Ok, this has coe about from a recent encounter I was GMing.
The party are in an underground dungeon when they come across a giant pool with something that looked valuable on the other side. The pool is about 200 ft long, 40 ft wide, and deep (it was actually 300 ft deep). The room was super dark. Well the party is level 10 and slightly above estimated value for gear.
Well, as it so happened, there were 2 aboleths in the pool. The party didn't notice them. Well the party witch (an orc scarred witch doctor) ended up getting dominated along with one of the fighters. The party managed to survive but partially due to intentional mis-moves by hte aboleths to NOT TPK the party. It was then that I realized just how nasty dominate spells were agianst PCs and also noticed how using dominate to effectivelty turn PCs into NPCs bored out of their mind.
So the question is, is it considered bad form to use spells like dominate person on players?
As with all tactics, use in moderation.
I know I zone out somethin' fierce when I get Dominated or whatever on my Barbarian (and NO, it's not "My fault for having a low Will save", thanks much, I think a +17 or more is good enough thanks. Just doesn't save me from rolling 1s. -.-), and wonder why I even bother sticking around for the next hour or so while the combat rages (heh) around me.
But I'm not going to cry foul on one usage. If it was being tossed at me every combat, sure, but every now and then having an enemy or two that Dominates is fine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you trust your players, you could have them still run their own characters even while dominated. That way, they won't be bored out of their mind, as they'll still be playing their character. Only now, they'll be trying to come up with devious methods to carry out the aboleth's orders against their party :)
Also, remember that if the order goes against the dominated character's nature (for instance, an order to attack his friends), they'll get a second save with a bonus. For this reason, I'll normally have the monster/NPC order the dominated character to protect it, as opposed to actively engaging their friends.
If you trust your players, you could have them still run their own characters even while dominated. That way, they won't be bored out of their mind, as they'll still be playing their character. Only now, they'll be trying to come up with devious methods to carry out the aboleth's orders against their party :)
Also, remember that if the order goes against the dominated character's nature (for instance, an order to attack his friends), they'll get a second save with a bonus. For this reason, I'll normally have the monster/NPC order the dominated character to protect it, as opposed to actively engaging their friends.
I dunno about everyone else, but my GM usually just tells my guy to sit in a corner so I don't get an extra save. =/
Though to be fair I'm pretty sure I could mow through a good chunk of the party if I failed that second save so maybe it's a good thing...
Not that I wouldn't have fun with it but I might feel guilty afterwards. =)
The problem is, even with a bonus to the save, the fighter is EXTREMELY unlikely to make a DC 22 will save. The witch actually said it WOULD NOT be against his nature lol. I asked him like 4 times and he said ya, I would attack them (they all met in a prison and are working together right now to get out.)
Nothing is bad form unless it is against the group playstyle, and fighters can get decent will saves. People just normally don't go through the trouble of making sure it happens.
What level is this fight that is facing a DC 22 will save?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any effect that's "save-or-no-more-fun-for-you" ought to be used sparingly, but I don't buy into the bad form argument.
Total agreement. It would be bad form to do so constantly, though, but once in a while? Not a thing, especially since a PC with the ability *will* do so constantly.
And I'd definitely not do it to more than one PC at a time.
I was dominated by a vampire once, and told to kill the party. Luckily for them my dice rolls were garbage that day. I kept rolling 2's and 3' even after I was freed.
I always get pushback ("That's against my nature!") when I employ enchantment spells against PC's, and they always grumble about its use even though I use it sparingly. I allow my PC's to keep control of their characters so that they still get to participate, even if it's for team evil for a short while.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players who over-specialize and build characters with achilles heels or glaring areas of weakness deserve to have those weaknesses exposed from time to time - ditto groups who don't take proper precautions to shore up those weaknesses.
Having said that, I try to keep such effects to a minimum (not non-existent) unless I have a party which makes extensive use of such effects themselves. Ditto summoning effects and the abuse of certain feat combos. If a player exploits something, he or she opens the door for NPC's to exploit it as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the question is, is it considered bad form to use spells like dominate person on players?
No.
The players normally are using them often and without qualms, why they should be exempted for being on the receiving side every so often?The players have ways to protect themselves, if they don't use them it is their problem, coddling them will maybe make the game more fun in the short run, but after a time the player tend to realize that the GM is dumbing down the world to make them get easy wins and that generally ruin most of the fun.
It is not bad form since players can use it as well.
It is not bad form since players can use it as well.
I wouldn't say that's always necessarily the case, simply because of the differences between the role of GM and player. One of many NPCs or monsters getting dominated is a non-issue for the GM, while a PC getting dominated, held, or whatever results in the player have no way of really contributing to the game.
That's not to say that those spells can never be used, just to be aware of the fact that when you take away control of the player's one and only character, you've effectively removed them from the game. Being forced to sit on the sidelines while everyone else keeps playing will eventually make the game much less fun for that player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last weekend one of my players got his 10th Monk/Ranger killed by a 10th level Fighter who had a +3 Will save because "Characters should have some weakness".
Nevermind the fact that horrid saves are not just a weaknesses, they are a death sentence by that level. And don't even think about pointing out that such terrible saves are a huge liability for the whole party, not just that specific character.
He said the other players were roll-players for complaining about that turn of events. I told him that was one of the dumbest argument I've ever heard ¬¬'
Dominate is a valid tactic. It's powerful and very, very common. All sorts of creatures have some sort of mind-controlling ability. Fey, undead, outsiders, aberrations, casters, etc.
Players should expect it and be more ready for it. Like any other tactic, I won't spam it all the time because that's boring, but I won't stop using it because the players didn't prepare for such an obvious danger.
Last weekend one of my players got his 10th Monk/Ranger killed by a 10th level Fighter who had a +3 Will save because "Characters should have some weakness".
Nevermind the fact that horrid saves are not just a weaknesses, they are a death sentence by that level. And don't even think about pointing out that such terrible saves are a huge liability for the whole party, not just that specific character.
He said the other players were roll-players for complaining about that turn of events. I told him that was one of the dumbest argument I've ever heard ¬¬'
Dominate is a valid tactic. It's powerful and very, very common. All sorts of creatures have some sort of mind-controlling ability. Fey, undead, outsiders, aberrations, casters, etc.
Players should expect it and be more ready for it. Like any other tactic, I won't spam it all the time because that's boring, but I won't stop using it because the players didn't prepare for such an obvious danger.
To be honest, one of the few times a Will Save isn't devastating is with Inflict/Cure Spells, and Channel Energy.
In every other case? Get a Mind Shield spell active on you at all times, and just in case, get a Cap of the Freethinker. Rolling Twice on Mind-Affecting Effects and taking the better result of the two? Can't blame bad rolls on that one as much as you'd like to.
By tenth level players do need to be prepared for mind control. Dominate person will always have a DC of at least 17, and it comes into play around that level or a little before.
Dominate person can be completely blocked by the first-level protection from evil spell. Even if you don't cast it until the dominate drops, you still get a second save from it at +2. It is both arcane and divine, so it's on just about every spell list.
You totally want to get wands of it; it doesn't really scale by level except for duration so it's an ideal wand spell. If your GM allows wands with spells modified by metamagic you can get one with reach spell so you can do it at range.
If your GM allows custom items a continuous slotted protection from evil item would cost 4000 gp. Unslotted would be 8000 gp.
Peet
It is not bad form since players can use it as well.I wouldn't say that's always necessarily the case, simply because of the differences between the role of GM and player. One of many NPCs or monsters getting dominated is a non-issue for the GM, while a PC getting dominated, held, or whatever results in the player have no way of really contributing to the game.
That's not to say that those spells can never be used, just to be aware of the fact that when you take away control of the player's one and only character, you've effectively removed them from the game. Being forced to sit on the sidelines while everyone else keeps playing will eventually make the game much less fun for that player.
Some players accept such things more easily than other players so it still defaults back to the group playstyle which means it is not bad form by default. If there is a difference in playstyle then the group needs to sit down and talk about what is and is not ok.
If you trust your players, you could have them still run their own characters even while dominated. That way, they won't be bored out of their mind, as they'll still be playing their character. Only now, they'll be trying to come up with devious methods to carry out the aboleth's orders against their party :)
Also, remember that if the order goes against the dominated character's nature (for instance, an order to attack his friends), they'll get a second save with a bonus. For this reason, I'll normally have the monster/NPC order the dominated character to protect it, as opposed to actively engaging their friends.
I dunno about everyone else, but my GM usually just tells my guy to sit in a corner so I don't get an extra save. =/
Though to be fair I'm pretty sure I could mow through a good chunk of the party if I failed that second save so maybe it's a good thing...
Not that I wouldn't have fun with it but I might feel guilty afterwards. =)
Isent it against your barbarians Nature to go sit in a corner?:)
Mind control is not bad form. I would never take control of my players PCs and turning them in to NPCs i would tell them there new objective and let join team Evil.
Also consider dominating a PC let him be more sneeky about having him join the Dark side.
Edit spelling
Isn't it against your barbarian's Nature to go sit in a corner? :)
Hmm...maybe so.
Wraithstrike, your input? =p
Isn't it against your barbarian's Nature to go sit in a corner? :)Hmm...maybe so.
Wraithstrike, your input? =p
Here is my opinion. Telling a good(aligned) character to do anything but help his team mate is probably against his nature, but I think that neuters the spell, so I try to reach a middle ground by saying not telling him to attack his team mates is not enough to get the reroll and +2 save.
I also did not want you to attack the party while most of the succubi were still alive. That would not have gone well for them. At least if you attack them while the fight is in hand they have a chance to neutralize you before you paint the walls red and everyone is making new characters.. :)
PS: I did not alter those succubi if you were wondering.. :)
edit:I also did not expect for you to fail all of those saves.
Some players accept such things more easily than other players so it still defaults back to the group playstyle which means it is not bad form by default. If there is a difference in playstyle then the group needs to sit down and talk about what is and is not ok.It is not bad form since players can use it as well.I wouldn't say that's always necessarily the case, simply because of the differences between the role of GM and player. One of many NPCs or monsters getting dominated is a non-issue for the GM, while a PC getting dominated, held, or whatever results in the player have no way of really contributing to the game.
That's not to say that those spells can never be used, just to be aware of the fact that when you take away control of the player's one and only character, you've effectively removed them from the game. Being forced to sit on the sidelines while everyone else keeps playing will eventually make the game much less fun for that player.
Yeah, the final guideline will always be "If everyone at the table is having fun, it's okay." I just think that any GM should be cognizant of the fact that in some cases taking away control of a player's character can have an impact on their ability to enjoy the game. Ideally, it's something to discuss beforehand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the final guideline will always be "If everyone at the table is having fun, it's okay." I just think that any GM should be cognizant of the fact that in some cases taking away control of a player's character can have an impact on their ability to enjoy the game. Ideally, it's something to discuss beforehand.Some players accept such things more easily than other players so it still defaults back to the group playstyle which means it is not bad form by default. If there is a difference in playstyle then the group needs to sit down and talk about what is and is not ok.It is not bad form since players can use it as well.I wouldn't say that's always necessarily the case, simply because of the differences between the role of GM and player. One of many NPCs or monsters getting dominated is a non-issue for the GM, while a PC getting dominated, held, or whatever results in the player have no way of really contributing to the game.
That's not to say that those spells can never be used, just to be aware of the fact that when you take away control of the player's one and only character, you've effectively removed them from the game. Being forced to sit on the sidelines while everyone else keeps playing will eventually make the game much less fun for that player.
I agree. I basically tell my players up front that death and defeat etc is possible in my games so they know ahead of time what they are getting into. I think all GM's should give a basic overview of how they run their games up front.
Second Darkness? We had the exact same thing happen to us. While part of the group was attacking the rest, our Kobold Wizard was attracted to the pool and was PULLED IN! Well no TPK on our end and we managed to fish (no pun) our wizard out of the pool before the Aboleths got him totally.
On the other hand, we are not playing fair I would guess. We have rolled our stats instead of point buy. Still, two characters that got dominated was an interesting situation. I suppose it was lucky that the monk was one of them so I was able to eventually get out of it. Kobold not so lucky.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much enjoyed having my RotRL Ranger kind of "dominated" in trying to kill another PC. Because I did my utmost to succeed. I failed because the other party members intervened. And also because I honestly forgot that I had some biting arrows in my quiver.
In a way it felt good to realize how much of a killing machine my Ranger was and that the other PCs were actually scared of that.
Next feat I took was Iron Will though :-))
Letting the dominated pc be still played by his player can cause problems with some groups.
Most GMs do not gang up on one pc for example and tend to use tactical unsound actions. So now if the PC is dominated and the player plays him to full effect it can cause bad feelings from other players is their pc dies at the hand (and tactic) of another pc/player.
Apart from that put me in the "use stuff that takes away fun sparingly" camp.
|
|
For me it's just part of the game. Just as players can use spells on npcs. Then imo pcs should be fair game. The only time I see it as bad form is when no matter how good a player(s) roll on a saving throw they get dominated. As nothing runs the fun more is a perfect example of bad form with enchantment spells. Than a DM who refuses to let his npcs lose. I'm not saying it's fun for the pcs. Far from it. It is one of the risks one faces as a adventurer. That being said it does need to be used sparingly as well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think mind control is "bad form" but if you keep wrecking your players with the same thing over and over again, don't be surprised if they start meta-gaming against it.
I played in a Werewolf game in college where every random mook and thug had silver bullets, or a silver knife, or something very anti-werewolf that you wouldn't expect most people to be carrying. As characters died, everyone made up new characters with the silver immunity advantage, because you basically needed it to survive in that game. The DM got mad because silver immunity is supposed to be a very rare and special trait for a werewolf, but I feel like by running the game the way he did he brought the situation on himself.
If you don't mix it up, so that some baddies have mind control, but many don't then you may find you end up with a party that is all boosted up on wisdom and will saves in a rather unrealistic fashion.
Most GMs do not gang up on one pc for example and tend to use tactical unsound actions.
If my GMs deliberately chose to use tactically unsound actions, I would have less fun as a player. So I try to play the (intelligent) enemies tactically sound when I'm the GM, as deliberately poor action-choices tend to leave both me and my players with a lesser experience (unintentional poor action-choices, however, are usually pretty amusing).
I do try to avoid ganging up, unless that's clearly the best tactical choice in the situation, and anything else would seem like a deliberate attempt to coddle the players. For instance, enemy rogues will try to flank as much as possible, which frequently means ganging up on one PC.
Dominating a PC can be a fine tactic, but you have to be careful. In one of our games my 9th level druid was dominated and the GM gave me a note that basically said "You now believe your allies are your enemies and you must do everything in your power to destroy them."
I came within a single successful saving throw of a total TPK. In the final aftermath we had to raise two party members who were killed. It took a long time before the PLAYERS trusted me again.
I've yet to get a party high enough to use Dominate, but if I did, I'd have the player play their PC. Unless there's something specific and tactics-realted that the dominator is hoping to achieve, there's no reason why the player can't continue to run the character on the field.
I do the same thing if I kill a single player mid-dungeon. If the party wants to keep going before they look for resurrection options then I give the dead PC stats for one of the monsters in the next combat and let them run it as they wish.
Last time I did that everyone had a tonne of fun *and* TPK'd themselves. It was glorious.
It cuts down on the mental work for the GM. If I have a player running a handful of grunts then I can more effectively run the BBEG caster who has very specific instructions, plus it keeps everyone at the table actively engaged in the game. I wouldn't recommend it with a group of strangers or with a group that you know will intentionally skew NPC actions in favour of the remaining party - but among friends who understand there's no hard feelings about the game, it can be fun.
I don't think mind control is "bad form" but if you keep wrecking your players with the same thing over and over again, don't be surprised if they start meta-gaming against it.
I played in a Werewolf game in college where every random mook and thug had silver bullets, or a silver knife, or something very anti-werewolf that you wouldn't expect most people to be carrying. As characters died, everyone made up new characters with the silver immunity advantage, because you basically needed it to survive in that game. The DM got mad because silver immunity is supposed to be a very rare and special trait for a werewolf, but I feel like by running the game the way he did he brought the situation on himself.
If you don't mix it up, so that some baddies have mind control, but many don't then you may find you end up with a party that is all boosted up on wisdom and will saves in a rather unrealistic fashion.
I once played in a Star Wars game where all of the bad guys had cortoris everything so the jedi couldn't do anything with their lightsabers against them. Everyone, even the village idiot had it.
I have nothing against using Dominate against PC's, though I have only really used it once running Dawn of the Scarlet Sun during the Magnimmar section of RotRL. I do however have a problem with leaving a player out of the game for an hour+ while combat rages on. I would most certainly encourage a player to play his own character while dominated. If I remember correctly the succubus dominated the Fighter, Scruffy the Tripping Dwarf and made him turn on his allies. The player gleefully went and did what he does best...tripped his teammates over and over.
We always have players run their own charmed or dominated characters when it happens. They have to follow the orders as best they can, with wiggle room depending on what spell has been used (Dominate = Screwed Charm = plenty of fun RPing and lots of personal judgement)
But there is one guy in our group
Every time he gets targeted by a charm or dominate he fails the save
and then kills at least one other party member.
Every Time
Not even really his fault, his Dice luck just goes nuts as soon as he's been turned against the party. Bad guy hits him with a Charm and next thing you know he's drawing his fourth Crit card on the Rogue.
Been like that for 10 years
Grey, why would he kill someone when he is charmed?
There is a ongoing and probably eternal debate on whether a charmed player would kill a friend, party member or his sweet old granny.
I fall on the side of "charmed isn't dominated". But I appear to be in the minority on these messageboards.
Back to the whole deal of role playing being dominated. If you are dominated your will is not your own. I personally consider it to be a role playing opportunity, and I would probably only intervene if the player was clearly not following the compulsion to its conclusion.
The biggest issue is when you dominate a tactically clever player. When my druid was dominated I played her exactly as the GM said. That meant she immediately turned on her former allies and attacked them. Had he instead said something like "you have a sudden compulsion to kill your allies" I would likely have played it differently, probably allowing the party to get into a scrape before turning on my "friends", which would almost certainly have led to a TPK. By attacking them immediately I felt I was giving them the best chance to survive. Even so by round 2 two of them were bleeding out and the other two were in the fight of their careers. If our dwarven battle cleric had failed a fort save... but luckily he didn't.
There is a ongoing and probably eternal debate on whether a charmed player would kill a friend, party member or his sweet old granny.
I fall on the side of "charmed isn't dominated". But I appear to be in the minority on these messageboards.
I was on your side the last time we both participated in thread about this and I still agree with you on this subject, but RAW does seem to say a Charmed person would in fact kill whoever they are told to if they fail that second save.
That said, I hate that rule and basically ruled "Charmed" to be something like "The target sees the caster as her best friend and personal hero, and will interpret the caster's words in the best possible manner, but she does not become the caster's mindless puppet."
e.g.: The target helps the caster as much as she would help a lover, sibling, idol or best friend. She wouldn't kill her kids if the caster told her to, but she'd take the order as a joke and not even be offended by it.
About using Charm/Compulsion against the PCs:
IMHO, mind control is such an common threat that not preparing for it is just as stupid as not preparing to fight flying opponents. The guy who neglects his defenses against compulsion effects is just as dumb as the greatsword-focused Fighter who doesn't carry a bow because it's not his main weapon.
I agree with the previous two posters, charm is not dominate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I let my characters keep their characters when it happens. There is nothing quite as awesome as watching those not dominated or under a spell try to think up ways to save their friends without dying or using up too many resources at once. Also, there are always in game rivalries between players. You can attack those people, to the exclusion of pretty much everyone else.
It also makes for some incredible role-playing afterwards as the characters try to repair the trust the party has in them, though in general, your other players should be willing to accept them back without too much trouble. After all, bad rolls can affect just about anyone at any time.
I also suggest using it somewhat sparingly... If your players know that their only challenges are other players, it takes away the point in sharing treasure and money between them.
I think that the RPing dimensions is really great. I once was in a group where the barbarian/alchemist got dominated by a spell or got possessed by a shadow demon. Since I was the witch and had pretty good things I could do he was told to go after me. Thanks that he did not have any missile weapons and that I had the fly hex.