dominate person question

[tim01300]

So I have two questions about dominate person. Firstly it says commands that the character wouldn't normally do give it a new save. So If I tell the party's dominated barbarian to attack and kill his teammates he gets a save. But I can I just say, kill them? Or do I have to each turn direct his actions and give him a new save. My players are arguing that each attack he gets a save, which I think is silly.

Second question, what is the opinion on fooling players as far as this spell goes. My group are fairly new players and horrible meta gamers even though they try not to. They got in a fight with a mage, the barbarian got dominated after everyone else had fled the fight. So after asking him to pour out his potions I told him that he has regained control, essentially I made him think he passed his will save. But in reality he didn't. Then we the party rested I had him get up in the night and start attacking. Some of my players are upset over this, saying that if they knew I could do that they would have posted watches and not trusted him....which imo is meta gaming. Is it out of a wizards ability to make someone think they have beaten the domination, to let it go dormant?

[Crake]

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities

If your order is "Attack your comrades" Then possibly that might be a feasable reaction from your players, because once he attacks, his command is done and you have to give him a new one. But if you just say "Kill all your currently present comrades in the order that would be most effective (or the order you specify)" then until that command is complete, he will continue trying to carry it out without the need for you to give him another order each time. So 1 order means 1 extra save. As long as the order encompasses killing all of them, then he only gets a single save. Remind them that Dominate Person is on the same level as Save or Dies. Find a way to incapacitate them, or dispel the Dominate, or better yet, just cast protection from evil on them, protection from evil will immediately supress the dominate for it's duration.

[erok0809]

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
Emphasis mine.

I think that the fact that it says "actions" and not "an action" would make it so that they don't necessarily get a save for every attack. I would give them the new save with the bonus upon receiving the order to kill the people, since that order goes against his nature. If the barbarian fails this save, then he attacks them until you give him a different order, with no further saves necessary unless you give him another order that goes against his nature. Then he would get another save.

On the point with fooling them, I'm not as certain. For one thing, I wouldn't actually have told the party the barbarian was dominated; I would have handled that by rolling the Barbarian's will save for him in secret, and passing him a note that tells him he's dominated, and what his first orders are. The other party members wouldn't know he was dominated if they weren't there to see it and hadn't made Sense Motive checks to notice that he was dominated once they met back. Then they wouldn't have had any right to complain, since they wouldn't have even known. However, that point doesn't help you now, since the party knows. I can't help you as much on the second point, but I'm sure others can.

Edit: Partially Swordsage'd on the first bit

[Aharon]

So I have two questions about dominate person. Firstly it says commands that the character wouldn't normally do give it a new save. So If I tell the party's dominated barbarian to attack and kill his teammates he gets a save. But I can I just say, kill them? Or do I have to each turn direct his actions and give him a new save. My players are arguing that each attack he gets a save, which I think is silly.

Second question, what is the opinion on fooling players as far as this spell goes. My group are fairly new players and horrible meta gamers even though they try not to. They got in a fight with a mage, the barbarian got dominated after everyone else had fled the fight. So after asking him to pour out his potions I told him that he has regained control, essentially I made him think he passed his will save. But in reality he didn't. Then we the party rested I had him get up in the night and start attacking. Some of my players are upset over this, saying that if they knew I could do that they would have posted watches and not trusted him....which imo is meta gaming. Is it out of a wizards ability to make someone think they have beaten the domination, to let it go dormant?

IMO, he should get a new save each round. Telling him to subdue them instead would work without any save at all.

Second question: this is explicitly defined in the rules. Dominated people act unnaturally and can be easily identified with Sense Motive.

[HammeredWharf]

Remember that a DC 25 Sense Motive check reveals a target is dominated. The DC drops to 15 if the target is carrying out a command.

[tim01300]

Is that sense motive check something I should be asking them to make? Or should they ask to make one based on him doing odd things? Basically the mage just stopped giving commands, so the barbarian wasn't under any orders and acting naturally. The player had thought he had made the save also. That's what I'm unsure of. If the mage wants the barbarian to act normal until he needs him can he do that? Sort of let loose on the reins until the moment is right?

[Dalebert]

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

I interpret that to mean the DC of 25 is the default to figure out he's acting oddly. It drops down to 15 when he's under a command. It would be up to them to figure out why. I would give them the chance to do it automatically whether they say so or not though you might want to roll for them or not tell them exactly what they're rolling for. Times like that it's nice if you have their skill checks handy like in a spreadsheet.

EDIT: Under the entry for Sense Motive, 25 is the typical DC to figure out someone is under an enchantment so they would probably have a pretty good idea of why he's not acting normally.

[HighWater]

So I have two questions about dominate person. Firstly it says commands that the character wouldn't normally do give it a new save. So If I tell the party's dominated barbarian to attack and kill his teammates he gets a save. But I can I just say, kill them? Or do I have to each turn direct his actions and give him a new save. My players are arguing that each attack he gets a save, which I think is silly.

You only need to use one move action to give the order. If the order is one with a completion solution (such as "kill X") the barbarian gets one new save, with a +2 bonus. He doesn't get a new save until you give him a new order.


Second question, what is the opinion on fooling players as far as this spell goes. My group are fairly new players and horrible meta gamers even though they try not to. They got in a fight with a mage, the barbarian got dominated after everyone else had fled the fight. So after asking him to pour out his potions I told him that he has regained control, essentially I made him think he passed his will save. But in reality he didn't. Then we the party rested I had him get up in the night and start attacking. Some of my players are upset over this, saying that if they knew I could do that they would have posted watches and not trusted him....which imo is meta gaming. Is it out of a wizards ability to make someone think they have beaten the domination, to let it go dormant?

First, did you give them a free sense motive check? This is the kind of stuff that they should roll for passively rather than player-prompted. You might consider giving them a circumstance bonus because they know the dominated person quite well.

Second, if they say "had we known out of game that he was still dominated, we would have" is clear metagame talk. If they got the sense motive (and failed) they have no right to complain about the consequences (perhaps you should've veto'd their metagame acts rather than hidden the truth).

Third, yes it is quite possible to introduce a sleeper-agent with no currently active commands. Dominate allows you limited sensory access even when the dominated person isn't currently under a command and you can issue a command through the telepathic link (this is a new command so prompts a new save). Sense Motive DC 25 until the aggression starts.

[Stella]

My players are arguing that each attack he gets a save, which I think is silly.As already covered, the order given will determine if it is a one round action or a continuous action. Wizards have a high INT score, and they know how their spells work. It's not any kind of a stretch for you as the DM to determine that the Wizard is smart enough to give a command which makes fighting his party a continuous action.

There may also be a bit of confusion or metagaming concerning terms, since in the rules an attack action is a single action taken within a 6 second melee round, while in language attack is not so narrowly defined. Tell your players that "Attack the party" does not mean "make a single attack within the rules for combat", since those rules are not known to the characters themselves. Instead, someone ordered to "attack" will continue to attack in the "attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)."


They got in a fight with a mage, the barbarian got dominated after everyone else had fled the fight. So after asking him to pour out his potions I told him that he has regained control, essentially I made him think he passed his will save. But in reality he didn't. Then we the party rested I had him get up in the night and start attacking. Some of my players are upset over this, saying that if they knew I could do that they would have posted watches and not trusted him....which imo is meta gaming. Is it out of a wizards ability to make someone think they have beaten the domination, to let it go dormant?I see that your intent was to prevent the players from metagaming, which I don't see any problem with. But it should be done within the framework of the rules.

The Barbarian is probably quite against pouring out all his potions, and so that order should have given him another saving throw at +2. If he passed, he would be free from the Domination and would not have poured out his potions. If he failed he would have poured out his potions and remained Dominated.

So in the case where he poured out his potions the Barbarian was still Dominated. That said, the next order by the Wizard is "Go back to your friends and act with them as you would always act with them, with the sole exception that you are not to attempt to communicate to them in any way this command I just gave you."

This command should also allow the Barbarian another saving throw at +2, unless deceiving his friends is something he has done previously in the character's history.

Since here is where you are trying to prevent metagaming, you don't tell the player this order. You roll his save yourself and if it fails you can tell him that he is free of the Domination. Just keep in mind that any experienced player will not fall for this ruse.

Assuming he fails that save, or doesn't get one, now he is in with his party. The DC for detecting that someone is acting naturally under compulsion should not be 15. That should only apply when the order has the player single-mindedly carrying out an action which throws up an alarm. "Jog in place", for example, since even if the person has jogged in place before it is quite odd to see someone do that "to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)"

Yes, this is not quite RAW, but the RAW reads "Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description)." Here we have no real limitation on the range of activities.

The DM should be able to apply an appropriate circumstance adjustment, or just leave the DC at 25. Whatever you determine the DC to be, you make the rolls. This also prevents metagaming.

Next, the Barbarian is ordered to kill the party. This gives him yet another saving throw at +2. If he fails, he'll keep attacking them until they are dead or the spell expires, including tracking them for days if necessary in order to try to complete the command.

But we've already covered the fact that Wizards are smart and know how their spells work. The Wizards gains nothing by allowing the Barbarian three saving throws to accomplish one goal: The death of the people who attacked him (or who he attacked but they escaped). The order to pour out his potions could just as easily have been the order to attack and kill his party. It's the same saving throw at +2, and if he fails he has the potions to buff himself for the fight. Since the party all fled and left the Barbarian behind, I assume that they were beaten to the point where continuing to engage seemed like a losing proposition. So this is the time where the Barbarian attacking them should be the most effective.

[tim01300]

Thanks guys, this all helped a bunch. I may rep-con slightly before we start tonight (we ended last session right as he started attacking them in the middle of the night) because I didn't give any sense motive checks. Aside from that it seems every thing else was ok. You guys rock

[Dalebert]

It sounds like he cast this spell on the barbarian right in front of the rest of the party. Did anyone in the party have spellcraft? Did you give them a chance to recognize what he was casting? If they rolled high enough, they would also have a pretty good idea of how the spell works and that it would seem undetectable between commands. This is when a detect magic is a lot of bang for the buck.


The Barbarian is probably quite against pouring out all his potions, and so that order should have given him another saving throw at +2.

This command should also allow the Barbarian another saving throw at +2, unless deceiving his friends is something he has done previously in the character's history.

I knew this would be a thing because they worded it too ambiguously. I realize there should be room for DM interpretation but this is silly. What sorts of things would you allow him to command the barbarian to do that are beneficial to the controller and also not "against his nature"? If that list is almost nonexistent, then you're interpreting this way too broadly. When I think "against one's nature" that brings to mind things like...

a clear violation of your alignment
directly hurting someone dear to you, or just about any unnecessary violence if you're good-aligned (see above)
a cleric blaspheming their god, or perhaps any god of similar alignment
a paladin doing something that's a violation of his paladin code

It's not just "anything I wouldn't like to do". Almost any command given by an enemy would fall under that. If so, they should practically just say they get a +2 chance to break free with every command. There was a thread recently about a character possibly having an addiction to potions. THAT character might get a +2 save in that circumstance. "Destroy this very personal family heirloom that your dead mother left to you in her will" might give you a +2 save.

Things that I think are reasonable for a dominated person are

attacking something you would likely attack anyway, which is just about anything for creature that is already violence-prone, fewer things for a good character
Lying in ways that don't seem overtly harmful to people you care about or innocents, or just about any lies if you're evil and/or prone to lying frequently
Keeping a lookout. The caster will be able to know what you know through the spell if he's checking in regularly. This may result in harm to people the victim cares about but it's too ambiguous, especially if the victim of the spell doesn't know the caster well and doesn't know, for instance, that he's an evil murderer with plans to kill your friends.

There are a lot of circumstances that can complicate the above, of course. It's far from black and white.


Assuming he fails that save, or doesn't get one, now he is in with his party. The DC for detecting that someone is acting naturally under compulsion should not be 15. That should only apply when the order has the player single-mindedly carrying out an action which throws up an alarm. "Jog in place", for example, since even if the person has jogged in place before it is quite odd to see someone do that "to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)"


I disagree here as well. A clear shortcoming in the spell is that a person who is dominated is clearly not acting naturally. That person is acting with a single-minded purpose toward fulfilling a command. For instance, if the wizard said "guard my domicile while I'm gone", the barbarian would spend every moment on patrol, looking out windows, checking all the locks, etc. If you tried to talk to him, he would at best seem disinterested and might not even stop walking the perimeter to carry on the conversation. If he felt you were distracting him from his task, he might just tell you to buzz off or just ignore you. He would take breaks to eat, sleep, and pee into a reasonably appropriate container or location. That's it.

He may not even be able to tell himself that he's still under the spell until he received a compulsion. Saying "act natural" is like saying "don't think about pink elephants". What are you all thinking about right now? Have you ever seen someone (who isn't a trained actor) who was told to act natural? They suddenly become very self-conscious and act anything but natural. His best bet is to just say nothing and let the barbarian think it was maybe just a suggestion spell that he's now free of.

[Elkad]

While pouring out all your potions or throwing your magic items into the lava might give another save, you can word this more carefully.

A command to "drink all your potions" wouldn't give you another save, unless one of them was poison or something.

How about casting protection from evil/good on your dominated target yourself? Command him to take a nap or something. Cast protection from evil/good, freeing him from control. Flee quickly. Now he should feel fine and wander back to his group, who would notice nothing wrong with him (thus no Sense Motive), since the effect is suppressed. Once the duration expires, he's back under your control.

[Stella]

I knew this would be a thing because they worded it too ambiguously. I realize there should be room for DM interpretation but this is silly. What sorts of things would you allow him to command the barbarian to do that are beneficial to the controller and also not "against his nature"? If that list is almost nonexistent, then you're interpreting this way too broadly.There are plenty of actions which can be ordered which are not necessarily against a person's nature.

"Travel to the town of Blahblah and deliver this note to the Mayor. Don't read it.*"

The person targeted is an adventurer. He is used to running all kinds of errands for people just like this. So, not against his nature.

Asking him to destroy his possessions (pour out his potions)? That's something almost no one will do as a part of their normal nature. When was the last time you lit a few hundred dollar bills on fire just because your new buddy asked you to?
Ask him to deceive his companions? Again, this isn't something many people do trivially. Alignment and prior history can determine this more certainly, but I allowed for that already in the post you replied to.
Attack his friends? Again, unless this is a CE Barbarian with a history of turning on his allies, this order is against his nature.

I don't find the spell description to be at all ambiguous or to limit the actions which can be ordered too strictly.


* My favorite order when I Dominate an evil NPC who has tried to steal from the party or attacked us in a campaign with a decent amount of depth to it. The note describes the crimes committed, says that I and my friends will be coming back to testify within a few weeks (or more specifically if I know for sure), and suggests that the criminal be detained until we return for the trial.

[Dalebert]

When was the last time you lit a few hundred dollar bills on fire just because your new buddy asked you to?

This guy isn't my buddy. He's using powerful magic with "dominate" in the title to control my mind and I've already failed my saving throw.


Ask him to deceive his companions? Again, this isn't something many people do trivially.

Trivially, as in when I'm making my own choices for my own reasons? Of course not.


Attack his friends? Again, unless this is a CE Barbarian with a history of turning on his allies, this order is against his nature.

But I've already said I agree with this part. It's an alignment violation and they're his close personal friends--either of which justifies an extra +2 save. I'm just trying to distinguish between

1) Things one just wouldn't normally do IF they were making their own choices and not being dominated and
2) Things that are against their nature

I also distinguished between regular possessions of value and things of special value to a character. Examples I gave of the latter were substances that the character actually had an addiction to or a family heirloom of particular sentimental value. If the person made a hobby of collecting potions and had a special case made to protect his collection, maybe then. You're interpreting the spell as sort of nudging people in a certain direction and I'm interpreting it as dominating them. No idea where I'm getting that notion from except maybe the title of the spell. If you want to nudge people or just convince them you're their buddy, cast charm person.

[Segev]

Dominate is not Charm. You don't think your master is your buddy; you're not acting to please him while considering the relationships you have with others.

The new save is for acting against their nature, not acting "out of character." "Against their nature" is a phrase that refers to something deeper than normal preferences and habits. It means there are deep moral or ethical objections to the commanded action, not merely "I wouldn't want to do this."

"Pour out your potions" is not going to be against somebody's nature in this sense, unless that somebody is pretty much a greedy miser who values his property as much as many people value their own lives.

"Attack your party" is likely against the nature of a Good or Lawful person, for varying reasons. But could be okay if said party had in it somebody they would have less objection to attacking if they just had an excuse. (In fact, the more Lawful types might have more of a chance of being giving that save in this case, because their nature is to act according to plan and rules, and it's those which restrain them rather than good-feeling towards the target.)

But the "against their nature" rule is meant to represent things like having a Paladin murder orphans, or having a man turn his wife over for blood sacrifice to a pagan god. Without deep-seated convictions or core elements of your being crying out against the action, it isn't "against your nature."

Dominate is powerful and useful. It doesn't give a new save with a bonus every time the dominated victim wouldn't like the order he's being given. It only gives that save if it is so counter to their nature that they'd hate themselves if they did it AND they would never bring themselves to do it without being dominated.

A barbarian could pour out his potions. He could even, possibly, hit his friends in a fit of rage. But he probably wouldn't kill them. (Unless he's NE or CE, anyway.)

[jedipotter]

So I have two questions about dominate person. Firstly it says commands that the character wouldn't normally do give it a new save. So If I tell the party's dominated barbarian to attack and kill his teammates he gets a save. But I can I just say, kill them? Or do I have to each turn direct his actions and give him a new save. My players are arguing that each attack he gets a save, which I think is silly.

I'd say the dominated character gets a save every round they take an action. I like that the character would fight back. It's a bit boring to have the spellcaster say ''kill everyone in the city'', the character gets one save, then just has to kill all 100,000 people in the city.

It does not lessen the power of Dominate, it just makes the caster be a bit more clever.






Second question, what is the opinion on fooling players as far as this spell goes.

I really don't like this one. ''Lying'' or ''not telling the whole truth'' to the characters is fine, but too the player......er, not such a good idea. Not in this sort of way. Though I'm also not a fan of doing it the fake way: DM-''Ok, player your character is dominated, but thinks he made his save, but did not, so you need to act dominated, but pretend to act like your not dominated.'' Player-"Ok, guys I'm totally dominated to tell you I'm not dominated..oh, whoops, Duh, I goofed.''

A nice spin I have used in the past is to do Alternate Reality. The Dominated person sees everything the way the spellcaster wants. So when you do the ''attack them'' it's more like:

Foe Spellcaster:''Attack and kill them'' *points*
DM: You see each member of your group die as their bodies are ripped apart by demons climbing out of them. The demons laugh and say ''the life forces of your friends tasted good, and in a minute they will be digested and gone forever''
Foe spellcaster-"If you kill the demons quickly you will break the spell and return your friends to life!''

It's all ''trick of the mind'', of course, and the barbarian just attacks his friends. Note this will only work with a good player who wants to have fun and play the game.

Barbarian

[Dalebert]

I'd say the dominated character gets a save every round they take an action.
...
It does not lessen the power of Dominate, it just makes the caster be a bit more clever.

Of course it does. Mathematically, they're for sure going to break out of it in a few rounds. That makes it far too weak. In your demon illusion version, does that get around the extra saves because they're not going against their nature? If so, that makes it too powerful. Does it at least have to be convincing? Because the demon story isn't. Is the spell making him incredibly gullible as well?

Also, it's obviously fine if you're the DM to change the effect of the spell, but it's not an illusion. It's control. In fact, the control is so complete that they act weird, perhaps borderline robotic depending on whether they're currently carrying out a command. That's the spells biggest weakness, IMHO. It's not subtle.

[Toliudar]

Second question, what is the opinion on fooling players as far as this spell goes. My group are fairly new players and horrible meta gamers even though they try not to. They got in a fight with a mage, the barbarian got dominated after everyone else had fled the fight. So after asking him to pour out his potions I told him that he has regained control, essentially I made him think he passed his will save. But in reality he didn't. Then we the party rested I had him get up in the night and start attacking. Some of my players are upset over this, saying that if they knew I could do that they would have posted watches and not trusted him....which imo is meta gaming. Is it out of a wizards ability to make someone think they have beaten the domination, to let it go dormant?

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet. Please note that Dominate is very specific about what kinds of control you get. You can issue commands. You can telepathically receive a sense of what the mind is perceiving. You do NOT get telepathic communication with the target. Therefore, unless your mage had some other way to maintain long-range telepathic communication with the barbarian, he would have had to teleport after the group, woke up the barbarian and THEN ordered him to kill his comrades. This is a good way to limit this (as is clear from this dialogue) potentially very powerful spell.

[Dalebert]

You do NOT get telepathic communication with the target.

You absolutely do.

The summary description of the spell (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcerer-and-wizard#TOC-5th-Level-Sorcerer-Wizard-Spells) specifically says it--

Controls humanoid telepathically.

and from the description (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dominate-person)--

You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.
...
Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don't spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect does not automatically dispel it.

[Kantolin]

People who are weakening dominate, one thing to remember: several relatively iconic monsters also utilize dominate, and in many cases weakening it to several of the above suggestions would make that monster pretty lame and uniconic.

I mean, I sure hope the Vampire's thralls aren't making new saves every six seconds or he wouldn't have dominated thralls after an hour. Same with mind-flayers and a few other iconics. The tell is much more, "Look at his eyes! He's trying to fight this! What stops mind control?" and much less 'Nah, he ignores or just wanders off from the domination despite failing the save'.

Now, insofar as telling the player... it depends.

For very long-term effects like the above I'd actually have told the player and used particular wording. In my opinion, part of the fun of long-term domination is trying to work around the wording used. So depending on how the domination was worded, it's actually neat having the party ranger jump from target to target attacking them, with the party saying, "Wait a minute, why isn't he staying still so he can attack with both weapons?"

For very short-term effects, I usually don't tell the player what's going on until the triggering event occurs, /then/ the group discovers that he's been dominated.

Both have their merits. The former is good at setting up dramatic tension: The party knows that Steve has been dominated (although not necessarily the specific wording; I usually hide that from the rest of the group) and are waiting for the hammer to fall. The latter has a sense of surprise which can itself be very memorable.

So eh, I kinda waffle on information given out for domination.

Edit: I suppose if I didn't trust my players I'd hardly ever do the former, though, as that can totally be ruined by people being /silly/ about it. :P It's much more interesting when the dominated person is informed 'Go tell the gate guard to open the gate', and roleplays out explaining it while leaving a number of clues that something is up... rather than shouting, 'I HAVE BEEN DOMINATED AND HAVE BEEN DOMINATED TO TELL YOU TO OPEN THE GATE'. Which can be solved with some legalese on the part of the dominate, but it really overall wrecks the intent and feel of the situation. Still, my players wouldn't do that. :P

[Dalebert]

In my opinion, part of the fun of long-term domination is trying to work around the wording used. So depending on how the domination was worded, it's actually neat having the party ranger jump from target to target attacking them, with the party saying, "Wait a minute, why isn't he staying still so he can attack with both weapons?"

I hadn't thought of that--following the letter of the command while trying to find loopholes.

I tend to agree. Even though it doesn't specifically say so, I think the flavor of it calls for a basic understanding that the dominated creature can't directly reveal that he's being dominated. It seems like a sort of command that's intrinsic to the effect even if it's not explicitly given. Of course that's up to the DM. It doesn't say they can't tell someone and there's nothing that says they aren't aware they're being dominated, although sometimes I can't help picturing this as a kind of trance-like state they go into when under a command in which they aren't necessarily aware of it. Then they complete the order and snap out of the trance and their memory is just fuzzy or something and they're confused about why they did something.

[Stella]

This guy isn't my buddy. He's using powerful magic with "dominate" in the title to control my mind and I've already failed my saving throw.Which only makes my point stronger. When was the last time you lit a few hundred dollar bills on fire when someone who wasn't even your buddy asked you to? Answer the question, please. The point being that this action is arguably an action against your nature unless this is something you have done in the past. The tycoon who lights his cigars with a lit hundred dollar bill won't get another saving throw, it's clear the they have more money than they know what to do with and treat what is a considerable value to the average person to be a trivial resource which can be trivially expended in a show of ostentation or a demonstration of their extreme wealth. The average person who values their possessions will gain the additional save at +2.

I'll also argue against your conclusion that the spell controls the mind of the victim. It controls the actions of the victim, within the limitations given in the spell description, but nowhere is it suggested that the caster controls the mind of the victim.

You can control the actions ...
If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire ...


If you want to nudge people or just convince them you're their buddy, cast charm person.Nudge is a term open to interpretation, but the spell description, despite the name containing the word Dominate, makes it clear that the victim fights against the Domination and is not just a puppet who will do anything the caster orders. This is the explicit reason that the victim can simply ignore an order which is self destructive, and gains another saving throw at +2 if ordered to take an action which is against their nature.

I shouldn't have asked if you would light up a few hundred dollar bills if your buddy asked you to, that left things open to a tangent which has no real bearing on the discussion.

[jedipotter]

Of course it does. Mathematically, they're for sure going to break out of it in a few rounds. That makes it far too weak.

It's not too weak, the caster just needs to be clever. The caster can't just dominate anyone and make them do anything with one or maybe two saves to stop them from doing acts against their nature. So you can't do the very lame, very boring, very unimaginative and very over done B-movie plot of ''I dominate the good guy to attack his friends''. But there still are a billion other things you could have a dominated character do other then ''cheap PvP''.




In your demon illusion version, does that get around the extra saves because they're not going against their nature? If so, that makes it too powerful. Does it at least have to be convincing? Because the demon story isn't. Is the spell making him incredibly gullible as well?

They still give the save every round to break the spell. And convincing depends on your game. If your game is a gritty, low magic Middle Earth with lots of trees and dirt, then the story is not convincing. If your game is a bit more Doctor Who with lots of wonder and fun, then the story is more convincing.



Also, it's obviously fine if you're the DM to change the effect of the spell, but it's not an illusion. It's control. In fact, the control is so complete that they act weird, perhaps borderline robotic depending on whether they're currently carrying out a command. That's the spells biggest weakness, IMHO. It's not subtle.

It's not really changing the effect of the spell...it's changing the effect on the player. It's very radical, and only works with good players.

[Dalebert]

Which only makes my point stronger. When was the last time you lit a few hundred dollar bills on fire when someone who wasn't even your buddy asked you to? Answer the question, please. The point being that this action is arguably an action against your nature unless this is something you have done in the past.

No. It's something I would rather not do. I'll be pissed off but I won't suffer mental anguish over it and seek to repent for violating my deeply-held beliefs. It's not "in my nature" to follow the orders of a complete stranger, maybe even an evil vampire, so by your reasoning I should get a new +2 save with every command no matter what I'm asked to do.

[Stella]

I'd say the dominated character gets a save every round they take an action. I like that the character would fight back. It's a bit boring to have the spellcaster say ''kill everyone in the city'', the character gets one save, then just has to kill all 100,000 people in the city.Boring or not, this is exactly the way the spell works. In this case the victim will get their saving throw, and then another saving throw at +2, assuming that "kill everyone in the city'' is an action which is against their nature. Granting the victim a save every round guts the effectiveness of the spell, and specifically contradicts the spell text which states:
Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).
It also does not allow it equal effectiveness with other Level 5 Wizard spells. Spells on this level with an equivalent Will save are Feeblemind, Symbol of Sleep, Magic Jar, and others. Quite potent. Also on this level are Cloudkill, Baleful Polymorph, and others. Also quite potent. Only Hold Monster allows a save every round, and this spell explicitly states this limitation.


I really don't like this one. ''Lying'' or ''not telling the whole truth'' to the characters is fine, but too the player......er, not such a good idea. Not in this sort of way. Though I'm also not a fan of doing it the fake way: DM-''Ok, player your character is dominated, but thinks he made his save, but did not, so you need to act dominated, but pretend to act like your not dominated.'' Player-"Ok, guys I'm totally dominated to tell you I'm not dominated..oh, whoops, Duh, I goofed.''
It's quite reasonable to draw a player aside and tell them to role play a certain way due to magical (or other) compulsions on their behavior. If the player pulls the lame "Ok, guys I'm totally dominated to tell you I'm not dominated..oh, whoops, Duh, I goofed" bit then they get zero EXP for the adventure, and any other penalty that the DM chooses to impose. If they failed their save to act normal towards their group and they violate this and 'spill the beans', they are essentially cheating. The penalty for this needs to be severe to discourage any repetition of this kind of meta gaming/cheating.

I've never had to resort to this. I've found that my players take an almost unholy glee in being in a position where they get to act as the bad guy, even if it only means not revealing the fact that they are under a compulsion of a magical or non-magical (hostage situation, etc) nature.

[Stella]

No. It's something I would rather not do. I'll be pissed off but I won't suffer mental anguish over it and seek to repent for violating my deeply-held beliefs.You are again adding context which is not even hinted at in the spell description. An order being "against your nature" does not at all have to mean that it's something that you'd consider needed repenting for committing. Nor is there any mention of "mental anguish" or "deeply held beliefs" as a modifier to an order. So sure, "actions against its nature" is open to DM interpretation, but it should be modified by considering the example orders.


It's not "in my nature" to follow the orders of a complete stranger, maybe even an evil vampire, so by your reasoning I should get a new +2 save with every command no matter what I'm asked to do.No, because the spell description does not make that conclusion apparent by any means. You are taking things a bit too far here... Fortunately the spell gives some examples of orders (“Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still”) which can be given even to a victim who the caster does not share a language with, and the savvy player or DM can use those examples to judge which orders will grant the additional save with a +2 and those which do not.

All of those except "Fight" could be considered to be against the nature of a person who had to stand by and watch his party engage monsters without the aid of the Dominate spell victim, and yet that's just what the victim will do. And "Fight" if applied to a target which isn't the victim's party will also be carried out without any additional saving throw, assuming that the victim is an adventurer and so used to fighting monsters on a fairly regular basis.

"Fight" if applied to the victim's party will grant the bonus saving throw, unless the victim doesn't hold their allies in any real esteem and considers them an expendable resource.

There is some room for interpretation, but it isn't all that hard if you look at things from the point of view of the victim, and consider the examples given in the spell description.