Periapt of Wound Closure and Vampires

[MrGhee]

Would a "Periapt of Wound Closure" double a vampires fast healing of 5?

I think it would as a vampires Healing abilities are Normal for that race. But wanted others opinion on the matter.

[Cog]

I would agree that it does work.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, it does say that fast healing works like natural healing unless noted . . .
So, maybe?

[Cog]

Well, it does say that fast healing works like natural healing unless noted . . .
So, maybe?
The periapt doesn't say anything about natural healing (which would rule this out, as the vampire's fast healing is extraordinary rather than natural), merely normal - and a vampire does normally heal at 5/round.

[MammonAzrael]

Reading the description, it would make sense. Not only is it not broken, but the item's physical description sounds an awful lot like the cliched amulet that Dracula costumes sport.

[ericgrau]

It's uncertain whether or not it was originally intended to do such so I think the real issue is not whether or not it's allowed by RAW but is it fair. To that I'd say... kinda. It's cheaper than a quickened cure light wounds for every round of combat, but more expensive than using empowered false life to do the same. For long fights it's stronger than both, but it also doesn't help between combat healing at all. Sure 15k is about fair. Not sure that's part of the item's intent, but it's fair.

What confuses me is why immunity to bleed effects and increasing useless mundane healing is supposed to be worth anything, let alone 15k. If the periapt actually did anything useful I'd say now hey wait a minute you need to pay another 15k on top of the original 15k for that. Reminds me of the spell regeneration in a system that has no dismemberment rules.

[NecroRick]

If we look at the undead template we see they don't heal normally.
Hence I would be tempted to say as a DM that it doubles their daily healing from rest. And 2 x 0 = 0.

Interestingly, the similarly named spell Close Wounds from the Spell Compendium actually _causes_ damage to undead. So an interpretation that is equally well supported in the rules would be to say that if you put a periapt of wound closure on a vampire it cancels out their fast healing extraordinary ability!

[Feytalist]

So now we just need to homebrew a spell "open wounds" to heal undead!

DnD is weird sometimes.

[Cog]

If we look at the undead template we see they don't heal normally.
But we're not looking at undead generally, we're looking at a vampire specifically.

Hence I would be tempted to say as a DM that it doubles their daily healing from rest.
So, you've inserted a restriction into the item's functioning that was not there already, and then used that insertion to justify your decision. It'd be more straightforward to say you don't want it to work instead, and simply be done with it.


Interestingly, the similarly named spell Close Wounds from the Spell Compendium actually _causes_ damage to undead.
That they share a name doesn't mean that they share any mechanics in common, as looking at their actual mechanics easily shows. Again, you're grasping at straws to justify making it not work.

[FelixG]

What confuses me is why immunity to bleed effects and increasing useless mundane healing is supposed to be worth anything, let alone 15k. If the periapt actually did anything useful I'd say now hey wait a minute you need to pay another 15k on top of the original 15k for that. Reminds me of the spell regeneration in a system that has no dismemberment rules.

I had a character in a recent game remove a captured casters hands so they couldnt perform somatic components to spells, and cited that spell as a reason why I should be able to :smallbiggrin: "They wouldn't include a spell that is utterly useless if they didn't expect situations like this!"

I am guessing its more for the rogue who gets a hand or two lopped off for stealing though :smallamused:

[subject42]

Reminds me of the spell regeneration in a system that has no dismemberment rules.

Isn't there a weapon enhancement that has a chance of lopping off limbs?

[Circle of Life]

Isn't there a weapon enhancement that has a chance of lopping off limbs?

Vorpal cuts off heads, but then you're looking at Resurrection, not Regeneration.

Unless you're an ettin or something, anyway.

[Keld Denar]

Well, Regeneration is an artifact from previous editions that DID have dismemberment, such as recieving hits from a Sword of Sharpness or getting bitten by the Tarrasque (I had a cleric who lost his shield AND his shield arm to that bugger). Oh, and there was Wither, which was the inverse of Regeneration and caused a limb to shrivel and fall off, a spell which didn't make it into 3.0 even when Regeneration did.

And just because dismemberment doesn't happen in casual combat doesn't mean it can't happen. If your rogue gets caught with light fingers, they might just chain him down and remove those fingers (or the whole hand). Dismemberment was a common form of punishment, from tongues to eyes to hands and ears. Never heard much of removing a foot or leg, but I guess I could see it happening. Its more of a "power of plot" spell anymore, though.

[Alefiend]

Never heard much of removing a foot or leg, but I guess I could see it happening. Its more of a "power of plot" spell anymore, though.

Hobbling—used as a punishment on escaped slaves, and also as a preventative against further attempts. Breaking the ankle or heel was one way; chopping off the front of the foot was another.