Dominate Person - Sage Advise needed!

[Empirate]

Personally, I would give a DC 25 sense motive when not under a specific command. DC 15 when carrying out the command. I would also allow a "that's enough" command to make the target act somewhat naturally again. The RAW isn't very clear, though.

That's your prerogative, Hassassin, but the rules are actually quite clear: DC 15 it is.

 

[Hassassin]

That's your prerogative, Hassassin, but the rules are actually quite clear: DC 15 it is.

The rules are clear about DC 15, but not when you get one. Hence, the confusion.

"Once you have given a dominated creature a command [...] ecause of this limited range of activity [...]"

 

[Arrowhawk]

How
Where do you draw the line?

RAW is woefully inadequate in talking about the extent to which a subject will go to complete the tasks. What I note is language that is how things are worded and language that is not used:

1) Subject has "limited activities"

2) No where does it say "to the best of subject's abilities" like it does with Summon Nature's Ally. So there's no mandate of the subject to use every ounce of brain power and tactics.

3) There is very little restriction on what you can order the person to do. They can't do things that are self destructive (e.g. jump off the roof). But outside of that the sky is the limit. The only hitch is that if it is against the person's nature, they get another saving throw. If they fail the saving throw, then they attempt the task.

4) The rules state that they "attempt" the task and continue attempting the task. It doesn't say they revise their methods or figure out how to best accomplish the task, etc etc.

So the bottom line is that there is no definitive answer. One thing you might consider as a DM is that complex problem solving might be short circuited by a Dominate Person spell. A person may be so focused on attempting the task, they have limited ability to think creatively or resourcefully. If I give a person a shovel and say, "make me a grave," I don't think the subject is going to go hire some commoners to accomplish the task. I think they take the shovel you just handed them and start digging.

But....the RAW doesn't provide any strict rules on this. One has to interpret the spell in the context of the game.

I think the dominated person can do whatever is reasonably necessary to equip himself to perform the ordered action. If the fighter has to go across town to get a sword, he will. He just won't stop to smell any flowers along the way.

There's no RAW on this one way or the other.

If the wizard has to prepare a magic missile to have any reasonable chance of killing Mialee, he will.

RAW does not support any notion of "reasonable chance of success." RAW does not require that the subject evaluate his/her options and choose the best method. It merely requires an "attempt." And flapping your arms to fly to the moon is in fact an attempt to fly. What might be triggered is another saving throw as "flying to the moon" is against most people's nature.

Again, I don't see that RAW offers much guidance in how much preparation you allow someone attempting to complete the task.

Sure. But if you didn't specify "with the dagger you have in your hand," he won't. Don't move the goalposts.

I'm not moving any goalposts, that sentence was part of larger argument and you've just taken it out of context.

I'm saying that "attempting" to do the impossible is not an "attempt" at all.

Technically that's 100% wrong. Per the game, there is no requirement that the task be possible. The spell mandates that the person keep attempting to complete the task. If the command were nonsensical e.g. "I want you to Red Bean 42 sidecar Charlie," then I suppose the person would just stand there attempting to figure out what the command was.

If a dominated person is commanded to "climb up onto that roof," does he claw and scrape at the sheer sides of the building until his hands are bloody stumps?

Obviously that would be self-destructive. But a person would probably dig a ditch past the point of having blisters.

You asked what WotC was trying to communicate about the spell, and I pointed you to Table 4-3. In their own words, a DC 15 Sense Motive check is a "tough" Sense Motive check. That's the answer to your question.

Now you're being obtuse.

1) The game is played from the perspective a the party, not the commoner.

2) This discussion on being obvious is from the perspective of a party at the level they would encounter a vampire. This makes a DC 15 check nearly trivial for at least one person in the party given RotG suggests a +4 circumstance modifier for people who are "familiar" with the individual. That 1st level Monk in our group would need all of a 3 or better to notice if someone in our party was under a Dominate spell. That makes it "bloody obvious."

3) The statement is made as a comparison to other enchantments which are completely undetectable by a commoner.

4) A 45% chance to detect something by a commoner who is family member is a higher % than three point shooters in college or the NBA. Do the math.

Maintain whatever perspective you want. I stand by my assertion that Dominate Person is a blunt force object in the world of enchantments and is by comparison "bloody obvious" when employed.

EDIT:
Just to make sure we're on the same page, let me add that I think the DC 15 check is only allowed if you view the subject being constrained by the "limited range" of activities. In other words, when i say it's "obvious" I don't mean as you pass the person in the hallway or brush by them on the street. I mean when the subject is outside digging a ditch and ignoring requests to do anything else, or in the kitchen making a sandwich with a hammer, or standing on the roof flapping their arms trying to fly to the moon. So it's obvious to the party when another PC is actually being observed attempting to complete a command (e.g. a 5th level Monk might not even need to roll).

 

[Visigani]

"...a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description)."

That's rather important text that everyone seems to be missing and it suggests the DC 15 may be painfully low.

A DC of 15 to determine that Dave is digging a ditch til his fingers bleed not because his family is being held hostage, he's nuts, or he's convinced there's buried treasure and he just doesn't want to talk about it. No, it's because an awesomely powerful spellcaster who can bend the will of man to his whim did it. See the rub?

 

[SkyCAM]

Kudos to everyone for this wonderful thread so far!

I personally saw the "Dominate Person" spell so far as more limited but the discussion here has opened up new possibilities our group will think about. The sense motive is kind of a joke with a decent mid-level group. Plus I'd grant my players a circumstance bonus as a DM when the dominated player would go against his nature on a specific task with a failed second save if they traveled with that particular character for a while. I'll try to collect more evidence from sources and if any of you remembers any books in which characters got dominated / compelled please share your wisdom with me

 

[nijineko]

Question: What happens when the job is done?

I send my Dominated victim on a dangerous mission such as, "Go make me a Pastrami sandwich, easy on the pickles".

Okay, so he makes me a sandwich and is done. While on the task, he pursues that goal to the exclusion of all else, save basic life functions like eating and sleeping. DC 15 Sense Motive check shows that he's behaving strangely. (I'll still argue about whether or not that skill check comes for free or has to be asked for, but that's another argument.)

Now, after the sandwich is made and delivered, is he "back to normal"? That is, is he in the same state as someone who has been made subject to the spell, but given no orders?

And how much initiative or self interest can he express while on the job? Could he, to extend my example, make a second sandwich for himself? (pickles optional, of course.)

the real danger is that if the dominated character is a pc, then they might try to make them a psionic sandwich instead.... min/maxers after all.