduce person spell, except that giants can be affected". The exception is implied since we have to assume that the effect of return to nature on giants would not have been specified if the spell did not actually affect giants.

However, return to nature is usually thought to be stackable; a giant can be reduced to fine size through multiple applications of the spell. But the problem with interpreting return to nature as stackable is that reduce person does not stack with itself. This is a restriction in the application of the spell, and so should, by your reasoning, carry forward if not explicitly stated otherwise. It is true that instantaneous spells generally stack, but the text of reduce person is more specific and should trump the general rule.

Returning to the vampire's dominate ability, we see that the text of the dominate ability says "anyone", not "any humanoid". The actual words in the ability write up should trump what is written in the spell description for dominate person, since they are more specific. If you agree with Pilo
The fluff part does not count.
then you need to explain why "anyone" is fluff, and also explain why a vampire would not be able to dominate a blind human. Unless you think a vampire could dominate a blind human, that is. :smallwink:

Don't get me wrong; I think it would be weird (and unbalanced) if the dominate ability worked on undead or constructs. I kind of wish that it would work on monstrous humanoids, since I think that any vampire should be able to dominate members of its own species, but it is not a deal-breaker to me. I just don't see how to include monstrous humanoids without getting everything with eyes.

And the 'carry forward restrictions unless implied or stated otherwise' rule makes return to nature non-stackable, which is not how it is usually understood (see The World's Smallest Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109065)). Maybe that's OK, too. I don't know - I just want to get a better handle on how to accurately interpret the rules.

[TuggyNE]

Returning to the vampire's dominate ability, we see that the text of the dominate ability says "anyone", not "any humanoid". The actual words in the ability write up should trump what is written in the spell description for dominate person, since they are more specific. If you agree with Pilo
then you need to explain why "anyone" is fluff, and also explain why a vampire would not be able to dominate a blind human. Unless you think a vampire could dominate a blind human, that is. :smallwink:

"Anyone" is not more specific than "as dominate person"; it merely does not explicitly restrict targets, rather than explicitly not restricting targets. What's more, there's a perfectly valid spell they could have used if they did mean for all types to be susceptible: dominate monster.

As far as being unable to dominate blind targets, it's quite clear that functioning as a gaze attack overrides the usual targeting of dominate X, because it actually is more specific.

So sorry, but it's dominate person, down to humanoids only.

[NeoPhoenix0]

No, every creature type is affect by the ability. Non-humanoids just ignore it because the ability applies a humanoid only effect. For example, you could use it on a solar. If the solar lost its save it would then be affected by a dominate person effect which has no effect on it because the effect of dominate person says you control the actions of a humanoid, not an outsider.

Note: I'm saying this slightly sarcastically, but at the same time the recent debates I have been in have had a horrible effect on the rules lawyer in me.

[Cheiromancer]

No, every creature type is affect by the ability. Non-humanoids just ignore it because the ability applies a humanoid only effect. For example, you could use it on a solar. If the solar lost its save it would then be affected by a dominate person effect which has no effect on it because the effect of dominate person says you control the actions of a humanoid, not an outsider.

Note: I'm saying this slightly sarcastically, but at the same time the recent debates I have been in have had a horrible effect on the rules lawyer in me.

I know you are joking, but dominate person says

Target: One humanoid

Compare disrupt undead on the previous page, which says "You direct a ray of positive energy. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit, and if the ray hits an undead creature, it deals 1d6 points of damage to it." So a disrupt undead can be used on anything, but only has an effect on undead. A dominate person can only target a humanoid.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I know you are joking, but dominate person says

Target: One humanoid

Compare disrupt undead on the previous page, which says "You direct a ray of positive energy. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit, and if the ray hits an undead creature, it deals 1d6 points of damage to it." So a disrupt undead can be used on anything, but only has an effect on undead. A dominate person can only target a humanoid.

Actually there is room for argument that the first sentence of the vampire's ability lets it target anyone, but it doesn't matter since the effect only works on humanoids.

[Cheiromancer]

Actually there is room for argument that the first sentence of the vampire's ability lets it target anyone, but it doesn't matter since the effect only works on humanoids.

Good point. Anyone whose eyes the vampire can look into. Comparison between dominate monster and dominate person sharpens the point; not only did they change the target information, but they also changed the text of the spell.

So if the restrictions of a spell are carried over (unless stated or implied otherwise) it seems that the restrictions of reduce person should be carried over to return to nature. I wonder if I should make that its own thread?

[Balacertar]

I would say "monstruous humanoid" could be argued to be affected by a "target: humanoid creature" spell as much as a "humanoid (elf)" does. They are 2 differend kind of creatures as for MM, and yet both are humanoids, not as sustantive (MM creature group) but as adjective (creature characteristic), similar way some spells target "living creature" which is a characteristic of some creatures. It's at least arguable.
It has perfect sense it affects minotaurs or sahuaguins, and would be weird if it doesn't.

[HunterOfJello]

It only works on actual Humanoids. This once vexed my DM greatly after two vampires attempted to dominate our party before noticing that it consisted of an Aasimar (Outsider), Feytouched (Fey), and Half-Giant (Giant).

While an outside observer might say that the party appeared to consist of a group of Humanoids, we didn't actually have any humanoids in the party at the time.

[ace rooster]

It definately reads to me that it can be targeted at anyone, but only affects humanoids (And that is how I would rule it as DM). Given that the spell can also be targeted at non humanoids (though it doesn't do anything) it would be a bit strange if it could not be. It is relevant for situations where it is not apparent what type the creature is, such as when a vampire (or a mage) tries to dominate a commoner that turns out to be a silver dragon (hilarity ensues).

I would houserule that vampires of non-humanoid type could dominate their own type instead, as would seem a bit odd otherwise. RAW this is not the case. A vampire centaur cannot dominate other centaurs for example.

I might also tentatively let an enchanter try to research other dominate types, depending on situation. A beefed up dominate animal looks like it has no problems (level TBD). Dominate dragon could be fun, but very dangerous (Piss off every dragon everywhere, but dragons are scarce enough for this to not be game breaking). Dominate monstrous humanoid could be very powerful, and would radically limit the encounters that the party could face without letting them just grab minions. Dominate outsider would definately have a subtype limitation, but is actually ok. The most powerful outsiders have magic circle type effects on always anyway.

[Chronos]

Quoth Balacertar:

I would say "monstruous humanoid" could be argued to be affected by a "target: humanoid creature" spell as much as a "humanoid (elf)" does. They are 2 differend kind of creatures as for MM, and yet both are humanoids, not as sustantive (MM creature group) but as adjective (creature characteristic), similar way some spells target "living creature" which is a characteristic of some creatures. It's at least arguable.
This is fine as a houserule, but it's not the way the rules as written actually work. RAW, they're two different creature types, and "humanoid" means "humanoid". In the extremely rare case where the rules want to talk about the adjective sense, they say "creature with a humanoid body shape".

[Necroticplague]

This is fine as a houserule, but it's not the way the rules as written actually work. RAW, they're two different creature types, and "humanoid" means "humanoid". In the extremely rare case where the rules want to talk about the adjective sense, they say "creature with a humanoid body shape".

Except when they talk about armor, which has higher prices if you're not a humanoid. They don't say "creature with humanoid body shape", even though that would make more sense (what, an undead suddenly wears different armor from when they were alive?)