Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
That's my current thesis or observation. I know that it sometimes appears as if it is, but I disagree.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Ongoing Damage is not a Controller feature
- Thread starter Mustrum_Ridcully
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
PCs, mostly. But I think it's not different for the monster type in that regard.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Ongoing damage might be a controller feature if it applies to many creatures at once OR it is applied as the result of disobeying some control feature (ie - step in the zone, take ongoing 5 or "you can get rid of this ongoing damage by not moving for 1 round").
In general ongoing X is identical to rolling a bunch of dice with an average of 2X.
In general ongoing X is identical to rolling a bunch of dice with an average of 2X.
Ongoing Damage shows up a bit more (that I've seen) on Controller/Semi-controller abilities. Mainly beacuse it is a condition and controllers put out more conditions than others (not exclusively but more).
Also Ongoing Damage is most common as a Typed Damage knock on effect which often means more "spell like" abilities (Fireball, Acid Arrow, etc) - and most spellcasters, whose spells aren't highly focused to a single trend (rarely OD), are part controller.
Basically, controllers often have more ways to apply OD - as they have more ways to apply most lasting effects. However the principle is hardly exclusive to controllers, nor is there a reason it should be. Any wound can bleed.
Also Ongoing Damage is most common as a Typed Damage knock on effect which often means more "spell like" abilities (Fireball, Acid Arrow, etc) - and most spellcasters, whose spells aren't highly focused to a single trend (rarely OD), are part controller.
Basically, controllers often have more ways to apply OD - as they have more ways to apply most lasting effects. However the principle is hardly exclusive to controllers, nor is there a reason it should be. Any wound can bleed.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I am definitely just talking about ongoing damage in and on itself. Once you add conditions under which the ongoing damage applies, it obviously changes.
My argument is that if you or an enemy takes ongoing damage, it doesn't change its actions. Very theoretically, it could - after all, you can use a Heal Check to allow an extra save. But since that costs a standard action and only gives a single extra save, that option won't be taken regularly. If that is control, it is a very very weak type of control, since the suggested alternative isn't that great.
Area effects are "control" because they tell the foe "don't bunch up if you don't want that damage". Immobilized is control because you can not choose to move. Daze is control because you can't move and attack (generally). Stun is control because you can't do at anything at all. Dominate is control because you do what someone else tells you. Slowed is control because you cannot get to any place. Restrained is control because you have to spend additional actions to move or stay where you are. Challenging/Difficult terrain is control because you limit how far or if it all a creature can move.
But ongoing damage doesn't limit your choices.
But I might have to correct what I said previously. Monsters using ongoing damage might actually gain some "control", since the PCs have typically more options to make extra saves or negate the damage otherwise. These options are still limited, so they have to choose whether they rather save against some ongoing damage or against another condition, or whether they rather have some resistance against the ongoing damage or another damage type.
But if no such powers are available (common for monsters), there is no real limitation of choice, it is merely extra damage.
My argument is that if you or an enemy takes ongoing damage, it doesn't change its actions. Very theoretically, it could - after all, you can use a Heal Check to allow an extra save. But since that costs a standard action and only gives a single extra save, that option won't be taken regularly. If that is control, it is a very very weak type of control, since the suggested alternative isn't that great.
Area effects are "control" because they tell the foe "don't bunch up if you don't want that damage". Immobilized is control because you can not choose to move. Daze is control because you can't move and attack (generally). Stun is control because you can't do at anything at all. Dominate is control because you do what someone else tells you. Slowed is control because you cannot get to any place. Restrained is control because you have to spend additional actions to move or stay where you are. Challenging/Difficult terrain is control because you limit how far or if it all a creature can move.
But ongoing damage doesn't limit your choices.
But I might have to correct what I said previously. Monsters using ongoing damage might actually gain some "control", since the PCs have typically more options to make extra saves or negate the damage otherwise. These options are still limited, so they have to choose whether they rather save against some ongoing damage or against another condition, or whether they rather have some resistance against the ongoing damage or another damage type.
But if no such powers are available (common for monsters), there is no real limitation of choice, it is merely extra damage.
Destil
Explorer
How many ongoing damage powers are there at encounter? The only one I can think of is burning shroud, which has always seemed odd.
I don't think ongoing damage has anything to do with being a controller. Rogue and Ranger can both dish it out plenty of ways, with a 'bleeding wounds' flavor.
I don't think ongoing damage has anything to do with being a controller. Rogue and Ranger can both dish it out plenty of ways, with a 'bleeding wounds' flavor.
CapnZapp
Legend
I'm confused - is this your convoluted way of saying "I want to rant about how some designers use ongoing damage as a controller element, when it isn't doing any controllin'"?
I mean, what is there to discuss?
This is why there oughta be some kinda course you have to pass before you're ever allowed to post in a forum. On pain of wedgie.
It sounds like the OP is suggesting that someone out there in a position of authority has gone on the books saying that ongoing damage is a controller effect. Exactly who made the assertion he's disagreeing with is apparently our job to figure out. My bet is on "himself". Or is it just an "everyone thinks this, so everyone knows where I'm coming from" sort of presumption?
Fine. Ongoing damage isn't a controller effect. Not if we're talking about class roles and not monster roles (again, vague OP). It's not really much of an effect for any character class. The vast majority of the powers that inflict it are dailies. And off the top of my head, it mostly comes from striker dailies.
It sounds like the OP is suggesting that someone out there in a position of authority has gone on the books saying that ongoing damage is a controller effect. Exactly who made the assertion he's disagreeing with is apparently our job to figure out. My bet is on "himself". Or is it just an "everyone thinks this, so everyone knows where I'm coming from" sort of presumption?
Fine. Ongoing damage isn't a controller effect. Not if we're talking about class roles and not monster roles (again, vague OP). It's not really much of an effect for any character class. The vast majority of the powers that inflict it are dailies. And off the top of my head, it mostly comes from striker dailies.
