Alice is controlled by Bob. Bob decides how Alice acts and controls all her actions without spending any of his own.
Bob is controlled by Charlie. Charlie decides how Bob acts and controls all his actions without spending any of his own.
Does Charlie control Alice's actions through his control over Bob? Or does Bob still control Alice's actions since it doesn't require any of the actions Charlie could force Bob to use?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems very abstract. How does Charlie control all of Bob’s actions without using any of his? Is that a dominate spell, a charm spell, or something else? Details matter! The same goes for how Alice is being controlled by Bob.
Dominate was the spell I had in mind, but it's the controlled condition that says the controlling usually requires none of the controller's actions. There are exceptions (ie possession), but this example isn't one of them.
Why wouldn't Charlie control Bob to exert control over Alice?
Seems pretty straightforward, that is if Charlie knows the situation in order to dictate* to Bob to do this.
Could Bob still control Alice if Charlie neglects to dictate to him what to dictate to her? Tricky there, as one's "had (their) will subverted" which gives the controller use of one's actions (et al), but doesn't make them an automaton (though I suppose they could command that if desired). On one hand Dominate lasts to the next day (which can be extended by expending the slot again/or Unlimited at 10th), and one would expect the subject could perform daily functions without their controller dictating every step along the way, but on the other hand it'd be odd if there were diabolic lawyer loopholes that every controller had to address when sending a Controlled entity out on missions, i.e. "Don't inform people of your mission, that you're controlled, that you need help that might subvert your own mission, don't make a scene, (etc. etc)". That would soon get ridiculous.
So I think a good baseline is that the Controlled person acts with the will of the controller (to the best of their abilities), and since Bob's will is subverted to Charlie's, so is Alice's, albeit indirectly, and Bob wouldn't be able to use his control of Alice as a loophole any more (or less) than he could use his not-dictated-to time to act against Charlie's will.
*From the spell's wording.
"You have been commanded, magically dominated, or otherwise had your will subverted. The controller dictates how you act and can make you use any of your actions, including attacks, reactions, or even Delay. The controller usually doesn't have to spend their own actions when controlling you."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a job for a table ruling.
On the GM side of things (Alice, Bob, and Charlie are all NPCs), the GM should just decide based on the desired plot. If the intended plot is that Alice is a pawn being controlled by the bad guy Bob - but plot twist, Bob isn't actually a bad guy, Charlie is and is using a second layer of indirection to do things without being detected... Then run it that way.
If PCs are involved as one of Alice, Bob, or Charlie, then the GM should discuss out with the other players what the desired plot is and how the mechanics can support that.
I don't think there is a 'one rule to rule them all' ruling here. Different campaigns need different rulings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends on how control was established.
The controlled condition is written as though it assumes some sort of mental control that is as effortless as thinking and doesn't even require speaking to command the enemy.
Generally speaking, I think effectively Charlie has control over Alice indirectly, at least if he's aware that Bob has control of Alice....if he's not aware I could see Alice continuing to act on whatever her last orders were.
Something I'm not liking about the idea of having control over two characters with one cast of dominate.
I was under the impression that every action the target is forced to do is an individual order. If someone were able to keep following the same general order for a long period of time, then the crit fail effect of Dominate would seem to make the spell better than Possession (which is one rank higher and available to fewer traditions) in almost every way.
I was under the impression that every action the target is forced to do is an individual order. If someone were able to keep following the same general order for a long period of time, then the crit fail effect of Dominate would seem to make the spell better than Possession
Not to mention that dominated people could follow orders indefinitely, but Familiars who are serving willingly cannot.
Have you considered that perhaps you are too stubborn for your own good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alice is controlled by Bob. Bob decides how Alice acts and controls all her actions without spending any of his own.
Bob is controlled by Charlie. Charlie decides how Bob acts and controls all his actions without spending any of his own.
Does Charlie control Alice's actions through his control over Bob? Or does Bob still control Alice's actions since it doesn't require any of the actions Charlie could force Bob to use?
With Dominate usually giving a new save every round, being uncommon, and having the incapacitation trait, this falls under "so unlikely to actually happen that it should just be handled on a case by case basis".
I was under the impression that every action the target is forced to do is an individual order. If someone were able to keep following the same general order for a long period of time, then the crit fail effect of Dominate would seem to make the spell better than Possession (which is one rank higher and available to fewer traditions) in almost every way.
Not that this is a strong argument, but I guess I look back to Dominate Person in PF1, which included verbiage that the afflicted individually continues to carry out commands, but the spell also had a much longer description including how it requires additional actions to change commands, how being dominated was noticeable due to strange behavior, etc.
My personal interpretation of Dominate it PF2 is that you can issue the afflicted an open ended command (defend me) and it will attempt to follow that order for as long as it is afflicted. Alternatively you could get very specific for issue commands, controlling action by action. Since the description of controlled says that it usually takes no action by the caster to control the afflicted, it doesn't make much of distinction except in a case where the controller wouldn't be able to issue new commands (which would pretty much only be in the case of being unconscious).
As far as comparing it to possession....yes possession is generally worse unless you specifically want to use the victim's body for a specific purposes (imitation, or perhaps their immense power). I don't actually think that's a problem, to me they're spells with different purposes.
As far as comparing it to possession....yes possession is generally worse unless you specifically want to use the victim's body for a specific purposes (imitation, or perhaps their immense power). I don't actually think that's a problem, to me they're spells with different purposes.
What purpose can possession fulfill that dominate can't do better? The latter belongs to every tradition except primal, lasts until your next daily preparations (or forever with a rank 10 slot), and lets you control someone with no actions spent. The former belongs only to occult, lasts 1 minute (10 minutes at rank 9), and requires you to give up all your actions to control someone. AND your unconscious body is still in the room for people to wail on (unless the spell is heightened to rank 9).
The only benefit possession seems to have over dominate is that it doesn't allow repeat saves on a crit fail. But even that isn't much of an upside if a dominate crit fail just lets you control someone with a single order for an entire day with only one repeat save.
The main usage would be if you want to pretend to be someone else and control them and experience whatever they're doing.
It's a pretty niche use I admit, but it has a use.
In combat? Dominate is better.
In many out of combat scenarios Dominate will be better.
However, as a GM I would still bring in the old bit of rules that noticing someone is under a dominate spell is a (relatively easy) check that can be made, making it unsuitable for subterfuge.
Unfortunately, the rules for dominate or controlled ignore the topic of how obvious or not the control is.
For either spell, Sense Motive against the spell DC would reveal abnormal behavior on a success. On a critical success, you'd get a solid idea of what magics are affecting the creature. So possession wouldn't be more effective for such subterfuge.
But I will concede that combining a creature's physical abilities with your own mental abilities probably opens up a lot of jank that warranted a higher rank spell slot. Additionally, dominate doesn't tell you what the target is sensing, so possession has that benefit, too.
But I find the idea of a single order being enough to direct multiple actions (in the event of a dominate crit fail) to be too powerful. Try comparing the spell to other incapacitation spells of the same rank.
Cursed Metamorphosis:
Success: sickened 1
Failure: lose all actions, with repeat saves each turn to recover
Crit Fail: lose all actions forever
Never Mind:
Success: stupefied 2 for 1 round
Failure: stupefied 4 forever
Crit Fail: lose character
Suffocate (sustained):
Success: half damage
Failure: full damage and must hold breath
Crit Fail: double damage, skip to suffocation
The crit fails are devastating, but dominate is different because it doesn't just make you lose actions. It gives them to the caster, which can seriously turn the tide against your entire party. If you allow one order (i.e. kill all my enemies whenever we're in combat) to encompass multiple actions, you end up with this:
Dominate:
Success: stunned 1 for 1 round
Failure: caster gets all your actions, with repeat saves each turn to recover
Crit Fail: caster gets all your actions, with one repeat save to recover on your next turn, or else the caster gets all your actions forever.
That's why I think every action the dominator forces the target to perform should count as an individual order. The alternative is just ridiculously powerful even for a rank 6 spell.
I guess my confusion is that there isn't much of a difference between the caster has to issue an order for each action, and the caster can issue a general order that will be followed until overridden, unless the caster is knocked out/unable to issue orders.
Because the controlled condition states that generally their is no action cost for the caster to issue orders.
So it only makes a difference if you knock out the caster, then the dominated person might stop acting, depending on your interpretation.
*Also I've ignored any orders that would be considered self destructive or against the creature's nature.
Do you agree?
I disagree. As I've already stated, the difference in interpretations is also relevant for the crit fail effect.
If the party is facing a spellcaster boss who casts dominate on the fighter, it's going to be extremely important. According to one interpretation, the fighter gets to repeat the save at the end of each turn if he's been ordered to Strike the wizard again. In the other interpretation, the fighter only gets one single repeat save, and the whole party dies if he fails. I think the latter is too broken.
But I think something like an exploration activity would only require one order since it's one specific action, albeit a lengthy one. If the controller is knocked out, the order would probably still be completed unless the activity is interrupted.
I wouldn't mind finessing the interpretation for mechanical balance, but as it is now the order to "kill the wizard" vs. "fight all these guys to the best of your ability" vs. "scout 100' and report back" vs. "find the chalice in these ruins" are all singular commands with multiple steps so it becomes difficult to differentiate them or to determine how many steps/saves occur along the way. Could the controller step out of the room and leave the Controlled target on auto-pilot?
And the phrasing for getting a new save is explicitly for a "new order", yet there's no example of how these orders are actually conveyed, so are they coming in as a single datum per action, overarching ones, vibes of the controller's will, or what? I imagine there could easily be non-lingual creatures that can cast this (or otherwise establish the Controlled condition). Do we really have to analyze the definition of "dictate" to understand these mechanics? Oy.
Some controlling effects apply the minion trait to the target, while others state that they rely on orders. Here are some examples.
Claim Undead: almost identical to Dominate, but with more harmful conditions and it only works on undead
Specter's Spectral Corruption: "The creature is controlled by the specter, obeying the specter's telepathic or spoken orders, though a spectral thrall does not obey obviously self-destructive orders."
Those are the only examples I was able to find. Spectral Corruption at least makes it clear that the control requires the specter to actually communicate with the target.
But Dominate doesn't give us much guidance on how the control works. There's no auditory or linguistic traits, so it's possible the orders are being broadcast directly into the target's mind, as though the target were an extension of the caster's body.
Then again, the controlled condition says the controller "dictates" how the target uses their actions. That's just a synonym for "order." Perhaps the spell doesn't need to say you control the target by ordering them since the condition already says that.
Actually, I'm an idiot. The spell outright describes "killing its allies" as a possible order, so it only makes sense that a general order could be used to direct multiple actions.
I guess the fact that there is one repeat save even for a crit fail does give at least some reason to pick other incap spells of the same rank. I was just worried that wasn't enough. But in my search for controlling effects, I actually found a lot of things that remove controlled, provide a bonus against it, or are just flat out immune, so maybe it's not as big a deal as I thought.
Anyway, the crit fail affect for Dominate adds an extra condition for making the repeat save, but doesn't change the timing. If we apply the "as failure" text...
"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. The target receives a new save only if you give it a new order that is against its nature, such as killing its allies."
It says "if", not "when". So you'd give an antinatural order, the target would start complying, then save at the end of their turn. But after that, they don't get another save if you don't give them a new order against their nature, even if they haven't finished carrying out the first order.
Some controlling effects apply the minion trait to the target, while others state that they rely on orders. Here are some examples.
Claim Undead: almost identical to Dominate, but with more harmful conditions and it only works on undead
Specter's Spectral Corruption: "The creature is controlled by the specter, obeying the specter's telepathic or spoken orders, though a spectral thrall does not obey obviously self-destructive orders."
Those are the only examples I was able to find. Spectral Corruption at least makes it clear that the control requires the specter to actually communicate with the target.
But Dominate doesn't give us much guidance on how the control works. There's no auditory or linguistic traits, so it's possible the orders are being broadcast directly into the target's mind, as though the target were an extension of the caster's body.
Then again, the controlled condition says the controller "dictates" how the target uses their actions. That's just a synonym for "order." Perhaps the spell doesn't need to say you control the target by ordering them since the condition already says that.
Actually, I'm an idiot. The spell outright describes "killing its allies" as a possible order, so it only makes sense that a general order could be used to direct multiple actions.
I guess the fact that there is one repeat save even for a crit fail does give at least some reason to pick other incap spells of the same rank. I was just worried that wasn't enough. But in my search for controlling effects, I actually found a lot of things that remove controlled, provide a bonus against it, or are just flat out immune, so maybe it's not as big a deal as I thought.
I think we have to assume, because of the lack of auditory or linguistic traits that is effectively telepathic commands to the target that require 0 action.
Regarding additional saves...on a failed save you get a save at each turn.
So the part about on orders being relevant is only on a critical fail. And I suppose I understand from a player perspective that you would much prefer to get a save on every attack you're forced to make against your allies, but I honestly can't abide that interpretation.
Because on a failed save you wouldn't get that many additional saves.
I think Best case scenario (for players) on a critically failed save is that I would rule as a GM if you were forced to do something against your nature, you would get an additional save at the end of your turn.
I definitely would not give you a save "for each order with the interpretation that an order is each individual action". That's honestly worse than what happens on a failed save, and it shouldn't be.
Which really is how I conclude that individual actions aren't orders (unless "worded" that way). You could absolutely say "Kill your former allies" and that is an single order and you only get one save for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I suppose I understand from a player perspective that you would much prefer to get a save on every attack you're forced to make against your allies, but I honestly can't abide that interpretation.
Woah, I wasn't suggesting that a crit fail allows more saves. The crit fail locks the repeat saves behind an additional Boolean condition. The save still happens at the end of each of your turns. It's just that you also need to have received a new order, or else you get no save.
At least one previous version of Dominate explicitly had a minor telepathic link. Perhaps PF2 left it out because that implies mental faculties or linguistic capabilities (even if sharing a language isn't required) or even the subject's interpretation of the imparted dictates (which may or may not be desired by the controller). Leaving out the particulars IMO cuts out the legalistic loopholes and cuts right to the spirit of "how such things work in the fantasy genre", which yes, involves some severe consequences, but we are at the same Rank as Petrify so yeah, crit fails can end careers.
Profane Bargain, added in War of Immortals, gives a few methods of controlling someone remotely.
As long as the bargain persists, you always know the target’s location, can communicate telepathically with the target at any distance, and can see through the target’s senses by taking a single action that has the concentrate trait. Once per day, you can take control of the target as an activity that takes three actions and has the concentrate trait. When you do, they become controlled by you for 10 minutes. They have no memory of their time spent under your control.
If the target ever breaks the terms of this bargain, you immediately select one of the following punishments: they die, they die and you possess their soul, they become permanently controlled by you, or they become imprisoned in a cell within your realm’s dungeon (you must have the Imprison Foe feat to select this final option).
And I suppose I understand from a player perspective that you would much prefer to get a save on every attack you're forced to make against your allies, but I honestly can't abide that interpretation.Woah, I wasn't suggesting that a crit fail allows more saves. The crit fail locks the repeat saves behind an additional Boolean condition. The save still happens at the end of each of your turns. It's just that you also need to have received a new order, or else you get no save.
Sorry, I thought that the natural consequence of "every action is an order and every new order can get a save (if it's against nature".
I still don't agree that every action is an order, but if a table decided that it was but that still only prompted 1 save at the end of a turn, I could probably live with that.
Yes dominate is powerful.
Petrify (also a 6th level spell) can leave someone permanently petrified with a crit fail followed by a fail.
Petrify is worse for the individual, while dominate is worse for the party (because of the action economy change).
But dominate is also uncommon. I don't know if there's anything that specifically gives access to it as a player option, but a GM could easily and simply say "I'm not going to give access to this spell, and I'm not going to use it against players". Uncommon/rare isn't supposed to mean increased power....but it some cases it does.
Petrify has the added benefit that only the repeat saves have incapacitation.
Another great point, dominate from a lower level character will never be as threatening because you don't have the risk of "permanently" losing control of your character, and would get a save every round.
Honestly when evaluate how powerful a spell is, I don't really care what the critical fail effect is, because they're very rare and I feel like the effects need to be profound to make up for the tame effect of most spells on a successful or failed save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though, Dominate being uncommon is that you can use it on NPCs to absolutely break some narrative models, Right? Because to my knowledge every source of applying Controlled to a creature as part of a spell is uncommon or rare. With feats that apply controlled being very specific.
I know Lust runelords have it, But they themselves are rare. Other than that I cant think of any other character option outside of Animist with Monarch of the Fey Courts
Yes, plus some tables are uncomfortable with effects that strip away agency, especially in the hands of "heroes". It's easier to opt-in and allow them than it'd be to opt-out if they weren't Uncommon/Rare.
One might also argue that mechanically these effects can have disproportionate impact depending on a party's composition (including enemy mobs).
I'm reminded of some brutal creatures in Baldur's Gate that could destroy a small party, but were manageable for large parties and near powerless against solo heroes who had no allies to attack so could wait out the control, attack monster, get controlled, and repeat. AI hadn't factored in that option. Leveled up really fast soloing the game.
A common level 20 bard spell grants Pied Piping, an AoE focus spell that inflicts controlled on a failure. Wait, actually it inflicts the minion trait. It might not be using the word controlled to refer to the condition.
A common level 20 bard spell grants Pied Piping, an AoE focus spell that inflicts controlled on a failure. Wait, actually it inflicts the minion trait. It might not be using the word controlled to refer to the condition.
I don't think controlled and minion trait are mutually exclusive to each another, but the minion trait would essentially lock down further what it takes to control the creature.
Claim undead is also uncommon, but players get access through the oracle's bones mystery, which is common.