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

[hong]

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

Just because you'd prefer to bleat about your grievance doesn't mean I have to listen.

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.

Fortification armour gives you a percentage chance of negating crits, which is basically equivalent to having a chance of being immune to crits.

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.

Oh dear, Celtavain is off with the bunnies again. Point me to where I said wounding requires hitting a vital spot.

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.

Posting nonsense one-liners is MY schtick. Please not to STEAL MY SCHTICK.

Why not wait one round if you have wounding.

Is this a serious question?

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?

Why not indeed? The point is that a heck of other stuff is quite competitive with wounding, not that you should never take it.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

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.

Like a Freedom of MOvementspell. All the other tactics still apply, just when using Wounding, it makes them that much better due to the way the weapon scales. Con damage is much more powerful than additional hit point energy damage because it is based on the Hit Die of the creature.

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

It still had its place.

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.

Once again, Freedom of Movement or Blink will handle grappling just fine. Or maybe you could design a Spring Attack fighter with haste and have him to do run by attacks. That would take longer, but work just as well. every other round he would do its Hit Die in damage and reduce its Fort Save.

Let me count the ways to abuse this new wounding weapon.

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

Nothing really, except the Fighter using the Wounding weapon didn't use to lower the opponents Con further weakening their Fort save. Duh! That's it. That's the problem.

 

[Celtavian]

Just because you'd prefer to bleat about your grievance doesn't mean I have to listen.

Then why are you?

Fortification armour gives you a percentage chance of negating crits, which is basically equivalent to having a chance of being immune to crits.

It doesn't state that anywhere. You are ASSuming and we all know what ASSuming can make you look like.

Oh dear, Celtavain is off with the bunnies again. Point me to where I said wounding requires hitting a vital spot.

The bunny analogy is yours my friend. It is not I who dreams of dual-wielding bunnies.

Your point is...?

see previous answer to this same question.

Posting nonsense one-liners is MY schtick. Please not to STEAL MY SCHTICK.

How many times have you poked me with your SCHTICK? Turn about is fair play.

Is this a serious question?

This is gaming Hong. How serious can it really be?

Why not indeed? The point is that a heck of other stuff is quite competitive with wounding, not that you should never take it.

I just think it is more powerful than other +2 enhancements. I call it as I see it.

I like the bookkeeping ease of the new wounding. After experiencing one of the possibile combinations for its use, I must say it is very powerful, much moreso than it seems just reading the entry. the Con loss builds up fast as the iterative attacks rise and the Haste is slapped on. Very nasty weapon, like being an undead with more attacks.

It seems to me that WotC went out of their way to make sure that energy and ability draining undead had a smaller number of attacks than equivalent hit dice monsters, then they hand out a Con draining weapon.

As Marlon Brando would say, "The Horror. The Horror."

It's been fun Hong. We'll see what consensus is after a few more DM's deal with the joy of Wounding weapons or a PC party faces a Marilith with all Wounding weapons.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Like a Freedom of MOvementspell.

So the dragon just hits them N times for 150 points of damage. In two rounds, they'll still be dead.

All the other tactics still apply, just when using Wounding, it makes them that much better due to the way the weapon scales. Con damage is much more powerful than additional hit point energy damage because it is based on the Hit Die of the creature.

Con damage is pathetic if a creature has no Con to begin with.

It still had its place.

Yeah, in the toilet block being beaten up and having its lunch money stolen.

Once again, Freedom of Movement or Blink will handle grappling just fine.

But they won't save you from being clawed to bits.

Or maybe you could design a Spring Attack fighter with haste and have him to do run by attacks. That would take longer, but work just as well. every other round he would do its Hit Die in damage and reduce its Fort Save.

If you're Spring Attacking, you're not getting in haste and TWF. Not to mention that the monster can just ready to whack you when you get close, and _then_ grapple you to death.

Let me count the ways to abuse this new wounding weapon.

Are you finished abusing yourself yet?

Nothing really, except the Fighter using the Wounding weapon didn't use to lower the opponents Con further weakening their Fort save. Duh! That's it. That's the problem.

Like, big deal. In terms of brokenness, this doesn't even compare to the flying, improved invis'd rogue or sorcerer. It's a gnat in comparison. It doesn't even register on the radar.

 

[hong]

Then why are you?

What makes you think I'm listening?

It doesn't state that anywhere. You are ASSuming and we all know what ASSuming can make you look like.

Yes, it makes an ass out of you. I couldn't care less what it makes me look like, because I am GOLDEN, baby.

The bunny analogy is yours my friend. It is not I who dreams of dual-wielding bunnies.

Eh?

How many times have you poked me with your SCHTICK? Turn about is fair play.

Oh! I am wounded unto death.

This is gaming Hong. How serious can it really be?

I am ALWAYS serious, except when I'm not. <---- FREE HINT FOR NEWBIES

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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

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.

Can you give me a page reference for that? Where can I find the passage "a 100% resistance is the same as an immunity"?

I think this passage doesn't exist in D&D. It may be implied, but it is not implemented. So this is a gray area. You can handle it either way.

types because many of the evil outsiders you fight are immune to all energy but sonic.

Name three.

They usually have one or two immunities and resistances to the other energies.

Yeah, in the toilet block being beaten up and having its lunch money stolen.

That's so true. The old wounding wasn't very useful except when you were in a drawn-out battle against an enemy who didn't have access to healing - and those were really rare, since good healing is the main reason for a drawn-out battle. All it really did was to annoy the DM.



Beside that: Stop that. No insults please, especially if they're "hidden" within really bad jokes.

I think wounding is OK. Against enemies with lower HD, the damage isn't so bad, it won't work against the COUPE monsters, and on higher levels you can always use heal to counter the con damage along with HP damage (while this doesn't eliminate the situations where wounding will rock, it will limit it further). And there are always potions of restoration (which are more important than ever, even without wounding)

 

[Snipehunt]

Fortification:

When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.

It doesn't make a wearer immune, it "negates" the crit. Is that the same as immunity? IMO, no - crit happens, but is negated. When something is immune to crits, it's specifically stated - immune, or not subject to, critical hits. Only fortification, AFAIK, has this "negate" language.

But, reasonable minds can differ, there's a similar controversy over fortification and vorpal weapons (same dispute - crit-immune characters can't be vorpalized).

 

[James McMurray]

Just wanted to point out that while grappling is nice, its hardly worth it if the guy's wounding weapons are light. Sure, you could spend two attacks to pin him, but then you're having to full attack so you can't carry him away, thus leaving yourself at the mercy of the remainder of the party on the following round.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Fortification:
But, reasonable minds can differ, there's a similar controversy over fortification and vorpal weapons (same dispute - crit-immune characters can't be vorpalized).

AFAIK you lose your head whether you're crit'able or not. Those without a head and those who don't care whether they have a head or not won't mind the loss of the head, but any PC will die, Armor of Fort or not

(They have clarified that abilities that work only on crits fire even if the enemy is immune to crits. So A fiery burst weapon will still give the extra damage to undead and so on. This should apply to Vorpal as well)

Just wanted to point out that while grappling is nice, its hardly worth it if the guy's wounding weapons are light. Sure, you could spend two attacks to pin him, but then you're having to full attack so you can't carry him away, thus leaving yourself at the mercy of the remainder of the party on the following round.

You'd still have to win the grapple checks to attack with that weapon. And even then you cannot use two weapons, as grapple forbids that AFAIK.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(They have clarified that abilities that work only on crits fire even if the enemy is immune to crits. So A fiery burst weapon will still give the extra damage to undead and so on. This should apply to Vorpal as well)

I agree with Celtavian on this one.

There's a difference between negating a crit and being immune to crits.

If you're immune, the crit occurs, but you don't suffer the extra damage.

If you negate, the crit doesn't occur... but if it did you'd suffer the effects.

Thus, if I confirm a crit with a flaming burst weapon on a zombie, I don't multiply my weapon damage - he's immune. However, the flaming burst does trigger, because the crit occurred. Since he's immune to crits, I can't use Wounding on him.

If I confirm a crit with a flaming burst weapon against a guy with Heavy Fortification, there's a 100% chance the crit is negated. No critical multiplier, and since the crit never happened, no flaming burst. However, since he isn't immune to crits - they just never happen to him - he's still subject to Wounding damage.

-Hyp.