Is Regeneration immunity to death effects?

[seebs]

That's certainly a plausible interpretation, but it requires more reading into the text than I like to do. Face value is "cannot die while regeneration is active". I wouldn't object to a clarifying FAQ that said that, but without a FAQ I'm not going to add that much reading-into.

[maouse]

Well, it is just like saying regeneration (as an ability) doesn't stop bleed damage... because RAW it doesn't. But any spell that replicates regeneration does. Makes no sense. You can re-attach limbs (which would presumably be bleeding out major arteries) but can't stop a bleed attack... Same applies here... you can't die from death effects (which are a separate category if you read monster descriptions)? Naw. Don't buy it. Even if technically RAW people are correct about it saying "cannot die" you really need to put the "from HP damage" in there.

[seebs]

That is a deeply surreal non-argument.

There are no spells that replicate regeneration. None. At all. There is a spell called "regenerate" which does something entirely different. There's the Mythic deathless which prevents you from dying from hit point damage. And you'll note, if you look at that spell, that it is absolutely explicit that it prevents only death from hit point damage. But there are no spells which replicate regeneration, so the comparison of whether the ability should stop bleed damage because "spells which replicate it" do doesn't make sense; no spells replicate it.

Insofar as you have an argument, it's "I don't think it works that way, therefore it does not work that way and everyone else is absolutely and totally morally required to add these words to it even though they are not actually present because otherwise it wouldn't be what I think it should be".

But that's not actually an argument at all! That's just a statement of your personal preference as to what you would like the rule to be.

Sometimes, people make an argument like "well, you can't possibly dodge a fireball if it's right on top of you, so evasion doesn't let you ignore all the damage if you're at the center of a fireball, because letting you do that makes no sense". That's basically what you're doing; you're declaring that the rule cannot be what the words of the rule say, because that would violate your sense of what is reasonable. But that's not actually really how the rules work. The rules are full of things which seem unreasonable to different people.

I think it's entirely *possible* that the devs intended regeneration to become more powerful than it was in 3.5. It's also entirely *possible* that they didn't.

But honestly, reading deathless has made me think it's more likely that regeneration is intended to really be unbelievably good, because they've shown us what text would look like if it were intended to only prevent death from hit point damage.

[Quantum Steve]

Bleed is weird. It's a condition that is very inconsistent in how it is healed.

The Bleed condition in the CRB says any spell that cures hit point damage, the Rogue Bleeding Attack talent and Oracle Bleeding Wounds revelation say any effect that heals damage, Bleeding Critical and the Universal Monster Rules say any magical healing.

So, depending on the source of Bleed: No, Regeneration does not stop Bleed damage regardless of whether or not you think it can prevent Death Effects. Bleed could also benefit from a FAQ/errata to unify exactly how it's healed.

[Redneckdevil]

Mmm i dont think its much more reading but they are very similiar fast healing and regeneration and it even seems to be calling out the not dying to hp damage is in contrast to fast healing while everything is the same besides the regrowth of limbs.

Also lets not just focus on one part of the sentence though.
"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 would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero).
Just by reading it, u can either focus on "cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" and come yo the conclusion that "cannot die at all whatsoever from anything" or u can take in the WHOLE sentence and the ONLY damage it states in the sentence is hp damage and conclude the "cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" is because "creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing," meaning that regeneration saves u from hp damage and nothing else. Or else they woukd have simy stated in a sentence all of its own that creature cannot die as long as regeneration is still functioning.
both sides have very good points to their sides.

To add this this is the sentence from fast healing that i believe the sentence is trying to state where regeneration and fast healing differ.
"Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediantly."

"Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing (fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediantly), but cannot die (from loss of hit points scenario stating in fast healing) as long as regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0 (since at time written Fast Healing-except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing which would also fall unconscious when below 0))

[seebs]

It's not "much more reading", but it's "reading into". You're taking a thing that is not said, and inferring that it must be intended because of a similarity to something else, and that is not really how rules are usually supposed to work.

That said, I do think it's a good observation, and the "as with fast healing" is a possible cue. It's just that there's a whole lot of other things that could be intending to communicate. There's also a fairly long history of people believing that the intent is that the creature can't be killed, period.

It's a decent argument, but it's not enough to convince me that it's definitely the intent, and it'd still merit clarification.

[Jacob Saltband]

seebs wrote:

It's not "much more reading", but it's "reading into". You're taking a thing that is not said, and inferring that it must be intended because of a similarity to something else, and that is not really how rules are usually supposed to work.

That said, I do think it's a good observation, and the "as with fast healing" is a possible cue. It's just that there's a whole lot of other things that could be intending to communicate. [b]There's also a fairly long history of people believing that the intent is that the creature can't be killed, period.]/b]

It's a decent argument, but it's not enough to convince me that it's definitely the intent, and it'd still merit clarification.

There's the same fairly long history of people believing that regenerating creatures could be killed, period.

[Lucien Malgus]

Ok, that should actually settle it, the 'they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning' comes after a comma. In other words, that final piece of the overall sentence is what completes the thought, or idea. So yes, it is in fact tied directly to the 'heal damage at a fixed rate'. Unless my memories of my English classes have truly failed me.

[Redneckdevil]

seebs wrote:

It's not "much more reading", but it's "reading into". You're taking a thing that is not said, and inferring that it must be intended because of a similarity to something else, and that is not really how rules are usually supposed to work.

That said, I do think it's a good observation, and the "as with fast healing" is a possible cue. It's just that there's a whole lot of other things that could be intending to communicate. There's also a fairly long history of people believing that the intent is that the creature can't be killed, period.

It's a decent argument, but it's not enough to convince me that it's definitely the intent, and it'd still merit clarification.

Tyvm. I totally agree it does merit clarification because i will be the first to admit that both sides have legs to stand on and either could be right. I am just trying to present my train of thoughts why i "believe but do not know for certain" it works this way.

[Ravingdork]

Can't we all just FAQ the OP and be done with it?

[seebs]

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

[Lucien Malgus]

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

[Redneckdevil]

To bad monsters revisted isnt core or that would settle the need for a faq.

[BigDTBone]

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

It isn't just a matter of punctuation placement. In that sentence that comma is paired with the previous one. The comma isn't being used to signify the end of a clause in a compound sentence but instead is used to mark the end of the aside statement, "as regeneration." Additionally, the conjunction choice is poor if the intent was to note that the subsequent text was meant to complete a thought. Instead of "but" they should have used "therefore" or "thus."

[Lucien Malgus]

BigDTBone wrote:

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

It isn't just a matter of punctuation placement. In that sentence that comma is paired with the previous one. The comma isn't being used to signify the end of a clause in a compound sentence but instead is used to mark the end of the aside statement, "as regeneration." Additionally, the conjunction choice is poor if the intent was to note that the subsequent text was meant to complete a thought. Instead of "but" they should have used "therefore" or "thus."

The use of 'but' is to signify the difference between the descriptions of the words "regeneration" and "fast healing" in the sentence describing regeneration. How it should have been written is "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but unlike fast healing, they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero). In this respect, it does complete a thought or idea because the entire sentence relates to damage. If the intent was simply 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect', then there is no need for any other text than 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect'.

[seebs]

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure.

A reason presented to interpret something one way instead of another is an argument. And while it's a decent argument, it is not an absolutely definitive one, because the writing in these books simply isn't edited/polished enough for that kind of analysis to be definitive.

So, let's put them side by side:

Fast Healing wrote:

Fast Healing (Ex) A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately.

Regeneration wrote:

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.

So, regeneration is like fast healing, but you can't die as long as your regeneration is functioning. Fast healing and regeneration both say they do not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. But "do not restore hit points from" is not the same as "does not prevent death from".

In 3rd Edition, regeneration converted damage to non-lethal damage, except from certain sources. As a result, you could not regenerate damage done by those sources. In Pathfinder, that's actually not true anymore. Fire damage to a troll turns its regeneration off for one round, and during that round it can die normally. However, the round after that, it has regeneration again, and it will recover any hit points not dealt by starvation, thirst, or suffocation.

What this means is that there is at least one circumstance under which an attack can kill a creature with regeneration (if the attack does a kind of damage which turns off its regeneration), but where the creature will still heal that damage if it is not killed that round.

So we can't assume that "attacks which can kill you" and "attacks which are healed by regeneration" are two mutually-exclusive categories into which all attacks must fall. It is possible for an attack to be able to kill you and also to be healed by regeneration. It is perhaps also possible for an attack not to be healed by regeneration, but not to be able to kill you.

I think the rewrite of the ability simplifies it a lot from a bookkeeping standpoint, but it doesn't strike me as being as clear as I think it probably should be.

My first attempt:

Another Try wrote:

Regeneration prevents a creature from being killed by damage. The creature heals the given number of hit points of damage every round. If an effect continues until a creature receives healing, the effect is ended by this healing. The creature still becomes unconscious normally if it has a negative hit point total.

Regeneration cannot heal all kinds of damage. Most regenerating creatures will have one or more damage types listed which their regeneration cannot heal, and which also suppress their regeneration. Unless specified otherwise, regeneration cannot heal damage from thirst, starvation, or suffocation. For the round after a creature takes damage which its regeneration cannot heal, its regeneration has no effect. It does not heal, and dies normally from a low enough hit point total. Damage from such sources is never healed by regeneration.

Creatures with regeneration can still die from effects such as death effects, loss of Constitution, or old age. Creatures must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.

If indeed they don't mean "cannot die", I think this is roughly right. I think it's clearer, and I also think it's fewer words.

[Lucien Malgus]

If you still see regeneration the same way, then hopefully that FAQ can finally clear it up for you one way or the other.

[seebs]

"That" FAQ?

[maouse]

seebs wrote:

That is a deeply surreal non-argument.

There are no spells that replicate regeneration.

Regeneration heals HP loss. There are TONS of spells that replicate this ability. In fact, every other spell that "heals HP damage" and "stops bleed" does this. A spell that heals 1 point of damage stops 10 bleed, but regeneration 10 doesn't? Really? Who can buy this? And why? Just because of RAW omissions and crappy writing?

I mean, I would feel better saying it is "any spell" if it were listed as Regeneration (Sp) or (Su), rather than (Ex). But, honestly, it doesn't matter to me much as a GM. RAI. Sp count as spells for purposes of creation feat CL's... so there you go... One down, SU and Ex Regen left in the "any spell which heals hit points". Right?

[BigDTBone]

Lucien Malgus wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

It isn't just a matter of punctuation placement. In that sentence that comma is paired with the previous one. The comma isn't being used to signify the end of a clause in a compound sentence but instead is used to mark the end of the aside statement, "as regeneration." Additionally, the conjunction choice is poor if the intent was to note that the subsequent text was meant to complete a thought. Instead of "but" they should have used "therefore" or "thus."

The use of 'but' is to signify the difference between the descriptions of the words "regeneration" and "fast healing" in the sentence describing regeneration. How it should have been written is "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but unlike fast healing, they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero). In this respect, it does complete a thought or idea because the entire sentence relates to damage. If the intent was simply 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect', then there is no need for any other text than 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect'.

If that is what they wanted to say then it should have been a parenthetical aside rather than a serial use of comma delineated clarifiers. In fact, serial use of comma delineated clarifiers would be pretty terrible writing.

[Lucien Malgus]

BigDTBone wrote:

Lucien Malgus wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

It isn't just a matter of punctuation placement. In that sentence that comma is paired with the previous one. The comma isn't being used to signify the end of a clause in a compound sentence but instead is used to mark the end of the aside statement, "as regeneration." Additionally, the conjunction choice is poor if the intent was to note that the subsequent text was meant to complete a thought. Instead of "but" they should have used "therefore" or "thus."

The use of 'but' is to signify the difference between the descriptions of the words "regeneration" and "fast healing" in the sentence describing regeneration. How it should have been written is "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but unlike fast healing, they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero). In this respect, it does complete a thought or idea because the entire sentence relates to damage. If the intent was simply 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect', then there is no need for any other text than 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect'.

If that is what they wanted to say then it should have been a parenthetical aside rather than a serial use of comma delineated clarifiers. In fact, serial use of comma delineated clarifiers would be pretty terrible writing.

No, the comma represents a pause in thought and the use of several in sentences has been around for a long time. It's like me calling Mark Twain a terrible writer because he favors the use of semi-colons.

I'm done debating it and I'm sure several people have already used the FAQ option to push this towards resolution.

[James Risner]

1st I've seen this question asked.

At a game I'm running and at PFS tables, you can't die "from hit point damage" but you can easily die from any effect that results in death without dealing any damage.

[Redneckdevil]

maouse wrote:

seebs wrote:

That is a deeply surreal non-argument.

There are no spells that replicate regeneration.

Regeneration heals HP loss. There are TONS of spells that replicate this ability. In fact, every other spell that "heals HP damage" and "stops bleed" does this. A spell that heals 1 point of damage stops 10 bleed, but regeneration 10 doesn't? Really? Who can buy this? And why? Just because of RAW omissions and crappy writing?

I mean, I would feel better saying it is "any spell" if it were listed as Regeneration (Sp) or (Su), rather than (Ex). But, honestly, it doesn't matter to me much as a GM. RAI. Sp count as spells for purposes of creation feat CL's... so there you go... One down, SU and Ex Regen left in the "any spell which heals hit points". Right?

The reason why regeneration doesnt stop bleed is because when u trail it back to fast healing, its just "natural" healing just speed up. Any type of magical healing will stop bleed damage but the healing from regeneration isnt magical, its just a speed up natural healing.

[Bronnwynn]

maouse wrote:

seebs wrote:

A spell that heals 1 point of damage stops 10 bleed, but regeneration 10 doesn't? Really? Who can buy this? And why? Just because of RAW omissions and crappy writing?

Presumably the same people who think that a troll that is level drained to 0/con damaged to 0/drowned/suffocated/starved doesn't die, and instead remains in a magical limbo state where as soon as the level drain/con damage/drowning/suffocation/starving is fixed, they begin healing again.

[Samasboy1]

James Risner wrote:

at PFS tables, you can't die "from hit point damage" but you can easily die from any effect that results in death without dealing any damage.

First, what may or may not happen at a PFS table is not a rules argument.

And why do people seem to claim omniscience on how all PFS tables are run.

People can legitimately read rules differently, so two PFS tables can run the same rule differently even when both DMs are attempting to follow the requirement to use the rules as presented without house rules.

That's why there is still table variation in PFS.

[Bronnwynn]

Bronnwynn wrote:

seebs wrote:

A spell that heals 1 point of damage stops 10 bleed, but regeneration 10 doesn't? Really? Who can buy this? And why? Just because of RAW omissions and crappy writing?

Presumably the same people who think that a troll that is level drained to 0/con damaged to 0/drowned/suffocated/starved doesn't die, and instead remains in a magical limbo state where as soon as the level drain/con damage/drowning/suffocation/starving is fixed, they begin healing again.

Messed up my quotes there. Maouse was not in any way involved in that post.

[James Risner]

Samasboy1 wrote:

People can legitimately read rules differently

You must have responded to someone else using my post.

If you see I'll never argue that there are not multiple interpretations.

The post you clipped out the part saying "At a game I'm running and at PFS tables" and by ommition make it sound like "all tables" run it some way.

Most threads I post in at some point I say there are multiple interpretations. But as long as one poster is saying "this is the only RAW" I'll post "No this is the only RAW" as contrast. I'm perfectly fine with multiple, but I don't like "one true RAW" posts.

[Samasboy1]

Well, since you say "At a game I'm running and at PFS tables" that certainly sounds like you mean all PFS tables.

It it were only PFS tables you were running you wouldn't need the "and" to create two conditions in which the statement you are making applies.

If that was not your intent, okay. But the claim "not in PFS" is still, in general, a frequently cited non-argument on the boards.

[LazarX]

James Risner wrote:

1st I've seen this question asked.

At a game I'm running and at PFS tables, you can't die "from hit point damage" but you can easily die from any effect that results in death without dealing any damage.

It won't be the last time you see it here. Mainly because there are people that won't be happy with an answer that doesn't translate to regeneration equals immunity from death.

The actual answer is clear in the text of the mechanic. Regeneration protects you from death by hit point damage. It does absolutely nothing to address death from other means.

[seebs]

maouse wrote:

seebs wrote:

That is a deeply surreal non-argument.

There are no spells that replicate regeneration.

Regeneration heals HP loss. There are TONS of spells that replicate this ability.

To "replicate this ability", the spell would also have to prevent you from dying from hit point damage, and prior to Mythic, nothing did that.

[Ravingdork]

I personally don't believe it protects against death effects and the like, but only because that's they way it was always done before.

One thing I am absolutely certain of, is that it is NOT clear. The text easily reads either way.

[seebs]

I just assumed, given how much they were changing the way the ability worked, that they intended it to make creatures with regeneration unkillable.

I note: The resulting game is still fun. So it works out. I do think it's quite possible it wasn't intended, but I don't care much either way.

[Redneckdevil]

from pathfinder chronicles monsters revisted pg 60-

Because of this, trolls rarely grow to what
scholars would consider old age—generally, trolls live to
be about 40 years old. Trolls are still subject to some of the
risks that humans are: they can be killed by viruses that
inhibit their regenerative abilities, and drowning, fire,
and acid put an end to trolls in quick order. Starvation can
also end a troll’s life. A full-grown adult troll needs up to
half its body weight in food every day. After only a few days
without sufficient food, a troll’s regenerative abilities cease
to function. Once it loses its regeneration, a troll quickly
succumbs to starvation or other natural hazards. Troll
family groups sometimes bind weak trolls, dump them
into pits, and leave them to starve to death. More often, a
weak or ill troll is simply drowned.

[DrDeth]

That's a great find Red, and it actually makes both camps right.
"...but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning ... Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning.."

Note that "certain" and "typically". Not JUST acid or fire, but "typically". Starvation, disease, etc can cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning, per your cite, for example.

So, the compromise answer is that other odd forms of "death attacks" such as a failing your Fort save from a CdG simply "cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning" thus they die. Yes, Fire and acid are TYPICAL but not ONLY, they didn't list out other rare happenings, such as Symbol of Death. In truth true death effects are rare, even Finger of death just does HP damage now.

It then appears that both the "common sense/RAI" camp and the "strict constructionist" camps are right, then.

[Michael Sayre]

DrDeth wrote:

That's a great find Red, and it actually makes both camps right.

"...but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning ... Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning.."

Note that "certain" and "typically". Not JUST acid or fire, but "typically". Starvation, disease, etc can cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning, per your cite, for example.

So, the compromise answer is that other odd forms of "death attacks" such as a failing your Fort save from a CdG simply "cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning" thus they die. Yes, Fire and acid are TYPICAL but not ONLY, they didn't list out other rare happenings, such as Symbol of Death. In truth true death effects are rare, even Finger of death just does HP damage now.

It then appears that both the "common sense/RAI" camp and the "strict constructionist" camps are right, then.

That's kind of what I'm getting out of it as well. They really can't die as long as their regeneration is functioning, but the list of things that shut off their regeneration isn't as exclusive as it seems at first glance.

[maouse]

Throwing one more thing on the fire for consideration: "JOTUND TROLL - regeneration 10 (acid or fire) & They can live for up to 100 years."

Doesn't this indicate that regenerating creatures not only are susceptible to death effects, but also aging?

[seebs]

That does sort of indicate that, yes.

Well, I consider that a persuasive argument that, insofar as there's consistent intent involved, the intent is that regeneration is suppressed by starvation.

[Robert Young]

Redneckdevil wrote:

The reason why regeneration doesnt stop bleed is because when u trail it back to fast healing, its just "natural" healing just speed up. Any type of magical healing will stop bleed damage but the healing from regeneration isnt magical, its just a speed up natural healing.

But a successful first aid check works just fine. It would seem to me that fast healing or regeneration is at least as potent as first aid for stopping bleed damage.