PDA

View Full Version : To dominate or not



JWhitehead
2008-01-01, 11:59 AM
This is more a question of general interest. I have an enchanter wizard using metamagic school focus and still and silent spells. Im interested in dominating certain party members more as part of my character's personality than for any specific goal. Now aside from the ramifications of dominating other PCs I was wondering what people here would think as to the legality of the order " continue acting as normal and forget this order"

Furthermore as Dms do people here think you should know when you've made a will save against a dominate?

thanks in advance for your input

Riffington
2008-01-01, 12:06 PM
Furthermore as Dms do people here think you should know when you've made a will save against a dominate?



I've always played that the person would feel the dominating energies, would know the basic spell type, would know they made or failed a save, and could do spellcraft to figure out what the exact spell was.
I've also always played that the save was made secretly. So the caster would be unsure if the person failed the save and was obeying orders, or succeeded on the save and was pretending to follow orders.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 12:07 PM
Hmmm... I'd probably, as a DM, allow the order. As for knowing if you've made the save, I'd say yes. You may not be aware who just tried to mind-rape you, but you know someone tried.

marjan
2008-01-01, 12:12 PM
First of all let me say that it is very very very bad idea. Your party members will hate you for it. Making them your mindless puppets will ruin their gameplay experience and you will eventualy get killed, both IC and OOC so I'll have to say DON'T DO IT. If they make their save they will be aware that someone tried to influence them.

marjan
2008-01-01, 12:15 PM
I've always played that the person would feel the dominating energies, would know the basic spell type, would know they made or failed a save, and could do spellcraft to figure out what the exact spell was.
I've also always played that the save was made secretly. So the caster would be unsure if the person failed the save and was obeying orders, or succeeded on the save and was pretending to follow orders.

For targeted spells you allways know if the target made their save or not and target is aware thet something was trying to influence them. Determining who or what it was is something different though.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-01, 12:21 PM
I've also always played that the save was made secretly. So the caster would be unsure if the person failed the save and was obeying orders, or succeeded on the save and was pretending to follow orders.

I agree with this.

However, I've seen a feat (or was it a skilltrick) in a WOTC book that gave one the ability to act as though they were controlled by a charm/compulsion effect and trick the caster into believing that the subject failed their saving throw when in fact they succeeded. This implies that a caster would know if a spell worked or not.

As far as dominating other players goes... I would discuss this with the players before hand and probably stay away from it. Nobody's going to enjoy it when your character tells theirs to do something and they have no choice. If you're in the habit of using spells to control your allies, you're probably a BBEG. And we all know what happens to BBEGs who hang out with PCs.

Edit

For targeted spells you allways know if the target made their save or not and target is aware thet something was trying to influence them. Determining who or what it was is something different though.

What he said.

Edit: Wow, either I was ninja'd or replied before reading the whole thread again. In either case, about your 'continue acting normally' order... In the case of a PC's actions I don't see a problem with it, but as a DM, I think I'd still put in that chance for close friends of the victim to notice changes in his behavior even if he's 'acting normally'...

Heck, in some cases the character may not consider their usual behavior to be normal and may in fact begin acting in a completely uncharacteristic way.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 12:26 PM
For targeted spells you allways know if the target made their save or not

This is the simplest interpretation of the written rules. However, it is way more fun to play that you don't know.

marjan
2008-01-01, 12:32 PM
This is the simplest interpretation of the written rules. However, it is way more fun to play that you don't know.

Agreed. Especialy if you are the one that made the save.:smallamused:

Douglas
2008-01-01, 12:51 PM
This is the simplest interpretation of the written rules. However, it is way more fun to play that you don't know.
No, it is the only correct interpretation of the written rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#succeedingonaSavingThrow). You can houserule otherwise, of course, but that's the RAW and there is at least one ability I know of that has the sole purpose of creating an exception to that rule.

Also, the specification that the target creature feels something on a successful save implies that he does not notice anything if the save fails.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 01:04 PM
Douglas, I stand by my statements. the interpretation you gave is the simplest explanation of what the written rules state. If you like to play with the RAW houserule, then your way is the way to go. However, my way is more fun.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 01:09 PM
Isn't the phrase 'RAW houserule' contradictory?

Riffington
2008-01-01, 01:11 PM
Isn't the phrase 'RAW houserule' contradictory?

No. RAW is a houserule that says "We aren't playing with rule zero or the golden rule"

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-01, 01:14 PM
Douglas, I stand by my statements. the interpretation you gave is the simplest explanation of what the written rules state. If you like to play with the RAW houserule, then your way is the way to go. However, my way is more fun.

I partially agree with you about it being more fun, but as Doug said, there is an ability that specifically states that you may fool the caster into thinking that you failed your save. This means that a caster normally knows immediately. We try to discuss the Rules As Written, which is what he was doing. When someone asks a question like this, they aren't asking what your favorite houserule to the solution is (unless they say so), they're asking for an answer as per the RAW.

On the other hand, is it more fun when your spellcaster decides never to cast these spells because he can never be sure if they're working or not?

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 01:16 PM
Well, I mean, RAW stands for 'Rules As Written', yes? A houserule is a ruling clarification or change agreed upon by the people playing(generally in someone's house, thus leading to the phrase, ie a rule for when we play in this house). So saying 'RAW houserule' is like saying 'a stock customized car', it can't be both.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 01:25 PM
We try to discuss the Rules As Written, which is what he was doing.


But OP didn't ask "what are the rules as written?" If he'd asked that, I'd have responded differently. He asked how DMs thought things should happen.

Incidentally, I definitely do not believe that if feat/ability exists, that necessarily means you can't do it without the feat/ability. For example, the skill trick "Point it Out" lets you see something your friend missed, say "look at that", and he gets a reroll with +2 bonus. Most DMs allow people without that skill trick to perform this action, often granting automatic success on the spot reroll.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 01:27 PM
Well, I mean, RAW stands for 'Rules As Written', yes? A houserule is a ruling clarification or change agreed upon by the people playing(generally in someone's house, thus leading to the phrase, ie a rule for when we play in this house). So saying 'RAW houserule' is like saying 'a stock customized car', it can't be both.

RAW is a change in the rules (getting rid of rule zero and the golden rule.)
Regardless of what it stands for, it therefore means playing by a different rule set than what is written. So it is a house rule.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-01, 01:28 PM
But OP didn't ask "what are the rules as written?" If he'd asked that, I'd have responded differently. He asked how DMs thought things should happen.

Incidentally, I definitely do not believe that if feat/ability exists, that necessarily means you can't do it without the feat/ability. For example, the skill trick "Point it Out" lets you see something your friend missed, say "look at that", and he gets a reroll with +2 bonus. Most DMs allow people without that skill trick to perform this action, often granting automatic success on the spot reroll.

It does exist, it's just proving hard to look up. Most DMs don't require you to carry bat guano around or burn a feat to cast fireball, either, but that doesn't mean the rules don't say otherwise.

Touche, though. He didn't technically ask what the rules say.

One last thing. RAW means RAW. It doesn't mean 'houserule'. Most people play with houserules, yes. But the RAW gives us all a frame of reference. We tend to discuss the RAW because we all have access to it. We don't all have access to everyone's individual contradictory houserules. Thus, when someone asks a question regarding the rules, in general we try to answer the question to the best of our ability using the RAW and mentioning houserules specifically as such.

I do see your point. I hope you see mine.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 01:30 PM
On the other hand, is it more fun when your spellcaster decides never to cast these spells because he can never be sure if they're working or not?

Oh, they still cast these spells. They just don't rely on them as 100% foolproof. Which is good.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-01, 01:34 PM
Oh, they still cast these spells. They just don't rely on them as 100% foolproof. Which is good.

They're not foolproof of course. The target can make their save. But why would I cast a spell that my opponent could pretend to be influenced by, thus providing an opening to come up and stab me in my sensitive wizard-parts when I could cast a spell that has results easily identifiable as effective or non-effective?

Riffington
2008-01-01, 01:39 PM
They're not foolproof of course. The target can make their save. But why would I cast a spell that my opponent could pretend to be influenced by, thus providing an opening to come up and stab me in my sensitive wizard-parts when I could cast a spell that has results easily identifiable as effective or non-effective?

Because sometimes it's more profitable to make the mayor legalize pipeweed just as your caravan reaches the city than to fireball him?

Besides, if you are allowing your mind-controlled slaves access to your sensitive wizard-parts then you really better have some backup plans. Also if you are big into abusing mind magics you should probably invest in Sense Motive.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 02:14 PM
RAW is a change in the rules (getting rid of rule zero and the golden rule.)
Regardless of what it stands for, it therefore means playing by a different rule set than what is written. So it is a house rule.
That makes even less sense than the last post you made... Rule 0 and the Golden Rule are themselves houserules, albeit important ones, but not necassary to play. RAW is used to designate actual printed rules, which rule 0 and the golden rule are not. RAW means playing by exactly the printed rules with no qualifications, exceptions or addendums. 'RAW' and 'houserule' are definitive opposites.... I really don't know how I can explain it any more clearly, so I'll let it go and stop trying to derail the thread. Back to dominating discussion.

I find an interesting RAW implication to spells like Mass Dominate, the caster doesn't know whether any of them made their save, because it states the caster only knows this on a targeted spell. Am I thinking through that right, or does the spell list targets as '# of humaniods' rather than 'humanoids within a #ft radius'? If so, then I'd still treat it as a targeted spell, just with multiple targets. 'Course, that's RAW, I generally rule a wizard always knows whether a mind is dominated or fascinated by him directly, it's only questionable if he's using an item such as the ruby pendant from RA Salvatore's books.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 02:25 PM
Rule 0 and the Golden Rule are themselves houserules, albeit important ones, but not necassary to play.

Read _Godel, Escher, Bach_ if you don't understand why this statement can never become true, no matter how hard they try on 4e.

goken04
2008-01-01, 02:31 PM
If you, for whatever strange reason, rule that a caster doesn't know whether or not his dominate spell was effective, can't the caster determine the answer to that with a simple spellcraft check on the target to discover ongoing spell effects? I just don't see the point in house-ruling that they don't know.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 02:37 PM
If you, for whatever strange reason, rule that a caster doesn't know whether or not his dominate spell was effective, can't the caster determine the answer to that with a simple spellcraft check on the target to discover ongoing spell effects? I just don't see the point in house-ruling that they don't know.

You mean, with Detect Magic? Yes, if he has a few rounds to spare.

goken04
2008-01-01, 02:40 PM
You mean, with Detect Magic? Yes, if he has a few rounds to spare.

No, I mean


20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 02:44 PM
You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell

Well, there is only one person who can feel or otherwise detect a mind control effect: the target. (Unless your spell gives the target spirally red eyes or something, which would be pretty cool).

Wolfwood2
2008-01-01, 03:43 PM
This is more a question of general interest. I have an enchanter wizard using metamagic school focus and still and silent spells. Im interested in dominating certain party members more as part of my character's personality than for any specific goal. Now aside from the ramifications of dominating other PCs I was wondering what people here would think as to the legality of the order " continue acting as normal and forget this order"

You can't alter memories with Dominate. If the PCs can't ordinarily forget something on command, how can they do so just because you ordered them to? (Maybe if one had a lot of ranks in autohypnosis.)

A character under Dominate is going to know he is dominated and remember that he was Dominated when it wears off. There is simply no way around this. Now Charm is different. It's just possible that someone under a Charm effect might not realize it if you're able to provide a way for them to rationalize their behavior later. Dominate is grabbing their brain and forcing actions. You can't not notice that.

Wolfwood2
2008-01-01, 03:44 PM
Well, there is only one person who can feel or otherwise detect a mind control effect: the target. (Unless your spell gives the target spirally red eyes or something, which would be pretty cool).

On the contrary, see the Sense Motive skill under the 'Sense Enchantment' clause.

"Sense Enchantment

You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities."

Aquillion
2008-01-01, 04:16 PM
RAW is a change in the rules (getting rid of rule zero and the golden rule.)
Regardless of what it stands for, it therefore means playing by a different rule set than what is written. So it is a house rule.What? No, that's silly. You're arguing that the RAW do not exist and that everything is a houserule, because if you don't happen to houserule a specific rule you're houseruling the fact that you're not houseruling... that's silly.

The reason people make a distinction between the RAW and houserules is so they can know that they have a common RAW ruleset that doesn't require discussion every time a game begins; you just have to tell players what any houserules are. That's all. If you're playing a game with a houserule that mages don't know when individual targets make their saves against their spells, you absolutely must tell your players that; otherwise, they'll assume you're following the RAW and behave accordingly. Players will glance at the saves, nod, and react as if they know the results without even bothering to ask you, no more than they'd bother to ask if they, say, add or subtract their Str from their attack rolls.

If you want to change the rules as written, you have to tell people, because the whole point of having those rules written down is to avoid having to hash over the entire ruleset every time you play the game. That's why your rhetorical efforts to destroy the distinction between RAW and houserules are so silly.

And the RAW here is completely, entire clear:
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.There is no "interpretation" of that. When you fail to dominate someone, you know instantly. If you want to houserule otherwise with your group? Sure, that's fine. You are using a houserule that changes the RAW, and you have to tell people so they know to factor it in to what they're doing.

Cuddly
2008-01-01, 04:18 PM
They're not foolproof of course. The target can make their save. But why would I cast a spell that my opponent could pretend to be influenced by, thus providing an opening to come up and stab me in my sensitive wizard-parts when I could cast a spell that has results easily identifiable as effective or non-effective?

How is it fun for any other party members, or the DM, when all you do is mind control everything?

Wizards mind controlling stuff tends to be pretty lame for everyone but the wizard.

A little house ruling to discourage such behavior, or at least take the win sauce out of it, isn't entirely a bad idea. Do you also play with the diplomacy rules as written?

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-01, 04:30 PM
How is it fun for any other party members, or the DM, when all you do is mind control everything?

Wizards mind controlling stuff tends to be pretty lame for everyone but the wizard.

A little house ruling to discourage such behavior, or at least take the win sauce out of it, isn't entirely a bad idea. Do you also play with the diplomacy rules as written?

Um I don't see how that's a response to what I said. Anyway, that was specifically in argument against the whole 'you don't know if your spell hit or not'. If you scroll up a bit you'll notice I advised against mind controlling players. When my mindbender used his abilities on enemies, my party was pretty appreciative. Just because wizards are all-powerful doesn't mean they can be all-powerful all day. They do run out of spells and the targets DO get a save.

What I was saying is IF you rule that I don't know if my spell worked or not, I don't have much reason to cast it and will likely choose a different spell that has more easily discernible effects.

Riffington
2008-01-01, 04:34 PM
On the contrary, see the Sense Motive skill under the 'Sense Enchantment' clause.

"Sense Enchantment

You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities."

I already said you can tell by Sense Motive if your target is affected by your enchantment. But if their Bluff beats your Sense Motive, you don't get a Spellcraft roll (unless you use Detect Magic)

Mewtarthio
2008-01-01, 04:38 PM
How is it fun for any other party members, or the DM, when all you do is mind control everything?

Wizards mind controlling stuff tends to be pretty lame for everyone but the wizard.

A little house ruling to discourage such behavior, or at least take the win sauce out of it, isn't entirely a bad idea. Do you also play with the diplomacy rules as written?

No houseruling necessary. A successful Will save means the Wizard is going to die horribly. Also, a first-level abjuration provides protection from the spell--You can dominate someone under the influence of protection from evil, but they'll act normally until the ward wears off. Also, a dominate spell can be detected mundanely with a mere DC 15 Sense Motive check. Under the harshest rulings, that means roughly one in four commoners talking with the victim will know he's been dominiated. Under the most lenient rulings, that means that some very important people are extremely likely (if not guaranteed) to notice something's up when the victim does something suspicious (read: Just about anything you'd need to dominate him to do).

Riffington
2008-01-01, 04:45 PM
What? No, that's silly. You're arguing that the RAW do not exist and that everything is a houserule, because if you don't happen to houserule a specific rule you're houseruling the fact that you're not houseruling... that's silly.

Actually I'm arguing that Rule 0 and the Golden Rule are inherent in the phrase "roleplaying game". That if you don't use them, you cannot play any roleplaying game period. You can run a PVP arena match without them. You can run a simple math game without them. But you cannot simulate a world without them. Otherwise, the rulebook would have to be larger than the entire Library of Congress (and even then, it would be missing vital things). For reasons why this has to be true, see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

So RAW is a houserule that you are getting rid of the Golden Rule and Rule 0, and thereby no longer playing a roleplaying game. This is a common houserule for discussions on the forum, but you can't actually play D&D that way. If you think you are, you haven't thought about it enough.

Aquillion
2008-01-01, 06:00 PM
Actually I'm arguing that Rule 0 and the Golden Rule are inherent in the phrase "roleplaying game". That if you don't use them, you cannot play any roleplaying game period. You can run a PVP arena match without them. You can run a simple math game without them. But you cannot simulate a world without them. Otherwise, the rulebook would have to be larger than the entire Library of Congress (and even then, it would be missing vital things). For reasons why this has to be true, see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

So RAW is a houserule that you are getting rid of the Golden Rule and Rule 0, and thereby no longer playing a roleplaying game. This is a common houserule for discussions on the forum, but you can't actually play D&D that way. If you think you are, you haven't thought about it enough.
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about Rule 0 or anything like that. Sure, the DM has to make calls.

But there are rules. Written in the rulebook. These are the Rules As Written. When you houserule, you are changing the rules as written.

Wizards automatically knowing the result of the saving throws when they cast a spell on a single target is part of the rules as written. It is written, in the rulebook, and it is not in any way shape or form a houserule.

What part of this do you not understand? 'Saving throw are rolled to resist or reduce the effects of some spells' is not a houserule. 'Time stop grants 1d4 + 1 rounds' is not a houserule. 'Fighters get +1 BAB per level' is not a houserule; and 'wizards know the results of their saving throws' is not a houserule. Those are the rules as written, the official, generally agreed-upon rules that are written in the rulebooks and take precidence when nobody says otherwise.

If you don't like some of those rules, or if some of them cause problems, you introduce rulings via rule 0, or add houserules. Sometimes the rules as written are wrong or broken. But they are still the rules as written, and trying to argue that they are just another set of houserules is just mad flailing, muddying the water and making things harder for everyone to understand. It is important to know what is written in the books and what is your own personal houserules; otherwise, how on earth are you ever going to bring a new player into your games, someone who has played only with their own, different houserules?

The books are not a complete set of rules that let you play the game; everyone uses RAW + houserules that modify the RAW. You, for instance, add a houserule that says wizards sometimes don't know the results of the saving throws on their dominate spells. That's fine! You should be proud of having such a clever houserule. But it isn't the RAW; the RAW very clearly says otherwise, and you need to know what that says so you can play with people who follow different rules, and clearly tell them which rules in the RAW you have houseruled to act differently when they're playing in your games.

Why would you disagree with this? What part of this could you possibly disagree with? Are you in favor of dumping the entire book in the incinerator and houseruling everything, explaining the rules from scratch to every new player who joins?

Collin152
2008-01-01, 06:52 PM
Do you even need to give an order initially? If all you want are sleeper agents, cast the spell and give no orders.
And have arane sight permancied anyways.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 06:55 PM
He (Riffington) is trying to say that Rule 0 (DM trump) and the Golden Rule (be nice) are integral parts of the game, and using only RAW is, in fact a houserule abolishing Rule 0 and the golden rule. That's what he's saying. I don't know if I agree with him, and I think he could have found a much less confusing and contradictory way of putting it, but still... let's try to keep on track here...

Collin152
2008-01-01, 06:56 PM
That's not how I read it...

Serpent Stare
2008-01-01, 07:07 PM
RAW is a change in the rules (getting rid of rule zero and the golden rule.)
Regardless of what it stands for, it therefore means playing by a different rule set than what is written. So it is a house rule.

Actually, while this may be changing the subject slighty, Rule 0 is actually in the RAW itself. I am quite certain I saw something in the DM's Guide (which is probably about as official as you can get for Rules As Written) which said the DM can choose to overrule or change anything he/she wants to.

And, I can understand your point - that playing 'straight from the books' i.e. no flavor, no personality beyond what's specifically and explicitly expressed in the rules is not the way the game is meant to be played. The rulebooks themselves even make it very clear that it's not the way the game is meant to be played. It's inherent wherever the PHB says a DC is set by the DM, andin dozens of other ways, both fluffy and crunchy.

So you could, in a way, say that ignoring the flexibility for change and flavor, as suggested and supported in the RAW, is in itself a houserule - a houserule to standardize everything by published sources either inside or outside of the official rulebooks, instead of doing what the RAW suggests (defintion of a houserule, yeah?) and coming up with your own looser houserules or adopting whatever seems to make sense, make the game easier, and offers you the most fun for your time.

As to mind control... I used it in my campaign against one of he PCs and it ticked him off, IC and OOC (and that was as the DM playinga nasty villain!). It was not the spell dominate person. It was a complicated rezzing ritual with a nasty contractual side effect on the soul. It was not, in fact, statted out at all. But he got out of it eventually, and was glad about it.

Mindrape is a nasty tool. If your target character's player is a good sport, won't take it personally OOC, and is aware that he is running his character like a jerk, you can probably get away with it on a short-rare-periods basis and maybe have some fun roleplaying repercussions out of it. (kind of like Belkar's present compulsion, which isn't slowing him down all that much) If ANY of those conditions aren't met, you'd probably be creaking the ice, and it's not a good idea.

As to whether a save would be immediately discernible or not, you should definitely ask your DM, because that's an element that has a big impact on flavor one way or the other, with a lot of potential for drama... (also, whether the character's personality can show through at all while he/she is dominated - perhaps a tear rolls down the fighter's cheek as he is forced to turn and attack his dearest friends? Perhaps a tiny flicker of disgust crosses the unwilling victim of a vampire?) and I think it's a pretty common judgement that you can't tell unless it's obvious.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 07:21 PM
Collin, no there's nothing that says you must immediately give instructions to the target. However, the spell says they will continually attempt to carry out the instruction until given another one, so a strict DM would say if you don't give them any instructions they just stand there.

An instruction of 'behave as you normally do', or something to that effect, would work very well, since it also says they attempt to follow the instruction to the best of their abilities. As a DM, I'd even say that someone dominated but following such and instruction would be at the DC 25 sense motive, like normal enchantment effects, instead of DC 15. The only give-aways would be little things, perhaps a vacant stare or a look of intense concentration even when doing simple things. So that's how I would use it to create sleeper agents.

IMO there's no way around them knowing they've been dominated, though. Once it wears off, you'll have some pretty pissed off people on your hands, a good reason to never, ever do this to a fellow PC.

Collin152
2008-01-01, 07:24 PM
Hm. Why let it wear off? They are already under your control, and you spend all your time with them anyways...

Vael Nir
2008-01-01, 07:31 PM
How is it fun for any other party members, or the DM, when all you do is mind control everything?

Wizards mind controlling stuff tends to be pretty lame for everyone but the wizard.

A little house ruling to discourage such behavior, or at least take the win sauce out of it, isn't entirely a bad idea. Do you also play with the diplomacy rules as written?

There are other uses for dominate... my current high level character allowed the party wizard to control him through magical bracers during one fight. Failed a save against fear, wizard took control and ordered me back in. Of course, I trusted him not to abuse it.

Aquillion
2008-01-02, 12:53 AM
There are other uses for dominate... my current high level character allowed the party wizard to control him through magical bracers during one fight. Failed a save against fear, wizard took control and ordered me back in. Of course, I trusted him not to abuse it.
Hmm... that's clever. I wonder what happens if someone is dominated by two people at once? Opposed charisma check? You could use that to get a sort of resistance to an enemy who you know throws dominate spells around... have the party Sorcerer dominate the low-wisdom barbarian, so he has a better chance of 'resisting'.

John Campbell
2008-01-02, 05:16 PM
Hmm. So you dominate me. Then you order me to behave as I normally do.

I cast magic circle against whatever - which is what I normally do when someone tries to dominate me - and then, with the dominate suppressed, I've got the next 10*[caster level] minutes to kill you... and in 25 years of gaming, I've never played a character who wouldn't kill you for it.

Or... you dominate me. You order me to behave as if you hadn't done so. My familiar, who has an empathic link to me and shares my Spellcraft skill, and thus has a unique perspective on the state of my mind and cannot fail the check to determine that I'm dominated, says, "Hey, boss, cast magic circle right now." I do so, because my normal behaviour when my familiar says things like that is to do what he says. Cue 10*[caster level] minutes of violence.

Or... you dominate me. You somehow prevent my familiar from detecting it, or you get him, too, quickly enough that neither of us can do anything about it. You also get everyone else in the party who has a decent Spellcraft or Sense Motive, and/or the means to cast protection from evil (which, in my last group, was, I believe, everyone, except possibly the sorceress, who had it on her class list but I don't think took it as a spell known because it didn't cause explosions). You wander around with us as your unwitting sleeper agents for a while. And then someone casts protection from evil or magic circle for some other reason - and using those was a common tactic whenever we thought we might be facing enchanters or evil outsiders - or we wander through a hallow or someone else's magic circle or whatever, and the dominate gets suppressed, taking with it any commands you may have implanted to forget about it. Again, violence.

This is not looking like a good plan to me. It's quite likely to blow up in your face immediately, particularly if you're not very, very careful with the wording of your commands, and almost guaranteed to, long-term.

daggaz
2008-01-02, 05:31 PM
My own rulings would be thus:

No, you cannot force somebody to 'act normally' and 'forget this conversation.' They are forced to act under your command, if you want them to act normally, you are going to be spending a LOT of time sending all the proper telepathic orders to their brains. Remember, they no longer have a free will of their own. Also, you have control over their actions, not their memories, as stated earlier. No rearranging memories etc..

Yes, they would certainly know they were forced to roll a will save, successful or not, tho they would not know the exact nature or source of the spell in either case, without a successful spellcraft check. (good luck getting them to not Metagame this knowledge tho).

Yes, you would know if they succeeded on their will save against you. This is RAW. Whoever it was arguing that that is a RAW "houserule" makes absolutely no sense, and I welcome them to PLEASE start a thread on that subject alone, so they can see their argumentation torn to shreds and cast into the abyss. While rule 0 is indeed in the DMG, all the possible ramifications of it (infinite applications of common sense) are NOT written down in the core books, and thus, are NOT "Rules As Written." Rule 0 only states that the DM should use common sense to preserve fun and game balance, it does not say they have to, nor does it define these situations. Buddy, its your opinion that that is common sense that it should be ruled that way, and if you do it, it is a houserule by definition. EVERY application of rule zero is a houserule, by technical default.

Should you do this in a game? Almost always, probably not. If you do, better hope you have very mature players who are willing to roleplay ALL the possibilities of DnD without complaint. Personally, I dont think it would be much for them tho..

Aquillion
2008-01-02, 08:08 PM
My own rulings would be thus:

No, you cannot force somebody to 'act normally' and 'forget this conversation.' They are forced to act under your command, if you want them to act normally, you are going to be spending a LOT of time sending all the proper telepathic orders to their brains. Remember, they no longer have a free will of their own. Also, you have control over their actions, not their memories, as stated earlier. No rearranging memories etc..I would say that you can order them to act normally, but not to forget anything; you could order them to act like they've forgotten things, but they'd still remember. The dominate line controls actions, not memories, and people do not normally have the ability to forget things at-will.

Also note that the sense motive skill can be used (and is, presumably only in cases where someone is ordered to act normally, required) to detect people who are being manipulated or dominated:

Sense Motive (Wis)
Check
A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed. You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone’s trustworthiness.

...

Sense Enchantment
You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities.
Note that the 'even if that person isn't aware of it' line is probably only in reference to Charm Person; I think they're always aware of being dominated. But, in any case, the fact that that skill check exists implies that it is indeed possible to force someone who has been dominated to try and hide that fact.

Of course, they're not very good at hiding it (even an untrained check with no wis bonus will notice 25% of the time), but that's another story. Dominating someone in your party is probably a bad idea for all sorts of reasons (although I guess we don't know how your group plays); but in any case you probably won't get away with it for long.

Collin152
2008-01-02, 09:01 PM
Do they become aware of the domination immediatley, or throughout the whole thing? If you immediatley ordered them to act natural, then cast modify memory, would they still know?
Or do we need programed amnesia?

Mewtarthio
2008-01-02, 11:17 PM
Do they become aware of the domination immediatley, or throughout the whole thing? If you immediatley ordered them to act natural, then cast modify memory, would they still know?
Or do we need programed amnesia?

Let's say you dominate a victim, then use modify memory to remove his memory of your spell. He's still a virtually mindless drone with no free will compelled to obey everything you say. His thought processes are completely different from those of a normal person. He's going to know something's wrong (or maybe he won't, but he'll figure it out when the spell wears off).

Aquillion
2008-01-03, 01:12 AM
Do they become aware of the domination immediatley, or throughout the whole thing? If you immediatley ordered them to act natural, then cast modify memory, would they still know?
Or do we need programed amnesia?I'd say at that point it comes down to DM fiat... that goes beyond what the rules could reasonably cover.

Talic
2008-01-03, 02:28 AM
Also, the specification that the target creature feels something on a successful save implies that he does not notice anything if the save fails.

No, it does not. The spell outlines what happens on a failure. The character is subject to direct verbal and mental commands. This is a subtle spell in appearance, but not in execution. It overpowers the victim's will and puts his mind in the passenger seat.

As far as the order to Act as normal and forget this, I'd disallow it. People don't typically choose what they forget.

However, "You are free do do as you wish, but you cannot tell or otherwise indicate to anyone that you are controlled, nor may you harm me in any way." That one's ok.

Khanderas
2008-01-03, 09:10 AM
Yeah Im going to agree with several others here. Dominate don't work that way (ordering to act normally and forget the domination effect).

Charm makes you feel more inclined to be buddies with the caster. More subtle and is a mental thing so that COULD be undetected by the victim.

Dominate boots your "self" to some corner of your mind and your body is essentially an extension of the casters own body. Kinda like possession where the original owner of the body screams mentally at the possessor that just chuckles back. The victim notices and does not like it.


Suggestion seems like a better spell for what you have in mind. Subtle and even if it fails you are not that likly to be stabbed. You may have to succeed several times over a period of time (they getting more and more used to doing what you say, with the suggestion it "feels right" or something like that).

I don't have my books with me at work, but I do recall something along them lines.
Now, weather it is a GOOD idea to do this to your PC friends... interparty strife, is another thing.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-03, 09:21 AM
Hmm... that's clever. I wonder what happens if someone is dominated by two people at once? Opposed charisma check? You could use that to get a sort of resistance to an enemy who you know throws dominate spells around... have the party Sorcerer dominate the low-wisdom barbarian, so he has a better chance of 'resisting'.

There is an article about this on the wizards site, I believe.. it may have been in a book describing exactly what happens. Basically it comes down to opposed charisma checks but only if the orders are contradictory. Otherwise they just try to follow the orders from both. You know, like listening to your parents.

Tormsskull
2008-01-03, 09:58 AM
A couple of things:

Could someone C&P the text for Dominate Person from the SRD? That might help for interpretting the spell and how it would work.

Without the exact text, my memory is in agreement with other posters who have said that the dominated person becomes like a puppet to its master's commands. Telling the dominated person to "act natural" would be like putting them on autopilot, which I don't believe the spell allows.


As for this RAW v. Houserules argument, Rule 0 is a written rule. That makes Rule 0 "Rules as Written". However, when people say "Rules as Written", they mean the rules as they are written specifically in the book, not their usage.

I would also like to point out that there is a difference between a houserule and an interpretation, though. A houserule is generally considered to be changing the way the current rules work, or providing a rule/mechanic for something that is currently not available.

An interpretation is something that does not specifically contradict RAW, but is not its self a houserule. To pick on one of the most obvious offenders, interpretting the dead condition to mean what being dead means IRL is an interpretation, not a houserule.

I think it is very important to emphasize that interpretations are not a bad thing, and that there is nothing holy or better about playing by strict RAW.
For communicating in online forums though, it is better to be able to all use the same type of reference when discussing issues.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-03, 10:10 AM
Dominate Person
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

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).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

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.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. 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 neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.


This feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/spelltouchedFeats.htm#falsePretenses) might also be relevant.

Tormsskull
2008-01-03, 10:33 AM
Thanks for the C&P Illiterate Scribe.


hmmm, interesting.

This part in particular:


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).


This would make me believe that if you cast the spell on the person, and they fail their save (which I believe means that they either 1.) do not know that they just failed a save, or 2.) do not know the exact spell that is affecting them), that you could refrain from issuing a command right then, which would imply that the target continues to act as normal.

And this is where we get into interpretations again. If you give the target a command, and they complete it, do they return to "affected by the spell, but otherwise act as normal status", or does the spell end, or what?


Without doing much more research, I would treat this spell like the classic Vampire-look-into-your-eyes ability as shown in the old movies. Even when control is established, the target continues to act normal until the controller gives a command. Once the command is completed, or the controller removes that command, the target reverts to normal mode.

When the target is in normal mode they can do whatever they want, including try to kill the caster of the spell. However, the target does not know that the caster is the one that cast the spell, until the caster issues some kind of command. Once that occurs, I would say the target knows that the caster is controlling them (or trying to control them in the case of an action against the target's nature).

"against its nature" is also widely open to interpretation.