Regeneration vs. Constitution damage


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Cartigan wrote:
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.

The Tarrasque has additional, special rules that extend the normal Regeneration rules. Using the Tarrasque's Regeneration as a basis for rulings on base Regeneration is incredibly fallacious. So fallacious that I suspect you know how fallacious it is and are just using it to troll the thread.

If normal Regeneration brought creatures back from the dead, then the Tarrasque would not need that special line in its text, because that would be the default rule.

Quote:

Yes, in fact, it does.

Regeneration wrote:
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
Fast Healing wrote:
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.

Regeneration has two effects. One, you heal damage every round, as with fast healing. Two, you cannot die as long as Regeneration is active. Again, it does not say "cannot die from hit point damage". No manner of sophistry you may employ will change the actual wording.

Also, using your interpretations, it's still impossible to kill Regenerating creatures through hit point damage without perpetually inflicting their weakness on them. After all, they still have the Regeneration ability, and according to you it doesn't shut off after death. That means as soon as you stop dealing acid damage to a troll, it becomes alive again, as long as it died through hit point damage.

Your wording would also apply to base fast healing. After all, monster abilities don't shut off when they die, so if the creature died by reaching -Con hit points, they can just fast heal that up.

Seriously, dude, you yourself know that your arguments are incorrect and baseless. Give it up.


Fozbek wrote:


Regeneration has two effects. One, you heal damage every round, as with fast healing. Two, you cannot die as long as Regeneration is active. Again, it does not say "cannot die from hit point damage". No manner of sophistry you may employ will change the actual wording.

Other than a strong and correct grasp of the English language. I don't have to change the wording. The wording doesn't actually SAY anything; it's purpose is to modify the rules of fast healing.


After reading this thread and seeing people argue that regeneration would still work with CON 0, my question is even if it works, how would it help, considering that the max hp that regeneration could give back to such a creature would have would be 0, as the creature's max hp is 0? Last I checked for regeneration or fast healing to have an effect, the creature first has to have hp, and since the Tarrasque's hp is derived from CON, I would think a lack of CON, which is what CON 0 represents just as well as CON - does in this instance, would still kill it unless it had some other source to derive hp from.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Galahad0430 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Galahad0430 wrote:

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?
But it does. If you lose Str below 13, you lose power attack and everything dependent upon it.
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.
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.

You may wish to double-check your book. This is only true of ability drain, not ability damage (or penalties).

Relink.

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).

I checked that section. The relevant quote for the original discussion hasn't changed the effects of attacks to con. Ability damage to Con equal to your Con score still equals dead. And there is this Damage to your Constitution score causes you to take penalties on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed.

There's actually no mention of what ability damage does to feats, so nothing that provides an exception to the rules on prereqs for...

That section is meant to enumerate the sole and exact fall-out of ability damage/penalty. This is made evident by the fact that drain explicitly says "Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability." This along with the "This damage does not actually reduce an ability," from the damage section indicates to me that damage and penalty do NOT actually reduce the ability score, and thus have only the enumerated effects (one of which is death at 'damage equal to score' for constitution).


StabbittyDoom, LasarX, Galahad0430 wrote:
Lots of stuff about Ability Damage vs. Ability Drain.

Can we agree that, for the purposes of Regeneration, it doesn't matter whether the regenerating creature has...

  • Taken their CON score in Ability Damage, which gives them the condition of "dead".
    ... or ...
  • Had their CON score Drained to 0, which gives them the condition of "dead".

    Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting discussion, especially considering that there are dual conflicting rules in the PRD on this subject... but for the purposes of a Regenerating creature, I don't see the difference between "CON DAMAGE" = "CON SCORE" and "CON DRAIN to 0"


  • Cartigan wrote:
    Fozbek wrote:


    Regeneration has two effects. One, you heal damage every round, as with fast healing. Two, you cannot die as long as Regeneration is active. Again, it does not say "cannot die from hit point damage". No manner of sophistry you may employ will change the actual wording.
    Other than a strong and correct grasp of the English language. I don't have to change the wording. The wording doesn't actually SAY anything; it's purpose is to modify the rules of fast healing.

    The wording doesn't say anything? Wow, you're not even bothering to hide the green skin and massive underbite now.

    Regardless, "they cannot die" still modifies fast healing regardless of whether its "cannot die at all" or "cannot die from hit point damage". Your argument is what actually doesn't mean anything.


    Fozbek wrote:


    Regardless, "they cannot die" still modifies fast healing regardless of whether its "cannot die at all" or "cannot die from hit point damage". Your argument is what actually doesn't mean anything.

    ...what?

    What, exactly, is the argument you thought you just presented?


    wraithstrike wrote:

    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

    Support for the above. wrote:
    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.

    Is the above being ignored for a good reason or is it that the other side has no counter. Ability score damage that equals your con score means you are dead. You can add this to the above if you need to.


    Cartigan wrote:
    Fozbek wrote:


    Regardless, "they cannot die" still modifies fast healing regardless of whether its "cannot die at all" or "cannot die from hit point damage". Your argument is what actually doesn't mean anything.

    ...what?

    What, exactly, is the argument you thought you just presented?

    You said "the wording modifies the rules of fast healing".

    That's a "no #@%(, Sherlock" statement. It doesn't mean anything. It's blatantly obvious and regardless of which of us is correct, it's still true.

    Both "It works as fast healing, but the creature cannot die for any reason while regeneration is active" and "It works as fast healing, but the creature cannot die from hit point damage while regeneration is active" modify the rules for fast healing.

    wraithstrike wrote:
    Is the above being ignored for a good reason or is it that the other side has no counter. Ability score damage that equals your con score means you are dead. You can add this to the above if you need to.

    Regeneration means you cannot die. It doesn't mean you can't have your Constitution reduced to 0 by ability drain. The rules for regeneration state that regeneration only heals hit point damage. That doesn't mean they're only immune to death from hit point damage, that means they only heal hit point damage via regeneration. If you have regeneration 10 and you take 100 Con damage, you do not heal 10 Con damage a round.

    The Tarrasque's special rule is an anti-loophole rule. It means that, regardless of how you manage to suppress its unsupressable regeneration and actually kill it, it revives itself in 3 rounds unless the GM says otherwise. It's an explicit get-out-of-jail-free card. It's not a gets-put-in-jail-easily card.


    Fozbek wrote:


    Both "It works as fast healing, but the creature cannot die for any reason while regeneration is active" and "It works as fast healing, but the creature cannot die from hit point damage while regeneration is active" modify the rules for fast healing.

    Morbo says English does not work that way.


    Morbo can say what he wants. Both are grammatically correct English and both explicitly modify the rules for fast healing.


    I forgot to add my internet is still out so I guess I should refrain from posting until I get it back.


    Under the "cannot die at all" interpretation, what is the result of exposing a troll to Power Word: Kill (or any other instant-death effect)? Are they just flat-out immune? Do they drop unconscious?

    If a troll can take 5 damage before it reaches the point that it'd be dead without regeneration, and it takes 10 damage, it's still alive. If I'd previously damaged it to suppress regeneration, it instead dies when it takes the damage. If it takes any damage that suppresses regeneration before it heals back to "safe" levels, it dies immediately. How does this map to PW:K? Clearly if I damage it beforehand, it's vulnerable. But what if I damage it with fire immediately after I PW:K it?


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
    Fozbek wrote:


    wraithstrike wrote:
    Is the above being ignored for a good reason or is it that the other side has no counter. Ability score damage that equals your con score means you are dead. You can add this to the above if you need to.

    Regeneration means you cannot die. It doesn't mean you can't have your Constitution reduced to 0 by ability drain. The rules for regeneration state that regeneration only heals hit point damage. That doesn't mean they're only immune to death from hit point damage, that means they only heal hit point damage via regeneration. If you have regeneration 10 and you take 100 Con damage, you do not heal 10 Con damage a round.

    The Tarrasque's special rule is an anti-loophole rule. It means that, regardless of how you manage to suppress its unsupressable regeneration and actually kill it, it revives itself in 3 rounds unless the GM says otherwise. It's an explicit get-out-of-jail-free card. It's not a gets-put-in-jail-easily card.

    Big T's regen says Big T can be killed. It also has no way to be suppressed. If Big T can be killed without regen ever being suppressed then so can any other monster.

    The difference is that Big T gets to come back to life due to a special ruling.

    Your suppressing the unsupressable sentence does not even make sense since it is impossible. It even list ways to bypass regen in general such as death affects, and disintigrate, and has wording to suggest that the list is not all inclusive.

    Would you like to tell me how these can kill Big T, but not a troll who's regen is not nearly as powerful? I know I said I should refrain, but I have a few more minutes.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bobson wrote:
    Under the "cannot die at all" interpretation, what is the result of exposing a troll to Power Word: Kill (or any other instant-death effect)? Are they just flat-out immune? Do they drop unconscious?

    Regeneration makes you immune to death effects. Unless you are the Tarrasque because it explicitly says they kill him. Think about that for a bit.


    Look, this is the Rules Forum. In this forum we make rulings based on the Rules As Written. The Rules As Written say, quite explicitly, that Regenerating creatures cannot die. Full stop. There is never any statement in the Regeneration rules about any method to kill them except to shut off the Regeneration.

    We can argue until we're blue in the face (or black and blue in the fingertips, as the case may be) about the intent, but I know this discussion has come up at least twice before since the Bestiary was first printed and the wording of the rule has yet to change. That implies to me that the wording is intended. Your mileage may vary.


    Actually we give rulings based on RAI and RAW for many occasions. The GM then gets to decide which one he wants to use.


    PRD - Fast Healing wrote:


    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. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately.
    That Clause in Regeneration wrote:

    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).

    *snip*
    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, Fast Healing, which is considered Natural Healing, is modified by Regeneration. Regeneration states that, as a modifier to Fast Healing, that:

    - The regenerating creature can have a limb reattached, if brought together within 1 hour of severing. This is a modification to the rules of Fast Healing, which specifically preclude reattaching limbs.
    - The regenerating creature "cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning". The only thing that Fast Healing does, which could be modified in this case, is preventing death through hit point damage.

    Is it a perfectly clear ability? No. Because there are lots of ways to die that do not involve HP damage. Ways that are specifically called out in the Tarrasque's "Special" regeneration as things that it's immune to.

    If Regeneration is being read the way Fozbek intends, then a Troll ("normal" regenerating creature) could not be killed by:
    - Symbol of Death
    - Power Word Kill
    - Phantasmal Killer
    - Weird
    - Con Damage/Drain

    It makes sense that the Tarrasque, with it's "Special" regeneration could be immune to these things... but a Troll?

    It's much less of a mental exercise to conclude that the line in Regeneration refers specifically to not being killable via Hit Point damage, as supported by the comment that Regeneration doesn't heal attack forms that don't deal Hit Point damage.


    You can't give a ruling based on intent unless you know the intent. If you can find a developer posting the intent of the Regeneration rules, I'm all for using that as the basis for a ruling in the Rules forum. Without that, though, there's simply not enough evidence to prove it either way. As far as I know, no such thing exists. Thus, the RAW is what I use for this discussion, and the RAW is crystal clear.


    Fozbek wrote:
    Look, this is the Rules Forum. In this forum we make rulings based on the Rules As Written. The Rules As Written say, quite explicitly, that Regenerating creatures cannot die. Full stop.

    Which is not what it says without linguistic gymnastics.


    Fozbek wrote:
    You can't give a ruling based on intent unless you know the intent. If you can find a developer posting the intent of the Regeneration rules, I'm all for using that as the basis for a ruling in the Rules forum. Without that, though, there's simply not enough evidence to prove it either way. As far as I know, no such thing exists. Thus, the RAW is what I use for this discussion, and the RAW is crystal clear.

    Obviously not. Would you mind explaining how a troll survives affects that don't kill with hp damage which is a sentence myself and John keep pointing out? Regeneration can not help a troll recover from/survive such an affect by RAW so therefore they must be able to kill the troll. If they can't kill the troll, but yet regen can not protect against such things then why is the troll still alive? Is there a 2nd protective ability the troll has which is not being discussed?


    Fozbek wrote:
    Look, this is the Rules Forum. In this forum we make rulings based on the Rules As Written. The Rules As Written say, quite explicitly, that Regenerating creatures cannot die. Full stop. There is never any statement in the Regeneration rules about any method to kill them except to shut off the Regeneration.

    This is the rules forum. We do make rulings based on RAW (although intent is discussed). However, most of the people here disagree with how you read it. Thus it's not a discussion of intent, it's a discussion of whether the RAW explicitly says one thing or another.

    You read

    Quote:
    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).

    as being two entirely unrelated clauses: 1) They heal as with fast healing. 2) They can't die while regeneration is in effect. Most people read it as one clause: 1) They heal as with fast healing, except that it doesn't shut off when they would otherwise die. Both are possible valid readings, therefore this is a discussion about what the RAW actually is.


    "Cannot die" is explicit and clear. It is an absolute statement. It requires "linguistic gymnastics" to make it not clear.

    Here's, let's make an example.

    Let's make a spell and call it mage armor. It says, "You get a +4 Armor bonus to AC". Then let's make another spell, call it invincibility. It says, "This spell function as mage armor, but while it is active you cannot die".

    Invincibility modifies mage armor. It modifies it adding immortality to the effects of mage armor. This is the same as the way Regeneration modifies Fast Healing. It is still a modification, even though it expands the use of the ability past the kinds of things the original ability is used for.

    wraithstrike wrote:
    Would you mind explaining how a troll survives affects that don't kill with hp damage which is a sentence myself and John keep pointing out? Regeneration can not help a troll recover from/survive such an affect by RAW so therefore they must be able to kill the troll. If they can't kill the troll, but yet regen can not protect against such things then why is the troll still alive? Is there a 2nd protective ability the troll has which is not being discussed?

    You're asking questions I've already answered, and you're asking questions about my interpretation of the rules based on your interpretation of the rules. What I mean by that second is that you say, "yet regen cannot protect against [things that kill without dealing hp damage], so why is the troll still alive", but that is not a true statement under my interpretation, so the question is not answerable.

    Under my interpretation, regeneration does protect against such things. It prevents you from dying while it is active. It doesn't heal anything but hit point damage, which means if you get your Con drained to 0 you're in serious trouble, but you're not dead and won't be until you get hit by your weakness.

    ---

    To be clear, I readily accept that mine is not the only interpretation. I do see valid points in your (plural) arguments from a RAI perspective. I'd be perfectly happy if Jason or Sean stopped in here and said "regeneration only protects against death from hit point damage". However, I really do not see any logical way around "cannot die." as written.


    "Cannot die" is explicit and clear. It is an absolute statement. It requires "linguistic gymnastics" to make it not clear.

    Here's, let's make an example.

    Let's make a spell and call it lesser vigor. It says, "you gain fast healing 1". Then let's make another spell, call it invincibility. It says, "This spell function as lesser vigor, but while it is active you cannot die".

    Invincibility modifies lesser vigor. It modifies it adding immortality to the effects of lesser vigor. This is the same as the way Regeneration modifies Fast Healing. It is still a modification, even though it expands the use of the ability past the kinds of things the original ability is used for.

    wraithstrike wrote:
    Would you mind explaining how a troll survives affects that don't kill with hp damage which is a sentence myself and John keep pointing out? Regeneration can not help a troll recover from/survive such an affect by RAW so therefore they must be able to kill the troll. If they can't kill the troll, but yet regen can not protect against such things then why is the troll still alive? Is there a 2nd protective ability the troll has which is not being discussed?

    You're asking questions I've already answered, and you're asking questions about my interpretation of the rules based on your interpretation of the rules. What I mean by that second is that you say, "yet regen cannot protect against [things that kill without dealing hp damage], so why is the troll still alive", but that is not a true statement under my interpretation, so the question is not answerable.

    Under my interpretation, regeneration does protect against such things. It prevents you from dying while it is active. It doesn't heal anything but hit point damage, which means if you get your Con drained to 0 you're in serious trouble, but you're not dead and won't be until you get hit by your weakness.

    ---

    To be clear, I readily accept that mine is not the only interpretation. I do see valid points in your (plural) arguments from a RAI perspective. I'd be perfectly happy if Jason or Sean stopped in here and said "regeneration only protects against death from hit point damage". However, I really do not see any logical way around "cannot die." as written.


    Much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Fozbek on this one.

    The syntax of the sentence does not really care what "cannot die" is modifying. And it is unclear what it even is modifying. But let's say that it does modify fast healing.

    Fast healing says that you heal X hit point damage per round, but that if you die it turns off. Regenerate says it works like Fast Healing, but you cannot die.

    It does NOT say that you cannot die from hit point damage, just that you cannot die. We can read into fast healing the fact that a person reduced to 0 Con or who takes Con damage equal to the Con score will die. Fast Healing will do nothing to protect against that, just as it will do nothing to protect against death from HP death. Fast healing also doesn't protect against death from drowning, or death effects, or magic jar.

    Regeneration modifies all of those things as well. Regeneration says that it works like fast healing, but you cannot die [from things which would kill you if you had fast healing]. So that means death effects, drowning, magic jar, Con damage, etc.

    As regards the Tarrasque thing, I'm with the interpretation that it is a GM loophole. Nothing in regeneration says that the "cannot die" does not apply to death effects. So, the Tarrasque is not vulnerable to death effects. Either he was supposed to be (and thus, likely, all regeneration creatures are supposed to be), in which case this is an editing error, or it works off the idea that no KNOWN method exists for suppressing the Tarrasque's regeneration, but that even if such a method were devised, the Tarrasque in this case is exempt from the typical ruling that once a regeneration creature has the regen turned off, they are vulnerable to death for one round.

    IF you could turn off the Tarrasque's regeneration, and IF you could hit it with a death effect in that round, and IF it failed it's save and died, it would come back in 3 rounds with 1 HP.

    Otherwise, if you just hit it with a death effect straight out without trying to turn off it's regeneration first, it just laughs at you. And by "laugh" I mean maul horribly because it's the Tarrasque and why would you think that was a good idea...?

    BUT, I am more than happy to say that it is all an editing error, and if the intent was to make regeneration susceptible to death effects and con damage and the like, that makes sense. It just doesn't seem to be what the rules are saying.


    Fozbek wrote:

    "Cannot die" is explicit and clear. It is an absolute statement. It requires "linguistic gymnastics" to make it not clear.

    Here's, let's make an example.

    Let's make a spell and call it lesser vigor. It says, "you gain fast healing 1". Then let's make another spell, call it invincibility. It says, "This spell function as lesser vigor, but while it is active you cannot die".

    Invincibility modifies lesser vigor. It modifies it adding immortality to the effects of lesser vigor. This is the same as the way Regeneration modifies Fast Healing. It is still a modification, even though it expands the use of the ability past the kinds of things the original ability is used for.

    Counter example:

    A spell called lesser vigor which says "you gain one hit point per round, unless you're dead". Then the invincibility spell: "This spell functions as lesser vigor, except it keeps working once you're dead and can bring you back to life."

    Unless you're using another sentence with the exact same wording and the nouns replaced, creating examples doesn't prove anything.

    Things with __(name)__ __(action)__, as with __(alternate name)__, but they __(alternate action)__.

    Quote:
    Under my interpretation, regeneration does protect against such things. It prevents you from dying while it is active. It doesn't heal anything but hit point damage, which means if you get your Con drained to 0 you're in serious trouble, but you're not dead and won't be until you get hit by your weakness.

    What is your interpretation of the T's regeneration saying " 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." How can it rise from death if regeneration makes it immune to dying? There's nothing in the ability which says the Tarrasque can actually die.

    Quote:
    To be clear, I readily accept that mine is not the only interpretation. I do see valid points in your (plural) arguments from a RAI perspective. I'd be perfectly happy if Jason or Sean stopped in here and said "regeneration only protects against death from hit point damage". However, I really do not see any logical way around "cannot die." as written.

    I agree, I think it'll take developer input to settle this. I FAQed it.


    Fozbek wrote:
    "Cannot die" is explicit and clear. It is an absolute statement. It requires "linguistic gymnastics" to make it not clear.

    Except that Regeneration goes on to describe how the creature CAN die later, so long as Regeneration is deactivated. Thus, it is NOT an absolute statement.

    Just to be perfectly clear though, you're stating that the Troll, a CR5 creature, is immune to 9th level spells like Weird and Power Word Kill?

    How is that a CR5 creature?


    BigJohn42 wrote:
    Fozbek wrote:
    "Cannot die" is explicit and clear. It is an absolute statement. It requires "linguistic gymnastics" to make it not clear.

    Except that Regeneration goes on to describe how the creature CAN die later, so long as Regeneration is deactivated. Thus, it is NOT an absolute statement.

    Just to be perfectly clear though, you're stating that the Troll, a CR5 creature, is immune to 9th level spells like Weird and Power Word Kill?

    How is that a CR5 creature?

    Skeletons are also immune to weird. So are bugs.


    Bobson wrote:

    Counter example:

    A spell called lesser vigor which says "you gain one hit point per round, unless you're dead". Then the invincibility spell: "This spell functions as lesser vigor, except it keeps working once you're dead and can bring you back to life."

    Unless you're using another sentence with the exact same wording and the nouns replaced, creating examples doesn't prove anything.

    Straw man. I did use another sentence with essentially the same wording (I paraphrased). You did not. Regeneration does not say, "it keeps working once you're dead and can bring you back to life". In fact, Regeneration doesn't do that at all, unless you're the Tarrasque. Regeneration ceases working when you die just like every other ability does. It just prevents you from becoming dead while it's active.


    Bascaria wrote:

    Skeletons are also immune to weird. So are bugs.

    This is an invalid comparison. Skeletons have the Undead Template, which specifically calls out that it has immunity to death effects. Troll is a Humanoid(Giant), which does not list such an immunity.

    Additionally, can you show me what "bugs" you're referring to? I can't seem to find "bug" in the PRD.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    How is this so many pages?

    A troll with 30 points of Con damage is still alive, unless you, you know, burn it. These creatures are intended to (and are written as) being immune to ALL DAMAGE EXCEPT $BLAH, where $BLAH doesn't always include "odd spells and/or poison". Sometimes, you gotta burn them.

    The regeneration ability is 100% clear on what is intended. If you want to run it differently, go right ahead- it's not like it MUST be done that way. But if you are asking, what do rules say? It's not even hard. It's stated plainly.


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
    cfalcon wrote:

    How is this so many pages?

    ...

    The regeneration ability is 100% clear on what is intended. If you want to run it differently, go right ahead- it's not like it MUST be done that way. But if you are asking, what do rules say? It's not even hard. It's stated plainly.

    Clearly it's so many pages because it's not "100% clear". There are two readings, both of which seem valid to their proponents. One side says "cannot die" stands alone (and the troll can't die to anything at all until it takes fire damage), the other says "cannot die" modifies fast healing (and the troll only survives a hit point death). With no developer input, it's reached a stalemate.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    It says "cannot die". It doesn't have any muck in there about hit points- unless I misread something.

    Clear as day, cannot die. I mean, wasn't that the reason that they stuck that in there?

    We don't need developer input. Those are the guys that wrote "cannot die" in the first place.

    Edit: I had read over the other line, which changes things not a whit. 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).

    "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing" clearly means that regeneration returns hit points, and so does fast healing, you know, in case you forgot.

    "BUT THEY CANNOT DIE as long as their regeneration is still functioning"

    This just clarifies the can't die thing, and makes it super clear that they aren't dead, because they cannot die. So there's the reading where they cannot die, and then, there is the reading where they cannot die. Two readings where they cannot die.

    Seriously, just burn the troll already. You can't chop it up, you can't poison it, you can't Con damage it, you gotta use the things that turn off the regen. That is the whole point of regen in this game.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bascaria wrote:
    Otherwise, if you just hit it with a death effect straight out without trying to turn off it's regeneration first, it just laughs at you. And by "laugh" I mean maul horribly because it's the Tarrasque and why would you think that was a good idea...?

    The Tarrasque is killed by death effects it explicitly says so. The argument that you cannot die AT ALL while Regeneration is active makes a troll harder to kill than a Tarrasque because it isn't affected by death effects because its Regeneration doesn't explicitly say it is.

    The reading is patently asinine.


    Bobson wrote:
    cfalcon wrote:

    How is this so many pages?

    ...

    The regeneration ability is 100% clear on what is intended. If you want to run it differently, go right ahead- it's not like it MUST be done that way. But if you are asking, what do rules say? It's not even hard. It's stated plainly.

    Clearly it's so many pages because it's not "100% clear".

    Actually, what he said IS 100% clear. No one disagrees a Troll's regeneration keeps it from dieing when taking DAMAGE.

    The PROBLEM is people saying Regeneration makes one immune to DEATH EFFECTS AND ALL OTHER METHODS OF KILLING.


    Damage, unless specified, refers to hit point damage. The troll cannot be killed by anything that deals damage no matter how much we're talking about.


    My two cents.

    if it counts for anything.
    from the Classic Monsters Revisited pgs 59 and 60 i think contain relevant passages.
    "...trolls can be burned, starved, drowned, and destroyed,..." pg 59 right column about two thirds down. i dont want to quote too much because of copyright.
    also.
    "...Trolls are still subject to some of the risks that humans are: they can be killed by viruses that inhibit their regenerative abilities, and drowning, fire, and acid put an end to trolls in quick order. Starvation can also end a troll's life..."
    and"... more often, a weak or ill troll is simply drowned....."
    both quotes from pg 60 first column.
    this is a paizo publication. but i am not sure how it plays into the dogma of RAW and RAI for everyone else in this group. to me it tells me the game developers intention was that regeneration was not a stop all death(except for the one or two listed weaknesses) effect. if trolls can be drowned and starved TO DEATH then i think its safe to say that the absolute is uncorked and death effects could would and should have their normal effects on trolls.
    there is much more information on trolls in the supplement and other monsters too, if you havent checked it out its very entertaining.

    Shadow Lodge

    Regeneration changes hit points, and hit points only. Therefore I see the most logical reading of 'cannot die' as actually meaning 'cannot die from hitpoints'.

    That's all it does.

    Besides, nothing available on a 90k ring is going to trump the power of a deity. That IS what we're intended to take away from 'cannot die', yes? Cannot die even if Asmodeus himself wishes you dead? NEENER NEENER CAN'T KILL ME?

    Or perhaps it has limits of some reasonable sort?

    Shadow Lodge

    skrahen wrote:

    if trolls can be drowned and starved TO DEATH then i think its safe to say that the absolute is uncorked and death effects could would and should have their normal effects on trolls.

    So now trolls and Big T can die. Anyone else want to take a crack at 'cannot die'?


    cfalcon wrote:

    It says "cannot die". It doesn't have any muck in there about hit points- unless I misread something.

    Clear as day, cannot die. I mean, wasn't that the reason that they stuck that in there?

    We don't need developer input. Those are the guys that wrote "cannot die" in the first place.

    Edit: I had read over the other line, which changes things not a whit. 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).

    "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing" clearly means that regeneration returns hit points, and so does fast healing, you know, in case you forgot.

    "BUT THEY CANNOT DIE as long as their regeneration is still functioning"

    This just clarifies the can't die thing, and makes it super clear that they aren't dead, because they cannot die. So there's the reading where they cannot die, and then, there is the reading where they cannot die. Two readings where they cannot die.

    Seriously, just burn the troll already. You can't chop it up, you can't poison it, you can't Con damage it, you gotta use the things that turn off the regen. That is the whole point of regen in this game.

    Way to ignore the 2nd paragraph. In case you missed it. -->"Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration."

    How would you factor this into the game if they can't kill the troll?


    I'm surprised at everyone in this thread and I feel sorry for Wraith. Of course a creature with regeneration can die. Regeneration deals specifically with HP damage. How do we know this?

    The second paragraph that Wraithstrike keeps showing you. Mcbobbo as well.

    wraithstrike wrote:
    How would you factor this into the game if they can't kill the troll?

    There are many ways to kill creatures that does not involve their HP: Ability Damage, Save or Die spells, suffocation/drowning, etc.


    I see someone has already brought new proof to the table. I will delete my previous post.

    edit:except for the the post that was just referenced. :)


    skrahen wrote:

    My two cents.

    if it counts for anything.
    from the Classic Monsters Revisited pgs 59 and 60 i think contain relevant passages.
    "...trolls can be burned, starved, drowned, and destroyed,..." pg 59 right column about two thirds down. i dont want to quote too much because of copyright.
    also.
    "...Trolls are still subject to some of the risks that humans are: they can be killed by viruses that inhibit their regenerative abilities, and drowning, fire, and acid put an end to trolls in quick order. Starvation can also end a troll's life..."
    and"... more often, a weak or ill troll is simply drowned....."
    both quotes from pg 60 first column.
    this is a paizo publication. but i am not sure how it plays into the dogma of RAW and RAI for everyone else in this group. to me it tells me the game developers intention was that regeneration was not a stop all death(except for the one or two listed weaknesses) effect. if trolls can be drowned and starved TO DEATH then i think its safe to say that the absolute is uncorked and death effects could would and should have their normal effects on trolls.
    there is much more information on trolls in the supplement and other monsters too, if you havent checked it out its very entertaining.

    Thank you for finding that. I'm hoping that finally puts this to rest.


    Bobson wrote:


    Thank you for finding that. I'm hoping that finally puts this to rest.

    your welcome.

    I hope it helps.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    The special section about trolls is an exception to the regeneration rules. In fact, that's why they had to write them. I'm also not sure if they apply to all trolls or merely Golarion ones.

    In any event, things besides the trolls referenced in those passages continue to use the regeneration rules, and cannot die.


    Classic Monsters Revisited is not relevant from a rules standpoint. It is a 3.5 product, not a Pathfinder one. In 3.5, Regeneration worked completely differently, and specifically mentioned that it only prevented death from hit point damage.

    I'll also note that the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder specifically removed two important rules:

    "A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace.

    ...

    Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration."


    oook,
    how about this, Sanctum of the Serpent God
    "This product makes use of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Player's Guide, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
    Bestiary, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2. These rules can be found online as part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document at
    paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd."

    relevant passage on page 54. i do not want to be a spoiler person so i will blandify some of the entry...blandification will be noted with a series of **** and will be used solely to protect names and/or identifying references.
    pg54"....Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack can suppress ********'s
    regeneration—the *****-*** regenerates even if
    disintegrated or slain by a death effect. If ******** fails a
    save against an effect that would kill him instantly, he rises
    from death 3 rounds later with 1 hit point if no further
    damage is inflicted upon his remains."
    this to me is a clear exception proves the rule situation. The game designer goes out of his way to describe how this regeneration differs from normal regeneration, by referring to what happens if slain by this or that. There is no weakness for this particular creatures regeneration, no acid, no fire listed in the stat block, just regeneration and heaps of it, hopefully this cite will help the information seekers. for those that already know their version of reality and refuse to budge i do enjoy digging up references, so please tell me how this doesn't count, or how this super regeneration is somehow lesser to regular regeneration in that it allows the creature to be affected by something that would kill it instantly. I put the above above quote in to make it clear that this document was intended for pathfinder, even if it may be compatible with another lesser gaming system.


    skrahen wrote:

    oook,

    how about this, Sanctum of the Serpent God
    "This product makes use of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Player's Guide, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
    Bestiary, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2. These rules can be found online as part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document at
    paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd."

    relevant passage on page 54. i do not want to be a spoiler person so i will blandify some of the entry...blandification will be noted with a series of **** and will be used solely to protect names and/or identifying references.
    pg54"....Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack can suppress ********'s
    regeneration—the *****-*** regenerates even if
    disintegrated or slain by a death effect. If ******** fails a
    save against an effect that would kill him instantly, he rises
    from death 3 rounds later with 1 hit point if no further
    damage is inflicted upon his remains."
    this to me is a clear exception proves the rule situation. The game designer goes out of his way to describe how this regeneration differs from normal regeneration, by referring to what happens if slain by this or that. There is no weakness for this particular creatures regeneration, no acid, no fire listed in the stat block, just regeneration and heaps of it, hopefully this cite will help the information seekers. for those that already know their version of reality and refuse to budge i do enjoy digging up references, so please tell me how this doesn't count, or how this super regeneration is somehow lesser to regular regeneration in that it allows the creature to be affected by something that would kill it instantly. I put the above above quote in to make it clear that this document was intended for pathfinder, even if it may be compatible with another lesser gaming system.

    No good. The Tarrasque has the same wording, and the counter argument that keeps being made is that it means that unlike normal regenerating creatures which are flat-out immune to death effects, the 'sque can die to death effects, it just comes back to life afterwards.

    Yes, that makes a regular ordinary troll less vulnerable than the 'sque.


    Bobson wrote:


    No good. The Tarrasque has the same wording, and the counter argument that keeps being made is that it means that unlike normal regenerating creatures which...

    the argument is unsound, let me explain why.

    the proper form then for the statblock would be

    regeneration (death magic) 40
    the proper format is RAW.
    it is in the bestiary page 303
    "Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp."

    so death magic is obviously not the thing that shuts off regeneration for the tarrasque.
    no instead the developers, as they usually do added the exceptional language in the regeneration description itself, to note that this particular extra powerful form of regeneration is less effected or differently effected by death magic. because the exception was written in the Regeneration ability description on the creature, and not as a weakness as the RAW format would insist.
    anyway There is tons of evidence as to intent to rational people. i will continue to dig for more wordy proof.


    Also allow me to introduce another piece of relevant information.

    the creature known as Psychopomp, Morrigna
    this creature is a CR13 creature. has Regeneration 5 with no weakness to the regeneration.
    strangely though...they have listed in the defenses section of the statblock, immune:death effects among other things. now why would they have to do that, if regeneration in and of itself protected from death effects ? the answer is clear, regeneration does not. this is an additional immunity which is listed as it should be in the stat block under immunities. the creatures full description can be found in shadows of gallowspire page 88 it is part 6 of the carrion crown series and is most certainly designed for the pathfinder system.
    the heart of this particular piece of information is to discount the argument that immunity to death effects is an integral part of regeneration. I believe that the separate listings of immunity, and regeneration are proof that the defenses are not fundamentally part of either.they are not listed in other descriptions of creatures with regeneration necessarily, and therefore those creatures, do not have immunity to death effects as this particular one does.

    101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Regeneration vs. Constitution damage All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.