Collecting data from various books below:
Immunities death effects, disease, paralyzed, poison, sleep
undead (trait) Once living, these creatures were infused after death with void energy and soul-corrupting unholy magic. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed. Undead creatures are damaged by vitality energy and are healed by void energy, and don’t benefit from healing vitality effects.
UNDEAD
Traits Almost all undead are unholy. Ghostly undead have the incorporeal trait. Undead without minds, such as most zombies, have the mindless trait.
Senses darkvision
HP void healing (Monster Core)
Immunities death effects, disease, paralyze, poison, sleep (or unconscious if it never rests at all); if mindless, add mental
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. Bleed damage ends automatically if you’re healed to your full Hit Points.
Every other undead creature in the Monster Core has bleed immunity explicitly listed
All of this together RAW seems to say vampires can bleed but do not take bleed damage.
For the most part, this doesn't matter, however, there are a few things in the core books that change their behavior with this.
- - Vampires would be able to use the spell Blood Vendetta as they can bleed.
- - Vampires would be off-guard to DEINONYCHUS if they are bleeding
- - Vampires would be more easily tracked by KROOTH while they are bleeding.
- - Vampires would be dazzled by the Bird animal companion support effect while bleeding.
I haven't searched the other books to look for things specifically triggering on a bleeding creature or on the ability to bleed but my guess is there are others.
Is this reading intended? It seems very purposeful. It makes sense to me from a fantasy world perspective that Vampires can bleed, however, the lack of actual damage makes it odd. Lore-wise it makes sense I think though with how undead function in pathfinder?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this a case of specific beats general. In general, non-living creatures are immune to bleed damage. But the vampire specifically is not immune to bleed damage.
Seeing how they kind of need blood to survive, just like a living creature, it does make sense that losing blood would harm them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this a case of specific beats general. In general, non-living creatures are immune to bleed damage. But the vampire specifically is not immune to bleed damage.
Seeing how they kind of need blood to survive, just like a living creature, it does make sense that losing blood would harm them.
I like this interpretation personally. Currently, the foundry system functions as making anything not marked as "living" not take bleed damage though. I'm making this post partially to try to get clarification for Foundry system development as if they should take damage that requires a core change to the code.
However, "specific overrides general" requires something to be explicitly stated. Just leaving off the bleed immunity unfortunately doesn't meet this requirement in my opinion.
Finding some other things affected by "bleeding without taking damage".
BLOODLETTING KUKRI ITEM 6
UNCOMMON MAGICAL
Price 240 gp
Usage held in 1 hand; Bulk L
This +1 striking kukri has a crimson blade that shimmers eerily
in bright light. On a critical hit, the kukri deals 1d8 persistent
bleed damage. If the target didn’t already have persistent
bleed damage when you scored the critical hit, you also gain
1d8 temporary Hit Points for 1 minute.
MURDERER’S KNOT ITEM 7
CONSUMABLE MAGICAL TALISMAN
Price 66 gp
Usage affixed to a weapon; Bulk —
Activate [free-action] (concentrate) Trigger You damage an off-guard
creature with a Strike using the affixed weapon.
This black strand of leather is tied to look like a peace knot
when the weapon is worn, but it doesn’t hamper drawing the
weapon. When you activate the knot, the creature you damaged
takes 1d6 persistent bleed damage and is off-guard until the
bleed ends.
If you have the Twist the Knife feat, the talisman instead deals
persistent bleed damage equal to your sneak attack damage.
Interestingly the poisonous mold has:
Feed on Decay The mold expands when fed by blood or decay.
If at any point a creature takes bleed damage while adjacent
to the mold or a dying or dead body is adjacent to the mold,
the mold grows to expand into every square adjacent to its
current space. This can happen only once per day.
And this wouldn't work with vampires unless they actually take damage.
HORN OF THE AOYIN
Activate [two-actions] Interact (auditory, emotion, enchantment,
incapacitation, magical, mental); Requirements You’re
trained in Performance; Frequency once per hour; Effect
You blow the horn, creating a low growling sound.
Creatures other than you within 60 feet must attempt a DC
30 Will save. Those who fail become overwhelmed with an
animalistic rage and the urge to consume flesh for 1 round,
or 1 minute on a critical failure. They indiscriminately
attack the nearest target unaffected by the magic of the
horn unless there are no such targets, at which point
they set on each other. While affected, they gain a jaws
unarmed attack that deals 1d8 piercing damage, deal an
additional 2 damage with unarmed attacks, and lose the
ability to use any weaponry. They also gain a +2 status
bonus to saving throws against mental effects and pain,
can detect bleeding creatures and open wounds as an
imprecise sense with a range of 30 feet, and gain a +10-
foot status bonus to their Speed. Lastly, they take a –1
penalty to AC and are unable to use concentrate actions
other than Seeking. Creatures who critically succeed are
temporarily immune for 24 hours.
(emphasis mine, indicates it could detect bleeding vampires whether or not they take damage)
Special Vampiric animal companions
are particularly attuned to the scent of blood.
If a creature has persistent bleed damage,
your vampiric animal companion can smell
the creature if it’s within 120 feet rather than
30 feet.BLOOD FEAST [two-actions]
Your vampiric animal companion attacks a
bleeding foe and drinks its blood. Your
companion attempts a Strike against a
creature currently taking persistent bleed damage.
The Strike deals 2d8 additional damage. If the Strike hits and deals damage, your vampiric animal companion gains temporary Hit Points equal to half your level that last for up to 1 minute.
Interestingly, a lot of the newer pre-remaster books specifically trigger things on "persistent bleed damage" which theoretically if you take zero damage would not trigger? If that's an incorrect reading though there are several more things that change based on this nuance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this a case of specific beats general. In general, non-living creatures are immune to bleed damage. But the vampire specifically is not immune to bleed damage.
Seeing how they kind of need blood to survive, just like a living creature, it does make sense that losing blood would harm them.
I like this interpretation personally. Currently, the foundry system functions as making anything not marked as "living" not take bleed damage though. I'm making this post partially to try to get clarification for Foundry system development as if they should take damage that requires a core change to the code.
However, "specific overrides general" requires something to be explicitly stated. Just leaving off the bleed immunity unfortunately doesn't meet this requirement in my opinion.
I don't remember any general rule saying that you need to be a living creature to bleed. As normal to any damage type a target is able to be damaged by any damage type unless explicitly said that it can't.
So if the vampires don't get a bleed immunity they can bleed.
Interestingly, a lot of the newer pre-remaster books specifically trigger things on "persistent bleed damage" which theoretically if you take zero damage would not trigger?
Not exactly. Persistent Damage is a condition and something can be trigger by it before it damages.
If it says "If at any point a creature takes bleed damage" so it only "triggers" after the target get some bleed damage not by the condition. But if says "can detect bleeding creatures" that target just need to have the condition (but don't need to get the bleed dmg yet) to "trigger".
About "currently taking persistent bleed damage" have a more tricky natural english but IMO this is pointing the condition not the damage so the target don't need to have got a bleed damage to trigger this, just the condition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't that sentence be read as
As such, it has no effect on (nonliving creatures or living creatures) that don’t need blood to live.
If every undead has bleed immunity listen except vampire, that's how I'd read that sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't that sentence be read as
As such, it has no effect on (nonliving creatures or living creatures) that don’t need blood to live.
If every undead has bleed immunity listen except vampire, that's how I'd read that sentence.
Nope. Otherwise, the sentence would have been "As such, it has no effect on creatures that don’t need blood to live."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, especially because "blood" is not really defined. Plants have sap which has the same function than blood. But is it blood? If the answer is no, then do demons/devils/abominations/whatever have actual blood or something else that replaces it like sap? And if the answer is yes then when do you stop considering that something is "akin to blood"? I mean, oil is machine's blood, so some constructs should bleed, too?
It's better to have it spelled out precisely so we can ignore this useless sentence.
Yeah, the bleed damage definition causes problems, but most fictional vampires can definitely bleed. The most common way to be turned into a vampire is to drink the blood of a vampire.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It appears that Paizo chose to be more intentional about avoiding the "hidden" immunities couched under other traits. In pre-Remaster, none of teh undead list bleed immunity. Not zombies, skeletons, wights, mummies, graveknights. Every one I looked at lacked that immunity.
In Monster Core ALL undead list bleed immunity. Even incorporeal undead like the ghost, shadow, and poltergeist have it explicitly listed.
The only exception is the Vampire. Considering all those things, I think it is pretty clear the intent was to intentionally allow vampires to be subject to bleed damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do seem to be an outlier among undead, flipping through Monster Core, so it would make sense for that to be the intent.
(Expressing that intent just by not printing an immunity that is redundant with a general rule instead of writing specifically that they are subject to bleed is not a great approach, unfortunately. If PC1 had changed Bleed rules, this would be more consistent.)
Yeah, vampires have blood
They probably aren't fans of losing it, either.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have an answer from paizo!
From the foundry pf2e discord server:
I have received a response from Paizo on the "can vampires take bleed damage now" question.
Q: " The guys and I had a quick rules question for the devs - we noticed in Monster Core, the majority of undead now have "immunity to bleed" explicitly stated in their statblock, which is great! However, we noticed that the Vampire was missing this immunity. It makes some sense, vampires need blood to "live", but we just wanted to confirm - is it intentional that vampires can take bleed damage now?"
A: "Per Logan Bonner, that is intentional!"
I believe due to this the foundry pf2e system will likely update to include this in their Monster Core update but if it doesn't make it I'll try to follow up and get it done myself (as long as the devs' are cool with it).
Foundry Discord devs have said that paizo need to errata the bleed damage rule to say 'most nonliving creatures' instead of 'all'. So, paizo needs to get on thatWe have an answer from paizo!
From the foundry pf2e discord server:
I believe due to this the foundry pf2e system will likely update to include this in their Monster Core update but if it doesn't make it I'll try to follow up and get it done myself (as long as the devs' are cool with it).I have received a response from Paizo on the "can vampires take bleed damage now" question.
Q: " The guys and I had a quick rules question for the devs - we noticed in Monster Core, the majority of undead now have "immunity to bleed" explicitly stated in their statblock, which is great! However, we noticed that the Vampire was missing this immunity. It makes some sense, vampires need blood to "live", but we just wanted to confirm - is it intentional that vampires can take bleed damage now?"
A: "Per Logan Bonner, that is intentional!"
Paizo please!
|
Foundry Discord devs have said that paizo need to errata the bleed damage rule to say 'most nonliving creatures' instead of 'all'. So, paizo needs to get on thatWe have an answer from paizo!
From the foundry pf2e discord server:
I believe due to this the foundry pf2e system will likely update to include this in their Monster Core update but if it doesn't make it I'll try to follow up and get it done myself (as long as the devs' are cool with it).I have received a response from Paizo on the "can vampires take bleed damage now" question.
Q: " The guys and I had a quick rules question for the devs - we noticed in Monster Core, the majority of undead now have "immunity to bleed" explicitly stated in their statblock, which is great! However, we noticed that the Vampire was missing this immunity. It makes some sense, vampires need blood to "live", but we just wanted to confirm - is it intentional that vampires can take bleed damage now?"
A: "Per Logan Bonner, that is intentional!"
I thought specific trumps general.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought specific trumps general.
The trouble is as written that's not clear that's supposed to be the interpretation. After all, the specific doesn't contradict the general so much as just not comment on it at all.
Moving away from implicit immunities is a good thing, but definitely a reason the general rule should be updated to avoid this very type of confusion.
I thought specific trumps general.The trouble is as written that's not clear that's supposed to be the interpretation. After all, the specific doesn't contradict the general so much as just not comment on it at all.
Moving away from implicit immunities is a good thing, but definitely a reason the general rule should be updated to avoid this very type of confusion.
Yeah, the overly generic definition of bleed damage is a bit of a problem. Although if you think of it more as a description and less "hard rule" text it easier to interpret, but it does create a contradiction that should be resolved.
It would be as simple as adding the word "most":
As such, it has no effect on most nonliving creatures...
Regardless, we now have confirmation from one of the authors of Monster Core that they intended Vampires to bleed. It's another instance of one part of Paizo not knowing what the other part is doing(which, to be fair, communication across teams is a hard problem).
Likely the Player Core team didn't realize the Monster Core team was making vampires able to bleed so didn't even check Bleed Damage when working on their rewrite.
The RAI is now clear though, we just need the RAW to match.
The RAW is there, just difficult to find.
In the context of Ancestries and Backgrounds,
Traits Source Player Core pg. 41.
These descriptors have no mechanical benefit, but they’re important for determining how certain spells, effects, and other aspects of the game interact with your character
So the fact that a Poppet is listed as a construct doesn't make it immune to bleed. Etc Etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is there, just difficult to find.
In the context of Ancestries and Backgrounds,
Traits Source Player Core pg. 41.
These descriptors have no mechanical benefit, but they’re important for determining how certain spells, effects, and other aspects of the game interact with your character
So the fact that a Poppet is listed as a construct doesn't make it immune to bleed. Etc Etc.
The Remastered version of the Construct trait does not carry any of the immunities and other properties that the legacy version did.
"A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than vitality or void."
And that's it.
The RAW is there, just difficult to find.
In the context of Ancestries and Backgrounds,
Traits Source Player Core pg. 41.
These descriptors have no mechanical benefit, but they’re important for determining how certain spells, effects, and other aspects of the game interact with your character
So the fact that a Poppet is listed as a construct doesn't make it immune to bleed. Etc Etc.
The Remastered version of the Construct trait does not carry any of the immunities and other properties that the legacy version did.
"A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than vitality or void."
And that's it.
Where are you getting that from? The Construct trait on Page 362 of Monster Core says: "construct A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than vitality or void. Constructs are often mindless; they are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, nonlethal attacks, poison, spirit, vitality, void, and the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions; and they may have Hardness based on the materials used to construct their bodies. Constructs are not living creatures, nor are they undead. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed."
Poppet PCs don't get those immunities, and never have, but they are still part of Construct as a creature trait.
Bleed, specifically, remains a grey area all over the place because of the rule in the damage type itself being separate from immunities, but at least it looks like there's an intent to rely on listed immunities for new content (in a way that is at odds with having that rule written).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is there, just difficult to find.
In the context of Ancestries and Backgrounds,
Traits Source Player Core pg. 41.
These descriptors have no mechanical benefit, but they’re important for determining how certain spells, effects, and other aspects of the game interact with your character
So the fact that a Poppet is listed as a construct doesn't make it immune to bleed. Etc Etc.
The Remastered version of the Construct trait does not carry any of the immunities and other properties that the legacy version did.
"A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than vitality or void."
And that's it.
Where are you getting that from? The Construct trait on Page 362 of Monster Core says: "construct A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than vitality or void. Constructs are often mindless; they are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, nonlethal attacks, poison, spirit, vitality, void, and the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions; and they may have Hardness based on the materials used to construct their bodies. Constructs are not living creatures, nor are they undead. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed."
Poppet PCs don't get those immunities, and never have, but they are still part of Construct as a creature trait.
Bleed, specifically, remains a grey area all over the place because of the rule in the damage type itself being separate from immunities, but at least it looks like there's an intent to rely on listed immunities for new content (in a way that is at odds with having that rule written).
Interesting.
I looked up the Construct trait on AoN. The full text is as follows : "Construct
Source Player Core pg. 454
A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than vitality or void."
Monster Core, not yet on the Archives, naturally has a more in depth description for a creature trait than Player Core.
Monster Core, not yet on the Archives, naturally has a more in depth description for a creature trait than Player Core.It should be the same.
They are different things. What I quoted was for Ancestries and Backgrounds only. Monsters are separate.
The full definition of the trait that I listed is RAW. That the rules in that trait don't apply to PCs with the trait from their Ancestry is also RAW, as a more specific rule that applies to them but not other creatures.
The Construct entry in GM Core also lists included immunities for constructs in the monster building section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's another instance of one part of Paizo not knowing what the other part is doing(which, to be fair, communication across teams is a hard problem).
Which is exacerbated by a nearly entirely work-from-home staff, per James' comments in another thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an Alchemist player, I can say this problem also exists for the inhaled trait.
In the remaster PC book, it's a 7 word summary "This poison is delivered when breathed in."
It looks like it's supposed to be a complete trait definition, but it is not. Inhaled is a functional/mechanical trait like Splash, and the full text is in the GM core (same 2x2 cloud mechanic as before).
Worse, last I checked on Foundry, they had used the mini summary to define the trait, not the GM core full text. That breaks all the items/spell that use the inhaled trait for anyone who doesn't know better. And no one should have to, nor wants to try to explain why "the VTT is wrong" ugh.
______________________
IMO, it really, really is not okay for Paizo to have added this entire layer of ambiguity that did not exist before. It's antithetical to the entire concept of a glossary/index. The whole point of looking up the trait is to find the real, complete rules governing that trait. At the very least, they NEED to have a "see GM core" symbol / asterisk.
Even just from a player-only angle that never reads the GM core, it is NOT okay to hide mechanical rules.
Combined with traits that do not exist in the GM core at all, but do in the PC1, like the Concealable weapon trait, and this half a remaster release is already souring after a rather brief honeymoon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The full definition of the trait that I listed is RAW. That the rules in that trait don't apply to PCs with the trait from their Ancestry is also RAW, as a more specific rule that applies to them but not other creatures.
The Construct entry in GM Core also lists included immunities for constructs in the monster building section.
If two Traits do not mean the same thing, they should not share the same name.
Which is exacerbated by a nearly entirely work-from-home staff, per James' comments in another thread.
Paizo must have been trailblazing because Paizo has been like that since near the inception of PF1e :p
If two Traits do not mean the same thing, they should not share the same name.The full definition of the trait that I listed is RAW. That the rules in that trait don't apply to PCs with the trait from their Ancestry is also RAW, as a more specific rule that applies to them but not other creatures.
The Construct entry in GM Core also lists included immunities for constructs in the monster building section.
It isn't two traits. It is one trait, that has a summary description in one place and a full writeup in another.
There is also a rule that ancestries do not inherit mechanics from their traits. Not a separate construct trait, just a general rule of how to read Ancestries that says "this sort of thing does not apply".
|
|
If two Traits do not mean the same thing, they should not share the same name.The full definition of the trait that I listed is RAW. That the rules in that trait don't apply to PCs with the trait from their Ancestry is also RAW, as a more specific rule that applies to them but not other creatures.
The Construct entry in GM Core also lists included immunities for constructs in the monster building section.
It isn't two traits. It is one trait, that has a summary description in one place and a full writeup in another.
There is also a rule that ancestries do not inherit mechanics from their traits. Not a separate construct trait, just a general rule of how to read Ancestries that says "this sort of thing does not apply".
Which is absolutely not clear when looking at the trait currently on AoN. Hopefully it will be changed to the full writeup soon.
It's another instance of one part of Paizo not knowing what the other part is doing(which, to be fair, communication across teams is a hard problem).
I strongly suspect the remaster compatibility errata is another example of that because the way spirit damage works there is inconsistent with how it works almost everywhere else.