Does 'dominate' need a VFX?

[Morgy]

I think this may have been discussed before, but recent events prompt me to bring it up.

Would it be possible to hide the vfx for the dominate line of spells? It doesn't make much sense that any old 'joe' should be able to work out someone is dominated immediately by a big, bright blue ring around their head.

I've been using dominate on certain monster NPCs in RP to further stories/events and often there's one person who points out the vfx and informs everyone about it straight away. This is currently a legit thing to do as WYSIWYG, but it puts far more limitations on the RP potential of this spell.

What about allowing higher class level Enchanters/Divination experts to spot that a creature is under domination on examine - rather like spotting an illusion?

[Kuma]

I think this may have been discussed before, but recent events prompt me to bring it up.

Would it be possible to hide the vfx for the dominate line of spells? It doesn't make much sense that any old 'joe' should be able to work out someone is dominated immediately by a big, bright blue ring around their head.

I've been using dominate on certain monster NPCs in RP to further stories/events and often there's one person who points out the vfx and informs everyone about it straight away. This is currently a legit thing to do as WYSIWYG, but it puts far more limitations on the RP potential of this spell.

What about allowing higher class level Enchanters/Divination experts to spot that a creature is under domination on examine - rather like spotting an illusion?

i'd love a change in this direction a great deal

[xanrael]

In the lore and mechanics of D&D dominate is supposed to be pretty easy to spot, to the point where 1 in 4 peasants would notice it straight away (DC: 15 Sense Motive check) "because of the limited range of the target’s activities." Charm is the more subtle form of control.

I'm fine if Arelith decides to go a different route with it but thought I'd mention this.

[Morgy]

In the lore and mechanics of D&D dominate is supposed to be pretty easy to spot, to the point where 1 in 4 peasants would notice it straight away (DC: 15 Sense Motive check) "because of the limited range of the target’s activities." Charm is the more subtle form of control.

I'm fine if Arelith decides to go a different route with it but thought I'd mention this.

That is a fair enough point. But I feel that should be shown through roleplay/behaviour, not VFX. Do you agree with that?

[chris a gogo]

No I don't agree.
Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature, the visual shows the million things that would stand out about your magically enslaved creature lack of emotion lack of reaction without direct orders and commands, maybe even the look of abject horror on it's face as it struggles with the knowledge that it's been dominated.

One look should tell you there is something off about that creature the vfx does this.

[Kuma]

No I don't agree.
Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature, the visual shows the million things that would stand out about your magically enslaved creature lack of emotion lack of reaction without direct orders and commands, maybe even the look of abject horror on it's face as it struggles with the knowledge that it's been dominated.

One look should tell you there is something off about that creature the vfx does this.

however,

this is boring

[Morgy]

No I don't agree.
Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature, the visual shows the million things that would stand out about your magically enslaved creature lack of emotion lack of reaction without direct orders and commands, maybe even the look of abject horror on it's face as it struggles with the knowledge that it's been dominated.

One look should tell you there is something off about that creature the vfx does this.

I think this is skips a lot of potential RP by assuming everyone has already noticed, rather than go through the RP process of trying to interact with a dominated NPC and then identifying something is wrong with them.

[Marisakis]

Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature

God emoting? For a creature that they literally control every action of?
If that's the case, letting familiars and awakened animal companions emote is also god emoting, because they are sentient beings..

Of course, it makes sense to not completely trust players with this - some mechanical implemetation on Examine does make sense. Keying that detection off of wisdom (which sense motive is, spot isn't for this) makes sense and would allow for skilled enchanters to dupe the unwary, aka those who dumped WIS.

[chris a gogo]

by Marisakis » 10 Apr 2020 14:43
chris a gogo wrote: ↑
10 Apr 2020 12:54
Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature
God emoting? For a creature that they literally control every action of?
If that's the case, letting familiars and awakened animal companions emote is also god emoting, because they are sentient beings..

It is exactly.
But what is being asked for is to remove the visual cue that says this creature is not acting like it would but is acting as a automation only doing exactly what it is told to do.

I don't see players spending the entire time they have something dominated typing emotes for it and as such the VFX is needed.
Now if your typing skills are fantastic and you can do that great go for it, otherwise no I think it's a bad idea to remove it.

[Draco]

As a player of an Enchantment focused character the VFX bothers me immensely when some random tank character is able to discern the orc following me is dominated. No spellcraft, no caster levels, intimate knowledge of what to look for in an overthrown mind. Adding something to the description of the dominated creature could be a neat idea.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

by Marisakis » 10 Apr 2020 14:43
chris a gogo wrote: ↑
10 Apr 2020 12:54
Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature
God emoting? For a creature that they literally control every action of?
If that's the case, letting familiars and awakened animal companions emote is also god emoting, because they are sentient beings..

It is exactly.
But what is being asked for is to remove the visual cue that says this creature is not acting like it would but is acting as a automation only doing exactly what it is told to do.

I don't see players spending the entire time they have something dominated typing emotes for it and as such the VFX is needed.
Now if your typing skills are fantastic and you can do that great go for it, otherwise no I think it's a bad idea to remove it.

While I share your sentiments about the lore of the dominate person spell and how its victim's may feel about it, I have a few objections to this train of thought. The first is that the dominated creature doesn't display emotions, they become robotic. Secondly, you are only supposed to notice this with a DC15 sense motive check - a skill that doesn't exist and no one is advocating for despite the fact that bluff has been in heavy use for multiple years now.

Also, 8 wisdom is like second most common dump stat (behind 6/8 charisma) on the server, which means most characters shouldn't be noticing a domination effect unless they were there to see it cast.

Finally- unless you lose control of a henchman, cohort, or summon through unpredicted means, you "god emote" for every npc under your control. This isn't cheating or even negative- the negative connotation for god emoting applies strictly to affecting the experience of other player's character's with your own actions against their will with no room for mechanical compromise.

There would be no point in summoning or having cohorts if they didn't behave exactly as you wanted them to under most circumstances - DM's are meant to be there for the rest.

[Cataclysm of Iron]

by Marisakis » 10 Apr 2020 14:43
chris a gogo wrote: ↑
10 Apr 2020 12:54
Without the visual your reliant on a players god emoting for there dominated creature
God emoting? For a creature that they literally control every action of?
If that's the case, letting familiars and awakened animal companions emote is also god emoting, because they are sentient beings..

It is exactly.
But what is being asked for is to remove the visual cue that says this creature is not acting like it would but is acting as a automation only doing exactly what it is told to do.

I don't see players spending the entire time they have something dominated typing emotes for it and as such the VFX is needed.
Now if your typing skills are fantastic and you can do that great go for it, otherwise no I think it's a bad idea to remove it.

If it's someone your character knows then they would probably realise pretty quickly - but then that would happen through interactions.

I think you're misunderstanding the phrase 'god emoting'. As per the Arelith Wiki:
'Godemoting is an act of forcing the result of one's actions on another character, typically without the other player's consent and not giving the other character a chance to do anything about the emote.'

And is, if not banned, then strongly discouraged by server policy. The -a/-f tool was a conscious, deliberate server addition as a non-core NWN function, so its use is clearly encouraged rather than discouraged. Furthermore, the actions are not being forced upon a player because Domination effects work differently on PCs: you never get control of them in the way you do NPCs. Additionally, the wider discussion, about the negativity of god emoting relating primarily to forcing other players to accept a game state or reality which isn't backed up within the game is not applicable to dominated NPCs, because you actually do control them with (to an outside eye) comparable functionality to your own character. The parameters for 'god emoting' through -f/-a are roughly the same as for emoting through your actual PC because what you can make them do is broadly equivalent.

The main point, of how recognizable it is reasonable to expect a domination effect to be at face value, is opinion - although I share the view of the majority (backed up by D&D lore as far as it goes) that it is not immediately apparent, albeit discernable with some insight. I think the suggestion of removing the visual and tying it to Spellcraft, Enchantment Focus, or Divination Focus is sensible. But then I think most spell visuals are a net negative impact, as very few tangibly relate to something actual physical about the character.

[xanrael]

I'm a bit curious of the situations where non-obvious dominate is desired.

For previously hostile mobs it's pretty obvious their behavior has been altered as they're not attacking PCs or being attacked if you walk them near NPCs.

For non-hostile NPCs, this is where I'm a bit unclear of the server rules but I could see it being very beneficial if it is okay to do so. If the vfx is removed though you can have situations where an NPC can ruin the reputation of a PC. For example an NPC guard walks up and says to "give back the gold they just stole" to the target. Less savvy players may even think it is a DM doing so with possession without checking the login name behind the chat line. It seems similar to the -disguise tag where I both really hate it as some people meta the hell out of the tag but at the same time understand why it is needed there.

[Morgy]

I'm a bit curious of the situations where non-obvious dominate is desired.

For previously hostile mobs it's pretty obvious their behavior has been altered as they're not attacking PCs or being attacked if you walk them near NPCs.

For non-hostile NPCs, this is where I'm a bit unclear of the server rules but I could see it being very beneficial if it is okay to do so. If the vfx is removed though you can have situations where an NPC can ruin the reputation of a PC. For example an NPC guard walks up and says to "give back the gold they just stole" to the target. Less savvy players may even think it is a DM doing so with possession without checking the login name behind the chat line. It seems similar to the -disguise tag where I both really hate it as some people meta the hell out of the tag but at the same time understand why it is needed there.

DM controlled characters are still 'characters' and should be given as much belief as any PC. Some of the Cordor guards for example are well known to be corrupt, therefore just because a DM is controlling them you shouldn't be treating it them scolding/demanding something as an OOC behaviour.
If a DM has OOC problems with you, they will direct message you to avoid that sort of confusion.

Also with regards to your first point - There are plenty of human hostile NPCs on the surface who might theoretically choose to engage with you verbally. The same is true of the UD which is filled with monsters than also are citizens of the city as well as hostile NPCs. Therefore you could believe that they are not mind controlled, which is an OOC thing to know purely on the basis they are not attacking you immediately.

[xanrael]

I'm a bit curious of the situations where non-obvious dominate is desired.

For previously hostile mobs it's pretty obvious their behavior has been altered as they're not attacking PCs or being attacked if you walk them near NPCs.

For non-hostile NPCs, this is where I'm a bit unclear of the server rules but I could see it being very beneficial if it is okay to do so. If the vfx is removed though you can have situations where an NPC can ruin the reputation of a PC. For example an NPC guard walks up and says to "give back the gold they just stole" to the target. Less savvy players may even think it is a DM doing so with possession without checking the login name behind the chat line. It seems similar to the -disguise tag where I both really hate it as some people meta the hell out of the tag but at the same time understand why it is needed there.

DM controlled characters are still 'characters' and should be given as much belief as any PC. Some of the Cordor guards for example are well known to be corrupt, therefore just because a DM is controlling them you shouldn't be treating it them scolding/demanding something as an OOC behaviour.
If a DM has OOC problems with you, they will direct message you to avoid that sort of confusion.

Also with regards to your first point - There are plenty of human hostile NPCs on the surface who might theoretically choose to engage with you verbally. The same is true of the UD which is filled with monsters than also are citizens of the city as well as hostile NPCs. Therefore you could believe that they are not mind controlled, which is an OOC thing to know purely on the basis they are not attacking you immediately.

If a DM controls a guard and tells your character something, often times it is meant as the stance of the guards themselves. The other guards also standing around don't say anything but is assumed they're also in agreement so the DM doesn't have to possess/control a full squad of guards to get the point across.

If a PC dominates a guard and proceeds to have them say stuff without a DM around, the silence of other guards nearby causes this weird implied agreement due to AI limitations.

[Morgy]

I'm a bit curious of the situations where non-obvious dominate is desired.

For previously hostile mobs it's pretty obvious their behavior has been altered as they're not attacking PCs or being attacked if you walk them near NPCs.

For non-hostile NPCs, this is where I'm a bit unclear of the server rules but I could see it being very beneficial if it is okay to do so. If the vfx is removed though you can have situations where an NPC can ruin the reputation of a PC. For example an NPC guard walks up and says to "give back the gold they just stole" to the target. Less savvy players may even think it is a DM doing so with possession without checking the login name behind the chat line. It seems similar to the -disguise tag where I both really hate it as some people meta the hell out of the tag but at the same time understand why it is needed there.

DM controlled characters are still 'characters' and should be given as much belief as any PC. Some of the Cordor guards for example are well known to be corrupt, therefore just because a DM is controlling them you shouldn't be treating it them scolding/demanding something as an OOC behaviour.
If a DM has OOC problems with you, they will direct message you to avoid that sort of confusion.

Also with regards to your first point - There are plenty of human hostile NPCs on the surface who might theoretically choose to engage with you verbally. The same is true of the UD which is filled with monsters than also are citizens of the city as well as hostile NPCs. Therefore you could believe that they are not mind controlled, which is an OOC thing to know purely on the basis they are not attacking you immediately.

If a DM controls a guard and tells your character something, often times it is meant as the stance of the guards themselves. The other guards also standing around don't say anything but is assumed they're also in agreement so the DM doesn't have to possess/control a full squad of guards to get the point across.

If a PC dominates a guard and proceeds to have them say stuff without a DM around, the silence of other guards nearby causes this weird implied agreement due to AI limitations.

My point is you are free to disagree or act against the guards, because it is all IC actions. I have personally had one guard in cordor being deliberately racist against Hins - this is clearly not the stance of all guards, just a personal behaviour of that guard. This is the same as with PC guards.

As with regards to dominating NPC guards - that's why I suggested methods to identifiy dominated NPCs - be it feats or skill/ability check. An alternative to this would be to simply make npc guards immune if there is fear of some abuse.

[Cataclysm of Iron]

I think this is a moot point anyway because unless it's a settlement raid with DM oversight pre-arranged, I can't conceive of a situation in which it would be within the rule of 'Role Play' to cast dominate (which is a hostile action equivalent to hitting with a sword) on an NPC Guard.

[SnoopBob69]

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=26072&p=207157&hil ... te#p207157

Just wanted to add this here as it seemed relevant that it was approved already.

I'm all for the VFX removal or make it the ESF Enchant cookie.

Its about a 3 line code change to implement at least.

[Morgy]

I was sure I discussed it before - but I thought it was discord!

Consider case closed then!

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

You guys do realize dominate doesn't gice you control over every inch of their being? You have to make an individual command for every bloody inch of detail.

Fun story, a fellow PC in table top dominated me and told me to give him my gold, I did and then proceeded to kill him because i successfully completed my order with no new orders to distract me and he was dead before he could issue a command to not harm him or do something else.

Sound a bit odd? Go read the dominate spell. The main reason in mid combat you dont turn onnyour master it becuase you are already too busy carrying out his command. Protection spells dont even stop previous commands, they stop NEW commands. So if you command a npc to go send a message, they send that message yo tje best of their ability, but are absolutely not going to seem normal. It's not some stealthy manipulation spell like suggestion, its dominate. Granted we lack spells like suggestion.

[The GrumpyCat]

You guys do realize dominate doesn't gice you control over every inch of their being? You have to make an individual command for every bloody inch of detail.

Fun story, a fellow PC in table top dominated me and told me to give him my gold, I did and then proceeded to kill him because i successfully completed my order with no new orders to distract me and he was dead before he could issue a command to not harm him or do something else.

Sound a bit odd? Go read the dominate spell. The main reason in mid combat you dont turn onnyour master it becuase you are already too busy carrying out his command. Protection spells dont even stop previous commands, they stop NEW commands. So if you command a npc to go send a message, they send that message yo tje best of their ability, but are absolutely not going to seem normal. It's not some stealthy manipulation spell like suggestion, its dominate. Granted we lack spells like suggestion.

This is absolutly fine and cool and stuff - but just as a note - Arelith works on WYSIWYG
In arelith dominate uh, well technically I think when used aginst fellow pcs all it does is stun them? So rules wise, if someone wants to run with the idea of say - giving you all their gold - or being compelled to tell the truth, or whatever- that's absolutly fine, and pretty cool, but by no means is it to be considered 'The Thing That You Must Do Or The DMs Will Yell At You.'
I feel it really important to point that out.

As to the existance of the SFX? I honeslty have no opinion on it either way

[Morgy]

You guys do realize dominate doesn't gice you control over every inch of their being? You have to make an individual command for every bloody inch of detail.

Fun story, a fellow PC in table top dominated me and told me to give him my gold, I did and then proceeded to kill him because i successfully completed my order with no new orders to distract me and he was dead before he could issue a command to not harm him or do something else.

Sound a bit odd? Go read the dominate spell. The main reason in mid combat you dont turn onnyour master it becuase you are already too busy carrying out his command.

I'm honestly no DnD expert at all, but have taken on board what you have said.

I went and read a couple of sources with regards to what you've and they all pretty much say:

"While the target is Charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as Attack that creature, Run over there, or Fetch that object. If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the Actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time you can also cause the creature to use a Reaction, but this requires you to use your own Reaction as well."

Sourced: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dom ... on#content

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

You guys do realize dominate doesn't gice you control over every inch of their being? You have to make an individual command for every bloody inch of detail.

Fun story, a fellow PC in table top dominated me and told me to give him my gold, I did and then proceeded to kill him because i successfully completed my order with no new orders to distract me and he was dead before he could issue a command to not harm him or do something else.

Sound a bit odd? Go read the dominate spell. The main reason in mid combat you dont turn onnyour master it becuase you are already too busy carrying out his command.

I'm honestly no DnD expert at all, but have taken on board what you have said.

I went and read a couple of sources with regards to what you've and they all pretty much say:

"While the target is Charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as Attack that creature, Run over there, or Fetch that object. If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the Actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time you can also cause the creature to use a Reaction, but this requires you to use your own Reaction as well."

Sourced: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dom ... on#content

Yeah 5e spells are completely different. Charm doesn't let you command/control at all in 3rd. Suggestion is the movie inception and dominate is brute force over their mind.

As grumpy cat pointed its only npcs that get dominated and effect or not a player can easily decide if they want roll with it or not interacting with dominated npc.

[Void]

I think this may have been discussed before, but recent events prompt me to bring it up.

Would it be possible to hide the vfx for the dominate line of spells? It doesn't make much sense that any old 'joe' should be able to work out someone is dominated immediately by a big, bright blue ring around their head.

The point of vfx is to inform that they're dealing with player shenanigans and not dm shenanigans.

I'm honestly no DnD expert at all, but have taken on board what you have said.

I went and read a couple of sources with regards to what you've and they all pretty much say:

.....

Sourced: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dom ... on#content

That's wrong edition. Nwn is based on 3.5, meaning:
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm

You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, 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).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.

[Morgy]

You guys do realize dominate doesn't gice you control over every inch of their being? You have to make an individual command for every bloody inch of detail.

Fun story, a fellow PC in table top dominated me and told me to give him my gold, I did and then proceeded to kill him because i successfully completed my order with no new orders to distract me and he was dead before he could issue a command to not harm him or do something else.

Sound a bit odd? Go read the dominate spell. The main reason in mid combat you dont turn onnyour master it becuase you are already too busy carrying out his command.

I'm honestly no DnD expert at all, but have taken on board what you have said.

I went and read a couple of sources with regards to what you've and they all pretty much say:

"While the target is Charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as Attack that creature, Run over there, or Fetch that object. If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the Actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time you can also cause the creature to use a Reaction, but this requires you to use your own Reaction as well."

Sourced: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dom ... on#content

Yeah 5e spells are completely different. Charm doesn't let you command/control at all in 3rd. Suggestion is the movie inception and dominate is brute force over their mind.

As grumpy cat pointed its only npcs that get dominated and effect or not a player can easily decide if they want roll with it or not interacting with dominated npc.

Some players have rolled along with not realising the NPC is dominated, which is fun - but it is common for someone without the skill/knowledge to immediately point out to others it's dominated because of 'the blue swirly thing'. I think another mechanic to identify dominated beings would simply be more fun for all involved. Players don't have to interact with any NPC regardless anyway, whether dominated or not.

Regardless, the thread Irongron posted in said the suggestion would be approved so I guess we will see what becomes of it.