Is damage-at-start-of-turn really Control?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here I must disagree. With damage-at-start from the sphere the enemy takes the damage and then has (almost) no decision to make. Sure, he can move away, but that won't stop the wizard from damaging him again. So the choice is not between "stay in my preferred position and be damaged" or "move away and avoid that damage". The choice is more like between "stay in my preferred position and be damaged" or "go somewhere else and take the same damage". Hardly a choice.

I disagree. In the start of turn case the wizard could simply say "Hmmm, I don't want the monster to move to location X" and threaten THAT location with his sphere, so he has JUST as much control in each situation. In fact its almost a trivial difference. The only real distinguishing feature between the two cases is with s-o-t damage the wizard's team can force move opponents into the zone and guarantee they will take damage, in the e-o-t case the opponents can use forced movement or other techniques to save their allies from taking damage. I would say the difference is very marginal but favors s-o-t effects as providing slightly more reliable control. E-o-t effects are better for leaders where the effect is beneficial to their allies and the ally gets a chance to move in and benefit right away vs waiting until the start of its next turn. Thus what you see is controller zone-type effects tend to trigger at s-o-t and leader buffing effects tend to trigger at e-o-t.

 

[DracoSuave]

I disagree. In the start of turn case the wizard could simply say "Hmmm, I don't want the monster to move to location X" and threaten THAT location with his sphere, so he has JUST as much control in each situation. In fact its almost a trivial difference. The only real distinguishing feature between the two cases is with s-o-t damage the wizard's team can force move opponents into the zone and guarantee they will take damage, in the e-o-t case the opponents can use forced movement or other techniques to save their allies from taking damage. I would say the difference is very marginal but favors s-o-t effects as providing slightly more reliable control. E-o-t effects are better for leaders where the effect is beneficial to their allies and the ally gets a chance to move in and benefit right away vs waiting until the start of its next turn. Thus what you see is controller zone-type effects tend to trigger at s-o-t and leader buffing effects tend to trigger at e-o-t.

Well said.

Besides, controllers have better options to prevent enemy movement into an area than e-o-t damage. Like Hit: Damage, the enemy can't go into the area cause you said so. Or Hit: Damage, the enemy can't move cause you rolled controller. Or Hit: Damage, the enemy is pushed some squares, immobilized, and basically all of the above combined. Or Hit: Damage, dominate the enemy.

The thing to remember about controllers is that they are ALSO there to do damage. It's fully appropriate that they assign the same decisions to the monsters, but ALSO force damage on them. Sure, -some- controllers don't do much damage, but those are actually the rare exceptions, and not the general rule for the role.

 

[Oldtimer]

I disagree. In the start of turn case the wizard could simply say "Hmmm, I don't want the monster to move to location X" and threaten THAT location with his sphere, so he has JUST as much control in each situation. In fact its almost a trivial difference. The only real distinguishing feature between the two cases is with s-o-t damage the wizard's team can force move opponents into the zone and guarantee they will take damage, in the e-o-t case the opponents can use forced movement or other techniques to save their allies from taking damage. I would say the difference is very marginal but favors s-o-t effects as providing slightly more reliable control.

It seems to me that you are saying that control=damage. Sure, damage-at-start is a more reliable way of causing damage to enemies. But, to me, control is threatening damage, not causing it (limiting the discussion here to damaging effects).

Also, I have already agreed that when placing the sphere preemptively, it doesn't matter much when the damage is taken. What I'm thinking is that placing the sphere in an area already occupied by the enemy, will give them a reason to leave it only with damage-at-end.

Finally, I don't understand that last comparison. You can force move opponents into the zone, but the bit about "opponents can use forced movement or other techniques to save their allies from taking damage" seems to apply more to damage-at-start. With damage-at-end, that opponent can save himself simply by moving on his turn. Which is exactly what you want.

 

[DracoSuave]

It seems to me that you are saying that control=damage. Sure, damage-at-start is a more reliable way of causing damage to enemies. But, to me, control is threatening damage, not causing it (limiting the discussion here to damaging effects).

No, control is coercing for forcing the battle to go in directions you want. And when the coercion is the same, coercion + damage is a better power than coercion + no damage.

This idea that 'Doesn't actually damage so it must be better control' is fallacious, it's the -result- that matters. And when two non-damage results are obstensibly the same, but one includes more damage, the latter is the superior option.

You don't win fights by not damaging foes to death.

Also, I have already agreed that when placing the sphere preemptively, it doesn't matter much when the damage is taken. What I'm thinking is that placing the sphere in an area already occupied by the enemy, will give them a reason to leave it only with damage-at-end.

But that's not true. See, if they don't move, then unless you move it, they'll take the damage. The fact you might choose not to move it non-withstanding, the choice (and therefore flexibility) is yours. You can -choose- to have it do the exact same thing as the other power, but with the damage happening.

Damage beforehand makes the power more flexible, and more useful in the combat goal of 'defeat enemies.' That's why it's a superior control power... it does more for you.

Finally, I don't understand that last comparison. You can force move opponents into the zone, but the bit about "opponents can use forced movement or other techniques to save their allies from taking damage" seems to apply more to damage-at-start. With damage-at-end, that opponent can save himself simply by moving on his turn. Which is exactly what you want.

No no, the idea is if you want control powers that force enemies to do things, you take the powers that say Hit: Enemy is forced to do this thing. Threatening damage is fine but it's less control than simply forcing them outright. If you're threatening damage, then you actually want the damage to happen occasionally.

 

[Gradine]

Let's not forget too that "control" was a very nebulous thing when we just had the PHB 1. It still, in many ways, is; they're the only role without a "every class in the role has this" mechanic (marking, adding damage, healing), which means there's no "default" way to play a controller. As such, you need to be a little more creative with your powers.

Damage at the beginning of the turn powers, as has already been stated, has the opposite use of powers that deal damage at the end of the turn. End-damage powers you place where monsters are already where you don't want them to be. Start-damage powers you place where you don't want monsters to go. Both turn into the latter kind eventually, only start-damage gives you guaranteed damage and end-damage gives you greater imperative to move on the first round.

They are, in many ways, the duct tape and WD-40 of battlefield control; they're the only tools you ever really need. If it moves when it shouldn't, use start-damage; if it isn't moving when it should, use end-damage. ;-)

 

[DracoSuave]

Let's not also forget, monsters might not be self-aware that they are antagonists in a roleplaying game. They might just be afraid of fire, and a flaming ball of fire might be more effective to scare them than, say, a really cold area of constant hail.

Or whatever.

Point is, monsters have no obligation to do what is tactically beneficial. Some might be able to be corralled just by following them forever with the ball of kill-you

 

[Oldtimer]

No, control is coercing for forcing the battle to go in directions you want. And when the coercion is the same, coercion + damage is a better power than coercion + no damage.

This idea that 'Doesn't actually damage so it must be better control' is fallacious, it's the -result- that matters. And when two non-damage results are obstensibly the same, but one includes more damage, the latter is the superior option.

You don't win fights by not damaging foes to death.

Of course you don't. And I did not say that 'Doesn't actually damage so it must be better control'. I said that coercion is more control than straight damage. The coercion is not the same here. The two non-damage results are not the same.

But that's not true. See, if they don't move, then unless you move it, they'll take the damage. The fact you might choose not to move it non-withstanding, the choice (and therefore flexibility) is yours. You can -choose- to have it do the exact same thing as the other power, but with the damage happening.

Damage beforehand makes the power more flexible, and more useful in the combat goal of 'defeat enemies.' That's why it's a superior control power... it does more for you.

Damage-at-start causes more damage, true, but I still think it's an inferior control power.

With damage-at-start they have already taken the damage, so the options are: "stay where I want to be and maybe take damage from the sphere next turn" or "move to a place I don't want to be and maybe take damage from the sphere next turn". The maybe is the same and that maybe is totally out of their control. Only thing that's different is the position, so they are likely to stay.

With damage-at-end, they have not yet taken the damage, so the options are: ""stay where I want to be and take damage from the sphere this turn" or "move to a place I don't want to be and avoid damage from the sphere this turn". The decision to take damage is theirs, but it's a trade-of.

No no, the idea is if you want control powers that force enemies to do things, you take the powers that say Hit: Enemy is forced to do this thing. Threatening damage is fine but it's less control than simply forcing them outright. If you're threatening damage, then you actually want the damage to happen occasionally.

Of course an immobilizing or dominating effect is more control than threatening to do damage. That's a bit beside the point, isn't it?

And you want the damage to happen just as much as the paladin wants his DC/DS-damage happen. Or the fighter wants his immediate attack against marked enemies. Threatening damage is a trade-of; go there and face the consequences or stay away and be safe. It's not like the monsters need to see occasionally that you dare to go through with your threat. We're not playing chicken here.

 

[Oldtimer]

Damage at the beginning of the turn powers, as has already been stated, has the opposite use of powers that deal damage at the end of the turn. End-damage powers you place where monsters are already where you don't want them to be. Start-damage powers you place where you don't want monsters to go. Both turn into the latter kind eventually, only start-damage gives you guaranteed damage and end-damage gives you greater imperative to move on the first round.

I agree with you that the mechanical difference makes them useful in different ways, but how is damage-at-start guaranteed damage if you place it where you don't want monsters to go? Actually, they could still go there, cause havoc, and have an ally force move them out. With end-of-damage in that same scenario, damage is much more likely, since no allies can act before the damage occurs.

 

[DracoSuave]

I agree with you that the mechanical difference makes them useful in different ways, but how is damage-at-start guaranteed damage if you place it where you don't want monsters to go? Actually, they could still go there, cause havoc, and have an ally force move them out. With end-of-damage in that same scenario, damage is much more likely, since no allies can act before the damage occurs.

Well, you also put start-of-turn damage where you don't want monsters to -stay-. Cause, if they stay, they take damage. They just can't avoid the first tick.

That's the difference there.

 

[Oldtimer]

Well, you also put start-of-turn damage where you don't want monsters to -stay-. Cause, if they stay, they take damage. They just can't avoid the first tick.

Again, only if the effect is stationary. With a movable effect damage-at-end is an assured tradeoff between stay-and-be-damaged or leave-and-be-safe. Damage-at-start gives them damage and then the choice to stay and maybe take damage one round from now. That's a huge maybe.

Staying inside a damage-at-end effect is assured damage. Staying inside a damage-at-start is not. That's the difference.

Anyway, it's now well past midnight here and I have to get some sleep. It seems we're seeing very differently on how a threat of damage influences enemy tactics. Maybe I can understand your points better tomorrow.