Dominate spell: when to get a new save after Critical failure

[AfKbX]

The Dominate spell has the following failure and critical failure effects:

Failure: You control the target. It gains the controlled condition, but it can attempt a Will save at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends.

Critical Failure: As a failure, but the target receives a new save only if you give it a new order that is against its nature, such as killing its allies.

Does the controlling creature have to issue a new order "kill your allies" every turn (the controlled creature getting a new save every turn) or is the "kill your allies" order issued once (the controlled creature getting the new save at this time only) and it lasts until the allies are killed?

[Cordell Kintner]

The GM determines what is against it's nature.

Controlled means the Controller gets to decide how the Controlled spends their actions. Since the Controller decides every action at all times, the Controlled would make a save for every action or activity that is used that is against it's nature. So every Strike against an ally would have a save attached to it. It's not "Kill ally in any way you see fit" it's "Use a Strike against your ally, then again, then again".

[_benno]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

The GM determines what is against it's nature.

Controlled means the Controller gets to decide how the Controlled spends their actions. Since the Controller decides every action at all times, the Controlled would make a save for every action or activity that is used that is against it's nature. So every Strike against an ally would have a save attached to it. It's not "Kill ally in any way you see fit" it's "Use a Strike against your ally, then again, then again".

That might make in some instance a critical failure better then a normal one.

[thenobledrake]

Yes, the critical failure clause is saying that the controller has to give an unacceptable order that turn for you to get a saving throw at the end of your turn.

It's not every time the controller makes you use an action toward an unacceptable order as it says "only if you give" rather than "every time you give" so it's not changing the timing/frequency of the saving throw that is established by the failure condition outside of when there aren't unacceptable orders involved.

[AfKbX]

From the posts above, I get that it would be every turn, if the command is to "kill your allies" every turn, even though it is technically the same command as the last turn (compared to a totally different command, for example: "stay still, do nothing").

[thenobledrake]

AfKbX wrote:

From the posts above, I get that it would be every turn, if the command is to "kill your allies" every turn, even though it is technically the same command as the last turn (compared to a totally different command, for example: "stay still, do nothing").

Each round the controller wants you to try to kill your allies should be treated as a new order because "new order" can both mean assignment of a new task and the act of making you do a thing, so the definition we interpret it as being should be the one that makes for better game-play (which is the one where you have more than one chance to stop trying to fulfill an unacceptable order after you critically failed to resist the spell entirely - especially since this kind of spell is usually coming from a higher-level bad guy so the odds already aren't on your side).

[Castilliano]

If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

[breithauptclan]

Castilliano wrote:

If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

lol. A dominated enemy is more useful to you than your own bonded familiar.

[Castilliano]

breithauptclan wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

lol. A dominated enemy is more useful to you than your own bonded familiar.

As it should be.

Now if you meant more easily commanded, apart from the circumstantial save, then yes, that's odd, yet true (IMO).

[breithauptclan]

Castilliano wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

lol. A dominated enemy is more useful to you than your own bonded familiar.

As it should be.

Now if you meant more easily commanded, apart from the circumstantial save, then yes, that's odd, yet true (IMO).

Yeah, not disagreeing. If I disagreed I would explain exactly why.

I'm just laughing at the irony of it.

[thenobledrake]

Castilliano wrote:

If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

You'd have a point if the controlled condition said something like that you do your genuine best to achieve the tasks your controller sets for you... but it doesn't.

The controlled action has the controlling character choose your actions for you, and that's how even while working towards the same task new orders are being issued every time it is your turn.

[Castilliano]

thenobledrake wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

You'd have a point if the controlled condition said something like that you do your genuine best to achieve the tasks your controller sets for you... but it doesn't.

The controlled action has the controlling character choose your actions for you, and that's how even while working towards the same task new orders are being issued every time it is your turn.

I disagree that the commands have to be so granular. They can be, and the Controlled condition confirms this, yet a general "how you act" command would work just as easily. The controller doesn't need to tell the controlled to do their best at task X since it's a straightforward reading to say the controlled simply does X. There's no free will to hem or haw (and no injunction to do anything more either, like use an AoO against a different opponent, which yes, would take another command).

Such open commands aren't necessarily the most strategic use, since they might start unleashing AoEs if those are their strongest spells, but many actions can fall under one command. One common command I've seen is "help me to the best of your abilities".

That just reminded me of my first PFS1 session where the big boss controlled my Ezren and given the phrasing of the command his/my best tactic was to Dim Door the boss away since she had no chance of winning. I conferred privately w/ the GM, he agreed, and they left to her hidey hole (since there was a telepathic link too).

[AfKbX]

Controlled (Source Core Rulebook pg. 618 2.0):
Someone else is making your decisions for you, usually because you're being commanded or magically dominated. The controller dictates how you act and can make you use any of your actions, including attacks, reactions, or even Delay. The controller usually does not have to spend their own actions when controlling you.

From this description of the controlled condition, it seems to be more granular (actions, attacks, reactions, delay, etc.) than just an general goal to achieve.

[thenobledrake]

Castilliano wrote:

I disagree that the commands have to be so granular.

It's your prerogative to disagree with the book whenever you want to, but in the Rules Discussion section of the forum I prefer not to talk about people's home-rules.

[Castilliano]

Oh please, you two. I'd already acknowledged as per the phrasing of Controlled that granularity was allowed, yet it's not required. Nor is this some houserule. (*eye roll* at the attempt at dismissal.) It's how "and" + "can" work in the sentence that you've mistaken me as disagreeing with.

"The controller dictates how you act AND CAN make you use..." = "Controller does A and can do B"
In a plain reading this makes B optional. So the controller can say "act in X way" and that's it; target acts that way, getting only the one save if it's against their nature. Or the controller has the option of specifying each separate action, reaction, and delay...if they so desire to, though IMO that'd be silly if it led to multiple save attempts.

I can see how a swift reading might lead one to blend the two portions as the latter part clarifying the former, but that would require different grammar, like "by doing B" or "to the degree that they can..." instead of "and".

Also, the way you two would have it there'd be a saving throw for each separate action, even Reaction. As another poster noted, this would make Critical Failure better than Failure (for the target) which only gets to save at the end of their turn. That should be a red flag that your interpretation's errant. The spell would become "too bad to be true" if standard usage (turning friend against foe) led to multiple saves per round.

Edit: clarity

[thenobledrake]

Castilliano wrote:

In a plain reading this makes B optional. So the controller can say "act in X way" and that's it; target acts that way

That is not supported by the further text. The "plain reading" is that they do both - not that they can choose one or the other; they both determine your overall behavior and command each of your actions.

And even if that's not the conclusion arrived upon by reading that part, you hit the Ambiguous Rules 'too good to be true' clause when you try to argue that it's just one order that was unacceptable so only one save is allowed ever even if it takes hours, days, or weeks of repeated effort to follow through rather than being a save every round during.

Castilliano wrote:

Also, the way you two would have it there'd be a saving throw for each separate action, even Reaction.

I already covered that, and you're wrong about where I landed on it. I even gave reasons.

[AfKbX]

Castilliano wrote:

Also, the way you two would have it there'd be a saving throw for each separate action, even Reaction.

Don't know where you get that idea that people were supporting this. Only one person (Cordell Kintner) mentionned saving throws for each separate action and this was quickly dismissed. The question is between saving throw every turn or once per general command how to act.

[BloodandDust]

Controlled: Someone else is *making your decisions for you*, usually because you're being commanded or magically dominated. The controller dictates how you act and can make you use any of your actions…

Dominate (Failure): You control the target. It gains the controlled condition, but it can attempt a Will save at the end of each of its turns [, if you issue an obviously self-destructive order, the target doesn't act until you issue a new order < carried from spell description]. On a success, the spell ends.
>> per Controlled condition, the Dominator must Dictate all the decisions for the Controlled. One new will save per round, and self-obviously destructive orders auto-fail. Note that a non-obvious self-destructive order would work.

Dominate (Critical Failure): As a failure, but the target receives a new save only if you give it a new order that is against its nature, such as killing its allies.
>> same as above, except NO new will save per round AND the Dominator can now attempt to give “against nature” orders at the risk of a new will save for each.

Clearly the caster has to dictate every decision at least, but repeating the same activity where a decision (independent thought) is not necessary, would probably not require any follow-up. So, for a Failed Save; “help me the best you can” fails, since that requires the target to make it’s own evaluation and decisions. “Punch that wall until I say stop” would work (unless punching the wall would hurt the puncher). “Punch the Red Wizard (target’s friend)” would result in no action, since punching friends is usually considered self-destructive (as well as friend destructive). “Dimension door me to safety” would fail since the target would have to decide where to DD to. “Dimension door me to the top of those stairs” would work. Etc.

On a critical fail the caster could now try “Punch the Red Wizard (target’s friend)” at the risk of giving the target a new save, or “Dive through that wall of fire”, etc. IMO “kill your allies” would fail, due to the need to decide among targets,

There is still a fair amount of ambiguity though. Principally the intended difference (if any) between “obviously self-destructive” orders vs “against nature” orders. Since critical fail could last a *very* long time, I would guess the intention was to expand “things that allow will saves” to include more non-combat items.