[markelphoenix]

Two questions,
One: When you cast Control Actions, are you able to give a command as part of the casting or is it Cast, Succeed at Controlling them, then need a whole separate Major Action to tell them to attack on that turn? I know that for every other turn you'd need to use a Major Action for the targets under the spell.

Two: For AoE Control Actions, can you give group commands, or do you still have to give commands to each individual person under the AoE effects?

[Xenon]

When you cast Control Actions, are you able to give a command as part of the casting or is it Cast, Succeed at Controlling them, then need a whole separate Major Action to tell them to attack on that turn?

Two separate actions. Note that if you command them to take a minor action then you are also just spending a minor action.

In previous edition it was also a separate action to cast the spell and controlling the victim. However, in previous edition you explicitly used your own skill ratings when controlling someone to take an action. This part seem to have been left out. Unclear if the intention is that you still use your own skill ratings or if this was deliberately changed to now use the victims skill ratings.

For AoE Control Actions, can you give group commands, or do you still have to give commands to each individual person under the AoE effects?

Book doesn't say.

In previous edition you could issue the same command to multiple victims as one action. I believe the intention here did not change between editions.

[markelphoenix]

When you cast Control Actions, are you able to give a command as part of the casting or is it Cast, Succeed at Controlling them, then need a whole separate Major Action to tell them to attack on that turn?

Two separate actions. Note that if you command them to take a minor action then you are also just spending a minor action.

In previous edition it was also a separate action to cast the spell and controlling the victim. However, in previous edition you explicitly used your own skill ratings when controlling someone to take an action. This part seem to have been left out. Unclear if the intention is that you still use your own skill ratings or if this was deliberately changed to now use the victims skill ratings.

For AoE Control Actions, can you give group commands, or do you still have to give commands to each individual person under the AoE effects?

Book doesn't say.

In previous edition you could issue the same command to multiple victims as one action. I believe the intention here did not change between editions.

Also, my understanding is while they're under control action, they do nothing unless ordered otherwise, any other interpretations?

[Shinobi Killfist]

That would be my assumption, they stand around doing nothing until commanded.  Control actions really seems to be far better than thoughts this go around. They don't even seem to get a chance to re-resist if you force them to do something suicidal.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

That would be my assumption, they stand around doing nothing until commanded.  Control actions really seems to be far better than thoughts this go around. They don't even seem to get a chance to re-resist if you force them to do something suicidal.

My personal take is that commanding someone to suicide or kill a loved one always gives another chance to break the spell ala Control Thoughts, or even to just stand there and do nothing rather than carry out the action (ala 5e Commanding Voice).

[Shinobi Killfist]

That would be my assumption, they stand around doing nothing until commanded.  Control actions really seems to be far better than thoughts this go around. They don't even seem to get a chance to re-resist if you force them to do something suicidal.

My personal take is that commanding someone to suicide or kill a loved one always gives another chance to break the spell ala Control Thoughts, or even to just stand there and do nothing rather than carry out the action (ala 5e Commanding Voice).

in any home game that is how I'd run it.

[markelphoenix]

Then why would someone choose Control Action over Control Thoughts then? Main advantage of control thoughts is that lack of resist check, except the person is 100% aware he is being played as a puppet.

Control Thoughts allows for subtle manipulation for more covert cases, where the demands need to be reasonable, leaving the victim none the wiser if your manipulation is subtle enough to get what you want without it being a massive departure from their normal routine. Something as simple as 'Add a BCC to this address when you send your next status updates for analytics tracking' or some such BS. Sending messages in his normal daily routine and adding an address isn't extreme. Ordering them to off their wife is.

Control Action seems to be the combat version or brute force version, where it's intentionally meant to throw subtlety out the window.

Do agree it's a good idea to establish a ruling before a player takes it, or even before a GM uses it on a player, so that everyone is on same page on how that table choose to House Rule it.

Oddly enough, I find that this is one of the few places RAW and RAI seem to so closely coincide in 6e.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Then why would someone choose Control Action over Control Thoughts then? Main advantage of control thoughts is that lack of resist check, except the person is 100% aware he is being played as a puppet.

Control Thoughts allows for subtle manipulation for more covert cases, where the demands need to be reasonable, leaving the victim none the wiser if your manipulation is subtle enough to get what you want without it being a massive departure from their normal routine. Something as simple as 'Add a BCC to this address when you send your next status updates for analytics tracking' or some such BS. Sending messages in his normal daily routine and adding an address isn't extreme. Ordering them to off their wife is.

Control Action seems to be the combat version or brute force version, where it's intentionally meant to throw subtlety out the window.

Do agree it's a good idea to establish a ruling before a player takes it, or even before a GM uses it on a player, so that everyone is on same page on how that table choose to House Rule it.

Oddly enough, I find that this is one of the few places RAW and RAI seem to so closely coincide in 6e.

I suspect its not intended to be resisted.  I just find that insanely broken for 4DV drain.

Edit to add, that's why I'd run it like suggested.  I may drop its drain to 3 though. Or more likely bump the drain on control thoughts to like 6.

[markelphoenix]

Then why would someone choose Control Action over Control Thoughts then? Main advantage of control thoughts is that lack of resist check, except the person is 100% aware he is being played as a puppet.

Control Thoughts allows for subtle manipulation for more covert cases, where the demands need to be reasonable, leaving the victim none the wiser if your manipulation is subtle enough to get what you want without it being a massive departure from their normal routine. Something as simple as 'Add a BCC to this address when you send your next status updates for analytics tracking' or some such BS. Sending messages in his normal daily routine and adding an address isn't extreme. Ordering them to off their wife is.

Control Action seems to be the combat version or brute force version, where it's intentionally meant to throw subtlety out the window.

Do agree it's a good idea to establish a ruling before a player takes it, or even before a GM uses it on a player, so that everyone is on same page on how that table choose to House Rule it.

Oddly enough, I find that this is one of the few places RAW and RAI seem to so closely coincide in 6e.

I suspect its not intended to be resisted.  I just find that insanely broken for 4DV drain.

Edit to add, that's why I'd run it like suggested.  I may drop its drain to 3 though. Or more likely bump the drain on control thoughts to like 6.

I like the idea of bumping up the drain value. Keeps the original intent of the spell, but also makes it more likely to hurt.