It seems pretty straightforward, but considering how big a change this is, I would think SOMEONE would have already asked; however, try as I might, I can find no thread asking for this clarification. So:
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus"
New saving throw...to throw off the effect ENTIRELY, as opposed to in the past, where it was just to ignore that particular order? That's how it reads to me...
And while this is editorialism, not straight clarification...isn't that leaving a lot of power up to interpretation, giving the "actions against its nature clause" the power to outright BREAK a dominate?
It was fine when it could make it disobey an order, because no amount of disagreement between player and dm could rob the dominator of his thrull; but there REALLY ought to be a bit more clarification on what actions go against a creature's nature, if it's to be such a significant part of gameplay.
I think what is against anyone nature, PC or NPC, varies. When I DM against someone's nature is something they would never do otherwise.
Example 1: A group of adventurers that dont know each other
Evil NPC: Kill the party
PC: OK--->He may be in the group with them, but they are not life long friends or family so under the right circumstances he might kill them, but it is hard to get someone to attack a friend or family member even if it is to their benefit.
Example 2: A group of friends that are also adventurers.
Evil NPC: Kill the party
PC: No(after getting the +2)
See the above example
If the group was thrown together, but they treat each other kindly and I beleive they would risk life and limb to save another character I would allow the +2, but if they only seem to be associates, or if I know they would be willing to leave a party member behind they don't get the +2
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus"
Any time you make a "new saving throw", it's to end the original effect. Otherwise it wouldn't mention the word "new" as opposed to the "old" saving throw made initially.
Okay, now I'm REALLY confused. Someone tell me I'm not insane. I remember a version of...I SWORE it was dominate...where subjects could resist an INDIVIDUAL order against their nature, and receive a +10 to resisting that order for the rest of the day, creating the classic "resisting...control...can't...hold out..." situation. I thought it was 3.5, but its not in the srd...
Also, if someone knows how to move this thread somewhere more appropriate to the type of question it has turned into, I would appreciate it.
You're probably thinking of the charm spells. Charm person says:
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.)
So you could convince a banker to hand over everything in his bank as an "IOU" if you win a Charisma check, but if you fail, he doesn't give you the money that way. However, you could win another check that convinces him to run home quickly -- which might leave the bank unattended. . .
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I don't have a problem with a new save at +2 for any situation indicated above. Dominate is a pretty potent spell (high level), cast by a high level caster, who should have a pretty high save DC, buffed up with feats and high ability scores. This means the save DC should be pretty high.
The second save makes the caster carefully consider his spell target and the commands he will make of the target prior to casting the spell. That's all. It's not a game breaker.
For example:
If you plan on Dominating another spellcaster, make sure you have him do things that are not against his nature - have a Wizard study his spellbook; have a Cleric pray to his deity for guidance, etc. This way, you can effectively take him out of a fight without giving him the opportunity to make a second save.
If you plan on dominating a martial class, you don't have to worry as much if he gets another save or not, as his Will save is probably his weakest one. Thus, you can try to have him attack the party and be relatively confident he will not make a second save.
In either case, Dominate can be used effectively. You just don't get the "automatic" obedience some folks from 1e/2e may remember or desire.
IMHO, the spell is fine as is.
1 thing to bear in mind: no matter how conservative your DM decides to be about the "against their nature" interpretation, they can't take one thing from you: The initial order.
The additional save at +2 is only when you attempt to RE-direct the spell.
Basically, dominate, like every other spell, is built from an epic seed. The epic seed dominate comes from is basically suggestion. Dominate is basically just a suggestion, except more convincing (the order doesn't have to sound "reasonable", just non-suicidal), and you can use the same casting to give them another suggestion (they just get a new saving throw at +2, at the DM's discretion).
So, yes, the problem remains that the spell is as powerful as the DM decides it is. BUT! Remember that you can get creative about this sort of thing. PILE ON those tricks! If you REALLY want your thrulls to be obedient, burn the extra suggestion to convince them of a falsehood that will change their mind, or throw up an illusion that will trick them into attacking the wrong target.
DM's don't like Dominate because it's too much power from 1 spell and 1 standard action. But if you're willing to spend another spell or two, most DM's will grin at your "cleverness" and start getting a LOT more lenient.
FYI, Dominate Person is 1 full round to cast just like summoning spells.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
For example:
If you plan on Dominating another spellcaster, make sure you have him do things that are not against his nature - have a Wizard study his spellbook; have a Cleric pray to his deity for guidance, etc. This way, you can effectively take him out of a fight without giving him the opportunity to make a second save.
The problem I have, and have with your situation, all comes down to "what goes against its' nature". Would a wizard normally go take a seat and study his spellbook in the middle of combat? Nope, would be against his 'nature' to do so and hence - new save.
There will always be interpretation differences between gaming groups. No rule set can cover all possibilities for any RPG.
For my example above, you indicate it's against a Wizard's nature to study a spellbook in the middle of combat. My response is that a Wizard is always studying his spellbook (at least once daily), so the ACTION in and of itself is not against his nature. The circumstances (combat) may indicate it is not wise to do so at that time, but the action itself is certainly within the Wizard's nature, as it does not go against any kind of moral code the Wizard lives by.
Going against one's nature is different than performing an unwise action based on circumstances.
YMMV.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah; if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets that new saving throw. If it makes that saving throw, it throws off the ENTIRE dominate effect and gets to go back to doing what they want.
As for what constitutes "against its nature," that varies from creature to creature. For a PC, I would say that forcing a PC to attack another PC would normally be against a PC's nature and would allow a new saving throw (unless, of course, that PC has already displayed a propensity for attacking other PCs). For most monsters, it would depend. A lot of monsters are just violent anyway and attacking others of their kind is normal. It's left vague deliberately so each time it comes up, the GM gets to interpret it as needed for the specific target in question.
Contributor
|
How does this ability work on dead critters dominated by an intellect devourer?
Does the corpse make a save if forced to do something which would be against against its nature if it were alive or is this a non issue.
Furthermore, does this effect the DC for Sense Motive? I mean, for ease of rules probably not, however if the corpse is essentially an animated dead thing, I'd assume its not acting against its will (as it doesn't have a will, its dead). I'd kind of like it if it were tougher to determine a corpse was controlled by an intellect devourer than if a living sentient creature was dominated by a spell caster.
It is a corpse's nature to be a corpse. Anything else is against its nature, therefore, the intellect devourer might lose control with every single command other than "play dead."
.
.
.
:P
Though I joke, leaving it up to the GM is a bad idea. A player will never be able to use it effectively against the GM's NPCs while said NPCs using it will rule over PCs like gods.