Why don't all RPGs where mind control exists have an Ego stat that functions as mental HP?
>successful mental attacks lower the target's Ego before effect is determined
>you can't make an enemy surrender unless their Ego is under your skill
>you can't make an enemy hurt someone they normally wouldn't unless their Ego is negative
>enemies magically converted to your side still recover Ego and have a chance to shake off the enchantment unless it is regularly renewed
Ending every fight in one turn with "go to the police and turn yourself in" doesn't sound fair or fun.
>>43588498
Me gusta.
>>43588498
Because mind control doesn't come up enough to get it's own dedicated HP variant
>>43588498
Degenesis rebirth edition has exactly this system
>>43588999
So the few people who specialize in it should be able to curb stomp anything not immune?
>>43589031
Psionics are rare and not used in any games I've played in. Also what's your psionic character going to do when he has to open a door or anything besides mind rape random people?
For generic systems, I think it's mostly because they need to cover settings where mind control is fairly common and settings where it's completely unknown. So it doesn't make much sense to have a core stat which isn't always used.
>>43589135
They get the mind-controlled NPC to open the door,duh.
>>43589234
Wouldn't it make sense for it to be a flat will save?
>>43589248
Then get a better attitude and stop complaining about non-issues that have never showed up in a game that wasn't already destroyed anyways. By destroyed I mean that the all psionic party is mind raping everything and generally be fucktards.
>>43589135
Mind rape someone to do it for him, since it only takes one turn regardless of target or intent.
And if you say he wakes up in a box in orbit with no minds to control nearby, then that's getting into "cover the world in antimagic fields" territory. Why resort to GM fiat to screw the character over when the ability can be nerfed?
>>43589234
It doesn't really have to be a core stat. You could include it in the rules text of every ability that would use it.
Whether it's a rare ability in the setting is no excuse, because nothing prevents a player from taking it.
>>43589170 has Ego, but it's less mind control and more "you explode into orange juice" when you reach low numbers/hit 0.
>>43589282
>nothing prevents a player from taking it.
Except for
>GM: "Hey guys don't pick psionic classes for this game since it doesn't exist in this setting/It's overpowered."
Why aren't mind control effects always explicitly capital-E Evil in every setting?
If necromancy is always evil, regardless of what you do with it, then there's no excuse for mind control not to be.
>>43589300
>A true Scotsman doesn't let players do XYZ!
Then why include it in the game as a player option if 100% of groups are expected to ban it? As a joke?
In discussions of rules, always assume GM fiat doesn't exist.
>>43589350
>Then why include it in the game as a player option
Why does GURPS have so many rules when some won't be used in 99% of games? It's because most settings and play styles won't use them but they're included for the 1% that does want to use them.
Also
>always assume GM fiat doesn't exist.
So I should be able to make a gnome paladin with a stance that turns my 1d2 punches into infinite damage attacks? DM fiat should be included for any discussion about rules that will be used by non-retarded people.
Why not just HP?
HP doesn't represent meat points for most games; simply instead of knocked out, a psion would dominate a target if his psionic attack dealt enough damage to knock him down (who'd still be in no fighting shape, and would probably break out after regaining health, assuming no more mindrape happens).
>>43589378
BTW, same can be used for turning into toad/stone/disintegrate, etc. Basically any effect that ends the encounter could have a HP cap on it, so it only "fully" works if it'd kill (or nearly kill) the target anyways, making it a nice cherry on top (or possibly an objective) instead of an instant win card.
>>43588498
>this is my fetish
I will make my GM roleplay out the strong warrior as I chip away at hia mental defenses, battering at his mind and watch as he's reduced from the angry shouts and denial to weak utterances to rebuff my commands; and finally quiet, sobbing pleadings for me to stop - a moment of hope as I pause, only to take even that from them as I crush the last vestige of free will and sapient thought from their mind, leaving a mere husk of a body, an emotionless puppet to shape to my will.
Then, the remodelling can begin.if you think this is a reason not to do this system replace mental HP with normal HP and psion with necromancer
>>43588498
Other way around - why don't you take a fortitude save or get cripplingly injured when someone slices you up with a sword?
Although I kind of like your idea better. I'd sort of like it to apply to all non-physical magic, though.
>>43589031
What are "Saves"?
>>43588999
Has it right. An antire Mechanic built around a fringe case is asinine if you can just achieve a balanced game with resistance rolls.
>>43589377
>So I should be able to make a gnome paladin with a stance that turns my 1d2 punches into infinite damage attacks?
Not in any reasonable group, BUT that doesn't mean the rules that make it possible don't have a problem.
You're saying "it's not broken because I can fix it".
>>43589502
A mechanic in D&D that doesn't scale with level very well and reduces instant kill/cripple/dominate spells to pass-or-fail, thus frequently ending a "challenging" fight in one turn through sheer luck. The day a regular weapon attack is an instant kill on a 20 (not 3 consecutive 20s) no matter what is the day pass-or-fail mind control will be balanced.
What if the boss monster several levels above the party fails a single save before it even gets to have a turn, a scenario I've seen happen more than once? Should you be able to force it to kill itself, just like that?
>>43589415
One HP for everyone, if you roll attack over anyone's static armour they're crippled or killed/bleeding out?
That's an idea.
>>43589880
>D&D
Ah, I see.
Well, it's fucked, shoot it and move on.
>>43590734
I already know D&D is trash, that's why I preemptively used that picture. My concern is about ALL games that include mind control.
I'm saying it should always take more than one turn to force a challenging enemy to commit sudoku (except in games where combat is expected to be resolved very quickly no matter the means) even if it rolls a 1 on its save.
Sure, you can say "don't use mind control in your game", but that doesn't make it okay when mind control IS used.
>>43591113
>My concern is about ALL games that include mind control.
Have you even checked the mechanics of mind control in other games?
>>43591300
I looked at some of them. As long as it's impossible to end a challenging fight in one turn that way, I'm okay with it.
But that isn't the case in several games that exist besides D&D, and all anyone can say is "don't use it".
>>43591478
Which games were these? If it was WoD, those games are mechanical wrecks.
Usually, it's considerably harder to force somebody to kill himself, either because he gets additional saving throws, or because of other balancing measures.
>I hate how this mechanic is unsupported and overpowered
>Then don't use it
>NO IT MUST BE PERFECT AS IS AND IT ISN'T SO I MUST COMPLAIN LOUDLY INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
