Sounds correct.
Just note that you roll the 1d4 twice, rather than rolling once and doubling it.
Unless the rogue has the improved unarmed feat, he is not doing lethal damgage with his fists and can not do the bleed.
why could he not do the bleed?
|
Unless the rogue has the improved unarmed feat, he is not doing lethal damgage with his fists and can not do the bleed.
I second Chess Pwn's question. The Bleeding attack talent doesn't seem to have a lethal requirement.
because he's not trying to kill the fighter in the first place, so he's not trying to make her bleed to death. Also because, unless he's got Improved Unarmed Strike, he's not efficient enough with his fisticuffs to use his rogue talents with them, I'm not even sure he can use sneak atttack with his fists if he doesn't have IUS... that feat is like weapon proficiency with unarmed attacks.
|
|
because he's not trying to kill the fighter in the first place, so he's not trying to make her bleed to death. Also because, unless he's got Improved Unarmed Strike, he's not efficient enough with his fisticuffs to use his rogue talents with them, I'm not even sure he can use sneak atttack with his fists if he doesn't have IUS... that feat is like weapon proficiency with unarmed attacks.
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
As a rogue gains experience, she learns a number of talents that aid her and confound her foes. Starting at 2nd level, a rogue gains one rogue talent. She gains an additional rogue talent for every 2 levels of rogue attained after 2nd level. A rogue cannot select an individual talent more than once.
Talents marked with an asterisk add effects to a rogue's sneak attack. Only one of these talents can be applied to an individual attack and the decision must be made before the attack roll is made.
I see nothing in those quotes that requires the rogue to be proficient in a weapon to use sneak attack or rogue talents. And i still see no lethal requirement to use bleeding attacks.
Now, you are right that it does not make sense to declare a bleeding attack if you dont intend to kill someone, but there is nothing that prevents it.
Perhaps you would like to cite some rules?
because he's not trying to kill the fighter in the first place, so he's not trying to make her bleed to death. Also because, unless he's got Improved Unarmed Strike, he's not efficient enough with his fisticuffs to use his rogue talents with them, I'm not even sure he can use sneak atttack with his fists if he doesn't have IUS... that feat is like weapon proficiency with unarmed attacks.
A Rogue doesn't have to be proficient with the weapon to deal sneak attack. The ability actually says "With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage."
The Bleeding Attack rogue talent applies the Bleed condition. This condition allows for different types of damage. So the fighter would take non-lethal bleed damage also.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the rogue's Large, his unarmed strike should only deal 1d3 base damage (for Medium creatures) or 1d2 if he's Small.
The Bleeding Attack rogue talent applies the Bleed condition. This condition allows for different types of damage. So the fighter would take non-lethal bleed damage also.
Though I share that interpretation, are there really any rules backing that up?
No rules that I can find, personally, I'd still restrict bleed damage to lethal attacks. and I make it facultative, the rogue is free to enhance his attack with it or not.
Sneak attack defaults to the type of damage that caused it. Bleeding Attack is based on sneak attack.
nonlethal bleeding damage makes no sense
Invest in heal. Once you knock them out, patch up their wounds and stop the bleeding. I would probably go for a STR rogue, or maybe a twf unarmed strike one with good DEX and STR. Armor will be important when worrying about a Fighter.
Edit: Oh, that isn't the original ques-... Oh well.
nonlethal bleeding damage makes no sense
But bleeding Wisdom damage you're okay with?
nonlethal bleeding damage makes no senseBut bleeding Wisdom damage you're okay with?
A stroke?...
So if the rogue were using fire poi, he would cause fire bleed damage? Nice.