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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 tha
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."Again, coup de grace only works on helpless enemies that are adjacent to you. Since you are never your own enemy, nor ever adjacent t
"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.
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 domi
"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."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
"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.
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 fi
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.
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
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.
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.
Covered by the rules! 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
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.
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 elimina
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.
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.
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 tha
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.
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), u
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. Th
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 :-)
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 sta
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.
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.
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 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 proble
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.
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 fo
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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...
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 po
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 ...)
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 s
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.
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.
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
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.
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 comman
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 advantage(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...
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 criticall
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.
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.
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)
can you do that? just this last week, a similar situation came up with a dominated defender, and at the table i ruled in the players' favor, saying i would look it up later (hence i am here now).
a defender was dominated by the creature he had marked. i wanted the creature to use the defender's mark ability to mark a different PC (that way there would still be repercussions for another turn even if the player makes his save). the player argued that the book says you can only mark an enemy and that the dominate entry does not say that enemies and allies are switched during domination.
for various reasons, a players may attack one another as opposed to the enemy during a combat, and the distinction between enemy and ally are blurred. as far as the rules go, an enemy is whoever you choose to attack with that action. enemies can become allies and allies can become enemies in the course of a single round, they are not hard and fast definitions, merely a guideline for selecting powers during character creation and utilizing them in different situations of battle (some attack all creatures in an area of effect, others only attack enemies, making their function and utility different)
personally, i feel that if a creature is an enemy to the dominator, the dominatee may use any power (basically meaning any at-will power can be used at the discretion of the dominating creature). i'd like to get any guidance or opinions others might have on this issue.
can you do that? just this last week, a similar situation came up with a dominated defender, and at the table i ruled in the players' favor, saying i would look it up later (hence i am here now).a defender was dominated by the creature he had marke
Here is the definition of Marked from the Glossary:
When a creature marks a target, that target takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include the creature as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time, and a new mark supersedes an old one.
As a DM, I would consider a dominated creature to be an enemy since its action are chosen by an enemy combatant. The text on Combat Challenge does talk about attacking an enemy and marked enemy, etc, but I don't see any reason why a dominated fighter wouldn't mark whatever he/she hits.
The stickiest part to interpret (IMO) is this "In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target." (bolding mine). Since the controlling creature only gets one action, some might argue that a fighter's mark is not an auto-mark, but something decided as a free action. It isn't specifically spelled out.
Here is the definition of Marked from the Glossary:As a DM, I would consider a dominated creature to be an enemy since its action are chosen by an enemy combatant. The text on Combat Challenge does talk about attacking an enemy and marked enemy, et
4. You're unable to maintain effects (they mention grabs).
5. You can take as many free actions as you want.
That's specific for the daze part.
The ONLY thing dominate adds is that your single, non-free action during your turn is chosen by your dominator/-trix.
Moral: as soon as you're dominated, shut your eyes, drop your weapons, and tell your allies to teleport you as far from the combat as possible, because:
Dominator's Plan "A" is - if you're a melee character, you will charge one of your own squishies.
Dominator's Plan "B" is - if you're a squishy (or perhaps even if you are a melee character), your a$$ is running the gauntlet with -5 to all defenses and granting combat advantage.
If you're dominated, you're dazed, in which case:1. You grant combat advantage.2. You get one action per turn3. You're unable to flank.4. You're unable to maintain effects (they mention grabs).5. You can take as many free actions as you want.That's
No. You are restricted to using one of the main three actions on your turn. Being dazed doesn't take away your default assortment of Minor, Move, and Standard.
4. You're unable to maintain effects (they mention grabs).
This is also not completely true. If an effect requires a sustain minor, then you can still sustain it. Grab has a special bit of rules that say "If you are affected by a condition that prevents you from taking opportunity actions, you immediately let go of a grabbed enemy." Since dazing does this, it stops a grab.
The ONLY thing dominate adds is that your single, non-free action during your turn is chosen by your dominator/-trix.
Moral: as soon as you're dominated, shut your eyes, drop your weapons, and tell your allies to teleport you as far from the combat as possible...
Dominate specifically adds "The dominating creature chooses your action. The only powers it can make you use are at-will powers."
I do not see "non-free action in there."
Closing your eyes is not allowed, by RAW, because there is no action type assigned to it. You can say you close your eyes for role playing purposes, but it adds no mechanical benefit or penalty... unless you can cite some rules that say you can close your eyes.
There is also PH 267:
The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn.
Which I would definitely apply in this case. If you are dominated, the most I am going to let you do is speak... maybe. If you had the will to resist the domination, you would not have been dominiated to begin with.
No. You are restricted to using one of the main three actions on your turn. Being dazed doesn't take away your default assortment of Minor, Move, and Standard.This is also not completely true. If an effect requires a sustain minor, then you can still
Even if the dominating creature chooses your action, (The sole action you have while Dazed) to make you use at-will powers, You're still entitled to your free actions while Dazed. It means it can't even make you uses a Ranged Basic Attack if you don't have Range At-wills.
Ok But the DM can always restrict the number of free actions in a turn and that is a good place to start doing so.
I mean free actions can be ridiculous in a sense, as they take almost no time or effort, you can take as many as you want during your or another combatant's turn.
Ok how many few sentences can you speak in 6 seconds ? Not an unlimited number for sure...please. So thought i am not fan of restricting PC's actions, free actions needs a careful attention from the DM to avoid abuses.
I think it's reasonable to ban the uses of free actions during a domination as you don't have control of yourself completely.
Even if the dominating creature chooses your action, (The sole action you have while Dazed) to make you use at-will powers, You're still entitled to your free actions while Dazed. It means it can't even make you uses a Ranged Basic Attack if you
Even if the dominating creature chooses your action, (The sole action you have while Dazed) to make you use at-will powers, You're still entitled to your free actions while Dazed. It means it can't even make you uses a Ranged Basic Attack if you don't have Range At-wills.
PHB Pg 287 Melee and Ranged basic attacks are At-Will powers.
PHB Pg 287 Melee and Ranged basic attacks are At-Will powers.
i really don't like all this "when dominated the PC can still use a ton of free actions to make himself useless, such as closing his eyes, dropping his sword, etc." it really goes against the intent on domination, which is to permit the creature to upset the order a little bit, have the PC charge against an ally, leap into a fire pit, or throw his sword off a cliff. if you let a dominated PC could close his eyes, cover his ears, etc., so that the dominated action/character is completely useless, there's no reason to have dominated in your game, just replace all dominate powers with stun, as the effect is what you're going for (once the first PC gets dominated and is able to close his eyes, it won't take a clever act for the others to follow suit).
also, while right now only third party publishers have given dominate to PCs (such as the goodman games necromancer), i'm sure that its only a matter of time that Wizards gives PCs dominate. i am 100% certain that the psion class will have that capability, and it will really suck to anyone who wants to play a psion in your game, since all the enemies have to do is close their eyes to make the PCs daily's useless.
i really don't like all this "when dominated the PC can still use a ton of free actions to make himself useless, such as closing his eyes, dropping his sword, etc." it really goes against the intent on domination, which is to permit the creature to
i really don't like all this "when dominated the PC can still use a ton of free actions to make himself useless, such as closing his eyes, dropping his sword, etc." it really goes against the intent on domination,
Which is why a DM with half a brain will say no, you can't do that. The rules say the DM can limit Free Actions and as it's been pointed out, there are no rules for closing your eyes.
Which is why a DM with half a brain will say no, you can't do that. The rules say the DM can limit Free Actions and as it's been pointed out, there are no rules for closing your eyes.
also, while right now only third party publishers have given dominate to PCs
Uh... you haven't seen the Wizard or Warlock?
Or Bard or Psion or Invoker or Rogue (?!) or Avenger or Sorceror or Cleric or Druid.
Wizard and Warlock were the only ones I was absolutely sure had a power that inflicts Dominated.
But yes!
Uh... you haven't seen the Wizard or Warlock?Or Bard or Psion or Invoker or Rogue (?!) or Avenger or Sorceror or Cleric or Druid.Wizard and Warlock were the only ones I was absolutely sure had a power that inflicts Dominated.But yes!
Yeah, wasn't a knock on you. Just adding to your list pointing out that there are quite a few classes already that can do it. Every single controller can get dominate, plus 2 leaders and 3 strikers. And at least two paragon paths give you access: Zealous Demagogue and Dread Imperator, so if you can multi-class cleric, invoker or avenger you can gain access.
Yeah, wasn't a knock on you. Just adding to your list pointing out that there are quite a few classes already that can do it. Every single controller can get dominate, plus 2 leaders and 3 strikers. And at least two paragon paths give you acces
With Dominate you choose the action, but nothing about Dominate allows you to designate the Dominated foe as his/her own enemy.
You could make someone run off a cliff (I'd call that a form of forced movement and allow a save), use a power that targets all creatures to hurt themselves, or similar things, but you can't make them fall on their own sword in a coup de grace sort of move.
Often, in 4e Dominate, one makes the victim run past their foes, provoking opportunity attacks from them all, and, of course, ending in a tactically disadvantageous position. If Dominating a POC, I'd expect the DM to use the PCs most deadly at-will power against another PC ) or a whole group of PCs). It kind of depends if you want to damage the target or use the target to damage others.
With Dominate you choose the action, but nothing about Dominate allows you to designate the Dominated foe as his/her own enemy.You could make someone run off a cliff (I'd call that a form of forced movement and allow a save), use a power that target
i'm not being sarcastic txporter and LordofWeasels, but no, i haven't read every power of every class actually, so sorry for making an ignorant statement. as it happens, i've spent most of fourth as a DM, and have only become familiar with the powers my players have chosen. the time i've spent as a player i've barely had enough time to thoroughly research the powers of the class i was playing (paladin, warlord, and fighter in the past, coming up in a week either rogue or assassin, haven't decided yet)
anyway, my point was "what's good for the goose..." and all that. players wouldn't be happy playing a warlock, bard, wizard, invoker, etc. with a tantalizing yet useless dominate power calling to them from the book, and they would then probably argue for a rules change once they reach a level when they had the ability to dominate a monster.
i'm not being sarcastic txporter and LordofWeasels, but no, i haven't read every power of every class actually, so sorry for making an ignorant statement. as it happens, i've spent most of fourth as a DM, and have only become familiar with the powe
I don't get how you want to empower dominate any more than it already is. If I'm dominating someone, the list of things I could do to that person is quite horrifying. In the case of certain characters, where "this power can be used as a melee basic attack" is a byline, and since if I'm in charge of your action it's like I'm playing your character, your character is in trouble.
As for the free action thing, are you saying I can't speak for six solid seconds while I'm taking my turn? Imagine all the things you could do for six seconds, like walking, chewing gum, talking on a cell phone, dropping something in the trash, and looking and maybe even waving at someone across the street. Now imagine that I was simply not in charge of one of them (the walk). That's what the rules say. I'm not in charge of the walking part, but I can drop something, scream at the top of my lungs, blink any number of times, turn my head (given my head's not up my ...).
If I can send you past up to six enemies for six opportunity attacks each with an effective +7 to the attack, you may certainly close your eyes when I'm doing it. It won't hurt a bit.
Also, I've decided to revamp what I said in explanation to get some agreement:
If you're dominated, you're dazed, in which case:
1. You grant combat advantage.
2. You get a single action on your turn, not including free actions or "no actions."
3. You're unable to flank.
4. You're unable to maintain effects requiring you to be able to make opportunity actions.
5. You can take as many free actions as you want.
The ONLY thing dominate adds is that your single (non-free and non-no) action during your turn is chosen by your dominator/-trix.
Moral: as soon as you're dominated, shut your eyes, drop your weapons, and tell your allies to teleport you as far from the combat as possible, because:
Dominator's Plan "A" is - if you're a melee character, you will charge one of your own squishies.
Dominator's Plan "B" is - if you're a squishy (or perhaps even if you are a melee character), your a$$ is running the gauntlet with -5 to all defenses and granting combat advantage.
I don't get how you want to empower dominate any more than it already is. If I'm dominating someone, the list of things I could do to that person is quite horrifying. In the case of certain characters, where "this power can be used as a melee bas
2. You get a single action on your turn, not including free actions or "no actions."
...
Moral: as soon as you're dominated, shut your eyes, drop your weapons, and tell your allies to teleport you as far from the combat as possible, because:
2 is still wrong.
Also, shutting your eyes has no mechanical effect.
2 is still wrong.Also, shutting your eyes has no mechanical effect.
Me: 2. You get a single action on your turn, not including free actions or "no actions."
Soi: No. You are restricted to using one of the main three actions on your turn. Being dazed doesn't take away your default assortment of Minor, Move, and Standard.
I don't understand this objection at all. Are you saying you get a full turn when dazed? Further, you are saying no to what?
EDIT: About shutting one's eyes:
This is nuts. Speaking is not mechanically effective either, but under free actions, "speak a few sentences" is in clear type. Under other paragraphs in the PHB, they talk about "Seeing and Targeting," "Targeting What You Can't See," "an ally must be able to see and hear you to gain a benefit from this..." So if shutting my eyes has no mechanical effect, why is seeing inextricable from the game's mechanic?
Also, if I decide to cover my ears, could I not effectively deafen myself as well in order to gain a -10 penalty to Perception?
SECOND EDIT:
Sorry for the tone of this. No disrespect intended and thanks for responding to me. I have trouble with tone.
Me: 2. You get a single action on your turn, not including free actions or "no actions."Soi: No. You are restricted to using one of the main three actions on your turn. Being dazed doesn't take away your default assortment of Minor, Move,
Me: 2. You get a single action on your turn, not including free actions or "no actions."
Soi: No. You are restricted to using one of the main three actions on your turn. Being dazed doesn't take away your default assortment of Minor, Move, and Standard.
I don't understand this objection at all. Are you saying you get a full turn when dazed? Further, you are saying no to what?
Under your interpretation, if you start your turn dazed, but somehow remove the dazed condition before the end of your turn, your turn is still over because you have no actions remaining.
Under how the rules are actually worded, you never lose your normal allotment of the 3 main actions, you are only restricted to using one of them per turn(while dazed).
This is nuts. Speaking is not mechanically effective either, but under free actions, "speak a few sentences" is in clear type. Under other paragraphs in the PHB, they talk about "Seeing and Targeting," "Targeting What You Can't See," "an ally must be able to see and hear you to gain a benefit from this..." So if shutting my eyes has no mechanical effect, why is seeing inextricable from the game's mechanic?
Also, if I decide to cover my ears, could I not effectively deafen myself as well in order to gain a -10 penalty to Perception?
There are many effects that can give you the blinded condition. There is no voluntary action the rules list allowing a player to inflict that status upon themselves.
Do note, there is a voluntary action the player can do to drop prone--another condition. And it is a minor action--not a free action.
I say shutting your eyes produces no mechanical effect because the game has no rules allowing you to shut your eyes.
Many DMs house-rule to allow a player to close their eyes to inflict the blinded condition, but this does not make it a rule. This is the Rules Q&A forum, after all.
Sorry for the tone of this. No disrespect intended and thanks for responding to me. I have trouble with tone.
No disrespect taken. I understand your stance, but we aren't talking about house-rules... unless you can cite a rules source that says you can shut your eyes (as a free action) to gain the blinded condition...
Under your interpretation, if you start your turn dazed, but somehow remove the dazed condition before the end of your turn, your turn is still over because you have no actions remaining.Under how the rules are actually worded, you never lose your no
✦ Free Action: Free actions take almost no time or
effort. You can take as many free actions as you
want during your or another combatant's turn. The
DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn.
Examples:
speaking a few sentences, dropping a held
item, letting go of a grabbed enemy.
I say the fact that the text elects to include examples and call them examples, it has granted permission for me to come up with other actions that could technically, under RAW, be called free. Since I could go a whole day without speaking a few sentences (per the example), whereas I blink my eyes a few thousand times a day, it is perfectly logical that I could close my eyes as a free action in order to be less able to target my allies while dominated.
Whatcha think, Soi?
See, this is the permissivity thing...I'm trying to come up with something.OK.PHB pg 267 lists examples of free actions: ✦ Free Action: Free actions take almost no time oreffort. You can take as many free actions as youwant during your or another
That is an interesting rules question. I'd say you probably can't do such free actions after becoming dominated, but what if you could use a free action to, say, drop your weapon, in response to being hit by a dominate effect (but before the effect itself takes place?)
I think there are other examples of free actions which can take place between hit and damage. I'm not sure offhand, though, if there exist any that are not "immediate interrupts," and weapon-drop isn't classified as an interrupt...
That is an interesting rules question. I'd say you probably can't do such free actions after becoming dominated, but what if you could use a free action to, say, drop your weapon, in response to being hit by a dominate effect (but before the effect i
so you drop your weapon as a free action - fine as a DM I just choose "charge your ally using your hand" You will not only provoke OA while moving you will also start your next turn with your weapon on the ground 2-6 squares away. Good deal ?
so you drop your weapon as a free action - fine as a DM I just choose "charge your ally using your hand" You will not only provoke OA while moving you will also start your next turn with your weapon on the ground 2-6 squares away. Good deal ?
I say the fact that the text elects to include examples and call them examples, it has granted permission for me to come up with other actions that could technically, under RAW, be called free. Since I could go a whole day without speaking a few sentences (per the example), whereas I blink my eyes a few thousand times a day, it is perfectly logical that I could close my eyes as a free action in order to be less able to target my allies while dominated.
Whatcha think, Soi?
Those are excellent examples because they appear elsewhere in the book. PH 289 has nice chart with different action types and things you can do with them. I don't see "Close your eyes: gain the blinded condition" anywhere on that chart. I do see "Drop Prone" though...
Those are excellent examples because they appear elsewhere in the book. PH 289 has nice chart with different action types and things you can do with them. I don't see "Close your eyes: gain the blinded condition" anywhere on that chart.
"A character can close his or her eyes to avoid the attack. The character is considered blinded while doing so"
still no sane DM should allow that.
there is actually one in the offical adventure.H2 Thunderspire S:45"A character can close his or her eyes to avoid the attack. The character is considered blinded while doing so" still no sane DM should allow that.
"A character can close his or her eyes to avoid the attack. The character is considered blinded while doing so"
still no sane DM should allow that.
That is specifically about the trapped mirrors.
It gives no action to do this, and it gives no duration for the blindness. Presumably, in response to the mirror trigger at the beginning of your turn, you could close your eyes, avoid the attack, and then open your eyes immediately afterwards, negating most of the challenge at no penalty to the character.
Allowing willing blindness also severely nerfs any gaze attacker.
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?
Good question!
I'd say its up to the DM to interpret the rules. The way I see it, you can force a dominated creature to move in almost any way, through dangerous zones that cause damage, but not over the edge of a cliff, because that would be suicide. Also I as DM wouldn't allow the dominator to order the dominatee to throw his weapon down a well etc, because that would open up too many irritating possibilities of disarming monsters that use the Weapon keyword for their attacks, making them more or less useless... Same goes for weaponless PC strikers, of course. The rule in my campaign is generally... If its clearly suicide (not just risky) then you can't dominate somebody into doing it.
A good and time-tried way of punishing the clever geek type of player who always tries stuff like this is to introduce a monster in the next encounter that does the exact same thing to him. It's called poetic justice.
Good question!I'd say its up to the DM to interpret the rules. The way I see it, you can force a dominated creature to move in almost any way, through dangerous zones that cause damage, but not over the edge of a cliff, because that would be suicide.
I say the fact that the text elects to include examples and call them examples, it has granted permission for me to come up with other actions that could technically, under RAW, be called free. Since I could go a whole day without speaking a few sentences (per the example), whereas I blink my eyes a few thousand times a day, it is perfectly logical that I could close my eyes as a free action in order to be less able to target my allies while dominated.
Every time someone drags real world logic into a D&D rules discussion, God kills a catgirl.
Yes, it makes perfect sense that you could choose to close your eyes when attacking, in the same way that it makes perfect sense that you could choose to swing your weapon over the head of your halfling friend, aim anywhere in the vast 25 sq. ft. area that doesn't contain your ally or take any of the myriad of other actions that would make your attack much more likely to miss.
That's not the way the rules work. When you are dominated or otherwise in a position of making an attack roll against a friend, the rules assume that you are attacking at full effectiveness. When you are forced to attack an ally, you don't get to say, "Okay, I'll attack, but I'm going to close my eyes, turn my back, move to the far edge of my 5' square so I can't even reach him, swing over my shoulder and warn him to duck because I'm swinging high. Hey, it just says I have to attack, and none of those other things require actual actions, so the rules don't stop me and logically, I should automatically miss if I attack that way, right?"
Your argument is directly opposed to the RAI and, by RAW, can be immediately shut down by your DM if he doesn't like it. Unless you have a doormat of a DM, there's very little point to trying this.
Everytime someone drags real world logic into a D&D rules discussion, God kills a catgirl.Yes, it makes perfect sense that you could choose to close your eyes when attacking, in the same way that it makes perfect sense that you could choose to swing
I'm not saying anything in this instance that can't be justified:
Things like dropping a weapon have game mechanic implications, and dropping a weapon is listed under the examples of free actions.
They chose to list examples of free actions, telling me other actions could be extrapolated. Not all are reasonable, but I can justify this one.
I can safely say that shutting one's eyes is a free action, being the most "free" action any humanoid can possibly make, that takes almost no energy, is reflexive (unlike dropping a weapon), and is performed involuntarily by everyone on the planet (including some animals) thousands of times per day.
Sight is inextricable from the game mechanic in the same way that holding a weapon is, and with my eyes closed, I'm blind.
If I was trying to adjudicate a player's slew of other "free" actions, I would never be able to take away anyone's ability to blink.
Now if the dominate condition said that, given I'm the dominator, the dominated's ability to see or hear is irrelevant, this would be much simpler. For example, the text could read:
When you use the action on the dominated character's turn, you use that character's stats for attacks, skill checks, or ability checks, but only conditions on you apply at the time you take that character's action.
I think closing your eyes to avoid a gaze attack is perfectly reasonable, once all is said and done.
I'm not saying anything in this instance that can't be justified:Things like dropping a weapon have game mechanic implications, and dropping a weapon is listed under the examples of free actions.They chose to list examples of free actions, telling me
"Examples: speaking a few sentences, dropping a held item, letting go of a grabbed enemy."
These are excellent examples because they are actions the game actually allow you to do elsewhere in the book. Nowhere does it say you can extrapolate other free actions from these examples or have any sort of rule allowing you to close your eyes to give yourself the blindness condition.
It doesn't say this anywhere."Examples: speaking a few sentences, dropping a helditem, letting go of a grabbed enemy."These are excellent examples because they are actions the game actually allow you to do elsewhere in the book. Nowhere does it say y
Yes. They chose to list examples. If they had said "these are free actions you can take," is would be restrictive, deductive, limited. Because they list examples, it is permissive, inductive, unlimited.
Yes. They chose to list examples. If they had said "these are free actions you can take," is would be restrictive, deductive, limited. Because they list examples, it is permissive, inductive, unlimited.
Yes. They chose to list examples. If they had said "these are free actions you can take," is would be restrictive, deductive, limited. Because they list examples, it is permissive, inductive, unlimited.
If even one of the examples listed did not exist elsewhere in the rules, I would agree with you.
However, every single example given can be found elsewhere in the book. Some other good examples of free actions: Spending an Action point, Elven Accuracy, Orb of Imposition use. All of these things exist in the rules at one place or another as free actions.
It is not an all-inclusive list, but it does not give the freedom to make up actions--especialy if the made up action has some sort of mechanical effect on combat.
If even one of the examples listed did not exist elsewhere in the rules, I would agree with you.However, every single example given can be found elsewhere in the book. Some other good examples of free actions: Spending an Action point, Elven Accuracy
RAW doesn't _require_ the DM to allow closing your eyes as a free action. If you're going by pure RAW, that is it, period, end of discussion.
Any sane DM would allow it, but then you're getting into non-RAW arguments. From which you can arrive at:
In my opinion, any sane DM would probably also allow opening eyes as a free action even under Domination. It's true that Domination states you can only take one action per turn, but I don't think there's any question that by RAI, dominate effects are not intended to be easily neutralized by one or more rounds to take free actions to undo miniscule silly things players do to 'incapacitate' themselves.
RAW doesn't _require_ the DM to allow closing your eyes as a free action. If you're going by pure RAW, that is it, period, end of discussion.Any sane DM would allow it, but then you're getting into non-RAW arguments. From which you can arrive at:In m
You can’t take actions. Instead, the dominator chooses a single action for you to take on the creature’s turn: a standard, a move, a minor, or a free action. The only powers and other game features that the dominator can make you use are ones that can be used at will, such as at-will powers. For example, anything that is limited to being used only once per encounter or once per day does not qualify.
Note the plural, ActionS. The dominated creature cannot take any actions, free or otherwise, of its own volition. Not even No Action.
Also to the person who got dominated and crit himself as a Rogue, the creature couldn't add your SA damage. It isn't "when you have CA, all your attacks get x." The creature tells you to use Sly Flourish. Great, you used Sly Flourish. But Sneak Attack is not an At-Will power, it is a class feature, and Dominate is very explicit, you can only be told to use an At-Will power.
And yes, you can force a creature to attack himself, so long as the target line is "Creature" instead of "enemy." He is still not considered his own enemy.
Oh wow, what a way off base discussion. O.oYou can’t take actions. Instead, the dominator chooses a single action for you to take on the creature’s turn: a standard, a move, a minor, or a free action. The only powers and other game features tha
You can’t take actions. Instead, the dominator chooses a single action for you to take on the creature’s turn: a standard, a move, a minor, or a free action. The only powers and other game features that the dominator can make you use are ones that can be used at will, such as at-will powers. For example, anything that is limited to being used only once per encounter or once per day does not qualify.
Note the plural, ActionS. The dominated creature cannot take any actions, free or otherwise, of its own volition. Not even No Action.
Also to the person who got dominated and crit himself as a Rogue, the creature couldn't add your SA damage. It isn't "when you have CA, all your attacks get x." The creature tells you to use Sly Flourish. Great, you used Sly Flourish. But Sneak Attack is not an At-Will power, it is a class feature, and Dominate is very explicit, you can only be told to use an At-Will power.
And yes, you can force a creature to attack himself, so long as the target line is "Creature" instead of "enemy." He is still not considered his own enemy.
Hey, look, thread necromancy!
Hint: 8 months ago, which was when the discussion you're responding to ENDED, the rules for Dominate hadn't been changed yet.
Hey, look, thread necromancy!Hint: 8 months ago, which was when the discussion you're responding to ENDED, the rules for Dominate hadn't been changed yet.
Hint: 8 months ago, which was when the discussion you're responding to ENDED, the rules for Dominate hadn't been changed yet.
Didn't even notice the date, someone from another forum linked the thread.
Also, what? My original PHB has the wording I copy/pasted, and according to the Compendium Dominated as a condition has never been errata'd since it was published in the PHB.
Didn't even notice the date, someone from another forum linked the thread. Also, what? My original PHB has the wording I copy/pasted, and according to the Compendium Dominated as a condition has never been errata'd since it was published in the PHB.
Also, what? My original PHB has the wording I copy/pasted,
No, it doesn't.
Original Dominated read something very much like: * You are Dazed * The Dominating Creature chooses your action for you. It can only force you to use at-will powers.
8 months ago, the condition said something completely different, hence this entire thread.
No, it doesn't.Original Dominated read something very much like:* You are Dazed* The Dominating Creature chooses your action for you. It can only force you to use at-will powers.The errata notification doesn't show in the Compendium Glossary, true.
(to himself). (I was pretty sure he hadn't already used it during his own turn before being dominated)
