Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oldtimer" data-source="post: 5224745" data-attributes="member: 10503">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification