Dominate Person Question

[Torq]

Once a person is Dominated, is an attempt to re-Dominate them automatically successful to keep them in a state of perpetual Domination? If allies can willingly fail a save, and a Dominated person is more loyal than an ally, I'd assume so, but there might be some errata that I missed.

Edit: Sorry - this probably goes in the Q&A thread...

[legomaster00156]

Yes, that is completely possible. Behold, you just found one of the many ways a Wizard can be broken. This isn't even one of the bad ones.

[Douglas]

In most cases, I would rule that an order to fail a save against a new Dominate Person would be at least against the subject's nature and possibly even obviously self-destructive. Thus, attempting to do this would either not work at all or would give the subject a chance to break free immediately.

[Daer]

If the target doesn't know he is dominated and doesn't know it will be dominate spell (bluff him think it is buff or something.) yeah sure.

But if he has reason to doubt then perhaps it would give some penalty to saving throw

and if he knows he is dominated then normal saving throw.

[Torq]

In most cases, I would rule that an order to fail a save against a new Dominate Person would be at least against the subject's nature and possibly even obviously self-destructive. Thus, attempting to do this would either not work at all or would give the subject a chance to break free immediately.

So I say to them, "Hey, I have this awesome buff for you so just go with it." They have no reason to distrust me. They love me.

Of course, I wanted to do this to a caster, so they'd likely make the Spellcraft check, thereby calling my bluff. My buff bluff.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Basically what he said ^^^

[Slipperychicken]

Of course, I wanted to do this to a caster, so they'd likely make the Spellcraft check, thereby calling my bluff. My buff bluff.

False Theurgy. Skill Trick, Complete Scoundrel I am never going to ban enchantment again. Hell, you could use the skill trick to get them to accept the initial casting

[Talya]

While limited, Enchantment could be one of the most powerful and useful schools. In fact, the reason there are so many immunities to it is otherwise it's far too powerful.

It's one thing to kill an enemy. It's another thing to collect enemies as slaves and turn them against their former allies.

[Psyren]

So powerful, in fact, that a first-level spell can render it irrelevant.

Also, you'd better keep them from interacting with... well, anyone who isn't you, because a DC 15 Sense Motive check is peanuts.

[Talya]

So powerful, in fact, that a first-level spell can render it irrelevant.

Yeah, I kinda just mentioned the reason for that.

Anyway, "Protection from [Alignment]" doesn't render it irrelevant. The spell has a duration of only minutes, and only temporarily suppresses Dominate, which will last 9 days at the lowest level you can cast it.

Because of those defenses, Enchantment is weaker than it should be, no question. Without them, it would be way too powerful. Either way, when it works, Dominate is about the most powerful spell in the game.

[Tyndmyr]

False Theurgy. Skill Trick, Complete Scoundrel I am never going to ban enchantment again. Hell, you could use the skill trick to get them to accept the initial casting

Yeah, enchantment, when it works, is made of win.

Mindrape is arguably the single best spell in the game.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I kinda just mentioned the reason for that.

Anyway, "Protection from [Alignment]" doesn't render it irrelevant. The spell has a duration of only minutes, and only temporarily suppresses Dominate, which will last 9 days at the lowest level you can cast it.

Yeah, but getting it constant is easy. In fact, anyone can suppress it indefinitely with a single feat.

Because of those defenses, Enchantment is weaker than it should be, no question. Without them, it would be way too powerful. Either way, when it works, Dominate is about the most powerful spell in the game.

I disagree, even when it works there are fundamental drawbacks to the spell. The "against its nature" clause can add a bunch of saving throws if you don't know your victim inside out, good luck killing your slave if it gets captured or otherwise becomes trouble, language barrier is a factor... there are much more powerful spells out there even if we handwave the difficulty of landing it to begin with.

[Coidzor]

It's one thing to kill an enemy. It's another thing to collect enemies as slaves and turn them against their former allies.

Even Necromancy gets in on that action with Animate Dread Warrior.

[Talya]

Even Necromancy gets in on that action with Animate Dread Warrior.

Oh, true. But that's not as easily doable in the same fight, is it? At the very least, you first need to kill them, THEN animate them. (And I don't have the books handy, how long is the casting time on Animate Dread warrior?) Dominate turns them into your servant on this turn, instantly. Instead of instantly killing your target, you instantly gain the target as an ally.

Note, I'm not saying enchantment is overpowered, doing so would be silly, because it's so easy to defend against. I'm saying without excellent enchantment defenses, enchanters would easily rule every campaign setting in a matter of weeks.

I think defenses against enchantment should be less...absolute. Force some kind of roll...CL check or something, then they still get the saving throw. It's okay for a spell which turns your enemy into your ally to have twice the failure rate as a spell which kills your enemy outright. But the absolute defenses available go a bit overboard.

[Denamort]

No, you can't force someone to fail his save against domination. If a wizard sneaks behind someone and cast Dominate that someone still gets his save, even if he didn't saw the spell coming. In the same way, lying to the victim of a Dominate Person won't prevent him from making a save.
Most importantly, the spell never says that the person loves the caster or cares for him. It does say "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus". The subject is resisting the spell constantly. That's way falling to concentrate on it for more than 24 hours or forcing someone to do something against it's nature causes a new save. You command him like a puppet, but the victim feelings towards the caster don't change.

[Douglas]

No, you can't force someone to fail his save against domination. If a wizard sneaks behind someone and cast Dominate that someone still gets his save, even if he didn't saw the spell coming. In the same way, lying to the victim of a Dominate Person won't prevent him from making a save.

The person making a save always has the option of forgoing the save and automatically failing. This is rather important for a whole bunch of "harmless" spells that have saves and would otherwise be difficult to use. If you have already dominated someone, "fail your next save" (though it would be phrased in character more like "don't resist this next spell") is a valid order. Whether Dominate Person can force someone to obey it is another issue, but the order itself is valid with a legal game mechanical meaning.

Lying to someone can't directly prevent someone from making a save, but it could convince someone to exercise his option to automatically fail - who would want to resist a healing (or whatever you tell him it is) spell, after all?

[FearlessGnome]

A charmed person trusts you. A dominated one does not, and will not take your word for it that you are doing something nice with your filthy black magic.

[Psyren]

I think defenses against enchantment should be less...absolute. Force some kind of roll...CL check or something, then they still get the saving throw. It's okay for a spell which turns your enemy into your ally to have twice the failure rate as a spell which kills your enemy outright. But the absolute defenses available go a bit overboard.

Play Pathfinder - Mind Blank is no longer absolute, and Protection from Evil only suppresses compulsions if the target succeeds on a second save.

[Slipperychicken]

A charmed person trusts you. A dominated one does not, and will not take your word for it that you are doing something nice with your filthy black magic.

99.99% of characters wordlessly accept (read: intentionally fail saves against) buff spells, even when they've previously come to blows with the caster, or have never even spoken to the caster before, and have no idea what spell is being cast due to not having ranks in Spellcraft.

If you see someone casting Fox's Cunning on you (or whatever buff; false theurgy makes it look like any spell you want), you're going to accept it. Doing otherwise is metagaming.

[Yuki Akuma]

99.99% of characters wordlessly accept (read: intentionally fail saves against) buff spells, even when they've previously come to blows with the caster, or have never even spoken to the caster before, and have no idea what spell is being cast due to not having ranks in Spellcraft.

If you see someone casting Fox's Cunning on you (or whatever buff; false theurgy makes it look like any spell you want), you're going to accept it. Doing otherwise is metagaming.

Technically, wordlessly accepting buffs from casters you don't know or don't like is metagaming... Especially when you don't have ranks in Spellcraft!

[Psyren]

If someone dominated me against my will, I would never voluntarily fail any will save they gave me the chance to make.

[FearlessGnome]

If someone dominated me against my will, I would never voluntarily fail any will save they gave me the chance to make.

This. So very much.

[legomaster00156]

If someone dominated me against my will, I would never voluntarily fail any will save they gave me the chance to make.

Well, then, you've gotta butter 'em up. Throughout their time under your domination, give them REAL buffs. They'll never see it coming when you redominate them. Heck, they won't even KNOW you redominated them, since they don't know how long your spell woulod've lasted. Just keep giving them a cycle of buffs and dominations. Treat them like they were a PC. (Wait, not everyone dominates their allies? Oops.)

[FearlessGnome]

I wouldn't let them buff me either. They are making me do things against my will. Why should I let them make me do them better?

[legomaster00156]

I wouldn't let them buff me either. They are making me do things against my will. Why should I let them make me do them better?

You would have no choice. Is it normally within your nature to accept buffs? Then it's still within your nature when dominated.

[Psyren]

You would have no choice. Is it normally within your nature to accept buffs? Then it's still within your nature when dominated.

"You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind."
Making a will save, however, doesn't require an action.

Furthermore, not resisting spells cast by a known enemy is not within anyone's nature.

[Yuki Akuma]

This is why you charm people as well as dominate them.

And then Mind Rape/Programmed Amnesia them.

[Psyren]

Yep; "do exactly what I say," "trust me, I'm your friend," and "trust me, I'm your friend, do exactly what I say" are three different spells.

And then Mind Rape/Programmed Amnesia them.

Don't forget Holy Mindrape Sanctify the Wicked.

[FearlessGnome]

Don't forget Holy Mindrape Sanctify the Wicked.

That's different. It's good for them.

[Talya]

So, after the mind rape, you ask "Was it good for you?"

[Psyren]

That's different. It's good for them.

"Is Sanctify the Wicked morally justified?"

Rather than answer that question, I prefer to just point out the ironic similarities between the three spells and leave it at that.