Some Charm / Dominate ?s


Rules Questions


A few questions about Charm and Dominate.

1. For Dominate person, assuming you and the target share a language, can you order them to "act normally" or give them no orders so that they maintain normal behavior? I've had several instances where I want to do this, so that the caster can pull out their trump card dominated PC or NPC at the most opportune time.

2. Once cast, does Dominate person work at any range? What about if the caster and the target are on different planes?

3. If a target is Charmed, can you get them to voluntarily fail their save against a spell, perhaps a second casting of Charm Person -for example? Suppose for this purpose, the target has no ranks in Spellcraft. Could you get them to do it if you passed an opposed CHA check?

4. If a target is both Charmed and dominated (by the same caster), can the caster try to win a opposed CHA check against the target to get it to do something it ordinarily would not, thereby bypassing Dominate Person's second save at a +2 when you give a target orders against its nature?

5. What counts as "against it's nature" anyway? Is "go attack your former allies that you've been adventuring with these past 6 moths or so" against his nature? Or does it have to be something deeply contrary to the beings entire way of life, such as ordering a Paladin to burn an orphanage to the ground, with everyone still inside.


1. Not sure on this. It would be interesting to see what's intended, but I image it would vary with GMs.

2. The spell description states unlimited range on the same plane. SRD. If you were on different planes I'd say you can't command them, use their senses, or concentrate to maintain the domination so they get a new s ave every day.

3. Depends on the NPC, but with a decent bluff it would likely be no problem.

4. I would say dominate overrides charmed, just for simplicity (that's just how I would run it though)

5. Heavily character dependent. Attacking your allies would be against most peoples' nature though. There's a clarification from James Jacobs on the d20pfsrd.


awp832 wrote:

A few questions about Charm and Dominate.

1. For Dominate person, assuming you and the target share a language, can you order them to "act normally" or give them no orders so that they maintain normal behavior? I've had several instances where I want to do this, so that the caster can pull out their trump card dominated PC or NPC at the most opportune time.

2. Once cast, does Dominate person work at any range? What about if the caster and the target are on different planes?

3. If a target is Charmed, can you get them to voluntarily fail their save against a spell, perhaps a second casting of Charm Person -for example? Suppose for this purpose, the target has no ranks in Spellcraft. Could you get them to do it if you passed an opposed CHA check?

4. If a target is both Charmed and dominated (by the same caster), can the caster try to win a opposed CHA check against the target to get it to do something it ordinarily would not, thereby bypassing Dominate Person's second save at a +2 when you give a target orders against its nature?

5. What counts as "against it's nature" anyway? Is "go attack your former allies that you've been adventuring with these past 6 moths or so" against his nature? Or does it have to be something deeply contrary to the beings entire way of life, such as ordering a Paladin to burn an orphanage to the ground, with everyone still inside.

1. I believe no, because this very "act normally" order is actually a "pretend to act normally" by the dominated person's point of view. He is trying to act normally, he can't. If you are looking for ways to bypass the sense motive checks to realize if someone is dominated you should look for other ways i think. One way is to make tricky encounters with the PC and the said NPC. Maybe this "act normally" command of yours, highers the DC a bit. Although the spell says it clearly that the DC:15 to realize if someone is dominated includes other daily activities besides given orders.

2. The range is infinite on the same plane. If you and the subject are in different planes, the GM probably decides how the spell is affected (suppression, link is broken etc) since the text doesn't say.

3. A character w/ no ranks in spellcraft would either be afraid to be a target of a spell (any spell), indifferent (somewhat rarer occasion), or suspicious. Since he is already charmed i would require a check or no check at all, depending on the occasion.

4. I would say you can try both ways.

5. What Paulicus said.


hm.... for #1, I see what you are saying, but could you simply refrain from giving the dominated person any command?


what i want to do is turn somebody into a Sleeper Agent in a fashion somewhat similar to the cylons in Battlestar Galactica. Nobody will know who has been dominated until they strike... Granted that, at the critical moment the dominated person will probably get a second save at a +2 bonus to avoid carrying out the critical order, but still.

any way to do this? Using Dominate Person/ Charm Person or by other means?


The spells you are looking for are Suggestion and Mythic Contingency. Particularly the latter. Otherwise, the person's behavior is always altered enough that there will be questions.


"Against its nature" is notoriously ill-defined. There are as many ideas as to what it means as there are players and GMs. They range from "basically anything you would ever order a dominated character to do" to "only something it would never even think about doing". The definition chosen can make the spell extremely powerful or utterly useless (i.e., inferior to either charm person or suggestion).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, of course, you could always use bluff yourself. If you convince someone they are not dominated or charmed, they won't be acting, is the way I see it.

The "convincing lie" rogue talent will let them all buff really well about it, if you want them to bluff about it.


For #3, I was under the impression that you always got a saving throw against spells. The only ones you could really "drop your guard" on are the ones labelled as Harmless. You could not walk up to an enemy and say, "Here is a CLW for you", and then really cast a harmful spell and expect them to not get a save.


Brf wrote:
For #3, I was under the impression that you always got a saving throw against spells. The only ones you could really "drop your guard" on are the ones labelled as Harmless. You could not walk up to an enemy and say, "Here is a CLW for you", and then really cast a harmful spell and expect them to not get a save.

i dont know... bluff can make you drop your gaurd for dex bonuses...


Yes, but you would still be getting a save, with a penalty.


penalty is good


awp832 wrote:

what i want to do is turn somebody into a Sleeper Agent in a fashion somewhat similar to the cylons in Battlestar Galactica. Nobody will know who has been dominated until they strike... Granted that, at the critical moment the dominated person will probably get a second save at a +2 bonus to avoid carrying out the critical order, but still.

any way to do this? Using Dominate Person/ Charm Person or by other means?

Maybe geas/geas, lesser is what you are looking for...Long duration like dominate and i believe no checks can be made to realize if he is under some sort of spell (skill-wise like sense motive).

If you further don't want this very person to remember that a spell was cast upon him, you can also use modify memory or similar magic.


The DC 15 sense motive listed is given for while a dominated individual is performing the tasks they are instructed to perform.

If you simply cast the spell, and refrain from giving any orders, they will not be acting any differently than normal.

Look at the wording, notice the sense motive stuff follows the "Once you have given a command" bit:

"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). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description)."

So yes, you can very much create a sleeper agent with this spell. If that is what you're aiming for.


awp832 wrote:


3. If a target is Charmed, can you get them to voluntarily fail their save against a spell, perhaps a second casting of Charm Person -for example? Suppose for this purpose, the target has no ranks in Spellcraft. Could you get them to do it if you passed an opposed CHA check?

4. If a target is both Charmed and dominated (by the same caster), can the caster try to win a opposed CHA check against the target to get it to do something it ordinarily would not, thereby bypassing Dominate Person's second save at a +2 when you give a target orders against its nature?

5. What counts as "against it's nature" anyway? Is "go attack your former allies that you've been adventuring with these past 6 moths or so" against his nature? Or does it have to be something deeply contrary to the beings entire way of life, such as ordering a Paladin to burn an orphanage to the ground, with everyone still inside.

3. No. Saves are reflexive/automatic. You would have to convince them to willingly let you do what you are actually doing. if you went to cast Inflict Light Wounds instead of Cure Light Wounds, the target gets a save, even if they thought you were going to heal them. Saves are cool like that. It is why they're there.

4. The save for dominate with +2 is for doing something against its nature. A charmed creature simply won't do something against its nature. Charm won't help here. Charm just makes them your friend for a while, and the opposed CHA check is to represent you convincing them to do some kind of favor like activity. (Like getting your friends to help you move irl… lol. Not to go burn down an orphanage. Unless you have very different kinds of friends than me >.>)

5. This is left open ended on purpose. A paladin would certainly not burn down an orphanage; most good people won't kill in cold blood, etc. Someone who dedicates their life to the law or the king or whatever isn't going to by nature work against those things. Essentially, things that are literally the opposite of what a creature does. But even that has lots of corner cases, and a hard and fast rule doesn't fit the effects, so it has to be loose and flexible, and up to DM adjudication.


awp832 wrote:
What counts as "against it's nature" anyway?

My standard rule for this is could someone make you do it by holding a gun to your head.


mkenner wrote:
awp832 wrote:
What counts as "against it's nature" anyway?
My standard rule for this is could someone make you do it by holding a gun to your head.

That is decent. But self preservation isn't always the best 'test' of nature. It is a good rule of thumb, but... Something about it doesn't quite sit right to me.

Surviving is generally an assumed value everyone/thing shares. But, how integral that is to different people varies. Someone who was suicidal, or borderline, might just say 'go ahead' despite the fact that all you asked him to do was get off the couch.

How committed someone is to living is a variable, and because it can change from person to person, it can't really be used as an absolute standard to measure all of the other characteristics of their nature or values.

Am I getting too philosophical about this? Lol…


I like the act normally order but if you gave it to my Magus he would chop the would be dominantor down in a heart beat. That would be normal.
The pretent your will isent in someones pocket is telling the victim to bluff and there i suggest you just follow the rules for that.


Remy Balster wrote:
Surviving is generally an assumed value everyone/thing shares. But, how integral that is to different people varies. Someone who was suicidal, or borderline, might just say 'go ahead' despite the fact that all you asked him to do was get off the couch.

Commanding a person suffering from that degree of depression to get off a couch probably would be 'against their nature'.

Quote:
How committed someone is to living is a variable,

Really not much of one. In all of human nature it's probably the most stable parameter you can possibly use.

Quote:
and because it can change from person to person, it can't really be used as an absolute standard to measure all of the other characteristics of their nature or values.

I disagree. Although there are things that rise above a person's instinct for self-preservation, those are commonly the things we would define as a person's nature.

If person A would die rather than breaking their ideals, then "idealistic" would be a good definition of their nature.

If person B would rather die than get off the couch, then "depressed" would be a good definition of their nature.

If person C would sell out their friends to save their own life, then "selfish" would be a good definition of their nature. In which case selling out their friends probably doesn't go against their nature for purposes of the spell.

Quote:
Am I getting too philosophical about this? Lol…

Is there such a thing as 'too philosophical'?


mkenner wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Surviving is generally an assumed value everyone/thing shares. But, how integral that is to different people varies. Someone who was suicidal, or borderline, might just say 'go ahead' despite the fact that all you asked him to do was get off the couch.

Commanding a person suffering from that degree of depression to get off a couch probably would be 'against their nature'.

Quote:
How committed someone is to living is a variable,

Really not much of one. In all of human nature it's probably the most stable parameter you can possibly use.

Quote:
and because it can change from person to person, it can't really be used as an absolute standard to measure all of the other characteristics of their nature or values.

I disagree. Although there are things that rise above a person's instinct for self-preservation, those are commonly the things we would define as a person's nature.

If person A would die rather than breaking their ideals, then "idealistic" would be a good definition of their nature.

If person B would rather die than get off the couch, then "depressed" would be a good definition of their nature.

If person C would sell out their friends to save their own life, then "selfish" would be a good definition of their nature. In which case selling out their friends probably doesn't go against their nature for purposes of the spell.

Quote:
Am I getting too philosophical about this? Lol…
Is there such a thing as 'too philosophical'?

Haha. I mostly agree with you! I just think that it doesn't always 'perfectly' work, but most of the time it will quickly determine if it is 'in their nature', sure.

I'd be hesitant to label 'depressed' as 'in their nature' though. That is the sort of thing that fluxuates, potentially dramatically.

As for using it as a quick litmus test for the purpose of the spell, it works pretty well. Probably is perfectly accurate 95+% of the time.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Some Charm / Dominate ?s All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.