A monk (or anyone with IUS) can take Belial's Bite which adds 1d4 bleed damage on a successful attack (and there are other ways to get bleed damage, of course). So if the monk elects to do non-lethal damage can he/she still inflict bleed damage? And if so, is the bleed damage also non-lethal?
Answers I came up with:
1. "Don't be stupid!" Bleed means bleeding. Bleed damage is by its nature lethal. You can't trigger bleed damage unless you're using a lethal attack.
2. "Sure you can, but...." The attack would do non-lethal but the bleed damage would be lethal as normal.
3. "Set Phasers to stun!" Both the regular attack and the bleed damage would be non-lethal, but the bleed damage would stop once the target had taken non-lethal damage equal to current hit points. Why? Because at that point non-lethal damage starts doing lethal (normal damage) as per the rules.
4. "Like the movie 'Love Story', long, slow, boring death." Bleed would be non-lethal, but would continue even after it started doing normal damage, eventually resulting in death of the target (assuming no intervention).
Thoughts?
It says it deals damage. Doesn't specify so you'd have to say lethal.
Every instance of non-lethal damage, it specifically calls it out as such.
ie. no, you can't deal lethal damage with an attack that deals non-lethal damage.
This question hurts my soul. lol.
The rules don't flat out say what they think of it, but as a GM, I wouldn't allow any sort of "nonlethal bleed". Bleeding out like a stuck pig is every definition of lethal.
Well, IF you were looking for a way to justify nonlethal "bleed" damage, I'd think you could define it as an attack (to the solar plexus or the throat) that interferes with breathing. Eventually, without intervention, the target would pass out.
Not saying that's how I'd rule it, just saying that it is justifiable.
|
The rules don't flat out say what they think of it, but as a GM, I wouldn't allow any sort of "nonlethal bleed". Bleeding out like a stuck pig is every definition of lethal.
depends, if its bleed from bludgeoning, i say its internal bleeding. makes sense that the monk punches you in the gut and ruptures a kidney or somethin.
depends, if its bleed from bludgeoning, i say its internal bleeding. makes sense that the monk punches you in the gut and ruptures a kidney or somethin.
yes, and internal bleeding is definitely lethal... (i think this was your point, but it was worth clarifying).
I actually don't have a problem with nonlethal bleed damage. Considering that both constructs and undead can suffer bleed damage (by RAW), it is not a far stretch. It just depends on how you describe it.
For a monk, the nonleathal bleed damage could represent nerve strikes and preasure points that slowly weaken the body until the target passes out.
For a rogue, it could be less than lethal cuts or attacks to muscles or joints that result in a cummulative effect that can render a target unconscious without killing them.
Creative Director
|
Bleed damage is lethal. While the rules mechanics work if you apply the mechanics to nonlethal damage, I would suggest calling it something else, like "fatigue" or something like that.
If you have a bleed effect add on to a nonlethal attack (say, by making a sneak attack with a sap when you have the bleed talent), my suggestion is that bleed doesn't trigger, or that if it does, it still does lethal damage.
And the Bestiary errata in the newest printing addresses the fact that constructs and undead are immune to bleed effects, in any case.
Thank you sir!
*Salute*
Ditto. Just another example of why Paizo rocks.
Maybe a nonlethal bleed-like effect could be some sort of nerf puncture/pressure that makes the target slowly lose conciousness.
Seeing what you can do by pressing the right spots on a human body i guess that is even biologically possible. Maybe you should ask your next door eagle's talon style kung fu master about that.
Ten years later... good thread!