Price that Enhancement (round 1)

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Wounding. One extra HP lost per round/wound untill healed. Nice

Vile. One point of damage per hit is Vile, and cannot normally be healed. Nice.

Now, being the Lawful Evil that most DMs are, I thought to my self...

Vile Wounding. As wounding, but all wounding damage is considered Vile damage. Muwuhahaha!


Both seperatly are +1 enhancements. Now, would having both those enhancements on one weapon provide the above effect already? My gut says maybe. If not, would it be WORTH +3, as Just adding the two together to get +2 seems overpowered.

Thanks!

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Doesn't Wounding max out at 10 rounds?

This would be a nice way to ensure that the wound bleeds for those 10 rounds, though. I think healing magic circumvents both, though.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Vile damage can only be healed magically within the AoE of a Consecrate or Hallow spell.

I would say, though, that the Wounding and Vile effects would be separate. The Vile Enhancement deals 1 point of Vile damage per hit - the Wounding effect causes you to lose one point of damage per hit per round, so simply putting both enhancements on the weapon wouldn't cause all Wounding damage to be Vile damage.

I would call a Vile Wounding enhancement that caused ten points of Vile damage per hit (over 10 rounds) a +5 enhancement, personally.

-Hyp.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

OK, rethought the idea.

If the Wounding damage could be stopped by healing of some sort, then would it be a +2 or +3? I'm leaning towards +3.

If it could NOT be stopped unless in a Consecrated or Hallowed area, and you essentially bled out no matter what, then definatly a +5.

BTW, there is no time limit to Wounding in and of itself. It goes until healed.

 

[kreynolds]

Doesn't Wounding max out at 10 rounds?

Not AFAIK.

 

[kreynolds]

Wounding. One extra HP lost per round/wound untill healed. Nice

...

Both seperatly are +1 enhancements.

Wounding was errated to a +2 market price modifier.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I wouldn't allow it. If Wounding (which, as pointed out, was changed to +2) has no maximum duration, then having any hit eventually lead to your death (unless you cast one of two rare spells or can get to consecrated ground) can't be balanced.

Here's the way I'd do it:

BLEEDING (I like that better than Vile Wounding)
As Wounding, except that the damage done is Vile and cannot be healed magically. Magical healing closes the wound, ending the accumulation of new damage, but cannot remove the existing Vile damage.

That is, if I get hit on round 1, and healed on round 3, let's say I take 3 damage from the Wounding effect. The healing stops the Wounding, but the 3 points remain.
I'd put that at a +4, personally, although you could probably argue down to a +3. In a straight combat it might not be worth much more than Wounding, but it can really be abused in certain situations.
(Let's see... Spiked Chain of Bleeding... Whirlwind Attack and Combat Reflexes... bucket of snails and Great Cleave... woohoo, I put a bleeding wound on a hundred bad guys! How quickly can they find magical healing?)
The difference is that with Wounding, you only need to stop it before it kills the guy. With this version, any delay has a long-term effect, which makes it much more dangerous for hit-and-run tactics. Put it on a bow, and now you can stay far away or hidden; they'll run out of heals before you run out of arrows.

You could also balance it by clarifying how Vile damage is healed. For example, maybe there are nonmagical ways to heal quickly, like special herbs.

 

[Archer]

Wounding was questionable even as a +1 enchantment power. It took 2 rounds before wounding broke even vs. enhancement. If it takes 4 rounds to break even as a +2 enhancement then it almost never breaks even, let alone come out ahead.

Wounding works on arrows or perhaps a thrown weapon where you can shoot once and wait for your target to die if it doesn't have fast healing, regeneration or a cleric nearby.

If a vile wound could only be closed by a DC 15 heal check it would be a definite nuisance especially if no one bothered with the heal skill which a lot of parties don't. If each wound required a separate heal check then it would be high power. Once you had 10 wounds you would almost certainly die.

If any healing closed a vile wound but didn't heal the vile damage it wouldn't be overpowered at +2 because both vile and wounding are weak weapon powers both for and against PCs. It doesn't matter if an NPC takes vile damage. Was that NPC going to get healed anyway? Wounding doesn't help because the NPC was bound to die in a round or two anyway except in rare circumstances in which you can attack and then avoid combat BUT wouldn't be able to keep attacking and avoid combat AND the monster has no way to deal with wounding damage.

Spells like mass stabilize and healing circle negate wounding effects for large groups.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Wounding was questionable even as a +1 enchantment power. It took 2 rounds before wounding broke even vs. enhancement. If it takes 4 rounds to break even as a +2 enhancement then it almost never breaks even, let alone come out ahead.

I disagree. Wounding was GREAT as a +1 enhancement... for the bad guys. It's not elemental, so no resistances apply. No saves, no DR, no SR.

It wasn't something the good guys used. When a good guy fights a bad guy, he wants the fight to end quickly. Slow damage doesn't help that. For the bad guys, though, Wounding was very similar to poison, and had two very insidious uses when used by a rat-bastard DM.

1> It kept the group from getting spread out.
If your party is one of those that walks around as a tight-knit group at all times, where the Cleric can reach over and touch any wounded teammate, then yes, I'd agree with you. But, let's say the Rogue is out scouting. He gets hit with a Wounding arrow, and now he's got a problem; he has to get back to the group fairly soon, or else he'll bleed out. (At high level, you might not care about 1 damage per round, of course, but you'll be taking other damage as well). Or, he could waste a healing potion.

Same goes if you're in a city, if the Cleric is sleeping or Silenced, anything that forces a delay of a few rounds before healing.

2> It forces the healers to waste spells.
Make a bad guy with a bow of Wounding, and a lot of sneaky Feats. He fires an arrow of Wounding at the party, and hits the fighter. The sniper runs away and hides. Now, the group almost HAS to use a spell to stop the damage, or else they'll end up wasting big heals later on. Lather, rinse, repeat. What starts as a minor annoyance quickly runs you out of low-level spells.

So, that put Wounding above a +1 IMO, and it looks like the designers felt the same way when they errata'd it. It might be a bit on the weak end for a +2, but it's better to err high.

Now look at this Vile Wounding idea. In situation number 1, it's far more dangerous. The Rogue needs healing quickly; every round it takes him to get back to his party is one more semi-permanent damage he takes. Unlike Wounding, he can't even just wait until the fight is over and drink a potion.
In situation number 2, it becomes even more important to waste a small heal right away. And, due to the way initiative works, it's more than likely that at least one point of Vile damage will be done every time. For the low-HP types, this adds up fast.

Let's call it +3.

 

[Archer]

A heal 15 check also stops the wounding and outside of combat you can get it in 1-2 rounds especially if you have a masterwork healer's kit. 0 level spells aren't usually in short supply and a 50 gp potion is a whole lot cheaper than a wounding arrow.