The Sword of Wounding: Perma-killer yet ignored?

[Unoriginal]

I don't think I've ever seen any build using a Sword of Wounding, or any discussion about it. Yet its power is actually pretty good: "Hit points lost to this weapon’s damage can be regained only through a short or Long Rest, rather than by regeneration, magic, or any other means."

Which means that if someone has their HPs reduced from full to 0 HPs by this weapon, they're kinda screwed. Even if they stabilize, they can't go above 0 HPs, and stay unconscious forever, unable to rest while unconscious, making them mostly dead. And the Sword's secondary power will ensure at least one Death Save failure.

Revivify and Resurrection would not work to bring back someone killed like that (as they would still be at 0 HP). A Lich's Rejuvenation doesn't work either, nor would a Vampire's Misty Escape (which would leave them as a 0 HP dead body in their coffin, unable to regenerate).

True Resurrection works if you rule out that the Sword of Wounding's power is a curse. Reincarnation or Clone would technically work since they create entirely new bodies, as would the capacity many fiends, divine beings and others have to re-create a body on their home plane if killed on the Material Plane .

All in all, it's not a game breaker or anything, but given that it can permanently deal with Liches and Vampires, make fights against beings with regeneration way easier, and help handling enemy healers, making it pretty useful for an adventurer, and that in the hand of a villain a Sword of Wounding can make healer PCs waste spell slots and actions, prevent the use of Revivify (which is often considered a must-have for a group) and make the PC have an harder time succeeding death saving throws, I would say that the Sword of Wounding is a pretty damn good weapon for a rare magic item, as its presence can spice things up quite a bit, and that it's a bit of a shame to see it ignored like that.

[Degwerks]

I can't remember what else it does. I remember previous editions though. Does this have a + to hit/damage?

[LeonBH]

It doesn't provide a bonus to hit or damage.

I agree it's really powerful, but I've seen it in play and it's not overwhelmingly so. There will typically be just one guy with this weapon, and unless 100% of the damage dealt to the enemy comes from this, healing is still possible.

[Malifice]

Source that you can't rest while unconscious?

[JellyPooga]

The "can't heal HP" clause has some interesting implications, but there's a question on what is considered "this weapons damage".

- Do abilities, such as Sneak Attack and GWM, that add damage to an attack count as "this weapons damage"?
- What about magical or psuedo-magical additional damage, like Divine Smite or Hunters Mark?

Even if Sneak Attack doesn't count, then this weapon is definitely for a Rogue. The (implicitly) cumulative nature of the recurring 1d4 necrotic damage is ideal for a skirmish fighter with the ability to Hide after every attack; Rogue runs in, attacks, activates 1d4/round effect, runs away, hides. Foe then wastes turn stopping the effect, goes looking for the Rogue or does something else (attacks another party member or something). Either way, next turn the Rogue repeats; if the foe healed itself, then it wasn't doing something more useful, if it didn't, now it's taking 2d4/turn. Every round becomes more and more lethal for the victim.

[Zalabim]

A character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of a long rest to gain its benefits. You should be able to short rest while at 0 hp without problem. If you have no hit dice remaining, you could be in trouble.

[Unoriginal]

Source that you can't rest while unconscious?


A character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of a long rest to gain its benefits. You should be able to short rest while at 0 hp without problem. If you have no hit dice remaining, you could be in trouble.

I've seen no rules saying that a PC could get a Short Rest without deliberately choosing to do it.

And the rules about what happen once you're at 0 HP don't mention you can spend a short rest once you're stable, no matter how long you stay in that state.

[Malifice]

I've seen no rules saying that a PC could get a Short Rest without deliberately choosing to do it.

And the rules about what happen once you're at 0 HP don't mention you can spend a short rest once you're stable, no matter how long you stay in that state.

What? You don't need to deliberately choose it.

I'f you sit around for an hour doing nothing strenuous (unconscious counts, as does sleeping) you short rest.

[Zalabim]

I've seen no rules saying that a PC could get a Short Rest without deliberately choosing to do it.

And the rules about what happen once you're at 0 HP don't mention you can spend a short rest once you're stable, no matter how long you stay in that state.

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. If "being unconscious" is too strenuous then I imagine getting a long rest will be rather difficult.

You don't push the short rest button. You just rest. Actually, hold on:https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/19/if-you-go-to-0hp-can-you-short-rest-after-an-hour-and-spend-hit-dice-if-you-have-them/

[Unoriginal]

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. If "being unconscious" is too strenuous then I imagine getting a long rest will be rather difficult.

You don't push the short rest button. You just rest. Actually, hold on:https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/19/if-you-go-to-0hp-can-you-short-rest-after-an-hour-and-spend-hit-dice-if-you-have-them/

My bad, then. Thank you for finding that.

The weapon is still pretty good even without that, to be fair.

[LeonBH]

Even if an unconscious creature doesn't have hit dice to spend during a short rest, they still wake up after some time.

PHB 198: "A stable creature that isn't healed regains 1 hit point after 1d4 hours."

[Unoriginal]

Even if an unconscious creature doesn't have hit dice to spend during a short rest, they still wake up after some time.

PHB 198: "A stable creature that isn't healed regains 1 hit point after 1d4 hours."

This doesn't work with the Sword of Wounding, though. That why I thought the being stayed unconscious.

[LeonBH]

Ah, that's true. Short rest is required to recover.

[jojo]

This doesn't work with the Sword of Wounding, though. That why I thought the being stayed unconscious.


PHB 198: "A stable creature that isn't healed regains 1 hit point after 1d4 hours."

Why wouldn't this work? Healing and Regeneration are "magical effects" on some level. If a creature is both stabilized and unconscious I would personally rule them to be resting and therefore to regain 1HP after 1d4 hours.


...unless 100% of the damage dealt to the enemy comes from this, healing is still possible.

Agreed, there's no "order of precedence" by source for damage received. Any damage from another source would be healed normally allowing a character stabilize/regain consciousness, likely 9 times out of 10. Even if this wasn't sufficient to bring them back to 1HP or greater the rule above would kick in and they'd eventually regain consciousness at 1HP more than likely.

Other things to consider:

1. Once the character in question has been "downed" by the Sword of Wounding they're probably going to lose at least 1 additional HP while stabilizing. As a DM I'd likely rule that this damage comes from a separate source I.E. the Wound rather than the Sword of Wounding and would be able to be healed/regenerated normally.

2. I would probably rule that the Sword's powers don't affect anything that can't be killed by conventional means such as a Lich or a Vampire. I'd probably even extend that to creatures like Golems.

[LeonBH]

Why wouldn't this work? Healing and Regeneration are "magical effects" on some level. If a creature is both stabilized and unconscious I would personally rule them to be resting and therefore to regain 1HP after 1d4 hours.

Because the Sword of Wounding's wounds cannot be healed, even magically, unless you take a short rest or a long rest. And if they cannot take a short rest for some reason while unconscious, they cannot wake up due to that rule alone.

Of course, if they're able to take a short rest during the 1st hour they're unconscious, then they'll wake up 1d4 hours of dropping to 0.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Since the effect clearly allows mundane healing over time, no sane DM would rule that the narrative is constrained by an edge case catch-22 in the abstract rest model.

[Unoriginal]

Why wouldn't this work? Healing and Regeneration are "magical effects" on some level. If a creature is both stabilized and unconscious I would personally rule them to be resting and therefore to regain 1HP after 1d4 hours.

Because Sword of Wouding prevents regaining HPs except from short or long rests.




Agreed, there's no "order of precedence" by source for damage received. Any damage from another source would be healed normally allowing a character stabilize/regain consciousness, likely 9 times out of 10. Even if this wasn't sufficient to bring them back to 1HP or greater the rule above would kick in and they'd eventually regain consciousness at 1HP more than likely.

Indeed, which is why I wrote: " means that if someone has their HPs reduced from full to 0 HPs by this weapon, they're kinda screwed." in my OP.

Other things to consider:



1. Once the character in question has been "downed" by the Sword of Wounding they're probably going to lose at least 1 additional HP while stabilizing. As a DM I'd likely rule that this damage comes from a separate source I.E. the Wound rather than the Sword of Wounding and would be able to be healed/regenerated normally.

Damages received once you get to 0 HPs don't make you lose HPs, they just make you auto-fail a death save.



2. I would probably rule that the Sword's powers don't affect anything that can't be killed by conventional means such as a Lich or a Vampire. I'd probably even extend that to creatures like Golems.

Why? Liches and Vampires can be wounded, the Sword just keep their bodies too damaged for them to rise up again.


Since the effect clearly allows mundane healing over time, no sane DM would rule that the narrative is constrained by an edge case catch-22 in the abstract rest model.

Except Liches and Vampires aren't getting back from the dead by mundane healing, nor does Revivify or Resurrection. The sword specifically forbids healing from magical sources, or from any sources that aren't the abstract rest model.

[Mato]

I don't think I've ever seen any build using a Sword of Wounding, or any discussion about it. Yet its power is actually pretty goodIt's power is a lot like disease in 3.5: a waste of a player's time.

It's good for monsters to use on PCs since they will be around to suffer the consequences but that's about it.

[mgshamster]

It's power is a lot like disease in 3.5: a waste of a player's time.

It's good for monsters to use on PCs since they will be around to suffer the consequences but that's about it.

It's great to use on recurring villains. :)

[jojo]

Of course, if they're able to take a short rest during the 1st hour they're unconscious, then they'll wake up 1d4 hours of dropping to 0.

@LeonBH: I agree with you, re-reading my previous post I used poor phrasing. Your comment above is what I was trying to convey.


Since the effect clearly allows mundane healing over time, no sane DM would rule that the narrative is constrained by an edge case catch-22 in the abstract rest model.

+1.


Indeed, which is why I wrote: " means that if someone has their HPs reduced from full to 0 HPs by this weapon, they're kinda screwed." in my OP.

@Unoriginal: If you re-read the quote from @Coffee_Dragon my thoughts on this might make a little more sense.

From my own perspective, if I'm the one running the game, any creature or enemy that you're capable of one-shotting is screwed anyway. I'm not likely to waste the time, energy and rolls required to see if they stabilize. Conversely anything that I would waste the time rolling or trying to recover is probably going to take damage from multiple sources before it goes down.


Why? Liches and Vampires can be wounded, the Sword just keep their bodies too damaged for them to rise up again.

Because it goes against the spirit and intent of the rules IMO if not against the wording. There are a number of good in-game reasons that I could come up with if the situation arose, just like there are probably one or more good reasons I could think of to let it happen the outcome would depend heavily on the narrative and the group participating in said narrative.


Except Liches and Vampires aren't getting back from the dead by mundane healing, nor does Revivify or Resurrection. The sword specifically forbids healing from magical sources, or from any sources that aren't the abstract rest model.

This is one example of an argument I would overrule not only narratively but within my interpretation of the rules.

I would say that "Healing" is a magical effect powered by Radiant Energy unless a given spell or effect-descriptor explicitly states otherwise. This includes effects meant to return the dead to life such as Resurrection or Revivify.
I would then point to the fact that as we've been discussing the PHB states that without healing Hit Points are "Regained."
Undead take damage from Radiant Energy, historically and currently, a Heal spell cast against a Vampire for instance harms it. Conversely Necrotic Energy "heals" them, however given the use of the term "Regained" as opposed to Healing in the PHB I would rule that Undead, even when restoring Hit Points via Necrotic Energy such as Harm, never actually "Heal" they simply "Regain/Recover" and therefore the Sword's abilities are moot when employed against them.

Like I said originally, this is something I'd look at on a case by case basis if it came up.

[Potato_Priest]

So, perhaps relevant t the discussion: You need at least 1 hitpoint at the start of a long rest to benefit from it. The same requirement is not present for short rests, however meaning that a character reduced to 0 from the sword would still be able to take short rests.

It's also worth noting that the "aid" spell could revive a character downed with this weapon, since it adds to max hp rather than providing true healing.



@Unoriginal: If you re-read the quote from @Coffee_Dragon my thoughts on this might make a little more sense.

From my own perspective, if I'm the one running the game, any creature or enemy that you're capable of one-shotting is screwed anyway. I'm not likely to waste the time, energy and rolls required to see if they stabilize. Conversely anything that I would waste the time rolling or trying to recover is probably going to take damage from multiple sources before it goes down.

The creature doesn't need to be 1-shot. It just needs to have all the damage that it took come from the sword of wounding. Whether that's 1 hit from the sword or 18, the creature will suffer the same effect.

[Darkstar952]

It's great to use on recurring villains. :)

It's not that good, it will simply be dispelled 'off-screen'

[JNAProductions]

It's an interesting find, but ultimately very hard to make use of.

Props to you for discovering it, but as was pointed out, literally ALL the damage must come from the sword-if even 1 point of damage comes from another source, they can heal that and be fine.

It'd be useful on someone you already have prisoner and want to be permadead, but not so useful in a fight.

[Unoriginal]

@LeonBH: I agree with you, re-reading my previous post I used poor phrasing. Your comment above is what I was trying to convey.

LeonBH said he was mistaken in his comment. The Sword prevents regaining HPs in this manner.



From my own perspective, if I'm the one running the game, any creature or enemy that you're capable of one-shotting is screwed anyway. I'm not likely to waste the time, energy and rolls required to see if they stabilize.

As noted by Potato_Priest, it doesn't need to be an one-shot, simply being the only one to deal the monster damages is enough.

Also, the part about stabilizing was meant to address the case of the PCs being attacked by the Sword, not if they used it themselves. Monsters don't generally get death saves.

I would also point out that the capacity to one-round a monster under specific circumstances, such as an Assassin's Death Strike or the idea behind most nova, is included in the game.




Because it goes against the spirit and intent of the rules IMO if not against the wording. There are a number of good in-game reasons that I could come up with if the situation arose, just like there are probably one or more good reasons I could think of to let it happen the outcome would depend heavily on the narrative and the group participating in said narrative.

What in the sword with the power to prevent recovery preventing recovery do you consider to be against the spirit and intent of the rules?



This is one example of an argument I would overrule not only narratively but within my interpretation of the rules.

I would say that "Healing" is a magical effect powered by Radiant Energy unless a given spell or effect-descriptor explicitly states otherwise. This includes effects meant to return the dead to life such as Resurrection or Revivify.
I would then point to the fact that as we've been discussing the PHB states that without healing Hit Points are "Regained."
Undead take damage from Radiant Energy, historically and currently, a Heal spell cast against a Vampire for instance harms it. Conversely Necrotic Energy "heals" them, however given the use of the term "Regained" as opposed to Healing in the PHB I would rule that Undead, even when restoring Hit Points via Necrotic Energy such as Harm, never actually "Heal" they simply "Regain/Recover" and therefore the Sword's abilities are moot when employed against them.

Like I said originally, this is something I'd look at on a case by case basis if it came up.

You're wrong on four counts:

1) The Sword of Wounding does not prevent healing magical effects as such, it prevents HPs to be regained at all, be it by magical or mundane means (except short or long rests). It's in the weapon's description I quoted in my OP: "Hit points lost to this weapon’s damage can be regained only through a short or Long Rest, rather than by regeneration, magic, or any other means.". Which address your healing vs regaining HPs point.

2) Radiant damages hurts the Undead, sure, but it hurts most beings. It doesn't do anything more on the Undead in general (some Undead, like the Vampire, have additional weaknesses against Radiant damages (ie it prevents the Vamp's regeneration), but that's it).

3) Healing spells do NOT harm the Undead in 5e. A Heal spell cast on a Vampire will specifically do nothing, since the spell has no effect on Undead (as per the spell description).

4) Necrotic energy does NOT heal the Undead in 5e. Many Undead are resistant or immune to it, but not all of them. A Zombie is just as vulnerable to necrotic damages than an human farmer.

While you can houserule that it works like that at your table, as it is your right, please don't pretend it's universal and that all DMs do it.

[Darkstar952]

Revivify and Resurrection would not work to bring back someone killed like that (as they would still be at 0 HP). A Lich's Rejuvenation doesn't work either, nor would a Vampire's Misty Escape (which would leave them as a 0 HP dead body in their coffin, unable to regenerate).


This part can be rather simply solved by casting dispel magic before using Revivify or Resurrection, so all it really does is add an additional cost.

Also the Lich's rejuvination would probably still work as it creates a new body.

[MaxWilson]

Since the effect clearly allows mundane healing over time, no sane DM would rule that the narrative is constrained by an edge case catch-22 in the abstract rest model.

This exactly.

That goes double for Resurrection/phylacteries/etc. At best you might find that the lich revives at 0 HP and then has to spend eight hours collecting his essence (a.k.a. resting).

[intermedial]

Any "build" which hinges around a magic item is the realm of theoretical play: the availability of magic items is controlled solely by the DM.

In that respect, it's unrealistic for a player to expect their DM accept an interpretation of the sword's power vis-a-vis putting down a recurring villain. The DM is the arbiter of whether or not the power of this sword is available to the players, and is completely within their purview to decide the extent of it's power. The only material a player should expect to remain consistent as a player are the materials in the PHB.

On the flip-side, wielding this weapon against the players creates an interesting dynamic for a high-stakes encounter. There's plenty of monsters and abilities that the DM has at their disposal with regards to near-permadeath mechanics anyways.

Alternatively, a DM could introduce this weapon (and the proposed potency of the effect) to the players as a great way to put down a recurring foe, which ones again creates an interesting dynamic in play, as only the player wielding the sword can inflict damage to the enemy if the effect is expected to stick.

[Unoriginal]

Also the Lich's rejuvination would probably still work as it creates a new body.

I thought it too, but it turns out the reconstructing body regain HPs.

You have a point about the Dispel Magic. Oh well, it's true this is too niche to be useful, in the end.



This exactly.

I've yet to hear any argument that would make it insane.



That goes double for Resurrection/phylacteries/etc. At best you might find that the lich revives at 0 HP and then has to spend eight hours collecting his essence (a.k.a. resting).

You can't rest while you're dead, and the Lich is dead until they get their HPs back. Which they can't. Same with the Vampire.


Any "build" which hinges around a magic item is the realm of theoretical play: the availability of magic items is controlled solely by the DM.

In that respect, it's unrealistic for a player to expect their DM accept an interpretation of the sword's power vis-a-vis putting down a recurring villain. The DM is the arbiter of whether or not the power of this sword is available to the players, and is completely within their purview to decide the extent of it's power. The only material a player should expect to remain consistent as a player are the materials in the PHB.

I totally agree, but on the other hand a lot of people talk about Oathbow builds or the like, so I was kinda surprised to not see it about this weapon.



On the flip-side, wielding this weapon against the players creates an interesting dynamic for a high-stakes encounter. There's plenty of monsters and abilities that the DM has at their disposal with regards to near-permadeath mechanics anyways.

Alternatively, a DM could introduce this weapon (and the proposed potency of the effect) to the players as a great way to put down a recurring foe, which ones again creates an interesting dynamic in play, as only the player wielding the sword can inflict damage to the enemy if the effect is expected to stick.

Making some encounters interesting is a good thing to hope for.

The Sword of Wounding will certainly remain an anecdotal regeneration/healing-counter, but as I said in my OP it can still spice up an encounter, and after all, it's what magic items are meant to do.

[MaxWilson]

I've yet to hear any argument that would make it insane.

Allow me to rephrase without an implied pejorative. "No DM of my acquaintance is that slavishly bound to the letter of the law. The sword is clearly intended to prevent magical healing while allowing natural healing. The fact that the sword's text mentions only short/long rests is an artifact of poor editing and the fact that WotC writes their game rules in gamist jargon; but I know of no DM who would read that text and conclude that he has no choice but to allow a Sword of Wounding to permanently render characters unconscious because they can never rest while unconscious and never regain HP except by resting. The DMs I know would simply mentally insert a clause, 'or by other means of natural healing,' and would be perfectly willing to explain this fact if asked, at the time when the sword was awarded as treasure."

DM: Here's your sword of wounding. It turns out that when you injure a creature with this weapon, it cannot be magically healed, only healed by a short or long rest.
Player: Whoa, cool! So if I beat Cthulhu unconscious with it, he can never recover, right? Because he can't rest while unconscious.
DM: No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. For purposes of this sword, the 1d4 hours to recover from unconsciousness is a kind of rest. The sword doesn't prevent any kind of natural healing, only regeneration and healing magic and such.
Player: Would it prevent a lich from reforming its body?
DM: You're not sure. What's your Arcana bonus?
Player: I'm actually asking Vlad this question.
DM: Okay, then, what's your bonus Vlad?
Vlad's player: +9.
DM: [roll, roll] It seems unlikely that this sword would prevent a lich from reforming a new body. If you want to try to travel to the Citadel of Hatred to capture Edgewalker and experiment on him, though, be my guest. It will take you 4d6 days of travel to get there.
Player: Uh, no, I'll pass.

[Unoriginal]

I know of no DM who would read that text and conclude that he has no choice but to allow a Sword of Wounding to permanently render characters unconscious because they can never rest while unconscious and never regain HP except by resting.

Actually, while the sword does forbid regaining HPs except by resting, I messed up when I wrote the OP, and others have corrected me: the stabilized person wouldn't stay unconscious forever, because you can have a Short Rest while unconscious.

So you're right about this part, if for different reasons.


The sword doesn't prevent any kind of natural healing, only regeneration and healing magic and such.

The sword's description says it prevent regaining HPs by any other mean than a rest, including other mundane healing. If someone tried to use natural methods to use the wounded one, it wouldn't work.

Of course, it's true the DM can rule it however they like.

As a DM I would allow it to put the Lich/Vampire down for good, as long as the sword's effect is not dispelled. Which of course give opportunities for new plots.

[jojo]

...Of course, it's true the DM can rule it however they like.

As a DM I would allow it to put the Lich/Vampire down for good, as long as the sword's effect is not dispelled. Which of course give opportunities for new plots.

You're very determined to see things your way I'll give you that much.

In the interests of civil discourse I'll bite down on your hook. What sort of new plot opportunities would result from such an outcome in your campaign?

[Unoriginal]

You're very determined to see things your way I'll give you that much.

If you're talking about the radiant and necrotic effects I've talked about in my last response to you, then it's not "my way".

Otherwise, I've admitted I was wrong or conceded others's points several times in this thread, if the arguments were convincing or the facts verified.



In the interests of civil discourse I'll bite down on your hook. What sort of new plot opportunities would result from such an outcome in your campaign?

Well in the case of a Lich, it'd be a race between anyone who has an interest in freeing/getting to the Lich (minions, allies, old enemies who want power over them, opportunists, etc) and the PCs to find where the Lich's phylactery is hidden (and, by consequence, where the Lich is). It'd be a good way to make the adventure last longer than "you have an handful of days to break the phylactery or else the Lich comes back". And it could be a good occasion to use a lot of competing factions and NPCs all rushing to the same place.

For the Vampire, assuming they weren't the BBEG, I'd probably have minions of the BBEG get the body, maybe perform experiments on it to enhance it, and then have the BBEG use the modified vampire as an enforcer.

It wasn't a hook for people to bite, by the way.

[Theodoxus]

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. If "being unconscious" is too strenuous then I imagine getting a long rest will be rather difficult.

You don't push the short rest button. You just rest. Actually, hold on:https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/19/if-you-go-to-0hp-can-you-short-rest-after-an-hour-and-spend-hit-dice-if-you-have-them/

Wait, if your at 0 and stable, and the group takes a short rest, you automatically spend a HD if you have one? That's the only interpretation. You can't 'spend' a HD, you're not conscious to make the decision on how many to spend - so it's either automatic, or it doesn't happen (I tend to agree with the twit who asked about it nullifying the 1d4 hours of unconsciousness rule...)

Yet another case where JC proves he either doesn't understand his own rules, or is using SA to QC the final product against millions of users... I prefer the former.

[Unoriginal]

Wait, if your at 0 and stable, and the group takes a short rest, you automatically spend a HD if you have one? That's the only interpretation. You can't 'spend' a HD, you're not conscious to make the decision on how many to spend - so it's either automatic, or it doesn't happen (I tend to agree with the twit who asked about it nullifying the 1d4 hours of unconsciousness rule...)

Yet another case where JC proves he either doesn't understand his own rules, or is using SA to QC the final product against millions of users... I prefer the former.

Maybe it's just a case of "the player decides, not the character." Like when you roll your HD instead of taking average once you gain a level.

[MaxWilson]

Actually, while the sword does forbid regaining HPs except by resting, I messed up when I wrote the OP, and others have corrected me: the stabilized person wouldn't stay unconscious forever, because you can have a Short Rest while unconscious.

That interpretation would make the "1d4 hours to wake up" rule superfluous in practice, because everyone would always just spend a Hit Die to wake up in the minimum amount of time (1 hour). I don't buy it.

[Unoriginal]

That interpretation would make the "1d4 hours to wake up" rule superfluous in practice, because everyone would always just spend a Hit Die to wake up in the minimum amount of time (1 hour). I don't buy it.

Feel free to disagree with Crawford.

His reasoning is that the 1d4 hour is for when you're out of HD to spend. Or I suppose, if you don't want to spend one for some reasons.

[Theodoxus]

Probably because no one ever thought to think you could... it's not expressly spelled out, and there's a rule for how long you stay unconscious... again, I'd need further clarification if the HD is automatically spent, or if it breaks verisimilitude and the player, not the character, is making that decision (which not just breaks the fourth wall for me, but picks it up and hurls it into the sun). Yeah, HP, HD and such are literary contrivances that lets the game be played - but this idea, really takes the HP as meat vs (everything else) argument and chucks it out the window.

TL;DR: Mind. Blown.

ETA: Interestingly, I just remembered this came up in a game last week; as a life cleric, I was using my CD to restore hit points, and I needed to know how many everyone needed to get back to 50%. The DM stopped and said "HPs are a made up construct, your character wouldn't know how to ask that, and no one would be able to state 'I'm missing 17 of 21 HPs'. So, we'll use 'Bloodied' for at or below half and 'on the ropes' for at or below 1/4." Which is fine and dandy when you're asking how hurt a monster appears... it's not as great when you're trying to heal up your teammates, using exact numbers (5 per cleric level). Fortunately, I received the answer from the players as the DM was thinking about it... but next time? I guess I have to just divide the total healing pool by the number of people and everyone gets that amount, not being able to go over their bloodied maximum... Is that how y'all play Preserve Life?

[JNAProductions]

Probably because no one ever thought to think you could... it's not expressly spelled out, and there's a rule for how long you stay unconscious... again, I'd need further clarification if the HD is automatically spent, or if it breaks verisimilitude and the player, not the character, is making that decision (which not just breaks the fourth wall for me, but picks it up and hurls it into the sun). Yeah, HP, HD and such are literary contrivances that lets the game be played - but this idea, really takes the HP as meat vs (everything else) argument and chucks it out the window.

TL;DR: Mind. Blown.

ETA: Interestingly, I just remembered this came up in a game last week; as a life cleric, I was using my CD to restore hit points, and I needed to know how many everyone needed to get back to 50%. The DM stopped and said "HPs are a made up construct, your character wouldn't know how to ask that, and no one would be able to state 'I'm missing 17 of 21 HPs'. So, we'll use 'Bloodied' for at or below half and 'on the ropes' for at or below 1/4." Which is fine and dandy when you're asking how hurt a monster appears... it's not as great when you're trying to heal up your teammates, using exact numbers (5 per cleric level). Fortunately, I received the answer from the players as the DM was thinking about it... but next time? I guess I have to just divide the total healing pool by the number of people and everyone gets that amount, not being able to go over their bloodied maximum... Is that how y'all play Preserve Life?

Three things:

1) ETA? Estimated Time of Arrival?

2) "How are you feeling, Dave the Barbarian?"

"If I had to say, I'd say 14 out of 51 right now."

3) No, I'd let you know other players' exact HP totals. I think your DM is being a bit too strict there-have you talked to them about it?

[Theodoxus]

Three things:

1) ETA? Estimated Time of Arrival?

2) "How are you feeling, Dave the Barbarian?"

"If I had to say, I'd say 14 out of 51 right now."

3) No, I'd let you know other players' exact HP totals. I think your DM is being a bit too strict there-have you talked to them about it?

1) "Edited to add"
2) That's been my experience in 99.9% of games I've played in and 100% in ones I've run.
3) That was his ruling after we talked about it. We're new to each other, but both have decades of D&D under our belts. It's not a deal breaker, but was wondering if it was common...

[Zalabim]

I think if I were to handle Preserve Life without telling anyone current or max HP numbers directly, I'd allow the cleric to heal each person up to half in turn until they run out of people or run out of that pool of HP in the form of select person, deduct this many HP from the pool for the healing, select next person. I would personally not bother with this rigmarole, but I realize some people can go literally insane when it comes to the dreaded "metagaming."

There is no argument (and I certainly don't care to start one) since HP is not now and never has been meat, but I don't see this treatment of HD making any difference in that.

[jojo]

3) That was his ruling after we talked about it. We're new to each other, but both have decades of D&D under our belts. It's not a deal breaker, but was wondering if it was common...

In my own decades of gaming:

For monsters and other opponents under the DMs control I think it's very common to keep their HP hidden, using terms like "bloodied" or "on the ropes."

For other PCs? I don't think it's all that common to prevent you from knowing each other's HP. If a healer specifically asks me, as the DM to provide the information to them then I usually require a successful Medicine Check at DC 11+1 per PC they want information on.
If my players want to share information between each other I during combat I don't prevent them from doing so.

A question though, out of curiosity alone, is the DM running this game keeping track of the HP themselves or are they telling players how much damage the PC takes on hit?

[tsotate]

ETA: Interestingly, I just remembered this came up in a game last week; as a life cleric, I was using my CD to restore hit points, and I needed to know how many everyone needed to get back to 50%. The DM stopped and said "HPs are a made up construct, your character wouldn't know how to ask that, and no one would be able to state 'I'm missing 17 of 21 HPs'. So, we'll use 'Bloodied' for at or below half and 'on the ropes' for at or below 1/4." Which is fine and dandy when you're asking how hurt a monster appears... it's not as great when you're trying to heal up your teammates, using exact numbers (5 per cleric level).
It's not "Channel Heal Skill", it's Channel Divinity. Whether or not your cleric can accurately gauge exactly how wounded the other PCs are, the god of healing that they're calling upon can do so just fine.

[Zene]

An NPC hit team wielding daggers of wounding could be a fun challenge.


Any "build" which hinges around a magic item is the realm of theoretical play: the availability of magic items is controlled solely by the DM.


Unless you play AL ;)


It's not "Channel Heal Skill", it's Channel Divinity. Whether or not your cleric can accurately gauge exactly how wounded the other PCs are, the god of healing that they're calling upon can do so just fine.

This. If the player can’t know exact hit points, they shouldn’t have to give exact heal divisions either. I’d tell that DM “I distribute my heals evenly then, after healing the barbarian up to half, and making sure not to waste any points.” Let him do the math.

[Beelzebubba]

Yet another case where JC proves he either doesn't understand his own rules, or is using SA to QC the final product against millions of users... I prefer the former.

Oh please. It's the tiniest edge case of edge cases, and I bet it's literally never come up in combat.

It's a great catch, and a prime time for 'rulings not rules'. Or to throw a new narrative hook.

[CursedRhubarb]

In the interests of civil discourse I'll bite down on your hook. What sort of new plot opportunities would result from such an outcome in your campaign?

Party goes on a quest to save a princess under a sleeping spell, only to find she was actually a vampire that pricked herself on a spinning wheel of wounding?

DM: "Congratulations, you've woken the princess...roll for initiative."

[ThePolarBear]

[...] A Lich's Rejuvenation doesn't work either [...]
True Resurrection works if you rule out that the Sword of Wounding's power is a curse. Reincarnation or Clone would technically work since they create entirely new bodies, as would the capacity many fiends, divine beings and others have to re-create a body on their home plane if killed on the Material Plane [...] prevent the use of Revivify [...]

I have a couple of questions (prehaps i missed parts in the discussion)

1) Why would a Lich Rejuvination not work, if you state that both Reincarnation or Clone would? All create a completely new body. If the "regain hp" part is bound to a floaty concept of "creature" - be it soul or whatever - then it should apply to anything, even if not stated.
2) Why would TR not work, given that it CAN create a new body? Same as the above for the rest.
3) Why would Revivify not work, given that the only part that could be objected is that the creature regains 1 hp? "The creature is still brought back to life, just with 0 hps." isn't a valid possibility?

[Unoriginal]

1) Why would a Lich Rejuvination not work, if you state that both Reincarnation or Clone would? All create a completely new body. If the "regain hp" part is bound to a floaty concept of "creature" - be it soul or whatever - then it should apply to anything, even if not stated.

While the Lich recreates its body, the fact is that the ability says it "regains its HPs", which to me at least mean that it's actually more a regeneration from the ground up than a whole new body as for Reincarnation or Clones. I admit it's debatable, but its coherent with how the rest of the power is described.


2) Why would TR not work, given that it CAN create a new body? Same as the above for the rest.

True Resurrection would work, I said so in the OP.



3) Why would Revivify not work, given that the only part that could be objected is that the creature regains 1 hp? "The creature is still brought back to life, just with 0 hps." isn't a valid possibility?

It's a valid interpretation if you consider the "bringing back to life" and "giving HP back" to be separate effects, but then the creature would immediately start re-dying.

[ThePolarBear]

While the Lich recreates its body, the fact is that the ability says it "regains its HPs", which to me at least mean that it's actually more a regeneration from the ground up than a whole new body as for Reincarnation or Clones. I admit it's debatable, but its coherent with how the rest of the power is described.


The power is described as creating a whole new body in the description of the Lich, while the "old" body is still there, lying dead. Yeah, it "regains" hps, but that can also be said of all the other ways of creating bodies - "you", the creature, never starts at 0 hps - you always regain them - or implied to be in a state that is not "well, you are dying again, already". The verb is different, but i see very little difference in what i presume being the intent behind it. The body is discarded and rendered "inert", all effects bound to the body - like those bound to wounds - should not carry over.

Raise Dead returns you to life with 1 hp. You do not "regain" it, you are set to 1... why should it be prevented? You are not "regaining" an hp , at least in the text?

Reincarnate doesn't even tell you that you actually have hps after you come back to life!
I mean... it is sort of implied that a creature comes back at peak form.. but...


True Resurrection would work, I said so in the OP.

But you added "unless it's a curse". Why? True Resurrection removes curses and Wounding does not prevent resurrection. If you take "it's a different body, and the body is the one that's impacted", the body you are in is not the same. If it's a curse, it gets removed.
Prehaps i'm misunderstanding "rules out"?



It's a valid interpretation if you consider the "bringing back to life" and "giving HP back" to be separate effects, but then the creature would immediately start re-dying.

Well, i remember a tweet regarding Chill Touch and Revivify pretty much ending up with "alive, 0hps". Can't really get it and post it for reference right now, but it should be comparable.

[Ganymede]

Misty Escape is an ersatz Short Rest and Rejuvenation is an ersatz Long Rest.


Problem solved.

[Unoriginal]

Misty Escape is an ersatz Short Rest and Rejuvenation is an ersatz Long Rest.


Problem solved.

Why do you think it's a problem in the first place?

[Justiciar Prime]

Unless I missed it in the reading, don't forget that there is a con save (DC 15) that the wounded target makes to cancel out the wounding effect....and I think it's made each round per wound...so not over powered at all...

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: this undead thread is now perma-killed.