|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For shoots and giggles, my group pondered what would happen in this scenario:
Bad NPC casts Dominate Person(Level 5) on PC.
PC wears a Ring of Spell Turning, which says "Up to three times per day on command, this simple platinum band automatically reflects the next nine levels of spells cast at the wearer, exactly as if spell turning had been cast upon him."
Dominate Person is then automatically cast back at the bad NPC, or rather it is reflected back.
2 questions:
1. Does the caster get a saving throw?
2. Can he now be dominated by himself?
I, as GM, believe the spell would have no effect on the caster whether or not a saving throw is allowed.
If he had cast a Fireball, I certainly would have given him a saving throw. If failed, damage is done as normal.
A player suggests what happens if Bad NPC casts Suggestion on Good PC? The player claims the Bad NPC must follow the suggestion of the spell. So, if the Bad NPC cast Suggestion with "fall down," if the spell was successfully completed and took effect on the caster, he would have to fall down.
Personally, "suggesting" a person can charm oneself into doing things is quite ridiculous. Even if oneself can be charmed using Dominate Person, the fellow can simply change the command. Suggestion spells, according to the player, must have a "suggested course of activity."
Who's to say the "suggested course" could not simply be changed before the "course" is acted upon?
Per RAW:
Enchantment
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.
All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two subschools of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.
Subschools
Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion: a compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
I think the italicized section above renders the "compulsion" of oneself moot if one is looking for rules on the matter.
A player suggests what happens if Bad NPC casts Suggestion on Good PC? The player claims the Bad NPC must follow the suggestion of the spell. So, if the Bad NPC cast Suggestion with "fall down," if the spell was successfully completed and took effect on the caster, he would have to fall down.Personally, "suggesting" a person can charm oneself into doing things is quite ridiculous. Even if oneself can be charmed using Dominate Person, the fellow can simply change the command. Suggestion spells, according to the player, must have a "suggested course of activity."
As far as I can tell, your player is correct. Suggestion spells inherently carry with them a "course of activity" (i.e. an order) to be followed, and the caster would therefore follow his own activity.
Similarly, a command spell would be obeyed by the caster (assuming saving throw failure, et cetera). So would a geas. However, the dominate spell family is different, since they establish a telepathic link through which you can exercise ongoing control. Since you already have mental control over yourself, I would submit that the turned dominate would have no effect.
Who's to say the "suggested course" could not simply be changed before the "course" is acted upon?
Well, the spell description, for one. You suggest "a course of activity," and it doesn't permit ongoing control.
|
|
As far as I can tell, your player is correct. Suggestion spells inherently carry with them a "course of activity" (i.e. an order) to be followed, and the caster would therefore follow his own activity.
It would seem to me, based on the spell description, that the having to take the action "suggested" to the PC would an "obvious" act and therefore be negated per RAW: "Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."
Also, don't forget, a caster can choose to end the spell at any time; nothing in the spell or rules takes this power away from the caster.
"A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn."
It would seem to me, based on the spell description, that the having to take the action "suggested" to the PC would an "obvious" act and therefore be negated per RAW: "Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."
As far as I can tell, your player is correct. Suggestion spells inherently carry with them a "course of activity" (i.e. an order) to be followed, and the caster would therefore follow his own activity.
Not if the act wasn't obviously harmful to the intended target. If suggesting that the opposing fighter sit on his hands isn't obviously harmful, then neither is suggesting that the friendly wizard do it.
Also, don't forget, a caster can choose to end the spell at any time; nothing in the spell or rules takes this power away from the caster.
"A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn."
Except suggestion is not concentration-dependent. It lasts for one hour per level and is not labelled as dismissible. It would actually be a significant nerf to the spell if it were concentration-dependent, because then you would need to sit there concentrating, potentially for several hours, to make one person do what you want.
Here is how I would run it.
The wizard would get a saving throw with the +2 bonus for it going against HIS nature. He wasn't trying to dominate himself (nor would he), so that's rather a given If he fails, he dominates himself and is affected by the command. As soon as he has a move action, he ends the spell.
What happens between steps 2 & 3 could be interesting as the PCs might not even be aware this has happened, except the one with the ring probably should known a spell was turned but wouldn't necessarily know which spell.
Debby
Here is how I would run it.
The wizard would get a saving throw with the +2 bonus for it going against HIS nature. He wasn't trying to dominate himself (nor would he), so that's rather a given If he fails, he dominates himself and is affected by the command. As soon as he has a move action, he ends the spell.
What happens between steps 2 & 3 could be interesting as the PCs might not even be aware this has happened, except the one with the ring probably should known a spell was turned but wouldn't necessarily know which spell.
Debby
Dominate gives you an awareness of what someone you dominated is experiencing. It would be obvious that you dominated yourself.
Just as an aside to the OP: a fireball spell would not be affected by the ring of spell turning:
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected.
Here is how I would run it.
The wizard would get a saving throw with the +2 bonus for it going against HIS nature. He wasn't trying to dominate himself (nor would he), so that's rather a given If he fails, he dominates himself and is affected by the command. As soon as he has a move action, he ends the spell.
What happens between steps 2 & 3 could be interesting as the PCs might not even be aware this has happened, except the one with the ring probably should known a spell was turned but wouldn't necessarily know which spell.
Debby
Dominate gives you an awareness of what someone you dominated is experiencing. It would be obvious that you dominated yourself.
The wizard NPC is aware he is dominated; the PCs would not necessarily be aware the wizard NPC was dominated. The wizard NPC still has to make the save or suffer the consequences, which is why he (the wizard NPC), on his next move, ends the effect. Being aware of the effect of the spell doesn't make the wizard immune from the effect of the spell. He still has to end the spell. He can dismiss it on his next turn as a standard action OR he can just change his order as a move action (in which case the spell has no other effect but would just end normally). Ending the effect of the spell makes it moot other than if someone were to detect magic on him. During combat, that's not terribly likely but who knows.
This is all conjecture in any case.
Here is how I would run it.
The wizard would get a saving throw with the +2 bonus for it going against HIS nature. He wasn't trying to dominate himself (nor would he), so that's rather a given If he fails, he dominates himself and is affected by the command. As soon as he has a move action, he ends the spell.
What happens between steps 2 & 3 could be interesting as the PCs might not even be aware this has happened, except the one with the ring probably should known a spell was turned but wouldn't necessarily know which spell.
Debby
Dominate gives you an awareness of what someone you dominated is experiencing. It would be obvious that you dominated yourself.The wizard NPC is aware he is dominated; the PCs would not necessarily be aware the wizard NPC was dominated. The wizard NPC still has to make the save or suffer the consequences, which is why he (the wizard NPC), on his next move, ends the effect. Being aware of the effect of the spell doesn't make the wizard immune from the effect of the spell. He still has to end the spell.
Why would the wizard do anything?
Dominate does bugger all aside from provide some sensory information until you give a command as a move action. So long as the wizard doesn't do anything stupid like telepathically order himself to sit the fight out all the dominate person is doing is acting as a buffer for dispel attempts, barring some highly situational rare effect that I don't know about.
Technically talking to himself and depending on what he says could be construed as a "command." I could have a whole lot of evil fun with that.
Debby
Technically talking to himself and depending on what he says could be construed as a "command." I could have a whole lot of evil fun with that.
Debby
Technically no, please go read the spell description.
Here, have the relevant parts
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.
If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as "Come here," "Go there," "Fight," and "Stand still." You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.
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).
Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action.
The command is only through the telepathic link, forces the dominated creature to perform as you desire, and MUST be done by spending a move action.
Also, I edited my 2nd post in a feeble attempt at more clarity.
While it takes Concentration to get sensory input, the spell isn't necessarily dependent on it so it does not necessarily qualify for this rule: "A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn."
Normally dismissing a spell is a standard action. The spell itself says that changing orders is a move action.
If I were playing the wizard, I'd go for "changing orders" and be very careful how I verbally express myself until I have a standard action that I wouldn't need (say for combat).
Too many variables for this to necessarily be the only way to play this.
Debby
If you are talking to yourself, you are already having a telepathic link with yourself. It would kinda be difficult to disengage your brain.
I was editing as I went so that was clearer. New command is a move action; dismissing the spell is a standard action; and whether it qualifies for the rule "A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn" is not perfectly clear. Some aspects are Concentration determined but is that enough. That's all I'm saying.
Debby
If you are talking to yourself, you are already having a telepathic link with yourself.
You seem to have an unusually confident idea of how telepathy works. I don't think your idea is necessarily shared by everyone.
If nothing else, the fact that talking is a free action while use of the telepathic link requires a move action strongly suggests that,.... no.
I was editing as I went so that was clearer. New command is a move action; dismissing the spell is a standard action;
Dismissing the spell is not possible. The spell does not have the necessary (D) in its descriptor.
If just thinking about things without any active intent could cause orders to change then the spell would clearly state such.
Also, it takes a move action to give an order. No move action, no new order, full stop.
In which case the the spell really has no effect on the wizard at all. He can avoid all the effects by doing nothing. I'm not entirely convinced this makes any sense at all. YMMV.
In which case the the spell really has no effect on the wizard at all. He can avoid all the effects by doing nothing. I'm not entirely convinced this makes any sense at all. YMMV.
He can place an effect on someone that allows him to telepathically make them do almost anything if he wants to.
The effect gets placed on himself through a magic reflecting effect that redirects his enchantment onto himself but doesn't otherwise change how it functions. He opts to not telepathically make himself do anything.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And you've just taken all the fun out of it.
And you've just taken all the fun out of it.
If I was a PC and the GM tried to pull that on me I wouldn't be having much "Fun". On the spot house rules designed to screw over players usually aren't, surprisingly enough. And yes, this is exactly what you are doing if you rule this when a player is the wizard - you are adding an additional effect to a spell in order to penalize a player beyond what the rules say the penalty is (in this case, wasting a 1 round cast time mid-high level spell).
And I generally like it when I beat an NPC because I played my character well, not because the GM fiat'd in a penalty for the NPC. Less fun right there.
In which case the the spell really has no effect on the wizard at all. He can avoid all the effects by doing nothing.
So? There are lots of spells that would have similar (non-)effects, starting with an aasimar casting Charm Person and having it reflected on him. Or, for that matter, a human casting Charm Person and having it reflected on him, so that the human now holds himself in high regard, as anyone does normally as a matter of course. A dragon's Deep Slumber will do nothing to him, and even Telekinesis doesn't need to do anything (and wouldn't, if turned).