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.
Griogre said:
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
Jester said:
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.
