|
As a DM, I dominate a barbarian with Dominate Person:
I asked him to attack his allies, and allow him another save with a +2 bonus.
My players told me that the barbarian need a new save every round.
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
Is there any clear answer on that?
i don't think so.
let me make it bold
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. "
if it was worded:
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take an action against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. "
or
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives new saving throws with a +2 bonus. "
then yes. but 'actions' is plural. he got a command to do more then one action against his nature, he got one save, failed his save, now he is doing that order. no matter how many actions the order said to make.
on a side note, to make domination and struggling against it more memorable i do this:
i write down the last failed save roll total result and if later on any effect give a bonus to such saves that would have made that result in a successful save i let the target snap out of it.
say a 1st level barbarian who got dominated and rolled a 15 will when the dc was 17. then while been dominated is ordered to rage and attack his allies. being in rage increase his will saves by 2 more so i let him snap out of it then.
Agreed with zza ni. It clearly states multiple actions, single save.
One save only.
Now, if a new command of "kill this specific friend" which differs from a previous "kill all your friends" command is given, that's either save.
Basically, 1 save per command. If it were 1/round the spell would say so, and it doesn't.
Also... no 1st level character should be up against domination...
|
As I see it, the Barbarian receives one new save, but if he receives a new, different, order, he gets a new save.
To make an example, a dominated LG fighter is ordered to kill his companions. I can try a single new save. He fails and attacks them. Two rounds later some guards enter the fray on the side of his companions. If the dominating creature orders "Kill the guards." the fighter gets a new save.
BTW: I will not consider "Kill your friends." a valid order. That kind of order requires an evaluation from the part of the dominated person of who are his friends. A valid order would be something like: "Kill all people in this room besides me.", "Kill all the members of Quack at Dawn beside you." or somesuch.
As I see it, the Barbarian receives one new save, but if he receives a new, different, order, he gets a new save.
To make an example, a dominated LG fighter is ordered to kill his companions. I can try a single new save. He fails and attacks them. Two rounds later some guards enter the fray on the side of his companions. If the dominating creature orders "Kill the guards." the fighter gets a new save.
BTW: I will not consider "Kill your friends." a valid order. That kind of order requires an evaluation from the part of the dominated person of who are his friends. A valid order would be something like: "Kill all people in this room besides me.", "Kill all the members of Quack at Dawn beside you." or somesuch.
This seems needlessly pedantic. If someone said "your friends are in danger" or "your friends are actually doppelgangers" I'd doubt you'd stop to think whether the party were friends or just work acquaintances...
|
|
This seems needlessly pedantic. If someone said "your friends are in danger" or "your friends are actually doppelgangers" I'd doubt you'd stop to think whether the party were friends or just work acquaintances...As I see it, the Barbarian receives one new save, but if he receives a new, different, order, he gets a new save.
To make an example, a dominated LG fighter is ordered to kill his companions. I can try a single new save. He fails and attacks them. Two rounds later some guards enter the fray on the side of his companions. If the dominating creature orders "Kill the guards." the fighter gets a new save.
BTW: I will not consider "Kill your friends." a valid order. That kind of order requires an evaluation from the part of the dominated person of who are his friends. A valid order would be something like: "Kill all people in this room besides me.", "Kill all the members of Quack at Dawn beside you." or somesuch.
My argument has two sides:
1) A dominant person's mind doesn't work normally (you can notice he is dominated with a Sense motive check) so giving him a too open-ended order can generate indecision and imprecision in his actions.
2) More important, who are your friends is very different from who are your companions or associates.
In the party of one of my characters, there was a Mystic Theurge of very questionable morality. She later betrayed the party. Even when she was in the group my character would haven't received a new save if the order was to attack her, and I would not have called her a friend (the player is fun to play with and a friend, BTW).
In a group I mastered there was a wizard that had a total disregard about harming friends with friendly fire, often while doing less damage to the players. After he murdered half of the crew of the merchant ship of which we were paying passengers because they wanted to flee from a pirate ship instead of fighting it, he was killed by one of the party members and no one objected.
In that situation, a player could argue "X the mage isn't my friend, I will attack Z the fighter" if the order was "Attack your friends", even if the wizard is the nearest member of his group. Even worse if you use Dominate on NPC without any loyalty to the other members of the group.
I don't want to needlessly penalize the creature using Dominate, every creature that can use it know how it works, so the players only need to explain what they want, not write a legal text of instructions.