I think this will always remain in GM territory because of the hundreds of types of physiology present in the game.
Is sap blood?
What if the creature transforms into water? Or back? Would the bleeding wound return (assuming they weren't healed in the interim)?
So while I can give my impressions, i.e. most oozes won't bleed if opening them up to bleed does nothing, there will be corner cases, fringe examples, etc. to consistently undermine having rigorous delineations.
Like I think an ooze with a firm exterior (like an amoeba) might bleed since there's a skin (of sorts) keeping in important bodily fluids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't make too many things immune to bleed unless it is pretty obvious that they wouldn't bleed.
I tend to avoid Bleed as a player because of that. By strict application of RAW, an ooze, a plant can't bleed. Swarms bleeding would be ridiculous, too, even if the RAW would say it bleeds. Does an Osyluth bleed? Looks like it shouldn't.
Bleed's the worst type of damage, in my opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to avoid Bleed as a player because of that. By strict application of RAW, an ooze, a plant can't bleed. Swarms bleeding would be ridiculous, too, even if the RAW would say it bleeds. Does an Osyluth bleed? Looks like it shouldn't.
Bleed's the worst type of damage, in my opinion.
I've happily let my players bleed an ooze before. I see it as a way of popping the external film that keeps the ooze's more liquidity centre contained.
So not bleeding blood, more like bleeding a radiator.
I tend to avoid Bleed as a player because of that. By strict application of RAW, an ooze, a plant can't bleed. Swarms bleeding would be ridiculous, too, even if the RAW would say it bleeds. Does an Osyluth bleed? Looks like it shouldn't.
Bleed's the worst type of damage, in my opinion.I've happily let my players bleed an ooze before. I see it as a way of popping the external film that keeps the ooze's more liquidity centre contained.
So not bleeding blood, more like bleeding a radiator.
No issue with that. But if I want to use Bleeding attacks as a player, I first check with my DM if he strictly applies RAW or not. If I can't see with him (PFS), I avoid Bleed.
I tend to avoid Bleed as a player because of that. By strict application of RAW, an ooze, a plant can't bleed. Swarms bleeding would be ridiculous, too, even if the RAW would say it bleeds. Does an Osyluth bleed? Looks like it shouldn't.
Bleed's the worst type of damage, in my opinion.
I can justify it for plants and oozes, but my players are fighting an Osyluth next week and the wizard really likes Blood Vendetta. Not sure how I'm going to rule it.
I can justify it for plants and oozes, but my players are fighting an Osyluth next week and the wizard really likes Blood Vendetta. Not sure how I'm going to rule it.
Just imagine he is "bleeding" marrow...
I can justify it for plants and oozes, but my players are fighting an Osyluth next week and the wizard really likes Blood Vendetta. Not sure how I'm going to rule it.Just imagine he is "bleeding" marrow...
Yeah, I'd imagine they'd bleed because they aren't actually made of bone, are they? Okay, just checked out the PF2 picture and perhaps they are!
You just have to determine what you think is inside those bones.I'd think it'd be living bone (full of blood marrow or devil ichor) since Bone Devils aren't undead or animated. It's similar to how they feel pain effects even if it appears they have no skin or nerve endings. They do. Somewhere. And they're living and have a physiology. Somehow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Bleed Damage
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."
Per RAW, it doesn't apply to marrow, sap or anything that isn't blood.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a much stricter reading of RAW than I would think tends to be assumed in 2e. One of the foundations of 2e seems to be that rules should be read as they are intended, rather than like a lawyer.
If a certain substance circulates within a creature's body and it will die without that substance, then that substance basically is blood, even if it is composed of something that resembles sap or marrow.
I don't think there's a good reason to assume a Bone Devil is actually made of bone rather than appearing like it on a skin level. Lots of the Monsters Formerly Known as Outsiders have weird appearances, but I regard most of those as superficial given they traditionally all could sleep and eat if they chose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictest RAW would say Bleed damage affects any creature not described thusly:
"As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don’t need blood to live. "
What living creature entries mention that they don't need blood to live?
I'm guessing none.
If you can't presume sap equals blood, you can't presume plants don't have blood.
I mean you can, but it seems hypocritical.
And if the GM assumes plants can't be affected by bleed because sap doesn't equal blood, then neat. Free immunity for your next leshy character, I suppose.
Next? Say that to the wit based leshy swashbuckler.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a much stricter reading of RAW than I would think tends to be assumed in 2e. One of the foundations of 2e seems to be that rules should be read as they are intended, rather than like a lawyer.
If a certain substance circulates within a creature's body and it will die without that substance, then that substance basically is blood, even if it is composed of something that resembles sap or marrow.
Unfortunately if they don't write it down or tell us, we don't know what they intend. This is just another part of the game they didn't feel like writing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Undead creatures don't typically list bleed in their immunities but, as non-living creature, bleed damage clearly has no effect on them.
Things start getting fuzzy when it comes to living creatures though. Does an ooze bleed? Obviously it doesn't have blood (unless it's a blood ooze) but could it bleed sewage if it were a sewer ooze for example? Do they have a crude circulatory system?
What about nymphs made of water and/or plants?
You treat bleed damage as its own damage type separate from anything else. This is because it is listed explicitly as something that a creature is resistant or immune to, within its statblock. Otherwise, if it doesn't list it, it is most likely fair game. I trust the developers would list something as immune or resistant to bleed if it was meant to be, and not list it if it wasn't. In the extremely rare case where it's not listed and there can be a case made for it (such as a swarm of numerous monsters), as always, the GM decides whether bleeding does or doesn't work.
Further explanation, for those GMs who are unsure as to how they can rule things: The reason why it doesn't affect non-living creatures is because those creatures do not need things like blood or similar matter to exist. Golems are animated via ritualistic magic, and is basically cobbled-up matter animated in a certain shape, usually humanoid. Many Undead are animated similarly, and due to them not needing blood to function (which I disagree with, but I'm fine with suspending that concept "because magic"), bleeding won't have any extremely noticeable effect on their overall vitality (or lack thereof, hence why bleed doesn't affect most Undead).
Bleed damage represents more than just affecting blood, but rather any living thing requiring a substance of some sort within their body to live, even if RAW is very limiting, due to word count and/or due to expecting players to draw upon this very conclusion.
For example, Plants and Oozes are living things with some sort of cellular implementation within their bodies they use to navigate necessary nutrients to essential parts of their body (plants have sap and other liquids in their body required to live, oozes have matter which comprises their whole being, where having it simply dissolve from the body).
Of course, there can even be arguments made for technically non-living things like Vampires, which do require blood to live and most certainly have blood within their bodies (otherwise, when they feed on the living, where does the blood go?), and they likewise possess the Undead trait, which makes them non-living.
Furthermore, in most every Plant, Ooze, and Vampire entry, they do not have Bleed listed as an immunity or resistance. Therefore, it would stand to reason that bleed can affect them just as it can other creatures that have blood in them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately if they don't write it down or tell us, we don't know what they intend. This is just another part of the game they didn't feel like writing.
They do write it down though. There are a whole bunch of enemies that are immune to bleed damage and a whole bunch of other enemies that aren't.
If you want to ad hoc rule that some enemies that don't have bleed immunity are bleed immune anyways you can, but to suggest that's somehow Paizo forcing your hand is pretty off base.
|
|
Unfortunately if they don't write it down or tell us, we don't know what they intend. This is just another part of the game they didn't feel like writing.They do write it down though. There are a whole bunch of enemies that are immune to bleed damage and a whole bunch of other enemies that aren't.
If you want to ad hoc rule that some enemies that don't have bleed immunity are bleed immune anyways you can, but to suggest that's somehow Paizo forcing your hand is pretty off base.
forcing
Look, if you want to be difficult do it elsewhere. Bleed immunity is not on everything that is immune to it, and there are plenty of things that might bleed that aren't spelled out either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in creature statblocks whether they are immune to Bleed damage or not. If it's not in the statblock for immunity, then they can bleed. You may house-rule it a different way, but the statblocks for monsters trump the other bits.
Squiggit is correct on his point in that regard. So yes Skeletons (all undead really) can bleed, but constructs and elementals cannot.
So yes Skeletons (all undead really) can bleed, but constructs and elementals cannot.
So a Ghost can bleed because bleeding immunity is not listed in the immunity stat block and not mentioned as an example in the incorporal trait either? Thats sweet...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean most creatures have SOMETHING inside them that would be bad if it leaked out. A skeleton might leak the negative energy that is powering them, and ghost could leak ectoplasm.
I mean most creatures have SOMETHING inside them that would be bad if it leaked out. A skeleton might leak the negative energy that is powering them, and ghost could leak ectoplasm.
Well the thing is, I can imaging most creature leaking something. A fire elemental might bleed liquid fire and a golem might bleed magic essence itself, however they don't because it is specifically mentioned in their stat block. I just find it strange how easily people dismiss the general rule on page 452, clearly stating that nonliving creatures don't bleed.
I mean most creatures have SOMETHING inside them that would be bad if it leaked out. A skeleton might leak the negative energy that is powering them, and ghost could leak ectoplasm.Well the thing is, I can imaging most creature leaking something. A fire elemental might bleed liquid fire and a golem might bleed magic essence itself, however they don't because it is specifically mentioned in their stat block. I just find it strange how easily people dismiss the general rule on page 452, clearly stating that nonliving creatures don't bleed.
But the problem then becomes "Is bleeding as a concept something that can realistically affect them?"
For golems, I don't think so. They don't feel, they don't have functions which are contingent on internal fluids or what have you to function. They're literally animated matter cobbled together. The only difference between them and Elementals is that Elementals are, well, pure elements cobbled together by planar energies, which don't have organs or body parts that require blood or similar matter to function. Ergo, an attack which drains relevant matter (like a wounding weapon) wouldn't particularly affect them.
For ghosts, it's hard to say. On one hand, they don't have a physical body to attack, so things that physically affect them don't necessarily apply. On the other hand, if a weapon can actually affect ghosts as if they were physical or on the same plane, why wouldn't effects which transpire normally to them work? The ectoplasm argument is pretty solid (which is used to fuel ghostly powers), so I'd probably allow it, especially if the attack is a Force effect or from a Ghost Touch weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For ghosts, it's hard to say. On one hand, they don't have a physical body to attack, so things that physically affect them don't necessarily apply. On the other hand, if a weapon can actually affect ghosts as if they were physical or on the same plane, why wouldn't effects which transpire normally to them work? The ectoplasm argument is pretty solid (which is used to fuel ghostly powers), so I'd probably allow it, especially if the attack is a Force effect or from a Ghost Touch weapon.
I don't think ghosts really bleed, but you can trick them into thinking that they should bleed, and thus they do. It is psychosomatic.
So yes Skeletons (all undead really) can bleed, but constructs and elementals cannot.So a Ghost can bleed because bleeding immunity is not listed in the immunity stat block and not mentioned as an example in the incorporal trait either? Thats sweet...
Technically, there's nothing in the statblock of a ghost which says it cannot bleed. If it's an oversight that all undead cannot bleed because they are "non-living" then that's gone thru the CRB and both bestiaries at this point.
With that said, Ghosts have damage resistance 10 to all physical damage (of which bleed is included). And against non-magical bleeding this resistance is doubled to 20. As such there is no way to cause the Ghost to take bleed damage that isn't from a spell (bleed damage seems to cap at a d12 or 2d6), and even then it has resistance 10.
So yeah, not really a problem for Ghosts, they mitigate most sources of bleed entirely. Would be really in the weeds about the Wounding rune whether that bleeding is magical (I suspect it's not).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing in the statblock, but it's a general rule that nonliving creatures don't bleed. Unless you're going to argue undead are alive the RAW is pretty clear here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing in the statblock, but it's a general rule that nonliving creatures don't bleed. Unless you're going to argue undead are alive the RAW is pretty clear here.
The thing is: Construct are all immune to Bleeding in their stat blocks, Undeads don't. So, unless you consider there was a doubt about golems being able to bleed, you can only conclude that Undeads bleed... even if it's weird.
bleed damage seems to cap at a d12 or 2d6
Swashbucklers give 6d6 of bleeding persistent damage with Bleeding Finisher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo unnecessarily repeats rules all the time. If you think it more likely that skeletons are intended to bleed than whoever wrote the construct blurb just forgot or didn't know about the nonliving universal rule then that's on you.
Paizo unnecessarily repeats rules all the time. If you think it more likely that skeletons are intended to bleed than whoever wrote the construct blurb just forgot or didn't know about the nonliving universal rule then that's on you.
I don't think in that case, I apply RAW. I may decide at my table that skeletons are immune to bleeding, but that would be an unnecessary nerf to some character abilities so I don't see why I'd do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Soulbound Ruin is an undead specifically immune to bleed. So, yes undead do bleed.
Incorporeal do seem immune though due to not having a physical body.
Or that's the standard double listing Constructs have because a Soulbound Ruin is also a Construct.
Undead may not be immune to Bleed, but Bleed says it doesn't affect nonliving creatures, of which I'd include Undead.
As said above, Paizo often has redundant rules. This also aids in futureproofing. If there were a future Bleed ability vs. nonliving creatures, then Undead would be vulnerable and Constructs wouldn't be unless their immunity were specifically overruled, i.e. "this affects Constructs".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my gripes with 2e. There'll be a general rule and then a bunch of specific things restate the general rule, which creates a sort of confusion when something doesn't and suddenly you're left wondering if the omission is arbitrary or meaningful.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my gripes with 2e. There'll be a general rule and then a bunch of specific things restate the general rule, which creates a sort of confusion when something doesn't and suddenly you're left wondering if the omission is arbitrary or meaningful.
That exactly !!
I did a little search in the Bestiary about Bleed immunity in Bestiary 1 and 2:
Where do we find Bleed immunity explicit:
Constructs: as far as I can tell 100%
Elementals: All normal elementals have the bleed immunity - exception are the Genies. That seems to make sense
Where would be expect it - at least partial
Inevitables: none have the Bleed immunity. Inevitables are interesting as they are 'constructed by axiomites' - some more or less look like clockwork but all lack the construct trait
Incorporeal: none have Bleed immunity.
Undead: none have Bleed immunity
Plant: none have Bleed immunity. My own opinion - at least some plants should bleed - but I doubt it makes sense for all of them. This one would need a case by case decision.
There are likely a few other monsters where it seems not to make sense - but I went for whole classes of monsters to make it easier. Difficult to search for absence of something ...
And there are (very rare) Monsters which have added Bleed immunity. The three exemptions that have Bleed explicitly mentioned:
Cave Troll
Purrodaemon
Violet Fungus
Cave Trolls make a lot of sense as they are more or less stone while I would expect a normal troll to bleed. Purrodaemons also make sense - they sheath weapons in their own body.
Why the Violet Fungi is immune - while no other fungi or plant is immune - I have no idea. Not saying it shouldn't - but I would expect a few other plants/fungi in this case as well to be immune.
Looking at whole traits which are assigned (Constructs and Elementals) while other traits (inevitable, incorporeal, undead, plant, oozes) are lacking completely immunities to bleed seem to indicate to me that the issue is the 'production process'. There might be a checklist - and Bleed is only on it for constructs (add all construct immunities) as well as Elementals.
That not a single inevitable, incorporeal, undead (with the exemption of a construct/undead) or plant has Bleed immunity seems to make no common sense when looking at the description of Bleed. Unfortunately that leaves a case by case decision for the GM. In some cases it 'should' be obvious - like undead and inevitable - in some cases like plants, oozes some guidance would help. Or at least it would help if Bleed is at least added to the clearer cut examples - like incorporeal.
]Swashbucklers give 6d6 of bleeding persistent damage with Bleeding Finisher.
Nice, missed that. But that's also at a point where you'll be having ghost touch weapons too. Those pesky things shouldn't be too difficult to deal with.
The Soulbound Ruin is an undead specifically immune to bleed. So, yes undead do bleed.
Incorporeal do seem immune though due to not having a physical body.
Which is a bit sad, really. A soulbound ruin seems like something that would specifically bleed. But I suppose that is more of an aesthetic choice where you make the walls bleed blood to tell the players "you probably should not have walked into this spooky house".
Which is a bit sad, really. A soulbound ruin seems like something that would specifically bleed. But I suppose that is more of an aesthetic choice where you make the walls bleed blood to tell the players "you probably should not have walked into this spooky house".The Soulbound Ruin is an undead specifically immune to bleed. So, yes undead do bleed.
Incorporeal do seem immune though due to not having a physical body.
Hah, yes! To be fair, though, immunity to bleed may not always be the same thing as 'does not/cannot bleed.' More like, 'whatever fluids come out of this creature's body, if any, do not negatively affect its health', so bleed away fresh zombies and soulbound ruins, just don't tally down your hit points because of it.
Just a GM here looking forward to running a certain blood knight coming up in this book
|
This issue came up at a table I was playing at. My Leshy took bleed damage.
It seems too powerful to make a PC immune to a fairly common bad guy source of damage.
If I was designing the game, I'd allow an ancestry feat to allow a Leshy to be immune to bleed damage. But I'm not so it really isn't clear :-(