I have a question concerning 2Bleeding Critical", but I think the question applies to other Situations as well:
Bleeding Critical (Combat, Critical)
Your critical hits cause opponents to bleed profusely.
Prerequisites: Critical Focus, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a
slashing or piercing weapon, your opponent takes 2d6
points of bleed damage each round on their turn, in
addition to the damage dealt by the critical hit. Bleed
damage can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal skill check or
through any magical healing. The effects of this feat
stack.
Special: You can only apply the effects of one critical
feat to a given critical hit unless you possess Critical
Mastery.
So, when exactly is "on their turn"? Is the bleed damage the very first thing that happens on the opponent's turn, so he has no chance to apply any kind of healing himself before the damage occurs the first time?
I couldn't find an answer in the PFRPG BETA rules.
I think any "on your turn" abilities apply right when you start your turn. You don't get to do anything before those effects kick in.
I assume it is at their turn in the rounds sequence.
Which means each time it's a new round for them they take the bleeding damage, before they act.
If you roll initiative at each round (like i do), then you apply the effect when it's rolled.
I think it would have been simplier to just say the effect takes place at the beginning of every round until healing is received.
Yes, that it was I thought it should be like...
but there is no definitive answer in the rules?
Well, there are two ways to consider rounds and turns of actions.
They are someway similar but still give a whole different feeling to the passing of rounds :
1. After initiative is rolled, everybody acts at their turn, according to the initiative, as an alternate cycle, A, B, A, B, and so on...
The round beginnings and ends don't matter much as they are sequential.
It is more fluid, more cinematic.
2. The rounds are marked by a beginning and an end, ending when both parties have acted.
It is not as fluid, but easier to monitor rounds for durations (spells, abilities, negative hp and so on).
Personally i prefer #2.
I prefer to keep track of time. That's why i roll for initiative at each round.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Since the rules are silent on what order events occur within a particular creature's turn, I'd rule that they're simultaneous. Therefore, if you're suffering 5 bleed damage on your turn, and you have 2 hp, you can drink a potion or cast a healing spell even as your last hps are bleeding out of you. So, if you drink a potion that cures 10 hp, you'll wind up at 7 at the end of your turn, since the bleed 5 still occurs. This also would stop the bleeding and you wouldn't suffer bleed next turn (unless something else applied that condition do you again.)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Since the rules are silent on what order events occur within a particular creature's turn,Which is really a glaring fault in a system as tactically oriented as d20.
I'm actually happy without that added layer of rules complexity. I wouldn't want PRPG or D20 games in general to have the type of rules discussions and arguments that Magic the Gathering does with what comes first, interrupts, instants, etc, in some giant daisy chain of effects. M:TG had such a hard time with this, that even through 5th edition (which was when I stopped playing) they changed the rules about how this worked at least once. I'm guessing it's changed even more since then.
I'm guessing it's changed even more since then.
It has, and Magic has a solid, unambiguous ruleset.
But as great as that is in a TCG, its not something I'd want in a tabletop game. Overly rigid rules limit new design space, and while Magic can update its rules every time they need to in order to make new cards work, you can't alter the printing of every Core book to make a new PrC work within the rules.
|
What is so rigid about "effects that take place on your turn happen before you take any action" or "apply all ongoing effects simultaneously with your standard action"? It's a clarification that removes arguments over "you're at 2 hit points, you'll lose 5 on your turn, so you go unconscious and begin dying before you can drink that potion" from the game table. It's one line that goes happily into the actions section of combat, and doesn't introduce ANY new mechanics.
I think it would have been simplier to just say the effect takes place at the beginning of every round until healing is received.
Not exactly the same thing.
If the Fred the Fighter goes after Clancy the Cleric, and the monster goes at the end of the round, then it would be possible, per the RAW, for the monster to inflict a bleeding critical on Fred, knocking him 1 HP away from dying, then on the next round, Clancy goes before Fred and heals him, saving him from bleeding to death.
Per your suggested "simpler" rule, the bleeding would apply at the beginning of the round, killing Fred before Clancy could act to save him.
Now, if you want to houserule a simpler "at the start of the round" rule, that's fine.
But just remember that the RAW, as is, could possibly allow everyone in the battle one action to try to save Fred, depending on the actual initiatives.
It could be the difference between life and death.
Not exactly the same thing.
If the Fred the Fighter goes after Clancy the Cleric, and the monster goes at the end of the round, then it would be possible, per the RAW, for the monster to inflict a bleeding critical on Fred, knocking him 1 HP away from dying, then on the next round, Clancy goes before Fred and heals him, saving him from bleeding to death.
Per your suggested "simpler" rule, the bleeding would apply at the beginning of the round, killing Fred before Clancy could act to save him.
Now, if you want to houserule a simpler "at the start of the round" rule, that's fine.
But just remember that the RAW, as is, could possibly allow everyone in the battle one action to try to save Fred, depending on the actual initiatives.
It could be the difference between life and death.
Correct.
And thinking about it, that's the way i would rule it too.|
|
I'd like to hear from Jason about his intention on this. Or, alternately, I am open to whatever makes the most sense. In my games I usually adjudicate the "on your turn" to include either 1) anytime on your turn if it is a positive benefit, and 2) at the end of your turn if the effect is damage, injury or "bad things".
Because some injuries that occur "on your turn" will KILL A CHARACTER, I make it clear to my players that these happen "ON YOUR COUNT" in the initiative sequence. That is, PCs who are KILLED on initiative count 18, are not healed in time when the cleric acts on initiative count 5. However, I never wish to be a jerk about this either. Some things, I'll allow to be the last thing I adjudicate before beginning the next round, so some discretion goes a long way.
Again, what is the intention, Jason, of the RAW on this? Please.
In my games I usually adjudicate the "on your turn" to include either 1) anytime on your turn if it is a positive benefit, and 2) at the end of your turn if the effect is damage, injury or "bad things".
I really like that idea, Pax.
I will implement that from now on :)
|
Personally the way I interpet the rule is the harsher way. At the start of the characters initiative turn the damage occurs to the character.
If players cannot resolve the issue with thier actions prior to that count in the initiative, through actions of any sort, then so be it. Healing characters can be done in many ways with out even touching them. Resourse management is part of my game.
Your game may vary.
Just wondering how this would affect someone who delays/holds their action to move down the initiative count. Does the action of delaying count as the start of their turn, and thus the bleeding effect occurs? And what would happen if they delayed/ did nothing that round so that their next turn was in the next round.
|
|
Just wondering how this would affect someone who delays/holds their action to move down the initiative count. Does the action of delaying count as the start of their turn, and thus the bleeding effect occurs? And what would happen if they delayed/ did nothing that round so that their next turn was in the next round.
I would say that the damage is taken no matter what. The damage is involuntary. Taking actions is voluntary.
First thing to happen would be the damage.
Second thing would be whatever the player wanted to do including delaying actions.
You have to declare that you are going to delay your character’s actions and that is done on the players turn.
And that's the way i see it.
And as usual, "Your game may vary."