It seems some people get involved in a rule discussion without actually knowing that the relevant rules might have changed from 3.5, like in this case both the regeneration rules and the rules for ability damage. I'm astonished that the difference between having NO score in an ability and having a zero score is not clear to some people that get involved in a rules discussion (even though that difference isn't actually relevant to my original point, due to the change in the ability damage rules).
So, it would seem that a regenerating creature damaged enough by Constitution damage so that it would normally be dead cannot die as long as it's regeneration is active. However, as soon as it takes any damage that deactivates the regeneration (acid of fire damage for a troll, for example), that condition is no longer true and the creature dies. Once dead, the regeneration can no longer help. In fact, it seems, this works the same as for hp damage or any other way that would usually kill a creature, except that in the case of hp damage the creature actually regenerates the hp.
I doubt, though, that this is the intended effect of the regeneration ability (which, by the way, is not supernatural as someone upthread said, but extraordinary).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless of course you kill it with damage that bypasses regeneration.
Which is why you kill trolls with fire and acid. When said creature acquires enough damage to die this way.... it stays dead.
Sorry, but I don't think you understand how regeneration works in Pathfinder. You don't need to accumulate fire/acid damage to kill a troll. You can simply beat on it with a club until it falls to -CON hp and then kill it with a single point of acid or fire damage, because that switches off its regeneration for one round and thus its unkillability and then it dies.
|
But it does. If you lose Str below 13, you lose power attack and everything dependent upon it.To further illustrate the difference between drain and damage, If I have a 14 Strength and take 2 points of Str damage, I DO NOT lose the use of my Power Attack feat per RAW and RAI. If I take 2 points of Str drain, then I do lose the use of the feat as per RAW and RAI.
If damage does not remove the prereq. of ability score for feats, then why would it remove the prereq. for special abilities?
Again, look at the rules for ability damage. Damage DOES NOT reduce your ability score it only adds a penalty, so DAMAGE does not remove the ability score prereq for feats or abilities.
Stop killing effects of all kinds, bring people back from the dead, all the same thing.No, these are not the same thing in any way. When you're dead you're dead, you're an object, and no abilities at all work. Arguing that "can't be killed" equals "revives if dead" is like arguing Protection from Elements heals inflicted elemental damage. It's not what it does, and it doesn't work retroactively.
Then unless stated otherwise, killing a creature with regeneration kills it. 0 Con = dead. Killing effects (unless stated otherwise like Tarrasque) = dead. Magic Jar tricks = dead.
Then unless stated otherwise, killing a creature with regeneration kills it. 0 Con = dead. Killing effects (unless stated otherwise like Tarrasque) = dead. Magic Jar tricks = dead.Stop killing effects of all kinds, bring people back from the dead, all the same thing.No, these are not the same thing in any way. When you're dead you're dead, you're an object, and no abilities at all work. Arguing that "can't be killed" equals "revives if dead" is like arguing Protection from Elements heals inflicted elemental damage. It's not what it does, and it doesn't work retroactively.
But it IS stated otherwise. What is so hard to understand?
As long as regeneration is active the creature _cannot die_ unless some other rule is more specific (like, "this spell can kill creatures with regeneration" specifically written out). It does nothing to revive dead creatures, because those don't have regeneration.
Then unless stated otherwise, killing a creature with regeneration kills it. 0 Con = dead. Killing effects (unless stated otherwise like Tarrasque) = dead. Magic Jar tricks = dead.Stop killing effects of all kinds, bring people back from the dead, all the same thing.No, these are not the same thing in any way. When you're dead you're dead, you're an object, and no abilities at all work. Arguing that "can't be killed" equals "revives if dead" is like arguing Protection from Elements heals inflicted elemental damage. It's not what it does, and it doesn't work retroactively.But it IS stated otherwise. What is so hard to understand?
As long as regeneration is active the creature _cannot die_ unless some other rule is more specific (like, "this spell can kill creatures with regeneration" specifically written out). It does nothing to revive dead creatures, because those don't have regeneration.
Then your argument is NOTHING KILLS CREATURES WITH REGENERATION EVER. They live FOREVER. Even if they die for a single round, they have to come back once regeneration reactivates the next since you are arguing explicit death doesn't kill them.
Then your argument is NOTHING KILLS CREATURES WITH REGENERATION EVER. They live FOREVER. Even if they die for a single round, they have to come back once regeneration reactivates the next since you are arguing explicit death doesn't kill them.
No. Maybe I'm unclear, I'll try to formulate me better. What I'm saying is:
1. A regenerating creature can't make the move from living to dead under any circumstances.2. A creature with regeneration can usually have it's regeneration shut down by means specific to the creature type.
3. Only creatures can have regeneration, and it requires a constitution score.
4. Objects don't have constitution scores and aren't creatures.
5. Corpses are objects.
I can get you rules references for all these statements
So, by 1 and 2, you can kill a normally regenerating creature through shutting down it's regeneration. By 4 and 5, the corpse doesn't have a constitution score and isn't a creature. Thus, by 3, a corpse cannot have regeneration. Once a troll has become a corpse, it cannot regain regeneration unless first turned into a creature with a constitution score (by Raise Dead, for example).
Even if it COULD regain regeneration, it wouldn't revive it - having a guy that can always catch you when you fall of a cliff isn't the same as having a guy that can always pull you up once you're at the bottom. But that's irrelevant to the discussion as a corpse cannot have regeneration anyway
It seems some people get involved in a rule discussion without actually knowing that the relevant rules might have changed from 3.5, like in this case both the regeneration rules and the rules for ability damage. I'm astonished that the difference between having NO score in an ability and having a zero score is not clear to some people that get involved in a rules discussion (even though that difference isn't actually relevant to my original point, due to the change in the ability damage rules).
So, it would seem that a regenerating creature damaged enough by Constitution damage so that it would normally be dead cannot die as long as it's regeneration is active. However, as soon as it takes any damage that deactivates the regeneration (acid of fire damage for a troll, for example), that condition is no longer true and the creature dies. Once dead, the regeneration can no longer help. In fact, it seems, this works the same as for hp damage or any other way that would usually kill a creature, except that in the case of hp damage the creature actually regenerates the hp.
I doubt, though, that this is the intended effect of the regeneration ability (which, by the way, is not supernatural as someone upthread said, but extraordinary).
1. 3.5 stated that the - and 0 were different, but pathfinder does not. That seems to be relevant rule not known. You might want to check the differences also.
Actually turning regen off is no the only way to kill a monster with regen. The Tarrasque example proved that since it said the other ways do not keep it dead, which means it had to have died, and for the 10th time you never told me what those sentences I bolded really meant. Ignoring me wont make it go away.You also refused to give a list of other ways to get around regen even though the book says there are ways. You not knowing what they are does not mean they do not exist.
You can ignore that list, but that question also will not go away.
Then your argument is NOTHING KILLS CREATURES WITH REGENERATION EVER. They live FOREVER. Even if they die for a single round, they have to come back once regeneration reactivates the next since you are arguing explicit death doesn't kill them.No. Maybe I'm unclear, I'll try to formulate me better. What I'm saying is:
1. A regenerating creature can't make the move from living to dead under any circumstances.
2. A creature with regeneration can usually have it's regeneration shut down by means specific to the creature type.
3. Only creatures can have regeneration, and it requires a constitution score.
4. Objects don't have constitution scores and aren't creatures.
5. Corpses are objects.I can get you rules references for all these statements
So, by 1 and 2, you can kill a normally regenerating creature through shutting down it's regeneration. By 4 and 5, the corpse doesn't have a constitution score and isn't a creature. Thus, by 3, a corpse cannot have regeneration. Once a troll has become a corpse, it cannot regain regeneration unless first turned into a creature with a constitution score (by Raise Dead, for example).
** spoiler omitted **
So Big T with super regen can die, but regular regen means you can not die? Really? Even though it has protections against things that would kill a monster with normal regen. I want to hear the explanation for that.
Then your argument is NOTHING KILLS CREATURES WITH REGENERATION EVER. They live FOREVER. Even if they die for a single round, they have to come back once regeneration reactivates the next since you are arguing explicit death doesn't kill them.No. Maybe I'm unclear, I'll try to formulate me better. What I'm saying is:
1. A regenerating creature can't make the move from living to dead under any circumstances.
2. A creature with regeneration can usually have it's regeneration shut down by means specific to the creature type.
3. Only creatures can have regeneration, and it requires a constitution score.
4. Objects don't have constitution scores and aren't creatures.
5. Corpses are objects.I can get you rules references for all these statements
Maybe I am unclear.
Death effects make you a corpse.Getting reduced to 0 Con makes you a corpse.
Getting Magic Jar'd out of range makes you a corpse.
But you are saying these can't kill ANY creature with regeneration.
Therefore, death does not stop you from regenerating to life.
/facepalm
So Big T with super regen can die, but regular regen means you can not die? Really? Even though it has protections against things that would kill a monster with normal regen. I want to hear the explanation for that.
Yes, from insta-kill effects.
What protections does it have, rather than lacking other weaknesses?
Trolls have acid and fire. Tarrasque has insta-death effects.
Maybe I am unclear.
Death effects make you a corpse.
Getting reduced to 0 Con makes you a corpse.
Getting Magic Jar'd out of range makes you a corpse.
But you are saying these can't kill ANY creature with regeneration.
Therefore, death does not stop you from regenerating to life.
Except regeneration says that you cannot become a corpse. Once you're a corpse, it does nothing for you.
Think of it like fire immunity. A creature with fire immunity _cannot take fire damage_. It's not enough to say "well this spell SAYS it deals fire damage! That means it works anyway!", like saying "well slay living SAYS it kills, that means it works anyway!".
If you manage to shut down fire immunity temporarily, (don't know if that's possible), you can deal damage to it. When it comes back up again, that doesn't mean the damage heals.
This'll be my last post on this. I get what you're saying and I don't agree, because I don't see "X kills a creature" as beating "this creature can't be killed", just like I don't see how "X deals 1d6 fire damage" beats "this creature can't take fire damage".
If you don't get what I'm saying, I don't know what to do because I've tried to be as clear as possible and you are still laying words in my mouth accusing me of proposing something I don't. If you do get it, I don't understand why you're using the straw man against me instead of arguing against my logic.
I'm done with this.
|
/facepalm
Agreed.
It seems pretty obvious to me that "cannot die" means "cannot die", not "cannot die unless you can argue with your DM until they're blue in the face." Literally the only way to kill a creature with regeneration is to either wish it dead or to use its weakness*. That's it. Done. Over. If you hit it with its weakness its regeneration shuts off for a round and then anything that SHOULD have killed it will take effect (such as the 0 con rule) and ACTUALLY kill it.
*Not quite true. You can also try to do something that shuts off regeneration such as turning it into an undead/construct to give it a con score of -, or otherwise remove it from its regen-possessing body before destroying the soul directly.
/facepalmAgreed.
It seems pretty obvious to me that "cannot die" means "cannot die", not "cannot die unless you can argue with your DM until they're blue in the face." Literally the only way to kill a creature with regeneration is to either wish it dead or to use its weakness*. That's it. Done. Over. If you hit it with its weakness its regeneration shuts off for a round and then anything that SHOULD have killed it will take effect (such as the 0 con rule) and ACTUALLY kill it.
Or use something generic that can remove it's regeneration, like Baleful Polymorph followed by killing it.
EDIT: Ninja'ed by the quotee.
|
|
Maybe I am unclear.
Death effects make you a corpse.
Getting reduced to 0 Con makes you a corpse.
Getting Magic Jar'd out of range makes you a corpse.
But you are saying these can't kill ANY creature with regeneration.
Therefore, death does not stop you from regenerating to life.
Yes, Cartigan, those statements are correct. However, the argument is about Con DAMAGE, not drain. DAMAGE does not reduce your ability score, thus your Con IS NOT reduced to 0.
The rules do say that if you take damage equal or greater than your Con score, then you die. However, that is a general rule while the regen rule is specific. A creature with regen can die to death effects, but the Con damage is not a death effect it is death due to damage so I would argue that it does not die. All that being said, it is an ambiguous area and I could see it being ruled either way, but to insist it is clear cut is obviously incorrect as there is a logical argument to supprt the OP's original interpretation.
Yes, Cartigan, those statements are correct. However, the argument is about Con DAMAGE, not drain. DAMAGE does not reduce your ability score, thus your Con IS NOT reduced to 0.Maybe I am unclear.
Death effects make you a corpse.
Getting reduced to 0 Con makes you a corpse.
Getting Magic Jar'd out of range makes you a corpse.
But you are saying these can't kill ANY creature with regeneration.
Therefore, death does not stop you from regenerating to life.
We've moved on to a different discussion now, on death effects vs. regeneration and the like. He argues that if the "cannot die" rule applies to death effects, it must automatically include a "revives if killed through deactivating regeneration" clause despite nothing like that being there.
However, the argument is about Con DAMAGE, not drain. DAMAGE does not reduce your ability score, thus your Con IS NOT reduced to 0.
For what it's worth, PRD has both damage and drain in the same definition.
Ability Damage and Drain (Ex or Su) Some attacks or special abilities cause ability damage or drain, reducing the designated ability score by the listed amount. While ability damage can be healed naturally, ability drain is permanent and can only be restored through magic.
The only difference between something doing 1 point of ability damage and one point of ability drain is that the drain is permanent, whereas the damage (assuming it doesn't kill the creature) can be healed.
However, the argument is about Con DAMAGE, not drain. DAMAGE does not reduce your ability score, thus your Con IS NOT reduced to 0.For what it's worth, PRD has both damage and drain in the same definition.
The only difference between something doing 1 point of ability damage and one point of ability drain is that the drain is permanent, whereas the damage (assuming it doesn't kill the creature) can be healed.
Ability Damage and Drain (Ex or Su) Some attacks or special abilities cause ability damage or drain, reducing the designated ability score by the listed amount. While ability damage can be healed naturally, ability drain is permanent and can only be restored through magic.
What? That's not what my book says. Has there been errata? This is what my CRB says, page 555:
"This [ability] damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability. For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a -1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."
What? That's not what my book says. Has there been errata? This is what my CRB says, page 555:
"This [ability] damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability. For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a -1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."
Don't have books available with me, so I tend to work off of the PRD.
|
|
What? That's not what my book says. Has there been errata? This is what my CRB says, page 555:
"This [ability] damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability. For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a -1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."Don't have books available with me, so I tend to work off of the PRD.
Also PRD. This one indicates that damage is not an actual reduction, but drain is. I think that the bestiary one may have been botched in an attempt to make it more succinct.
Also PRD. This one indicates that damage is not an actual reduction, but drain is. I think that the bestiary one may have been botched in an attempt to make it more succinct.
ClickyDon't have books available with me, so I tend to work off of the PRD.
Noted. The effect of both seem to amount to the same effect, just different ways of saying it. I'd be curious as to which wording is the preferred one.
Unless I'm missing something?
|
|
The key difference is that ability damage/penalties have ONLY the effects listed in that section, whereas drain can have far-reaching effects (such as losing access to feats, losing uses/day of abilities, losing ability to cast a certain level of spell, etc). In essence, the difference amounts to a "nerf" of damage/penalties compared to drain. The easy way to think about it is to think of damage/penalties as a condition with a set amount of penalties to specific traits (such as attack rolls or fortitude saves), and drain as the REAL ability reducer.
As a weird one: a Dervish Dancer (who adds dex to attack and damage) would actually gain a penalty to attack and damage with strength damage, but not strength drain (and visa-versa for dexterity). An odd artifact of the way this rule works, but it does prevent those who have a lot of stock in one stat from being completely hosed due to a relatively common damage/penalty source (heck The Shakes is a disease that does 1d8 dex damage per day, and that's considered low level).
We've moved on to a different discussion now, on death effects vs. regeneration and the like. He argues that if the "cannot die" rule applies to death effects, it must automatically include a "revives if killed through deactivating regeneration" clause despite nothing like that being there.Yes, Cartigan, those statements are correct. However, the argument is about Con DAMAGE, not drain. DAMAGE does not reduce your ability score, thus your Con IS NOT reduced to 0.Maybe I am unclear.
Death effects make you a corpse.
Getting reduced to 0 Con makes you a corpse.
Getting Magic Jar'd out of range makes you a corpse.
But you are saying these can't kill ANY creature with regeneration.
Therefore, death does not stop you from regenerating to life.
That is a logical extension of your argument. There are things that kill irrespective of hit point damage. They kill flat out. Why the hell does the Tarrasque need specific protection from death effects if Regeneration itself prevents you from being killed by death effects? Moreover, if regeneration itself prevents you from being killed by death effects, why does the Tarrasque take 3 rounds to come back from death? It literally says that.
EDIT: Your argument is also a contradiction to Regeneration rules.
Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.
What, exactly, do you propose happens if you starve a troll into having enough damage to die?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is people are treating a modifying dependent clause like it's an independent rule.
Here's the troublesome quote again:
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).
See, "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing," - distinguishing regeneration from fast healing in that fast healing things die from too much HP loss, regenerating don't.
It is not a standalone statement creating a new rule. For that, the rule would have been written:
"[begin sentence]Creatures with regeneration cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning.[period, next sentence] They heal damage at a fixed rate....."
As written "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing". It is not defining a universal rule that trumps the universal rule that things die when their con is 0.
1. 3.5 stated that the - and 0 were different, but pathfinder does not. That seems to be relevant rule not known. You might want to check the differences also.
You are wrong. For example, check the rules for the Strength ability: (emphasis mine)
Strength (Str)
Strength measures muscle and physical power. This ability is important for those who engage in hand-to-hand (or “melee”) combat, such as fighters, monks, paladins, and some rangers. Strength also sets the maximum amount of weight your character can carry. A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.
The rules clearly make a difference between Strength 0 and no Strength score at all. If there were no difference, all incorporeal creatures were unconscious all the time.
|
|
EDIT: Your argument is also a contradiction to Regeneration rules.
Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.What, exactly, do you propose happens if you starve a troll into having enough damage to die?
He doesn't die, but his regeneration doesn't restore those hit points. He stays unconcious unitl either his regen is deactivated or something else heals that damage.
And for that matter it is also explicitly stated in the case of ability score in question, i.e. Constitution:
Constitution (Con)
Constitution represents your character's health and stamina. A Constitution bonus increases a character's hit points, so the ability is important for all classes. Some creatures, such as undead and constructs, do not have a Constitution score. Their modifier is +0 for any Constitution-based checks. A character with a Constitution score of 0 is dead.
Similar note is in Intelligence description differentiating between not having Intelligence score and Int score of 0.
|
|
Problem is people are treating a modifying dependent clause like it's an independent rule.
Here's the troublesome quote again:
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).See, "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing," - distinguishing regeneration from fast healing in that fast healing things die from too much HP loss, regenerating don't.
It is not a standalone statement creating a new rule. For that, the rule would have been written:
"[begin sentence]Creatures with regeneration cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning.[period, next sentence] They heal damage at a fixed rate....."
As written "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing". It is not defining a universal rule that trumps the universal rule that things die when their con is 0.
Now this is a much more clear argument. Put this way I would retract my original thought and say that the Con damage does kill a creature with regen. However, everyone keeps saying 0 Con, a creature with Con DAMAGE does not have its Con reduced.
He doesn't die, but his regeneration doesn't restore those hit points. He stays unconcious unitl either his regen is deactivated or something else heals that damage.EDIT: Your argument is also a contradiction to Regeneration rules.
Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.What, exactly, do you propose happens if you starve a troll into having enough damage to die?
That's just silly.
Maybe I am unclear.
Death effects make you a corpse.
Getting reduced to 0 Con makes you a corpse.
Getting Magic Jar'd out of range makes you a corpse.
But you are saying these can't kill ANY creature with regeneration.
Therefore, death does not stop you from regenerating to life.Yes, Cartigan, those statements are correct. However, the argument is about Con DAMAGE, not drain. DAMAGE does not reduce your ability score, thus your Con IS NOT reduced to 0.
The rules do say that if you take damage equal or greater than your Con score, then you die. However, that is a general rule while the regen rule is specific. A creature with regen can die to death effects, but the Con damage is not a death effect it is death due to damage so I would argue that it does not die. All that being said, it is an ambiguous area and I could see it being ruled either way, but to insist it is clear cut is obviously incorrect as there is a logical argument to supprt the OP's original interpretation.
The rules say the con damage has to equal your con score to kill you. Actually reducing your con score also kills you. Either way, dead troll.
I've noticed similiar errors in the PRD before. When faced with a choice, the printed rulebook supersedes the PRD.
not true. the latest update in the errata takes precedence over the PRD and the book.
Problem is people are treating a modifying dependent clause like it's an independent rule.
Here's the troublesome quote again:
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).See, "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing," - distinguishing regeneration from fast healing in that fast healing things die from too much HP loss, regenerating don't.
It is not a standalone statement creating a new rule. For that, the rule would have been written:
"[begin sentence]Creatures with regeneration cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning.[period, next sentence] They heal damage at a fixed rate....."
As written "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing". It is not defining a universal rule that trumps the universal rule that things die when their con is 0.
This is exactly what I was going to post once I finished reading the thread, but you beat me to it. Context is very important.
1. 3.5 stated that the - and 0 were different, but pathfinder does not. That seems to be relevant rule not known. You might want to check the differences also.You are wrong. For example, check the rules for the Strength ability: (emphasis mine)
The rules clearly make a difference between Strength 0 and no Strength score at all. If there were no difference, all incorporeal creatures were unconscious all the time.Strength (Str)
Strength measures muscle and physical power. This ability is important for those who engage in hand-to-hand (or “melee”) combat, such as fighters, monks, paladins, and some rangers. Strength also sets the maximum amount of weight your character can carry. A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.
I don't see a "-" anywhere as it relates to ability scores in general, like 3.5 did.
I don't even see a "-" in your quote. RAI I agree with you, but RAW you are incorrect. Let's put the semantics aside though, and get you to clarify my two sentences that seem to have you thumped.
|
|
That's just silly.He doesn't die, but his regeneration doesn't restore those hit points. He stays unconcious unitl either his regen is deactivated or something else heals that damage.EDIT: Your argument is also a contradiction to Regeneration rules.
Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.What, exactly, do you propose happens if you starve a troll into having enough damage to die?
Nice comeback, but not very meaningful. Despite the other arguments, in this case the rule is clear. A creature with active regen CAN NOT die due to hit point damage.
Now this is a much more clear argument. Put this way I would retract my original thought and say that the Con damage does kill a creature with regen. However, everyone keeps saying 0 Con, a creature with Con DAMAGE does not have its Con reduced.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.
Where's the practical difference? If they hit 0 CON, they die. If they take CON damage equal to their CON score, they die.
There are currently two different definitions of what happens when someone takes Ability Damage (one from the Glossary section of PRD, one from Universal Monster Rules), but they amount to the same thing in this case.
I see comments from James Jacobs about this, back prior to the FAQ being developed. Has this really never been clarified?
Nice comeback, but not very meaningful. Despite the other arguments, in this case the rule is clear. A creature with active regen CAN NOT die due to hit point damage.That's just silly.He doesn't die, but his regeneration doesn't restore those hit points. He stays unconcious unitl either his regen is deactivated or something else heals that damage.EDIT: Your argument is also a contradiction to Regeneration rules.
Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.What, exactly, do you propose happens if you starve a troll into having enough damage to die?
Of course it's meaningful. Your argument and conclusion are silly.
Regeneration NEVER heals hit point damage lost in specific ways, therefore you CAN kill a creature with that method.
|
|
1. 3.5 stated that the - and 0 were different, but pathfinder does not. That seems to be relevant rule not known. You might want to check the differences also.You are wrong. For example, check the rules for the Strength ability: (emphasis mine)
The rules clearly make a difference between Strength 0 and no Strength score at all. If there were no difference, all incorporeal creatures were unconscious all the time.Strength (Str)
Strength measures muscle and physical power. This ability is important for those who engage in hand-to-hand (or “melee”) combat, such as fighters, monks, paladins, and some rangers. Strength also sets the maximum amount of weight your character can carry. A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.I don't see a "-" anywhere as it relates to ability scores in general, like 3.5 did.
I don't even see a "-" in your quote. RAI I agree with you, but RAW you are incorrect. Let's put the semantics aside though, and get you to clarify my two sentences that seem to have you thumped.
In this case he isn't using semantics. Everywhere in the rules, anything that is without an ability score has it reprsented in stat blocks by "-".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
my interpretation: "regeneration does gets bypassed by harm inflicted to the creature by other means"
the book's exact quote: "Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage or kill strictly by hp damage are not healed by regeneration."
This tells me that if you can kill a troll with something that regeneration can not restore it stays dead because the regeneration can no counter it.
These would include death attacks.
A con score of 0 or having ability damage that equals your con score.
Being polymorphed into another creature, and killing it off
Disintegrate
probably a few others
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.
The Tarrasque unlike the troll has regeneration so powerful that nothing can suppress it, which makes it better than any other creature's regeneration, yet it is still killable. It even list ways to kill it, and suggest other that there are other unnamed ways to do so.
If Big T with his super regen is just like the troll's regeneration except it has no weakness of being suppressed, and it can return the Big T to life, meaning it has only upsides, and no downsides compared to a troll then how can a troll not be killed by anything that would kill Big T.
edit:made the beginning more clear.
I don't see a "-" anywhere as it relates to ability scores in general, like 3.5 did.
I don't even see a "-" in your quote. RAI I agree with you, but RAW you are incorrect. Let's put the semantics aside though, and get you to clarify my two sentences that seem to have you thumped.
If you're saying that "Some creatures do not possess a Strength score" is not the same as the existence of statblock entries of "Str -" then I can't help you, and it makes no sense arguing any further.
If you're saying that "Some creatures do not possess a Strength score" is not the same as the existence of statblock entries of "Str -" then I can't help you, and it makes no sense arguing any further.I don't see a "-" anywhere as it relates to ability scores in general, like 3.5 did.
I don't even see a "-" in your quote. RAI I agree with you, but RAW you are incorrect. Let's put the semantics aside though, and get you to clarify my two sentences that seem to have you thumped.
Actually I was saying RAW disagrees.
I said RAI I agree with you.I already said I don't care about his part of the debate since it does not matter.
This post sums up my thoughts on the situation, and is the one that really has to be countered.
Now this is a much more clear argument. Put this way I would retract my original thought and say that the Con damage does kill a creature with regen. However, everyone keeps saying 0 Con, a creature with Con DAMAGE does not have its Con reduced.Problem is people are treating a modifying dependent clause like it's an independent rule.
....As written "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing". It is not defining a universal rule that trumps the universal rule that things die when their con is 0.
Ok then, almost home.
We have
A character with a Constitution score of 0 is dead.
which we all know about, but there's also this one:
If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.
So either way you look at it, either if you're bookeeping con damage as reducing your con unitl it's zero and you die, OR if you bookeep it as con is X and you note X con damage on the side, you're dead all the same.
Regardless then, 18 con Troll gets poisoned, takes 18 con damage. Dead troll.
|
|
Now this is a much more clear argument. Put this way I would retract my original thought and say that the Con damage does kill a creature with regen. However, everyone keeps saying 0 Con, a creature with Con DAMAGE does not have its Con reduced.Problem is people are treating a modifying dependent clause like it's an independent rule.
....As written "but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is modifying "as with fast healing". It is not defining a universal rule that trumps the universal rule that things die when their con is 0.
Ok then, almost home.
We have
A character with a Constitution score of 0 is dead.which we all know about, but there's also this one:
If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.So either way you look at it, either if you're bookeeping con damage as reducing your con unitl it's zero and you die, OR if you bookeep it as con is X and you note X con damage on the side, you're dead all the same.
Regardless then, 18 con Troll gets poisoned, takes 18 con damage. Dead troll.
Oh, in this case I agree, but I was just pointing out that there is a BIG difference between having a 0 Con and having damage equal to your Con score, because damage does not actually reduce your Con score. Mainly because that affects other things like abilities or feats that require a minimum Con score. Those are not lost due to damage, only drain. I still stand on my other interpretation about starvation, etc. though.
|
|
If your EFFECTIVE score for an ability i.e. Ability score - ability damage is now below the requirement for the feat you lose access to the feat.Again, look at the rules for ability damage. Damage DOES NOT reduce your ability score it only adds a penalty, so DAMAGE does not remove the ability score prereq for feats or abilities.But it does. If you lose Str below 13, you lose power attack and everything dependent upon it.To further illustrate the difference between drain and damage, If I have a 14 Strength and take 2 points of Str damage, I DO NOT lose the use of my Power Attack feat per RAW and RAI. If I take 2 points of Str drain, then I do lose the use of the feat as per RAW and RAI.
If damage does not remove the prereq. of ability score for feats, then why would it remove the prereq. for special abilities?
You may wish to double-check your book. This is only true of ability drain, not ability damage (or penalties).
This was a deliberate nerf of ability damage and penalties in pathfinder. Only ability drain is truly scary now (though damage and penalties still suck).
If your EFFECTIVE score for an ability i.e. Ability score - ability damage is now below the requirement for the feat you lose access to the feat.
Can you quote any rule to support this claim?
The ability damage rules were changed in Pathfinder exactly to avoid this effect of having to recalculate all your feats and prestige classes for a rather common occurrence like ability damage.
Stop killing effects of all kinds, bring people back from the dead, all the same thing.Oh, come off it.
Once you get a Regenerating creature to the point where a non-Regenerating creature would be dead, then shut off its Regeneration, it dies. This is explicitly stated by the rules. Once dead, its Regeneration no longer functions, because it's not alive, and dead creatures cannot use abilities, even automatic ones, unless the creature or ability specifically says otherwise (Balor death throes, for example). That's not explicitly stated because it's common sense even a moron understands.
A tarrasque comes back from death effects. Clearly a dead creature with regeneration still has regeneration. You'd have to put a troll under an acid drip to keep it dead using all these ridiculous arguments.
Regeneration is also very explicit about its benefit: While active, you cannot die.
From hit point damage
It doesn't say "cannot die from hit point damage".
Yes, in fact, it does.
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
A creature with fast healing regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry.[...] Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately.
Regeneration is identical except the creature does not die if it loses enough hit points to kill it.