Wounding Weapon vs. Damage Reduction???

[BASTON!!!]

A Wounding Weapon deals 1 point of Constitution damage from blood loss when it hits a creature.

Question: I have a wounding weapon +1, I hit a creature with Damage Reduction 10/Good. I know how it works for the HPs but is the constitution damage apply?

I know energy attack deals damage normaly (unless specified otherwise) but for ability damage.... :\

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe that you would have to penetrate the DR and do real damage with the weapon in order for the wounding property to have any effect. IE, its hard to have a bleeding wound without a wound in the first place. Other than that, it should work fine.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I believe that you would have to penetrate the DR and do real damage with the weapon in order for the wounding property to have any effect. IE, its hard to have a bleeding wound without a wound in the first place. Other than that, it should work fine.

Exactly. If you manage to deal at least 1 point of damage, then the Wounding property will function. If the damage reduction completely absorbs the damage from your attack, the Wounding property does nothing.

 

[RigaMortus]

If you had a poisoned weapon, and stuck someone that had Damage Reduction, I think the poison would apply.

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).

I guess it depends on the DMs interpretation. The fact that it says "wounds heal immediately" means that, they DO get wounded when you hit them, it just closes the wound and heals itself. So you CAN and DO penetrate them, therefore if your weapon was poisoned, poison should be coursing through their blood (assuming a failed Fort save) and I'd suppose the same holds true for Wounding weapons and their effects.

Of course, it also says "Or the weapon bounces off harmlessly" so like I said, it depends on how your DM wants to interpret it. Maybe he has a different interpretation for different creatures?

We usually play that the attack penetrates, but the wounds get healed immediately. So poisons would be effective, even if the weapon didn't do any permanent damage on the attack (because of DR).

 

[Egres]

If you had a poisoned weapon, and stuck someone that had Damage Reduction, I think the poison would apply.

From the SRD:

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.

 

[RigaMortus]

I stand, errr... sit, corrected...

 

[Scion]

From the SRD:

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.

Does wounding fall into this category of negation?

Flaming would not, does wounding? They both deal their extra damage on a hit, not via the damage.

 

[BASTON!!!]

I guess it depends on the DMs interpretation. The fact that it says "wounds heal immediately" or "the weapon bounces off harmlessly".

It's a good point. But I'm thinking about the fact that the wounding ability comes from the blood loss. So, even if the "wound heal immediately", logicaly, there would not be enough blood loss to lose Constitution...

 

[Scion]

The blood loss thing seems like more of a holdover from previous incarnations of wounding.

Still, contact poisons still work, flaming still works, why would wounding 'not' work? It doesnt seem to be dependant on actually dealing damage, mayhaps merely coming in contact with something it magically sucks out some blood.

 

[BASTON!!!]

it magically sucks out some blood.

This might, indeed, be a factor.