Mind Control with multiple opponents

[KBH]

Hi,
I am currently trying to enhance the Mind Control (B68) to multiple opponents. So far, I see the possible enhancements Area Effect (B102) and Cone (B103).

Taking Area Effect for example, the Range penalites (B550) no longer apply and I could simulate that by Short Range (GUPRS Power Ups 8) going from step 2 to 0, providing -20%.
However, how to reduce the effect of line of sight, since Mind control allows any target you can see or touch.

So, I know there is also the enhancement Increased Range (Psionic Powers), where I would need something like the inverse limitation: Drop the line of sight and touch.

How would you handle this?

Or is there a completely different approach possible like an "Effect multiple opponents" enhancement?

Thansk and best
KBH

[Kale]

Cone seems like it could represent the restriction of your field of view; you have to be able to see all your targets at once.

[Andreas]

Compartmentalized Mind with "No Mental Separation" and "Limited, One Ability" would be one alternative for affecting multiple opponents.

Originally Posted by Kale

Cone seems like it could represent the restriction of your field of view; you have to be able to see all your targets at once.

You would still be limited by the 12 feet height of the "cone" which seems like a rather strange limitation for a power like this.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by KBH

Taking Area Effect for example, the Range penalites (B550) no longer apply

I thought with AE attacks you applied them in regard to the distance between you and the AE's center.

Originally Posted by KBH

However, how to reduce the effect of line of sight, since Mind control allows any target you can see or touch.

I guess the question is whether or not you need to see all targets in the AE or just the center of the AE.

Normally I think it's just the center (ie toss a grenade through a window, you don't need to see the guys on either side of the window) so I can see why you might think of mind control that way.

P61 "Pheromones" mentions "this ability doesn’t work by touch or sight" which I think is an aspect of taking the "Emanation" limitation.

B112 mentions removing range/accuracy. It doesn't explicitly mention not needing to make rolls to hit but P168 clarifies that (I think?) by saying it doesn't use the Innate Attack skill (ie there's no longer any benefits from critical hits, but you can't miss or ever hit yourself)

Emanation's lack of a need to roll to hit (and thus ignoring speed/range penalties) I think is written with basic attacks in mind though...

I don't know if the books address how that would work with Malediction-like effects which Mind Control basically is inherently, but we did get a PK answer along those lines in 2014:

Originally Posted by PK

Just stepping in to give official weight to munin's correct answer.
Area Effect means that every target in the area is affected equally.
(If you don't want that, add Dissipation.)
So the combo of Area Effect + Emanation + Malediction 1 means you affect everyone within X yards of yourself at no range penalty.
And no, there's no reason to go beyond Malediction 1.

So I guess you could actually take a "short range" limitation to switch from speed/range to -1/yard and then take emanation to get rid of it anyway.

Originally Posted by PK

So, I know there is also the enhancement Increased Range (Psionic Powers), where I would need something like the inverse limitation: Drop the line of sight and touch.

The precedent set by Pheromones (P61) is that some component of that accomplishes it.

If I'm wrong in thinking that's Emanation then I'm not sure what else could explain it.

It might be that Pheromones were under-written and there shouldn't been some enhancement for removing the requirement to see target?

Keep in mind that as of Powers, you no longer use an Attack maneuver to attack with your Emanation, you have to use a Ready maneuver, so you can't Move+Attack with your Emanation anymore.

"sight or touch" isn't worth much as a sense-based malediction (0.2*0.2 = -4%) so it probably shouldn't cost too much to buy off. Scent-based as the ONLY option is actually more of a limitation... but you probably shouldn't get FULL points for it if it's meant to replace 2 other sense options.

[ericthered]

wouldn't the sense-based (reversed) limitation be appropriate here? Its on powers page 105. It applies all existing limitations, but you also have to see your target.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by ericthered

wouldn't the sense-based (reversed) limitation be appropriate here? Its on powers page 105. It applies all existing limitations, but you also have to see your target.

I think the problem is that it's basically built into the power, but in either/or situation.

Touch-Based, Reversed (-20%) and Sight-Based, Reversed (-20%) are I think worth -4% using the Either/Or Limitations rules.

For simplicity, F130 has a precedent of just inverting the costs of limitations to buy them off...

Divided Magery is a
-40% limitation on levels of Magery. But then not having the limitation
is effectively an enhancement. For example, not having Divided
Magery is a +40% enhancement.

So "Not Either Sight-or-Touch-Based, Reversed +4%" would seem like something appropriate thing to charge.

Of course to do SPECIFIC attacks you'd still need to be aware of them being in range SOMEhow... like if you heard them, were told of their presence by an ally, detected them, etc.

But with AE you might not have to know they're there if your idea is just "all sentient minds in the room, hop on one foot" although since you don't know how many minds you're trying to target, you might have no clue what a huge cumulative penalty there will be to your roll.

I'm thinking maybe because it's so small (less than 5%) if they just figured to ignore that when designing Pheromones.

[Not another shrubbery]

Note that Basic already has a price structure for additional senses in a Sense-Based limitation build: -20% for one, -15% for two, and -10% for three, with more than three not being a significant limitation. To partially buy off the limitation when it involves more than one sense, you would pay the difference between the old level and the new one. You would always pay +20% to fully buy off any level of Sense-based limitation.

IMO, the book values are giving too generous a discount to the addition of extra senses in such cases, but Rev's either-or construct is too stingy. I think just halving the values (-10% for two, -5% for three) looks a bit fairer.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Note that Basic already has a price structure for additional senses in a Sense-Based limitation build: -20% for one, -15% for two, and -10% for three, with more than three not being a significant limitation.

*checks B109* seems I forgot about that, nice catch. I guess it has a -15% rather than a -4% built in.

Any ideas for some kind of -15% limitation we could assume Pheromones has to offset the implied +15% enhancement?

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

To partially buy off the limitation when it involves more than one sense, you would pay the difference between the old level and the new one.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

IMO, the book values are giving too generous a discount to the addition of extra senses in such cases, but Rev's either-or construct is too stingy. I think just halving the values (-10% for two, -5% for one) looks a bit fairer.

There's a similar -5%/step pricing structure with One-Spell Magery variations on T25... -80% for one spell. -75% for two spells...

Doesn't really line up with the Either/Or guidelines (PU8p6) where it should be 0.8*0.8=0.64=-64% for magery that works for 2 spells...

This was published long after Basic/Thaumatology though so we can't really expect to see new rules' used to design costs in previous books, but it makes me wonder if we should retroactively tweak them to follow the pattern.

Sometimes the Either/Or rules can shrink things to a point where it seems TOO tiny though, so I actually like your 20/10/5 proposal, it strikes a nice balance between the two extremes and keeps things penty.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Plane

*checks B109* seems I forgot about that, nice catch. I guess it has a -15% rather than a -4% built in.

Any ideas for some kind of -15% limitation we could assume Pheromones has to offset the implied +15% enhancement?
...
Sometimes the Either/Or rules can shrink things to a point where it seems TOO tiny though, so I actually like your 20/10/5 proposal, it strikes a nice balance between the two extremes and keeps things penty.

*tch* That should have been -5% for three. I fixed that in my post.

Regarding Pheromones: That’s not straightforward, sadly. Although it seems apparent that [Reverse Vision-Based OR Touch-Based, -15% (this latter might be Melee Attack, C instead)] is built-into Mind Control, the builds in Powers all look like they assume adding a Sense-Based limiter to MC overwrites the base version sense requirements. If we were to go with your version (which I would prefer myself), then replacing the base requirements with [Scent-Based, -20%] should result in a net +15% to the cost, as the new sense req is replacing the old rather than being added to it. I don’t think there’s an actual imperative to keep the cost the same as in the book, but I suppose you could add Onset (with a house-ruled interpolated value) or something to keep it just so.

One of the things that this reminds me of is how I dislike making all the Sense-Based limiters the same value, even though the senses themselves are obviously not all equal.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Although it seems apparent that [Reverse Vision-Based OR Touch-Based, -15% (this latter might be Melee Attack, C instead)] is built-into Mind Control, the builds in Powers all look like they assume adding a Sense-Based limiter to MC overwrites the base version sense requirements.

Or maybe just overlooks the base requirements? It reminds us they aren't there though, which seems to acknowledge their initial presence...

I just wonder if they really thought of that as sense-based, or more like "just be aware of the enemy" which touch/vision usually would do... but hearing wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

One of the things that this reminds me of is how I dislike making all the Sense-Based limiters the same value, even though the senses themselves are obviously not all equal.

Yeah I would think the discount should maybe match the differences in pricing between disadvantages like blindness / no-taste+no-smell / deafness