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

[Oldtimer]

I've been bothered for a while about things (conjurations and zones, mostly) that cause damage at the start of someone's turn. It seems to me that this doesn't give any control of the battlefield. You auto-damage an enemy and that's it. In no way are you influencing his actions for that turn (unless you kill him, of course).

Compare the Wizard Daily 1 Flaming Sphere with the Cleric Daily 1 Guardian of Faith. Both are conjurations that can be moved and kept around for the encounter. If the wizard (a controller, remember?) positions the sphere next to an enemy, that enemy might take 7-8 points of damage at the start of his turn, but is free to do whatever he wants on his turn. On the other hand, if the cleric positions the guardian somewhere, it's not an auto-damage, but a deterrent to go there, i.e. a control effect.

It is true that controllers also get low-damage area attacks (a.k.a. minion killers) and in that respect Flaming Sphere is fantastic. But it's all minion killing and no control, while I feel that most stay-around-effects should give battlefield control.

Am I wrong in thinking that? Would the Flaming Sphere be a more interesting spell if it dealt its auto-damage at the end of the enemy's turn?

Flaming Sphere is not the only culprit here. Many wizard spells have start-of-turn auto-damage and at the same time it's been said that wizards are lacking in their control function. Changing start-of-turn to end-of-turn for these spells could transform minion killing into battlefield control. Or?

 

[DracoSuave]

I disagree.

Some spells are interesting when they give an enemy a chance to move away. Other spells are interesting when they do not. Both spells have completely different purposes.

The former is to dissuade enemies from being in a position, and the latter is meant to damage enemies. Both types appeal to different players, and that's why you have multiple powers to choose from.

You may find it more fun to force enemies to 'move out of the fire' so to speak, but Billy might find it more fun to move his fire around and create pockets of automatic damage against his helpless foes.

When the goal is 'fun' not 'interesting to one subset of players', you need powers that don't just appeal to that one subset.

 

[Aegeri]

Oldtimer also forgot that flaming sphere occupies its square, meaning it exerts pretty strong control on large enemies and especially in confined spaces as well.

 

[Oldtimer]

I don't think we really disagree here. Both types are surely useful and "fun".

I was just thinking that these conjurations and zones would give the wizard more battlefield control by simply switching damage from start-of-turn to end-of-turn.

In no way was I saying that they are more or less fun either way. More that they are a bit deceptive in that they don't give the control you might expect.

Take a movable zone that does damage at start-of-turn and to creatures that enter it. On the surface it seems to give control, but put it somewhere over a group of enemies and they will just remain and take damage. Had it been end-of-turn (and to creatures that enter it), it would say "get the heck out of here" to those enemies.

And the wizard will still have his fireballs to clear out minions.

 

[Oldtimer]

Oldtimer also forgot that flaming sphere occupies its square, meaning it exerts pretty strong control on large enemies and especially in confined spaces as well.

Going through the updates, I saw you are right in that. The updated sphere gives a bit more control, since it now occupies its square.

But, for the sake of this discussion, what if we were talking about the original sphere (or a spell similar to it)?

 

[Rechan]

Well the idea is that a monster isn't going to stand in a square that continues to do damage to it, unless that monster is a masochist or stuck.

So if a wizard drops down a (let's say) wall of fire, that means the enemy either chooses to plow through it or go around it. If they choose to eat the damage, well guess that wasn't as big a control.

If the wizard makes an area damaging to stand in, then the monster is less likely to want to start his turn there by virtue of taking damage is bad.

If the effect lands ON TOP of the monster (and so he takes damage at the beginning of his turn) and If the effect lasts longer than the next round, the monster has the choice "Do I walk out of this area and avoid damage, or stay and suck it up?"

The flaming sphere is a good example of this. The monsters could move away from it, or they could eat the damage from it.

Bare in mind that when the PHB1 came out, WotC had not nailed down what a "controller" is meant to do. Hence why much of the original Wizard stuff just does not compare to both later controllers and later wizard stuff. The original PHB wizard, doing damage to lots of people was seen as an element of controllers (then everyone got multi-attack powers and so that became a wash).

 

[DracoSuave]

Well the idea is that a monster isn't going to stand in a square that continues to do damage to it, unless that monster is a masochist or stuck.

So if a wizard drops down a (let's say) wall of fire, that means the enemy either chooses to plow through it or go around it. If they choose to eat the damage, well guess that wasn't as big a control.

If the wizard makes an area damaging to stand in, then the monster is less likely to want to start his turn there by virtue of taking damage is bad.

If the effect lands ON TOP of the monster (and so he takes damage at the beginning of his turn) and If the effect lasts longer than the next round, the monster has the choice "Do I walk out of this area and avoid damage, or stay and suck it up?"

The flaming sphere is a good example of this. The monsters could move away from it, or they could eat the damage from it.

Bare in mind that when the PHB1 came out, WotC had not nailed down what a "controller" is meant to do. Hence why much of the original Wizard stuff just does not compare to both later controllers and later wizard stuff. The original PHB wizard, doing damage to lots of people was seen as an element of controllers (then everyone got multi-attack powers and so that became a wash).

Not to mention, controllers aren't really a 'do it one way' sort of deal. Here's the funny thing... that flaming sphere is JUST as controlling if it does damage at the beginning of the round, or at the end (only forced movement actually changes the controlliness--both for and against both.)

Basically, your argument is that if the damage comes after, then the monster has to decide 'Do I move, or take damage?' before he takes the damage.

With start-of-turn damage, it's like this:

'I just took damage; do I move, or take damage -next turn-, or does he move it in response to my movement?'

The monster STILL makes the same choice, with the added dimension that the controller still has a card to play after the monster plays his. In the first case, the monster moves, which is the inevitable conclusion. The controller basically lays down a 'You have to move now' ability, and damage is -rarely- an issue. There's no real decision making for the monster or the controller here.

In the damage-at-the-beginning version, the monster still makes the same decision, but the -controller- has the last move. So the controller has the active control, the 'dealer button' so to speak. The monster may or may not make a wrong move here. But in this case, the possibility of the controller dealing damage (which brings encounters to close, and is therefore important in 4th edition) is much greater, and combat has more relevant decision making as well as not lasting as long.

 

[Oldtimer]

Here's the funny thing... that flaming sphere is JUST as controlling if it does damage at the beginning of the round, or at the end (only forced movement actually changes the controlliness--both for and against both.)

Basically, your argument is that if the damage comes after, then the monster has to decide 'Do I move, or take damage?' before he takes the damage.

With start-of-turn damage, it's like this:

'I just took damage; do I move, or take damage -next turn-, or does he move it in response to my movement?'

The monster STILL makes the same choice, with the added dimension that the controller still has a card to play after the monster plays his. In the first case, the monster moves, which is the inevitable conclusion. The controller basically lays down a 'You have to move now' ability, and damage is -rarely- an issue. There's no real decision making for the monster or the controller here.

In the damage-at-the-beginning version, the monster still makes the same decision, but the -controller- has the last move. So the controller has the active control, the 'dealer button' so to speak. The monster may or may not make a wrong move here. But in this case, the possibility of the controller dealing damage (which brings encounters to close, and is therefore important in 4th edition) is much greater, and combat has more relevant decision making as well as not lasting as long.

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.

Yes, the controller has the active control - of whom to damage. But he is not forcing the enemy's hand. He is not getting battlefield control.

If the effect lands ON TOP of the monster (and so he takes damage at the beginning of his turn) and If the effect lasts longer than the next round, the monster has the choice "Do I walk out of this area and avoid damage, or stay and suck it up?"

The flaming sphere is a good example of this. The monsters could move away from it, or they could eat the damage from it.

I agree somewhat with dropping a Wall of Fire on my monster, but the sphere is movable, so it doesn't really matter if I move (unless I can move more than 6 squares away from it), it will still be able to damage me at the start of my next turn if the wizard wants it to. No matter if I move away or not, the decision to be damaged or not is out of my hands.

 

[Rechan]

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.

That Depends. There is more than 1 monster on the field, and they're likely not clumped up.

Let's say the party is fighting in a 20 x 20 square room. There's lots of areas to move. The wizard can pretty much "protect" an area with the sphere, keeping enemies from going after an ally. Sure, if one monster runs away from the sphere can follow - but then the wizard is chasing a monster while other monsters do things either to the wizard or his party members. The wizard is best keeping the sphere in a strategic location and letting the fire be a deterrent than he is chasing lone monsters down with it. In fact, one tactic the enemy might do is spread out/circle around, forcing the wizard to either chase one, or leave the sphere where it is.

This is also true if the confines are tighter, but there's a place to defend. If the enemies, for instance, might flee down a tunnel (or a second wave might come out of that tunnel), putting the flaming sphere at the mouth of the tunnel is going to be a deterrent or at least a problem for them to come through.

 

[Oldtimer]

Let's say the party is fighting in a 20 x 20 square room. There's lots of areas to move. The wizard can pretty much "protect" an area with the sphere, keeping enemies from going after an ally. Sure, if one monster runs away from the sphere can follow - but then the wizard is chasing a monster while other monsters do things either to the wizard or his party members. The wizard is best keeping the sphere in a strategic location and letting the fire be a deterrent than he is chasing lone monsters down with it. In fact, one tactic the enemy might do is spread out/circle around, forcing the wizard to either chase one, or leave the sphere where it is.

True, but I would contend that this is even more true with damage-at-end. In the scenario where the sphere is stationary in one place and no enemies are adjacent to it initially, it doesn't really matter. But in the scenario that an enemy already is in that strategic location and the wizard directs the sphere there to chase him off, it's (to me) more of a deterrent against staying that you can actually avoid the damage altogether by leaving.

This is also true if the confines are tighter, but there's a place to defend. If the enemies, for instance, might flee down a tunnel (or a second wave might come out of that tunnel), putting the flaming sphere at the mouth of the tunnel is going to be a deterrent or at least a problem for them to come through.

This is only because the sphere was updated to occupy a square. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem at all in that position. But this has nothing to do with damage-at-start or damage-at-end.