Boar Style Boar Shred


Rules Questions


34 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've done my due dilligence (checked the FAQ and forum history) and could find no official rule clarification for these feats despite the question having repeatedly come up in the forums for at least a year.

I'm requesting on official FAQ entry on this. How do these two feats interact wrt the bleed damage they generate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay... so the bleed damage from Boar Style only happens once, it doesn't recur each round. The only thing it gets from being bleed damage in this instance is that it ignores DR and can't affect certain creatures.

So, with Boar style you deal 2d6 DR penetrating damage if you hit with two or more unarmed strikes.

With Boar Shred, anytime you Tear Flesh (aka get that 2d6 damage from Boar Style) that opponent starts to bleed every round for 1d6. This bleed damage does not stack with itself.

Sczarni

What Lord Malkov said is correct.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
the bleed damage from Boar Style only happens once, it doesn't recur each round.
That's gotta be wrong because
Quote:

Bleed (Ex)

A creature with this ability causes wounds that continue to bleed, inflicting additional damage each round at the start of the affected creature’s turn. This bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal skill check or through the application of any magical healing. The amount of damage each round is determined in the creature’s entry.

Format: bleed (2d6); Location: Special Attacks and individual attacks.

if it only happens once, then its not bleed.

I want an official ruling.


Problem is that you are quoting the universal monster ability and not the damage type.

It sucks that it isn't more clear but every recurring bleed attack specifically calls out the UMR or says that it recurs in the entry for the ability. If this were not the case, since bleed damage does not stack (again unless different types of dmg eg hitpoints and constitution bleed OR if it is specifically stated in the ability eg bloodletting kukri) there would be zero benefit from boar shred. 2d6 bleed will always supersede 1d6.


Or that they stack to do 3d6


Except that bleed dmg doesn't stack except in a very few cases where a weapon allows it.

You can have multiple bleed effects on the same target but they need to be different dmg type aka
You can have a 1pt con bleed and a 2d6 hitpoint bleed at the same time.


Blindmage wrote:
Or that they stack to do 3d6

HP bleed won't stack with other sources of HP bleed. If you inflict both 2d6 bleed and 1d6 bleed, the target only suffers the 2d6 bleed (rendering the 1d6 bleed from Shred moot). Bleed will only stack if it targets separate things like HP bleed with Con bleed. Think of it as bleed with a duration of 1 round.


IT looks like the 2d6 bleed from Boar Style only continues as long as you remain in the Style, if you change, it ends. Hence the note in Boar Shred "The bleed damage dealt while using Boar Style persist even if you later switch to a different style."

So:

Boar Style: 2d6 Bleed untill you change Styles, once you do it ends. Thais damage happens as party of the attack "When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack."
Board Shred: The Bleed damage from Boar Style can continue even if you change Styles and also does 1d6 bleed.

Since bleed damage overlaps, if you have Boar Shred, you'd roll 2d6 bleed and 1d6 bleed, taking the higher as the amount of damage dealt.

Unless of course, they meant for it to stack and just do 3d6 bleed and worded it horribly.


If they meant for boar styles bleed dmg to recur they would have said so. Notice how they DO say it in boar shred. And bleeding attack and wounding weapons and bloodletting kukri and so on and so on


if that's the case, why in the world would they use the Bleed term when almost all other uses of it means something different?


Blindmage wrote:
if that's the case, why in the world would they use the Bleed term when almost all other uses of it means something different?

Well now that IS a really good question, but I have to assume it is because bleed damage has a few effects all on its own. You you can't tear the flesh of an elemental for example since it is immune to bleed. So that helps to match the flavor of the feat (though they could have just said that it only works on things that can be crit or have anatomy or whatever)

And Bleed damage goes through DR, so there is that effect as well.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Problem is that you are quoting the universal monster ability and not the damage type.

d20pfsrd links to the universal monster ability, see?


with all respect, Lord Malkov, what you're posting is guesswork and I get the sense that you're uncertain as well.

This is a case where we really could use a developer ruling.


Yes this thing really needs cleaned up. The "Its bleed that does not follow the bleed rules even though it is not stated anywhere" is not good enough. It is a system of exceptions to be sure. But for something to be an exception is has to you know.... say so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know that its unclear, and a FAQ could certainly clean this up a lot, but my reasoning is based on the other bleed effects available. Note the wording:

From Rogue's Bleeding Attack: "A rogue with this ability can cause living opponents to bleed by hitting them with a sneak attack. This attack causes the target to take 1 additional point of damage each round for each die of the rogue's sneak attack (e.g., 4d6 equals 4 points of bleed). Bleeding creatures take that amount of damage every round at the start of each of their turns. The bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or the application of any effect that heals hit point damage."

From Bleeding Critical: "Whenever you score a critical hit with a slashing or piercing weapon, your opponent takes 2d6 points of bleed damage each round on his turn, in addition to the damage dealt by the critical hit. Bleed damage can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal skill check or through any magical healing. The effects of this feat stack."

From Wounding Weapon: "This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A wounding weapon deals 1 point of bleed damage when it hits a creature. Multiple hits from a wounding weapon increase the bleed damage. Bleeding creatures take the bleed damage at the start of their turns. Bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage. A critical hit does not multiply the bleed damage. Creatures immune to critical hits are immune to the bleed damage dealt by this weapon."

From Boar Shred: "You can make an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent as a move action. While using Boar Style, whenever you tear an opponent’s flesh, once per round at the start of that opponent’s turn he takes 1d6 bleed damage. The bleed damage dealt while using Boar Style persist even if you later switch to a different style."

But from Boar Style: "You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack."

So, pretty much all the other bleed attack examples specifically talk about the recurrence. Add that to the fact that bleed damage doesnt stack unless specifically stated (boar shred does not state this) and the fact that these are attached feats from the same book and you have a fairly clear picture.

What exactly, would be the point of having a 2d6 dmg bleed attack that recurred until healed and then spending a feat to get a 1d6 dmg bleed that didn't stack. At some point common sense has to reign right?


And yet there are other instances of bleed that don't fully spell out the bleed rules. Like the Blood Beak feat.

The fact is this is common in pathfinder. There are many cases where things list something that is part of general rules with a full disruption, and yet another place it will be listed without the full description. This simply comes from having many writes with different writing styles.

The fact is slashing damage does not need to spell out how slashing damage works to fallow those rules. Same with fire, Con, or rend damage. Though in some places it will spell it out and others it won't.

As for your common sense comment if you are trying to be insulting you could do better. The idea that they are meant to be stacking bleed makes just as much sense as the idea that one of them is bleed-kinda-sorta but not.

Just as easily one could argue that if one was meant to be instant only and the other a proper bleed they still could not function at the same time via the bleed rules. So perhaps one has to chose if they are going to do 2D6 now or 1d6 each round but not both.

-Edit- There is also Belier's bite/Bleeding attack. Honestly if you are going to try and argue that something is ALWAYS stated one way other then this one time you should do your homework first.


2cp: The 2d6 occur when the conditions are met "hit with two or more attacks" and the 1d6 occurs "once per round at the start of that opponent's turn". They are the same damage type but because they occur at two separate times there is no "stacking issue" The start of the enemy's turn and the exact time they take two unarmed attacks are not the same instance.

Start of enemy round: Take 1d6 reoccurring bleed damage and makes his actions.
Halfway into your round: Deal two unarmed strikes and deal 2d6 bleed damage.

Now it's very obvious that Boar Shred, Wounding Weapon, and Rogue's Bleeding Attack have stacking issues because they occur at the same time. I say Bleeding Critical would fall into the same category even though it says "on their turn" and not "beginning" because the mechanic is obviously the same. Boar Shred is (I think we can agree) not the same reoccurring mechanic.

Edit: Bleeding Attack feat being brought actually shuts me up quick. Because the link of "bleed" cites the bleed condition and not the "Ex" ability. So I guess... back to square one? First feat gives you 2d6 bleed each round and the next feat reduces it to 1d6? Seems quirky IMO if that's the case.

Edit Edit: I actually still stand behind the fact that because the first feat has you deal the 2d6 right then and there and the 1d6 specifically states it reoccurs they aren't happening at the same time and therefore there is no stacking issue. One happens on your round, the other at the beginning of the enemy's round.


Another guess is that the Boar Style does 2d6 every round until the PC who did the Boar Style attack changes styles, then the bleeding stops.

If the PC has Boar Shred, however, once the PC changes styles, the bleed continues, but only does 1d6.


That feels like a leap, but just as reasonable a leap as all the others sadly, since it doesn't specify that the bleeding stops upon changing stances. Which... I'm not sure how you're standing there keeps someone bleeding.

Scenario: You hit someone with the 2d6 and dance around them (stating you stay in your stance I guess) and for whatever reason they elect not to heal, they just stand there bleeding to death. However, if you change out of the stance the wound... heals over?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That's some hinky voodoo!


Justin Rocket wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:
Problem is that you are quoting the universal monster ability and not the damage type.

d20pfsrd links to the universal monster ability, see?

d20pfsrd isn't an official rules source, just a fan-compiled database. As useful as it is, there are plenty of mistakes on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's boar magic man. Can't argue with boar magic.

I tend to say boar magic might be a stretch, so I vote 2d6 when you hit with two unarmed (aka bleed typed rend) and the 1d6 reoccurring.

Edit: Oh good point zefig.


Deviston wrote:

That feels like a leap, but just as reasonable a leap as all the others sadly, since it doesn't specify that the bleeding stops upon changing stances. Which... I'm not sure how you're standing there keeps someone bleeding.

Scenario: You hit someone with the 2d6 and dance around them (stating you stay in your stance I guess) and for whatever reason they elect not to heal, they just stand there bleeding to death. However, if you change out of the stance the wound... heals over?

I based it on this part of Boar Shred

Quote:
The bleed damage dealt while using Boar Style persist even if you later switch to a different style.

That's specifically called out in the feat.


Deviston wrote:

It's boar magic man. Can't argue with boar magic.

I tend to say boar magic might be a stretch, so I vote 2d6 when you hit with two unarmed (aka bleed typed rend) and the 1d6 reoccurring.

It doesn't say 'rend', it says 'bleed'.


I wasn't really fighting your point, I was fighting the wording and how wonky it seems if it is in fact a reoccurring 2d6 bleed at the start of the enemy's round unless you aren't in stance. It's so (Edited to remove "illogical" and add the next 8 words) inconsistent with every other similar rule and effect it's worth questioning assumptions and requesting errata or official clarification.

Uh yes... this is true. I was just making a comparison.

Since Shred states the damage is dealt at the beginning of the enemy's turn,then it does. Since Boar Style does not state this, then it doesn't. I was referring to rend because it is a very similar mechanic as the 2d6 bleed from boar style.

Normally rend is a bonus amount of damage that occurs when a certain criteria is met, like hitting with two claws for example. In this similar case, the 2d6 bleed damage is dealt when certain criteria are met, hitting with two unarmed attacks. That's all I meant by saying rend, they are similar in that respect. Meet criteria, effect occurs.

Unlike the Shred which happens at the beginning of the enemy's round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I was heavily inclined to think that the 2d6 was not ongoing, merely a DR overcoming damage type, James Jacobs plays it this way. Now, this is certainly not an official response, but it's obviously not as cut and dried as I assumed.

If it is intended to be 2d6 bleed (ongoing, like every other bleed), then the only explanation I can offer of the intent of the designers is that they thought it was a bonus to be able to inflict half the bleed after scoring half the hits (ie 1). As in, up against BBEG with high AC, the PC scores one or no hits for the first couple of rounds, then on round 4, BOOM! two hits, double the bleed suckah. If you didn't have Shred, that's 3d6 you miss out on.

Definitely not how I intuitively read it, but I guess it would add a fair bit more damage over time vs high AC opponents.

Edit: fixed link.


Deviston wrote:

I wasn't really fighting your point, I was fighting the wording and how wonky it seems if it is in fact a reoccurring 2d6 bleed at the start of the enemy's round unless you aren't in stance. It's so illogical it's worth questioning assumptions and requesting errata or official clarification.

Uh yes... this is true. I was just making a comparison.

Since Shred states the damage is dealt at the beginning of the enemy's turn,then it does. Since Boar Style does not state this, then it doesn't. I was referring to rend because it is a very similar mechanic as the 2d6 bleed from boar style.

Normally rend is a bonus amount of damage that occurs when a certain criteria is met, like hitting with two claws for example. In this similar case, the 2d6 bleed damage is dealt when certain criteria are met, hitting with two unarmed attacks. That's all I meant by saying rend, they are similar in that respect. Meet criteria, effect occurs.

Unlike the Shred which happens at the beginning of the enemy's round.

okay, understood and agreed


My 2cp worth of comment.

The Boar Style wording should have been:

"You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal an additional 2d6 rend damage with the attack."

The Boar Shred wording:

"You can make an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent as a move action. While using Boar Style, whenever you cause rend damage by using Boar Style, once per round at the start of that opponent’s turn he takes 1d6 bleed damage. Bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage.

The wording "The bleed damage dealt while using Boar Style persist even if you later switch to a different style" should be dropped as it is is unnecessary and confusing. Bleed should be stopped through the normal means of stopping bleed, not by the person who caused the bleed changing how they are fighting.

That is with one feat you might cause a one-off amount of 2d6 extra damage. Take one more related feat and you will also cause 1d6 of ongoing damage.


@ Deviston

But the line in Boar Shred:
"While using Boar Style, whenever you tear an opponent’s flesh, once per round at the start of that opponent’s turn he takes 1d6 bleed damage."

is specifically referring to this line in Boar Style:
"While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack."

It doesn't work on only 1 hit, you still need both hits to "tear flesh".

Note, you can also space out the hits, say (in the same round) you trip, hit with Vicious Stomp, then they stand up, provoking an AoO and you hit them again, at the point the 2d6 would hit them, since you'd hit them with two unarmed strikes in the same round.


Blindmage wrote:

But the line in Boar Shred:

"While using Boar Style, whenever you tear an opponent’s flesh, once per round at the start of that opponent’s turn he takes 1d6 bleed damage."

is specifically referring to this line in Boar Style:
"While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack."

It doesn't work on only 1 hit, you still need both hits to "tear flesh".

Note, you can also space out the hits, say (in the same round) you trip, hit with Vicious Stomp, then they stand up, provoking an AoO and you hit them again, at the point the 2d6 would hit them, since you'd hit them with two unarmed strikes in the same round.

Is your comment in response to mine or someone else's?


Blindmage wrote:

But the line in Boar Shred:

"While using Boar Style, whenever you tear an opponent’s flesh, once per round at the start of that opponent’s turn he takes 1d6 bleed damage."

is specifically referring to this line in Boar Style:
"While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack."

It doesn't work on only 1 hit, you still need both hits to "tear flesh".

Note, you can also space out the hits, say (in the same round) you trip, hit with Vicious Stomp, then they stand up, provoking an AoO and you hit them again, at the point the 2d6 would hit them, since you'd hit them with two unarmed strikes in the same round.

Ok, but my main point was to agree (reluctantly) that the feats are unclear as they are currently presented. I made no claims on knowing what they actually do.


Gallo wrote:

My 2cp worth of comment.

The Boar Style wording should have been...

Boo-boo magic right there. Fixes it all and is how I've really been reading the feat chain. However, with the wording as it stands, I STILL feels Gallo is 100% correct, but instead of "rend" the damage is typed as "bleed" with all the DR defeating goodness and other pros/cons. It just doesn't reoccur.

Still a rending type effect. Just... bloodier than regular slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Hence bleed label.


Deviston wrote:
Gallo wrote:

My 2cp worth of comment.

The Boar Style wording should have been...

Boo-boo magic right there. Fixes it all and is how I've really been reading the feat chain. However, with the wording as it stands, I STILL feels Gallo is 100% correct, but instead of "rend" the damage is typed as "bleed" with all the DR defeating goodness and other pros/cons. It just doesn't reoccur.

Still a rending type effect. Just... bloodier than regular slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Hence bleed label.

There is certainly scope to add a line after the "2d6 rend damage" about that particular damage ignoring DR or whatnot. But then you would have two types of rend damage instead of what appears to be two types of bleed!


Yeah, in the end the "two types of bleed" seems to be what we have here.


I Think the most telling thing about how these 2 feats are intended to work is that the Bleed from Boar Shred is actually triggering off of the Bleed from Boar Style

Combine the two feats and it really becomes: When you "tear flesh" you deal 2d6 bleed damage and once per round at the start of that opponent’s turn he takes 1d6 bleed damage.

The weirdness here, if Boar Style's bleed damage was meant to be a recurring bleed, is that they are based on the same trigger. I can't see why in the world it would be worded this way if they were meant to stack. It would just say something like: "When you tear an opponents flesh using boar style the bleed damage is increased by 1d6 or increased to 3d6"

At the same time... other bleeds are meant to deal their damage on that opponents next turn, not immediately (or rather, the bleed effect is immediate but they don't lose HP until their turn)

Boar style says "when you hit with 2 unarmed strikes", but this is really no help because wounding weapon uses the same language initially about dealing bleed damage "when you hit with this weapon" (and then states later that they take the bleed damage at the start of their turn).

I guess that there is some room for interpretation... honestly, the use of a term like Bleed Damage should be cleaned up everywhere. It isn't a damage type as much as it is a condition. At the very least there should be a distinction between Bleed Damage (the type of damage dealt by the bleed condition) and a Bleed Effect.

Even the interaction with DR is cloudy... there is no mention of DR not applying in the UMR entry, but under the rogue's bleeding attack it says that "Bleeding damage bypasses any damage reduction the creature might possess." Which is a general statement about bleed damage, not a specific statement about THIS bleed.

Then in the bleed condition entry there is again no mention, so one would have to assume that this ignorance of DR is specific to the rogue ability right?

Again more weirdness. For example, this is the exact wording in the bleed condition: "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)."

No mention of bleed damage in the rules for Fast Healing or Regenerate, so if you can get a troll to bleed at a rate equal to its Regeneration, it will stay incapacitated forever... this seems very strange no?

In addition, Lay on Hands is a supernatural ability... not a spell, so per RAW it cannot stop a bleed.
This is also true for a Cleric's channel.
Seems odd, then, that Bleed isn't listed with the other conditions available for a paladin's Mercies right?

Overall, bleed is a confusing and inconsistent condition...or damage type... or monster ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
Ok, but my main point was to agree (reluctantly) that the feats are unclear as they are currently presented. I made no claims on knowing what they actually do.

This is fast becoming my mantra for Pathfinder RAW.

Sczarni

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mmw8?Boar-style

Another thread about the same stuff a while back. Seems it never got a FAQ.


Have been waiting for errata for this one FOREVER. My interpretation is ALSO that the intent behind Boar Style PROBABLY is that it should deal 2d6 damage from 'bleeding', once, rather than a recurring 2d6 bleed. Based on 2d6 bleed being inappropriately strong for a low level feat when used against low-intelligence enemies. Notwithstanding the comparative weakness of the second feat in the chain. Regardless, it seems likely that whoever wrote the feat chain was simply unaware of existing rules regarding bleed damage, based upon the language used about recurrence in succeeding rounds.

Sczarni

I agree. It seems like the initial 2d6 would be seen as a Surface wound of which a spurt of blood would be released, and the 1d6 reoccurring bleed would be something more of a much deeper wound, if not in fact the previous wound but hit again more precisely to make it deeper and more severe, that would have a long term bleeding effect on the target unless the target did something to negate or repair it.

There is no official clarification on this, so rule it with your GM everyone, and in the meantime FAQ both this older thread and this current one. The more FAQs the better... it'll get taken care of eventually.


Yeah... after doing some reading and trying to find some clarity on the issue, I stand by my initial judgement that the 2d6 is one-time damage.

But

Bleed could use a comprehensive FAQ... the language in bleed needs to change and the different abilities/items that apply bleed really need some consistency in wording.... Lay on hands/Channel Energy should stop bleeding. Regeneration should close a bleeding wound (for this specifically I would rule that such a monster take the bleed first, and then get their fast healing and stop the bleed)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I've been doing some research on it as well and it seems reasonable to assume that the Boar Style damage is supposed to be like the untyped damage from a rend (Ex). If you compare the language ("tearing flesh") it's quite similar and the condition of needing two successful hits to trigger the damage indicates this as well.

Anyway, I'd appreciate an official ruling.


Given that, when bleed acts differently from the typical rule, the author calls that out (cf Tiger Style)

Quote:
Whenever you score a critical hit with your slashing unarmed strike, your opponent also takes 1d4 points of bleed damage at the start of his next two turns.

I don't believe boar style bleed is supposed to be for only one round.

Sczarni

Justin Rocket wrote:

Given that, when bleed acts differently from the typical rule, the author calls that out (cf Tiger Style)

Quote:
Whenever you score a critical hit with your slashing unarmed strike, your opponent also takes 1d4 points of bleed damage at the start of his next two turns.
I don't believe boar style bleed is supposed to be for only one round.

Then why bother mentioning that Boar Shred does 1d6 bleed damage, when Boar Style does 2d6? It would nearly obliterate the existence of Boar Shred.

Tiger Style seems like a poor example.


My read is that in the first turn when the attack is made and there are two successful hits, the opponents takes 2d6 bleed damage from the boar style feat. This is a one time bleed damage (though rend may be a better term for it).

Every turn thereafter the opponent takes an additional 1d6 bleed damage from the original wound if the attacker also had the boar shred feat. This is not stacking as the 1d6 bleed due to the boar shred feat occurs in the turn after the 2d6 due to the original boar style feat (i.e. residual bleed from the original attack).

For the sake of balance and because bleed damage doesn't stack, I would rule that any additional 2d6 bleed done to the same opponent from the boar style feat in subsequent turns does not initiate another 1d6 bleed due to the boar shred feat, and the new 2d6 bleed damage subsumes the 1d6 boar shred damage that is ongoing from the first boar style bleed (unless the original bleed was healed).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Boar Style Boar Shred All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.