Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Control thought
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
pster
I was wondering exactly how the control thought spell in 4th ed works. It says that you may give commands with a simple action. But casting the spell itself is a complex action. So you can only give the first command on your next initiative pass? And what happens to the victims initiative? Does the victims initiative now follows the caster's own initiative? For example, what happens if the victim has more initiative passes than the caster. I assume the victim can't do anything while the spell is sustained even if he/she has more initiative passes.
And it says Every (Force) Combat Turns, the victim may spend a Complex Action to shake off the mental control. The victim rolls a Willpower (+ Counterspelling) Test; each hit reduces the net hits on the casterís original Spellcasting Test.
So does that mean the victim gets to spend that complex action to resist once per combat turn or on each of the victim's initiative pass?
As if it is the latter, a low willpower victim with many initiative passes has a better chance at breaking free of the mental control compared to a high willpower victim with less initiative passes. That does not make sense to me, seeing it is a battle of wills.
DireRadiant
Yep, one complex action to cast, and you can't give the command till your next IP. Gives the target a chance to tell his buddies, hey that guy is about to do something nasty to me.

As for the resists, it's per combat turn, which is not the same as initiative passes. Combat Turns are units of time, IP are how many times someone gets to act. Think of it in terms of a resistance test every thirty seconds regardless of how many time someone can pull a trigger in those thirty seconds.
pster
But it says: The caster seizes control of the targetís mind, directing everything the target does.
To me that means once the caster successfully cast the spell, the target cannot do anything else other than what is commanded.
Which leads me to the question about initiative passes. As everything the target does is directed by the caster, and moves when commanded by the caster with a simple action, does that mean the victim's own initiative is ignored while under the spell? but is instead acts when commanded by the caster in the caster's initiative pass.

Thanks for the reply.
Lansdren
The funny thing is if you mess up and only get one or two net hits plus have no more ips and a lower initiative its possible for it to be resisted and thrown off the person in the next round before you can make use of it. Especially if the GM wants to edge the resist in the first place.

Whilst in the right situation its a powerful spell its not so good once in a combat situation.
Ascalaphus
If the target gets a complex action to free himself, does that mean he can tie up one of his IPs so the mage can't use that IP to puppet him around in?
Lansdren
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ May 27 2010, 02:46 PM) *
If the target gets a complex action to free himself, does that mean he can tie up one of his IPs so the mage can't use that IP to puppet him around in?


If his IP is before the mages then I would assume yes

It gets abit complicated if the grunt only has one IP and is after the mage which would imply he wouldnt get the chance to use a complex action but again its under GM control as he could edge it for a second IP to resist (alot of this relies on the GM not letting the mage think he can be a god)
Dakka Dakka
BTW nowhere in the rules does it say that the target is aware of being under a spell, this is the differenc to Control Actions. As for the complex action for additional resistance, this is only possible every Force Rounds. If the spell succeeded initially you have some time to direct the target.
Aerospider
QUOTE (Lansdren @ May 27 2010, 02:52 PM) *
If his IP is before the mages then I would assume yes

It gets abit complicated if the grunt only has one IP and is after the mage which would imply he wouldnt get the chance to use a complex action but again its under GM control as he could edge it for a second IP to resist (alot of this relies on the GM not letting the mage think he can be a god)

I play it that when the target gets a chance to shake it off (i.e. [force] turns have elapsed since the last attempt) the caster's orders are put on hold until the target's next available action. It makes sense that resisting the thoughts would take priority over acting upon them.
Dakka Dakka
It's possible to play it like that, but what happens if the target is doing something that requires all of his attention, like holding on to the ledge that he is hanging from?
Lansdren
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ May 27 2010, 03:31 PM) *
It's possible to play it like that, but what happens if the target is doing something that requires all of his attention, like holding on to the ledge that he is hanging from?



Again I think we are drifting into the realms of GM control and possible handwaiving as not all possible variations can be ruled for.

One option is will control thoughts allow you to tell them to kill themselves? If it is more like a strong hypnotism then the body might just freeze at that command as most people do not have the ability to harm themselves that much. I'm thinking the adept power of controling voice gives the option for them to just stand dumb if it is to weird a command so in the scenario of hanging form a ledge telling them to let go might be ignored because of the survival instinct
Aerospider
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ May 27 2010, 03:31 PM) *
It's possible to play it like that, but what happens if the target is doing something that requires all of his attention, like holding on to the ledge that he is hanging from?

I'd take issue with the assertion that holding onto a ledge requires all of one's attention. It'd be a bit tedious of a GM to envisage a Not Let Go complex action.

But the shake-off does require a break in concentration so things like driving a vehicle or consecutive aiming actions would suffer as a result and it'd be just like any other break in conentration Ė a driver would need to make a crash test and a sniper would need to re-acquire the target.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012