The dominated condition and sneak attack

[Abstruse]

It's not a matter of moving goal posts at all. The goal posts have have never changed:

Ally is a defined rules term.
Enemy is a defined rules term.
Creature is a defined rules term.
How powers interact with regards to targetting allies, enemies, and creatures are defined rules.
Dominated is a defined rules term.
Dominated not switching ally nor enemy, nor how they interract with targetting is an explicitly defined rule.

All of these rules are explicitly defined. The onus is therefore on you to find a rule which counteracts that, something you have yet to do. You have not fulfilled the burden of proof necessary to even suggest the rules intend for ally and enemy to switch!

You're trying to make a case that is diametrically opposed to the explicit text of a game rule... that's going to be an uphill battle, and complaining that 'we're moving the goal posts' is wrong... we're playing fair, it's your position that's problematic.

And the other side of the argument is that Dominated is supposed to represent the ability of a creature to control the actions of someone else. Whether it's a Beholder's eye ray or a Mind Flayers psionic control or the classic vampire's gaze, it's about the monster getting into your head and making you do something. Therefore, things like allies/enemies should be fudged for the spirit of the power and the monsters using them. This is something that is not RAW, but something that I feel a DM should do. That's my opinion on it and how I'm going to run it in my games.

The sneak attack thing has been resolved. Sneak attack can apply, but combat advantage is hard to get when dominated (not even taking into account the ally/enemy thing because Dazed is part of the Dominated condition which means you can't flank).

 

[DracoSuave]

And the other side of the argument is that Dominated is supposed to represent the ability of a creature to control the actions of someone else. Whether it's a Beholder's eye ray or a Mind Flayers psionic control or the classic vampire's gaze, it's about the monster getting into your head and making you do something. Therefore, things like allies/enemies should be fudged for the spirit of the power and the monsters using them. This is something that is not RAW, but something that I feel a DM should do. That's my opinion on it and how I'm going to run it in my games.

You're not controlling the actions of someone else. Complete control is NOT what dominated gives you. You control one action and nothing else. Moreover, it's not in the spirit of domination when the spirit of domination includes the fact that allys and enemies don't switch.

It's not the spirit of dominated, not at all. You must take into account the entirety of the condition and its implications, and that includes the explicit 'allegences do not shift' which is as much a part of what the dominated condition is as 'you control one action.'

The sneak attack thing has been resolved. Sneak attack can apply, but combat advantage is hard to get when dominated (not even taking into account the ally/enemy thing because Dazed is part of the Dominated condition which means you can't flank).

Except sneak attack can't because it only occurs when you hit enemies. CS overlooked that.

 

[Dausuul]

If you ask me, this whole business just highlights how badly written the definitions of "ally" and "enemy" are. I mean, defining enemies as "your opponents" and allies as "your companions?" How useless can you get? Those aren't definitions, they're tautologies.

Personally, I would prefer the following:

A creature is your ally whenever both you and it agree that it is your ally.
A creature is your enemy whenever you decide it is your enemy.

Then, when stuff like domination comes up, all you need to know is whether you or your dominator is making those decisions. If I were writing the rules, I'd say you pick your allies and the dominator picks your enemies, but I could understand taking different approaches.

As far as the actual rules go, they're solidly on DracoSuave's side--even though the rules don't really define "ally" and "enemy," the dominated condition is pretty specific that anybody who was your ally when you weren't dominated is still your ally when you are, and ditto for enemies. (If that clause weren't there, it would be up for grabs. And I think it's still up for grabs if, say, an ally in single-digit hit points with two failed death saves decides to take you down before you take her down, and attacks you. Such an event might change her ally/enemy status if you weren't dominated, so does it have the same effect if you are? But that's a corner case.)

Now, I rather suspect that clause was inserted purely because the designers were tired of wrestling with the conundrums introduced by their lame-ass "definitions," and it was the simple solution. I would not criticize any DM who chose to do things otherwise. But the letter of the rule, and its intended behavior, are clear.

 

[Abstruse]

You're not controlling the actions of someone else. Complete control is NOT what dominated gives you. You control one action and nothing else. Moreover, it's not in the spirit of domination when the spirit of domination includes the fact that allys and enemies don't switch.

It's not the spirit of dominated, not at all. You must take into account the entirety of the condition and its implications, and that includes the explicit 'allegences do not shift' which is as much a part of what the dominated condition is as 'you control one action.'

Let's look at the literary devices. Dracula invades Renfield's mind and makes him crazy...but can't make him hurt his friends? Saruman uses Wormtongue to control King Theodin's mind and forces him to...do nothing because his nation is an ally and he wouldn't ruin it? The literary device that the Dominated status is attempting to reproduce is the mind-controlling characteristics of a wide range of monsters and villains. If you don't allow the ally/enemy fudge when making those attacks, you're destroying that very literary device. Period. You can argue until you're blue in the face about rules and be 100% right, but that doesn't make me wrong in the least either because I already said it's not RAW.

Except sneak attack can't because it only occurs when you hit enemies. CS overlooked that.

I guess you know the rules better than a guy who is paid a salary by the company solely to know the rules of the game and answer questions about them. Have you tried sending them your resume?

 

[Brys]

CS is not populated by rules lawyers. They tend to answer using only the information you provide. They don't have the reputation of looking up every aspect of the rules in question. It's very easy to phrase your question in a way that will get the answer you want. They are a great resource, but true enthusiasts of the game are going to be more knowledgeable. It's like the difference between asking a computer engineer for help with your Dell and calling the Dell customer support line.

It seems settled that RAW, you cannot use sneak attack on an ally. The OP stated in thread title that this was a Rules question, not a how-you-would-play-it question.

Not allowing Sneak Attack is not the same as saying "you can't make him hurt his friends." There are very few at-will powers or class features that only target enemies. I would hardly call it "destroying the literary device" by not allowing dominators to use those powers, but play the game how you like. No one is saying you can't play that way in your own game. Just don't try and argue that your houserules are part of The Rules.

 

[moxcamel]

CS is not populated by rules lawyers. They tend to answer using only the information you provide. They don't have the reputation of looking up every aspect of the rules in question. It's very easy to phrase your question in a way that will get the answer you want. They are a great resource, but true enthusiasts of the game are going to be more knowledgeable. It's like the difference between asking a computer engineer for help with your Dell and calling the Dell customer support line.

I'd love to know where you get your insight into the CS process at WotC. Do you know somebody who works there?

I think it's fantastic that people can obsess about the most granular definitions and specifics of the game, and yet when the people (WotC) who write the rules answer a question not to our liking, they can then justify it away as if they're just some monkey throwing darts at a chart on a wall.

It seems settled that RAW, you cannot use sneak attack on an ally.

It's by no means settled. RAW, it's vague and could go either way. If you want to consider it settled, then you'll use WotC's ruling, not random internet people.

 

[Brys]

I disagree with you.

I am impressed by your faith, though. The idea that the least D&D-savvy WotC worker has a better grasp of the rules than everyone who doesn't work for WotC takes some guts to stick to.

Honestly, I'm not clear on which part you arguing. Sneak Attack specifically says you need to "hit an enemy" (HotFL pg 174). Dominated specifically says "the creature's allies remain its allies, and its enemies remain its enemies" (RC pg 231). Which part do you find vague?

 

[moxcamel]

I disagree with you.

This shall not stand!!

I am impressed by your faith, though. The idea that the least D&D-savvy WotC worker has a better grasp of the rules than everyone who doesn't work for WotC takes some guts to stick to.

Once again, I'd love to know where you get your information that the CS reps at WotC are "the least D&D-savvy" employees. It has always been my experience that people who find themselves in these kinds of positions do so out of a passion for the game, and although they are often the lowest paid people in the company, they are also often the most knowledgeable. In fact, the gaming industry (both p&p and video) is filled with designers and producers who got their foot in the door by answering phones and emails. I could certainly be wrong about this in the case of WotC, but I don't profess to know. But I don't think you know either.

I will say, however, that if CS had come back saying that no, you could not use Sneak Attack with Domination, I have a very big hunch that not one person on that side of the argument would have come back with a "well yeah, they got it right, but only through sheer luck" or something similar. Quite the opposite actually. There would likely have been much crowing about how CS have put this little bit of silliness to bed once and for all.

Honestly, I'm not clear on which part you arguing. Sneak Attack specifically says you need to "hit an enemy" (HotFL pg 174). Dominated specifically says "the creature's allies remain its allies, and its enemies remain its enemies" (RC pg 231). Which part do you find vague?

This is not meant to be snarky, but if you're interested in which part I find vague (and that's not really an apt description of my argument), I've posted quite a bit in this thread. I'd just be repeating myself and killing valuable electrons.

 

[Brys]

Once again, I'd love to know where you get your information that the CS reps at WotC are "the least D&D-savvy" employees.

I did not mean to imply such (and am sorry you inferred such). The point I was trying to make is that Abstruse was giving CS weight by virtue of working for WotC. I find it quite easy to believe that a fan could be more knowledgeable than a company employee. CS has made mistakes in the past. They are not infallible just because they are paid.

I have nothing further to add to the discussion, just wanted to clear up my earlier comment.

 

[Smurtis]

Let's look at the literary devices. Dracula invades Renfield's mind and makes him crazy...but can't make him hurt his friends? Saruman uses Wormtongue to control King Theodin's mind and forces him to...do nothing because his nation is an ally and he wouldn't ruin it? The literary device that the Dominated status is attempting to reproduce is the mind-controlling characteristics of a wide range of monsters and villains. If you don't allow the ally/enemy fudge when making those attacks, you're destroying that very literary device. Period. You can argue until you're blue in the face about rules and be 100% right, but that doesn't make me wrong in the least either because I already said it's not RAW.


I guess you know the rules better than a guy who is paid a salary by the company solely to know the rules of the game and answer questions about them. Have you tried sending them your resume?

For story purpose, go nuts with using the literal term of being Dominated. But for those using pure RAW, it is super clear on what Dominated is defined. But you have to remember, they can still attack and use powers that say "target creature"... there is a difference between creature and enemy =)... So your examples of them not attacking is quite incorrect.

Everyone has to remember, that the word "dominated" is the word WotC chose to represent the condition of being dominated. If it helps, call it being confused instead of being dominated... or call it "being Ham Sandwiched" instead of dominated... the point is; it's only a word being used, and you CANT use the literal definition of the "fluff" word being assigned to what it actually does in the 4e world.

Being "dominated" lasts for mere seconds (till end of turn, or save ends, and only gain 1 action)

Dracula enters Renfield's mind for a brief moment and "confuses" him (replacing the the fluff word dominated). Renfield's, in his dazed state, swings wildly (some basic attack) and strikes his ally.

That example would make more sense to some of you, if you are stuck on the word "dominated" taken too literal in the 4e world. Oh, and using "ham sandwiched" would work just as much... it's not the name of the effect that matters, it's the effects themselves.

ONE MORE THING:

I dont know any CS agent in WotC, and i'm sure you dont either =P lol... But i ave worked as a CS agent for LARGE companies, and believe me, as minimum wage employees (or slightly there above) the quality of the service your recieve equals the quality of their pay lol... CS agents are a good source of information, but dont think for even a second it's 100% accurate... they have lunchs and quotas to make too... hasted answers happen, and simple details are always over looked