Continuing the Discussion Elsewhere [viability of delayed-gratification damage]

175 posts / 0 new
Last post
This discussion is clogging up the official thread, moved it here.

95232598 wrote:
In DnD, a "DoT Striker" cannot be made for the same reason that an "AoE Striker" cannot be made*: while it's true that a balance point between the alternate mechanic and the standard mechanic does exist in theory, the gap between standard, elite, and solo HP is too great, and the resolution of time in the system too rough, for it to be balanceable. In order to make a difference against a solo, your mechanic has to add up to, in the course of three rounds, the single-round damage output of the entire party.

*the Sorcerer is for strategic and practical purposes a controller.



First: a monk is an aoe striker. Though frankly you present a false dilemma since "aoe striker" is pretty much synonymous with "controller minus status effects", also known as a blaster wizard.

Second: I don't see why not, especially given how you just gave us an example of exactly the kind of damage we'd want to be dealing. Is it impossible to balance or do you need to deal 1/3rd your party's damage per round in delayed damage? Pick one, not both.

To run with the latter position, let's see what happens when we have a delayed damage mechanic that deals 1/3rd of the rest of your party's damage every round, shall we?

Let's even be really extreme about it, and use one of the kings of DPR threads' characters, and have a five striker party to really give Bob the delayed-gratification-striker a tough time. To keep the numbers manageable, though, I'm going to use the level 1 champion: the acrobatic human thief that deals 24 DPR.

So there's four of those, and Bob. This means that Bob's per-round delayed damage, according to you, to compete with the best strikers at level 1, will not need to exceed ... 32ish. Yeah I don't see the problem here. You just seem bullheadedly opposed to the idea that it's possible to balance damage now vs damage later for no reason. If you have an example I'd like to see it because you're not doing a very good job illustrating your position.

EDIT - Adding more relevant quotes and responses:

57936928 wrote:
Most striker-players prefer classes with a chance to do worthwhile damage in almost every round plus the ability to nova significantly.  The exact balance preferred varies.



Yeah but just because you deal a large chunk of your damage later I don't think has much bearing on your ability to deal DPR vs nova. It'd probably depend on the specifics of the class after it's built, something we really can't predict.

If they are both strikers and equally optimized (and assuming that Bob does ongoing damage NOT ongoing damage+condition), and the monster would be killed by two hits from Steve, it should also be killed by two hits from Bob



Yes, but the "second hit" from Bob would be his delayed damage. In that way Bob would kill it with one standard action where Steve would take two.

- and be unable to act after the second hit. Further, it should be killed by one hit from Steve and one hit from Bob. So if Bob hits the monster imposing ongoing damage, and then it's Steve's turn and he also hits it, the monster falls over. Even though the ongoing damage hasn't happened even once yet.



This is true, if Steve wants to use his standard action killing a monster that is already dead at the start of its turn he can killsteal it from Bob. The only reason he would, though, is they're having a contest to see who drops more monsters below 0 hp or removing the model from the board is of crucial importance (it has a powerful aura being the only common example I can think of, but possibly it's shot blocking somebody in the back or the like).
The main reason delayed damage is inferior to "right now" damage is because enemies get to hit you back, and reducing the number of turns during which you and/or your allies get attacked is THE most productive use of a Striker's actions, bar none. Most of the Strikers that pack what I consider to be solid to good burst damage can kill a Standard enemy outright before he gets another turn (or even before he gets A turn if they get to him fast enough), which is something the proposed "delayed damage Striker" simply cannot replicate. He can perhaps fight his way to a standstill against tougher monsters (say, an Elite) by just back-loading the 2nd. round of damage as opposed to the first, but then you run into the issue that the really good burst Strikers can kill an Elite before he takes a turn too.

Another thing to consider is allies - if your frontloaded damage + your allies' damage is enough to drop the target, backloaded damage is even weaker because it never comes to pass (one of the main reasons the Ossassin's Shroud is as weak as it is), whereas front-loaded damage is awesome because it frees allies up to choose other targets. It's just not a very effective damage-dealing strategy from the tactical perspective.
The main reason delayed damage is inferior to "right now" damage is because enemies get to hit you back, and reducing the number of turns during which you and/or your allies get attacked is THE most productive use of a Striker's actions, bar none. Most of the Strikers that pack what I consider to be solid to good burst damage can kill a Standard enemy outright before he gets another turn (or even before he gets A turn if they get to him fast enough), which is something the proposed "delayed damage Striker" simply cannot replicate. He can perhaps fight his way to a standstill against tougher monsters (say, an Elite) by just back-loading the 2nd. round of damage as opposed to the first, but then you run into the issue that the really good burst Strikers can kill an Elite before he takes a turn too.

Another thing to consider is allies - if your frontloaded damage + your allies' damage is enough to drop the target, backloaded damage is even weaker because it never comes to pass (one of the main reasons the Ossassin's Shroud is as weak as it is), whereas front-loaded damage is awesome because it frees allies up to choose other targets. It's just not a very effective damage-dealing strategy from the tactical perspective.

So what you're saying is it's gotten to the point of optimization that a Nova striker can normally one shot an enemy, leaving no point to the increased total damage of a sustained DPR striker? (Since normally you balance sustained damage by having it be much larger over time than burst damage, but if the burst damage can just outright kill one enemy a turn anyway there's not much point...)
"Gotten to the point" would be factually incorrect - the existence of nova Strikers that are able to do these things dates pretty much back to the edition's inception, and if anything, they've removed or weakened a lot of formerly potent nova pieces from the general repertoire (Blood Mage's Blood Pulse, Bloodclaw/Reckless weapons, Pit Fighter being Fighter only, certain infinite/very large crit chains, free action multiattack chains, etc.).

But yes, there are plenty of Strikers that, when properly built, can just take an enemy off the board with an AP nova without much of a problem. Among these, you can find most Rangers, most Barbarians, some Rogues, some Slayers, some Sorcerers, and even some Avengers, just to name a few.
While the idea is novel, I'll grant, the mechanic is inferior for reasons stated by LDB.

If you haven't already you may check out "Da Bleeder" by Shaka. The build capitalizes on the mechanic of ongoing damage by A) Dealing more than one type and B) If I'm not mistaken, inflicting vulnerability.

This would be one example of how current classes can be built for Ongoing Damage, which is I think more viable than creating a class devoted to it.
No, a monk is not an AoE striker. They are a striker with splash damage



What do you think AoE stands for...

An "aoe striker" kills masses of enemies at once, and while certain builds can do it, if you're able to pull that off on anything but a daily nova you're generally considered broken.



They're not called "Killers" they're called "Strikers". They deal damage. That's it. An "aoe striker" deals damage in an area. As I said, though, this is a false dilemma, since an area striker is more legitimately called a controller (making monk and sorcerer perhaps wrongly classed).

It is impossible to balance BECAUSE you need to deal 1/3rd of a party's total per round damage in delayed damage. The amount of delayed damage you'd have to give this guy --on top of the damage they'd already be doing as a character-- in order to make them have any situation whatsoever in which they were better than a normal striker is so staggeringly large that it would destroy the metagame if you included more than one of them in a party, therefore it is unbalanceable.



Destroy the metagame of "strikers are only burst damage", maybe. But then again, adding a viable and completely different than normal source of damage from a class tends to change the metagame, wouldn't you agree? It'd be like if there were no defenders and you added defenders to the game.

"Gotten to the point" would be factually incorrect - the existence of nova Strikers that are able to do these things dates pretty much back to the edition's inception, and if anything, they've removed or weakened a lot of formerly potent nova pieces from the general repertoire (Blood Mage's Blood Pulse, Bloodclaw/Reckless weapons, Pit Fighter being Fighter only, certain infinite/very large crit chains, free action multiattack chains, etc.).



Ah, in that case I think I've found a fairly clear piece to put forth in the "what works and what doesn't" thread. If burst is so high that extended DPR is irrelevant then it's pretty clear that, well, burst is too high. Either that or enemy resilience is too low. The problem I guess would be that changing that would cause unwanted effects to combat length... especially for unoptimized characters, who would be taking way too long to kill anything. Bit of a quandry if you ask me.
Low. System. Mastery.
Low. System. Mastery.



That's really not called for.

I was simply wondering why applying basic design schemes for sustained DPS vs. burst DPS wouldn't work in DnD. It seems it wouldn't work because burst DPS is way, way, way too high relative to the defenses of the enemies for sustained DPS to come into play without being silly exaggerated.

Wrong. Killing people is exactly what strikers do.



In theory, yes. How they go about it depends on what striker you're playing. As I mentioned, Monk, like a sorcerer, tends to go about being a "striker" by softening up a lot of different enemies, which is not very efficient. Hence they are more like controllers.

Also, it's not burst damage that makes your proposal here fundamentally untenable, it's focus-fire. Characters don't "pair off" with the enemy, everyone picks one guy and beats him to death.



In the current metagame, this is true. Focus fire is important. The problem is that, apparently, the delayed-damage does not get brought to bear since strikers can get better at striking than they should be.

Frankly reaper, you have a very uninformed conception of the game, which is the only reason we're having this conversation to begin with.



My conception of the game is plenty informed, you're just choosing to interpret it wrongly. What I'm trying to do is to figure out why this game is, apparently, so fundamentally broken at high levels compared to other games with the same defined roles that sustained DPS is nonfunctional. This is, again, apparently because burst DPS can never be out-tanked. The problem being that if you out-tank the burst DPS, combat takes forever.

This is exactly the kind of problem I was hoping to fish out for post in the "what works what doesn't" thread, thanks.
Low. System. Mastery.



That's really not called for.

I'm sorry, what? You're ignorant about the system you're trying to apply this to. People who aren't ignorant are telling you it doesn't work, and your counter-arguments are fundamentally flawed because they are based on your ignorance. Ignorance isn't inherently bad, but being unaware you're ignorant is.

Generally speaking if I go up to someone who is an expert in something and ask them a question about it because I don't know the answer I'm not a jerk about it if I don't like the answer and tell them they're clearly wrong and, in many contexts, them simply telling me "Sorry, you don't know enough for me to explain why you're wrong so you'll understand it" is a valid answer. Ask any math student. But at that point you really ought to stop, realize you're ignorant, and go back and learn some things.
Ah, in that case I think I've found a fairly clear piece to put forth in the "what works and what doesn't" thread. If burst is so high that extended DPR is irrelevant then it's pretty clear that, well, burst is too high. Either that or enemy resilience is too low. The problem I guess would be that changing that would cause unwanted effects to combat length... especially for unoptimized characters, who would be taking way too long to kill anything. Bit of a quandry if you ask me.

"Encounters take too long" is one of the most common complaints about 4e.  Removing burst damage is a bad idea.

My conception of the game is plenty informed, you're just choosing to interpret it wrongly. What I'm trying to do is to figure out why this game is, apparently, so fundamentally broken at high levels compared to other games with the same defined roles that sustained DPS is nonfunctional. This is, again, apparently because burst DPS can never be out-tanked. The problem being that if you out-tank the burst DPS, combat takes forever.


You clearly don't understand the roles of sustained DPS and burst DPS in the respective rounds of combat, or you'd never make such ignorant claims. Burst DPS is meant for the first one or two rounds of combat when enemies are at full strength/numbers, are the most dangerous, and urgently need to be removed from the board. Sustained DPS is for rounds 3 and later when you're mopping up the survivors.

So, yeah. Low. System. Mastery. Not to mention, Low. Combat. Knowledge.
You seem to be missing the point here entirely, and indeed you seem to be missing the point of playing devil's advocate to boot, allow me to explain.

I am 100% aware that there are reasons delayed-gratification damage doesn't work. I know exactly why classes like the Ossassin don't work - their damage never gets put on the table. I am, however, trying to explore more specifically where those problems arise from, and so far I've been fairly successful at that - it is one of two things: burst is too good, or monsters die too easily, at least as far as optimized characters go. To this end I have been attempting to present all the reasons I can think of that sustained damage WOULD work, such that they may be disproved.

"Encounters take too long" is one of the most common complaints about 4e.  Removing burst damage is a bad idea.



I agree, I'm frankly unsure how to address the issue. If we make burst less effective encounters might take a lot longer to conclude, but if we don't we'll never get any striker that isn't just a giant nova burst or otherwise "ineffective".


Anyway I'm off to post my findings in the "what works/doesn't" thread, cheers.
Low. System. Mastery.



Hey, that's my line!

Sorry, but it's true. If you're not understanding that burst damage is a fundamental part of the Striker role rather than a broken aspect of the system, you need to dig deeper as to how this game works.

And it's not like high-DPR Strikers are useless (see: the Avenger, or the Stormwarden Ranger, or pretty much every charger, etc.), it's just that burst is also an important part of the package. You don't want to be missing either, though missing burst is arguably more painful.
As noted, I do understand and have since before I started this thread that burst damage on strikers is their schtick since removing an enemy from the board ASAP is their job. I was trying to get into the grittier detail of how they go about it, though.

Unless more folks want to tell me how low my system mastery is (which has precisely nothing to do with wanting to CHANGE the system itself to be something a bit more standard) I think this thread has probably run its course for the purpose I made it for

I am 100% aware that there are reasons delayed-gratification damage doesn't work. I know exactly why classes like the Ossassin don't work - their damage never gets put on the table. I am, however, trying to explore more specifically where those problems arise from


And it has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the fact that O-Assassins and other Strikers designed without burst capability in some shape or form were not designed to match the system already in place. And really, the system that's already been in place is just fine, really, at least as regards sustained vs. burst.

, and so far I've been fairly successful at that - it is one of two things: burst is too good,


No.

or monsters die too easily, at least as far as optimized characters go.


And, no.
Unless more folks want to tell me how low my system mastery is (which has precisely nothing to do with wanting to CHANGE the system itself to be something a bit more standard) I think this thread has probably run its course for the purpose I made it for



And this, THIS is what bothers me. Why "fix" an aspect of the system that's already WORKING? What POSSIBLE purpose could that serve? It's just so... stupid.

To make cool new classes with unique mechanics that the existing system doesn't support very well of course.

Maybe that's too far in the direction of '5e' than what I was supposed to be dealing with, though.


- and be unable to act after the second hit. Further, it should be killed by one hit from Steve and one hit from Bob. So if Bob hits the monster imposing ongoing damage, and then it's Steve's turn and he also hits it, the monster falls over. Even though the ongoing damage hasn't happened even once yet.



This is true, if Steve wants to use his standard action killing a monster that is already dead at the start of its turn he can killsteal it from Bob. The only reason he would, though, is they're having a contest to see who drops more monsters below 0 hp or removing the model from the board is of crucial importance (it has a powerful aura being the only common example I can think of, but possibly it's shot blocking somebody in the back or the like).



I just wanted to point out another reason why party members will continue to pile on the "walking dead".  At most tables the number of HPs a monster has is not known, you only know it's bloodied, not that it has 10HPs left and the ongoing damage will kill it before it gets to act again.  Therefor in most cases it's a good idea to keep hitting something until it's dead and not hope that it has enough auto-damage coming to kill it.


To make cool new classes with unique mechanics that the existing system doesn't support very well of course.

Maybe that's too far in the direction of '5e' than what I was supposed to be dealing with, though.




If 5e turns out to be like you want it, count me out.

There's nothing wrong with a Striker class having more save-ends ongoing damage powers than others of his role. But making it his only means of boosting his damage is a fail concept, under any system that pretty much anyone with a proper sense of such would consider fun.

Leave the sustained damage every round mentality to the Defenders and Controllers.
"Encounters take too long" is one of the most common complaints about 4e.  Removing burst damage is a bad idea.

I actually find quite the opposite; I have a very optimized, striker heavy party, and with burst damage, they can take out most of the real threats in a couple rounds, making for really short fights. With Solo fights this is minimized slightly, but the Controller is left with very little to do. This is not to say that the fights are easy, since the DM uses similar tactics, but we could do with a slower pace in the fights.
I actually find quite the opposite; I have a very optimized, striker heavy party, and with burst damage, they can take out most of the real threats in a couple rounds, making for really short fights. With Solo fights this is minimized slightly



You want to know how I know you are making stuff up?

That is completely reverse of problems people have in nova heavy groups.
Yep, a nova-heavy group smiles and licks its lips when they see only one guy on Team Monster.
I actually find quite the opposite; I have a very optimized, striker heavy party, and with burst damage, they can take out most of the real threats in a couple rounds, making for really short fights. With Solo fights this is minimized slightly



You want to know how I know you are making stuff up?

That is completely reverse of problems people have in nova heavy groups.


Simple reason why: Solos, at least ones my DM run, have more deterants to concentrating fire than multiple standard monsters. We are melee heavy, so the devistating auras, and Burst attack that solos have are bigger hits to the party, and thus the strikers are more likely to blow actions on second winds and potions, than hammer through many monsters, which they can take down in bursts. Also, I have a theory that my DM boosts their HP a bit, to give them more survivability, so they can pull off their big attacks.
if you have 3 melee strikers a solo won't last 1 round if they all drop novas, unless the DM cheats, the dice rolls are all below 5 or he makes his own monsters. All 3 of which don't apply to this forum or discussion.
Look at the following scenarios:
A Striker who averages say 30 hp of damage on a shot.
Another Striker who averages say 29 hp of damage on a shot and does 15 points of ongoing damage on that hit.

Which do you play assuming all other things are equal? How about if it is 10 points of ongoing damage? How about 5 points? What if the base is 25 and it is 15 points of ongoing damage? What if it is paired with the Assassin death mechanic where if the opponent has 15 or less hit points, it dies instantly?

There is some balance point where ongoing damage is worthwhile. But...they just haven't tried to find that balance point. And I suspect they'd find it very difficult - a balance point which satisfied CharOp builds would likely wreck the 'normal' groups. Ones which satisfied normal would give Vampire haters a run for the money.
There is some balance point where ongoing damage is worthwhile. But...they just haven't tried to find that balance point. And I suspect they'd find it very difficult - a balance point which satisfied CharOp builds would likely wreck the 'normal' groups. Ones which satisfied normal would give Vampire haters a run for the money.

I think this is a thing to think about; the classes are generally ballanced towards 'normal' player, not the CharOp forum. If they were to make a Class, they would make it ballanced towards the normal player, which would mean that it would be worthless to CharOp, and that's the reason CharOp will never be behind this idea.
I don't know about that - there is a balance between a lot of the classes that currently exist. They've been off the mark of late, though, no denying that.

To make cool new classes with unique mechanics that the existing system doesn't support very well of course.

Maybe that's too far in the direction of '5e' than what I was supposed to be dealing with, though.




reaper, the system doesn't support it because it runs counter to one of the core design goals of 4e, a goal that hopefully won't change: make combat relatively short. If a fight lasts long enough that delayed-damage effects can be made both viable and balanced, then that fight has gone on too long. I DM a 6-person group and it's a constant struggle to make fights that are an actual challenge but don't take several hours.

You're neglecting two very real issues with your desire for delayed-damage mechanics. First, one of the single biggest complaints WotC got when 4e first came out was that combat took too long; that's the whole reason they rebuilt monster stats in MM3, giving them more damage and less HP. Second, as has been pointed out to you several times now, the tactical benefits of front-loading your damage are very large. A delayed-damage striker simply can't be balanced against that; either he'll be underpowered and useless in an optimized group or overpowered and an absolute beast in an unoptimized group.

There's plenty of other design space that can be explored to generate interesting mechanics for new classes (though personally I'd prefer more support for existing classes, especially the ones that haven't gotten any such love) that doesn't require rethinking fundamental aspects of the system design.
I don't know about that - there is a balance between a lot of the classes that currently exist. They've been off the mark of late, though, no denying that.

There is no denying that they've been off the mark, but their aim at least, is to ballance them towards the normal player. They could do better (ie more support for PHB 3 classes would help ballance them for both normals and CharOps, and Making some of the Post-e material not suck would be better for balance), but their aim is to keep them balanced for normal players.
though personally I'd prefer more support for existing classes, especially the ones that haven't gotten any such love.

I think everyone can agree on this; We've been spoiled by the number of classes of 4e, and developers have been attempting to simply add on classes, when what they should do is create more opportunity for variation within classes, than add another class to make more variation.
While I think that having a class that uses ongoing damage (or vulnerabilities) in a new and interesting way wouldn't be a bad thing, I don't think such a class would be appropriate within the striker role.  It's not that it couldn't be done, it's that it shouldn't.  DoTs are much more useful in a real-time environment, not in a turn-based system.

I am not well versed on the metagame of optimization, though I think I get the basic gist of most role optimization; however, I do have a bit of experience playing the game (both at home and with published adventures). 

In my experience the usefulness of ongoing damage is very situationally limited, and this is not simply due to the damage expressions typically given to ongoing damage.  Damage that's inflicted during your character's turn, be it spike or sustained, is more useful because of the overall party assist it provides.  Being able to down an enemy in as few rounds as possible is the most useful thing that a member of an adventuring party can contribute.  Ongoing damage as a striker mechanism would postpone combat, impact the tactical response time to an enemy going down, and also could allow for zones and auras that the target had going on be around longer and thus have more of an impact on the party.  Much better to have all their damage in one go, instead of having to wait around for the inderspacing turns until it "tics."  

Also, what if the target had resistance to the ongoing damage.  This would make the ongoing damage significantly worse than if it were part of your regular attack, unless there was a way in which your ongoing damage could ignore such resistances.

Not to mention the relative unimportance of "save ends" effects.  Generally a status condition is more worthwhile to impose than damage, unless there is a way for that damage to capitalize on a vulnerability.

This is not to say that ongoing damage cannot contribute to combat, just that it should not be looked at for a striker mechanic.  It can be good for helping the other roles soften up enemies so that it doesn't take their Striker buddies as long to take 'em down once they get around to 'em, but so too is higher frontloaded damage.  Off action attacks, or powers such as Rain of Steel, are generally supperior to Ongoing Damage because they can't be saved against and any weapon tricks the character using such has will apply to these powers.

A possible application for ongoing damage as a unique implementation might be some defender which imposed it along with a mark, and in order to improve its importance have a feature where a creature under such an effect couldn't save if it disobeyed the mark.  If also had a standard mark enforcement, this might actually be a the basis of a decent class.

Having a class that imposed vulnerabilities, and could capitalize on such, would be better than having one rely on ongoing damage.  It would still have to be competitive with classes within the current role to be a worthwhile addition to the game, and there are a fair number of classes which can be build to do this already.

I'd much rather have current classes get some support before we add any new ones, and would rather any new ones be just about anything besides another striker.

Does any of that make sense?
I really didn't mean for the other thread to get derailed the way it did, and I did just kinda spitballed the idea off the top of my head.  Thinking about it more, I can see that tic damage per turn would be untenable for the system, however you could apply the ongoing damage whenever an enemy takes any action (move, minor, standard, free, etc.) UEONT to add a degree of soft control to its damage.  Maybe add a way to transfer the effect if an enemy dies before it applies.

Regardless, my main point was that there may be other ways in which a character can function in a given role.
A possible application for ongoing damage as a unique implementation might be some defender which imposed it along with a mark, and in order to improve its importance have a feature where a creature under such an effect couldn't save if it disobeyed the mark.  If also had a standard mark enforcement, this might actually be a the basis of a decent class.

As much as I was initially excited by this idea, I don't think so. The whole concept of imposing ongoing damage with the mark makes the mark much more powerful than the average mark, so the ongoing damage couldn't be too high, but if the ongoing damage weren't high enough, then there isn't much to discourage the disobaying of the mark.

Perhaps it could impliment the ongoing damage at disobaying of the mark when the monster doesn't have that ongoing damage, but if it does have the ongoing damage, then it couldn't save, but that's still rather situational, since there's nothing that says that they would save anyway. Also, this has the unintended side effect of making the defender much more of a viable target to solos and elites, than standard monsters, since solos and elites have a bonus to saving throws, so giving up a saving throw is yeilds a bigger difference in expected damage.

Even with this tweak, it doesn't really seem like a defender tactic. 
Maybe a marked and ongoing damage (save ends both) ability where the mark punishment is that you automatically fail your next save?
I built a homebrew Leader class that utilized OGD, and while enemies were taking the OGD, leader-style effects were in place, life lowered defenses.  It worked fairly well, both flavorfully and mechanically.  The class was part controller, which OGD also works for.   However, OGD is just wrong for Defender/Striker mechanics.
Just because I saw this pop up in the "What Works...." thread....

Ongoing damage is damage that a creature takes at the start of their turn.  Like all other Save Ends effects, at the end of its turn it would make a saving throw against the damage.  Some creatures have bonuses to these, as is the case with Elites and Solos.  I think there are also some that have specific traits to end certain conditions, but I'm not sure if any have Ongoing Damage amongst them.

Wardens get a single (more with feats) saving throw at the start of their turn that, if I am not mistaken, takes place before any imposed conditions and therefore can end ongoing damage before they take damage.

Therefore, even if your ongoing damage drops the creature at the start of its turn, the fact that it's not until then means that you, and your party, still have to treat the afflicted creature as a threat until it finally goes down.  Also, if one of your allies takes it down while the ongoing damage is still active, the damage it would have done is wasted.

As to the discussion of the OGDD, as I said it is a possible implementation.  Doesn't mean it's either practical or worthwhile, but it is an idea. 
Chiming into this thread, which is a trainwreck, to throw just one thing into the ring and see what everyone else has to think about it: if the highly optimized striker DPR TTK (or turns to kill) was 3 turns of attacking instead of 2, you could make ongoing damage strikers viable, provided you had a keen grasp of the game design (read: not the monkeys who were involved with the focus group story Tsuyoshikentsu occasionally mentions, but actual, competent developers who keep up with design trends). Reasoning is thus:

A) To make ongoing damage strikers viable, their attacks have to be OP compared to other strikers and impractical to implement as part of a combinatorial explosion. If you're not doing significantly more damage than the Ranger to a single target with your sustained DPR, you need to get out because you're a sucky option, barring status effects on top of your damage (which either keeps you sucky if it's stuff like slows or makes you broken if it's stuns). Let's say 1.5 times the damage of a ranger in sustained DPR, in exchange for no novas.

B) To make ongoing damage strikers viable, they cannot be resource intensive. Period, no discussion allowed. If you have to blow encounter powers to do the same thing three turns later that the Ranger does now, it's time to bail and jump into the Defender/Leader/Controller wagon. Instead, your resources have to expand your capabilities vertically instead of horizontally. Translation for those who don't get my lingo: instead of having a daily that is "At-will power...BUT MORE!", you need dailies that do stuff like "at-wills now hit three targets instead of one/OAs against you generate counteattacks from you and your allies/all attacks now daze". Otherwise you end up with a broken class that does too much damage. The classes need to be more effective in exchange for doing the damage later, but not excessively so.

C) Lastly, there has to be a reason to take the ongoing damage option. This ties into my comment about increasing the TTK to 3: if the normal strikers kill enemies in 3 turns but can nova once or twice to kill in 1 while the ongoing damage strikers kill enemies in 2 turns like clockwork, you have interesting dynamics. If something like this isn't the case, one striker archetype is ****ed.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Issue there, Armisael, is that in order for delayed damage to matter it has to be not just an appreciable chunk compared to any other striker, but an appreciable chunk compared to the entire team hitting that guy. Even if every other striker took three turns to kill an enemy, it would be inadvantageous to bring the guy who takes two-and-a-half turns to kill an enemy because the team focus-firing takes one-half to one-and-a-half rounds to kill that enemy.



But if the one dude is killing a monster in two turns solo, that lets your team kill another monster at the same time. It rations the actions efficiently and prevents overkill. That isn't a really applicable point, either for ongoing or instant strikers IMO: you're a striker, you WILL drag foes to hell at lightning speed (this presumes decent designs of course). You don't need your allies for this, they should focus on disrupting the enemy formations and tactics while you take out key targets.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).


But if the one dude is killing a monster in two turns solo, that lets your team kill another monster at the same time. It rations the actions efficiently and prevents overkill. That isn't a really applicable point, either for ongoing or instant strikers IMO: you're a striker, you WILL drag foes to hell at lightning speed (this presumes decent designs of course). You don't need your allies for this, they should focus on disrupting the enemy formations and tactics while you take out key targets.



You don't spread damage in an ideal situation. By killing 2 different monsters in 2 turns compared to killing 1 in one turn you have effectively doubled the amount of damage your team takes. The point of a striker is to reduce the amount of damage team hero takes by taking monsters off the baord. By having a mechanic that makes you not want (or not possible for) that to happen as fast as possible is counter to the striker role.

Delayed damage would work for leaders and controllers as mentioned. You have to tie something to the delayed damage that inhibits the monster or gives bonus to your pc's.
You don't spread damage in an ideal situation. By killing 2 different monsters in 2 turns compared to killing 1 in one turn you have effectively doubled the amount of damage your team takes.



Bullcrap. You're flat-out wrong and here's why:

Basic five-monster setup. No tricks, no frills, you win init just to give the "focus one guy" group the upper hand.

Group A bursts down one monster on turn 1, then takes two turns to kill another monster from then on. Eats 4*3+3*2+2*2+1*2 = 23 attacks thrown your way. This is assuming perfect efficiency with the resources you spent on killing the one guy, mind.

Group B uses sustained, reliable damage to kill two monsters per two rounds. 5*2+3*2+1*2 = 17 attacks with basic sustained DPR. You were saying? Spreading damage IS the most efficient move if it gets kills. You really should look at the numbers before parroting people.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Sign In to post comments