Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oldtimer" data-source="post: 5225079" data-attributes="member: 10503">And assuming that I think so is equally ridiculous. I'm saying that the movability influences the enemy's choice.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>