Talent/Spell of the Weak: Control Person

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I know the week's over, Shostak, but I have a question about your suggestion. You pointed out that PCs and also NPCs have higher IQs these days, and so Control Person has become less useful -- a 3/IQ roll is pretty easy to make. Thus, go for an IQ contest instead, giving the caster better odds of a successful casting.

But there are two other Control spells, Control Animals and Control Elementals. Animals and Elementals haven't increased their IQs. There are two options:

(1) Go with an IQ contest here. Advantage: simple consistency. Disadvantage: Control Animals has just gotten a lot better for no good reason.

(2) Go with a 3/IQ roll here. Advantage: Controlling Animals is still easier than Controlling Persons, but not massively so. Disadvantage: It's hard to come up with a thematic justification.

Which of these two do you prefer?

The latter, since there is no change to their IQ that has unintended consequences, and because I'm lazy. But if consistency is the goal, one could grant elementals and animals levels of Indomitable (Hexagram 8) to give a bonus to IQ for the purpose of this sort of resistance roll.

[phiwum]

Maybe I'll do a hybrid house rule. The victim gets a 3/IQ save roll if the caster is a PC and an IQ contest if he's an NPC. Now, you might think that's unfair, but I'll remind the reader that the NPCs seem to be at a distinct disadvantage. They die by the dozen for every felled PC.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Shostak

As described in the rules at ITL 136, when the spell expires, the subject will know who controlled them.

Not in my copy of ITL, which says (on p. 136), " When the spell ends, it will not know who
controlled it." Maybe that has been changed. (I use the latest PDF.)

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Not in my copy of ITL, which says (on p. 136), " When the spell ends, it will not know who
controlled it." Maybe that has been changed. (I use the latest PDF.)

I don't know how they would know for certain who controlled them. It may be an easy thing to figure out depending upon the situation but not a given.

I like the idea of a test of wills.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Not in my copy of ITL, which says (on p. 136), " When the spell ends, it will not know who
controlled it." Maybe that has been changed. (I use the latest PDF.)

Well I'll be darned. How many times have I read this and read right over "not"?!
At least I've not been flouting the rules all this time.

But when it says that the controlled figure won't know who controlled it, does it imply that it will know that they were controlled at all?

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Shostak

But when it says that the controlled figure won't know who controlled it, does it imply that it will know that they were controlled at all?

They have to know. I imagine it would be like watching yourself do things on TV. You just keep doing things that you don't want to and cannot stop it. Maybe if someone was mentally unstable they could assume it was a psychotic episode, but most people and animals will assume there was another actor in control.

[Shostak]

The two possibilities of either knowing that your body was under someone else's control or not being able to resist impulses that seem to come from your own mind each possess their own flavor of horror.

[hcobb]

Anybody do the sudden jump with a gap in the subject's awareness?