Simple question: Dominate Person spell says the target get a new save any time it takes damage. However, if a dominated person was commanded to tell a secret or gives away all his treasure, it will keeping doing so until the spell end.
Is Dominate Person the better interrogation spell? Can I order someone to do a lot of indirect damage to itself?
Honestly getting it to reveal information is a bit of an arguable point; the examples given are all physical actions, which could be taken to mean that while you’re puppeteering the body you can’t induce more cognitive actions like sharing information. Not saying it absolutely is the case, but the examples given have a notable trend.
Honestly getting it to reveal information is a bit of an arguable point; the examples given are all physical actions, which could be taken to mean that while you’re puppeteering the body you can’t induce more cognitive actions like sharing information. Not saying it absolutely is the case, but the examples given have a notable trend.
I'm guessing that's the intention, even if RAW it allows you to do anything. Regardless though, I would rule that it doesn't work - that can get quite game breaking in certain scenarios. No more quests to gain information because all you need to do is kidnap them, Dominate Person for a level 5 slot, and then maybe Modify Memory, and job done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Honestly getting it to reveal information is a bit of an arguable point; the examples given are all physical actions, which could be taken to mean that while you’re puppeteering the body you can’t induce more cognitive actions like sharing information. Not saying it absolutely is the case, but the examples given have a notable trend.
I'm guessing that's the intention, even if RAW it allows you to do anything. Regardless though, I would rule that it doesn't work - that can get quite game breaking in certain scenarios. No more quests to gain information because all you need to do is kidnap them, Dominate Person for a level 5 slot, and then maybe Modify Memory, and job done.
I mean, it’s not necessarily quite that easy to pull off in practice, plus Detect Thoughts gives similar mileage and is fairly spammable by the time you have 5th level slots. I still agree that cognitive/abstract actions are at least stretching the RAI of the spell.
I had ruled that reveiling an information or doing something you don't want to is the same as taking damage, so the target is allowed a new save. Do you guys think this is valid?
I had ruled that reveiling an information or doing something you don't want to is the same as taking damage, so the target is allowed a new save. Do you guys think this is valid?
I don't think I'd go that far. Presumably, taking a swipe at their ally is "doing something they don't want to", so now they are saving on every combat action (unless they really hated the guy next to them).
I had ruled that reveiling an information or doing something you don't want to is the same as taking damage, so the target is allowed a new save. Do you guys think this is valid?
I think this is a thematic choice that will affect game balance (though not necessarily negatively). Your version allows potentially very frequent saves without the target experiencing lasting harm; that weakens Dominate Person significantly, but it may be appropriate for a table that is uncomfortable with mind control as a game mechanic. If that's the table you're playing at, I might reconsider including Dominate Person at all, but if you must include it, weakening it in this way may be a good choice. Just understand that it won't really perform like a balanced 5th-level spell with that change.
Simple question: Dominate Person spell says the target get a new save any time it takes damage. However, if a dominated person was commanded to tell a secret or gives away all his treasure, it will keeping doing so until the spell end.
Is Dominate Person the better interrogation spell? Can I order someone to do a lot of indirect damage to itself?
The only have the Charmed affect, so you aren't going to get them to do anything to harm themselves. What examples do you have of "indirect damage".
Exemple of "indirect damaged": "Jump over this border", and crossing the border you reach a lava pool (I didn't tell you to jump into the lava pool). "Take that gem", being that gem part of a dragons treasure. "Throw away your gold bag", so the target will not have money to pay something and will end up in jail. And other things like that.
Ok. It is a 5th level spell. But, I don't know, comparing with another 5th level spell, Cone of Cold, for instance. Cone of Cold will deal 24d8 damage (considering thi 3 creatures and all three failing its saving throw, as proposed for calculate monster CR), a 20th level fighter (at least 164 HP) will take all 36 damagae (8d8), clear the ice over this shoulder smilling and smash you (four attacks of 2d6+5 damage, average 48 damage).
Well, but, it is a 5th level spell and it is suposed to be strong. I just think that the spell (as well as others) was not properly designed to be used in situations other than combat.
They aren't just charmed, though. The spell says "you give a command, and the charmed target does its best to obey"; there is no clause like the one in suggestion that keeps them from carrying out self-harming instructions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Simple question: Dominate Person spell says the target get a new save any time it takes damage. However, if a dominated person was commanded to tell a secret or gives away all his treasure, it will keeping doing so until the spell end.
Is Dominate Person the better interrogation spell? Can I order someone to do a lot of indirect damage to itself?
Pretty much. That's the power of higher level enchantment spells.
Honestly getting it to reveal information is a bit of an arguable point; the examples given are all physical actions, which could be taken to mean that while you’re puppeteering the body you can’t induce more cognitive actions like sharing information. Not saying it absolutely is the case, but the examples given have a notable trend.
I'm guessing that's the intention, even if RAW it allows you to do anything. Regardless though, I would rule that it doesn't work - that can get quite game breaking in certain scenarios. No more quests to gain information because all you need to do is kidnap them, Dominate Person for a level 5 slot, and then maybe Modify Memory, and job done.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I mean, it’s not necessarily quite that easy to pull off in practice, plus Detect Thoughts gives similar mileage and is fairly spammable by the time you have 5th level slots. I still agree that cognitive/abstract actions are at least stretching the RAI of the spell.
I had ruled that reveiling an information or doing something you don't want to is the same as taking damage, so the target is allowed a new save. Do you guys think this is valid?
I don't think I'd go that far. Presumably, taking a swipe at their ally is "doing something they don't want to", so now they are saving on every combat action (unless they really hated the guy next to them).
I think this is a thematic choice that will affect game balance (though not necessarily negatively). Your version allows potentially very frequent saves without the target experiencing lasting harm; that weakens Dominate Person significantly, but it may be appropriate for a table that is uncomfortable with mind control as a game mechanic. If that's the table you're playing at, I might reconsider including Dominate Person at all, but if you must include it, weakening it in this way may be a good choice. Just understand that it won't really perform like a balanced 5th-level spell with that change.
The only have the Charmed affect, so you aren't going to get them to do anything to harm themselves. What examples do you have of "indirect damage".
Exemple of "indirect damaged": "Jump over this border", and crossing the border you reach a lava pool (I didn't tell you to jump into the lava pool). "Take that gem", being that gem part of a dragons treasure. "Throw away your gold bag", so the target will not have money to pay something and will end up in jail. And other things like that.
Ok. It is a 5th level spell. But, I don't know, comparing with another 5th level spell, Cone of Cold, for instance. Cone of Cold will deal 24d8 damage (considering thi 3 creatures and all three failing its saving throw, as proposed for calculate monster CR), a 20th level fighter (at least 164 HP) will take all 36 damagae (8d8), clear the ice over this shoulder smilling and smash you (four attacks of 2d6+5 damage, average 48 damage).
Well, but, it is a 5th level spell and it is suposed to be strong. I just think that the spell (as well as others) was not properly designed to be used in situations other than combat.
"Jump over this border (into a lava pool)"
No. They are charmed not stupid.
"Take that Gem". Okay. If the dragon is present, then once again they are not stupid, just charmed.
"Throw your gold bag away (so you can go to jail later if you do something illegal)". I fail to see how that is indirect damage.🤷🏿♂️
They aren't just charmed, though. The spell says "you give a command, and the charmed target does its best to obey"; there is no clause like the one in suggestion that keeps them from carrying out self-harming instructions.