how to use vampire dominate in battle

[Thac0 Redeye]

Hello all, I have a vampire as my BBEG and currently have one PC dominated. The players don't know that he is dominated. when I decide to "inform" them will probably be in one of the last battles of the game. My question is how does the dominate work while in battle? Is the command during my turn or the PC's turn. Also is it a free action or standard action etc...

[Buufreak]

It's no action to control them on their turn.

I don't recall the vampire block having a ability clock of indefinite. Dominate only works days/level, so if you are drawing out this final encounter, it would have warn off.

[Anxe]

Yeah, its no action to control them.

A few things to point out.
1. Dominated people are usually really easy to spot. Sense Motive lists the DC as 15. That's something the average person should notice within a minute. UNLESS, the dominated person is trained in Bluff and is under orders to hide their domination status by acting normally. Or something else like that. Come up with some reason why the other players haven't noticed the dominated PC acting weirdly.
2. You need to be careful that the dominated PC never gets Protection From Evil or some other domination blocking effect cast on them. It might spoil the surprise early. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but keep it in mind.
3. The dominated PC should definitely get a second chance to resist once the final battle starts with the +2 bonus like normal. Probably more than one second chance.

[ManicOppressive]

2. You need to be careful that the dominated PC never gets Protection From Evil or some other domination blocking effect cast on them. It might spoil the surprise early. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but keep it in mind.


Since Protection from Evil doesn't actually dispel the effect but only suppresses it, it could be a really fun plot point to have the character isolated from the others and suddenly under a PfE spell with the knowledge that they only have its duration to get to their friends before they fall back under the vampire's control.

A BBEG Vampire's dominate should feel free to be a little better than normal. Presumably this is a very old vampire, so just handwave it as a developed power that is deep enough in the victim's mind that it can make them act normally.

But yeah, regardless it's not an action to control someone or for that matter multiple someones. Look no further than Order of the Stick for a great example of that.

[Crake]

1. Dominated people are usually really easy to spot. Sense Motive lists the DC as 15. That's something the average person should notice within a minute. UNLESS, the dominated person is trained in Bluff and is under orders to hide their domination status by acting normally. Or something else like that. Come up with some reason why the other players haven't noticed the dominated PC acting weirdly.

This is my "um actually" moment for the day. It takes a minute of interaction to even attempt a sense motive check, and if you fail to notice it, you cannot try again. This means, at DC15, the average person is unlikely to notice that there's anything wrong (30% chance to roll a 15 or higher with +0), but even those that do won't necessarily immediately know that the source of the problem is a domination effect, merely that the person is acting a little wierd, or off.

[Fizban]

The players don't know that he is dominated.
How? The player of the character in question would know they rolled a will save at the very least. Most likely they would then know if they failed it, even if "nothing seems to have happened." Giving any order whatsoever, even just "act normally but do not reveal my control" means the character, and thus the player knows.

Unless what you mean to say is that the rest of the party doesn't know.

There is no action to "control" them, but the spell does require a move action to concentrate on changing their orders. Thus if the PC is not already under an order which causes them to automatically defend the vampire, you would have to wait until the vampire's turn to change the PC's orders. At which point the player should be deciding their actions within the bounds of the given order, and you and the player must negotiate over whether the given order is "against their nature" and thus allows a second save to resist that particular order entirely.

Due to the move action required to change orders, it's entirely possible that a creature resisting a new order might be free until given a command that they don't resist. That's up to DM interpretation of whether you're able to layer extra commands and whatnot, but I'd say that as a directed spell, you ought to get only one order at a time.

[Crake]

There is no action to "control" them, but the spell does require a move action to concentrate on changing their orders. Thus if the PC is not already under an order which causes them to automatically defend the vampire, you would have to wait until the vampire's turn to change the PC's orders. At which point the player should be deciding their actions within the bounds of the given order, and you and the player must negotiate over whether the given order is "against their nature" and thus allows a second save to resist that particular order entirely.

This reminds me of the time my knight was dominated by a vampire, while we were in their sewer lair, and they gave the order "Kill all the intruders". Which my character promptly interpreted as "These sewers are owned by the crown, nobody is supposed to be down here, everyone is an intruder..... KILL EVERYONE" and proceeded to murder all the enemies, and then continued murdering everyone in the party until she was the last one standing.

[noob]

This reminds me of the time my knight was dominated by a vampire, while we were in their sewer lair, and they gave the order "Kill all the intruders". Which my character promptly interpreted as "These sewers are owned by the crown, nobody is supposed to be down here, everyone is an intruder..... KILL EVERYONE" and proceeded to murder all the enemies, and then continued murdering everyone in the party until she was the last one standing.

Kind of sad to be the one targeted for mind control and fail your save while knights are among the rare full bab classes to have a strong will save progression.

[Crake]

Kind of sad to be the one targeted for mind control and fail your save while knights are among the rare full bab classes to have a strong will save progression.

"Knight" was a title, not the class of my character. I was actually playing a spheres armorist at the time, and they don't have good will.

[Thac0 Redeye]

Ok so here's what I have going on.
I am running the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. One of the early encounters with the Vampire Lord Strahd (BBEG) was not a battle but him inviting the party to dinner. They discussed the party's adventures in the town and valley (part of that was a secondary plot of Strahd, he used them to defeat his enemys). Anyway during the meal Bob our player who has the Paladin, and is also the "smart ass" of the group, had his PC drink the tainted wine. This lowered his save. He was also the one of the two doing most of the talking. So Strahd centered on him. Randomly during the discussion I had Bob roll WILL saves and never confirmed a success or fail on the save. Once Bob failed Strahd got bored with the discussion and left the room abruptly. I never enforced direct control over the Paladin, only subconscious usage. Only once I had him grab an item off a table when no one else was around. I determined that he the PC doesn't even know he did it. Mostly I use him to spy on the party. So this way I keep control over the long run.

So players don't know. I find it hard to keep up the 'horror' aspect with players who have been gaming together for over 15 years together.

so as far as the rules clarification, during the Paladins turn I tell him what I want him to do and then he gets a save if it goes against his nature. Otherwise he just does it. so when I take control and tell him to stand in the corner, he just goes and stands in the corner. Then I use a move action to tell him to attack the cleric he gets a save and does it (fail) or if he saves he does nothing or does the whole dominate end?

[jdizzlean]

in my game right now, the rogue has been dominated by a vampire, and her target is the party sorcerer. the party wizard has so far rolled high enough bluff checks to convince the rogue that he's not the kobold she's looking for. it makes for fun inter-party play, and we occasionally have to tie the rogue up when the sorcerer has to do some things that would make his lies apparent.

the rest of the party should be able to figure it out through normal gameplay. at the very least, there should be things that come up that make your party member act funny....

plus, you'd have to have some way of seeing in the room to tell him to go stand in the corner, as sensory info is not part of what dominate does, and anytime you try to have him violate his code he'd get a new save. standinging idly by while carnage insues is probably a violation of his code of conduct, among other things.

[Elkad]

Telling a normal character to stay out of the fight (stand in the corner) might work.
Telling a Paladin that? Honor bound to destroy evil, defend the weak, etc? That's probably a new save.

However, you could be more subtle about it. Just throw a horde of underlings in the fight, and tell him to attack those first, instead of priority targets. If you want to give the game away, let him flail ineffectively at a bat swarm.

[Chronos]

One of the few times where the Paladin's code of conduct actually ends up being an advantage.

Oh, and if you give an order counter to the target's nature, and they succeed on the new save, the entire domination effect is ended. So decide carefully what orders you give.

[Doctor Awkward]

Hello all, I have a vampire as my BBEG and currently have one PC dominated. The players don't know that he is dominated. when I decide to "inform" them will probably be in one of the last battles of the game. My question is how does the dominate work while in battle? Is the command during my turn or the PC's turn. Also is it a free action or standard action etc...

The control exerted by a vampire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) using their Dominating Gaze is exactly as the dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) spell.

Per that spell, control over the victim is exercised via commands given through a telepathic link. If you do not share a language with the victim, you may only give simple commands that are slightly more complex than you could a trained animal (examples given are, "Come here, go there, stand still, fight.") If you share a language with the victim, they perform your orders to both your exact specifications and intent. This last part is very important. The victim is fully aware of your precise desired result and will take any action within their capability to achieve it. Unlike planar binding, this spell does not permit the victim to subvert orders through wordplay and interpretation.

The only orders that will never be carried out are orders to self-harm. Since the spell simply says the victim will not do this, it's most likely that they stand idle and do nothing after receiving such an order until they are ordered to do something else.

Once you have given a command, the victim does their best to carry it out. Giving them a new command is the equivalent of redirected a spell, and therefore can be done as a move action only on the vampire's turn.

A successful DC 15 Sense Motive check will reveal that a victim's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect. This check reveals nothing about the specifics of that enchantment. merely confirming that an enchantment of some sort exists. You are under no obligation to offer this check if the player's do not ask for it, or at the very least express some suspicion out loud.


plus, you'd have to have some way of seeing in the room to tell him to go stand in the corner, as sensory info is not part of what dominate does, and anytime you try to have him violate his code he'd get a new save. standinging idly by while carnage insues is probably a violation of his code of conduct, among other things.


Sensory info is absolutely a part of what dominate person does.


By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

But yes, ordering a paladin to do something that goes against his nature (anything that violates his code certainly would count) grants them a new save at a +2

[Fizban]

Randomly during the discussion I had Bob roll WILL saves and never confirmed a success or fail on the save.
While not technically how save reporting works, I would find this acceptable due to the obvious nature of the dramatic scene. You dined with the enemy, the DM asked you for multiple will saves without reporting their success or failure, you therefore should know there's a chance you've been previously mind controlled. A savvy player would have employed Detect Magic afterwards to check for problems.

The save lowering of the wine should have been telegraphed, but I expect that as a fiat feature of the module, you simply followed the module's design, which was probably that the save reduction allowed no save itself and the effects are conveyed only through roleplay and DM description*. Normally I would expect a player to know exactly how much penalty they're operating under before rolling a save (otherwise you'd just use a DC bonus they can't see), but hidden mechanics are within the DM's purview for special occasions.

*Most alcohol effects in other 1st party books involve fort saves you would know you're failing and wis damage you know you're taking.

I never enforced direct control over the Paladin, only subconscious usage. Only once I had him grab an item off a table when no one else was around. I determined that he the PC doesn't even know he did it. Mostly I use him to spy on the party. So this way I keep control over the long run.
This however, is against the rules of the spell. There is no "subconcious usage," the Dominate effect is upfront and in your face about how it works. Though once again-

I find it hard to keep up the 'horror' aspect with players who have been gaming together for over 15 years together.
It is within the DM's purview to alter the rules, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar instructions in the module. As long as you've kept it to a dramatically small number of effects that could conceivably have come from one order issued while the guy was drunk, I'd say that's reasonable.

The catch happens if those hidden actions do more than ramp up the tension, and instead cause the party to lose. A lot can be forgiven after the PCs win, but DM fiat that make them lose in the end is a lot more costly.


so as far as the rules clarification, during the Paladins turn I tell him what I want him to do and then he gets a save if it goes against his nature. Otherwise he just does it. so when I take control and tell him to stand in the corner, he just goes and stands in the corner.
You take move action to give the order, which depending on the person may or may not work automatically. The Paladin's player has the opportunity to point out that standing in the corner while his comrades fight for their lives is against his nature, and thus allows a save to resist that order. And as LG character I'd say that warrants a save, especially for a Paladin. The vampire will need to be more clever- unlike the Suggestion spell which does not actually require your order to be reasonable, Dominate is very easy for a principled person to resist and subvert (if you want slaves you're far better off Dominating other bad guys' minions).

Then I use a move action to tell him to attack the cleric he gets a save and does it (fail) or if he saves he does nothing or does the whole dominate end?
If he makes the save he is not compelled to obey the order. Since I would rule you can only have one order at a time, that means the Paladin currently has no orders- but they are absolutely still under the Dominate effect until it is removed, and a new order can be issued with a new move action, even on the same turn as this one since you can take two move actions in a single turn. [EDIT: Unless they're not, see below]. If the victim has no orders when their turn starts, they have no restrictions on their actions. If the vampire wastes their entire turn trying to get the Paladin to obey an order, that's a wasted turn even if the pally fails their save, and if they make both even better: the vampire has matched wills with the Paladin and lost an entire turn failing to break him.

Since you've already done a "subconcious" order, it might be more appropriate to rule that orders are cumulative, and the vampire could fail to issue a direct attack order without losing previous "don't attack me" orders**, or similar However, this requires the vampire to actually send those orders beforehand, which would not be subtle, so I think for purposes of this fight the Paladin should not have "backup orders" protecting the vampire in case the pally makes his save, especially since that would be DM fiat seriously increasing the chances of a TPK.

**This is an order I'd actually say would stick, if issued at the correct time. The Paladin was dining with the vampire, meaning he is willing to not attack the vampire at that time. The question then is if you interpret the broad order issued during a peacful moment as binding even after combat starts: I'd say for narrative purposes, if context changes the nature of an order, that triggers a save to resist it even if the order was reasonable enough before.

So for the purposes of this fight, I'd say it might be reasonable for the Paladin to have a "subconcious" order to not attack the vampire, which he would obey automatically until the vampire starts attacking or otherwise doing harm in front of him. This makes the order no longer reasonable because the pally wouldn't let that slide, so when he tries to attack he runs into the compulsion, becomes aware of it, gets a new save, and if successful deletes the "don't attack me" order.

On the other hand, if the vampire had used "don't attack me under any circumstances," that would be an order that would immediately trigger a new save, because the Paladin absolutely has circumstance where he will attack that vampire, even if when the order was issued he was playing along with the dinner. This order, if the save failed, would not allow a new save when the fight starts. Of course because it forced a save the Paladin would have been immediately aware of the order when it was "subconciously" given during the dinner, but the rest of the PCs would not. So the Paladin could just announce the sudden compulsion to not attack the vampire under any circumstances if they wanted.

Which means the vampire would have to issue a "subconcious" order "do not reveal you are under compulsion" before issuing the "do not attack me under any circumstances" order. But not revealing you have been mentally compromised is something against almost anyone's nature, so this is an order which would allow a save, which would still alert the PC and their player as soon as it was issued- but if they failed that save then they would not be able to reveal their condition afterwards.

[Of course the vampire could try to next-level the situation and bet that if they order the Paladin to not reveal the compulsion during the dinner and the Paladin makes the save, that the Paladin will actually choose to keep it hidden anyway so as not to start the fight when the party is vulnerable like that. But that's more of thing you'd read in a book- in a DnD game (or in-character, when meeting a bunch of spec-ops who are hostile to me), I would never bet on an enemy keeping my influence secret. The only thing that entices a player to play along with that is stuff like cursed demon swords that offer power, or if the character was already halfway to betraying the party).


As you can see, Dominate is full of the kind of holes that people like to handwave away as "oh the bad guy is smart so you can't find a way around his orders," but it's actually really easy to get wrong if you don't think things through beforehand, and easy to gum up if you have any bit of backbone. Even with a ruling that a small number of reasonable orders can be given subconciously, you still have to tread very carefully to avoid drawing attention. You could spend a bunch of time very carefully planning out a set of orders that will keep the Paladin under control. . . only to have that effort seal the party's doom, due to the DM allowing themselves free reign with a hidden Dominate effect. I'd rather not.



A successful DC 15 Sense Motive check will reveal that a victim's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect. This check reveals nothing about the specifics of that enchantment. merely confirming that an enchantment of some sort exists.
Of course if the player is savvy enough to ask for the check, then they know that Dominate is DC 15, other enchantments are DC 25, and they know what they rolled. So there's a very good chance they do know exactly what the effect is. Ironically, the more skilled the Sense Motive-er, the less sure they can be mechanically of their conclusion.

Except knowledge of the conclusion is implied by the phrase " the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities." If the limited range is observable enough to reduce the DC, logically any successful check should report this, whether the user rolls 15 or 37.

Personally I wouldn't require a player to request this check (though by now it should be obvious which way my rulings lean). If I've put compulsion into the scenario, then I probably want it to be noticed at some point. But that's just a matter of taste. As a player, if I had reason to expect compulsion I'd be asking for the check and verifying with Detect Magic anyway.


One of the few times where the Paladin's code of conduct actually ends up being an advantage.

Oh, and if you give an order counter to the target's nature, and they succeed on the new save, the entire domination effect is ended. So decide carefully what orders you give.
Wait- wah?

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
Oh right, hahahahah, I'd forgot about that.

The phrase "recieves a new saving throw" does not modify the results of the saving throw. The normal result for a successful save against Dominate is that the spell fails, so making a new save causes the spell to fail. I'm pretty sure a bunch of writers didn't get this bit, and it's entirely possible the spell is not intended to end with that new save, but that's how it works as written.

I'll go check the FAQ.

*returns* Huh, no clarification there, really thought there might be.


So I've provided a detailed breakdown of how fragile Dominate is even when you use a ruling that failing the first save means you can be given orders until the duration runs out even if you make the saves against those orders individually. If you use the even more RAW ruling that making even a single secondary save against orders "against your nature," end the effect entirely the same as the first save would have, then I might be a bit more permissive to the dominator on what orders they can give and what counts as against nature. This won't really stop principled characters like most PCs (especially those with codes of conduct) from getting a new save quickly, but you do still want the effect to hold *some* people for long durations. This just makes Dominate even more of a thing you use only on people already weak of will and morality.

And indirectly makes Charm Monster even more huge, since charm effects only end if you or your allies directly threaten the charmed target***- failed attempts at ordering them around via charisma checks do not end the spell (even if those same orders would ruin a friendship very quickly). There's a good chance this is why a lot of people assume Dominate doesn't end: because the weaker effects don't end either.

***Which makes number of monsters who maintain control over "slaves" with Charm effects even more hilarious, because you'd think slaves would get threatened. And the moment a charm wears off and you realize you've been enslaved, you ought to treat every one of those creatures as a "threat" (to your mind and freedom) and take the +5 on the saving throw.

[Doctor Awkward]

While not technically how save reporting works, I would find this acceptable due to the obvious nature of the dramatic scene. You dined with the enemy, the DM asked you for multiple will saves without reporting their success or failure, you therefore should know there's a chance you've been previously mind controlled. A savvy player would have employed Detect Magic afterwards to check for problems.

This I agree with, but only in that the DM should have rolled the save for the player in secret and not informed him that it even happened.



If he makes the save he is not compelled to obey the order. Since I would rule you can only have one order at a time, that means the Paladin currently has no orders- but they are absolutely still under the Dominate effect until it is removed, and a new order can be issued with a new move action, even on the same turn as this one since you can take two move actions in a single turn. If the victim has no orders when their turn starts, they have no restrictions on their actions. If the vampire wastes their entire turn trying to get the Paladin to obey an order, that's a wasted turn even if the pally fails their save, and if they make both even better: the vampire has matched wills with the Paladin and lost an entire turn failing to break him.


That is not at all how the effect works. Anything that violates the characters nature grants a new save against the effect. The saving throw for Dominate Person is not "Will save to ignore the current order". It is "Will negates". Succeeding in a save against the effect ends the effect entirely.



Since you've already done a "subconcious" order, it might be more appropriate to rule that orders are cumulative, and the vampire could fail to issue a direct attack order without losing previous "don't attack me" orders**, or similar However, this requires the vampire to actually send those orders beforehand, which would not be subtle, so I think for purposes of this fight the Paladin should not have "backup orders" protecting the vampire in case the pally makes his save, especially since that would be DM fiat seriously increasing the chances of a TPK.

So long as you share a language, there is no limit to the complexity of orders one can issue through dominate. You have the same level of control over a victim that Lelouch from Code Geass does.

All of these problems regarding "subconscious" orders can simply be resolved by issuing one single command that is complex enough to cover everything that has happened so far in the game.



Of course if the player is savvy enough to ask for the check, then they know that Dominate is DC 15, other enchantments are DC 25, and they know what they rolled. So there's a very good chance they do know exactly what the effect is. Ironically, the more skilled the Sense Motive-er, the less sure they can be mechanically of their conclusion.

Except knowledge of the conclusion is implied by the phrase " the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities." If the limited range is observable enough to reduce the DC, logically any successful check should report this, whether the user rolls 15 or 37.

That's meta-gaming.

If I were DMing and had reason to expect such an action from a player in this circumstance, I would roll his check for him in secret and tell him his result only as is specified under the skill description.




Personally I wouldn't require a player to request this check (though by now it should be obvious which way my rulings lean). If I've put compulsion into the scenario, then I probably want it to be noticed at some point. But that's just a matter of taste. As a player, if I had reason to expect compulsion I'd be asking for the check and verifying with Detect Magic anyway.

The OP clearly does not want that.
He stated rather plainly that he is looking for the most dramatically appropriate moment to reveal that the paladin has been under the vampire's mental control for some time.

The Rules As Written do allow for this, he simply needs to make a few post-hoc changes to his inevitable explanation. As I noted above.

And incidentally, Detect Magic would only give you slightly more precise information that a successful Sense Motive check would: the presence of an enchantment effect and a rough estimate of the spell level.

[Fizban]

This I agree with, but only in that the DM should have rolled the save for the player in secret and not informed him that it even happened.
That is directly against how saving throws work. Unless an effect specifically allows the DM to roll the save in secret and hide it from the victim, anything a creature throws a save against is something that creature is aware of. Dominate does not have this clause, so while I would find the given situation reasonable, it's still changing the rules.

That is not at all how the effect works.
Already edited it in- I'd actually forgot about that even though I think I raised it in a previous thread.

So long as you share a language, there is no limit to the complexity of orders one can issue through dominate. You have the same level of control over a victim that Lelouch from Code Geass does.
And what happens when Lelouch gives bad orders? We know what.

All of these problems regarding "subconscious" orders can simply be resolved by issuing one single command that is complex enough to cover everything that has happened so far in the game.
You have to communicate via telepathy. Telepathy is not stated to be any faster than normal speech anywhere I've heard of. Giving the order is a move action. Therefore, if you are issuing an order in combat, you must be limited to however much the DM says you can communicate during that move action.

Orders outside of combat are more vague, but a single "order" that is a list of and, and, and, is not a single order I will accept on either side of the screen. Personally, if I knew the DM was taking the "any save breaks the effect completely ruling," and then immediately subverting the spirit of that by issuing a page-long "order" so I only get one save, I'd be pretty ticked. One way or the other dude.

In fact, if you want to use the Lelouch example, the only order you should ever give is "be my slave." Every creature gets a second save to resist, which invalidates any further saves if they fail it.

Until the player points out that slaves resist orders all the time anyway.

That's meta-gaming.

If I were DMing and had reason to expect such an action from a player in this circumstance, I would roll his check for him in secret and tell him his result only as is specified under the skill description.
If you make some rolls in secret, then sure. Sense Motive, like Spot, is one of the recommended rolls for secrecy. Your suggesting they had to actively ask for it put me in the mind that they'd be rolling personally (when usually I'd be telling people to roll it secretly myself). Either way, knowing the skill DCs in the PHB is not metagaming, ever.

This means that with a high enough skill they can always be sure that their hunch or enchantment detection is correct even on a 1. Specific Bluffs are always risky though, and trying to sense hidden messages when there isn't one (or even if there is) is a great way to paranoia your way into false info straight from the DM.

And incidentally, Detect Magic would only give you slightly more precise information that a successful Sense Motive check would: the presence of an enchantment effect and a rough estimate of the spell level.
And if you're foolish enough to cast Detect Magic and go "huh, a Moderate strength (4th to 6th level) Enchantment effect that none of my allies cast has appeared after a series of mysterious will saves," then you deserve to get murdered by your Dominated ally.

[Doctor Awkward]

That is directly against how saving throws work. Unless an effect specifically allows the DM to roll the save in secret and hide it from the victim, anything a creature throws a save against is something that creature is aware of. Dominate does not have this clause, so while I would find the given situation reasonable, it's still changing the rules.

That is explicitly not how saving throws work.

Player's Handbook, pg. 177, Saving Throw: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow)

Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

If a creature succeeds on a save against a deliberately hidden effect, the only information they get is some mild sensation that they are unable to properly explain. Only targets with ranks in Spellcraft are permitted a subsequent skill check to identify what just happened. And they get no further information if that check fails.

At no point in the rules are you required to allow players to roll their own saves. Nor are you require to tell them that their character just made a saving throw, whether they succeeded or failed.



You have to communicate via telepathy. Telepathy is not stated to be any faster than normal speech anywhere I've heard of. Giving the order is a move action. Therefore, if you are issuing an order in combat, you must be limited to however much the DM says you can communicate during that move action.

Talking is a free action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak) And it can be done even when it is not your turn, at no limit beyond what the DM dictates, with a recommendation of a few sentences at minimum.

The move action requirement is an abstraction of the act of your imposing your will onto the creature that you have dominated, subverting their desire with your own, hence using the rules for redirecting spells to issue new orders.

Attempting to apply any sort of instructional limitations based on the theoretical length of time that a move action represents is hypothesizing over rules text that does not exist.


Orders outside of combat are more vague, but a single "order" that is a list of and, and, and, is not a single order I will accept on either side of the screen. Personally, if I knew the DM was taking the "any save breaks the effect completely ruling," and then immediately subverting the spirit of that by issuing a page-long "order" so I only get one save, I'd be pretty ticked. One way or the other dude.

It's really not that complicated. If the controller issues a complex and lengthy order ("Continue to travel with your adventuring party as normal, but send me letters at weekly intervals informing me of your location, your companions general health and status, and your current objective.") and any one facet of that order violates the victims nature, they immediately get another saving throw. If they fail, they carry out that order to the best of their ability until you tell them to do something else. Folding your arms and saying that you would just flatly refuse to abide by the plain text of the spell description because you don't agree with it is just childish.

I get it. Being dominated is frustrating and scary.

It's supposed to be.

Your character effectively has to ask someone else for permission before they take any action.


In fact, if you want to use the Lelouch example, the only order you should ever give is "be my slave." Every creature gets a second save to resist, which invalidates any further saves if they fail it.

And with zero qualifying instruction, how should this creature act in their new status as your slave?
Anything you tell them after that constitutes a new order.


If you make some rolls in secret, then sure. Sense Motive, like Spot, is one of the recommended rolls for secrecy. Your suggesting they had to actively ask for it put me in the mind that they'd be rolling personally (when usually I'd be telling people to roll it secretly myself). Either way, knowing the skill DCs in the PHB is not metagaming, ever.

Knowing that the person you have been talking to is subject to a dominate effect because you succeeded on a Sense Motive by rolling an 18 is a conclusion that can only be reached by your character knowing that the DC for recognizing domination is 15, while any other enchantment effect is a 25. Basing an in-character decision on the facts that are only available because you know you are playing a game is the dictionary definition of meta-gaming.

It's for reasons like this that DM's are given express permission in the Dungeon Master's Guide to make rolls on the players behalf and only inform them of what occurs after the result. In the above example, I would tell you only, "Yeah, you've got an inkling that there's some sort of enchantment affecting them." Which is exactly the same response they would get if the person they were observing was under a Calm Emotions spell, a Dominate Person Spell, or if they failed the roll by 5 or more (that's a house-rule though. I like botches on skill checks if it will make the narrative more interesting, such as falsely believing the king is being enchanted somehow).


And if you're foolish enough to cast Detect Magic and go "huh, a Moderate strength (4th to 6th level) Enchantment effect that none of my allies cast has appeared after a series of mysterious will saves," then you deserve to get murdered by your Dominated ally.

Which, again, is why I wouldn't even tell you that you just had to make a save. Especially if the person failed that save.

Sometimes I just pick up and roll dice behind my screen and tell my players, "Oh that's nothing. I just like the sound they make."

And I'm only lying half the time.

[Crake]

That is explicitly not how saving throws work.

Player's Handbook, pg. 177, Saving Throw: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow)


If a creature succeeds on a save against a deliberately hidden effect, the only information they get is some mild sensation that they are unable to properly explain. Only targets with ranks in Spellcraft are permitted a subsequent skill check to identify what just happened. And they get no further information if that check fails.

At no point in the rules are you required to allow players to roll their own saves. Nor are you require to tell them that their character just made a saving throw, whether they succeeded or failed.

Context matters. That is how saving throws work with regards to spells. Nothing suggests this applies to all saving throws. You don't get a hostile tingle when you resist a disease after all.

[Fizban]

If a creature succeeds on a save against a deliberately hidden effect, the only information they get is some mild sensation that they are unable to properly explain.
Which if they know the rules, they know came from a saving throw, because nothing natural exudes a "hostile force or tingle." Unless the DM has decided to be deliberately obtuse and call it whatever they feel like, because my first question would be "oh you mean like failing a save?," to which you would apparently say whoooo knooooows? The very rule you quoted is extremely specific with a clear intent, and the fact that you will apparently describe the effect as something else in order to obscure it means you're changing the rules. Better to admit it.

If you wanted to argue that vampire gaze isn't a spell (as Crake has mentioned of disease), then that might have merit, but again the intent is quite clear and such a ruling should have been part of the overall houserules and clarifications. If you're secretly treating any save that isn't explicitly a spell as hidden information, when that is not how things are presented in the PHB, DMG, and MM (saving throws are described as a part of combat as a thing you calculate your bonus for so you can roll it, the entry in the PHB regarding successful saves says you notice, the fact that failure causes a thing obviously means you notice, and there is never any mention in the special abilities rules that says they don't follow the same rules as other saving throws for which there is only one ruling on awareness, you get the idea)- well as above. You've made your ruling and either stated it up front, or hid it.

Talking is a free action. And it can be done even when it is not your turn, at no limit beyond what the DM dictates, with a recommendation of a few sentences at minimum.
Nope, full stop. If the DM is trying to justify a contractual order as long as they want, in order to overcome their own ruling on how Dominate works, because talking is a free action and they're the only one that gets to decide how much is too much, I'm out. It's like that one meme, as soon as someone mentions Talking is a Free Action is the RAW support of their argument, everyone loses.

I get it. Being dominated is frustrating and scary.
Is this supposed to be some sort of taunt?

And with zero qualifying instruction, how should this creature act in their new status as your slave?
Anything you tell them after that constitutes a new order.
So is the power of language able to prevent further saves, or not? Rhetorical question. You clearly want to allow an arbitrary amount of control for a single save in a single move action, I just don't see why you'd convolute things by turning around saying the "be my slave" order doesn't do anything. It's just a more concise version that gives you open-ended ability to turn that order into other orders by speaking (as a free action of course), rather than wasting the time of writing up a long set of orders and then complaining if you missed something. It's an admission of how you expect the spell to work. I suppose this limits player power because you can tell the player they're out of time on their order and can't clutter up table time making it airtight, when the DM gets to prepare theirs ahead of time and take as much time as they want?

Like, I was onboard with some extra RAW viewpoints until you tried to use "talking is a free action" to justify something. Now I can't take anything you're saying seriously. I know conceptually where you're trying to go with your ruling, I just reject it on principle because after the one-two punch of "secrets first" and "I decide how long I talk," you've demonstrated I have no reason to trust your rulings.

Which, again, is why I wouldn't even tell you that you just had to make a save. Especially if the person failed that save.
Which, again, is why I probably wouldn't play in your game. The fact that you can't just mind control someone without them noticing it (except for very specific effects) is a pretty significant game mechanic that you've chosen to ignore, and is not supported by anything other than the DM's general ability to change the rules.

Sometimes I just pick up and roll dice behind my screen and tell my players, "Oh that's nothing. I just like the sound they make."
Yeah, so do I. But when they fail a save, I don't hide the fact that they rolled one until some gotcha moment later.

[Zanos]

I'll post a more detailed argument later but wanted to point out that its not an "unexplainable tingle", it explicitly feels hostile. If you're at dinner with a vampire and feel a malicious tingle anyone who isn't braindead should be able to do the math on that one.

Being secret dominated an entire campaign is kind of lame, but I guess you kind of sign up for stuff like that in Ravenloft.