enchantment has a few other spells, but yeah, most of the spells are about removing a player's ability to participate.
a player whom buys mind buttressing is saying, "please don't charm or dominate me, i wanna play. not be turned into an NPC"
not everyone enjoys losing control of their character
i really don't understand why that particular school of magic exists beyond tradition and a handful of concepts.
There are a lot of things a player doesn't want to happen to them, just because they don't doesn't mean it won't. When I GM, I usually let a player play their character while dominated, I just give them guidelines of what I want to happen.
The Enchantment school has loads of useful spells beyond Charm/Dominate/Hold spells. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean other players don't so please stop invalidating a part of the game you don't like it. When you run your homegame you are welcome to do such things. In fact your argument that something should be removed because you don't like it sounds like the argument that something should be allowed because you don't like what it protects against.
Mind Buttressing is overpowered for the cost and I am glad it is not allowed.
what i don't like about enchanters, and most SoD specialists, is they take away a great deal of player agency, or completely remove boss fights seemingly effortlessly. it's either "roll 1d20, if you fail, you can't participate" or "roll 1d20, if you fail, you are an enemy to be opposed for this encounter." charm and dominate in my experience, are boring from both sides of the table, as are most save or dies,
i don't see them as interesting, i see them as offensive. yes, i am fine with intense graphic consensual adult encounters at my tables and intense graphic gore, but i am totally against the ideas of brain washing, drug use and magic to strip somebody of their free will and essentially make them an automated puppet. now, i can play such characters in a group that approves the idea, and i treat the enchantment school as an optional rule that can be voted on by the group at the table. banning enchantment bans it on both sides of the table.
i came to play a character at a table, not roll a single dice and end up unable to participate for multiple hours due to being turned into an NPC by a simple spell.
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
I don´t see the difference between an enchanter enchanting a fight to an end and a melee two-handed build of whichever sort, a gunslinger or even someone with an animal companion or a mighty druid tearing the big boss into peaces in one round on round one with one full attack.
I don´t see the difference between an enchanter enchanting a fight to an end and a melee two-handed build of whichever sort, a gunslinger or even someone with an animal companion or a mighty druid tearing the big boss into peaces in one round on round one with one full attack.
not every foes dies to a single die roll from the martial character, they have to roll multiple rolls, have a chance of missing, and are subject to more defenses than merely a saving throw, armor class and damage reduction to be exact
the enchanter says, "Roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC" effectively removing one of your allied units, AND adding an additional enemy unit.
|
Actually, on that note there is some new evidence that I've discovered that for an armor enchantment it is not that cheap.
According to Ultimate Equipment, there is only one armor enchantment that is +2 that requires the full cost. All other armor enchantments in UE are less than the full 9,000 gp cost. With the exception of Spell Resistance (13), all other +2 enchantments range between 2,700-5,000 gp. If you include shields, there are three other +2 enchantments that cost 9,000 gp to place on equipment (and I believe of those, only one can still be put on armor)
So compared to other armor enchantments, Mind Buttressing is actually an expensive enchantment.
I understand your argument, however it doesn't really address the main concern that this enchantment is too powerful for a +2 armor bonus. Your argument only compares Mind Buttressing to other +2 enchantments, but does not consider whether its reasonably priced with relation to its ability. I still think a +2 enhancement bonus is too cheap for this ability.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
...i don't see them as interesting, i see them as offensive. yes, i am fine with intense graphic consensual adult encounters at my tables and intense graphic gore, but i am totally against the ideas of brain washing, drug use and magic to strip somebody of their free will and essentially make them an automated puppet...
..i came to play a character at a table, not roll a single dice and end up unable to participate for multiple hours due to being turned into an NPC by a simple spell...
When a GM has an NPC cast a spell that's in the core rulebook and the monster's tactics is offensive? And you have encounters that last for multiple hours in Society play?
Apologies for my incredulity, but could you clarify on these points for me? I understand that spells like charm and dominate can be upsetting, but as a player that's experienced them to great extent, I don't see them garnering such ire.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I don´t see the difference between an enchanter enchanting a fight to an end and a melee two-handed build of whichever sort, a gunslinger or even someone with an animal companion or a mighty druid tearing the big boss into peaces in one round on round one with one full attack.not every foes dies to a single die roll from the martial character, they have to roll multiple rolls, have a chance of missing, and are subject to more defenses than merely a saving throw, armor class and damage reduction to be exact
the enchanter says, "Roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC" effectively removing one of your allied units, AND adding an additional enemy unit.
Charm person: this spell doesn't take over your character, it just makes you believe the caster is your friend. You are still in control of what you want your character to do. If that caster is hostile towards you, you get another +5 on the save.
Suggestion: the suggestion must sound reasonable. "Hey buddy, kill your friend," is definitely not reasonable. Also, asking you to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect.
Dominate person: if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets a new saving through to negate the entire effect. The spell also takes a 1 round to cast.
None of these spells say "roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC."
None of these spells say "roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC."
Depends a lot on how you run them. They can very easily be turned into such. Similarly, there's at least one possession in PFS that makes you Coup de' grace yourself. Compulsions tend to take away your control of character, such as a Harpy's song or Kelpie's Lure. You don't get to participate if you fail the save against either of those.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don´t see the difference between an enchanter enchanting a fight to an end and a melee two-handed build of whichever sort, a gunslinger or even someone with an animal companion or a mighty druid tearing the big boss into peaces in one round on round one with one full attack.not every foes dies to a single die roll from the martial character, they have to roll multiple rolls, have a chance of missing, and are subject to more defenses than merely a saving throw, armor class and damage reduction to be exact
the enchanter says, "Roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC" effectively removing one of your allied units, AND adding an additional enemy unit.
Charm person: this spell doesn't take over your character, it just makes you believe the caster is your friend. You are still in control of what you want your character to do. If that caster is hostile towards you, you get another +5 on the save.
Suggestion: the suggestion must sound reasonable. "Hey buddy, kill your friend," is definitely not reasonable. Also, asking you to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect.
Dominate person: if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets a new saving through to negate the entire effect. The spell also takes a 1 round to cast.
None of these spells say "roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC."
The sad truth, though, is that enchantments (like illusions) tend to be run differently depending on whether the caster is a PC or an NPC. :/
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
The sad truth, though, is that enchantments (like illusions) tend to be run differently depending on whether the caster is a PC or an NPC. :/I don´t see the difference between an enchanter enchanting a fight to an end and a melee two-handed build of whichever sort, a gunslinger or even someone with an animal companion or a mighty druid tearing the big boss into peaces in one round on round one with one full attack.not every foes dies to a single die roll from the martial character, they have to roll multiple rolls, have a chance of missing, and are subject to more defenses than merely a saving throw, armor class and damage reduction to be exact
the enchanter says, "Roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC" effectively removing one of your allied units, AND adding an additional enemy unit.
Charm person: this spell doesn't take over your character, it just makes you believe the caster is your friend. You are still in control of what you want your character to do. If that caster is hostile towards you, you get another +5 on the save.
Suggestion: the suggestion must sound reasonable. "Hey buddy, kill your friend," is definitely not reasonable. Also, asking you to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect.
Dominate person: if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets a new saving through to negate the entire effect. The spell also takes a 1 round to cast.
None of these spells say "roll a will save, fail and you are automatically transformed into an NPC."
Yeah, yeah the metagaming and character controll. I always try to play my characters like that, meaning they don´t know and are influenced.
But that´s a serious roleplaying thing. When the GM comes around, rolls diplomacy and then tells me i´m now very impressed and best friends with someone, i´ll just do it^^ Mainly because i also know how difficult or impossible it can be to play that out as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wha.wha.what if Garble gets damage to his head? Won't he possibly go off on a killing rampage?
He's already damaged. He's reading forum post.
|
|
I confess that I'd like to have this..
Having been the victim of one particularly nasty bard, nearly twice AND a certain free game day module villian, my fighter DESPISES enchantment spells.
(The reason being she's nearly beaten to death THREE party bards)
That being said I'm not sure I'd happily give up another +2 to my armor for her to be immune. Not because I think I should be (I do) but because I'm sure that other things will suck just as bad.
This, to me, is like me complaining about my cleric with the single digit (and not a HIGH single digit) Ref save getting hit with multiple fireballs/lightning bolts and/or other Ref save items. It's going to happen. Do I think it's FAIR to get hit with a 20+ will save @ 5th (or lower) level? Nope..
Which is why I give one of the casters in the group a scroll of suppress charms and compulsions..and why I'm thinking a wand is my fighter's next purchase.
It's a bit dubious to have tactics and bad guys implicitedly designed to make party members maul other party member though. (Most heavily armored target seems a common phrase in tactics with charm/suggestion/dominate types is a bit much at times. One of the reasons my fighter got 'Glamoured'armor)
|
Gonna commit some blasphemy and get back on topic for a second here. ;)
My cleric wouldn't touch this. Neither would my armored Eldritch Knight. My sorceress can't use it. Neither can my bard, or my wife's magus. (Someone said it was medium/heavy-only, right?)
The clear spindle is 4k for anyone unless there's a specific other resonance power they're after. Mind buttressing, if I'm understanding it correctly, is only available to a subset of PCs who both wear significant armor and are okay with a permanent –2 to AC.
Is it that big of a deal for certain barbarians and maybe the odd ranger to have access to this? Because that's what the "consumer base" is looking like to me.
I'm fairly certain a mithral breastplate or other medium armor would qualify for this enchantment (don't have the source on hand though)--meaning that all non-arcane casters could benefit from it.
So I could see oracles, rogues, and anyone else that tanks Wisdom picking it up. It is pretty useless for clerics, druids, monks, rangers, and arcane casters though.
EDIT: After reading it (Carlos posted about it on page 1), I'm actually unsure if mithral medium armor would qualify for the enchantment.
Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor.
Mithral don't change the proficiency needed to use the armor, so I would say that the armor is still in its original category, medium or heavy. "are treated as" is a fairly vague term.
|
|
In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate.I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?page 221, CRB, SPECIAL ABILITIES, Spell-Like Abilities...
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates is mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the* ability or spell description*. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like the spell.Since the start of PFRPG, I was using summoning SLA's as a standard action based on the wording at the beginning of the text. However, I got my ass chewed by numerous players who said that the latter part of the text clearly indicates an SLA has a casting time per the spell description. I don't claim to be an English major, but their argument is compelling based on the text.
The section from the PRD states...You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.
Ouch. I suspect that the CRB quote is the right way to go, and I have always played it wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The sad truth, though, is that enchantments (like illusions) tend to be run differently depending on whether the caster is a PC or an NPC. :/Yeah, yeah the metagaming and character controll. I always try to play my characters like that, meaning they don´t know and are influenced.
But that´s a serious roleplaying thing. When the GM comes around, rolls diplomacy and then tells me i´m now very impressed and best friends with someone, i´ll just do it^^ Mainly because i also know how difficult or impossible it can be to play that out as a GM.
Sorry, I'm afraid I didn't follow your reply to my post. What were you trying to say?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't see them as interesting, i see them as offensive. yes, i am fine with intense graphic consensual adult encounters at my tables and intense graphic gore, but i am totally against the ideas of brain washing, drug use and magic to strip somebody of their free will and essentially make them an automated puppet.
This response is no different than any other 'I dont like ninjas/guns/Cthulu/ponies/whatever in my fantasy'.
i came to play a character at a table, not roll a single dice and end up unable to participate for multiple hours due to being turned into an NPC by a simple spell.
Im sure you did, but by looking at your profile, I see you have no registered Pathfinder Society characters.
If you do play PFS, fantastic, I love that you are giving your opinion. I also suggest you register your characters, as it will make it easier on the GMs and organizers who report the games.If you dont play PFS, I invite you to rule however you want for your homegames, and kindly let those of us who ARE interested in PFS come to this decision without input from someone who seemingly has no dog in this race. I dont mean that so much as 'Go away', but more as 'Why do you care how we rule it for a game you dont play?'
:)
|
|
In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate.I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?page 221, CRB, SPECIAL ABILITIES, Spell-Like Abilities...
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates is mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the* ability or spell description*. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like the spell.Since the start of PFRPG, I was using summoning SLA's as a standard action based on the wording at the beginning of the text. However, I got my ass chewed by numerous players who said that the latter part of the text clearly indicates an SLA has a casting time per the spell description. I don't claim to be an English major, but their argument is compelling based on the text.
The section from the PRD states...You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.Ouch. I suspect that the CRB quote is the right way to go, and I have always played it wrong.
Could the CRB wording not be read as needing different casting time listed in the monster's stat block or universal monster rules? The biggest example would be outsiders summoning other outsiders. Standard or 1 round casting time?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This was already resolved: both the CRB and the PRD say the same thing, there's just two different places in the rules that SLAs are defined, one of them more complete than the other. Place A in the CRB was being compared to Place B in the PRD.
Turns out, the CRB and PRD are, as usual, in complete agreement.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Sorry, I'm afraid I didn't follow your reply to my post. What were you trying to say?The sad truth, though, is that enchantments (like illusions) tend to be run differently depending on whether the caster is a PC or an NPC. :/Yeah, yeah the metagaming and character controll. I always try to play my characters like that, meaning they don´t know and are influenced.
But that´s a serious roleplaying thing. When the GM comes around, rolls diplomacy and then tells me i´m now very impressed and best friends with someone, i´ll just do it^^ Mainly because i also know how difficult or impossible it can be to play that out as a GM.
I was trying to say that many players see a huge difference how enchantment magic, diplomcay and bluff works on NPC´s and how it works on PC´s. If that would be played out and accepted just the same way, it would be much better and make for a funnier game mostly.
It is also true for GM´s trying to play things out. Either you make it very obvious, but then you will probably face a lot of metagaming, or you make it difficult, rsiking you players not getting anything. If you let them roll, they already suspect something most probably and metagame too. You can of course let them roll or roll secretly all the time as a distraction.|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't understand how that's a reply to the post of mine that you quoted. What I was talking about was how often a GM's interpretation of how an enchantment works (for instance, whether or not "kill your companions" is a valid suggestion) will differ based on whether it's a baddie trying to enchant a PC or a PC trying to enchant the baddie.
It sounds like you're talking about something related to metagaming and roleplaying, which doesn't sound related to what I was saying.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ah, okay. I was (in response to Walter's descriptions) pointing out that there's usually a double-standard. That is, there are plenty of GMs who would (for example) let an NPC cast suggestion to make a PC attack their comrades, but would quickly point out that "attack your party" isn't "reasonable" if a PC did the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, okay. I was (in response to Walter's descriptions) pointing out that there's usually a double-standard. That is, there are plenty of GMs who would (for example) let an NPC cast suggestion to make a PC attack their comrades, but would quickly point out that "attack your party" isn't "reasonable" if a PC did the same.
I think 'Save me' or 'Help, they are attacking me!' are much better choices. That could be anything from having the PC grapple their party members, to helping the NPC escape, to healing them. They effectively become the friend in the middle, trying to break up a fight, more or less.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
A lot of players have that double standard too i think.
I think outright attacking with the low-level spells is out, but it could happen as a consequence of changed behaviour, among baddies or players. Depends on how good it get´s played.
"Free Will" of players vs diplomacy is little bit weird, because it´s just the same double standard. If the PC does it´s diplomacy roll, the NPC has to jump, but not the other way? I think that should function actually, could make for very good scenario hooks and introductions or twists.
|
|
Could the CRB wording not be read as needing different casting time listed in the monster's stat block or universal monster rules? The biggest example would be outsiders summoning other outsiders. Standard or 1 round casting time?In fact, the CRB indicates SLA take the same amount of time to cast as the spell they emulate.I'm having trouble finding this; where is it?page 221, CRB, SPECIAL ABILITIES, Spell-Like Abilities...
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates is mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the* ability or spell description*. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like the spell.Since the start of PFRPG, I was using summoning SLA's as a standard action based on the wording at the beginning of the text. However, I got my ass chewed by numerous players who said that the latter part of the text clearly indicates an SLA has a casting time per the spell description. I don't claim to be an English major, but their argument is compelling based on the text.
The section from the PRD states...You will note that the text from the PRD does not match that from the CRB and, IMO, leaves out very important wording. This is the reason why I NEVER use the PRD for rules adjudication.Ouch. I suspect that the CRB quote is the right way to go, and I have always played it wrong.
Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City
|
I'd like to be a fly on the wall during the conversation where the player is trying to explain that his bard can cast in his mithral breastplate because it's light but can use this enhancement because it's medium.Would be funnier if there were a fighter with a mithral breastplate and the brawler enchant on it.
How about a Warpriest of Irori? I cast Punch!.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think one of my favorite suggestions would be "You're outmatched; better go back to town and get help!"
>:D
In one of her first games of Pathfinder, my GF suggestioned a gnoll to turn on it's business partner.
Slave Pits of Absalom
Her: "Hold up there friend! We just want that one prisoner! Tell you what--I'll give you the 1,000 gp worth of grit I have here in exchange for him!"
Gnoll: "OK. You make a good point."
Gnoll's human business partner: "What? No! You can't betray me!"
.
We were really glad she cast that spell after seeing how much damage he did in one hit. Level 2's rarely survive against barbarian greataxe crits.
"you should go save that orphanage where I left the bombs that will be going off right about.. now.
Why would you want to go to a blown up orphanage? I think instead you should "Go disarm the bombs... Its the blue wire. Verbal Wink!".
|
|
I did this, but told them to report that demons were attacking to thier venture captain.I think one of my favorite suggestions would be "You're outmatched; better go back to town and get help!"
>:D
I did one like this in a certain Tier 4-6 Free RPG Day scenario... told the player to go for help. The fight went so long with the PCs that I actually let him come back with some city guards.
I felt like we had hit a point where it was an appropriate time for the baddie to run, so I used this as the excuse for her exit. :P
i don't see them as interesting, i see them as offensive. yes, i am fine with intense graphic consensual adult encounters at my tables and intense graphic gore, but i am totally against the ideas of brain washing, drug use and magic to strip somebody of their free will and essentially make them an automated puppet.This response is no different than any other 'I dont like ninjas/guns/Cthulu/ponies/whatever in my fantasy'.
i came to play a character at a table, not roll a single dice and end up unable to participate for multiple hours due to being turned into an NPC by a simple spell.Im sure you did, but by looking at your profile, I see you have no registered Pathfinder Society characters.
If you do play PFS, fantastic, I love that you are giving your opinion. I also suggest you register your characters, as it will make it easier on the GMs and organizers who report the games.
If you dont play PFS, I invite you to rule however you want for your homegames, and kindly let those of us who ARE interested in PFS come to this decision without input from someone who seemingly has no dog in this race. I dont mean that so much as 'Go away', but more as 'Why do you care how we rule it for a game you dont play?':)
i was referencing a general term, not PFS specifically. i still avoid PFS like the plague, but maybe if they lifted a great deal of their restrictions on what options were allowed as far as race, class, feats, spells, alignment and magic items. i would happily play.
i can't stand the tolkein races with a passion and even then, aasimaar and tiefling aren't enough options for me, plus, if i want a boon, i have to drive all the way to nevada during mid october. something i can't really do
i like my antiheroes and other morally questionable characters that despite being the lowest of moral depravity, are still doing things that benefit the heroic side of the screen, even if the acts themselves, would be dubbed evil, the ends justify the means, in other words, i like RPing torturing imaginary prisoners.
i don't like the idea of a chronicle sheet telling me what magic items i can buy
there are so many characters i want to try that would just be outright illegal for PFS due to using 3rd party options, 3.5 material, highly specific banned archetypes, exotic human crossbreeds that some of which, would require homebrewing or at least unrestricted access to the advanced race guide chapters 1-3 and pre-errataed versions of options PFS demanded erratas and PFS specific houserules for, such as a few altered traits or custom or illegal magic items, or being able to take leadership and item creation feats
the fact i like playing with all this stuff, i don't beleive makes me a munchkin, it's just i play a very different style of pathfinder which is incompatible with PFS and i dislike the humanocentricy that is golarion. i like when humans are one of many species, not the dominant species that takes up 90% of the planet.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I'm glad that you're passionate about playing tabletop RPGs.
I don't know why you're posting all this in a PFS specific thread, if you're so opposed to being a part of it. It seems like an awful lot of work to try and influence the machinations something you clearly dislike.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
the fact i like playing with all this stuff, i don't beleive makes me a munchkin, it's just i play a very different style of pathfinder which is incompatible with PFS
He didn't say it made you a munchkin. He asked why you care what other people do in their campaigns.
You're in a thread that's specific to the PFS campaign, talking about that campaign, when you're not in that campaign. That's like going to the play-by-post forums, finding some random strangers' campaign that you're not a part of, and posting in their Discussion thread to explain what you think they should be doing differently in their game.
You're welcome to have all those preferences (some of them overlap with my own), but you've basically come in and told people you're not playing with that they should play differently in their game.
Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad that you're passionate about playing tabletop RPGs.
I don't know why you're posting all this in a PFS specific thread, if you're so opposed to being a part of it. It seems like an awful lot of work to try and influence the machinations something you clearly dislike.
I was about to mention that the PFS forum isn't a big fan of people who don't play PFS posting on it, but you beat me to it..
Anyways, some things can be pretty universal, such as feelings on being dominated. Meanwhile others less so, such as how to affect the campaign environment and how it works.
I'm glad that you're passionate about playing tabletop RPGs.
I don't know why you're posting all this in a PFS specific thread, if you're so opposed to being a part of it. It seems like an awful lot of work to try and influence the machinations something you clearly dislike.
I was about to mention that the PFS forum isn't a big fan of people who don't play PFS posting on it, but you beat me to it..
Anyways, some things can be pretty universal, such as feelings on being dominated. Meanwhile others less so, such as how to affect the campaign environment and how it works.
i agree with this, feelings on dominate spells and the like are pretty universal. especially considering the potential for perversion the dominate spells possess.
i mean the fact this potential for mind slavery, that is the dominate spell, opens up all sorts of creepy things, that even as creepy as i am, are too creepy for me even.
personally, if i ran a table, at the first session of the game, i would have to run a vote for open enchantment or closed enchantment. open, meaning it's a valid tool for both PCs an NPCs alike and the players are comfortable with the school, closed, meaning it's banned on both sides because we agree it's a school with too much squick factor
it's not consensual adultery, regardless of reasonably involved age categories or sizes that disturbs me on the grounds the ages are close enough, and it's not intense gore that disturbs me, it's the act of using chemical, technolgical, or magical means to strip one of their will and make them your puppet that disturbs me.
yes, as much as i like to include adult themes within my games, as do the other players even more so, i dislike the very concept of dominate spells out of a scripted pre-written work such as a novel or anime. lelouch, not a problem, but dominating someone on a tabletop game, i can't trust others with the potential it grants. hell, i can't trust myself with that potential.
it's more than just eliminating people from fights, it's taking a sentient being and treating them as little more than a marionette, automata doll or automated mannequin