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

[DracoSuave]

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.

It's a 'maybe' that's up to the power user's choice, not random chance. Maybe something better comes along tactically, but that doesn't make the power -worse- at what it does, or less effective. Rather, that makes the power -better- at what it does.

Again, the effect isn't wandering willy nilly, the user is continually making sure it is -exactly- where it needs to be. The idea that adding in the option to move it makes the power worse is rediculous.

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

it's actualy the other way around; Having a monster start their turn inside start-of-turn damage is assured damage. Having them start in end-of-turn damage is not. The fact the player could decide to assure that damage goes elsewhere is irrelevant. if the monster stays, he'll take that damage again, because the player already put that damage where it should be; why not again? If the monster moves, the player might not move the damage to him.

On the other hand, the player might put the damage on that one monster to simultaneously hurt the hell out of it, and dissuade the monster's allies to go adjacent. This accomplishes both tasks of damaging enemies AND keeping enemies out.

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.

Sure, but think of it like this; by giving the player greater control over the power and guaranteed damage, you can only increase the control of the power and its value. Being able to move it doesn't actually make the dilemma lighter for the enemy.

 

[Runestar]

How many people actually think that deeply when deciding where to place that AoE effect? I am pretty sure most just plonk it down smack in the midst of their foes and leave it there. This isn't chess, where you are expected to anticipate up to 7 of your opponents moves in advance.

 

[Aulirophile]

Flaming Sphere occupies its square.

You're familiar with a Rock and a Hard place. I give you Defender and a Fire Place.

Flaming Sphere is soft control. It influences where people want to stand on the battle field. Placed properly enemies can have a choice between flanking and taking damage, or not flanking. That is soft control and it is just one example, the spell is incredibly versatile.

 

[DracoSuave]

How many people actually think that deeply when deciding where to place that AoE effect? I am pretty sure most just plonk it down smack in the midst of their foes and leave it there. This isn't chess, where you are expected to anticipate up to 7 of your opponents moves in advance.

I do, actually.

That's one way to derive fun from the game.

Not everyone does tho.

 

[Shin Okada]

Creating a s-o-t damaging effect is like making a hazardous terrain which your comrades can use for their benefit. It is a good way to control the battlefield.

Your party members can force move an opponent to be adjacent to it. Then the opponent takes damage at the start of his turn. You can't do that with a e-o-t effect. As the monster start his turn being adjacent to the creation, then move away in his turn to avoid damage.

 

[Oldtimer]

It's a 'maybe' that's up to the power user's choice, not random chance. Maybe something better comes along tactically, but that doesn't make the power -worse- at what it does, or less effective. Rather, that makes the power -better- at what it does.

Again, the effect isn't wandering willy nilly, the user is continually making sure it is -exactly- where it needs to be. The idea that adding in the option to move it makes the power worse is rediculous.

And assuming that I think so is equally ridiculous. I'm saying that the movability influences the enemy's choice.

it's actualy the other way around; Having a monster start their turn inside start-of-turn damage is assured damage. Having them start in end-of-turn damage is not. The fact the player could decide to assure that damage goes elsewhere is irrelevant. if the monster stays, he'll take that damage again, because the player already put that damage where it should be; why not again? If the monster moves, the player might not move the damage to him.

The potential damage is now a whole round away. Lots of things can change in a round. Allies can force move you, the wizard might get stunned, a better placement for the sphere might appear. Again, you are pointing out that damage is assured when the monster starts its turn next to the sphere with damage-at-start. Well, of course it is. And that's exactly why the offered tradeoff is weak. With damage-at-end the tradeoff is strong and obvious.

Sure, but think of it like this; by giving the player greater control over the power and guaranteed damage, you can only increase the control of the power and its value. Being able to move it doesn't actually make the dilemma lighter for the enemy.

Player control of the power and the power's amount of battlefield control is not the same thing. But I'm not trying to compare a stationary conjuration with a movable one. I'm trying to reason about the amount of battlefield control given by damage-at-start compared to damage-at-end from a movable effect like Flaming Sphere.

How many people actually think that deeply when deciding where to place that AoE effect? I am pretty sure most just plonk it down smack in the midst of their foes and leave it there. This isn't chess, where you are expected to anticipate up to 7 of your opponents moves in advance.

I do. But I analyse and explore these things beforehand, so that I can work quickly at the game table. Some of us just happen to like game theory.

Creating a s-o-t damaging effect is like making a hazardous terrain which your comrades can use for their benefit. It is a good way to control the battlefield.

Your party members can force move an opponent to be adjacent to it. Then the opponent takes damage at the start of his turn. You can't do that with a e-o-t effect. As the monster start his turn being adjacent to the creation, then move away in his turn to avoid damage.

We might be thinking of battlefield control in different ways, but to me that is using the effect to cause more damage. Which is fine, but you are not influencing your enemies' moves and tactics. I'm contending that damage-at-start gives more damage and damage-at-end gives more battlefield control. Your example does not contradict that.

 

[Shin Okada]

We might be thinking of battlefield control in different ways, but to me that is using the effect to cause more damage. Which is fine, but you are not influencing your enemies' moves and tactics. I'm contending that damage-at-start gives more damage and damage-at-end gives more battlefield control. Your example does not contradict that.

First of all, if the creation is fixed in one place, both damage-at-start and damage-at-end creations encourage opponents to move away.

So, the difference mainly happens when creations can move.

Well then, it is somewhat true that damage-at-end effect tend to encourage an opponent to move away from it in his turn, as he can avoid taking damage from the creation. But it is also true that damage-at-end creation can be easily avoided.

When a Flaming Sphere is in a battlefield, it is dangerous for opponents to end their turn being adjacent to each other (or in closer squares). Because the Flaming Sphere may move into a position from which it can inflicts damage to both of them.

In case of Guardian of Faith, opponents can be more reluctant on ending their turn being closer to each other. Because all they have to do is moving away from the creation in their next turn.

So regarding forced positioning, both damage-at-end and damage-at-start have their pros and cons IMHO.

And, actually inflicting damage to multiple opponents at the same time, or eliminating multiple minions at the same time, is a cloud control, not if so much of a battle-field control.

Also, I still think making a hazardous terrain which can be used by allies should be clarified as a battlefield control.

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand the logic of your argument OT, but I think it has a flaw.

Damage = Control. It is, in fact, the ultimate form of control because a dead foe cannot fight back. It is also a very strong form of soft control. How many DMs try to attack the Striker who just did 40 points of damage compared to the Defender who just did 10 points of damage?

A power that can deal damage at the start of a foe's turn controls the battlefield more than one that deals damage at the end. It does so, even if only by a percentage, by occasionally killing and blooding foes.

A power that deals damage at the end of the turn can be avoided. One can view such a form of soft control as more controlling (as you do) than the start of turn one where the damage cannot be avoided, but it's not the case.


Let's take the example of a solo creature. With start of turn damage, it will both take damage and try to stun or kill the Controller. Its viable options are more limited because the Controller is doing auto-damage on it. It dies quicker if it allows the auto-damage to continue for many rounds. Its hand isn't forced, but it is strongly influenced.

With end of turn damage, the solo has the additional option to just move out of the area and has more viable options as to what actions it takes. The group has to put other control on the solo in order to make the end of damage case more compelling. For example, having a Fighter mark the solo so that it is again incentivized to attack the Controller in order to make the Fighter mark less restrictive.

Start of turn damage has one fewer options for the target than end of turn damage. The ability to just move out of the effect.

That end of turn option is not forced, so end of turn damage doesn't have more control, it has less control. The option of not taking the damage exists for end of turn, hence, end of turn is both less useful and hence less controlling.


As a DM, I'm going to often attack the Controller PC that is doing auto-start of turn damage, even it it means that the monster(s) have to take a few licks to do so. I may or may not attack the Controller PC doing non-auto end of turn damage. When the PC more strongly influences the actions of the monsters, he has more control.

I can definitely see your idea that end of turn damage influences the monsters to move away more, but it does so at the expense of doing less overall damage hence less overall ultimate form of control. On the surface, it appears like it might have more control, but that is illusory.

 

[VannATLC]

It seems we're seeing very differently on how a threat of damage influences enemy tactics. Maybe I can understand your points better tomorrow.

This is because because the tactical use of controller powers is totally dependant on your DM and his interpretation of monster motivations.

I run some monsters that are so blood-lusted they don't care.
I run some montsers that care more about their own skin than they do about the PCs getting the treasure.
I run some monsters that are more afraid of their boss than they are of the PCs, etc, etc.

How your DM adjuticates monster motivation is far more important than the SOTD or EOTD of the effect, as far as I can see.

Basically, I think you are not viewing Damage as elements of control, but as KarinsDad says, it is, effectively, the best method, in terms of monster motivation.

 

[Aegeri]

We might be thinking of battlefield control in different ways, but to me that is using the effect to cause more damage. Which is fine, but you are not influencing your enemies' moves and tactics. I'm contending that damage-at-start gives more damage and damage-at-end gives more battlefield control. Your example does not contradict that.

Speaking as a DM, powers that deal damage at the end of a creatures turn are worse than those that deal damage at the beginning of an enemies turn. For one thing, a creature that takes damage at the start must consider that on low HP, it may not get a turn if it starts adjacent to the sphere period. So it must attempt to stay away or entirely lose its turn potentially once it gets to low HP. An effect at the end of the turn cannot enforce this, because no matter what happens the creature will get its turn before the damage can kill it.

This makes end of turn far worse in terms of control than an effect at the start of the turn. Minions for example are still going to get a turn and worse, they will be able to dictate where they die if they have a death effect - potentially being able to maximize the number of PCs or other things they hit/effect.

Additionally, damage at the start of the turn cannot be avoided and forces a creature to have to deal directly with the controller. It must spend actions to disable them so they cannot move the flaming sphere after them. In addition the flaming sphere continues to deal damage, occupies its square and can effectively block movement for larger creatures. On the other hand, without damage at the start it is trivially ignored by creatures that can fly, shifting away from the sphere and any number of other tactics. The flaming sphere as a result fails to control anything, as it's not forcing the creature into any particular course of action: This is precisely the opposite of what you're trying to argue!

As a DM, start of turn effects are far more of a priority to shut down for monsters. They will deal automatic damage, cannot be avoided and will instantly kill minions and other creatures. This is the definition of control. An end of next turn effect cannot control jack. It doesn't force a creature to deal with it or take damage. It doesn't change a creatures tactics - except perhaps the requirement to wander away from it (but it's still going to get its turn anyway, it doesn't have to prioritize it as much).

For example: Your defender is down on the ground bleeding to death and your flaming sphere is next to the monster. It has 6 HP. Tell me: Does your defender think it dealing damage at the beginning or end of the monsters turn is better? I can tell you that when his character is still alive one way and permanently dead in the other (And the party on its way to a TPK) he appreciates one far more than the other.

Also that is an actual thing that happened in one of my games. Of course the wizards last ditch movement of the sphere to the monster and its death was widely cheered around the table. It swung a battle that was going very heavily against the PCs because the defender was dead on the monsters turn. Of course the wizard missed the creature as well, but that isn't as badly punished when you have an automatic damage conjuration. That's the point, your argument fails when it doesn't account for the fact one way a creature ALWAYS gets its turn (in my example = dead defender = likely TPK) and in the other will *not* get a turn.