Blinding Yourself & Dominated...

92 posts / 0 new
Last post

I have a question about tactics and roleplay.


Last night we had a situation come up and caused an in-game debate.


The Party's Bow Ranger was dominated by a Sucubus and forced to attack his own party members using twin-strike. While the mechanics of Dominate are not the question, what the ranger's player did about it was. Just before the DM told him to attack another party member, the player said the ranger was closing his eyes, thus blinding the ranger. The DM ruled against it as the player was dominated and dazed and could only take one action. The player tried to argue that closing your eyes would be a free action, but the DM didn't budge on the issue. He made the player roll his attacks at full bonuses and dropped one of the party members almost to negative bloodied value. Had the DM allowed the action, the ranger would have missed one of the attacks. At the end of that particular turn, the player had the ranger drop his longbow, which the DM said was a free action and the ranger could do it.


The debate was, "Can a character who is dominated and forced to attack other party members be allowed to close their eyes as a free action, blinding themselves and volunteering to take -5 penalty to the attack roll?"


As a DM, I wouldn't had an issue with it. Afterall, the character has a right to resist being forced to harm his own party members and teammates. Closing your eyes isn't covered in the rules, but common sense would say that closing your eyes would be a free action, even while dazed. While dominated, the character is still resisting/fighting against the control and would try anything to keep from hurting his own party.


Anyway, I'd like to know someone else's opinion on this issue.


Thanks in advance...

Allowing that would make Dominate rather useless, really. But I read another post on this topic this afternoon... although I can't remember where :/ There's another topic on this somewhere on the D&D boards...

Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.

I wouldn't allow either blinding or dropping weapons.


I guess, by RAW, you could argue that free actions aren't included under the dominated condition, but as far as I'm concerned it goes against what the condition is supposed to represent and do.


If an ability exerts so much control that it can force a character to turn on a friend and attack them, and attempt to bypass defences and carry out complex combat manoeuvres (powers), then I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to make you keep your eyes open and hold on to your weapon.


Players already do have a chance to do whatever they can to avoid attacking allies: though the Will defence and saving throws.


And besides, if you do allow eye closing or weapon dropping, it makes the dominated condition nearly useless when it's supposed to be one of the best in the game.

The Dragon Above - Eberron news and new content for both 3E and 4E. Home of the Eberron Bestiary.

I would not allow drop of the weapon or the closeing of eyes. It defeats the purpose of dominate. he is under the control of the being doing the dominate.


 


I have run into an archer ranger and a Fighter who hated dominate and tried simalar things...the reason they tried was they had such high damage.

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I was going to post about how the dominating creature controls your actions, but after reading the rules text again, it says it controls your action (i'm assuming that's in a singular context, and not in a general term). It also says it can only make you perform at-wills. So really, i don't see why you couldn't close your eyes or drop your weapons, since it only controls one of your actions, and not explictly one of those kinds.

I wouldn't allow it, either.  Perhaps not RAW, but perhaps RAI, and definitely AFAIC, the dominator determines all actions the character takes, including free.

Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Since the definition of the dominated condition states the dominating creature chooses your actions, the player is clearly violating the rules. Closing your eyes, dropping your items, etc are all actions (free or otherwise, thats another debate entirely) so unless the succubus in question wanted them to take that action, they would not.

It's quite clear that the issue is muddy, given how many debates are springing up regarding the dominate condition. And since both sides have valid points, I'm just going to offer you my personal opinion.


 


Personally, I would side with your DM - the spirit of dominate is that the enemy takes control of you (temporarily), albeit in limited capacity, and you turn on your friends. The player is *already* resisting the effect, which is what gives the dazed condition (at least in my mind) - he doesn't get to completey ignore it by closing his eyes or dropping his weapon.


 


Think about it this way: If you can subvert the dominate condition so easily - what makes it different from being stunned? Not a whole lot.


 


Lest you think I'm too hard on PCs, I *do* personally rule that a dominated creature cannot be forced to do suicidal actions - no being forced to jump off high cliffs, or wading into lava, etc.

lol pardon me but it seems like dominating a ranger and forcing him to twinstrike a pal is a DM's optimal choice for a dominate effect. so far all the examples mention rangers twinstriking friends. it's also what happened in my group once too and the ranger did end up K.O'ing his buddy with it.


 


anyway with all that said, like everyone else in this forum, I would have to side with your DM.

If you allow the dominated PC to use free actions to nerf the dominated condition, then monsters and NPC's should do the same.  How would the PC's feel if all of their domination effects were nerfed in this way?

<\ \>tuntman

If the character is capable of closing his eyes while dominated, then he is in control of his own body.


When dominated, he is not in control of his own body.


Ergo, he can't close his eyes.  Modus Tollens for the win!

It's pretty obvious what the intent of the dominated condition is.  If they wanted players to be able to blind themselves at will  and drop their weapons they would have included that in the description.  The Rangers going to Twin Strike someone so suck it up and get someone to toss him a save.

Now I've seen quite a bit of brutal rules lawyering of questionable merit, but even if it was legal trying to worm your way out of dominate in that fashions pretty much trodding all over the "don't be a ****" clause of gaming.  Maybe you can drop your weapon to avoid the dominated condition.  And maybe your GM can have tiny gnomes steal your weapon and use it for kindling.  Do you really want to be the one who starts that sort of play?

Well... At least we got custom avatars....


It's quite clear that the issue is muddy, given how many debates are springing up regarding the dominate condition.



Closing your eyes is a free action.


Dropping a weapon is a free action.


Free actions are actions.


The dominating creature chooses your actions.


Pretty clear to me.

"The debate was, "Can a character who is dominated and forced to attack other party members be allowed to close their eyes as a free action, blinding themselves and volunteering to take -5 penalty to the attack roll?""


The correct answer is - "if the DM allows it"


Personally, I wouldn't - as stated prior, the repercussions are great.  (wizards with dominate, would lose on this, if the DM balances such, as I do).  The cost associated with that condition is HIGH (looking at the power levels that it is attainable for), it lessens the value of those powers.

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Maybe it depends more on what the dominator can see, not so much the dominatee. Kinda like a puppet doesn't move based on what it can see, but based on what the puppet-master can see.

Yep agree on the no free actions. If you were a dominated warden you couldnt be forced to mark your allies etc. A dominated fighter however could.


You can also use "no action" items. 

Since we're on the subject.


If a dominated character is under the complete control of the dominator, then the dominator can make the victim spend his free actions and no actions items and powers, thus making the character waste his options. Which would make dominate too powerful. 


Example: An Elf is dominated and misses his attack roll, could the sucubus in my original example make the elf use his Elven Accuracy re-roll? As a DM, I wouldn't allow it because it would make the Dominate power too powerful. Also, the fighter mark is always optional, even if dazed and dominated. Even while dominated, a fighter can tell friend from foe.


I also don't think letting a character close his eyes before the attack is nerfing the dominate power at all. The DM still controls the characters At-Will attacks and makes him attack his allies. The dominate power only states that the character is dazed and limited to one action per round, which is the at-will attack chosen by the DM. I treat the dazed condition part of the dominate effect the same as just being dazed any other time. A dazed character can still take free actions or no actions or spend action points. Nowhere in the description for Dominate does it say the character is a "mindless zombie" under the control of the dominating monster.


This reminds of a situation that happened to me a few months ago. The DM saw my bow ranger as a serious threat, it may have had something to do with 5 crits in a single encounter. He chose to dominate my ranger in the hopes of cashing in on some of my good luck. I switched dice on him and began scoring hits about 20% of the time while the ranger was dominated. Annoyed & upset, he asked me why I chose to use different dice and thus "cheat" (his words) against the dominated condition. I simply told him, you don't control which dice I use to roll my attacks. That's how I get around the dominate condition, I use my crappy rolling dice while dominated and the good rolling dice when not dominated.


I think Dominate needs to be explained in more detail. There's too much left to personal interpretation.


Since we're on the subject.


If a dominated character is under the complete control of the dominator, then the dominator can make the victim spend his free actions and no actions items and powers, thus making the character waste his options. Which would make dominate too powerful. 


Example: An Elf is dominated and misses his attack roll, could the sucubus in my original example make the elf use his Elven Accuracy re-roll? As a DM, I wouldn't allow it because it would make the Dominate power too powerful. Also, the fighter mark is always optional, even if dazed and dominated. Even while dominated, a fighter can tell friend from foe.




Dominate in the condition block specifically says limited to using At will attack powers.  Some monsters like Vampires and Demon Princes have a Super Dominate power that specifically allow use of Encounter powers as well.  The monsters are designed wtih an exact level of dominate power in mind.


I also don't think letting a character close his eyes before the attack is nerfing the dominate power at all. The DM still controls the characters At-Will attacks and makes him attack his allies. The dominate power only states that the character is dazed and limited to one action per round, which is the at-will attack chosen by the DM. I treat the dazed condition part of the dominate effect the same as just being dazed any other time. A dazed character can still take free actions or no actions or spend action points. Nowhere in the description for Dominate does it say the character is a "mindless zombie" under the control of the dominating monster.




The Monster controls the Player's actions: all of them- it doesn't leave any wiggle room for players.  Beign dazed just keeps the monster from going wild.  Some of aforementioned Super Dominate Monsters don't daze the Player either so they can do more.  There are other powers to reflect making the player attack involuntarily (like "target makes an at will or charge attack as a free action") if they didn't mean for Dominate to be "make player mindless zombie".


This reminds of a situation that happened to me a few months ago. The DM saw my bow ranger as a serious threat, it may have had something to do with 5 crits in a single encounter. He chose to dominate my ranger in the hopes of cashing in on some of my good luck. I switched dice on him and began scoring hits about 20% of the time while the ranger was dominated. Annoyed & upset, he asked me why I chose to use different dice and thus "cheat" (his words) against the dominated condition. I simply told him, you don't control which dice I use to roll my attacks.


I think Dominate needs to be explained in more detail. There's too much left to personal interpretation.




The DM should have rolled the dice anyway- it's his attacks.

DOMINATED
✦ You’re dazed.
✦ The dominating creature chooses your action. The
only powers it can make you use are at-will powers.


DAZED
✦ You grant combat advantage.
✦ 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
opportunity actions.
✦ You can’t flank an enemy.


RAIST (Rules As I See Them):
The dominator chooses the Standard, Move, Minor, and any free actions the dominated character takes.


I see it this way because the PC is dominated, and thus has no control over his/her actions. The dominating character is the one in control.


Main Entry: dom·i·nate ..."return au('domina03', 'dominate');" class="au" title="Listen to the pronunciation of dominate" type="button" />

transitive verb


1 : rule, control dominated the world>
2 : to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on dominated his life>


intransitive verb
1 : to have or exert mastery, control, or preeminence



 


 


 

Don't believe everything you think Ranger.jpg


This reminds of a situation that happened to me a few months ago. The DM saw my bow ranger as a serious threat, it may have had something to do with 5 crits in a single encounter. He chose to dominate my ranger in the hopes of cashing in on some of my good luck. I switched dice on him and began scoring hits about 20% of the time while the ranger was dominated. Annoyed & upset, he asked me why I chose to use different dice and thus "cheat" (his words) against the dominated condition. I simply told him, you don't control which dice I use to roll my attacks. That's how I get around the dominate condition, I use my crappy rolling dice while dominated and the good rolling dice when not dominated.


I think Dominate needs to be explained in more detail. There's too much left to personal interpretation.




He is correct, you were cheating.  Changing the game state by out of game means is the literal definition of cheating; if I had a player intentionally doing so in my games I probably would have asked him not to come back.

On dominate: it says the dominating creature chooses your actions for you; free actions are actions, therefore determined by the dominating creature.

I see neither a RAW nor a RAI argument for self blinding, only a "I want to do it" argument.


I see neither a RAW nor a RAI argument for self blinding, only a "I want to do it" argument.




I rather "I dont want bad stuff"

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

Not at my table.  My players and I run dominate as being total 'byoooweeeoooo!' control.  If the dominating foe wanted, zie could speak through the victim's mouth.  We've always interpreted the dazed condition as resulting from the victim's best efforts to resist the control, resulting in a sluggish and halting gait or a delay between actions.  Someday I intend to introduce a BBEG who can inflict the True Dominate condition which has none of the restrictions.  Maybe Belashyrra, or however you spell it.

(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.) Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.

Where it says that while dominated you were in control of your free actions ?


You can invoke the action system of 4E upon any movement/motion/action you can actually do in some reasonable way, but not under such effect even while dazed and dominated. 


It's simple, you try hard but don't succeed. Try resisting you say ? Well you've tried and failed, that's why your arm start swinging your buddy.


You're Daze and i control your actions but i can only make you uses At-Wills at the rate of 1 action per round, while under this condition.


Though it is probably a free action to close your eyes or fart and a standart to pi and sign your name, i would not let a PC who's dominated do such action, unless he is forced in doing so by the dominating opponent. It can be clever though done in some way,


like driving a flying vessel in the crowded streets of Sharn in a hot pursuit and have you close your eyes a few seconds could have dramatic results...LOL

Where it says that while dominated you were in control of your free actions ?


This.


And in the extremely unlikely event that is possible, then Dominate as a status effect is entirely and utterly pointless. You can for example drop your weapon, close your eyes, use every single potentially beneficial free action feat and power you have, etc all during a single round.


No DM in their right mind would let this fly on their table.

There was a sig here. It's gone now.

does it really matter? DM can restrict free actions, anyhow (RAW)

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


This reminds of a situation that happened to me a few months ago. The DM saw my bow ranger as a serious threat, it may have had something to do with 5 crits in a single encounter. He chose to dominate my ranger in the hopes of cashing in on some of my good luck. I switched dice on him and began scoring hits about 20% of the time while the ranger was dominated. Annoyed & upset, he asked me why I chose to use different dice and thus "cheat" (his words) against the dominated condition. I simply told him, you don't control which dice I use to roll my attacks. That's how I get around the dominate condition, I use my crappy rolling dice while dominated and the good rolling dice when not dominated.



Forget Dominated versus non-Dominated.  You're using *dice you know to be loaded*, and you keep two sets around so you can roll high, or low, on demand.


You're cheating, regardless of WHEN you swap your loaded dice.

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.

Yeah my dm wouldn't allow that.  Being dominated sucks, but it is supposed to suck.  Luckily most of our party has high will defenses, except the rogue and fighter.

This reminds of a situation that happened to me a few months ago. The DM saw my bow ranger as a serious threat, it may have had something to do with 5 crits in a single encounter. He chose to dominate my ranger in the hopes of cashing in on some of my good luck. I switched dice on him and began scoring hits about 20% of the time while the ranger was dominated. Annoyed & upset, he asked me why I chose to use different dice and thus "cheat" (his words) against the dominated condition. I simply told him, you don't control which dice I use to roll my attacks. That's how I get around the dominate condition, I use my crappy rolling dice while dominated and the good rolling dice when not dominated.

Forget Dominated versus non-Dominated.  You're using *dice you know to be loaded*, and you keep two sets around so you can roll high, or low, on demand.

You're cheating, regardless of WHEN you swap your loaded dice.


Agreed, loaded dice are cheating.  They should be trown away and  you should get new dice.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.



This reminds of a situation that happened to me a few months ago. The DM saw my bow ranger as a serious threat, it may have had something to do with 5 crits in a single encounter. He chose to dominate my ranger in the hopes of cashing in on some of my good luck. I switched dice on him and began scoring hits about 20% of the time while the ranger was dominated. Annoyed & upset, he asked me why I chose to use different dice and thus "cheat" (his words) against the dominated condition. I simply told him, you don't control which dice I use to roll my attacks. That's how I get around the dominate condition, I use my crappy rolling dice while dominated and the good rolling dice when not dominated.



Forget Dominated versus non-Dominated.  You're using *dice you know to be loaded*, and you keep two sets around so you can roll high, or low, on demand.


You're cheating, regardless of WHEN you swap your loaded dice.




1.) Like so many other gamers, I have multiply sets of dice, some are 20+ years old.


2.) The DM, or anyone else at the gaming table for that fact, cannot tell, order, browbeat, or intimidate another player in regards as to which set of dice they use while at the gaming table.


3.) I choose which dice to roll an attack with, NOT the DM. If he wants to roll the attack using HIS own dice, he's more than welcome to do so.


The DM controls the fantasy world not the real world. Some DMs need to keep in mind that they control the game not the players. Switching out the dice during a game for any reason is not against the rules of D&D nor even the rules of good sportsmanship.


4.) I don't cheat and my dice have NEVER been tampered with.


I have a very old set of dice, 25 years old in fact, and they roll extremely well for me. In a few a games, they have rolled ungodly well, that's why I use them alot. Some people are just better or luckier at rolling dice than others. Refusing to use your good dice to kill off party members isn't cheating, get over it!


5.) Go troll somewhere else and stop trying to spread unfounded rumors on the forum.


 

Woah, awfully defensive for someone who doenst really need to hide anything.


It seems like there is a few facts here. 


Fact 1.  You were rolling sa specific set of dice and gaining massive critical hits.


Fact 2.  You switched to a different set of dice when you were being forced to do something you wanted to not succeed at.


Fact 3.  You admitted to us the results of the switch, therefore you know that a set 1 rolls better then set 2.


Conclusion:  Cheating.


Dice cheaters know that they dont have to always win, its a long term game where the slight edge will return a profit in the long run.  Thats why casinos switch dice regularly and have their dice made to exacting specifications.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

2.) The DM, or anyone else at the gaming table for that fact, cannot tell, order, browbeat, or intimidate another player in regards as to which set of dice they use while at the gaming table.


Of course they can.  If you try to use a D6 that's got all 6 faces reading "5",  I'm going to tell you not to use that die, and if you don't like it, you can leave.


Same goes for any other set of loaded dice.


Thing is:


4.) I don't cheat and my dice have NEVER been tampered with.


doesn't match this:


I have a very old set of dice, 25 years old in fact, and they roll extremely well for me. In a few a games, they have rolled ungodly well, that's why I use them alot.


You have a set of dice that "roll really well".


Meaning you KNOW the dice aren't fair, random dice.  Now, all non-D6 (and most D6) dice are cheaply made and don't handle "random" all that perfectly, but the *illusion* of randomness is there for most of 'em - they might not be balanced, but at least you don't *know* how they're unbalanced.


Refusing to use your good dice to kill off party members isn't cheating


You keep two sets of dice - one you use when you want to roll high, because the dice are laoded and roll high, and one you use when you *don't* want to roll high.


It doesn't matter WHY you swap the loaded dice in and out.  What matters is that you have dice you know to be unfair, you use them despite knowing they're unfair, and then you change 'em when you think them being unfair will be a disadvantage for you.


5.) Go troll somewhere else and stop trying to spread unfounded rumors on the forum.


Son, "unfounded" is pretty much the exact opposite of what it's called when you spend a bunch of posts explaining, in bold with italics, that you're doing exactly what I'm saying is not cool.


 

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.

you may have never intentionally modified your dice but after 20+ years they obviously are not rolling true (if they ever were which is doubtful) but you KNOW this which is why you are rolling them.  On the other hand your other set obviously has a tendency to roll lower as stated by you.


 


you manipulated the dice you were using to enhance the outcome you wanted - call it want you will but you were cheating.  Were you at my table and answered the way you have in this thread my response would have been that if it's good enough to roll against the mobs its good enough to roll against the party. 


if you chose to have the attitude that you have had in this thread you'd not be asked to return.


 

Wow... really? I see nothing in any set of rules anywhere that says that you must assign yourself one set of dice and use them exclusively. Thats like saying you can't wiggle your fingers in a superstitious way before rolling. I'm almost positive the guy didn't mean that he switches to his intentionally loaded dice to roll. Most likely meant a die that he happens to have some good luck with. Chill out, it was an amusing anecdote.


Anyways, it really doesn't make any sense to have an ability or series of abilities that can be countered as easily as a free action. It leaves room open for a specific feat or power for a later class to have. Something to use to get out of being dominated or make an immediate save.


I guess sometimes it gets hard to distinguish between what we're supposed to make up and what we're supposed to use powers for. When I first started 4e, I was trying to figure out how to disarm and trip people with my whip. Come to find out there are specific powers and feats that do these kinds of things, but anyone can 'grapple'. Seems strange that a level 30 barbarian can't even try to take someone's weapon away, but a level 1 mage with 8 str can try to grapple someone.


So some things might need to be fluffed by the DM a bit. Like, if the power says dominate, he should fluff it to be like a puppet-type dominate or just an overwhelming-compulsion-to-do-something-specific-type dominate. Do dominators have any penalties while dominating someone? Like a -2 AC for partial attention being paid to controlling the victim? Dominate!


Seems strange that a level 30 barbarian can't even try to take someone's weapon away, but a level 1 mage with 8 str can try to grapple someone.




You can always try.  It's just that your chances of success without any training in this technique are basically zero.  (Although honestly I have always felt that disarming, like diseases and curses, is one of those things that is just better handled on a case by case basis at the DM's discretion, rather than as a standardized mechanic.)


Wow... really? I see nothing in any set of rules anywhere that says that you must assign yourself one set of dice and use them exclusively. Thats like saying you can't wiggle your fingers in a superstitious way before rolling. I'm almost positive the guy didn't mean that he switches to his intentionally loaded dice to roll. Most likely meant a die that he happens to have some good luck with. Chill out, it was an amusing anecdote.


 




My interpretation of what he wrote is that is EXACTLY what he is doing- he is using a set of very old dice that consistently roll many more crits.  He uses these specifically because they roll high and intentionally switched to  a set that does not roll as well when dominated.


 


I'm very chilled:P


 

(Although honestly I have always felt that disarming, like diseases and curses, is one of those things that is just better handled on a case by case basis at the DM's discretion, rather than as a standardized mechanic.)


My main complaint with disarms is the same complaint I have for Sunders and Anti-magic fields:  Recalculating sucks.  It's boring, it's slow, it's annoying.  You shouldn't have to delay combat to do it.  Therefore, disarms, sunders, and anti-magic effects should be extremely rare- to the point of nonexistence.

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.


(Although honestly I have always felt that disarming, like diseases and curses, is one of those things that is just better handled on a case by case basis at the DM's discretion, rather than as a standardized mechanic.)


My main complaint with disarms is the same complaint I have for Sunders and Anti-magic fields:  Recalculating sucks.  It's boring, it's slow, it's annoying.  You shouldn't have to delay combat to do it.  Therefore, disarms, sunders, and anti-magic effects should be extremely rare- to the point of nonexistence.




Yeah, that's sort of what I'm saying.  Basically I see these things has having such a dramatic effect that I think it's time to revert to story mode if they occur, rather than battle mode.  If an enemy loses his weapon, it's not just a -2 (or whatever) to attacks and a switch to 1d4 instead of 1d6 damage, it's going to change the way the entire battle plays out.  Same is true of a character losing a limb or something like that.



Wow... really? I see nothing in any set of rules anywhere that says that you must assign yourself one set of dice and use them exclusively. Thats like saying you can't wiggle your fingers in a superstitious way before rolling. I'm almost positive the guy didn't mean that he switches to his intentionally loaded dice to roll. Most likely meant a die that he happens to have some good luck with. Chill out, it was an amusing anecdote.


 




My interpretation of what he wrote is that is EXACTLY what he is doing- he is using a set of very old dice that consistently roll many more crits.  He uses these specifically because they roll high and intentionally switched to  a set that does not roll as well when dominated.


 


I'm very chilled:P


 




Sooooooo...


What you're saying is you don't have a favorite die you use all of, or most of, the time you're gaming? That noone here has their "lucky" set of dice they use more often than others? There's not one player here who does not have a favorite d6, d10 or d20 they like to use because it tends to roll good for them? That "lucky" dice are somehow evil if a person chooses not to use them for an attack roll, regardless of the reason why they chose not to use them?


The reason I use my "very old" set of "loaded" dice is because they are the first set of D&D dice I ever bought with my own money that I worked for from the first job I had when I moved away from home at 17. Until that time, I was always borrowing someone else's dice and being broke all the time growing up, I had to wait until I made my own money to buy my own. They've always brought me good luck in any game in which they were used. I choose, not the DM nor anyone else, how or when I use them. If people have an issue with how they roll, then that's their problem. There are no rules that compel a player to use any particular die in any of their rolls. If they're loaded with anything, it's plenty of good fortune.


Sorry guys, I'm not budging on this one. The DM can't make anyone use the dice they don't wish to use... People can be upset about it all they want, but the players choose their dice to use, not the DM or the other players at the table.

Let's keep an eye on the tone, folks. Thanks.


 

If you loved your "lucky" dice so much, why don't you use them all the time? 


You made a conscious decision to use different dice the moment you were dominated and likely switched back the moment you were normal.  What other reason did you switch dice for if not "I wanted to roll badly while dominated."


To answer your question, I use a computer program for dice.  Far cleaner, faster, and guarenteed fair outcomes.

Sign In to post comments