D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Wounding blade broken?

[hong]

In comparison with other +2 enhancements I guess it could be summarised as "a bit nastier, but against a more limited range of foes", and it probably balances out in that respect.

That's pretty much my thinking.

There are only two must-haves on a weapon IMO: ghost touch and holy. Add in an energy enchantment or two, and you have +5 worth of funky stuff.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

A fighter PC who doesn't have fortification armour is a fighter PC who deserves whatever he gets. Even leaving wounding aside, a x3 crit from a giant-sized greataxe is gonna hurt for most people.

Fortification armor does not protect from the Con damage, sorry. Fortification armor gives a percentage chance to prevent critical hits, but even at 100% critical hit prevention doesn't indicate immunity.

Con damage happens even if a crit is not scored. Fort armor doesn't help at all since it doesn't make you immune to critical hits.

Being able to negate DR X/good is invaluable at high levels.

If even one point of damage bypasses DR, then the creature takes Con damage. that means that a Wounding weapon is more effective when you can't have every type of alignment weapon. Alot of creatures have much lower DR now then before, so landing a single point of damage past their DR is not that hard.

Wounding affects every creature not immune to critical hits, whereas Holy only affects evil.

Huh?

Sonic energy has the fewest creatures with resistance to it. A wounding weapon is much, much better than most other energy types because many of the evil outsiders you fight are immune to all energy but sonic.

Eh. What's gonna kill you is not the ~20-40 points from losing Con, but the 120 points of damage you also took into the bargain.

I think I implied that already. The damage from con loss coupled with the damage from the hits is much more powerful than any energy enhancement.

So cast restoration on them after the battle, which heals the hit point loss _as well as_ the Con loss. It's not like stat drain should be an unknown risk for high-level PCs.

If they survive the battle. With the new wounding, and Greater Wounding which drains 2 points of Con for a +4 enhancement, a dual wielder or even a single weapon wielder is very powerful. I would gladly take Wounding or Greater Wounding over a great many enhancements because I would kill my opponent that much faster.

Who needs spells when you have fortification armour?

Does not prevent Wounding damage by the rules. Even 100% is not immunity to crits. They are different abilities.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I remember hearing that the new version of wounding was to counter the administrative difficulties of handling the cumulative hit point drain from wounding which was what it did in 3e (and earlier editions).

I think it might have been cheaper back then, so our improved TWF fighter might land 4-6 blows on a target and it is then bleeding 4-6 pts extra every round until healed (not easy for many critters). This was cumulative with every additional rounds of combat.

I don't think it is worth bothering too much with the fine details of what is possible, but I can see that the new Wounding is (slightly) less of a headache to keep track of during a fight. The old version was much better for hit and run tactics (leaving them bleeding hp), and in a long combat against a big foe it might have ended up doing even more damage than the current version as all the different bleeding wounds added up.

In comparison with other +2 enhancements I guess it could be summarised as "a bit nastier, but against a more limited range of foes", and it probably balances out in that respect.

IMO of course!

I disagree. Say you have a high level fighter, say 16th level, fighting a very old dragon. The fighter is a hasted dual wielder with two wounding weapons. three of his hits are probably going to land every round, which means he does his original damage, plus 29 hit points due to con loss on the first round. On the second round he does his his usual damage, and 58 hit points due to con loss, and this alternates each round as he destroys the dragons Con. That means in two rounds the dragon ahs taken 87 points from Con loss caused by a wounding weapon with less than half the fighters attacks hitting.

The dragon will be retaliating, often without the kind of support the fighter has. That is not even close to comparable to the old wounding ability which would have amounted in 6 points of extra damage with 3 wounds that over the course of 2 rounds.

I am speaking from experience. I was attacked by a Duellist half-fiend with Keen Wounding rapier as I stated earlier. In addition to the regular damage, I lost 26 hit points from Con loss. That far exceeds the damage a regular energy enhancement could inflict in three hits if they were all max rolls which would be 18 max damage. It is only 10 points less than an Unholy weapon would have inflicted if they rolled maximum. The average loss from an Unholy weapon in 3 hits would be about 21 points, 5 points less than a Wounding weapon inflicts with 3 hits because a wounding weapon causes you to lose hit points from lost con which is a set amount.

I cannot even begin to imagine the power a wounding weapon will have in the hands of a Hasted dual wielder. The gods save the DM that has to deal with a Hasted dual wielder with two Wounding or Greater Wounding weapons.

 

[hong]

Fortification armor does not protect from the Con damage, sorry. Fortification armor gives a percentage chance to prevent critical hits, but even at 100% critical hit prevention doesn't indicate immunity.

"Creatures immune to critical hits ... are immune to the Constitution damage dealt by this weapon." -- DMG p.226

Sonic energy has the fewest creatures with resistance to it. A wounding weapon is much, much better than most other energy types because many of the evil outsiders you fight are immune to all energy but sonic.

Hint: thundering is +1, not +2. There's no "sonic" enchantment. And most of the evil outsiders you fight are going to have DR good, especially at the levels where wounding becomes most powerful. If you're going to spend +2, holy should be your first choice.

If they survive the battle.

If they survive the battle, then wounding hasn't worked, has it?

With the new wounding, and Greater Wounding which drains 2 points of Con for a +4 enhancement, a dual wielder or even a single weapon wielder is very powerful. I would gladly take Wounding or Greater Wounding over a great many enhancements because I would kill my opponent that much faster.

There's no "greater wounding" in the DMG either.

 

[hong]

Re: re

I disagree. Say you have a high level fighter, say 16th level, fighting a very old dragon. The fighter is a hasted dual wielder with two wounding weapons. three of his hits are probably going to land every round, which means he does his original damage, plus 29 hit points due to con loss on the first round. On the second round he does his his usual damage, and 58 hit points due to con loss, and this alternates each round as he destroys the dragons Con. That means in two rounds the dragon ahs taken 87 points from Con loss caused by a wounding weapon with less than half the fighters attacks hitting.

Any fighter who's willing to stick around to do a full attack on a 29 HD dragon is either incredibly brave or incredibly dumb. At high levels, you do not win fights by standing toe to toe with massive brute monsters.

The dragon will be retaliating, often without the kind of support the fighter has. That is not even close to comparable to the old wounding ability which would have amounted in 6 points of extra damage with 3 wounds that over the course of 2 rounds.

That's because the old wounding was pathetic.

That far exceeds the damage a regular energy enhancement could inflict in three hits if they were all max rolls which would be 18 max damage.

Well, gee. I wonder why?

I cannot even begin to imagine the power a wounding weapon will have in the hands of a Hasted dual wielder. The gods save the DM that has to deal with a Hasted dual wielder with two Wounding or Greater Wounding weapons.

They deal with such a character in exactly the same way they deal with the rogue who can sneak attack for 200 points of damage per round. Sounds awesome, doesn't really work in practice.

 

[Celtavian]

"Creatures immune to critical hits ... are immune to the Constitution damage dealt by this weapon." -- DMG p.226

Fortification is not immunity to critical hits, sorry, you are incorrect. That is why they give Heavy Fortificatin a percentage rather than just state that you are immune to critical hits.

You do not need to score a critical hit for wounding to work. Did you forget this? If you don't need to score a critical hit, then Fort armor doesn't help because even fort armor doesn't provide "immunity to crits", it just prevents them a certain percentage of the time. A fine, but very important difference between immunity and prevention.

And most of the evil outsiders you fight are going to have DR good, especially at the levels where wounding becomes most powerful. If you're going to spend +2, holy should be your first choice.

Maybe. I would pick wounding personally. I would do more damage. Your a statistician, do the math. A wounding weapon comes out ahead given the wide variety of creatures you will fight that aren't immune to criticals.

Remember, if even one point lands past, they lose a point of Con.

Don't clerics have a spell called Align Weapon? That works with wounding don't it? Duh! Problem solved. I still more damage from wounding the more hit dice the creature has. Woo Hoo. Even more damage than stupid holy the more hit dice the creature has, what a great weapon, it scales so well.

If they survive the battle, then wounding hasn't worked, has it?

Exactly, I don't expect them to survive the battle. Duh!!

There's no "greater wounding" in the DMG either.

Its in the accessory booklet to the MM2. I will disregard it as it only applies to players who will purchase and use MM2. That must not be too many people, who would want an extra Monster book anyhow.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

Any fighter who's willing to stick around to do a full attack on a 29 HD dragon is either incredibly brave or incredibly dumb. At high levels, you do not win fights by standing toe to toe with massive brute monsters.

Seen it done, it's not so hard if you have a party backing you up.

That's because the old wounding was pathetic.

It wasn't great, but it had its place. It was great for building up damage over the course or a fight and killing regenerating creatures.

They deal with such a character in exactly the same way they deal with the rogue who can sneak attack for 200 points of damage per round. Sounds awesome, doesn't really work in practice.

Do they now? Want to bet on it? Design a dual wielder with Haste boots of Speed and two wounding weapons with a fighter BAB. Then send a creature against them with a balanced party backing them up. Come talk to me later about how they deal with it.

The only way to deal with it is to send a plethora of creatures immune to crits against them or pull a bunch of mean-spirited tactics on them like sudnering their weapon or disarming them. Better to find a middle ground so the player can still have their fun and the DM isn't going, "You drained 4 of their Con and did how much damage? And now the Wizard casts his readied Finger of Death? WTF?"

 

[hong]

Fortification is not immunity to critical hits, sorry, you are incorrect. That is why they give Heavy Fortificatin a percentage rather than just state that you are immune to critical hits.

100% prevention is pretty much equivalent to immunity as far as I'm concerned.

You do not need to score a critical hit for wounding to work. Did you forget this?

Pax does this better than you.

If you don't need to score a critical hit, then Fort armor doesn't help because even fort armor doesn't provide "immunity to crits", it just prevents them a certain percentage of the time. A fine, but very important difference between immunity and prevention.

If you cannot have a crit scored on you, then you cannot be wounded. Fortification has a percentage chance of preventing a crit being scored on you, and I have no problem ruling that the same applies to effects like wounding. If you want to rule otherwise, fine, but then please to stop complaining about wounding being too powerful.

Maybe. I would pick wounding personally. I would do more damage. Your a statistician, do the math. A wounding weapon comes out ahead given the wide variety of creatures you will fight that aren't immune to criticals.

And there's just as wide a variety of creatures you fight that are immune to criticals, including a lot of iconic D&D monsters. I'm not going to spend +2 on something that pikes out on me when I need it most, at least not before I've got other stuff that _won't_ pike out on me.

Remember, if even one point lands past, they lose a point of Con.[/b]

Your point is?

Don't clerics have a spell called Align Weapon? That works with wounding don't it? Duh! Problem solved. I still more damage from wounding the more hit dice the creature has. Woo Hoo. Even more damage than stupid holy the more hit dice the creature has, what a great weapon, it scales so well.

Align weapon lasts basically for one encounter, and I'm not going to wait a round for the cleric to cast it on my weapon (and possibly everyone else's) when the demon is trying to bite my face off.

 

[Celtavian]

100% prevention is pretty much equivalent to immunity as far as I'm concerned.

Just because you like to use an unofficial ruling doesn't make it so.

If you cannot have a crit scored on you, then you cannot be wounded. Fortification has a percentage chance of preventing a crit being scored on you, and I have no problem ruling that the same applies to effects like wounding. If you want to rule otherwise, fine, but then please to stop complaining about wounding being too powerful.

No, if you are "immune to crits" you cannot be wounded. Once again, there is a fine, but important difference. Nowhere does it indicate that Fortification armor protects against wounding considering that you don't have to score a crit to get it.

Where does it say that you have to hit a vital point to bleed to death with a wounding weapon? Hmmm. Nowhere, wonder where you are getting it from? A House rule perhaps.

And there's just as wide a variety of creatures you fight that are immune to criticals, including a lot of iconic D&D monsters. I'm not going to spend +2 on something that pikes out on me when I need it most, at least not before I've got other stuff that _won't_ pike out on me.

Yep. There are, probably why I would stack Holy and maybe Ghosttouch onto my wounding weapon. Heck, wounding is only +2, why not be well-prepared.

Your point is?

Something you obviously missed.

Align weapon lasts basically for one encounter, and I'm not going to wait a round for the cleric to cast it on my weapon (and possibly everyone else's) when the demon is trying to bite my face off.

Why not wait one round if you have wounding. Your still probably going to do its Hit Die in damage, since wounding is only +2, you can stack Holy on or something else on top of it. Why the heck not?

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: re

Seen it done, it's not so hard if you have a party backing you up.

The dragon can quite easily drop you in two rounds, whether you have a wounding weapon or not. Or snatch/improved grab you. Or fly away. If you have someone doing two successive rounds of full attacks on a dragon, you're either not playing the dragon right, or the guy has some other ace up his sleeve.

It wasn't great, but it had its place. It was great for building up damage over the course or a fight and killing regenerating creatures.

Like, big deal. The fight that lasts more than about 5-6 rounds is the exception.

Do they now? Want to bet on it? Design a dual wielder with Haste boots of Speed and two wounding weapons with a fighter BAB. Then send a creature against them with a balanced party backing them up. Come talk to me later about how they deal with it.

You send any _one_ creature against a balanced party of equivalent EL and the one creature is usually already at a disadvantage. D&D doesn't support one-on-many duels well.

In this situation, you send the dual-wielding bunny against a big melee brute with improved grab (also works against most melee smacks). It's kinda hard to use wounding when you're being grappled by something with a grapple check 20 higher than you. And yes, the party can get the bunny out of such a situation, but all that demonstrates is that the party knows their tactics, not whether wounding is broken.

The only way to deal with it is to send a plethora of creatures immune to crits against them or pull a bunch of mean-spirited tactics on them like sudnering their weapon or disarming them. Better to find a middle ground so the player can still have their fun and the DM isn't going, "You drained 4 of their Con and did how much damage? And now the Wizard casts his readied Finger of Death? WTF?"

What on earth is the problem with a wiz casting a FoD in this situation? Sounds like perfectly reasonable tactics to me.