Dominate Domino!

[Three_Haligonians]

Let us say a character has succesfully dominated another. Just before the end of the duration, could the dominator instruct the victim to intentionally fail their Will save against a brand new Dominate effect? Thus ensuring a near endless domination? (assuming they did it every time.)

I would say that such an order would be against the victims nature, thus granting a saving throw to resist and probably a bonus to it as well, but is the idea sound? Could they instruct their victim to fail any save? Even one that didn't come from them? Ex. "Do NOT attempt to avoid that fireball!"

For that matter, since a character can voluntarily (or perhaps be forced to) fail a save, could they choose to "roll a 1" on the save?

Do any of these answers change if instead of a dominated victim, we are talking about the maker of a construct or undead and their creation?

J from Three Haligonians

 

[dcollins]

Let us say a character has succesfully dominated another. Just before the end of the duration, could the dominator instruct the victim to intentionally fail their Will save against a brand new Dominate effect? Thus ensuring a near endless domination? (assuming they did it every time.)

No, because "fail your save" is not anything that would be uttered or known to the characters in-game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, because "fail your save" is not anything that would be uttered or known to the characters in-game.

But "allow me to influence your mind" is.

 

[Darkness]

I would say that such an order would be against the victims nature, thus granting a saving throw to resist and probably a bonus to it as well

Yep. Specifically, a +2 bonus. (PHB, p.224)

That is, if it is against the victim's nature. Depending on the victim and its relationship to its dominator, it might not be. (Though in this case it will likely choose to auto-fail the save anyway, making the question moot.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I generally agree. It is against the victim's nature to purposefully fail a save against any magic that is reasonably perceived as hostile.

A clever controller could potentially change those perceptions through trickery, but these tactics are hardly sure things.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A clever controller could potentially change those perceptions through trickery, but these tactics are hardly sure things.

Excepting, of course, that they are already dominated.

Accordingly,

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities.

and

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.

I'd imagine that intentionally failing a Will save is something that is definitely within the limits of a creature's abilities.

The sticking point is whether or not intentionally failing a Will save is against something's nature.

I don't believe it is. I believe "against its nature" refers to ordering a paladin to slaughter innocents or similar situations, not something that a creature would normally do for a friend (as in, most people voluntarily fail their save against buff spells like Bear's Endurance).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Technically for Saving Throw: Yes (harmless) you are not chosing to forego a saving throw. The norm is that you get no save, but you can instead conciously choose to save if you want to, which is a subtle difference, but this is what allows cure light wounds to be cast on an unconcious character, since they would not be able to conciously forego their save.

So... there is rarely a reason for anyone to conciously not save from a spell effect (though they do exist, like Plane Shift). I believe that it could go either way... against one's nature or not... I would probably look at the character in question and detrmine if it goes against their nature (trusting or cynical, etc) to voluntarily not save.

 

[RigaMortus]

But it doesn't matter if it is against their nature or not... a +2 to Will is not going to save them if you can command them to forego the save to begin with.

As Patryn suggested: "allow me to influence your mind" seems like something dominate would be able to do.

 

[CyberSpyder]

But it doesn't matter if it is against their nature or not... a +2 to Will is not going to save them if you can command them to forego the save to begin with.

As Patryn suggested: "allow me to influence your mind" seems like something dominate would be able to do.

Catch-22. If it's against their nature, they get a save to avoid the command to forego their save.

 

[Fieari]

No, they get a saving throw at +2 in order to ignore the command to lower their defenses for the NEXT saving throw, which would re-dominate them. No problem there.

However, if you know exactly how long until the dominate runs out, and have some time to spare, try this sequence:

Command: Believe the next thing I say is true.
Statement: The next spell I am going to cast on you is not only harmless, but beneficial to you.
Command: Lower your defenses against the next spell I cast on you.
Cast: Dominate

That looks like it would work to me. Each command is a reasonable request.