Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mesh Hong" data-source="post: 4996088" data-attributes="member: 73463">good post.  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.  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.  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)".  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 <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />)</blockquote>

Verification