All called shots are GM discretion so all are RAI, but I'd allow it for what thats worth. :-)

Well there you go... for what it matters, so would I...

Given action requires some form of thought, and the mage is controlling what you are thinking after the spell is cast, I'm pretty sure you can't act because you can't think to do so.
I did read further on and you did correct the 2-8 issue, so I'm sorry I jumped on that.

But I still believe that as written the mage has control over your thoughts and unlike control action, which says you get to do what you want when not controlled, control thought is not so generous. Given there is no exception made for being allowed to act unlike what is explicitly stated in the control action spell, it seems fair to assume you DON'T act unless directed to.

I posted as such earlier.

@Called Shots:

Too bad they changed the wording from SR4 to SR4A to add some ambiguity.


At least it is still implied

But even in SR4A only an logical disjunction of the four options makes sense as you cannot combine options three and four (shooting an item out of the target's grasp and shooting to create a certain effect)

Comparison Control Actions vs Control thughts

Control Actions :
Drain code: F/2
Controls PHYSICAL actions when commanded, otherwise target acts as normal.
Can use targets skills with target's Willpower penalty.
Target won't answer any questions he's not prepared to answer otherwise.
Target remembers everything.

Control Actions:
Drain code: F/2+2
Controls EVERYTHING the target does. If no orders given, target stands dumbfounded around.
Target WILL answer any questions he's capable of. eg If ordered to tell everything, the target will tell everything he knows, starting when he was three years old.
Target remembers everything.
Can use targets skills.

Both are Magic + spellcasting vs Willpower (+ Counterspelling)
Make additional saves after Force combat rounds.

Opening a door.
Control actions + Control Thoughts work

Opening a door with code lock
Control Actions doesn't work because the caster is forcing the target to push/pull the door open.
Control Thoughts work because the target will use any knowledge he has to open the door.

Please cite a rule that actually says this. Not a LACK of a rule that says otherwise, mind you. The rulebook doesn't say my Troll isn't God, either, that doesn't mean that he is.

Look at control actions:

"If no orders are given, target acts as normal."

Such wording is not present under Control Thoughts.

And your Troll is God. It's called a delusion. There's probably a negative quality for such mental illnesses.

Compare the texts.

Control Actions (CA): The caster of this spell controls the physical actions of a target like a puppeteer pulling strings. The victim’s consciousness is unaffected, but the caster controls the victim’s body.
Controlling a target character requires the caster to spend a Simple Action; when not directly controlled, the victim may act as normal.

Control Thoughts (CT): The caster seizes control of the target’s mind, directing everything the target does. The caster mentally gives commands with a Simple Action and the target is compelled to obey.

See the difference
In the CA the caster only controls the physical body of the target and the target struggles against the enchantment, as demonstrated by the willpower penalty for skill uses.

In the CT the caster controls everything. The caster commands and the target is compelled to obey, meaning no wiggly room at all to resist the commands.

Nope. He's God, omnipotence and all. After all, the text doesn't say he isn't!

That's exactly what your argument is saying (down to the "he's God" part with respect to the controlee).

No he isn't. As i wrote somewhere else already, trolls are humans who differ from the homo sapiens sapiens (only) in the mentioned features. Since godhood (or flight for that matter) is not mentioned they are just as godly and flying as regular humans. Which is not at all.

Fine, then change Troll to Human. Or for that matter, to Great Dragon. The distinction is irrelevant for the argument.

In any case, your comparison is not accurate. That's a very nice straw man you've got there, though.

Why is it that casting deadly magic is seen as either an exploit, a break in the system, a power creep, ect...
when infact any equal build other mundane character is as effective as the mage or even more effective.
It isn't even so that the mage is a all character replace guy, and trumps all party members in their chosen task.
The mage buys from start max 12 spells for 36 bp. + 15 bp for the mage quality
What can mundanes buy for this 36 bp + 15 bp or 180.000 .+75.000 Alot.

On top of this, don't forget to have the players always roll for drain, not buy the hits. This will leave them at the end of the day with some hefty damage. Especially when using multiple opposition. Or treaten to shoot their party members.
Always attack from more than one side. If the mage can't see you with his normal eyes he can't target you. Mayby if he gets a cybereye in the back of his head, which eats up essence, thereby lowering the power of your mage.

Does it matter how the NPC got whacked, is there a difference between using magic, a bullet, a granade or something else? Does it make them more or less dead?

For control thoughts and having them kill them selfs. Boohoo, A sam kills the opposition on any given day faster and more reliable.
For getting past those nasty keypad locks on doors, without resorting to explosives go right ahead.
As interrogation technique, effective it's cleaner. But a bullet to the feet and the knees and the .. (you get the picture) is also quite effective.
As for the mass control, if any resist, have them do a called shot through the eye/head (extra damage) and see if the mage is still able to command the masses.

Why is it not accurate? One set of people is saying "The rules don't say we don't have complete and total control over the target of Control Thoughts/Mob Mind, so therefor we must!". That's the entirety of their argument. Sum total. Well, the rules also don't say Great Dragons aren't omnipotent.

It's not a straw man -- it's hyperbole. I suggest you look it up.

The rules for mental manipulations are screwed up in SR4A. One, Willpower is nigh useless against the spell. IMO, spells like Control Thoughts should have to have some sort of penalty to make the affected victim do something against their nature. It also seems that a threshold of 1/2 Willpower should be added as well. Besides the obvious detriment to reputation and violation of UCAS law (And other nations I am sure), the spell is crazy overpowered.

Here is my question: Why doesn't Control Thoughts suffer the same penalty as Control Actions were there is a dice pool modifier equal to the Willpower for having the victim fighting against the attempt to control? The spells are very uneven in the RAW. I think the problem can be solved with some common sense house ruling.

The rules also don't say that runners shouldn't be facing great dragons. And we all know that doesn't happen.



Hasty Generalization, then? That's as much a logical fallacy as the Straw Man.

They aren't relying on an absence of rules - which is what your (incorrect) comparison implies. The lack of the "Control Actions" caveat is just gravy. Instead, they are basing their opinions on a specific quote from the spell description:

If the caster directs everything the target does, then the target does nothing that the caster does not direct. This is not a jump in logic; this is not a case of semantics or unclear language; this is straightforward and simple.

It might be overpowered, it might be ridiculous, it might not even be RAI (although it's clear that Control Thoughts is supposed to be better than Control Actions by its DV), but it is RAW.

RAW aside, I think the earlier posts probably summed this up (does 9 pages of the response and counter response seem excessive? ). Most of the limitations to this spell are not rules related, but roleplay related. Which will mean that it is up to the GM to set how powerful these can be.

If the opposition has any magical support what so ever, the spell is certainly going to be less effective. Also limiting is the reaction the NPC and his/her allies would have to being messed with.

Yeah, after my first session with my free spirit, my GM was basically fuming at my use of Influence, so in addition to providing him counters (and this thread), I think I'll cool it a little bit.

Influence is, over time. much more powerful than the mind control spells because it's subtle and can effectively last forever. It certainly has the potential to be a game breaker, but it's not as effective in combat as a F6 mob mind.

Yeah, I agree with this. It is a bit vague, because you have two clauses -- you have "the caster controls everything he does," and you also have "the target must obey commands given with a Simple Action" (paraphrasing of course). The arguments on this thread have generally been from people who want to look at one more than the other. Such as, when I argue that the target might not obey commands how you want them to, I'm focusing on the second clause more than the first, while the opposite is true for people who disagree with that. I hold to the belief that the second clause is the operative clause and therefore more important. However, the first clause still exists and still has meaning. And there's no escaping the meaning of "everything he does." That says pretty clearly that the target does not act independently. I can't see another way to read it that makes sense. It's also a limitation on the spell, though. You can't Mob Mind a whole crowd of people and have it be subtle -- they'll all stop dead in there tracks and stand there, and anyone not under the spell will instantly know that something is wrong. If they have any kind of knowledge of magic, they'll probably even know that those people have been hit with a spell.

"Tell me everything"

"Well, I was born on October the 9th..."

"Skip forward 30 years."

So really, is misinterpreting really that big of a deal when interrogating?

I disagree. Reading it that literally means you don't even have to do anything to kill someone with Control Thoughts, because they won't breathe unless you tell them to.

Don't be silly. They will break the spell well before 2 minutes is up.

There's a slight but notable difference between reading it literally and reading it contextually. The wording is clear, unless you intentionally muddy it, as you have been.

Control thoughts controls their thoughts with a simple action. Spend it and tell them to do only what you say. THAT will make them mindless. Until then you only get whats stated by RAW unless your GM goes by a RAI interpretation/logical extension.

Oy vey. Once again, can't we agree that there are two reasonable interpretations here? The text isn't crystal clear, and the people on the other side aren't retards, they're reasonable people.

So here's what it shakes down to: pick the one you prefer in terms of having a fun and balanced game. Fun and balance are subjective, so neither side is wrong. There are legitimate reasons to disagree, but neither side can claim victory in this one, trying to "win" this argument is pointless. It will go around and around forever, so we need an agreement to disagree before it gets crazy again.

As for me, I don't see why it would be bad for the spell to render them immobile. The same thing could be done with a stunbolt/ball, which has waay less drain. I also prefer the spell to have an obvious effect. I actually think it's a lot less powerful if the person stops dead in their tracks and stands there as soon as its cast on them. That means that people around them will notice, and be on their guard. If you let the people keep acting normally once they've had Control Throughts placed on them, then their friends won't be expecting it. The target will get a surprise test against his friends, and very likely kill them with no defense test possible. But if the guy stops in his tracks, his friends will notice and try to bring him back, and thus will not be surprised when he attacks them, because they'll be watching his actions carefully as soon as he stops behaving normally. They also won't assume that their friend is a traitor and try to kill him, they'll be a lot more likely to realize it's magic and try to retreat so they don't have to kill him, giving him time to shake off the spell on his own.

FIFY.

Ditto... Please Cite References...

Which is NOT as effective as a Force 6 Stun Ball...

Don't you mean 2 Turns...


And in the End, I have to agree with Larme... 2 Interpretations, choose the one you prefer and move on...

Um, no. I need at least 4 net successes to have stun ball drop people without spending another complex action, another drain test and a resistance test. I need one net success with mob mind and everyone is done.

But I can't use a force 6 stun ball or mob mind to have the megacorp VP become my special friend.

Mob Mind and a large wad of cash.

As pointed out a force 6 control thoughts is more effective. A stun ball of the same drain would be marginally more effective at just removing X# of people from the fight in one move. Its rare that I need more than a 5 meter radius so a force 5 control thoughts is almost always enough for me. I get the added benefit of controlling them for additional mayhem.

It is too good for a multipurpose spell. I have a similar problem with trid phantasm. Being +2 to the drain code does not make a spell balanced when it does almost everything in the illusion spell category. Multipurpose spells should be significantly weaker than single purpose spells in there intended purpose a cuple points of drain just don't cut it as a balancing mechanic.

I guess that would depend upon your definition of effective... Significantly less drain for the Stun Ball and you still eliminate the threat. Adding in the "headach" of using controlled automotons for additional mayhem is a double edged sword that could get you killed in the end if you are not careful... especially if those you control move out of the area of effect, or throw off the spell's effect before you are aware of it...

But to each his own, that is why we have a large number of spells to choose from... Different Strokes and all that...

And I agree, The control Thoughts/Mob Mind spells are very broad, and can obviously be interpreted in ways that make them exceedingly powerful... probably more powerful that was Intended...

Meh... My two cents...

Dont confuse efficiency with effective. Stun Ball is more efficient. Compulsion-typespells are more effective as they can do more.

EG:
A teammate is possessed by a spirit. Mob Mind, then tell the spirit to leave him.
You need information and have 10sec to get it before all hell breaks loose. You force the target to tell you. [not just truth but to actually tell you]
You need the police delayed without violence so you have a crowd of people all point the cops down a side road to catch their quarry... in the wrong place

Stun Ball can escalate things unnecessarily where Mob Mind/Control Thoughts can simply divert things. More useful uses makes it more versatile. The fact a F6 Mob Mind only needs one net hit to work for 36sec makes it more effective. Efficient though is indeedy the Stun Ball, just not as effective in as many situations.

You're confusing effectiveness with versatility.

SEMANTICS! THEY BURN USSSS!

Thank You...