Can a dominated creature attack itself?

77 posts / 0 new
Last post

Having a dominated creature coup-de-grace itself seems like an extremely effective use of the condition.


Being able to have a dominated creature attack itself seems like it could turn the condition into an insta-kill.


Is there any rule that keeps this from being exploited?

You can deliver a coup de grace against a helpless enemy adjacent to you.


PHB page 288

 


Having a dominated creature coup-de-grace itself seems like an extremely effective use of the condition.


Being able to have a dominated creature attack itself seems like it could turn the condition into an insta-kill.


Is there any rule that keeps this from being exploited?




1. Dominated does not make the creature helpless, and as such, it cannot be the target of a coup de grace. You can have it attack itself, but it won't be a coup de grace.

2. Even assuming it crits itself (or coup de graces something else), it can only use Basic Attacks while Dominated, so it's not likely to do much damage anyways.

Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

I guess what I had in mind was a little less crunchy. Something along the lines of "fall on your sword" or "slit your own throat" or just plain old "die".


Since I haven't seen anything in depth that says otherwise, I can't help but wonder if I could.

 


In previous editions the dominated creature got a saving throw if you told it to do something life threatening.  It may not be in the current form of the rules but I still think it is RAI that you can not have a dominated creature do damage to its self. 


Remember if you can dominate and "one shot" a bad guy they can do the same to you.


 


-Nerp

The chances of an enemy being able to CdG itself are very low even if you allow it ( which isn't legal without houserules ). Monsters tend to do lower damage and have more hit points and usually no critical effect bonuses, making it very unlikely that they will do damage equal to their bloodied value.

Since I haven't seen anything in depth that says otherwise, I can't help but wonder if I could.

You have it backwards. It's the other way around:
"Unless you find something indicating otherwise, it cannot be done."

Again, coup de grace only works on helpless enemies that are adjacent to you. Since you are never your own enemy, nor ever adjacent to yourself (not to mention the fact that being dominated does not render you helpless), it truly cannot be done without some serious stretching and modification of the rules.

You have it backwards. It's the other way around:

"Unless you find something indicating otherwise, it cannot be done."



See, that's kinda where I disagree.


"If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can." Extracted from the Role-Playing Game Manifesto from Guardians of Order. If you wanted to do otherwise you might as well be playing a videogame.


Since the dominated creature gets a saving throw every turn, having it do something life threatening shouldn't be a problem; for example: jumping of a cliff, moving into a trap, attacking its ally, or commiting ritual sepoku. All these things can be done with a single standard action given the right circumstances.


I guess it's up to the DM to decide how it goes in a case by case basis.


 

You have it backwards. It's the other way around:

"Unless you find something indicating otherwise, it cannot be done."


See, that's kinda where I disagree.

"If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can."


All I'm saying is -- you cannot quote rule support in your desire to do something not covered by the rules. In this case, the rules do say how a coup de grace works. In fact, based on the rules, that is the only way to perform a coup de grace in the first place.

Now, you can argue that you should be able to do something not explicitly forbidden by the rules. Well, that's not how D&D works. In fact, that is not how any game works.


Player: I kill the BBEG with this straw of grass!
DM: But ... you can't! A straw of grass does not deal damage ... and the BBEG has like 1250 hit points ... and you would have to roll to attack ... and ...
Player: Do the rules say that I have to do that when attacking with a straw of grass? No. If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.


Certainly, if the rules are silent on an issue, the DM is encouraged to make up rules and to allow creativity on the players' part. But this is not one of those cases. The rules are not silent on how a coup de grace works. The rules are quite explicit in describing how such an action is performed:
- target must be helpless
- target must be an enemy
- target must be adjacent to you


Of course you are free to do whatever you want in your group. But you cannot claim support by the rules simply because they do not come out and say: "You can't do that!"


For what it's worth -- how other games handle things is completely irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, it is even irrelevant how past editions handled things. D&D 4e is written thus:
- give rules for how things work, ignoring how things do not work (implying that if something is not stated as working, it does not work by the rules as written)
- give exceptions to those rules, when a specific situation calls for an exception to how the rules normally work (again, ignoring how things do not work)


Just because the rules say that a specific weapon deals 1d4 damage does not mean that you can roll 13d20s for damage, simply because "it did not say I can't".


Do you see the problem here?


If you want to rule otherwise in your game, feel free to do so. But please realize that anything without direct support by the rules is a house rule.


See, that's kinda where I disagree.


"If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can." Extracted from the Role-Playing Game Manifesto from Guardians of Order. If you wanted to do otherwise you might as well be playing a videogame.




That may be fine for whatever manifesto this is, but it's not the assumption the D&D rules are built on, and it does not work with that framework.  The rules do not explicitly say that PCs cannot fly as a matter of course.  Are we to assume, therefore, that they all can do so? 


D&D is a permissive, exception based rules framework.  Permissive, in that you have to be given "permission" by the rules to do something, and "Exception" in that the primary value of powers is that they create exceptions to the rules.


As for the original question, if the dominated PC has an at-will that targets "a creature"  or "all creatures in burst/blast,"  then is should be able to use it on itself...after all, the PC is a creature.  It cannot coup de grace itself since it does not fit any of the criteria for coup de grace (it's not helpless, for starters).  Mechanically, it would make an attack against it's own defences.  If this seems difficult to describe from a flavor standpoint, you can use the idea of the PC desperately resisting the order to harm itself:


"Destroy yourself!"  Hissed the evil wizard.


Hero McHeroic watched in horror as his arms, seemingly of their own volition, lifted the sword of McSlaying.  "No...No!"  He shouted, sweat springing out on his brow, as he brought the sword closer and closer to his own throat.  With a supreme effort of will, he swisted to the side, burying the sword in his own shoulder. 


"Again!"  Hissed the wizard.


And so forth.


 


"Destroy yourself!"  Hissed the evil wizard.


Hero McHeroic watched in horror as his arms, seemingly of their own volition, lifted the sword of McSlaying.  "No...No!"  He shouted, sweat springing out on his brow, as he brought the sword closer and closer to his own throat.  With a supreme effort of will, he twisted to the side, burying the sword in his own shoulder. 


"Again!"  Hissed the wizard.


And so forth.




This is probably the first good response and one that makes sense as to why you wouldn't be able to turn dominated into automatic suicide. This one, I can accept.

As for doing what the rules don't say you can't: this goes along the lines of "anything within reason that you can think of that wasn't made explicit". I certainly don't need the rules to tell me that I can pick up a movable object of a weight I can carry. That chair may be there for decoration, but there's nothing that says I can't turn it into a weapon. Or what about the times when players turn the mundane items in their packs into tools, like turning their bed sheets into ropes.


Using an example like "I kill the BBEG with a blade of grass" just makes you look like an a-hole who has no clue what the statement was meant to imply.


Role playing games are suppose to challenge the imagination. If you don't ever go beyond what the rules say you can do and try something else, like I said before, you might as well be playing a video game. So loosen up and don't be afraid to go beyond what's written. The DM does have the power to change to adapt a rule to the situation as needed, so just let go and roll with it.

As for doing what the rules don't say you can't: this goes along the lines of "anything within reason that you can think of that wasn't made explicit". I certainly don't need the rules to tell me that I can pick up a movable object of a weight I can carry. That chair may be there for decoration, but there's nothing that says I can't turn it into a weapon. Or what about the times when players turn the mundane items in their packs into tools, like turning their bed sheets into ropes.

Covered by the rules! Wink

Using an example like "I kill the BBEG with a blade of grass" just makes you look like an a-hole who has no clue what the statement was meant to imply.

Now, now! No need for namecalling. I was merely using an example to demonstrate how ridiculous the previous blanket statement was. "If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can." Believing that means not understanding how the D&D ruleset is designed.

Role playing games are suppose to challenge the imagination. If you don't ever go beyond what the rules say you can do and try something else, like I said before, you might as well be playing a video game. So loosen up and don't be afraid to go beyond what's written. The DM does have the power to change to adapt a rule to the situation as needed, so just let go and roll with it.

Indeed. And on that point we have already demonstrated agreement. However, explicitly going against the rules is not encouraged, unless one has a deep and reasonable understanding of the base rules, completely comprehending the impact of changing a well defined rule. In this instance (regarding coup de grace against self), neither you nor I would be able to do so.

The rules do not cover everything. Far from it. But where they do cover ground, we would do well in restricting ourselves to the rules as defined, since they are often carefully considered to provide a safe common ground for enemies and characters alike.


In any case, it is safe to say that no player would ever remain long in a group where the fatality rate was exceptionally high, or where monster abilities where turned up to nigh insurvivability. Players invest a lot of time in their characters. Enough time to where the average life expectance is severely threatened by simple combat alone, not to mention heroic deeds attempted outside of battle itself. 4e was designed to eliminate as much of the "save or die" effects as possible, especially against PCs. Being dominated is dangerous enough for the party without turning it into a suicidal occurance.


Using an example like "I kill the BBEG with a blade of grass" just makes you look like an a-hole who has no clue what the statement was meant to imply.


Role playing games are suppose to challenge the imagination. If you don't ever go beyond what the rules say you can do and try something else, like I said before, you might as well be playing a video game. So loosen up and don't be afraid to go beyond what's written. The DM does have the power to change to adapt a rule to the situation as needed, so just let go and roll with it.





I think you also need to consider implications of the dominate condition if you start allowing instant kills with the power.  Sure, there is a big part of the game outside of the rules.  However, instant kills are something that 4E tries to eliminate within the rules because it can really warp encounters and/or make it unfun.  Sure, it may be fun if the PC's instant kill the big boss on the first round.  However, it's not quite as fun if a PC is instant killed in the first encounter because he is dominated.

There is room to be creative, but going overboard with something that is clearly repeatable has the potential to be abusive.  It may not be like killing with a blade of grass, but if one power only does 50 points of damage and another of the same level has to potential to instant kill a 1000 hp creature, there is clearly something wrong if you allow it.


Dominated effects basically allow you to slide the target and have it make a basic attack against a different enemy while not allowing it to attack your ally that turn.  Allowing someone to be creative by turning such a power into an instant kill is unbalanced and generally should not be allowed, especially if it can be easily repeated.

<\ \>tuntman

The rules are quite clear that a creature cannot coup de grace itself, for a number of reasons. Domination is not what it was in previous editions. It is incomplete, halting control at best, and crude puppeteering at worst.

Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

You're also inviting player flame as a previous poster mentioned. If you pull this as a player and tell the primary villain to simply die from full hit points cause you dominated him, the DM will do the same to your player cause now you've opened that door.


If you work around RAW because "coupe de grace" is a different thing from "seppuku" which is not covered in the rules, consider the following:


Creatures may still use free actions while dominated. Examples of Free actions: Dropping your weapons, closing your eyes, falling prone, saying short phrases like "Hey guys, I'm dominated!"


The way RAI commonly interprets domination, because it's a slippery slope, is that the DM will be responsible and force a player to use a basic attack against his party members until he saves. In return the player wont use the above free actions to make domination a worthless spell. In turn the DM doesn't threaten silly things like "commit seppuku while dominated." 


You're also inviting player flame as a previous poster mentioned. If you pull this as a player and tell the primary villain to simply die from full hit points cause you dominated him, the DM will do the same to your player cause now you've opened that door.


If you work around RAW because "coupe de grace" is a different thing from "seppuku" which is not covered in the rules, consider the following:


Creatures may still use free actions while dominated. Examples of Free actions: Dropping your weapons, closing your eyes, falling prone, saying short phrases like "Hey guys, I'm dominated!"


The way RAI commonly interprets domination, because it's a slippery slope, is that the DM will be responsible and force a player to use a basic attack against his party members until he saves. In return the player wont use the above free actions to make domination a worthless spell. In turn the DM doesn't threaten silly things like "commit seppuku while dominated." 




1. No, a dominated creature can't do that, because the creature dominating them chooses their actions. In fact, a creature that dominates a PC could have them say things (a free action), drop their weapon (a free action, drop prone (a free action), use up limited-use, non-power abilities, and even run head-long off a cliff.

2. Seppuku is not an action. A dominated creature may, indeed, attack itself, but it's not an automatic killing blow. The creature would make an attack and roll damage against itself as normal.

Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

1.) Incorrect page 277 of the phb:


 Dazed: You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opprotunity actions.


 


Dominated: You're dazed.   The dominating creature choses your action. The only powers it can make you use are at-will powers.


 


Action is singular. The domination only states you are dazed, nowhere does it state "you're a special kind of dazed that preculdes the use of free actions." And the dominating creature only gets to instruct your use of one action. RAW for the win (sarcasm), see my above post regarding the virtues of RAI.


 


Edit: Helpful example:


DM:"run off a the cliff."


Me: "I drop prone, my movement speed no longer allows me to go that far."


DM: "ok well attack your ally next to you."


Me: "I drop my weapon and close my eyes. I attack at -7 (blind and prone) and without a proff bonus on the attack, clearly I miss."


DM:  "so dominate is pretty much worthless, huh?"


Me: "yes, yes it is."


1.) Incorrect page 277 of the phb:


 Dazed: You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). You can't take immediate actions or opprotunity actions.


 


Dominated: You're dazed.   The dominating creature choses your action. The only powers it can make you use are at-will powers.


 


Action is singular. The domination only states you are dazed, nowhere does it state "you're a special kind of dazed that preculdes the use of free actions." And the dominating creature only gets to instruct your use of one action. RIW for the win, see my above post regarding the virtues of RAI.


 


Edit: Helpful example:


DM:"run off a the cliff."


Me: "I drop prone, my movement speed no longer allows me to go that far."


DM: "ok well attack your ally next to you."


Me: "I drop my weapon and close my eyes. I attack at -7 (blind and prone) and without a proff bonus on the attack, clearly I miss."


DM:  "so dominate is pretty much worthless, huh?"


Me: "yes, yes it is."




If that's how you want to run it, sure.

There is nothing to suggest that a dominated creature CANNOT use free actions. With that established, we must decide who controls those free actions. Either the target controls them (making Dominate useless), or the dominator controls them.

Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

Oh it's totally not how I want to run it. It just happens to be the way it's written in the handy rulebook. 


" the DM will be responsible and force a player to use a basic attack against his party members until he saves. In return the player wont use the above free actions to make domination a worthless spell. " 


 


That's how I want to run it. Its a mutual respect of the ludicrousy of RAW between player and DM.


Edit: If the dominator chooses to control a free action (by RAW) they are in control of only one such free action. And the creature is then in control of a supposedly infinite number there after. Again, not at all the way I would run it, just happens to be the way it's written for lack of a single "S."

DM:"run off a the cliff."
Me: "I drop prone, my movement speed no longer allows me to go that far."

Nitpicky: dropping prone is a minor action, and can therefore not be taken while dominated (unless thus controlled by the one dominating).

Touche. I can't say I understand this since there's no faster direction you can go than down and simply allowing your legs to buckle under you requires less than zero effort, but if we're in a RAW fight, you, sir, have struck a mighty blow.

If the dominator chooses to control a free action (by RAW) they are in control of only one such free action. And the creature is then in control of a supposedly infinite number there after. Again, not at all the way I would run it, just happens to be the way it's written for lack of a single "S."



PH 267: The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn.

I can definitely see this case where the dominated creature can maybe take one free action--speaking.


I would not allow any more than that, as a DM. For either monsters or players.

Wow, this was a more contravertial topic that I thought it was.


For the record, I was asking this from a player perspective; particularly against random or unimportant enemies sinec any solo or 'boss" enemy shouldn't be affected by domination.

Touche. I can't say I understand this since there's no faster direction you can go than down and simply allowing your legs to buckle under you requires less than zero effort, but if we're in a RAW fight, you, sir, have struck a mighty blow.

Yeah, it's quite strange. No idea why this is not a free action (restricted to your turn only). I keep trying to find a balancing reason ... but am unable to do so.


Touche. I can't say I understand this since there's no faster direction you can go than down and simply allowing your legs to buckle under you requires less than zero effort, but if we're in a RAW fight, you, sir, have struck a mighty blow.

Yeah, it's quite strange. No idea why this is not a free action (restricted to your turn only). I keep trying to find a balancing reason ... but am unable to do so.



Probably the same reason standing up from prone is a full move action--you are assumed to always be doing it in a controlled and defensive manner.


There is no option to stand up quicker (minus feats/powers). Perhaps a feat/power would let you go prone as a free action instead of a minor.


Touche. I can't say I understand this since there's no faster direction you can go than down and simply allowing your legs to buckle under you requires less than zero effort, but if we're in a RAW fight, you, sir, have struck a mighty blow.


Yeah, it's quite strange. No idea why this is not a free action (restricted to your turn only). I keep trying to find a balancing reason ... but am unable to do so.





My thoughts on this . . .

Character is behind a low wall or other obstruction. They start Prone.


On their turn: Move  - stand up from prone. Standard - ranged or area attack. Free/Minor - drop prone (gaining total cover).


There is a difference in viability/power of this tactic between dropping prone as a Minor or Free action. I cannot see it as major issue either way (enemies could always ready actions or find some way of getting to the character). Other than if the tactic was too useful it feels a little cheesy.


There might be other similar cheese to be gained from being prone pushing designers to make it Minor and avoid the smell :-)


For the record, I was asking this from a player perspective; particularly against random or unimportant enemies sinec any solo or 'boss" enemy shouldn't be affected by domination.





Solos or bosses are not immune to domination.  There is no rule that says that domination only works on "unimportant" enemies.  Regardless, domination by itself does not allow for instant kills.  Also, players are not immune to domination either.  If an enemy sees the PC use domination to instant kill someone, a monster will likely use the same technique to instant kill a PC.  From a player perspective, it is most likely preferred if domination does not allow for instant kills.
<\ \>tuntman

Solos or bosses are not immune to domination.  There is no rule that says that domination only works on "unimportant" enemies.  Regardless, domination by itself does not allow for instant kills.  Also, players are not immune to domination either.  If an enemy sees the PC use domination to instant kill someone, a monster will likely use the same technique to instant kill a PC.  From a player perspective, it is most likely preferred if domination does not allow for instant kills.



I never said they were, I'm saying they should be. If you play a solo creature RAW, and actually have them solo, it quickly becomes a pathetically one-sided and boring fight. To keep this from happening, any DM worth his salt will identify the problem quickly and begin making adjustments so that the solo monster can actually hold his own and keep the fight interesting.


So, with that said, using the dominated effect to kill off minions and provoke self-injury to tougher monsters seems like the most obvious thing to do. Good explanations and clarifications for this have already been given so I won't go further.


With that said, I thank everyone who gave feedback. Now if we can stop beating the dead horse, I bid you farewell.

I think you can attack yourself with basics as well as certain powers, i don't see any reasons why a dominated creature couldn't.


PHB. 57 Target :  "Creature" or "creatures" means allies and enemies both, as well as you.


I believe it's designed for this. Dominated effect are meant to be powerful, if it was that worthless, you would see some At-Wills going off 1[W] + STR modifier and the target is dominated until the end of it's next turn. No we don't, so it must be a powerful condition then. But attacking yourself or an ally for the purpose of triggerring a benefical effect i don't buy into that, but no RPG forbids you from attacking yourself with your fist or your weapon if you're that stupid.


 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter


I think you can attack yourself with basics as well as certain powers, i don't see any reasons why a dominated creature couldn't.


PHB. 57 Target :  "Creature" or "creatures" means allies and enemies both, as well as you.


I believe it's designed for this. Dominated effect are meant to be powerful, if it was that worthless, you would see some At-Wills going off 1[W] + STR modifier and the target is dominated until the end of it's next turn. No we don't, so it must be a powerful condition then. But attacking yourself or an ally for the purpose of triggerring a benefical effect i don't buy into that, but no RPG forbids you from attacking yourself with your fist or your weapon if you're that stupid. 





Good point.  Attacking yourself sounds like a reasonable action when dominated.  As long as it is not an instant kill, it should work out fine.  It's like dropping a Scorching Burst in a square adjacent to you.  You'll be caught in the burst and you end up attacking yourself.
<\ \>tuntman

Could you command the dominated creature to lie down and take a nap?


What about just having them toss their weapon (if using one) away?

I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
 The Best in Gaming!


Could you command the dominated creature to lie down and take a nap?


What about just having them toss their weapon (if using one) away?




If we assume the dominator can also choose the dominated's free actions as well as the only action they'll be getting, then yes. (free: drop prone, drop weapon)


If we assume a dominated creature can't take free actions, then this can still happen, but they won't be doing anything else in the turn. (standard: drope prone) [or] (standard: drop weapon)


If we assume the dominated creature stlil has control of his own free actions, the rules fall apart and dominated becomes less useful than a stun.


I swear, this condition needs some official clarification.


 

If we assume the dominator can also choose the dominated's free actions as well as the only action they'll be getting, then yes. (free: drop prone, drop weapon)

If we assume a dominated creature can't take free actions, then this can still happen, but they won't be doing anything else in the turn. (standard: drope prone) [or] (standard: drop weapon)


If we assume the dominated creature stlil has control of his own free actions, the rules fall apart and dominated becomes less useful than a stun.


I swear, this condition needs some official clarification.


Again, to be nitpicky -- dropping prone is a minor action.

 


Thank you for nitpicking and contributing nothing to this discussion in the process.


 


EDIT to avoid bumping:


To the poster below me: Well excuse me for not reading that one nitpick post 2 pages ago when there were many other and more constructive post to get through.


This topic will soon degenerate into mindless flame war, hence I won't be bumping it anymore. For what it's worth, this thread provided some good answers. The rest is best left forgotten.


Thank you for nitpicking and contributing nothing to this discussion in the process.




If you had read the topic, you would have noticed that it was already brought up that dropping prone was a minor action instead of a free action.
So thank you for posting in a topic you did not completely read...

Hey gents, on the domination topic, just a idea for fun,


Would you think that forcing a dominated creature to take a move and run past many enemies would trigger OA's similar to Cause Fear ?


Probably yes no doubt, and if so, could this be considered some form of forced movement ? I know i know, RAW forced movements are push/pull/slide and teleports soon will be considered such, but looking into it, what is really a forced movement ? the action of physically or magically making you move against your will kind of ?


And if so, would it be reasonable to give the dominated creature a saving throw to avoid getting 5-6 OA's ?


It's a bit offroad, but just thinking...  (probably not as it is not defined as a forced movement but ...)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter


Hey gents, on the domination topic, just a idea for fun,


Would you think that forcing a dominated creature to take a move and run past many enemies would trigger OA's similar to Cause Fear ?


Probably yes no doubt, and if so, could this be considered some form of forced movement ? I know i know, RAW forced movements are push/pull/slide and teleports soon will be considered such, but looking into it, what is really a forced movement ? the action of physically or magically making you move against your will kind of ?


And if so, would it be reasonable to give the dominated creature a saving throw to avoid getting 5-6 OA's ?


It's a bit offroad, but just thinking...  (probably not as it is not defined as a forced movement but ...)




There's no "probably" about it. It's not forced movement. It's the creature using a move action (as dictated by the Dominator) to intentionally provoke OAs. The Forced Movement rules don't enter into it.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

my two cents worth, since there is an epic tier warlock power that can bring about this very situation -


 


could a dominated creature be compelled to attack itself?   I would say yes, but it would get a saving throw at the end of its turn to end the domination


is a dominated creature subject to a coup de grace?  I would say no because only a helpess creature, incapable of performing any actions, including basic attacks, is vulnerable to a coup de grace and if the dominated creature is capable of making basic attacks, then it is not helpless


can a dominated creature be rendered helpless?   Yes!  a dominated creature can be compelled to drop its weapon, its shield and to lie motionless on the ground and then permit itself to be tied up and thus rendered helpess;  at which point, it would be vulnerable to a coup de grace ......of course, this assumes that the spellcaster is able to maintain the domination


 


 


 


my two cents worth, since there is an epic tier warlock power that can bring about this very situation -


 


could a dominated creature be compelled to attack itself?   I would say yes, but it would get a saving throw at the end of its turn to end the domination


is a dominated creature subject to a coup de grace?  I would say no because only a helpess creature, incapable of performing any actions, including basic attacks, is vulnerable to a coup de grace and if the dominated creature is capable of making basic attacks, then it is not helpless


can a dominated creature be rendered helpless?   Yes!  a dominated creature can be compelled to drop its weapon, its shield and to lie motionless on the ground and then permit itself to be tied up and thus rendered helpess;  at which point, it would be vulnerable to a coup de grace ......of course, this assumes that the spellcaster is able to maintain the domination



Attack itself? Sure. Absolutely.


Coup de grace? No. Absolutely not. You can only coup de grace an adjacent, helpless enemy. A dominated creature is not adjacent to itself, is not helpless, and is not its own enemy.


A dominated creature cannot be commanded to "become helpless", because there is no action it can take to render itself helpless (apart from trying to knock itself out). It can certain be instructed to stand still while it's tied up, but even then, you're looking at a Restrained condition, not a Helpless condition, so still no coup de grace.

Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

Hi, I just wanted to add this.  At the game I am in on Saturdays our 20th Level Rogue - Halfling Daggermaster was dominated and our DM had him attack himself (Sly Flourish) for his single domination action.  He (of course) rolled a 18 and critically hit himself and then our DM also had him roll his sneak attack damage as being Dazed as part of the Domination meant he granted himself combat advantageSurprised(to himself).  (I was pretty sure he hadn't already used it during his own turn before being dominated)


I believed that adding the sneak attack (precision or striker) damage was a bit too much.   I know that a Ranger or Warlock or Avenger etc. wouldn't have this problem as they have to 'mark' for their striker damage or abilty to work.  At first, I didn't believe he could attack himself anyway.


Remember DM's that if you dominate Warlords and Bards you could possibly get your temporary ally to grant monsters basic attacks, or free shifts and other movement effects.


Heck, just having the Dominated PC run and grant opportunity attacks could be better than letting the DM play with your At-Will attacks.


Think of Wolf Pack Tactics, Commander's Strike, Thunderwave (to push the PCs to a disadvantageous part of the battlefield), Sacred Flame/War Song Strike (to grant an enemy TEMP HP)


Add me to the list of people who believe that being Dominated means you can't just kill yourself, unless you have an at-will attack that could do this through the damage if you hit yourself. 


If your DM tried to have your Dominated PC run off a cliff, I believe that you would get a Saving Throw before taking the plunge.


The rogue in question did about 70 pts to himself which bloodied him.  The Cleric in the party granted him a Saving Throw on his turn and the Rogue retreated to fight ranged (with his dagger).


What if you have a Magic Item/ Weapon that something happens when you Crit (when Dominated)?  Does the person dominating the PC decide if they use the property or daily magic item power or does the dominated player decide?  It would be nice if they could clarify some of this...


 


If your DM tried to have your Dominated PC run off a cliff, I believe that you would get a Saving Throw before taking the plunge.




I agree with most of your post, minus this part.


You are technically walking (or running) over that cliff. It is not one of the definied forced movements (push, pull, slide) so you do not get a saving throw to fall prone.