There's no strict RAW about this.
But because the bleed damage has been caused by a Silver weapon, I'd allow it to bypass the physical resistance. On the other hand, I wouldn't allow it to turn off Regeneration.
As you can see, it's very much a houserule that I use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the Blood damage cause by silver weapon bypasses the physical resistances. Due a combination of:
While not their own damage category, precious materials can modify damage to penetrate a creature's resistances or take advantage of its weaknesses. For instance, silver weapons are particularly effective against lycanthropes and bypass the resistances to physical damage that most devils have.
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. Bleed damage ends automatically if you're healed to your full Hit Points.
So I understand that a bleed damage caused by a silver weapon against a creature that says "Resistances physical X (except silver)" ignores the resistance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it matters where the damage originated as it's the condition that deals the damage and not the weapon: I mean a creature that has a weakness to silver isn't going to take the extra damage from bleed either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it matters where the damage originated as it's the condition that deals the damage and not the weapon: I mean a creature that has a weakness to silver isn't going to take the extra damage from bleed either.
Its part of the standard lycanthrope mythos, that they don't heal from silver weapon damage fast. So a lot of GMs will want to do it.
In most cases of persistent damage they put the traits on the persistent damage as well, so we get persistent fire damage and persistent slashing damage. But silver is not a trait so this is mostly not done. The damage has still originally come from a silver source.The rule for persistent damage says Persistent damage is a condition that causes damage to recur beyond the original effect. Unlike with normal damage, when you are subject to persistent damage, you don’t take it right away
This actually ties the damage to the original effect so its not unreasonable to consider the properties of the original effect.
But the problem is that the damage procedure describes persistent damage, but like additional damage, doesn't fully define it's use. We are just supposed to treat it somehow like normal damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it matters where the damage originated as it's the condition that deals the damage and not the weapon: I mean a creature that has a weakness to silver isn't going to take the extra damage from bleed either.Its part of the standard lycanthrope mythos, that they don't heal from silver weapon damage fast. So a lot of GMs will want to do it.
I understand the desire to have it work that way, I just don't see the link with how the damage is done: the weapon isn't doing any of the damage. That and it seems troublesome if it keeps triggering a silver weakness: for example that werewolf takes 5 weakness damage if we make the bleed damage silver or a Marilith taking an extra 15 with bleed from a cold iron weapon. For myself that link back to the original source is once removed: the weapon causes the condition: stop; add condition then condition deals damage [not weapon].
But the problem is that the damage procedure describes persistent damage, but like additional damage, doesn't fully define it's use.
Well I agree it's ill defined as quite a lot of the game left a bit murky or straight up expects the DM to figure it out. This is why I'd say that RAW it doesn't work but I can understand why DM might want to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fully agree that you can read this multiple ways. It comes down to GM choice.
For me, I don't find any of the weakness particularily significant. +5 damage for 1 or 2 turns is Ok but it is not a big deal past very low level.
Isn't physical damage defined as piercing/bludgeoning/slashing? I don't think bleed damage would ever interact with physical resistance.
Isn't physical damage defined as piercing/bludgeoning/slashing? I don't think bleed damage would ever interact with physical resistance.
While those are the main types of physical damage (as worded in the rules), bleed is literally persistent physical damage.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=340| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't physical damage defined as piercing/bludgeoning/slashing? I don't think bleed damage would ever interact with physical resistance.
The rules expressly state that bleed is a type of persistent physical damage, so it's actually piercing/bludgeoning/slashing/bleed.
Personally, I'd allow the bleed to trigger weakness if the strike that caused the bleed is from an appropriately materialized weapon/attack. It gives bleed effects a bit more value (since they don't scale very well in the later levels for PCs), and makes special materials more relevant in combat for players that double down on physicality. It's bad enough that special materials always fall behind on potency/striking runes due to level gating, crafting gating, and exclusive downtime, why kick a rule while it's down?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key lines are "weaknesses and resistances to physical damage apply" in the definition of bleed on CR 452 and the whole entry for precious materials
While not their own damage category, precious materials can modify damage to penetrate a creature's resistances or take advantage of its weaknesses. For instance, silver weapons are particularly effective against lycanthropes and bypass the resistances to physical damage that most devils have.So I would rule that bleed caused by a precious material the target is susceptible to would bypass resistance and trigger weakness to that material. If a creature is resistant to a precious material, I would apply that resistance to bleed caused by that material too
I also think that per RAW it should. Persistent damage has damage in its name and as such it's hard to consider that it's not modified by a Silver weapon.
Also, thinking more about it, I don't think it imbalances the game. When you face a Troll no one is screaming because the persistent damage from an Alchemist Fire triggers the weakness, even if the damage is low. It's something expected by the game math.
As such, allowing it with bleeding will not imbalance the game. On top of it, being able to apply Bleeding damage from a weapon with the proper material is actually quite an accomplishment. It's nothing you do easily, you need to invest in a specific weapon and you need to have a special bleeding ability which are quite rare.
So, I revise my position from my first answer, I'd apply Weaknesses to bleed damage and let it shut down Regeneration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question would be just how you'd decide what gets inherited: for instance, bleed is physical damage but it never says it inherits materials or a particular type [S/P/B]. For instance, does a Giant Hermit Crab take an extra 5 bleed damage because it has Weaknesses bludgeoning 5 if it's hit with a mace? Or a soulforged Essence Powers Reflecting Spirit taking 5 more damage because the bleed was caused by an arrow? I just seems odd IMO.
Also, thinking more about it, I don't think it imbalances the game. When you face a Troll no one is screaming because the persistent damage from an Alchemist Fire triggers the weakness, even if the damage is low. It's something expected by the game math.
Here I question if it was in fact expected: a troll is clearly built with fire weakness factored in. Several things where created with persistent fire damage but nothing that I know of was made listing persistent [precious] damage. Look what a magus has to do to get a few extra damage from arcane cascade...
On top of it, being able to apply Bleeding damage from a weapon with the proper material is actually quite an accomplishment. It's nothing you do easily, you need to invest in a specific weapon and you need to have a special bleeding ability which are quite rare.
Free extra damage that requires 2 actions to stop seems pretty useful as/is. And it's not particularly hard to get: you can get it as early as a single 4th level feat and a 2nd level item Silversheen.
My question would be just how you'd decide what gets inherited: for instance, bleed is physical damage but it never says it inherits materials or a particular type [S/P/B]. For instance, does a Giant Hermit Crab take an extra 5 bleed damage because it has Weaknesses bludgeoning 5 if it's hit with a mace? Or a soulforged Essence Powers Reflecting Spirit taking 5 more damage because the bleed was caused by an arrow? I just seems odd IMO.
Previous materials explicitly modify damage, not S/P/B. And this discussion is about materials, the other cases need a specific discussion as they are not following the precious materials rule.
Here I question if it was in fact expected: a troll is clearly built with fire weakness factored in. Several things where created with persistent fire damage but nothing that I know of was made listing persistent [precious] damage.
I fail to see where you want to get. What I say is that Persistent Damage triggering weaknesses is something that happens. There's no reason to say it's imbalanced in the case of bleed damage.
Free extra damage that requires 2 actions to stop seems pretty useful as/is. And it's not particularly hard to get: you can get it as early as a single 4th level feat and a 2nd level item Silversheen.
That's what I call hard to get. You need to spend actions to apply Silversheen, on top of buying some. As for a 4th level feat, that's a pretty big investment. As a GM, I'm fine with rewarding a player doing all of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or not. I still don't see any reason and evidence to double persistent damage on crits for example (unless an effect explicitly says so).
This actually ties the damage to the original effect so its not unreasonable to consider the properties of the original effect.But the problem is that the damage procedure describes persistent damage, but like additional damage, doesn't fully define it's use. We are just supposed to treat it somehow like normal damage.
In the rules about the Splash trait, you have this line:
"For example, if you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1. If you miss, the target and all creatures within 5 feet take only 1 splash damage. If you critically fail, no one takes any damage."So, per RAW, Acid Flask persistent damage is doubled on a critical hit and it's written nowhere that it's an exception to the persistent damage rule. So it seems that persistent damage is supposed to be doubled on a critical hit.
I think hitting a Linnorm with cold iron bleed damage shows how beyond the pale such things are. The imagery of silver hurting a lycanthrope is already captured in the initial hit. Having it bleed out faster too seems both unnecessary and not an aspect of bleed since it's a condition with only "physical" as a descriptor as far as I can tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question would be just how you'd decide what gets inherited: for instance, bleed is physical damage but it never says it inherits materials or a particular type [S/P/B]. For instance, does a Giant Hermit Crab take an extra 5 bleed damage because it has Weaknesses bludgeoning 5 if it's hit with a mace? Or a soulforged Essence Powers Reflecting Spirit taking 5 more damage because the bleed was caused by an arrow? I just seems odd IMO.
Bleed is distinct from other types of physical damage, but it seems clear the crab would be taking 5 extra damage if it was taking persistent bludgeoning instead of persistent bleed.
It makes sense diegetically that bleed damage from an injury caused by a weapon that a creature is weak to would itself also be more grievous than from any other weapon.
It also makes sense that the contact w/ the material has ended. The Cold Iron no longer burns the skin of the fey (et al) or that the depth of the wound's no different, the blow only had an extra supernatural oomph that's now gone so the wound bleeds as normal for a wound its size.
Since it makes sense both ways depending on narrative choices, either interpretation makes sense, except there's no indication that bleed damage carries any traits other than "physical". And IMO there are some examples (as I gave w/ the Linnorm) that'd make bleed far more powerful than comparable damage increases.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it's more powerful, you're targeting a weakness. Same as hitting a troll with persistent fire damage or a fiend with persistent good damage. Both of those are way easier for characters to pull off and don't require nearly as much investment of a PC's limited resources.
You can go with "it's not in contact with the material anymore," but then you then create the question of why momentary contact suppresses regeneration for an entire round. Obviously, the mechanics clearly say that's what happens, but the narrative explanations start to twist in on themselves. It's way simpler to say the injury is deeper, bleeds more, etc.
Of course it's more powerful, you're targeting a weakness. Same as hitting a troll with persistent fire damage or a fiend with persistent good damage. Both of those are way easier for characters to pull off and don't require nearly as much investment of a PC's limited resources.
You can go with "it's not in contact with the material anymore," but then you then create the question of why momentary contact suppresses regeneration for an entire round. Obviously, the mechanics clearly say that's what happens, but the narrative explanations start to twist in on themselves. It's way simpler to say the injury is deeper, bleeds more, etc.
Correct, "the narrative explanations start to twist in on themselves", so why would you use a narrative explanation as a foundation? I don't find it simpler to say the wound's deeper, much like a critical hit doesn't increase bleed damage (unless specified of course). I find it simpler to have bleed be bleed and just be physical like it says it is.
I could see and accept Paizo ruling either way, but I see no mechanical reason nor benefit of applying the material effects to bleed damage. It's not part of the package, even if I agree sometimes it's kind of cool (albeit sometimes not).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because narrative is part of the gameplay, and outside of any clear indication in the rules one way or the other, I'm going to infer what makes the most sense for me and my players. The cold iron weapon is an integral part of why this hypothetical linnorm is experiencing bleed damage at all, so, to me, it doesn't make sense to treat them as entirely disconnected effects.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It makes sense diegetically that bleed damage from an injury caused by a weapon that a creature is weak to would itself also be more grievous than from any other weapon.It also makes sense that the contact w/ the material has ended. The Cold Iron no longer burns the skin of the fey (et al) or that the depth of the wound's no different, the blow only had an extra supernatural oomph that's now gone so the wound bleeds as normal for a wound its size.
Since it makes sense both ways depending on narrative choices, either interpretation makes sense, except there's no indication that bleed damage carries any traits other than "physical". And IMO there are some examples (as I gave w/ the Linnorm) that'd make bleed far more powerful than comparable damage increases.
Way I see it, weakness to something means that the inflicted wound is far more grievous, silver cutting through a werewolf's flesh like butter. So I feel it makes sense that the bleed is more damaging too because the initial wound was in fact deeper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the rules about the Splash trait, you have this line:
...Yeah, yeah, an example of one type of items and nowhere else in the whole book, not one mention. I remember. And it is in examples they have less checking it seems.
Also, while we're at it, 'persistent damage' is not even a name of a condition, it's a name of a group of conditions, and very clearly not a damage from the standard calculation.
It's all we have.
But I like this rule. I don't see why persistent damage shouldn't be multiplied on a critical hit. It's rarely high damage, and very often on abilities that are quite weak (Bombs, Swashbuckler Finisher). The main strength of Persistent damage is to trigger weaknesses and this rule don't affect the damage much in that case.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the rules about the Splash trait, you have this line:
...Yeah, yeah, an example of one type of items and nowhere else in the whole book, not one mention. I remember. And it is in examples they have less checking it seems.
Also, while we're at it, 'persistent damage' is not even a name of a condition, it's a name of a group of conditions, and very clearly not a damage from the standard calculation.
It's all we have.
But I like this rule. I don't see why persistent damage shouldn't be multiplied on a critical hit. It's rarely high damage, and very often on abilities that are quite weak (Bombs, Swashbuckler Finisher). The main strength of Persistent damage is to trigger weaknesses and this rule don't affect the damage much in that case.
There is also Lingering Flames
"When you cast fireball, you can modify its effects, decreasing the base damage to 5d6 and causing it to deal 2 persistent fire damage to creatures that fail their save, doubled as normal on a critical failure."
With basic save and strike using similar language, i.e. you double the damage listed.