D&D (2024) Dominate Monster: How "best" is best?

[DND_Reborn]

If the caster is issuing a general command, then it's up to the player what the character does within the bounds of that command. "Attack that creature," for example, could mean throwing a punch or chucking a rock at them for all I care. (After all, it means my NPC or monster isn't being attacked by this PC and that's good enough.)

Throwing a punch or chucking a rock is not doing your "best to obey" IMO, it is a half-baked attempt. If you're an expert at throwing punches or rocks, maybe those are your "best" attacks then fine, but in this case you're a spell caster.

And the order in this particular case is to "kill," not attack. Killing involves using your most lethal measure, if you are doing your "best".

Finally, it is an 8th-level spell, after all, not like charm person or something...

 

[iserith]

Throwing a punch or chucking a rock is not doing your "best to obey" IMO, it is a half-baked attempt. If you're an expert at throwing punches or rocks, maybe those are your "best" attacks then fine, but in this case you're a spell caster.

And the order in this particular case is to "kill," not attack. Killing involves using your most lethal measure, if you are doing your "best".

Finally, it is an 8th-level spell, after all, not like charm person or something...

I'm not going to tell a player how to play their character. If I as DM want direct, precise control, then I need to spend an action to do so. That's the trade-off the DM must make. If the player wants to nova on their fellow PCs without me doing that, then great, I don't need to spend the action. But that's not for me to decide.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not going to tell a player how to play their character.

If the player is not playing in the spirit of the game, such as when their character is under the control of an NPC, I will take over the character and act it out as it should (according to the playing history/style done by the player).

Because, when the PCs take control of a creature/NPC, I play that creature accordingly, not "half way". I expect the same from my players, and if they don't deliver as DM I will tell them, taking control of the PC if need be.

If I as DM want direct, precise control, then I need to spend an action to do so.

That the thing, though, you aren't doing it as the "DM", but as the NPC...

So, if the NPC wants the PC to do something NOT according to the PC's history/style, then yes, I will have the NPC use its action to take direct control.

 

[iserith]

If the player is not playing in the spirit of the game, such as when their character is under the control of an NPC, I will take over the character and act it out as it should (according to the playing history/style done by the player).

Because, when the PCs take control of a creature/NPC, I play that creature accordingly, not "half way". I expect the same from my players, and if they don't deliver as DM I will tell them, taking control of the PC if need be.

What is or isn't an action the player can take in the "spirit of the game" isn't spelled out in the spell description. That exists at the level of table rules and your table rules appear to allow the DM to unilaterally take control of the player's character if they don't agree with what the player is doing. Fair enough, that's your table. That's not a table rule I would entertain at mine, nor would I play under a table that has one like that.

That the thing, though, you aren't doing it as the "DM", but as the NPC...

So, if the NPC wants the PC to do something NOT according to the PC's history/style, then yes, I will have the NPC use its action to take direct control.

As DM, I would hate to be the one deciding what is or isn't a reasonable decision for a player to make for their own character or hold them to some standard based on my interpretation of their "history" or "style." I'd just spend the action, like the spell says I can do. It doesn't say I can sit in judgment of the player and take over their character without spending that action if they aren't acting in a way I think they should.

I would think it's better to just change the spell and require that character at least use cantrips or highest level spells or their full suite of melee or ranged attacks or something specific when commanded to attack another creature. As it's written, it leaves it wide open as to what attacks the character might use.

 

[jgsugden]

My instruction to the player is that they suddenly believe what the dominating creature tells them and they should act accordingly as if the PC believes it.

A good role player will get into the challenge and enjoy it. This is when these abilities really shine.

A player that would rather cheat the system and pretend their best is to do essentially nothing is a disappointment, but I usually let it go and talk to the player about it privately later. The discussion usually focuses on my disappointment in not seeing them really try to role play the situation out, and my belief that everyone would have had more fun had they really embraced the opportunity.