Death Clutch, Regeneration, & You

[Lurch]

Last night I tried out the death clutch spell from Horror Adventures on my players, & it quickly became apparent that the spell is either broken as written or we're missing some key understanding of its function.

Per the spell's description:

Quote:

Chanting an unholy litany, you reach out with a grasping motion toward your target and cause its heart to leap out of its chest and into your hand. A target with 200 or fewer hit points remaining that fails its saving throw is instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative. The creature is staggered until the beginning of your next turn, at which point it dies. If the affected creature receives a regenerate spell before the beginning of your next turn, the creature gains the normal benefits of that spell and, thanks to its heart’s regeneration, it doesn’t immediately die when your next turn begins. If a creature that dies from death clutch is brought back from the dead by a breath of life or raise dead spell, it must also be targeted with regenerate on the following round to restore its missing heart or be unable to return to life.

The questions that arose are:

1. How is it possible for the target to receive a regenerate spell before the beginning of the caster's next turn, when regenerate has a casting time of 3 full rounds? Is it enough for the victim to simply have been targeted by regenerate before the next round to qualify, as long as the spell's casting is completed in the subsequent rounds?

2. Per the regenerate spell, missing body parts take 2d10 rounds to grow back; what is the victim's status during this time? Are they able to act normally as long as they have positive hit points, or are they incapacitated until the process is completed?

[Matthew Downie]

The only thing I can think of is that if you were expecting an enemy to use Death Clutch on the group, you could cast Regenerate in advance and hold the charge.

[Rysky]

Or I guess if you already have a Regeneration effect on you're good.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

It seems like the author/developer didn't catch the casting time of regenerate. As a practical matter it doesn't seem to actually do anything. I definitely can't see you holding off death just be beginning your regenerate. (Who prepares a regenerate spell anyway?)

I would definitely have the victim either helpless (what I'd do) or staggered (the minimum) while the heart grows back.

It's not a great spell, taking away the false hope of regeneration doesn't really impact that. A finger of death is almost as good, and arguably better for targets over 200 HP that have fast healing or regeneration that would otherwise shut down the Con bleed. Death effects face immunity issues, too. An Empowered Disintegrate is going to be even better if they don't have a high touch AC.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

its much more metal though.

and compared to it's organ ripping brother, Canopic Conversion it actually looks okay xD

[Mark Seifter]

In addition to current sources of regeneration (magic items, etc), I believe it's also future-proofing for faster castings of regenerate (probably the most likely cause would be if a 6th-level caster gets it as a 6th level spell and then has it as a contingency). Sometimes I'll add things like "in the unlikely event" in development but those also don't make for the cleanest text.

[Diego Rossi]

It work if you have ways to quicken the casting of regeneration too.

About the " missing body parts take 2d10 rounds to grow back" part, specific trump generic. When used on a target of death clutch the heart regenerate fast enough that you stay alive.

Note that regenerate say "the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise."
The regeneration not being completed don't necessarily mean that your heart is missing. It can be present but small and growing, so you are more easily tired (but not enough for that to have game effects).
Or the spell can sustain your life while the organ is growing.

[Claxon]

Well remember, a troll with regeneration could have his heart ripped out and not die (though it may render him unconscious depending on how this is performed). Generally speaking, if you are under the effects of regeneration you can't die unless your regeneration is turned off.

The question really becomes, assuming you get a regeneration effect how long until you can take actions normally?

[Snowlilly]

A Ring of Regeneration would qualify:

Ring of Regeneration wrote:

If the wearer loses a limb, an organ, or any other body part while wearing this ring, the ring regenerates it as the spell regenerate.

[Anguish]

To play devil's advocate, it doesn't say that a creature needs to have regeneration per the ability, but regeneration per the spell, so trolls may be screwed.

It's amusing too because there's a spell, deathless which lets you basically ignore death by hit point loss for a while. Sadly, it doesn't help with this spell because it's - evidently - not the hit point loss that kills you. It's the spell. Because reasons.

There might be a condition under which time stop might come in handy here. Or - as the ring - a magic item that produces the spell in under three rounds.

I'd say that it's not a given the developer missed the casting time. Like Mark says, they might have written in enough leeway that clever players with the right abilities might get out of jail. Or... bad guys. Really, it's just a save-or-die that has a tiny asterisk at the end.

[Diego Rossi]

Anguish wrote:

To play devil's advocate, it doesn't say that a creature needs to have regeneration per the ability, but regeneration per the spell, so trolls may be screwed.

It's amusing too because there's a spell, deathless which lets you basically ignore death by hit point loss for a while. Sadly, it doesn't help with this spell because it's - evidently - not the hit point loss that kills you. It's the spell. Because reasons.

There might be a condition under which time stop might come in handy here. Or - as the ring - a magic item that produces the spell in under three rounds.

I'd say that it's not a given the developer missed the casting time. Like Mark says, they might have written in enough leeway that clever players with the right abilities might get out of jail. Or... bad guys. Really, it's just a save-or-die that has a tiny asterisk at the end.

PRD wrote:

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.

Nothing in that spell stop regeneration. Trolls don't die for it.

[Anguish]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Nothing in that spell stop regeneration. Trolls don't die for it.

Maybe I'm missing something. Please help me.

Death Clutch, pasted from above.
Chanting an unholy litany, you reach out with a grasping motion toward your target and cause its heart to leap out of its chest and into your hand. A target with 200 or fewer hit points remaining that fails its saving throw is instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative. The creature is staggered until the beginning of your next turn, at which point it dies. If the affected creature receives a regenerate spell before the beginning of your next turn, the creature gains the normal benefits of that spell and, thanks to its heart’s regeneration, it doesn’t immediately die when your next turn begins. If a creature that dies from death clutch is brought back from the dead by a breath of life or raise dead spell, it must also be targeted with regenerate on the following round to restore its missing heart or be unable to return to life.

According to this spell, unless you get regenerate cast on you, you're dead. It doesn't make make accommodation for other methods of getting your heart back. It specifically tells you how to avoid death, and having the regeneration special ability isn't one of them.

I understand that the regeneration ability says you "can't die", but I expect it's understood that specifics override generals, so if a spell causes death, it causes death. If it causes hit point damage and you're expected to fall back on the general "if hit points below negative Con then dead" rule, the regeneration rule is more specific than that. But when the spell explicitly causes death... it causes death. That's a strict reading the rules and I probably wouldn't impose death on a troll player, but hey, we're discussing rules.

[Rysky]

Too strict of a reading, regenerate is regenerate.

My guess for why they specified spell is that it would be assumed that a creature with natural regeneration wouldn't be killed by it, and this was put in to help creatures that don't have natural regeneration (aka player characters).

[Diego Rossi]

Anguish wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Nothing in that spell stop regeneration. Trolls don't die for it.

Maybe I'm missing something. Please help me.

Death Clutch, pasted from above.
Chanting an unholy litany, you reach out with a grasping motion toward your target and cause its heart to leap out of its chest and into your hand. A target with 200 or fewer hit points remaining that fails its saving throw is instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative. The creature is staggered until the beginning of your next turn, at which point it dies. If the affected creature receives a regenerate spell before the beginning of your next turn, the creature gains the normal benefits of that spell and, thanks to its heart’s regeneration, it doesn’t immediately die when your next turn begins. If a creature that dies from death clutch is brought back from the dead by a breath of life or raise dead spell, it must also be targeted with regenerate on the following round to restore its missing heart or be unable to return to life.

According to this spell, unless you get regenerate cast on you, you're dead. It doesn't make make accommodation for other methods of getting your heart back. It specifically tells you how to avoid death, and having the regeneration special ability isn't one of them.

I understand that the regeneration ability says you "can't die", but I expect it's understood that specifics override generals, so if a spell causes death, it causes death. If it causes hit point damage and you're expected to fall back on the general "if hit points below negative Con then dead" rule, the regeneration rule is more specific than that. But when the spell explicitly causes death... it causes death. That's a strict reading the rules and I probably wouldn't impose death on a troll player, but hey, we're discussing rules.

What is the overriding "specific"? The specific of regeneration or the specific of Death Clutch?

None is superior to the other, but Death Clutch,has 2 effects that lead to the target death:

1) "A target with 200 or fewer hit points remaining that fails its saving throw is instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative."

He die because he has "200 or fewer hit points remaining" and is "instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative."

That is an effect that regeneration overcome.

2) You can argue that he die because "Chanting an unholy litany, you reach out with a grasping motion toward your target and cause its heart to leap out of its chest and into your hand."
Ok, he lose a major organ and dies. Guess what? Regeneration overcome that.

On the contrary Death Clutch has nothing that overcome regeneration in its description.

You have chosen to say that the target dies for

Anguish wrote:

Because reasons

I can use the same level of reasoning. Because reasons you are wrong.

That is the validity of your argument.

[MichaelCullen]

Someone could use Miracle or Wish to cast regenerate as a standard action.

[RealAlchemy]

Some clever person might have cast regenerate using a metamagic rod of Contingent Spell.

[Anguish]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You have chosen to say that the target dies for

Anguish wrote: Because reasons

I can use the same level of reasoning. Because reasons you are wrong.

How exceptionally dismissive. No. Expressly no. Not even remotely yes.

Not "because reasons". Because the spell says "it dies". It says a creature dies unless it gets the spell regeneration. That's what it says, and that's what I've said it says, which is what it says. Not "because reasons". There's very little resemblance between the two statements.

You're ignoring the spell, and you're ignoring me.

[Anguish]

Rysky wrote:

Too strict of a reading, regenerate is regenerate.

I don't disagree, in principle. If I were running a PFS table though, I'm confident which ruling I would be obligated to produce; regeneration the ability is not the regenerate spell.

[MichaelCullen]

I would err on the side of regeneration keeping a creature alive.

regeneration wrote wrote:

Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0).

So we have a conflict in where as spell says the creature dies, but an ability says that it can't die.

You have to err on abilities trumping spell effects, unless the spell specifically calls out the ability.

Fireball says

fireball wrote:

deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area

But no one would say that fireball damages a creature with fire immunity. The ability would negate the spell. If however there was a spell that said it did fire damage regardless of fire immunity, then the damage would go through.

Bottom line, abilities should generally trump spell effects, unless the spell calls out the ability.

[Matthew Downie]

Anguish wrote:

Not "because reasons". Because the spell says "it dies". It says a creature dies unless it gets the spell regeneration.

It doesn't actually say "it dies unless..."

It says "it dies".
Then it says "if it gets the spell Regenerate, it doesn't die." It doesn't say that's the only thing that can prevent death.

If something has the monster ability Regeneration, it "cannot die". That ought to work too.

And if a character who wears the Ring of Regeneration "loses a limb, an organ, or any other body part while wearing this ring, the ring regenerates it as the spell Regenerate." So if Regenerate prevents death here, and the ring gives the benefits of the spell Regenerate, the ring ought to save you.

[Diego Rossi]

Anguish wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You have chosen to say that the target dies for

Anguish wrote: Because reasons

I can use the same level of reasoning. Because reasons you are wrong.

How exceptionally dismissive. No. Expressly no. Not even remotely yes.

Not "because reasons". Because the spell says "it dies". It says a creature dies unless it gets the spell regeneration. That's what it says, and that's what I've said it says, which is what it says. Not "because reasons". There's very little resemblance between the two statements.

You're ignoring the spell, and you're ignoring me.

I already replied to the possible arguments above that comment.

You don't have added anything.
Your opinion is that any spell that somewhere say "the target dies" overcome regeneration?
Any rule supporting that? Because, you know, regeneration say "they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" and you haven't show anything that overcome that specific piece of the rules.

Or you don't fell that the Regeneration rules aren't a specific piece of the rules, while the spell Death Clutch is?

So far beside "because reasons" you have show nothing to support your position.

[Pizza Lord]

From my viewpoint, it seems to be mostly a poorly implemented spell. I can't tell if the writer intended its effects to be how they came out in final printing. A lot of times, for projects you probably submit or design a few spells and have to trim them to a certain word count. It's also possible that after it left the designer the editor or supervisor took out some descriptive sentences or text that might have cleared things up, without completely understanding everything about it. Obviously we don't know what happened behind-the-scenes and aren't here to point fingers, some things I see, and would have sent back for clarification as the editor, are:

• Quote:

  If the affected creature receives a regenerate spell before the beginning of your next turn, the creature gains the normal benefits of that spell and, thanks to its heart’s regeneration, it doesn’t immediately die when your next turn begins.

  As pointed out by the OP (so just list that first), it takes 3 rounds to cast and 2d10 to regenerate the heart barring the heart being touched to the target when cast (which is highly unlikely, since the caster is holding it.) Most likely those involved did not understand how the regenerate spell works. This should have been detailed for any exception in death clutch.

• Quote:

  ...is instantly reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to your caster level or its Constitution score – 1, whichever is less negative. The creature is staggered until the beginning of your next turn, at which point it dies.

  What's the purpose of this? Looking at the actual mechanics, as an 8th-level spell the target is going to be at -15 due to your CL alone.

  If the target has 10 Con (average) it will be at -9 (and staggered, unconscious, and dying in almost all case) and will die the next round, which it probably would anyway from just dying. If the target has 1 Con, it would be at 0 hit points, and will die the next round (this would be a highly rare case.) If it had 20 Con, it would be at -15 hit points, and will die the next round. Why bother with this mess at all?*

  *You might think 'Well, otherwise the target might stabilize and not die, it's an easy DC 10 Con check,' but remember it's penalized by the negative hit points, so it's going to be about -9 to the roll in almost every case. Yes, if your target had 1 Con it could roll without any penalty... except the -5 for having such a horrible Con. Even in the case where you have 20 Con and are only at -15 hit points... that's a +5 to your roll and a -15, so you're at -10.., which means you still need a natural 20. Only case where you have an insanely high Con against a minimum level caster is it even possible to stabilize (you're still unconscious and staggered, and with that Con you probably wouldn't have failed the save in the first place.)
  It's all just unnecessary stuff. Just put them at -1 or negative Con -1, why make it variable (see below for my thoughts on a possible reason)?

  Just by putting someone at a negative hit point total tends to make players think about healing. This means if your target has a low to average Con, they are probably within quick healing range of even a basic cure spell (to bring out of dying, which is what most healers will be concerned with.)

  Aside from the visual that the caster is holding your heart, allies may not know what this rare and powerful spell's details are (and that regenerate is what is immediately needed (and if they did know that, they'd know it's impossible because they'll know it has a 3 round cast time,) it makes it more likely to waste someone's action trying to just heal them. Especially in a case where they may be at 0 hit points instead of negative and dying (again, highly rare chance of that.)

  I almost want to think that the initial intention here by the designer was that if the target had a higher Con than the caster's CL that they would not die immediately and had that amount of time as leeway. So, in case of a Con 20 target and a 15-level caster, there would be 5 rounds of the heart beating in his hand (or tossed on the ground) and the target dying. That would give a friend a chance to cast regenerate and maybe beat the clock (possibly by them or another ally retrieving the heart so it does only take 1 round.) That's just my opinion from observation though. Maybe it was a total case of thoughtlessness.

• Why all the focus on Stagger?
  It almost seems to me the designer intended this spell to not place a target in dying or unconscious at 0 hit points (there could be corner cases in extremely rare circumstances, like an ally healing the target above 0,) but it almost seems he wanted the target to be conscious, staggering around, and terrified of what's happening. If that's the case, I don't see any line or indication of it though. Would have a been a good thing to detail out in a book of Horror encounters and rules.

• Quote:

  If a creature that dies from death clutch is brought back from the dead by a breath of life or raise dead spell, it must also be targeted with regenerate on the following round to restore its missing heart or be unable to return to life.

  First off, raise dead and breath of life cannot raise a creature slain by a [death] effect, which death clutch is. So any caster is unlikely to waste that spell (and especially 5,000 gp of diamonds) on a shakily-worded line. You might argue that this is a specific exemption for returning a creature with these spells, but it is clearly not written that way. That would have been a line like, 'Unlike typical [death] effects, raise dead can restore the target to life in conjunction with a regenerate spell if the heart is still missing.' Normally, you should be able to just place the heart on/within the body for the casting and it should work (barring it being a [death] effect. It would work if the chest had just been cut open and the heart pulled out and tossed into a garbage can.) So it just seems a huge disconnect and failure to understand how the spells listed not only interact but actually work.

I definitely agree it is a cool visual (not original) but a cool way to kill someone. I just think it was rolled out poorly for basically all the reasons the original poster mentioned. There's just too much here that tells me something was not thought-out and it makes me leery of even allowing such a spell. It's not just one small judgement call, it's reworking a whole interaction and spell design... in which case... I may as well just have made my own spell to do this. Anyway, ultimately those are just my thoughts on the subject. I don't see any easy rules answer to the problem, it's going to come down to deciding on what the designer's intentions were in that case (because going by what's written is just a crapshoot as well.)

[MichaelCullen]

3.5 had a slightly better implementation of the spell.

Heartclutch <=Link

[Jhaeman]

Excellent analysis, Pizza Lord. The problems become apparent when you try to actually use this cool-sounding spell. I know the official Paizo position now is that open playtesting creates too little signal and too much noise, and that freelancers who design spells can playtest their own material, but this is a perfect example of what happens if neither the community nor the writers are playtesting material.

[Daw]

So, since reincarnate builds a whole new body, (pfft on your puny little regeneration), would it also not be blocked by this variant of a death effect?

[MichaelCullen]

Daw wrote:

So, since reincarnate builds a whole new body, (pfft on your puny little regeneration), would it also not be blocked by this variant of a death effect?

RAW or RAI?

RAW- reincarnate fails because the death was from a death effect.
RAI- I think it aught to work....

[Daw]

What confuses me, is that both raise dead and breath of life are supposed to just fail on Death effect corpses, but with this death effect, they hold off on failing contingent to a regenerate spell.

It does tend to support the idea that reincarnate would work.

[MichaelCullen]

Daw wrote:

What confuses me, is that both raise dead and breath of life are supposed to just fail on Death effect corpses, but with this death effect, they hold off on failing contingent to a regenerate spell.

It does tend to support the idea that reincarnate would work.

That's why by read as intended, I think it aught to. But RAW is an entirely different beast.

By read as written the spell may of well have said "if brought back to life by magic missile then..." as magic missle has the same chance of bringing someone someone killed by a death effect back to life as raise dead does (0 chance). Neither spell will work, so the "if clause" will never be fufilled, by RAW.

[Anguish]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Anguish wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You have chosen to say that the target dies for

Anguish wrote: Because reasons

I can use the same level of reasoning. Because reasons you are wrong.

How exceptionally dismissive. No. Expressly no. Not even remotely yes.

Not "because reasons". Because the spell says "it dies". It says a creature dies unless it gets the spell regeneration. That's what it says, and that's what I've said it says, which is what it says. Not "because reasons". There's very little resemblance between the two statements.

You're ignoring the spell, and you're ignoring me.

I already replied to the possible arguments above that comment.

You don't have added anything.
Your opinion is that any spell that somewhere say "the target dies" overcome regeneration?
Any rule supporting that? Because, you know, regeneration say "they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning" and you haven't show anything that overcome that specific piece of the rules.

Or you don't fell that the Regeneration rules aren't a specific piece of the rules, while the spell Death Clutch is?

So far beside "because reasons" you have show nothing to support your position.

No, I did, and you just ignored it. And choose to repeat your "because reasons" assertion. You know that's dismissive and insulting, right?

I reiterate. Specific overrides general.

This specific spell overrides the general rules inherent in the regeneration universal rule because it is more specific. It is a specific spell that says "you die".

Here's how I would parse things:
1} Rules regarding creature status/death.
2} Rules regarding special abilities that change how status/death is determined.
3} Rules regarding special effects applied to a creature.

Now, if 3 imposes something that 2 grants immunity to, I would grant in that case 2 remains in effect. But in this case, our 2 does not grant immunity to 3. It just provides an effect similar to the cure for 3, without actually being that cure.

1} Death and Dying
2} Regeneration
3} Death Clutch

[Diego Rossi]

Anguish wrote:

No, I did, and you just ignored it. And choose to repeat your "because reasons" assertion. You know that's dismissive and insulting, right?

You found your own words insulting?

Anguish wrote:

It's amusing too because there's a spell, deathless which lets you basically ignore death by hit point loss for a while. Sadly, it doesn't help with this spell because it's - evidently - not the hit point loss that kills you. It's the spell. Because reasons.

Anguish wrote:

I reiterate. Specific overrides general.

True, but regeneration is a specific rule, not a general rule.

Anguish wrote:

This specific spell overrides the general rules inherent in the regeneration universal rule because it is more specific. It is a specific spell that says "you die".

Here's how I would parse things:
1} Rules regarding creature status/death.
2} Rules regarding special abilities that change how status/death is determined.
3} Rules regarding special effects applied to a creature.

Now, if 3 imposes something that 2 grants immunity to, I would grant in that case 2 remains in effect. But in this case, our 2 does not grant immunity to 3. It just provides an effect similar to the cure for 3, without actually being that cure.

1} Death and Dying
2} Regeneration
3} Death Clutch

So, I repeat the question, you are asserting that every spell that say "the target dies" or some such override regeneration?

You are still missing how regeneration work. It don't stop because the creature has "died", it stop because something stop it, or because it is unable to repair the damage dealt.
But the damage dealt by this spell is perfectly curable by regeneration.

And your ruler tiers are an utter fabrication. Level 2 and 3 are identical, One overcome the other only if it say so specifically.

[MichaelCullen]

Abilities such as immunities, regeneration ect, have to trump spell effects. Otherwise you have fire immune creatures taking fire damage and creatures immune to mind effecting being dominated.

If a creature has an ability that says, "they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning", then they cannot die as long as their regeneration is funtioning. This includes spells that say that the target dies.

If death clutch said "this kills even creatures with regeneration" then it would work, just as a fire spell that said, "this spell ignores fire immunity" would not be stopped by immunity to fire.

[Lurch]

MichaelCullen wrote:

Abilities such as immunities, regeneration ect, have to trump spell effects. Otherwise you have fire immune creatures taking fire damage and creatures immune to mind effecting being dominated.

I'm inclined to agree here; to me, the regenerate spell duplicates (or at least fills in for) the regeneration ability for qualification purposes.

After reading through the responses on this thread, 2 things have become apparent:

1. Death clutch is a poorly-written spell, & in light of that I would not have used it in this situation without some revisions;

2. Unless I decide to roll back the last couple of rounds of the current combat (which I really don't want to do -- complicated final boss fight & all that), the PC it was cast on is toast (however fair or unfair that may be).

[Mark Seifter]

For good or ill (usually ill in terms of rocket tag concerns), by the time you get to spells of that spell level, if a creature in that hp range fails its Fortitude save, there's quite a few spells where it's toast (for 100 hp or less, there's also the no-save power word at 9th).

[Lurch]

Just to put a bow on this package, in the end I allowed the PC to escape otherwise-certain death by casting the Giant Form I spell he had memorized as his "final" standard action, taking the form of a troll before toppling over. Since he now had an active regeneration effect in place before the bad guy's next turn, he didn't automatically die from his injuries; however, since he was unconscious, at negative HP, & with a 2d10-round wait time until his heart grew back, he was effectively out of the combat anyway. A bit lenient on my part perhaps, but it just didn't sit well with me to pull a Kobayashi Maru on the player just because of one poorly-worded spell.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

Seems fair

[MichaelCullen]

Seems right to me.

I'm of the opinion that regeneration is the very reason why giant form I is so high a level to begin with. Conceptually it should be easier to polymorph from one humanoid form to another than it is to say turn into a fire elemental. But elemental body comes WAY earlier. The reason has to be the effects you can get, in this case the only one that truly stands out is the regeneration.

[Ravingdork]

I love this spell.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

This was the thread I was talking bout in the other thread! yay.