Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ramacass 01-11-07, 01:06 AM	So in a recent game I ran a vampire dominated a PCand left him to sleep while he went to try and dominate another member of the party. As it turned out another member of the party got out a potion of Protection from Evil and poured it down the players throat. I ruled that the player would have to make a saving throw to see if he resisted the potion as he was dominated by the vampire. Now it says that the subject of the of the dominate resists the control but doesn't clarify what that means exactly. Does that mean that the player would have chosen to fail his save to have the dominated effect suppressed? That seems like a slippery slope. For example if the dominated creature was ordered to attack it's friends and the creatures friends were trying to knock it unconcious with non leathal attacks could the dominated creature give up it's dex bonus to AC to allow it's friends to beat it down more easily? Thoughts?
clannagh 01-11-07, 01:21 AM	So in a recent game I ran a vampire dominated a PCand left him to sleep while he went to try and dominate another member of the party. As it turned out another member of the party got out a potion of Protection from Evil and poured it down the players throat. I ruled that the player would have to make a saving throw to see if he resisted the potion as he was dominated by the vampire. Now it says that the subject of the of the dominate resists the control but doesn't clarify what that means exactly. Does that mean that the player would have chosen to fail his save to have the dominated effect suppressed? That seems like a slippery slope. For example if the dominated creature was ordered to attack it's friends and the creatures friends were trying to knock it unconcious with non leathal attacks could the dominated creature give up it's dex bonus to AC to allow it's friends to beat it down more easily? Thoughts? A few points- - I would rule that the protection from evil would over-ride the domination temporarily and cancel it out but if the potion ran out before the domination he would be dominated again - its very clear in the rules that if you force a PC to do something that is againt there normal character (attacking you friends would count) you get another will save. This is why many GM's tell dominated characters to "run away" .. it doesnt invoke a will save as running away is always on the cards in combat. - it could be argued that being ordered to "sleep" around a vampire is enough out of character to set off a new will save its a pretty stupid thing to do and not really in character for most adventurers. - AFAIK sleeping character do not get will saves they automatically fail so the potion trick should work
budleiser 01-11-07, 01:31 AM	Wow. Ruled against protection from evil on a dominate effect. Thats new.
clannagh 01-11-07, 01:43 AM	one other comment its in situations like this that magic circle against evil comes into its own
Ramacass 01-11-07, 04:49 AM	Yes, they get a second save if asked to do something that is out of character. I don't think sleeping is out of character. Considering they weren't in combat and he didn't know it was a vampire. Some lady just came up out of the thick fog and suggested he take a rest. You can take that out of character thing too far and say that "my character would never run away and leave his friends and so if ordered to run away he should get another save". or "my character would never deliver a message for a vampire I want another save." as for the no saves while he was asleep the character wasn't asleep yet acording to him because he argued that it would take longer than a couple of rounds to fall asleep. Yes a protection from evil spell suppresses a domination/charm effect but it also allows a will save to neg. The question is can a charcter voulentarily fail a will save from a spell effect that would surpress being dominated while dominated. Ie it would be against his new masters wishes? Thanks for all the input. Even though no one seems to agree with me ;-)
TWG_Prometheus 01-11-07, 08:36 AM	Yes a protection from evil spell suppresses a domination/charm effect but it also allows a will save to neg. The question is can a charcter voulentarily fail a will save from a spell effect that would surpress being dominated while dominated. Ie it would be against his new masters wishes? Had his new master specified that he should resist spell effect on him ect though? Domination doesn't give someone insight into the 'wishes of their new master' at all. It's VERY specific. A dominated person does what they've been instructed to do, and nothing more besides day to day survival stuff like eating. That's why the Sense Motive check is way low on recognizing dominated characters. If the vampire had remembered to give orders about 'resist others attempts to do...um..stuff to you' then I'd totally make the PC roll a save against the potion.
budleiser 01-11-07, 08:39 AM	The rules specifically list protection from evil as a counter to domination effects. To follow up as a DM and try and force a save vs protection is really reaching for an out. I don't think the question is "how dominated are you". I think the issue is how does a vampire tell a character to pass his save. Sounds like the vampires are metagaming this one. I know rules wise my argument is coming up short. RAW I think you do have enough gray area to do what you did. But thats always my gripe vs D&D, poor rules. As a DM I don't think I would do what you did.
TWG_Prometheus 01-11-07, 09:33 AM	Vampires should know that there are ways to break their control unless they haven't been around for a few hundred years...probably they shouldn't know about all of them, however. Telling a dominated character to resist <Blah. I don't know how to word it well> stuff...maybe a command to 'defend themselves against magical threats' should suffice. The vampire would HAVE to actually command that, however. Being dominated doesn't switch your team flag. It makes you an automaton.
chesspiece 01-11-07, 10:06 AM	Protection from Evil has a Will Neg (harmless) save. I've read somewhere that helpless (unconcious, sleeping) targets are considered "willing" with respect to spells, but I can't find the rule at the moment. This allows you to teleport out with fallen team-mates without worrying about them being left behind. I don't know if that requires you to auto-fail against harmless saves though. In any case, his only order was to sleep. Since being force-fed a potion didn't conflict with that order, I'd permit it and not require the (harmless) save. If a vampire said "those are our enemies, fight them", I'd require the PCs to save against their former ally's Prot Evil spell (regardless of whether they recognized what was being cast on them) and they certainly wouldn't submit to drinking the potion. Of course that command would likely result in a free save since it's probably out of character for the PC.
Ramacass 01-11-07, 07:05 PM	The rules specifically list protection from evil as a counter to domination effects. To follow up as a DM and try and force a save vs protection is really reaching for an out. I don't think the question is "how dominated are you". I think the issue is how does a vampire tell a character to pass his save. Sounds like the vampires are metagaming this one. I know rules wise my argument is coming up short. RAW I think you do have enough gray area to do what you did. But thats always my gripe vs D&D, poor rules. As a DM I don't think I would do what you did. Just to put it in a little context budleiser, I am not a mean DM and actually had just saved this players life. The party had split up and the pc(a paladin with covered with holy symbols) in question was by himself with no one to help him surrounded by to vampires with tactics as stated in the mod as "will target and attack clerics and divine spell casters with extreme prejudice" Now had I been playing by the rules in the strictes sence the vampires would have told him to be still and quiet and drained him of his blood thus buffing up on temp hp before going to fight his friends, or any number of really wicked things that vampires are wont to do like draining all his levels etc other than saying go to sleep and well come back for you later which was in my opinion hard-core softballing for a player who got himself all by himself with two vampires. My later ruleing to force the save was a way of not looking like to much of a sissy in the eyes of my players. Do you think that was being a mean DM?
clannagh 01-11-07, 07:28 PM	Just to put it in a little context budleiser, I am not a mean DM and actually had just saved this players life. The party had split up and the pc(a paladin with covered with holy symbols) in question was by himself with no one to help him surrounded by to vampires with tactics as stated in the mod as "will target and attack clerics and divine spell casters with extreme prejudice" Now had I been playing by the rules in the strictes sence the vampires would have told him to be still and quiet and drained him of his blood thus buffing up on temp hp before going to fight his friends, or any number of really wicked things that vampires are wont to do like draining all his levels etc other than saying go to sleep and well come back for you later which was in my opinion hard-core softballing for a player who got himself all by himself with two vampires. My later ruleing to force the save was a way of not looking like to much of a sissy in the eyes of my players. Do you think that was being a mean DM? Being seen as hard or soft is kinda relative ... I had a player two days ago who, after hastling for dodgy concensions all game (like inspected tracks with a skill roll but then claiming he did it from the back of the party when monsters appear) accused me of "softballing" because i let the druid who had been grappled by a chuul check her monster manual stats before wild shaping rather than just announcing a new form.
budleiser 01-11-07, 11:30 PM	Just to put it in a little context budleiser, I am not a mean DM and actually had just saved this players life. The party had split up and the pc(a paladin with covered with holy symbols) in question was by himself with no one to help him surrounded by to vampires with tactics as stated in the mod as "will target and attack clerics and divine spell casters with extreme prejudice" Now had I been playing by the rules in the strictes sence the vampires would have told him to be still and quiet and drained him of his blood thus buffing up on temp hp before going to fight his friends, or any number of really wicked things that vampires are wont to do like draining all his levels etc other than saying go to sleep and well come back for you later which was in my opinion hard-core softballing for a player who got himself all by himself with two vampires. My later ruleing to force the save was a way of not looking like to much of a sissy in the eyes of my players. Do you think that was being a mean DM? I double checked my post to be sure. Where does it even hint that I'm calling you mean?
Ramacass 01-12-07, 01:24 AM	I double checked my post to be sure. Where does it even hint that I'm calling you mean? True, I guess I interpreted that metagaming by DMs is generally mean to players and that being the reason that you would "never do what you did." I guess I miss interpreted, no biggie, never taken seriously even if you had. I'm pretty hard to offend. I hope you didn't take my post of accusing you of anything and I apologize if you did. However the same player who I cut the break later was giving me a hard time about the save for the protection from evil potion which did make me want to kill his character considering I had just spared him . So maybe I am a mean DM? ;-) As far as the game mechanic let me use an example. So a Big fighter with a really bad will save fails his first save against a vampires dominate and then is told to attack his friends-he fails his second save and starts to attack his friends. His friends in turn deal him non-leathal damage in an attempt to knock him out without killing him -Can the fighter give up his dex bonus to ac to allow his friends to hit him more easily- The following round a wizard decides this non-lethal damage thing isn't working fast enough and casts Deep Slumber on his fighter friend -can the fighter voluntarily fail his save to fall asleep and not hurt his friends. If so does this mean that a vampire would have to specify "attack your friends and defend from thier magical and non-magical attacks to the best of your ability" Isn't that implied in the "attack your friends" command? Thoughts?
cycloptic_squirrel 01-12-07, 03:28 AM	Ramacass, wow. I think this is the most courteous post I've seen on these boards. :clap: :cheer: :clap: True, I guess I interpreted that metagaming by DMs is generally mean to players and that being the reason that you would "never do what you did." I guess I miss interpreted, no biggie, never taken seriously even if you had. I'm pretty hard to offend. I hope you didn't take my post of accusing you of anything and I apologize if you did. The same politeness and respect emerges from your other posts as well. I know that some of us should definitely take a page from your book *AHEM!cycloptic_squirrelCOUGH!* Excuse me. Now, unfortunately, I'm going to be a jerk because I wanted to respond to your third post. Do you think that was being a mean DM? I say you might have been mean, but not for the reason you might think. The issue now becomes 'why on earth did they split the party?':nonono: My official view The problem with what you did is that you removed the consequence from the action. Whether you intended to or not, you have given a false sense of entitlement to that player. Whether he is cognizant of it or not he is now more expectant that the DM will bend over backward to see his character succeed. That is mean for two reasons. The first is that it diminishes the feeling that he is in control of his destiny, that choices he makes have an effect on his future. The second effect is that while you are the hero of the day, the next DM who kills the paladin has a much higher chance of being remembered as the 'killer DM', no matter how fair and judicious she/he might be. Personally, my first PC death was a heart wrenching experience. She had been in one or two scrapes where she should have died, but for the DM's good graces. I had fun, but little idea that how dangerous and deadly modules can be. When my first PC death did come I could see nothing that I had done wrong. Heck, I was dead before my first action. Because of another PC death later we had to duck the last fight.:weep: For many months I considered that judge a PC headhunter, the type that budleiser would take full XP/half gold to play under. Only later did I realize that he is simply a remorseless DM who runs modules exactly as written. He's not out to kill PCs, but he will not softball either. I'd consider him a good judge, I'll just be on my toes next time. At the same time I came to realize what I did wrong. Well, it was more of an ignorance issue. I didn't quite grasp that this two-round behemoth was the crowning module of the region, tying up half a dozen plotlines from the past five years; and the gloves were coming off. I remind you, this was Keoland, apparently one of the more deadlier regions, and this mod is more deadly than normal? As a player, I didn't quite comprehend that a table just at APL with an unfamiliar DM might not be the wisest idea. I was fortunate enough to run it at a con last summer. It was beautifully written; but wow, it was Evil with a capital E. In short I'm saying you absolutely should have killed the guy, but some sort of consequence was warranted. As it stands, you saved the character today, but not without cost. Unofficially I don't disagree with what you did. I probably would've done something similar. But harm was still done. This can be mitigated somewhat as long as you a) make it clear to the player that he should be dead dead dead b) explain what he could have done to prevent it and c) that if such an opportunity should ever arise again you will not hesitate to let the vampires feast. Deaths and TPKs are no fun, on either side, but if we take away the element of danger and risk, the game loses something. And actually I think you were being quite kind as a DM. I think I'd enjoy playing in a game you run.
Simpi 01-12-07, 04:25 AM	If a vampire said "those are our enemies, fight them", I'd require the PCs to save against their former ally's Prot Evil spell (regardless of whether they recognized what was being cast on them) and they certainly wouldn't submit to drinking the potion. Of course that command would likely result in a free save since it's probably out of character for the PC. I would slap any PC who, while dominated, would try to say "I fail my save automatically". Heck, sometime ago I was dominated and others came to cast PoEs on me. I had to remind DM that I need to actually make a saving throw (which I did, three times). In few situations when I have ran games, I had to issue threats of taking control of PCs when players suddenly decide that their PCs are mentally handicapped when it comes fighting while dominated. Some of the examples of situations I have encountered when someone is dominated and told to defend his master or attack their friends: - Warmage switching to shortspear and charging the biggest tank of the group. - Tank of the group (6th level with two attacks), while standing next to a wizard, takes 5ft step, drops his greatsword, pulls out a bow and shoots a single arrow. Other examples are illusions that PCs fail to save against. This always leads to "I think this is strange, I move away and ready an action against something else I see" attempts and other crap. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Ramacass 01-12-07, 04:50 AM	Thank you Cycloptic_squirrel I think you make a very good point. I should have killed him or at least created a serious consequence if only for the sake of danger and excitement in the game. Killed him for his own good if you will :) Now if had drained all his levels and turned him into a weight or bullrushed him into the pit of lava he was standing next to (oh yeah I forgot to mention that) that would have been mean.:evillaugh
gomeztoo 01-12-07, 05:04 AM	There is little leeway when you are being dominated. Still, if you are resisting attack, I do wonder how effective you will fight. Will you use all the devious tricks, and the best startegies? After all you are resisting - you fight beacuse you ahve to, not because you want to. You need to try to hit/damage your opponents, but you may be singleminded and forgo complex manouvers. In fact, it may be easier to give the PC to the DM. In "The Voice of Reason", there is a domibated NPC - Alamanha, a sorceress. She is forced to attack the PCs. While she does dso, I stipulated (iirc) that she is rather singleminded - attacking a single PC until he is down and using repetitive magic to simulate her resisting the command, and to allow people to Sense Motive that there is something wrong. I would not have problems with PCs that don't use the meanest tactics - as long as they do what was commanded. Note that charm person, or the evangelists' powers are different. You are still in control of your PC. This means you can choose to accept spells if you believe them to be beneficial to you.
Gwumph 01-12-07, 06:36 AM	Hey Guys. First off: I am the player in question on this thread. Secondly: Ramacass and I are great friends and have just finished a phone call discussing this thread. Ramacass and I share DM duties with several others in our group and so we often debate these things so as to have common group ruling. Ok forget the circumstances of the combat and lets concentrate on the spell. For me the most important phrase is “Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.” Quote SRD. To me this amounts to you having control of your mind, but not your body. You don’t perceive the vampires as friends or people you should help. The second part is abit ambiguous I give that. Attacking your friends is against your nature, but it could be argued so are most things when asked to do by a vampire. My thoughts are the degree of against your nature, running away doesn’t actively hurt you or your friends and everyone has done a withdrawal when they have been hurting, so no second save. Attacking your friends, never done it, actively hurts friends , so second saving throw enabled. As for the no dex when being attacked be friends, I would say this is depends on whether the vampire has told u to defend yourself or no, but it is a muscle function and the vampire has complete control of your muscles. Now actively resisting a Protection from Evil (Pfe) is a will save. If you are conscious of being controlled by a vampire and is resisting its control, in your mind you would not fight something like a Pfe or anything else that requires a will save from a party member. (remember you are aware enough to know who is a party member or not). I would have the PC in question would physically resist any attempts to have the potion pour down their throat IF the vampire told them to defend themselves. Which comes to another important phrase in the spell “Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.” So every time a vampire wants to give a new command it takes a move action to do so. That means vampires could not give more than 2 distinct commands in a single round. i.e. Attacking party members to the best of your ability is 1 command, defending yourself against any magical effects is a separate command. Yes a vampire is probably aware a Pfe potion would break his control on the subject, but the vampire must take the time (a move action) to instruct the subject to resist it. Failing a dominate person save, doesn’t mean the PC will automatically resist things and defend himself, he must be instructed to do so and that takes time. In my opinion it stands if a vampire tell a PC to go stand in the corner, then the PC would in no way resist a potion being poured down his throat or resist the effect of the spell or if the vampire tells the PC to defend him and a cleric PC cast Pfe on the dominated PC, the dominated PC would not resist this spell this it is being cast on him and not the vampire. Now if the Vampire tell the PC to go stand in the corner and defend himself against all melee attacks and magical effects would be 2 commands use up all the vampires actions for the round, but the PC would actively resist anything his party members tried to do to him. Final Point: Being a dominated PC is something all players really dislike. Notice my bold (magical effects ) above, this was to point out that a DM needs to be precise as possible. If you said defend against all magical attacks, then spells like Pfe or Reduce person the PC would not defend against since they are effects and not attacks. DM’s should be aware the better worded their commands are, the less argument they will have, also the commands that don’t bring the PC into conflict the party the more likely they will not cause a second throw or dissolve into debate. i.e. • Go back to the nearest town to get reinforcements • Go get a drink of water from Lake ……… • Go stand in a corner • Cast a silence spell on yourself • Pray to your God All these commands should come second after a first command of “Actively defend yourself against all melee attacks and magical effects” Yes the vampire spends 2 moves actions to get it done. But it’s a cheap price to pay for have a PC out of combat for good. To restate my main point. “Subjects resist this control” that means a subject must be aware of the control, and therefore would not resist anything that would help him break this control unless instructed to do so. The vampire must take the time and be explicit in his instructions for the ability to work properly. I am writing this both as a player and a DM, so I realize the implications of the above on both. Please continue this discussion, as it will help Ramacass and I come to an agreement on how to adjudicate this spell. Cheers Gwumph
Ramacass 01-12-07, 11:51 AM	Hi Gwumph, Here's the main flaw in your argument as I see it. If you order someone to attack thier freinds it is implied that they will do so to the best of thier ability. There's no need to say "attack your friends to the best of your ability and protect yourself against thier physical and magical attacks to the best of your ability" because no one would say "attack you friends at about 65% of your ability, i mean give it a good try but don't knock yourself out or anything, and try to dodge thier blows but if they hit you with something magical just roll over and take it" Also I don't get your idea about what constitutes one order or two orders, oe or two move actions. "Go to your friends house, get him to invite you in and steal the vase from his table" is one command, one move action.-not three. Also i don't believe the dominated person would go over knock on the door and take the vase off the table while explain to his friend how he doesn't want to be doing this but he's being forced to by an evil vampire because his "body is dominated but not his mind" I think you're complicating things adding rules on where they aren't. Just my 2cp Maybe others agree Thoughts?