I'm playing a rogue and I noticed that there are almost no restrictions on the talent Bleeding attack. Maybe I missed something:
Does it work with:
-all weapons? (Clubs as well as swords?)
-Subdual damage?
-All types of creature? (constructs, undead) (I know you cant on those imune to sneak)
- Touch and ranged touch damaging spells?
I don't see anything wrong with the bleeding working on things and attacks that don't shed blood( the attack could cause an internal bleeding or a bloodless creature could recieve some other kind of degenerative damage). Just wanted to know.
I'm playing a rogue and I noticed that there are almost no restrictions on the talent Bleeding attack. Maybe I missed something:
Does it work with:
-all weapons? (Clubs as well as swords?)
-Subdual damage?
-All types of creature? (constructs, undead) (I know you cant on those imune to sneak)
- Touch and ranged touch damaging spells?
I don't see anything wrong with the bleeding working on things and attacks that don't shed blood( the attack could cause an internal bleeding or a bloodless creature could recieve some other kind of degenerative damage). Just wanted to know.
I would say it doesn't work with blunt weapons.
It would say it doesn't work with subdual damage. Cos you are deliberatly targeting a vital area of a critter.
Won't work on constructs or anything which can't bleed/leak a fluid. As for blanket undead dunno non-coporeal certainly not but vampires? Do they "bleed"
Wouldn't work with spells cos IMO cause energy damage not physical cutty type damage.
I'm playing a rogue and I noticed that there are almost no restrictions on the talent Bleeding attack. Maybe I missed something:
Does it work with:
-all weapons? (Clubs as well as swords?)
-Subdual damage?
-All types of creature? (constructs, undead) (I know you cant on those imune to sneak)
- Touch and ranged touch damaging spells?
I don't see anything wrong with the bleeding working on things and attacks that don't shed blood( the attack could cause an internal bleeding or a bloodless creature could recieve some other kind of degenerative damage). Just wanted to know.
I would say it doesn't work with blunt weapons.
It would say it doesn't work with subdual damage. Cos you are deliberatly targeting a vital area of a critter.
Won't work on constructs or anything which can't bleed/leak a fluid. As for blanket undead dunno non-coporeal certainly not but vampires? Do they "bleed"
Wouldn't work with spells cos IMO cause energy damage not physical cutty type damage.
There is nothing in the rules that it wouldn't work with bludgeoning weapons, it works with every weapon that deals lethal damage when you're dealing sneak attack damage.
The rules(in the rogue description) don't mention that it must be lethal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blunt weapons shouldn't matter. Not all bleeding is external.
|
Must be a living target. That seems to be the only restriction on its use. All else is fair game, given a successful hit with a sneak attack. All things immune to sneak attacks of course also won't be effected by Bleeding Attack.
I have looked through the rules, and can't find where this is written, does anyone know where the reference to this is?
Edit: I am actually wanting a rule for all bleed damage, not just the rogue talent.
Must be a living target. That seems to be the only restriction on its use. All else is fair game, given a successful hit with a sneak attack. All things immune to sneak attacks of course also won't be effected by Bleeding Attack.I have looked through the rules, and can't find where this is written, does anyone know where the reference to this is?
Edit: I am actually wanting a rule for all bleed damage, not just the rogue talent.
Well the living target bit is right there in the Rogue Talent. The effect of Bleed damage is covered in the glossary:
Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.
There's no restrictions listed in the Bleed effect, so any restriction on it's application has to come from whatever causes the effect. In the case of the Rogue Talent, you have to be alive and affected by the sneak attack, and that's it.
|
|
So for Bleeding critical...
"Whenever you score a critical hit with a slashing or piercing weapon, your opponent takes 2d6 points of bleed damage (see Conditions) each round on his 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."
...It effects anything??
I was hoping that there was something about, for example, bleed not effecting creature immune to criticals, or some such thing. I have a character in my Society game that is using a bleed attack on everything, including undead. And being a Society game it is RAW. (if it was my campaign, I would just place in the immune to criticals is immune to bleed rule).
I looked at the undead traits in the bonus bestiary (still waiting for the full book) and it doesn't mention bleed.
So for Bleeding critical...
"Whenever you score a critical hit with a slashing or piercing weapon, your opponent takes 2d6 points of bleed damage (see Conditions) each round on his 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."
...It effects anything??
I was hoping that there was something about, for example, bleed not effecting creature immune to criticals, or some such thing. I have a character in my Society game that is using a bleed attack on everything, including undead. And being a Society game it is RAW. (if it was my campaign, I would just place in the immune to criticals is immune to bleed rule).
I looked at the undead traits in the bonus bestiary (still waiting for the full book) and it doesn't mention bleed.
Well if your target is immune to criticals then you can't score that critical hit that's in the first line of the Bleeding Critical feat. Don't forget that a natural 20 is NOT a critical hit, it's just an automatic hit and a critical threat. You have to make that confirmation roll, which is a moot point against a critical-immune target.
|
|
I was just using that as an example....(a bad one in retrospect).
He is actually using the Belier Bite feat from the Cheliax book.
Belier’s Bite [Combat]
Your unarmed strikes cause your opponent to bleed.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: When you damage an opponent with an
unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage.
He is a first level monk, and it seems very overpowered, for as it is worded it affects anything. So I am trying to find a general rule about bleed damage.
Help me Obi Wan....
Edit: I have done a search in the PDF for "bleed", but no luck in clarifying the rule. I think it may be just missing. Everything that causes bleed in the core book has some sort of restriction placed upon it, like my bad example above.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't really go into the details of what a bleeding attack can or can't hurt... they don't really need to because the rules for bleed are presented on page 565 of the RPG. In a nut shell... anything that can take hit point damage can take bleed damage unless the type of creature it is grants immunity to bleed or the creature possesses a special ability or item (like a periapt of wound closing) that makes it immune to bleed.
That said, it's certainly logical that some monsters should be immune to bleed effects, and it's probably something we should put in the FAQ or errata. At this point, I'd probably say that any monster that's "alive" should be subject to bleed damage. Since undead and constructs are not technically "alive," they'd be immune to bleed damage. THAT SAID... I could just as easily imagine "bleeding" as a persistent wound that continues to crumble or rip or grow after it is inflicted. A bleeding attack on a zombie might result in a deep wound that continues to tear apart each round, while a bleeding attack on a stone golem might cause a cascading failure of cracks and grit to constantly radiate out from the point of impact. In fact, that's a pretty cool image; a rogue hitting a stone golem with a bleeding attack and then running like hell while the golem, slowly crumbling from the bleeding effect, chases the rogue down until the cascading failure of its body causes it to crumble.
As for the rogue's bleeding attack, I'd say that you COULD use it with all weapons. Internal bleeding is just as bad (if not worse) than external bleeding, after all—that's what bruising is, in any event. Bleed damage is lethal, so it makes no sense that you could inflict bleed damage with a nonlethal attack. So, any effect that causes lethal damage that sneak attack can apply that damage to should cause bleed (including touch and ranged touch damaging spell effects).
EDIT: Bleed's one of the new concepts that got put into the RPG, and it's not surprising (but still frustrating) that it snuck in without being as clearly worded as it should have been.
Well if your target is immune to criticals then you can't score that critical hit that's in the first line of the Bleeding Critical feat. Don't forget that a natural 20 is NOT a critical hit, it's just an automatic hit and a critical threat. You have to make that confirmation roll, which is a moot point against a critical-immune target.
Is this true?
I'm not sure, but I think Fortification Armor, for instance, only 'cancels' the multiplied Crit Damage, not special effects triggered by a crit, which would include Bleed, Spell Critical, etc... But I don't know, there may a difference between actual Crit Immunity and things like Armor Fortification...???
THAT SAID... I could just as easily imagine "bleeding" as a persistent wound that continues to crumble or rip or grow after it is inflicted. A bleeding attack on a zombie might result in a deep wound that continues to tear apart each round, while a bleeding attack on a stone golem might cause a cascading failure of cracks and grit to constantly radiate out from the point of impact. In fact, that's a pretty cool image; a rogue hitting a stone golem with a bleeding attack and then running like hell while the golem, slowly crumbling from the bleeding effect, chases the rogue down until the cascading failure of its body causes it to crumble.
In the immortal words of drunk Data, "Prick me, do I not...leak?"
:D
Well if your target is immune to criticals then you can't score that critical hit that's in the first line of the Bleeding Critical feat. Don't forget that a natural 20 is NOT a critical hit, it's just an automatic hit and a critical threat. You have to make that confirmation roll, which is a moot point against a critical-immune target.Is this true?
I'm not sure, but I think Fortification Armor, for instance, only 'cancels' the multiplied Crit Damage, not special effects triggered by a crit, which would include Bleed, Spell Critical, etc... But I don't know, there may a difference between actual Crit Immunity and things like Armor Fortification...???
Fortification: This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.
To me, negated means negated. Damage is rolled normally, and anything extra on top of the damage that came from that hit is also negated.
Now, I thought I remembered there being text for Burst & Thundering weapons that said the additional damage was still triggered even if the crit was negated somehow, but that's either been removed or I'm misremembering.
|
EDIT: Bleed's one of the new concepts that got put into the RPG
As a talent/feat yes... but not so new of course in game if you count those charming swords 'of Wounding,' which have been in game use for awhile now.
;)
Bonus points if anybody remembers what Wounding weapon the Archfiend Mammon flayed those who displeased him in 1st ed.
As for the rogue's bleeding attack, I'd say that you COULD use it with all weapons. Internal bleeding is just as bad (if not worse) than external bleeding, after all—that's what bruising is, in any event. Bleed damage is lethal, so it makes no sense that you could inflict bleed damage with a nonlethal attack. So, any effect that causes lethal damage that sneak attack can apply that damage to should cause bleed (including touch and ranged touch damaging spell effects).
Actually... Bleed Damage via a non-lethal weapon would not be all that unbelievable really. Perhaps as the result of a critical hit.
As you said yourself, it would result from internal bleeding. Look at survival victims of beatings who suffered massive internal injuries (ruptured spleens, broken ribs etc...). Rubber hoses/saps are capable of such injuries, as well as, a bare fist or foot.
Actually... Bleed Damage via a non-lethal weapon would not be all that unbelievable really. Perhaps as the result of a critical hit.
As for the rogue's bleeding attack, I'd say that you COULD use it with all weapons. Internal bleeding is just as bad (if not worse) than external bleeding, after all—that's what bruising is, in any event. Bleed damage is lethal, so it makes no sense that you could inflict bleed damage with a nonlethal attack. So, any effect that causes lethal damage that sneak attack can apply that damage to should cause bleed (including touch and ranged touch damaging spell effects).
I think the rules are fine as James have explained them. Basically you cannot have your cake and eat it as well.
As you said yourself, it would result from internal bleeding. Look at survival victims of beatings who suffered massive internal injuries (ruptured spleens, broken ribs etc...). Rubber hoses/saps are capable of such injuries, as well as, a bare fist or foot.
Very true. And that is what happens if you keep beating on someone who's non-lethal damage exceeds the remaining hp.
Basically a rogue sneak attacking with non-lethal damage (or anyone doing a nasty non-lethal Critical hit), might very well exceed the targets hp total in non-lethal damage and cause lethal damage in stead.If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total
maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further
nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
So if you sap a city guardsman (warrior lvl 2 = 13hp) with a sneak attack (1d6 sap +1 str +3d6 sneak attack = avg. 15hp) you would knock him onconscious (13 non-lethal dmg) and deal 2 points of lethal damage (whivch incidantally would allow you to deal 3 bleed damage).
The rules are fine, as long as you do not expect to be able to make a whip whirlwind attack hiting all your enemies and having them drop dead from massive blood loss in subsequent rounds. If you want manga I am sure there are better ways for you to get that.
|
|
As for the rogue's bleeding attack, I'd say that you COULD use it with all weapons. Internal bleeding is just as bad (if not worse) than external bleeding, after all—that's what bruising is, in any event. Bleed damage is lethal, so it makes no sense that you could inflict bleed damage with a nonlethal attack. So, any effect that causes lethal damage that sneak attack can apply that damage to should cause bleed (including touch and ranged touch damaging spell effects).
Super necro!
We've long settled that bleed damage is lethal and it's never been different. But the (newish) Hamatulatsu Master from Inner Sea Combat has the ability to do bleed damage that is nonlethal.
Does this change whether bleed damage from non-Hamatulatsu Masters can be nonlethal or not?
Now that non-lethal bleed is explicitly stated as something that exists, and described as just that, not in some fantastical terms, then it opens up it for others as far as I'm concerned.
