Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5224711" data-attributes="member: 71571">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.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.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.</blockquote>