| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my last post must have gotten stopped by something.
ok more ambiguity maybe.
there is a monster, in carrion crown part 6 pg 88 that has regen 5 with no weakness to the regen, and it also has immune:death effects listed in its defenses.
the question is why would the immunity be listed separately if it is assumed to be integral to regeneration?
it is not. this creature, unlike the troll or other creatures that simply have regeneration, is immune to death effects, which is why it is properly listed in the stat block under defenses, which is right where it would be if trolls had immunity to death effects, or any other regenerating creature for that matter.
i think this is proof again of the intent that immunity to death effects is separate from regeneration and not a part of it.
i think this is proof again of the intent that immunity to death effects is separate from regeneration and not a part of it.
Rgeneration does not mean immune to death (another game term like Skrahen said), the *can't be killed* is silly flavor text because a creature with regeneration can obviously be killed.
Indeed all monsters/characters can be killed.
i think this is proof again of the intent that immunity to death effects is separate from regeneration and not a part of it.Rgeneration does not mean immune to death (another game term like Skrahen said), the *can't be killed* is silly flavor text because a creature with regeneration can obviously be killed.
Indeed all monsters/characters can be killed.
Death effects
I was quoting specific text from a supplement. It is the death effects argument that seems to be the primary point of contention among hold outs and worshippers of the ubertroll.And I am still waiting for any reasonable counterpoint to the carrion crown argument.
the counter argument that keeps being made ...Please try reading the ACTUAL counter-argument, which is nothing at all remotely resembling what you posted, and please try not to intentionally mischaracterize other posters' arguments. Thank you.
I have read the thread and the many arguments included, I have actually dug up book quotes other than the mantra of "cannot die" which some think constitutes an argument. I don't see how I have intentionally mischaracterized other posters comments, I have been digging up reference quotes and presenting them. I have noticed in the past that some less than fully rational people tend to get a bit snippy when they see they have been backing a losing horse, but I assure you I am in no way trying to intentionally do anything to anyone. I'm just having fun trying to dig up cites for the argument. So if you have valid counterpoints please present them to me, but don't assume I'm being anything other than helpful to anyone.
Please forgive my misattribution.....
I do not have a dog in that hunt...
No worries. It wasn't directed at you, and for the record, I havn't seen you post anything in this thread that trips my trigger.
I'll also take this moment to re-iterate that I'm arguing from a Rules As Written perspective. I will admit that the Carrion Crown monster does lend some credence to the RAI interpretation of Regen only preventing HP death, but there are still some (admittedly shaky) reasons for having immunity to death magic while being immune to death.
Please elaborate. However shaky they may be. I tend to devils advocate so I may flip flop to try to strengthen your argument.
Many death affects that us hp don't kill by hp damage though. The fact that your hp is at 0 sets off a trigger to another event, mainly your soul being separated from your body in such a way that it is hard to return to life, which is why raise dead does not work against them.
These is also a monster that has immunity to death affects. Why is that there if the monster is already immune to death affects? From what I understand death affects can not kill the troll anyway from your PoV?
This does however seem to support my stance of regen not protecting against things that can don't kill by hp damage, which includes all death affects.
As an example if I cut someone head off instantly they really stay alive, and they die because no oxygen can reach their brain from their lungs, not the actual beheading itself.
The death affect triggering at 0 hp works the same way for the troll with regen. It is not the 0 hp that kills him since 0 hp does not kill anyone(not including constructs and undead). It is the affect that comes into play at 0 hp that kills him.
Some Death effects aren't simply binary die-or-nothing effects. For example, wail of the banshee is a necromancy [death] spell that only deals hit point damage. As such, having immunity to death effects prevents wail of the banshee from dealing any damage to the Carrion Crown monster, while a standard troll would probably be instantly dropped to beyond -Con hit points by it. The standard troll still wouldn't actually die if it hadn't been exposed to fire or acid, but it'd be much more vulnerable than the CC monster.
Death effects aka death attacks are indeed binary affairs. From the prd
"Death AttacksIn most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the effect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly.
Raise dead doesn't work on someone killed by a death attack or effect.
Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
The spell death ward protects against these attacks."
Other life draining effects that cause either damage or drain have their own descriptors. Wail of the banshee is not a death effect. Keep looking though and I will too.
Wail of the banshee is not a death effect.Necromancy [death]. That's a death effect. Literally the only reason that the [death] descriptor exists is to signify that the spell it's attached to is a death effect:
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Read your own quote: "In most cases". Not all.
I disagree on the semantics, spell descriptors are used for purposes spheres of influence, , for damage reduction, and possibly other things I can't think of right now. But "a death attack or effect" is clearly spelled out in the prd, and is always a save or die and sometimes(implied) it's just die.
The most cases part refers to the save. As in power word kill
Thanks for at least trying to dig stuff up. It was no fun waiting for people to pop in just to rawr "cannot die"
Must sleep.
I'll dig more tomorrow if you still aren't convinced.
So you're of the opinion that things that are immune to death effects are not immune to wail of the banshee, finger of death, or destruction? What, then is the point of the [death] descriptor?
I'll point out that "In most cases ... if the save fails, the character dies instantly" can mean that in some cases, the character does not die instantly if he fails his save.
How about if something was immune to fear effects, such as a Paladin. By your interpretation, Paladins are vulnerable to fear, phantasmal killer, cause fear, etc?
It actually says in most cases it allows the victim a fortitude save ......
things that can don't kill by hp damage, which includes all death affects.Did you even look at my post above yours? There are death effects which kill by hp damage exclusively. I even gave a specific example of one (wail of the banshee).
And do note that not all save-or-actually-die effects are death effects. Phantasmal killer, for example.
Wail of the banshee would be blocked by RAW and RAI with regen. I will give you that. I had to read it again. Thanks.
I know not all SoD's are death affects but if they don't do harm by hp damage regen can not help recover from them according to the 2nd paragraph.
It actually says in most cases it allows the victim a fortitude save ......So you're of the opinion that things that are immune to death effects are not immune to wail of the banshee, finger of death, or destruction? What, then is the point of the [death] descriptor?
I'll point out that "In most cases ... if the save fails, the character dies instantly" can mean that in some cases, the character does not die instantly if he fails his save.
How about if something was immune to fear effects, such as a Paladin. By your interpretation, Paladins are vulnerable to fear, phantasmal killer, cause fear, etc?
I believe if it says death effects or attacks I would say no immunity, but that's with me tired and it is possibly a slightly different argument. Or maybe it's not. Either way I need to look into it more while awake
And I think fear is just fear. I don't think their is a separate cat. So immunity to fear effects would be broader....probably..like I said different arguments deserving of full wakeful attention.
Wail of the banshee is not a death effect.Necromancy [death]. That's a death effect. Literally the only reason that the [death] descriptor exists is to signify that the spell it's attached to is a death effect:
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Read your own quote: "In most cases". Not all.
I disagree on the semantics, spell descriptors are used for purposes spheres of influence, , for damage reduction, and possibly other things I can't think of right now. But "a death attack or effect" is clearly spelled out in the prd, and is always a save or die and sometimes(implied) it's just die.
The most cases part refers to the save. As in power word kill
The death affects were mostly changed to damage dealing spells because Paizo did not think insta-deaths were cool. If it has the death descriptor it is a death affect, even if it does not kill you on a failed save. You still can't recover from it with raise dead.
Yep you got it right there Wraith.
However if we assume that the only reason the CC monster is immune to Death Effects is to that is won't go down from HP damage from the few death effect spells that do it. Why is it not immune to Fireball lighting bolt magic missle and anything else that could be used to do massive damage. Seems like a bit of a weak arguement to me. (By the way what module is that monster in?)
The thought that a 20th level wizard/rogue/ranger with monsterous humanoid for a favored enemy. Couldn't one shot a troll but yet can drop the tarrasque is quite humorous in my opinion. you saying that while the tarrause can actually die from these and then come back the Troll just laughs and charges.
Why don't high level NPC's surround there lairs with trolls with rings of fire and acid resist 30 and train them to have the Diehard feat then laugh at the party when they fall to an encounter thats below cr.
Yep you got it right there Wraith.
However if we assume that the only reason the CC monster is immune to Death Effects is to that is won't go down from HP damage from the few death effect spells that do it. Why is it not immune to Fireball lighting bolt magic missle and anything else that could be used to do massive damage. Seems like a bit of a weak arguement to me. (By the way what module is that monster in?)
The thought that a 20th level wizard/rogue/ranger with monsterous humanoid for a favored enemy. Couldn't one shot a troll but yet can drop the tarrasque is quite humorous in my opinion. you saying that while the tarrause can actually die from these and then come back the Troll just laughs and charges.
Why don't high level NPC's surround there lairs with trolls with rings of fire and acid resist 30 and train them to have the Diehard feat then laugh at the party when they fall to an encounter thats below cr.
I think that monster is proof that things that kill by affects other than HP can kill a monster. As an example Big T is immune to ability damage, most likely to protect from con damage killing it or other monster that have special attacks that kill by doing ability damage to other scores. The allip comes to mind.
There is a monster in Kingmaker that does ability damage and can kill also. There monsters are very low level compared to Big T so it would only make sense that Big T's immunities are there to protect against things regen does not. IIRC it is also immune to energy drain. Why bother giving Big T immunity to that if it can just laugh it off, and stay alive.PS:Did the allip not make it to Pathfinder?
That monster that has immunity to death affect also has immunity to poison and disease. It is on page 88 of book 6. We know mummy rot kills without using hp damage. That would also kill the troll by my interpretation since the troll has not way to heal from it since it regen has no way to recover against harm not generated by hp damage.
However if we assume that the only reason the CC monster is immune to Death Effects is to that is won't go down from HP damage from the few death effect spells that do it. Why is it not immune to Fireball lighting bolt magic missle and anything else that could be used to do massive damage.For the same reason that red dragons aren't immune to lightning bolt or wail of the banshee. Because it isn't thematic. Presumably the creature is some sort of pseudo-undead monstrosity, because undead are already immune to death effects, and Carrion Crown is a horror campaign.
Seems like a bit of a weak arguement to me.I already said it was shaky, and acknowledged that it probably does shed some more light on intent, when I initially posted it, so thanks, Captain Obvious.
Why don't high level NPC's surround there lairs with trolls with rings of fire and acid resist 30 and train them to have the Diehard feat then laugh at the party when they fall to an encounter thats below cr.Because presumably high level NPCs aren't moronic enough to surround themselves with an army that they themselves cannot control or defeat.
The monster in question is not undead. If it was it could not have regen in the first place, and would already be immune to death affects. The monster in question is not even in the campaign. It is just an optional monster that is thrown in many AP's, and will be in the next bestiary, most likely. A monster is never given a mechanical affect that has no bearing on it. The red dragon has fire immunity for thematic reasons, but is also a mechanic benefit because he is not immune to it otherwise. Monsters are given immunities that actually matter, not just to be put there as decoration. You would have to find a monster that supported your case to get that one across.
Uh, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I said. Read more carefully, please?The monster in question is not undead. If it was it could not have regen in the first place, and would already be immune to death affects. The monster in question is not even in the campaign. It is just an optional monster that is thrown in many AP's, and will be in the next bestiary, most likely. A monster is never given a mechanical affect that has no bearing on it. The red dragon has fire immunity for thematic reasons, but is also a mechanic benefit because he is not immune to it otherwise. Monsters are given immunities that actually matter, not just to be put there as decoration. You would have to find a monster that supported your case to get that one across.
That is not what you said. How about writing more clearly. With that said we have a monster that has regen, but still needs immunity to death effects for additional protection. We also have Big T with a special clause saying it gets to come back to life after it is killed by things that kill by bypassing regen with death affect being a listed example.
I think that should be enough proof that regen only helps against hp damage. If it were not so then the monster from CC, and Big T would not need the extra help.
PS:You said the monster was given death immunity for thematic reasons, which read as "it does not need it, but has it anyway". My statement was that is has the immunity in because regen does not protect against death effects. If you were saying what I was saying then it was very unclear.
Assuming you agree that death effects bypass/ignore regen what else do you think bypasses it since Big T's entry is meant for it to recover from anything that would kill it meaning that "anything" has to be able to ignore regen.
PS:You said the monster was given death immunity for thematic reasons, which read as "it does not need it, but has it anyway".If you read it like that, you need to check your reading comprehender. "Thematic reasons" means "reasons relating to its theme". Red dragons have immunity to fire for thematic reasons: because their theme is fire. Remorhazes have immunity to fire for thematic reasons. Devils have immunity to fire for thematic reasons. None of those are "it does not need it, but has it anyway", not in the way you mean. In fact, it's pretty much the reverse: I stated that it had immunity to death effects because (I assumed) it wasn't undead, but was supposed to be undead-like.
The question posed to you before was why would a monster immune to an effect go out of the way to be given another ability that does the same thing. Your response had nothing to do with that question, and stop trying to bait me by being snarky. It won't work. I have also noticed you did not answer any of my last question.
However if we assume that the only reason the CC monster is immune to Death Effects is to that is won't go down from HP damage from the few death effect spells that do it. Why is it not immune to Fireball lighting bolt magic missle and anything else that could be used to do massive damage.
My reading comprehender tells me that attempts to aggravate the other poster, and not answer legitimate questions is just your way to try to move the subject to something else.
From this point on your snark will be ignored. With that said I will ask questions again since even though you said we posted the same thing, but using different words I am not clear as to what we agree on.
1. Regen does nothing against affects that kill by means other than hp damage. Agree yes or no?
PS:I just realized that 1 question sums everything up pretty much.
not answering the question again.
Since you have decided to not answer my question I will also post a counter question. Why state that something can ignore regen(I am referring to the 2nd paragraph) or give monsters immunities against certain things if those things can kill the monster anyway?
That is like saying humanoids are immune to standing up. Since standing up won't kill them anyway why have it.
PS:I will answer your questions when you answer mine.
It seems that with the notice of the regen monster that needs death attack immunity, coupled with Big T needing a special clause to recover from an incomplete list of things that can kill it your argument is growing weak, so instead of answering the questions you try to focus all the attention on "can't die" or whatever words the book uses in the first paragraph, when clearly other monsters are proving that those two words don't stand alone.
Mr.Troll: I can't die. I am Super Troll.
Mr.Adventurer: Sir you do know that other monsters with regen have special protections against Death effects and other things that kill. Why is that?
Mr.Troll:Maybe Paizo just wanted to increase the word count so they decided to give a random monster an ability it did not need.
I asked you a simple yes or no question. You gave me a full paragraph without an answer. I call ducking.
I asked you a simple yes or no question. You gave me a full paragraph without an answer. I call ducking.I call "I answered that question before you even asked it, and I loathe repeating myself because I don't cater to people who didn't care enough to pay attention the first time".
People miss things on the boards all the time. It has nothing to do with not paying attention. If you paid attention you would have noticed that. Of course you could just be new around here. 359 post=new guy
Now that your theory on paying attention has been dismantled are you going to answer the question or not or will you assume that nobody here pays attention since all of us have missed something at one point or another.
If you believe nobody here pays attention then why do you even bother with us?<<--Rhetorical question.
If people miss things then answer the question.
Also the snark will not work. I have already mentioned that. It looks like someone else is not paying attention.
With that said do you have the ability to post without putting an insult in it, or you just upset that you have no counter?
the counter argument that keeps being made ...Please try reading the ACTUAL counter-argument, which is nothing at all remotely resembling what you posted, and please try not to intentionally mischaracterize other posters' arguments. Thank you.
If I mischaracterized it, I apologize, but that's how it keeps reading to me when someone makes it. I'll break down my reading of it - please point out where I go wrong. I would like to understand your reading of it correctly.
1) Normal creatures (without regeneration) die when subject to an effect which says "they die", such as phantasmal killer or power word: kill. These kill the creature despite not doing actual hit point damage.
2) Creatures with regeneration don't die while their regeneration is active. This means that even if they're reduced to low enough hp that a normal creature would die, they don't.
3) Because creatures with regeneration don't die, and things like power word: kill just do "you die", nothing happens when you cast them on a creature with currently-active regeneration.
4) Because the Tarrasque has regeneration, it is immune to power word: kill and similar effects, except that its regeneration ability specifically has conditions relating to being subject to a death effect. Therefore it is, in fact, vulnerable to them.
Based on posts you've made since I posted this, I suspect my interpretation of your argument is wrong in point #4. I think you're arguing that the "regenerates even if" logic is there so that it doesn't die even if its regeneration is turned off.
However, my problem with that logic is that right before it it says "no form of attack can suppress the tarrasque's regeneration." If the DM introduces a McGuffin that can ignore that sentence and suppress the regeneration, then it's entirely possible for that same McGuffin to suppress the rest of it. Likewise, in the absence of a plot device to suppress its regeneration, by #3 above it can't ever be subject to a death effect.
If I am correct in my understanding of this second variant of #4, you seem to now be arguing that the "regenerates even if" logic is there only for purposes of keeping it alive after a DM provides a "Rule 0" method to kill it. Am I accurate?
First of all I was not trolling you. I explained to you that I may have overlooked it. The reason why I asked you again is because I made a post and you made a comment saying you already said what I was saying. See the below quote.
The explanation as to why I asked you is below the quote.
Uh, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I said. Read more carefully, please?
My statement the above quote responded to was saying the monster with regen needs the immunity clause because regen does not protect from death affects so my agreeing with me you are saying death effects bypass regen. If that is the case then you would be disagreeing with your earlier stance.
In short I was making sure that you read what I wrote in the way I intended for it to be read.That is important because if death affects can bypass regen if they don't kill by hp damage then by that logic so can other things.
If you had simply answered the question instead of hurling insults we could have gotten past this a long time ago.
I am doing this step by step because I don't see how you are saying the monster with regen needs death effect immunity, but at the same time saying regen already gives that protection. I am sure I misread a sentence somewhere because otherwise your stance does not make sense.
Either the monsters need it or they don't. If they don't need it then why do they have it. If they do need it they such effects can bypass regen and we agree so the debate is pretty much over.
To answer the your question they want them to be harder to kill. You should note that the clause about attacks that ignore regen is still there. It has been quoted several times throughout the thread.
Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration.
This combined with a monster that needs immunity to death effects in order to not be killed even though it has regen supports the fact that other things can kill the monster even if regen is not turned off.
More support is added by Big T who can be killed by death effects(something another monster is specifically protected against), but gets to come back to life 3 rounds later.I see no reason to give two monsters way to get around death effects if they have no effect on the monster in the first place. It is like having a permanent Water Breathing ability on a monster when it can already breathe underwater.
PS: I really dont care how frustrated you are. Insults are not needed.
Are you going to answer my question or not?
I answered it in the last post. You missed it, the same way I missed your answer.
I will copy and paste it again though or retype what needs to be retyped.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think Paizo intentionally removed the clauses from 3.5 Regeneration that specifically stated that you could coup de grace unconscious regenerating monsters to kill them, and that attacks that don't deal hit point damage specifically ignore regeneration? Both of those clauses could have been left in essentially unchanged (the first one would probably want to have "through nonlethal damage" removed), and would have insured that it was crystal clear that only hit point damage is affected by regeneration.
For your coup d grace question: They took away quiet a few rules with copy and paste, and then had to fix it later. It could have been an editing error like the others. An example is the clause that a reach weapon threatens diagonal squares
As for the part about "attacks that don't deal hit point damage specifically ignore regeneration", that is still there. They just murked the language up. I will copy and past that for you again.
Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration.
In my last post the above quote is there.
I then used two monster to prove how that quote works. The only argument I can see you having is that Big T and the other monster needing specific ways to get around death affects is a rules oversight, since they would not be affected by it anyway, which is possible since not every monster is written by Paizo, and it may have slipped through.As of now we have two monsters with redundant abilities, or regen needs to be rewritten.
|
Not Regeneration does not PROTECT AGAINST anything but HP damage, which is what they replaced.
Wouldn't a possible logical conclusion to this change be:
Regeneration doesn't protect against anything?
Because, genuinely, it doesn't. You're not protected from death, you're being healed continuously. That's not preventative, that's mitigation. This sort of logic would be the same as health insurance keeping you from getting sick. It doesn't do that, but it does help pay the bills. Vis-a-vis regeneration.
But just like your PPO, if the damage type is out of network, no coverage and you pay full price.
"You cannot die while regeneration is active" kinda puts that to rest. The way it's worded currently, it's definitely preventative.
there is also that pesky need to have a 13 cons for regeneration to work.
"You cannot die while regeneration is active" kinda puts that to rest. The way it's worded currently, it's definitely preventative.there is also that pesky need to have a 13 cons for regeneration to work.
You got a quote for that?
"You cannot die while regeneration is active" kinda puts that to rest. The way it's worded currently, it's definitely preventative.there is also that pesky need to have a 13 cons for regeneration to work.You got a quote for that?
thought i did, but the book states you need a cons score for regen, not a specific number. i was wrong.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Regeneration-Ex-*A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.*
|
|
"You cannot die while regeneration is active" kinda puts that to rest. The way it's worded currently, it's definitely preventative.Not Regeneration does not PROTECT AGAINST anything but HP damage, which is what they replaced.Wouldn't a possible logical conclusion to this change be:
Regeneration doesn't protect against anything?
Because, genuinely, it doesn't. You're not protected from death, you're being healed continuously. That's not preventative, that's mitigation. This sort of logic would be the same as health insurance keeping you from getting sick. It doesn't do that, but it does help pay the bills. Vis-a-vis regeneration.
But just like your PPO, if the damage type is out of network, no coverage and you pay full price.
I feel as though you glossed over my point, fingers deep in your ears, and reiterated your own position. Is this the case?