|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
First Thought (whilst prepping published adventure): Who the hell gives a skeleton mage Blood Vendetta?
Second Thought: Bloody hell, undead are not immune to bleed damage as standard!
NYEHEHEHE,
You will feel the rattle all troughout your marrow.
In reality though, ofcourse they can bleed if they still have their bonemarrow, This oughta be especially true for any skeletons with the Bloody Ability.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Darrell Impey UK wrote: First Thought (whilst prepping published adventure): Who the hell gives a skeleton mage Blood Vendetta?
Second Thought: Bloody hell, undead are not immune to bleed damage as standard!
Seems like a mistake, since skeletons are immune to bleed damage. It's not a default spell for them, and I imagine that the author just missed the requirement part of the spell.
QuidEst wrote: Darrell Impey UK wrote: First Thought (whilst prepping published adventure): Who the hell gives a skeleton mage Blood Vendetta?
Second Thought: Bloody hell, undead are not immune to bleed damage as standard!
Seems like a mistake, since skeletons are immune to bleed damage. It's not a default spell for them, and I imagine that the author just missed the requirement part of the spell. Or the adventure was pre-remaster since skeletons in the monster core were updated to be bleed immune.
Even the book of the dead doesn't list bleed immunity in their skeleton adjustment.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, bleeding is physical damage RAW. It has 'has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live' rule. Which did cause a lot of discussion what to do when a creature is clearly nonliving, but doesn't have bleed immunity explicitly.
Though as I recollect, new bestiaries and moster cores are much more correct in this respect: they do assign logical immunities much better and consistently.
But when you have this case anyway, well, you could just invent a reason why it works: skeleton bones are gradually turning into ashes from weakness and a strong damage. And go on. If you don't want to change things too much.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
They've always been immune, it's just that the rule for it was confusingly not in the undead trait or the monster stat blocks, but only in the rules for bleed: "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."
Darrell Impey UK wrote: First Thought (whilst prepping published adventure): Who the hell gives a skeleton mage Blood Vendetta?
Second Thought: Bloody hell, undead are not immune to bleed damage as standard!
Player Core p407 wrote: 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.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You could always reskin the spell. The core of the spell - cast as a reaction to taking certain types of damage, deals persistent damage - isn't directly tied to bleeding.
Name: Bone Terror
Cast: Reaction
Trigger: The skeleton takes bludgeoning damage
Requirement: Your bones are visible.
Effect: Seeing your own bones break terrorizes your foes. The target takes 2d6 persistent mental damage and must attempt a will save.
Critical success: Target is unaffected
Success: Target takes half the persistent mental damage
Failure: Target takes full persistent mental damage. Until the persistent damage ends, the target has weakness 1 to bludgeoning damage.
Critical failure: As failure, but target takes double the persistent damage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well then,
I will note this down as "another case where the rule is 4 layers down"
But atleast Monster Core does list bleed immunity for all its undeads right.... right?...
yeah... no it doesn't, and those who doesn't list it doesn't have an ability to override what is being said in the Bleed Damage section.
NorrKnekten wrote: Well then,
I will note this down as "another case where the rule is 4 layers down"
But atleast Monster Core does list bleed immunity for all its undeads right.... right?...
yeah... no it doesn't, and those who doesn't list it doesn't have an ability to override what is being said in the Bleed Damage section.
Monster Core lists it for all but vampires, as far as I can tell from a search. I'm happy enough having it included in listed immunities since that's a lot more convenient. Vampires certainly make sense as undead that can bleed.
So, the rule was several layers down, but they resolved that issue going forward. If that results in a bit of weirdness where the lack of immunity on vampires isn't spelled out with an express override, that's a pretty minor thing. I wouldn't want that taking the place of something important.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
QuidEst wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Well then,
I will note this down as "another case where the rule is 4 layers down"
But atleast Monster Core does list bleed immunity for all its undeads right.... right?...
yeah... no it doesn't, and those who doesn't list it doesn't have an ability to override what is being said in the Bleed Damage section.
Monster Core lists it for all but vampires, as far as I can tell from a search. I'm happy enough having it included in listed immunities since that's a lot more convenient. Vampires certainly make sense as undead that can bleed.
So, the rule was several layers down, but they resolved that issue going forward. If that results in a bit of weirdness where the lack of immunity on vampires isn't spelled out with an express override, that's a pretty minor thing. I wouldn't want that taking the place of something important. Yeah, I also found that the ones who run AoN apparently received feedback from Logan Bonner. It basically spells out that certain undead are indeed meant to not have bleed immunity.
Archive of Nethys Discord wrote: 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!"
Which once again raises the question.
Is it "Non-living, and living creatures who require blood to live" or "Non-living and living creatures, who require blood to live"
Not that it matters.. if the intention is that non-living can bleed in absence of listed bleed immunity then it simply is so. And now theres less GM adjudication to be had with living creatures aswell, as even oozes and similar have gotten their bleed immunities listed where as they previously didnt.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Honestly, it is not a well thought-out approach. Since the general rule still exists, vampires should have had an affirmative piece of text stating "unlike most undead,vampires are subject to bleed damage" instead of just not writing an immunity redundant with the general rule.
The intent has been made clear in this case, so we know how to run them, but the practice is not great, and it'sbound to cause confusion with people running older content and being ised to ignoring the general rule and relying on the statblock, instead of reinforcing clarity.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote:
Which once again raises the question.
Is it "Non-living, and living creatures who require blood to live" or "Non-living and living creatures, who require blood to live"
The latter would be an obnoxious interpretation, because if that were the intent it would be silly to even mention "nonliving" or "living". After all, all creatures are treated as falling within exactly one of those categories at any given moment.
That said, the rule should probably also specify "blood <or analogous other fluids>", because otherwise it leaves things open to player claiming that their leshies or androids should be immune to bleed damage; and DMs being left to wonder why e.g. tomb jellies are explicitly immune to bleed damage but ochre jellies aren't... and Ooze Form doesn't explicitly give you bleed immunity either.
Conscious Meat wrote: NorrKnekten wrote:
Which once again raises the question.
Is it "Non-living, and living creatures who require blood to live" or "Non-living and living creatures, who require blood to live"
The latter would be an obnoxious interpretation, because if that were the intent it would be silly to even mention "nonliving" or "living". After all, all creatures are treated as falling within exactly one of those categories at any given moment. Thats kinda the point im making, Why even have "non-living cant take bleed damage" if the intention is that some non-living can with no explicit override?
Conscious Meat wrote: That said, the rule should probably also specify "blood <or analogous other fluids>", because otherwise it leaves things open to player claiming that their leshies or androids should be immune to bleed damage; and DMs being left to wonder why e.g. tomb jellies are explicitly immune to bleed damage but ochre jellies aren't... and Ooze Form doesn't explicitly give you bleed immunity either. Ochre Jellies are probably supposed to have Bleed Immunity but doesn't because they are from the bestiary and havent been reprinted, Similar with Ooze form it hasnt been reprinted. Honestly the Rule could just aswell have been removed or had a simple "usually" added to it. Leave it a note as to what creatures typically are immune and then let their statblocks actually state wether they are or aren't.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
