While GMing Age of Ashes last night, my PCs made an attack that caused bleed damage to a skeleton. I thought to myself, "There has to be an immunity to this." But looking at the skeleton stat block, it looks like it is not immune to bleed.
Did I get this right?
And actually, in the future I'm thinking of house-ruling that skeletons are immune to bleed damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bleed Damage has the language
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don’t need blood to live. Weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply.
(From an entire page sidebar on page 452 of the CRB.)
So you're correct that a skeleton shouldn't bleed, but there's no need for a house rule since the bleed damage rules specify creatures that don't bleed are immune to it. The potential edge cases require a GM call are things like "does an ooze bleed" or "does a tree bleed" or "does an elemental bleed."
Bleed Damage has the language
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don’t need blood to live. Weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply.(From an entire page sidebar on page 452 of the CRB.)
So you're correct that a skeleton shouldn't bleed, but there's no need for a house rule since the bleed damage rules specify creatures that don't bleed are immune to it. The potential edge cases require a GM call are things like "does an ooze bleed" or "does a tree bleed" or "does an elemental bleed."
Thanks! I had looked for insight under the Persistent Damage sidebar; glad to know about this as well.