Have been reading about the blood domain cleric from the TalDorei Campaign Setting Reborn, which has several abilities that affect "any creature with blood." I am unaware of any RAW classification of creatures that do not have blood. For the purpose of this domain, is there any guidance on which creatures (other than constructs clearly) that do not have blood?
Oozes do not have blood. Or at least nothing I have read about them alludes them having it, lol.
Think of whether or not they have a type of vascular system, and do not limit what blood is to our irl human red blood. Really the best way to think of it is, "If I cut it, will it bleed...?" If the answer is yes, it has blood. If the answer is no, then it does not. Constructs being an exception.
Have been reading about the blood domain cleric from the TalDorei Campaign Setting Reborn, which has several abilities that affect "any creature with blood." I am unaware of any RAW classification of creatures that do not have blood. For the purpose of this domain, is there any guidance on which creatures (other than constructs clearly) that do not have blood?
- Oozes - Ghosts (Possibly some other undead) - Constructs - Plants - many Elementals
Have been reading about the blood domain cleric from the TalDorei Campaign Setting Reborn, which has several abilities that affect "any creature with blood." I am unaware of any RAW classification of creatures that do not have blood. For the purpose of this domain, is there any guidance on which creatures (other than constructs clearly) that do not have blood?
- Oozes - Ghosts (Possibly some other undead) - Constructs - Plants - many Elementals
Plants may not have “blood,” but they do have something similar enough that I might allow it as a DM.
Oozes do not have blood. Or at least nothing I have read about them alludes them having it, lol.
Think of whether or not they have a type of vascular system, and do not limit what blood is to our irl human red blood. Really the best way to think of it is, "If I cut it, will it bleed...?" If the answer is yes, it has blood. If the answer is no, then it does not. Constructs being an exception.
Given the book reference to bloodletting focus working on creatures that have "some type of vital sap or ichor to survive," and what is written about the function of plasma for plasmoids at spelljammer.fandom.com, I might think to include oozes.
Little confused, in most recent post OP seems to be aware that p. 165 of the book has guidance specifically labeled "I don't have blood!" and "They don't have blood!" It's pretty clear guidance and basically distills most of the points of this thread and then grants the matter to DM discretion.
I think the guidance betrays a desire in the design to do a edgy "life and death" domain with an edgy symbol that's also a material component, and then realized doing so sort of hampers the domain or makes its function problematic if you think about the whole fantasy anatomy thing. So we get these paragraphs in the Hemocraft guidance section. It's just one of those things that happen when folks want a "whole world" character option that stems from the events and homebrew of a specific game table. Blood isn't very significant in D&D, so when CR wants to make blood significant to particular character options, it poses challenges. I'm not saying it's bad, but rather what we often get when we "build on" D&D.
I'd add skeletal undead to the list of problem undead in addition to the non-corporeal.
I'll also say I don't care for the book landing on "sap" as one of its fluids. So we can now use blood affecting hemocraft on trees? Though that does beg a question as to life/death domain magic and its relationship with vegetation, which in game terms is usually dealt with a structures or objects, not creatures.
Little confused, in most recent post OP seems to be aware that p. 165 of the book has guidance specifically labeled "I don't have blood!" and "They don't have blood!" It's pretty clear guidance and basically distills most of the points of this thread and then grants the matter to DM discretion.
I think the guidance betrays a desire in the design to do a edgy "life and death" domain with an edgy symbol that's also a material component, and then realized doing so sort of hampers the domain or makes its function problematic if you think about the whole fantasy anatomy thing. So we get these paragraphs in the Hemocraft guidance section. It's just one of those things that happen when folks want a "whole world" character option that stems from the events and homebrew of a specific game table. Blood isn't very significant in D&D, so when CR wants to make blood significant to particular character options, it poses challenges. I'm not saying it's bad, but rather what we often get when we "build on" D&D.
I'd add skeletal undead to the list of problem undead in addition to the non-corporeal.
I'll also say I don't care for the book landing on "sap" as one of its fluids. So we can now use blood affecting hemocraft on trees? Though that does beg a question as to life/death domain magic and its relationship with vegetation, which in game terms is usually dealt with a structures or objects, not creatures.
I made the initial post after purchasing the book and had not seen the text on p. 165. Even then, in doing some searching online, Mercer has provided inconsistent information (basically saying fleshy undead are "Blood-carrying" and therefore fair game for blood hunters when using hemocraft). I have not seen that the book addresses oozes specifically, ergo my response to the post above.
It would have been more straightforward if the book simply differentiated living from dead and ruled out effects on constructs and undead (similar to how the blood wizard is handled in the book).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Have been reading about the blood domain cleric from the TalDorei Campaign Setting Reborn, which has several abilities that affect "any creature with blood." I am unaware of any RAW classification of creatures that do not have blood. For the purpose of this domain, is there any guidance on which creatures (other than constructs clearly) that do not have blood?
Oozes do not have blood. Or at least nothing I have read about them alludes them having it, lol.
Think of whether or not they have a type of vascular system, and do not limit what blood is to our irl human red blood. Really the best way to think of it is, "If I cut it, will it bleed...?" If the answer is yes, it has blood. If the answer is no, then it does not. Constructs being an exception.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
- Oozes
- Ghosts (Possibly some other undead)
- Constructs
- Plants
- many Elementals
Plants may not have “blood,” but they do have something similar enough that I might allow it as a DM.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Given the book reference to bloodletting focus working on creatures that have "some type of vital sap or ichor to survive," and what is written about the function of plasma for plasmoids at spelljammer.fandom.com, I might think to include oozes.
Little confused, in most recent post OP seems to be aware that p. 165 of the book has guidance specifically labeled "I don't have blood!" and "They don't have blood!" It's pretty clear guidance and basically distills most of the points of this thread and then grants the matter to DM discretion.
I think the guidance betrays a desire in the design to do a edgy "life and death" domain with an edgy symbol that's also a material component, and then realized doing so sort of hampers the domain or makes its function problematic if you think about the whole fantasy anatomy thing. So we get these paragraphs in the Hemocraft guidance section. It's just one of those things that happen when folks want a "whole world" character option that stems from the events and homebrew of a specific game table. Blood isn't very significant in D&D, so when CR wants to make blood significant to particular character options, it poses challenges. I'm not saying it's bad, but rather what we often get when we "build on" D&D.
I'd add skeletal undead to the list of problem undead in addition to the non-corporeal.
I'll also say I don't care for the book landing on "sap" as one of its fluids. So we can now use blood affecting hemocraft on trees? Though that does beg a question as to life/death domain magic and its relationship with vegetation, which in game terms is usually dealt with a structures or objects, not creatures.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I made the initial post after purchasing the book and had not seen the text on p. 165. Even then, in doing some searching online, Mercer has provided inconsistent information (basically saying fleshy undead are "Blood-carrying" and therefore fair game for blood hunters when using hemocraft). I have not seen that the book addresses oozes specifically, ergo my response to the post above.
TBH it's a bit weird that the Bloodhunter has a "Ghostslayer" subclass but their Hemocraft doesn't work on ghosts.
Yes, it seems a bit sketchy. Mercer had this to say about the blood hunter issue you raise: https://www.sageadvice.eu/undead-is-a-huge-target-for-blood-hunters-but-they-cant-use-their-blood-curses-because-most-undead-have-no-blood-is-that-right. Yet his comments were not carried forward to the new book. In the same vein as what Mercer wrote, there are constructs that are blood-carrying or have blood-like "ichor" (e.g., homonculi, flesh golem, magen).
It would have been more straightforward if the book simply differentiated living from dead and ruled out effects on constructs and undead (similar to how the blood wizard is handled in the book).