CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Technik4 said:
Yes; no. The Heal check or magic healing prevents further damage, though.
For those with MM2 What do you think of Greater Wounding?
- Thread starter las
- Start date
Yes; no. The Heal check or magic healing prevents further damage, though.
Victim
First Post
I liked the old wounding that made the wounds have to heal naturally better. Wounding at +1 is barely worth it. If a fight lasts 5 rounds and you hit each round, then wounding deals 5+4+3+2+1 for 5 extra damage. Flaming gets you 17.5 extra damage and works faster. At +2 wounding is bad unless your specifically planning your attacks around it. And since stopping the bleeding is pretty easy, that's not a good plan.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Victim said:
Shouldn't that be 5+4+3+2+1 for 15 extra damage? The longer the fight goes on and the more you hit, the more it mounts up. A Greater wounding weapon under the same situation would do 10+8+6+4+2 = 30 points extra damage - and even if you didn't hit again it would do 10 more damage every round to the target until he takes time out to get healed (if he can) or attempts a healing check (oops! AoO! Start wounding all over again!). Wounding could really put a wizard off too, with concentration checks for all spell casting until healed.
Bottom line? I think Wounding is worth +2 and Greater Wounding is worth +4.
Cheers
Let us do the math and see when wounding really is effective:
Round 1: X+Y
Cumultive W = X+Y
Cumultive O = X+Y
Round 2: (X+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 2X+3Y
Cumultive O = 2X+2Y
Round 3: ((X+Y)+Y)) +Y
Cumultive W = 3X+6Y
Cumutlive O = 3 +3Y
Round 4: (((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W= 4X+10Y
Cumultive O= 4X+4Y
Round 5: ((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 5X+15Y
Cumultive O = 5X+5Y
Round 6: (((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 6X+21Y
Cumultive O = 6X+6Y
Round 7: ((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 7X+28Y
Cumultive O = 7X+7Y
Round 8: (((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 8X+36Y
Cumultive O = 8X+8Y
Round 9: ((((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 9X+45Y
Cuymultive O = 9X+9Y
Round 10: ((((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 10X+55Y
Cumultive O = 10X+10Y
Feel Free to put your own values in for X and Y. X (which represents normal average per round damage considering all factors except for weapon damage enhancements (like flaming, the burst effects, wounding etc.)) is exactly identical every round so can be ignored. Y represents the bonus damage x the number the number of hits x the percentage of each of those hits, i.e. it equals the average damage per round from the weapon enhancement alone. For 1 successful hit per round with a normal wounding weapon you can see that not until round 6 does the cumultive W (wounding) damage equal the cumultive (O) damage using a flaming weapon for the cumultive O damage. Of course, wounding is a +2 effect and flaming is only a +1. For more than 1 successful hit let's say 4, there is a similar phenomenon, not until around the sixth round do things even out. However, consider after round 6, goto round 10. The difference between a flaming weapon and a wounding weapon is fairly significant. With one hit, the difference is 20 damage. With four hits the difference is 80 points of damage.
However, making this sort of comparison while legitimate limits the innovativeness of the wounding capability as opposed to the one time damage capability of a flaming or burst weapon. Using a wounding weapon to its maximum effectiveness means controlling a battle. A wounding weapon to be used effectively needs to draw out a battle. This can be done in multiple ways - focus on hit and run tactics: assuming both opponents have equal movement, this will slow down combat effectively drawing out the effectiveness of the ability of wounding. Also consider the opponent, realizing that the wound will not stop bleeding, a new priority is to get healing as opposed to doing something else. Where as the flaming damage happens and is done with, a person struck by a wounding weapon now has to use up an action (or an ally has to use up an action) to stop the bleeding. This is no small point either. Either casting a spell or making a heal check is a standard action meaning that besides moving, the opponent has to give up a turn (or someone on his side).
Moreover, knowing that healing is necessary, tactics can be used to predict this and plan to prevent it or counterstrike it. Finally, damaging multiple opponents with this ability (consider RttToEE when the party enters the original temple with all of the hobgoblins {were they bugbears?}) has great utility considering the ways of stopping the bleeding. Assume the four hits each against a different opponent each round for 3 rounds lets say. That's 12 opponents who now have wounds that won't stop bleeding. Perhaps you are the type of fighter who has focused more on defense than offense and can't dish out more than 10 20 points of damage a round - that means combat will last longer - wounding suddenly becomes much more attractive.
Round 1: X+Y
Cumultive W = X+Y
Cumultive O = X+Y
Round 2: (X+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 2X+3Y
Cumultive O = 2X+2Y
Round 3: ((X+Y)+Y)) +Y
Cumultive W = 3X+6Y
Cumutlive O = 3 +3Y
Round 4: (((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W= 4X+10Y
Cumultive O= 4X+4Y
Round 5: ((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 5X+15Y
Cumultive O = 5X+5Y
Round 6: (((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 6X+21Y
Cumultive O = 6X+6Y
Round 7: ((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 7X+28Y
Cumultive O = 7X+7Y
Round 8: (((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 8X+36Y
Cumultive O = 8X+8Y
Round 9: ((((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 9X+45Y
Cuymultive O = 9X+9Y
Round 10: ((((((((X+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y)+Y
Cumultive W = 10X+55Y
Cumultive O = 10X+10Y
Feel Free to put your own values in for X and Y. X (which represents normal average per round damage considering all factors except for weapon damage enhancements (like flaming, the burst effects, wounding etc.)) is exactly identical every round so can be ignored. Y represents the bonus damage x the number the number of hits x the percentage of each of those hits, i.e. it equals the average damage per round from the weapon enhancement alone. For 1 successful hit per round with a normal wounding weapon you can see that not until round 6 does the cumultive W (wounding) damage equal the cumultive (O) damage using a flaming weapon for the cumultive O damage. Of course, wounding is a +2 effect and flaming is only a +1. For more than 1 successful hit let's say 4, there is a similar phenomenon, not until around the sixth round do things even out. However, consider after round 6, goto round 10. The difference between a flaming weapon and a wounding weapon is fairly significant. With one hit, the difference is 20 damage. With four hits the difference is 80 points of damage.
However, making this sort of comparison while legitimate limits the innovativeness of the wounding capability as opposed to the one time damage capability of a flaming or burst weapon. Using a wounding weapon to its maximum effectiveness means controlling a battle. A wounding weapon to be used effectively needs to draw out a battle. This can be done in multiple ways - focus on hit and run tactics: assuming both opponents have equal movement, this will slow down combat effectively drawing out the effectiveness of the ability of wounding. Also consider the opponent, realizing that the wound will not stop bleeding, a new priority is to get healing as opposed to doing something else. Where as the flaming damage happens and is done with, a person struck by a wounding weapon now has to use up an action (or an ally has to use up an action) to stop the bleeding. This is no small point either. Either casting a spell or making a heal check is a standard action meaning that besides moving, the opponent has to give up a turn (or someone on his side).
Moreover, knowing that healing is necessary, tactics can be used to predict this and plan to prevent it or counterstrike it. Finally, damaging multiple opponents with this ability (consider RttToEE when the party enters the original temple with all of the hobgoblins {were they bugbears?}) has great utility considering the ways of stopping the bleeding. Assume the four hits each against a different opponent each round for 3 rounds lets say. That's 12 opponents who now have wounds that won't stop bleeding. Perhaps you are the type of fighter who has focused more on defense than offense and can't dish out more than 10 20 points of damage a round - that means combat will last longer - wounding suddenly becomes much more attractive.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Wounding would be a great weapon quality for an AC maxed character in single combat. He doesn't have to do much damage per hit, he just has to make the combat last a long time--which would be easy for someone with very high AC, expertise, etc.
OTOH, for other situations, the ability is of very dubious utility. Even most high level fights are over in a few rounds. I've played Living Greyhawk enough to have an 8th level character and a 2nd level backup character and I can think of only three fights that lasted more than five rounds in the entire time. One of those fights involved lots of weak villains--none of whom lasted more than a couple rounds. Another fight involved a xorn which was turned and fled into the ground only to return two minutes later (wounding probably would have killed that xorn if he'd been struck before he fled which he hadn't). The only time wounding would have been cost effective was when facing a raging barbarian in the entrance to a castle. (Since my character is pretty much AC maximized, he could have turned the conflict into a long single combat and quite possibly won with a wounding weapon--as it was, he just had to wait four rounds for her to fail a will save).
So in about 160 hours of gaming, that's a grand total of one encounter in which wounding would have been a cost effective enhancement for a weapon. In every other encounter, wounding would have either been useless or dealt less total damage than an ordinary +3 enhancement bonus.
Consequently, I suspect that the original pricing of +1 was probably a better pricing and that +2 or at most +3 would be appropriate for Greater Wounding.
OTOH, for other situations, the ability is of very dubious utility. Even most high level fights are over in a few rounds. I've played Living Greyhawk enough to have an 8th level character and a 2nd level backup character and I can think of only three fights that lasted more than five rounds in the entire time. One of those fights involved lots of weak villains--none of whom lasted more than a couple rounds. Another fight involved a xorn which was turned and fled into the ground only to return two minutes later (wounding probably would have killed that xorn if he'd been struck before he fled which he hadn't). The only time wounding would have been cost effective was when facing a raging barbarian in the entrance to a castle. (Since my character is pretty much AC maximized, he could have turned the conflict into a long single combat and quite possibly won with a wounding weapon--as it was, he just had to wait four rounds for her to fail a will save).
So in about 160 hours of gaming, that's a grand total of one encounter in which wounding would have been a cost effective enhancement for a weapon. In every other encounter, wounding would have either been useless or dealt less total damage than an ordinary +3 enhancement bonus.
Consequently, I suspect that the original pricing of +1 was probably a better pricing and that +2 or at most +3 would be appropriate for Greater Wounding.
The Forsaken One
Explorer
I allow wounding as +2 enhance but does 2 cumulative dam instead of 1 and it has never been to powerfull at all, just keeping up.
Jondor_Battlehammer
First Post
I like wounding in general, not just because of the extra damage, not that that isn't enough.
Putting a lot of bleeding damage on a bad guy changes his tactics. If things are not going well, he can wait a round before bailing out. If he is bleeding, he has to factor in not just escaping, but how liong the escape will last and how to heal himself after.It would also be good for someone who can hit multiple opponents in the same round, like an archer. Also very useful vs. DR creatures.
It would make a great slowin/sapping tactic. Have some archers hit every opponent once from range, then run. As the PCs/bad guys use up healing, stop to rest, take off armor to bind wounds, ect., you spring the real attack.
Putting a lot of bleeding damage on a bad guy changes his tactics. If things are not going well, he can wait a round before bailing out. If he is bleeding, he has to factor in not just escaping, but how liong the escape will last and how to heal himself after.It would also be good for someone who can hit multiple opponents in the same round, like an archer. Also very useful vs. DR creatures.
It would make a great slowin/sapping tactic. Have some archers hit every opponent once from range, then run. As the PCs/bad guys use up healing, stop to rest, take off armor to bind wounds, ect., you spring the real attack.
Last edited:
I'm in the "wounding is worthless as a +1 power" camp. One lousy mass stabilize (2nd level) or even a cure minor (0 level)ends the effect of all the woundings. Greater wounding is like burst weapons as a +2 power. Just ever so slightly above +1 (like 1.06) but nowhere near +2. Greater wounding as a +1 power is like trading +1 to hit for +1 to damage with the posibility of getting extra damage in there. +1 to damage is often a poor trade for +1 to hit, especially with iterative attacks. To summarize, greater wounding is weak as a +2 and +4 is right out as they would say in Monte Python. Wounding is best handled as a fixed cost enhancement as is the burst feature.
