|
| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posted from the Bleed thread to avoid OT discussion
Bleed in the CRB: 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).
Bleed in the Beastiary: This bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal skill check or through the application of any magical healing.
Under the CRB definition, Channeled Energy does not stop bleed damage because it explicitly says Spells, while channeled energy is a Supernatural ability.
Under the Beastiary, it would because the Beastiary says magical healing, and supernatural abilities qualify as magical.
Furthermore, Regeneration and Fast Healing do not explicitly state that they stop bleeding, and since they're both extraordinary abilities, neither stops bleed RAW, however it doesn't make a great deal of sense that they wouldn't stop bleeding wounds, ESPECIALLY Regeneration, which can even grow back severed limbs.
Haha, good catch (:
If you want to get technical, the bleed in the bestiary is supposed to be categorized as universal monster rules -- thus, when you see the word "bleed" in the monster description, it links back to this definition. So in that sense, the universal monster rules definition of bleed in the bestiary is simply different than the rules that govern bleed in the core rulebook. In a literal interpretation, that means the rules for monsters are simply different for PCs and NPCs. PC bleeds cannot be removed by channeled energy but monster bleeds can.
Does that make sense? No. It's more likely an editing mistake. If I had to choose (as a GM), I'd use the bestiary definition. It makes way more sense that any magic ability would work versus simply spells. How are spells more potent than supernatural abilities when it comes to stopping bleeds?
PCs use the universal monster rules as well, and monsters use conditions too.
PCs use the universal monster rules as well, and monsters use conditions too.
Well, in 3.X, there was a specific rule (I think in the FAQ?) that said that a primary source overrides a secondary source. So for rules involving monsters, a monster manual ruling would override anything in the PH -- and vice versa for PCs.
But since that rule doesn't apply in Pathfinder, I guess it depends on what your GM feels like ):
|
|
Well, I'm inclined to go with Cheapy, who originally pointed out the different definition in the Beastiary, simply because I think that it makes more sense to go with any magical healing rather than explicitly limiting it to spells.
However, even if you can solve the problem by picking your definition, neither one allows for Regeneration or Fast Healing to stop bleed, RAW.
Fast Healing I'm on the fence about.
Regeneration, however, it just makes no sense for Regeneration to not heal bleed damage, yet if you go by the text of the rules, it doesn't seem to work.
However, even if you can solve the problem by picking your definition, neither one allows for Regeneration or Fast Healing to stop bleed, RAW.
Fast Healing I'm on the fence about.
Regeneration, however, it just makes no sense for Regeneration to not heal bleed damage, yet if you go by the text of the rules, it doesn't seem to work.
Or to be more precise not end the bleed effect... because both will 'heal' the damage caused by a bleed effect (as long as it is HP bleed at least)... the creature will just take the bleed damage again the next round.
|
|
Or to be more precise not end the bleed effect... because both will 'heal' the damage caused by a bleed effect (as long as it is HP bleed at least)... the creature will just take the bleed damage again the next round.However, even if you can solve the problem by picking your definition, neither one allows for Regeneration or Fast Healing to stop bleed, RAW.
Fast Healing I'm on the fence about.
Regeneration, however, it just makes no sense for Regeneration to not heal bleed damage, yet if you go by the text of the rules, it doesn't seem to work.
Well, with the exception of Bleeding Critical, most Fast Healing or Regeneration effects are going to outpace a bleed effect.
But it seems a bit silly to me to say have a troll, who can't be killed despite his head being cut off, but can't heal the bleeding wound in his chest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to get this resolved last year:(
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mj7p?Different-types-of-Bleed#1
What my group settled on was any hp healing would stop it, or a Heal check.
Creatures with fast healing would still bleed if their fast healing were suppressed, like a troll taking fire damage.
My first link, hope it works. Nope, I suck at linking.
Core Rulebook & Bestiary still list several different Bleeds.
IMO just pick one and apply it to all the different Bleeds.
I agree, any HP healing will stop HP bleed, even if it is not RAW.
consider this
you have fast healing 1
sombody doese 10 bleed damage (maybe a major artery totaly riped open.)
would that fast healing 1 make so that the whole wound just doesnt bleed any more all of a suden?
i would say you need fast healing in total of 10 to be able to stop the bleeding completley maybe 5 rounds of fast healing 2
ofsetting each point of bleed per point of regeneration healing. as it is not a targeted heal
a spell or bandage is targeted to that wound specificly so could just close that wound entirely
|
|
Wait, what? o.OPC bleeds cannot be removed by channeled energy...
It depends on which set of rules text you use.
I pointed out one in the CRB that says that only Spells that cure hit point damage stop bleed.
Since Channeled Energy is not a spell, it doesn't apply.
Cheapy pointed out that the same text in the Beastiary says Magical Healing rather than Spells, which would bring positive energy in under the fold.
Queen Moragan further pointed out that in the Rogue's Bleed Attack text, it says "The application of any effect that heals hit point damage" which ALSO encompasses Fast Healing and Regeneration.
So depending on which definition you use, Channeled Positive Energy, Fast Healing, and Regeneration may or may not stop bleed.
|
|
consider this
you have fast healing 1
sombody doese 10 bleed damage (maybe a major artery totaly riped open.)would that fast healing 1 make so that the whole wound just doesnt bleed any more all of a suden?
i would say you need fast healing in total of 10 to be able to stop the bleeding completley maybe 5 rounds of fast healing 2
ofsetting each point of bleed per point of regeneration healing. as it is not a targeted heal
a spell or bandage is targeted to that wound specificly so could just close that wound entirely
No offense, but I think this is completely silly, and here is why:
If I have something ridiculous, like lets say Bleed 100 and someone comes up to me and casts cure light wounds and heals me for 2 points, there can be no arguing that the 2 points of healing I just received stopped that 100 point Bleed.
But now you're saying that the same bleed effect should take into account the magnitude of my fast healing? That If I were fast healing 5, which is more than the cure light wounds I just recieved, that fast healing 5 should take 20 rounds to cure my bleed?
I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous.
The problem is that you're focusing on the magnitude of the healing, but it's not about that, it's about the source of the healing. Fast Healing and Regeneration are important because they are not magical healing, they're extraordinary. But it obviously doesn't make sense that a creature that can regenerate it's body parts can't heal a bleeding wound.
Furthermore, if the argument was about magnitude, I would think that the DC for a heal check to stop a bleed would scale, but it doesn't. It's a DC 15 to stop Bleed 1 and It's DC 15 to stop Bleed 100 (Which I imagine to be some sort of Kill Bill level of bleeding). That means that a 1st level peasant with a wisdom of 10 has a 30% chance of stopping the most grievous of all wounds with some bandaids. So if that's the case, I think so should something like Fast Healing.
Since Fast Healing is basically defined as "rapid natural healing", I'd say it doesn't help against bleed (except to mitigate the effects). I'd also probably rule that as soon as the subject's hp are at max (assuming it can survive that long) any bleed effects end. This allows for a creature with Fast Healing 5 to recover from Bleed 3 on its own (and even Bleed 5 plus rest).
All other means of healing are magical (as far as I can tell), and would stop bleed damage immediately.
|
|
That still leaves us with the odd duck of regeneration which is not magical but grows limbs back and prevents you from dying, but doesn't cure bleed RAW.
Put another way: A Tarrasque's regeneration will prevent him from being killed even if it's entire body is disintegrated. But if you inflict a bleeding wound on it, it's regeneration will not heal that wound RAW unless you use the text from the Rogue's Bleeding Attack.
I was curious about this not to long ago, so here is what I found that as Official as I could find:
The intent is that any actual healing can stop bleed damage. The wording of "any spell" is a bit confusing, alas. Channeled energy, regeneration, and fast healing should all stop bleed damage. Which is good, because bleed damage is scary!
Found in This Thread.
The only technical question I have left is when exactly does Fast Healing or Regeneration kick-in relative to the bleed tick? I guess this would be important for those who deal bleed damage.
Based on the RAW, Bleed ticks at the start of the victims turn. Regeneration works as Fast Healing. Fast Healing ticks "X points per round." Because we have an explicit declaration of when Bleed goes, but not the others, is it correct to say that Bleed will tick before being stopped by FH or Regen? I'm leaning that way, but if anyone has other thoughts :)
Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn.
Fast Healing (Ex) A creature with the fast healing special quality 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.
Regeneration (Ex) A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing
RAW, it technically doesn't, since it says it must be through the application of a spell. Because of this, RAW would also say that the applications of potions or ointments or other such restorative methods don't stop bleeding either.
RAI, I don't see why not. They restore health; in a fantasy standpoint, regeneration and fast healing would have the wound stop quickly, and channeled energy would apply the energy to the wound, causing it to mend quickly as per the other 2 mentioned. The same can be said for potions and magical ointments.
However, I did FAQ this because of the conflicting RAW between the two books, meaning it still needs an adjustment.
In 3.5e any healing stopped bleeding.
I believe they borrowed this for Pathfinder.
So all of those stop bleeding.
I think you just stumbled on the problem of changes in wording between books making it sound more complicated than it really is.
|
|
In 3.5e any healing stopped bleeding.
I believe they borrowed this for Pathfinder.
So all of those stop bleeding.
I think you just stumbled on the problem of changes in wording between books making it sound more complicated than it really is.
What I'm looking for is a clean-up of the ruling.
I think the correct text is the text Queen Morogan posted from the Rogue's Bleeding Attack that says that any application of any healing cures bleed, which would encompass Fast Healing and Regeneration. But that's not the glossary text nor the beastiary text and I'd like to see it get the official recognition.
... I'd like to see it get the official recognition.
I second this.
|
|
... I'd like to see it get the official recognition.I second this.
Part of the problem that I've run up against is that argument that there are "Different types of bleeds" which quite frankly I think is kinda nonsense, and if it were true, a bad design decision. I don't think it's the case though, as all of them have identical text, including the DC 15 Heal, the only different is the last line. My argument was that if there were some bleeds that could only be healed by spells and others that could be healed by any healing, why would they all be healed by a bandage applied by a DC 15 heal?
I think Spells/SLAs/Supernatural Healing should.
Fast Healing/Regeneration should be limited to amounts greater than the Bleeds Maximum Damage possible in a turn or once you are at Full HP when the healing activates. So Bleeding Critical would require FH/Regen 12+ or the monster being at Full HP when the Healing Activates.
This way it doesn't completely shut down Bleed as being effective.
|
|
I think that's somewhat complicated to be honest, and I think it still runs up against the point I mentioned earlier
If it worked that way, I could cut a Troll's head off and not kill him, because of his regeneration, but I could inflict a bleeding wound that does 6 damage on him that would keep him permanently unconscious because his regeneration couldn't outpace the bleeding and I just don't see how that makes any sense.
Doesn't Normal Regeneration Shut Down when their HP reaches the point of Death?
If that is true then the Terrasque would be the Exception. It might explain how they have kept it sealed away in a dormant state.
|
|
Doesn't Normal Regeneration Shut Down when their HP reaches the point of Death?
If that is true then the Terrasque would be the Exception. It might explain how they have kept it sealed away in a dormant state.
I don't see anywhere in the text where it says that the creatures Regeneration shuts down once they reach negative Con.
As far as I'm aware, you can take a Troll to -100 Million HP for all the regeneration rules care, but it won't die until you do 1 point of fire/acid damage to it when it's at -Con.
Where the Tarrasque is unique is that unlike the Troll and every other creature with Regeneration is that there's no way to turn the Tarrasque's regeneration off.
Part of the problem that I've run up against is that argument that there are "Different types of bleeds" which quite frankly I think is kinda nonsense, and if it were true, a bad design decision. I don't think it's the case though, as all of them have identical text, including the DC 15 Heal, the only different is the last line. My argument was that if there were some bleeds that could only be healed by spells and others that could be healed by any healing, why would they all be healed by a bandage applied by a DC 15 heal?... I'd like to see it get the official recognition.I second this.
Actually, while agree with you on a game-rules standpoint, I could definitely see different types of bleed being a thing. As a basic 'rule of thumb', bleed would, then be a thing where any healing or a DC 15 heal check would fix it, but certain types of bleeding (including things that cause internal bleeding) could be the result of, say, cellular degeneration. A simple DC 15 wouldn't fix that, nor would, say, regeneration (which would simply recreate the bad cells).
This is substantially more likely to be a disease-or-poison-type effect, though, instead of a normal bleed-attack-with-weapons.
While it could be complicated, I could see it working well, myself. It would be an instance of specific overriding general.
But as written, I agree, it's weird and completely arbitrary.
Also, regen doesn't shut down under any circumstances except when it's noted to be shut down or the creature is physically destroyed, if I recall (or is killed by a death effect or turned into an undead, thus negating its constitution score). And in general regeneration prevents you from dying. So, to answer your question, "Sort of, yes, mostly, but it's a little complicated and depends on how you look at things."
Basically the Tarrasque's regeneration both answers questions about regeneration (it works like normal regeneration, except even when subject to death effects/destruction effects like disintegrate, he comes back being key to understanding regeneration in general) and raises more. But that's the nature of Big T. Personally, I'm all for sicking a wraith on him until he's at 0 CON (but still going) and then sicking an animate dream on him until he's unconscious (at 0 WIS). Or killing him with a death effect, raising him as a 30 HD zombie, and summoning a solar to murder-ize the thing.
Aaaaaaaaahhhhh... getting sucked away from Important Stuff toady. So distracted.
Ok then... Wait I think I am thinking of Fast Healing...
& I thought Lopping its head off (via Vorpal or such) instantly killed it...
& would Starvation and such come into play with that situation as well?
|
|
Poor Big T.
My point about bleed is that I think that since bleed is a condition, it should have consistent rules.
It's not that I can't conceive of different types of bleed, like a normal bleed vs. a magical bleed vs. an internal bleed. I just don't think it's a good idea.
And if you DID want to have different types of bleeds, then what we SHOULD do is have a uniform bleed rule that's consistent across the books and then if you want to modify that, then the rules text that modifies the uniform rule should be in the feat/creature stats/spell text...ect.
But we don't even have a uniform base rule, so I think we should start there.
Say:
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 effect that cures the Damage it deals. 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.
Then have some that can't be healed by specific effects.
|
|
Ok then... Wait I think I am thinking of Fast Healing...
& I thought Lopping its head off (via Vorpal or such) instantly killed it...
& would Starvation and such come into play with that situation as well?
Vorpal says that most creatures die when their heads are cut off. Regeneration specifically says that a creature with regeneration cannot die when it's regeneration is in effect.
So if you cut off a troll's head, and it's regeneration is in effect, then it won't die. But if you then apply a point of fire damage, it's regeneration will turn off for a round, and then it should die because it's head has been cut off.
Likewise, Regeneration says that it doesn't heal damage taken from starvation/suffocation, but it still won't die from the damage while it's regeneration is in effect, it will simply go unconscious until it is healed or it's regeneration is suppressed, allowing it to die.
Good Points...