Where is the line in how far you can go in defending against a compelled fellow PC?
If a fellow PC under say dominate poses a significant chance of killing another PC, what can be done to stop them? The guide to organized play says you can not voluntarily use your character to kill another PC ever, it gives an exception for when your PC is mind controlled but not for when another PC is.
Example: PC A is dominated to kill the party and Is a turn away from casting a spell, say fireball that will more than likely kill PC B who is unconcious and in the likely blast radius.
PC C comes right before PC A in initiative and his only way to prevent PC A from killing PC B is to hit PC A with a fireball himself. Could PC C cast a spell that would probably kill dominated PC A in this situation. The guide as written seems to say no. Common sense seems to say yes if it is the only viable option to safe PC B.
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide
an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible.
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While
killing another character might seem like fun to you, it
certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if
you feel that killing another PC is in character for your
PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other
way for your character to express herself. In short, you
can never voluntarily use your character to kill another
character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations
where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is
forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
There are nonlethal ways to deal with such a situation before it comes to the point where lethal force is the only option.
You can, for example, attempt to knock unconcious or grapple the affected PC (especially spellcasters tend to have low AC and CMD).
Luckily, I have never come to a point where a party was already low enough on HP and the only option was to kill the dominated PC.
In that case, however, I would probably allow the use of deadly force (if there really is no other option), because it was the opponent's spell that made such a move neccessary in the first place.
Oh, btw, in your above example, there is a very easy solution to the problem: PC C doesn't have to throw his fireball on PC A. He can just ready an action to counterspell, and when PC A begins casting fireball, PC C just throws in his own fireball to dispel PC A's fireball.
You'd have the problem you described if both PCs had different spells prepared/known, though.
Andreas, good catch on the above example, but in this case it was just a poor example. I tend to agree with both of your sentiments.
|
Agreed. When I've faced such a situation, we've always done what we could to neutralize the dominated PC non-lethally. There are a few thing you can do... Attacking with nonlethal attacks (at -4 to hit), spells like Hold Person. Hmm... murderous command would be interesting in this situation!
Grappling and/or disarming works, among other things. Try casting Protection from Evil (though the target gets a save in this case).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know back when I played a certain MMO some of the endgame enemies would charm people and they were treated like an enemy. Occasionally people would kill them just because it was fun. I guess at the end of the day it really comes down to how everyone feels about the situation, some might even tell you to bring it on.
If I was dominated and the only option was lethal damage to stop my character I would say go for it. My own and many other PCs people bring to the table are 10x scarier than anything PFS will show up with and it could cause serious problems if they got to attack the party.
|
|
I think the goal here is to use ones best judgement. Default to non-lethal options when reasonable, take your time and figure out if you have an alternative option besides dealing as much damage as possible to the dominated PC.
However.
I have known one player with significant position in society play that who called out that they had specifically made a high lethality melee character while intentionally minimizing his defenses against enchantments to give GM tools (his dominated character) to kill the party.
To this point, without issuing the full brunt of my feelings for this player concept, I would say to go in full force.
Also, GMs know your role in this. Present an enjoyable game for the group best you can. If you are causing people to perform very aggressive PvP via your commands, reconsider it. If you are fond of using players like I mentioned above, ... I guess mention it at the start of the session so I can leave your table.
I have known one player with significant position in society play that who called out that they had specifically made a high lethality melee character while intentionally minimizing his defenses against enchantments to give GM tools (his dominated character) to kill the party.
How does this NOT break the "Don't be an ass" rule we have in place?
I would be...... Lets go with "Upset" if my character died to this.
|
|
I have known one player with significant position in society play that who called out that they had specifically made a high lethality melee character while intentionally minimizing his defenses against enchantments to give GM tools (his dominated character) to kill the party.
How does this NOT break the "Don't be an ass" rule we have in place?
I would be...... Lets go with "Upset" if my character died to this.
I would say it does break it pretty clearly, I know only for certain because he announced it clearly (but not when he was running the character in question). But even without players specifically shooting for a "Team Kill" achievement, I have known a few players that have made very effective killing machines without thinking that their attacks might get turned full force at their own party. They could try improving their mental defense, but it doesn't change that they are one low roll in a bad situation from putting the rest of the party on the chopping block.
These players would all mind if the party turned full force on them rather than break the enchantment, but going non-lethal on them would likely leave other PCs dead depending on the GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have known one player with significant position in society play that who called out that they had specifically made a high lethality melee character while intentionally minimizing his defenses against enchantments to give GM tools (his dominated character) to kill the party.
How does this NOT break the "Don't be an ass" rule we have in place?
I would be...... Lets go with "Upset" if my character died to this.
Well when does 'diligent efforts' finish? I once had to fight one of my party members as he rather stupidly got possessed by a Shadow Demon. We (me and the other cleric) cast 3 protections from evil and two hold persons. (astonishingly enough the idiot had luck enough to save against those...but not the mind jar)
In the meantime, he had nearly killed the ranger (whose axe beak fled with his stabilzed body), put one other player to negs twice and put two others down by half.
It took BOTH clerics to put down him along with the others we kept healing up, the other critters the shadow demon had AND keep the others healthy. Even after I put him to -14, I was ready to cast stabilize..
But then the critter that took him came out, and I got to make a knowledge (Planes) roll to know it was either leave him or me.. and if I died.. only the ranger was safely away.
So, I guess by your terms.. I was a jerk because I decided to save the rest of the party and not him. My cleric's take.. needs of the many.. verse the one. She decided to let him die..and would have killed him..
Of course he stupidly kicked open the door while the rest of us were cleaning up the last fight.. because he was 'bored'.
I have known one player with significant position in society play that who called out that they had specifically made a high lethality melee character while intentionally minimizing his defenses against enchantments to give GM tools (his dominated character) to kill the party.
How does this NOT break the "Don't be an ass" rule we have in place?
I would be...... Lets go with "Upset" if my character died to this.
Well when does 'diligent efforts' finish? I once had to fight one of my party members as he rather stupidly got possessed by a Shadow Demon. We (me and the other cleric) cast 3 protections from evil and two hold persons. (astonishingly enough the idiot had luck enough to save against those...but not the mind jar)
In the meantime, he had nearly killed the ranger (whose axe beak fled with his stabilzed body), put one other player to negs twice and put two others down by half.
It took BOTH clerics to put down him along with the others we kept healing up, the other critters the shadow demon had AND keep the others healthy. Even after I put him to -14, I was ready to cast stabilize..
But then the critter that took him came out, and I got to make a knowledge (Planes) roll to know it was either leave him or me.. and if I died.. only the ranger was safely away.
So, I guess by your terms.. I was a jerk because I decided to save the rest of the party and not him. My cleric's take.. needs of the many.. verse the one. She decided to let him die..and would have killed him..
Of course he stupidly kicked open the door while the rest of us were cleaning up the last fight.. because he was 'bored'.
I'm not sure how you think thats at all the same thing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how you think thats at all the same thing?I have known one player with significant position in society play that who called out that they had specifically made a high lethality melee character while intentionally minimizing his defenses against enchantments to give GM tools (his dominated character) to kill the party.
How does this NOT break the "Don't be an ass" rule we have in place?
I would be...... Lets go with "Upset" if my character died to this.
Well when does 'diligent efforts' finish? I once had to fight one of my party members as he rather stupidly got possessed by a Shadow Demon. We (me and the other cleric) cast 3 protections from evil and two hold persons. (astonishingly enough the idiot had luck enough to save against those...but not the mind jar)
In the meantime, he had nearly killed the ranger (whose axe beak fled with his stabilzed body), put one other player to negs twice and put two others down by half.
It took BOTH clerics to put down him along with the others we kept healing up, the other critters the shadow demon had AND keep the others healthy. Even after I put him to -14, I was ready to cast stabilize..
But then the critter that took him came out, and I got to make a knowledge (Planes) roll to know it was either leave him or me.. and if I died.. only the ranger was safely away.
So, I guess by your terms.. I was a jerk because I decided to save the rest of the party and not him. My cleric's take.. needs of the many.. verse the one. She decided to let him die..and would have killed him..
Of course he stupidly kicked open the door while the rest of us were cleaning up the last fight.. because he was 'bored'.
My point is.. you say I can't protect myself or the others because killing a dominated player is a 'jerk move'. My question is.. if you can't save him.. how many other members of the party had to die before it's not a 'jerk move' to kill him?
Hold person, Bullrush, Reposition, Grapple, non-lethal damage, the protection/magic circle spells (all allow another save vs control)
If your only option is to kill them, its because you want to.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it is if your PC was the one to fail to save against the save or suck effect, why should the other players suffer? If you are the type of combat monster that can easily shred PCs of your level, then it's on you to protect yourself from being dominated. At the levels where this is likely to happen, a clear spindle ioun stone should be obtainable.
|
|
The way I see it is if your PC was the one to fail to save against the save or suck effect, why should the other players suffer? If you are the type of combat monster that can easily shred PCs of your level, then it's on you to protect yourself from being dominated. At the levels where this is likely to happen, a clear spindle ioun stone should be obtainable.
That isn't as great a solution as it once was. From what I have most recently seen that does protect against evil creatures doing such. More recently within PFS enemy enchanters (or monsters who can perform dominate effects) seem to tend towards true neutral even among evil groups and organizations. One needs a lot more to stop from being a dominate target.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it is if your PC was the one to fail to save against the save or suck effect, why should the other players suffer? If you are the type of combat monster that can easily shred PCs of your level, then it's on you to protect yourself from being dominated. At the levels where this is likely to happen, a clear spindle ioun stone should be obtainable.That isn't as great a solution as it once was. From what I have most recently seen that does protect against evil creatures doing such. More recently within PFS enemy enchanters (or monsters who can perform dominate effects) seem to tend towards true neutral even among evil groups and organizations. One needs a lot more to stop from being a dominate target.
Thing is..this character built it all around one thing. SMASHING things. His weapon was a +1 Acidic Furious Vicious Adamantine Greatsword. (Over half his wealth in that item) and had a single digit will save.
A few of my first to third level casters could have gotten him.
|
|
Thing is..this character built it all around one thing. SMASHING things. His weapon was a +1 Acidic Furious Vicious Adamantine Greatsword. (Over half his wealth in that item) and had a single digit will save.
A few of my first to third level casters could have gotten him.
I'm not arguing in favor of those who build their characters in such a way.
What I am saying for the smashing-characters is that in current society play it takes more than a minimal investment to protect against enchantments, and players should still take those on to protect themselves and especially their party.
For the players now facing smashing characters, it is typically not going to feel good getting killed by party members even when one is dominated, especially if it seems like they didn't even consider non-lethal options. If they didn't mean to do it, give suggestions for how to stop that particular weakness rather than leading with "it is your fault we were forced to kill you". Will saves suck, but I would not be surprised to find that someone just wasn't prepared for domination just because they didn't realize it was something they needed to be prepared for. Just people aren't as prepared for their first fight against swarms or fields of darkness. This one just as the nastier side effect, and unique among most Pathfinder ailments, of directly getting the party killed by ones failure.
For GMs, use best judgement where you can. Having the barbarian player unleash a full attack to instantly kill the party's wizard is probably the best strategy to end the party's adventure right there but it doesn't make it the sole option or even close to the best option for the adventure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is..this character built it all around one thing. SMASHING things. His weapon was a +1 Acidic Furious Vicious Adamantine Greatsword. (Over half his wealth in that item) and had a single digit will save.
A few of my first to third level casters could have gotten him.
I'm not arguing in favor of those who build their characters in such a way.
What I am saying for the smashing-characters is that in current society play it takes more than a minimal investment to protect against enchantments, and players should still take those on to protect themselves and especially their party.
For the players now facing smashing characters, it is typically not going to feel good getting killed by party members even when one is dominated, especially if it seems like they didn't even consider non-lethal options. If they didn't mean to do it, give suggestions for how to stop that particular weakness rather than leading with "it is your fault we were forced to kill you". Will saves suck, but I would not be surprised to find that someone just wasn't prepared for domination just because they didn't realize it was something they needed to be prepared for. Just people aren't as prepared for their first fight against swarms or fields of darkness. This one just as the nastier side effect, and unique among most Pathfinder ailments, of directly getting the party killed by ones failure.
For GMs, use best judgement where you can. Having the barbarian player unleash a full attack to instantly kill the party's wizard is probably the best strategy to end the party's adventure right there but it doesn't make it the sole option or even close to the best option for the adventure.
Thing is.. we tried. Protection from Evil, Hold Person, even tried to blind him. After running them out and blowing out half our of healing. I held him back, with some really good luck hits from me kept him reeling long enough for me to hold the door and get the rest of the party out. When he fell..and the Shadow Demon popped out.. I was prepared to stabalize him and run for the exit.. Needless to say a fully healed shadow demon vs a spell depleted cleric with 20 points of damage and struggling to get the rest of the party out alive. (I mean.. I literally had shredded five scrolls, all but 3 spells, one of which was daylight)
|
|
Thing is.. we tried. Protection from Evil, Hold Person, even tried to blind him. After running them out and blowing out half our of healing. I held him back, with some really good luck hits from me kept him reeling long enough for me to hold the door and get the rest...Thing is..this character built it all around one thing. SMASHING things. His weapon was a +1 Acidic Furious Vicious Adamantine Greatsword. (Over half his wealth in that item) and had a single digit will save.
A few of my first to third level casters could have gotten him.
I'm not arguing in favor of those who build their characters in such a way.
What I am saying for the smashing-characters is that in current society play it takes more than a minimal investment to protect against enchantments, and players should still take those on to protect themselves and especially their party.
For the players now facing smashing characters, it is typically not going to feel good getting killed by party members even when one is dominated, especially if it seems like they didn't even consider non-lethal options. If they didn't mean to do it, give suggestions for how to stop that particular weakness rather than leading with "it is your fault we were forced to kill you". Will saves suck, but I would not be surprised to find that someone just wasn't prepared for domination just because they didn't realize it was something they needed to be prepared for. Just people aren't as prepared for their first fight against swarms or fields of darkness. This one just as the nastier side effect, and unique among most Pathfinder ailments, of directly getting the party killed by ones failure.
For GMs, use best judgement where you can. Having the barbarian player unleash a full attack to instantly kill the party's wizard is probably the best strategy to end the party's adventure right there but it doesn't make it the sole option or even close to the best option for the adventure.
I'm not trying to suggest you didn't try or even that you didn't try hard enough. I don't think anyone in this thread has. I'm just giving general advice for people who are in this situation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of these "you can do non lethal, grapple, hold person, counterspell..." arguments are great... unless of course the characters don't have access to those spells or abilities, or aren't grapplers, or able to successfully drop Mittens McMurder reliably with a -4 penalty to hit before he mangles you or another party member.
Yes, it is unfortunate that your companion is no longer in control of his actions. It is more unfortunate if he kills another party member because people were holding back or not playing to their character's strengths. If you can neutralize the character without much harm, groovy, go you. Otherwise it is your responsibility to drop them as fast as possible to prevent more damage to the rest of the party. It does you no good to take one casualty while trying to prevent another.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Thing is.. we tried. Protection from Evil, Hold Person, even tried to blind him. After running them out and blowing out half our of healing. I held him back, with some really good luck hits from me kept him reeling longThing is..this character built it all around one thing. SMASHING things. His weapon was a +1 Acidic Furious Vicious Adamantine Greatsword. (Over half his wealth in that item) and had a single digit will save.
A few of my first to third level casters could have gotten him.
I'm not arguing in favor of those who build their characters in such a way.
What I am saying for the smashing-characters is that in current society play it takes more than a minimal investment to protect against enchantments, and players should still take those on to protect themselves and especially their party.
For the players now facing smashing characters, it is typically not going to feel good getting killed by party members even when one is dominated, especially if it seems like they didn't even consider non-lethal options. If they didn't mean to do it, give suggestions for how to stop that particular weakness rather than leading with "it is your fault we were forced to kill you". Will saves suck, but I would not be surprised to find that someone just wasn't prepared for domination just because they didn't realize it was something they needed to be prepared for. Just people aren't as prepared for their first fight against swarms or fields of darkness. This one just as the nastier side effect, and unique among most Pathfinder ailments, of directly getting the party killed by ones failure.
For GMs, use best judgement where you can. Having the barbarian player unleash a full attack to instantly kill the party's wizard is probably the best strategy to end the party's adventure right there but it doesn't make it the sole option or even close to the best option for the adventure.
Thanks for clarifying that. I have been in that situation of being the meat puppet. Got dominated, told to 'take care of the others' two scenarios in a row. To the point that character's weapon is now known locally as the 'Bard Beater'. The first time, they killed the caster to stop me from beating the poor bard to death. The second time was because I was 200 gp short of a spindle and not quite enough fame to buy it even if I had it.
The next two bards were not happy that I beat them silly with dirty tricks and sundering their instruments. The last one managed to cast suggestion on me.. needless to say I was grateful and their was much cheering when I went and bought the spindle. Ditto the purchase of Seducer's bane and a scroll of suppress charms & compulsions that I stock up on.
Our 2nd encounter with the first dominator.. ended quite differently with me rolling her up in a rug and dragging her feet first up the stairs to the lovely sound of her head thumping up the stairs.
|
Agreed. When I've faced such a situation, we've always done what we could to neutralize the dominated PC non-lethally. There are a few thing you can do... Attacking with nonlethal attacks (at -4 to hit), spells like Hold Person. Hmm... murderous command would be interesting in this situation!
Grappling and/or disarming works, among other things. Try casting Protection from Evil (though the target gets a save in this case).
metamagic rod of merciful is very cheap - and handy for when you need to take someone alive - merciful fireballs sound a little strange but when you absolutely need to deal damage - but not kill - it is there
Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.
even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
First off I dont think Acidic is a think but nevermind.. My question is how does he survive long enough to kill anything after the first hit.. That much in a weapon he has any AC left to not get the crap smashed out of him?
If he is anything like my barbarian, (who had a similarly expensive weapon) he has enough hit points to simply outlast everything on the field. Also blindfight and mistmail is cheap (or other concealment effects.)
|
|
Agreed. When I've faced such a situation, we've always done what we could to neutralize the dominated PC non-lethally. There are a few thing you can do... Attacking with nonlethal attacks (at -4 to hit), spells like Hold Person. Hmm... murderous command would be interesting in this situation!
Grappling and/or disarming works, among other things. Try casting Protection from Evil (though the target gets a save in this case).
metamagic rod of merciful is very cheap - and handy for when you need to take someone alive - merciful fireballs sound a little strange but when you absolutely need to deal damage - but not kill - it is there
Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.
even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.
That was MY character who was told 'take care of them.' Who isn't stupid and purposely for two rounds did dirty tricks on them. Throat punches and pantsing the bards. Round three was 'stop him from performing' round four was 'eliminate them' where I did non lethal
The rod bit, well you know what they say about hindsight. Easy to bring it up now bit then....
|
|
First off I dont think Acidic is a think but nevermind.. My question is how does he survive long enough to kill anything after the first hit.. That much in a weapon he has any AC left to not get the crap smashed out of him?The way I see it is if your PC was the one to fail to save against the save or suck effect, why should the other players suffer? If you are the type of combat monster that can easily shred PCs of your level, then it's on you to protect yourself from being dominated. At the levels where this is likely to happen, a clear spindle ioun stone should be obtainable.That isn't as great a solution as it once was. From what I have most recently seen that does protect against evil creatures doing such. More recently within PFS enemy enchanters (or monsters who can perform dominate effects) seem to tend towards true neutral even among evil groups and organizations. One needs a lot more to stop from being a dominate target.Thing is..this character built it all around one thing. SMASHING things. His weapon was a +1 Acidic Furious Vicious Adamantine Greatsword. (Over half his wealth in that item) and had a single digit will save.
A few of my first to third level casters could have gotten him.
You're right it's corrosive. The character was around 8th or so I think and was known for raging and hitting like a runaway truck. Typically by charging and power striking. Few things got to hit him more than twice.
He was a healers nightmare.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with others that nonlethal is preferred, but it all depends on the situation. If my (level 11) zen archer monk was dominated to attack the party, I would fully expect the other PCs to drop him as soon as possible regardless of the means due to the large likelihood of him killing other PCs.
Pretty much this. If the person dominated has a reasonable chance of killing party member's, I'm going to take him down however I can, preferably with nonlethal but if I accidentally kill him then I can always help him pay for a raise dead. If he kills other PC's and we then wipe, then we're all screwed. I tend to view dominates as a save-or-die effect, and if I fail then I make no expectations about what happens to me next.
|
|
Ah, I remember my first time in a party when the barbarian was dominated :3
He cleaved two party members in half as soon as his turn came up (next) when he decided to crit (he was wielding a scythe) our healer and our monk. I remember it vividly, because the BBEG then cast sleep on the other members of the party. In fact... the only reason I was able to shift (teleportation subschool) out of sight was because I was an elf (I rolled, failed, and only then remembered the immunity).
Good times indeed.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
With regard to nonlethal damage, it's important to remember that it drops people when it's equal to their current HP, but only overflows into lethal damage when it's equal to their total HP.
When you keep that in mind, it gets a lot easier for barbarians and paladins to subdue people without accidentally killing them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should really only come down to 1 question. "Does the 'no pvp' rule apply to prevent that guy from hurting me?"
There are 2 'p's in "pvp", and there's a reason it doesn't mention whether you are the first or second 'p' when the rule applies to you - the rule works both ways.
If the rule applied between me and the dominated barbarian, it would operate to stop him from attacking me. So the fact that he is attacking me tells me that the no-pvp rule has ceased to apply between us, and I'm gonna neutralise him before he neutralises me. How I neutralise him may fall under the 'don't be a jerk' rule, but if self-preservation is foreseeably at risk, you can bet I'm gonna take him down hard.
|
|
Agreed. When I've faced such a situation, we've always done what we could to neutralize the dominated PC non-lethally. There are a few thing you can do... Attacking with nonlethal attacks (at -4 to hit), spells like Hold Person. Hmm... murderous command would be interesting in this situation!
Grappling and/or disarming works, among other things. Try casting Protection from Evil (though the target gets a save in this case).
metamagic rod of merciful is very cheap - and handy for when you need to take someone alive - merciful fireballs sound a little strange but when you absolutely need to deal damage - but not kill - it is there
Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.
even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.
Eh... Playing it like you are parsing a legal document reminds me of my high school days when we would spend a week writing our wish with our best teenage legalese.
It really invites the player vs GM attitude. Although it does teach the GM to be tighter with thier language.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.
even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.
If you encounter a group of enemies, and the party leader/strategist tells you to take care of them, do you assume that means draw them a warm bath, or do you kill them? Playing word games because you are dominated when your character would normally just stomp face is a bad as cheating, IMO.
|
|
With regard to nonlethal damage, it's important to remember that it drops people when it's equal to their current HP, but only overflows into lethal damage when it's equal to their total HP.
When you keep that in mind, it gets a lot easier for barbarians and paladins to subdue people without accidentally killing them.
I generally try and do one or two hits nonlethal, then take the gloves off. With 10-20 nonlethal damage they usually drop to zero hp instead of dropping to negative Con.
My pali does this on many humanoids, not just dominated murderhobo allies.|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Another thing to use against dominated PC's is crowd control. My musket master was known for one-rounding bbeg's, and got dominated during Eyes (which we later found out was a GM mistake, but...)
They immediately wrapped a wall of stone into a shell around me. Would have locked me up for 4 rounds, but the baddy managed to teleport me out earlier. Then a wall of force further kept me at bay for a bit. Don't remember how they finally resolved it - probably a pro-evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you encounter a group of enemies, and the party leader/strategist tells you to take care of them, do you assume that means draw them a warm bath, or do you kill them? Playing word games because you are dominated when your character would normally just stomp face is a bad as cheating, IMO.Also - if a character has a low wisdom or int - and the dominatrix said "take care of the rest of the party" why would one assume that means to murder them? There has to be reasonableness on the part of the dominatee. If the GM gives an out in words, one should take it.
even "kill them all" might allow a minion to be attacked, or one could go for animal companions and eidolons or high AC types.
There are gray areas that can be kind of fun, though--you just have to work with the GM.
My Ranger/Zen Archer got secretly possessed and was told to kill another character "to the best of her ability". Well, she had Freebooter's bane, so I asked the GM if using a move action to bane the other party member was in the spirit of the command. GM agreed, so my character's opening move was, "Come on, everybody! Let's kill the fighter!"--which alerted the rest of the party to what was going on so they could beat the crap out of me before I unloaded 4 arrows into fighter.
Another time, my cuisinart TWF was ordered to "stop him/keep him away from me"--"him" being her dance partner and husband. So she "grappled" him, which left her partner saying, "I love you, too, dear, but this is hardly the time!"
|
|
Don't forget that dominated people get to make new saving throws at +2 every time they are forced to do something against their nature.
Simply by extending the rounds of combat, you're affording that dominated person a chance to regain control, assuming that character doesn't naturally make a habit of attacking fellow party members.
|
|
Don't forget that dominated people get to make new saving throws at +2 every time they are forced to do something against their nature.
Simply by extending the rounds of combat, you're affording that dominated person a chance to regain control, assuming that character doesn't naturally make a habit of attacking fellow party members.
I believe that's a new saving throw per command, not per round that the command is in effect.
So if the enemy dominates a barbarian, and then orders "Kill them...kill them all!" the barbarian will get a new save at +2 at that time. But he won't have to make any other saves in the combat. (Unless the enemy starts micromanaging the fight and giving new orders.)
|
|
Another time, my cuisinart TWF was ordered to "stop him/keep him away from me"--"him" being her dance partner and husband. So she "grappled" him, which left her partner saying, "I love you, too, dear, but this is hardly the time!"
I remember that domination!
On the note of the Clear Spindle Ioun Stone, it is not nearly as useful as many people consider it. With 20 characters, I only have 1 that has it. That character fought 3 Succubi by level 9, and now has the stone because she believes she's somehow drawing the creatures to herself.
