Last session the party fought against Temauhti-tecuani. The rogue was up against him in melee, she was invisible and sneak attacked him. She used Bleeding Attack and gave the dinosaur bleed 5.
A couple of rounds later it hit me: When is this bleeding going to stop?
The answer: never, unless animals can perform a heal check on themselves. Can they?
If the answer is no, the party could have run away and in 1 hour the dinosaur would have received 5x10x60 = 3,000 dmg! Of course he'd have been dead long before that but you get the idea.
Another point that got raised during the same encounter is if you could use several talents at the same time: Bleeding Attack + Crippling Strike. What about Crippling Strike + Dispelling Attack?
It doesn't say you HAVE to choose one. In fact, the wording makes it look they are triggered not activated, they just happen when you sneak attack. So do ALL of them happen at the same time if you have them?
Is anyone other than me starting to feel that bleeding attack is just a wee bit broken? I mean, how many rogues WOULDN'T take it?
|
Last session the party fought against Temauhti-tecuani. The rogue was up against him in melee, she was invisible and sneak attacked him. She used Bleeding Attack and gave the dinosaur bleed 5.
A couple of rounds later it hit me: When is this bleeding going to stop?
The answer: never, unless animals can perform a heal check on themselves. Can they?If the answer is no, the party could have run away and in 1 hour the dinosaur would have received 5x10x60 = 3,000 dmg! Of course he'd have been dead long before that but you get the idea.
Another point that got raised during the same encounter is if you could use several talents at the same time: Bleeding Attack + Crippling Strike. What about Crippling Strike + Dispelling Attack?
It doesn't say you HAVE to choose one. In fact, the wording makes it look they are triggered not activated, they just happen when you sneak attack. So do ALL of them happen at the same time if you have them?
Loss of blood and bleeding wounds are very lethal real-world factors. Even without delivering a final death blow, a cunning hunter can severely weaken or even kill his prey just by striking a few well-placed hits.
The same could be said of a finesse fighter or a combatant who employs a bunch of "dirty tricks". Not very heroic, but very efficient.Again, this could easily get into broken/abused rule territory. Placing a timer on the bleed damage or allowing a Fortitude check could solve the issue.
I'd go with a DC 25 Fort check every 15 minutes; each successful check reduces the bleed damage by 1 point.
Is anyone other than me starting to feel that bleeding attack is just a wee bit broken? I mean, how many rogues WOULDN'T take it?
Well, it's some free damage, but (level/2) free damage isn't that exciting.
Adding an upper limit to the amount of bleeding (10 rounds, maybe?) or allowing an animal a DC 15 Wisdom check to stop the bleeding (maybe they're licking at the wound or something) would tone it down a little, I guess.
Duration = half rogue level.
Abstract, quick fix. It creates a squaring of the damge. 1 for 1 round, 2 for 2 rounds (4) 3 for 3...thus 1 4 9 25 36 42 64 81 and 100 bleeding damage by 20th level. 10 damage for 10 rounds.
DC to resist could scale similarly.
|
Duration = half rogue level.
Abstract, quick fix. It creates a squaring of the damge. 1 for 1 round, 2 for 2 rounds (4) 3 for 3...thus 1 4 9 25 36 42 64 81 and 100 bleeding damage by 20th level. 10 damage for 10 rounds.
DC to resist could scale similarly.
I like this better than mine and will probably start using that. Nice.
I don't think the bleed thing is an oversight. It's how bleed effects work in 3.5.
You bleed until you have a cure spell on your, or until you make a heal check.
Creatures that can do neither, die.
Unless the PC's make a regular strategy of SA once and run away- I'd not worry about it too much.
And the Exp penalty I'd impose if they did that as a repeated strategy would probably make them rethink it.
(exp from combat is from learning, afterall.. and there's only so much you can learn from having 1 round of combat and running away, repeatedly).
-S
Duration = half rogue level.
Yeah, I like that, too. Some limitation needs to be in place, and I'd rather not have to throw a save every round. Still, an extra 100 hp of damage at 20th level is nothing to scoff at!
|
I hate to nerf a cool ability like this, but this is a bit of a busted ability. There needs to be some sort of limitation on it, as it's now extremely easy for characters to pick up a bleed attack.
One idea might be to handle it the way the core books handle it; swap out D6's of sneak damage to add bleed damage instead. That might at least limit it a bit so it's not so hardcore. Right now stacking the sneak damage with the bleed does absurd amounts of damage.
I hate to nerf a cool ability like this, but this is a bit of a busted ability. There needs to be some sort of limitation on it, as it's now extremely easy for characters to pick up a bleed attack.
What if it were a 10th level "greater talent," and not just any old rogue talent?
Heal can be used untrained, and you are allowed to retry this check until you make it. It is WIS-based, and most animals have a WIS of 12. They roll at +1 to get a 15, so they have pretty good odds of "licking their wounds".
I don't think that bleed in this way is broken. If you hit a target for bleed, and it really doesn't have the time to heal or get a magical cure, then it deserves to bleed a bit.
-Scott
|
|
I hate to nerf a cool ability like this, but this is a bit of a busted ability. There needs to be some sort of limitation on it, as it's now extremely easy for characters to pick up a bleed attack.What if it were a 10th level "greater talent," and not just any old rogue talent?
Perhaps. That's actually probably a very good idea. I'd still rather see a swap of D6's for bleed damage though, going along with some of the existing sneak damage type mechanics.
I'd still rather see a swap of D6's for bleed damage though, going along with some of the existing sneak damage type mechanics.
That would work for me, too.
|
|
I've encountered bleed in the critical hit deck, and I don't really like it. While the PCs are expected to have healing magic, some extremely tough enemies don't.
A limit on the duration of bleed (as a general rule) would be good. I need to apply it to the critical hit deck - not because my players would abuse it, but because it is too hard not to abuse.
I've encountered bleed in the critical hit deck, and I don't really like it. While the PCs are expected to have healing magic, some extremely tough enemies don't.
Many extremely tough enemies would be able to make a DC 15 Heal check, though.
It seems to me that to really get "abusive" use out of the bleed damage would require:
- a rogue who sneak attacks an opponent, then runs away
- an opponent who is incapable of healing or making a DC 15 Heal check
That seems like a pretty narrow set of circumstances to me, but YMMV.
|
|
It strikes me as kind of tough to make a heal check in the middle of combat. And being forced to do this makes bleed damage a nightmare; either you keep going and bleed out, or you stop and provoke attacks from everything nearby to heal yourself.
It lets even a very low level rogue do tremendous damage or almost permanently off-balance an enemy as soon as they land a sneak attack.
I'm not saying get rid of bleed, just that freely adding 1 point of bleed per sneak die without a tradeoff is too much.
But only humanoid creatures can make heal checks. Without hands and bandages, there's no way to stop a bleeding wound.
Animals, Magical Beasts, Lesser Dragons, Plants, and Vermin can all be taken out by one hit.
|
|
- an opponent who is incapable of healing or making a DC 15 Heal check
Given that bleeding attacks can only be used on living opponents, Heal can be used untrained, and failed checks may be retried, I think this category is limited entirely to mindless living creatures - basically, oozes and vermin. (Note that oozes are almost certainly still immune to sneak attacks, even under the expanded rules for such.) There are almost certainly enemies who won't be able to make it fast enough to live, but I am pretty sure that animals would have some chance to live, no matter what.
It strikes me as kind of tough to make a heal check in the middle of combat. And being forced to do this makes bleed damage a nightmare; either you keep going and bleed out, or you stop and provoke attacks from everything nearby to heal yourself.
It lets even a very low level rogue do tremendous damage or almost permanently off-balance an enemy as soon as they land a sneak attack.
I'm not saying get rid of bleed, just that freely adding 1 point of bleed per sneak die without a tradeoff is too much.
It's a shame that Pathfinder removed the rules for using skills without provoking an AoO (hint: it's Concentration). It certainly should be possible to treat yourself while avoiding drawing attacks, even if it was at an increased DC.
As to whether or not an animal could heal itself from a bleeding wound, I certainly think that they should. Animals in our world manage to do it quite frequently, so fictional animals being unable to seems to be an oversight.
What if it did only 1 hp/round worth of bleeding, but bleeding effects for multiple successful sneak attacks were cumulative, to a maximum hp/rd equal to your sneak attack dice? So the limit would still be in place, it would just take multiple sneak hits to achieve it.
It strikes me as kind of tough to make a heal check in the middle of combat. And being forced to do this makes bleed damage a nightmare; either you keep going and bleed out, or you stop and provoke attacks from everything nearby to heal yourself.
But in the middle of combat, doing an extra X/2 points of damage each round against a CR X creature is not that exciting (IMO). I mean it's nice that a level 9 rogue can do an extra 5 hp of damage each round to a vrock (say), but presumably that damage will pale in comparison to the actual 9d6 sneak attack that caused the bleed in the first place.
It's only out of combat where the extra damage would really add up (and only if the enemy is can't make the necessary Heal check to stop it).
|
It seems to me that to really get "abusive" use out of the bleed damage would require:
- a rogue who sneak attacks an opponent, then runs away
- an opponent who is incapable of healing or making a DC 15 Heal check
That seems like a pretty narrow set of circumstances to me, but YMMV.
Even narrower, it requires time to bleed out. The only time it will be a big issue is in combats of really long duration or if the PCs manage to disengage the enemy, either situation is fairly rare in my game.
Keep in mind heal can be used untrained and there is no reason an animal couldn't make a DC 15 heal check.
|
|
But only humanoid creatures can make heal checks. Without hands and bandages, there's no way to stop a bleeding wound.
I must have missed this rule, where is it?
Let me clarify, there is nothing in the heal skill that says you must be humanoid. There is nothing in the bleeding attack ability that states bandages must be applied, only that a DC 15 heal check must be made. Heal is a skill that can be used untrained. Why shouldn't an animal with a 12 wisdom get a heal check?
|
|
It seems to me that to really get "abusive" use out of the bleed damage would require:
- a rogue who sneak attacks an opponent, then runs away
- an opponent who is incapable of healing or making a DC 15 Heal check
That seems like a pretty narrow set of circumstances to me, but YMMV.Even narrower, it requires time to bleed out. The only time it will be a big issue is in combats of really long duration or if the PCs manage to disengage the enemy, either situation is fairly rare in my game.
Keep in mind heal can be used untrained and there is no reason an animal couldn't make a DC 15 heal check.
Didn't I just say that? ;)
But only humanoid creatures can make heal checks. Without hands and bandages, there's no way to stop a bleeding wound.I must have missed this rule, where is it?
A certain amount of common sense comes into it. For instance, there's nothing in the Climb skill that says elephants can't climb trees, but that's a reasonable assumption.
I'm agnostic over whether an animal would be able to make a Heal check to stop a bleeding wound, though.
|
|
I'm agnostic over whether an animal would be able to make a Heal check to stop a bleeding wound, though.
The way I see this it makes sense from every angle. From a real world standpoint animals have been taking care of their own for thousands of years. Perhaps they can't bandage wounds but they can certainly clean them and slow bleeding by licking them.
From the perspective of the game it is quite clearly allowed. I agree that when common sense is completely counter to game rules that common sense overrules... but I don't think that is the case here. It fits in real life, it fits in the game rules.
Finally, it fits game balance. When something fits reality, fits the rules, and is balanced... why are we trying to force it to be broken?
- Dennis
From a real world standpoint animals have been taking care of their own for thousands of years.
Or hundreds of millions of years, if you don't go for the whole "young earth" thing. :)
I'm agnostic over whether an animal would be able to make a Heal check to stop a bleeding wound, though.The way I see this it makes sense from every angle. From a real world standpoint animals have been taking care of their own for thousands of years. Perhaps they can't bandage wounds but they can certainly clean them and slow bleeding by licking them.
I guess it's not clear to me that 10-100 hit points of damage per minute is "slow bleeding". I'm not saying I'd disallow it, though; I'm just admitting my ignorance on the issue.
|
|
I guess it's not clear to me that 10-100 hit points of damage per minute is "slow bleeding". I'm not saying I'd disallow it, though; I'm just admitting my ignorance on the issue.
How many ounces of blood does it take to make a hit point?
I'll admit it is a bit of a gray area whether a real animal could stop a 'bleeding' wound or not. But again, why go begging for trouble?
Keep in mind that 100 HP per minute you talk about is a wound from a 20th level rogue and the initial wound did 10-60HP damage+. Animals have horrid ACs so likely the rogue would hit at least once more for another 10-60HP damage. That's 70% of the HP of the average elephant. Assuming the elephant doesn't die from the massive damage rules is it that crazy for that elephant to take another 38HP damage over the next 3-4 rounds and die? That's assuming that the rest of the party doesn't end it for the poor critter that same round.
It does seem pretty harsh to me. A high level rogue is already going to be dishing out huge ammounts of damage if they get to flank or surprise an opponent as well as getting some useful rogue tricks to make it nastier (not even talking about some of the easier feats to get). Any extra hitpoints of damage are damage that someone has to take time to heal (possibly giving another attack of opportunity and another sneak attack). That's if you don't decide to take some of the feats that allow paralysis or whatever.
One question though, is the bleeding damage per sneak attack? If so thatbecomes pretty nasty. I'll become a two-weapon fighting rogue and just bleed my opponents to death.