Wounding and Regeneration

[werk]

The "Blood loss" part is purely flavor text. It deals Constitution damage, which a Troll (or other creature with regeneration) is susceptible to.

Can you back that up? I don't disagree, but am curious to know why you are so sure of your statement.

It would make sense to me that you would need to do lethal damage in order for the subject to bleed to death. You could kill a Xixecal with a +1 Gauntlet of Wounding without ever doing any damage (granted, it would take 40 hits).

I'm just saying, anytime it looks like there is a fairly easy work-around a large obstacle (DamRed/Regen/FastHeal) I look for text to close the loop-hole...which I've found.

 

[Scion]

Note that it also doesnt say how the blood loss happens. It just says when it hits (not deals damage) that they take a point of con loss.

So, while the weapon is only dealing subdual, maybe the weapon is somehow magically sucking blood (or whatever the victim uses) out of them and enough to result in 1 point of con damage (after all, a creature the size of a small moon would likely need to lose a bit more blood than a creature the size of a flea to lose that point of con..lol).

I'd still treat it as flavor text though. Otherwise you can get into arguements about things that are living, subject to crits and ability damage, who may or may not have the equivalent of 'blood' in them Look at the crazieness that causes! lol


(note: with a casual reading it looks like you could hit with a touch attack which doesnt deal any damage to drain a point of con. Interesting)

 

[Rkhet]

A Xixecal is an Abomination, and Abominations are immune to ability damage.

 

[frankthedm]

I'd still treat it as flavor text though. Otherwise you can get into arguements about things that are living, subject to crits and ability damage, who may or may not have the equivalent of 'blood' in them Look at the crazieness that causes! lol

That doesn't cause crazyness, that causes the DM to be a DungeonMaster

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The “M:tG” way of rules thought, says only the mechanical effects matter and that they take precedence over any description or ‘flavor text’. The only way to stop such an effect is by rules that specifically SAY they stop the effect. Thus heat metal & chill metal are two of the few examples in the ruleset of heat & cold negating one another, because the rules say they do, not because common sense says they do.

Another way of thinking, which I’ll nickname “Storyteller”, says the description IS what the effect does and that the mechanics only show HOW the described effects work for the rule set. To negate an effect one only needs to find something that common sense indicates would negate an effect and the rules are used to find a way to represent that in game. Thus a weapon head wreathed in fire and cold at the same time finds its energies negating one another on a 1 for 1 basis.

Strictly by the rules it works.

I’d say the wounding property sticks the regening critter at a non lethal 0 con [helpless] for at least an hour plenty of time to have it at your mercy.

I also say putting poison on a wounding blade grants the victim a +4 circumstance bonus to their fort save, since you bled the wound for them.


*I use the [+1 cost] wounding at the 1 point of damage a round for 10 rounds personally.

 

[werk]

A Xixecal is an Abomination, and Abominations are immune to ability damage.

Great wyrm force dragon then (actually easier with 37 con instead of 40). It's an exploit.

Also, if wounding works on elementals, that means they have blood and HW works on them

 

[Diirk]

It would make sense to me that you would need to do lethal damage in order for the subject to bleed to death. You could kill a Xixecal with a +1 Gauntlet of Wounding without ever doing any damage (granted, it would take 40 hits).

Two bits of relevant text (well one, and a tangent), firstly from 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."

So if you do no damage because damage reduction negated it, I'd expect that the wounding wouldn't kick in, as its clearly an injury type special effect. Now by the letter of the rules, this only applies if damage reduction negates it... this passage doesn't have any bearing on wounding subdual weapons, for example... but its probably not unreasonable to use it for the basis of ruling on that and similar matters.

Secondly, and more directly relevantly, from Regeneration:

"An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage."

Now, you could take from that sentence that you can drain a troll down to 1 con with a wounding weapon, but can't kill it by dropping its con to 0... thats a bit of a convoluted reading tho.

 

[Acerbus]

So if you do no damage because damage reduction negated it, I'd expect that the wounding wouldn't kick in, as its clearly an injury type special effect. Now by the letter of the rules, this only applies if damage reduction negates it... this passage doesn't have any bearing on wounding subdual weapons, for example... but its probably not unreasonable to use it for the basis of ruling on that and similar matters.

I would rule here that the wounding ability specifically says that all you have to do is hit for the wounding effect to occur, not do damage, and that this supercedes the damage reduction text, but this is just what I as a DM would do. I could easily see other DMs ruling in favor of your interpretations as well.

As a somewhat curious side note, what happens if you bring the tarrasque down to Con 0 due to ability drain (not damage)?

The tarrasque's immunities:

immunity to fire, poison, disease, energy drain, and ability damage

Since the tarrasque's regeneration text specifically says that it can only die through the lots of damage + wish/miracle technique, would this simply not work, or would the tarrasque have a -5 modifier to Con (giving it 48hp)?

 

[domino]

The tarrasque is immune to drain as well as damage, I believe.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The tarrasque is immune to drain as well as damage, I believe.

It actually is not immune to ability drain, just ability damage and energy drain. Probably an oversight, but it does give an interesting kill-plan involving 3.0 intellect devourers.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, it doesn't. Wounding doesn't work on anything immune to critical hits. Elementals are immune to critical hits. Therefore elementals are immune to wounding weapon effects.

Also, if wounding works on elementals, that means they have blood and HW works on them