In a totally shameless way i'm going to suggest the improvement of a spell i've just started using in-game. I'd like to see dominate person duration changed from 3 + 1 (per 3 levels) rounds in duration to turn / level. From the aspect of questing mechanics it doesn't really have enough of a duration to make it an all together useful spell. In terms of roleplay it's duration is often too short for people to even type a reply to questions asked while under the effect of the spell.

Anyway, yeah, that's pretty much it!

I don't second this, as it will be possibly used against me.

I would definately second this. The roleplaying aspects would get fairly interesting. Though it might be adjusted so that perhaps the adrenaline rush of combat would give the victim a save after every round? That should keep it from being exploited at least, while still allowing for some great roleplay.

I think this would be sweet. Except, thats a long time to have control of another character. Maybe half that? 1 turn +1turn/every Two levels. And give them another save every turn as they attempt to wrestle free. Maybe give them a bonus everytime they take damage or somthing.

its a good idea, but the ideas will need to keep bouncing to find a good round and balanced choice.

I would support this so long as it was broken when any damage was taken by the victim.

Just curious, what's the duration on Hold Person?

I also, for the record still hate any attempt to use "mind control" spells. Its not PnP, it doesn't work as well in a large roleplaying environment.

If we want to make Dominate Person useful; just adjust it to make NPCs fight for you briefly and to continue stunning PCs or whatever it does. I've yet to have a character high enough level to cast it--but I am stringently against "mind control" of PCs and I'm not sure I could be compelled to go through with it unless a DM was over seeing every second of the process or I was involved with a player I knew really well and understood enough to come to a working compromise on the spell's effects for 'rp'.

Round/level, Oro, last I checked.

Then I suggest that Dominate Person does not go beyond Hold Person. Hold Person is a kind of "mark" for the length certain spells should last. Spells that essentially make you walking prey shouldn't last longer than a round per level. Dominate person could always "break" when you take damage, but its not "breaking" when someone has a few turns to lay traps around you, buff themselves up, buff up their friends, ask you to walk somewhere quiet and unobserved--and then count to three to slaughter you. Which tends to happens when people "rp" mind control spells.

I was afraid of that. Bah, It was a good idea nonetheless. I dont think it would work so good among Pc's, but expendable Npcs's could have an increased duration. Thad allow for the spells primary effect to still be functional rather then a slightly niffy holdperson. But, as I said before, Argue! It makes the result much better then implimenting something that wouldnt work.

I'd agree with making it Round/Level - which would be on par with Hold Monster duration-wise. 9 minutes of player domination with only one chance at a save (even worse of a chance at saving when you're up against a Spell Focused Enchanter) just seems way out of whack balance-wise.

Oroborous Then I suggest that Dominate Person does not go beyond Hold Person. Hold Person is a kind of "mark" for the length certain spells should last. Spells that essentially make you walking prey shouldn't last longer than a round per level. Dominate person could always "break" when you take damage, but its not "breaking" when someone has a few turns to lay traps around you, buff themselves up, buff up their friends, ask you to walk somewhere quiet and unobserved--and then count to three to slaughter you. Which tends to happens when people "rp" mind control spells.

The duration is actually considerably shorter than hold person. It's 3 rounds + 1 per 3 levels. That's, at level 9, 5 rounds. Compared with an extended hold person that would be 18 rounds for a level less of a spell slot. It's a 9th level spell countered by a level 1 spell, so I fail to see how giving it a larger duration is entirely too game breaking. I'm sure i'd much rather see a bit of RP put it into any PvP / Plot conflict using this spell compared with just casting 2 firebrands for the same spell cost and killing someone outright before they can react.

Wiggyboy

I'm sure i'd much rather see a bit of RP put it into any PvP / Plot conflict using this spell compared with just casting 2 firebrands for the same spell cost and killing someone outright before they can react.

Sherry..er, I mean -no one- would ever do such a vile thing XD

But honestly, I think if overseen by a DM, this might be kind of fun. Also, I'm sure two good players could run this amongst themselves...and we have a lot of good players.

Wiggyboy

Oroborous Then I suggest that Dominate Person does not go beyond Hold Person. Hold Person is a kind of "mark" for the length certain spells should last. Spells that essentially make you walking prey shouldn't last longer than a round per level. Dominate person could always "break" when you take damage, but its not "breaking" when someone has a few turns to lay traps around you, buff themselves up, buff up their friends, ask you to walk somewhere quiet and unobserved--and then count to three to slaughter you. Which tends to happens when people "rp" mind control spells.

The duration is actually considerably shorter than hold person. It's 3 rounds + 1 per 3 levels. That's, at level 9, 5 rounds. Compared with an extended hold person that would be 18 rounds for a level less of a spell slot. It's a 9th level spell countered by a level 1 spell, so I fail to see how giving it a larger duration is entirely too game breaking. I'm sure i'd much rather see a bit of RP put it into any PvP / Plot conflict using this spell compared with just casting 2 firebrands for the same spell cost and killing someone outright before they can react.

1) I wouldn't compare it to an EXTENDED spell since you're comparing apples to oranges. The spell should not last longer than Hold Person. It should not last LONGER than an Extended Hold Person at all for any reason. That makes this spell far superior to Hold Person. Its now a guarenteed kill spell that's even worse than the already over used Hold Person.

2) You may like the roleplay, but are not addressing the abuse the spell can get if its used for Mind Control. I'd much rather just get whacked by two firebrands instead of seeing my entire faction ripped apart because one guy with one spell in 20 minutes was able to Dominate a member of the faction and get all the information he had about it.

3) Saying its a "level x" spell countered easily by a weak "level 1" spell isn't convincing me either. Very few spells can not only decimate a rival in PvP--but decimate his entire faction as well by uncovering all its secrets, members, plans, goals, hiding places, all with one spell.

Just to sum up, the Spell can easily be increased to a round/level just like Hold Person and similar "stun" spells--Charm Person, Power Word, Stun etc--but it doesn't need to be vastly more powerful than those--especially in the hands of a person who uses it for "roleplay" because it is far too disruptive in a medium not carefully protected by a DM--and further with no counters.

Yes, I'm aware of the level one spell counter. However, in PnP you can block the spell with dozens of methods--which are entirely unavailable in NWN. I can think of many a PnP session where an NPC fell into our grasp; we went to use Dominate Person to learn more about him, the NPCs had cast a Gaeas on him that caused his head to explode when he started to talk, or some spell that allowed him to lie, or wiped his memory--none of which exists in NWN to counter this spell, or even mislead people who use it with a Contingency spell that causes the Dominated Person to actually be compelled to lie under the Spell unless the caster of Dominate wins a very high Spellcraft roll to notice the enchantment on his 'victim'.

Without all of that, the spell should not be used in a "roleplay" method in NWN.

From a balancing prospective, I think Oroborous is correct - it should not last longer than hold person. Although, I've used charm and dominate on several people, and we've generally role-played it as lasting longer than the spell itself. Of course those times it was mostly (although not always) limited to, "Are you telling the truth?" "Are you loyal?" and even occasionally to try and calm people down.

However from a role-playing prospective here is what the DM's have said in the past.

Personally, I will go along with such things if preformed on me, but it depends on entirely how far it is to go and what type of character I am playing. If I am playing a stupid Half-Orc Barbarian? Well, he'll probably tell all your faction secrets without even being charmed if he can be tricked. Being charmed / dominated, he wouldn't stand a chance.

However, barring a character like the one just mentioned, I'd most likely go a long with it, but only so far. It's a balance between allowing a spell to be useful, and between allowing a spell to be all powerful. So if you were to dominate me and demand to know all the faction secrets, my character would struggle against your domination. Perhaps tell you a few things, and then pass out from the strain. If my character is constantly being charmed / dominated and used for information, I'll eventually have said character become overly mentally exhausted perhaps having a mental meltdown - passing out from the strain placed on him. Something a long those lines.

In general, however, I am willing to go a long provided I do not think what is being done exceeds the power of the spell. I'd also likely speak with the person OOCly asking them what they intend to do.

I think it is just good form to generally try and go along, even if it is only a little bit.

Would someone who has been dominated know it?

For example, if you spot a sneak tailing you and dominate him to find out why - would the sneak remember the domination and the question he answered?