So bleed damage does not stack, and it takes an action to stop, but even a relatively massive 2d6 bleed does not strike me as worth a feat or spell slot when most monsters rarely last over 5 rounds of combat. Aren't there better ways to take out a badguy than bleed them?
Perhaps I am missing something, but I never saw the real advantage to getting Bleed... it seems circumstantially useful at best.
It takes an action plus a non-trivial skill check to stop, so it's not quite that easy.
I agree that in the average combat Bleed damage is no great shakes. If you were in a hit-and-run battle, it would be more useful though.
Well, Bleeding Critical explicitly stacks, so if the fight lasts even a couple of rounds and enough critical hits are scored, then it can start to rack up some nice numbers, but generally it's no great shakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct--monsters don't last long enough for Bleed damage to matter.
It's far better if the entire party were set to drop some bleeds then run away or something bizarre like that which would never happen in real life.
Mostly, though, it's something for bad guys to use on the PCs--it sucks a lot more for them, since they last long enough to feel it.
that was kinda what I was thinking... a pity. Bloody Claws on a pouncer could be righteous.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why everyone is being such a downer on Bleed damage.
It's free damage, that isn't subject to DR, that persists round after round, and requires the enemy to chew an action to stop.
Who cares if fights only last a few rounds, damage is damage.
That's like saying "I don't think I'll take weapon specialization, cause it's only 2 damage and fights only last a few rounds."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's like saying "I don't think I'll take weapon specialization, cause it's only 2 damage and fights only last a few rounds."
It's two damage per swing every swing that stacks with all other damage.
Bleed damage is once per turn and doesn't stack with any other bleed damage.
I guarantee you that Weapon Specialization will outdamage any PC available bleed effect except Bleeding Critical, which stacks.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet Bleed Damage bypasses DR and persists until it is healed. It also helps when you miss on subsequent rounds.
It also forces casters to make concentration checks.
The point is that as a combat class, you're going to be looking to stack as much damage as possible, and I don't think bleed damage should be dismissed. It's not perfect, but nothing is.
I'm with Elamdri here. Forcing someone to waste an action is huge against caster BBEGS and concentration checks are always worth it.
Bleed is awesome. Against animals and other non-intelligent creatures that can bleed, even bleed 1 is a death sentence. They have no way to heal themselves. If you can outrun them, the fight is over after your first hit.
A level 1 rouge with a bow and a horse can kill an owlbear or other such much more powerful creature with only 1 hit.
Hmm, even animals should be allowed to make Heal checks.
I can't imagine an animal that could stop another one from dying (CPR/pressure points) or stop it's own arterial bleed. Most just simply don't have the anatomy to even apply pressure to a wound let alone the understanding of what to do about it.
But by RAW you might be right.
By RAW, yes, anyone could try a heal check untrained to stop the bleeding.
And no, concentration checks are not always good. They're a waste of time by mid level. Nobody fails them after a certain point because they scale poorly.
By RAW, yes, anyone could try a heal check untrained to stop the bleeding.
And no, concentration checks are not always good. They're a waste of time by mid level. Nobody fails them after a certain point because they scale poorly.
There's still a slim chance.
But yeah, animals CAN try a heal check as far as I know. They probably would, however, run away first, and then do it. And even then, they generally have a low heal skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's still a slim chance.
The DC of a concentration check against an ongoing damage effect like Bleed is 10 + 1/2 the bleed damage + the level of the spell.
Let's take a look at a typical midlevel caster. How about level 8? You have a 22-24 casting stat, I assume, since you're looking at 18-20 to start, +2 more from leveling, and 2-4 more from an item. That gives you a +6 or 7 bonus to the check. That's a +14-15 total (lets go with 15), for a minimum result of 16 (I don't believe 1s are auto-fails on anything but attack rolls and saves.
Casting their highest level spell (level 4), they need to make a 14 + Half the bleed effect.
In order to not automatically succeed on this roll, they have to take at least 6 Bleed damage. If the spellcaster took Combat Casting, they'd need to take 14+ Bleed damage to make them lose their highest level spell one a roll of a 1.
In order to get even a 25% chance of losing the spell, a Combat Casting-less caster needs to be taking 16 Bleed.
In other words, unless you are trying to make a Ranger lose their spell (since even Paladins have good reason to raise Charisma), no, there is not even a slim chance of the concentration check failing.
Ah, pardon the interjection, wouldn't a duel wielding kukri user with bleeding crit get quite a few stacked bleeds going in just a few rounds?
As has been said Bleeding Critical is worth taking since it can stack, but most sources of bleed is rather 'meh'.
Here's a question I've been looking for a place to ask for a while. Would CON bleed (a la Deadly Stroke for example) require caster level checks? If no, why not? If yes, by how much?
I am personally rather fond of bleed damage. Our party Ranger gives bleed damage and there's been at least two occasions I can remember where those few points of bleed brought down some baddy or other. They may not have taken much bleed damage, but it was just the right amount of bleed damage.
Bleed most certainly has its uses. A couple tips. Pay attention to turn order. If you can and there isn't a target that is a high priority then try to get the bleed on the baddy who's turn is coming the soonest. It can be pretty funny for something to survive the attack only to fall on its face in moment later when its turn comes up.
It is a great way to keep runners from being as much of a problem. They ether bleed out trying to run and leave a nice trail. Or they have to stop to try and stop the bleeding giving a chance catch them.
|
|
There's still a slim chance.If the spellcaster took Combat Casting, they'd need to take 14+ Bleed damage to make them lose their highest level spell one a roll of a 1.
In order to get even a 25% chance of losing the spell, a Combat Casting-less caster needs to be taking 16 Bleed.
Combat Casting does not apply to concentration checks that you have to make because of damage. It only applies to concentration checks to cast defensively and while grappled.
I think it is situational. But if you fight a BBEG with some goons it can be worth it.
Lets say a TWF unarmed fighter level 6 with belier's bite feat (1d4 bleed from unarmed attacks) he can use his 3 attacks to hit the BBEG and two goons in his first full attack. From then on each of them gets 1d4 bleed damage per turn.
Sure, if one of the enemies can channel to heal or something like that he can cure every bleed with one action.
All in all I'd say it may not be as good as weapon specialization but it can be a feat worth taking.
With the exception of Bleeding Critical, I think bleed damage is rarely worth the trouble.
.
.
It would be fun to make a melee character:
Class - Rogue(Thug) 1/Fighter X
Feats - various intimidation tricks, Improved Critical, Bleeding Critical
Tactic (starting at 12th level) attack for as much bleed damage as possible, and make your enemy run away in fear while they bleed to death.
What I've found about bleed effects is they are neither free damage, or particularly effective.
They aren't free because they usually requires feats, which for most classes rare and valuable (especially since many good feats require feat taxes).
They aren't very effective because you can just deal tons of damage (clustered shot, high strength + power attack, massive sneak attacks, vital strike chain, magus shocking grasp ect) that can power through DR and hit point pools in 3-5 rounds anyways. Or you could actually have the required weapon for once (shocking for a party to actually be prepared though, isn't it?)
For the bleed effect that require crits to work, if you are full attacking and getting crits, isn't the monster likely to die from the crit damage rather quickly? Unless you are slapping the enemy with a wet noodle any static damage + dice is going to be more effective in killing than a few points of bleed.
|
|
What I've found about bleed effects is they are neither free damage, or particularly effective.
They aren't free because they usually requires feats, which for most classes rare and valuable (especially since many good feats require feat taxes).
They aren't very effective because you can just deal tons of damage (clustered shot, high strength + power attack, massive sneak attacks, vital strike chain, magus shocking grasp ect) that can power through DR and hit point pools in 3-5 rounds anyways. Or you could actually have the required weapon for once (shocking for a party to actually be prepared though, isn't it?)
For the bleed effect that require crits to work, if you are full attacking and getting crits, isn't the monster likely to die from the crit damage rather quickly? Unless you are slapping the enemy with a wet noodle any static damage + dice is going to be more effective in killing than a few points of bleed.
Let me put it this way:
Lets say you're a rogue.
Which would you rather do:
Sneak Attack Damage or Sneak Attack Damage and MORE damage.
Rogues don't get much from strength, most rogues tend to be poor strength high dex, and lean on their sneak attack dice for the bulk of their damage (why be overly MAD when your strength damage is going to be so paltry compared to your sneak attack pool, 1 dice=3.5, a 3+ bonus cost 10 build points). They also tend to use 1d6 weapons with high crit range (don't really know why, its not like crits do much for them, but i guess its better than just using a 20 range x2 weapon). Very low static damage + low dice weapon damage = why bother with focus on crits.
Rogues builds tend to have nasty feat requirements to get the basics for it. Weapon finesse tax, TWF rogues feat taxes, archery rogues feat taxes, sap rogues feat taxes. By the time your build is going to have the feat budget to get bleed damage, it starts to look pretty ineffective compared to other things you could be getting, especially since bleeding critical also has a feat tax of its own.
Now I do like the deadly stroke bleed, since Con bleed is kinda a big deal. But a 4 feat prereq puts that out of reach of most rogues. It is also limited to standard actions only, so full attack action buzzsaws or charging sneak attack rogues need not apply.
For the bleed effect that require crits to work, if you are full attacking and getting crits, isn't the monster likely to die from the crit damage rather quickly?
Offtopic: I've noticed this line of reasoning in the past with powers that do ability damage: "If I hit the bad guy six times, he's a goner!" Yeah, as opposed to hitting the bad guy six times and killing him with normal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elamdri might me talking about the bleed attack rogue talent. Or else I bring it to the table. I don't think i´t is so useless.
Benefit: A rogue with this ability can cause living opponents to bleed by hitting them with a sneak attack. This attack causes the target to take 1 additional point of damage each round for each die of the rogue's sneak attack (e.g., 4d6 equals 4 points of bleed). Bleeding creatures take that amount of damage every round at the start of each of their turns. The bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or the application of any effect that heals hit point damage.
Special: Bleeding damage from this ability does not stack with itself. Bleeding damage bypasses any damage reduction the creature might possess.
The rogue bleed attack is kinda meh in my mind. Its not terrible but there are better things you could be taking. 1 damage every 2 levels is so underwhelming that I would personally avoid taking it. The one thing going for it compared to most other bleeds is that at least it scales.
Combat Casting does not apply to concentration checks that you have to make because of damage. It only applies to concentration checks to cast defensively and while grappled.There's still a slim chance.If the spellcaster took Combat Casting, they'd need to take 14+ Bleed damage to make them lose their highest level spell one a roll of a 1.
In order to get even a 25% chance of losing the spell, a Combat Casting-less caster needs to be taking 16 Bleed.
Oops. The rest of my points still stand, though--Concentration checks from Bleed are a joke.
That did happen in real life. In Nam the Vietcon did almost nothing but garila warfare being shoot and tact tact. Its very effective in real life.
It's far better if the entire party were set to drop some bleeds then run away or something bizarre like that which would never happen in real life.
Yeah, I didn't mean real life fighters, I meant real life as in "players sitting around a table actually taking actions" rather than "people on the internet spitballing ideas."
No group of players at the table is going to be willing to let the one guy with bleed feats hit everyone once then all run away. Even if it's effective, it's boring. Maybe in the old days of say, AD&D, since survival was so ridiculously difficult, but not anymore.
So which would you take if you had to pick:
Bleeding Attack or Powerful Sneak?
So which would you take if you had to pick:
Bleeding Attack or Powerful Sneak?
Neither, the -2 to attack on powerful sneak offset the dpr gain by the feat, and bleeding attack is bleh. I personally believe that rogue talents should be used to expand what the rogue can do, not to just do damage.
To be completely truthful I wouldn't play a rogue, since for the most party the ninja (and their tricks) are better. Even then I would probably play a different class, I've been nothing but underwhelmed by rogues.
So which would you take if you had to pick:
Bleeding Attack or Powerful Sneak?
I'd take a class that wasn't Rogue*...
Powerful Sneak changes the average damage of each sneak attack die from 3.5 to 4. It then also reduces your total DPR by 10% of your average hit (from the -2 to hit).
Bleeding Attack deals +1 damage per sneak attack die per round.
Neither are worth it, but if you had to choose, the decision would need to be based on how many hits you can expect to hit with (taking the -2 into account).
If you expect to hit once per turn , then Bleeding Attack is the better deal. If you expect to hit twice, then they're equal. If you expect to hit more than twice, Powerful Sneak is better.
But again, neither is good. Rogue Talents in general are pretty weak, but there are definitely better options.
*Ninja is literally just "better Rogue" with the sole downside being the lack of an Extra Ninja trick feat. Vivisectionist Alchemist is the best Sneak Attacker in the game, so if you want to deal SA damage, that's the class to be.
LOL Which would you pick?
Answer: ANOTHER CLASS.
For the record, I don't think either option is that bad. But then again, I spent a lot of time playing rogues who didn't get *any* talents (3.X), so I guess I'm appreciative to get something (:
I just wanted to say:
I have Played & GM'd with a group of players that used Guerrilla Warfare.
It helped that we actually buffed Vital Strike to actually work with things it realistically would.
It made Mobile Fighters absolutely devastating as were Two-Weapon Warrior Fighters.
Scimitars & the Critical Feats become brutal. Bleed and striking Medics first meant the Enemy would end up in a precarious situation.
I'm quite the fan of Bleeding attack. I got it to work quite a few times.
For MY guy... he seemed to fighttoo many opponents at once, so flanking was hard to get to. Invisiblity was only good for the first hit, Improved invisible only good for one battle... And we rarely had only one battle in that AP.
It was basically a situation of 'Round one:' Sneak attack. D6+1 + 6D6 sneak attack... Bleed.
Next round... D6 +1 sword damage... AND 6 points of bleed.
It's not GREAT damage... but it is GUARANTEED damage. and that guaranteed is usually better than what an average 'rogue weapon' can do on it's own...
Ok i am a barb gooing to use a keen falchion with bleeding critical
If i hit a mob 1/4 of the time with 2d6 bleed wich could persist ist this just good damage?
Ok i am a barb gooing to use a keen falchion with bleeding critical
If i hit a mob 1/4 of the time with 2d6 bleed wich could persist ist this just good damage?
Bleeding Critical is good specifically because it stacks. 95% of other bleed effects are not worth it.
Does Bleed damage bypass DR ?
|
Earlier posts someone says it does.
IMO i think Blled is pretty cool from my exp its one of those few things that bypass DR straight up without having to worry about it being weak against cold iron, magic, ect. But I can also see the weaknesses in it cause it doesnt stack alot of the time. Personally I think it should stack caus eyou can bleed from more then one wound.
Ok i am a barb gooing to use a keen falchion with bleeding critical
If i hit a mob 1/4 of the time with 2d6 bleed wich could persist ist this just good damage?
Look through the thread and you'll see that Bleeding Critical is the primary exception to "Bleed sux".
The problem with bleed isn't that bleed damage is somehow worse than other damage. The problem is that, for most of the routes to getting bleed damage, you could have done more with the same resources. Here are three examples:
Bleeding Attack
Cost: 1 Rogue Talent
Effect: 1 bleed damage per 2 levels, only if sneak attack applies, only on one hit per enemy (because it doesn't stack)
Alternatives for the same cost: Finesse Rogue, Combat Trick, Weapon Training, etc.
Bleeding Blow
Cost: 1 Rage Power, + 1 mediocre rage power as a prerequisite
Effect: 1 bleed damage per 4 levels, only once per rage
Alternatives for the same cost: Beast Totem, Superstition, etc
Wounding
Cost: +2 magic weapon bonus
Effect: 1 bleed damage per hit
Alternatives for the same cost: um, you could have had +2 hit AND +2 damage! If you've already used up the maximum +5 numeric bonus, choose Holy, Icy Burst, etc.
Does Bleed damage bypass DR ?
Yes it does.
And at least some abilities deal bleed damage if you hit even if you don't defeat DR.Earlier in this thread I quoted the bleeding attack rogue talent. It states needing to hit (not needing to damage) and under special it states defeating DR.
|
|
I think I need to qualify what I've been saying here. Bleed is probably not the most optimal choice for a character. But it's not a bad selection either, and certainly better than some other conditions, like Dazzled.
-Bleed damage requires a standard action to stop it, meaning it eats up a round that could be spent buffing or attacking
-Bleed damage forces concentration checks (although as was mentioned, the difficulty of these is suspect, but there's always the 5% chance of rolling a 1)
-Bleed damage, RAW, cannot be stopped by Channeled Positive Energy, Fast Healing, or Regeneration.
-Bleed damage bypasses DR
-Bleed damage persists forever until the enemy takes affirmative action to stop it.
-Bleed damage is very good if you can apply it to multiple enemies in a round(Take for example a cat with pounce and the Bloody Claws spell who charges 3 enemies and inflicts a 4 damage bleed on all three).
-Bleed damage normally makes it impossible for a dying enemy to stabilize and for them is usually a death sentence.
-Bleed damage, RAW, cannot be stopped by Channeled Positive Energy, Fast Healing, or Regeneration.
This bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal skill check or through the application of any magical healing.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like.
Channel Energy (Su)
I'm pretty sure that channeled positive energy is magical, thus it stops bleeding.
Bleed is a bit annoying for GMs to keep track of, so I tend not to use it.
Doesn't Fast Healing make you immune to continual Bleed Damage, just not the initial first bleed damage?