Let me briefly set the scene. Last session, my players were fighting a vampire lord. The vampire used his Dominate Person on the monk and paladin, who, after failing their "against-their-nature" secondary saves, about-faced to attack the rest of the party.
The cleric decided to cast Command on the monk to change, or at least temporarily suppress, the effects of the vampire's Dominate. I wasn't sure how to rule this, so I ruled that if the monk failed his Will save, the Dominate would be overridden for the duration of Command.
This, I think, is an imperfect solution. My idea later in the night was to have an opposed caster-level check between the cleric and the vampire - perhaps on top of the monk's Will save.
Is there any rule related to "dueling" mind control effects, so that I can have an official place to stand on this? Alternatively, if it's come up in your game, what did you do?
Not completely sure on the mechanics here.
I know that if a creature is charmed by two casters there are opposed charisma checks to see who gains control. I would probably have it play out in a similar fashion.
As noted above, you do an opposed Cha check in the case of simultaneous mental commands. The rules are in the magical effect stacking section:
"Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys."
What Command were they using?
As noted above, you do an opposed Cha check in the case of simultaneous mental commands. The rules are in the magical effect stacking section:
"Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys."
What Command were they using?
Regular old Command, the 1st-level one.
Good to know about opposed CHA checks - one more thing it's useful for! Thanks.
Regular old Command, the 1st-level one.
There's a fixed list of commands, none of which would suppress the dominate, but would be active for the round just as much as they would be on an 'enemy' NPC.
Thus 'flee' would make them flee, etc.
Dominate doesn't give immunity or resistance to such spells.
-James
Precisely! "Suppress" was my own term.
wait wait wait, command, a first level spell breaks the control of dominate, a fourth level spell? where is the balance in that?
the dominate person spell states:
Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).
how is a command to flee, or whatever going to trump a fourth level spell?
this actually came up in my game recently. my seventh level bard encountered a much higher level bard with a dominated fighter type pet, whom he gave the command to maul her. she was grappled, pinned and actively mauled by the man, and she succeeded on the concentration check to charm him and asked him to be gentle. he failed his will save and became a modicum more gentle, but did not cease mauling her. Her desperate attempt to dissuade him did not override the original command. it could not have had that effect.
and command is what? one round? dominate is one day per level. shessh.
wait wait wait, command, a first level spell breaks the control of dominate, a fourth level spell? where is the balance in that?
the dominate person spell states:
Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).
how is a command to flee, or whatever going to trump a fourth level spell?
this actually came up in my game recently. my seventh level bard encountered a much higher level bard with a dominated fighter type pet, whom he gave the command to maul her. she was grappled, pinned and actively mauled by the man, and she succeeded on the concentration check to charm him and asked him to be gentle. he failed his will save and became a modicum more gentle, but did not cease mauling her. Her desperate attempt to dissuade him did not override the original command. it could not have had that effect.
and command is what? one round? dominate is one day per level. shessh.
That's why I was thinking I'd houserule it into an opposed caster-level check instead of an opposed CHA check. The higher-level caster will be better at maintaining his control.
In addition, even if the Command gets through, it will only last for one round. The effect of the Dominate will return on the next round - the desperate casting of Command is intended only as a reprieve.
That's assuming the Dominated person also doesn't have to make a Will save vs. the Command.
To sum up, in the future I think I'll rule this as follows: Dominated person has to make the Will save to see if Command even has a chance of breaking through temporarily. Then, the Dominate caster and the Command caster do an opposed check. If the Command caster wins, the Dominate effect is replaced by the Command for 1 round. After this, Dominate takes effect again.
Allowing command to work in no way trumps dominate, no more than hold person does. The dominated person is still trying to kill the party, he just lost an action doing something else. He just has to flee, fall and so on before he continues to try to kill the party. If command changed the dominated person's intent to something along the lines of "don't attack your friends" then that would require a charisma check.
As an aside: Why didn't the pally at least get an extra will save to not attack his friends. I think that would be against his nature. I admit I don't know what is going on in the group or the story so I am just pointing it out. This is more of a "something to think about" than an "I want to know" situation.
Allowing command to work in no way trumps dominate, no more than hold person does. The dominated person is still trying to kill the party, he just lost an action doing something else. He just has to flee, fall and so on before he continues to try to kill the party. If command changed the dominated person's intent to something along the lines of "don't attack your friends" then that would require a charisma check.
As an aside: Why didn't the pally at least get an extra will save to not attack his friends. I think that would be against his nature. I admit I don't know what is going on in the group or the story so I am just pointing it out. This is more of a "something to think about" than an "I want to know" situation.
1) Yep, that's exactly how I will rule it: if Command works (as per my house rules outlined above), its effects occur before Dominate takes effect again.
2) I wasn't clear about this in my original post, but:
who, after failing their "against-their-nature" secondary saves
By this, I meant that they failed the save against Dominate, and soon after failed the +2 saves for "against-their-nature" actions.
Dominate wouldn't suppress command from stopping. You can be both under the vampires control and forced to flee/drop/halt etc.
In fact, I'd give the person a -2 on the save, since they're probably TRYING to listen to the priest rather than the vampire.
I would be happy with an opposed CHA check between the Dominate and Command casters. At best the Command works for one round. Granted that difference may be enough to save the party's bacon!
Also, does the subject of Dominate get a new save each time they are *ordered* to perform a contrary to nature action or each time they *perform* such an action? That is, one new save when told to kill their best friend, or one save each round to prevent killing their friends?
GNOME
I would be happy with an opposed CHA check between the Dominate and Command casters. At best the Command works for one round. Granted that difference may be enough to save the party's bacon!
Also, does the subject of Dominate get a new save each time they are *ordered* to perform a contrary to nature action or each time they *perform* such an action? That is, one new save when told to kill their best friend, or one save each round to prevent killing their friends?
GNOME
The save is only upon the order. I normally just tell dominated PC's to stand outside the room.
|
wait wait wait, command, a first level spell breaks the control of dominate, a fourth level spell? where is the balance in that?
Protection from evil is first level and gives persons a new save and then immunity if they save. It also gives them immunity from all mind controlling effects regardless of level. Gonna fight a magic using bad guy then drop protection from evil on the fighter types (and rogues probably).
I think his call was more or less correct as command only lasts one round.
wait wait wait, command, a first level spell breaks the control of dominate, a fourth level spell? where is the balance in that?
Protection from evil is first level and gives persons a new save and then immunity if they save. It also gives them immunity from all mind controlling effects regardless of level. Gonna fight a magic using bad guy then drop protection from evil on the fighter types (and rogues probably).
I think his call was more or less correct as command only lasts one round.
It's a shame the cleric popped Protection from Evil on the ranger, for whatever reason. That monk is gonna need it when we wrap the fight up Monday night. :D
The save is only upon the order. I normally just tell dominated PC's to stand outside the room.Funny, I normally let the dominated PCs roleplay being dominated, or possessed or whatever else is having someone else control them.
-James
Same here. If you can't trust your players to RP a dominated character properly, you can't really trust them to RP a fireballed character properly either.
The save is only upon the order. I normally just tell dominated PC's to stand outside the room.Funny, I normally let the dominated PCs roleplay being dominated, or possessed or whatever else is having someone else control them.
-James
The reason I do that is because if I order them to attack their buddies they might get an extra save. If the bad guy is in a really bad situation I might take the chance.
The reason I do that is because if I order them to attack their buddies they might get an extra save. If the bad guy is in a really bad situation I might take the chance.
The save is only upon the order. I normally just tell dominated PC's to stand outside the room.Funny, I normally let the dominated PCs roleplay being dominated, or possessed or whatever else is having someone else control them.
-James
ah...I think James and I read that to mean that you order the players to leave the room. Not the characters.
That's different then. Leaving the room as a dominated command makes sense for those who don't want to risk losing control.
The reason I do that is because if I order them to attack their buddies they might get an extra save. If the bad guy is in a really bad situation I might take the chance.
They might still get a secondary save, depending on circumstances. I'd say in most fights the character may think "Oh, my friends can handle this" and wait outside. If it's a really important fight, though, or if the party is already weakened? Probably against the character's nature to let them all die.
The reason I do that is because if I order them to attack their buddies they might get an extra save. If the bad guy is in a really bad situation I might take the chance.They might still get a secondary save, depending on circumstances. I'd say in most fights the character may think "Oh, my friends can handle this" and wait outside. If it's a really important fight, though, or if the party is already weakened? Probably against the character's nature to let them all die.
I understand but anything that takes them out of the fight could require a second save so the best I can think of is have them do nothing. The 2nd save itself is not the issue. It is the +4 bonus that comes with it. I made half the party run away(fear), and now everyone wants to get high will saves.
I understand but anything that takes them out of the fight could require a second save so the best I can think of is have them do nothing. The 2nd save itself is not the issue. It is the +4 bonus that comes with it. I made half the party run away(fear), and now everyone wants to get high will saves.The reason I do that is because if I order them to attack their buddies they might get an extra save. If the bad guy is in a really bad situation I might take the chance.They might still get a secondary save, depending on circumstances. I'd say in most fights the character may think "Oh, my friends can handle this" and wait outside. If it's a really important fight, though, or if the party is already weakened? Probably against the character's nature to let them all die.
I think the second save part is overplayed.
You know what is against my players' nature? To be dominated. They hate it. So no matter what command they are given, they can and will come up with some way to justify that it is 'against their nature'.
As a result, I only look at the exact command and who is involved. Attacking your buddy involves you and your buddy, and you attacking them. Against your nature? No problem, you get a second save.
Commanded to leave the room? Involves you. Don't care who else is in the room, don't care if your mother is dying and you have the cure, don't care if we all know that once you leave the room I'm going to have vrocks murder-rape your friends there. The command involves you, get out of the room. No extra save.
If suggestion can get you to take a nice dip in a cool refreshing pool of acid, dominate person ought to manage to hold you still without giving you a +4 second save.
I think the second save part is overplayed.
You know what is against my players' nature? To be dominated. They hate it. So no matter what command they are given, they can and will come up with some way to justify that it is 'against their nature'.
As a result, I only look at the exact command and who is involved. Attacking your buddy involves you and your buddy, and you attacking them. Against your nature? No problem, you get a second save.
Commanded to leave the room? Involves you. Don't care who else is in the room, don't care if your mother is dying and you have the cure, don't care if we all know that once you leave the room I'm going to have vrocks murder-rape your friends there. The command involves you, get out of the room. No extra save.
If suggestion can get you to take a nice dip in a cool refreshing pool of acid, dominate person ought to manage to hold you still without giving you a +4 second save.
This +1
I think the second save part is overplayed.
You know what is against my players' nature? To be dominated. They hate it. So no matter what command they are given, they can and will come up with some way to justify that it is 'against their nature'.
As a result, I only look at the exact command and who is involved. Attacking your buddy involves you and your buddy, and you attacking them. Against your nature? No problem, you get a second save.
Commanded to leave the room? Involves you. Don't care who else is in the room, don't care if your mother is dying and you have the cure, don't care if we all know that once you leave the room I'm going to have vrocks murder-rape your friends there. The command involves you, get out of the room. No extra save.
If suggestion can get you to take a nice dip in a cool refreshing pool of acid, dominate person ought to manage to hold you still without giving you a +4 second save.
Yeah. This is the only sensible way to adjudicate the second save. Unless your character really hates leaving rooms...
Perhaps if one made a character with some kind of stigma, never to enter an empty room, for example, an argument could be made.
I think the second save part is overplayed.
You know what is against my players' nature? To be dominated. They hate it. So no matter what command they are given, they can and will come up with some way to justify that it is 'against their nature'.
If suggestion can get you to take a nice dip in a cool refreshing pool of acid, dominate person ought to manage to hold you still without giving you a +4 second save.
This was the point I was trying to make, but, my bard is my first real arcane spell caster, so I am rather unfamiliar with them and the spell casting in general.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm in the 'command can trump Dominate for the duration of the spell' camp.
Amusing story
"Doesn't he get another will save?"
"No, he's been wanting to kill you for some time, it's not against his nature."
I think the second save part is overplayed.
You know what is against my players' nature? To be dominated. They hate it. So no matter what command they are given, they can and will come up with some way to justify that it is 'against their nature'.
I agree. It's been my general observation that players try to weasel their way out of any sort of charm or mind control effects as best they can. I was just looking at trying to be fair to the player without letting him walk all over the spell's interpretation.
I agree. It's been my general observation that players try to weasel their way out of any sort of charm or mind control effects as best they can. I was just looking at trying to be fair to the player without letting him walk all over the spell's interpretation.
Yeah players hate all virtual 'save or die' spells. IMO mind control series are some of the more feared spells in the game from the PC side of the screen. The issue occasionally pops up at my table and for the most part it hasn't caused too much disruption but it does have the potential to bring a game grinding to a halt if you are not careful.
As far as countering with another mind affecting effect... it can get tricky. Command has no 'second save' component so assuming the target fails the initial save imo it will not break the existing charm or compulsion effect.
Things get trickier with the charms and compulsions that allow a second save. Part of this is you have to know your characters. Also you have to know the mental condition the charm person or dominate spell imposes on a pc. A charm person spell makes a pc treat the caster as his virtual bestest friend in the whole wide world. The other PCs don't cease to be his friends but they should act appropriately as if their best friend is under unreasonable attack. Unless they have 'Good' listed somewhere under alignment (and have been acting as such) I usually don't allow a second save, though depending on circumstances I would allow reasonable in character exposition of 'weaselly' incompetence.
On the other hand if the target character has a history of being a total jackwagon to the harmless npcs in the campaign or has 'Evil' listed under alignment I expect a more forceful response. The only way I'd allow LE to weasel out of it is if they have sworn some sort of oath of fealty or a direct explicit contract to obey and protect a pc (looking at Robilar here).
In the case of two contradicting charms, I grant a second save...starting with the lower caster level charm first. Rinse and repeat until only one spell is in effect (ending the contradiction). Two dominates...same procedure.
As far as weasely behavior with dominate I do not nearly grant the lattitude I do for charms. If the caster is keeping a reign on his target I expect the target to use the most efficient means at their disposal to carry out orders. That means if ordered to kill the fighter does not switch weapons to his rusty iron dagger before moving past the wizard to attack the high ac cleric, the rogue does not conveniently forget the fact he has a nice one charge effect in his bag he's been saving for weeks in case of an emergency, or the wizard switches to magic missile against targets that are roughly on par to some of the toughest critters he's faced in the campaign thus far.
Unless the player\character is generally incompetent and ineffective either by build or poor choices before being subject to a dominate I expect to see using the attack routines and making choices as if their fellow pcs were now npcs (most should have gotten two saves at that point anyway unless their pc is a total asshat). If under charm I grant a little more free will on the basis of prior behavior and character history.
I agree. It's been my general observation that players try to weasel their way out of any sort of charm or mind control effects as best they can. I was just looking at trying to be fair to the player without letting him walk all over the spell's interpretation.I think the second save part is overplayed.
You know what is against my players' nature? To be dominated. They hate it. So no matter what command they are given, they can and will come up with some way to justify that it is 'against their nature'.
I actually think the casting of another mind affecting effect is a genius move on the part of the players.
The character gets a Will save against it, of course. If it works, the two mind controlling characters make opposed Charisma checks. If command works, he flees for one round. If not, it unfortunately fails.
I was just addressing the massive frequency of cries about mind-affecting magic and second saves, not your specific scenario. The rules cover your scenario fairly well.