"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
I can imagine a player getting into a very long argument with the GM on the subject of how taking orders from a vampire would be against the character's nature, and therefore he ought to get a saving throw against every single command.
James Jacob's interpretation: "For a PC, I would say that forcing a PC to attack another PC would normally be against a PC's nature and would allow a new saving throw (unless, of course, that PC has already displayed a propensity for attacking other PCs)." This significantly reduces the power of the spell to destroy an entire group.
Some issues:
What happens if the creature that's dominating you dies? Do you keep obeying the last command?
Given a command like, "protect me," who decides how the victim interprets it?
I can imagine a player getting into a very long argument with the GM on the subject of how taking orders from a vampire would be against the character's nature, and therefore he ought to get a saving throw against every single command.
I can REMEMBER a player getting into a very long argument with me about it. Substitute illithid for vampire, but I almost folded up the game right there. Not in anger, simply because if I was not allowed to make rulings in the game I was running, I couldn't run a game. I had three players telling me he should get another save. I said "I've heard your arguments, and in other circumstances, you would be right, but in this case I disagree, and I have to make a ruling one way or another." I don't want to sound like I made an arbitrary ruling. The game stopped for about 15 minutes while I reread it, said what the difference between "acting against his nature" and "not doing an act he would choose to do if not dominated." I was formulating an apology in my head for ending the game early, when the 28-Charisma bard dominated the PC who had been dominated, which turns into a Charisma contest.
Game breaking? Maybe. Game altering? To a degree. Game ending? Potentially.
So, my opinion on this matter is that you'll have players that, no matter what you have them do, they're going to argue that it's against their nature. And then you'll also have players that will enjoy playing a dominated PC acting as if obeying these commands is a perfectly reasonable thing. In the former case you can turn around and ask them if every single possible command gives them another save, what's the point of the spell?
The phrase "against their nature" is one of those phrases that is simply an open invitation to bad GMing and hostile play. Depending on which side of the table you're on, you end up with people whose very nature precludes taking commands at all, or sociopaths whose only compunction is "you kill it, you eat it."
I don't like JJ's interpretation at all (and would overrule it at my table). PCs in my world have no special status as such; if you can be dominated into killing the cop or the castle guard, you can also be dominated into killing the bard. This is particularly true for most PFS murderhobos that are willing to do anything to further the mission and to get the Fame points. So this might make dominate unwarrantedly powerful at my table.
Having said that, if you're playing at a level where dominate is an issue, and you don't have protection from alignment available, then the coroner's report will read "suicide by unbelievably bad equipment choice." Like almost all save-or-suck effects, it requires a combination of stupidity and bad luck to be more than inconvenienced by it.
As mentioned previously, dominate person/monster and its lessers (charm person in particular) have extremely shaky mechanics because they don't actually have mechanics to work off of. A PCs or NPCs 'nature' is a highly subjective thing, with alignment being the only thing even remotely close to a codified personality, and even then.
If you go to a game like Exalted, especially 3e, this sort of thing wouldn't happen because everyones personality traits are clearly coded and given mechanical values, as opposed to leaving them nebulous until something like 'against the characters nature' comes along.
Some issues:
What happens if the creature that's dominating you dies? Do you keep obeying the last command?
Clearly yes, with the caveat that you're going to get a new save every day because they aren't maintaining the necessary telepathic contact to prevent it.
PCs in my world have no special status as such; if you can be dominated into killing the cop or the castle guard, you can also be dominated into killing the bard.
I think he is assuming, as most of us do, that a group of PCs are friends and companions. I'm certainly not likely to kill a cop, but I would probably do that before I would kill one of my friends.
In any event, while the Dominate spells can be powerful, they are not spells that I would consider game-altering or game-breaking.
They don't really change the nature of the game. Although when your best DPR guy falls under the influence and fails that second save they sure can hurt a lot.
In any event, while the Dominate spells can be powerful, they are not spells that I would consider game-altering or game-breaking.
They don't really change the nature of the game. Although when your best DPR guy falls under the influence and fails that second save they sure can hurt a lot.
Have you ever played in a game where a caster PC decides to build up a small army of dominated giants, orc barbarians, etc?
No, me neither. But it could happen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With most save-or-lose/save-or-die spells, I use ability damage, with the effect occurring at a score of 0. There's a system in place for determining ability damage vs. range, spell level, number of targets, and so on.
Dominate person is a 5th level spell dealing 5d6 Cha damage at close range (save for half). At Cha 0, the target is effectively without personal volition and obeys your commands.
Other SOL/SOD spells are similar; hold person is a 3rd level spell dealing 4d4 Dex damage at close range (paralyzed at Dex 0); a Will save applies each round to halve the remaining Dex damage. Finger of death is a 7th level spell dealing 7d4 Con damage at close range (Fort half; dead at 0). Etc.
With most save-or-lose/save-or-die spells, I use ability damage, with the effect occurring at a score of 0. There's a system in place for determining ability damage vs. range, spell level, number of targets, and so on.
Dominate person is a 5th level spell dealing 5d6 Cha damage at close range (save for half). At Cha 0, the target is effectively without personal volition and obeys your commands.
Other SOL/SOD spells are similar; hold person is a 3rd level spell dealing 4d4 Dex damage at close range (paralyzed at Dex 0); a Will save applies each round to halve the remaining Dex damage. Finger of death is a 7th level spell dealing 7d4 Con damage at close range (Fort half; dead at 0). Etc.
+1. I also would like more information. I've been thinking of doing something similar for quite some time. I figured the ability damage in question would work like non-lethal damage, but call it non-lethal ability damage. It would heal much faster than normal and doesn't kill/incapacitate you, just pump you with a spell effect and you become susceptible to other effects as you fail your saves.
I was planning on doing this in a campaign with max hit points for everyone and two ability scores for each save type (Str/Con for Fort, Dex/Int for Reflex and Wis/Cha for Will), using the higher of the two at the time. I was also considering AC as damage reduction, no Str or Dex bonus to hit with attacks and a few other tweaks.
I never got around to the ability score damage scale, so I am very interested in what you have in mind.
I've actually found dominate to be far more problematic when the GM uses it than when the players do.
Some players react very badly to having control of their characters taken away from them. Not entirely unreasonable, since if you can't run your own character there's not much you can do at the table. Then again, some players enjoy rolling with the punches and RPing their characters as mind-controlled by the bad guys. Personally, as a GM I'd hesitate to dominate PC unless I knew the player would be okay with it.
|
I actually consider dominate person to be a massively game altering spell because it's at this point I can start seriously affecting the narrative direction of the game, especially if there is some sort of large plot to the game. At this point, I stop killing agents and start having them work for me as double agents. With Geas next level this gets turned to 11.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have it in a document/table or something would you mind posting a link or putting it behind a spoiler box?
Kirth's massive collection of house-rules is known as Kirthfinder.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
A few things to remember about dominate person:
It is a full round casting time, so it can be easy to disrupt if used in combat without precautions.
It's nearly impossible to cast spells secretly so if you cast in a public area everyone knows you did something.
It is only a DC 25 Sense Motive check to notice someone is acting strangely due to dominate.
That having been said, it's a solid 5th level spell. Players in my group know that if they want to make an "against my nature" argument that it must be consistent with their roleplay to that point. We're a fairly mature group, however, so we let players continue to play their characters when mind controlled or charmed, and in general it's not hard to get them to go along with it. It can even be a fun/freeing experience if done well.
Also, we play that dominate makes you obey orders like an automaton - you literally do what you're told, not necessarily what the controller wants. An order like "defend me" leaves the subject open to so many ways to obey - they can aid another AC, they can attack their friends, they can verbally argue that the caster isn't worth attacking, and so forth. It's a powerful spell but you need to be specific about what you want the target to do. "Attack your party as if you mean to destroy them," is almost certainly against most good PC's nature but it will get the job done if it works.
As a last point, remember dominate is shut down by the protection from evil line of spells, if the alignment of the caster matches the protection.
I actually consider dominate person to be a massively game altering spell because it's at this point I can start seriously affecting the narrative direction of the game, especially if there is some sort of large plot to the game. At this point, I stop killing agents and start having them work for me as double agents. With Geas next level this gets turned to 11.
Contrary to the post above, it's only a DC 15 Sense Motive to tell someone you're interacting with is dominated (25 for charmed). You can't reasonably make double agents work. At all.
|
|
I actually consider dominate person to be a massively game altering spell because it's at this point I can start seriously affecting the narrative direction of the game, especially if there is some sort of large plot to the game. At this point, I stop killing agents and start having them work for me as double agents. With Geas next level this gets turned to 11.Contrary to the post above, it's only a DC 15 Sense Motive to tell someone you're interacting with is dominated (25 for charmed). You can't reasonably make double agents work. At all.
While you are correct about the rules, they don't support your position.
You have three fundamental problems with your thesis: first, you assume that a DC 15 Sense Motive check is a gimme, it's not; second, you assume that characters passively detect domination, they don't; finally, I think you interpreted "double agent" as "passive information gatherers", that was not my intent.
To the first point, I just flipped through the NPC guide at random and looked at 20 NPCs across a smattering of classes and only 11 of them had any ranks in Sense Motive at all. While this is certainly not a rigorous analysis of the probability of an NPC having ranks in Sense Motive, it is a telling result seems to indicate that Sense Motive is not a "must take" skill. As a benchmark, all 20 had ranks in Perception. With no ranks of Sense Motive you are looking at only a 25% chance of success or a bit higher if you dipped into wisdom. Not a gimme by any stretch.
To the second point, neither in the text of dominate person or in the text of Sense Motive does it say that the check to determine if a person is dominated is somehow reflexive or passive, rather that it is an active use of the skill. The time frame for active use of Sense Motive runs from a minute to all evening. So unless your villain is in a habit of scrutinizing the behaviors of every underling for a minute, their status could go undetected for quite some time; basically until weird stuff starts happening and by then it could be too late. Basically, dominated people act like Kilgrave's victims from Jessica Jones; not slavering zombies.
To the third point, I will spot you that dominate person is a bad tool for building a network of long-term counter agents in a rival organization; the spell for that is called gaes and is one spell level higher. However, I can create short term double agents who can completely change the trajectory of a session or even an entire game. Here's a simple scenario: As a session hook, my party and I are attacked by a band of assassins belonging to the "Red Fang Gang", a medium sized gang in the city. The DM's intent is to have us fight our way through the gang and eventually take out it's leader. Instead, I dominate one of the assassins and give it the following order: "Go to the Black Dragon Pub and kill everybody inside. You will have back-up hiding in wait for you inside; attack and they will strike from the shadows." The Black Dragon Pub is a front for the "Black Hat Pack" an even bigger gang. I know the entire layout of the city's underworld structure because I max out Knowledge (Local). I even give the assassin forged orders (I always max Linguistics) that further damn the "Red Fang Gang". The assassin goes to the bar, dies horribly (because his imaginary backup never arrives), and a gang war breaks out between the two gangs; I solved the adventure with one spell, knowledge of the political landscape, and writing a note. This is PRECISELY what I mean by game changing and affecting the narrative direction of the game. Is this a jerk move by the player? Maybe, depends on how good the DM is at playing speed chess; but that's not the argument here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the issue I have with the adventuring by proxy that has been described by Ouroboros is two fold. Firstly if the adventure challenges were capable of being solved by lower level characters/NPCs dominated by the PCs then the adventure difficulty is being set very low. What's the point of having PCs if they aren't needed?
Secondly, if that it is the sole premise of the adventure then this method of adventuring by proxy isn't very heroic. What are you going to do for the rest of the evenin? Your network/spy/double agent has just left you're party with nothing to do. Ok pack up and go home or watch a film.
I had a DM once who said to the party "if you keep designing characters that are so powerful that they cake walk every encounter I will say... no need to roll the dice, you killed that monster, here's the dmg pick what items you like, oh and you level up... Next encounter... Ok no need to roll, here is the dmg etc etc, until everyone had had enough"
|
|
the issue I have with the adventuring by proxy that has been described by Ouroboros is two fold. Firstly if the adventure challenges were capable of being solved by lower level characters/NPCs dominated by the PCs then the adventure difficulty is being set very low. What's the point of having PCs if they aren't needed?
Secondly, if that it is the sole premise of the adventure then this method of adventuring by proxy isn't very heroic. What are you going to do for the rest of the evenin? Your network/spy/double agent has just left you're party with nothing to do. Ok pack up and go home or watch a film.
I had a DM once who said to the party "if you keep designing characters that are so powerful that they cake walk every encounter I will say... no need to roll the dice, you killed that monster, here's the dmg pick what items you like, oh and you level up... Next encounter... Ok no need to roll, here is the dmg etc etc, until everyone had had enough"
I didn't say it was necessarily the preferred way to play, just that it was game changing; however, there are plenty of way to make what I described a very fun evening game. One way is actually role playing the game; the plotting, the dialog, and the back and forth. Another is for the GM to widen their gaze and up their game; in my example, the party has graduated from rent-a-scrub gangs and it's time for the DM to throw a real challenge at them (it's just like how teleport invalidates the "get to Mt. Doom" style of quest).
P.S. Sounds like that was a pretty uncreative DM. How about traps? How about social encounters? How about investigations? There are a lot of ways to challenge parties other then "Apply monster; repeat".
how would you handle that situation as a GM if the player expected a gang war from one spell?
I don't think that's quite how I would describe the situation. A skilled wizard who knows the environment -- which can include the political environment as well as the physical one -- should be able to pick a single (use of a) spell that will radically shift the environment in her favor. If the game master has created an environment where a gang war is likely, then he's more or less offered this opportunity to the player, in the same way that a game master who throws a gladiatorial arena into a settlement has more or less offered the martials in the party a chance to play Spartacus, or a game master who opens a bank is offering the party a caper job.
It's like the old joke about the furnace repair : "Banging on the furnace: $5. Knowing where to bang, $495." This is what you expect from a wizard who not only takes dominate but also maxes Linguistics and Knowledge (local), just as you expect wizards who maximize Knowlege (the planes) to start summoning things.
But by the same token, competent bosses of appropriate level will expect that their opponents will try magical stuff and have appropriate countermeasures prepared, including (frex), routine use of sense motive on anyone who gets close enough to the boss to be dangerous.
With regard to the specific situation Blackouroborus described -- did the turncoat assassin really do anything under domination that he wouldn't have done for a ridiculously large bribe? I suspect not. The problem isn't with the spell; it's with the Red Fang boss who didn't realize that there was another set of pieces on the board (the PCs) and who got outplayed at the three-handed chess game.
(ETA: I mean, seriously. One of the other crime families in The Godfather tried to turn Luca Brasi against the Corleone family, using straight-up money (because, of course, they didn't have spells). The FBI could just as easily have posed as members of the Barzini family and made the same approach. Do you really think Don Vito wasn't aware of this?)
|
|
I have only used Dominate Monster once in an adventure, but it worked out wonderfully.
PFS scenario. We were attacking a pirate ship. Party boards and meets the minons in combat, my Witch flies off to the side and starts debuffing the boss. "You commandeer the captain!"
A few rounds later, Dom Person goes off and I audibly order her to drop ber weapons and surrender. She was the last one standing so the party got tp do stuff. When everything settled down, my witch politely asked for information related to the plot. Then, as the next goal was out at sea, so we had the captain sail us out there. They got to keep their ship, and the spell was dismissed after we parted ways.
The trick is to be polite, professional, and always have a backup plan in case they break free. The way I see it, using the spell as a short term defense measure and source of information is rather safe and less derailing. Going the extra mile works better when the GM and player are on a familiar level and know the boundries and when not to push things.
In PFS I'm going to play it on the safe side.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trick any GM needs to learn is simple: "How could I stop this without breaking verisimilitude?"
Never, ever, try to out power the GMs narrative. They will always win.
This is great advice if you want to make sure that approximately no one I've ever played with will willingly come anywhere near your table.
This is great advice if you want to make sure that approximately no one I've ever played with will willingly come anywhere near your table.The trick any GM needs to learn is simple: "How could I stop this without breaking verisimilitude?"
Never, ever, try to out power the GMs narrative. They will always win.
That was my initial thought as well, but I think perhaps HWalsh just phrased himself badly. One of the marks of a good GM is that s/he will adapt the actions of the players into the overarching story line in a way that creates a credible universe. If you (the player) have a good plan, that should alter but not derail the storyline.
As I pointed out earlier, Don Vito Corleone is not a stupid man, and he's well aware of the capacities of his opponents. If dominate person were a thing listed in every grimoire, he'd be aware of that, and he'd have appropriate precautions in place. You're probably still better off having access to dominate person than if you didn't have access -- but it shouldn't be an "I win instantly" button.
Don Vito knows that there's a chance that someone might try to push him into a war with the other gangs -- whether this is done via bribes or magic is largely irrelevant. But if you play your cards right, there will still be an opening, while he's figuring out what is going on, that you can make your move with a certain degree of advantage....
Or maybe the head of the Red Fang gang isn't as smart as Don Vito....
This is great advice if you want to make sure that approximately no one I've ever played with will willingly come anywhere near your table.The trick any GM needs to learn is simple: "How could I stop this without breaking verisimilitude?"
Never, ever, try to out power the GMs narrative. They will always win.
It depends on what's meant by 'this'. If 'this' is a single casting of a spell completing the entire adventure while the rest of the PCs do nothing, then 'this' should probably be stopped - or rather, changed to something more interesting. HWalsh's suggestions for how things might go allow the players to affect the narrative in a satisfactory manner without completely dominating it.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was also thinking that HWalsh's response seemed a bit...harsh. "Not only does your plan not work, you're now worse off for ever having tried it! That'll teach you to go off my rails!" I hope that's not the message he was going for.
Personally, starting a gang war between two rival mobs in a city is something a bit small for 9th level (or higher) PCs. Your PCs are likely past that scale at this point, and that's why they can easily cast 1-2 spells and disrupt things. The resources a 9th level party can bring to bear on a problem should have them at least meddling with kingdom level politics and regional issues.
One way to think about the "scale" of your adventuring party is to look at their cash - there are good arguments that either 1 sp or 1 cp is ~$1. If you go with the gentler conversion of 1 sp, that means every gp is $10. Casting dominate person is like spending $4500 on a problem (since you would have to pay 450 gp to an NPC to cast it). A 9th level party is a highly elite mercenary team with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of specialized equipment - this is just overkill for small time problems.
Personally, starting a gang war between two rival mobs in a city is something a bit small for 9th level (or higher) PCs.
Depends on the mobs, of course. If they've been designed as level-appropriate, medium term foes, then starting a gang war between them should be a major undertaking and not something that can be done with a simple 5th level spell. If the PCs are elite mercenary units with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, then so are the NPCs, and Don Vito should definitely be willing and able to spend some of the Family's money on appropriate security.
What really doesn't make sense is trying to have it both ways -- if the gang members are scrubs, then scrub-level solutions are fine. If scrub-level solutions aren't fine, it's because the gang members shouldn't be scrubs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what's meant by 'this'. If 'this' is a single casting of a spell completing the entire adventure while the rest of the PCs do nothing, then 'this' should probably be stopped - or rather, changed to something more interesting. HWalsh's suggestions for how things might go allow the players to affect the narrative in a satisfactory manner without completely dominating it.This is great advice if you want to make sure that approximately no one I've ever played with will willingly come anywhere near your table.The trick any GM needs to learn is simple: "How could I stop this without breaking verisimilitude?"
Never, ever, try to out power the GMs narrative. They will always win.
Ya see... this is my problem with these threads. "If a single casting of a spell solves your adventure, fiat the solution away." is the almost always the only "solution" offered. Often times followed up with "And then punish the caster for trying to solve the adventure." If your only solutions deprive the players of control over the game because it messes up your plans you are having storytime, not playing a roleplaying game. And that's fine if you tell your player that. If you want to play a roleplaying game then if a well used spell wrecks the adventure.... you let it. If a well placed spell bypasses the carefully crafted encounters you designed, then it bypasses the encounters. You designed an encounter and the spell solved it. The player made the right call and should succeed for it. Next time design a better adventure. And fix the broken spells rather then punishing players for making sound tactical decisions.
To those GMs who like to resolve their issues with fiat here's something I want you to try. Every time casting a spell would solve one of your encounters and you fiat to prevent that, turn to that player and say "Sorry X, your spell would have solved the encounter, but I think that's boring so instead it fails and you wasted your spell." Then see how long you remain the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What really doesn't make sense is trying to have it both ways -- if the gang members are scrubs, then scrub-level solutions are fine. If scrub-level solutions aren't fine, it's because the gang members shouldn't be scrubs.
Purely a matter of taste, but there's almost no way I can accept gang members NOT be scrubs without the game veering into crazy-town. Make the lowliest gang member a 9th level character who can plane shift and raise the dead, and one begins to wonder why they stay in the gang instead of each going off to conquer their own worlds. And to keep them in line, you need to go full Forgotten Realms, where gang leaders are 18th level and the king is 30th.
Yeah, you can totally do that, but IMHO the rules aren't really meant for that, and for me, it shows during play.
YMMV.
Ya see... this is my problem with these threads. "If a single casting of a spell solves your adventure, fiat the solution away." is the almost always the only "solution" offered. Often times followed up with "And then punish the caster for trying to solve the adventure." If your only solutions deprive the players of control over the game because it messes up your plans you are having storytime, not playing a roleplaying game. And that's fine if you tell your player that. If you want to play a roleplaying game then if a well used spell wrecks the adventure.... you let it. If a well placed spell bypasses the carefully crafted encounters you designed, then it bypasses the encounters. You designed an encounter and the spell solved it. The player made the right call and should succeed for it. Next time design a better adventure. And fix the broken spells rather then punishing players for making sound tactical decisions.
To those GMs who like to resolve their issues with fiat here's something I want you to try. Every time casting a spell would solve one of your encounters and you fiat to prevent that, turn to that player and say "Sorry X, your spell would have solved the encounter, but I think that's boring so instead it fails and you...
These threads are the opposite of fiat - they are trying to find solutions that don't involve fiat. DMs should not be posing challenges that can be overcome by a single spell, that is not fun for anyone else and bad gaming.
Also players shouldn't have control over the game. They should have control over their actions that then go on to influence the game not control it.
Nobody is suggesting punish the caster at all, we are suggesting DMs consider these spells in line with the capabilities of other spells and other party members choices.
Also players shouldn't have control over the game. They should have control over their actions that then go on to influence the game not control it.Nobody is suggesting punish the caster at all, we are suggesting DMs consider these spells in line with the capabilities of other spells and other party members choices.
That is exactly what this is suggesting:
The trick any GM needs to learn is simple: "How could I stop this without breaking verisimilitude?"
Go ahead... tell your players each time you feel the need to "stop" actions. See how long you are GMing for. The role of the GM is not to "stop" their players. If you are intent on "stopping" player's actions, because they disrupt your scenario, that is literally what fiat is.
It was badly phrased I grant you, but if you read the rest of the post it is clear he explains how the spell would have an effect and certainly assist but would result in other challenges and encounters to make an adventure interesting and enjoyable for all players.
It is not the GMs job to stop players actions having effects. My reading of HWalsh's post is that it is the job of the GM to stop the kind of adventure ending example BlackOuroboros gave. He qualified his statement with the phrase "stop this".
Essentially a useful skill of a GM is to think on their feet to prevent a train wreck whilst still maintaining internal logic and plausibility. Otherwise the evening devolves to watching movies and chatting, as pleasant as that can be.
What really doesn't make sense is trying to have it both ways -- if the gang members are scrubs, then scrub-level solutions are fine. If scrub-level solutions aren't fine, it's because the gang members shouldn't be scrubs.Purely a matter of taste, but there's almost no way I can accept gang members NOT be scrubs without the game veering into crazy-town.
I'm inclined to agree, but I need to play the hand that BlackOuroborous dealt me -- if he thinks that the Red Fang gang are level-appropriate foes for a party of 9th level characters, then obviously he doesn't think they're scrubs. (Or turning it around, if I'm GMing and BlackOuroborous is the player, obviously I'm playing some sort of subtle "long game" here and there's a reason that I'm making horrifically overlevelled street gangs, and maybe the big reveal is what is supposed to happen after they've fought their way to the boss.)
Hell, maybe this is a Henry VI remake and the gang boss is really Prince Hal.
The point, though, is that if the gang boss is a third level scrub, then he only has the capacities of a third level scrub and you should be able to brush him aside without too much difficulty. If the gang boss is too tough to brush aside, then power him up appropriately and be prepared to explain why an 11th level wizard is running a street gang instead of a sno-cone wish factory. But whichever path you take, be consistent and coherent.
Dominate person is the most overrated spell in Pathfinder/3.5x, even without the massively frustrating "against it's nature," line. I just do not see the appeal of the spell in the slightest in terms of combat or out of combat situations.
In combat, it's a single target [mind-affecting] save-or-die affect. I hate these. They have the potential to win a combat, but they also have potential to do nothing, and it scales atrociously. When you first get access to the spell, you'll only have a few precious level 5 spells to go around, and I don't see why I would be using those when they have the potential to do nothing. When you get more level 5 spells to go around, the game has advanced to the point where [mind-affecting] spells are borderline useless in most encounters, without opponents preparing protection from X before the fight. Even if they aren't, the spell's DC doesn't scale, which alone makes it less useful.
Not only are there all of those problems, but it's a Will save. You know what has low will saves? Fighters and Rogues. You know what isn't a priority in a fight? Fighters and Rogues. The spell has a single use :target the fighter is warded by protection from X so that you gain a way to deal damage and distract the enemy. You know what does that exact same effect more efficiently? Summon Monster V used to emulate Summon Monster IV so that you get multiple monsters to directly distract the spellcasters.
And that's just the problems with using the spell during combat. Out of combat it's at least defensible, if no one else in the vicinity can identify the spell that you're casting. The spell has both vocal and somatic components, so you're a big chanting idiot waving his arms around. Even if the target passes the saving throw, everyone gets multiple detection chances to figure out what you did.
1. Anyone who is trained in the skill gets a DC 20 spellcraft check to identify the spell check.
2. Everyone gets a DC 15 sense motive check to notice that the target is being compelled to act against his will.
The first one is slightly difficult to make at level 9 for characters without high Int, and you shouldn't anticipate most characters being trained in the skill. That sense motive is going to be hit by just about anyone. It does not take even a remotely intelligent person to put together - spell is obviously being cast + guy is being compelled = spell cast compelled the target.
Do you know what happens when spellcasters are identified for casting dominate person, especially in public? The spellcaster who used dominate person gets dogpiled.
And that's all before getting into the problem actually adjudicating and running the spell during a session.
I love this spell. Great, sinister flavour. Sure, it's pretty disappointing when you don't land your save or suck, but that applies to a great number of spells in the game.
Also, fighters and rogues are not the only ones with low will. Most wizards and bards dump, or at least, do not prioritise, wisdom, in favour of other stats. Dominate one of those and you've got a free party buff-bot.
Just the feeling of power you get when you take control of another's actions, for 9+ days no less, makes this worth a try for all the megalomaniacal arcane casters out there.
Summoning may be more effective overall, but, for me, there is much more thrill in enchanting, even if it is not optimal.
If I think I'm going to be using Dominate or spells like it in a campaign I like to ask the players upfront for a list of actions that would be in the character's nature and those that would be outright against it.
In game I might remind the player about the list if they are doing something that doesn't match what they wrote but I don't try to stop the player -- simply inform them what I'm seeing, I will make a note of it though.
The list is helpful in saying, "Look you agreed healing people is something your character would do, yes you are dominated but it's still in your nature to heal people."
Granted it's not 100% but I find it has the side benefit of getting the players to think more on the nature of their characters and developing more of a connection to them too.
As a player, not long ago, my character was dominated by an abolith. Yeah, it sucks not being able to choose what you are doing, but I rolled with it. It may have been GM metagame, or more likely fortuitous luck that I was aimed at the one PC my character didn't like. :-) [He was the closest PC after all.]
That encounter could have been TPK, but the abolith was more interested in exiting his prison.
Afterwards, my character invested in an item to prevent mental command over him. Doesn't work vs. confusion or sleep, but is good vs. control. He did this with the idea that this would not be the only meeting with abolith. Recently, we learned that it is back.
/cevah
Of course we havent yet alked about the fact that dominating a person to go and intentionally start killing people and die in the process against their will is clearly an evil. Domination steers far to close to slavery for my liking.
Domination could be used to prevent evil actions, used defensively as described above. However creating mind slaves to send to die against your enemies. I remember a party sorceress once used dominate on my dwarven character because she wasn't winning a discussion about whether to take a certain treasure. The saving throws were failed she got her way and the ramifications of that over the rest of the game session caused two new characters to be rolled up.
|
|
In any event, while the Dominate spells can be powerful, they are not spells that I would consider game-altering or game-breaking.
They don't really change the nature of the game. Although when your best DPR guy falls under the influence and fails that second save they sure can hurt a lot.
Have you ever played in a game where a caster PC decides to build up a small army of dominated giants, orc barbarians, etc?
No, me neither. But it could happen.
Someone tries doing that in my game, I'd personally rule that they can only maintain Domination over a number of people equal to their Int or Charisma (whichever is their casting stat). I'd also start to seriously look at their alignment and wonder if it needs to change.
If you want to play a roleplaying game then if a well used spell wrecks the adventure.... you let it.
That really depends on how much it wrecks my adventure.
GM: "All right, let's begin this session! We've only got six hours and there's a lot to do. Last time, you'd been granted an audience with the duke. The duke says he will give you the torc if you can deal with the necromancer who is threatening his kingdom."
Player: "Nah, can't be bothered. I use my concealed spellcasting feat. Have the duke make a Will save. DC 23."
GM: "Natural 1. OK, he gives you the torc, I guess."
Player: "Cool. Now what?"
GM: "I dunno. You just skipped all the material I'd prepared. See you in two weeks' time I guess?"
I think the usual assumption is that high-ranking nobles have some sort of safeguards in place against domination. Whether its personal protections, court wizards, or just a couple observant servants who'll speak up if the Duke starts acting very oddly.
Those would be very brave servants to challenge the 9th level wizard who is currently controlling his boss.
Those would be very brave servants to challenge the 9th level wizard who is currently controlling his boss.
If your rulers of a kingdom aren't prepared to deal with a single 9th level wizard and his palls, they wouldn't be rulers of a kingdom. Protection from X is a first level spell, and it shuts down dominate when used properly.
And that's why the True Neutral Wizard beats them.
You'll notice I specified 'Duke' rather than King. And it's a big assumption that the king in my world has a cadre of high-level spell casters. If they exist, what's to stop them controlling him?
And why would you assume nobles are cautious? Ever seen Henry V? The king walks around on a battlefield, where any commoner with a grudge could kill him with a well-placed arrow. He knows there's no such thing as perfect security, and relies upon trust and luck.