Ongoing Damage Timing

[keterys]

What if you took ongoing damage at the end of your turn, before saves were made?

It'd be a slight nerf, in that you could take actions that would give you saves (jumping in water, healing potions, AP with inspiring warlord, etc), but it would also mean that you never 'took your turn' only to fall down before you could take it, and make it potentially more interesting.

Not sure how much it would depower ongoing damage to do so, but I do suspect it would be popular.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just because you yourself per definition does not have time to save yourself from taking ongoing damage doesn't mean you can't be helped by your allies.

It also simplifies the game.

1) You generally don't have to bring the game to a halt while you change from your intended actions to browse through your arsenal for a possible way to save yourself from the ongoing damage.
2) It becomes easier to balance the game when the duration of ongoing is fairly reliable, i.e. when players aren't always scrambling for every little bit of extra "saving" power.

When it's your turn the ongoing has already happened. Simple. Just continue with your intended actions and hope you'll save at end of turn!

 

[keterys]

Hmm, does it actually simplify the game? Instead of you taking the action, your friends would... and people would scramble almost the same amount. It does cover a corner case where something right before you hits you with ongoing, but no one else gets a chance to go before you take it.

Mostly, I've seen complaints from others (I actually remember it particularly bothered Sean Reynolds) that your turn would come up then you fall, and it doesn't seem like much of a change to the game to let you have the turn.

It's not something I'd probably bother to house rule unless it really offended a group, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mostly, I've seen complaints from others (I actually remember it particularly bothered Sean Reynolds) that your turn would come up then you fall, and it doesn't seem like much of a change to the game to let you have the turn.

If it is a problem then the more logical point in the turn for ongoing damage to be assessed would be at the start of the turn of the creature who's attack CAUSED the damage. If a player's own actions caused him to become subject to ongoing damage (setting off a trap etc) then it would be the start of the player's turn, as it is now.
Doing it this way makes sense, the damage actually happens over the course of an entire round and thus it is assessed at the point where exactly one round has gone by. On the other hand it is likely to be harder to DM since you now have to keep track of exactly when the damage was initiated, etc. It also means that the target WILL get a save before the first time the damage is applied (unless the turn order changes). This will produce SOME nerfing effect, but generally not too much.

 

[the Jester]

Shrug. I'm not sure if this would cause balance issues or not, but I don't see enough of a gain to make it worth house ruling.

 

[keterys]

The problem with it happening on the attacker's turn is that you'd have a save against the ongoing before it ever did anything, which would be more problematic.

And, yes, it's probably not worth house ruling for most groups. That doesn't necessarily answer whether it would be better or worse than the core rules, though... because honestly I'd rather figure that out, first.

That is to say, if the position were reversed and the core rule were to apply it before you saved at the end of the round, would moving it to the start of the turn be a benefit worth the change? Probably not. But it might be better or worse, nonetheless.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with it happening on the attacker's turn is that you'd have a save against the ongoing before it ever did anything, which would be more problematic.

And, yes, it's probably not worth house ruling for most groups. That doesn't necessarily answer whether it would be better or worse than the core rules, though... because honestly I'd rather figure that out, first.

That is to say, if the position were reversed and the core rule were to apply it before you saved at the end of the round, would moving it to the start of the turn be a benefit worth the change? Probably not. But it might be better or worse, nonetheless.

I think the basic logic was as follows (using an example):

(assuming the PC had the better initiative)
Round 1, the burning skeleton hits you and you are on fire.
Round 2, in the PCs turn he first burns for 5 points, does his actions, gets a save, does or doesn't put out the fire.
Subsequent rounds this continues. If at any point the ongoing damage KILLS the pc, that represents him burning to death at SOME point in the round.

Should the skeleton go first this reveals the first (minor) flaw in this theory since now the pc takes damage before a whole round has gone by, and may even die without ever getting a save.

What I was suggesting is that the ongoing damage happen at the start of the skeleton's turn, so it happens once per round exactly one round after the effect was initiated. YES, this does mean you would get a save before any damage is inflicted, which is a pretty minor decrease in the effectiveness of ongoing damage. You could always offset this by doing the damage at the END of the skeleton's turn, in which case everything is pretty much exactly as before!

I think that answers the basic rules mechanical questions. It will work and depending on exact details things come out either identical or similar to the standard way, except it seems a bit more logical when the damage is done. OTOH from a playability perspective I wouldn't bother to change the rule, it is simpler to do the damage on the PCs turn, and it would be my guess that was what WOTC thought too.

For myself, I don't think it is worth 'fixing' or especially broken. I was just making a few observations.

 

[keterys]

Unfortunately, giving the save first is not a minor decrease in ongoing damage - it's a 55% nerf in effectiveness - often 60% at higher levels. It does make more sense, but that's why it's too much of a decrease in power.

 

[dammitbiscuit]

It can be quite frustrating to get attacked and then immediately take ongoing damage before the sluggish dwarf cleric has even said 'boo'.

Simply take damage at the beginning of your opponent's turn and then roll a saving throw. Or, for slightly better consistency with established rules, take damage at the beginning of your opponent's turn and save at the end of it.