Regeneration vs. Constitution damage


Rules Questions

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

Fozbek wrote:
Uh, no. Your analogy was exceptionally poor, even for internet analogies, so I ignored it. Regeneration doesn't even resemble health insurance. Health insurance neither prevents, nor mitigates, nor even interacts with health. Regeneration's mechanical benefits are much closer to a life support machine, complete with artificial heart, iron lungs, blood circulator, and nanotech healbots. As long as the life support machine is active, it prevents you from dying. That's just how the mechanics of the ability work.

None of those machines will keep you alive if someone removes your head from your body.


That's why I said "much closer" rather than "is exactly like".

Shadow Lodge

Fozbek wrote:
Uh, no. Your analogy was exceptionally poor, even for internet analogies, so I ignored it.

A veiled insult? Why? Does it strengthen your argument in some way? Is intended to silence me out of discomfort? In what way, exactly does it make this discussion better?

Fozbek wrote:

As long as the life support machine is active, it prevents you from dying. That's just how the mechanics of the ability work.

That's an excellent analogy, but not in the way you think. If you're in ICU, and I poison you, do you not die? Or what if I drop a city bus on you? Still alive? AFAIK life support regulates only certain things, not all possible things. Again, this is only mitigation. Life support simply cannot prevent death.

Fozbek wrote:


What you describe is fast healing, not regeneration. The mechanical difference between the two is that regen prevents death (what type of death is up for debate, but NO ONE in this thread except you is arguing that it doesn't prevent death).

I'm sorry, you have me confused with someone else. I'm the one saying regeneration deals only with hitpoints and death related to hitpoints.


mcbobbo wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Uh, no. Your analogy was exceptionally poor, even for internet analogies, so I ignored it.
A veiled insult? Why? Does it strengthen your argument in some way? Is intended to silence me out of discomfort? In what way, exactly does it make this discussion better?

Hi, Mr. Pot. Thanks for calling me black. You might want to examine your own hue.

PS. That wasn't a veiled insult. It wasn't an insult at all. A poor analogy does not cast aspersions upon your character (unlike, for example, your post that I responded to).

Quote:
Quote:

As long as the life support machine is active, it prevents you from dying. That's just how the mechanics of the ability work.

That's an excellent analogy, but not in the way you think. If you're in ICU, and I poison you, do you not die? Or what if I drop a city bus on you? Still alive? AFAIK life support regulates only certain things, not all possible things. Again, this is only mitigation. Life support simply cannot prevent death.

1. As I just told another poster in the post above yours, that's why I said "much closer to" rather than "is exactly like".

2. That's also why I included nanobots. Nanobots would, in fact, likely guard against poison, and even massive internal injuries. Nice selective editing.


I thought this discussion moved to the tarrasque room....
No new evidence I see. Everyone just wants to do analogies...
That can be fun but tends to be nonproductive in a debate in swaying any opinion except an on the fence opinion.


skrahen wrote:

I thought this discussion moved to the tarrasque room....

No new evidence I see. Everyone just wants to do analogies...
That can be fun but tends to be nonproductive in a debate in swaying any opinion except an on the fence opinion.

This is the internet. 99% of voiced opinions never change regardless of what is said or how it is said. We're all acting a play for the unseen readers; those with speaking parts are set from the start.


I don't anyone is changing anyone's mind at this point, but for anyone reading this could you hit the FAQ button on the OP's post if you have not already done so? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't anyone is changing anyone's mind at this point, but for anyone reading this could you hit the FAQ button on the OP's post if you have not already done so? :)

that's because everyone is right and they do not need any assistance to prove their points.


So seeing another thread made me think of this one does anyone know if we ever got any answer on this?


Well that was an interesting read through.

RAI I'm firmly in the 'only stops you dying from hp loss' camp.

However with RAW I have to agree that whist your regeneration is active you cannot acquire the 'Dead' condition. (Not quite the same as being immune to death effects as death effects also can do other things - you'd just be immune to the dying part. Also isn't 'Death Attack' what Assassins get and not what slay living does(a death effect)?)

Whist;
That's not what's intended
That's not what's mentioned in the fluff
That makes it better than a creature with a much higher CR
That would mean that it would have a redundant power
That's silly

are all sterling RAI points they simply don't get to sit at the RAW table.

Talking of redundant powers, since Big T can't be hit by the disintegrate in the first place is it not redundant to have a special power to circumvent that scenario? Unless we're talking about the power being a caveat for if the players somehow shortcut the normal restriction for delivering disintegrate. But if it's a loophole caveat then why can't it be a loophole caveat from the 'can't die' part of regenerate?

Also interestingly Big T's regen doesn't help against effects that don't kill him instantly. I wonder if there is any spell out there that kills but has a non-instantaneous duration? (RAW of course, RAI is clear this wouldn't work).

201 to 209 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.