Why would the solar be upset? If it is because he is controlled by a level 18 caster instead of a level 22 caster that is nothing but metagaming by the GM.
At what HD would someone be upset at being summoned? Why 22? Why not 3?
I would think that the cause of the summoning would be a factor.
1. Solar help us save the world.
2. Solar we are being harassed by this lowly Glabrezu. Yeah we could kill, but we just wanted to summon a solar because it is cool.
One I can understand the solar not being happy about.
Basing it of the binding fluff in UM Wraithstrike its because he has more important things to do than deal with the issues of mortals.
It even list the type of things typically needed to be done to even get their notice with such spells.
At 15th-level I could craft myself an advanced shield guardian golem with 40+ hit dice and weapon proficiency (which means 50+ strength full attacks with two-handed weapons), no problem.
What's more, people have been talking about gating solars for almost a decade now.
Yes, yes we have nice things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Solar - "Man Jersey Shore is on and now I gotta frickin Gate in ma livin room? Fogitabowtit! Hey Jimmy, this girl look 22CL to you? I don' know if this is legal, capice?"
Basing it of the binding fluff in UM Wraithstrike its because he has more important things to do than deal with the issues of mortals.
It even list the type of things typically needed to be done to even get their notice with such spells.
The UM is speaking about bargaining with one, which Gate details in the "longer service" area. When you are controlling them there is no bargaining.
That does not mean constantly gating them is a good idea however.
Plus, gate retains the type of casting descriptor of the creature called. If you are Gating in Lawful Good creatures, chances are you are also lawful good, and your particular goals would be meshing nicely. If someone Gated a Pit Fiend in front of you, I'd imagine a Solar wouldn't spend the rest of eternity heckling you for daring to bring it to this plain.
At 15th-level I could craft myself an advanced shield guardian golem with 40+ hit dice and weapon proficiency (which means 50+ strength full attacks with two-handed weapons), no problem.
What's more, people have been talking about gating solars for almost a decade now.
Yes, yes we have nice things.
He better have 40+ HD, because construct saves suck. :P
EDIT: Dazing acid arrow. The bane of golems everywhere.
We do, but not in the rules forum. If you keep harassing a monster expect for him to eventually decide to "take care of you".
There is no rule for how much patience a monster has so all we can really be discuss is the binary yes or no.
|
Point being that if YOU were summoned away from whatever you were doing and into a combat situation, chances are you would already be unhappy with whoever summoned you.
Add to that the fact that you're then forcing this creature to do what you want it to. It almost doesn't matter whether it's for a good purpose or not, forcing another to obey your will mostly isn't a good thing.
Add to that the solar text "All angels respect the power and wisdom of solars, and though these mightiest of angels usually work alone, they sometimes command multiple armies led by planetars, acting as great field marshals for massive incursions against the legions of Hell or the hordes of the Abyss."
One small party? Pah!
You are assuming the creature does not mind helping.
PC's are kind of like special forces in our world. They are smaller than a normal unit, but SF units still garner enough respect to get their own commanders.
Less size does not equal less importance.
The quote also says "sometimes", not even most of the time. Maybe he is doing something less important than helping a high level party, who in many games are trying to save the world as it is known.
Deity: Solar 134 were you there when Golarion was destroyed?
Solar 134: Nope. I left before that actually happened. Some 17th level nobody actually summoned me just to help them take on 2 balors so due to that silly Gate spell I had to help out. After that I laid the smacketh down on them though. That left them in pretty bad shape for whoever came in next.
Deity:Yeah, um, about that. They ended up dying, and 95% of all mortal life on Golarion is now extinct since they failed, thanks to you. I think you need to become an Astral Deva again until you learn how to set priorities. Maybe in a couple thousand years you can have your spot back.
|
ciretose, I haven't made any comments whatsoever about what the devs intended or what is or is not appropriate for what the Gate spell should permit from a RAI point of view- you are absolutely correct.
I only wanted to make the following points:
- I can find no distinction between "actual CL" and "temporary CL" in the rules, or even see these terms listed anywhere.
- 9th level spells are ridiculous
- Defining new terms or "fixing mechanics" that effect the entire game because of just one of those ridiculous 9th level spells, is in and of itself, ridiculous
- If you have a problem with Gate, FIX GATE. I mentioned some simple ways you could potentially handle it.That's my entire argument. Don't change, or redefine how CL works just because you believe it interacts poorly with one 9th level spell.
You still didn't answer my question.
My position is that I don't think the Devs intended for a bonus to the effects of certain spells to actually increase your actual caster level in the same way I don't think they intend a bonus to attack to actually increase your Base Attack Bonus.
I also suspect they didn't intend them to be set up to stack ridiculously.
You are focused on process, I am focused on the results.
What are the negative implications of my readings vs the negative implications of your reading?
Exactly.
Yep, sometimes, not every time. How many times rolling the dice does it take until you get one that was doing something else, or does mind helping, or was in the middle of a vital battle?
Side note - as a player, it's always fun to be responsible for the destruction of an energy plane :D
That depends on the GM which is why the answer does not matter in a rules thread.
|
|
Based on the number of feats, traits and class abilities which allow you to boost CL, but not higher than your actual level, I would say that the developers clearly have given this some thought.
It is possible that in the case of prayer beads they let something slip through, but I believe not.
Here is the wording for the karma prayer beads: "Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level. Effect lasts 10 minutes."
Note it does not say "wearer has caster level boosted by +4 for ten minutes." It says "casts his spells at +4 caster level."
There is a HUGE difference between "casts his spells at +4 caster level" and "has a +4 to caster level."
Yes, in many cases the difference doesn't come into play.
But in the case of controlling a solar, I believe it does.
Bloatmage Initiate "Pick one school of magic in which you possess the Spell Focus feat—you cast spells from this school of magic at +1 caster level." There is no limit to CL based on your character level or "actual level" (a term that don't exist in game).
An ability that let you exceed your "actual level" in a class, but not your HD (as it don't even reference you character level you can do weird thing ig you are a member of a race with some racial HD.
Eclectic Training (5 Fame):
Guilds often require members to master and train in different subjects. When your Fame score in a guild reaches 5, choose one spellcasting class you have at least 1 level in — you increase your effective caster level in that class (including the number of spells you know and can cast per day) by +1, to a maximum caster level equal to your total Hit Dice. Single-classed spellcasters should still pick a class to which this bonus applies, since this bonus is retroactive.
...
Esoteric Training (35 Fame):
The bonus to caster level you gain from Eclectic Training increases to +3 (but is still limited by your total Hit Dice). You may select a second spellcasting class to gain a +1 bonus to effective caster level.
It is a very fun ability if you want to make a multiclassed spellcaster but it can be abused in a horrific way.
I've learned from the Paizo messageboards that 12 different people can read the same single paragraph of text and take it in 12 different ways.
You are wrong Ashiel ;-)
12 persons read the same paragraph in at least 14 different ways.And after returning to it after a few weeks they will add another couple of interpretations.
At least partially it is the effect of having rules about the same thing scattered in several sections of the same book or several books.
|
|
@Diego Rossi -
I agree with what you are posting, I just wish I could get the topic back to dealing with correcting the abuse rather than to people saying "But technically..."
It's like saying "Yes, he's dead, but technically it was the bullet that killed him not me, so technically..."
I work in the courts, you can manipulate words very easily. But at the end of the day the judges is basing decisions off of the intent behind the words, not on the manipulation of them.
With the exception of Ashiel seems to honestly think the Devs intended for her 17th level cleric to be able to gate in solars, as ridiculous as I find that stance to be, I don't see anyone else making the argument that was the intent.
|
|
@Ciretose and Adamantine Dragon:
If what matter is the character "actual" caster level, how are you ruling gate scrolls scrolls made at a level above the character caster level?
Caster level of the Gate spell of a candle of invocation?
This pece of teh candle text: "A cleric whose alignment matches the candle's operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day if he burns the candle during or just prior to his spell preparation time. He can even cast spells normally unavailable to him as if he were of that higher level, but only so long as the candle continues to burn. "?
It is a very fun ability if you want to make a multiclassed spellcaster but it can be abused in a horrific way.Eclectic Training (5 Fame):
Guilds often require members to master and train in different subjects. When your Fame score in a guild reaches 5, choose one spellcasting class you have at least 1 level in — you increase your effective caster level in that class (including the number of spells you know and can cast per day) by +1, to a maximum caster level equal to your total Hit Dice. Single-classed spellcasters should still pick a class to which this bonus applies, since this bonus is retroactive.
...
Esoteric Training (35 Fame):
The bonus to caster level you gain from Eclectic Training increases to +3 (but is still limited by your total Hit Dice). You may select a second spellcasting class to gain a +1 bonus to effective caster level.
How can this be abused "in a horrific way?" I'm just not seeing it. It makes a lot of multiclassed builds viable, where they once weren't.
ciretose, I haven't made any comments whatsoever about what the devs intended or what is or is not appropriate for what the Gate spell should permit from a RAI point of view- you are absolutely correct.
I only wanted to make the following points:
- I can find no distinction between "actual CL" and "temporary CL" in the rules, or even see these terms listed anywhere.
- 9th level spells are ridiculous
- Defining new terms or "fixing mechanics" that effect the entire game because of just one of those ridiculous 9th level spells, is in and of itself, ridiculous
- If you have a problem with Gate, FIX GATE. I mentioned some simple ways you could potentially handle it.That's my entire argument. Don't change, or redefine how CL works just because you believe it interacts poorly with one 9th level spell.
You still didn't answer my question.
My position is that I don't think the Devs intended for a bonus to the effects of certain spells to actually increase your actual caster level in the same way I don't think they intend a bonus to attack to actually increase your Base Attack Bonus.
I also suspect they didn't intend them to be set up to stack ridiculously.
You are focused on process, I am focused on the results.
What are the negative implications of my readings vs the negative implications of your reading?
Exactly.
There is no such thing as actual caster levels vs non actual caster levels. Even traits that raise your caster level for certain spells as an example still raise your caster level. They are just limited. The ones that don't have such provisions are not limited. I understand that what you are effectively saying is that you want the class level to count as the caster level on its own, but they could have easily written certain spells to refer to caster level, while the rest refer to class levels in a spellcasting class. That would be a big oversight if this is an accident.
Bonuses to attacks increase attack roll modifiers. If an ability said it actually increased BAB then I would expect to get the benefits of having my BAB increased.
|
|
There is no such thing as actual caster levels vs non actual caster levels. Even traits that raise your caster level for certain spells as an example still raise your caster level. They are just limited. The ones that don't have such provisions are not limited. I understand that what you are effectively saying is that you want the class level to count as the caster level on its own, but they could have easily written certain spells to refer to caster level, while the rest refer to class levels in a spellcasting class. That would be a big oversight if this is an accident.
Most of them say "casts his spells at +X caster level." rather than say they increase caster level. I think it more likely the intent was for them to all mean "casts his spells at +X caster level." but some don't, as they did not mean for them to actually raise your caster level, but just raise your effective caster level when casting specific spells.
If the fix is correcting the offending spells, I am fine with it. But don't think the Devs intended for a player to be able to functionally add 10 or 11 caster levels with items.
They just didn't fully understand the power of cheese.
@Wraithstrike
Like how a Monks Flurry BAB effects Power Attack and when he gets his attacks from having a high BAB?
|
|
You get 2 of the major benefit of the spellcasting class boosted by the spell:
- Caster level
- Number of spells you know and can cast per day
So 1 level dips loss most of the associate costs. Especially if I add the second class after I have already got the fame points to get Esoteric training.
I am not a good at optimization as I give priority to other things but wizard 9/magus 1 with the spells of wizard 10 and magus 4 is a nice boost in power. I am sure there is people that will find way better combos.
Could you imagine the outcry on these boards if they brought back 3.0 haste? "THE FIGHTERS KEEP KILLING ALL MY NPCS!! WAAAAAAGH!"Heehee.
Haste also allowed casters two spells each round. I wonder who would cry more, martials or casters? Remember, that was a time when SoD was really worthy of the name, and when the best melee/ranged PCs were self-buffing casters.
On the old CO-boards fighters were only good for a 2- or 4-level dip. People complained about martials being underpowered all the time on the official forums. Just remember the mess that the old Polymorph and its associated effects were, and how that influenced combat prowess.
No, in 3.0 casters ruled supreme at the levels your are talking about, and only those with no intent to optimize their PC at all would actually level their fighter this high.
EDIT: sorry for the thread-jack ...
v
Most of them say "casts his spells at +X caster level." rather than say they increase caster level. I think it more likely the intent was for them to all mean "casts his spells at +X caster level." but some don't, as they did not mean for them to actually raise your caster level, but just raise your effective caster level when casting specific spells.
If the fix is correcting the offending spells, I am fine with it. But don't think the Devs intended for a player to be able to functionally add 10 or 11 caster levels with items.
They just didn't fully understand the power of cheese.
Without a clause, which some do not have, how is one to know which spells they would apply to?
The devs may not have intended for someone to go through every book to stack caster levels until they their caster levels were 10 above their class levels, but that is different than singling out one spell as an exception or saying that they did not intend for CL to go past HD at all.
I am sure they are familiar with the 3.5 optimization threads. No I am not saying all those builds were cheese, but many were. The theoretical builds were almost always cheese.
|
|
@wraithstrike
I think it is literally impossible for them to write rules that address every possible loophole. And if they did, the rules would be all but unusable.
I also think that a bit of common sense would tell a reasonable person that a spell isn't intended to be designed to be able to control a creature that would be significantly more powerful than the being that called it.
My interpretation of the last time a Dev ruled on Simulacrum was they were saying the GM needed to grow a pair and not let players be silly, because if they added all of the "no you can't" to the spell, it would take up half the book and people would still try to find loopholes.
Could you imagine the outcry on these boards if they brought back 3.0 haste? "THE FIGHTERS KEEP KILLING ALL MY NPCS!! WAAAAAAGH!"Heehee.Haste also allowed casters two spells each round. I wonder who would cry more, martials or casters? Remember, that was a time when SoD was really worthy of the name, and when the best melee/ranged PCs were self-buffing casters.
On the old CO-boards fighters were only good for a 2- or 4-level dip. People complained about martials being underpowered all the time on the official forums. Just remember the mess that the old Polymorph and its associated effects were, and how that influenced combat prowess.
No, in 3.0 casters ruled supreme at the levels your are talking about, and only those with no intent to optimize their PC at all would actually level their fighter this high.
EDIT: sorry for the thread-jack ...
Thing is, the loss of power for martials from 3.0 to 3.5 was drastically greater than the loss of power for casters from 3.0 to 3.5. Haste granted an extra standard or move action, which might have been the difference of getting of +1 spell each level or not; but they also didn't have things like metamagic rods in 3.0 either, so in essence the actual limits of spellcasters didn't change much at all from 3.0 to 3.5. Plus, they didn't touch quicken spell, which could still be rocked so hard by Incantrix, which in both 3.0 and 3.5 allowed you to cast spells as a free action (later nerfed to a swift action when the Expanded Psionics Handbook introduced swift actions).
I used to frequent the WotC boards back in 3.0 as well. There was far less of the complaints of warriors being underpowered or weak as with in 3.5. In 3.5, the complaint actually isn't about just mundane vs caster PCs, but also mundane vs core monsters. In 3.0, warriors just flat out had it better. For example...
From 3.0 to 3.5, casters lost almost nothing. If anything, not only did they actually lose nothing, but they actually gained all kinds of new toys (including new spells in the core rulebook, sexy new rods, etc), and martials got the shaft. Suddenly, no longer can martials spec crits, no longer can they be mobile at high levels, no longer can they have nice toys. The the previews of 3.5, the devs didn't even touch the fighter at all and said the reason was because he was already working great and was strong enough, etc, etc.
Martials have yet to recover from the loss of power from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder.
|
|
That depends on the GM which is why the answer does not matter in a rules thread.
Now, normally I'd agree with you there. But in the particular case of the gate spell, the dm is built in. "An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous."
Ignoring this element of the spell is akin to discussing how to use wish to become a god. Ignoring the dm factor doesn't do the discussion any service.
As it stands, the dm can basically do one of three things with the gate spell, and the leftovers of the gated creature.
1: nothing. the gated creature returns home.
2: something good. the gated creature was happy to help
3: something bad. the gated creature was NOT happy to help
Why does this matter? Because any time number 3 happens, the level 18 wizard now has to deal with a cr 23 encounter.
@wraithstrike
I think it is literally impossible for them to write rules that address every possible loophole. And if they did, the rules would be all but unusable.
But it's very possible to make it address most, if not all. I have more faith in good design than that.
I also think that a bit of common sense would tell a reasonable person that a spell isn't intended to be designed to be able to control a creature that would be significantly more powerful than the being that called it.
I would have figured it was common sense that it costs 10,000 gp in material costs when you use the spell to summon creatures, as opposed to casting summon monster IX which is the same spell level and on both lists that get gate (cleric and wizard spell lists), but summons a weaker being for free. I would have figured it was common sense that Summon Monster IX was the freebie one that got you a normal weaker summon, and Gate was for emergencies, since you have to sac the equivalent of a medium wondrous item every time you cast it.
Common sense is funny. It varies a lot. What is common sense in one group might not be in another. I mean look at how many people in this thread not only don't agree with you, but don't find a problem with it. That doesn't mean everyone that doesn't agree with you lacks some sort of basic cognitive function.
My interpretation of the last time a Dev ruled on Simulacrum was they were saying the GM needed to grow a pair and not let players be silly, because if they added all of the "no you can't" to the spell, it would take up half the book and people would still try to find loopholes.
Your interpretation is colorful. I read the same thing and took it as communication is key. Also, I disagree. It wouldn't have been that hard to express what simulacrums can actually possess, because it wasn't that hard to split polymorph into tons of little polymorphs that give different effects. You could have listed a grouping of game effects that simulacrums could possess.
Simulacrum aside, again, the developers knew about this. It's been around for 3 editions now. Still no change. In fact, they also knew about grabbing wishes and such from monsters like djinn and efreeti, because I've actually seen the forum posts during the playtests when it was pointed out by several posters and discussed with the devs, and they just nerfed wish, eliminating the ability to do stuff like acquire infinite money and magic items from wish, left the direct mechanical stuff like copying spells (which isn't that special in most down-time environments unless you really need someone to raise a PC and there are no healers around), and left anything beyond that up to the GM.
This isn't even much of a deal in a high level game. 22-24 rounds of solar might not even last the entire battle at this level. It could be dismissed, banished, or blasphemied back to their home plane. You can quite literally spec your character to be able to call and command a Solar, burn 10,000 gp, and then your Solar end up tossed back to his world in the same round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
re: gating the Tarrasque. You could maybe control "a" Tarrasque, but not "the" Tarrasque.
re: gate/planar binding: IMO the wording is open to interpretation. The logic boils down whether it is the caster or the ritual itself that controls the creature. For planar binding, i would personally count effective spell caster level (ie "spell cast at +X") for spell resistance check but only caster level (including ioun stone) for the opposed Cha check.
From the PRD definition of caster level:
"In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check)."
eg. the discussion is whether the max HD you can control with a gate spell is a "spell effect based on caster level".
From the PRD definition of Gate spell:
The second effect of the gate spell is to call an extraplanar creature to your aid (a calling effect)
The ability to suck powerful creatures unwillingly through the gate is then a spell effect based on caster level.
Controlling the creature is not explicitly stated as a spell effect (only the creation of the gate and the calling effect are). The text simply states that you "can control it" if HD<CL. However the context suggests that Caster level in this instance means the same as in the sentence immediately before.
This leads me towards the conclusion that you can indeed bind a solar.
The more relevant question in my mind is what "control" means in this context. I interpret it as similar to planar binding, which means you can keep it trapped for the spell duration but not much more. If you think it means you get to remote control it, please explain why,
Thing is, the loss of power for martials from 3.0 to 3.5 was drastically greater than the loss of power for casters from 3.0 to 3.5. Haste granted an extra standard or move action, which might have been the difference of getting of +1 spell each level or not; but they also didn't have things like metamagic rods in 3.0 either, so in essence the actual limits of spellcasters didn't change much at all from 3.0 to 3.5.
I will be quick, because this is the wrong thread. I assume that you are using modern terminology, because your sentence makes no sense in regard to 3.0 (the terminology changed a lot). The thing is, if you believe that getting pounce + benefits is actually as powerful as doubling one of the most valuable and powerful resources in this game - spells - I will not be able to convince you otherwise. But the fact is that the consensus regarding martial classes (both on the more general boards and on the CO board) was: dipping until you can enter a nice PrC. Your 15th level fighter would have to compete with casters casting at least two spells every round and could cast more. Remember the power of many of the yet un-errata'ed spells back then ... honestly, I cannot see any competition. By the way, there were several avenues for martials to get pounce in 3.5 as well, especially if you allowed setting-specific material like the Incantatrix.
Today casters would be able to cast two spells per round as early as fourth level without any meaningful expenditure of resources. And they would still be able to Quicken later on. Just as back then, martials are usually able to dish out more damage than casters, but that does not matter power-wise, as spells can and will trivialize encounters without doing a single point of damage.
I used to frequent the WotC boards back in 3.0 as well. There was far less of the complaints of warriors being underpowered or weak as with in 3.5. In 3.5, the complaint actually isn't about just mundane vs caster PCs, but also mundane vs core monsters.
I will not quantify the amount of complains, as my memories are as anecdotal as yours, but fact is that the complains began on the very first days of the edition and continued all the time, especially in regards to high level play.
Your observation about martials losing more is probably right, though. Of course, that does not mean that they were on par before, but only that the gap got even wider. Martials generally have fewer options, so taking some away hits them harder. Casters have many options so losing some does not hurt them as much.
So, enough with this historic sidetrack ... ;-)
EDIT: added Spoiler-Tags for thread-cleanliness.
The thing is, if you believe that getting pounce + benefits is actually as powerful as doubling one of the most valuable and powerful resources in this game - spells - I will not be able to convince you otherwise. But the fact is that the consensus regarding martial classes (both on the more general boards and on the CO board) was: dipping until you can enter a nice PrC. Your 15th level fighter would have to compete with casters casting at least two spells every round and could cast more. Remember the power of many of the yet un-errata'ed spells back then ... honestly, I cannot see any competition. By the way, there were several avenues for martials to get pounce in 3.5 as well, especially if you allowed setting-specific material like the Incantatrix.
As a powerful? No. However, spellcasters still get 3+ spells per round. The only difference is they can't do it at lower levels where conserving those spell slots is actually a big deal; so little to nothing was actually fixed. Haste was nerfed, metamagic rods were added. Spellcasters lost...very little. σ_σ
Incidentally, the majority of spells weren't nerfed or changed, some new ones were added, and some were even buffed. Disintegrate was changed from a save or die to save or eat tons of damage. Hold person was changed to allow a save each round. Few other bits, but very little actually. Black Tentacles actually got better in fact. As did some other spells, like ray of enfeeblement which lost its saving throw.
Your observation about martials losing more is probably right, though. Of course, that does not mean that they were on par before, but only that the gap got even wider. Martials generally have fewer options, so taking some away hits them harder. Casters have many options so losing some does not hurt them as much.
Pretty much this. I wasn't trying to imply that casters haven't always been stronger than martials, merely that martials have been hurt far worse than casters have from 3.0 to 3.5/PF. Stuff that helped martials was nerfed left, right, and center from 3.0 to 3.5, and while haste was nerfed because it let casters burn spell slots quicker, again martials felt the sting far more than mages (I'm not sure, but I think mages even got a replacement for it in some 3.5 splatbook, and if not, they still got crazy junk like Celerity). Worst case scenario, mage goes from 3 spells/round (standard + standard + quicken-4) maximum to 2 spells per round (standard + quicken-0), while martials lose all but 1 attack from moving. Even if you activate boots of speed, you still only get 1 attack if you have to move.
Martials have gotten hit so, so hard. Discussing it is seriously making me consider making some revisions in my home game to bring back some of the older martial perks, and experiment with those a bit. It's never been even, but as you say, the gap was at least smaller, since martials at least had a powerful presence at high levels (because they would turn you into HP-pudding :P).
The more relevant question in my mind is what "control" means in this context. I interpret it as similar to planar binding, which means you can keep it trapped for the spell duration but not much more. If you think it means you get to remote control it, please explain why
Last I checked, control includes command and/or direction. For example, can a vampire not command its spawn? Can a shadow not direct its lesser shadows? Are you suggesting that "control" should be read as merely "it can't attack me"? That seems bizarre to me. If I have control of something, it means I can use it. Being able to control an RC car doesn't mean that I can merely prevent it from running, but can direct its movements. Controlling my cursor on the screen does not mean I merely keep it from clicking, it means I can direct its selections.