
Firewarrior44 |

Except the the text that says there's no way to kill it and it comes back even if reduced to nothing.
To clarify i'm not saying the regeneration is direct Deific intervention i'm saying it is as powerful as and as such it can regenerate from annihilation.
Also if it was supernatural then it would still function in an amf/dead magic zone due to the "this ability cannot be suppressed" clause.

Cantriped |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

You are misrepresenting the text. It doesn't actually say that "there's no way to kill it"; It says "a method to kill Spawn of Rovagug has yet to be discovered."
This is an important distinction in that it means that if the Sphere of Annihilation can permanently destroy a Spawn like the RAW indicates it should be able to, than nobody on Golarion has ever tried it (or lived long enough to record its success).
Nor does the text say that "it comes back even if reduced to nothing"; it says that "no form of attack* can suppress this regeneration; they regenerate even if disintegrated* or slain by a death effect*" and that "if [it] 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 it dealt to its remains". These are all very specific and clearly defined conditions.
*Being Annihilated by the Sphere is not an attack (it is a result of merely touching or being touched by the sphere), neither is it a death effect (which is a type of spell), nor disintegration (which is a spell effect). And given that the Spawn of Rovagug are definitively not deities themselves, the general text of their regeneration cannot overcome the more specific clause of the Sphere which requires direct deific intervention to restore them from annihilation. Unlike disintegration, which leaves a pile of ash behind, nothing is left to regenerate from when the target is annihilated by the Sphere. Further, the part of its regeneration that causes it to rise after 3 rounds never occurs because the trigger condition was never met (the Sphere doesn't allow a Save vs. Annihilation, therefore the Spawn never failed a save against an effect which would kill it instantly).
Although this begs the question of what happens "if further damage is dealt to its remains" which is listed as an exception to the fact that it will rise with 1 hit point 3 rounds after failing a save against an effect that would kill it instantly.

Firewarrior44 |

Not method found to truly kill it is also specific text which is a catchall for cannot be killed by any known means. As Big T is printed in a book that came out after the Sphere meaning the Sphere should be included in that catchall as otherwise that would be a violation of that text. I agree that it could be interpreted as no one could have tried it but the GM has just as much room to say no as they do yes in my opinion which is the nature of the Tarrasque's Regeneration-
Fiat
As firstly his regeneration is still functioning even if he is comes into contact with the orb though as it cannot be suppressed or disabled by any attack even utter annihilation as something that is harming the Tarrasque is an attack on in in a broader sense of the word (normally one could reasonably say annihilation would turn such an ability off but due to the Tarrasque's special regeneration it's not cut and dry), meaning he can still regenerate back, probably being reformed and destroyed over and over until the orb moves as his regeneration makes him unable to die.
As Direct Intervention from a Deity isn't something that's codified in the rules it's up to DM fiat to determine what does and doesn't count. Given that the Tarrasque's regeneration is stronger than that of any stated Demon Lord, Empyreal Lord, Old One, Arch Devil and other such creatures that are listed as Deity's (Their Regeneration is even listed as Deific in most cases) counting the Tarrasque's regeneration as 'Deific Intervention' is not unreasonable.

PathlessBeth |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best way I've seen is as follows:
1. "Kill" the tarrasque using any of the standard methods for killing a creature with a lot of hit-points and a grab bag of immunities.
2. Before they regenerates, cast Animate Dead to make it a skeleton. Use a quickened spell if necessary to do it before the tarrasque regenerates.
3. Read the skeleton template:
Defensive Abilities: A skeleton loses the base creature's defensive abilities and gains DR 5/bludgeoning and immunity to cold. It also gains all of the standard immunities and traits possessed by undead creatures.
...
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.
As a skeleton, the tarrasque loses their regeneration extraordinary ability. Hence, they do not regenerate the next round. And you get a free 30 HD skeleton in the process.
Of course, this method doesn't guarentee that the tarrasque won't eventually come back. If someone destroys the skeleton, then it's not really clear from the rules whether the no-longer-undead tarrasque would regain their regeneration (i.e., does being destroyed cause the tarrasque's corpse to lose the Skeleton template?) Even if it doesn't, someone could potentially use True Ressurection after destroying the skeleton.

Cantriped |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Cantriped
Again, there's nothing wrong with your interpretation other than the fact that you are claiming it's absolutely correct and that other valid viewpoints are not.
It is absolutely correct per the RAW, and I've presented more than enough evidence to prove it. Meanwhile none of you claiming otherwise have presented credible evidence which contradicts my point.
a method to kill Spawn of Rovagug has yet to be discovered.
Is not a catch-all clause that makes it impossible to be killed by any means. It only means that any potentially successful means of slaying the Spawn have yet to be tried or recorded. Which is a perfectly reasonable statement by itself. After all, if it were known in-lore that the Spawn could be erased from existence simply by touching a Sphere of Annihilation somebody would have already done so, and instead of bestiary entries we'd have a bit of lore saying that "Once upon a time there were creatures known as the Spawn of Rovagug, but after much trial and error (mostly error) that we found a way to kill them all good and dead." But that doesn't sell splat books nearly as well as a monster that takes a thrice-damned artifact to destroy (and even then only until some dip-shit deity brings it back).
It was cited above that Demon Lords have "deific regeneration", and that Demon Lords are deities. Both of these claims are demonstrably false:
A demon lord can grant spells to its worshipers as if it were a deity.
Meaning it is not actually a deity, it just gets treated as one for one specific purpose.
While they have both Regeneration, and an ability called "Abyssal Resurrection (Ex)" neither would protect the Demon Lord from being Sphere'd.
The Abyssal Resurrection functions as True Resurection, and even then only works one per year (making it significantly worse than the respawn clause of a Spawn of Rovagug). However, since the Demon Lord isn't actually a deity (as proven by the fact that it needs a feature declaring that it is treated as a deity for the purpose of granting spells), its Abyssal Resurrection doesn't qualify as Direct Intervention by a deity either, and thus they stay Annihilated until an actual deity chooses to intervene.
On the topic of its Regeneration, more powerful creatures can suppress it, as can Epic and Good Damage, but otherwise it functions just like any other form of Regeneration, which is to say:
Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration.
So if a Demon Lord touches the Sphere, its just an Annihilated as anything else. They better hope that an actual deity likes them enough to intervene in their utter and complete destruction.

![]() |

Isonaroc wrote:It is absolutely correct per the RAW, and I've presented more than enough evidence to prove it. Meanwhile none of you claiming otherwise have presented credible evidence which contradicts my point.Cantriped
Again, there's nothing wrong with your interpretation other than the fact that you are claiming it's absolutely correct and that other valid viewpoints are not.
And I disagree with both those contentions. We're at an impasse.