Hydra Regeneration.

So, generally in all Hydra type monsters has Hydra Regeneration of simmilar type, let's say:

The stargut hydra has regeneration equal to 3 × the number of heads it has. If a hydra's body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 29 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration. On a success, one uncauterized stump regrows two heads; on a critical success, two uncauterized stumps regrow into two heads each. The hydra can never grow more than double the number of heads it ordinarily has. The hydra's regeneration only fully deactivates if all its heads are severed and all stumps are cauterized, at which point it dies.

And the description about general regeneration states: Its dying condition never increases beyond dying 3 as long as its regeneration is active.

So... what happens if team gonna decapitate all hydra heads without cauterizing any?
Hydra regeneration equals 3xheads... which is 0 now. But it's still active since no stumps were cauterized... so hydra is in forever limbo of dying but not really dead?

I believe there are two ways of viewing this,

The first would be that regeneration is considered 'disabled' upon reaching regeneration 0 so a hydra that lacks all of its heads is basically a headless chicken that can be killed as such.

However I believe the more accurate reading of RAW is that Regeneration 0 is still considered regeneration, so a dying 3 hydra with all heads severed would regain 0hp, and then have an opportunity to regrow heads while. So outside of cauterizing every neck stump and death effects the hydra cannot die by normal means.

I believe the more accurate reading of RAW is that Regeneration 0 is still considered regeneration, so a dying 3 hydra with all heads severed would regain 0hp, and then have an opportunity to regrow heads

While it may not be completely intuitive, I think that works and is probably the best ruling. It would gain 0 HP, attempt to regrow two heads, and the fight would continue.

If you don't cauterize the stumps it will heal and survive. It will "rest" the night and regain HP, at that point it would be presumed to be able to regrow heads with enough HP. This is not a typical game scenario so isn't put into the rules, IMO. For rules purpose you either kill it properly or you don't.

"It will "rest" the night and regain HP, at that point it would be presumed to be able to regrow heads with enough HP. "

But RAW heads regrow only after passed Fortitude when regaining HP via Hydra Regeneration not rest.

Since a hydra regen doesnt fully deactivate until all heads have been both severed and cauterized I would treat that as though the min regen value even with no heads is 1 until regen is completely deactivated.

I'd go with the interpretation that with 0 heads the regenerated hp is 0, but it still regens 0 hp and then makes a fort check to regrow heads.

Regen = 0 is different from regen being disabled, nothing disables the regen except cauterizing the stump.

NorrKnekten wrote:

I believe the more accurate reading of RAW is that Regeneration 0 is still considered regeneration, so a dying 3 hydra with all heads severed would regain 0hp, and then have an opportunity to regrow heads

While it may not be completely intuitive, I think that works and is probably the best ruling. It would gain 0 HP, attempt to regrow two heads, and the fight would continue.

This feels right to me too! 0 HP gained, but still rolling the Fortitude save to attempt to grow heads. I would interpret, "If a hydra's body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 29 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration" in this case as, "Since the hydra's body is missing all heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 29 Fortitude save after it regains 0 Hit Points from regeneration."

Also to the hydra, good luck.

I think this is reading the text on how hydra regeneration works a bit too strictly.

If a hydra started out with 5 heads, it has 15 regeneration. That stays true even if some heads are currently severed. Only when the stump is cauterized does that subtract from the number of heads factoring into the regeneration rate, just as only if the die result of a save to check for head regeneration goes the right way does the number of heads increase.

I think this is reading the text on how hydra regeneration works a bit too strictly.

If a hydra started out with 5 heads, it has 15 regeneration. That stays true even if some heads are currently severed. Only when the stump is cauterized does that subtract from the number of heads factoring into the regeneration rate, just as only if the die result of a save to check for head regeneration goes the right way does the number of heads increase.

That really can't be accurate with how the other abilities are worded.

That would make it deal additional strikes and damage even for severed heads with Storm of Jaws and Focused Assault, and it would gain additional reactions even for heads that are severed as the wording is that it loses one of its currently available reactions when a head is severed.

Surely if a head is 'missing' then it is a head the hydra doesn't 'have' just as it can't use its missing heads for additional strikes.

The game is written to be read in "casual language". That has the upside that the authors don't have to use identical wording to cause identical outcomes, and they can give us guidance about what to do if the way things are worded seems to be doing something unintended.

That comes with the downside that we have to actually consider context and not just the words chosen themselves to see what to do with a rule.

That said, I am not so sure there's anything unclear about the other abilities of the hydra either.

Reactive Heads specifies that a head being severed makes it not count for reaction determination, so it's clear that a severed but not cauterized head doesn't count. That's contrasted by not having the same level of explicit statement in the regeneration description. If anything, that means we have a reason to believe the author assumed that readers would count heads towards features unless they were explicitly told not to (as in, this could be evidence they assumed a reading like mine).

The attack-related features your point seems to have more potential weight to it since they use the same wording and lack as explicit of a statement to not count currently severed but not cauterized heads. They still have context, though, since the fangs attached to the heads are what it is attacking with and it is implied to not be able to with them current detached.

Whereas the regeneration wording produces a strange enough result if treating it as current not-severed heads so the regeneration can be reduced to 0 without that also actually proving that the hydra is dead that someone felt it was worth opening a discussion about - likely because the rest of the game text regarding regeneration doesn't have any explicit statements on what a regeneration value of 0 actually means, nor really even implies the possibility since the general description of the ability in the glossary reads "...regains the listed number of Hit Points each round at the beginning of its turn." and doesn't actually give us any explicit reason to think that "regains 0" isn't the same as having deactivated the regeneration which is just as much of an intuitive conclusion as "regains 0" meaning the regeneration is still "active" even though it's clearly not doing the thing you would expect of active regeneration.

Right if someone offered me a job and it pays $0 I would think they were being a smart aleck. I would say you mean want me to do the work for free.
Normal language doesnt consider 0 a gain of anything.

MC pg 204 "Hydra Regeneration The hydra has regeneration (page 360) equal to 3 × the number of heads it has. If a hydra’s body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 25 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

I think that last part might be more clear as "at the beginning of its turn." instead of "...after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

I did mention that Regeneration 0 could be seen as being fully deactivated. Mainly because ordinarely creatures have a fixed value. But this has a problem since Regeneration, unlike Fast Healing, actually has a secondary effect.

And the author is pointing this out.

The hydra's regeneration only fully deactivates if all its heads are severed and all stumps are cauterized, at which point it dies.

Casual language standards would also dictate that when the creature would regain HP even if that number is 0 to have regained hp. Simply because the most common state will be non-zero and regaining health from Fast Healing/Regeneration is a defined step of starting your turn.

It simply makes more sense that the context and intention on how abilities interact with the Number of Heads is outlined in Head Regrowth and any Severed heads are considered heads the hydra doesn't have.

MC pg 204 "Hydra Regeneration The hydra has regeneration (page 360) equal to 3 × the number of heads it has. If a hydra’s body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 25 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

I think that last part might be more clear as "at the beginning of its turn." instead of "...after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

Agree, But at the same time these things happen at the same step.

Start your Turn

Bluemagetim wrote:

MC pg 204 "Hydra Regeneration The hydra has regeneration (page 360) equal to 3 × the number of heads it has. If a hydra’s body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 25 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

I think that last part might be more clear as "at the beginning of its turn." instead of "...after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

Agree, But at the same time these things happen at the same step.

Start your Turn

Oh yeah. I was just going for alleviating the need to use gain HP language.

... actually I think I understand why they chose "After it regains Hit Points"

If they had selected Start of Turn it becomes legal to have it regrow heads and then regain HP.

Casual language standards would also dictate that when the creature would regain HP even if that number is 0 to have regained hp.

That's actually the opposite of what casual language standards would dictate.

Both because you have to be thinking about technicality and thus reading in a technical language standard, and because the general flow of a conversation between people that starts "You regain hit points." and follows with "How many?" leading to an answer of "Zero." would produce a "...huh?" or "that's stupid" response rather than understanding unless those people possessed some special circumstances which have lead them to immediately assume a numerical (you added a number, that number happened to be 0) rather than intuitive (the situation has not changed, thus no (re)gain happened) interpretation of the situation.

The real "problem" with casual language game rules being that the bulk of people deeply involved in discussing how to use them "correctly" are assuming a higher level of technical intention just because rules, to them, are inherently technical so even a casual reading leans on technical assumptions.

NorrKnekten wrote:

Casual language standards would also dictate that when the creature would regain HP even if that number is 0 to have regained hp.

That's actually the opposite of what casual language standards would dictate.

Both because you have to be thinking about technicality and thus reading in a technical language standard, and because the general flow of a conversation between people that starts "You regain hit points." and follows with "How many?" leading to an answer of "Zero." would produce a "...huh?" or "that's stupid" response rather than understanding unless those people possessed some special circumstances which have lead them to immediately assume a numerical (you added a number, that number happened to be 0) rather than intuitive (the situation has not changed, thus no (re)gain happened) interpretation of the situation.

The real "problem" with casual language game rules being that the bulk of people deeply involved in discussing how to use them "correctly" are assuming a higher level of technical intention just because rules, to them, are inherently technical so even a casual reading leans on technical assumptions.

Really? Because you have a context here that you are either missing or not including with that example. We have an event that happens, And it happens after regaining hitpoints from regen. People presented with seeing the hydra regen 0hp are understandably confused, but people who knows that regaining hitpoints from regeneration is a defined point in your turn would immediately go "Oh so the event happens either way, this just tells us when it happens"

Similarly I can see the same disconnect with the idea that the hydra "has" the heads that was severed.
"The hydra gains 3xthe amount of heads it has so it gains 15"
"Huh?! But I already lopped two of them off, it only has 3 heads"

Look 'Casual Language' or not, Language is language and is used to relay intent. And you won't get to that intent if you begin filling in percieved blanks in a text that don't have said blanks, Instead you are changing the text and its meaning based on perception alone.

Just as we cannot change that Regen 0 actually makes sense on its own as a fixed number, The creature doesn't regain HP, but also doesn't reach dying 4, will self-stabilize and regain 1 hp after couple of hours due to having been unconcious. We know that the hydras isn't considered fully deactivated at 0 heads either because the author tells us that its only fully deactivated when all stumps are cauterized.

We know that the hydras isn't considered fully deactivated at 0 heads either because the author tells us that its only fully deactivated when all stumps are cauterized.

Yep, this is the main thing.

What's your regen value? Depends on the number of heads

Is your regen deactivated when you have no heads? Nope, not unless they've all been cauterized.

Could the abilities have been worded a bit differently to make it more intuitive? Absolutely.

But arriving at the conclusion that cutting off all the heads without cauterizing somehow ends the regeneration and kills the hydra is pretty clearly a wrong conclusion based on other parts of the creature description.

Yeah honestly, to me at least, it makes sense that if it has no heads, but also no cauterized stumps, it would have 0 HP hit points to gain, but then still have the ability to roll to potentially grow heads, which means if it DOES grow those heads, it can then start to gain HP again. when you think of it as like a hindered but slow build back up to full strength, it makes sense to me at least? Like you're rebuilding a hydra themed pyramid from the foundation up. It also means the hydra still technically has some kind of fighting chance, which is should since it's a large monster running around with its heads cut off, which is still pretty darn dangerous, but while this crazy thing is running around, the team still has an advantage at finally taking it down.

Yeah I agree the concept of the hydra still regenerating heads even with none makes sense to me to. Even if the regen value is 0 I dont see a conceptual issue with it either.

The part of the text I think the OP was concerned about and that made it confusing is the line about needing to gain hp from regen to trigger a roll for regrowing heads. Its as if a gain of HP is required to trigger regrowth and 0 is not understood in general terms to be a gain. I think I understand it to now mean you make that roll when the hydra would normally gain hp from regeneration but it wasn't obviously that without this discussion.

Yeah honestly, to me at least, it makes sense that if it has no heads, but also no cauterized stumps, it would have 0 HP hit points to gain, but then still have the ability to roll to potentially grow heads, which means if it DOES grow those heads, it can then start to gain HP again. when you think of it as like a hindered but slow build back up to full strength, it makes sense to me at least? Like you're rebuilding a hydra themed pyramid from the foundation up. It also means the hydra still technically has some kind of fighting chance, which is should since it's a large monster running around with its heads cut off, which is still pretty darn dangerous, but while this crazy thing is running around, the team still has an advantage at finally taking it down.

Headless Chicken image achieved, Though there is obviously some rulegaps on what happens to a hydra with 0 heads.

Can it attack? Well.. presumably not since it doesn't have fangs.
Can it see? well... it has no eyes..
Can it smell or hear? again.. no heads.
Is it even concious? Again, this isnt answered.

Really?

Yes, because anything that requires a "well technically..." to make sense is inherently a non-casual reading.

And you won't get to that intent if you begin filling in percieved blanks in a text that don't have said blanks, Instead you are changing the text and its meaning based on perception alone.

The thing is that your decision to arrive at a regeneration rate of 0 is as much filling in a blank in the text as my decision to arrive at regeneration rate only changing when a stump regrows 2 heads or gets cauterized is.

This is a common thing that happens in these kind of discussion, though, where someone decides they are inherently more correct and ignores that no matter how a bit of writing is being interpreted it is still being interpreted.

Yes, it's a bit of a bummer when the rules have a blank like this, but it's natural for it to happen because the writer can't read their own writing without the context of knowing what they meant so it will look like they said what they needed to if they got anywhere close, and editors are looking for an entirely different kind of sense in the text (i.e. reading it and not landing on "I don't know what that said" and not seeing spelling errors) rather than assessing if sufficient rule information is present - which even if they were trying to do they'd likely have missed it because of their own arrival at a working conclusion, whether it matches to mine or to yours.

But if we didn't fill in the blanks for ourselves then all this thread would say is "hydra doesn't specify whether to to add severed but not cauterized heads to most of its head-number-releated features." and no conversation about how to actually use a hydra without further information could be had.

Can it attack? Well.. presumably not since it doesn't have fangs.

Can it see? well... it has no eyes..
Can it smell or hear? again.. no heads.
Is it even concious? Again, this isnt answered.

I'd say the sole goal of a headless hydra where none of the stumps are cauterized is to try to grow heads, and it can't do anything else really until it does that. It can move (though it would be random), and roll to check Fortitude, and that's it. It cannot attack, since as you said it doesn't have fangs due to lack of heads. It cannot see, smell, or hear, also due to lack of heads. It's conscious since they can't die unless expressly killed as written, but it's not doing a great job of that (consciousness).

NorrKnekten wrote:

Can it attack? Well.. presumably not since it doesn't have fangs.

Can it see? well... it has no eyes..
Can it smell or hear? again.. no heads.
Is it even concious? Again, this isnt answered.

I'd say the sole goal of a headless hydra where none of the stumps are cauterized is to try to grow heads, and it can't do anything else really until it does that. It can move (though it would be random), and roll to check Fortitude, and that's it. It cannot attack, since as you said it doesn't have fangs due to lack of heads. It cannot see, smell, or hear, also due to lack of heads. It's conscious since they can't die unless expressly killed as written, but it's not doing a great job of that (consciousness).

Thats what one could assume yes, But thats the one thing about this interaction where RAW leaves it to the GM. and honestly I kinda prefer that compared other systems where there exists rules for Wounded/Missing bodyparts like in Mutant.

NorrKnekten wrote:

Can it attack? Well.. presumably not since it doesn't have fangs.

Can it see? well... it has no eyes..
Can it smell or hear? again.. no heads.
Is it even concious? Again, this isnt answered.

I'd say the sole goal of a headless hydra where none of the stumps are cauterized is to try to grow heads, and it can't do anything else really until it does that. It can move (though it would be random), and roll to check Fortitude, and that's it. It cannot attack, since as you said it doesn't have fangs due to lack of heads. It cannot see, smell, or hear, also due to lack of heads. It's conscious since they can't die unless expressly killed as written, but it's not doing a great job of that (consciousness).

I would say consciousness is questionable. It's "conscious" in the same way a headless chicken is conscious, which as far as we've been able to deduce with modern science is more just nerves firing randomly (and in some cases bits of brain that weren't actually removed with the head). I would say that a hydra with no heads probably shouldn't count as conscious.

I would say consciousness is questionable. It's "conscious" in the same way a headless chicken is conscious, which as far as we've been able to deduce with modern science is more just nerves firing randomly (and in some cases bits of brain that weren't actually removed with the head). I would say that a hydra with no heads probably shouldn't count as conscious.

Does it mean it has mental immunity when headless?

Claxon wrote:

I would say consciousness is questionable. It's "conscious" in the same way a headless chicken is conscious, which as far as we've been able to deduce with modern science is more just nerves firing randomly (and in some cases bits of brain that weren't actually removed with the head). I would say that a hydra with no heads probably shouldn't count as conscious.

Does it mean it has mental immunity when headless?

Honestly I don't know what I'd rule for sure. I'm not going to worry about it until it actually comes up.

But likely, yes I would rule you can't affect it with things that require a functioning mind/consciousness until one of the heads grows back.

It wouldnt be out of the question. As said, That is one of the actual proper blanks within the text itself as this is not covered and the system as a whole doesn't have rules regarding missing bodyparts outside a small flimsy sidebar on Disabled Characters.

I wouldn't care if a GM rules it as having the unconcious condition until it successfully regrows heads, Nor would I mind it running randomly while blind,mindless and 'defanged' as I've probably made it obvious with the entire Headless Chicken motif.

I would say consciousness is questionable. It's "conscious" in the same way a headless chicken is conscious, which as far as we've been able to deduce with modern science is more just nerves firing randomly (and in some cases bits of brain that weren't actually removed with the head). I would say that a hydra with no heads probably shouldn't count as conscious.

I have been proven wrong here, and I like it! You're right! Random nerves firing isn't the same thing as consciousness. Headless hydra with stumps that are not cauterized is not conscious, but it's not dead, and I'm still crossing my fingers for it lol

Claxon wrote:

I would say consciousness is questionable. It's "conscious" in the same way a headless chicken is conscious, which as far as we've been able to deduce with modern science is more just nerves firing randomly (and in some cases bits of brain that weren't actually removed with the head). I would say that a hydra with no heads probably shouldn't count as conscious.

I have been proven wrong here, and I like it! You're right! Random nerves firing isn't the same thing as consciousness. Headless hydra with stumps that are not cauterized is not conscious, but it's not dead, and I'm still crossing my fingers for it lol

I wouldn't say you're wrong, it depends on how we want to define conscious, and also how we want to define it within the game, cause those aren't necessarily the same thing.

But my gut reaction is to say a headless hydra is unconscious, unless a situation arises where that result doesn't make sense.

There's also the interesting question of, if a hydra's head is cut off, and the rest of the body is destroyed via something like disintegrate (which would turn the body to dust) does the head start to regenerate the rest of the body? Does the pile of dust start reknitting into a headless body?

If a creature with regeneration doesn't die is the brain in the cut off heads functioning, but unconscious?

Does the regenerated head of a hydra have the same memories and personality as an previous head?

Lots of interesting questions we could start asking

There's also the interesting question of, if a hydra's head is cut off, and the rest of the body is destroyed via something like disintegrate (which would turn the body to dust) does the head start to regenerate the rest of the body? Does the pile of dust start reknitting into a headless body?

Interestingly, Disintegrate doesn't have Death trait (though it's logical as it should work on undead too). But still I'd rule the same: dust is dust, no regeneration.

Claxon wrote:

There's also the interesting question of, if a hydra's head is cut off, and the rest of the body is destroyed via something like disintegrate (which would turn the body to dust) does the head start to regenerate the rest of the body? Does the pile of dust start reknitting into a headless body?

Interestingly, Disintegrate doesn't have Death trait (though it's logical as it should work on undead too). But still I'd rule the same: dust is dust, no regeneration.

And yes, death trait also beats regeneration. So simple Vampiric Feast is enough to stop worrying about all this hassle with heads and cauterization. Death magic for the win!

Oh wow, I hadnt even read the death trait till you mentioned it just now.

Claxon wrote:

There's also the interesting question of, if a hydra's head is cut off, and the rest of the body is destroyed via something like disintegrate (which would turn the body to dust) does the head start to regenerate the rest of the body? Does the pile of dust start reknitting into a headless body?

Interestingly, Disintegrate doesn't have Death trait (though it's logical as it should work on undead too). But still I'd rule the same: dust is dust, no regeneration.

And yes, death trait also beats regeneration. So simple Vampiric Feast is enough to stop worrying about all this hassle with heads and cauterization. Death magic for the win!

Disintegrate is interesting because it doesn't have the death trait, that's specifically why I chose it.

I wouldn't say it's invalid for a GM to say it outright kills if reduced to 0 hp, but as it doesn't have the Death trait there's an argument that it doesn't stop regeneration. That's why it was interesting to me.

I agree the Death trait beats regeneration, but that's also why with Disintegrates lack of death trait there is room for argument.

Yup, Death trait and anything that kills regardless of needing to put someone at dying 4 beats regeneration since regeneration only stops the dying condition increasing to a value where it would kill you. You can still die obviously.

For example, Say..If you drop a hydra from... leys say a mile high.

The fall damage would instantly kill it without it going to dying 4 because of the instant death from massive damage.

But regarding the question of a hydra's head regenerating a new body thats not going to happen without that being an explicit ability. Though I admit... it is fun to think of hydras as starfish.

Maya Coleman wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I would say consciousness is questionable. It's "conscious" in the same way a headless chicken is conscious, which as far as we've been able to deduce with modern science is more just nerves firing randomly (and in some cases bits of brain that weren't actually removed with the head). I would say that a hydra with no heads probably shouldn't count as conscious.

I have been proven wrong here, and I like it! You're right! Random nerves firing isn't the same thing as consciousness. Headless hydra with stumps that are not cauterized is not conscious, but it's not dead, and I'm still crossing my fingers for it lol

I wouldn't say you're wrong, it depends on how we want to define conscious, and also how we want to define it within the game, cause those aren't necessarily the same thing.

But my gut reaction is to say a headless hydra is unconscious, unless a situation arises where that result doesn't make sense.

Going to have to make a proper distinction between 'unconscious the adjective' and 'Unconscious the condition' Atleast if we want to have the headless chicken hydra move about randomly.

My goal wasn't to facilitate a headless hydra running around. While the imagery is funny...I don't think that's how it would play out.

You could rule that the headless hydra became mindless.

Absolutely, Its not like we have an official answer either way other than the RAW, Which leaves the hydra doing the same things it did while having heads because it doesnt tell us anything about what happens.

What if hydra have a "second" brain? I forget what the term was but a backup brain in their torso/along the spine. Would make sense for a repository to copy for each regenerating head. It would basically just be a subconscious so still wouldn't make them "conscious" most likely, but might be an interesting idea.

What if hydra have a "second" brain? I forget what the term was but a backup brain in their torso/along the spine. Would make sense for a repository to copy for each regenerating head.

You mean like an octopus that has a central brain in the middle of its jelly-like head and subordinate mini-brains in each of its arms.

That would make sense for a hydra. A central brain in its torso somewhere and subordinate brains in each of its 'heads'.

I wouldn't say you're wrong, it depends on how we want to define conscious, and also how we want to define it within the game, cause those aren't necessarily the same thing.

This is true! I will rephrase. I like your definition of consciousness more than my previous one, and I will be going with that moving forward.

You mean like an octopus that has a central brain in the middle of its jelly-like head and subordinate mini-brains in each of its arms.

That would make sense for a hydra. A central brain in its torso somewhere and subordinate brains in each of its 'heads'.

Oh no. I like this too. My single brain (which is located in my skull) is in crisis.

Maybe some sort of advanced autonomic reflex system keeping it running long enough for a new head(and brain) to grow. Realistically in order to regenerate it would also need the fuel for the cells to heal and grow, Like a big gland inside its body.

My single brain (which is located in my skull) is in crisis.

Fortunately this is one of those cases where having table variation is fine.

The mechanics of the hydra's abilities is reasonably well defined. The specifics of what happens when all the heads are severed but not cauterized can be something different for different hydras. That just makes the monster a new experience to battle against in different games. It isn't causing a balance problem or making it where character builds are going to be significantly more or less effective at fighting them.

I mean, if the hydra gets up and "accidentally" starts running away (regardless of how you rule consciousness it wouldn't have any sense of sight, hearing, smell, or taste to rely on and could only move in a "random" direction) that could be inconvenient.

And that movement is more inconvenient to some characters than others.

Of course, that issue basically exist for every creature the party encounters, so while it's an issue it's a pre-existing issue, and one that remains basically the same with or without heads.

The mechanics of the hydra's abilities is reasonably well defined. The specifics of what happens when all the heads are severed but not cauterized can be something different for different hydras. That just makes the monster a new experience to battle against in different games. It isn't causing a balance problem or making it where character builds are going to be significantly more or less effective at fighting them.

I would love to see this vary per hydra because it would be so fun just to hear the GM's explanation of all of them!!!

Semi related, I love discussions like this. ^_^

I would love to see this vary per hydra because it would be so fun just to hear the GM's explanation of all of them!!!

I was more thinking varying the same hydra in different playthroughs of the same scenario or AP. A fun way of anti-meta-gaming. Just because the last time you (as a player) played this scenario and battled this Stargut Hydra and the party cut off all of the heads at once and so the creature dropped unconscious and its regeneration became ineffective - that doesn't mean that it is going to do the same thing in this playthrough.

And yes, I really like coming up with interesting lore and explanations of why magical and fantastical things work the way that the game rules describe them as working.

I don't like it when it is done the other way - trying to use the lore and description of something (or worse, 'real life' expectations) to argue for rule changes.

I was more thinking varying the same hydra in different playthroughs of the same scenario or AP. A fun way of anti-meta-gaming. Just because the last time you (as a player) played this scenario and battled this Stargut Hydra and the party cut off all of the heads at once and so the creature dropped unconscious and its regeneration became ineffective - that doesn't mean that it is going to do the same thing in this playthrough.

And yes, I really like coming up with interesting lore and explanations of why magical and fantastical things work the way that the game rules describe them as working.

I don't like it when it is done the other way - trying to use the lore and description of something (or worse, 'real life' expectations) to argue for rule changes.

This is why I do not GM. There's always a detail or two I'd forget to consider that could end up being exploited, but when these details are remembered by my GM as a player, I truly appreciate it.

Finoan wrote:

I was more thinking varying the same hydra in different playthroughs of the same scenario or AP. A fun way of anti-meta-gaming. Just because the last time you (as a player) played this scenario and battled this Stargut Hydra and the party cut off all of the heads at once and so the creature dropped unconscious and its regeneration became ineffective - that doesn't mean that it is going to do the same thing in this playthrough.

And yes, I really like coming up with interesting lore and explanations of why magical and fantastical things work the way that the game rules describe them as working.

I don't like it when it is done the other way - trying to use the lore and description of something (or worse, 'real life' expectations) to argue for rule changes.

This is why I do not GM. There's always a detail or two I'd forget to consider that could end up being exploited, but when these details are remembered by my GM as a player, I truly appreciate it.

If you are a GM and it's really-really exploiting, you can put a stop to this one way or the other.