D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
... not that I can tell, which is a little disturbing. Back to the theory of the DM not putting terrain around that is inappropriate for your level, I guess, but... ouch.
Also, while non-at-will _powers_ are denied, I guess that technically means consumables and potions are free game. Though I'd imagine it'd be more a case of giving them away or something.
Dominate is kinda mean. Less mean than it used to be, though, at least, in terms of 'Okay, let's use your best daily powers'
Last edited by keterys; 17th July 2009 at 05:52 PM..
Dominate is kinda mean. Less mean than it used to be, though, at least, in terms of 'Okay, let's use your best daily powers'
Well... in 3.5 you would get an extra save if ordered to do something harmful - and outright suicidal stuff was completely out of the question.
In that sense, it's nastier now than it was.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
I really REALLY hate how any high cliff is considered inappropriate for characters below level 11. That is absolutley ridiculous and I won't stand for it.
My houserule: You can't tell someone through domination to do anything blatantly suicidal. Falling in a hole, triggering a trap are fine. Jumping into lava, jumping off a cliff not so fine.
Well... in 3.5 you would get an extra save if ordered to do something harmful - and outright suicidal stuff was completely out of the question.
In that sense, it's nastier now than it was.
True. It is hard to compare any 'lasts a round and a half, give or take' effect to 'lasts for two or so weeks' and try to figure out which is better or worse.
But, the idea of ordering people to fling themselves off cliffs is thoroughly unfun, I suspect.
Quote:
I really REALLY hate how any high cliff is considered inappropriate for characters below level 11. That is absolutley ridiculous and I won't stand for it.
Then expect people and monsters to die from forced movement? A fifty foot cliff does 5d10 damage, so you've got to be really careful trotting that out until people have at least 50 hp I'd say... and preferably a few more than that. The level 6 adventure I ran last night included a 50 foot potential drop, and the tactics were specifically written so that the enemies didn't try to knock the party in... if that were a 'lots of forced movement and happy to use it' set of enemies (deathbringer direguard and a gauth, for instance) that would have been excessive.
I mean, it's similar to the concept about not putting rivers of lava that do 30 fire damage per round in at 1st level, or poison clouds that do ongoing 20. At a certain point a line should be drawn. If that means that the combats move away from the hundred foot cliffs until 11th, then that's what it should mean.
That or just accept that forced movement kills people, and forced teleports really, really, really kill people.
look outside your window. do you see a building you could jump from and die? Do you see any poison gas clouds or lava?
As for forced movement I do this:
1. you get pushed into a square with no ground into it.
2. you make a saving throw to not be pushed. If you succeed you are squeezing. If you fail you are no hanging off the edge and you are prone. While you are hanging you make a increasingly high endurance check to not fall off everytime you are hit. You are also immune to forced movement.
3. while you are hanging an ally can make a minor action athletics check to pull you up.
4. you can get up yourself with a relatively easy athletics check as a move action.
look outside your window. do you see a building you could jump from and die? Do you see any poison gas clouds or lava?
Technically, people in RL can die from falling 15 feet or being stabbed once. That's not technically a good metric for figuring out D&D play.
More exactly, I'd hope that my DM doesn't attack me while I'm on the roof watching fireworks, and has the decency to wait to attack until I'm inside or on the street. Or, if he does, doesn't use attacks which can send me off the roof. Because I'm pretty sure I'm too low level to take the 100 ft drop.
Quote:
As for forced movement I do this:
So you take some steps against it. Presumably if someone were dominated next to a cliff edge, you'd similarly take steps of not flinging them off it - or if someone had teleport abilities.
1. you get pushed into a square with no ground into it.
2. you make a saving throw to not be pushed. If you succeed you are squeezing. If you fail you are no hanging off the edge and you are prone. While you are hanging you make a increasingly high endurance check to not fall off everytime you are hit. You are also immune to forced movement.
3. while you are hanging an ally can make a minor action athletics check to pull you up.
4. you can get up yourself with a relatively easy athletics check as a move action.
This is a perfectly valid option if you value "balance" highly - but I like my rules to be reasonable in the sense that they don't undermine suspension of disbelief.
And these rules may be balanced, but they're pretty unreasonable. There are preexisting rules for dealing with forced movement into hazardous terrain (a nebulous concept in the first place, to be sure).
Why would you be squeezing if you succeed on the save? There might well be plenty of space - it makes no sense. The PHB rules suggest that you succeed in dropping prone and avoid being pushed off, which is far more logical.
It makes sense sometimes for a character that has been pushed off a ledge to be able to grasp the edge and remain hanging - but that's not necessarily an easy feat, and it really shouldn't be automatic. It makes even less sense for you to be immune to forced movement - after all, you're just barely hanging on, all the opponent has to do is stomp on your fingers - or cut them off, say. In RAW terms, you might rule that they're helpless.
A minor athletics check is far, far too easy to let someone climb back up. Two characters are spending time trying to get the character back on his feet, and that should be reflected by a much greater action expenditure than a mere minor action for one of the two character. Perhaps a standard action on the side of the helper, and the hanging character ends up prone adjacent to the ledge (i.e. they need to expend a move action to stand up later). Depending on the game style, you might make it a move action for the helping character, and you might or might not make the action provoke an OA.
Of course it's possible to tweak the rules to make a cliff a non-threat - but you run the risk of making the entire situation ridiculous, and what's the point of the cliff in the first place, then?
When push comes to shove (no pun intended), I'd rather have an unbalanced reasonable approach than a balanced unreasonable one, particularly since it is indeed possible for the DM and the PC's to indeed avoid adventures in such areas at low level. If necessary, tell your PC's that it's just a matter of time until some suicidal orc simply one of them off a cliff if they insist on picking fights next to a high cliff, and make sure the campaign has options to avoid such fights - say, by simply starting the combat at least 6 squares away from the edge, so that a single lucky forced teleport or move cannot push someone over.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
This question came up in the game I'm playing in. The enemy dominated our characters and then forced us to attack each other then use our action points (free action). Couple this with the interpretation that action point use overrules the "only one action while dazed" and we were pretty well screwed.
FTR I agree with the interpretation that action point use can give an additional action when dazed, however - now I am concerned we will to run into creatures that can dominate frequently.
Using an action point is not at-will, it is a limited resource. On that grounds, I would rule that using action points is not something that you can be dominated into doing. Using an action point allows you to make an extra action normally, but when you're dazed, things are not normal.
DOMINATED
✦ You’re dazed.
✦ The dominating creature chooses your action. The
only powers it can make you use are at-will powers.
The only limiting factor is that the POWERS it can make you use are at-wills. If it wants you to do anything that's not a power it has no restrictions.
The "one action only" thing makes sense to me; it's how I interpreted it, but some folks on RPG.net have apparently been using the "Free action loophole".
On allies/enemies: I agree it ought to be up to the player, but this opens up some nasty loopholes -- my ranger might decide that all orc minions near him are "allies", so his "nearest enemy" is the orc chieftain, making it way too easy to cherry pick a quarry. But I suppose that's another thread.
(Really wish they'd fix the auto-alert when replies are posted thing, already...)
The way we rule it is:
Ally requires the "approval" of both creatures. It doesn't matter if Y considers X his ally, if X doesn't consider Y as his ally, they are not allies.
Enemy requires the "approval" of only one creature. It doesn't matter if Y considers X his ally, if X considers Y his enemy, Y will be hit by enemy-only attacks from X.
Right, exactly. But implicit in the concept above of you not getting free actions is that it says it chooses 'your action' (singular). It would be ludicrous for you to be able to take extra actions outside of the dominate control... so... what rule prevents the PC from taking free actions (like talking)?
Cause if the PC can take free actions, they'd certainly be under the control of the dominate. Which brings back the 'Okay, it drops your weapon then jumps you into the pit with the Otyugh' theory of dominate.
I'm with you except for the bolded part.
Dominate gives the dominator the ability to choose your one action on your turn. In addition to this action, a character can take free actions while dazed. The way I read it, a dominated character can certainly use its own free actions, for example to talk or burn an action point. However, burning an action point is pointless because the character cannot make use of the action he is given by it, as he is dazed. But, for example, a warlord ally could use commander's strike to give our poor dominated victim an attack against an enemy.
I really REALLY hate how any high cliff is considered inappropriate for characters below level 11. That is absolutley ridiculous and I won't stand for it.
I don't see the problem with this. Do you put Orcus or any other paragon or epic monster in a first level dungeon and actually expect the PCs to fight him?
The cliff thing is the same to me. Are then cliffs in my world that PCs can fall off and die from? Of course. But I don't site my adventures around them, unless I do want some of them to fall off and die.
Back to dominated and free actions. When I have a dominated PC I do allow the PC to talk and do some other types of free actions, but aways with the caviot that the PC can't do anything against the "special friend" that has it dominated. That PC is willing to die for that "friend" and simply won't directly or indirectly harm it.
Yes, I have allowed Warlords to have the dominated PC make a commander's strike, but only what the PC thinks are enemies. The PC *really* thinks the creature that dominated him/her is an ally is how I have the player treat it. If I were ever to have a player that couldn't role play that I would take over the character for while it was dominated and run it with input from the player.
Obviously, I don't believe domination changes how the PC views the other monsters.
My problems are cliffs are a common part of geography. Are Demon-kings going to be all over the world in random places?
Saying that its ok to not have cliffs in low level campaigns to me is like saying its not ok to have rivers. They're just around. Obviously I'm not going to intentionally plan for charging bull rushing pushing enemies to ambush the pcs while they are staring off a cliff. But they are kinda necessary for my campaign setting.
Obviously I'm not going to intentionally plan for charging bull rushing pushing enemies to ambush the pcs while they are staring off a cliff. But they are kinda necessary for my campaign setting.
All that matters is that the cliffs not be part of the encounter. They can be just as present as Orcus, otherwise. Ie, if the players _force the issue_, that's different. 'We set the ambush up at the cliff edge' isn't quite as bad as 'We hunt down Iuz in his lair' at low level... but it's also easier to scare them off of the Iuz hunt before ever getting to him
A well-known published adventure path includes running into a Beholder at 3rd level... which is all well and good _as long as it's not trying to kill the PCs_. Same concept - you can have the thing that's way too high level around, it just can't be something the PCs are forced to deal with at far too low level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griogre
Back to dominated and free actions. When I have a dominated PC I do allow the PC to talk and do some other types of free actions, but aways with the caviot that the PC can't do anything against the "special friend" that has it dominated. That PC is willing to die for that "friend" and simply won't directly or indirectly harm it.
Interesting that you allow the warlord to let the PC attack other enemies, but not the one dominating. Do you change that at all depending on the way dominate is written for the critter? Ie, it's basically under the RP of the moment of what the character thinks are enemies?
After all, some of them enthrall the target sufficiently that I'd think it would flip its priorities. Or the dominating creature could just say 'These are your allies, don't attack them'?
The back and forth as the different orders (vampire vs. warlord, say) and the confused subject could be amusing some of the time though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
The way I read it, a dominated character can certainly use its own free actions, for example to talk or burn an action point. However, burning an action point is pointless because the character cannot make use of the action he is given by it, as he is dazed.
At many tables, the AP rule gets around the dazed restriction (aside: anyone got a rules cite for which rule 'wins' there?) - if FAQ or errata declared that you can AP while dazed to take two standard actions, would you allow the player to act as if not dominated for that action? (for example, attacking the creature dominating it)
For those who interpret 'The dominating creature chooses your action.' as containing an implicit 'only 1 action, no matter what' - what if it wants to control your use of a free action? Could the player then take a standard action as they wish?
It seems very unlikely to me that adding a restriction that it's only one action is desirable for play. It also would have been extremely poor rules writing to implicitly give the creature full control of its free actions without providing explanatory text. Of course, they could have forgotten that dazed is 1 action only with respect to minor/move/standards.
I guess it's worth submitting to wotc for errata, either way. While 'chooses your action' covers the 'any time you get an action' just fine, it specifically creates confusion that either 'chooses one action for you each round' and 'chooses your actions' would solve.
For those who interpret 'The dominating creature chooses your action.' as containing an implicit 'only 1 action, no matter what' - what if it wants to control your use of a free action? Could the player then take a standard action as they wish?
I interpret it that way, but you have tossed in a false corollary. I don't also think you retain any other actions. The dominating creature choose your action, and that's all you get. So, your last question there is not relevant.
Now, would I throw in a free action there, for flavor purposes? Sure, why not. But, explicitly not allowing free actions, too, will alleviate any other unforeseen gotchyas.
Fair enough. So - in the example I gave where a hazard required a free action to avoid immobilization, it would be literally impossible for a dominated creature to escape without outside interference, because they could either take a free action or a move, but not both?
Actually, how would the creature even know to use Quick Draw? Does it get an inventory of your abilities? Or, can the creature use its own Quick Draw (assuming it has it)?
When I dominate a monster, my DM tells me all of its at-will powers. I think it's reasonable that a dominator could get an "inventory" of what his new puppet can do.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
How does domination work in regards to a suicidal act, like walking off a cliff? Do you get a new save to resist?
Since the dominated creature is not using forced movement, no, he doesn't get a save, IMO. He's using his own movement to stroll merrily off the cliff.
(This is great when I'm dominating a monster. When they're dominating me... well, fair is fair. At that point, it's up to the DM if he wants to use a power which is supposed to be annoying but not lethal to kill characters. The problem is, this makes Dominate in an area with a lot of dangerous terrain a lot more powerful than it otherwise is. OTOH, I often use dominate, or other forced movement, to make an enemy move into an allies zone, or away from one of their allies buffing zones/auras, etc.)
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
Back to dominated and free actions. When I have a dominated PC I do allow the PC to talk and do some other types of free actions, but aways with the caviot that the PC can't do anything against the "special friend" that has it dominated. That PC is willing to die for that "friend" and simply won't directly or indirectly harm it.
Yes, I have allowed Warlords to have the dominated PC make a commander's strike, but only what the PC thinks are enemies. The PC *really* thinks the creature that dominated him/her is an ally is how I have the player treat it. If I were ever to have a player that couldn't role play that I would take over the character for while it was dominated and run it with input from the player.
Obviously, I don't believe domination changes how the PC views the other monsters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keterys
Interesting that you allow the warlord to let the PC attack other enemies, but not the one dominating. Do you change that at all depending on the way dominate is written for the critter? Ie, it's basically under the RP of the moment of what the character thinks are enemies?
After all, some of them enthrall the target sufficiently that I'd think it would flip its priorities. Or the dominating creature could just say 'These are your allies, don't attack them'?
The back and forth as the different orders (vampire vs. warlord, say) and the confused subject could be amusing some of the time though
I'm normally like someone up-tread who said that for creatures to be allies they both have to think so and only one has to think he is an enemy for them to be enemies. I think the domination is an exception to this general rule that forces a PC to treat someone who is an enemy as an ally.
Dominate is so tersely described that while the basic intent is clear as soon as it gets more complicated you can have very wide degrees of DM interpretation.
The way I look at it when I am running a game where a PC is dominated is I have two competing objectives: 1) I don't want the *player(s)* to negate the condition without doing whatever it takes to actually have the *character* negate the condition. 2) On the other hand, I still want the *player* to be able to roleplay and have as much fun as possible with the *character* while it is dominated.
Thus my working paraphrase of dominate is: 1) character is dazed, 2) the one significant action the player does this round with his character on his initiative is determined by the monster that dominated his character. That monster is limited to forcing the character to use one generic move, minor or standard action. The monster may also choose to force the dominated character to use a power, however, if the monsters does so - he may only force the character to use one of his at-will powers.
Last edited by Griogre; 22nd July 2009 at 06:08 AM..
Reason: Typos :p
And yeah, I'm mostly asking lots of questions from an academic sense. Dominate is one of the more classic D&D chances to really break out the odd roleplay moments, during and after, that I'm very curious to see how people handle it and why.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
