Is dominated ally still an ally for purpose of powers?

[eamon]

This has been debated ENDLESSLY all over the net. There is NO one single rule that handles every case perfectly. Even "mutual consent" can cause problems in some (admittedly rare) corner cases where a PC could benefit from being affected by an enemy targeting effect of another party member's power or a few powers that do things like get "+2 damage per enemy in the area of effect" (runespiral demons happen to have just such a power).

Why is that a corner case? If you want to blast your allies, feel free to. That's unlikely to be in your advantage and when it is (say, a power pushes and deals damage the PC is resistant to anyhow), well, fine combo ala thunderwave. As for the +2 per enemy, that's unfortunately a power with bag-o-rats issues anyhow (I blast the rock!); I'd deal with those separately (i.e. immune enemies don't count).

 

[holywhitetrash]

dominated just says the dominator chooses your actions not you switch sides in the middle of the battle so if a cleric got dominated and lanced a party member the cleric would still give the bonus to hit to one of the party members

 

[LightPhoenix]

Why is that a corner case? If you want to blast your allies, feel free to. That's unlikely to be in your advantage and when it is (say, a power pushes and deals damage the PC is resistant to anyhow), well, fine combo ala thunderwave.

It's a corner case exactly because it's not something that will come up often and would require DM interpretation. That's the definition.

 

[Turtlejay]

dominated just says the dominator chooses your actions not you switch sides in the middle of the battle so if a cleric got dominated and lanced a party member the cleric would still give the bonus to hit to one of the party members

Really? The cleric does not chose the power or the target, why would he then choose any secondary targets or other beneficiaries?

Personally I'm in the camp that thinks the cleric is still your ally. In a world of magic, domination is not unheard of. Couple that with the fact that a PC knows what effects they are suffering from, and it would be easy to see how party members would recognize a dominated ally. Rather than shun him or immediately turn on him, I'd think they would bend their efforts to aiding him. Likewise, the creature dominating said cleric knows how his power works, and knows that the domination could expire at any moment. They are not likely to boost or help in anyway their temporary ally.

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, I both agree and disagree with DracoSuave.

For one, I don't think I the dominated character has full power over who is its ally or its enemy - for example, if dominated to hit his friend with an attack, the player couldn't say "the attack fails, because the target is "all enemies", and that's my ally, not my enemy".

How many at-wills in the game exist that have such stipulations on them?

That's the other thing, you're only using at-wills so it's not like there's a lot of corner cases involved.

Additionally, there has been some discussion as to whether dominated creatures get free actions, and who can take them (the creature or the one dominating it).

The dominator. Free actions -are- actions, and the dominator controls those. Ask: Is it an action? Yes? The dominator controls it.

Also, if you have immediate or opportunity actions, -even if they are at-will powers-, the dominator cannot make you use them, because you are dazed.

So, no, a dominated creature doesn't OA.

My own opinion is that it is DMs call, and depends on the circumstances - for example, I have no problem with taking saves (even if free actions), but I wouldn't let him use free actions to negate the dominator's use of his actions.

This is why free saves tend not to be free actions.

Additionally, there is also debate on who decides whether one is an ally or an enemy for the purpose of the rules, as it isn't laid out in the rule books.

Sure it is. If they are a willing recipiant for your power, they are an ally. This implies mutual consent. All other cases are enemies. It's pretty easily laid out.

For instance, a cunning bard can slide a missed ally one square - if the bard get's to choose whose an ally, he could slide a missed monster 1 square, which potentially could have very nasty consequences or merely be tactically very powerful.

I doubt the monster is allowing this use. Therefore I doubt he's your ally.

Now, if this turns out to have an unforseen ramification, then yes, the DM should rule against that particular case, but that's not a hole in the ally/enemy rules, that's his job and applies to -all- rules.

Regardless, dominated doesn't change the enemy/ally mechanic. It ONLY allows control of your actions, and not a single bit more. Otherwise, you could never Font of Life out of it, and other such things.

Given that, unless you're fighting Grazz't, the enemy/ally thing won't even really -be- much of an issue, seeing as you're only using at-wills, the only thing left is if you have an ability that benefits a target ally if you hit.

Not to mention Grazz't has to -specifically include- text that states you switch ally/enemy relationships unlike other dominating powers in certain key situations (flanking, IIRC)....

And yes, that can only target one of your allies, so chances are the monster will not do that.


All things told tho, probably the most -powerful- thing to do with a dominated creature is have him take a run action through a gauntlet of OAs. That'll probably do -far more damage- to the enemy's team than an at-will will ever do. Especially if it's a ranged attacker.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

Dominated characters are still allies, simply because the rules don't say otherwise.
Also, look at some monsters that "enthrall" PC's, like mindflayers or aboleths. I would argue that an enthralled character truly changes teams and is not an ally anymore, because all hope is lost for the fellow (well until the enthraller dies, but whatever). At least that's how I rule it in my games.
You can explain it this way: A warlord who is dominated still inspires his friends. They see him fighting the condition, they fight harder to help him.
An enthralled ally is like a zombie, it's worse than death. Taking away the ally status is the ultimate punishment, being unconscious is actually preferable.

 

[eamon]

All things told tho, probably the most -powerful- thing to do with a dominated creature is have him take a run action through a gauntlet of OAs. That'll probably do -far more damage- to the enemy's team than an at-will will ever do. Especially if it's a ranged attacker.

Could the fighter, who (for the sake of argument) stands adjacent to the dominated creature also make an OA at the start of this gauntlet run - and use CS to stop him before trying to move more than 1 square?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why is that a corner case? If you want to blast your allies, feel free to. That's unlikely to be in your advantage and when it is (say, a power pushes and deals damage the PC is resistant to anyhow), well, fine combo ala thunderwave. As for the +2 per enemy, that's unfortunately a power with bag-o-rats issues anyhow (I blast the rock!); I'd deal with those separately (i.e. immune enemies don't count).

I think you may have missed the point. Suppose you have the rule "mutual consent" makes someone an enemy/ally. A power says "+2 damage for every enemy in the area of effect" (there are powers which do this), then it would obviously be advantageous to have the guys on your side that happen to be in the AoE decide they are your "enemy" for this purpose. Domination can make this kind of thing even more problematic. Warlock curses, especially with certain PPs that allow things like removing curses to get benefits, are another area where you simply cannot allow PCs to decide to become each other's allies or enemies by mutual consent and not create a big giant unintended cheesy donut hole in the rules (mmm, mixed food metaphors, yummy).

Ally/enemy determination is entirely the province of the DM. It has to be. The closer you look at it the less and less viable it is to allow PCs (or monsters if the DM wants to be nasty) to dynamically decide which side they are on.

Personally I think the best way to look at it with domination is generally to see the action taken by the dominated character as a use of the dominator's domination power itself and thus the dominator gets to make any decisions related to it and enemy/ally is determined from the dominator's perspective. That doesn't make the dominated character an enemy of the rest of the party. There MAY be situations where the DM should consider such a character an enemy for a specific purpose though. Overall you just need to keep in mind what is going on and make the rulings based on a sensible approach. This is why the rules are silent on this point, there simply isn't any one way to rule that is consistent and always works.

 

[Sanzuo]

Yes; dominated or not, an ally is still an ally.

... which truly sucks when the Succubus has tweaked your party Fighter and he's charging you with blood in his eye.

I completely disagree. An ally is only an ally if the person considers him such. For instance you can be a jerk and OA your buddy if he moves away from a square threatened by you, and if you have a power that excludes allies you can leave a monster out of the effect if you feel like it.

This has come up before in many campaigns I've played. I've even seen allies switch sides right in the middle of battle.

 

[holywhitetrash]

Could the fighter, who (for the sake of argument) stands adjacent to the dominated creature also make an OA at the start of this gauntlet run - and use CS to stop him before trying to move more than 1 square?

yea the fighter just decides the dominated person is not ally for that attack