Charmed vs Dominate

[diplomancer]

If A is charmed by B (say, from a Charm Person spell) and Dominated by C, can A attack B if commanded to by C?

RAW I suppose not, but how would you rule, would you say that the stronger effect overrides the weaker one?

[JNAProductions]

If A is charmed by B (say, from a Charm Person spell) and Dominated by C, can A attack B if commanded to by C?

RAW I suppose not, but how would you rule, would you say that the stronger effect overrides the weaker one?

I would rule no.

Dominate is mental control-but they are mentally incapable of harming the Charmer.

If it was BODY control, then I'd allow it, since the brain doesn't factor in.

[Sigreid]

I would rule yes because they aren't choosing to attack you.

[Tiadoppler]

No. The "Charmed" effect specifically states that the charmed creature cannot attack the charmer.

Dominate Person lets the caster give general commands that the dominated target must try to obey. If given a command, the dominated target 'does its best to obey', but that doesn't grant the target immunity to other status effects it's affected by.

If you command a dominated person who's restrained to walk across the room, they won't. They can't. They are restrained.

If you command a dominated person who's charmed to attack the charmer, they won't. They can't. They are charmed.

[diplomancer]

For those who answer no. Does it make any difference if instead of the free action mental command, the caster used his action to take full control of his victim?

[JNAProductions]

For those who answer no. Does it make any difference if instead of the free action mental command, the caster used his action to take full control of his victim?

I would say yes-at that point, the caster is taking direct bodily control, and the CASTER isn't charmed.

[Tiadoppler]

For those who answer no. Does it make any difference if instead of the free action mental command, the caster used his action to take full control of his victim?

From a RAW standpoint, no. The victim is still under the 'charmed' status effect.
RAI? I would still say no. Dominate Person is only a fifth level spell. It's not overwriting the victim's existence with a new entity, it just allows the caster to force the victim to attempt actions. I would say that the victim tries to attack the charmer, but their arm refuses to strike.

On the other hand, in this particular case, I wouldn't have a real problem with my DM ruling yes during a game. It's a rare and interesting interaction. It really depends on party dynamics, and how much the hapless victim is willing to go along with being a helpless pawn. Maybe the player of the character gets to choose whether or not the attack works: they're the tie-breaker when the two mind-controllers fighting over their mind clash.

[Segev]

As long as the Charmed and Dominated character is the one taking the actions, he cannot attack anybody who has Charmed him. If you somehow make the action some other creature's, he can. Magic jar would work, for instance. As would an updated version of 3.5's Control Body psionic power, where the victim's body is being telekinetically controlled like a doll, rather than the victim actually doing anything, himself.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would say yes-at that point, the caster is taking direct bodily control, and the CASTER isn't charmed.

This is how I'd rule it, too. Charmed is already a weak enough condition, let's not hinder it any more than we have to.

[Lunali]

For those who answer no. Does it make any difference if instead of the free action mental command, the caster used his action to take full control of his victim?

If you say yes to this, the attack should use the caster's class abilities and proficiencies.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you say yes to this, the attack should use the caster's class abilities and proficiencies.

While that might make sense from a narrative standpoint, it does heavily impact balance of the game. Domination spells are already considered fairly weak, and most characters with level 4 spell slots won't have good martial abilities. Unless the concept of spellcasting is shared with the dominated creature, but...then things get weird (and redundant).

Don't forget that a DM is more than just a narrator; you're also a referee.

[Witty Username]

hm, I think I would rule in favor of charmed since the effects don't overlap how it reads. The dominatior using an action to force the issue sounds fair enough though.

[Wryte]

I can think of a few options off the top of my head:

Whichever spell's caster has the higher save DC wins the contest.

Whichever spell was cast using the higher level slot wins the contest.

The Domination spell's caster makes a spell attack roll against the Charm spell's caster's spell save DC to determine who wins the contest.

In any case, if the Domination spell allows the victim to repeat their saving throw when ordered to take an action they would object to, they should get to roll when ordered to attack someone who's Charming them.

[Lunali]

While that might make sense from a narrative standpoint, it does heavily impact balance of the game. Domination spells are already considered fairly weak, and most characters with level 4 spell slots won't have good martial abilities. Unless the concept of spellcasting is shared with the dominated creature, but...then things get weird (and redundant).

Don't forget that a DM is more than just a narrator; you're also a referee.

I'm saying that if you allow the domination taking full control to override the charmed effect because the person is completely controlled, you should also have them use the caster's class and abilities. If you treat it as the caster giving orders much like a player giving orders to their character, the character still has to obey the limits of their own ability, leaving them bound by the charmed condition.

[Chronos]

I'd say that charmed makes the character unable to attack the caster, and nothing about domination changes that, even with the total control option.

Heck, even the advantage on charisma checks aspect of Charm could still be relevant on a Dominated creature: If the dominator ordered the creature to do whatever hinders you the most, or the like, you could still try to bluff it into throwing you into the briar patch.

[No brains]

It's the responsibility of the dominator to make the intelligent choice of making their subject force a save upon, rather than attack, the creature charming the subject. You can impede without being harmful.

Grappling and shoving are an edge case for me. Sure they're both said to specifically be a 'special melee attack', but they aren't directly harmful. Not to mention they don't use an attack roll. Parents grapple their 'charming' children all the time!

[zockeros]

RAW: Not sure. The specific rule of following the command of Dominate might override the general you can't attack the person who charmed you but that is very speculative.

RAI: That attack should absolutely be possible.
Charm changes your state of mind to consider the caster being your friend/ally and blocks the attacks because you're not supposed to attack friends/allies. It doesn't prevent attacks themself but put a hard limit on your motivation to act. Dominate forces you to do whatever is commanded and ignores your personal views on the target or your motivations. Dominate can easily force attacks on friens, allies or even loved ones that are subject to a potentially stronger bond (although non magical) than charm.

[Segev]

It's the responsibility of the dominator to make the intelligent choice of making their subject force a save upon, rather than attack, the creature charming the subject. You can impede without being harmful.

Grappling and shoving are an edge case for me. Sure they're both said to specifically be a 'special melee attack', but they aren't directly harmful. Not to mention they don't use an attack roll. Parents grapple their 'charming' children all the time!

I suppose you could rule that anything that isn’t the “attack” action is kosher, but that is probably not the intent, given context and implied cause.

Certainly makes the Dastardly scenario from the “proper reaction to being charmed” thread less devastating when the Charmed paladin can use any spells or abilities that are not the attack action!

[No brains]

I suppose you could rule that anything that isn’t the “attack” action is kosher, but that is probably not the intent, given context and implied cause.

Certainly makes the Dastardly scenario from the “proper reaction to being charmed” thread less devastating when the Charmed paladin can use any spells or abilities that are not the attack action!

Even without attacks, charmed still prevents targeting with harmful spells or effects. The charmed can target the charmer, but not harm them. Also the charmed could harm the charmer, but not target them. In theory, dropping a Fireball is not 'targeting' someone with a harmful effect. A less spiteful, more plausible interpretation could be Entangling everyone in time out until they stop fighting.

I don't know how far into the laws of robotics any DM would want to go when deciding if something is harmful. Shoving and then grabbing somebody in range of melee attacks probably counts as cheating.

[Segev]

Even without attacks, charmed still prevents targeting with harmful spells or effects. The charmed can target the charmer, but not harm them. Also the charmed could harm the charmer, but not target them. In theory, dropping a Fireball is not 'targeting' someone with a harmful effect. A less spiteful, more plausible interpretation could be Entangling everyone in time out until they stop fighting.

I don't know how far into the laws of robotics any DM would want to go when deciding if something is harmful. Shoving and then grabbing somebody in range of melee attacks probably counts as cheating.

Is hold person harmful? Yeah, this is a tricky road to walk down.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm saying that if you allow the domination taking full control to override the charmed effect because the person is completely controlled, you should also have them use the caster's class and abilities. If you treat it as the caster giving orders much like a player giving orders to their character, the character still has to obey the limits of their own ability, leaving them bound by the charmed condition.

But then you get into some weird stuff. Do they get the Orcish benefits to critical hits? Do they get the Gnomish benefits to resisting mental magic? If you're a Storm Sorcerer, with storm magic in your blood, does your dominated creature have a storm swirling around them?

[jh12]

But then you get into some weird stuff. Do they get the Orcish benefits to critical hits? Do they get the Gnomish benefits to resisting mental magic? If you're a Storm Sorcerer, with storm magic in your blood, does your dominated creature have a storm swirling around them?

Seems like good reasons for ruling that Dominate can't force a Charmed person to attack its charmer. No weird implications.

[Man_Over_Game]

Seems like good reasons for ruling that Dominate can't force a Charmed person to attack its charmer. No weird implications.

But then you're removing a niche solution from an otherwise low-value spell.

The Domination spells specifically state that you can spend your Action to have the creature take the explicit actions of your choosing, and can do nothing else.

The Charmed condition states:


"A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature."



So RAW, and potentially RAI, you're right. Nothing a Domination spell does can officially force a creature to attack a creature the dominated is charmed against. I simply just choose to ignore that to avoid making Domination spells worse. Lord knows it doesn't need any help to be a bad spell.

From earlier in the thread:


Don't forget that a DM is more than just a narrator; you're also a referee.

[jh12]

But then you're removing a niche solution from an otherwise low-value spell.

Or you aren't adding a niche use of a spell that doesn't make much sense.

Edited in response to your edits:


So RAW, and potentially RAI, you're right. Nothing a Domination spell does can officially force a creature to attack a creature the dominated is charmed against. I simply just choose to ignore that to avoid making Domination spells worse.

No, you ignore that to make the Domination spells better. You can't admit that RAW doesn't support your interpretation then try to frame the discussion as the people supporting the RAW interpretation trying to nerf the spell.


Don't forget that a DM is more than just a narrator; you're also a referee.

Yes, and this discussion is about how referees would (not even should) rule. I certainly prefer having coherent rules and consistent enforcement of those rules at the game level rather than arbitrary decisions from the referees. One of the ways to do that is to try to avoid, or at least minimize, interpretations that require the weird implications of those interpretations to be ignored. While interpreting a spell in whatever way makes it more powerful is coherent on a meta-level, it's not at the game level.

[Segev]

Dominate is a powerful spell already. If you're not using your actions, you leave some discretion of how the creature obeys your commands to it. If you use your actions, you take direct control and compel exact methods. You're not really puppetting them, though: you're just dictating and micromanaging. It's still their stats.

But it's powerful either way. Assuming direct control just allows you to make sure no liberties are being taken to creatively interpret your instructions. Not that they have a lot of leeway; they can't twist your words. They just can choose HOW to fulfil your commands, not how to interpret what you "really" might have meant.

[Man_Over_Game]

Dominate is a powerful spell already. If you're not using your actions, you leave some discretion of how the creature obeys your commands to it. If you use your actions, you take direct control and compel exact methods. You're not really puppetting them, though: you're just dictating and micromanaging. It's still their stats.

But it's powerful either way. Assuming direct control just allows you to make sure no liberties are being taken to creatively interpret your instructions. Not that they have a lot of leeway; they can't twist your words. They just can choose HOW to fulfil your commands, not how to interpret what you "really" might have meant.

Powerful when successful, maybe.

Dominate spells:


Are high level spells:

Beast: Level 4
Person: Level 5
Monster: Level 8

Have Advantage to Save if the caster is fighting the Dominated.
Has the Dominated make a new Saving Throw every time they take damage (with Advantage if they're fighting the Dominator or his allies)
Do nothing on a successful Save.


I guess it's powerful in the same way that a level 1 spell, Sleep, can disable a 35 HP creature. Possible, plausible, but unlikely.

[Tiadoppler]

Powerful when successful, maybe.

Dominate spells:


Are high level spells:

Beast: Level 4
Person: Level 5
Monster: Level 8

Have Advantage to Save if the caster is fighting the Dominated.
Has the Dominated make a new Saving Throw every time they take damage (with Advantage if they're fighting the Dominator or his allies)
Do nothing on a successful Save.


I guess it's powerful in the same way that a level 1 spell, Sleep, can disable a 35 HP creature. Possible, plausible, but unlikely.


I agree that Dominate spells are weak, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Dominate isn't an "I win" button, and should be subject to failure: the incredibly powerful possible effect is balanced by extremely low chance of success. 5e doesn't have many save-or-die effects, and dominate is one of the most difficult to balance ones.

Players are frequently resentful if the DM takes away their character for a single turn, much less multiple turns in a row. If these spells were more reliable, they'd cause more real-life conflict at the table (just my opinion). I'm okay with them being sub-optimal spell choices.

[zockeros]

Seems like good reasons for ruling that Dominate can't force a Charmed person to attack its charmer. No weird implications.
Would disagree if you look a bit less at the pure mechanics side.
Dominate overrides any mental conditioning you have towards your potential target but the "friendly acquaintance" should protect against it while it doesn't care for the relation you have with that target. That is weird to me.

[Segev]

Would disagree if you look a bit less at the pure mechanics side.
Dominate overrides any mental conditioning you have towards your potential target but the "friendly acquaintance" should protect against it while it doesn't care for the relation you have with that target. That is weird to me.

I'm not sure how to parse this. I have a couple possible readings. Can you please elaborate so I can figure out how to respond?


My take, if I'm reading you right:

Domination overrides your will, but Charmed imposes a compulsion that's hidden under a sense of "can't bring himself to." Charmed makes them think it's an emotional hangup, but it is a compulsion not to attack the Charming creature. (Heck, dominate person and the like impose the Charmed condition, themselves.) When two conflicting compulsions interact, I believe there's a rule for resolving the deadlock. In 3e, it was opposed Charisma checks; I don't know what it is in 5e.

[No brains]

I also like charming a dominated creature for defense because it rewards a player for preparation, awareness, and quick thinking.

"So the bad guy has dominated this thing into attacking us. That means it's vulnerable to mental attacks, right?"
"You are correct, why?"
"I cast Charm Person/ Animal Friendship. I attack this creature's established weakpoint to counter my enemy's strategy."
"Clever girl. Outstanding move. Modern problems require modern solutions."

[Chronos]

The Charmed condition does not make the creature think of you as a friend. That's an extra effect of the Charm Person spell, specifically, but you can charm someone without using that spell. So however the preventing-attacking-the-charmer thing works, it's not just by making them seem like a friend.

[Segev]

The Charmed condition does not make the creature think of you as a friend. That's an extra effect of the Charm Person spell, specifically, but you can charm someone without using that spell. So however the preventing-attacking-the-charmer thing works, it's not just by making them seem like a friend.

Admittedly, this is attempting to rationalize it, but I generally assume the Charmed condition does impose a mental block that makes you feel something that makes attacking them just emotionally unbearable. Whether you're too scared of them, too enamored of them, or just feel too sorry for them or too guilty at the prospect of attacking them, you feel like doing so is just unacceptable and you'd sooner cut off your own fingers. Of course, underneath that is a compulsion not to attack them, so it's just a rationalization, a false emotion, but it is what I assume must be there. Otherwise, they'd probably call the condition something else.

[Man_Over_Game]

Admittedly, this is attempting to rationalize it, but I generally assume the Charmed condition does impose a mental block that makes you feel something that makes attacking them just emotionally unbearable. Whether you're too scared of them, too enamored of them, or just feel too sorry for them or too guilty at the prospect of attacking them, you feel like doing so is just unacceptable and you'd sooner cut off your own fingers. Of course, underneath that is a compulsion not to attack them, so it's just a rationalization, a false emotion, but it is what I assume must be there. Otherwise, they'd probably call the condition something else.

Fair point. Without the whole "friend" clause, you know what Charm Person would say?

"You Charm a Humanoid if it fails a Wisdom Saving Throw. It makes the Saving Throw with Advantage if you're fighting it, and makes a new Saving Throw whenever it takes damage."

[Segev]

Fair point. Without the whole "friend" clause, you know what Charm Person would say?

"You Charm a Humanoid if it fails a Wisdom Saving Throw. It makes the Saving Throw with Advantage if you're fighting it, and makes a new Saving Throw whenever it takes damage."

Yep. And the Charmed condition doesn't seem to do much that's "charm"ing. It's Advantage on charisma checks to persuade, and it bans attacking the Charmer. It's like they broke part of what Charm Person might be off to make a Condition named after it that doesn't play much like it, then left only the part that makes it "Charming" in the spell, while making it ambiguous exactly what it means (given all the arguments we have over what you can convince a "Friendly Acquaintance" to do, even with Advantage on the Cha check to do so).

[DarkKnightJin]

For those who answer no. Does it make any difference if instead of the free action mental command, the caster used his action to take full control of his victim?

Free mental command? I'd say the Charmer is safe, because Charmed.

Dominator "assuming direct control"? Charmer's hosed, because the Dominator is overriding the Charmee's will at this point.

[zockeros]

I'm not sure how to parse this. I have a couple possible readings. Can you please elaborate so I can figure out how to respond?


My take, if I'm reading you right:

Domination overrides your will, but Charmed imposes a compulsion that's hidden under a sense of "can't bring himself to." Charmed makes them think it's an emotional hangup, but it is a compulsion not to attack the Charming creature. (Heck, dominate person and the like impose the Charmed condition, themselves.) When two conflicting compulsions interact, I believe there's a rule for resolving the deadlock. In 3e, it was opposed Charisma checks; I don't know what it is in 5e.

I will try:
My interpretation of Charm is similar to the one you wrote a few posts ago. Short and less eloquent it changes aspects of your personality to make it unacceptable to attack. It doesn't include any physical or magical components that will prevent any harm. I can't willingly do something harmful but it could happen by accident or something that is out of my control.

Dominate works similar in ways of making changes to your personality. The reason why it isn't reasonable for me to have my(target of dominate) mental stats being replaced by the ones of the caster. I still have my mental abilities but my personality changed. In case of Dominate this change comes not just with the added effects of charm but with some kind of override once you failed your save. Any compulsion, feeling or motivation just gets ignored/bypassed. Your will to survive is negated if the caster orders you to commit suicide. If there is a person, like your wife/husband, that you want to protect and would die for without hesitation it doesn't matter anymore. Dominate will make you attack and kill that person. No aspect of my former personality is able to stop me to carry out the commands of Dominate. RAI i can't see the compulsion from Charm taking effect in this case. I would assume it is being bypassed like any other compulsions/motivation i would originally have.

[Chronos]

Since there are multiple possible sources of the Charm condition, let's make this concrete by specifying one. Specifically, let's say that the Charm condition... also comes from the Dominate Person spell.

Alice casts Dominate Person on Bob, and he fails his saving throw. But she doesn't have anything in particular she wants him to do yet, so she doesn't issue any commands. Maybe she even takes a nap. Then Carol comes along, and she also casts Dominate Person on Bob, and he fails that save, too (everyone knows that Bob has terrible Wis saves). Can Carol force Bob to attack Alice? It seems obvious to me that she can't. Certainly we can't say that her control is stronger than Alice's, because they're both using the same ability. But the only thing that Alice actually has in effect on Bob is the Charm condition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Since there are multiple possible sources of the Charm condition, let's make this concrete by specifying one. Specifically, let's say that the Charm condition... also comes from the Dominate Person spell.

Alice casts Dominate Person on Bob, and he fails his saving throw. But she doesn't have anything in particular she wants him to do yet, so she doesn't issue any commands. Maybe she even takes a nap. Then Carol comes along, and she also casts Dominate Person on Bob, and he fails that save, too (everyone knows that Bob has terrible Wis saves). Can Carol force Bob to attack Alice? It seems obvious to me that she can't. Certainly we can't say that her control is stronger than Alice's, because they're both using the same ability. But the only thing that Alice actually has in effect on Bob is the Charm condition.

I have no dog in the larger fight, but this can't happen. Effects from the same source don't stack; neither do effects with the same name. Bob can be charmed-by-alice OR charmed-by-Carol. Not both. One is suppressed while the other is active. The general rule is that
1) stronger wins (usually taken as higher spell slot)
2) in case of a tie, last one cast wins.

If they're different durations and the shorter one overrides the longer one and expires first (whether due to a passed save, concentration ending, or the natural duration expiring), the longer one reasserts itself after the shorter one disappears.

Which means that charm person and dominate person can't both be in effect. Both mechanically impose the Charmed condition and trigger based on that. I'd say that dominate person overrides charm person in its entirety, suppressing the latter while in effect. That is, they should be read with a "while charmed by this spell..." qualifier if one otherwise does not exist.

[Wryte]

Certainly we can't say that her control is stronger than Alice's, because they're both using the same ability.

Sure we can, if her spellsave DC is higher than Alice's.

[Segev]

There is no support in the rules for the notion that you can only be charmed by one character at a time. What there is is support for the notion that the opposing orders of Dominate (“attack Alice”) and Charmed (“you can’t attack Alice”) have an opposed roll to try for dominance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is no support in the rules for the notion that you can only be charmed by one character at a time. What there is is support for the notion that the opposing orders of Dominate (“attack Alice”) and Charmed (“you can’t attack Alice”) have an opposed roll to try for dominance.

Can you be poisoned twice? Conditions with the same name don't stack, they overlap.

[JNAProductions]

Can you be poisoned twice? Conditions with the same name don't stack, they overlap.

If you are Poisoned, and then are Poisoned by a second one that states you take 1d6 damage at the start of each of your turns, do you take damage?
What if it happens in the opposite order?

[Prince Vine]

I go with a narrative read where the reason you can't attack the person who charmec you is because you really wouldn't attack a friend or some charming acquaintance of yours. They just spelled it out explicitly in the condition that you cannot do the thing (I also rule that a charmed target is friendly and favorably disposed RP-wise, much like I rule a poisoned target is sick, pained and likely nauseated, depending on how they got that way).

In this case I apply that one step further. Can dominate make you attack your friend or other person you would never assault? Then it can make you attack your charmer.

They would sure feel bad about it later though, assuming the charm lasted.

[Cikomyr]

Here's how I would rule it:

- If the dominated instructions are relatively vague, then the charmed victim wouldn't attack the charmer. Ex: "kill that group" would lead to target everyone but the charmer
- if there is no remaining wiggle room for interpretation, the charmed condition is basically put into a conflict VS the domination spell. It'd allow a new saving throw va domination, maybe even with advantage.

If the saving throw is failed, then the charmed condition is overriden by the domination spell.

[Segev]

Can you be poisoned twice? Conditions with the same name don't stack, they overlap.


If you are Poisoned, and then are Poisoned by a second one that states you take 1d6 damage at the start of each of your turns, do you take damage?
What if it happens in the opposite order?

You can absolutely be poisoned from two sources. The effects overlap rather than stacking. But if you’re afflicted by two poison sources that each have a second “while you are poisoned” condition and by-round saves, you save against both individually and when one ends, its “while you are poisoned” side effect also ends, but the other persists until you overcome it separately, and you’re still poisoned.