|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly you could play with both being true. Hell if the latter rule is true even while it is "dead" it could supersede the ability to use animate dead. Or you could play it that you could animate it and then kill it but unfortunately that whole super regen turns back on and the zombie Tarrasque rises from the dead alive and angry again.The second isn't supported by any interpretation of RAW (the Zombie version loses Regeneration and doesn't get it back just by dying). You could do it, but it's explicitly a House Rule.
Except for the line the the Tarrasque's regeneration that states it cannot be suppressed.
Yeah. But the Tarrasque's is special. It's regeneration says that it can be killed by a fortitude save that would slay it. Then it rises from dead 3 rounds later. For 3 rounds, the Tarrasque is dead per the rules. This is not complicated. I really don't understand why people try to over complicate everything on these boards.Read my previous post (the one a couple of posts up). I go into that.
In brief, that section has two contradictory statements...so one of them pretty much has to be fluff. I'm betting on the one that says it's dead, given that that makes much more sense. And even if that isn't the case, you need to kill it with an instant death effect to activate that clause, not just beat it to death.
It's called a Coup De Grace, Ed. :P
Honestly you could play with both being true. Hell if the latter rule is true even while it is "dead" it could supersede the ability to use animate dead. Or you could play it that you could animate it and then kill it but unfortunately that whole super regen turns back on and the zombie Tarrasque rises from the dead alive and angry again.The second isn't supported by any interpretation of RAW (the Zombie version loses Regeneration and doesn't get it back just by dying). You could do it, but it's explicitly a House Rule.Except for the line the the Tarrasque's regeneration that states it cannot be suppressed.
It's not suppressed. It just goes away.
Going to have to agree with Deadmanwalking and Aranthos here. I'm pretty sure the intention was that the three rounds reference just means that damaging it in those three rounds will reset the timer for when it gets back up. Otherwise that's the most ridiculously vulnerable regeneration ability I've ever seen.
|
It's called a Coup De Grace, Ed. :P
That'd keep it down for another few rounds, but has nothing to do with whether you can cast Animate Dead on it.
I'm not arguing it's unbeatable, just that the specific trick in question probably doesn't work. I'll refer you again to my previous post on this subject.
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.
According to the Tarrasque's special regeneration it can be slain by failing a fortitude save against an effect that would kill it instantly. However, it comes back to life 3 rounds later. But as written it is quite clearly dead for 3 rounds.
Since animate dead removes all of its special abilities, that can kill it. Congratulations. Remember that bit at the end of the Tarrasque's regeneration that you quoted? "The method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered"? Congratulations. It has been discovered.
So again, it goes as follows.
1. Solar brutalizes the Tarrasque, knocking it deep into the negatives.
2. Solar continues to use coup de grace on the Tarrasque until it fails its Fortitude save and is slain.
3. Before it can come back to life, the solar SLAs a wish to animate dead the Tarrasque, stripping it of all of its special abilities including it's extraordinary special-regeneration. The ability goes away.
4. The solar vaporizes the undead husk of the tarrasque, destroying it and making it impossible to resurrect it without true resurrection.
5. Solar goes back to doing angel things.
|
|
Let me adjust that bolding a little...
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 parts I bolded strongly imply that it's never actually dead, and thus Animate Dead wouldn't apply.
I don't disagree with your order of operations...it's correct given your premises. I disagree that it's clear that the Tarrasque is dead and a valid target at any point.
Coup de grace doesn't work on something with regeneration unless the regeneration is suppressed. You can't even coup a troll without some fire or acid handy.
You can't coup Big T at all, since the regeneration can't be suppressed. It's just an automatic crit, not fort or die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So easy enough. In one GM's world...it works, in the other GM's world it doesn't.
Officially...if Paizo ever puts a scenario or adventure out with the Tarrasque...follow the write up of what happens after you encounter it.
"truly kill" can also be read as "permanently kill". This allows a non-conflict in definitions (and implication), which would then render Ashiel's (and my own, incidentally :D) concept valid. It's only on a reading of "truly" as "actually" that causes conflict within the ability. The fact that it says "from death" indicates that it is, in fact, dead. Something that "would" kill it... "would kill it", in this case, parsing the text.
Otherwise, the RAW "it has yet to be discovered" means that a GM is breaking the rules if they, under any circumstance, ever allow the players to kill Big T (which, you know, is kind a jerk clause to adhere to*), due to being eternally present-tense as-written.
* As it, it's a bit of a jerk maneuver to place in the rules and expect the eternally-present-tense to trump anything made up by games. Obviously, a GM is within their rights to alter a game to suite their players or their own gaming style, including insisting that the Tarrasque isn't truly kill-able. Adhering to that clause as a method of "proving" it's not kill-able, however, is... really silly. Regardless, such things should probably be clarified with players in advance, and denote a very different gaming style than Pathfinder tends toward.
Heh, as an evil GM I think I would let the players think that they had won by turning the Tarrasque into a skeleton for about 2-3 rounds. However since its regeneration can't be suppressed by ANYTHING (this would include templates in my opinion) it would stop being a skeleton and return to life on round 3.
|
|
"truly kill" can also be read as "permanently kill". This allows a non-conflict in definitions (and implication), which would then render Ashiel's (and my own, incidentally :D) concept valid. It's only on a reading of "truly" as "actually" that causes conflict within the ability. The fact that it says "from death" indicates that it is, in fact, dead. Something that "would" kill it... "would kill it", in this case, parsing the text.
That's one reading, but I'm not at all convinced it's the correct reading. It's an ambiguous piece of text, and that reading makes the ability in some ways weaker than default Regeneration...which seems the opposite of the intent. When RAW are unclear and in conflict, I generally try to use RAI.
Otherwise, the RAW "it has yet to be discovered" means that a GM is breaking the rules if they, under any circumstance, ever allow the players to kill Big T (which, you know, is kind a jerk clause to adhere to*), due to being eternally present-tense as-written.
I'd disagree with that. The games are all written in the eternal present tense...until play begins. This is a setting book, remember. If the PCs discover a way to kill it, that's fine, but it would need a new effect, not simply a listed spell used in the conventional way. Just for the record.
Coup de grace doesn't work on something with regeneration unless the regeneration is suppressed. You can't even coup a troll without some fire or acid handy.
You can't coup Big T at all, since the regeneration can't be suppressed. It's just an automatic crit, not fort or die.
That was true in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder.
Regeneration
Creatures with this extraordinary ability recover from wounds quickly and can even regrow or reattach severed body parts. Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage, and the creature automatically cures itself of nonlethal damage at a fixed rate per round, as given in the creature’s entry.
Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away. The creature’s description includes the details. A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace. The attack cannot be of a type that automatically converts to nonlethal damage.
Creatures with regeneration can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts. Severed parts die if they are not reattached.
Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration.
An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Regeneration (Ex) A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. 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). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature's descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.
Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. 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.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Notice that there's nothing to stop a coup de grace with literally any weapon in Pathfinder's Regeneration. Now it could be argued that a troll wouldn't die from the coup de grace while its regeneration wasn't surpressed, but you can't argue that with the Tarrasque because the Tarrasque's special rules specifically allow it to be slain for 3 rounds if it fails a Fortitude save to kill it, which includes a coup de grace.
We could do this all day, but the rules aren't changing any time. Since I'm just going by what the rules say and not adding, subtracting, or revising them to fit my view, I'm not particularly concerned.
The Tarrasque has never been a big threat in the d20 system. It still isn't. The fact it's set at CR 25 is pretty laughable. A party has more to fear from a pit fiend or solar, and so does the Tarrasque (the pit fiend can roflstomp a Tarrasque too).
The cannot die wording regeneration is weird anyway. It implies a troll can resist a slay living or finger of death.
The cannot die wording regeneration is weird anyway. It implies a troll can resist a slay living or finger of death.
I agree. That's why I don't like Pathfinder regeneration. I still use 3.5 Regeneration in my games because it just works better IMHO.
I like 3.5 regeneration narratively, but I hate it as a game mechanic, but that's a rant for a different thread.
I like 3.5 regeneration narratively, but I hate it as a game mechanic, but that's a rant for a different thread.
If you want to make another thread, or send me a PM, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it and why you dislike it as a game mechanic. I've never understood what was wrong with it exactly, so it'd be nice to see why it was changed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"truly kill" can also be read as "permanently kill". This allows a non-conflict in definitions (and implication), which would then render Ashiel's (and my own, incidentally :D) concept valid. It's only on a reading of "truly" as "actually" that causes conflict within the ability. The fact that it says "from death" indicates that it is, in fact, dead. Something that "would" kill it... "would kill it", in this case, parsing the text.That's one reading, but I'm not at all convinced it's the correct reading. It's an ambiguous piece of text, and that reading makes the ability in some ways weaker than default Regeneration...which seems the opposite of the intent. When RAW are unclear and in conflict, I generally try to use RAI.
I tend to agree... but not always.
Often RAI is wrong, awkward, fails the rules in general in other areas, makes for a worse game, or is entirely unclear. That's the nature of rules made up by fallible human beings. We fail.
In this case, your presumption of RAI is that it means the GM is the only one to set up a means of death, if any. It's a fair presumption... but, unless it's in print (and I'd be glad if you showed me somewhere that a Dev stated something to that effect - then, at least, I'd know), it's only an presumption.
Otherwise, the RAW "it has yet to be discovered" means that a GM is breaking the rules if they, under any circumstance, ever allow the players to kill Big T (which, you know, is kind a jerk clause to adhere to*), due to being eternally present-tense as-written.I'd disagree with that. The games are all written in the eternal present tense...until play begins. This is a setting book, remember. If the PCs discover a way to kill it, that's fine, but it would need a new effect, not simply a listed spell used in the conventional way. Just for the record.
In which case, you seem to have ignored my rider-clause (marked by the asterisk) in which I noted exactly that.
If you have other cases that you could cite (and, preferably, link to) for hard-line RAW that uses eternally present-tense elements, I'd be very interested.
It's worth bearing in mind that while this is a setting book, the same wording is used in the Bestiary as well - a setting-neutral book. It cannot be claimed that these are setting-specific rules. A setting-specific stat-block, maybe, but not setting-specific rules. Unless you're simply arguing that by virtue of being in a setting-specific publication, this book negates the very same sequence of arguments that apply in setting-neutral books, like the Bestiary, in which case... okay, that's an odd take, but I'll bite.
In which case, allow me to present: "Turn the Tarrasque Into a Skeleton or Zombie"
School necromancy [good]; Level cleric/oracle 3, paladin 3, sorcerer/wizard 4; Domain death 3, souls 3 [variant]
------------------------
------------------------
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (an onyx gem worth at least 750 gp)
------------------------
------------------------
Range touch
Targets the Tarrasque during the three rounds before its regeneration brings it back to life
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
------------------------
------------------------
This spell turns a temporarily dead Tarrasque into and undead skeleton or zombie that obey your spoken commands.The undead Tarrasque can be made to follow you, or it can be made to remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. It remains animated until it is destroyed. A destroyed undead Tarrasque can't be animated again.
Regardless of the type of undead Tarrasque you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. The desecrate spell doubles this limit.
The undead Tarrasque you create remains under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead Tarrasques per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead Tarrasques from previous castings become uncontrolled. You choose which creatures are released. Undead Tarrasques you control through the Command Undead feat do not count toward this limit.
Skeleton Tarrasque: A skeleton Tarrasque can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton of a Tarrasque. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.
Zombie Tarrasque: A zombie Tarrasque can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a physical anatomy.
This thing I just wrote? This is kind of silly. But it's the kind of thought process you generate by cleaving excessively to phrasing which contradicts itself, as you're postulating above.
"But a GM rules it doesn't work that way." - okay, but why does a GM rule it doesn't work that way? For what purpose? What are the GMs motives in doing so?
My reading doesn't contain those contradictions, fits with all of the wording, but disagrees with one particular presumption of intent.
A much easier explanation for why "the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered" is, frankly, no one's put together the requisite pieces, or those who have are not interested in implementing it (and probably for political reasons). Why doesn't an angel simply curbstomp Big T and then enjoy its endless servitude? I dunno. Why aren't there limitless Solar simulacra (one for each day of the solar's existence) running around making the omniverse a better place for all that exists? Because, really, making the omniverse a better place for all that exists is kind of a big deal, and more or less exactly what Solars do.
Big T is rare. The people that know about it are few. () There are a number of powerful creatures with a vested interest in its destruction or continuation. Or just stopping the people interested in its destruction or continuation. And so on.
This is the same reason that a single cleric capable of Create Greater Undead doesn't, you know, create undead (specifically a single Shadow) and then sit back and win.
It's part of the setting's environment - or at least, it was before the PCs become involved.
PCs have enormous potential - potential that can't be explained away by pretty much any setting.
Core Wizards have no reason to not have infinite wish machines, and lots of them.
Setting introduces reasons in Legacy of Fire.
To me, arbitrarily denying death to something is just... well, it's silly. It feels like an attempt at a power-move by a GM.
()
That's really frustrating for me as a player. And outright embarrassing for me as a GM, though I understand the attraction.
It's one of the reasons that many GMs are adamant against statting up gods. (Something I've never had a problem with, and generally find it quite acceptable from both sides of the screen.) I can see the appeal.
Another possible motivation is to just have a McGuffin - something the PCs must jump through specific hoops to go through; a form of Railroading, as it were.
(NOTE: Railroading isn't a bad thing; it can be, but it's not inherently, if the buy-in is sufficient first.)
In that case, you need to discuss things like that with your players, ensure that their buy-in is sufficient for said rail-road type options to occur. If it's not, the game will suffer for it, either with frustrated players, frustrated GM, or both.
The eternal question that always comes up is, inevitably, "Why didn't somebody put this together before now?" I dunno. Why didn't we leave the stone age for so long? Again, that's a matter of buy-in.
For an open discussion on a forum, unless proof is generated, the most reasonable conclusion is to interpret things in such a way as they don't conflict. Eliminate the "divide by zero" errors, linguistically.
Or continue argue personal opinions and vague intent. That seems to be a favored past-time on threads. It's fun, too! :D
I wish to be clear. ^The above does not mean anyone is "playing it wrong" or anything similar, but rather, that the style I'm responding to doesn't appeal as strongly in most cases, to my sensibilities; perhaps if the buy-in was sufficient, but not explicitly. Fortunately, there are lots of different sensibilities and lots of different people! :D
That's the great thing about RPGs. (And forums, too!) It makes me happy. :)
|
|
I tend to agree... but not always.
Often RAI is wrong, awkward, fails the rules in general in other areas, makes for a worse game, or is entirely unclear. That's the nature of rules made up by fallible human beings. We fail.
In this case, your presumption of RAI is that it means the GM is the only one to set up a means of death, if any. It's a fair presumption... but, unless it's in print (and I'd be glad if you showed me somewhere that a Dev stated something to that effect - then, at least, I'd know), it's only an presumption.
True. Which is why I just requested clarification in the errata thread for this book. We'll see how that goes...
In which case, you seem to have ignored my rider-clause (marked by the asterisk) in which I noted exactly that.
That wasn't quite clear, to me at least. Sorry about that.
If you have other cases that you could cite (and, preferably, link to) for hard-line RAW that uses eternally present-tense elements, I'd be very interested.
Nah, though the existence of the Worldwound and its being stated as basically unfixable comes to mind as an example, given WotR.
It's worth bearing in mind that while this is a setting book, the same wording is used in the Bestiary as well - a setting-neutral book. It cannot be claimed that these are setting-specific rules. A setting-specific stat-block, maybe, but not setting-specific rules. Unless you're simply arguing that by virtue of being in a setting-specific publication, this book negates the very same sequence of arguments that apply in setting-neutral books, like the Bestiary, in which case... okay, that's an odd take, but I'll bite.
Not exactly. My point is that in all non-Adventure books, but especially setting books, Paizo strictly avoids metaplot, putting everything in an eternal now and making change impossible...outside the context of such an adventure. Many setting books explicitly state that something is the case. It's all changeable, but not all of it is changeable given existing mechanics (see, again, the Worldwound example).
In which case, allow me to present: "Turn the Tarrasque Into a Skeleton or Zombie"
This thing I just wrote? This is kind of silly. But it's the kind of thought process you generate by cleaving excessively to phrasing which contradicts itself, as you're postulating above.
Not really. The point isn't that existing spells don't work, it's that nothing that works precisely like them should work either. You'd need something new and interesting.
"But a GM rules it doesn't work that way." - okay, but why does a GM rule it doesn't work that way? For what purpose? What are the GMs motives in doing so?
Well, speaking for me personally, it's boring and it's stupid. When presented with a truly unkillable being, you're being presented with a puzzle "Well, if we can't kill it, what do we do?"...and puzzles are almost always more fun than just killing things. A lot of the ideas in this thread have followed from that premise and done amusing and interesting things to defeat the creature more or less permanently. almost all much more interesting than just killing it (I particularly like Plane Shifting it to a prison demiplane, and the Dazing Wall of Fire trick).
As for the stupid...there's no logical reason Animate Dead should allow this. It certainly does by the rules (assuming it's dead for those thre rounds), but it makes no sense that animating a creature that's not even really dead yet should somehow allow it to be permanently destroyed. You can justify it, certainly, as you can justify most anything, but it's not clear at all to me that you should do so. It's counterintuitive, and not in an "I'd never think of that!" way more a "Wait, how does that make any sense at all?" way, which I consider a bad thing.
My reading doesn't contain those contradictions, fits with all of the wording, but disagrees with one particular presumption of intent.
Mine also fits with all the wording if you assume 'returns to life' is simply a colorful way of saying 'becomes active again'. That's at least as reasonable a presumption, especially since it's vastly more consistent with the way non-Spawn Regeneration functions (and I consider that last bit important), and considering some of the other language used (see below).
A much easier explanation for why "the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered" is, frankly, no one's put together the requisite pieces, or those who have are not interested in implementing it (and probably for political reasons). Why doesn't an angel simply curbstomp Big T and then enjoy its endless servitude? I dunno. Why aren't there limitless Solar simulacra (one for each day of the solar's existence) running around making the omniverse a better place for all that exists? Because, really, making the omniverse a better place for all that exists is kind of a big deal, and more or less exactly what Solars do.
My general assumption would be that Simulacrum doesn't quite work that way, in-setting...but that's not really the point. See below.
Big T is rare. The people that know about it are few. ('dat Knowledge DC.) There are a number of powerful creatures with a vested interest in its destruction or continuation. Or just stopping the people interested in its destruction or continuation. And so on.
This is the same reason that a single cleric capable of Create Greater Undead doesn't, you know, create undead (specifically a single Shadow) and then sit back and win.
It's part of the setting's environment - or at least, it was before the PCs become involved.
PCs have enormous potential - potential that can't be explained away by pretty much any setting.
Core Wizards have no reason to not have infinite wish machines, and lots of them.
Setting introduces reasons in Legacy of Fire.
I'm not really arguing that the setting doesn't work if this is allowed. That's manifestly not true, it'd work okay.
I'm arguing (among other things) that the ability as listed doesn't make sense if you rule this way. It's Extraordinary, like all Regeneration, and keeps you from ever dying, like all Regeneration. Which makes more sense, that it would have a weird exception where a very specific effect kills it and then it spontaneously comes back to life in a bit, or that (like all other Regeneration) it just keeps the creature from dying the whole time and it just takes that long to come back from death effects? The second makes a lot more sense with how the ability actually functions, and should function logically.
To me, arbitrarily denying death to something is just... well, it's silly. It feels like an attempt at a power-move by a GM.
("No! You can't have this! It's my toys! Mine!")That's really frustrating for me as a player. And outright embarrassing for me as a GM, though I understand the attraction.
That's not my personal motivation at all. My motivation is a combination of thinking that it's really clear that the interpretation where it's actually dead isn't RAI, and the fact that it being actually dead for those three rounds is clunky, awkward, and doesn't make sense with the rest of the way Regeneration works. Plus thinking the wording is unclear, and the thematic reasons I mention above.
It's one of the reasons that many GMs are adamant against statting up gods. (Something I've never had a problem with, and generally find it quite acceptable from both sides of the screen.) I can see the appeal.
I don't like statting up Gods personally because I feel like Pathfinder isn't intended to operate on that scale, and because it limits what the Gods can do in a story sense, which is a bad thing for many stories. Not being able to kill them is a distant third, if that.
Another possible motivation is to just have a McGuffin - something the PCs must jump through specific hoops to go through; a form of Railroading, as it were.
(NOTE: Railroading isn't a bad thing; it can be, but it's not inherently, if the buy-in is sufficient first.)
In that case, you need to discuss things like that with your players, ensure that their buy-in is sufficient for said rail-road type options to occur. If it's not, the game will suffer for it, either with frustrated players, frustrated GM, or both.
Not really my motivation either. If I were running a Tarrasque encounter, I'd probably just let the PCs figure out some way to more-or-less permanently contain it. That's just more interesting.
The eternal question that always comes up is, inevitably, "Why didn't somebody put this together before now?" I dunno. Why didn't we leave the stone age for so long? Again, that's a matter of buy-in.
For an open discussion on a forum, unless proof is generated, the most reasonable conclusion is to interpret things in such a way as they don't conflict. Eliminate the "divide by zero" errors, linguistically.
Your interpretation isn't quite that clear cut. There's still the "would kill it instantly" bit...which implies it didn't actually kill it, except that by your interpretation it did. That's...something of a problem.
Or continue argue personal opinions and vague intent. That seems to be a favored past-time on threads. It's fun, too! :D
Sure. Sometimes anyway...;)
Not really. The point isn't that existing spells don't work, it's that nothing that works precisely like them should work either. You'd need something new and interesting.
But what I created was new. Why does it have to be "interesting", though? And what does that mean?
To me one of your biggest arguments comes down to, "I don't like it." which, while fine (as I suggested) doesn't really fit with my own.
You're citing internal logic based around the idea that a creature can regenerate from a single cell, but that multiple cells don't regenerate. That, to me, is more verisimilitude-killing than anything else. If it's (Ex) in the sense that there are no non-science laws applying, it makes no sense for those laws not to, you know, apply.
Heck, hitting a troll (successfully) with disintegrate turns it into ash (non-viable cellular structure)... at which point it just grows itself a new body (not from the ash or local environment). That's ludicrous.
If, on the other hand, you accept that there is such a thing as a soul, a spirit, or whatnot, you don't need the concept of (Ex) applying equally to all cells... but similarly, you accept the idea that the soul can, in fact, be separated from the body, but the effects function normally. They're extraordinary, sure, which means they don't rely on a specific Magic (tm) effect, but they're certainly not possible with anything resembling what we understand of reality.
In which case, it comes down to:
1) Do you accept this yes/no?
2) How do you accept this?
Which is a very subjective set of questions.
To be clear, I was accepting you at your word, previously, when you noted that the ability conflicted with itself - I wasn't trying to make that claim for you, but citing your own case, as described.
Similarly, I accept that your motivations are what you say: I can't guess at all of them, but my point was to simply say, "this is how it comes off" instead of "this is what you're thinking" - I do apologize, as I know the latter can be very frustrating.
Not really my motivation either. If I were running a Tarrasque encounter, I'd probably just let the PCs figure out some way to more-or-less permanently contain it. That's just more interesting.
Nope. Not even remotely. Not as a GM, not as a PC.
But that's what I meant above about different play styles and different takes.
I don't like statting up Gods personally because I feel like Pathfinder isn't intended to operate on that scale, and because it limits what the Gods can do in a story sense, which is a bad thing for many stories. Not being able to kill them is a distant third, if that.
One what scale?
E6?
E8?
E12?
E20?
Core?
Mythic?
All of those are viable playstyles, and all function well, depending on the group in question. All of them can be broken (though it's more difficult with E6). All of them can function without breaking.
The trick is to simply work with your group.
I disagree with your interpretation. To me, it feels silly and stretches the common use of words too far - as an attempt at making things flow in a particular direction.
Similarly, I don't think trolls are supposed to "regenerate" failing a Weird spell or Disintegrate or a Sphere of Annihilation - I'm pretty sure the RAI wasn't that turning them to fine ash or, heaven forbid, into nothing at all just allowed them to get better shortly thereafter. (If the RAI was for that then... uh... well, that's really odd.)
In that light, the idea that the Tarrasque's regeneration - which specifically notes that it's dead - doesn't allow it to die when it says it does is... awkward, at best.
Even going by RAW, this one works. But I've got to go. More later.
|
|
It's not suppressed. It just goes away.
And later today we'll be renaming roses.
Since animate dead removes all of its special abilities, that can kill it. Congratulations. Remember that bit at the end of the Tarrasque's regeneration that you quoted? "The method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered"? Congratulations. It has been discovered.
You're trying to use Animate Dead to suppress the Tarrasque's regeneration.
The Tarrasque's regeneration cannot be suppressed, not even by using an alternate set of words that have the same meaning. Attacking with animate dead or words, neither works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would you call dispelling a magical effect with dispel magic suppressing it? No, because it's totally removed- it no longer exists.
In the same way using animate dead on a Tarrasque doesn't suppress its regeneration. It simply doesn't have that ability anymore, it no longer exists. There's no language to suggest that animate dead simply suppresses abilities that aren't granted by the zombie/skeleton templates.
A skeleton loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks.
Its regeneration isn't suppressed. It just doesn't have it anymore.
So would you call dispelling a magical effect with dispel magic suppressing it? No, because it's totally removed- it no longer exists.
Since we're all nit-picking here, I'll point out that dispel magic suppresses magic items.
You see, the last four posts?
That's people attempting to point to their own interpretation as the only correct one. EDIT 2: Also, it's really cool to see people using analytic skills to debate precise wording. I love these forums. Always make you think, regardless of what side you're on.
And, you know, that makes sense. As people, it's what we do. That's why we hold the opinion that we do.
I happen to side with that which says that Big T's ability isn't suppressed - it's non-existent; this is how dispel magic applies to spells.
Others happen to side with saying "anything that makes it not function is suppression" which, though it really feels like quite a stretch to me, seems valid to them; this is how dispel magic applies to magic items (or, probably more closely, how antimagic field applies to magic items).
Others still happen to say that Big T isn't dead, based off of their interpretation of the wording of the ability. Deadmanwalking has some excellent points about why he feels that way - I strongly disagree with him and find those point unconvincing personally, but his points are valid, as far as they go, and make sense.
Oh, I didn't have time to address this before, but
Your interpretation isn't quite that clear cut. There's still the "would kill it instantly" bit...which implies it didn't actually kill it, except that by your interpretation it did. That's...something of a problem.
What I find interesting about this, is that the wording, if we're being pedantic, could easily be attempting to apply themselves to instantaneous effects just as much as other effects. In which case, instantaneous effects that would otherwise kill it (a non-reversible situation) would, instead, kill it for three rounds, and then it comes back. Also, notice my use of the word "would" in the previous sentence? It was totally unplanned, and entirely natural in the flow of writing - that's how I take the word "would" in the Tarrasque's regeneration ability. It's a word that allows for multiple interpretations - I just happen to think mine's right*. :)
* But so does everyone else**.
** Think that their interpretation is correct. Some may or may not think my interpretation is correct. :D
EDIT:
Oh, also:
One what scale?
Was, of course, supposed to be:
On what scale?
Also,
That wasn't quite clear, to me at least. Sorry about that.
I wanted to say: hey, man, no problem. Communication - it's a thing. We all work on it. We're cool. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. It does not. Just annoying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Tarrasque has never been a big threat in the d20 system. It still isn't. The fact it's set at CR 25 is pretty laughable. A party has more to fear from a pit fiend or solar, and so does the Tarrasque (the pit fiend can roflstomp a Tarrasque too).My personal opinion has always been that if you compare a monster to similarly CRated monsters, and it seems weaker due to an ambiguous reading of one of their signature abilities, you're probably reading it wrong.
If you remove the assumption that the Tarrasque is actually dead for those 3 rounds and therefore vulnerable to animate dead, does it put him in line with other CR 25 creatures?
Even speaking as someone who agrees with your general point...no, that doesn't change anything. A Solar can still mop the floor with the Tarrasque and permanently imprison it in a sealed demiplane pretty readily.
The basic issue is that CR isn't designed to measure creatures abilities against each other but against a PC group. The Tarasque's laundry list of immunities, greater theoretical damage per round, HP, and regeneration make the number of ways you can deal with it much smaller than the ways to deal with the Solar, and if the PCs don't completely ace their Knowledge checks (and you really need to ace them, all it's defenses constitute at least 5 or 6 pieces of info, necessitating a 60 or 65 to get them even if you get nothing else) they'll likely waste a fair amount of time and effort doing things that don't even work.
And the Solar's default spell load-out isn't the most effective way to deal with the Tarrasque either. It'd need to know a few things and prep to really wreck it.
Frankly, that's the issue with a lot of analyses like these. They assume perfect knowledge of the creature's capabilities, which characters in the game world basically never have. Sure, any defense-based creature is easy to wreck if you know the holes in it's defenses (and it's not a full caster, allowing it to patch them)...but most PC groups won't have that information.
That plus the standard caster vs. martial disparity (which the Tarrasque falls on the martial side of)...and this kind of thing makes a lot more sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you remove the assumption that the Tarrasque is actually dead for those 3 rounds and therefore vulnerable to animate dead, does it put him in line with other CR 25 creatures?
The vulnerablity to animate dead is academic. Generally, once a creature is unconscious, it's defeated. This is true even of monsters that come back (ghosts, liches, trolls), because once it is helpless, the PCs can do what they need to keep it down (burn or drown the troll, find a phylactery, and either put a ghost to rest or simply leave the location it was haunting, etc.)
With the Tarrasque, this might not mean killing it with some weird spell combo like Ashiel suggests, but it might. Or it could mean putting it to long-term sleep with a wish or miracle. Or once of the many 'it's not dead but it will have a hard time getting out' spell combinations suggested here (private demiplanes, positive/negative planes, permanent walls of fire, whatever.) Even if that means having the fighter stab it in the brain every three rounds while the wizard and cleric prep the appropriate spells. The point is, it is effectively at their mercy once at negative hit points.
The basic issue is that CR isn't designed to measure creatures abilities against each other but against a PC group. The Tarasque's laundry list of immunities, greater theoretical damage per round, HP, and regeneration make the number of ways you can deal with it much smaller than the ways to deal with the Solar, and if the PCs don't completely ace their Knowledge checks (and you really need to ace them, all it's defenses constitute at least 5 or 6 pieces of info, necessitating a 60 or 65 to get them even if you get nothing else) they'll likely waste a fair amount of time and effort doing things that don't even work.
Frankly, that's the issue with a lot of analyses like these. They assume perfect knowledge of the creature's capabilities, which characters in the game world basically never have. Sure, any defense-based creature is easy to wreck if you know the holes in it's defenses (and it's not a full caster, allowing it to patch them)...but most PC groups won't have that information.
(bold mine)
This right here (the bold) is exactly what I meant when I said,
A much easier explanation for why "the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered" is, frankly, no one's put together the requisite pieces, or those who have are not interested in implementing it (and probably for political reasons). Why doesn't an angel simply curbstomp Big T and then enjoy its endless servitude? I dunno. Why aren't there limitless Solar simulacra (one for each day of the solar's existence) running around making the omniverse a better place for all that exists? Because, really, making the omniverse a better place for all that exists is kind of a big deal, and more or less exactly what Solars do.
Big T is rare. The people that know about it are few. ('dat Knowledge DC.) There are a number of powerful creatures with a vested interest in its destruction or continuation. Or just stopping the people interested in its destruction or continuation. And so on.
That works! I mostly just used your post to explain what I meant, not meaning to imply that you missed it - clarification of my own meaning by way of yours. :D
(Yay text-based communication!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but a sphere is an artifact and hard to transport long distances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, sphere of annihilation for the curious; talisman of the sphere is pretty important, too.
Couldn't somebody just use a sphere of annihilation on it after they chop it up into bits small enough to throw into it? Regeneration, even unstoppable regeneration, seems to imply there is something to regenerate from. The sphere doesn't damage it so much as erase it from existence. It's not even something like a death effect or something similar so much as it it just doesn't exist anymore.
1) chopping it up probably leaves bits that an adamant "YOU CAN'T KILL IT!" GM would ignore anyway; similarly, most attempts to get it down to negative hp would likely do so as well (so long as there's a single cell... or piece of ash... or anything at all...)
2)what he said...
Yes, but a sphere is an artifact and hard to transport long distances.
... makes its acquisition unreliable at best.
3) the DC 30 lvl+INT check makes it a really risky proposition. (you would want a 20 modifier for a 50% average chance of doing okay... per round - I know few level 10 characters with +10 INT modifiers; around level 15 or 20 it's more reliable, but still... risky)
All that said, if you do have a sphere, it might be ideal to do a lot of planning.
1) Set up a gate effect via create greater demiplane (but make the plane small enough that it's only the gate, and nothing else - a gate large enough for Big T to get through), and another create demiplane that lacks the gate and is unconnected to the first (but is, in fact, "nearby").
2) Use one of the various methods of entrapping Big T on the demiplane.
3) Leave Big T to somnolence, and (using various divinations to be certain) wait until any remaining particulates of Big T rot away naturally, leaving nothing for him to regenerate from; be extra sure by leaving your second demiplane the kind of place that he'd enter somnolence rather instantly, leave nothing behind, and allowing whatever was there to rot quickly (maybe with the Time trait making things go twice as fast or something)
- 3a) Make extra-super sure that all particulates that could possibly be considered "remnants" of Big T are entirely rotted away.
4) Once all this is done, and Big T has no viable particulates left, create lesser demiplane to connect the gate demiplane and the flowing time demiplane, use antagonize or something to get Big T furious and after you (probably with a project image spell or something similar so you're not actually in danger), and let Big T's nature do the rest (as it charges out and directly into the sphere of annihilation).
5) Once the GM goes, "Oh, but the Tarrasque drooled, so, you know, it comes back" and you let out your cry of pure fury at the jerk who's trying to deprive you of something relatively well-earned, you get swallowed by Big T, then use Prestidigitation to clean up all of T's slobber and Time Stop to repeatedly fail to establish control of the sphere to make it zoom right towards you until all of Big T (and you) are collapsed into the singularity, allowing you to win forever or, at the very least, get out of the game with a GM who refuses to see reason due to a conflict of play styles and interests. You can then go on to maintain that you were successful forever after while said GM just kind of ignores you, and the two of you can lose your friendship over something piddling. Huzzah!
So, uh, I just noticed a line we were all ignoring.
Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack can suppress the tarrasque's regeneration—it regenerates even if disintegrated or 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.
It's kind of hard to be "slain" without now being "dead".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've thought, maybe using a carefully worded wish/miracle to give him a complete and irreversible lobotomy. That way he's alive, but can't do anything.
Wouldn't that constitute either a mind-effecting effect or ability damage or drain? Because the Tarrasque is immune to both those things and I don't think Wish generally gets around Immunities like that.
|
|
Do dead things normally get to use (Ex) abilities?
Because if they don't, then I think the Tarrasque comes back from the dead in three rounds unless you do damage to the remains, no matter what happens in the intervening space, including animating it. I think you get roughly two rounds of Tarrasque zombie, and then poof it's alive again. The specific ability clearly works even when the Tarrasque doesn't have it (i.e., is dead), so animating it to take the ability away doesn't change that.
|
|
So would you call dispelling a magical effect with dispel magic suppressing it? No, because it's totally removed- it no longer exists.
I would suggest you reread Dispel Magic.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties.
Emphasis Mine.
Permanent affects do not cease to exist.
Its regeneration isn't suppressed. It just doesn't have it anymore.
Incorrect: you are attempting to suppress the regeneration for the period of time during which the Tarrasque is undead.
If the undead state were to be removed, I destroy the undead tarrasque for example, regeneration returns. If it can return, it never ceased to exist, it was only suppressed. The Tarrasque's regeneration cannot be suppressed.
|
|
So, uh, I just noticed a line we were all ignoring.
Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack can suppress the tarrasque's regeneration—it regenerates even if disintegrated or 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.It's kind of hard to be "slain" without now being "dead".
I've never denied that a death effect is capable of temporarily killing the Tarrasque. I am only opposed to concept that you can keep the Tarrasque dead for more than a few seconds.
|
|
Couldn't somebody just use a sphere of annihilation on it after they chop it up into bits small enough to throw into it? Regeneration, even unstoppable regeneration, seems to imply there is something to regenerate from. The sphere doesn't damage it so much as erase it from existence. It's not even something like a death effect or something similar so much as it it just doesn't exist anymore.
A sphere of Annihilation would destroy the Tarrasque's body.
And 18 seconds later it reforms a new body, exactly the same as if you had used Disintigration.
You could probably lock the Tarrasque in an infinite loop of destruction and reformation for as long as the two remained superimposed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope,
A sphere of annihilation is a globe of absolute blackness 2 ft. In diameter. Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a diety can restore an annihilated character.
The Tarrasque is not a diety and I don't think Rovagug is that interested in his spawn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would you call dispelling a magical effect with dispel magic suppressing it? No, because it's totally removed- it no longer exists.I would suggest you reread Dispel Magic.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties.Emphasis Mine.
Permanent affects do not cease to exist.
Its regeneration isn't suppressed. It just doesn't have it anymore.Incorrect: you are attempting to suppress the regeneration for the period of time during which the Tarrasque is undead.
If the undead state were to be removed, I destroy the undead tarrasque for example, regeneration returns. If it can return, it never ceased to exist, it was only suppressed. The Tarrasque's regeneration cannot be suppressed.
You may be opposed to it all you wish. You may house-rule it all you wish.
You're making the wrong comparison. (Nice selective quoting, by the way, in order to obscure an otherwise very clear point.)
In order to gain benefit from an ability a creature needs to have that ability.
A zombie no longer has the abilities.
Special Qualities: A zombie loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks. A zombie gains the following special quality.
"Oh, but it only says 'most'." you say; very well, please remember that the next time my character makes a zombie troll to let the troll keep its regeneration.
Or, if you prefer, skeleton:
Special Qualities: A skeleton loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks.
Same language.
Note, that there is nothing about "suppressing" anything. They no longer have the special quality.
If, on the other hand, you want to look at Regeneration rules,
A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. 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). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature's descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. 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.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.
Big T also loses his regeneration by way of those, too, once transformed into an undead.
If you still decided rule that a creature can benefit from a special quality it does not currently possess, allow me to show you my character that I just statted up.
Yes, he's first level, but he also used to have nearly the same regeneration as the Tarrasque (only with lanuage applying to the character as well as the Tarrasque), as well as the Animal type before he became a zombie, and was thus subject to a maximized empowered Awaken effect. Also, he had a full suite of 10 mythic tiers, despite not having enough HD.
Sure, he no longer has those qualities (making him balanced), but, since he used to, it makes total sense that he does now, because that's your ruling.
Yay!
Yes, the above is silly. Very silly.
And yes, you as GM can always say "no" to such a character.
But that's the very kind of logic you generate when you rule that creatures benefit from abilities they don't have.
Big T's ability isn't suppressed. It's gone. It doesn't exist. He no longer has it. It's vanished. Caput. Non-present. Annulled.
You're purposefully choosing a piece of language that doesn't apply and attempting to apply it to a different situation.
It's not dispelled. It's not suppressed.
It's lost.
The animate dead method means that it no longer has its ability.
Unless, of course, you're trying to argue that an undead creature (specifically a skeleton or zombie) is not the same creature as the one with the ability.
In which case:
“Skeleton” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead) that has a skeletal system (referred to hereafter as the base creature).
or
“Zombie” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead), referred to hereafter as the base creature.
... which indicates pretty strongly (since it outright states) that the template is added to the creature - i.e., not that the creature is replaced with a new one, but that the creature - in addition to its own traits, after those are noted - then takes on these traits, meaning that these are added and supersede the older ones.
If you still insist that they're not the same creature (somehow*), you're very welcome to continue to insist that. I will continue to feel strongly that you're simply incorrect, and inform you of such, while you continue to feel very strongly that I'm incorrect and inform me of such.
We can have a mutual-strong-seated-disagreement party! It'll be great!
And then we'll continue the disagreement over the course of, like, thirty threads! And then it'll become the next big thing, and take a revered place in the Hall of Shame, along with Paladin threads! It'll be so cool!
:D
EDIT: I wish to be clear, here: if you don't want the Tarrasque to be killed in your home games, more power to you. I'm not arguing about what you should do in your home games. I'm currently arguing that, in the basic, core assumptions of the game, the rules don't add up. Big T isn't an unbeatable indefatigable foe - he's (relatively) easily made helpless, and, once that's done, it's over. The fight's won. You can do whatever you want to with it. It's finished. With that in mind, there's no reason (outside of personal preference) to deny such effects. If Big T can die, it's subject to the effects of those things that can die. If it can't die, it's an ability that needs better wording, as it explicitly states that it can die.** Thus my point is simply this: either be explicit and tell your players, "No, that's not going to work." or let it run its course and let the thing die and be subject to death. That's a much more even-handed way of looking at the rules than going, "But byline B of section A clearly states..." just to deny players lasting victory. At least, that's how I see it as both a player and a GM - it would feel both callous and petty for me to apply that kind of thing against my players, and exceedingly frustrating for a GM to do that to me as a player.
* Don't get me wrong; I can see many arguments for this, including (but not limited to) the separation of the soul, the personality, and so-on from that which is possessed by the undead, but if you start to apply these rules to hard mechanics, it will get very messy very quickly. I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that. I could be wrong.
** It also argues for the intent of standard Regeneration's "a creature can't die while Regeneration still functions" line to not apply to death effects or disintegration, despite currently RAW applying to those.
Nope,A sphere of annihilation is a globe of absolute blackness 2 ft. In diameter. Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a diety can restore an annihilated character.The Tarrasque is not a diety and I don't think Rovagug is that interested in his spawn.
While I agree with this, I could see the argument made that by giving him the Regeneration, Rovagug's already "directly intervened". It's ham-fisted, sure, and really a GM should just outright say, "No, you're not killing it in my game." instead of trying for such things (because communication is key in these sorts of things), but it's still a comprehensible argument to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest on alternate RAI interpretation about the "no method to kill it has yet been discovered" line. It is not a poor phrasing of "the Terrasque is unkillable" but rather intended to foil Knowledge Checks. If you look at the Vampire Bestiary entry, there are explicit instructions on how to kill one. That information can be discovered via Knowledge - Religion checks and pc's that have enough ranks don't have to trial and error to figure it out. The line in the Tarrasque description forces players to kill it over and over until they figure out a way to destroy it for themselves. No "I have +50 in Knowledge <whatever> - tell me how to kill it so I can make a campaign defining challenge go away in nanoseconds" problems for the DM.
This is also an effective defense against players that own the requisite books - "But it says on page such-n-such that you can kill it by doing thing-a-ma-jig! What do you mean that doesn't work?!?" This way the DM can have his/her own answer(s) for how to deal with it.
And he/she had better have a plan or otherwise have his/her own unsuppressible regeneration ability :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I'd probably let the sphere of annihilation work. That seems close enough to a new method for government work.
On the other hand, the Tarrasque isn't just one of Rovagug's spawn, it's his Herald. His favorite child. Him intervening seems justifiable.
And on the subject of Animate Dead, I'll reiterate that I, personally, agree that if it's really dead, the Animate Dead trick works, I just think the language regarding its being dead is ambiguous, and the intent seems to be that it isn't. The second bit is subjective, but I think the first is pretty solid. Just for the record.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest on alternate RAI interpretation about the "no method to kill it has yet been discovered" line. It is not a poor phrasing of "the Terrasque is unkillable" but rather intended to foil Knowledge Checks. If you look at the Vampire Bestiary entry, there are explicit instructions on how to kill one. That information can be discovered via Knowledge - Religion checks and pc's that have enough ranks don't have to trial and error to figure it out. The line in the Tarrasque description forces players to kill it over and over until they figure out a way to destroy it for themselves. No "I have +50 in Knowledge <whatever> - tell me how to kill it so I can make a campaign defining challenge go away in nanoseconds" problems for the DM.
This is also an effective defense against players that own the requisite books - "But it says on page such-n-such that you can kill it by doing thing-a-ma-jig! What do you mean that doesn't work?!?" This way the DM can have his/her own answer(s) for how to deal with it.
And he/she had better have a plan or otherwise have his/her own unsuppressible regeneration ability :)
This works for my reasoning as well, how many spheres of annihilation do you see lying around.