Undead can bleed?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

So yesterday during our game, we got a 1d6 bleed effect against a ghoul. I was pretty sure that bleed wouldn't affect undead, so I went to the bleed entry in the boook and it didn't specify undead can't bleed, so I went to the PRD and looked at the undead immunities and bleed isn't listed there.

I houseruled that they wouldn't bleed because it makes no f-ing sense to me that undead can bleed. But I'm surprised that it's not in the rules, am I just missing something somewhere, or can undead seriously bleed by RAW?


As far as I know, yes.

Don't think of it as bleeding blood. Think of it more as recurring damage. Like a crack that is tearing open more and more of a skeletons bones or whatever.

Sovereign Court

Countmein wrote:

As far as I know, yes.

Don't think of it as bleeding blood. Think of it more as recurring damage. Like a crack that is tearing open more and more of a skeletons bones or whatever.

and if it's an incorporeal undead?

Dark Archive

lastknightleft wrote:
Countmein wrote:

As far as I know, yes.

Don't think of it as bleeding blood. Think of it more as recurring damage. Like a crack that is tearing open more and more of a skeletons bones or whatever.

and if it's an incorporeal undead?

3

Check the incorporeal listing, I'm pretty sure its immune to bleed and everything else a physical body has to worry about.

Sovereign Court

First, I dunno what RAW will say in the future, but I have 2 thoughts:

1) I think you adjudicated wisely. This might have been obvious and was not expressly written.

2) If a bleed effect were powerful enough, it would be some kind of hp drain. Someone might argue that the bleed equivalent for undead is a sear or fracture or break somewhere that progressively reduces the overall power of the creature by 1 hp per round or whatever. I might also follow along if the explanation were a kind of positive energy wound.... But I would agree this is a stretch to go along with accoring to the lack of blood to bleed with in this case, without the colorful explanation.

I would probably have adjudicated the same way under the circumstances, except for the notion that cracks/breaks/progressive wounding is believable.

Sovereign Court

AlKir wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Countmein wrote:

As far as I know, yes.

Don't think of it as bleeding blood. Think of it more as recurring damage. Like a crack that is tearing open more and more of a skeletons bones or whatever.

and if it's an incorporeal undead?

3

Check the incorporeal listing, I'm pretty sure its immune to bleed and everything else a physical body has to worry about.

I just did, incorporeal are immune to precision based damage, but it says nothing about bleed. and the bleed entry does not define itself as a constitution based effect (which is what I was expecting) or a precision damage based effect.

Grand Lodge

As mentioned above I'd try not to think about it as bleed = blood. One of my players scored a hit causing bleed on an Iron Cobra, I just ruled it had started leaking it's vital fluids (oil or some magical concoction).

Maybe your ghoul was hit so terribly it would have started leaking what was left of its organs?


Both the clerics and rogues bleed abilities specifically call out Living creatures. The Fighter's Bleeding Critical feat, Dualist ability, and Wounding magic weapon ability don't. Although with Wounding creatures that are immune to crits are also immune to that bleed.

The Bleed description doesn't necessarily involve blood although it seems implied in many of the abilities that use it. You could have a Wisdom Drain Bleed effect.

Sovereign Court

Dorje Sylas wrote:

Both the clerics and rogues bleed abilities specifically call out Living creatures. The Fighter's Bleeding Critical feat, Dualist ability, and Wounding magic weapon ability don't. Although with Wounding creatures that are immune to crits are also immune to that bleed.

The Bleed description doesn't necessarily involve blood although it seems implied in many of the abilities that use it. You could have a Wisdom Drain Bleed effect.

I am aware of that, I have the crit hit deck. However I do think that undead should be immune to bleed, even ability bleed. With an Iron Cobra i have no problem I don't neccessarily equate bleed to blood either, but I don't really consider undead as having vital fluids to bleed.


lastknightleft wrote:
I am aware of that, I have the crit hit deck. However I do think that undead should be immune to bleed, even ability bleed. With an Iron Cobra i have no problem I don't neccessarily equate bleed to blood either, but I don't really consider undead as having vital fluids to bleed.

What about formaldehyde? Or just parts of it's body slowly slipping out of it's skin?

Sovereign Court

shalandar wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I am aware of that, I have the crit hit deck. However I do think that undead should be immune to bleed, even ability bleed. With an Iron Cobra i have no problem I don't neccessarily equate bleed to blood either, but I don't really consider undead as having vital fluids to bleed.
What about formaldehyde? Or just parts of it's body slowly slipping out of it's skin?

um isn't formaldehyde an embalming fluid, why would that be present and vital to undead? and once again what about incorporeal undead?


If you need a mechanical explanation, the attack damaged the conduit that moved negative energy through the body so it's leaking out and being neutralized by the prime material plane. If you wanted to make it nasty I'd suggest the players have to make fort saves to avoid nasuea or being sickened while the bleed effect is active.

If you're talking in terms of blood, I'd let undead like vampires, zombies ghouls etc take bleed damage (think of a hydraulic jack that's leaking fluid... it doesn't work nearly so well.) But not skeletons or incorporeal undead.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I have bleed on my PFS monk and it never occurred to me that an undead could bleed.

I just instinctively wouldn't tell the DM the bleed damage while fighting
undead, only for living.

Incorporeal has never came up, but I probably wouldn't do it for incorporeal either.

I think there should be something added, like making Bleed only work on corporeal living creatures. If you make it precision damage, you are still allowing it for undead (since you can crit and sneak undead now.)


Here is an official response, posted in this very forum just 5 days ago.

That should sum it right up.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Quick side-question, because it's come up a couple of times now:

Is the demoralize use of Intimidate considered a mind-influencing effect? (If so, are there other examples of non-magical skills generating a mind-influencing effect?)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Here is an official response, posted in this very forum just 5 days ago.

That should sum it right up.

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.


I remember James saying that undead IS affected by bleed just as much as anybody else and that in the case of an undead it would represent something like a fracture in the spinal cullum that slowly grow larger, I dont remember in what thread though

EDIT: Aaah, I see that a link has been posted to that very thread, that should close this case :)

Scarab Sages

*Cuts chest open to see if he bleeds*

Nope, doesn't look like it.

Sovereign Court

Sort_vampyr wrote:

I remember James saying that undead IS affected by bleed just as much as anybody else and that in the case of an undead it would represent something like a fracture in the spinal cullum that slowly grow larger, I dont remember in what thread though

EDIT: Aaah, I see that a link has been posted to that very thread, that should close this case :)

not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.


lastknightleft wrote:
not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.

Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.


Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.
Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.

Exactly! I think that one could come up with a bleed "explanation" for every type. But I have to agree that in some cases, bleed just seems ehm, inappropriate?

Sovereign Court

Sort_vampyr wrote:
Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.
Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.
Exactly! I think that one could come up with a bleed "explanation" for every type. But I have to agree that in some cases, bleed just seems ehm, inappropriate?

That's all I'm saying, I think the unravel their essence is a stretch, and while I can accept it, I much prefer the idea that only living creatures can take bleed damage, then try to think of increasingly strange explanations for all the undead, I mean aren't nightstalkers undead, and aren't their undead that are really just amalgamations of dirt and dead bodies? I mean it's a lot more sensical to me to say only living creatures can take bleed damage than to find more and more stretched explanations for all the weird undead out there.

Sovereign Court

Sort_vampyr wrote:
Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.
Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.
Exactly! I think that one could come up with a bleed "explanation" for every type. But I have to agree that in some cases, bleed just seems ehm, inappropriate?

I'm fine with the idea that anything that can take hp damage can "bleed". My old cars bleed oil, dried up plants bleed moisture, undead can bleed out the stability of remaining parts because the attack caused a progressively growing wound/fracture, etc. Fine by me.

Incorporeal- a great question..., I will easily explain their essence becomes thinner, less stable or stong. Provided they can take hp damage of course.


(Not a RAW answer)
I think it's reasonable for certain types of undead to be immune to bleed. Zombies, skelletons, and incorporeal. I kind of think it makes sense for Ghouls, Ghasts, and Vampires to bleed though since they both eat and have a sort of undead biology. Some of the more advanced undead might bleed too, bogarts and liches. Mummies would probably be immune (wouldn't all those bandages give them a free heal check? Or maybe bleed would be the bandages falling apart).

From a game balance perspective I don't think it's a huge issue either way, so play it how it makes sense to your group. I guess it can make some balance issues for creatures who are mindless and wouldn't make a heal check but even those you still have to evade until they bleed out.


Pax Veritas wrote:
Sort_vampyr wrote:
Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
not really, because once again that leaves incorporeal undead. whom by the rules can also bleed.
Your attack has started to unravel their essence, which slowly deteriorates over time.
Exactly! I think that one could come up with a bleed "explanation" for every type. But I have to agree that in some cases, bleed just seems ehm, inappropriate?

I'm fine with the idea that anything that can take hp damage can "bleed". My old cars bleed oil, dried up plants bleed moisture, undead can bleed out the stability of remaining parts because the attack caused a progressively growing wound/fracture, etc. Fine by me.

Incorporeal- a great question..., I will easily explain their essence becomes thinner, less stable or stong. Provided they can take hp damage of course.

Well, thats how I would describe it too, but it would just seem strange that a rogue could somehow affect the undead essence of an incorporeal undead with a mundane weapon just because of some special attack technique ( i guess thats how i image the bleed from the rogue bleed attack )


Sort_vampyr wrote:
Well, thats how I would describe it too, but it would just seem strange that a rogue could somehow affect the undead essence of an incorporeal undead with a mundane weapon just because of some special attack technique ( i guess thats how i image the bleed from the rogue bleed attack )

They can't, for two reasons:

One, incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, and Bleeding Attack requires the rogue to hit with a sneak attack.
Two, incorporeal creatures are immune to attacks from mundane weapons.


Zurai wrote:
Sort_vampyr wrote:
Well, thats how I would describe it too, but it would just seem strange that a rogue could somehow affect the undead essence of an incorporeal undead with a mundane weapon just because of some special attack technique ( i guess thats how i image the bleed from the rogue bleed attack )

They can't, for two reasons:

One, incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, and Bleeding Attack requires the rogue to hit with a sneak attack.
Two, incorporeal creatures are immune to attacks from mundane weapons.

Yeah ok, but lets say the rogue has a ghost touch weapon then...

Where does it say that incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, i cant find it?


Sort_vampyr wrote:

Yeah ok, but lets say the rogue has a ghost touch weapon then...

Where does it say that incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, i cant find it?

PRD wrote:
Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

HERE (gotta scroll waaaaaaaay down)

If you're attacking with a ghost touch weapon, then the creature is affected by it just like a fully corporeal creature would be affected by a normal weapon. I don't see the problem.


Zurai wrote:
Sort_vampyr wrote:

Yeah ok, but lets say the rogue has a ghost touch weapon then...

Where does it say that incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attacks, i cant find it?

PRD wrote:
Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.

HERE (gotta scroll waaaaaaaay down)

If you're attacking with a ghost touch weapon, then the creature is affected by it just like a fully corporeal creature would be affected by a normal weapon. I don't see the problem.

Well thats as clear as it gets

Buuut... I just got my Bestiary PDF today and under Incorporeal special quality it doesn't say anything about being immune to critical hits, though it does say that they cannot be hit with normal weapons and so on. I just wonder why the line about being critical immune is left out? Would this be because IF you circumvent the miss chance you can score criticals just as normal?


Sort_vampyr wrote:

Well thats as clear as it gets

Buuut... I just got my Bestiary PDF today and under Incorporeal special quality it doesn't say anything about being immune to critical hits, though it does say that they cannot be hit with normal weapons and so on. I just wonder why the line about being critical immune is left out? Would this be because IF you circumvent the miss chance you can score criticals just as normal?

Read more carefully. The incorporeal subtype is different from the incorporeal special quality. In fact, the subtype grants the special quality. The rule I quoted above is from the Bestiary section of the PRD. I assure you that if you look in the Types section of the PDF, you'll find that same section.

Sovereign Court

Aren't crits allowed vs. undead in PFRPG?


Pax Veritas wrote:
Aren't crits allowed vs. undead in PFRPG?

Normal undead, yes. Incorporeal undead, no, unless the attack was made with a ghost touch weapon.


Zurai wrote:
Sort_vampyr wrote:

Well thats as clear as it gets

Buuut... I just got my Bestiary PDF today and under Incorporeal special quality it doesn't say anything about being immune to critical hits, though it does say that they cannot be hit with normal weapons and so on. I just wonder why the line about being critical immune is left out? Would this be because IF you circumvent the miss chance you can score criticals just as normal?

Read more carefully. The incorporeal subtype is different from the incorporeal special quality. In fact, the subtype grants the special quality. The rule I quoted above is from the Bestiary section of the PRD. I assure you that if you look in the Types section of the PDF, you'll find that same section.

Ah thx, found it^^ you're absolutely right :) But I still think it should have said so under incorporeal special quality...


Chris Mortika wrote:

Quick side-question, because it's come up a couple of times now:

Is the demoralize use of Intimidate considered a mind-influencing effect? (If so, are there other examples of non-magical skills generating a mind-influencing effect?)

As shaken is a low state of fear I would say yes.

Sovereign Court

Zurai wrote:
Sort_vampyr wrote:

Well thats as clear as it gets

Buuut... I just got my Bestiary PDF today and under Incorporeal special quality it doesn't say anything about being immune to critical hits, though it does say that they cannot be hit with normal weapons and so on. I just wonder why the line about being critical immune is left out? Would this be because IF you circumvent the miss chance you can score criticals just as normal?

Read more carefully. The incorporeal subtype is different from the incorporeal special quality. In fact, the subtype grants the special quality. The rule I quoted above is from the Bestiary section of the PRD. I assure you that if you look in the Types section of the PDF, you'll find that same section.

Wait can a creature have the incorporeal special quality and not subtype, and if so does that mean a creature with the incorporeal subtype is crittable while a creature with the subtype only with a ghost touch weapon?


lastknightleft wrote:
Wait can a creature have the incorporeal special quality and not subtype, and if so does that mean a creature with the incorporeal subtype is crittable while a creature with the subtype only with a ghost touch weapon?

Yep. That's how the RAW shakes out. I can't think of anything offhand that grants the incorporeal special ability and not immunity to critical hits, but the possibility exists in the rules for it.


So now we know that incorporeal undead are already immune to bleed (due to being immune to sneak attack)

That just leaves us corporeal undead, and although the rules don't suggest any are immune to bleed, I would point out that making them all immune to bleed creates a similar "painting it all with the same brush" effect. Surely there is a logical reason to assume a vampire would not be immune to bleed for example.

House-ruling that a skeleton can't bleed for example could be done on a case by case basis, as long as you make it clear to your players beforehand that you are going to be making those judgements on a case by case basis. Also, if its debatable, I would always err on the side of the rules, gets you into less trouble!

The Exchange

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Wait can a creature have the incorporeal special quality and not subtype, and if so does that mean a creature with the incorporeal subtype is crittable while a creature with the subtype only with a ghost touch weapon?
Yep. That's how the RAW shakes out. I can't think of anything offhand that grants the incorporeal special ability and not immunity to critical hits, but the possibility exists in the rules for it.

I'm not positive, but maybe a spell that grants incorporeality might not give immunity to critical hits?


Alizor wrote:
Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Wait can a creature have the incorporeal special quality and not subtype, and if so does that mean a creature with the incorporeal subtype is crittable while a creature with the subtype only with a ghost touch weapon?
Yep. That's how the RAW shakes out. I can't think of anything offhand that grants the incorporeal special ability and not immunity to critical hits, but the possibility exists in the rules for it.
I'm not positive, but maybe a spell that grants incorporeality might not give immunity to critical hits?

If you can hit and it is incorporeal, then obviously it is not that incorporeal. At least not at that moment. Incorporeal only reduces damage form magic weapons by half. The condition does not confer immunity to crits. You do need a magic weapon or too be incoporeal as well to hit.And you still take full damage from force effect.

Says to me, that if you hit it and its type does not specifically grant resistance or immunity to a critical or sneak attack them those options are completely viable.

Therefore undead are vulnerable to "bleed damage" then whether they are incorporeal or not in my view. If you hit them and can damage it, then it can "bleed". Nothing in the bleed description says anything about it having to be living. Nothing in the undead mentions being immune to "bleed" effects.

personally, I like James Jacobs examples of "bleed" working on a zombie and a golem.

-Weylin


I don't know what is the official ruling on this, from 3.5 or Pathfinder, but as a DM i consider that some "fleshy" undead (zombies, ghouls, wights) might bleed, while "bony" ones (skeletons, huecuvas, liches) don't.
And obviously the incorporeal ones (shadows, wraiths, spectres, ghosts) would not.

But i would only consider the magical bleeding effects, not the ones from mere physical wounding or feats.


I think the problem here is that everyone (except James Jaccobs) is getting hung up on the word "bleed".

OK, so skeletons cannot "bleed". That is as obvious as saying water is wet.

But what if we rename the ability (or condition) and call it "Recurring Damage" instead? Then we define it as "Any kind of damage that creates an open wound or other structural or even metaphysical flaw that continues to drain the creature of its health, lifeforce, or other animating qualities, and is capable of ultimately killing the creature unless it takes steps to heal or repair the damage."

Or something like that.

Now we can easily say that this ability can be used to make an orc slowly bleed death, a skeleton slowly crumble to "death", a mummy slowly unravel to "death", a golem slowly fall apart to "death", a ghost slowly dissipate into nothingness, a gelatinous cube slowly bubble and fizzle into an inert puddle of harmless goo, etc.

Sure, that definition can get a little silly. Especially the gelatinous cube bit. But I think this was what James was trying to say in the other thread. The ability is given to certain classes, certain creatures, and certain magics. It is meant to be used to win battles and destroy enemies. Having it not work is somewhat punishing to the characters who are given this ability.

IMO, it's OK if it is somewhat punishing. Rangers can't use their favored enemy ability on everything, paladins can't smite everything, bards can't play music every round, barbarians can't rage every round, fighters can't cleave every round they ever fight, wizards can't cast spells every round, etc. So I'm OK with rogues (etc.) not causing bleed with every attack against every foe.

All I'm saying with that loose interpretation above is that there can be more than one way to look at it, and a DM could rule this in lots of ways, so let's not blind ourselves with the word "bleed" and be open, at least, to rule on the fairness of allowing or disallowing this ability against creatures without a viable pumping circulatory system.


DM_Blake wrote:

I think the problem here is that everyone (except James Jaccobs) is getting hung up on the word "bleed".

OK, so skeletons cannot "bleed". That is as obvious as saying water is wet.

But what if we rename the ability (or condition) and call it "Recurring Damage" instead? Then we define it as "Any kind of damage that creates an open wound or other structural or even metaphysical flaw that continues to drain the creature of its health, lifeforce, or other animating qualities, and is capable of ultimately killing the creature unless it takes steps to heal or repair the damage."

Or something like that.

Now we can easily say that this ability can be used to make an orc slowly bleed death, a skeleton slowly crumble to "death", a mummy slowly unravel to "death", a golem slowly fall apart to "death", a ghost slowly dissipate into nothingness, a gelatinous cube slowly bubble and fizzle into an inert puddle of harmless goo, etc.

Sure, that definition can get a little silly. Especially the gelatinous cube bit. But I think this was what James was trying to say in the other thread. The ability is given to certain classes, certain creatures, and certain magics. It is meant to be used to win battles and destroy enemies. Having it not work is somewhat punishing to the characters who are given this ability.

IMO, it's OK if it is somewhat punishing. Rangers can't use their favored enemy ability on everything, paladins can't smite everything, bards can't play music every round, barbarians can't rage every round, fighters can't cleave every round they ever fight, wizards can't cast spells every round, etc. So I'm OK with rogues (etc.) not causing bleed with every attack against every foe.

All I'm saying with that loose interpretation above is that there can be more than one way to look at it, and a DM could rule this in lots of ways, so let's not blind ourselves with the word "bleed" and be open, at least, to rule on the fairness of allowing or disallowing this ability against creatures without a viable pumping...

That was pretty much the angle that reading James' post on the other thread made me consider and after consider and debating with my GM, actually agree with it. Taking "bleed" in a broad sense of losing something essential to cohesion...of life or structure. the example of the golem being struck by a "bleed" attack and slowly fracturing is part of what cinched it for me and my GM as possible.

-Weylin


Weylin wrote:
That was pretty much the angle that reading James' post on the other thread made me consider and after consider and debating with my GM, actually agree with it. Taking "bleed" in a broad sense of losing something essential to cohesion...of life or structure. the example of the golem being struck by a "bleed" attack and slowly fracturing is part of what cinched it for me and my GM as possible.

Agreed, DM Blake and Weylin, but following this idea, a rogue could then argue that his sneak attack should also have an effect on every creature...


Seldriss wrote:
Weylin wrote:
That was pretty much the angle that reading James' post on the other thread made me consider and after consider and debating with my GM, actually agree with it. Taking "bleed" in a broad sense of losing something essential to cohesion...of life or structure. the example of the golem being struck by a "bleed" attack and slowly fracturing is part of what cinched it for me and my GM as possible.
Agreed, but then, following this idea, a rogue could argue that his sneak attack should also have an effect on every creature...

Except that it doesn't because some creatures are immune to sneak attacks, as has already been explained and is explicitly stated.


Lyingbastard wrote:
Except that it doesn't because some creatures are immune to sneak attacks, as has already been explained and is explicitly stated.

Well then it is not consistent.

If it is possible to inflict some extra damage to most of the creatures, in a disruptive or debilitative way, it means they have all an integrity which can be disabled.
That's how they can fall apart or "bleed".
But then they should also be vulnerable to sneak attacks.

If not that's because of the argument of the immunity to sneak attacks, stating that they don't have vulnerable parts.
But then they can't bleed either.

That's all or nothing.


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


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

That's my point.

The creatures which are immune to sneak attacks are immune to critical hits (at least most of them as far as i know).
And most of the bleeding effects come from special effects of critical hits.
So if the creature is not subject to crits, it is not to bleeding.
If you make it subject to bleeding, then the consequences are that it becomes vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.
As i said, that's all or nothing.


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

"Tied to" does not mean "same as".

And honestly since we have an call from someone at Paizo that it could be seen either way. The debate about it is pretty much done unless someone else from Paizo countermands James' statements, which is unlikely. It can go either way. the rest is discussion about that.

-Weylin


Weylin wrote:


"Tied to" does not mean "same as".
And honestly since we have an call from someone at Paizo that it could be seen either way. The debate about it is pretty much done unless someone else from Paizo countermands James' statements, which is unlikely. It can go either way. the rest is discussion about that.

Oh, absolutely.

Anyway, i don't think we are debating to have a formal official ruling on this.
It is more a debate among GMs on how they see the situation in their game.


Seldriss wrote:

So if the creature is not subject to crits, it is not to bleeding.

If you make it subject to bleeding, then the consequences are that it becomes vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.
As i said, that's all or nothing.

No. Level 1 Death domain power: bleeding touch. Magically causes the subject to "bleed" for a certain amount of damage every round. This is bleeding damage that is not subject to rules about critical hits or sneak attacks, and should not be so subject.

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Undead can bleed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.