|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hail!
I know there are numerous inconclusive threads on this subject, but I have a Society game that meets semi-regularly, and the monk in the party has this feat from the Cheliax sourcebook (allowed under the rules.)
Because of the ambiguity of the feats description (1d4 bleed damage), the fact that it can be taken at first level, etc, it's become a problematic feat. I'd like to get something I can settle on.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
|
|
Hail!
I know there are numerous inconclusive threads on this subject, but I have a Society game that meets semi-regularly, and the monk in the party has this feat from the Cheliax sourcebook (allowed under the rules.)Because of the ambiguity of the feats description (1d4 bleed damage), the fact that it can be taken at first level, etc, it's become a problematic feat. I'd like to get something I can settle on.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
This is a rules question, not a Pathfinder Society question, so you really should ask on a different forum.
|
Hail!
I know there are numerous inconclusive threads on this subject, but I have a Society game that meets semi-regularly, and the monk in the party has this feat from the Cheliax sourcebook (allowed under the rules.)Because of the ambiguity of the feats description (1d4 bleed damage), the fact that it can be taken at first level, etc, it's become a problematic feat. I'd like to get something I can settle on.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Other then you posted in the wrong Forum... I am not seeing a problem with the feat.
It is authorized, just use it as it is written. To me it is written clearly, Your unarmed attacks deal 1d4 bleed dmg, that is fairly clear to me.
If you think the feat is to powerful, That is a whole other argument that definitely does not belong in these forums.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It is authorized, just use it as it is written. To me it is written clearly, Your unarmed attacks deal 1d4 bleed dmg, that is fairly clear to me.
One of the things that always puzzled me with this feat, is that it doesn't cover a full attack action and what happens and combined with the "does not stack" wording in the DMG about Bleed being unclear (non-specific).
To me, the working in the DMG is covering the "post strike" situation where you bleed at the beginning of the round (and therefore all bleeds don't stack and just roll once.) In effect, you are either bleeding or you are not bleeding. You can't be really really really bleeding (bleed 3 times.)
What is covered on most bleed effects (like the Rogue's) is that the bleed attack doesn't stack with other bleed attacks (therefore it would exclude multiple attacks on a full attack.)
Bel-Bite doesn't have a specific exception to that, so I always interpret it as this:
On a full attack, you apply the bleed damage for each successful hit (1d4 each)
On the "bleed" event (covered in the DMG), you only apply bleed once (1d4)
|
|
Bleed attacks don't do damage initially. I don't know where anyone got that idea from. There is no bleed damage for each successful hit.
Applying bleed attacks multiple times to a creature doesn't do anything.
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.
If you Belier's Bite a creature 18 times they still only take 1d4 at the start of their turn.
Bleed attacks don't do damage initially. I don't know where anyone got that idea from.
That's easy. It comes from the wording of the feat, Belier's Bite.
Benefit: When you damage an opponent with an unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage.
It is the "extra" thrown in there.
I'd hazard the guess that the feat was initially intended to add a d4 extra damage of <some> type, and somewhere during editing someone either didn't like the type, or realized it was untyped, and tacked the Bleed type to the end there without verifying the feat still read clearly, concisely, and consistent with the bleed rules.
This doesn't even take into account the "proper" way to handle multiple successful unarmed strikes with the feat.
Sure, they do not stack. But they probably should overlap. Much like if a character received a second Aid spell, they wouldn't get a second d8 of temporary hit points, but the general concensus is that a second d8 would be rolled - and if it was better the character would get the second result instead of the first.
|
It is the "extra" thrown in there.I'd hazard the guess that the feat was initially intended to add a d4 extra damage of <some> type, and somewhere during editing someone either didn't like the type, or realized it was untyped, and tacked the Bleed type to the end there without verifying the feat still read clearly, concisely, and consistent with the bleed rules.
This doesn't even take into account the "proper" way to handle multiple successful unarmed strikes with the feat.
Sure, they do not stack. But they probably should overlap. Much like if a character received a second Aid spell, they wouldn't get a second d8 of temporary hit points, but the general concensus is that a second d8 would be rolled - and if it was better the character would get the second result instead of the first.
All due respect but that's all kind of silly.
Why would you care more about the word "extra" than you do about the game term "bleed." It doesn't matter whether they call it extra or not (and it is extra because it is more than normal), becuase they tell you what kind of damage it is so you know how to apply it.
Second, of course they overlap. That's what they do when they don't stack. It even says to take the worst effect in the Bleed damage section that was conveniently posted above for your perusal.
I believe they mean extra as in "in addition to the damage from the unarmed strike" That should solve all of your problems, right?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I've never really thought about it until now. I suppose, though, that since it doesn't stack with other attacks that cause bleed it wouldn't stack with the other attacks in a full attack.
Belier's Bite has no prohibition on multiple attacks. In fact no prohibition at all, it bluntly says they take 1d4 now.
If you Belier's Bite a creature 18 times they still only take 1d4 at the start of their turn.
See above, B.B. applies damage upon a hit and based on the way Bleed works again on the beginning of the turn.
I believe they mean extra as in "in addition to the damage from the unarmed strike" That should solve all of your problems, right?
Not for me, if by this you mean that 18 attacks in a full attack doesn't deal 18d4 extra damage then 1d4 at the start of the round.
All due respect but that's all kind of silly.
I don't agree.
And in these threads you might find a few others who do not share you sentiment that it is silly.
Not to mention that do not agree that the effects of Belier's Bite overlap in the way you claim it does.
(And there is at least on other multi page thread I can't find quickly, where the majority of posters were adamant that the effect is only a single d4 rolled every round, no matter how many times a character with this feat struck a target.)
In the end, I don't care. I haven't argued for or against anything.
All I am is the guy standing outside the house pointing to the crack in the sidewalk saying "people are going to trip over this." If the sidewalk gets fixed or not doesn't effect me. Just other people can't afterword claim "people keeping tripping over my sidewalk, and I do not have any idea why!"
The language, no matter how clear it appears to any readers of this post, is not clear enough. As the threads that are going to keep popping up about once every month or two will prove.
|
|
Belier's Bite has no prohibition on multiple attacks. In fact no prohibition at all, it bluntly says they take 1d4 now.
Not even slightly. It says that you take d4 bleed damage which has a easily understood, very frakkin clear rule determining when it is applied. See the rules for bleed.
I don't agree.
And in these threads you might find a few others who do not share you sentiment that it is silly.
A large number of people disagreeing did not make Darwin or Copernicus wrong. It just made a large number of people wrong. This is a logical fallacy and will not sway me.
All I am is the guy standing outside the house pointing to the crack in the sidewalk saying "people are going to trip over this." If the sidewalk gets fixed or not doesn't effect me. Just other people can't afterword claim "people keeping tripping over my sidewalk, and I do not have any idea why!"
Ha! No matter how much we disagree, that at least drew a laugh. The sidewalk is cracked. But I think I know why, at least.
The language, no matter how clear it appears to any readers of this post, is not clear enough. As the threads that are going to keep popping up about once every month or two will prove.
I have no disagreement with you here. But that is why these boards are here; so we can argue endlessly over how to parse a sentence and any player can show this to their GM and say, "This is what we got. This is every argument in existence for and against this thing. Make your ruling."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
says that you take d4 bleed damage ... See the rules for bleed.
Well, I can't disagree more. I don't see a rule asserting your interpretation (as the only interpretation) in the Cheliax book nor on page 565 of the PHB. I can appreciate your belief I am wrong and I can understand (very easily) how you read the text to support your position.
The sidewalk is cracked. But I think I know why, at least.
The real problem is the feat text. It needs to be changed to support Yuengling's interpretation.
Something like from:"When you damage an opponent with an unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage."
To:
"When you damage an opponent in a round with an unarmed strike, you may deal 1d4 bleed damage once."