|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:27AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2008
|
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...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:37AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:39AM
#3
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:41AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2006
|
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?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:50AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:51AM
#6
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 11:53AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 12:10PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 12:58PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2009 - 1:20PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2001
|
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
|
|
|