Talk:Holt's Hemorrhaging Hematoma (3.5e Spell)

Level 1?
You sure? While not a benchmark, there's a psionic power in Hyperconciousness I think which gives the max damage vulnerability alone, sans the degeneration effect you have going on and mind affecting. It's 6th level. While I can see it as low as 3rd, 1st seems just too low, especially since it has an additional effect. My stance would be that this compares to Haste and Snake's Swiftness, in the sense that it makes your melee units stronger and deal more damage over a shorter period of time. -- Eiji-kun 01:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, given that it only affects base weapon damage (which becomes for the most part insignificant at later levels in favor of bonus dice, Strength-based damage, etc.), does a decent amount of damage alone but nothing that is going to murder anyone super fast (since at level 1 it lasts 1 round, it does 1 damage by itself and gives a pretty narrow timetable for the opponent to be vulnerable), and only works on creatures with blood (ruling out oozes, many constructs, etc.), I thought it was limited enough to warrant a 1. - TG Cid 02:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, base weapon damage, that rules out touch attackers. Monks enjoy it, but thats fine... that makes it a bit better.  I'm not really convinced this is level 1, but it's close enough to a level 2 where I'll call it difference of opinion. -- Eiji-kun 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It would at least rule out rays and the like; acid flasks would still do 3 damage, if that matters. - TG Cid 04:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd could bumping it up to three at least. Hm. Thinking about it some more, perhaps more modification is required, as this is a unique spell in that damage is O(n^2) rather than O(n), or linear, even though it is over time. So while it doesn't do that much at low level, 20+/round for the rest of combat against a high level enemy is nothing to sneeze at. Even if they win, they still might die. Looking at some of the dragons around CR 20, you could get a guaranteed kill (damage wise) by casting this spell, then stalling. Some you might need to do some damage to push them over, but it'd be easy given the weapon boost. Dragons, smart as they are, would probably dispel it or heal themselves, but a first, second, or even a third level spell probably shouldn't give a save or eventually die effect that needs to be dealt with. Any Sorcerer with this spell would probably spam it on a high level enemy. And, what, no SR? This really seems like an SR spell -- directly affecting the target. Oh, and what's the focus?--Quey 06:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can deal significant damage. But it requires a) you failing the save (which you have to invest to increase whether by heightening it or putting in feats) and b) not taking any measures against it. 20 damage per round is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, pretty much enough to offset the creature's fast healing or create some other minor annoyance.
 * I have no argument against allowing SR, so I put that in.
 * I think you're over-valuing the damage increase. It's only base weapon damage, so unless you load up on having the biggest weapon ever your benefit is minimal.
 * I give zero shits about foci. For better or worse, I ignore them unless it suits me and am inclined to say that others should do the same. - TG Cid 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually a focus matters, unlike a material component that is often free with a Spell Component Pouch. Usually they are somewhat valuable, sometimes it's the mitigating factor. Sometimes it's something weird like "a natural pool". So I think it does matter, and you should specify if it is something trivial.--Quey 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if you're going to put M or F in the component list you need to specify what it is. If you don't care what it is you should pull the component descriptor instead. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, ddidn't even notice it was there. Removed it for a compromise, and it seems I owe Quey an apology. - TG Cid 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)