Who or what is immune to bleeding damage?
Constructs lack immunity to bleeding. They may be immune to ability damage sustained by bleeding but they are potentially susceptible to hp loss from bleed (ex) attacks, same with undead.
This makes no sense as both undead and constructs generally lack a circulatory system. Additionally, constructs cannot benefit from the heal skill or magical healing.
Thoughts?
Well, imagine that you strike a construct so that pieces of it start to fall apart, or similarly you slash a zombie and make its guts slowly fall out. :)
I agree- bleed damage is just a form of damage over time. You might have to reflavor it for things without vascular systems, but several classes tend to rely on it (duelists, rogues, & crit artists jump to mind). The inability to perform sneak attacks in 3.5 was absolutely infuriating for anyone who played a rogue, and this is sorta the same deal.
|
Well, imagine that you strike a construct so that pieces of it start to fall apart, or similarly you slash a zombie and make its guts slowly fall out. :)
Isn't this more or less what James [Jacobs] said about this very issue?
As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy that constructs are no longer immune to crits and bleeding damage. Just as 4E fans have pointed out, 'bloodied' does not equal 'bleeding', so you just need to "re-flavour" the bleeding damage in PF RPG as well.
How can a construct end bleed damage? The heal skill and magic healing wont work. Does this mean that constructs who take bleed damage automatically die?
Undead are in a similiar boat. Though they can recieve negative energy to heal them, there is no comiserate skill as there is with living creatures, i.e. heal (wis).
I was thinking of the rogue ability and the bearded devil wounding ability. I am assuming that no natural healing makes something immune to the heal skill generally. How does the game justify heal being applicable to something that that cannot possibly be within the skills purview. The heal skill does not include mechanical knowledge. This would seem to empower bleed attacks against the very foes who should be most resilient to them, undead and constructs, let alone oozes.
What is the official ruling from Pazio? My searches for such a ruling ended in vain thus far.
("Hold still, my vile minion, while I stitch together yer damaged hand...")
heheheheh...
OT: Heal or some profession that involves thread and stiches could work in the case of undeads, or something that let you "patch" the wound...in the case of the constructs... well "make whole" or "repair" could work, or some profession or craft related...
the bestiary states:
" Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifer (minimum 1) per Hit
Die. However, most constructs are mindless and gain no
skill points or feats. Constructs do not have any class skills,
regardless of their Intelligence scores."
If you are concerned that your players are going to smash some bleed damage and run, waiting the death of the golem, you could house rule that the constructs can take a standar action to reinforce her structure (and stop bleed damage) if you feel that they need a check... well, lets se... dc 15 vs a bonus equal hd?
I know it seems odd to do bleed damage to constructs, only if english were my nature language, i could explain my point of view in a more... convincing fashion :P
The thing is, the Ability needs a better name to be more clear in what it does and be more friendly to non-rpg-lawyers
I don't have any problem with constructs bleeding. If you're thinking of constructs as machines, it's like a hit to something like the Fuel system (No immediate effect, but when that leaking fuel is gone, you're SOL), Cooling system (Small immediate effect that grows quickly), Lubrication system (once your reserve of oil is gone, very short time to failure), battery cases can be cracked leading to leaking acid, etc.
Undead ? Who knows how those work ? But I do have a mental image of that same vile minion being glued back together with sovreign glue.
I don't have any problem with constructs bleeding. If you're thinking of constructs as machines, it's like a hit to something like the Fuel system (No immediate effect, but when that leaking fuel is gone, you're SOL), Cooling system (Small immediate effect that grows quickly), Lubrication system (once your reserve of oil is gone, very short time to failure), battery cases can be cracked leading to leaking acid, etc.
Undead ? Who knows how those work ? But I do have a mental image of that same vile minion being glued back together with sovreign glue.
That gives me an idea for a "magma golem" variant of the stone golem. The construct would bleed lava when inflicted with a bleed attack. After one round, the bleed stops as the magma cools. Of course, for the round it took damage, adjacent opponents would suffer 1d6 heat (fire) damage from the extra heat given off by the bleeding magma.
From the base PF book:
"Bleeding Touch (Sp): As a melee touch attack, you can cause a living creature to take 1d6 points of damage per round.
This effect persists for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1) or until stopped with a DC 15 Heal check or any spell or effect that heals damage."This only works against living enemies so all constructs and undead would be immune. This suggests but not clerifies bleeding.
If anyone has any sort of link to an official ruling, please post it.
From the SRD: 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.
Nothing there about constructs or undead I'm afraid, but both constructs an undead have the following line: Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless
So I guess undead and constructs are immune to bleeding effects only if they require a fortitude save.
|
From another thread, the following was posted by James Jacobs:
"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."
Hope that helps...
Hear is the thread if you wish.. Thread on Bleeding
Thanks. Plenty to chew on.
Has anyone seen bleed used in living pathfinder on a construct or undead?