Sickening as Skeleton

[siegfriedliner]

I like the vomit swarm ability the damage isn't great but the visuals are top notch, but I noticed that as the effects doesn't have any traits that a skeleton are immune (apart from resisting the piercing damage) they can in fact be sickened by the spell (they don't have immunity to the sickened condition).

Which means that they can then wretch to get rid of the effect but they don't have a stomach.

[masda_gib]

When skeletons are Sickened they have dislocated a bone. Instead of retching they spend the action trying to put it back into place. :)

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

[Blave]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

That's not quite true. The rules for Bleeding damage say that nonliving creatures are immune to it.

Quote:

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.

Source.

It is weird that this immunity isn't listed anywhere else, though.

[PlantThings]

Then there’s constructs that are also nonliving but have bleed immunity listed unlike undead. Weird indeed.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Blave wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

That's not quite true. The rules for Bleeding damage say that nonliving creatures are immune to it.

Quote:

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.

Source.

It is weird that this immunity isn't listed anywhere else, though.

There was already a previous thread discussing this very thing, and there are plenty of things which don't have immunities to things and yet should be immune to those things in a realistic scenario.

After all, it might make sense for a skeleton or ghost to be immune to bleed effects, but maybe not a zombie or vampire, and all of those are non-living creatures. Vampires in particular, since they literally exist to feed off of the blood of the living to sustain themselves.

Plus, plenty of cases where Paizo chooses to be redundant and list exceptions and rules that traits or other listings already cover, so I find that if Paizo really intended for skeletons and ghosts to be immune to Bleed, they'd list it in their statblock, not unlike Golems or even other certain outsiders.

[Cordell Kintner]

It would make sense for a Skeleton to be Immune, but adding blanket immunity wasn't what they wanted, and adding it specifically to each creature that probably would be immune is too much work. So they shoved it off on the GMs to decide if a creature should be Immune to things like bleed.

Personally, I would say things without a digestive system would be Immune to Sickened, this would mean most Undead and Elemental creatures, as well as Oozes. It's really up to the GM to decide what works and what doesn't, and let the Players know so that they can make informed choices about their spells and builds.

[Kennethray]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

Ghost do have the incorporeal tag. It states that they typically are immune to things that requires a physical body.

[Kennethray]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Blave wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

That's not quite true. The rules for Bleeding damage say that nonliving creatures are immune to it.

Quote:

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.

Source.

It is weird that this immunity isn't listed anywhere else, though.

There was already a previous thread discussing this very thing, and there are plenty of things which don't have immunities to things and yet should be immune to those things in a realistic scenario.

After all, it might make sense for a skeleton or ghost to be immune to bleed effects, but maybe not a zombie or vampire, and all of those are non-living creatures. Vampires in particular, since they literally exist to feed off of the blood of the living to sustain themselves.

Plus, plenty of cases where Paizo chooses to be redundant and list exceptions and rules that traits or other listings already cover, so I find that if Paizo really intended for skeletons and ghosts to be immune to Bleed, they'd list it in their statblock, not unlike Golems or even other certain outsiders.

I wouldn't agree that vampires or zombies should be able to take bleed damage. Neither have a pulse and bleeding is from the heart beating and the blood leaving the body instead of cycling through, which neither of those creatures require, even if blood is something they feed on. Two different bodily systems.