
Cthulhudrew |

I'd assume that's the case. But if you're concerned as a GM, then just don't use the spell.
If you're concerned as a player, then make sure to take some kind of preventative measures. (What, I can't think of offhand, but I'm sure there are things you can do to minimize/eliminate the risk).
Or just hope you don't have a GM that will use such a tactic against you.

Patrick Renie Developer |

Taking a look at the spell, the last sentence stands out to me.
If the construct's creator or master is present and trying to control the construct, you both must make opposed Spellcraft checks each round to control the construct.
I would argue that since the android is effectively its own "master" (it has free will, after all), the android can make an opposed Spellcraft check each round to control itself (though it would have to continue making such checks as long as the caster concentrated on the spell).

Cthulhudrew |

I would argue that since the android is effectively its own "master" (it has free will, after all), the android can make an opposed Spellcraft check each round to control itself (though it would have to continue making such checks as long as the caster concentrated on the spell).
That's a really cool visual, actually- the caster and android struggling for control.

Heladriell |

Patrick Renie wrote:I would argue that since the android is effectively its own "master" (it has free will, after all), the android can make an opposed Spellcraft check each round to control itself (though it would have to continue making such checks as long as the caster concentrated on the spell).That's a really cool visual, actually- the caster and android struggling for control.
Yes, I can see that making a great scene. And even rewarding to the player's investment in spellcraft.