Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Smallberries 08-09-04, 01:53 AM	Maybe I missed something - I don't pore over the rulebooks like I used to. One of my players picked up a weapon with the Wounding ability. The DMG says that it drains one point of CON when it hits. There is no save, and no mention of how to regain the CON points, and no mention of how long the penalty lasts. There is no limit given to the number of CON points that can be drained in this way. So far I've treated this as a temporary drain, with the same duration/remedies as a poison attack (except, of course, poisons have saving throws to negate, and this doesn't). Isn't that a little excessive for a special ability with a +2 market price modifier? Every two hits reduces the hitpoints of the enemy by it's level, since every point of CON bonus translates to a hitpoint-per-level increment to total HP. This is a serious drain, especially against spellcasters who generally don't have a great CON to start with, or many hits. I've even had tough fighters get slaughtered in one or two rounds, almost entirely due to losing 50 or 60 hitpoints per round from this unstoppable CON damage. Anyone have any suggestions, or know of some related rule in the DMG that would explain how this wounding effect should work? I dounbt that what's given in the Wounding description is the whole story... Thanks
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 05:52 AM	lets assume and our spellcaster has 8 CON... so 8 hits from the sword would put him a 0 CON a spellcaster with 8 con has d4-1 HP per level... so 8 hits from a non-magical longsword does... 8d8. our spellcasting friend is probably already dead. CON damage or no CON damage. 50 or 60 damage *per round* from CON? wouldnt they have to be level 100 or 120? or get hit 10-12 times per round? - assuming a level 20 enemy, wounding would deal 20 damage over 2 hits. - a flaming+shocking weapon would deal an average of 14 damage over 2 hits. so yes, wounding is certainly a good mod to have, but is by no means *broken*. also one must keep in mind wounding has no effect on Undead or Constructs. they have a CON score of '--'
sparkster4242 08-09-04, 06:06 AM	its not ability drain - its ability damage. it lasts until it heals; the DMG will tell you about healing ability damage. yes, its pretty powerful. as david said, some creature types dont have a Constitution score, so Wounding wont affect them. Other creature types are simply immune to ability damage - no Wounding for them either.
Palin the Wizard 08-09-04, 06:13 AM	Every *second* hit translates into a -1 HP/level. If you have 17 Con, a single hit won't affect your HP at all (aside from the damage the hit inflicts, of course). Maybe you've been running it wrong. If you have a creature with 18 Con, wounding isn't that great. By all means, it's good, but 1 HP/level isn't fatal to most creatures. Even if you smack it down to 10, it'll still have the rolls--which is average for it's HD. Even if you got it down to 3, the creature still wouldn't die from mere HP loss. It would have very few HP--very few indeed--but not enough to kill. Assuming a d8 HD, a creature with 10 HD, and with 18 Con, would have (4+5) x 5 + 40 HP. That's 85 HP. If you reduced it's Con to 3, it will have a -4 modifier. So it's -40 HP. That reduces it to 1 HP per level (4-4 = 1, since a single roll cannot be less than 1). Even with Con of 1, it'd have 10 HP. It cannot be reduced to less than its HD (unless we start adding Traits or Flaws from UA, but I won't get into that). You should also remember that Con modifiers are only to the maximum HP--if you deal the aforementioned creature 10 damage from the weapon, and 1 Con point, it would be reduced to 75 HP (45 + 30). So in fact, it would seem as if it was healed. At least, that's how my DM handles Con loss in combat.
Derren S. 08-09-04, 06:14 AM	I often heared the reasoning that the creature would be dead anyway when you hit it often enough to drain the Con to 0. But all forget that Con damage + normal damage = creature dead in half the time which is very powerfull for a +2 enhancment. Sure, it doesn't work against undead and constructs, but I don't consider that a really big hindrance because unless the campaign centers arround them they appear not very often. You should also remember that Con modifiers are only to the maximum HP--if you deal the aforementioned creature 10 damage from the weapon, and 1 Con point, it would be reduced to 75 HP (45 + 30). So in fact, it would seem as if it was healed. At least, that's how my DM handles Con loss in combat. Which is wrong. When you loose Con it reduces your maximum and current HP. So in your example 10 damage through the weapon and you loose 10 HP through Con loss, meaning the HP of the creature after the attack is 65.
Palin the Wizard 08-09-04, 06:46 AM	Not that I don't believe you're right, but could you cite it?
Palin the Wizard 08-09-04, 06:52 AM	Double post.
Slayer_5 08-09-04, 07:03 AM	doesnt wounding do 2 con damage per hit?
LiXinjian 08-09-04, 08:31 AM	Interestingly, the Book of Vile Darkness describes the Marrowcrushing special ability. It's almost the exact same thing as Wounding, (although it doesn't state that creatures immune to critical hits are immune to this ability) but it's market price modifier is +3. Anyway, a wounding weapon is a very potent item, and all DMs better beware a PC Dervish wielding one, let alone two!
Derren S. 08-09-04, 09:18 AM	There is a greater wounding ability somewhere which drains 2 Con per hit. From the SRD: If a character’s Constitution score drops, then he loses 1 hit point per Hit Die for every point by which his Constitution modifier drops. A hit point score can’t be reduced by Constitution damage or drain to less than 1 hit point per Hit Die. No mentioning of only reducing maximum HP.
Krelios 08-09-04, 10:01 AM	From the SRD... If a character’s Constitution score drops, then he loses 1 hit point per Hit Die for every point by which his Constitution modifier drops. A hit point score can’t be reduced by Constitution damage or drain to less than 1 hit point per Hit Die. Pretty much straightforward. Besides, if CON damage didn't reduce your current HP, then CON bonuses (like Bear's Endurance and Rage) wouldn't increase your current HP, which would make them useless.
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 01:05 PM	Derren S: all forget that Con damage + normal damage = creature dead in half the time which is very powerfull for a +2 enhancment where was that addressed? oh yah, here! :D Daavid Muhameed: - assuming a level 20 enemy, wounding would deal 20 damage over 2 hits. - a flaming+shocking weapon would deal an average of 14 damage over 2 hits. by comparing the +2 wounding mod, to a flaming-shocking weapon (also +2 mod) we saw that the mods are ~= to eachother with wounding only doing 3hp more at level 20. what i saw was the fact that: Con damage + normal damage = creature dead Element damage + normal damage = creature dead so just take away "+ normal damage = creature dead" and only look at the mods. which are ~= equal in power. (now think hard. against a level 10 opponent, wounding does 10 damage over 2 hits, while the flaming-shocking still does 14.) see? not broken. oh, and sparkster4242: my name is not 'david'. is your name 'Sparksteer4242'?
Derren S. 08-09-04, 01:11 PM	And what about fighting a monster with more than 20 HD? That happens fairly often at high level. And don't forget that wounding also lowers the fort save of the creature, making it a better target for poison and death spells. Lastly you can't heal the wounding damage the normal way. You have to use special spells. And fast healing&regeneration also doesn't help against wounding.
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 01:27 PM	Lastly you can't heal the wounding damage the normal way :OMG! DO YOU PAY *NO* ATTENTION~!? its CON damage, a good day of bedrest will heal the damage from Wounding. the fireball is magic, not the scorchmarks. in anyevent, wounding simply does more damage against high HD things and less against low HD things. as for making thing succeptable to poison, etc. well, whatever... a flaming sword can light a barn on fire and a shocking sword cant. you dont see anyone saying "Flaming is the *BEST* +1 mod, its broken"
Derren S. 08-09-04, 01:35 PM	I will ignore your rudness for this time. Sure, bedrest can heal con damage slowly. But does that help you in combat? No. In combat you need special spells, namely lesser restoration or heal. With normal cure spells you can't heal wounding damage. Flaming can burn down a barn? Oh great. You can do the same with a matchstick. And you don't want to cast slay living on the barn or poison it, or? You only want that on big dangerous enemies who have mostly a good fortsave. But guess what, with wounding you can lower their save and they can't do something against it.
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 01:49 PM	:( I'm not rude, you're just stupid :D j/k man, you take me too seriously. :rolleyes: CON damage is just another form of damage, its already fair and balanced. its no big deal.
Derren S. 08-09-04, 01:58 PM	The question is, when it is only another form of damage, why are there so few things which do Con damage? Without looking in my books I can only think of poisons, wraiths and wounding which do Con damage.
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 02:01 PM	um, cant you bestow curse CON? im sure there are other ways (checks around)
FriendoftheDork 08-09-04, 02:03 PM	Daavid, it doesen't look like your post was joking, just stupid in itself :P Yes Derren, con damage is a bit harder to heal than normal damage, since clerics can't spontaneously cast lesser restoration like they can cure spells. However, It's not that uncommon for medium level clerics to have a memorized lesser restoration, or at higher level, Restoration. And so it's not broken compared to the other example, flaming+shocking or whatever. I would rather have energy damage first (note that it bypasses all damage reduction!) for a much cheaper price than saving my money for wounding. +2 abilities are expensive.
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 02:05 PM	yah Bestow Curse: Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 4 Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Will negates –6 decrease to an ability score The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell. a level 20 fighter that fails his will save? ouch. 60 damage from 1 touch attack.
Derren S. 08-09-04, 02:08 PM	Leser restoration has to be in potion form. The 3 rounds casting time makes it unpractical in combat. Same fro normal restoration except there are no potion/wands of it. So short of heal and potion there is nothing to get rid of con damage in combat. And energy damage isn't as reliable as you think. Except for sonic there are many monsters with resistence or imunity to energy. Edit: Wounding bypasses DR too!
Daavid Muhameed 08-09-04, 02:10 PM	Originally posted by Daavid Muhameed oh, and sparkster4242: my name is not 'david'. is your name 'Sparksteer4242'? hi there FrieendoftheDork... but anyways, Friend here seems to have the right idea (although he cant transcribe my name to save his life..) i myself am always bugged when the party cleric doesnt have a Restoration memorized. its so useful to have, and if you dont need it, just make it into a curespell.
Smallberries 08-10-04, 10:46 AM	Woah, did I open a can of worms here or what? Thanks to everyone for this input. There might be some misunderstanding about the original question, however. I'm not suggesting that CON damage is broken on principle; as has been mentioned, other forms of this damage exist such as poisons and Curse. I'm also not suggesting that the Wounding property is itself broken. I am saying that as described in the DMG, it is either underpriced or overpowered. It should either have some drawbacks (such as having Cure spells restore the CON damage as they close the wounds, allowing a saving throw, or limiting the amount of CON damage one can inflict on a single foe), or make it a higher-level bonus, around a +3 or +4 market price modifier. My reasoning is this: all other forms of magical damage, except for certain specific high-level spells, can be resisted by some means. Poisons, Curse and similar spells, anything doing ability damage/drain, ALL have saving throws to negate, except for this Wounding property. This also applies to the comparisons to elemental damage offered in this thread - those can be resisted with spells or resistance-equipment. Wounding does ability damage with NO save, NO resistance, NO limit to the amount of damage it can apply (as with the Curse spell), and NO in-combat way to restore the damage (at least, without serious help from a party member, more on this later). All other forms of damage have at least one of the above remedies. On top of all this, it limits healing by lowering max HP, and also lowers fort saves. We're also talking from a DM's point of view (presumably, anyway, some of the responses seem to be taking this from the point of view of an organized band of PCs), where there is often no "Party Cleric" to help, because the "party" is a bunch of monsters in the wilderness with no class levels at all. Or they're evil clerics, and tend to prepare damaging spells, and might not be terribly interested in the survival of their party members. They might, they might not. Chaotic evil is as chatoic evil does. Like I said, I'm not opposed to Wounding or CON damage on principle. I just think the Wounding property should be a lot more expensive, or have some serious limitations.
astute1 08-10-04, 11:24 AM	Wounding is almost never worth it. Take a look at the matchup: Wounding +1 Longsword: 1d8 damage +1 + 1 con damage 1 con damage - against a creature with 10 HD = appx. 5 hp damage/hit for the same price: Flaming Frost +1 Longsword: 1d8 damage + 1 + 1d6 fire +1d6 ice or: Holy +1 Longsword 1d8 damage +1 + 2d6 holy The energy damage or holy blade works out to more damage in the long run, unless you happen to be fighting creatures with really high Hit Dice, or energy immunities. Wounding does have it's uses - it gets better and better the more hit dice your opponents have, which makes it very good against certain creature types (animals, especially, have high HD for their CR) It also softens up the enemy's Fort save, which the party spellcasters can take advantage of. Overall though, I think it's a bum enchantment. Note: for DMs, Wounding is a fun enchantment to give enemies. Players have to deal with the Con damage in the context of an entire adventure, rather than just one fight. That can lead to some interesting situations.
Derren S. 08-10-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by astute1 The energy damage or holy blade works out to more damage in the long run, unless you happen to be fighting creatures with really high Hit Dice Happens often at higher levels. , or energy immunities. Very common. And don't forget that you have to activate energy damage with a standard action. You don't need that with a wounding weapon. Players have to deal with the Con damage in the context of an entire adventure, rather than just one fight. That can lead to some interesting situations. Also an advantage wounding has. The damage it deals doesn't heal easily and in combat it is very hard to heal the damage.
Naeron 08-10-04, 11:36 AM	Originally posted by Derren S. Leser restoration has to be in potion form. The 3 rounds casting time makes it unpractical in combat. Same fro normal restoration except there are no potion/wands of it. So short of heal and potion there is nothing to get rid of con damage in combat. And energy damage isn't as reliable as you think. Except for sonic there are many monsters with resistence or imunity to energy. But Ability Damage/Drain is a very common thing in 3rd ed. I say Ability Damage rather than CON damage because the spells and rest heal damage to any ability. Undead, poisons, a number of spells and a few other things all cause ability damage. As PC abilities to not tend to rise in proportion to their HP ability damage so well-prepared parties should always try and cover their bases by having counters for ability damage on hand. Originally posted by Derren S. Edit: Wounding bypasses DR too! Would you like to support that? As per the SRD on damage reduction "Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact ". Ability damage from a sword of wounding is not listed as one of the things that ignore damage reduction and it certainly is a special effect that accompanies the attack. If the blow doesn't penetrate DR it won't cause the Wounding effect. As to the cost of the Wounding enchantment: D&D is set up on the principle that it is rare for a given monster(s) to be encountered multiple times without a rest period. The "standard" is that most monsters will last one fight and then die or flee and return after they have had a chance to heal up (if at all). This is why special abilities cost so much towards LA as to CR. Its only the PCs who are expected to have multiple encounters. So Wounding was probably costed against its utility vs monster encounters, the difficulty of healing ability damage was ignored because the expectation is that the damage is only relevant for that one encounter. Of course against the PC's its much harsher but so is all ability damage. So for a PC Wounding IS probably correct at about +2 as its the immediate effects that are important.
Derren S. 08-10-04, 11:54 AM	Originally posted by Naeron But Ability Damage/Drain is a very common thing in 3rd ed. I say Ability Damage rather than CON damage because the spells and rest heal damage to any ability. Only that the other abilities don't affect the HP of the creature, they only reduce the efficency, but don't kill it. Except for Con. Con damage kills. Would you like to support that? From zthe SRD A wounding weapon deals 1 point of Constitution damage from blood loss when it hits a creature 1. Wounding is aditional damage. 2. ...when it hits.... Wounding was probably costed against its utility vs monster encounters, the difficulty of healing ability damage was ignored Which doesn't work. While monsters are a big part of the enemies the PCs fight, they are not the only one. And wounding also prevents in combat healing, even more so that healing afterwards. restoration is no combat spell. The only way to heal ability damage in combat is a potion or heal. Also, wounding prevents regeneration and fast healing.
FriendoftheDork 08-11-04, 12:03 AM	keep in mind, that although wounding has no save or SR, it requires a melee attack to work! And as said, the alternative +2 enchantments are as good, better in some situations, or worse in some (many HD enemies). All in all I don't think it needs to be a +3 enchanment, and allowing a save would ruin it to the point that it would never be worth it.
Daavid Muhameed 08-11-04, 01:20 AM	yes, do not increase it to +3. right now wounding is only better than +2d6 effects in certain cases. if you made it a +3 mod, now one must compare it to +3d6 effects. now wounding is worse in all cases. wounding being +3 would be *nerfed* and most GMs and every player would be able to see that.
ck2001wendt 08-11-04, 02:53 AM	------------------------------------------------- My reasoning is this: all other forms of magical damage, except for certain specific high-level spells, can be resisted by some means. Poisons, Curse and similar spells, anything doing ability damage/drain, ALL have saving throws to negate, except for this Wounding property. This also applies to the comparisons to elemental damage offered in this thread - those can be resisted with spells or resistance-equipment. --------------------------------------------------- It´s called a high AC or Damage Reduction. Wounding doesn´t need a saving throw (just as all the Energy and Energy Burst properties don´t need saving throws) because the PC has already overcome the creature´s "save" by successfully making the attack. If you can´t hit your opponent, they can´t lose a Con. If you can´t damage your opponent, they can´t lose a Con. If you want to talk "filthy," go out and buy a Rapier of Puncturing. 1d6 Con Damage, 3 times a day. Touch Attack. No Save. ... Oh, and someone (Derren?) was talking about how rare Con damage is. Actually, it´s not. I believe Con damage is no more rare than other types of ability damage, and MORE common when it comes to poisons (which PCs rarely use). There´s an "Ability Damage" thread on the Char Op board that started collecting the sources. If you want to talk "rare" look for things that cause Cha or Wis damage. One or two spells, and one or two rare poisons.
Dragonspirit 08-11-04, 03:09 AM	It is pretty strong, especially when combined with multiple attacks. My advice is if you feel it is degenerate ban it. There is no rule requiring you to allow ANYTHING that you feel is unbalanced, and contrary to what many people will preach this game is certainly NOT "perfectly balanced". Chess is balanced, because you have the same pieces. Texas Hold 'Em is balanced, because you are dealt from the same deck of cards. Any game where you have variable pieces, cards, abilities, units, etc (as interesting as they can make things) can NOT be balanced. Not only that, but there would be no such thing as errata or new versions if the game is perfect. The players have no right to any feature, ability, weapon, etc that you do not feel appropriate. And, as an aside, I think that wounding is pretty broken. I also don't like spiked chain, metamagic rods and improved initiative are stupidly broken. Now, that's not to say you should just dismiss arguments from players out of hand, but you have the final say.
Daavid Muhameed 08-11-04, 04:47 AM	spiked chain: broken not only is that the dumbest idea for a weapon ever... its broken improved initiative: not broken i have never seen initiative win a battle, the feat isnt even that great. Run is better. wounding: probably not broken metamagic rods: (or any item for that matter) if a player can make it, fine. if an Nth level wizard could make it, then an Nth level rogue may start play with it. provided he has the gold to buy it. a player may purchase the rod only if i feel like making an NPC that is both willing and able to make one. or for some reason a table has generated such an NPC and i dont feel like over-ruling the dice.
Naeron 08-11-04, 07:29 AM	Originally posted by Derren S. <snip> From zthe SRD A wounding weapon deals 1 point of Constitution damage from blood loss when it hits a creature 1. Wounding is aditional damage. 2. ...when it hits.... But in what way does that mean that wounding is one of the specific things that DR is useless against, those being specified as "touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, energy drains or poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact" Wounding by its description is none of these. It therfore falls under the text "it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack", the list that follows in the SRD is not meant to be exclusive becuase it says "such as". A wounding weapon has to hit the creature in which case it causes a special effect that accompanies the attack, so DR is not bypassed. And wounding does not stop regeneration, it only stops the creature regenerating the HP loss that arises from the lower CON score. So if a Troll that takes 20 damage and loses 2 CON for 6 more damage escapes back to its lair it regenerates the 20 non-lethal damage and after 1 day of rest it recovers 1 point of CON (putting it on 22) and immediately regenerates the last 6HP.
astute1 08-11-04, 08:29 AM	After a quick glance at the rules, I'd feel justified in saying that if an attack doesn't bypass DR, than the wounding doesn't take effect, either. Otherwise it would be possible to kill creatures with DR/epic with a +1 wounding dagger. The best way to see whether people feel that the ability is balanced, is to see how many people actually use the ability. I've DMed 2 groups since 3.5 came out, and played in two others. No player in any of those groups has ever used a wounding weapon. In fact, when wounding weapons were found as random treasure, one group said "Yay! That useless enchantment drives up the resale price!" posted by Derrin S. And don't forget that you have to activate energy damage with a standard action. You don't need that with a wounding weapon. Actually, that's just flat out wrong. Activating a flaming sword (or most other weapon abilities) is command word activation - a free action.
Derren S. 08-11-04, 09:37 AM	Originally posted by astute1 After a quick glance at the rules, I'd feel justified in saying that if an attack doesn't bypass DR, than the wounding doesn't take effect, either. Otherwise it would be possible to kill creatures with DR/epic with a +1 wounding dagger. But, thats the way it is. Wounding activates when the creature is hit, not when the creature is dealt damage. Ok, the text about DR doesn't say wounding penetrates it, but the text of wounding says it. PS: You can kill a DR/epic creature with a +1 flaming dagger, so this is no argument. The best way to see whether people feel that the ability is balanced, is to see how many people actually use the ability. I've DMed 2 groups since 3.5 came out, and played in two others. No player in any of those groups has ever used a wounding weapon. In fact, when wounding weapons were found as random treasure, one group said "Yay! That useless enchantment drives up the resale price!" Thats because your players don't know much about wounding. In my 3.0 games non of my players took an shield of absorption. Does that mean that this shield was weak? (If you don't know. With the shield you could once a day do a touch attack against a large or smaller creature. If it hits, the creature is dead. No save.) Actually, that's just flat out wrong. Activating a flaming sword (or most other weapon abilities) is command word activation - a free action. No, you are wrong. From the SRD: Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. So if a Troll that takes 20 damage and loses 2 CON for 6 more damage escapes back to its lair it regenerates the 20 non-lethal damage and after 1 day of rest it recovers 1 point of CON (putting it on 22) and immediately regenerates the last 6HP But that doesn't help the troll in combat. Basically with a wounding weapon you don't have to worry about regenerating or fast healing monsters unless they are undead. Wounding deals damage regeneration (and fast healing) can't heal thats a advantage and imo not a small one. Also, like it was shown wounding scales with level (most high HD monsters have a high CR). Can you show me a relativly cheap weapon enhancment which becomes more usefull at higher levels?
astute1 08-11-04, 11:24 AM	Originally posted by Derren S. No, you are wrong. From the SRD: Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. My bad. You're right about that. I just read through the corresponding section of the DMG. It's strange that only the energy type weapons are command word activate while wounding, holy, and bane are use activated. Anyway, it doesn't increase my opinion of wounding one bit. I think the best compairison I can make is as follows: +3 Longsword vs. +1 Wounding Longsword ...which would you rather have? (this comparison only holds true for the mid-levels, of course. Once it starts being a choice between +5 Holy Longsword and +5 Wounding Longsword, I guess you can make arguements...)
Patrik 08-11-04, 09:18 PM	If you've ever fought an enemy with a MW Potion Belt(FRCS) full of healing potions, you would take wounding over elemental damage any day.
primemover003 08-11-04, 10:19 PM	You have NEVER seen initiative win a battle??? I can hardly believe that. Initiative is damned important to a rogue, it's also the single factor every combatant wants... to get the jump on your enemy. As a DM I've seen my PC's trounce an opponent who gets a horrible Initiative roll. This is especially true of Large parties (>4 PC's)
Smallberries 08-11-04, 10:37 PM	I had some comments to make, but Darren has already made some of them for me. But here's my real beef, and I want to be clear: this is not about how Wounding fares, damagewise, against some other type of damage. Any comments of "well, [this other ability] does as much damage (in its special circumstance), why should Wounding be any different?" are beside the point. ALL other damage of the same power level allows a counter of some kind: a save, a limitation, or a spell/ability that reduces or negates the damage. Wounding has none of these. It doesn't work against undead or constructs, but those creature types are rarely a threat, unless you specifically make them so. Your smarter groups will bypass them with ease, except for liches and the like. We're talking run-of-the-game, not end-game scenarios. Take for example, the suggestion earlier in this thread that raising the wounding ability to a +3 bonus should be compared against a hypothetical Holy bonus that does +3d6. That is a false comparison. Holy only works against evil creatures, and Wounding works against basically everything. Even the Holy damage is only HP damage. It doesn't lower Fort saves or maximum HP. Bottom line is, lowering a stat - any combat stat - with no save or any other possible counter or limitation, is worth more than a +2 bonus.
Dragonspirit 08-12-04, 12:41 AM	Daavid Muhameed: spiked chain: broken not only is that the dumbest idea for a weapon ever... its broken Agreed. improved initiative: not broken i have never seen initiative win a battle, the feat isnt even that great. Run is better. The problem isn't so much individually, but when most if not all members of a party have it it gets exponentially better. And as PrimeMover said, when the PCs go first they can often take out a monster before it gets a chance. wounding: probably not broken For standard attacks, it's pretty weak. But someone using it on throwing daggers (given, a lot of money) or that pulls off a full attack it's pretty sick. metamagic rods: (or any item for that matter) if a player can make it, fine. MM rods increase the power of a spellcaster by so much it's not funny. My main beef with them is they are so superior the feats that mimick. Normally, it's balanced because the caster has to use up the higher level spell slot. With rods, they get the increased power with no drawback.
masterofmayhem 08-12-04, 01:47 AM	Originally posted by Dragonspirit For standard attacks, it's pretty weak. But someone using it on throwing daggers (given, a lot of money) or that pulls off a full attack it's pretty sick. Right. Like I suggested, you should play a TWF, FoB, Rapid shot monk/rogue/masterthrower with sais of wounding. If you want the DM to kill you (IRL), that is. :angel:
ck2001wendt 08-12-04, 02:08 AM	-------------------------------------- Derren S.: But, thats the way it is. Wounding activates when the creature is hit, not when the creature is dealt damage. Ok, the text about DR doesn't say wounding penetrates it, but the text of wounding says it. ------------------------------------- "A wounding weapon deals 1 point of Con damage from blood loss when it hits a creature." Gonna have to say I disagree with you here, though I have to agree that the wording is not clear either way. I certainly don´t think the intent supports your view, but then I look at things like flaming ("does 1d6 on a successful hit"). Does the flaming damage apply before you see if you beat the DR? If it does (and I think it does) then that supports your argument. On the other hand, does "blood loss" imply that you actually have to do damage first? I think it does, but that´s just me. ------------------------------- PS: You can kill a DR/epic creature with a +1 flaming dagger, so this is no argument ------------------------------ Incorrect. Lets set the DR at 100\Epic. Your +1 Flaming Dagger is wielded by a Frenzied Berserker, who maxes out at 60 damage (+1d6 from flaming). It doesn´t beat 100, so you cannot harm the creature. Now you pull out your +1 Wounding Dagger. The foe has a crappy AC (with its DR, it doesn´t care), so you´re landing blows all over the place. Eventually (using your logic) you´d kill it anyway through Con loss.
Dragonspirit 08-12-04, 02:49 AM	Right. Like I suggested, you should play a TWF, FoB, Rapid shot monk/rogue/masterthrower with sais of wounding. If you want the DM to kill you (IRL), that is. 1. Wouldn't have the money. +3 total enhancements are fairly expensive. 2. That would be cheese. We've crossed the line from maxing a good number of attacks, to munchkin land through wounding abuse. 3. Might as well put 'Palm Throw' on it so you could double the attacks if you don't care about #2. 4. Don't Monks have to be Lawful? Isn't ability damage (like through Poison) considered evil? So you'd have to Lawful Evil. And certain campaigns don't allow evil. 5. Remember that whatever you make, the DM can also send against you. 6. Yes, I would be killed for doing it, and you'd be killed for suggesting it. In and out of character. :) 7. There would be a proportional rise in Elder Black Puddings, Rust Monsters (w/Surprise) and Bodaks we would come across. :)
Derren S. 08-12-04, 03:21 AM	Originally posted by ck2001wendt -------------------------------------- ------------------------------- PS: You can kill a DR/epic creature with a +1 flaming dagger, so this is no argument ------------------------------ Incorrect. Energy damage ignores DR (Look at the DR description for proof. Its quoted here in this topic. Probably more than once). So the 1w6 flaming damage would come through.
Cirek2 08-12-04, 03:32 AM	One monster we fough once was a marilith with feats all the way to epic that improved its multiweapon fighting... I think it had like 24 - 30+ attacks per round... Ouch if they were all wounding weapons... Offcourse we were immune to ability damage/drain/etc.
Kaminton 08-12-04, 07:08 PM	Originally posted by Dragonspirit 1. Wouldn't have the money. +3 total enhancements are fairly expensive. 2. That would be cheese. We've crossed the line from maxing a good number of attacks, to munchkin land through wounding abuse. 3. Might as well put 'Palm Throw' on it so you could double the attacks if you don't care about #2. 4. Don't Monks have to be Lawful? Isn't ability damage (like through Poison) considered evil? So you'd have to Lawful Evil. And certain campaigns don't allow evil. 5. Remember that whatever you make, the DM can also send against you. 6. Yes, I would be killed for doing it, and you'd be killed for suggesting it. In and out of character. :) 7. There would be a proportional rise in Elder Black Puddings, Rust Monsters (w/Surprise) and Bodaks we would come across. :) There is nothing evil with the wounding ability. Heck, good clerics can cast the Poison spell - it doesn't have the evil descriptor. Unlike the alignment-based enchantments, wounding doesn't impose a negative level if you're good. Nothing is stopping you from using a weapon of wounding. Technically, a paladin could use an unholy weapon - usually in desperation, but a paladin could still use one - and I wouldn't penalize the paladin, because merely wielding the weapon isn't an evil act (I might make an exception for artifact-grade evil weapons though).
Loren Pechtel 08-14-04, 12:49 AM	What about those arrows that do 4 points of Con? It seems to be priced as a +3 bonus. Can you say "ambush"?
Keenath 10-15-04, 02:15 PM	May I just make the point, here, that Wounding is ineffective against foes who are immune to criticals? That removes something like half of the monsters in the book. Wounding won't work on Undead, Constructs, Plants, Oozes, Swarms, or Elementals. Honestly, I don't think it's THAT big a problem. It's at roughly the same level as elemental damage, to my mind.
meabolex 10-15-04, 02:56 PM	Creatures immune to criticals make up approximately 1/3 of the monsters in the MM. However, any higher level PC ot NPC with 37,015 gp to spend can get a +1 mithral buckler of full fortification, which completely negates the wounding mod and doesn't interfere with spellcasting (in fact, you can use it without penalty even if you aren't proficient with shields). So, the wounding modifier during the late levels is almost always useless against high-level NPCs. It works well as soon as you can afford it -- but it gradually gets worse and worse. I'd rather have holy or a elemental burst weapon myself.
EatFlan 10-15-04, 03:01 PM	- assuming a level 20 enemy, wounding would deal 20 damage over 2 hits. - a flaming+shocking weapon would deal an average of 14 damage over 2 hits. you claim that this is practically equal by comparing the +2 wounding mod, to a flaming-shocking weapon (also +2 mod) we saw that the mods are ~= to eachother with wounding only doing 3hp more at level 20. what part of the difference between 20 and 14 being 6 or over TWENTY FIVE PERCENT more damage equates to practically equal. Go back to grade school, either that or never design something precise, plz. And then I'm throwing in my vote with Darren and them and say that if you're fighting someone w/elemental damage added you can at least get any of the cure or a heal spell to patch you up right. If you've had your CON whooped on even with a cure or heal you're not really healling everything you've lost. Wounding is nasty, and i believe it is def. the best ability for it's enhancement cost.
Lord Stigius 10-15-04, 03:54 PM	While 3,5 wounding ability is not broken in itself, it's clearly too god to be +2 ability IMHO. I still use mostly 3,0 stuff, so my wounding weapons do HP damage. But I was happy to find the marrowcrushing ability in BoVD. It works ther same as 3,5 wounding does, and is a +3 ability - right pricing by me. What's more, weapons with this enchantment radiate evil, wchich may also be a balancing factor in most parties. When I first used marrowcrushing weapon (on a mighty NPC, far beyond the PCs level), they were SCARED. I still use it from time to time - but it's obviously +3 value at least. Wounding = +2 is plain wrong. Daavid: If you've never seen initiative win battle, we are obviously playing completly different games.
RedMage 10-15-04, 04:07 PM	I as well still hold to the good old "wounding weapons make you bleed off 1 hp/round" thing in my 3.5 games. That made more sence than the con damage. Lets say that yes we are doing con damage. DR usualy represents something that slows down an attack without blocking it. IRL if u get by something and it dosent hurt you at all, did it wound you? Wounding does not go past DR (unless somehow you manage to negate the DR in some way, or cast a spell with wounding, or have some kind of wounding touch attack. Pale Master should have that, in my opinion)
Talanall 10-15-04, 04:35 PM	I haven't seen any huge problem with wounding weapons. Recently I played a high level cleric who used one (and yes, he was a persistent buff cleric). The DM had little trouble finding ways to present the party with foes that were relatively untroubled by wounding weapons. As several posters earlier in the thread have pointed out, plenty of the monsters in the core ruleset are immune to ability score damage by default. More than that, I had a lot of trouble just catching some creatures in order to pound them. Since many of the classes that are most suited to the use of wounding weaponry (fighters, clerics, and paladins) are likely to be wearing heavy armor and must usually rely on magical items for the ability to fly, it's downright HARD to catch things that don't want to be in melee with you. That was certainly my experience -- if something wanted to be in melee with me, it often had a wounding weapon of its own, better AC than me, more hit points, and a higher attack bonus. A few other points that I think should be remembered: 1) Elemental damage enhancements suck. They suck progressively more as you rise in level, because more and more creatures have energy resistance in excess of what an elemental enhancement can dish out. This is problematic, when you compare something like a +1 frost burst weapon to a +1 holy weapon. If you're a good-aligned character, you're likely to encounter plenty of evil foes (probably far more than half, unless your DM is deliberately avoiding alignment-based conflict). Cold resistance 10 isn't that uncommon, especially at higher levels, and it really pulls the fangs from elemental burst weapons. Personally, I avoid using elemental enhancements for this reason, and will take a +3 weapon over a +1 elemental burst weapon as a matter of course. 2) Straight enhancement bonuses are generally better for characters who have the ability to deal extra damage in special circumstances as a class feature. If I'm playing a rogue, I will probably pick a +3 weapon over a +1 wounding weapon. Why? Because I'll want to use Improved Initiative and Rapid Shot, or TWF, and get the drop on my foes in the first round of combat. That's when it's easiest to get sneak attack damage, since that's when you get your best chance to unload a full attack against a flat-footed opponent. In such a situation, what matters is not the 1 point of Con damage that I might deal with a wounding weapon. It's the +2 bonus to attack that will cancel my -2 to attacks from TWF or Rapid Shot, and, as a corollary, that means that I am more likely to deal my +4d6 to +10d6 per hit in sneak attack damage. That's an average damage of 14 to 35 in sneak attacks (depending on whether the rogue is level 7 or level 20 -- a PC can afford to have a +3 weapon at level 7, at the very minimum). Especially at high levels, this gets to be a problem -- the party's rogue usually only landed one or two sneak attacks in a full attack. His attack bonus wasn't high enough to do better, and he wasn't optimized to have a better attack bonus. He was optimized to do lots of damage if he could hit you. Many of the same principles hold true for a ranger. The ranger is the most likely class to have multishot. It's a great feat, and dishes out a ton of damage in optimal circumstances (which the ranger is best equipped to take advantage of, via favored enemy selection). But it's no good if the ranger can't dependably score a hit with it, and that +2 modifer is going to make a difference. That said, there are several reasons why I like wounding. The biggest one is that it's a way out of the "golf bag o'weapons" syndrome associated with 3.5's DR. A high Str character with a two-handed weapon can use a single wounding weapon as an alternative to a collection of +1 cold iron, alchemical silver, and adamantine weapons. With Power Attack, Weapon Ppecialization, etc., this means that such a character can probably inflict damage that will exceed the buffer afforded by DR 15/material or DR 15/alignment, and inflict a point of Con damage which will help make up for the hit point damage lost to DR. The alternative is to carry around several weapons, in which case you'll get to deal full damage, but will not deal Con damage. Either way, you lose a big chunk of your damage-dealing capacity. The other big reason why I like wounding is that it helps the fighter keep up with wizards and sorcerers on the damage-dealing front. When confronted with the appalling damage-dealing potential of an archmage with Mastery of Elements, a +Dex item, and Scorching Ray, a fighter looks rather shabby. Wounding helps make this go away, and means that my DM is less likely to view the party fighter as something to be mopped up after he deals with the REAL threat.
Lord Stigius 10-15-04, 04:40 PM	Talanall See, the problem is that 'how to get enemies into melee range' has in fact nothing to do with wounding weapons. From my experience a character with a, say, +3 weapon is by no means better in chasing his foes than the char with +1 wounding one. ;) Rogues in general get their damage form sneak attack, and the bonus to hit is better for them than any other, that's really a no-brainer, Your other points, while completly correct, just prove that wounding is better than other powers of eqiuvalent enchantment - which, IMHO, is the best proof that it is not equivalent.
Talanall 10-15-04, 05:50 PM	Actually, I think that my points prove that elemental burst enhancements suck. They suck compared to the alignment-based enhancements just as much as they suck compared to wounding. I'd have a lot harder choice in front of me to choose between wounding and holy, because the holy enhancement would let me pierce DR that a wounding weapon can't pierce. Just to give an example. So really, my argument is that wounding shouldn't be compared to elemental damage, because elemental damage is a rotten choice. I'd pick a +1 ghost touch keen weapon, or a +1 holy weapon, over a +1 frost burst or +1 flaming shocking weapon any day of the week, too. I think that elemental damage is the worst possible way to spend a point of enhancement bonus. I'd pick something other than elemental damage ALL of the time. That's a good indication that elemental damage enhancements are underpowered, just on their own merits. And with that in mind, I don't think that it should be used as a benchmark to compare to wounding. The reason why I'm making this argument is that the discussion prior to this point in the thread has tended to rely on a comparison of wounding to elemental damage weapons. Of course wounding is going to look as if it's a no-brainer next to such weapons. That's because those other weapons are inferior to the other options out there, wounding and otherwise. I'd pick something other than wounding SOME of the time. Which means that wounding is probably balanced. I don't consider it an unconditional must-have enhancement for any class. I think it's just one of the best ones to put onto a weapon that'll be wielded by a straight fighter, paladin, or barbarian. I also think it's a waste to slap it onto a rogue's weapon, and usually that this would be the case for a ranger, too, although I also think that's more conditional, depending on how you build your ranger. I'd consider a +1 wounding weapon and a +1 holy weapon as being more or less equivalent. The holy weapon doesn't deal quite so much damage, on average, versus high hit dice, but it does slice through some damage reduction that a wounding weapon can't handle. And below 17 HD, the holy weapon actually yields a better average damage against most creatures I'm likely to end up fighting. So unless I'm playing a super-high-level game, I'd probably go for a holy weapon first. Or unholy, or whatever alignment is appropriate to my character. Any way I slice it, wounding works out to be less attractive to me at any rational level of play. The critters with really huge HD totals, aside from dragons, are basically the undead and outsiders. Wounding doesn't work on the undead and I'm more likely to fight evil outsiders than anything else with large HD totals, unless I'm playing an evil campaign. In a perfect world, I'd be able to afford a +1 holy/axiomatic/(insert your preferred alignment descriptor) wounding weapon, of course. But most of the time, I'll have to choose, and it's not a cut-and-dried choice by any means. The only thing that's cut and dried is that I don't want a weapon that deals elemental damage, because it's the worst possible choice, behind even a straight enhancement bonus.
Wayne 10-15-04, 06:25 PM	Another user of the 3.0 Wounding = Bleeding, not Con damage. :] The other opponents of 3.5 Wounding weapons have basically covered it; not much to add now, heh. I guess I'm just leery of a weapon enhancement that can reduce the ability score that determines hp with every hit, with no save. It's not just that, barring immunity to ability drain (not very common in PCs), Con damage will kill you; but that it drains 1 hp/level pretty much every round (given a full attack, or TWF) in addition to dealing normal weapon damage. Enemies die that much faster, and I see some people overlooking that. As a DM I tend to focus on the value of weapon abilities for use against the PCs, rather than the other way around-- and that makes ability damage (any, but especially Con) much deadlier than it would be against a one-shot monster. The fact that bed rest heals ability damage much more slowly than hp (1 point/day), and that you need the specialized Restoration spells to undo it instead of just Cure, makes it too good at the +2 price. I agree that using Marrowcrushing instead, at +3 and Evil, is probably a better choice, and I think I'll leave that one in.
Grayson 10-15-04, 08:01 PM	Just jumping in to comment on a tangental argument: Wounding doesn't do squat if you don't get through DR. There's no blood loss if there's no wound ;)
EatFlan 10-15-04, 10:33 PM	wow Grayson, thats like saying elemental damage doesn't do anything if there is energy resistance.
Draco_Whitewind 10-16-04, 03:35 AM	why don't you just push it back to the 3.0 rules where it causes 1 point of cumulative blood loss until healed by a heal check or being healed by at least 1 point of healing? that works. ~Draco
darczero 10-16-04, 05:07 AM	Initiative does win battles, at higher levels. Con damage rarely does, except when it's vast amounts of it (Rapid Shot/Many Shot on Bow of Speed, arrows coated in Colossal Scorpion venom = something like 6d10 Con damage per round, if all arrows hit); while the HP loss does add up, it generally takes a while to do so. And it's most useful against high level/HD enemies, since they lose more. Also, the most important fact of Con damage is that it cannot reduce anything to less than 1 HP per die, but it can kill if Con reaches 0, even through temporary damage. This fact is generally overlooked because everyone figures "well I'm hitting the thing anyway, I'm still doing normal damage!" In my experience, extra damage and special effects are figured after regular damage, not before, so you'd still have to hit it again after its HP were down to 1 per die, at which point Wounding becomes useless (at least against that victim). Another option (someone else suggested this) is to restrict how often people find these things. When you do this, however, PC spellcasters will start making such items; when they do, make sure to observe all prerequisites (wounding has a 7th level spell that very few casters ever learn without knowledge of its OTHER functions, specifically what magic items it happens to be a prerequisite for, and is restricted to Wiz/Sor types). Magic Items don't just appear; someone has to make them. An Undead Slayer would not make a Wounding weapon; his chosen foe is immune. A Wizard might, but it would be the type of weapon that a Wizard would wield (dagger, staff, other pathetic weapon), not the type that Warriors generally focus on. When it is a weapon that a Warrior would like to wield, there's no guarantee that any given character just happens to prefer the same type of weapon. Of course, there's still all those powergamers out there who will take the nifty special ability because of its mechanical advantage. Also, if the weapon is "found" on some enemy that could wield it, they probably will wield it against the PC's (one benefit to rolling up treasure in advance!), making them work for it. Overall, Wounding is not unbalanced at all. It has no extra effect on a crit (still only 1 point), requires a successful hit against the target AC, doesn't work on creatures immune to crits, and can't directly kill anything anymore.
Derren S. 10-16-04, 08:49 AM	You forget that with wounding you deal normal damage and con loss the same time. The "Can't reduce the tagert below 1 hp/ HD" doesn't come in effect much. Even with a dagger you can easily manage to deal damage equal to the HD over 1-2 rounds and then its over. The maximum HP gets reduced, and when the current HP are lower then the max HP, this difference gets carried over. A 30 HD monster which is hit for 30 Damage and then reduced to 1 Con dies as it now has 30 max HP and 30 damage so its HP are 0. With wounding you can kill a creature double as fast dealing normal damage and in combat nearly unhealable con damage.
Grayson 10-16-04, 09:59 AM	I thought it was obvious too EatFlan, but check back through the thread - it's actually disputed ;) I'm happy enough when players want Wounding weapons. It's entirely ineffective against many creatures, and for those it affects, it's not that big a deal. Stuff with overblown HD to balance it's CR is usually an easy encounter anyways. I rarely consider something "broken" unless it stands a good chance of winning encounters by virtue of it being so powerful. Wounding is rarely going to fit that bill.
EatFlan 10-16-04, 11:29 AM	keep in mind people this isn't a thread about wounding being BROKEN, but more along the lines that the 3.5 wounding kicks a ton of butt for it's price.
Draco_Whitewind 10-16-04, 03:22 PM	As far as the Hitting/bloodloss requirement goes, weapon secondary effects don;'t require damage at all really. it seems this is just a rare case where text acts against itself. the blood loss I see is just flavor text and nothing more. The only requirement it seems is that you merely need to hit, nothing more. Personally, I do see this as too much bang for it's buck, and as much as this thread wasn't started to discuss if it was broken or not, it came to that, and I think so if it's +2. even the ability is questionable in itself, because now a mere +1 dagger can be something much more nasty. someone could roll 1's for damage straight, and kill it in many fewer hits, and the fact of that is they're no longer playing by the cure/hp idea. effects that drain Con while popular, are usually only balanced if they're immediatly restorable, and not something that can be put down quickly. if 4 assassins weilded wounding daggers, if they had a good AC, even a very high level character would be worrying about 1's and 20's now. ~Draco
Loren Pechtel 10-16-04, 10:18 PM	Can you stack multiple wounding enchantments on a weapon? +1 wounding, wounding, wounding, wounding sword, 162,000gp. Drains 4 con per hit.