Ongoing Damage is not a Controller feature

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I have noticed a few controller powers that inflict ongoing damage. Sticking out the best and early was the PHB 1 Wizard Encounter Power Fire Shroud. Why does the Wizard get an encounter power that inflicts ongoing damage and not a Rogue or Warlock?

Similar, ongoing effects seem more common for Controller monsters than for other types of monsters. So I think there is a tendency to believe that ongoing damage is a controller feature.

 

[Mesh Hong]

So I think there is a tendency to believe that ongoing damage is a controller feature.

I disagree. I believe that ongoing damage is the feature or result of any attack that might logically or thematically require it.

Example:

Is the attack setting something on fire?
- Yes
add a little ongoing fire damage

Now I realise that this is a bit of a woolly answer. For instance not all fire effects result in ongoing fire damage, a strict application of logic might conclude that all fire attacks would probably set things on fire, so all fire attacks should have ongoing fire damage. This, of course, is where the thematic (and balance) judgement applies.

As far as to how it is applied to controllers, one possible explanation is that controller powers (both PC and monster) in general are more elemental based, and have more ongoing effects, so:-

- It can be quite logical to add ongoing damage to an elemental based attack.
- Controllers deliver more status effects, ongoing damage is the most common status effect (certainly the broadest), so you see more of it than the other effects.
- Ongoing damage is the least cumbersome effect to apply to a PC or creature. As you have previously stated it doesn't really reduce a players options or tactical scope, so it doesn't reduce the (ethereally subjective) fun element for the player.

 

[CapnZapp]

Besides, it's hardly news that WotC kind of failed to make the PHB Wizard a very controllery controller.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree. I believe that ongoing damage is the feature or result of any attack that might logically or thematically require it.

Example:

Is the attack setting something on fire?
- Yes
add a little ongoing fire damage .

Counter example
is this an attack that might make something bleed... it should make ongoing damage... Lets do it with all untyped damage folks because it makes logical sense?

also fire that isnt really hot and hitting something vulnerable wont ignite... and fire cauterizes might actually stop ongoing.

Make it an effect that may occur with most attacks on a critical.... and do more hyjinks with powers controlling frequency of criticals.

I guess my point is thematically... ice attacks could build up like ice on the wings of a plane... most attack forms can be envisioned
with an element of ongoing if you want it to, so when to have an attack be ongoing or not is arbitrary.

 

[Mesh Hong]

good post.

Counter example
is this an attack that might make something bleed... it should make ongoing damage... Lets do it with all untyped damage folks because it makes logical sense?

I actually use the term "bleeding damage", "bleeding" is a keyword as far as I am concerned, it is probably the most common form of ongoing damage I use in my own monster creations.

I have also used blood mages that had a couple of blood related powers that as a side effect gave a bonus or a penalty to saves vs. ongoing bleeding damage, (clot blood, thin blood).

I think I probably introduced "bleeding damage" as if a character is taking an ongoing effect I want to know what it is, and untyped doesn't quite sit well with my own sense of logic.

also fire that isnt really hot and hitting something vulnerable wont ignite... and fire cauterizes might actually stop ongoing.

Yes, this is a very good point. That is why I said it was a bit of a woolly answer. I could argue that that is why not all fire attacks give ongoing fire damage, but I am not really sure that is really a sufficient answer in and of itself.

I suppose it's just another example of how the balance of effects are an art not a science, just like monster creation.

Make it an effect that may occur with most attacks on a critical.... and do more hyjinks with powers controlling frequency of criticals.

Yes you could start messing around with criticals, and I think it is something I would encourage to add variety to powers (especially on the moster design side). But I think that usually I would want the simple assurance of "on hit target takes X ongoing damage (save ends)".

I guess my point is thematically... ice attacks could build up like ice on the wings of a plane... most attack forms can be envisioned
with an element of ongoing if you want it to, so when to have an attack be ongoing or not is arbitrary.

Yes again good point. From my own design point an ice attack from a controller would be more likely to slow, or immobilise a target than to cause ongoing cold damage. Mind you, it may cause some ongoing cold damage as well as immobilising.

A controller Ice power might entomb its target in a block of ice, this would cause "on hit target is restrained and takes X ongoing cold damage (save ends both)".

Heading back towards the original point. I believe that ongoing damage is not a feature of the controller. It is a feature of certain powers, as appropriate. It just happens that controllers are more likely to have those sorts of powers.

Or to go back to the title of the thread: "Ongoing damage is not a controller feature".

- True. Ongoing damage is a feature of various powers across most class and monster types, and is an effect driven from the style, theme and balance of the power design.

or

- False. Ongoing damage is a controller feature because controllers have many powers that can result in their targets taking ongoing damage. It should also be noted that many other classes and monsters also have access to ongoing damage, so ongoing is not exclusively a controller power.


Or in other words the position stated in the title of the therad is both true and false for nearly the same reason! (I think you can tell its a friday at the end of a very long week )

 

[inkmonkeys]

Let's agree on Ongoing damage does not effect control on a target.

 

[sfedi]

I agree!

Ongoing damage does not effect control on a target!

 

[Mengu]

I'll try to play devil's advocate.

Are AoE's that strictly do damage and nothing else considered control? I think it is explained in the controller's role that controllers have powers that do damage to multiple targets. By that definition, an AoE can be considered a controller power.

Ongoing damage is damage that happens outside of your turn, and happens potentially for multiple rounds. So during the course of a combat, if you have a few powers that deal ongoing damage, it's pretty much like you're doing damage to multiple targets each round. This does seem to fall within the role of the controller.

Also controllers have powers that weaken the opponent. A streaming loss of hit points can easily be considered weakening. You are basically softening them up over time, much like the role multi-target attacks play.

The specialty of a striker is doing damage now, and taking targets down. Ongoing damage is damage later, so in that respect, it also feels like something a controller might do.

Ongoing damage has nothing to do with battlefield control or with controlling an enemy's actions or decision making process (except a few corner cases, like creatures with variable resistance might turn on their fire resist when you give them ongoing fire, and then all your radiant attackers can start tearing them up). But the way ongoing damage mechanic works is probably more in line with the role of the controller who softens targets up, than it is with the role of the striker who takes targets down.

 

[Turtlejay]

Ongoing damage is one way to make a power do a bit more damage without giving it xd6 more dice, and to do it in a different way. It adds a wrinkle to the game.

In reference to Burning Shroud, would you rather have 1d6+ongoing, or just 2d6? One is quick and dirty, the other has a different *feel*. I don't feel like ongoing damage is the domain of any role exclusively, and has no bearing on control whatsoever. I don't see a problem with controllers having powers with ongoing riders, as I don't feel like this makes them less of a controller.

If my Warlord takes a power that marks an opponent, is he a worse leader? Really? What about if he finds the biggest [W] he can find? Or multiclasses to get Come and Get it?

Totally unrelated, did anyone else get a kick out of this:

In general ongoing X is identical to rolling a bunch of dice with an average of 2X.

Hint: 'In general' and 'identical' are at war with one another. I loled.

Jay

 

[sfedi]

In general ongoing X is identical to rolling a bunch of dice with an average of 2X.

Actually the formula is more like:

X ongoing damage = 1.81 * X direct damage

Ongoing damage give opportunities to get rid of some of it's damage, for this, it should be less valuable.
In addition, ongoing damage usually isn't cumulative, which should account for less damage output as well.