Bleeding attack feat causes unarmed strikes to deal extra d4 bleeding damage.

  1. Does non-lethal bleeding damage exist?
  2. If the attacker chooses to cause non-lethal damage with the unarmed strike, is the bleeding damage also non-lethal bleeding damage?
  3. A small creature with poor strength is likely to have damage such as d2-2 with their unarmed strike. If damage is zero or less, then the attack instead causes 1 point of non-lethal damage. Is the damage caused by bleeding strike lethal or non-lethal in this situation?

Question number three is the one I want answered, but it seems that getting answers to questions 1 and 2 are required for a sensible answer to number 3.

Note that this questions concerns the bleeding attack feat, evidently also known as Belier's bite, and not the bleeding attack rogue talent.


1 Answer 1


Damage is lethal unless indicated otherwise

Nothing about the feat Bleeding Attack (né Belier's Bite from Cheliax, Empire of Devils 26) indicates that the feat's benefit interacts at all with nonlethal damage. The benefit of the feat Bleeding Attack simply says, "When you damage an opponent with an unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage." That means the bleed damage is lethal damage even if an unarmed strike is used to deal nonlethal damage: "A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn."

The monk archetype hamatulatsu master's extraordinary ability stunning fist at level 8 can deal 1d10 points of nonlethal bleed damage. That's the only source of nonlethal bleed damage I could find readily, but the special ability's existence means nonlethal bleed damage is, indeed, a thing.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .