Reflective Charm?

[Infiniti2000]

I didn't say you were the caster.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I didn't say you were the caster.

And yet, I'm the one who is exercising mental control over the *original* caster.

If I'm not the caster, then he is, and so he's the one who can issue mental commands to his dominated target. The fact that he dominated himself means that he gets to act pretty much normally.

 

[Infiniti2000]

For one thing, we are talking about charming, not dominating. They are entirely different concepts. For another, just because you can use the charm person on the caster doesn't make you the caster. It's just the effect of spell turning.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For one thing, we are talking about charming, not dominating.

But, according to you, the effects of Spell Turning are the same on both. Thus, if the original caster can get charmed by me, he can get dominated by me.

For another, just because you can use the charm person on the caster doesn't make you the caster. It's just the effect of spell turning.

Where does it say that I become the caster?

Why, then, do you assume that *I* become the one in control of the spell?

What if I cast the Spell Turning spell from a scroll?

 

[Infiniti2000]

But, according to you, the effects of Spell Turning are the same on both. Thus, if the original caster can get charmed by me, he can get dominated by me.

Sure, but you were using the word "dominate" when we were talking about charm person. When someone is charmed, they are not dominated. Are you really confused on this subject?

Where does it say that I become the caster?

It doesn't. This makes three times I've had to say this.

Why, then, do you assume that *I* become the one in control of the spell?

Sithobi1 points out quite clearly why. You can call it stupid, but it's clear. Are you disagreeing with it or just complaining?

What if I cast the Spell Turning spell from a scroll?

What about it? Do you have a specific question about it?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure, but you were using the word "dominate" when we were talking about charm person. When someone is charmed, they are not dominated. Are you really confused on this subject?

No. Are you?

I upped the ante. I moved from Charm to Dominate because, as far as Spell Turning is concerned, they work the same. They are both targeted, mind-affecting spells that place the target somewhat under the control of the caster. When Charmed, the target thinks the caster is his best friend. When Dominated, the target unthinkingly obeys the caster.

So why, if Spell Turning reflects Charm or Dominate back on the original caster - and he still counts as the caster, because as you admit yourself:

It doesn't. This makes three times I've had to say this.

- why do I gain control?

It's wrong. The example in the PHB is wrong.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You didn't "up the ante" or move from charm to dominate, you used the words "dominated target" and "dominated himself" when we were only talking about charm. I just assumed you didn't realize that they were not the same instead of you inexplicably changing the subject matter without warning.

The only way for the example in the PH to be wrong is via errata. Otherwise, although their are descriptive in nature, they clarify the rules as presented. In this case, it creates an unambiguous situation.

Another spell that provides a similar problem would be project image. I think project image is worded a lot more clearly, but the same question arises. Are you charmed/dominated by the image or by the caster of the project image? It's clearly IMO the caster, so that if the project image ends, you are still charmed/dominated.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You didn't "up the ante" or move from charm to dominate, you used the words "dominated target" and "dominated himself" when we were only talking about charm.

And now I'm talking about Dominate, because it's more fun. Are you seriously going to keep arguing about this?

The only way for the example in the PH to be wrong is via errata.

Not strictly true. For instance, there's a longstanding WotC policy that "Text Rules trump Table Rules." In other words, if something in a summary table doesn't agree with the rules text, the rules text is right and the table is wrong. Explanatory examples seem to be a logical extension of such a rule.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Are you seriously going to keep arguing about this?

Sheesh, then stop defending yourself as if you didn't understand my first comment on it. Maybe you've just never seen a debate on dominate vs. charm; how am I supposed to know whether you know the difference unless I point it out?

Not strictly true. For instance, there's a longstanding WotC policy that "Text Rules trump Table Rules." In other words, if something in a summary table doesn't agree with the rules text, the rules text is right and the table is wrong. Explanatory examples seem to be a logical extension of such a rule.

Sure, I'd agree with that. However, when an example doesn't disagree with the rules text and instead provides a clear definition to an ambiguous rule, then nothing trumps the example and it should stand as is. Technically, examples could be considered flavor and thus why it doesn't show up in the SRD. But, for RAW, you refer to the PH and the example holds water.

Are we done? I have nothing more to add.

 

[dungeon blaster]

So if a caster casts dominate person and the spell is turned back on himself...what would he act like? being self-dominated and all.