To those suggesting that somebody can pretend they are succumbing to a dominate spell (as in when the enchanter goes back to cast the spell again to maintain the domination), don't forget how saving throws work:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
The enchanter will know if it didn't work.
Also, let's not forget this pertinent line from Dominate Person:
By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can't communicate with you.
Any enchanter worth their salt is going to check in on their thralls from time to time, especially in a situation as risky this one.
Personally, I like the idea of pretending to be enchanted (it certainly happens in D&D novels). Sadly, the rules don't [seem to] allow for it.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
Would lowering his defenses be against the nature of the BBEG? Should he get other saving throws?
I've always interpreted "against one's nature" to refer to severe/gross infractions, like mother Teresa murdering a baby or a paladin saving a demon. Lowering one's defenses against an ally or answering questions doesn't strike me as being against anyone's nature.
Enchantment already has enough problems without strict GMs making it crappier with harsh (but fair) rulings.
IMHO Dominate person is not charm person, yes its higher lvl, but the spell says nothing about the attitude of the Dominated person towards the dominator, the dominated person has to do as they are told that does not make them an ally, I think that lowering your defenses against someone his dominating your will and definitely not an ally is against most peoples nature, but that's me
I think you should at least move the Enchanters alignment to Evil. Surely whatever the methods are to obtain unlimited wealth it involves treading on a lot of toes(slitting a few throats), enough toes to become evil. Let the PCs deal with it when they find out (have an NPC point it out - a Paladin in the street works well).Maybe so. Still the enchanter has commissioned a ring of mind shielding, which will be ready in only 4 in-game days. He's determined to keep these new-found secrets secret. Also, the paladin is not in the habit of scanning his long-time allies due to their having earned his trust long ago.
honestly my pallies are a bit suspicious and scan her allies regularly, not using it as "you are evil, die" but to know who to trust, etc. Perhaps the first time he/she did a scan, the PC was using protections (undetectable alignment, etc).
The story you tell us is very interesting. Honestly I don't think you should punish PC's intelligence and dare. Actually casting a dominate person was asking for it if the BBEG passed his save. He'd probably be dead or in jail or something like that. Was a win-or-die case for the enchanter imo and he won. As long as he isn't disrupting the campaign I don't think there's any problem, in fact, it made the chronicle much more interesting. My advice would be to give him time to screw it up, someone dispels for some reason (might never happen tho),talk to him when the character is more seasoned, perhaps your player will agree to make him an NPC or just let him win (PvP following, I presume). Otherwise choose to finish the campaign and play another one (=/).
As for similar experiences: let me tell you 2 of mine:
In age of worms campaign (3.5) i used to play a necromancer (who liked enchantment a bit too much :P) and after she discovered Programmed Amnesia she made a plan with the party's rogue (an assassin) and we were going to rob a magic item shop. Disguise ourselves, cast some protective stuff and brainwash (changing memories to)the clerk that we were some nobles who bought everything and that he would move out of town, now that he was rich (but that he would be cautious about not telling anyone, as people would try to gain advantage from it). So in short he would just move out of town quietly, he wouldn't call in the (mage) authorities and we'd be rich ;). In the end didn't happened because we stopped playing before that (=( )
Another case, from White wolf, which was way more extreme. I was playing some kind of terrorist and my friend a rich smuggler, in the end we became allies and one night, after being severly humiliated by the local prince, we planned his assassination. I brainwashed a girl from a nightclub to spend the night with me, who got bondaged after that, made her vampire and forced my blood into her on 3 consecutive nights to force a blood bond (with a syringe, nonetheless). At the time, I requested an audience with the prince in order to introduce my "childe" (which i told i created years ago in another city) (which wasn't yet created), I got an answer and the audience for some days later. My friend, meanwhile smuggled in a monstrous amount of C-4, with which we filled the trunk of the car and even the inside of the seats. Also a 2-faced jacket which my childe would wear. When my childe was blood bonded, I released her of her binds and requested her to introduce to the prince and to wear the cloth that I thought would be appropiate for it. I never told her anything. We arrived to the prince's house, my friend called me so I had an excuse to leave the place. She went in and remotely (i had a mini camera in a part of the jacket), after assuring the man in front of the camera was the prince, I called her and the mobile phone detonator activated the c-4 of the jacket, an explosion that we designed to be enough to reach the trunk of the car. gg. Even if the prince read her thoughts (my childe's), he wouldn't be warned, even if he had celerity 10/fortitude 10 he wouldn't be able to survive such massive explosion. My DM thought about it for minutes and decided the plan was succesful. We killed the prince and half of the primogens/important people of the city (unknowingly). After 2 sessions we stopped playing =/ (i believe the prince was the last boss of the campaign). I'm not proud of this but it's a similar case I think
The BBEG didn't notice the casting because the enchanter is built like an enchanter. Kind of hard to identify a spell being cast, or to even know that a spell is being cast, when it is silenced and stilled.
As per the Sense Motive thing, no one in the party seems to have invested ranks into it. Besides, the BBEG is under instructions to follow through with his plan and act as he would if he hadn't been dominated. If he's attempting to act normal, would anyone get Sense Motive checks? I suppose they would, but the DCs would be higher than 15 I think.
I'm not trying to find a way to "fix" the situation, at least not yet (I still have it under control for now). As others have stated, it has a LOT of potential for fun so I want to see where it takes us. If nothing else, it will forever and always be a memorable experience for the enchanter player.
Part of why this happened in the first place is that we started this campaign at high level, and I wasn't yet adjusted to all the things that the characters could do. :/ So yeah, it kind of was my fault for not being more prepared (honestly I figured a high save, SR, etc would be mroe than enough--and normally, it would have). Still, the situation looks like it might work itself out to be quite an interesting change in the otherwise traditional/cliche plot.
I would stop right now before you go any further and have a think.
Issues that have out of game consequences need out of game consideration.
From the OP you seem to think the idea of moving the game from co-operative to sem-coperative to PvP is a neat one. Certainly it sounds like the enchanter is looking to have fun.
What about the other players? They key point in your OP to me is that they don't know whats going on and your caught in a bind because you don't want the players to have IC information by telling them that the game (not the campaign the game) has actually completely changed.
Now there might be groups where everybody would think this is awesome. Personally I've never come across one (ironically its players with the personality type that seem to coincide with the enchanter here who may be most against it if the shoe was on the other foot).
More likely when enchanter implements his diabolic master plan (invariably involving focusing on the characters weaknesses and no real risk to the enchanter) one or more people are going to be pissed off. This isn't Risk where you can be stomped on, sit out for an hour or two (or three) and play again. Its a campaign were people have invested tens (maybe hundreds) of hours.
Even if things go completely as you'd like things like this also tend to bleed over into the next campaign. After all if X was a complete bastard in the last game why should I co-operate with him in this one.
Bottomline I can only assume there is a reason why you weren't playing an evils, PvP, all out knock down before. And if you were presumably you wouldn't give one character a massive advantage over the rest. Yet thats effectively where you end up here.
And all of this ignores a very real practical problem that unless your in the habit of taking players into seperate rooms every ten minutes the other players will likely work out something is going on within a few sessions. They might not know what but something. Then you end up with player to player lies and evasions, player suspicions invariably bleeding back into the game. Then everyone is pissed off.
Just don't do it is my advice.
The BBEG didn't notice the casting because the enchanter is built like an enchanter. Kind of hard to identify a spell being cast, or to even know that a spell is being cast, when it is silenced and stilled.
+1 to your enchanter.
My arcane rogues (unseen seers mostly) always had silent spell. So stupid to cast silence or invisibility with verbal (and sometimes) somatic components.
The BBEG didn't notice the casting because the enchanter is built like an enchanter. Kind of hard to identify a spell being cast, or to even know that a spell is being cast, when it is silenced and stilled.
As per the Sense Motive thing, no one in the party seems to have invested ranks into it. Besides, the BBEG is under instructions to follow through with his plan and act as he would if he hadn't been dominated. If he's attempting to act normal, would anyone get Sense Motive checks? I suppose they would, but the DCs would be higher than 15 I think.
I'm not trying to find a way to "fix" the situation, at least not yet (I still have it under control for now). As others have stated, it has a LOT of potential for fun so I want to see where it takes us. If nothing else, it will forever and always be a memorable experience for the enchanter player.
Part of why this happened in the first place is that we started this campaign at high level, and I wasn't yet adjusted to all the things that the characters could do. :/ So yeah, it kind of was my fault for not being more prepared (honestly I figured a high save, SR, etc would be mroe than enough--and normally, it would have). Still, the situation looks like it might work itself out to be quite an interesting change in the otherwise traditional/cliche plot.
The DC if he is acting normally is 25. If everyone is having fun there is nothing to fix, I was not talking about fixing anything, rather letting it play out as per the rules and keeping it believable, is there anyone else the BBEG interacts with? Does it make sense for them to get a roll? As long as your not playing fast and loose with the situation in order to make it fun for the Enchanter at the possible expense of believability or the other players fun it should be fine. I just would not railroad it in favor of the enchanter either, let it play out within the limitations of the spell and see where it goes.
...is there anyone else the BBEG interacts with? Does it make sense for them to get a roll?
He has a number of other servants, but they are all maids and cooks and the like. All likely just commoners and experts unlikely to make the Sense Motive check. Even if they did, they are servants and aren't likely to be able or willing to do anything about their powerful master's change of personality (they just want to do their job, keep their heads down, and get paid).
Now, if other people (like fellow maids, cooks, and stablehands) started showing signs of being dominated, only then might the servants react (in a "What's going on? Invasion of the pod people?" kind of way).
The enchanter is pretty thorough, but I doubt he will be that thorough.
I'm hoping to get some advice on how to handle this situation. I worry it may somehow spin out of control (more so than it already has) and prematurely ruin the campaign for one or more people. What should I be watching out...The way I would do it is have the BBEG get control broken by some event at some point, and then keep up the pretence in order to turn tables on the Enchanter....
There is a mental link between the two. As soon as dominate ends the player would know.
The BBEG didn't notice the casting because the enchanter is built like an enchanter. Kind of hard to identify a spell being cast, or to even know that a spell is being cast, when it is silenced and stilled.
As per the Sense Motive thing, no one in the party seems to have invested ranks into it. Besides, the BBEG is under instructions to follow through with his plan and act as he would if he hadn't been dominated. If he's attempting to act normal, would anyone get Sense Motive checks? I suppose they would, but the DCs would be higher than 15 I think.
I'm not trying to find a way to "fix" the situation, at least not yet (I still have it under control for now). As others have stated, it has a LOT of potential for fun so I want to see where it takes us. If nothing else, it will forever and always be a memorable experience for the enchanter player.
Part of why this happened in the first place is that we started this campaign at high level, and I wasn't yet adjusted to all the things that the characters could do. :/ So yeah, it kind of was my fault for not being more prepared (honestly I figured a high save, SR, etc would be mroe than enough--and normally, it would have). Still, the situation looks like it might work itself out to be quite an interesting change in the otherwise traditional/cliche plot.
I thought we had this conversation before. Still and silenced does not hide casting, any more than an SLA or psionic power would. Does it make sense that someone can get a free jump if they are using one of the above? Sure it does, but the rules and game balance don't agree. Even if you are still and silenced, using a psionic power, and so on the caster is still concentrating to cast the spell, and that should be picked up on. At that point initiative would have been rolled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we had this conversation before. Still and silenced does not hide casting, any more than an SLA or psionic power would. Does it make sense that someone can get a free jump if they are using one of the above? Sure it does, but the rules and game balance don't agree. Even if you are still and silenced, using a psionic power, and so on the caster is still concentrating to cast the spell, and that should be picked up on. At that point initiative would have been rolled.The BBEG didn't notice the casting because the enchanter is built like an enchanter. Kind of hard to identify a spell being cast, or to even know that a spell is being cast, when it is silenced and stilled.
As per the Sense Motive thing, no one in the party seems to have invested ranks into it. Besides, the BBEG is under instructions to follow through with his plan and act as he would if he hadn't been dominated. If he's attempting to act normal, would anyone get Sense Motive checks? I suppose they would, but the DCs would be higher than 15 I think.
I'm not trying to find a way to "fix" the situation, at least not yet (I still have it under control for now). As others have stated, it has a LOT of potential for fun so I want to see where it takes us. If nothing else, it will forever and always be a memorable experience for the enchanter player.
Part of why this happened in the first place is that we started this campaign at high level, and I wasn't yet adjusted to all the things that the characters could do. :/ So yeah, it kind of was my fault for not being more prepared (honestly I figured a high save, SR, etc would be mroe than enough--and normally, it would have). Still, the situation looks like it might work itself out to be quite an interesting change in the otherwise traditional/cliche plot.
You look constipated; let's fight!
If someone tells you to "lower your defenses", that's going well beyond what the person would consider non-self destructive; that enables a new save at +2. Roll well enough, bam! Free BBEG and very sad enchanter.
Bob: "Hey Bill, you mind turning off your SR for a round; I can't do anything with it up."
Bill: "No way, let's fight!"
I was waiting for SOMEONE to say it - Domination, made impossible by... Domination. Hurray!
|
I would really love to be able to describe my games every once in a while without someone accusing me of being a liar.
For the record: I believe you, and about 50% of the campaigns I've played - or more - end in the sort of betrayal you're talking about.
I know one GM who seems to fudge things to make it happen. He does it so much that I have been getting really annoyed, and I'm not in his current games. Things like describing NPCs we've met without telling us they're the same guys we saw before "You see a 6 foot tall white male with brown hair in a trenchcoat" and then has them act suspicious and threatening, and claim it's all us when the rest of the party tells me to kill him so I snipe him dead from 2 blocks away. Meanwhile the module he's reading says they are supposed to be allies to help us in the fight immediately following that scene (he told us at the end of the night).
As for how I think you should deal with it? If it's occurring naturally, let it happen. If the player screws it up or he's unlucky, too bad for him.
If he screws up and the rest of the party finds out? let them decide on their own what to do with him, and what to do with the BBEG.
Now, if you want to introduce a bigger BBEG who turns out to have been already manipulating the old one, and is not too pleased with this PC Wizard, thats fair.
Don't pull a Xanatos if that wasn't planned from the beginning. You need to have some sense of Fair Play. That's BS GMing. You might get away with it a couple times, but if you get in the habit of it, your players will hold it against you.
If you have written notes that you can pull out and show your players you didnt just change the campaign when things didnt go the way you expected to screw over the player, then they'll know you're not cheating. - Yes, I know, some people say the GM can't Cheat. I Disagree. I just think cheating as GM isn't done the same way. Fudging the occasional dice roll isnt DM Cheating. This is.
Just on the feeble chance that this is actually a real situation and not another of your famous hypotethicals.... it's time to pull a Xanatos move....I would really love to be able to describe my games every once in a while without someone accusing me of being a liar.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
Would lowering his defenses be against the nature of the BBEG? Should he get other saving throws?
I've always interpreted "against one's nature" to refer to severe/gross infractions, like mother Teresa murdering a baby or a paladin saving a demon. Lowering one's defenses against an ally or answering questions doesn't strike me as being against anyone's nature.
Enchantment already has enough problems without strict GMs making it crappier with harsh (but fair) rulings.
That is not, and never will be, an option in my games.There always is the "rocks fall, everyone dies" option.
Is said BBEG ever visited by anyone with detect magic or arcane sight (not that uncommon once you can cast silenced stilled domitate person) once it becomes knows that he is under an enchantement effect, someone might try to free him. Maybe even one of your players can detect this.
And once that happens the BBEG can shift the blame on the enchanter or just kill him.
I also think that the BBEG should at least get his save against the effect, "do not resist this spell, that keeps you my slave forever" seems worth it.
|
|
It's the fastest highway to accusations of player favoritism and metagaming.
This is a fair point. Don't draw things out, and make sure the player understands that the face-heel turn means he's either giving up his character to die or GM control.
That, or foil it or veto it entirely. (I would err on the side of the latter; offering the player the power to determine how his plan was foiled is a fair trade for being clever enough to have enacted the plan in the first place.) It's very easy for animosity between characters to become animosity between players.
I'd be a player to complain about that. I also disagree with it as a GM.
If a player wants to betray his friends, he should be allowed to do it, and expected to keep up his charade on his own. Additionally, making his character an NPC lets the rest of the party know something is up, and unless your group has a phenomenal track record for avoiding metagamery, that alone is enough to cause group problems.
So part way through me and one of the other players start plotting together instead of independently. We aren't plotting to kill the other players, but we're plotting on getting rid of the artifacts as we go. I tell him not to say anything to the rest of the group, but he says he's sure they won't metagame, so he tells them between sessions. Immediately next session they confront us on our actions even though only 10 seconds of in game time had passed since we planned it out.
I said it was metagaming and foul play. Arguments ensued. A session later, the GM gives the players who had been metagaming, retroactive "Vision Dreams" to justify everything. I confronted the GM, told him it was b#%&+$@%, and that I didn't appreciate that he dealt with 3 players cheating by punishing the other two; he asked what I'd have done (he was playing in my game a month before this campaign) and I told him I'd have cracked down on whoever was metagaming, told them they had no in-character knowledge of the things they were acting on, and to smarten up , and that I'd have to take them over as NPCs every time the situation came up, if they couldn't play the game without cheating.
If a player wants to do something unexpected, then let them try, and don't pull any god modding. Now, if you're anticipating it, and you've prepared a xanatos gambit, or you can think on your feet fast enough to play xanatos speed chess, then good on you. But don't cheat or metagame as the GM, that's arguably much worse than when its done by a player.
I will note, however, that if I'm a 13th level Wizard, I should be immune to mind effecting effects in some planned way or another, and I should also be immune to death in one way or another (Clone, Contingency Teleport to someone I can trust to resurrect me, some sort of contingent effect to bring me back as an intelligent undead, or even an effect to summon me from the afterlife via a gate or planar binding effect).
In 3.5 I'd use Craft Contingency to have several contingent spells floating on me. in PF, I'd have one contingent spell, and achieve the rest through items, spells that have a great duration, some other equivalent method.
Ever watch Three's Company? No? Well, this whole thing sounds like the plot of a Sitcom episode.
1) The enchanter has to keep going back to the BBEG every few days, so he can never be delayed or sent on mission that might delay him...
2) What happens if the party has to do something on another plane?
3) When he does go back to check on the BBEG, what? He just says to the others "Hey, I have to go run an errand...by myself...don't mind me..." What if he proposes going out one evening and the Paladin feels like getting some air and offers to come along? How does he keep slipping away without arousing *any* suspiscion? How does he maintain that periodic schedule? I have found that the life of an adventurer can be quite unpredictable...it's like one of those episodes where the guy makes a date with two girls (without their knowledge) at the same restaurant and has to keep running back and forth between them to keep up the ruse. Spend too long with either one and the other will get suspiscious But naturally his excuses for leaving the table become more and more implausible...his dates find out...hilarity ensues---and they're all better people for it!
Surely someone in the party will notice he's behaving oddly? He keeps sneaking off for "private business"? What happens if his dear friends start to fear that he's been replaced by a doppleganger? I think it would occur to many seasoned adventurers. So they sense motive. Or they start putting skill points into it...or they hire someone else who can help them make sure their friend hasn't been replaced--a seasoned Rogue or trusted arcanist. Surely they learn that he hasn't but he *is* up to something. What if the Rogue (tell me you have a Rogue) decides to trail him one night just out of curiosity? What happens if a couple of party members happen to run into him (and surprise him) after a day of buying provisions when he is on the way back from his routine of traipsing off to see the BBEG?
I think Sun Tzu said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy."
The enchanter may have the upper hand for now, but there's always someone smarter, more powerful, more devious, more greedy. You can only be the fastest gun in the west for so long before someone faster comes along.
If the BBEG is worth that title, surely his plans are layered...like an onion. Also, what sort of BBEG worth his salt is not going to have *any* competent minions around. All he has are maids and commoner servants? This sounds more like "plot convenience playhouse" to me. Whether the OP intends it or not, it sounds like the Enchanter is getting special treatment. What's to keep the Paladin from getting some type of prophetic dream or other sign that not all is what it seems? My gods would at least consider it. They don't have to pull back the curtain, but they can at least make a half-hearted effort to tip the scales aright again.
Disappearing for an hour or two every 10 or 15 days is hardly odd for anyone. It's not like they are all living together (unlike Three's Company). Hell, I lose track of my family two or three times a week, and I DO live with them.
|
Theres lots of things that are possible here.
First is your BBEG a total loner? He was doing all this on his own? No back up? No Retainers, no house magician or cleric? A smart BBEG would have a network of cronies, at the very least. If he/she is a good BBEG than he/she is paranoid, as all BBEG are! Having a cleric or magic user coming around once a week to cast Pro from X spell on you or Detect Magic or lots of other spells that would lead to discovery of the Domination. Even someone with a high Sense Motive that just asks the BBEG point blank have you been charmed or dominated? would catch them in the lie. What level/class is the BBEG?
I'm pretty sure the president of GE has a lawyer come in every morning and grill him to see if hes been replaced with a doppleganger. Its actually very commonplace in the higher echelons of corporate America.
other things:
- If either the Enchanter or the BBEG goes into a rope trick, BOINK! dominate ends, then the BBEG could take measures;
- Anti-magic zones;
- BBEG has any spell X cast on him that ends the Dominate (this could be by some rivals attacking him that cast Dispel Magic on him, or an ally in the fight against those rivals that cast Protection on him.
So it seems you've either been far too lenient with the Dominate and saves (if you had fixed the lottery and had the winning numbers, don't you think that telling them to someone would go against your nature? After all its your goal thats taken years to put into place & complete) or haven't thought out your BBEG very well. People, good or evil, do not rise to power completely on their own, it just doesn't happen, in RL or our beloved fantasy games. Sit down, think of how the BBEG became who they are and that should help find a helping hand in resolving this.
It seems like you dont really want to 'fix' the situation, if thats the case then decide how you think your players will react to this swarthy Enchanter, and finding out hes known what was going all along. Either they will think its awesome, and will give the Enchanter a run his money as the new BBEG or it will all blow up in your face and you'll have a bunch of players/friends all pissed at you.
Maybe get extra Doritos for that session.
As per the Sense Motive thing, no one in the party seems to have invested ranks into it. Besides, the BBEG is under instructions to follow through with his plan and act as he would if he hadn't been dominated. If he's attempting to act normal, would anyone get Sense Motive checks? I suppose they would, but the DCs would be higher than 15 I think.
If he's ordered to act normal why wouldn't he just jump planes? He's still aware he's being made to reveal and do things against his will. Jumping to another plane would sever the connection, allowing the BBEG to figure out exactly what happened, let the effect wear off and then return.
AT this level he should be played the part. he shouldn't be played like he's a 1st level school boy with just a bigger bag of tricks. If i was a player i would be sorely disappointed if a 11th-13th level wizard acted the same as a 1st level mage except for rolling a few more d6's or having a higher DC to his spells. Higher level adventures are suppose to be higher level challenges that are appropriate for higher level characters. This seems no more different than a 1st level adventure charming the BBEG. If all this high level wizard can do to combat against being dominated is to bend over and take it then wizards suck. I thought wizards were one of the most powerful classes, especially at that level. SO wizards actually get weaker as they level up?
All i can say further in this matter is reverse the roles. Say a 9th level wizard cast dominate person on a PLAYER character that was 11-13th level. Would it be game over for the PC and the PC would graciously say, "well he can just order me to let down my defenses and to keep casting Dominate, so im going to role another character up ok?" The whole situation seems to belittle wizards capabilities. I can't really say much more without sounding really negative and coming across as bashing the poster. But this whole situation doesn't seem worth the level of the PC's,seems to make NPC wizards look pathetic, and seems to be blatant GM fiat in favor of this enchanter at the expense of the other PC's. I sense nothing good will come of this in the end....
Hate and poison,
The Boss of You
Maybe get extra Doritos for that session.
Just wanted to point out how much I think these are FULL OF AWESOME.
Thanks for the laugh.
RD wrote that the BBEG had mindblank cast upon the BBEG.
This would make arcane sight, detect magic fail.
Since the BBEG is to act "normal" he would recast Mindblank everyday.
Dispel magic only removes 1 spell only, considering that RDs BBEG is a 15th level+ wizard,sorcerer or cleric(probably)it would be reasonable to assume he has more then just mindblank and dominate person active.
Even with Greater dispel magic cast by a 11th level character the chances for failing to dispel a few spells are high.
However the BBEG might have a handy contigency spell ready, to deal with this dominate person spell.
Antimagic field would only supress the domination for the duration of the antimagic field spell and considering that the BBEG really cant cast anything inside the antimagic its not going to save him/her at all.
As for recasting Domination spell upon all ready dominated creatures, i would rule that a dominated creature do not get a new save against the new domination spell.
As it stands its really up to someone to save the poor BBEG.
However in many cases trying to cast spells upon a high level BBEG would probably "aggro" the BBEG.
I've always interpreted "against one's nature" to refer to severe/gross infractions, like mother Teresa murdering a baby or a paladin saving a demon. Lowering one's defenses against an ally or answering questions doesn't strike me as being against anyone's nature.Enchantment already has enough problems without strict GMs making it crappier with harsh (but fair) rulings.
I would consider 'against one's nature'... to be, essentially 'against one's nature'.
It's unique to everyone. I've been reading my essential 'tomb of Dracula' a lot this week. HIS nature is arrogant, evil, merciless, and likes to gloat.
It's possible he may see an 'ally' as someone he shouldn't fear and lower his defenses to him... it's also VERY likely that he would monologue his whole plan to him with very little coaxing.
Surrendering any of his power or influence EVEN to an ally would be totally against his nature.
ESPECIALLY if he's such a solo act. This sounds like a man who bows to NOBODY...
Though really, I find it peculiar that he has NO other minions... Even others doing the same kind of missions as THAT party. No sense having all you world ruling eggs in the same basket ;)
Same with Doctor Doom. He may use you to GET all the power of the world... but he's never going to hand it over...
If you only go with 'mother theresa killing babies' extremes... then I think the spells are too powerful for the good guys. Every time Doom tells YOUR guy to kill his buddy, you get a save. Every time he tells you to betray an ally, You get a save...
If you told to Doom to fry his 'buddy'... he'd do it in a heartbeat. Probably had that as step Seven of his plan ANYWAY. BBEG don't usually have TOO much in the ways of 'extremes' that would grant them saves.
Every time BBEG hands that enchanter a bag of gold he was counting on for himself... He should get a save ;)
Also, a Save is not a complete nerf. It's just that. A SAVE. He's obviously already failed one... so It's not shooting your players in the foot if theres' a chance he can fail it TWICE....
It just means that the enchanter has to phrase his comments and demands carefully.
Let me get this straight: the BBEG didn't leave the Standard BBEG Letter with his evil henchman?
Dear Henchy,
Every 2-3 days, I command you to cast detect magic just before entering my dread and awesome presence. And then I want you to concentrate long enough to see if any of the auras on me are enchantments, as opposed to my usual array of abjurations and what-not. If you detect one, act totally normally until you get out of my presence, then go kidnap the town priest's lovely daughter and shackle her in the Well of Lamentation, leaving behind Ransom Note #5 to the effect that I've been souljacked and the price of getting his daughter back is one break enchantment, cast on me without warning or explanation. These written orders supersede any spoken orders I may give you at a later date, for reasons which even a dolt like you will easily deduce.Hate and poison,
The Boss of You
I am going to frame this.
Seriously, though, some guy that wants to "RULE THE WORLD BWAHAHAHHAHA!" is not going to succumb easily to Domination. Certainly "Lower your defences and submit willingly" is going to be 100% against his nature, so he saves as normal. Certainly the PC's may notice their friend slipping into evil (the paladin will at some point detect evil with the enchanter in the firing line, it's bound to happen).
I'd personally be of the opinion that "act normal" and "continue your evil scheme" are two, not one, command, and only one should apply. But that's just me.
I'd personally be of the opinion that "act normal" and "continue your evil scheme" are two, not one, command, and only one should apply. But that's just me.
He's a BBEG, his 'normal' behaviour is to crush those that threaten him and then continue his evil schemes.
Enchanter: "Act as you normally would."
Dominated BBEG: "OK"
DM: "The BBEG hits you for 143 points of damage. Your enchanter is now a bloodstained shadow on the far wall."
Enchanter player: "But ... I dominated him! he was my slave!"
DM: "You told him to act normally ... he ain't NOBODY's slave, and he'll wipe out anyone who tries! That E in BBEG stands for Evil, you know?"
IMHO Dominate person is not charm person, yes its higher lvl, but the spell says nothing about the attitude of the Dominated person towards the dominator, the dominated person has to do as they are told that does not make them an ally, I think that lowering your defenses against someone his dominating your will and definitely not an ally is against most peoples nature, but that's me
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
Would lowering his defenses be against the nature of the BBEG? Should he get other saving throws?
I've always interpreted "against one's nature" to refer to severe/gross infractions, like mother Teresa murdering a baby or a paladin saving a demon. Lowering one's defenses against an ally or answering questions doesn't strike me as being against anyone's nature.
Enchantment already has enough problems without strict GMs making it crappier with harsh (but fair) rulings.
+1
RD wrote that the BBEG had mindblank cast upon the BBEG.
This would make arcane sight, detect magic fail.
Since the BBEG is to act "normal" he would recast Mindblank everyday.
Dispel magic only removes 1 spell only, considering that RDs BBEG is a 15th level+ wizard,sorcerer or cleric(probably)it would be reasonable to assume he has more then just mindblank and dominate person active.
Even with Greater dispel magic cast by a 11th level character the chances for failing to dispel a few spells are high.However the BBEG might have a handy contigency spell ready, to deal with this dominate person spell.
Antimagic field would only supress the domination for the duration of the antimagic field spell and considering that the BBEG really cant cast anything inside the antimagic its not going to save him/her at all.
As for recasting Domination spell upon all ready dominated creatures, i would rule that a dominated creature do not get a new save against the new domination spell.
As it stands its really up to someone to save the poor BBEG.
However in many cases trying to cast spells upon a high level BBEG would probably "aggro" the BBEG.
If domination was intended to be permanent it would not have a duration.
These nitpicky rules arguments to screw the enchanter out of the scheme are inane. Either him co-opting the BBEG is good for the game and should be allowed, or isn't and shouldn't. Don't screw a player with this ruleslawyering horsecrap.
I don't know about the people you play with, but my players tend to react more negatively to the "It won't work because I'm the GM and I say it won't" response than the "it won't work and here's why within the rules" response.
|
These nitpicky rules arguments to screw the enchanter out of the scheme are inane. Either him co-opting the BBEG is good for the game and should be allowed, or isn't and shouldn't. Don't screw a player with this ruleslawyering horsecrap.
I mean why should any rule (or common sense for that matter) interfere with the players running the game.
These nitpicky rules arguments to screw the enchanter out of the scheme are inane. Either him co-opting the BBEG is good for the game and should be allowed, or isn't and shouldn't. Don't screw a player with this ruleslawyering horsecrap.I mean why should any rule (or common sense for that matter) interfere with the players running the game.
This. Letting Domination be used this way is an abuse of the rules on Domination. Yes, it's kind-of cool, but it will lead to PvP in what the other players assume is a non-PvP game, plus it's not - despite what the enchanter's player may believe - fool-proof. A strong-willed BBEG WILL break free eventually by one means or another, and then the enchanter's ass is toast.
|
|
I don't know about the people you play with, but my players tend to react more negatively to the "It won't work because I'm the GM and I say it won't" response than the "it won't work and here's why within the rules" response.That's because "It won't work because I'm the GM and I say it won't" is a crap argument. Try "I'm not going to allow this because it's going to short-circuit the entire campaign. On top of this, betraying the rest of the party is likely to lead to bad feelings and (rightful!) accusations of favoritism. For the sake of everyone's fun, let's not do this." It beats the hell out of "Because of a rules technicality, your plan doesn't work."
It is dominate person, not control person. It is liberal interpretation that is the lawyering taking place here.
|
|
I mean why should any rule (or common sense for that matter) interfere with the players running the game.
Since you repeated my posts in this thread previously (including mentioning a face-heel turn), it's a safe bet you haven't actually read them. I'm not (and haven't been) advocating greater player control, simply going with the flow in favor of whatever's going to be most entertaining, including advice on both letting this happen and nipping it in the bud.
If the player running the BBEG isn't going to lead to everyone being entertained, then that's reason enough to disallow it right there. If it's going to lead to a more-entertaining campaign, then let things roll. Either way, don't let rules technicalities take precedence over whatever is going to entertain the group.
If you took away "Players should run the game, regardless of the rules" then you misunderstood.
I agree with this being a great opportunity for a heel turn. I don't agree that the way they player does it comes by bending the rules to the point they break.
Dominate person does not work the way described. I'm not even sure how he got it off without the BBEG defending himself since it is a full round cast at close range.
I have played in awesome games where a player at the table became the BBEG and we had the showdown between the party and the player.
But you have to do it within the context of the rules.
I don't know about the people you play with, but my players tend to react more negatively to the "It won't work because I'm the GM and I say it won't" response than the "it won't work and here's why within the rules" response.That's because "It won't work because I'm the GM and I say it won't" is a crap argument. Try "I'm not going to allow this because it's going to short-circuit the entire campaign. On top of this, betraying the rest of the party is likely to lead to bad feelings and (rightful!) accusations of favoritism. For the sake of everyone's fun, let's not do this." It beats the hell out of "Because of a rules technicality, your plan doesn't work."
If I would not allow a bad guy to do it to a player then I won't allow it to work the other way. I am sure the player would consider auto-failing against anyone's nature if the shoe was on the other foot.
I often let my players decide what works to a large extent. They just need to understand it goes both ways. I understand the rule of cool, but if allowing yourself to autofail against saves is in your nature then you need to be stripped of the "BBEG" title so maybe the player did a good thing.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not, and never will be, an option in my games.
You sir are a gentleman and a scholar
So, I guess I'm the only one on this thread to date that's glad that he's not the only one that does this kind of thing to his GMs regularly? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Beuller?
Also...
Hate and poison,
The Boss of You
Maybe get extra Doritos for that session.
Just wanted to point out how much I think these are FULL OF AWESOME.
Thanks for the laugh.
+1. Those are great.
On the topic of "dominate/charm X" v. "rules-or-fiat"...
In Serpent Skull, before the opening of the game, there is a Serpentfolk named Yarzoth who has disguised herself as a human woman. She uses Dominate Person on the captain. He begins to believe he's "fallen in love with her" (and writes weird things in his log that go much to that effect). She uses the same ability on the first mate. The same thing occurs. They are dominated, but they actually change their emotional make-up (I guess to explain to themselves why, precisely, they suddenly want to please this woman they don't know and are willing to debase themselves in order to do so). This sounds very much so like what people are saying: "if it wouldn't work for the NPCs, it shouldn't work for the players", except, of course, it works that way for the NPCs. Note that it indicates in the text that this isn't the first time she's done that sort of thing.
Or, let's consider charm person (or its greater variants). In the same adventure, there's a Harpy who uses charm person on a few cannibals. They effectively become her slaves. She can't force them to do something, per se, but they willingly abandon their cannibal tribe (not too surprising, as they're chaotic evil) and their immortality-religion (more surprising, since they are, you know, chaotic evil) to just kind of hang around and guard her ship, willingly putting their lives in danger for her (again, surprising since they are, you know, chaotic evil). Now, I just always presumed she used her mad diplomacy skills along with charm to move them to helpful or even (as they seem to be behaving) fanatic, but with RAW, that's not applicable. That leaves either their behavior being perfectly justifiable under RAW, or moving on to RAI.
This seems a clear indication that charm and dominate, according to RAI, do more than just make an unwilling puppet-thrall (and/or a sort-of-kind-of casual friend) who gets a save at every little thing.
However, as a player, in the enchanter's situation, I'd totally:
1) charm the BBEG
2) get the BBEG to place on himself a nice, temporary (thus non self-destructive) preferably maximized/empowered enervation (dropping him 12 levels), or two (if not max/emp, just to be sure)
3) re-charm the BBEG (if necessary)
4) maximize-empower-hypnotize the BBEG (up to 12HD, which, unless he was 25th level or higher, prior to the enervation, I'm gold)
...4a) this makes him two steps more friendly toward a particular suggestion:
......[4a1] "be my willing servant"
......[4a2] "be my loyal friend"
......[4a3] "never betray me"
......[4a4] "work the plan so it benefits me"
......[4a5] "go with my intent with my orders rather than exact wording"
......[4a6] "never work for my detriment"
......[4a7] "always work with me"
......[4a8] "never work against me"
......[4a9] "never try to control me with magic"
...4b) each use moves two steps more friendly so, on the charts of friendliness (hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful, [fanatic]*), this means that one use will, if the BBEG is inherently hostile first, suddenly bring him to indifferent, and a second to helpful. A third will bring him to fanatic*. If, on the other hand, he's already friendly, by, say, charm, he'd suddenly be fanatic* with only one casting. Since the change is permanent (but not the magic), there's no real going back.
5) repeat step four until the BBEG was my willing thrall so I don't have to continually dominate/charm him
I'm just sayin'.
(not really a spoiler, just an explanation)
So, I guess I'm the only one on this thread to date that's glad that he's not the only one that does this kind of thing to his GMs regularly? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Beuller?
Also...
Hate and poison,
The Boss of YouMaybe get extra Doritos for that session.Just wanted to point out how much I think these are FULL OF AWESOME.
Thanks for the laugh.
+1. Those are great.
On the topic of "dominate/charm X" v. "rules-or-fiat"...
** spoiler omitted **...
They don't change emotion at all. That is just the writer being inventive which happens a lot with AP's. As an example we have a paladin that worships Asmodeus in an AP. It's not possible by the rules though. We have a particular enemy in the first book of Carrion Crown breaking rules for story reasons. It emotional ties were meant to be built by the rules it would have been mentioned.
As to your spoiler you missed the true reason the emotions were changed.
whispers among the crew variously claimed that she was
really a Chelish agent, the actual owner of the Jenivere,
or even Captain Alizandru Kovack’s secret lover.
What she gave him is magic that works even in this world. :)
edit:
edit2:Your dominate steps depend on stockholm syndrome, not a good plan. The person will still remember you using magic to win them over. It is not a mindwipe, and I am sure the anger at the magical manipulations will stop any "liking" to occur barring GM fiat.
Let me get this straight: the BBEG didn't leave the Standard BBEG Letter with his evil henchman?
Dear Henchy,
Every 2-3 days, I command you to cast detect magic just before entering my dread and awesome presence. And then I want you to concentrate long enough to see if any of the auras on me are enchantments, as opposed to my usual array of abjurations and what-not. If you detect one, act totally normally until you get out of my presence, then go kidnap the town priest's lovely daughter and shackle her in the Well of Lamentation, leaving behind Ransom Note #5 to the effect that I've been souljacked and the price of getting his daughter back is one break enchantment, cast on me without warning or explanation. These written orders supersede any spoken orders I may give you at a later date, for reasons which even a dolt like you will easily deduce.Hate and poison,
The Boss of YouI am going to frame this.
Seriously, though, some guy that wants to "RULE THE WORLD BWAHAHAHHAHA!" is not going to succumb easily to Domination. Certainly "Lower your defences and submit willingly" is going to be 100% against his nature, so he saves as normal.
No matter how many times someone says this, it is a load of nonsense. The argument basically comes down to "He wouldn't want to be dominated so he automatically gets a new save against domination per the rules!"
|
|
No matter how many times someone says this, it is a load of nonsense. The argument basically comes down to "He wouldn't want to be dominated so he automatically gets a new save against domination per the rules!"
You are wrong due to oversimplification. I know nuance isn't your strong suit, so I'll try to explain with examples.
There is something I don't want to do and there is against my nature.
I don't want to stop hitting you, but if I am dominated it wouldn't be against my nature to not hit something.
A dominate creature "...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)."
Meaning dominate allows you to tell someone to do something, which they will continue trying to do until it is completed, ignoring everything else that isn't needed for survival.
You can't Dominate someone to "starve" but you can probably dominate someone to "not eat that candy".
Now what is being proposed is well beyond the scope of the spell.
The key line is of course "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."
What I think is the clear intent of this line is to not make this a "puppet" spell. The person who is dominated is compelled to follow instructions, however if you instruct them to do something "against their nature" they get another save.
Compare this to Geas, "While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that would result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of activity."
No caveat.
I would rule that it isn't against the BBEG's nature to disclose the "secret" plot going on, but it would be against his nature to cast spells on himself that lower his resistances to repeated domination, and I would give all the other players perception checks to tell BBEG is dominated, as my guess is they would try to dispel it or put him in a protection from evil, at which point the whole plot unravels.
If you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets that new saving throw. If it makes that saving throw, it throws off the ENTIRE dominate effect and gets to go back to doing what they want.
As for what constitutes "against its nature," that varies from creature to creature. 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). For most monsters, it would depend. A lot of monsters are just violent anyway and attacking others of their kind is normal. It's left vague deliberately so each time it comes up, the GM gets to interpret it as needed for the specific target in question.
(astute readers may recognize the last two paragraphs)
If domination was intended to be permanent it would not have a duration.
Yes it would. It would say "Duration: permanent."
:P