Dominate Person Questions

[Tren]

So I'm playing a beguiler in an evil campaign, and last session I successfully dominated the party fighter unbeknown to the other members of the party, and I had a few questions concerning dominate.

1.) Is it possible to command the dominated subject to act as normal so as to not raise suspicion? Based off this line, "you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities", I would assume so. Also, if such a command were to work, would it negate the lower sense motive DC to determine he's being controlled?

2.) Can I command the target to fail a will save in order to cast dominate again or any other spell?

3.) I share a telepathic link with the target and know what he's experiencing, would I be aware if someone were questioning him about his "strange behavior"?

[AKA_Bait]

This is a subject of some debate I undertand.



1.) Is it possible to command the dominated subject to act as normal so as to not raise suspicion? Based off this line, "you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities", I would assume so. Also, if such a command were to work, would it negate the lower sense motive DC to determine he's being controlled?

So long as you word the command well I don't see why not.


2.) Can I command the target to fail a will save in order to cast dominate again or any other spell?

This is a debatable question. Probably you can, if you can figure out how to phrase it in character, but they might get a second will save since failing a will save against dominate person is probably against their nature.


3.) I share a telepathic link with the target and know what he's experiencing, would I be aware if someone were questioning him about his "strange behavior"?

I would think yes.

[Severus]

>>1.) Is it possible to command the dominated subject to act as normal so as to not raise suspicion??<<

You can order them to do so, but that doesn't give them an acting skill they don't have. Dominate person is a blunt instrument. It isn't subtle. Fair sense motive skills are going to notice it.

Under Sense motive rules:

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.

A DC 15 check to notice a dominate ought to be pretty easy to most folks with the skill at the level that dominate is gettin used.

>>2.) Can I command the target to fail a will save in order to cast dominate again or any other spell?<<

That's a GM call. I would rule that no, you couldn't. But I could see arguments for both sides.


>>3.) I share a telepathic link with the target and know what he's experiencing, would I be aware if someone were questioning him about his "strange behavior<<

Probably not, because as it says in the spell description:

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.

You'd have to be concentrating on him to get that input.

You're going to get found out.

[Frosty]

Unless you have the feat "Extraordinary concentration" which allows you to concentrate as a Move or Swift action :smallbiggrin:

[Craig1f]

In the group I play with, "Act normal" causes the player to act perfectly normal, and they do not get a will save since they WANT to act normal. This works if the subject doesn't know they've been dominated. (they never saw it cast on them)

If the subject knows they've been dominated, they would probably get to alert people that they're dominated. They would not get a save though, because they want to act normal.

In the campaign I'm in, my character was dominated, failed another will save and attacked his ally, and then later was given the command "act like I just told you to hunt your party down and kill them, but you were able to break free of the enchantment". The DM just led me to believe I'd broken the enchantment. He made me roll a will save, which I passed, which later ended up preventing me from slaughtering my allies.

I didn't get a will save for that command because I wanted to break free of the enchantment, and that was what the command was.

Anyway, I think this might be a loose interpretation of the rules. And it's a large part of this campaign, so I think the DM is house-ruling.

[AKA_Bait]

While true, that applies to any command given and wouldn't be higher or lower if it were 'act normally'. However, the act normally command is more likley to keep other players from bothering to make a sense motive check, since they seem to be acting normally.


[quote]You're going to get found out.

You are going to get found out because you are concentrating? Er? By whom? You wouldn't need to concentrate on getting sensory imput if you are standing right there, you could see for yourself. Otherwise, how are they going to know you are concentrating?

[Douglas]

2.) Can I command the target to fail a will save in order to cast dominate again or any other spell?
Yes. However, this would very likely be either against the subject's nature (new save with +2 bonus) or obviously self-destructive (automatically ignored), depending on the person and the spell. This would depend on the subject's perception of the spell, however, so a successful bluff check could convince him that you're casting a helpful buff spell, something most people would willingly accept. Watch out for wizards, though, a bluff check won't help if he succeeds on his spellcraft check to identify your spell himself.

[leperkhaun]

that bieng said, you DONT have to tell them its dominate you are casting...unless they have ranks in spellcraft they wont know.

[Craig1f]

that bieng said, you DONT have to tell them its dominate you are casting...unless they have ranks in spellcraft they wont know.

Similarly, for two skill points, you can pick up the skill trick False Theurgy (sp?) from Complete Scoundral, which allows you to cast a spell, but make it appear to a different spell of the same level. The observer doesn't get any kind of counter-roll to see through the guise.

[Tokiko Mima]

I would think that it would be against most peoples' natures to allow themselves to fail a saving throw unless they, you know, enjoy being dominated. So they would get a Will save with a +2 bonus, and if they succeed, they throw off your domination and get another save against the spell, and if they fail then they lower their defenses and you get another 9+ days of domination.

You're better off just casting it without letting them know what you're casting. Then they don't get the +2 bonus and only make a single Will save. Better, there's no chance of them breaking free by making two successful saves.

[ColdBrew]

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.

You'd have to be concentrating on him to get that input.
You have an odd definition of "full sensory input". Did you simply mean that if the subject is fooled by an illusion, you are as well since you see exactly what he sees? I agree you wouldn't automatically know when someone is questioning the subject. You'd have to be deliberately observing through his senses.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Of course, any wizard worth his salt knows this commandment:

"I'm gonna have to enter your mind to get some information that is very important for your mission. Please, open your mind and relax so that I can do it more effectively."

Faced with something like that, I, as a DM, would give the target a save, but with a -2, to exemplify having opened their mind. 'Cause, WHO is going to say "No" to getting more information?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You have an odd definition of "full sensory input". Did you simply mean that if the subject is fooled by an illusion, you are as well since you see exactly what he sees?
That bit, "Can't actually see through the subject's eyes" is part of the spell.

I think the key to interpretating it is the other bit: "as interpreted by the mind of the subject."

In other words, yeah, you see through the subject's eyes, but your senses don't figure into it. For instance, you can't cast detect magic and then use the subject's sensory input to find magical auras. Likewise, if you have darkvision, but the subject does not, you'll still be lost if your subject is in total darkness.

Yeah, that would also mean you are fooled by any illusions that fool your subject. Likewise, if your subject makes its Will save for disbelief, you automatically recognize it as an illusion as well.

Yeah, the wording in the spell sucks and is somewhat contradictory. But that's the only way I can reconcile it.

[Severus]

You have an odd definition of "full sensory input". Did you simply mean that if the subject is fooled by an illusion, you are as well since you see exactly what he sees? I agree you wouldn't automatically know when someone is questioning the subject. You'd have to be deliberately observing through his senses.

This is from the spell description.

The sense motive check is static. It isn't harder because you tell the target to "act normal".

Your GM may choose to run this differently, but under the rules, it's easy to spot a dominate. That is why you're going to get caught, unless the GM chooses not to follow the rules. Or doesn't give people sense motive checks.

[Doresain]

somewhere in the complete mage it said something along the lines of conditioning someone to the point where you really dont need to dominate/charm them anymore, they perceive what you say as the best course of actions and what not...what kind of rolls would you have to make to do something like that?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The sense motive check is static. It isn't harder because you tell the target to "act normal".
You miss the all-purpose circumstance modifier. That's one of the advantages of pen and paper over computer RPGs.

Read why it's easy to spot a dominate effect. It's specifically lower because of the target's limited range of activities. A command of "Act Normal" is not going to reduce the target's activities as extensively as most other commands. Though the target will still probably act strangely now and then, though. So I wouldn't bring it all the way back up to the DC 25 for other enchantments.

As DM, I'd probably make it DC 20. Anyone with a Wis of 10 or more will notice it if they spend a lot of time with the target, but it will still take a bit more work.

[Severus]

Feel free to reinterpret the rules, but you're not getting the dominate spell.

What is "act normal"? You've put a leash around someone's mind that they don't want to follow. I can do normal things that would also look weird. I'm following the rules of your order, and still going to get noticed. I might get noticed just because I'm totally freaked out that I'm enslaved even if I'm trying to act normal.

If somebody mentally enslaved you and said act normal, could you, even if you wanted to? Probably not.

This spell doesn't make them like you, or want to obey, it enslaves them. And they don't like it.

That's why it is a DC 15 check to notice. If you want subtle, you need some of the non-canonical mind-control feats. Or use suggestion.

If you want to houserule that dominate can be really subtle, be my guest. But it is not how the spell is written.

[Mut]

1.) Is it possible to command the dominated subject to act as normal so as to not raise suspicion? Based off this line, "you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities", I would assume so. Also, if such a command were to work, would it negate the lower sense motive DC to determine he's being controlled?

From the spell description, I always figured that Dominate Person was near-absolute control at the expense of subtlety. My mental picture of a Dominated character being ordered to act normally goes something like:

PC 1: Good morning, PC 2! How are you today?
PC 2: I am perfectly normal and not raising suspicion.
PC 1: Er -- what? Is something up?
PC 2: No, we are having a normal conversation as we often do on ordinary days. Later, I will eat some food.

... and on like that.

That said, if you can get the DM (and possibly the other player) to buy into this as a neat plot twist, they might be more accommodating. Best of all would be to plan it out with them beforehand and have the other guy role-play it through, trying to follow your orders but keep it subtle. Might be no need for rolls at all in that case.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

PC 1: Good morning, PC 2! How are you today?
PC 2: I am perfectly normal and not raising suspicion.
PC 1: Er -- what? Is something up?
PC 2: No, we are having a normal conversation as we often do on ordinary days. Later, I will eat some food.

... and on like that.
…

That would be… considerably easier than DC 15…

[Kantolin]

Personally, given the slew of fantasy books with enchanters controlling the minds of individuals and nobody noticing, I'd be willing to let 'act normally' slide.

Or alternately, making it a check slightly higher than 20 (like the normal 25). That way, you'll get the one or two people in town who can ask, "Say, did you notice something's funny about Ralph?" "Huh? No, not really, like what?"

Punishing an 'act normally' domination kind of wrecks a lot of interesting sequences like that. I thus read domination as implanting a supernatural desire - so when told to dance, you simply feel the desire to dance at that moment and thus do so to the best of your ability - after all, you're the one thinking it. It does say:


A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works.

So with this, when told to act normally, your mind would shift itself so that you want to... act normally. So that particular one would practically be unnoticable.

Now, on the 'can you get someone to automatically fail their next will save'... remember that most people have no ranks in spellcraft, and therefore you almost certainly can by telling/convincing/magicallyconvincing them that it's not a domination spell - remember, you get a will save vs Healing magic that most people forego.

If you, say, made them unaware of your spellcasting - particularly the harder-to-hide verbal component - that may then work on spellcasters as well.

Of course, dominate is somewhat dependant on the DM's opinion of things - I've had a second will save given for asking an orc to sit quietly away from danger, because that apparantly was something the orc was vehemently against. Grumble.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Now, on the 'can you get someone to automatically fail their next will save'... remember that most people have no ranks in spellcraft, and therefore you almost certainly can by telling/convincing/magicallyconvincing them that it's not a domination spell - remember, you get a will save vs Healing magic that most people forego.
Question is, do we assume that there's some fundamental difference in the feel of a "regular" and a harmless spell such that creatures can tell them apart before they make their save or do we assume that spellcaster's always tell their allies what kind of spell they are casting even if we don't actually say that in play?

There's nothing in RAW to indicate that even a non-spellcaster can intuitively recognize a harmless spell from a regular one when they are the target, but that's the way it tends to play out in my experience. Spellcasters never announce what kind of spell they are casting—to their allies or to their enemies. And just consider the amount of trust characters have to put in their spellcaster allies in the alternative situation. (Speaking of trust, given that spellcasters tend not to make those announcements, it seems to me that it would raise a lot of supsicion if they started doing so.)

So, how does a character realize that the spell is a beneficial healing spell and know to voluntarily fail the save?


Or alternately, making it a check slightly higher than 20 (like the normal 25). That way, you'll get the one or two people in town who can ask, "Say, did you notice something's funny about Ralph?" "Huh? No, not really, like what?"
The Sense Motive description doesn't imply that the Sense Enchantment use is in any way passive. That is, you have to be actively trying to sense the enchantment. So something has to give it away first to provoke a person into making the check. Then, most untrained folks of average Wisdom will have to spend a good 20 or so minutes of observation to begin to piece it together. On the whole, I think even DC 20 allows for the situation you describe.

Really, a passive check would make the day/level duration nearly useless, as a character would have to constantly avoid staying around folks that might detect the enchantment for too long.

Though, if we had to skip ahead several days in a way that a dominated character could slip up, I would consider a "semi-passive" check to see if the character slipped up at all, giving other characters reason to make the regular sense motive check. Maybe it would really be a Bluff check on the part of the dominated character or something similar.

[Collin152]

PC 1: Good morning, PC 2! How are you today?
PC 2: I am perfectly normal and not raising suspicion.
PC 1: Er -- what? Is something up?
PC 2: No, we are having a normal conversation as we often do on ordinary days. Later, I will eat some food.


Uh oh, I think I've been Dominated...

[holywhippet]

I'd say that commanding someone to "act normal" would be a problem for them because you generally don't know what you are doing when you act normal. Much of what a person does is on "autopilot". You don't have to think about things much, you just do them. If you command someone to act normal they have to actually think about what they should be doing.