I am almost always mused when folks try to toss out a class or race ability and entirely negate it because it hinders THEIR angle of play, from either side of the table. It exudes an arrogance that THEY know MUCH better than the game designers how things SHOULD work. I guess it's good that DM's can house rule anything they like, to prevent as-written features from ruining their fun. If a DM however, told me when I gained the feature, it would not work as stated, I would be pretty upset. If an agreement or compromise that made sense wasn't reached, the party would be short one Monk at that point. I don't do overbearing dictators.
I'm not sure how playing the spell as written is being a dictator?
Would tie in with ignoring the entirety of the post aside from the conclusion based on a set of circumstances. Also misplaying the spell slightly (if it says "charmed" it falls under the ability, like it or not) by dismissing a class feature. Not unlike saying the Barbarian can't Rage because the Gnome BBEG is too cute.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
I am almost always mused when folks try to toss out a class or race ability and entirely negate it because it hinders THEIR angle of play, from either side of the table. It exudes an arrogance that THEY know MUCH better than the game designers how things SHOULD work. I guess it's good that DM's can house rule anything they like, to prevent as-written features from ruining their fun. If a DM however, told me when I gained the feature, it would not work as stated, I would be pretty upset. If an agreement or compromise that made sense wasn't reached, the party would be short one Monk at that point. I don't do overbearing dictators.
I'm not sure how playing the spell as written is being a dictator?
Would tie in with ignoring the entirety of the post aside from the conclusion based on a set of circumstances. Also misplaying the spell slightly (if it says "charmed" it falls under the ability, like it or not) by dismissing a class feature. Not unlike saying the Barbarian can't Rage because the Gnome BBEG is too cute.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
You are not talking about a Spell and It's Intent. Your talking about a Spell and how you want to abuse it. It's that simple. If you wanted to talk about it's intent then you would take into account all of the little details they put into it to clarify their intent.
So No. It's nothing of what you state. And no it's not the same thing as casting Dispel Magic. That's your False Equivalence to make excuses for yourself.
I am almost always mused when folks try to toss out a class or race ability and entirely negate it because it hinders THEIR angle of play, from either side of the table. It exudes an arrogance that THEY know MUCH better than the game designers how things SHOULD work. I guess it's good that DM's can house rule anything they like, to prevent as-written features from ruining their fun. If a DM however, told me when I gained the feature, it would not work as stated, I would be pretty upset. If an agreement or compromise that made sense wasn't reached, the party would be short one Monk at that point. I don't do overbearing dictators.
I'm not sure how playing the spell as written is being a dictator?
Would tie in with ignoring the entirety of the post aside from the conclusion based on a set of circumstances. Also misplaying the spell slightly (if it says "charmed" it falls under the ability, like it or not) by dismissing a class feature. Not unlike saying the Barbarian can't Rage because the Gnome BBEG is too cute.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
You are not talking about a Spell and It's Intent. Your talking about a Spell and how you want to abuse it. It's that simple. If you wanted to talk about it's intent then you would take into account all of the little details they put into it to clarify their intent.
So No. It's nothing of what you state. And no it's not the same thing as casting Dispel Magic. That's your False Equivalence to make excuses for yourself.
That's what is simple.
Its literally called dominate person...if you rule it as you do then a spellcaster could simply use an action to dispel magic on themselves if not explicitly told NOT to do that....which is of course silly and no DM would allow that.
So why allow a monk to effectively the same thing?
I am almost always mused when folks try to toss out a class or race ability and entirely negate it because it hinders THEIR angle of play, from either side of the table. It exudes an arrogance that THEY know MUCH better than the game designers how things SHOULD work. I guess it's good that DM's can house rule anything they like, to prevent as-written features from ruining their fun. If a DM however, told me when I gained the feature, it would not work as stated, I would be pretty upset. If an agreement or compromise that made sense wasn't reached, the party would be short one Monk at that point. I don't do overbearing dictators.
I'm not sure how playing the spell as written is being a dictator?
Would tie in with ignoring the entirety of the post aside from the conclusion based on a set of circumstances. Also misplaying the spell slightly (if it says "charmed" it falls under the ability, like it or not) by dismissing a class feature. Not unlike saying the Barbarian can't Rage because the Gnome BBEG is too cute.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
You are not talking about a Spell and It's Intent. Your talking about a Spell and how you want to abuse it. It's that simple. If you wanted to talk about it's intent then you would take into account all of the little details they put into it to clarify their intent.
So No. It's nothing of what you state. And no it's not the same thing as casting Dispel Magic. That's your False Equivalence to make excuses for yourself.
That's what is simple.
Its literally called dominate person...if you rule it as you do then a spellcaster could simply use an action to dispel magic on themselves if not explicitly told NOT to do that....which is of course silly and no DM would allow that.
So why allow a monk to effectively the same thing?
because they don't work the same way. They don't work on all of the same things. They're Requirements for usage listed within their specifics are different. That's why. Dispel magic has different requirements and things it can affect to be able to use it than Stillness of Mind. That's why you wouldn't necessarily get to use Dispel Magic but the Monk can use Stillness of Mind. Two different abilities from different sources with different details of specificity despite the fact that they can technically both effect on specific thing going on.
Your Argument is basically the same as arguing That you shouldn't be able to use firebolt because you can't use magic missile on War Caster's Reaction just because they are both spells.
I am almost always mused when folks try to toss out a class or race ability and entirely negate it because it hinders THEIR angle of play, from either side of the table. It exudes an arrogance that THEY know MUCH better than the game designers how things SHOULD work. I guess it's good that DM's can house rule anything they like, to prevent as-written features from ruining their fun. If a DM however, told me when I gained the feature, it would not work as stated, I would be pretty upset. If an agreement or compromise that made sense wasn't reached, the party would be short one Monk at that point. I don't do overbearing dictators.
I'm not sure how playing the spell as written is being a dictator?
Would tie in with ignoring the entirety of the post aside from the conclusion based on a set of circumstances. Also misplaying the spell slightly (if it says "charmed" it falls under the ability, like it or not) by dismissing a class feature. Not unlike saying the Barbarian can't Rage because the Gnome BBEG is too cute.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
You are not talking about a Spell and It's Intent. Your talking about a Spell and how you want to abuse it. It's that simple. If you wanted to talk about it's intent then you would take into account all of the little details they put into it to clarify their intent.
So No. It's nothing of what you state. And no it's not the same thing as casting Dispel Magic. That's your False Equivalence to make excuses for yourself.
That's what is simple.
Its literally called dominate person...if you rule it as you do then a spellcaster could simply use an action to dispel magic on themselves if not explicitly told NOT to do that....which is of course silly and no DM would allow that.
So why allow a monk to effectively the same thing?
because they don't work the same way. They don't work on all of the same things. They're Requirements for usage listed within their specifics are different. That's why. Dispel magic has different requirements and things it can affect to be able to use it than Stillness of Mind. That's why you wouldn't necessarily get to use Dispel Magic but the Monk can use Stillness of Mind. Two different abilities from different sources with different details of specificity despite the fact that they can technically both effect on specific thing going on.
Your Argument is basically the same as arguing That you shouldn't be able to use firebolt because you can't use magic missile on War Caster's Reaction just because they are both spells.
If you allow stillness of mind to work there is 0 reason why dispel magic wouldn't work.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
This, so far as I am concerned, would be an acceptable compromise/house rule. I would accept it (grudgingly, lol) as a concession to allow the DM some movement and flexibility in creating encounters. Everything I read, up to THIS point, gave a tone that you would simply dismiss the ability as written out of hand. Making it more specific and limiting one potent spell to "beat" the class ability, I would accept. Even then I would only agree that the Monk couldn't break free if the caster actually took control. Anything else, Stillness snuffs it.
Still not as intended or written so far as the ability goes, BUT a minor enough shift that I wouldn't make a big stink. Unless, of course we started seeing all kinds of enemies everywhere using it, there would be a new discussion about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
This, so far as I am concerned, would be an acceptable compromise/house rule. I would accept it (grudgingly, lol) as a concession to allow the DM some movement and flexibility in creating encounters. Everything I read, up to THIS point, gave a tone that you would simply dismiss the ability as written out of hand. Making it more specific and limiting one potent spell to "beat" the class ability, I would accept. Even then I would only agree that the Monk couldn't break free if the caster actually took control. Anything else, Stillness snuffs it.
Still not as intended or written so far as the ability goes, BUT a minor enough shift that I wouldn't make a big stink. Unless, of course we started seeing all kinds of enemies everywhere using it, there would be a new discussion about it.
That's all I'm saying is literally one spell (well two with dominate creature) that doesn't allow you to use it.
It's just what the spell intends.... Otherwise it would be fair to say enemy casters can just cast dispel magic on themselves which I'm sure a PC caster with the dominate person would not like.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
This, so far as I am concerned, would be an acceptable compromise/house rule. I would accept it (grudgingly, lol) as a concession to allow the DM some movement and flexibility in creating encounters. Everything I read, up to THIS point, gave a tone that you would simply dismiss the ability as written out of hand. Making it more specific and limiting one potent spell to "beat" the class ability, I would accept. Even then I would only agree that the Monk couldn't break free if the caster actually took control. Anything else, Stillness snuffs it.
Still not as intended or written so far as the ability goes, BUT a minor enough shift that I wouldn't make a big stink. Unless, of course we started seeing all kinds of enemies everywhere using it, there would be a new discussion about it.
That's all I'm saying is literally one spell (well two with dominate creature) that doesn't allow you to use it.
It's just what the spell intends.... Otherwise it would be fair to say enemy casters can just cast dispel magic on themselves which I'm sure a PC caster with the dominate person would not like.
no. What your saying. Again and again. Like a broken record. Is that the spell Says something that the Spell doesn't actually Say and you don't like it and want to abuse the spell in your way. That's it.
I'm done with this. What you have said doesn't change. No matter how it's told to you the spell doesn't say that you just make excuses of why it should be your way. That's it.
Your False Equivalence is Wrong. Your Dispel Magic Comparison is not the Comparsion you think it is. End of story.
Your Statement of what the spell states is not what the Spell States. End of Story.
Your statement of how you will abuse these spells and the technical mechanics is only you abusing the Spells and Technical mechanics so you can Win something that doesn't have a win condition. End of Story.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
This, so far as I am concerned, would be an acceptable compromise/house rule. I would accept it (grudgingly, lol) as a concession to allow the DM some movement and flexibility in creating encounters. Everything I read, up to THIS point, gave a tone that you would simply dismiss the ability as written out of hand. Making it more specific and limiting one potent spell to "beat" the class ability, I would accept. Even then I would only agree that the Monk couldn't break free if the caster actually took control. Anything else, Stillness snuffs it.
Still not as intended or written so far as the ability goes, BUT a minor enough shift that I wouldn't make a big stink. Unless, of course we started seeing all kinds of enemies everywhere using it, there would be a new discussion about it.
That's all I'm saying is literally one spell (well two with dominate creature) that doesn't allow you to use it.
It's just what the spell intends.... Otherwise it would be fair to say enemy casters can just cast dispel magic on themselves which I'm sure a PC caster with the dominate person would not like.
no. What your saying. Again and again. Like a broken record. Is that the spell Says something that the Spell doesn't actually Say and you don't like it and want to abuse the spell in your way. That's it.
I'm done with this. What you have said doesn't change. No matter how it's told to you the spell doesn't say that you just make excuses of why it should be your way. That's it.
Your False Equivalence is Wrong. Your Dispel Magic Comparison is not the Comparsion you think it is. End of story.
Your Statement of what the spell states is not what the Spell States. End of Story.
Your statement of how you will abuse these spells and the technical mechanics is only you abusing the Spells and Technical mechanics so you can Win something that doesn't have a win condition. End of Story.
You are dominated and cannot use any actions.
It's not about "winning" it's about what the spell says and what is intended.
It's obviously not intended for you to use an action to do anything you want with... You do what the caster tells you to do or do nothing.
It's not about "winning" it's about what the spell says and what is intended.
It's obviously not intended for you to use an action to do anything you want with... You do what the caster tells you to do or do nothing.
You can still use actions if the caster isn't using full control. If the caster hasn't given you explicit orders that would take your action, you "defend and preserve yourself to the best of your ability." This may or may not include using stillness of mind depending on the situation.
Why does this thread even exist. Why can't you all accept RAW and RAI. Monks are meant to have the ability to resist magic or effects that are altering their minds. If they get charmed or frightened REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE, they should be able to use Stillness of Mind to end it. End of story. Saying "i wouldn't allow them to counter dominate person" is BS. You might as well remove the ability entirely if you want to force them to not use their ability the way it was meant to be used just so that you could play out the mind control fantasy you have. Stop nerfing an ability that does exactly what it is supposed to, it is meant to be that strong and that useful
It's not about "winning" it's about what the spell says and what is intended.
It's obviously not intended for you to use an action to do anything you want with... You do what the caster tells you to do or do nothing.
You can still use actions if the caster isn't using full control. If the caster hasn't given you explicit orders that would take your action, you "defend and preserve yourself to the best of your ability." This may or may not include using stillness of mind depending on the situation.
That is fair enough but it's also fair that basically any command should take up your action IMO.
For example: "Run away as fast as you can" you would be dashing with action and bonus action.
"attack everyone but me with everything you have" you would be attacking with action and bonus action.
So overall it would not be hard to get the monk to burn their action each turn.
Also with this ruling it would be perfectly acceptable for a caster who did not receive instruction to use dispel magic on themselves as nothing technically prohibits it
It seems to me that the specific should take precedence over the general.
The caster of the enchantment can say, "Run away as fast as you can," but the Monk power explicitly states that the Monk can spend an action to rid himself of the spell effects.
There is nothing which says that a caster of Dispel Magic can do so.
It seems to me that the specific should take precedence over the general.
The caster of the enchantment can say, "Run away as fast as you can," but the Monk power explicitly states that the Monk can spend an action to rid himself of the spell effects.
There is nothing which says that a caster of Dispel Magic can do so.
If the ruling is they can use an action at all then anyone can use an action.
Nothing in the spell says you can't use an action to cast dispel magic or that technically you lose an action so basically you can do anything.
If the ruling is they can use an action at all then anyone can use an action.
The rule is stated under the Monk class description. I'm happy to consider whether your comment here makes ANY sense as soon as you show me where the rules state under any other class'' description that that other class can do the same thing.
If the ruling is they can use an action at all then anyone can use an action.
The rule is stated under the Monk class description. I'm happy to consider whether your comment here makes ANY sense as soon as you show me where the rules state under any other class'' description that that other class can do the same thing.
The spell doesn't say you can't so you can.
It says
"While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as "Attack that creature," "Run over there," or "Fetch that object." If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."
Please state where it says you lose an action.
If you are saying a monk can use an action to Stillness of mind then any creature can "defend and preserve itself" in any way the PC sees fit apparently. Why not dispel magic on yourself?
The spell description is more general than Stillness of Mind.
I can see that interpretation but I am not sure it is necessarily true. I could see Stillness of Mind being more general than the Dominate Person spell.
Stillness of Mind applies to all effects which could charm and frighten you, with the assumption that you will be able to use your action on your turn to end the spell. Dominate Person, on the other hand, is more specific in that it not only applies the charmed status but also requires the target to use its action in a specific way.
The way dominate person shuts down stillness of mind isnt because its charm is any more effective on the monk than another effect, its because the monk is too preoccupied following orders to be able to focus and remove the effect as it could with many of the other charming/frightening spells/effects/features in the game.
In this way Dominate Person is more of an exception to the general rules of Stillness of Mind because it also removes the monk's agency to use its action (except maybe in the case where the monk is given no order and can defend itself. Still on the fence on that one)
Except that Dominate X is intended to apply to all of it's valid targets as a general rule. Stillness of Mind is a specific exception to that.
If Stillness of Mind was a reaction or passive effect that made you immune to being charmed or frightened, I would agree with you. But because the monk must use its action to end the effect, then the monk must be free to take an action of its choosing. Dominate X spells specifically removes that freedom, whereas there are plenty of other charming/frightening effects which do not interfere with a creature's ability to take a non-harmful action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
You are not talking about a Spell and It's Intent. Your talking about a Spell and how you want to abuse it. It's that simple. If you wanted to talk about it's intent then you would take into account all of the little details they put into it to clarify their intent.
So No. It's nothing of what you state. And no it's not the same thing as casting Dispel Magic. That's your False Equivalence to make excuses for yourself.
That's what is simple.
Its literally called dominate person...if you rule it as you do then a spellcaster could simply use an action to dispel magic on themselves if not explicitly told NOT to do that....which is of course silly and no DM would allow that.
So why allow a monk to effectively the same thing?
because they don't work the same way. They don't work on all of the same things. They're Requirements for usage listed within their specifics are different. That's why. Dispel magic has different requirements and things it can affect to be able to use it than Stillness of Mind. That's why you wouldn't necessarily get to use Dispel Magic but the Monk can use Stillness of Mind. Two different abilities from different sources with different details of specificity despite the fact that they can technically both effect on specific thing going on.
Your Argument is basically the same as arguing That you shouldn't be able to use firebolt because you can't use magic missile on War Caster's Reaction just because they are both spells.
If you allow stillness of mind to work there is 0 reason why dispel magic wouldn't work.
You provided no reason why it wouldn't....
Quote from Optimus:
I am talking about 1 spell and how it is intended to be used...its not Charm Person or a lessor spell its Dominate Person. The spell is literally intended to remove any and all ability to do anything on your own.
Its not "mostly dominate person" its fully out of control of yourself.
It would be like saying that if the PC did this on a creature and that creature could cast Dispel Magic it could do so to remove the spell on it...which is silly.
If the Monk is charmed via charm person or pretty much literally any other spell I would say its a go but in this case no...its just no.
This, so far as I am concerned, would be an acceptable compromise/house rule. I would accept it (grudgingly, lol) as a concession to allow the DM some movement and flexibility in creating encounters. Everything I read, up to THIS point, gave a tone that you would simply dismiss the ability as written out of hand. Making it more specific and limiting one potent spell to "beat" the class ability, I would accept. Even then I would only agree that the Monk couldn't break free if the caster actually took control. Anything else, Stillness snuffs it.
Still not as intended or written so far as the ability goes, BUT a minor enough shift that I wouldn't make a big stink. Unless, of course we started seeing all kinds of enemies everywhere using it, there would be a new discussion about it.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
That's all I'm saying is literally one spell (well two with dominate creature) that doesn't allow you to use it.
It's just what the spell intends.... Otherwise it would be fair to say enemy casters can just cast dispel magic on themselves which I'm sure a PC caster with the dominate person would not like.
no. What your saying. Again and again. Like a broken record. Is that the spell Says something that the Spell doesn't actually Say and you don't like it and want to abuse the spell in your way. That's it.
I'm done with this. What you have said doesn't change. No matter how it's told to you the spell doesn't say that you just make excuses of why it should be your way. That's it.
Your False Equivalence is Wrong. Your Dispel Magic Comparison is not the Comparsion you think it is. End of story.
Your Statement of what the spell states is not what the Spell States. End of Story.
Your statement of how you will abuse these spells and the technical mechanics is only you abusing the Spells and Technical mechanics so you can Win something that doesn't have a win condition. End of Story.
You are dominated and cannot use any actions.
It's not about "winning" it's about what the spell says and what is intended.
It's obviously not intended for you to use an action to do anything you want with... You do what the caster tells you to do or do nothing.
You can still use actions if the caster isn't using full control. If the caster hasn't given you explicit orders that would take your action, you "defend and preserve yourself to the best of your ability." This may or may not include using stillness of mind depending on the situation.
Why does this thread even exist. Why can't you all accept RAW and RAI. Monks are meant to have the ability to resist magic or effects that are altering their minds. If they get charmed or frightened REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE, they should be able to use Stillness of Mind to end it. End of story. Saying "i wouldn't allow them to counter dominate person" is BS. You might as well remove the ability entirely if you want to force them to not use their ability the way it was meant to be used just so that you could play out the mind control fantasy you have. Stop nerfing an ability that does exactly what it is supposed to, it is meant to be that strong and that useful
That is fair enough but it's also fair that basically any command should take up your action IMO.
For example: "Run away as fast as you can" you would be dashing with action and bonus action.
"attack everyone but me with everything you have" you would be attacking with action and bonus action.
So overall it would not be hard to get the monk to burn their action each turn.
Also with this ruling it would be perfectly acceptable for a caster who did not receive instruction to use dispel magic on themselves as nothing technically prohibits it
It seems to me that the specific should take precedence over the general.
The caster of the enchantment can say, "Run away as fast as you can," but the Monk power explicitly states that the Monk can spend an action to rid himself of the spell effects.
There is nothing which says that a caster of Dispel Magic can do so.
If the ruling is they can use an action at all then anyone can use an action.
Nothing in the spell says you can't use an action to cast dispel magic or that technically you lose an action so basically you can do anything.
The rule is stated under the Monk class description. I'm happy to consider whether your comment here makes ANY sense as soon as you show me where the rules state under any other class'' description that that other class can do the same thing.
The spell doesn't say you can't so you can.
It says
"While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as "Attack that creature," "Run over there," or "Fetch that object." If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."
Please state where it says you lose an action.
If you are saying a monk can use an action to Stillness of mind then any creature can "defend and preserve itself" in any way the PC sees fit apparently. Why not dispel magic on yourself?
Again, the specific overrides the general.
The spell description is more general than Stillness of Mind.
I can see that interpretation but I am not sure it is necessarily true. I could see Stillness of Mind being more general than the Dominate Person spell.
Stillness of Mind applies to all effects which could charm and frighten you, with the assumption that you will be able to use your action on your turn to end the spell. Dominate Person, on the other hand, is more specific in that it not only applies the charmed status but also requires the target to use its action in a specific way.
The way dominate person shuts down stillness of mind isnt because its charm is any more effective on the monk than another effect, its because the monk is too preoccupied following orders to be able to focus and remove the effect as it could with many of the other charming/frightening spells/effects/features in the game.
In this way Dominate Person is more of an exception to the general rules of Stillness of Mind because it also removes the monk's agency to use its action (except maybe in the case where the monk is given no order and can defend itself. Still on the fence on that one)
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Except that Dominate X is intended to apply to all of it's valid targets as a general rule. Stillness of Mind is a specific exception to that.
If Stillness of Mind was a reaction or passive effect that made you immune to being charmed or frightened, I would agree with you. But because the monk must use its action to end the effect, then the monk must be free to take an action of its choosing. Dominate X spells specifically removes that freedom, whereas there are plenty of other charming/frightening effects which do not interfere with a creature's ability to take a non-harmful action.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!