You'll notice I specified 'Duke' rather than King. And it's a big assumption that the king in my world has a cadre of high-level spell casters. If they exist, what's to stop them controlling him?
And why would you assume nobles are cautious? Ever seen Henry V? The king walks around on a battlefield, where any commoner with a grudge could kill him with a well-placed arrow. He knows there's no such thing as perfect security, and relies upon trust and luck.
Clerics and Paladins and Inquisitors. All are perfectly reasonable spellcasters that would loyally serve a kingdom and who would be able to deal with the Wizard. Okay the Paladin might be stretching it a bit, but the Inquisitor and Cleric could more than put up a fight.
I also find it a tad questionable that a true neutral caster would just dominate a king to get his reward immediately. Sounds more like a chaotic thing, but alignment has table variation IMO, so I won't quibble beyond saying that's not how I would do it.
In how many Paizo adventures where characters meet powerful people does it say, "He will only meet you inside a permanent anti-magic field" or similar?
For those who played Kingmaker, did your leader characters take that level of precautions?
Anyway, the point I was originally making was that it's OK for the GM to shut down players who try to do that sort of thing to wreck adventures, by using means such as those you suggest. So please don't take my arguments too seriously.
In how many Paizo adventures where characters meet powerful people does it say, "He will only meet you inside a permanent anti-magic field" or similar?
For those who played Kingmaker, did your leader characters take that level of precautions?
Anyway, the point I was originally making was that it's OK for the GM to shut down players who try to do that sort of thing to wreck adventures, by using means such as those you suggest. So please don't take my arguments too seriously.
No offense taken or harm done.
I think it's important for these discussions to take place to lay out how GMs should deal with the threat of spells like dominate person, or even charm person, and other problems spells. While I do agree that the focus of most optimization and class handbooks on offensive spells is the right one, I think it's had the affect that far too many people don't know how to protect their characters against magic.
See: Everyone who thinks detect evil is completely overpowered because so few people know about undetectable alignment or misdirection.
The fact that the spell has a one-round casting time is important- that's a lot of interrupt time in many cases.
As far as kingly defense, Seducer's Bane Bracelets and Cap of the Free Thinker are a nice pair.
It sounds like the kind of players you have want to solve entire plots with one casting of a spell and those are players who wouldn't be welcome at my table.
Quite on the contrary. However, I do have players who want the opportunity to exist to change the storyline, if they ruthlessly exploit all their advantages, don't make mistakes, and ride any luck that comes their way. Players who don't think that "solve everything instantly" is the only alternative to "slavishly follow the DM's railroad." If you do think those two things constitute a binary proposition, I can see why anyone who disagreed would be unwelcome at your table.
I think the rules on visible spell effects is particularly important in spells like domination. The rules specific that it is obvious that when someone casts a spell it is both visible and obviously a spell effect. There is sometimes the assumption that the persons eyes just roll back and start acting unusually. However domination isn't telepathy. What the effects are is up to your campaign a halo briefly flaring around both your heads, eyes blazing briefly with red light, waves of power expanding from your head to their. Whatever.
Casting the spell isn't secret. The recipient may not be able to act, but when they recover they certainly will. Also if other people are presentt you have a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, "There are no problems in the rules because the DM should fix all the problems with the rules." Oberoni writ large.
Oh, dear Loki, no, don't fix problematic spells in the rules to make them less problematic; then beginning DMs would still be able to run a working game, and we just can't have that! There goes the neighborhood! Only a seasoned DM's so-called "common sense" can know exactly how to ameliorate problems in a consistent and predictable manner, and it's very important not to share any of that insight in the rulebook, or -- heaven help us -- incorporate it directly into the spell descriptions.
Also, we mustn't let the PCs ever learn how things work in the game world. That would ruin the funhouse-on-acid atmosphere we're trying so hard to maintain, in which there really is no cause-and-effect to anything.
...Please excuse me while I recover from a coughing fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me scrape some of Kullen's sarcasm off the screen before remarking.
Yeah, yeah, Oberoni. That said, I'm always in favor of the rules being modified at some point as well as house rules being used to fix the problems. I've never been one to sit around and hope and pray that the Dev Gods will make X work the way I want. Usually X works the way SOMEONE wants, maybe just not me. Usually the devs.
In a world where magic is common, it is silly to believe that nobility of any stripe don't take precautions to protect themselves from that magic.
Henry V didn't rely on trust and luck. He relied on a huge cadre of loyal supporters and a top notch suit of armor to protect him. He wasn't wandering around by himself wearing his dressing gown. He was operating with the best protections he could given the situation since avoiding the combat entirely would have been political suicide. You're advocating that a noble take no precautions.
A realistic noble wouldn't let an armed person within 50 feet of him in the throne room unless that person were trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt. They had food tasters to check for poison. Their throne room was surrounded by guards, some on elevated positions with bows or crossbows.
What's to stop high level casters from controlling the noble? Loyalty to the crown or the person, maybe? You know, the same kind of thing that kept nobility in power for centuries in much of Europe. Not every wizard is a power mad douche looking to take over the nation.
In a high magic world like Golarion, there would be no successful or stable governments that didn't include a significant number of highly powerful Arcane and Divine casters who were loyal to that government. If they didn't have such, then yes, every one of them would have been replaced by high level casters, which would effectively result in the same situation.
See, here's the reality of the situation that many players don't want to acknowledge. There is pretty much no straight forward use of a spell or ability (mind affecting magic on a noble) that hasn't been done before. The players aren't super innovators when trying something like that. This type of stuff would be old hat. A noble not preparing for that in Golarion would be like a head of state in the USA not preparing for potential firearms or explosive devices.
I think this sums it up completly.
Yes, the King wears a Ring of Mind Shielding.
Yes, he has some low-level Casters around who keep a Protection from Evil on him all day long.
Yes, the Royal Palace is warded with Forbiddance.
Yes, the Castle Entrance has an Invisibility Alarm.
Yes, the Royal Meetingroom is plated in a thin lead-sheeting to block Scrying.
Yes, the Imperial Palace of Cheliax has a Teleport Trap leading directly to the dungeons.
Yes, the Duke has some highly-paid casters in his retinue that have Arcane Sight up and check guests if they are under some mind-twisting effects.
In how many Paizo adventures where characters meet powerful people does it say, "He will only meet you inside a permanent anti-magic field" or similar?
For those who played Kingmaker, did your leader characters take that level of precautions?
I'm currently a player in it. And yes, we take precociouns against all the simply Core-Spells that are dangerous for Governments.
No Scry-an-Fry the King will not work.
No, Dominate his Cook to poison him will not work.
No, ill just go Invisible and sneak into the Castle, will not work.
etc...
The Palace and all big City's Castles are warded with Forbiddance and have their important rooms lead-sheeted.
Important officials are checked with permanecied Aura Sight by the Warden and the Magister in the monthly government practiced for mental influences, so no charm / dominate an official for profit.
We started with: This are common and easy ways for someone to start trouble. Lets think a moment about how we can protect our Realm from these basic dangers. And remember guys, we have a state's resources to prepare for these.
important rooms lead-sheeted.
This one always ruins my sense of verisimilitude. Not because lead shouldn't do that -- it totally should -- but because it's the only substance that does so, and yet it's cheaper than adamantine, instead of 1,000x more costly. If lead were the only thing keeping scry-and-fry out, nations would regularly go to war over the control of a low-yield lead mine. Instead, we pretend that it's still dirt cheap. This is an area in which the game rules don't support the game world we're playing in.
On the other hand, if X thickness of common stone/mortar/dirt would also block scrying and teleportation, then it would make sense to have castles and dungeons all over the place. The rules would be supporting the game world we want, instead of working at odds with it.
honestly out of the mind control spells dominate is low on my list of worries. It is obvious, limiting, and bland. There is no question you were dominated and the effect that was had.
With most save-or-lose/save-or-die spells, I use ability damage, with the effect occurring at a score of 0. There's a system in place for determining ability damage vs. range, spell level, number of targets, and so on.
Dominate person is a 5th level spell dealing 5d6 Cha damage at close range (save for half). At Cha 0, the target is effectively without personal volition and obeys your commands.
Other SOL/SOD spells are similar; hold person is a 3rd level spell dealing 4d4 Dex damage at close range (paralyzed at Dex 0); a Will save applies each round to halve the remaining Dex damage. Finger of death is a 7th level spell dealing 7d4 Con damage at close range (Fort half; dead at 0). Etc.
I really like this idea, but aren't the dice numbers too high? 5d6 Cha has the potential to insta-gib a lot of martials even on a successful save (15 charisma is a lot to have unless you're a Paladin or someone else with specific reason to invest in the stat).
I really like this idea, but aren't the dice numbers too high? 5d6 Cha has the potential to insta-gib a lot of martials even on a successful save (15 charisma is a lot to have unless you're a Paladin or someone else with specific reason to invest in the stat).
Sure, but spells are harder to get off safely in our houserules, and martials have incentive to boost Cha. You'd have to tone it down for a standard PF game. Also, the odds of rolling 5 sixes are pretty low -- more often it's doing 7 Cha damage on a save, which inconveniences no one except the Hulksmash half-orc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should really get around to reading the Kirthfinder rules in full eventually, I've liked a lot of what I've heard of it in passing.
important rooms lead-sheeted.This one always ruins my sense of verisimilitude. Not because lead shouldn't do that -- it totally should -- but because it's the only substance that does so, and yet it's cheaper than adamantine, instead of 1,000x more costly. If lead were the only thing keeping scry-and-fry out, nations would regularly go to war over the control of a low-yield lead mine. Instead, we pretend that it's still dirt cheap. This is an area in which the game rules don't support the game world we're playing in.
Unless you're overestimating how common that sort of magic would be in the general population. Alternatively, this is a good way to really limit the power of that sort of magic - a common material blocks it so any area that needs to be secure from it really is and important people are only vulnerable when on the move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
important rooms lead-sheeted.This one always ruins my sense of verisimilitude. Not because lead shouldn't do that -- it totally should -- but because it's the only substance that does so, and yet it's cheaper than adamantine, instead of 1,000x more costly. If lead were the only thing keeping scry-and-fry out, nations would regularly go to war over the control of a low-yield lead mine. Instead, we pretend that it's still dirt cheap. This is an area in which the game rules don't support the game world we're playing in.
On the other hand, if X thickness of common stone/mortar/dirt would also block scrying and teleportation, then it would make sense to have castles and dungeons all over the place. The rules would be supporting the game world we want, instead of working at odds with it.
This is one of the house rules I've used, for the last 20-odd years - at least, once I realised that it made sense for the game world. I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, or possibly in the teleport thread.
I suspect people are missing the main benefit of Dominate when they view it as an infiltration spell for advanced social environments. Yeah, it does have value in dominating a mook, and using him to make the party rogue wonder why he bothered investing in skills. The caster marches this thrall around while monitoring it's senses, and can gather info, give orders, or just outright kill whatever they come across, for over a week! That is not why Dominate Person is so good.
The major disruptive power of Dominate is transforming an adversarial encounter against a named NPC, into the personal hand-puppet of one PC. These named NPCs are often more powerful in many ways then a comparable party member. The effect this has on APL and PC/PC parity can be VERY substantial. When you compare the power that Mr. PC Fighter brings to the table vs. the power of Dr. PC Wizard and his loyal troll barbarian thrall... well, it's not even close. One would be a CR 10 encounter, the other is a CR ~15 encounter.
Trying to balance the game when any humanoid encounter could disappear into a APL boost of +1 to +3 is very difficult. Having a thrall party member that could suddenly violently turn against the party is also difficult to balance in a way that does not break the verisimilitude of the game. Given the vast number of powerful humanoids that appear in just about every adventure path, this spell can radically alter the party power level in most story arcs.
Given the days/level duration, lack of any HD/CR limit, and lack of total thralls, there is very little to limit abuse. There are also a surprising number of mundane and magical ways a creative player can hook, and keep his new pet. Given these reasons, and half a dozen other potential problems this spell is one of the most broken in the game.
EDIT: And that is just based on PC's using it against monsters. When you really think about what a vampire, succubus, or aboleth would do with a dominated PC, you really would be better off starting a new character then getting your naked and cored-out PC back.
EDIT 2: And before you say Protection from alignment, yeah, that can be used, but it isn't on everyone's spell list (see: bards & druids), and you can't always get the alignment to match up. Protection from alignment, dispel magic, etc. are not adequate fixes for all the problems dominate creates.
there is a technical limit on the number of thralls.
the number of rounds in the day. you have to concentrate at least a round per day.
It is mind affecting with all the issues that brings (like undead
immunity).
Finally arguing that we should ignore all the ways from level 1 on we can mitigate the spell while also arguing that it's too powerful in the hands of the players is bizarre at the minimum. "This spell is too powerful as long as you let me handwave away all the ways you can bust it" is hardly a good argument.
I mean it isn't a bad spell, but as far as really game changing strictly "meh"
When I played an almost exclusively Enchantment focused sorcerer (don't laugh - it worked!) Dominate Person served really only one major purpose: making someone hold still for the 10 minutes it took to cast Geas.
It was a powerful but not game breaking combination considering we were 12th level+ by that time. But a big part of that I understand is that the philosophy at our table is that at high levels there should only be a direct confrontation at the very end between you and whatever power is controlling the other side.
I know it's a classic fantasy trope that the Big Bad is the Chessmaster and the 'honorable' hero is working to encounter them face to face on the battlefield, but it is actually a REALLY stupid method of trying to defeat a vastly superior force lead by someone more powerful than you. Our games are a lot more plotting and intrigue than direct battle.