|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. In a home game I'm comfortable making a ruling on my own, but feel some obligation when GMing a Society game.
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. In a home game I'm comfortable making a ruling on my own, but feel some obligation when GMing a Society game.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Why is this a problem again? Bleed damage does not stack so at best the player would be doing an additional 4 damage a round after he strikes his target. This by the numbers should bring him about up to where a well placed rogue or fighter is in terms of DPR.
I suspect the "question" has to do with exactly how it works.
Monk hits in round one, rolls Bleed of 2.
Next round misses. Is the Bleed still 2? Or is it rolled again each round? If he hits again, but gets a 3, does the bleed go up to 3 and stay there?
Monk hits twice. Take the best of two? Then roll twice each round after that?
In a long fight, a monk against a big bad might hit 5 or 6 times. Do you have to roll separately for each hit, each round? That could be a lot of dice rolling.
I don't think the problem is with the power, but rather with how exactly it is meant to be applied.
I don't see what the ambiguity is or what the problem is. Please clarify. Thanks!
|
I suspect the "question" has to do with exactly how it works.
Monk hits in round one, rolls Bleed of 2.
Next round misses. Is the Bleed still 2? Or is it rolled again each round? If he hits again, but gets a 3, does the bleed go up to 3 and stay there?
Monk hits twice. Take the best of two? Then roll twice each round after that?
In a long fight, a monk against a big bad might hit 5 or 6 times. Do you have to roll separately for each hit, each round? That could be a lot of dice rolling.
I don't think the problem is with the power, but rather with how exactly it is meant to be applied.
Every time the person who is bleeding has their turn come up, you roll 1d4. It's 1d4 bleed damage, not 2 or 3 or whatever is rolled the first time. So each time he takes the bleed, he rolls 1d4. Stacking isn't a worry since 1d4 is the same as the next 1d4 bleed he takes.
|
|
That was it for the most part, and it's what I would rule. There is also some issue as to what, if anything, is immune to bleed damage. The situation came up in a Pathfinder Society game recently. The party was faced with a Construct type foe. Unable to defeat it with their weapons due to a defensive ability of the construct, the monk managed to get in make a single hit, and then they ran away and closed the door. The construct, lacking access to healing, simply feel to pieces after taking 1d4 damage for a few rounds. So then they returned to the room and continued onward. Something just didn't sit right with that. . . .
Bleed damage doesn't stack, and variable bleed damage is re-rolled round-to-round.
That means that if an enemy has taken three attacks dealing 1d4 bleed, you need to roll 1d4 three times. It takes the highest number of the three in damage.
If he's also taken an attack that does 3 bleed damage, then it either takes the highest number from the d4s or 3 damage, whichever is more.
Basically look at all the sources of bleed damage (rolling if necessary) and apply the highest one.
If a monster's writeup doesn't say it's immune to bleed, check it's creature type. For a golem, constructs are immune to bleed effects:
Bleed damage doesn't stack, and variable bleed damage is re-rolled round-to-round.
That means that if an enemy has taken three attacks dealing 1d4 bleed, you need to roll 1d4 three times. It takes the highest number of the three in damage.
If he's also taken an attack that does 3 bleed damage, then it either takes the highest number from the d4s or 3 damage, whichever is more.
Basically look at all the sources of bleed damage (rolling if necessary) and apply the highest one.
That could end up being a LOT of dice rolling....
That could end up being a LOT of dice rolling....Bleed damage doesn't stack, and variable bleed damage is re-rolled round-to-round.
That means that if an enemy has taken three attacks dealing 1d4 bleed, you need to roll 1d4 three times. It takes the highest number of the three in damage.
If he's also taken an attack that does 3 bleed damage, then it either takes the highest number from the d4s or 3 damage, whichever is more.
Basically look at all the sources of bleed damage (rolling if necessary) and apply the highest one.
You can just roll Xd4 and take the highest. Not really any more difficult than rolling 1d4 unless you have too few caltrops lying around.
If you get to where it's 6d4 or some such ridiculousness, I think I'd probably just rule it's 4 damage and be done with it.ETA: Of course, even 6d4 has a 17% chance to roll no fours. Your threshold for reasonable approximation may vary.
There's no need to roll the bleed dice more than once. No matter how many times you hit the foe you roll 1d4 at the start of the foe's round. Period. Bleed doesn't stack and you don't get to roll a bunch of d4s and choose the best. That just over-complicates things. The number one rule of gaming is Have Fun, but the second rule of gaming is Keep It Simple.
There's no need to roll the bleed dice more than once.
There is if you want to get the full benefit of the bleed damage.
I just really don't understand why rolling 3d4 is so much more complicated than rolling 1d4.|
|
There's no need to roll the bleed dice more than once.There is if you want to get the full benefit of the bleed damage.
I just really don't understand why rolling 3d4 is so much more complicated than rolling 1d4.
The point I think he was making is that rolling multiple d4 is basically a house rule. As it stands, Bleed damage doesn't stack from the same source. If someone uses Belier's Bite on you, you get 1d4 bleed. If he does it again, you still have 1d4 bleed. It doesn't change. You don't have an 'extra' chance to get more damage, it's still 1d4.
The point I think he was making is that rolling multiple d4 is basically a house rule. As it stands, Bleed damage doesn't stack from the same source. If someone uses Belier's Bite on you, you get 1d4 bleed. If he does it again, you still have 1d4 bleed. It doesn't change. You don't have an 'extra' chance to get more damage, it's still 1d4.There's no need to roll the bleed dice more than once.There is if you want to get the full benefit of the bleed damage.
I just really don't understand why rolling 3d4 is so much more complicated than rolling 1d4.
That's where I disagree -- I think determining fewer than all the bites is the house rule. Bleed damage doesn't stack, but that doesn't mean you don't calculate each instance of damage separately.
If someone uses Belier's Bite against you three times, the 2 damage and the 1 damage and the 4 damage don't stack, but you still have to determine how much bleed damage each of the bites does seperately.And, remember, it's not that bleeds from the same source don't stack. The rules just say that multiple bleeds of the same type of damage don't stack.
If you insist that only one bleed is resolved, how do you deal with someone who takes 1d4 bleed from the bite, and also 2 bleed from a rogue's sneak attack? Which is greater, 1d4 or 2?
And if you roll the 1d4 to compare them, why don't you roll EACH 1d4 when more than one apply?
I can understand rolling multiple times to determine each bleed attack's damage potential, but wouldn't you just go with the last d4 rolled anyway since it was the most recent bleed attack? And then if you're rolling just to see the last d4, you're really just rolling 1d4 anyway.
|
|
The point I think he was making is that rolling multiple d4 is basically a house rule. As it stands, Bleed damage doesn't stack from the same source. If someone uses Belier's Bite on you, you get 1d4 bleed. If he does it again, you still have 1d4 bleed. It doesn't change. You don't have an 'extra' chance to get more damage, it's still 1d4.There's no need to roll the bleed dice more than once.There is if you want to get the full benefit of the bleed damage.
I just really don't understand why rolling 3d4 is so much more complicated than rolling 1d4.That's where I disagree -- I think determining fewer than all the bites is the house rule. Bleed damage doesn't stack, but that doesn't mean you don't calculate each instance of damage separately.
If someone uses Belier's Bite against you three times, the 2 damage and the 1 damage and the 4 damage don't stack, but you still have to determine how much bleed damage each of the bites does seperately.
And, remember, it's not that bleeds from the same source don't stack. The rules just say that multiple bleeds of the same type of damage don't stack.
If you insist that only one bleed is resolved, how do you deal with someone who takes 1d4 bleed from the bite, and also 2 bleed from a rogue's sneak attack? Which is greater, 1d4 or 2?
And if you roll the 1d4 to compare them, why don't you roll EACH 1d4 when more than one apply?
jakebacon puts it the way I'm looking at it. The bleed damage is not the 2 or 3 that the 1d4 rolls, it is the 1d4 itself. If someone already has 1d4 bleed damage on them and you deal another 1d4 from the same source, you ignore that second bleed. They don't stack. It's not that they have a possible 2 damage from 1d4 or a possible 4 from 1d4, they just have 1d4. Only when it gets to their turn do they roll that 1d4 and determine bleed.
The mechanic for bleed effects is overlap. You roll each time you strike as per the normal rules, and you take whatever the highest result is, I fail to see where you guys are getting tripped up on this.
But the bleed is from the same source, in this case the Belier's Bite feat. Belier's bite specifically says, "This ability does not stack with other special abilities, attacks, or items that allow you to deal bleed damage." Wouldn't that also include other applications of Belier's Bite? It's from the same source so only one application would matter. Sure, multiple attacks give multiple chances to apply the bleed, but once bleed lands you only roll the d4 once.
In my opinion, regardless of how the feat is ultimately interpreted, I feel rolling multiple dice just to get a higher number so you do more damage isn't right.
The mechanic for bleed effects is overlap. You roll each time you strike as per the normal rules, and you take whatever the highest result is, I fail to see where you guys are getting tripped up on this.But the bleed is from the same source, in this case the Belier's Bite feat. Belier's bite specifically says, "This ability does not stack with other special abilities, attacks, or items that allow you to deal bleed damage." Wouldn't that also include other applications of Belier's Bite? It's from the same source so only one application would matter. Sure, multiple attacks give multiple chances to apply the bleed, but once bleed lands you only roll the d4 once.
In my opinion, regardless of how the feat is ultimately interpreted, I feel rolling multiple dice just to get a higher number so you do more damage isn't right.
You would roll each time. It is not different than being hit with two rays of enfeeblement. You just have to take the higher penalty.
|
|
It's very different. Ray of Enfeeblement actually says: "This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead."
It calls out for you to apply the highest penalty. Bleed damage? "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."
It does mention to take the worse with two or more 'effects' happen, but that's only if the effect is different. In this case, 1d4 is the same as 1d4.
But a 1 from a 1d4 is not the same as a 4 from a 1d4.
Abilities from the same source do not stack. This is true. It's also not at all the question at hand. The question at hand is how do you determine the damage from multiple consecutive Belier's Bites.
First we have to determine whether it's even possible to use the feat twice on the same target. The answer to this is pretty clearly "yes": the rules do explicitly state that effects from the same source overlap and do not stack. That means that you've got two separate applications of Belier's Bite on you.
Next we have to determine how they overlap. Since 1d4 is not an actual number, we can't figure out which 1d4 is the highest until we roll them. So we roll 1d4 twice and resolve those die rolls into fixed numbers, which we then compare to each other to determine which is higher.
Finally, we apply the higher of those two die rolls as damage this round.
The one thing that this thread, and the others that have come before, has demonstrated is that it is not at all clear how B's Bite is intended to work.
It's very different. Ray of Enfeeblement actually says: "This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead."
It calls out for you to apply the highest penalty. Bleed damage? "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."
It does mention to take the worse with two or more 'effects' happen, but that's only if the effect is different. In this case, 1d4 is the same as 1d4.
Rolling 1d4 twice is not stacking it is overlapping. When you are subject to the same affect from the same source they overlap. That is why ray of enfeeble forces you to take the higher penalty. Another example is a spell with a duration of 8 rounds. If you get to the point where you have 2 rounds left the duration does not increase to 10 rounds because that would be stacking, but overlapping simply means you take 8 more rounds.
Mirror image is another example. If you cast the spell twice you get the greater number of images.
I think it basically works like this:
RND 1:
Attack 1 hits. Roll 1d4:1, 1 bleed damage from here until healed.
Attack 2 hits. Roll 1d4:2, 2 bleed damage from here until healed.
(This does not mean 3 bleed damage since it specifically states it doesn't stack.)
RND 2:
Attack 1 hits. Roll 1d4:1. Since 1<2, we're still at 2 bleed damage per round.
Attack 2 hits. Roll 1d4:3. Since 2<3, we're now at 3 damage from here until healed.
RND's 3 to when the bleeding thing dies:
Every hit, you reroll the bleed damage until you get a 4 and then it's just 4 per round, from there until death.
I don't see the point of rerolling the dice every round and I'm not entirely convinced that was the intent of the feat to make it continuously variable. (But obviously I could be wrong.)
I think it basically works like this:RND 1:
Attack 1 hits. Roll 1d4:1, 1 bleed damage from here until healed.
Attack 2 hits. Roll 1d4:2, 2 bleed damage from here until healed.
(This does not mean 3 bleed damage since it specifically states it doesn't stack.)RND 2:
Attack 1 hits. Roll 1d4:1. Since 1<2, we're still at 2 bleed damage per round.
Attack 2 hits. Roll 1d4:3. Since 2<3, we're now at 3 damage from here until healed.RND's 3 to when the bleeding thing dies:
Every hit, you reroll the bleed damage until you get a 4 and then it's just 4 per round, from there until death.I don't see the point of rerolling the dice every round and I'm not entirely convinced that was the intent of the feat to make it continuously variable. (But obviously I could be wrong.)
This is how I ended up running it as well. Not because I think this was the author's intent, but because it was the simplest and the quickest way to apply the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Occam's Razor would like to have a chat with some of you people... I think the 'just roll 1d4 each round after the bleed effect from Belier's Bite has been placed' is the correct one...
YES. Read my profile. I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
I have a monk with this feat in a society game and this is how we played it - I think it is fair & easy to run
- if you had one attack & it hit roll 1d4 for bleed damage straight away - this is the bleed damage the target receives now - on its turn from then on until it receives healing it gets a bleed damage again with a new roll - 1d4
- if I hit twice or more in a single round I rolled 1d4 for each hit & took the highest for bleed damage (this was no harder than rolling magic missile) I believe this is appropriate since my attacks all hit & only the most damaging was applied eg hit 3 times rolled 3d4 getting 1, 3 & 4 - bleed damage to target this round is 4 - on its turn from then on until it receives healing it gets a bleed damage again at 1d4 but just a single roll
- if I hit the same target again in a future round I still rolled as above for bleed damage in my turn as I am causing even more bleeding but on its turn it still receives only a single roll of 1d4 bleed
I think is very simple to run in game & takes next to no time - hardest part was remembering to get the DM to remember to roll the bleed damage on the targets turn
as for constructs according to the bestiary they are not immune to bleed damage and since Beliers bite does not specify a living being they are vulnerable to it - this feat is the exception to other bleed attacks & I believe it was an unintentional mistake - it was ruled valid to bleed various monsters including undead, constructs etc by Paizo staff member (dont remember which) with the idea that the bleed does not equal blood but something else needed by the creature eg. you caused a fracture in a stone creature which gets worse equivalent to a bleed in a living being
Alright I've reread bleed on page 565 in the Core Rulebook and it only confirms my interpretation. The first line states that a creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of it's next turn. So, with Belier's Bite, it is irrelevant how many times you hit a creature; if you connect with at least one unarmed strike, the creature takes 1d4 bleed which is rolled at the start of the creature's next turn. You don't roll bleed damage every time you make an attack. You don't even roll the bleed damage on your turn. You only roll 1d4 at the beginning of the creature's turn, every turn, until something stops the bleed effect. This also means the amount of damage varies from 1 to 4 each turn.
This also means the amount of damage varies from 1 to 4 each turn.
The problem is basically around whether the damage is intended to be variable each round. I personally don't think it is; sort of like how you don't record how many times you've been hit with a dagger and re-roll xd4 to determine your current HP every round.
But if I'm wrong then it goes back to the arguement that the bleed effects overlap and you take the worst. In that case you'd have to keep track how many times you hit the baddy and then roll that many d4 every round... which to be blunt is I think more complex than the developers intended.
|
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.
Difference here means whether they are dealing damage to hit points or damage to stats (most likely Con). They don't STACK! It says there specifically.
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. The 1d4 is the bleed damage in this case. 1d4 = 1d4. It isn't 1d4<1d4. You don't just keep rolling dice til you find the highest result. No you compare the different bleed effects and determine which is higher,
EXAMPLE 1: Two bleed effects; both of which are 1d4. Which one is greater? Neither as they are equal so you just roll 1d4.
EXAMPLE 2: Two bleed effects: one is 1d4 and the other is 3. Which one is greater? Don't know til we roll the 1d4 but chances are in the favor of 3 being higher.
Why the difference between the two examples? Because we treat 1d4 as the value of the bleed effect. If we had two different variable bleed effects, one being 1d4 and another being 1d6, we'd take 1d6 because it is the higher value bleed effect. We wouldn't roll to see which one is greater if both results were variable but we would do so if one result is variable and the other is static.
Does this mean we shouldn't keep track of separate bleed effects? Yes for the most part this is true. There are two exceptions. One is when the two bleed effects are of different types: one on hit points and another on an ability stat. The other is when someone is wielding a wounding weapon as that is the one exception to the stacking bleeding effects rule. In that case we'd keep track of the bleed damage caused by the Wounding weapon and any other bleed effects until the wounding weapon exceeded the other bleed effects.
Of course I'm not the one who writes the rules so I may very well be wrong but I am pretty sure this is how it is supposed to be run... for the most I think as Sean K. Reynolds said, it's pretty self explanatory.
EDIT: Some more thoughts on variable bleed effects and a greater explanation on my thoughts on determining the appropriate variable for the bleed: To determine the correct variable effect we would determine the the dice's average. In the 1d4 and 1d6 example above we determined that 1d4 averages out to 2.5 while the 1d6 averages out to 3.5. Since each 1d4 bleed effect caused by Belier's Bite averages out to 2.5, this would mean we would simply roll 1d4 because each d4 has the same average individually and we must take the greatest individual bleed effect and apply only that single one's result which ends up being 1d4 because that is the only option. In the case of 2d4 versus 1d6, we would take the 2d4 bleed because that has the higher expected value of 5.5 versus the 1d6's 3.5. We could very well change example 2 to include these very same principle but in most roleplaying games involving random number generation, a static value and a random value are treated as entirely different beasts with good reason! Imagine critically hitting on a sneak attack or alchemist bomb and rolling all those extra dice again: 10-60 becomes 20-120 which changes the average from 35 to 70 and, in addition to the potential of a HUGE spike of damage, this also takes away valuable game time as the player must count up a huge amount of dice. This is much easier with static numbers and while it is a spike in the damage output it doesn't have the potential random number generation has.
If we agree that we roll 1d4 each round, then it's pretty clear we have to roll for each instance to determine which one is greatest, and therefore how much damage is to be taken.
Is 1d4 greater than or less than 1d4? We don't know yet until we roll them.
Condensing the effects into a single 1d4 roll is a reasonable house rule but still a house rule.
As it stands, you are ultimately doing 1d4 bleed at the beginning of the creature's turn, every turn, for a variable bleed amount. If you roll 3d4 and take the highest result, what do you do for the 1d4 bleed in the next round? Roll another 3d4 and take the highest result? What if you made more attacks? A few rounds into combat would you be rolling 12d4 just to see if any of them are a 4 so you can do more damage? Where does it end?
It's 1d4 at the start of the round on the creature's turn, every turn. Period.
Of course, if you believe it's 1d4 rolled once and that result is a fixed number for the remainder of the bleed, then we're arguing apples and oranges.
A few rounds into combat would you be rolling 12d4 just to see if any of them are a 4 so you can do more damage? Where does it end?
As per the rules, after the first four is rolled each round. (Which is part of why I'm in the camp that it's a fixed value rolled once.)
It's 1d4 at the start of the round on the creature's turn, every turn. Period.
Except for the fact that you've got multiple sources of bleeding damage that overlap from each attack. Like AvalonXQ said, it's a good house rule, but the rules themselves suggest something different.
|
|
Heh, amusing discussion. :)
What would you do if the damage being inflicted were of another type? For example, 1d6 fire damage on a longsword and 1d6 fire damage from something else. Would you roll both and apply the largest? Of course not. You'd simply say, "The 1d6 fire from the sword doesn't stack with the 1d6 fire from the ______, so we only roll one of them."
Seems pretty clear to me...
Uh, no, actually you'd roll both and combine them.
EDIT: Actually, it depends on the situation. Let's say, for example, that you have a flaming longsword that has had some spell or other cast on it that makes it deal 1d6 fire damage. That longsword would deal 1d8 slashing damage and 2d6 fire damage, plus enhancement and strength.
Would you roll both and apply the largest? Of course not.
If there was a statement that they didn't stack, then that's exactly what I'd do. I'm not sure why this is so counterintuitive to so many people?
You'd simply say, "The 1d6 fire from the sword doesn't stack with the 1d6 fire from the ______, so we only roll one of them."
Seems pretty clear to me...
This is the same sort of arguement that says being hit with 10 lightning bolts in a round is no more dangerous than being hit by one.
Or to put it another way, if I'm taking fire damage because my arm is covered in alchemist fire, it doesn't make a lot of sense that my kidneys suddenly gain immunity to fire when I get stabbed with a firey dagger. (and then lose said immunity when my arm burns out.)
A few rounds into combat would you be rolling 12d4 just to see if any of them are a 4 so you can do more damage? Where does it end?As per the rules, after the first four is rolled each round. (Which is part of why I'm in the camp that it's a fixed value rolled once.)
"As per the rules" it's 1d4 per round. How is rolling until you got the maximum amount possible just so you can do more damage a correct answer in any situation? Besides, if the 1d4 was meant to become a fixed number, why roll a die at all? Why not have a scaling set number from the beginning like the Bleeding Attack rogue talent?
It's 1d4 at the start of the round on the creature's turn, every turn. Period.Except for the fact that you've got multiple sources of bleeding damage that overlap from each attack.
They're not multiple sources, though, they all come from the same source, the Belier's Bite feat. Multiple bleed effects from the same source do not stack. However, you are correct when you say they overlap, meaning only one instance is valid. So again, you're only rolling 1d4.
Like AvalonXQ said, it's a good house rule, but the rules themselves suggest something different.
I disagree that the rules suggest differently and I'm convinced the version you're backing is the house rule, so I think we've gotten as far as we can go on this particular topic.
However, you are correct when you say they overlap, meaning only one instance is valid. So again, you're only rolling 1d4.
Incorrect. That is not what "overlap" means. When an effect overlaps with another effect, both effects are active on the target, but only the effect with the higher value is counted.
As an example, if someone had a caster level 11 mage armor and a caster level 9 mage armor cast on them, both spells would indeed be active and would affect him. He would have a +4 armor bonus to AC for 11 hours. If he is then subject to a successful dispel magic, that CL 11 mage armor would be dispelled -- and he'd have a +4 armor bonus to AC for 9 hours, instead, because the effects overlapped.
What you're describing is something akin to World of Warcraft's "Effect cannot be applied; a more powerful version exists" buff/debuff stacking. That's not how Pathfinder works.
EDIT: Here's a question for you, since you seem convinced that you can quantize the value of an undetermined number:
A creature is hit by two different attacks that deal random bleed damage. One deals 1d6 bleed damage. The other deals 1d4+1 bleed damage. Which effect over-rules the other?
A few rounds into combat would you be rolling 12d4 just to see if any of them are a 4 so you can do more damage? Where does it end?As per the rules, after the first four is rolled each round. (Which is part of why I'm in the camp that it's a fixed value rolled once.)"As per the rules" it's 1d4 per round. How is rolling until you got the maximum amount possible just so you can do more damage a correct answer in any situation? Besides, if the 1d4 was meant to become a fixed number, why roll a die at all? Why not have a scaling set number from the beginning like the Bleeding Attack rogue talent?
It's 1d4 at the start of the round on the creature's turn, every turn. Period.Except for the fact that you've got multiple sources of bleeding damage that overlap from each attack.They're not multiple sources, though, they all come from the same source, the Belier's Bite feat. Multiple bleed effects from the same source do not stack. However, you are correct when you say they overlap, meaning only one instance is valid. So again, you're only rolling 1d4.
Like AvalonXQ said, it's a good house rule, but the rules themselves suggest something different.I disagree that the rules suggest differently and I'm convinced the version you're backing is the house rule, so I think we've gotten as far as we can go on this particular topic.
If you only get hit by it once you roll the 1d4 once, but each time you get hit is another chance to increase the bleeding so you have to roll again. Another bleed attack can't make it go down so either it stays the same or goes up. The rules don't really speak on variable bleed damage, but the feat says to roll 1d4 to determine bleed. We do know however that bleed does not stack unless otherwise stated, so you roll 1d4 and then roll it again. The only thing the only thing left is to take the higher number.
It would be no different than if it was a fast healing effect that was variable. If you get tagged by it twice from a supernatural ability or spell you heal the greater amount, or even an EX source somehow.
"As per the rules" it's 1d4 per round.
As per the description it's actually per attack:
"Benefit: When you damage an opponent with an unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage."
How is rolling until you got the maximum amount possible just so you can do more damage a correct answer in any situation?
It's the correct answer when multiple variable effects overlap.
Why not have a scaling set number from the beginning like the Bleeding Attack rogue talent?
Flavor I'm guessing.
They're not multiple sources, though, they all come from the same source, the Belier's Bite feat.
So 10 lighting bolt at once do no more damage than one does?
No, the multiple sources come from multiple attacks that landed and did damage. If a monk tears out a chunk of flesh from your neck and then your leg, the latter doesn't not bleed because your neck is already leaking. The limitaion of not stacking is in the text of the feat, but is says nothing about the effect not overlappig. And that being the case you need to roll to determine which effect is the greatest and overlaps all the others.
Ergo, 12 successful attacks means rolling 12d4 and taking the highest each round. (Unless you see the initial attack as being a fixed bleed value rolled once as I do.)
EDIT: Here's a question for you, since you seem convinced that you can quantize the value of an undetermined number:
A creature is hit by two different attacks that deal random bleed damage. One deals 1d6 bleed damage. The other deals 1d4+1 bleed damage. Which effect over-rules the other?
Since they deal the same kind of damage, in this case hit points, you wouldn't take the "worse" of the two. Bleed rules specifically state one dealing HP damage and the other dealing Ability damage is the only way once is "worse" than the other. For your question, I'd rule that since stacking didn't work, the first bleed effect established would continue and the other would not apply.
Why not have a scaling set number from the beginning like the Bleeding Attack rogue talent?Flavor I'm guessing.
I meant why roll dice at all if you're just going to end up with the maximum amount anyway.
So 10 lighting bolt at once do no more damage than one does?
Irrelevant because lightning bolt doesn't have rules in place to prevent stacking like bleed does.
No, the multiple sources come from multiple attacks that landed and did damage. If a monk tears out a chunk of flesh from your neck and then your leg, the latter doesn't not bleed because your neck is already leaking. The limitaion of not stacking is in the text of the feat, but is says nothing about the effect not overlappig. And that being the case you need to roll to determine which effect is the greatest and overlaps all the others.
Ergo, 12 successful attacks means rolling 12d4 and taking the highest each round. (Unless you see the initial attack as being a fixed bleed value rolled once as I do.)
Right or not, don't you think that version needlessly complicates an otherwise simple mechanic? In your example, having your neck and leg torn from two different attacks only means, mechanically, on the start of your next turn you're bleeding. It doesn't matter from how many places, you're just bleeding.
For your question, I'd rule that since stacking didn't work, the first bleed effect established would continue and the other would not apply.
Would you rule the same if the first attack to land did 1 bleed damage every round and the second did 1d6 bleed damage every round?
I meant why roll dice at all if you're just going to end up with the maximum amount anyway.
Because "12d4 take the highest" does not guarantee a 4. Not even "1,000,000d4 take the highest" guarantees a 4, although I'll admit it's statistically quite improbable that you won't get a 4 out of a million rolls of a d4.
Since they deal the same kind of damage, in this case hit points, you wouldn't take the "worse" of the two.
I don't follow the logic there. If you took a fixed source of bleed damage (say 2 from a monsters bite) and then fixed source of bleed damage from another source (say a wounding long sword that didn't stack for 1 bleed damage) the decision to take the worst of the two should be pretty easy right: you'd take 2 bleed every round. In the case of the unquantified ranges (1d6 or 1d4+1) how does it not follow that you wouldn't calculate the actual value by rolling the dice for both scenarios and then applying the worst of the two?
I meant why roll dice at all if you're just going to end up with the maximum amount anyway.
Either an oversight or it's not continuously vairable and the desctription I gave in my first post in the thread is more accurate.
Irrelevant because lightning bolt doesn't have rules in place to prevent stacking like bleed does.
My point was that each lightning bolt is a separate source of damage regardless of whether or not they arrive in the same round or ten. If there were rules that said they don't stack, wouldn't you take the worst damage of the 10 lighting bolts as opposed to only rolling once?
Right or not, don't you think that version needlessly complicates an otherwise simple mechanic?
Yep, hence why I don't think it's supposed to be continously variable.
In your example, having your neck and leg torn from two different attacks only means, mechanically, on the start of your next turn you're bleeding. It doesn't matter from how many places, you're just bleeding.
Yeah but if I'm bleeding from multiple wounds, the puddle on the floor is likely to be bigger than if I'm only bleeding from one.
For the record, while I think "roll every variable bleed every round and take the highest single amount of bleeding damage" is the correct RAW interpretation, I can also see "roll the bleed damage once and it deals the same amount every turn, provided nothing else is dealing more bleed damage" as a valid interpretation, and wouldn't mind if it was ruled that way either officially or in a game.
"Roll the damage every turn, but only if no other bleeds already existed" is just unfathomable to me from a rules perspective. I cannot see how the rules possibly support that interpretation.
For your question, I'd rule that since stacking didn't work, the first bleed effect established would continue and the other would not apply.Would you rule the same if the first attack to land did 1 bleed damage every round and the second did 1d6 bleed damage every round?
Well then we're back to a fixed amount versus a die roll. As far as bleed rules are concerned, they're the exact same. GM's call is probably how it'll boil down. Same thing for this whole discussion, really. GM's call.
I think the driving factor behind why I feel the way I do isn't about how I interpret the way bleed works, but that I'm uncomfortable having a mechanic that makes you roll until you get a high result (if it indeed works that way). That just doesn't sit right with me. It seems unbalanced, like it's favoring the user of the feat more than the designers intended. It's just my opinion, but I call Munchkin's War Razor on it. The solution most beneficial to the power gamer is almost always the wrong one.
In other words: you're house ruling because you don't like the way the current rule works. EDIT: Not that there's anything at all wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that you do seem to realize that what you're saying and what the rules say are, indeed, different.
In other words: you're house ruling because you don't like the way the current rule works. EDIT: Not that there's anything at all wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that you do seem to realize that what you're saying and what the rules say are, indeed, different.
I'm interpreting the feat the way I believe it should work and backing it up with citations of the rules. You are doing the same. I don't think either of us is house ruling anything. Until there is official clarification on the subject, we'll have to just agree to disagree.
Also, I first gave my reasoning based on the rules as written. My last post is a reflection on what I believe to be the rules as intended. They are not mutually exclusive and I was not conceding that my opinion and what the rules say are different.