Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5229904" data-attributes="member: 57112">I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'll simply sum up and flesh out my main points here. 1: PC's who lose their weapons are not in a "save or die" or even a "save or suck" situation.  In a campaign setting with inherent bonuses, there's absolutely no way  it's "save or suck"; and even if everyone's toting a level-appropriate  magic weapon, the enhancement bonus is nothing compared to the kinds of  attack bonus/defense penalties that will your party members will likely  have on hand which should mitigate circumstances until they can pick it back up. I brought it up before, but the Dark Sun campaign introduces a new mechanic that is all about PC's losing their weapons. And this is by player choice, no less. Why create a mechanic that makes the character suck? Because it doesn't. It encourages preparedness. Carry a spare. Or pick up a fallen foe's weapon. You can't just dismiss something because it causes characters to lose their weapons because that happens in the RAW at the behest of the players now.1.25: I don't know who's interpreting the dominate/disarm as being able to toss people's weapons off of cliffs or into lava, but it certainly wasn't me. I very clearly stated I wouldn't allow this. Dominate gives you access to at-wills, which include basic attacks (including basic ranged attacks with improved weapons, which is the core idea behind the tactic), and basic attacks require targets. This is a strawman argument designed to make the tactic sound more ludicrous and unfair than it really is, and it doesn't have a place in the conversation.1.5: Just to nip this is the bud; "But wait, what if there's a flying creature floating over a cliff? You could just have the dominated character throw the weapon at the creature!" First off, this requires such gross metagame thinking by the dominating creature that no DM worth his salt would ever stoop to it. A dominated PC should attack other PCs. No exception. On the extremely rare off-chance thatA: A PC is flying or levitatingB: Has the gall to park themselves over a cliff or other instagib terrainC: Is within Improvised Range Attack range of another PCD: That PC is wielding a magic weapon (if it's a 15 GP longsword who cares?)E: That PC is dominatedF: The dominating creature really can't think of anything better for the dominated PC to doI think I'd have self control not to utterly screw over a character just because I can.It's interesting to me that this debate turned from "players can exploit it!" into "DMs can exploit it!" Particularly since, as the DM, it's your choice whether to exploit it or not. If you're the kind that would, then yeah, you probably should be limiting your own options.1.75: A part of the above section bears repeating. A dominated PC attacks other PCs, no exceptions. This applies to monsters too. Considering the limited range of improvised weapons and the fact that your weapon has now landed at the feet of your ally, it is not going to be difficult to walk over and pick up the weapon again. It's at best, a way to turn your round of domination into a 1d4+X damage and a rather wonky one-round daze effect.And don't say "and what if your enemy picks up your weapon!" because no one in their right mind would, in the middle of an intense combat, waste their time running over to pick up a foe's weapon just to say "neener neener got your sword." As a DM I can't think of a situation where I'd ever stoop to such a thing. A player might try it but losing weapons isn't generally as bad for monsters (see below) and besides, how many PC builds leave you a free hand?2: Monsters who lose their weapons are also not in a "save or die" or "save or suck" situation either. This requires a bit more adjudicating on the DM's part, but this can be as simple as, as has been suggested many times before, lowering the die a step.2.5: In the artifact of doom example, remember that the operative word there is artifact. You're perfectly within your rights as DM to say "no, the artifact really doesn't want to leave its master's hands right now." I don't care how dominated Orcus is, you're not convincing him to part with his wand anymore than you're convincing his wand to part with him.3: We've now established that, whether dominate/disarm afflicts a monster or player, it isn't a gamebreaker provided the players are aware of the possibility. I think this is a point that has been missed; as a DM I wouldn't just spring this on the players and say that it's okay now. I personally wouldn't even bring it up until the players tried to do it, which would lead to this exchange:DM: "Sure you can. You realize this works both ways though, right?"Player: "Crap. We better start carrying backups."The fact that it's not particularly effective also ensures that it's not going to be spammed, so there's not at all going to be any sort of weapon-tossing contest. Even if players are aware they can do it it's not likely to come up often; there's a lot better things to do with a dominated creature, and dominate isn't exactly the most common condition.4: So if it's not especially effective in most cases, why allow it? Why even bother? Well, if the player wants to do it, and it makes sense within the context of the power, why not let them? I think the context of domination bears discussion. There seems to be two schools of thought as to what domination represents. If it is, as has been suggested, simply confusing the monster into thinking its allies are enemies and enemies are allies, then obviously it wouldn't make sense to have them throw their melee weapon. If it is, however, exerting some sort of influence over the creature, then by RAW it's a ranged basic attack with an improvised weapon. Given the fact that it's the player that controls the dominated creatures actions, I can't help but believe that dominated is meant to be the latter.Again, as a DM you're perfectly within your rights to disallow the tactic. I'll buy the "sticking to what's clearly in the RAW with combat" argument, though I can't say I personally agree with it. But you can't convince me that aren't perfectly good reasons to allow it, and you can't convince that it's game-breaking save-or-suck cheese, because neither of those are true.</blockquote>

Verification