Is Dominate person really a 5th level spell?


Advice

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

After reading the text of the spell I feel as though dominate person isn't remotely a fifth level spell. Here is why.

The spell says that a creature gets a second save at a +2 bonus if it does something against its nature. This essentially means that a PC or enemy will ALWAYS get a second save once you start giving orders.

An evil wizard casts dominate person on the fighter, he fails. "Stand still" the wizard says. The fighter would not idly stand by while his friends are fighting, second save is rolled. "Run away", second save ensues because the fighter would not leave his friends.

In general, the fighter will not want to do anything an evil wizard says (if he knows he's evil, but if its cast in combat, that is probably a given) so any order the wizard gives, the fighter will resist, even if it seems reasonable, given that its not in his nature to do anything an evil wizard tells him too. So its a 5th level spell that always allows two saves to resist its effects.

I cast this spell tonight on an evil wizard and I was told repeatedly that he would not tell me anything about his operation given that giving up secrets to me (an enemy) would be against his nature and therefore get a second save.

In my opinion, I feel like this spell should be a third level spell, given how easy it is to resist. Your chances of saving vs. the spell go up exponentially when you are allowed multiple saves.

Am I wrong in thinking this? I am open to being convinced that its powerful, but I honestly don't see it. A fifth level spell should be powerful; I mean wall of force is of the same level and its one of the best spells in the game.


You do know that if you fail the 2nd save you are now utterly under their control, and that it lasts DAYS PER LEVEL right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It will not always get save. As an example telling the evil NPC might not allow a second save. It just depends on his personality. If he is only there for gold he may have no problem killing someone that is on his team. Against your nature is not the same as "I don't want to do this right now".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the sake of argument, how does one even define "against your nature?"

Philosophers have been disagreeing on that very thing for thousands of years.


Ravingdork wrote:

For the sake of argument, how does one even define "against your nature?"

Philosophers have been disagreeing on that very thing for thousands of years.

To me it is something you are opposed to based on your character or a core belief you have.


Making such a discernment is pretty central to roleplaying, period, entirely aside from Dominate Person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

dominating the party barbarian and telling him defend me has probably seen many a near tpk.


You can use the guidelines Paizo has already set up for Dominate Person. How many different Paizo Pathfinder scenarios or Adventure Path adventures have used Dominate Person as a plot point?

As a GM I'd allow a single extra save for each broad category. For example, if the dominated person wouldn't normally attack something, but fails his save to attack and so now must attack, I'm not going to allow that dominated person a second save a few hours later in a similar scenario.

Also, how does Dominate Person react to spells like Charm Person? You dominate a creature, you then charm it so it looks at your favorably, it'll probably have a different idea of what is against it's nature.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
martryn wrote:


Also, how does Dominate Person react to spells like Charm Person? You dominate a creature, you then charm it so it looks at your favorably, it'll probably have a different idea of what is against it's nature.

Charm does not change someone's nature, it just makes them more amicable to you. Even if he thinks you are his best friend, it doesn't mean he will now be comfortable with killing his friends/family if he was not so inclined originally.


Quote:
An evil wizard casts dominate person on the fighter, he fails. "Stand still" the wizard says. The fighter would not idly stand by while his friends are fighting, second save is rolled. "Run away", second save ensues because the fighter would not leave his friends.

That's a way more liberal definition of "against its nature" than I would allow. By that interpretation, there is virtually no conceivable order that wouldn't trigger the second save. This is unfortunately one of those vaguely worded spells with little in the way of guidelines. Every GM is going to rule differently, and some are going to interpret that clause very strictly. At my table, so long as the enchanter's order is to restrain or incapacitate rather than kill or harm, the Fighter wouldn't get a second save.

Even so, the spell isn't so great against PC's; they're usually relatively close to the level of the antagonist, have very high wealth, and have extensive access to temporary magical buffs. While dominate person is a game-changer when it works, PC will saves are just too high for a single-target effect to be a practical spell choice. Between the 1-round casting time and the "does nothing on a successful save" clause, there's a big chance this spell will fizzle.

Where dominate person rocks out is against NPC's. Most NPC's tend to be far lower-level than the antagonists (after all, if the NPC's could solve the problem themselves, why would they need the PC's?), have very low wealth levels, and tend to have minimal access to magical buffs. In many cases, NPC's need a natural 20 to resist the effect of dominate person. A devious spellcaster can do a lot with that kind of high success rate.

In practice, it's not the will save that holds back this spell. There are plenty of weak-willed mooks in the world to target. The problem is actually the protection from evil spell, which is a readily available method of disrupting this spell without a caster level check. While that won't inconvenience a true neutral spellcaster, the vast majority of antagonists are going to be evil-aligned.


Dasrak wrote:


In practice, it's not the will save that holds back this spell. There are plenty of weak-willed mooks in the world to target. The problem is actually the protection from evil spell, which is a readily available method of disrupting this spell without a caster level check.

Yes. Protection from Evil is really a rather overpowered first level spell! It's situational, sure -- but casting PfE will turn an encounter with (for instance) a succubus from a terrifying CR 7 encounter with something that can throw a bunch of DC 22-23 mind control spells to a roughly CR 4 encounter with something that gets 2 attacks for d6+1. A group of second level characters equipped with cold iron weapons can take down a succubus easily as long as they have their PfEs up first.

There was a 3PP succubus supplement a while back that gave multiple variants of the succubus, but completely ignored the existence of PfE spells. WTH? I mean, as soon as the possibility of a mind-controller even gets mentioned, players start throwing PfEs -- it's not even a wasted buff, because it gives the AC bonus and the "summoned creatures can't touch you" thing regardless.

Doug M.


Renvale987 wrote:


The spell says that a creature gets a second save at a +2 bonus if it does something against its nature. This essentially means that a PC or enemy will ALWAYS get a second save once you start giving orders.

1) "Against his nature" is open to interpretation, but it's pretty obvious that you can give a lot of orders that don't trigger that second save.

2) So let's say we have a 9th level wizard with a 20 Int throwing domination at a 9th level fighter. The fighter has +3 Will from being 9th level and let's say another +2 from items, buffs or whatever. So +5. The DC is 20 (10 + 5th level spell +5 from Int) so the fighter will make that save on a 17 -- 20% of the time. He'll make the second save on a 15 -- 30% of the time. His chance of failing BOTH saves is 80% x 70%, or 56%. That looks like a pretty good deal for the wizard, actually... because once that second save is failed, the fighter gets no further saves and is now the wizard's plaything for the next nine days.

Now, there are aspects of Dominate that I find a little problematic. If you have a caster who specializes -- kitsune, fey bloodline, Spell Focus / Greater Spell Focus, whatever -- it's not too hard for a 10th level caster to be throwing Dominates with DCs around 25 or so. There are a lot of CR 10-12 monsters with Will saves lower than +8, and these guys are going to be switching sides pretty regularly. It won't be long before the wizard has a retinue of dominated frost giants or whatever following her around. Contrariwise, a failed Dominate can lead to alarmingly bad results for the wizard if she's not careful -- if the giant makes that second save, breaks the compulsion, charges and grapples her, she could be in serious trouble. Point being, it's a high-risk, high-gain spell with sharply bimodal outcomes, pretty much your classic save-or-suck.

But is it an appropriate fifth level spell? Heck yes.

Doug M.


Ravingdork wrote:

For the sake of argument, how does one even define "against your nature?"

Philosophers have been disagreeing on that very thing for thousands of years.

This is up to the GM, actually. However, I've seen massive hissy fits out of grown men over this issue during play. Players hate not feeling special from my experience. With my current group I've found it's best simply not to use them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My intepretation is simply "What would the person never EVER do?". Most DM´s i know use this interpretation.

Would the Fighter never EVER stand still? Oh he does it all the time? No save.
Would the fighter never EVER attack his buddies? No? Gets a save.
Would the fighter never EVER attack the nasty rouge party member? Oh the rouge is stealing from the party regularly? Grey area, talk it over with the player and if you still disagree just roll for it, 50/50.
Would the evil fighter never EVER attack his party? Oh he dreams of murdering as many people as possible? The only reason he sticks with the party is because they let him kill stuff all the time? No save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One should remember, when this spell was designed, there were no hipster personalities around. Today it probably would have to be worded differently.


What Tsuruki said. I might quibble on the details but s/he has the right idea of how this should work IMO.

Also, precedent. If the character has ever done X in the past -- attacked another PC, attacked a mook instead of going after the BBEG, wandered off in mid-combat to investigate a shiny -- you have a very strong case that X is not "against that characters nature".

Note that a cautious caster can take an enemy off the board just by having that enemy act suboptimally. "Attack my summoned monsters until you've killed them all (while I continue blasting your party with 5th level spells)" would IMO not usually trigger the second save.

Doug M.

Silver Crusade

Mojorat wrote:
dominating the party barbarian and telling him defend me has probably seen many a near tpk.

this happened once when I was playing my pally. needless to say barbs hurt. But I put em down (nicely, not fatally) in the end. But ow. Is why I say go superstitious rage power. all day ere day lol.


My understanding is that the "against his nature" clause does not include who orders him to do it.

Would the fighter drink healing potions if injured? If yes he could be orders to waste his turn by drinking a potion. If he tells me that drinking a healing potion is vs his natur I'd force him to roll a save next time he does drink one.

If you want someone to run away and know he's a fighty guy, command him to hold the door vs reinforcements, instead.

And when it comes to defending the evil wizard: It is not "would he defend his enemy in the middle of a fight" but "would he oppose his friends and defend someone from them if he had reason to believe that he deserves to be defended.

In the hand of a clever guy this spell IS powerful.

Silver Crusade

I again state that charm and dominate work best outside of combat.

I can't think of many good applications of dominate in media in a combat situation (most vampires put the whammy on people before).

The one that springs to mind is Vigo the Carpathian (the Scourge of Muldavi), who put the whammy on Ray the Ghostbuster. Who promptly turned around, made some snarling statements and got immediately taken down nonlethally by his compatriots.

The real strength of dominate is to put fellow party members in danger, oddly enough. Sending barbarian to punch other PC is useful, sending barbarian to leap off of a cliff (even with the +2 he'd certainly get), potentially ties up 2-3 PCs.

Where dominate falls down though is when you start asking about how it actually works for day to day. It has a long duration, but limited sensory responsiveness. Is the spell liberal where a person has freedom outside of his commands, or is it the opposite where he ONLY does his commands.

Both are absolutely horible for a would be sneaky villain. You either end up with the white-mutiny situation where your dominee is so obviously dominated someone will do something about it, or in a malacious genie situation where he'll find ways around your commands when you're not paying attention.

I pulled the latter on some poor schlub when a PVP style situation came up. He was dominated against telling people of the one dominating him. It did not however stop him from telling a group of clerics that he was dominated and it happened rather suspiciously after going to a certain person's home. How'd he accomplish this? He waited until his controller was asleep.

Dominate is useful, but requires a clever hand, or it turns into a nightmare for the caster.


Spook205 wrote:
I again state that charm and dominate work best outside of combat.

Well, charm certainly does -- it says so right in the spell description. Once combat starts, the target is likely to get a whopping +5 to resist.

Dominate? Not so much. In fact, it's pretty clear from RAW that Dominate is designed to be an option in combat. Not necessarily the best option, not necessarily insta-win... but an option. You take no disadvantage from casting it in combat, the target gets no bonus on his save, and once he fails there's nothing but that second "against its nature" save between you and your shaggy 9th level barbarian mind-slave giving you +4 Raging Foot Massages.

Honestly, I'm not sure why people are having so much trouble with this. It's a flawed, somewhat dangerous, but very powerful spell. The "against its nature" language is a bit vague but not grossly unclear; unless someone is being abusive, reasonable players and GMs can pretty much always figure out how to proceed. Ast for its power, 5th level seems just about right. It might even be slightly overpowered for 5th, but it's not obviously way out of whack. And -- again -- it's a perfectly appropriate spell to throw in the middle of combat.

Doug M.


The issues with Dominate are that (1) it's painfully save-or-suck; (2) it's very abusable by determined players (kitsune fey bloodline with Greater Spell Focus and the very badly designed kitsune favored class? at 12th level her spell DCs are going be around 30, meaning she auto-dominates everything with a Will below +11), and (3) at a meta level, it can massively derail the campaign when the caster Dominates a key bad guy, not only getting the benefit of his switching sides but also gaining a potential infodump.

Those are all serious issues. But they're not unique to Dominate, and they have nothing to do with it being "too weak" for 5th level. It is definitely not too weak.

Doug M.

Shadow Lodge

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Renvale987 wrote:


The spell says that a creature gets a second save at a +2 bonus if it does something against its nature. This essentially means that a PC or enemy will ALWAYS get a second save once you start giving orders.

2) So let's say we have a 9th level wizard with a 20 Int throwing domination at a 9th level fighter. The fighter has +3 Will from being 9th level and let's say another +2 from items, buffs or whatever. So +5. The DC is 20 (10 + 5th level spell +5 from Int) so the fighter will make that save on a 17 -- 20% of the time. He'll make the second save on a 15 -- 30% of the time. His chance of failing BOTH saves is 80% x 70%, or 56%. That looks like a pretty good deal for the wizard, actually... because once that second save is failed, the fighter gets no further saves and is now the wizard's plaything for the next nine days.

yikes you play bad fighters... the fighter i play would have improved/iron will, cloak of resistance, headband of wisdom, and is a dwarf with trait bonus and steel soul...

at 9th level my guy is toting a +15 will save with a reroll. but anyway against a warrior npc, i can see your point.

oh and i forgot they printed that wayfinder cheeze that lets you add the spindle stone for constant effect pro evil.


CWheezy wrote:
You do know that if you fail the 2nd save you are now utterly under their control, and that it lasts DAYS PER LEVEL right?

I can not locate this wording in the spell description? Can you elaborate on this?

Thanks!

Silver Crusade

This is why suggestion is for my money the best combat enchantment spell. 3rd level, no extra save and unambiguous if you word it correctly.

Plus it doesn't take a whole round to cast which frankly is a major deal...

Silver Crusade

I still remember one of my poor players got stuck in a three way battle situation.

He charged forward, got dominated by Wizard A and was given a command to attack an ally.

Wizard B then dominated him, and gave him orders to disregard any current or future commands given by Wizard A.

The player opted to improve his will saves after that.


-- I just reread the OP and saw that his complaint was triggered by him dominating an enemy wizard who then got a second save when ordered to give up information.

Dude: it is *working as intended*. Dominate attacks Will. Don't cast it on wizards or clerics! They have good Will saves. You cast it on the fighter, the barbarian, or the rogue, because their Will saves suck. Being upset that your Dominate didn't break the enemy wizard is like being upset that your Disintegrate didn't eliminate the enemy fighter. You don't cast Disintegrate at the fighter if you can avoid it, because it targets Fort -- the fighter's strength. Dominate the fighter, and save Disintegrate for the wizard.

Check the math. Say your DC is 21. Against a fighter with +3 will, you'll double-save dominate him 90% x 80% = 72% of the time. Pretty good! But against his colleague the party wizard, with his +9 Will, you only win 60% x 40% = 24% of the time. One-third as much! Bad odds! Don't try this unless you're desperate. The doubled save dramatically compounds the difference between bad Wills and good ones, you see? That's actually good design IMO -- it's both thematic and balanced. You Dominate big stupid weak-willed things like giants and fighters, but you hesitate to throw it at Will monsters like wizards, clerics, dragons or outsiders. That aspect, I got no problem with.

Doug M.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
10 Ninjas wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
You do know that if you fail the 2nd save you are now utterly under their control, and that it lasts DAYS PER LEVEL right?

I can not locate this wording in the spell description? Can you elaborate on this?

Thanks!

Don't look in the spell's text, look at the stat lines:

Duration 1 day/level


Spook205 wrote:
I again state that charm and dominate work best outside of combat.

So does a maximised Fireball. How often do your enemies allow you to cast spells on them without attacking you?


I think the other thing that crops up is whether context matters.

Dominating the fighter and telling him to go get as drunk as possible right now should effectively remove him from the combat as he first starts guzzling any liquor he may currently have and then goes off on a bar crawl.

What would have a player up in arms is whether he would do that mid-combat.

In other words, should context matter? Are commands to be interpreted in a vacuum or should the situation matter? Are implications supposed to matter? Because that same fighter who loves to get drunk may only feel willing to do so when he and his compatriots are back home from a hard fought dungeon crawl, pouches full of plundered gold. He may feel a very strong loyalty and would never leave them hanging mid combat.

So would the command in this case, given mid combat, warrant that second save?

Edit: To clarify, the command is not "leave your party and stop helping them in combat" but "go get drunk right now". But contextually the command given implies the situation the fighter would ordinarily never consider.

Silver Crusade

Matthew Downie wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
I again state that charm and dominate work best outside of combat.
So does a maximised Fireball. How often do your enemies allow you to cast spells on them without attacking you?

I mean that they work better when used in a subtle manner. Dominate in combat always ends up being a sledgehammer that doesn't take advantage of some of the spell's perks.

If you can dominate someone without the restof his group knowing you have that in, you can do a lot more to them. The only problem is they have their perpetual sense motive aura. And like I said, dominate over long periods of time requires a lot of oversight.

The Exchange

in combat it is a risky move, if they pass their save you just wasted your turn- maybe your last. I had a PC Telepath (3.5 psionics) who pushed his DCs high, i never had one success (GM was not fudging it, just rolling high).


Personally, I'd err even further on the side of a strong interpretation of "against nature". Is it against a fighter's nature to attack his friends? I'd say that this would be pretty unusual. Most human beings have fairly flexible natures, really, as far as I'm concerned. I think things like suicide probably trigger the second save, but it would take a lot. Now, animals, monsters, dragons and outsiders are probably a different story, as they have different (and, by comparison, less flexible) natures, at least according to my understanding.

There's nothing wrong with playing a weak-willed fighter. However, doing that means that you're probably going to be enchanted every once in a while. That's OK. Nobody needs to be good at everything, and letting an NPC shine for a fight or two isn't bad. You get more interesting characters if they have weaknesses, and weakness to mind-affecting magic is flavorful (if clichéd) for a fighter.


rorek55 wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
dominating the party barbarian and telling him defend me has probably seen many a near tpk.
this happened once when I was playing my pally. needless to say barbs hurt. But I put em down (nicely, not fatally) in the end. But ow. Is why I say go superstitious rage power. all day ere day lol.

Ahh for me it was a vampire and I killed another pc defending her. The dm actually realized the encounter was too hard for us after the fact but one of the pcs ignoree sll the "I'm foing to ler you go while I further my evil plans" signsls and died.


GeneticDrift wrote:
in combat it is a risky move, if they pass their save you just wasted your turn-

Yes, well, that's the whole "save-or-suck" thing. Dominate is part of a large family of spells that do something horrible (to the victim) or awesome (for the caster) if the victim fails the save. Contrariwise, if the save is made, they do nothing. That's how it works.

But "just wasted your turn" -- you burned a turn trying something that didn't work. Aside from using the spell slot, you're not any worse off than the fighter who swung with his sword and missed.

Doug M.


I thank everyone for their replies. I was a bit angry last night and I apologize if my question came off as bitter and butt-hurt (which I was, I'm lucky enough to realize when I'm being a jerkface).

The DM wasn't a jerk about it at all. He explained his ruling. I spent an hour being bitter and quiet and than Oppressive Boredomed and Terrible Remorsed two demons and felt better. Pains of playing an enchantress is that most, if not all of my spells are save or nothing happens, so when something doesn't save and the spells goes off, I'm very happy.

Needless to say, because the spell is so vaguely worded, I'm just going to change it at 14th level to avoid future butt-hurtedness. There are plenty of other enchantment spells that are pretty good that will work for my sorcerer enchantress.

Again, thank you everyone for your replies. I will still be up to discussing the issue.

It just seems that "against their nature" is something that needs to be worded better or more clearly defined.


I would also like to note that Dominate person only works on ONE subset of creatures; humanoids. It does not work on:

Undead
Monstrous Humanoids
Aberrations
Magical Beasts
Animals
Dragons
Oozes
Outsiders
Vermin
Constructs or
Fey

So its a narrowly defined spell (at 5th level) that only works on one subset of creatures that gives two saves all the time.

For me, it should only give one save, and if you fail, you're under the spellcaster's control.

I don't think its that dangerous for PC's, given that unless you have multiple spellcasters casting dominate person on all your PC's (which could be just as bad as 5 6th level invisible sorcerers casting 36D6 worth of fireballs at a 10th level party. At that point you're just hosing your party imo).

I think that the "against your nature" thing was put in there to protect PC's so their not hosed. Something to think about I guess.

Scarab Sages

Renvale987 wrote:


So its a narrowly defined spell (at 5th level) that only works on one subset of creatures.

if one of those creatures happens to be the ruler of a nation, you just became king for two weeks if they fail the save.

It's an unbelievably powerful spell when used that way. It's suboptimal when used in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what's a really good way to make Dominate more flexible in its use? Lying.

You have a telepathic connection to your target and no one said you can ONLY use it to give orders. A few bluff checks to work them up into thinking the situation isn't the way it seems, and you can convince them to do all kinds of things that wouldn't be against their nature because they believe the situation to be different and their actions are different in said situation.

TL;DR Make your orders sound like an answer to a fabricated problem, rather than a direct order.


CriticalQuit wrote:

You know what's a really good way to make Dominate more flexible in its use? Lying.

You have a telepathic connection to your target and no one said you can ONLY use it to give orders. A few bluff checks to work them up into thinking the situation isn't the way it seems, and you can convince them to do all kinds of things that wouldn't be against their nature because they believe the situation to be different and their actions are different in said situation.

TL;DR Make your orders sound like an answer to a fabricated problem, rather than a direct order.

I completely understand your point and according to the parameters of the spell, that's a great way to use it. However, its called DOMINATE person, not "Make a deal with this guy so they don't make a second save and start beating on me again person".


CWheezy wrote:
You do know that if you fail the 2nd save you are now utterly under their control, and that it lasts DAYS PER LEVEL right?

The spell lasts so long you can get it back the next day while you still have a servant. The psionic Mass Domination power is even more ridiculous, since once use of the power could give you 13 servants! If even one of them is dominated by the end of the day the power is pretty broken.

IMO, this would be better if the duration was only 1 round/level, with no second save. For something longer term, look to Charm Monster, which IMO should not be castable in combat.


Kimera757 wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
You do know that if you fail the 2nd save you are now utterly under their control, and that it lasts DAYS PER LEVEL right?

The spell lasts so long you can get it back the next day while you still have a servant. The psionic Mass Domination power is even more ridiculous, since once use of the power could give you 13 servants! If even one of them is dominated by the end of the day the power is pretty broken.

IMO, this would be better if the duration was only 1 round/level, with no second save. For something longer term, look to Charm Monster, which IMO should not be castable in combat.

I would be totally fine with it being 1/round a level and no second save, totally agree with you on that one.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Against nature is a rather vague description, but there are mechanics that offer some guidance on it.

Characters with lawful alignments tend to have more things that are against their nature than those with chaotic. By description, they are more formal and more bound by commitments.

Characters with good alignments tend to have more things that are against their nature than those with evil or neutral alignments (or at least more generally combat relevant ones; "never give a sucker an even break" is restricting but generally not in combat).

Characters with specific oaths or codes of conduct likewise have mechanical definitions of what is against their nature. There are a lot of things you won't be able to make a paladin or an order of the dragon cavalier do in combat that (for example) a drow would do without hesitation (stabbing your brother in the back in the middle of combat--that's totally normal for drow). Order of the Cockatrice cavaliers, on the other hand don't have any particular mechanics-based resistance to domination unless you are trying to get them to give away their loot. When you are dominated is one of the few times that being Lawful Good and having a code of conduct can be a mechanical advantage.


I have told charmed and dominated PC's to go get help or talk their friends into not attacking me. Either way it makes more life easier than saying "kill your buddies".

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"If a party member is down, The dominating caster,"Go help you fallen comrade regain consciousness.."

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Slay living is a fifth level spell that removes a foe.

Dominate person is a fifth level spell that removes a foe and gives you an ally. This extra power is balanced by a targeting restriction and potential for a second save.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love giving the players commands that they can interpret.

When the spellcaster commands them, "Don't let anyone attack me!" And the Player decides the best way to do that is inflicting lethal damage... then so be it. If the Player decides that his character will bull-rush an ally trying to attack the wizard, that's also viable. (and the target PC has to decide if he wants to take the AoO that his 'friend' provoked)

It can be... glorious to watch.

Very Respectfully,
--Bacon

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My fighter in PFS was dominated by a vampire once. The command was "Defend me." I moved to interpose myself between the rest of the party and the vampire and aided his AC. I would have gotten away with it if the other fighter hadn't tried to move past me and draw an AoO. (I would have to crit on the AoO)

And this was in character for me as a duelist. If I'm defending, nothing gets past me.


Tim Statler wrote:
"If a party member is down, The dominating caster,"Go help you fallen comrade regain consciousness.."

IMO, that's a waste of Dominate. PCs should be doing that anyway.


As a wizaard I'll take my chances on the fighter making the saving throws in exchange for controlling them for a couple of weeks.

Every...... Single...... Time......


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Renvale987 wrote:

I would also like to note that Dominate person only works on ONE subset of creatures; humanoids. It does not work on:

Undead
Monstrous Humanoids
Aberrations
Magical Beasts
Animals
Dragons
Oozes
Outsiders
Vermin
Constructs or
Fey

You forgot Plant.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is Dominate person really a 5th level spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.