D&D 5E Dominate "X" question

[Salthorae]

Charm Person says that the charmed individual knows that you charmed them.

Dominate Person/Monster/Beast don't have that language, but they "charm" the target on a failed Wisdom save. Does that mean that they know who Dominated them, even if they didn't see/hear/know you cast the spell?

Thoughts?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Charm Person says that the charmed individual knows that you charmed them.

Dominate Person/Monster/Beast don't have that language, but they "charm" the target on a failed Wisdom save. Does that mean that they know who Dominated them, even if they didn't see/hear/know you cast the spell?

Thoughts?

I'd say that if the target doesn't see you cast the spell then, provided you only give commands telepathically, it wouldn't know who is commanding it unless it's somehow obvious. I might give the target an insight check to figure it out depending on the circumstances (the robed guy in the shadowy corner of the room seems to be keeping a particularly close eye on you).

EDIT:
On a related note, I ran an encounter with a mind flayer last session. It dominated the fighter and commanded him to attack the druid. I ruled that the fighter had to use his Extra Attack, but that it was his choice to use any other abilities on the attack. Since it was the same round the mind flayer cast Dominate, he wasn't using his action to dictate the fighter's actions. I was wondering how others think that ought to be handled. Since he was just given a general command (Attack the Druid), should I have allowed him to just make a single attack even though he has Extra Attack?

 

[Sunseeker]

Charm Person says that the charmed individual knows that you charmed them.

Dominate Person/Monster/Beast don't have that language, but they "charm" the target on a failed Wisdom save. Does that mean that they know who Dominated them, even if they didn't see/hear/know you cast the spell?

Thoughts?

I'm thinking the charmed person doesn't know that you charmed them. IE: that the caster has put you under a magical effect. I believe the idea is that they know that you charmed them. They don't necessarily know that they're charmed, only who they can't stop thinking about, so to speak.

To the second point, I think so yes, partially for clarity purposes. They "know" you in a less than literal sense. They may not know your name, your address or your favorite color, but they know YOU. It's sort of a mental imprint. If they saw you walking down the street they'd recognize you, and in some cases I might rule that a dominated/charmed person forgets this imprint once the effect ends.

But I think the intention is that there's no more "sneaky domination". In order to give commands it has to be more than a ghost voice whispering in their brain. That's my takeaway from it anyway.

EDIT:
On a related note, I ran an encounter with a mind flayer last session. It dominated the fighter and commanded him to attack the druid. I ruled that the fighter had to use his Extra Attack, but that it was his choice to use any other abilities on the attack. Since it was the same round the mind flayer cast Dominate, he wasn't using his action to dictate the fighter's actions. I was wondering how others think that ought to be handled. Since he was just given a general command (Attack the Druid), should I have allowed him to just make a single attack even though he has Extra Attack?

Even though a person is dominated and only mechanically gets one save per turn, the dominated target is constantly fighting the domination. As such the dominator needs to be specific when they want someone to do something specific. It's sort of like the classical "be careful what you wish for". If the mind flayer says "attack the druid!" the fighter should of course, attack the druid, but unless specified by the mind flayer, the the fighter would, IMO do his best to attack as little as possible. So no special abilities, only one attack per turn and taking effort to take as many hits as he can in order to get knocked out quicker.

If the Mindflayer on the other hand said "Attack the druid with all your might!" Then I think the fighter should have to fight as hard as he can.

When it comes to dominate, both for players and NPCs, I expect very very specific commands. If you want the dominee to do something a certain way, tell them to do it that way, otherwise it is up to the dominee on how they go about executing your command.

 

[steeldragons]

When they're charmed, they are acting because they want to.

When they're dominated, they're acting without choice. They don't want to, but they cant help themselves.

So, in the case of a charming, they know they were charmed and by whom.

In the case of domination, they know they were dominated, but might have no idea by whom. In the case of well specified commands, they might not even know they were dominated. e.g. "Do x and, when complete, forget you did any of it or ever meeting me."

 

[Fanaelialae]

When they're charmed, they are acting because they want to.

When they're dominated, they're acting without choice. They don't want to, but they cant help themselves.

So, in the case of a charming, they know they were charmed and by whom.

In the case of domination, they know they were dominated, but might have no idea by whom. In the case of well specified commands, they might not even know they were dominated. e.g. "Do x and, when complete, forget you did any of it or ever meeting me."

I'd draw a line at causing them to forget. Similarly, I don't think a sadistic command to enjoy killing your allies would work (you'd attack your allies, but the enjoyment of it is up to the player). Nor would I allow a dominate command of "you are now evil" to work.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd draw a line at causing them to forget. Similarly, I don't think a sadistic command to enjoy killing your allies would work (you'd attack your allies, but the enjoyment of it is up to the player). Nor would I allow a dominate command of "you are now evil" to work.

I'd agree. You can't dominate a person to "make them evil", you can however dominate a person to make them do evil deeds. This wouldn't make the player evil either of course, though others may believe them to be if they know what they did. Only willful actions chosen by the player affect alignment.

 

[PnPgamer]

I'd agree. You can't dominate a person to "make them evil", you can however dominate a person to make them do evil deeds. This wouldn't make the player evil either of course, though others may believe them to be if they know what they did. Only willful actions chosen by the player affect alignment.

So you say that a player who dominates a villager to kill his wife and children is not evil?

 

[steeldragons]

So you say that a player who dominates a villager to kill his wife and children is not evil?

Noooo. He's saying the villager, in that scenario, is not "made" evil in alignment...by virtue of them having been dominated while engaging in the evil acts. The villager was not responsible for their actions.

The person doing the dominating and commanding the murders? Yes, I think it safe to say, they will/would be considered or "turn" evil by such a use of the spell, presuming they were not evil to begin with.

 

[PnPgamer]

Noooo. He's saying the villager, in that scenario, is not "made" evil in alignment...by virtue of them having been dominated while engaging in the evil acts. The villager was not responsible for their actions.

The person doing the dominating and commanding the murders? Yes, I think it safe to say, they will/would be considered or "turn" evil by such a use of the spell, presuming they were not evil to begin with.

Ah okay to me it just appeared so oddly worded.

 

[Salthorae]

Thanks for the feedback. talked to my DM about it too and pointed him to this thread for reference. I'll let you know how he rules it for our games!