Help with Domination

[LilithsThrall]

I have to be misinterpreting this spell. I need someone to explain it to me. As I understand it, the spell becomes available at sixth level. Used against a sixth level character, it takes two rounds to use (one for the entrance and one for the domination). Against a 7th or 8th level character, it'll take three rounds to use. And once you reach 9th level, you'll never again be able to use the spell against someone equal in power to you.
Is that right?

 

[Spectator]

I use the 1st Edition of Conan, I just picked up the rules, and your interpretation seems correct. Domination wont affect characters over 8 HD.
I guess that it is still pretty cool, because that means you can dominate about 99% of the world's population!!!!
For that other portion of the poulation who is up to 12 HD, you can only use suggestion.

I supppose you could house-rule some stuff like extra PP = extra HD allowable to hypnotise/ dominate/ suggest.

Just because Korgoth of BArbaria is 17th level, but still has a WIS of 7, it doesn't seem fair that you can't hypnotise/ entrance/ dominate/ suggest him, right?

Good point in bringing that spell up.

I always like the hypnotise spells since it is very much in the flavor of REH (as opposed to traditional D-n-D artillery spells).

 

[Voltumna]

The Magic power attack feat from Scrolls of Skelos allowed to increase the level limit of hypnotism spell targets. It was also included in Secrets of Skellos as an option to the overcharging a spell rule on the 2e.

Entrance can exceed the 8th level limit by preparation, this could be made extensible to other hypnotism spells.

In one of the house rules threads someone said he allows sorcerers to be able to hypnotize opponents of up to his same sorcerer level. I would read this as the basic spell target level limit, then you could power up hypnotism spells by preparation or the feat Magic power attack.

 

[kintire]

Is that right?

Yes.

The fundamental problem with charm and domination spells is that GMs and scenario designers don't like them. Its very difficult to write a lot of plots if the PCs can dominate someone and say "tell me everything!", and they really don't like PCs dominating the major bad guy. I just take the level limits out of all Hypnotism spells. If you're going to have them in at all, they might as well work!

 

[LilithsThrall]

Is that right?

Yes.

The fundamental problem with charm and domination spells is that GMs and scenario designers don't like them. Its very difficult to write a lot of plots if the PCs can dominate someone and say "tell me everything!", and they really don't like PCs dominating the major bad guy. I just take the level limits out of all Hypnotism spells. If you're going to have them in at all, they might as well work!

Hacking the system is easy enough - just set a relative hit die limit (for example, it won't affect a target with more hit die than the caster). But that involves convincing your GM to use a house rule. Such things shouldn't have been necessary.

 

[Edhel]

I always like the hypnotise spells since it is very much in the flavor of REH (as opposed to traditional D-n-D artillery spells).

Huh? How about Conan's hypnotise spells vs d&d's traditional non-damage dealing spells? Just from the 1st level wizard spells, I like sleep, hypnotism and color spray. And speaking of sleep, how did the Khitan sorcerers put people to sleep in Hour of the Dragon?

Secondly, I really don't like RAW Conan d20's massive amount of instakill spells. It doesn't work mechanically and story-wise if your life is based on just one dice roll. IMO that's just bad design. It's fine if you kill 'lesser men' or minions with instakills, but no one ever one-shots Conan/the hero - that's just anticlimatic.

I guess this has been discussed before but I just had to let it out again.

 

[Vortigern]

How is a 'insta-kill' save or die spell any different than getting hit for massive damage by a barbarian with a great sword?

They are both 'save or die' attacks.

Having a bad reaction to it just because it is the sorcerer's version of it to me isn't reasonable or logical.

 

[Edhel]

How is a 'insta-kill' save or die spell any different than getting hit for massive damage by a barbarian with a great sword?

Not much. Did I say or imply in any way that it is? We fixed power attack and massive damage in our game. (see Acheronian edition)

Having a bad reaction to it just because it is the sorcerer's version of it to me isn't reasonable or logical.

Again, who's doing that?

 

[Vortigern]

How is a 'insta-kill' save or die spell any different than getting hit for massive damage by a barbarian with a great sword?

Not much. Did I say or imply in any way that it is? We fixed power attack and massive damage in our game. (see Acheronian edition)

Having a bad reaction to it just because it is the sorcerer's version of it to me isn't reasonable or logical.

Again, who's doing that?

It appeared that you were, since your comment didn't mention the others. Perhaps I had an incorrect perception of your tone and/or opinion. That is possible. If so we have miscommunicated.

There does however seem to be an undercurrent of favoring the sword-swinger at the expense of the sorcerer in these circles... which I disagree with. Your comment caused me to connect you with that 'faction' of posters as it were.

 

[Hervé]

It's a good thing to nerf a bit Power Attack in the game, although, I'm not sure that it's the feat that the main source of the unbalance problem, but rather the two handed weapons, that got the the best of both worlds: High damage ratings, augmented Strength bonuses, augmented Power Attack Bonuses.
That's way too much, especially when shields are not so indispensable in the game. There are no disadvantages when fighting with a two handed weapon. Why would a fighter settle for a lesser weapon when the rules allows him to do MD with every strike, even at low levels?

I'm not a huge fan of the "insta-kill" spells either, as they've been called...
In my campaign, Sorcerers are most of the time the "villains" of the story. It's quite frustrating for players to live by the "save or die" rule.
Even the use of Fate Points seems difficult. It's hard to imagine someone that just got his heart ripped out of his chest being just "left for dead"!

kintire wrote:

The fundamental problem with charm and domination spells is that GMs and scenario designers don't like them. Its very difficult to write a lot of plots if the PCs can dominate someone and say "tell me everything!", and they really don't like PCs dominating the major bad guy.

As my sorcerers are mostly NPCs, Domination spells don't bother me much, but it's true that this kind of magic can be frustrating for GM when handled by the players, as it can easily spoil carefully designed plots...

 

[kintire]

There are no disadvantages when fighting with a two handed weapon. Why would a fighter settle for a lesser weapon when the rules allows him to do MD with every strike, even at low levels?

I wouldn't go so far as to say there are NO disadvantages: +4 to your parry is pretty useful. But I think you're right that the advantages of 2h weapons overwhelm shields.

Insta-kill spells for sorcerers are actually not too bad. I had my doubts about them when I read the rules, but in play PCs can hand out so much damage with melee that "insta-kills" are only very slightly faster than normal ones! However they do have to be borne in mind in scenario design. Fights against sorcerers should not be slugfests. The player should have a plan (or come up with one quickly) and put the sorerer down hard and fast. If he gets to cast a spell, the plan's gone wrong!