Dominate Person vs Confusion (3.0)

[GregH]

Hi,

An odd combination of spells came up last night, and I would like others' opinions on it. We're running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (still playing by v3.0 rules) and I'd inserted some Rogue Eidelons (from MM II) where some advanced wights were previously. The Rogue Eid's have a Confusion (Sp) attack that acts like the confusion spell, but is otherwise permanent unless powerful magics are used (greater restoration, miracle, wish, etc.). In order to counter this effect on one of the characters, the wizard, cast a Dominate Person. As per the spell, Dominate Person allows a re-roll of the Will save whenver the character is commanded to do "something against their nature". The question was, if the confusion effect causes a person to, for example, attack the nearest creature, and the dominating wizard commanded otherwise, is that "going against their nature", allowing a new save? I ruled yes, on the grounds that the dominate spell says that targets will fight the domination, and that the effects of the confusion spell is, essentially, creating the character's base nature. Also, bythe rules, if commanded to attack a friend, dominate person requires a re-roll of the Will save, but confusion, under the same circumstance (attacking a friend), doesn't. That seems to me to indicate that confusion has a more fundamental effect on the character.

What do people think? Right call or wrong call?

Thanks,
Greg

 

[calypso15]

I think, perhaps, you made the technically correct call. However, I still think you made the wrong call. The player came up with a pretty clever solution to the problem, and as such I would have allowed it to work. Plus, I think one could make a pretty strong case for Dominate trumping Confusion.

Calypso

 

[Whimsical]

From the SRD

Multiple Mental Control Effects
Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

 

[Praeden]

Hi,

An odd combination of spells came up last night, and I would like others' opinions on it. We're running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (still playing by v3.0 rules) and I'd inserted some Rogue Eidelons (from MM II) where some advanced wights were previously. The Rogue Eid's have a Confusion (Sp) attack that acts like the confusion spell, but is otherwise permanent unless powerful magics are used (greater restoration, miracle, wish, etc.). In order to counter this effect on one of the characters, the wizard, cast a Dominate Person. As per the spell, Dominate Person allows a re-roll of the Will save whenver the character is commanded to do "something against their nature". The question was, if the confusion effect causes a person to, for example, attack the nearest creature, and the dominating wizard commanded otherwise, is that "going against their nature", allowing a new save? I ruled yes, on the grounds that the dominate spell says that targets will fight the domination, and that the effects of the confusion spell is, essentially, creating the character's base nature. Also, bythe rules, if commanded to attack a friend, dominate person requires a re-roll of the Will save, but confusion, under the same circumstance (attacking a friend), doesn't. That seems to me to indicate that confusion has a more fundamental effect on the character.

What do people think? Right call or wrong call?

Thanks,
Greg

Tricky. It all comes down to what counts as 'going against their nature'.

Most PCs wouldn't normally attack their comrades, or commit suicidal acts, so this is clearly against their nature. On the other hand, attacking their enemies or just standing around are thinking that they would consider acceptable under the right circumstances. It's obvious that the first couple of things would demand a re-roll of the Will save, whereas the next couple of actions usually wouldn't.

So perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be: which actions would be considered acceptable to the character, and which wouldn't?

Under the effects of the Confusion spell, any of the possible listed behaviours can be considered acceptable to the character, since it is possible that the character may perform any of them at any time for the spell duration. Within the basic context of warfare, anything goes: fight friend, fight foe, do nothing, run away. They are all acceptable. Thus, when a confused character is Dominated and told to stop attacking his friends, it's no different to a normal character being Dominated and told to stop fighting his enemies. no re-roll required.

If we were to take this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, we could go on to argue that anything not on the list of confused behaviours is against the nature of a confused creature, since you would never expect a confused creature to perform any other action! So, having Dominated your confused rogue, for example, any request to check the door for traps, or to swallow a healing potion, or to write an impromptu love poem, would result in a Will re-roll. It's not something a confused character would do.

That's one take, but I won't pretend it's the only one. I would agree with the poster who said that you should give your players the benefit of the doubt, seeing as it is quite an elegant solution.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Note: the 3.0 rules have nearly the identical wording as quoted by Whimsical. I think that option is the best one, myself.

 

[GregH]

Thanks for all the replies. I think I see where I went wrong. I think the problem is that asking someone to stop attacking is not against their nature in any way, regardless of whether they were going to attack or not. So I should have probably allowed that to go without the save. If it had been the other way (that is, commanding to attack when the spell forbid it) that probably would have evoked a Will save. But as it was used last night, it probably should have just worked. Live and learn!

With regards to the opposed Cha rolls, my problem with regards to this situation is that I interpret opposed Cha rolls as two individuals trying to impress their will and the strongest personality coming out on top. In the case of the confusion spell, there's no commanding will. It exists regardless of whether the originating creature (in this case the rogue eidelon) is alive or not. I think confusion is listed as a "compulsion" spell, but the recipient isn't really being commanded - its random. I suppose one could say that the confused character commands himself - but in the case of dominate person, that's the source of the will save anyways (presonally resisting the spell). Now if it were two dominate person spells from two different characters, thats when I see the opposed Cha rolls coming in.

Thanks for the ideas!
Greg

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with calypso15.

Balancewise, you should allow Dominate Person to work. Not only is the Wizard burning a powerful spell, but if his target/ally makes the Will save that action would normally be considered an attack and the Wizard would automatically be targetted for attack by the Confused PC with no roll on the Confusion table required.

Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes.

 

[GregH]

I agree with calypso15.

Balancewise, you should allow Dominate Person to work. Not only is the Wizard burning a powerful spell, but if his target/ally makes the Will save that action would normally be considered an attack and the Wizard would automatically be targetted for attack by the Confused PC with no roll on the Confusion table required.

I'm not sure I agree with the "using a powerful spell" reasoning. Resist elements is a lower level spell than fireball, but fireball doesn't automatically trump it. In fact, if the wizard is low enough level and rolls a lot of one's, then the fireball is completely useless. So I still want to find reasoning in the spell descriptions to determine whether one spell overpowers another.

I guess casting a spell is considered an attack, but I read that part of the spell description to mean a melee attack. The idea in my mind is that the person is confused and would lash out if someone hurt him. I don't know that a confused character would have the wherewithal to attack a spell caster who has cast a non-damaging spell. Would he?

Greg

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I'm not sure I agree with the "using a powerful spell" reasoning. Resist elements is a lower level spell than fireball, but fireball doesn't automatically trump it. In fact, if the wizard is low enough level and rolls a lot of one's, then the fireball is completely useless. So I still want to find reasoning in the spell descriptions to determine whether one spell overpowers another.

Balancewise, the argument that the higher level spell should win is nonetheless sound, even if it is not a hard and fast rule in general. In this case, I would argue a higher level spell with a fairly clearcut effect should trump a vague effect by a lower level spell.

To put it another way, it is dangerous to expansively interpret the effect of vague low level spell to makes a more focused and understandable higher level spell ineffective.

I guess casting a spell is considered an attack, but I read that part of the spell description to mean a melee attack. The idea in my mind is that the person is confused and would lash out if someone hurt him. I don't know that a confused character would have the wherewithal to attack a spell caster who has cast a non-damaging spell. Would he?

There is a certain degree of judgement required here, yes. But should the Confused character be in the state of mind to distinguish between damaging and non-damaging spells? Especially as you do not know for sure until after you have failed a save, right?

There are a number of little issues like this with Confusion that require some careful DM adjudication.

For example, suppose two characters standing next to each other are Confused. Character #1 is determined to "attack nearest creature" and therefore makes a melee attack on #2. #2, according to the wording of Confusion, will respond by attacking back. Are they now locked in a battle to the death because #1 will automatically respond to any attack on him by attacking back?

Strictly by the RAW, absolutely yes. But I would not to play that way. It may be fun standing back and watching those Hill Giants beat each other to death, but I would not want to have to suffer watching PCs do the same at the climatic big battle...

 

[GregH]

Balancewise, the argument that the higher level spell should win is nonetheless sound, even if it is not a hard and fast rule in general. In this case, I would argue a higher level spell with a fairly clearcut effect should trump a vague effect by a lower level spell.

To put it another way, it is dangerous to expansively interpret the effect of vague low level spell to makes a more focused and understandable higher level spell ineffective..

Fair enough. My biggest problem as a DM, though, is consistency. When I make off-the-cuff rulings, I tend to forget them 10 sessions later when the same situation comes up. (I make horrible notes ) So I try to follow the letter of the law as close as possible, so that I know its repeatable. But I can see where you are coming from.

There are a number of little issues like this with Confusion that require some careful DM adjudication.

For example, suppose two characters standing next to each other are Confused. Character #1 is determined to "attack nearest creature" and therefore makes a melee attack on #2. #2, according to the wording of Confusion, will respond by attacking back. Are they now locked in a battle to the death because #1 will automatically respond to any attack on him by attacking back?

Strictly by the RAW, absolutely yes. But I would not to play that way. It may be fun standing back and watching those Hill Giants beat each other to death, but I would not want to have to suffer watching PCs do the same at the climatic big battle...

Thats a good point, so it makes me rethink that whole part of the spell. Maybe just get rid of the automatic attack? Because if it doesn't affect the PCs then it shouldn't affect the NPCs either, AFAIC.

BTW, when this came up, one of my players looked at me and said "Have I told you how much I hate confusion?" a few times before it was all over.

Greg

Edit: modified for clarity