There's no game system definition for "willing" i believe. Plain english says it's having the power of choice or consenting as i brought earlier from dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/willing
One thing is sure, RAW neither spells mention anything about willingness one way or another so we're all left with our own conclusions.
There's no game system definition for "willing" i believe. Plain english says it's having the power of choice or consenting as i brought earlier from dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/willing
One thing is sure, RAW neither spells mention anything about willingness one way or another so we're all left with our own conclusions.
Yeah this. But also spells only do what they say they do and no more, unless your DM makes a special ruling otherwise.
Since none of these effects being discussed say they overwrite creatures wills (special exception to the Vampire), then they don't.
Some say they mess with minds, others attitudes or emotions, and other spells even overwrite even your actions themselves directly. But unless it says it can change you willingness, and uses that word specifically, then it doesn't. Bar special exception/addition from your DM of course.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The vampire has an ability that makes you willing, explicitly. That has no similarity to other spells that do not say they do that.
I don't think I was clear -- There is an argument being made in this thread (perhaps not by you), that by definition you cannot be forced into being willing through mind control. You are either free to willingly choose something, or your will has been taken away and so you're no longer capable of being willing.
The vampire's power to force someone to be willing through mind control means that argument fails.
Let's not derail this thread into talking about the morality of mind control, or murderhobo adventuring in general. Again, while "consent" is a very important part of real life legally and morally, what we're talking about is "willing" as a game system definition for when a course of action or spell in combat is or is not taken by one character (a humanoid, an animal, or even something unthinking like a programmed golem), rather than another who is magically puppeting their body or mind.
It is real simple. While under Charm Person, or Dominate Person, that target will accept the commands that are connected to the word "willing". It has always been that way.
I can see the argument for dominate person, where you could say tell them to accept the spell, and they do it.
Charm person doesn't give you the ability to control someone. The ONLY thing the charm person spell tosses on top of the basic charmed condition is that the target views you as a friendly acquaintance. But that doesn't mean you'll do anything they tell you to. All charm does is make it so you can't harm the charmer and give them advantage on social checks. Charm, in and of itself, isn't full blown mind control, though its treading in that general direction.
Charm person though, would allow you to attempt to get them to be willing (with a little bending of the truth and persuasion checks as necessary) because it makes them regard you as a friend. For example, referring to the original question asked about Feign Death, if I was the person who was just charmed and my "friend" told me they would cast a spell to make me resist physical damage for an hour, (which is part of Feign Death) I would definitely be willing!
The vampire has an ability that makes you willing, explicitly. That has no similarity to other spells that do not say they do that.
I don't think I was clear -- There is an argument being made in this thread (perhaps not by you), that by definition you cannot be forced into being willing through mind control. You are either free to willingly choose something, or your will has been taken away and so you're no longer capable of being willing.
The vampire's power to force someone to be willing through mind control means that argument fails.
Or it means abilities do exactly what they say they do, and not more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Let's not derail this thread into talking about the morality of mind control, or murderhobo adventuring in general. Again, while "consent" is a very important part of real life legally and morally, what we're talking about is "willing" as a game system definition for when a course of action or spell in combat is or is not taken by one character (a humanoid, an animal, or even something unthinking like a programmed golem), rather than another who is magically puppeting their body or mind.
It is real simple. While under Charm Person, or Dominate Person, that target will accept the commands that are connected to the word "willing". It has always been that way.
I can see the argument for dominate person, where you could say tell them to accept the spell, and they do it.
Charm person doesn't give you the ability to control someone. The ONLY thing the charm person spell tosses on top of the basic charmed condition is that the target views you as a friendly acquaintance. But that doesn't mean you'll do anything they tell you to. All charm does is make it so you can't harm the charmer and give them advantage on social checks. Charm, in and of itself, isn't full blown mind control, though its treading in that general direction.
Charm person though, would allow you to attempt to get them to be willing (with a little bending of the truth and persuasion checks as necessary) because it makes them regard you as a friend. For example, referring to the original question asked about Feign Death, if I was the person who was just charmed and my "friend" told me they would cast a spell to make me resist physical damage for an hour, (which is part of Feign Death) I would definitely be willing!
I think it really depend son the npc/character what they'd be willing to let a friendly acquaintance do. Not 'a loved one.' Not 'your best friend' or even 'close friend.' A 'friendly acquantance' it doesn't even say outright friend, just friendly.
For me that's going to vary on what you ask the person to do and their own temperament. If a coworker other 'friendly acquaintance' asked me to take drugs that would put me into a coma for a while, I wouldn't do it.
Now, charm person does give advantage on social checks. But just that, advantage. The DM has to rule that the request is first reasonable enough to have the charmer roll in the first place.
Command does what it says, and not what it doesn't, unless that would produce an absurd result.
What does it say it does? Let's pick the "approach" command. "The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you."
Does it move? Yes, because the spell says it does.
Does it move along a specific route? Yes, because the spell defines the specific route.
Does it stop at a certain distance? Yes, because the spell says it does.
Does it end its turn without doing anything else? Yes, because the spell says it does.
Those are all pretty unambiguous!
What does it not say it does? Well, a whole universe of things, too many to discuss without a context... but lets give it a context, the creature was under the effect of a Booming Blade, which is primed to deal damage if it "willingly moves."
Did Commandsay or imply that the creature "willingly" moves? No it did not, so it does not do that, unless "willingly" or "moves" means something that would make it ridiculous to have one without assuming the other, or unless we have some other context that would RAI imply that there's "will" to be found in what the creature is being forced to do.
So.... loop back around to the last several pages of discussion I guess, either you're in the camp that thinks that mind-control definitionally implies control without regard to will, or you're of the belief that mind control makes creatures want to do something and willing to go along with their commands. I guess ultimately that just comes down to what you think is reasonable but... I'd be lying if I didn't state plainly that it is just bonkers to argue that spell that mind controls someone is a spell that respects their will.
The vampire has an ability that makes you willing, explicitly. That has no similarity to other spells that do not say they do that.
I don't think I was clear -- There is an argument being made in this thread (perhaps not by you), that by definition you cannot be forced into being willing through mind control. You are either free to willingly choose something, or your will has been taken away and so you're no longer capable of being willing.
The vampire's power to force someone to be willing through mind control means that argument fails.
Or it means abilities do exactly what they say they do, and not more.
Again, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.
Question: Can you Dominate someone (or more broadly, use mind control) and make them be a willing subject of some other spell/power etc? Argument: No, because the definition of "willing" is that you need the power to choose, so if that power is taken from you (by magic), it is impossible to be willing. Counter Argument: If that were the definition used by the game, then the Vampire power would not exist. It explicitly makes someone willing to do something through mind control.
Note, I am not arguing that any particular spell or ability does make one willing, merely that the above argument about the definition of "willing" cannot hold up.
Vampire's Bite require a willing target and its Charm ability specifically mention the target it is a willing target for the vampire's bit Attack. If Charm was making people willing as a general rule it wouldn't need to specifically mention it hence why i believe it's spevific vs general.
The vampire has an ability that makes you willing, explicitly. That has no similarity to other spells that do not say they do that.
I don't think I was clear -- There is an argument being made in this thread (perhaps not by you), that by definition you cannot be forced into being willing through mind control. You are either free to willingly choose something, or your will has been taken away and so you're no longer capable of being willing.
The vampire's power to force someone to be willing through mind control means that argument fails.
Or it means abilities do exactly what they say they do, and not more.
Again, Dominate says that the person follows the orders given. How, exactly, do they do so? Well they are not being directly controlled.
Have you read the description for the Enchantment school of magic? I advise it. Lets take a look:
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.
That takes an action. So they must be using their own brain to do so. The spell says they act like this. Thus they should be able to be ordered to any action their brains can normally command of them, themselves.
Naw. None of this is found in the rules you're fabricating it. Reread the description of Enchantment magic and reread the spell effect in question. neither say you change their will, only that you control their actions.
If they are given no instructions at all, they defend themselves to the best of their ability. Again, how? To the best of their ability. Not to the best of the ability of the caster, nor of some spirit possessing them but the best of their ability.
If you don't overwrite their actions then they can use their own actions to defend themselves if they want. That isn't the spell overriding anything whatsoever, that is stated how much freedom they have to their action when not being directly controlled.
They do still have will, but that will is coopted.
Only if a spell or effect says it does so, specifically. See Vampires.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Vampire's Bite require a willing target and its Charm ability specifically mention the target it is a willing target for the vampire's bit Attack. If Charm was making people willing as a general rule it wouldn't need to specifically mention it hence why i believe it's spevific vs general.
Just to clarify -- while earlier it sounded like I was arguing that Charm itself makes one willing, I'm not pursuing that line of thought. I read back what I wrote and it was a bit rambling and not really well thought through.
All I'm saying now, is that the Vampire example is a counter to a claim that "willingness" cannot be forced. It doesn't prove that a given spell or effect does create willingness, ONLY that the RAW obviously allows that willingness can be magically created in at least one instance. The only effect of this observation is that we should move on from the semantic discussion of "willing", and accept that, for the purposes of D&D, the state of Willing can be compelled.
All I'm saying now, is that the Vampire example is a counter to a claim that "willingness" cannot be forced. It doesn't prove that a given spell or effect does create willingness, ONLY that the RAW obviously allows that willingness can be magically created in at least one instance. The only effect of this observation is that we should move on from the semantic discussion of "willing", and accept that, for the purposes of D&D, the state of Willing can be compelled.
I agree an effect can compell a creature to be willing when specifically noted. And a Vampire's Charm doesn't make the target willing for anything other than for Bite so it's also only a limited willingness.
But we shouldn't use a vampire as proof willingness can be compelled by any control effect, but instead use it as proof that it cannot unless noted otherwise, since that's how specific vs general works.
All I'm saying now, is that the Vampire example is a counter to a claim that "willingness" cannot be forced. It doesn't prove that a given spell or effect does create willingness, ONLY that the RAW obviously allows that willingness can be magically created in at least one instance. The only effect of this observation is that we should move on from the semantic discussion of "willing", and accept that, for the purposes of D&D, the state of Willing can be compelled.
I agree an effect can compell a creature to be willing when specifically noted. And a Vampire's Charm doesn't make the target willing for anything other than for Bite so it's also only a limited willingness.
But we shouldn't use a vampire as proof willingness can be compelled by any control effect, but instead use it as proof that it cannot unless noted otherwise, since that's how specific vs general works.
That's a reasonable argument. OTOH, I don't know where the general rule on what is "willing" is stated. So I guess that means we just use whatever we normally believe that word to mean, in the same way as there's no need for a general rule on walking through walls, because we know most people can't do that. And when there are magical exceptions to walking through walls, these are 'specific' in that they create a specific exception to the general expectation, but are they always explicit? Are there no implied specific exceptions to a general rule? Are there no "natural consequences" of a specific spell that are not explicitly stated ? I mean, if that were the case, wouldn't these forums be empty of discussion?
It seems to me, that Mind Control is just such an example of an implied specific exception to the general rule on willingness. If you can accept that willingness can be compelled by some mechanism (that it's not a priori impossible to do so it), and that you can give people an instruction that they follow, then telling them to be a willing subject of the next spell you cast on them doesn't sound beyond the realm of what is possible for mind control to accomplish.
That said, I can totally see your point. I just don't feel like it was the final nail in the coffin (as it were ;) )
I think it would have been a better written ability had it said that the bite requires a willing target "or one charmed by the vampire's Charm ability." Considering its the only example of any mind control ability in 5E talking about making something become "willing", I'm willing (ha) to hazard that it was an editing oversight missing the forrest for the trees, and not an intentional clue that the Vampire is the key to correectly applying Command - Approach to Booming Blade.
That said, I think that reading the vampire's Charm as a specific exception that proves the general rule is okay too. Mind control doesn't generally render its victim "willing," unless the spell/effect says otherwise.
In 5E, the existence of one feature having specific language about an interaction is typically good evidence (or even explicit confirmation) that another similar spell that doesn't have that sort of specific language doesn't have that interaction. See e.g., Witch Bolt talks about ending if the caster and effected creature get too far away from one another. Generally, there is no rule that getting too far away ends a spell you're concentrating on effecting a creature. Witch Bolt is an exception, and the fact that it needs specific explicit language to BE an exception, is proof that any spell that does NOT have that sort of language follows the general rule.
That's what the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" means, if you didn't know.
I'm not saying the Vampire creates the rule. In fact, I made exactly that argument for why mind control is NOT williing, because if it was, you would NEED to look to the vampire to create that rule since its the only mind control that...
... you know what, forget it. Folks understand what I meant. You're just an exception :)
Vampire's Bite is exceptional in that it can only be used on a target being willing, restrained, incapacitated or grappled by the vampire. Otherwise, no one let's a vampire take a bite at him or her. So unless the target was charmed by the vampire, it must grapple it or wait until it's unconscious since it has no way to restrained or incapacitate creatures by itself.
The vampire has an ability that makes you willing, explicitly. That has no similarity to other spells that do not say they do that.
I don't think I was clear -- There is an argument being made in this thread (perhaps not by you), that by definition you cannot be forced into being willing through mind control. You are either free to willingly choose something, or your will has been taken away and so you're no longer capable of being willing.
The vampire's power to force someone to be willing through mind control means that argument fails.
Or it means abilities do exactly what they say they do, and not more.
Again, Dominate says that the person follows the orders given. How, exactly, do they do so? Well they are not being directly controlled.
Have you read the description for the Enchantment school of magic? I advise it. Lets take a look:
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.
That takes an action. So they must be using their own brain to do so. The spell says they act like this. Thus they should be able to be ordered to any action their brains can normally command of them, themselves.
Naw. None of this is found in the rules you're fabricating it. Reread the description of Enchantment magic and reread the spell effect in question. neither say you change their will, only that you control their actions.
If they are given no instructions at all, they defend themselves to the best of their ability. Again, how? To the best of their ability. Not to the best of the ability of the caster, nor of some spirit possessing them but the best of their ability.
If you don't overwrite their actions then they can use their own actions to defend themselves if they want. That isn't the spell overriding anything whatsoever, that is stated how much freedom they have to their action when not being directly controlled.
They do still have will, but that will is coopted.
Only if a spell or effect says it does so, specifically. See Vampires.
Let's look at your arguments: "Such spells can," not "Every such spell does."
Next let's look at the description for Dominate Person, specifically the second and third paragraphs:
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.
You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time you can also cause the creature to use a reaction, but this requires you to use your own reaction as well.
Note that if you are giving the no action required level of commands, it does not specify that the creature must carry out the commands in precisely the way you intended or anticipated. It you tell it to 'Run over there' and there is a wall of fire in the way or some other obvious danger, nothing in the spell prohibits the creature from choosing to go around that danger. Or it could choose to run directly through it. Either way it is carrying out the orders. Who makes that decision? The caster does not. They did not specify in their command. So it follows that there is some level of control left to the target.
Moreover, we know there is a different level of control because of the third paragraph. If the caster expends an action, they gain complete control and can control directly with the target having no discretion at all with respect to how commands are carried out.
So in the first case, since they can make some decisions it follows that they can be ordered to stand still rather than dodge or for anything they can otherwise bypass a save against by being willing, be ordered not to resist.
Lots of words to not address the point. The spell effect clearly says: Control their ACTIONS.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no game system definition for "willing" i believe. Plain english says it's having the power of choice or consenting as i brought earlier from dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/willing
One thing is sure, RAW neither spells mention anything about willingness one way or another so we're all left with our own conclusions.
Yeah this. But also spells only do what they say they do and no more, unless your DM makes a special ruling otherwise.
Since none of these effects being discussed say they overwrite creatures wills (special exception to the Vampire), then they don't.
Some say they mess with minds, others attitudes or emotions, and other spells even overwrite even your actions themselves directly. But unless it says it can change you willingness, and uses that word specifically, then it doesn't. Bar special exception/addition from your DM of course.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't think I was clear -- There is an argument being made in this thread (perhaps not by you), that by definition you cannot be forced into being willing through mind control. You are either free to willingly choose something, or your will has been taken away and so you're no longer capable of being willing.
The vampire's power to force someone to be willing through mind control means that argument fails.
Charm person though, would allow you to attempt to get them to be willing (with a little bending of the truth and persuasion checks as necessary) because it makes them regard you as a friend. For example, referring to the original question asked about Feign Death, if I was the person who was just charmed and my "friend" told me they would cast a spell to make me resist physical damage for an hour, (which is part of Feign Death) I would definitely be willing!
Or it means abilities do exactly what they say they do, and not more.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think it really depend son the npc/character what they'd be willing to let a friendly acquaintance do. Not 'a loved one.' Not 'your best friend' or even 'close friend.' A 'friendly acquantance' it doesn't even say outright friend, just friendly.
For me that's going to vary on what you ask the person to do and their own temperament. If a coworker other 'friendly acquaintance' asked me to take drugs that would put me into a coma for a while, I wouldn't do it.
Now, charm person does give advantage on social checks. But just that, advantage. The DM has to rule that the request is first reasonable enough to have the charmer roll in the first place.
Command does what it says, and not what it doesn't, unless that would produce an absurd result.
What does it say it does? Let's pick the "approach" command. "The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you."
Those are all pretty unambiguous!
What does it not say it does? Well, a whole universe of things, too many to discuss without a context... but lets give it a context, the creature was under the effect of a Booming Blade, which is primed to deal damage if it "willingly moves."
Did Command say or imply that the creature "willingly" moves? No it did not, so it does not do that, unless "willingly" or "moves" means something that would make it ridiculous to have one without assuming the other, or unless we have some other context that would RAI imply that there's "will" to be found in what the creature is being forced to do.
So.... loop back around to the last several pages of discussion I guess, either you're in the camp that thinks that mind-control definitionally implies control without regard to will, or you're of the belief that mind control makes creatures want to do something and willing to go along with their commands. I guess ultimately that just comes down to what you think is reasonable but... I'd be lying if I didn't state plainly that it is just bonkers to argue that spell that mind controls someone is a spell that respects their will.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Again, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.
Question: Can you Dominate someone (or more broadly, use mind control) and make them be a willing subject of some other spell/power etc?
Argument: No, because the definition of "willing" is that you need the power to choose, so if that power is taken from you (by magic), it is impossible to be willing.
Counter Argument: If that were the definition used by the game, then the Vampire power would not exist. It explicitly makes someone willing to do something through mind control.
Note, I am not arguing that any particular spell or ability does make one willing, merely that the above argument about the definition of "willing" cannot hold up.
Vampire's Bite require a willing target and its Charm ability specifically mention the target it is a willing target for the vampire's bit Attack. If Charm was making people willing as a general rule it wouldn't need to specifically mention it hence why i believe it's spevific vs general.
Have you read the description for the Enchantment school of magic? I advise it. Lets take a look:
Naw. None of this is found in the rules you're fabricating it. Reread the description of Enchantment magic and reread the spell effect in question. neither say you change their will, only that you control their actions.
If you don't overwrite their actions then they can use their own actions to defend themselves if they want. That isn't the spell overriding anything whatsoever, that is stated how much freedom they have to their action when not being directly controlled.
Only if a spell or effect says it does so, specifically. See Vampires.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just to clarify -- while earlier it sounded like I was arguing that Charm itself makes one willing, I'm not pursuing that line of thought. I read back what I wrote and it was a bit rambling and not really well thought through.
All I'm saying now, is that the Vampire example is a counter to a claim that "willingness" cannot be forced. It doesn't prove that a given spell or effect does create willingness, ONLY that the RAW obviously allows that willingness can be magically created in at least one instance.
The only effect of this observation is that we should move on from the semantic discussion of "willing", and accept that, for the purposes of D&D, the state of Willing can be compelled.
I agree an effect can compell a creature to be willing when specifically noted. And a Vampire's Charm doesn't make the target willing for anything other than for Bite so it's also only a limited willingness.
But we shouldn't use a vampire as proof willingness can be compelled by any control effect, but instead use it as proof that it cannot unless noted otherwise, since that's how specific vs general works.
That's a reasonable argument.
OTOH, I don't know where the general rule on what is "willing" is stated. So I guess that means we just use whatever we normally believe that word to mean, in the same way as there's no need for a general rule on walking through walls, because we know most people can't do that. And when there are magical exceptions to walking through walls, these are 'specific' in that they create a specific exception to the general expectation, but are they always explicit? Are there no implied specific exceptions to a general rule? Are there no "natural consequences" of a specific spell that are not explicitly stated ? I mean, if that were the case, wouldn't these forums be empty of discussion?
It seems to me, that Mind Control is just such an example of an implied specific exception to the general rule on willingness. If you can accept that willingness can be compelled by some mechanism (that it's not a priori impossible to do so it), and that you can give people an instruction that they follow, then telling them to be a willing subject of the next spell you cast on them doesn't sound beyond the realm of what is possible for mind control to accomplish.
That said, I can totally see your point. I just don't feel like it was the final nail in the coffin (as it were ;) )
I think it would have been a better written ability had it said that the bite requires a willing target "or one charmed by the vampire's Charm ability." Considering its the only example of any mind control ability in 5E talking about making something become "willing", I'm willing (ha) to hazard that it was an editing oversight missing the forrest for the trees, and not an intentional clue that the Vampire is the key to correectly applying Command - Approach to Booming Blade.
That said, I think that reading the vampire's Charm as a specific exception that proves the general rule is okay too. Mind control doesn't generally render its victim "willing," unless the spell/effect says otherwise.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In 5E, the existence of one feature having specific language about an interaction is typically good evidence (or even explicit confirmation) that another similar spell that doesn't have that sort of specific language doesn't have that interaction. See e.g., Witch Bolt talks about ending if the caster and effected creature get too far away from one another. Generally, there is no rule that getting too far away ends a spell you're concentrating on effecting a creature. Witch Bolt is an exception, and the fact that it needs specific explicit language to BE an exception, is proof that any spell that does NOT have that sort of language follows the general rule.
That's what the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" means, if you didn't know.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not saying the Vampire creates the rule. In fact, I made exactly that argument for why mind control is NOT williing, because if it was, you would NEED to look to the vampire to create that rule since its the only mind control that...
... you know what, forget it. Folks understand what I meant. You're just an exception :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Vampire's Bite is exceptional in that it can only be used on a target being willing, restrained, incapacitated or grappled by the vampire. Otherwise, no one let's a vampire take a bite at him or her. So unless the target was charmed by the vampire, it must grapple it or wait until it's unconscious since it has no way to restrained or incapacitate creatures by itself.
Lots of words to not address the point. The spell effect clearly says: Control their ACTIONS.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.