Dominate: Can you compel free actions? - Page 3




+ Log in or register to post
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    Moderator
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    keterys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lynn, MA
    Posts
    7,360

    Ignore keterys
    ... 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; Friday, 17th July, 2009 at 04:52 PM.

 

  • #22
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    eamon's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    groningen
    Posts
    1,879

    Ignore eamon
    Quote Originally Posted by keterys View Post
    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 / 3.5e death&dying variant
    - Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party or think item wishlists are devilspawn?
    - 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 (4e).

    - Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
    - 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?
    Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system (3.5e).

  • #23
    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.

  • #24
    Moderator
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    keterys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lynn, MA
    Posts
    7,360

    Ignore keterys
    Quote Originally Posted by eamon View Post
    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.

    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.

  • #25
    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.

  • #26
    Moderator
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    keterys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lynn, MA
    Posts
    7,360

    Ignore keterys
    Quote Originally Posted by Flipguarder View Post
    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.

    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.

  • #27
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    eamon's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    groningen
    Posts
    1,879

    Ignore eamon
    Quote Originally Posted by Flipguarder View Post
    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.
    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 / 3.5e death&dying variant
    - Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party or think item wishlists are devilspawn?
    - 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 (4e).

    - Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
    - 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?
    Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system (3.5e).

  • #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
    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.

  • #29
    DOMINATED
    ✦ Youre 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.

  • #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Lizard View Post
    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.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Dominate and free actions
      By eamon in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 6
      Last Post: Tuesday, 20th October, 2009, 07:46 AM
    2. AOO and Free actions.
      By Mystern in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 24
      Last Post: Thursday, 13th December, 2007, 01:32 AM
    3. Free Actions and AoO
      By Xellous in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 17
      Last Post: Sunday, 1st May, 2005, 10:47 PM
    4. How many free actions
      By Vysirez in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 22
      Last Post: Sunday, 25th January, 2004, 03:52 AM
    5. How many Free Actions per round?
      By Bobbystopholes in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: Tuesday, 23rd April, 2002, 02:40 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •