
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I would say, to truly split it in half would be a remarkable thing and it would have to dropped to more than 1/2 its max hit points in the negative. So it would have to be at -263 hit points anything less and the tissue is merely healing enough to rejoin the two halves. At the point that it is separated, one of the halves dies and the other regrows its missing half at the rate of 40 hp per round unless you continue to do damage to it. Once it becomes conscious it has regrown enough to be fully functional. If you keep doing damage until it is at -525 hp, you have essentially disintegrated it, but it will still regenerate from the largest pile of pulp, re-attaching to any available tissue or just re-growing it as necessary.

Melkiador |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The regeneration seems to be fairly independent of the body. If you destroyed the body and within one round scattered its molecules across the cosmos, it'd still regen 3 rounds later, the same as always.
In the case of an even split, I'd probably just have the new tarrasque pop somewhere between the two halves.

Tacticslion |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Tarrask are immortal and cant be killed. I just wondering if certain event that make thi thing split in half. Symmetrically.
Will it make 2 Tarrask ?
No. (Unless the GM arbitrates differently.)
First, let's link what we're actually talking about: Tarrasque.
I would say, to truly split it in half would be a remarkable thing and it would have to dropped to more than 1/2 its max hit points in the negative. So it would have to be at -263 hit points anything less and the tissue is merely healing enough to rejoin the two halves. At the point that it is separated, one of the halves dies and the other regrows its missing half at the rate of 40 hp per round unless you continue to do damage to it. Once it becomes conscious it has regrown enough to be fully functional. If you keep doing damage until it is at -525 hp, you have essentially disintegrated it, but it will still regenerate from the largest pile of pulp, re-attaching to any available tissue or just re-growing it as necessary.
This is sort-of close to being accurate, but it takes some liberties with the exact hit point rules.
Is theee source to this?
Basically, if the Tarrasque is split in half, nothing particularly special happens. It's the same as splitting a troll in half. In older editions (2nd and prior) splitting a troll into pieces allowed it to proliferate from those pieces; in 3e+, however, including PF, only the one creature regrows from its regeneration.
Regeneration (or, if you prefer this one) has the relevant rules:
Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
So, severed parts now rot away, and regeneration goes from the main "creature" instead of the severed "part" of it. No more multiplying trolls (which has been shown within various published works). I know you're trying to work around this with the "split in half" thing, but let's start looking at that.
Altogether, there are some immediate problems with your proposed scenario (note, this doesn't mean your scenario is bad, but that there are, like many things, issues with it).
(1) Being Split in Half
- A: The first question with this, is how. How would you split Big T in half? What's more, in what manner would you ensure the perfect "halfness" of each of the two parts? Based on the fact that Big T is not defined as internally symmetrical, and many notable species are not, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not he is - if he is not, it may well be impossible to actually split him in "half" - even if you somehow manage to split the creature into an equivalent number of contiguous moles (or cells or molecules or grams; take your pick in what we measure*) of Tarrasque (a questionable proposition in the first place, as getting "half" with any of those may well invalidate the concept of "half" with any of the others), those moles (or whatever) may well be rearranged in such a way as to have "more" Tarrasque on one side than the other.
- B: Even presupposing none of that is an actual problem, you have more issues. At what point do you deal damage to something? Even given an answer, how do you handle that? For example, let's say that Big T is perfectly symmetrical, and somehow, before ever dealing a single point of damage, you somehow manage to split it in half... but how do you control every piece of the environment around it; so, for example, no gnats or creatures landing on one side, equal distribution of heat and cold, no uncontrolled "loss" into surrounding environments, perfect 50/50 split, and so on) and the two halves fall equally away from one another to a degree that they don't just immediately (or near-immediately) re-adhere to each other? Any of these could adjust the "weight" of the thing to one side or the other, suddenly making that side the side that is "more" than the other, and regenerates.
=================================================
(2) The Tarrasque being Immortal
- A: The Tarrasque's regeneration doesn't actually clarify that it can't die. While standard regeneration notes,
Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0).
... it goes on to note,*
Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally.
... which, as you know, does not apply to Big T. Hence, Big T's regen doesn't work like the "standard" one. Looking at that,
Regeneration (Ex)
No form of attack can suppress the tarrasque's regeneration—it regenerates even if disintegrated or slain by a death effect. If the tarrasque fails a save against an effect that would kill it instantly, it rises from death 3 rounds later with 1 hit point if no further damage is inflicted upon its remains. It can be banished or otherwise transported as a means to save a region, but the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered.
... those bold portions are the relevant part.
While the last bold line seems to lean against it, the entire rest of the Regeneration effect notes that Big T can experience "death" (even if only for three rounds, normally). The "truly" can be made sense of within that context as in "permanently" - in other words, it can be killed, but not for long.
So Big T is immortal... but only kind of immortal.
* As an aside, refusing to let a regenerating creature die, no matter what, seems to go against the spirit of the rules, if I remember someone mentioning Dev comments to me, accurately. That said, I have no sources on that, at present, so take that as you will.
In the end, this means that one of the two "halves" can die and rot off, akin to the normal regeneration rules, leaving the other to regenerate normally.
Beyond that, the "yet to be discovered" line suggests that there is (hypothetically) a way, it's just not been learned, yet.
=====================================================
In the end, determining whether or not it would multiply, the RAI (Rules As Intended) and RAtT (Rules According to Tendencies) would be "no" while the RAW (Rules As Written) is ambiguous enough to fail to hold that (or anything) as the "correct" interpretation. The RAU (Rules As Understood) depends on the GM - and in that case, either said GM holds to a RAW view that differs from anything else (including other portions of RAW), or just decides based on flavor, in which case the rules aren't exactly being followed (which, I must stress, is not wrongful - in fact, choosing to not apply rules sometimes can make for an excellent GM, and may be very important to a given table's experience).
So, "No. (Unless the GM arbitrates differently.)"
:D
Hope that helps!
EDIT: Ninja'd! Twice! I'm leaving it, though, because I put a lot of references and explanations. :D

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

ThunderDome. Two Tarrasques enter, one Tarrasque leaves.
And the collateral damage to the countryside is even worse than a single rampaging Tarrasque.
(If this question was asked in any board but Rules, I'd totally support chucking RAW and RAI and citing Rule of Cool to justify a Tarrasque Thunderdome. Since it is in the Rules board, I guess I'll have to support the diligent folks above me who explained why it doesn't work that way.)

dragonhunterq |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

con damage? Even if drowning did con damage it would do nothing.
immune:ability damage
Bottom of the ocean will just slow it down...hardly at all actually - holds breath for just shy of 7 minutes walking along the ocean floor then starts making con checks for another 3-4 minutes or so before the 3 round unconscious/death drowning. 3 rounds later it recovers at 1 hp and holds it's breath for, lets call it 10 minutes.
So takes it out of action for less than 1 minute in 10 (roughly). 1 minute in 3 if you start the con checks immediately.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Teleport it to the bottom of the ocean. Regeneration doesn't heal Con damage from drowning. Done.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/tarrasque.html
Immune: ability damage, acid, bleed, disease, energy drain, fire, mind-affecting effects, paralysis, permanent wounds, petrification, poison, polymorph
But drowning isn't even ability damage, there's nothing to say it is ability damage, but the first two rounds are definitely hit point damage.
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.
Regeneration (Ex)
A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature's descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.
Regeneration doesn't heal suffocation (which even though it isn't called out RAW, is still the same as drowning, and if your GM is going to be an ass about that... send the thing to space) and the Tarrasque is only immune to suppression of regeneration from ATTACKS, drowning is an environmental effect. So if you can get it to stay at the bottom of the ocean for at least 81 rounds (68 for its CON of 34, and 13 minimum rounds for it to be able to fail the save even on a Nat 1). It could start drowning and die. The third round would be interpreted as a permanent wound and/or an instant death effect. The former of which the Tarrasque is also immune to, since Permanent Wound is not a clearly defined term in Pathfinder the vagueness likely works in the Tarrasque's favor. And if you were to interpret the third round as only an instant death effect... well the Tarrasque isn't immune to that, but its regeneration overcomes that anyways after 3 rounds.
The Tarrasque abilities modifies regeneration a bit.
Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack can suppress the tarrasque's regeneration—it regenerates even if disintegrated or slain by a death effect. If the tarrasque fails a save against an effect that would kill it instantly, it rises from death 3 rounds later with 1 hit point if no further damage is inflicted upon its remains. It can be banished or otherwise transported as a means to save a region, but the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered.
And since the Tarrasque (by the rules of regeneration) isn't able to regenerate HP from suffocation... He'll only be able to regenerate from the instant death effect (and would upon regenerating have another 81 rounds before being at risk of drowning/suffocation again, unless it takes damage). The only way to prevent this would be to cast Soul Bind (chances are you'll need a way to eliminate the vocal component (a rod of silent spell?) or extend the range far enough to cast it outside of water/space) with a black gem worth at least 30,000gp. This gem could still be destroyed later to release the Tarrasque.
Honestly I'm surprised Paizo didn't specifically say the creature doesn't have to eat, breathe, or sleep like other Magical Beasts.
And also to address OPs question. RAW and RAI don't really seem to suggest that the Tarrasque could regenerate into two new Tarrasques if bisected. Especially since it is immune to permanent wounds, and I'd argue that bisection is definitely a permanent wound, so therefore it could not be bisected. Though if it could be bisected, given the regular regeneration rules state that severed body parts can be regrown (or reattached if brought back together) then of course one half of the Tarrasque could regenerate. Remember that the Tarrasque is not undead or soulless, the creature still only has one soul and that soul can only occupy a single body. So one half (GM discretion as to which half would still hold the soul) would regrow the other half of the body, and the other half that didn't regrow anything would wither and die after an hour as per normal regeneration rules.

FrozenLaughs |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I have not read the rules for Drowning in quite awhile, I see I'm incorrect about Con damage. I wonder what I was thinking of.... Hmmm.
If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round.
So if it's walking along the ocean floor or attempting to swim upwards, it's reduced to 34 rds? Either way, if it comes back to life 3 rds after death, does that magically expell the water from its lungs and refill them with oxygen? It should just end up in an infinite loop of drowning. At least, until the body floats to the surface... But that's not figuring pressure damage or anything from water depth...
For that matter teleport it to the elemental plane of water. Anyways, I'm way off topic for this thread. Are we cutting it in half at the waist, or lengthwise? Not that it matters by it's regeneration ability, but I'm wondering what has that kind of ability.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Drowning wrote:If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round.So if it's walking along the ocean floor or attempting to swim upwards, it's reduced to 34 rds? Either way, if it comes back to life 3 rds after death, does that magically expell the water from its lungs and refill them with oxygen? It should just end up in an infinite loop of drowning. At least, until the body floats to the surface... But that's not figuring pressure damage or anything from water depth...
No, move actions do not affect the number of rounds. And it begins with 1 HP, the rules for drowning do not state that a dead character who regenerates is still in a state of drowning. By virtue of having 1 hp it is assumed that it is still able to hold its breath.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Just as a point of interest, I had a gnome here that incapacitated the tarrasque in the Beastmass by immobilizing it in a globe of tranquil water and waiting 10 minutes.
How? Globe of tranquil water has an area of "Area 20-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you." Did you get it in the Globe with you or something? Because that's not technically possible as the creature has a space of 30 feet and isn't a "Long" creature, if the globe has a radius of 20 feet then unless you turn yourself incorporeal it would extend 10 feet outside the globe. If you moved the globe would move too, keeping you always in the center. Although if you casted it as "Widened" that could work. But the other thing is, how did you immobilize it? The creature is immune to petrification, paralysis, ability damage, energy drain, mind affecting spells, polymorph, and has such high CMB and Strength I can't think of any reasonable way that it could be immobilized.

Avoron |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Avoron wrote:Just as a point of interest, I had a gnome here that incapacitated the tarrasque in the Beastmass by immobilizing it in a globe of tranquil water and waiting 10 minutes.How? Globe of tranquil water has an area of "Area 20-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you." Did you get it in the Globe with you or something? Because that's not technically possible as the creature has a space of 30 feet and isn't a "Long" creature, if the globe has a radius of 20 feet then unless you turn yourself incorporeal it would extend 10 feet outside the globe. If you moved the globe would move too, keeping you always in the center. Although if you casted it as "Widened" that could work. But the other thing is, how did you immobilize it? The creature is immune to petrification, paralysis, ability damage, energy drain, mind affecting spells, polymorph, and has such high CMB and Strength I can't think of any reasonable way that it could be immobilized.
It was a scroll of extended widened globe of tranquil water.
As for immobilizing it, you are absolutely correct. There is no reasonable way that it could be immobilized. That's why I used Bewildering Koan.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

hasteroth wrote:Avoron wrote:Just as a point of interest, I had a gnome here that incapacitated the tarrasque in the Beastmass by immobilizing it in a globe of tranquil water and waiting 10 minutes.How? Globe of tranquil water has an area of "Area 20-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you." Did you get it in the Globe with you or something? Because that's not technically possible as the creature has a space of 30 feet and isn't a "Long" creature, if the globe has a radius of 20 feet then unless you turn yourself incorporeal it would extend 10 feet outside the globe. If you moved the globe would move too, keeping you always in the center. Although if you casted it as "Widened" that could work. But the other thing is, how did you immobilize it? The creature is immune to petrification, paralysis, ability damage, energy drain, mind affecting spells, polymorph, and has such high CMB and Strength I can't think of any reasonable way that it could be immobilized.It was a scroll of extended widened globe of tranquil water.
As for immobilizing it, you are absolutely correct. There is no reasonable way that it could be immobilized. That's why I used Bewildering Koan.
That must've been some crazy luck. You're lucky the thing can understand basic Aklo.

CampinCarl9127 |

One piece will regenerate. Table discretion on which piece. My personal take is that the piece with the head gets priority, or if the head is split in half than the larger piece gets priority. If you manage to split it 50/50 (an anatomic impossibility, but let's ignore that) then I'll just determine randomly.

Cuup |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Veilgn wrote:Tarrask are immortal and cant be killed. I just wondering if certain event that make thi thing split in half. Symmetrically.
Will it make 2 Tarrask ?
No. (Unless the GM arbitrates differently.)
First, let's link what we're actually talking about: Tarrasque.
I can't tell you how much it made my day when I clicked your link on the thread discussing the implications of splitting the Tarrasque in half, and was brought to two identical Tarrasque entries side-by-side for no reason other than irony. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but good lord, it was a special moment for me.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Why this "thread" become moved to rules?
Where was it before? Cause since it's here we've been discussing it as a rules question, rather than merely a thematic one.
Who 8s ravagog?
Rovagug, he misspelled. Rovagug is a god who was imprisoned since the age of creation in The Dead Vault by Asmodeus (God of Hell). The Dead Vault is a special demiplane that exists in the planet's core. Before being imprisoned, Rovagug had come to the world of Golarion (and its collection of planes) to destroy it, and he was opposed by many of the gods of Golarion both good and evil. He could not be killed so he was imprisoned, but it was an imperfect prison and in -3923 AR his prison split open a fraction and the first Spawn of Rovagug came out through the Pit of Gormuz, some 3300 years later (after 2 others spawns came out) the Tarrasque came out of the Pit of Gormuz... 4 more spawn would come out. But the Tarrasque is noteworthy as it has still never been killed permanently (in Pathfinder canon) unlike all the others except for the 2 most recent spawns.

Eviljames |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if the Tarrasque is split in half, nothing particularly special happens. It's the same as splitting a troll in half. In older editions (2nd and prior) splitting a troll into pieces allowed it to proliferate from those pieces; in 3e+, however, including PF, only the one creature regrows from its regeneration.
Slight nit pick, but in at least Second Ed. You still only got one troll from troll parts. I think lots of people house ruled that you get multiple trolls that way, but it was never said in the monster manual. I can't really speak for 1st ed, but I'm reasonably sure that it was the same in Basic as well.
Beyond that I have nothing more to add to the conversation. Carry on.

Tacticslion |

Basically, if the Tarrasque is split in half, nothing particularly special happens. It's the same as splitting a troll in half. In older editions (2nd and prior) splitting a troll into pieces allowed it to proliferate from those pieces; in 3e+, however, including PF, only the one creature regrows from its regeneration.
Slight nit pick, but in at least Second Ed. You still only got one troll from troll parts. I think lots of people house ruled that you get multiple trolls that way, but it was never said in the monster manual. I can't really speak for 1st ed, but I'm reasonably sure that it was the same in Basic as well.
Beyond that I have nothing more to add to the conversation. Carry on.
Oh! Thank you! I must have just experienced only the home-rules version, then.
Hm... I seem to recall that happening in a novel, too, but my brain might have partially long ago fully abandoned ship.
EDIT:
According to this, the "Moonshae series" (I think that means the Moonshae trilogy) had a troll who, under "exceptional circumstances" was able to cut his fingers off each night to create an army. Later it notes that a module does so, but that was countered by "only in the Moonshae trilogy"... and I don't know that I've read that trilogy, so... *shrug* I'unno.
EDIT 2: Same link, it mentions Streams of Silver, which I have read, and this seems to confirm it.
Also, fairly far down, is a post that mentions in the 2E MM that there are conflicting bits: one where the troll must wait for its head to grow back, and another where the troll regrows from a limb in about a week; it also mentions two spoilers in the Baldur's Gate game about trolls that indicate "both interpretations" as well. Blarg, I may have to stop being lazy and see if I can find a 2E MM...
EDIT: ARG. Spent a lot of time quoting the Monstrous Manual, and it got eaten by the site. >:(
Short version: seems it was a common misconception, but it was definitely a misconception.

Eviljames |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion wrote:Basically, if the Tarrasque is split in half, nothing particularly special happens. It's the same as splitting a troll in half. In older editions (2nd and prior) splitting a troll into pieces allowed it to proliferate from those pieces; in 3e+, however, including PF, only the one creature regrows from its regeneration.
Eviljames wrote:Slight nit pick, but in at least Second Ed. You still only got one troll from troll parts. I think lots of people house ruled that you get multiple trolls that way, but it was never said in the monster manual. I can't really speak for 1st ed, but I'm reasonably sure that it was the same in Basic as well.
Beyond that I have nothing more to add to the conversation. Carry on.
Oh! Thank you! I must have just experienced only the home-rules version, then.
Hm... I seem to recall that happening in a novel, too, but my brain
might have partiallylong ago fully abandoned ship.EDIT:
According to this, the "Moonshae series" (I think that means the Moonshae trilogy) had a troll who, under "exceptional circumstances" was able to cut his fingers off each night to create an army. Later it notes that a module does so, but that was countered by "only in the Moonshae trilogy"... and I don't know that I've read that trilogy, so... *shrug* I'unno.
EDIT 2: Same link, it mentions Streams of Silver, which I have read, and this seems to confirm it.
Also, fairly far down, is a post that mentions in the 2E MM that there are conflicting bits: one where the troll must wait for its head to grow back, and another where the troll regrows from a limb in about a week; it also mentions two spoilers in the Baldur's Gate game about trolls that indicate "both...
Yeah. None of the authors really looked up how a monster worked for a story and if they had most authors would ignore it if it was better for the story. Officially (ie the monster manual) trolls regrew from the biggest surviving part, but most people assumed they worked like planeria (which probably makes more sense in the end. but dear God would that be horrifying.)