To dominate or not

[JWhitehead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Douglas]

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. 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]

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]

Isn't the phrase 'RAW houserule' contradictory?

[Riffington]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?