I am running the Serpent's Skull adventure path, and have a question about Dominate Person.
If a person has been dominated to protect a person, and then there allies attack that person, would they get an additional save each time they attack an ally, the initial attack only, or only when the spell is cast.
This came up last night, I played it as because it was protect the enemy, and the character only attacked an ally when they became a threat to the person they were charged to protect, and actually attacked her, I gave no save.
Would you have done the same?
It would be a bit silly to give a new save for every single sword-blow the dominated creature is forced to make, but attacking an ally is "against their nature" for most people.
I'd say once per ally per fight.
The save is made when the spell is cast. If it is truely against the person's nature to attack an ally then they get a second save, but if they fail that is it.
What is against someone's nature is up to the GM. I would not give most evil creature's a 2nd save unless there was a good reason for it. I might not even give good people a 2nd save in certain situations, but that is just me.
Thanks, after the fight I was thinking the same thing.
Also they were using lethal force, and it did not occur to either us that he should have been using Non-Lethal force, as the command was protect me, not kill them.
It is my first time running a campaign, so looking for some advice.
The PC is Chevlier of Milani, and is Chaotic Good. He is from the Order of the Star.
So when he was taken over he also ordered to have his mount do the same thing, anytime his mount attacks no save would be required though right. And would you consider it Non-Lethal damage.
So when the spell is cast on someone, just make 2 save rolls right then and there? One for easy orders, and then one for situations where that order becomes morally or ethically dicey?
I wouldn't let the GM decide what is against a character's nature. The Player should have a better grasp of that than the GM does and should be left up to the player to decide.
It should be a compromise between player and GM. By the time you can cast it, the GM should know the character well, too.
Should GM and player disagree, give a save with a penalty.
It's in most people's nature to break up a fight between friends with words or nonlethal actions like grapple or interposing their bodies between them. No save if along these lines.
|
This is one of those spells intentionally left somewhat vague so each table can flavor to taste.
It is also a good test spell to ask "How do interpret X" in order to find out if someone shares your play style.
I find it no coincidence that many of the people who find casters over powered are also the same people who read the most into the power of such spells.
YMMV.
|
As we've discussed on the forum in the past, Enchantment/Charm spells are some of the dodgiest ones to adjudicate.
Dominate Person, ostensibly the most powerful is similar to the weaker charm person in that its wording is somewhat vague. The spell just says "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."
Personally as a DM the 'fight the spell' idea seems to be built in, meaning that yes a heroic character forced to fight his friends would be rolling on the +2 every round, making the control tenuous at best.
Now the counterargument that will come up is '5th level spell, this underpowers it, etc.'
Whats important to remember is the average caster is going to have at /least/ a 16 int (Lets assume here. He really only needs a 15, but...) Meaning there's a DC 18 will save between control or losing it, and this DC Will likely go up if the caster is a dedicated enchanter type. 18 is pretty hard to hit, 16 is pretty hard to hit, and it exemplifies why a smarter caster wouldn't force his dominees to do things violently against their nature.
Dominate person, as earlier stated works best when used on the less moral, or after attempted corruption or coercion of the person without it.