So, long story short a few weeks ago I had the idea that my party was going to fight a Balor, but to make it more fun, I was going to give the Balor the 'Dominate Person' spell so instead of a 6v1, it would be 5v2 and the Rogue would go around stabbing the party
But I realized a few days ago, that won't work because of course there is a Twilight Cleric in group
Now, there's a 50/50 chance they remember they can end the charmed condition...hasn't come up before, but I was wondering is there an easy way to bypass this and still get a similar mechanic.
I guess I could just rule that a check or saving throw has to be made, but this encounter will likely be next week or the week after and the campaign has been going since January, I really don't want to do a nerf this late in the game.
I could also just target the Cleric until they are incapacitated, but that seems unfair and not really my idea of fun...
Another idea I had was adding an ability to the Balor (I already added Legendary Actions and Resistance) in which it can either add one legendary action *if* a target of it's 'whispers of madness' has the charm effect end without passing a saving throw. My logic is the Balor does on average of 59 points of damage per action...the rouge does 33.5 at this point, with both totals assuming a hit. If the Rogue passes the save, I don't mind wasting an action, but considering Twilight Sanctuary ends it with no action cost, I'd want to get a Legendary Action back to make up for it. But I worry this solution is a bit too meta-gamish even for a DM
The final idea I had was to make up an effect that doesn't involve the Charmed condition and use that. I had some fun having them fight a Flind a few levels back and using the flail of chaos ability. That makes them use their reaction to attack a random creature. I could alter the language to make them use their action on a creature the Balor desires...maybe it has to use it's reaction to direct.
Which do you all think is fair, or will a Balor with LA/LR in itself be a tough enough encounter for 6 level 11 players?
A balor is ancient, has a 20 int and 16 wis. It knows what it’s doing. It’s likely fought adventurers before. Take down the healer first is a perfectly sensible strategy. Particularly since it will know that healer is the one with banishment who could potentially win the fight in one go. Between advantage and a high cha save and the legendary resistance you’ve given it, it would be a long shot, but it could happen. Throw in how the cleric is a holy man, and it makes even more sense. It’s not unfair, it is smart and devious just like a balor would be.
Or, you could always dominate the cleric instead. Start giving the balor all those temp hp, see how the players like it.
Now, there's a 50/50 chance they remember they can end the charmed condition...hasn't come up before, but I was wondering is there an easy way to bypass this and still get a similar mechanic.
Well, twilight sanctuary requires a creature end its turn in the area, so you can just force the thief to not do that. However, I really don't recommend dominating PCs, it tends to be quite unfun.
Aside from that, a party of 6 level 11s is reasonably likely to blow through 262 hp in one turn, making the entire issue moot.
A balor is ancient, has a 20 int and 16 wis. It knows what it’s doing. It’s likely fought adventurers before. Take down the healer first is a perfectly sensible strategy. Particularly since it will know that healer is the one with banishment who could potentially win the fight in one go. Between advantage and a high cha save and the legendary resistance you’ve given it, it would be a long shot, but it could happen. Throw in how the cleric is a holy man, and it makes even more sense. It’s not unfair, it is smart and devious just like a balor would be.
Or, you could always dominate the cleric instead. Start giving the balor all those temp hp, see how the players like it.
Hahahahahahaha
I thought of that, but their Wisdom save is a +9...the Balor's spell save is 20
I guess 50/50 are still pretty good odds, but in theory since Twilight Sanctury's effect doesn't require an action of any type, I can't stop her from ending the effect on herself
Now, there's a 50/50 chance they remember they can end the charmed condition...hasn't come up before, but I was wondering is there an easy way to bypass this and still get a similar mechanic.
Well, twilight sanctuary requires a creature end its turn in the area, so you can just force the thief to not do that. However, I really don't recommend dominating PCs, it tends to be quite unfun.
Aside from that, a party of 6 level 11s is reasonably likely to blow through 262 hp in one turn, making the entire issue moot.
I bumped the HP to max so it's like 378
And admittedly, I was concerned with the unfun aspect, so they were still going to choose their target and roll themself. Not sure if that would help though
DMs get free reign to fudge whatever mechanics they would like. If the Balor is wielding an unknown magical item, then anything you declare can simply be an effect of that Plot Device. Maybe it changes the save to Charisma, or it could impose disadvantage on the save. (That said, if you use a magic item, then you need to plan for the eventuality that the players will want to use it after the fight. Plenty of solutions for that as well.)
However, I agree with the others that Dominating a PC is a risky proposition. It's great if the targeted player is a good sport about it. You can simply command them to kill their allies, and leave them to decide how. However, if the target player doesn't want to attack their own party, then they are likely going to be resentful and possibly bored. Depending on how you run it.
A balor is ancient, has a 20 int and 16 wis. It knows what it’s doing. It’s likely fought adventurers before. Take down the healer first is a perfectly sensible strategy. Particularly since it will know that healer is the one with banishment who could potentially win the fight in one go. Between advantage and a high cha save and the legendary resistance you’ve given it, it would be a long shot, but it could happen. Throw in how the cleric is a holy man, and it makes even more sense. It’s not unfair, it is smart and devious just like a balor would be.
Or, you could always dominate the cleric instead. Start giving the balor all those temp hp, see how the players like it.
Hahahahahahaha
I thought of that, but their Wisdom save is a +9...the Balor's spell save is 20
I guess 50/50 are still pretty good odds, but in theory since Twilight Sanctury's effect doesn't require an action of any type, I can't stop her from ending the effect on herself
I read “you can grant that creature one of these benefits:” as an optional thing the cleric may choose to do “can” not something it must fo or that happens automatically. It make not take an action in a game mechanics sense, but it is still something the cleric must actively do. And since the cleric is dominated, the balor will simply choose for the cleric not to do it.
Or the balor can choose to have the cleric end the effect. As I understand it, a creature can always voluntarily end any effect they have going for no action cost. Then if it really wants to be mean (and he’s a demon, so, yeah, he wants to be mean), have the cleric start the effect again then end it immediately. Use them both up in case the balor loses concentration.
How about this...I modify the spell so each turn it can force a different target to make the save? After say the Rogue fails and attacks someone one, the effect ends, but on the Balor's next turn it can force a different target to make the save?
How about when the Balor dominates a target, a translucent barbed chain links the target to the Balor (like the Silver Thread on the Astral plane). The chain is immune to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage, but can otherwise be broken, if enough damage is dealt to it. It can also have a limited range, like a 30~40ft tether. If the chain is broken, the domination immediately ends.
By creating clear weaknesses, the party can use accessible strategy to circumvent the new ability.
You could also give the Chain of Domination a recharge die, like a breath weapon.
The Balor can telepathically touch the minds of all creatures it can see. It must continue to focus on this connection as though it were concentrating on a spell. As a reaction it can whisper to one of those creatures and force it to make a DC 20 WIS save. On a successful save, nothing happens and the target is immune to all whispers from this or any other Balor for 24 hours. On a failed save, the target is charmed and must use it's next action attacking the closest ally. Afterwards the Balor can use subsequent reactions to target the same creature or any other creature who is not immune to the effect.
Debating on whether I should make it use their action or reaction...If I make it a action, it's still more or less Dominate Person. I have the benefit of the spell continuing if someone saves, so I may make it a reaction so as to be able to use multi attack.
Dominating PC’s is a pain sadly, most people I’ve played with have not been good about mind control and attempt to metagame their way out. The player knows they’re affected and that translates into character behaviour. I used a homebrew version of Crown of Madness and the affected player decided to simply move away from his allies. I had ruled that the character couldn’t differentiate between friend or foe (madness am I right!) and didn’t have the self awareness to know they were affected by a spell… but that was met by rules lawyering and general discontent because RAW and an “I don’t like it” attitude. Overall a sour note, but at least I learned something from the experience.
My suggestion would be for the party to be escorting an NPC that can be dominated or simply give the Balor minions. It’ll simplify your life!
If you really want to use mind controlling effects on the party, talk to them about it and set some expectations that everyone at the table can agree with. You don’t want my experience at your table!
If it was me, I would have the Balor have some NPC's around them that are already mind controlled by the Balor. In this scenario, you avoid the 6v1 initially and as a bonus, you have a separate objective that the cleric can do with their turns (freeing the NPCs). Depending on how the fight goes, you could not only have a more challenging fight that can shift in power balance, but you might also create some story moments. Who are these NPCs and how did they come to being controlled by the Balor? I don't know your group, but my players would have to tackle with the decision to kill innocent people who are being mind controlled, or try to save them.
To me, it seems like you're fudging to ensure a particular outcome: That a PC is controlled by the enemy.
That's ... not good. Losing character control is bad enough - losing it to DM fiat is ... worse. By a lot. I would caution very strongly against this. Have an NPC be Dominated, or find some other additional threat. But avoid this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, long story short a few weeks ago I had the idea that my party was going to fight a Balor, but to make it more fun, I was going to give the Balor the 'Dominate Person' spell so instead of a 6v1, it would be 5v2 and the Rogue would go around stabbing the party
But I realized a few days ago, that won't work because of course there is a Twilight Cleric in group
Now, there's a 50/50 chance they remember they can end the charmed condition...hasn't come up before, but I was wondering is there an easy way to bypass this and still get a similar mechanic.
I guess I could just rule that a check or saving throw has to be made, but this encounter will likely be next week or the week after and the campaign has been going since January, I really don't want to do a nerf this late in the game.
I could also just target the Cleric until they are incapacitated, but that seems unfair and not really my idea of fun...
Another idea I had was adding an ability to the Balor (I already added Legendary Actions and Resistance) in which it can either add one legendary action *if* a target of it's 'whispers of madness' has the charm effect end without passing a saving throw. My logic is the Balor does on average of 59 points of damage per action...the rouge does 33.5 at this point, with both totals assuming a hit. If the Rogue passes the save, I don't mind wasting an action, but considering Twilight Sanctuary ends it with no action cost, I'd want to get a Legendary Action back to make up for it. But I worry this solution is a bit too meta-gamish even for a DM
The final idea I had was to make up an effect that doesn't involve the Charmed condition and use that. I had some fun having them fight a Flind a few levels back and using the flail of chaos ability. That makes them use their reaction to attack a random creature. I could alter the language to make them use their action on a creature the Balor desires...maybe it has to use it's reaction to direct.
Which do you all think is fair, or will a Balor with LA/LR in itself be a tough enough encounter for 6 level 11 players?
A balor is ancient, has a 20 int and 16 wis. It knows what it’s doing. It’s likely fought adventurers before. Take down the healer first is a perfectly sensible strategy. Particularly since it will know that healer is the one with banishment who could potentially win the fight in one go. Between advantage and a high cha save and the legendary resistance you’ve given it, it would be a long shot, but it could happen. Throw in how the cleric is a holy man, and it makes even more sense. It’s not unfair, it is smart and devious just like a balor would be.
Or, you could always dominate the cleric instead. Start giving the balor all those temp hp, see how the players like it.
Well, twilight sanctuary requires a creature end its turn in the area, so you can just force the thief to not do that. However, I really don't recommend dominating PCs, it tends to be quite unfun.
Aside from that, a party of 6 level 11s is reasonably likely to blow through 262 hp in one turn, making the entire issue moot.
Hahahahahahaha
I thought of that, but their Wisdom save is a +9...the Balor's spell save is 20
I guess 50/50 are still pretty good odds, but in theory since Twilight Sanctury's effect doesn't require an action of any type, I can't stop her from ending the effect on herself
I bumped the HP to max so it's like 378
And admittedly, I was concerned with the unfun aspect, so they were still going to choose their target and roll themself. Not sure if that would help though
DMs get free reign to fudge whatever mechanics they would like. If the Balor is wielding an unknown magical item, then anything you declare can simply be an effect of that Plot Device. Maybe it changes the save to Charisma, or it could impose disadvantage on the save. (That said, if you use a magic item, then you need to plan for the eventuality that the players will want to use it after the fight. Plenty of solutions for that as well.)
However, I agree with the others that Dominating a PC is a risky proposition. It's great if the targeted player is a good sport about it. You can simply command them to kill their allies, and leave them to decide how. However, if the target player doesn't want to attack their own party, then they are likely going to be resentful and possibly bored. Depending on how you run it.
I read “you can grant that creature one of these benefits:” as an optional thing the cleric may choose to do “can” not something it must fo or that happens automatically. It make not take an action in a game mechanics sense, but it is still something the cleric must actively do. And since the cleric is dominated, the balor will simply choose for the cleric not to do it.
Or the balor can choose to have the cleric end the effect. As I understand it, a creature can always voluntarily end any effect they have going for no action cost. Then if it really wants to be mean (and he’s a demon, so, yeah, he wants to be mean), have the cleric start the effect again then end it immediately. Use them both up in case the balor loses concentration.
How about this...I modify the spell so each turn it can force a different target to make the save? After say the Rogue fails and attacks someone one, the effect ends, but on the Balor's next turn it can force a different target to make the save?
Passing makes you immune, how does that sound?
That would be pretty powerful.
How about when the Balor dominates a target, a translucent barbed chain links the target to the Balor (like the Silver Thread on the Astral plane). The chain is immune to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage, but can otherwise be broken, if enough damage is dealt to it. It can also have a limited range, like a 30~40ft tether. If the chain is broken, the domination immediately ends.
By creating clear weaknesses, the party can use accessible strategy to circumvent the new ability.
You could also give the Chain of Domination a recharge die, like a breath weapon.
I came up with this...
Whispers of Madness
The Balor can telepathically touch the minds of all creatures it can see. It must continue to focus on this connection as though it were concentrating on a spell. As a reaction it can whisper to one of those creatures and force it to make a DC 20 WIS save. On a successful save, nothing happens and the target is immune to all whispers from this or any other Balor for 24 hours. On a failed save, the target is charmed and must use it's next action attacking the closest ally. Afterwards the Balor can use subsequent reactions to target the same creature or any other creature who is not immune to the effect.
Debating on whether I should make it use their action or reaction...If I make it a action, it's still more or less Dominate Person. I have the benefit of the spell continuing if someone saves, so I may make it a reaction so as to be able to use multi attack.
Dominating PC’s is a pain sadly, most people I’ve played with have not been good about mind control and attempt to metagame their way out. The player knows they’re affected and that translates into character behaviour. I used a homebrew version of Crown of Madness and the affected player decided to simply move away from his allies. I had ruled that the character couldn’t differentiate between friend or foe (madness am I right!) and didn’t have the self awareness to know they were affected by a spell… but that was met by rules lawyering and general discontent because RAW and an “I don’t like it” attitude. Overall a sour note, but at least I learned something from the experience.
My suggestion would be for the party to be escorting an NPC that can be dominated or simply give the Balor minions. It’ll simplify your life!
If you really want to use mind controlling effects on the party, talk to them about it and set some expectations that everyone at the table can agree with. You don’t want my experience at your table!
If it was me, I would have the Balor have some NPC's around them that are already mind controlled by the Balor. In this scenario, you avoid the 6v1 initially and as a bonus, you have a separate objective that the cleric can do with their turns (freeing the NPCs). Depending on how the fight goes, you could not only have a more challenging fight that can shift in power balance, but you might also create some story moments. Who are these NPCs and how did they come to being controlled by the Balor? I don't know your group, but my players would have to tackle with the decision to kill innocent people who are being mind controlled, or try to save them.
To me, it seems like you're fudging to ensure a particular outcome: That a PC is controlled by the enemy.
That's ... not good. Losing character control is bad enough - losing it to DM fiat is ... worse. By a lot. I would caution very strongly against this. Have an NPC be Dominated, or find some other additional threat. But avoid this.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.