TranquiloUno

Selective would only be helpful, as lucius points out, if you also wanted to not targrt other, non-self, characters (Allies, for example).
 
If you have that goal (to not taget allies), go ahead and use ONLY selective and never target yourself. 
 
La Rose. 

I'm not sure why you think you'd need both.
 
With Personal Immunity, you're immune. The Power cannot effect you even if Reflected, etc. Only you are protected.
 
With Selective Targeting you can elect not to target some people who would otherwise be in the Area, including yourself. You can thus avoid targeting allies. But you are subject to the power if it is for example Reflected.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Palindromedary Immunity

While I think you are right at the most basic level, one of the toughest thing for a new GM is to figure out what's reasonable and what isn't for his campaign.
 
By removing a detailed list of recommended limitations on powers, you'd leave a lot of GM's guessing wrong on approving player characters and wrong on how strong the opposition might be when writing them up.
 
An experienced GM could do all of that in his sleep. A new GM might ruin a campaign and/or drive off players before he gets it right.
 
And under current rules. I can look at a power with its list of advantages and disadvantages from some character in your campaign as see exactly what it is supposed to do and how effective it is compared to another character's powers from your campaign. I don't see how you could distill down any description to get that information across as compactly and easily as it is in the current system.

I didn't think you could do selective targeting with darkness' area of effect as it does not use the area of effect advantage.
 

In Fantasy games, there is a variety  in the ways GMs handle animals, and I have found, the more experience the GMs have with Real animals, the harder it becomes to keep animals "loyal".   To a point, they will remain loyal, but the closer to an animals "Disads" the more fractious they can become.  In the  ASOI&F books the amount of control was total. THe more this is discussed though and the more thinking back on the books, where there is more detail on how it works, the moreit may be a multiform. I tried to do it on the "cheap" point wise for the power, but to be "accurate", it may be necessary to look at Multiform...
 
****SPOILERS FOR THE BOOKS:****
 
 There is some supposition that John Snow may have avoided permanent Death by Warging into Ghost, until the Red Lady dragged him back with his resurrection.  In the Books, the longer you stay with the animal, you become the animal, reduction in INT, and EGO, and your body dies of starvation or dehydration, while what's left of your mind lives on as the animal. (and the other animal companions eat the body and run away>)

The problem is compulsion and degree of control. The caster in the GRRM version has total control, in that he could see through the senses of the target, and command it to  his will completely. The targets will and desires are subsumed completely. However, this also makes a compelling argument for Multiform with limitations. In any case the animal companions are their own agents when not controlled, and therefore are their own character sheets.  (No, they are not stretching at range with Clairyoyance)
x

TransquiloUno, I was referring to use Mind Control on animals that the player hasn’t paid points for.

Scott I can see the point that if you pay points for the animals as followers and give them the psy lim: slavishly loyal as a legal build.

as you said -3/4 or -1/2 or at least link to the DS (no boom no shield)

I think the biggest question is can he do this to any animal or just his beast friends. That can affect builds.

I do recall one of the older editions examples of Mind Link being used by the Hero and his Bird companion. So maybe for a follower  that’s bought just Mind Link and the follower is completely loyal and still has leaves body behind SE. Since you’ve paid pointsfor specific followers you shouldn’t need Mind Control.

I would say INT >AND< EGO above 8, so that there might be edge cases, like particularly willful horses like INT6, but EGO 14, "No one can tame that stallion, but he's friendly around Ol' John. "   It would also serve in cases like high INT, but low ego humanoids/monsters allowing our Hero to perhaps poach individuals from a hive mind, or people under certain spells or potions?
 
If you really want that added GRTM effect, give it a limitation that certain monsters or flavors of undead can detect the mindlink and fen determine the direction and range of the faster. XD

This would be the the G. R. R. Martin definition of the word, rather than the J. R. R. Tolkien  definition, yes?  If so, how are the " animal companions" described? Assuming they have their own character sheets, the main character would need mind link with each of his animal companions and a mind control power with limitations like only works on mind linked targets, user is 0DCV and treated as asleep as per the rules when using the mind control,, isn't effective if targets EGO and INT are above 8 so that the automatic targeting over mindlink slides off  normal humans and above. Something like that?

There is a Possession Power in one of the APG-which I don’t have. But I think the absolutely easiest way to Warge would be to buy multiforms with proper limits-such as only available animals. Also have a Side Effect on this that the Warger leaves Body behind.  I am debating though that maybe instead of multiform, perhaps Varible Power Pool would be better.

have you read AoE damage shield from the rule book?
place a attack with limitation that only vs foci on a disspell/HtH KA or what ever damage shield linked to a Force Field
 
I have 6th with me but 5th... hmm

I'd be reluctant to let a "destroys weapons" damage shield be part of my game because most humanoid fighters are rubbish without their weapons. Not to mention that destroying a sword in a second that it takes a week to forge seems a little over-powered and could tilt an economy out of whack if it happens very often. A fighter couldn't earn enough in a week by hiring himself out as a guard to be able to buy a replacement sword if mages had access to magic that destroys swords by using a bit of END.
 
And what's the fighter supposed to do when his sword is destroyed? The force field means the mage didn't take significant damage from the first attack and now the fighter's sword is gone. His dagger is going to do even less damage. And if the sword doesn't get through the force field, punching the mage isn't going to do much either.
 
Anyway, killing attack with damage shield would be the way to go to build it, I think. If I allowed it at all, it'd be only in the direction the caster is facing, only for attacks that he's aware of, can't be used as part of a grab maneuver, and would make the mage pay full END cost (rather than allowing END Battery, charges, or buying Reduced END Cost with the power). Using it would need to seriously limit mage's ability or the player will run the shield 24 hours a day.
 
I'd recommend also that the shield only work against non-magical weapons. Any spell that's strong enough to shatter steel every time is going to shatter WAY too many magical swords.

I'm no expert but to give opinions...
 
If it's any help, I'd cost "Only against Foci" as a zero limitation in a fantasy game. Since the opponents are unlikely to have hand-to-hand combat superpowers as in Champions, everything except beasts will be attacking with foci when in hand-to-hand combat. But I'll admit I've never liked powers that are essentially "the power blows off all the opponent's clothing and armor and leaves him standing there naked and defenseless". This whole concept is just a variation on that but instead of standing there defenseless, he'd be standing there offenseless. If you are going to take out the character, kill him or fight him and force a surrender. Don't just humiliate him by having him stand there conscious but unable to do anything. YMMV
 
As for damage shields damaging foci automatically, as I understand it, they're supposed to work like that. But almost every character has shoes, socks, pants, belt, pouches, shirt, hat, armor of some sort, miscellaneous equipment of every sort, plus various weapons. It's a real pain in the butt for the GM to decide what actually gets toasted and which items survive(the GM at that point in the story might not even have worked out what the guy has on him, much less figure out what might have survived). So I've seen those effects of the damage shield ignored as much as followed to the letter of the rules. And players usually don't complain because all of those miscellaneous items are the kind of things most players call "Loot" and it's not much fun when it gets destroyed (at least when I'm playing).
 
For the force field "Only works against weapons that are shattered by the damage shield". it depends on how likely the damage shield is to shatter commonly-used weapons. If the campaign has everyone able to afford and use steel swords and the damage shield shatters steel swords, that's not much of a limitation.
 
But if the damage shield will reliably shatter only wooden clubs and the shafts of spears while opponents are attacking you mostly with two-handed steel swords and giant mauls, that limitation would be highly limiting the power's usefulness.

When a weapon shatters rukeswise, there is no secondary attack so you don’t need to buy a separate mechanical build for that. I would put it in the fluff. As for the actual weapon breaking spell,  I would check the focui breaking rules.  If you’re worried about having instant weapon breaks, I would keep the RKA fairly low.