I actually would not have a problem if nothing was immune to critical hits.

I have never seen those as reliant on hitting a living being so much as hitting something in a weak spot (which in my view everything has...undead, golems, what-have-you). It was always interesting that D&D was one of the systems that drew that distinction when some others did not.

-Weylin

Name me a non-magical bleeding effect that is not tied to either sneak attacks or critical hits.

An unarmed strike using the Belier's Bite feat. (Celiax pg. 26)

I was wondering if we could perhaps get an official ruling on this subject? My group has a few games going where this question has come into play.

I was wondering if we could perhaps get an official ruling on this subject? My group has a few games going where this question has come into play.

There's already an official response linked in this thread.

I actually would not have a problem if nothing was immune to critical hits.

I have never seen those as reliant on hitting a living being so much as hitting something in a weak spot (which in my view everything has...undead, golems, what-have-you). It was always interesting that D&D was one of the systems that drew that distinction when some others did not.

-Weylin

Exactly; I didn't even have a problem with critting incorporeal undead back in AD&D (albeit only with magical weapons), because we have always explained it as hitting a weak spot, or taking advantage of an enemy's blunder.

I see people paying too much attention on the name of the ability, which is exactly what happened with the 'bloodied' condition when 4E came out; there were many posters who thought it was an "unrealistic" rule, and said: "What's this?!? Didn't they know that undead and golems *cannot* bleed... I'm so going to rule that they are not subject to this condition!".

It should probably be specifically listed on some monsters and not tied to subtypes or types. Some incorporeal creatures are physical on the ethereal plane and as such would bleed. Some undead might be ruled by a DM as still having blood under pressure (such as a vampire after feeding). Some constructs are made of complex parts including batteries and fluids and could, as such "bleed". I could go on.

At any rate, I vote for individual listings on each monster which is immune to bleed. Perhaps a "bloodless" defense ability.

Weylin wrote:

I actually would not have a problem if nothing was immune to critical hits.

I have never seen those as reliant on hitting a living being so much as hitting something in a weak spot (which in my view everything has...undead, golems, what-have-you). It was always interesting that D&D was one of the systems that drew that distinction when some others did not.

-Weylin

Exactly; I didn't even have a problem with critting incorporeal undead back in AD&D (albeit only with magical weapons), because we have always explained it as hitting a weak spot, or taking advantage of an enemy's blunder.

I see people paying too much attention on the name of the ability, which is exactly what happened with the 'bloodied' condition when 4E came out; there were many posters who thought it was an "unrealistic" rule, and said: "What's this?!? Didn't they know that undead and golems *cannot* bleed... I'm so going to rule that they are not subject to this condition!".

Because regardless of the bleed=/=blood, if it's just an abstraction why can't that abstraction apply to every damage type, why are there any creatures immune to criticals, even creatures with amorphis biologies should be able to be struck harder. If bleed can apply to incorporeal creatures why can't criticals.

Critical hits can apply to incorporeal creatures, as long as the critical was dealt with a ghost touch weapon (or a force effect with an attack roll, presumably, although that isn't spelled out).

The Tarrasque entry specifically says that it is immune to bleed. So there's one example.

Critical hits can apply to incorporeal creatures, as long as the critical was dealt with a ghost touch weapon (or a force effect with an attack roll, presumably, although that isn't spelled out).

Yeah, but bleed doesn't need a ghost touch weapon. I think my biggest problem with it is that it seems like other types of damage precision/criticals yet it alone can apply apparently to every situation when the others have things to which they don't apply.

Yeah, but bleed doesn't need a ghost touch weapon. I think my biggest problem with it is that it seems like other types of damage precision/criticals yet it alone can apply apparently to every situation when the others have things to which they don't apply.

Actually, in the vast majority of cases, it does indeed need a ghost touch weapon to affect an incorporeal creature. The vast majority of bleed effects are either caused by sneak attacks (which cannot affect an incorporeal creature without a ghost touch weapon) or critical hits (which cannot affect an incorporeal creature without a ghost touch weapon). The only core example of bleeding damage I'm aware of that isn't related to either sneak attack or critical hits is the Death domain power bleeding touch, which is a magical loss of animating energy.

The Tarrasque entry specifically says that it is immune to bleed. So there's one example.

That's so you can't knock it out with bleed at level 6 and come back at level 20 while it's still unconscious and kill it and wish it would stay dead :)

Prince That Howls wrote:

I was wondering if we could perhaps get an official ruling on this subject? My group has a few games going where this question has come into play.

There's already an official response linked in this thread.

Sorry, missed that. Thanks.

Can't just wish it dead anymore either, the bestiary says that there is currently no known way to kill the big guy.

Can't just wish it dead anymore either, the bestiary says that there is currently no known way to kill the big guy.

I always thought it needed beefed up a little honestly :)

time to research a new spell - Slay Tarrasque Should be 10th level but because only works on one type of enemy I'm going to place it at 7th ;)

I agree, the boosting is nice, particularly if you do place it in Golarion since it is supposed to have a true connection to Rovagug.

Also a big bonus that it has ranged capabilities now so you can't just have a flying party pelting it from above.

Of course, as they note you can still transport it to focus its ruination on other areas. Last time we did a campaign that had one, that is exactly what the party did. They plane shifted it to a negative energy plane to try and keep ti controlled.

The Tarrasque entry specifically says that it is immune to bleed. So there's one example.

Yeah, yeah!

does the happy dance!

Can't just wish it dead anymore either, the bestiary says that there is currently no known way to kill the big guy.

Yep!

That's really just too bad, isn't it?

:)

cries big armored tears of joy

Tarlane wrote:

Can't just wish it dead anymore either, the bestiary says that there is currently no known way to kill the big guy.

I always thought it needed beefed up a little honestly :)

time to research a new spell - Slay Tarrasque Should be 10th level but because only works on one type of enemy I'm going to place it at 7th ;)

Yeah, but you'll need to Maximize and empower it to take on a big ol' beefy tarrasque like me! So put that bad boy into your 12th level spell slot and pray you can beat my SR!

Even then, since death effects seem to top out at 10 HP/caster level, even your Empowered Maximized Slay Tarrasque is only good enough for about half of me, and the other half will have plenty of teeth to CHOMP you right and good!

Important note on Incorporeal creatures. You dont need a ghost touch weapon to hit them. RAW states you can hit them with a magic weapon of any sort, spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They just take half damage from it. No mention of a miss chance if using a magic weapon, no mention of immunity to precision based damage. Just half damage. All the ghost touch does is let you deal full damage, same as force effects.

-Weylin

funnily enough his explanation fell short on incorporeal creatures as well lol, but I get the idea, it's new they didn't think it fully out and as such it's up to the DM to determine it for themselves. Me I'm making bleed only affect living creatures. That leaves all the weird and unusual anatomies that come up in undead from me having to rule case by case and simply resolves the what about incorporeal undead question.

As for any living creature I do think and would probably worded it exactly like Mr. Jacobs, if it's living it can in some way bleed, figure it out in your head.

Where does that leave Oozes in this scenario? Theye are essentially a continuous mass of jello.

lastknightleft wrote:

funnily enough his explanation fell short on incorporeal creatures as well lol, but I get the idea, it's new they didn't think it fully out and as such it's up to the DM to determine it for themselves. Me I'm making bleed only affect living creatures. That leaves all the weird and unusual anatomies that come up in undead from me having to rule case by case and simply resolves the what about incorporeal undead question.

As for any living creature I do think and would probably worded it exactly like Mr. Jacobs, if it's living it can in some way bleed, figure it out in your head.

Where does that leave Oozes in this scenario? Theye are essentially a continuous mass of jello.

Funnily enough I can use jello as the counter example because the other night I made jello and it worked in all its jiggly goodness, then I went to eat it and as I cut into one jello square with my spoon the jello leaked for lack of a better word and I watched as the jello basically deflated as the less solidified inside ran out of the well solidified outside, but then a different jello cube stayed fully intact. I think what caused it was the added cocoa powder to make it chocolate strawberry, but I couldn't figure out why some of the squares solidified well, when others didn't, but that's how I'd adjudicate bleed for oozes. Funnily enough I might not have had an answer if you had asked that before sunday but I've seen Jello bleed man :D

As for any living creature I do think and would probably worded it exactly like Mr. Jacobs, if it's living it can in some way bleed, figure it out in your head.

I love what Paizo does, but this bugs me. They do it so little, I am just surprised. "Anything that can take HP damage can bleed" and then people have to figure it out. That stinks of 4ed Mentality (Sorry to our 4th players, no offense meant to them). No offense to anyone at the big "P" but anyone can justify anything. If abilities come down to just having a game effect, and nothing to go along with it, why go to a book for that. You can just make it up on your own. (1d6 damage and stun, call it.. getting fozzeled). What I like about good design, is taking something that could happen in the game world and finds a rule that makes sense for it. I know that some things should be kept simple, but really what is wrong with saying "Bleed work on any creature that can lose vital liquids." and leave it in the DM's hand to rule. That is what your DM is for. There are people who are going to argue that the rule is not concrete enough, but heck, people argue over line of sight not being defined. I would rather see a cool concept and a rule that support it then some numbers adjustments and an explanation of something like "HP DAMAGE", "Mind DAMAGE", "Martial source".

Just a small rant, please no one take anything personal.

"Anything that can take HP damage can bleed"

My favorite part of this is when my Monk with Belier's Bite punches a wall/door/chest/other object, he gets to stand back and watch it crumble due to his mighty blow. Even better, my monk with Belier's Bite and Improved Sunder just has to tag your weapon once and get past its hardness and that weapon is DOOOOOMMMMMMMEEEEEDDDDD!

Interesting to note that people are objecting to bleed effects on undead and oozes but no one mentions that rangers can take both (as well as undead, constructs, ooze, plants) as favored enemy granting a +2 (eventually a possible +8) to hit and damage against these beings.

If a ranger can take it as a favored enemy and get a damage bonus, I dont see why a rogue should not be able to sneak attack or why "bleed" damage shouldnt work.

-Weylin

Important note on Incorporeal creatures. You dont need a ghost touch weapon to hit them. RAW states you can hit them with a magic weapon of any sort, spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They just take half damage from it. No mention of a miss chance if using a magic weapon, no mention of immunity to precision based damage. Just half damage. All the ghost touch does is let you deal full damage, same as force effects.

-Weylin

You don't need a ghost touch weapon to hit incorporeal creatures, you need a magic weapon. It does half damage because this replaces the miss chance from 3.5e. If you do half damage on each successful hit, this is comparable to 50% miss chance (which was, by the rules of 3.5, only rolled after you rolled a hit to see if you actually hit).

The incorporeal subtype grants immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks (aka precision-based damage).

The ghost touch property overcomes this immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks of incorporeal subtyped creatures. It also allows the weapon to hit for full damage (the equivalent of having no miss chance in 3.5e). A magic weapon that is not ghost touch does not overcome the immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks granted by the incorporeal subtye.

The half-damage instead of rolling for 50% concealment still means the monster takes about half the damage, but it means less rolls and it means that someone doesn't have the let down of successfully beating the creature's AC then failing to overcome miss chance. If they have a magic weapon, you can think of it as their weapon half-misses on every hit and only does half damage for those half-misses. :-)

:)

Tarasque death isn't actually that hard. Planeshift to the Plane of Water, tan Gate it there and leave. Or fly and have a lot of spells ready to keep anyone from removing it through teleportation. Regen doesn't help against drowning.

As far as Undead, I kind of like not being alive to mean something, so I'd rule against undead "bleed" damage as well. Even if it is degenerative damage over time, (of whatever sort) it still makes little sense for undead. Sure you can crack a skeleton's spine until it breaks in two, but that doesn't really hurt undead as much as it would a living creature. Rather, the undead just keep on coming, ven if that means their top half is crawling at you terminator style and the legs are pullin themselves slowly by the toes. Even beeding blood (and "other") fluids would not affect a walking corpse in any way. What are they going to do, starve if you cut out all the rotting flesh of a Ghouls stomach?

Leaking out the imbalming fluids is going to make them stink a little more at first, than a lot less, but not going to stop it from zombie-stumbling towards you for munchie brains.

Honestly, was just looking at the Incorporeal condition not the type. So i concede that point.

I do still maintain my issues with "i can damage it but i cant sneak attack or critical it" type of rules for the same reasons i stated up-thread.

-Weylin

Funnily enough I can use jello as the counter example because the other night I made jello and it worked in all its jiggly goodness, then I went to eat it and as I cut into one jello square with my spoon the jello leaked for lack of a better word and I watched as the jello basically deflated as the less solidified inside ran out of the well solidified outside, but then a different jello cube stayed fully intact. I think what caused it was the added cocoa powder to make it chocolate strawberry, but I couldn't figure out why some of the squares solidified well, when others didn't, but that's how I'd adjudicate bleed for oozes. Funnily enough I might not have had an answer if you had asked that before sunday but I've seen Jello bleed man :D

Wait... you say oozes have cocoa powder in them and that causes them to deflate when stabbed?

Is this a new strategy, rogues carrying cocoa powder around and tossing it into oozes?

I have a question about how to stop the bleed effect. It's listed in the Bleed description in glossary as a "DC 15 Heal check", however it's not listed in the Heal skill description.

So, the following questions arise:

1. How long does it take?
Other applications for Heal checks run from a standard action, to 10 minutes, to 1 hour to 8 hours of light activitiy.
Can we assume it's a standard action? I doubt something that could be as deadly as killing a 1st level character in one good roll be something that is discouraged from being used in combat (1 minute or longer).

2. Since non-creature objects can take hitpoint damage, does that mean you can "bleed" a door? What about a Castle wall?
Which then begs the question... how does one make the Heal check to stop it from crumbling?

3. What equipment is required to make this check?
I guess you don't really need a healer's kit to try and perform the normal checks (which is somewhat odd, depending on the check being performed), however I guess a better explanation of this question would be: Would a collection of bandages and herbs still give a +2 to healing a Bleed effect on Undead? What about a Stone Golem? A door?

.

One final side-question: What does the Bleeding Critical feat mean when it says "The effects of this feat stack."?
The "Bleed" effect specifies that similar sources of bleeding damage don't stack, take the worst. Is this feat saying that it specifically breaks this rule?
If a Fighter crits a second time in his full attack (highly possible), would that mean the target now takes 2d6 bleed damage twice (ie, 2d6 + 2d6, or if you want, 4d6) each round until healed in some way? Does it take two DC 15 Heal checks? I'm assuming being cured by magical healing will clear off both in one shot.
If you have two bleed effects from two different sources, would it require more than one Heal check to remove them both?

.

I don't know if anyone here can provide an official answer to any of these... just something I thought I'd toss out there. I'm pretty sure I know how I'd personally rule it, but I'd be interested in hearing others ideas and maybe even an official stance.

grasshopper_ea wrote:

Tarlane wrote:

Can't just wish it dead anymore either, the bestiary says that there is currently no known way to kill the big guy.

I always thought it needed beefed up a little honestly :)

time to research a new spell - Slay Tarrasque Should be 10th level but because only works on one type of enemy I'm going to place it at 7th ;)

Yeah, but you'll need to Maximize and empower it to take on a big ol' beefy tarrasque like me! So put that bad boy into your 12th level spell slot and pray you can beat my SR!

Even then, since death effects seem to top out at 10 HP/caster level, even your Empowered Maximized Slay Tarrasque is only good enough for about half of me, and the other half will have plenty of teeth to CHOMP you right and good!

Actually it's no SR, no Save and 10 HP/caster level per round for one hour/level. Lethal damage to Tarrasque. Non-lethal damage to everything else. Also inflicts the tarrasque with apathy. He just dies and doesn't care. This protects the mage from any retaliation. Improved initiative for the win.