Does the Magus arcana: Arcane Edge bleed stack with other bleed attacks, like the Rogue’s Bleeding Attack? As far as I know, only the Bleeding Critical feat specifically says that it stacks with itself, but would it stack with those other bleed sources?
AND, if you give a bleeding effect to a creature with fast healing, which comes first at the beginning of the creatures next turn, the bleed damage or the healing which cancels the bleed? I could see the creature taking the bleed damage at the beginning of the turn, then his fast healing stops it from continuing on to it’s next turn.
bleed attacks only stack if they do different types of damage EX:hp damage or con damage.
Bleed Damage description
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.
Fast Healing
A creature with fast healing regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately.
My reckoning that Fast healing does not stop bleed (but may help alleviate). However, even one point of magical healing will stop it.
I guess the difference would depend on how the creature gets the fast healing?
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Extraordinary abilities are unusual abilities that do not rely on magic to function.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical attacks, defenses, and qualities.
As an (Ex) it could not be compared to cure light, as it's "just" very good health.
As a (Su) it is magical in nature and thus could be considered akin to spells and spell-like abilities in this case?
If (Su) doesn't work it means Paladin's Lay On Hands (Su) doesn't work either...
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 wanted to be mean you could say even spell-like abilities don't work...
-----
And while we are at it:
how does Regeneration relate to bleeding, because the text doesn't elaborate on bleed either:
Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
It only mentions severed limbs as a difference.
And Regeneration tends to be (Ex) or (Su) just like Fast Healing.
this is a very good question.
I think that I would simply say that regen and fast heal cancel bleed.
but its a good question.
A ring of regen would be magical in nature... so it would stick with the theory that it's a magical vs unusual thing...
I think the ring of regen explanation kind of locks it down for me.
I mean... from a logical sense any form of fast healing or regeneration is at its core magical.
also since bleed damage represents an open wound of some sort any healing even a DC15 heal check... is going to close the open wound.
ultimately bleed damage is fun and effective but fragile. Any healing stops the continued damage, but does not stop the addition of new bleed damage.
If you gain Fast Healing from a spell, the healing does not become magical...
could you give me an example? because that doesn't sound very logical...?
I think they may be referring to the spell infernal healing, it grants fast healing 1 for something like a minute. The fact that it is a spell that heals damage is all that really matters for RAW and its interaction with bleed effects though. If bleed effects were supposed to be negated by fast healing or regeneration, I imagine that Paizo would have stated that in the ability write up of those particular abilities. Bleed effects are a "core" effect, not something that was added in a supplement and weren't accounted for at the core rulebook publishing. As it stands neither fast healing or regeneration by themselves would stop a bleed effect by RAW, unless the ability happens to come from a spell or is otherwise stated to do so (in the case of a ring of regeneration).
Counter intuitive? Maybe, but so are other rules in the game.
Bleed is a condition that is very inconsistent in how it is healed.
The Bleed condition in the CRB says any spell that cures hit point damage, the Rogue Bleeding Attack talent and Oracle Bleeding Wounds revelation say any effect that heals damage, Bleeding Critical and the Universal Monster Rules say any magical healing.
So rather than just one Bleed condition that follows a particular rule, there are no less than three Bleed conditions that each follow different rules, depending an the particular source.
Archaeik & Skylancer4
So by your ruling a Paladin's Lay on Hands ability does not stop bleeding? because lay on hands is no a spell even though it gives back hitpoints. It's not even spell-like... it's supernatural.
I hate complicated rules where something like this is gray.
In my own games, very simple rule.
If you get healed in any way (Skill Check, Stabilize spell when under 0, cure spell, regeneration, fast healing, lay on hands, rage power, potion, whatever) then you stop bleeding.
RAW is not wierd in this. RAW is quite clear.
I think nitpicking what is magical is the problem.
any ability that does not have a natural real world analogue is MAGICAL.
no one can heal a heavily bleeding injury in under a minute by any means except applying bandages or chemicals to the wound (represented by a DC15 heal check)
thus anything outside of this is magical.
regen, fast heal, lay on hands, super natural, divine, mutation, all of that and more = magical.
thats my take atleast.
Im sure rules lawyers will argue the point.
RAW is clear. It takes a spell that cures HP to stop bleed. It is odd that Su abilities do not qualify. It is clear that "Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like." I would say Sp abilities would count as a spell, since they are spell-like.
Personally, we house-rule this to be any HP healed from any source will cancel any bleed currently active.
Once again the MANY DIFFERENT bleeds!
Until the Errata or FAQ establishes "One Bleed to Rule Them ALL".
There are at least four different descriptions for stopping Bleed.
Until there is a single RAW to resolve this, everyone might as well HouseRule it.
What we use is the description for the Rogue's Bleeding Attack for all any bleed with a DC15 Heal check.
This seems to be best RAI.
The important parts are; "Bleeding creatures take that amount of damage every round AT THE START of each of their turns. The bleeding can be stopped by a DC15 Heal check or the application of any effect that heals hit point damage."
Thus bleed first, then fast healing, regeneration, spells, Heal check, whatever. Then stop bleeding.
Weaker forms of bleed such as the bat swarm's Wounding ability we leave alone. The same with stronger bleeds like the Bearded Devil's Infernal Wounding.
There is No RAW for this subject, since almost every entry is slightly different:D
I know James isn't the rules guy, but I did ask him his opinion in his thread.
Hey James, I saw a thread about bleed damage in the Rules forum. To sum it up, it became a discussion on what exactly heals Bleed damage. The Bleed ability specifically says it requires a DC 15 Heal check, or a spell that heals hp.
Per RAW, that means abilities like Wholeness of Body, Lay on Hands, or even Channel Energy do not stop Bleed damage as they are neither a DC 15 Heal check, or a spell that heals hp.
This concerns me as our local Hobby Store has begun getting into PFS and they tend to ask my advice on rule interpretations that aren't specifically called out in the Erratas, FAQs, or the book.
My question is, do I have to enforce the RAW that only a DC 15 Heal check or spell stops Bleed damage, or should I allow the other effects, like Fast Healing, Regeneration, Lay on Hands, Channel Energy etc. to stop Bleed damage?
Anything that heals hit point damage stops bleed damage.
Not only does that match the rules as intended, it's simple to remember. And there's NO GOOD REASON why cure light wounds should be able to stop bleed damage when a potion of cure light wounds (also not a spell) won't do the same thing. Or fast healing or channel energy or anything else.
If it heals hp damage, it stops all bleed effects.
I specifically pointed out the question in the context of PFS, so I would say that, even in PFS, anything that heals HP, stops Bleed damage.
I don't know, but I'm sure James knows. I would assume he wouldn't answer the question or mention that his interpretation doesn't count.
Interesting though, how does healing effects that do not have a caster level affect something such as a Bearded Devil's version of bleed (Infernal Wound)?
Example: Player summons Bearded Devil, bearded devil whacks on hydra (fast healing 5). The hydra's Fast Healing is an EX ability with no caster level. How do we adjucate this? - Gauss
When I'm on the rules forum, I'm not terribly concerned with RAI. I'm not a Paizo employee and I didn't write the rules for the book, I don't know what the true intent was. So when discussing things of this type of "grey" I stick to the RAW which is in the book. That being said I don't have a problem with house ruling any healing stops bleeding, but I will point out that RAW doesn't support it. Even with James' reply (which incidentally was given quite some time ago) I would point out there hasn't been an errata and the rules still state "spell." So feel free to do what you want in your own games, just be aware RAW says differently. It is great that James is on the boards answering questions for us, but that doesn't mean he has all the answers and he is always right.
I think they may be referring to the spell infernal healing, it grants fast healing 1 for something like a minute. The fact that it is a spell that heals damage is all that really matters for RAW and its interaction with bleed effects though.As I pointed out, Infernal Healing doesn't restore any HP magically.
Did you really? I saw you point out the spell and fast healing ability as if they were two non related items. RAW wants a spell that heals damage. The way I see it, if during the duration of a spell, the effect of the spell heals damage it successfully stops a bleed effect. The bleed effect doesn't require the healing to be magical or otherwise, just that RAW, the healing is done via a spell effect. If it were a matter of it being magical, SU/SP abilities would work by default. But that isn't what RAW says. Per RAW Infernal Healing would indeed stop a bleed effect because the granted fast healing ability is the effect of a spell even if the ability is stated as "natural healing." If a spell causes any condition or ability that heals damage it would end the bleed effect when the healing is applied (unless there was a clause that stated it didn't of course).
To me it is a matter of, does this healing come from a spell effect? My answer is "yes." The natural healing is occuring due to a spell. It didn't exist before the spell and it won't exist after the spell duration ends. If someone uses detect magic and makes the roll, will they get this "magical aura is due to a spell called X," or will they get nothing due to it not being a spell effect?
Even with James' reply (which incidentally was given quite some time ago) I would point out there hasn't been an errata and the rules still state "spell."
Actually, I asked that question about 7 hours ago. I actually linked to this very thread in the post, so it wasn't given 'quite some time ago'.
Hmm.. if I start a thread, then edited it and linked it to itself, thereby creating a never ending chain of links.. will I shatter the space-time continuum and earn myself a cookie? What's the RAW say on such a scenario?
When I'm on the rules forum, I'm not terribly concerned with RAI. I'm not a Paizo employee and I didn't write the rules for the book, I don't know what the true intent was. So when discussing things of this type of "grey" I stick to the RAW which is in the book. That being said I don't have a problem with house ruling any healing stops bleeding, but I will point out that RAW doesn't support it. Even with James' reply (which incidentally was given quite some time ago) I would point out there hasn't been an errata and the rules still state "spell." So feel free to do what you want in your own games, just be aware RAW says differently. It is great that James is on the boards answering questions for us, but that doesn't mean he has all the answers and he is always right.
Well, if you really want to stick to RAW, you can't just go by the description in the CRB or the description in the Bestiary, since the RAW for different abilities that cause bleed are often worded differently.
So, unless you houserule "One Bleed to Rule Them ALL," the only way to be sure of the RAW is to have the text handy for each and every specific ability as it comes up (preferably noted in the statblock, or on a character sheet.)
Even with James' reply (which incidentally was given quite some time ago) I would point out there hasn't been an errata and the rules still state "spell."Actually, I asked that question about 7 hours ago. I actually linked to this very thread in the post, so it wasn't given 'quite some time ago'.
Hmm.. if I start a thread, then edited it and linked it to itself, thereby creating a never ending chain of links.. will I shatter the space-time continuum and earn myself a cookie? What's the RAW say on such a scenario?
Similar threads come up repeatedly on certain subjects, and I've seen similar answers before as questions like these were asked multiple times since the beta of pfrpg. This isn't the first time the question has come up and I am fairly certain it won't be the last time it does. Among the things Paizo has going for it is they are consistent with their rulings (unlike WotC forums/help) on the boards. So while your particular link might not have been "some time ago" a previous post has covered the question and the answer was consistent with the one given in your "recent" post. Could I give you a link? No and quite honestly I wouldn't bother at this point if I could.
Well, if you really want to stick to RAW, you can't just go by the description in the CRB or the description in the Bestiary, since the RAW for different abilities that cause bleed are often worded differently.So, unless you houserule "One Bleed to Rule Them ALL," the only way to be sure of the RAW is to have the text handy for each and every specific ability as it comes up (preferably noted in the statblock, or on a character sheet.)
And that is perfectly fine, as every ability has the possibility to provide exceptions to the rules as written. So if a specific bleed ability says it is healed through some means that aren't outlined in the normal bleed ability description, it just modifies that particular ability. The rest of the unmodified or generic bleed abilities work as per the general bleed ability write up.
The entire game is based on general rules and exceptions to those rules. If something says it is a bleed ability and doesn't provided exceptions to how it is healed, the default is go to the errata and if nothing is there refer to the glossary/index and look it up. It is an "All Bleed Effects Rule (unless otherwise specified)" that is how this game has always worked... and it isn't even a house rule, it is RAW.
It is an "All Bleed Effects Rule (unless otherwise specified)" that is how this game has always worked... and it isn't even a house rule, it is RAW.Having these different exceptions doesn't make the game more fun. It isn't required for game balance.
It is poor design and counter-intuitive.
But that is your opinion, having exceptions to the rules is what makes certain abilities more attractive and what makes certain classes/archtypes/abilities more "fun" for some people. Something like spring attack, where you get to move and attack but not soak up an AoO, is an exception to the general rules. Most feats and abilities that draw a player into a certain character concept are exceptions to the rules. But apparently that is "poor design" and "counter-intuitive" and not "fun" to you. I and many others are apparently ok with it given the popularity of the PFRPG, a game totally based completely on having general rules with many various exceptions to those general rules, and more being made with every supplement...
It's apparently the developers' opinion as well; as I understand it, one of the driving forces behind PFRPG was removing such unnecessary complexity. If you want unnecessary complexity, I can suggest a plethora of 3.5 material. : D
Edit: Qualified because I don't have time to hunt for posts.
Having three different abilities with differing origins sounds like reason enough to have different descriptions. I would also point out all three of those abilities are primarily PC based abilities and PCs are where the overwhelming number of exceptions are made. PCs are supposed to be the exception to the rule, that is why they exist, and is the core of what they are.
The "added complexity" of the three bleed effects is laughable when compared to a PC/NPC who migh have a full spellbook of choices on a daily basis. Are we supposed to complain that there are too many spells, or spells that overlap? As a player and GM sometimes an ability "misses the mark" and I want something "else" and having multiple abilities along a similar vein but slightly different is a good thing creatively. It allows for us to pick and choose, options are good, options keep the game from getting stale. Also at differing points of a characters career having those options allow for concepts that stay relevant, having a bleed effect that doesn't get nullified by an ability that a significant portion of the possible opponents could have (to keep up with the arms race that is a PC party) is a good thing. That alone is reason enough for it to exist. Having access to a bleed effect that doesn't get blown out of the water by mundane healing (like the critical feat) is fine. In my games, three options of bleeding isn't going to break things or cause frustration. If it is in your games, maybe you should pass the mantle on to someone who doesn't find it so obnoxious? You might find you enjoy the game more.
It's apparently the developers' opinion as well; as I understand it, one of the driving forces behind PFRPG was removing such unnecessary complexity. If you want unnecessary complexity, I can suggest a plethora of 3.5 material. : D
Edit: Qualified because I don't have time to hunt for posts.
Seeing as the publishers actually wrote the rules, and the core feat actually breaks from the bleed description in the same book, I'd venture they seem to not mind a little added complexity to keep the game interesting ;-)
Pretty sure if you want a dumbed down game, that is what the Beginners Boxed Set was for. I personally don't need things that simple and find it boring, but maybe some of you would prefer it.
It's apparently the developers' opinion as well; as I understand it, one of the driving forces behind PFRPG was removing such unnecessary complexity. If you want unnecessary complexity, I can suggest a plethora of 3.5 material. : D
Edit: Qualified because I don't have time to hunt for posts.
Seeing as the publishers actually wrote the rules, and the core feat actually breaks from the bleed description in the same book, I'd venture they seem to not mind a little added complexity to keep the game interesting ;-)
Pretty sure if you want a dumbed down game, that is what the Beginners Boxed Set was for. I personally don't need things that simple and find it boring, but maybe some of you would prefer it.
Hey, if you find four different rules called "bleed" with the same name but slightly different mechanics "interesting", more power to you. To most of us, in this case it adds nothing to the game but confusion.
Hey, if you find four different rules called "bleed" with the same name but slightly different mechanics "interesting", more power to you. To most of us, in this case it adds nothing to the game but confusion.Seeing as the publishers actually wrote the rules, and the core feat actually breaks from the bleed description in the same book, I'd venture they seem to not mind a little added complexity to keep the game interesting ;-)
Pretty sure if you want a dumbed down game, that is what the Beginners Boxed Set was for. I personally don't need things that simple and find it boring, but maybe some of you would prefer it.
Given the range of levels of play and the inherent power levels at various stages, there needs to be some variance in an ability such as bleed otherwise is become useless early on. Modifying a bleed effect is actually a "balance" issue in that respect. So far the only thing that might need to be cleared up is RAW, the core bleed effect and the "spell" wording (as per James post). But as I have mentioned before, it has come up and hasn't been changed, so by RAW it works a particular way and that is what we should be pointing out on the Rules Forum.
Thanks for all the interest and responses to this question. I'm currently travelling and am having a hard time getting internet, which is why I'm just now able to read them all.
Final analysis... seems to be a lot of confusion about this topic, unfortunately.