Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Squirrelloid 05-06-07, 11:14 PM	The relevant Ask Wizards webpage is here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070502a. (Please note that it has been brought to my attention and confirmed that none of the answers are from WotC staff, and all such references made by me have been removed from this thread). The obviously wrong answers were: Morgan asks: If I have a player character who is a humanoid spellcaster, and another who is an intelligent animal spellcaster (for example, a tressym wizard), is it possible for the humanoid to use the Improved Familiar feat to take the animal on as a familiar, and then for both characters to gain the benefits of a master-familiar relationship while still remaining normal player characters? A familiar is a normal animal that gains new powers and becomes a magical beast when summoned to service by a sorcerer or wizard. --Sam There are no intelligent animals. By definition, an animal cannot have an Intelligence above 2, is not capable of language, reasoning, morality or complex thought. By becoming intelligent, they no longer qualify as animals. Even if they somehow could, only unmodified animals can become familiars. --Robert Both answers are incorrect because Improved Familiar, a feat specifically mentioned by the questioner, allows you to choose intelligent non-animal creatures as familiars. (I previously posted the correct answer in the deleted thread. The quick version is 'yes, but the Tressym player loses all class levels and gets the attributes of a normal Tressym, as per Improved Familiar's text.' (Which says to use the normal statisticts of the creature).) Graeme asks: Here's another entry in the age-old "how can I kill the tarrasque" encyclopedia. Its regeneration ability does not state that it works differently from any other regeneration, and therefore will not regenerate hit points lost to starvation or suffocation. Does this mean a competent wizard could simply seal the thing in a cube of six walls of force and let its air run out? The tarrasque would indeed die, bringing it to -10. It still gets back up if you let the air in, though. --Sam Suffocation does kill the Tarrasque. I posted a lengthy justification of this in the previous thread, but Sam is showing gross ignorance of the rules on Regeneration and Suffocation. Suffocation sets your hp to 0, -1, and then dead in three consecutive rounds. It neither inflicts nor deals any damage. Regeneration causes damage dealt to you to be transformed into nonlethal damage, and then removes some quantity of nonlethal damage each round. As Suffocation alters your actual hp, not your nonlethal damage total, regeneration doesn't help at all if you're at 0, -1, -10, or -100 hp. Regeneration does not cause you to regain actual hp *at all*. Furthermore, since suffocation kills you outright, and corpses are objects, and objects don't have constitutions scores, a Tarrasque at -10 hp (dead) doesn't have regeneration, because only things with constitution scores can have regeneration. Christian asks: Could a sphere of annihilation permanently kill a tarrasque? I know they regenerate even after being disintegrated, but according to the rules for said artifact, "Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character." The tarrasque, by the words in the Monster Manual, is immune to all death effects and permanent injuries. Although it doesn't list every single thing it's immune to, it's quite clear that it's immune to effects that immediately cause death, or permanent injuries. The Monster Manual makes it very clear that the tarrasque cannot be killed or permanently altered in any way, save for a wish spell when it's driven into unconsciousness. This means that the tarrasque is immune to all effects that cause instant death, including orb of annihilation, suffocation and starvation. If that isn't enough to satisfy you, then face facts: if any of those things could have killed the tarrasque, then they would have done so already. The tarrasque is a legendary unkillable monster, fought throughout time, and there are relatively low level spells, and much easier monsters, that cause suffocation upon targets. If suffocation could drop the tarrasque to unconsciousness then it would have done so, and the same goes for starvation, and even powerful magic effects. The tarrasque is immune to all death effects, and anything that causes death for any reason besides damage is a death effect. Still, the tarrasque isn't immune to teleportation or mind control, so what I'd do is cast polymorph any object on him to turn him into a small rock or something (it'll take several tries and only last 20 minutes, but it'll be worth it), put the rock in a bag of holding, and then stab the bag. The bag will be destroyed, but all the contents will be lost forever (as per the item description). Goodbye tarrasque. Or better yet, gate or plane shift with the small rock to the plane you like least, drop it on the ground and plane shift back/gate back. That plane will officially have a new hobby in about twenty minutes or so. --Robert I'm not going to go into as much detail as my previous version, but suffice it to say that (1) the Tarrasque only has protection against Disintegration effects against which he fails a save. A Sphere of Annihilation allows no save. (2) Suffocation is not *instant death* (something the tarrasque has no implicit protection against anyway), it takes 3 rounds. Instant means something in particular. The Tarrasque is certainly vulnerable. (3) Starvation takes weeks, it is not instant. The Tarrasque is indeed vulnerable, as it must eat. (4) The Tarrasque is protected against death effects, which are specific spells and abilities that have the [death] descriptor (such as Finger of Death). These are a specially defined type of Save or Die which, in addition to allowing a save or killing you if you fail, also prevent Raise Dead from working on you. Not everything which causes death without dealing hp damage is a death effect, only those specifically labeled as such. Edit: reduced this to solely rules-based discussion
bobothechimp 05-06-07, 11:23 PM	I find it ridiculous that Wizards would not admit to a simple mistake and instead silence those who are trying to point it out. This is a forum, not Nazi Germany. If someone wants to express their opinion on something being incorrect, I see no reason to stop them.
Mystic Lemur 05-06-07, 11:26 PM	I'll give you an amen, brother. It seems every time I show up, people are still asking the same old RTFM questions. Oh, well. Was the post really deleted? That sucks. I could understand getting mad and locking it, but *poof*? That's low. ETA, A Godwin's Law on the first reply? Haven't seen that in a while.
Squirrelloid 05-06-07, 11:27 PM	I'll give you an amen, brother. It seems every time I show up, people are still asking the same old RTFM questions. Oh, well. Was the post really deleted? That sucks. I could understand getting mad and locking it, but *poof*? That's low. This was a link to the old thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12298829#post12298829 Note it doesn't go anywhere anymore. Edit: I now have the OP saved to a text file. That could save me a lot of time...
bobothechimp 05-06-07, 11:34 PM	I'll give you an amen, brother. It seems every time I show up, people are still asking the same old RTFM questions. Oh, well. Was the post really deleted? That sucks. I could understand getting mad and locking it, but *poof*? That's low. ETA, A Godwin's Law on the first reply? Haven't seen that in a while. I felt that the reference was good enough. Valid comparison between book burning and this situation. I guess such comparisons are a bit overdone, but it was the best one I could think of at the time and did not feel like searching for a new one.
Mr_Zed 05-06-07, 11:40 PM	Have they posted incorrect replies to questions that actually matter? I mean really, at the end of the day, whether the tarrasque can be suffocated or not isn't really an issue for most games. Its kinda like one of those times when the president addresses the nation, and people fax in a list of words that were mispronounced. I understand that its annoying that your thread got deleted. But really, IMO its a minor issue that they got the answers to these questions wrong.
ArcTan 05-06-07, 11:43 PM	I'm willing to bet it was deleted because it was full of false statements and was becoming an angry flamewar, not because it was critical of WotC per se. Again, the column does *not* include the opinions of WotC employees, but of community members who *volunteered* to answer these questions, so your basic premise -- that WotC employees are wrong -- is wrong. And, again, the Tarrasque stat block very explicitly says that the *only* way to kill the Tarrasque is to give it full nonlethal damage and make a Wish or Miracle. The word "only" is a pretty strong word. Also, the rules on starvation don't actually provide a mechanism for you to die by starvation, only to rack up nonlethal damage (which the Tarrasque regenerates) until fatigued. And it *is* arguable, whether you like it or not, whether suffocation counts as a form of lethal damage.
ArcTan 05-06-07, 11:48 PM	While we feared to delve too deeply into these questions, we challenged the DMs, sages, and rules lawyers extraordinaire within the community to put forward your own answers. Is it too much to ask you to read the introductory paragraph to the web page you're attacking? It's freely available on the Internet and takes less than fifteen seconds.
WizO_Cat 05-06-07, 11:51 PM	I'm willing to bet it was deleted because it was full of false statements and was becoming an angry flamewar, not because it was critical of WotC per se. Actually, that is what happened. It looks like the WizO moved the thread to an administration board, usually what happens during a flame war. Basically, when the majority of the thread results in flames, we usually either move it or close it because the thread has gone off topic. I'm only interjecting in this thread so that all of the guests that took part in the flame war in the last thread are on notice: if it starts up again in this thread, we're jumping directly to the disciplinary actions including Official Warns. Fair warning. Now back to your regular schedule ...
Squirrelloid 05-06-07, 11:56 PM	Edit: some text snipped And, again, the Tarrasque stat block very explicitly says that the *only* way to kill the Tarrasque is to give it full nonlethal damage and make a Wish or Miracle. The word "only" is a pretty strong word. Except its not at all protected against any of the tactics discussed - including Suffocation. A Magical Beast it needs to eat and breathe. Which merely means there's a non-resolvable contradiction at best, or that the word 'only' is clearly wrong at worst since there are perfectly plausible ways to kill it. Its not my fault the MM writer didn't consider all the methods by which creatures could be killed. I mean, lets say you've got the Tarrasque "dead" (-10hp?) from Suffocation... he can't regenerate from that - he's either actually dead (like the core rules tell you), or he's totally immobile and insensate. The first conclusion makes a lot more sense within the rules. In fact, he's a corpse, since he literally became dead, and therefore doesn't have Regeneration anymore. Or the Tarrasque disintegrated by Sphere of Annihilation - even if its 'not dead', I'm not even sure what that means when the Tarrasque is dust. (The Tarrasque only being protected from disintegration effects that allow a save). Also, the rules on starvation don't actually provide a mechanism for you to die by starvation, only to rack up nonlethal damage (which the Tarrasque regenerates) until fatigued. And it *is* arguable, whether you like it or not, whether suffocation counts as a form of lethal damage. Suffocation inflicts no damage. It sets your hp total to 0, then -1, then makes you dead regardless of your hp total. So even if you tak 50million damage, suffocation sets your hp total to 0 on the first round. That's how it works.
Limit 05-07-07, 12:03 AM	Some of you may remember the thread where I pointed out completely incorrect responses by Ask Wizards employees on really simple rules questions. That thread is deleted. Apparently voicing complaints over Dragon and Dungeon is ok, but complaining about the inability to read or reference the rules by WotC employees specifically tasked with answering rules questions is unacceptable. Not that I agree that your thread should have been deleted, but as you were told before, WoTC invited the community to answer these questions because they "defy easy answers... or any answers at all". They did not answer them themselves. Since this was part of an April Fools event, I don't know if they expected serious or meticulously researched answers, evidenced by the answer "Words that powerful have to be written very big." I honestly think the Ask Wizards Stumpers articles were meant as a humorous thing. That being said, I think its poor form to take up a crusade against people giving incorrect answers, only to give an incorrect answer. Morgan asks: If I have a player character who is a humanoid spellcaster, and another who is an intelligent animal spellcaster (for example, a tressym wizard), is it possible for the humanoid to use the Improved Familiar feat to take the animal on as a familiar, and then for both characters to gain the benefits of a master-familiar relationship while still remaining normal player characters? The correct answer is: Yes, but your fellow party member loses his class levels and gets reduced to average attribute scores for his race. ("the familiar uses the base statistics for a creature of its kind"). In other words, you could do it, but you don't want to do it. And now for what I believe is the correct answer, I'll quote the SRD. A familiar is a normal animal that gains new powers and becomes a magical beast when summoned to service by a sorcerer or wizard. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but it is treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar. Improved familiars otherwise use the rules for regular familiars, with two exceptions: If the creature’s type is something other than animal, its type does not change; and improved familiars do not gain the ability to speak with other creatures of their kind (although many of them already have the ability to communicate). A fellow party member who has wizard levels is certainly not unmodified and is not eligible to become a familiar. Theoretically, I suppose if your ability scores were identical to the unmodified animals and you could find a way to lose all your class levels... and now we know that why this was an April Fools' Day question, meant to illicit a chuckle about one party member having another as a familiar.
ORC_Paradox 05-07-07, 12:13 AM	Yes, it was moved because it was turning into a flame war. Its not my fault the MM writer didn't consider all the methods by which creatures could be killed. And that's where the DM has to step up and make decisions for his game. If you were to play D&D with various game designers, you'll find a different game experience with each and every one of them. Nobody runs the game the same exact way as everyone else. Not to mention there's no possible way to fit every possible way to kill every creature in the book. Players are creative, and there's not enough space to cover each and every situation.
Tibs 05-07-07, 12:39 AM	Except its not at all protected against any of the tactics discussed - including Suffocation. A Magical Beast it needs to eat and breathe. Which merely means there's a non-resolvable contradiction at best, or that the word 'only' is clearly wrong at worst since there are perfectly plausible ways to kill it. Its not my fault the MM writer didn't consider all the methods by which creatures could be killed. I mean, lets say you've got the Tarrasque "dead" (-10hp?) from Suffocation... he can't regenerate from that - he's either actually dead (like the core rules tell you), or he's totally immobile and insensate. The first conclusion makes a lot more sense within the rules. In fact, he's a corpse, since he literally became dead, and therefore doesn't have Regeneration anymore. Or the Tarrasque disintegrated by Sphere of Annihilation - even if its 'not dead', I'm not even sure what that means when the Tarrasque is dust. (The Tarrasque only being protected from disintegration effects that allow a save). Suffocation inflicts no damage. It sets your hp total to 0, then -1, then makes you dead regardless of your hp total. So even if you tak 50million damage, suffocation sets your hp total to 0 on the first round. That's how it works. Regardless, the only thing I was possibly wrong on was they were WotC employees, but there is every reason to expect they are and no one who would *know* said otherwise. This all reminds me of a story Jack Harris (an editor at DC comics) told the writing class he teaches. An upset fan had sent the company in a letter, complaining about a recent story involving time-travel. His complaint was spelled out implicitly, simply, and eloquently: "Time travel doesn't work that way!" Which led Mr. Harris to ask himself: "...how does he know?" My point is, don't worry about it so much. If the book and your DM say that only full damage and a wish spell kills the beastie, then why argue? Don't worry about why it works, just that it works. If your DM says there's another way, then that's fine, too. Quit over-thinking it. Go with what's fun, that's what I say, and stop trying to prove that "Quantum Leap" is more scientifically accurate than "Star Trek" in terms of traveling the fourth dimension. :D
ArcTan 05-07-07, 01:16 AM	It says other people are free to provide answers, not that WotC employees provided none of them. Regardless, if that was true the proper course of action would be for a WizO or similar person to explicitly state they were not WotC employees, not just delete the thread. Considering that I recall your response to a WizO actually doing this was to question said WizO's integrity and claim that WotC "commonly" has WotC employees pretend to be community members and send in fake submissions, I can see why they moved the thread. The fact that some of the names are actual first names suggests those answers are by people who aren't board members. (There are some answers by people using screen names, and those are clearly board members). So they were ordinary people who read the Wizards website but *gasp* don't post on the boards and don't use boards usernames, instead e-mailing in and asking to be identified by their first names. The opening paragraph specifically *thanks* "Paul" and "Sam" for giving as much help as they did, implying that they're not employees. It is still my impression that the quoted people are actually Ask Wizards staff. Yes, because it seems to be your intention to baselessly question the integrity of WotC all the time, even when there's no point to doing so. Why would WotC staff who have jobs to do bother "cheating" like this? And why would it matter if they did -- considering that they'd be presenting their opinions as *unofficial* and not representative of WotC's real opinion? Except its not at all protected against any of the tactics discussed - including Suffocation. A Magical Beast it needs to eat and breathe. Which merely means there's a non-resolvable contradiction at best, or that the word 'only' is clearly wrong at worst since there are perfectly plausible ways to kill it. Its not my fault the MM writer didn't consider all the methods by which creatures could be killed. In which case there's a *hole* in the rules with no obvious correct ruling. DMs are perfectly free to houserule that "only" is wrong, and that the Tarrasque can be killed by things like suffocation or starvation, while they're *also* perfectly free to houserule that suffocation reduces your HP by doing lethal damage to you, just as harm reduces your HP by doing lethal damage to you -- the fact that it reduces your HP to a target number is never clarified as meaning this doesn't count as "damage". It certainly seems to go very strongly against the intent of the Tarrasque to make it killable by suffocation, anyway. And, in case you didn't notice, monsters can't die of starvation by RAW -- starvation never does more than fatigue you and give you nonlethal damage. (Which makes sense, because the rate at which it takes something to starve to death varies hugely and doesn't obviously depend on HD, which makes it something DMs should adjudicate on the fly. The Tarrasque may well never need to eat, but only become weakened by not eating.) I mean, lets say you've got the Tarrasque "dead" (-10hp?) from Suffocation... he can't regenerate from that - he's either actually dead (like the core rules tell you), or he's totally immobile and insensate. The first conclusion makes a lot more sense within the rules. In fact, he's a corpse, since he literally became dead, and therefore doesn't have Regeneration anymore. When the Tarrasque "drops" to -1 HP, that's the equivalent of taking total HP+1 damage. (*You* think that "dropping" HP isn't the same as damage. I don't. Houserule territory.) He converts this lethal damage to nonlethal. He heals the normal amount of nonlethal damage through regen on the next turn. Yeah, Trolls and other regenerating creatures don't do this. Other regenerating creatures don't explicitly convert everything to nonlethal damage and don't have a clause explicitly saying "Can only be killed by X". Or the Tarrasque disintegrated by Sphere of Annihilation - even if its 'not dead', I'm not even sure what that means when the Tarrasque is dust. (The Tarrasque only being protected from disintegration effects that allow a save). It never actually says that. "Even if it fails its save" does not obviously exclude effects that have no save -- *you* interpret it that way, but the rules are written in English and have leeway in how they're interpreted. ("Don't stop talking even if he falls asleep" doesn't mean you're allowed to stop talking if he starts out already asleep.) Anyway, SoAs don't turn a creature to dust. They suck the creature in and the creature disappears through a "hole in existence". It's very unclear what this means. Ruling solely based on flavor, I could go either with the idea that since the Tarrasque is unkillable except by the specific method given, that SoAs simply ignore the Tarrasque completely. I could also rule that the SoA is an exception that sucks the Tarrasque in, based on the idea that SoAs don't really "kill" the creatures they suck in so much as transport them someplace from which they can never be returned, barring deific power. But no, there is no obvious ruling here that doesn't contradict something somewhere. Suffocation inflicts no damage. It sets your hp total to 0, then -1, then makes you dead regardless of your hp total. So even if you tak 50million damage, suffocation sets your hp total to 0 on the first round. That's how it works. Nothing in the rules makes it at all clear that there's a difference between HP "dropping" and taking lethal damage. You're imposing your own interpretation on everyone else as fact. The nice thing about this article is that it presented different opinions for people to judge on their own, without the stupid flamewars about who's right and who's wrong that plague the boards. I'll agree with you that the first question you name was poorly answered by not directly addressing the person's question, but I disagree that issues as contentious as means by which the Tarrasque can be killed -- which is and has always been a live debate -- are so obvious that you're the sole arbiter of the matter, and you are Absolutely Right and we all have to defer to you. Regardless, the only thing I was possibly wrong on was they were WotC employees, but there is every reason to expect they are and no one who would *know* said otherwise. No, there is not every reason to expect they are. There is every reason to expect that the paragraph at the top of the article is telling the truth.
Squirrelloid 05-07-07, 03:41 AM	Considering that I recall your response to a WizO actually doing this was to question said WizO's integrity and claim that WotC "commonly" has WotC employees pretend to be community members and send in fake submissions, I can see why they moved the thread. Woh woh woh. I did no such thing. I have never attacked a WizO directly. In fact, when last I saw the previous thread no WizO had posted. (Seeker95 is not a WizO, and I didn't attack his integrity). My last response on that thread was long before it degenerated into a flamewar, as I don't recall seeing any such thing. A google cached version of the thread is here: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:kG5GAdIo0PoJ:boards1.wiza rds.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D841235+Ask+Wizards+ Squirrelloid+read+rules&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us It includes my last post on the thread, which is before anything I would call a flamewar. (Shortly thereafter I went away for the weekend and was unable to follow the thread further). (Edit: some text snipped) Yes, because it seems to be your intention to baselessly question the integrity of WotC all the time, even when there's no point to doing so. Why would WotC staff who have jobs to do bother "cheating" like this? And why would it matter if they did -- considering that they'd be presenting their opinions as *unofficial* and not representative of WotC's real opinion? .... All the time? Just how many threads do you think I create? This is my only screen name on these forums. And most of the threads I participate in have to do with balance from a theoretical perspective, and in no way refers to specific designers, rarely to designers in general, and never questions their integrity. Occasionally I point out errors in e-published documents. I also sometimes critique cited 'rulings' by groups such as Customer Service when they are brought up in balance debates by analyzing the ruling itself against what the rules actually say. This is hardly all the time, and critiquing and analyzing these rulings is hardly attacking their credibility unless you consider any disagreement with Customer Service or similar an attack on their credibility. I am very much confused by your response, and think you must have me confused with another person. On to the rules related issues: In which case there's a *hole* in the rules with no obvious correct ruling. DMs are perfectly free to houserule that "only" is wrong, and that the Tarrasque can be killed by things like suffocation or starvation, while they're *also* perfectly free to houserule that suffocation reduces your HP by doing lethal damage to you, just as harm reduces your HP by doing lethal damage to you -- the fact that it reduces your HP to a target number is never clarified as meaning this doesn't count as "damage". Except Suffocation never deals damage. The rules are very clear. Suffocation A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success. When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates. No damage is inflicted, and even if it was, changes in your hp don't effect where you are in the suffocation process so long as you continue to suffocate. Even if you interpret dropping to 0hp as damage (which has no textual support whatsoever), the next round you still drop to -1, and the following round you still suffocate (die) if you have no air to breathe. Even if that 'dropping to 0' (-1) is somehow interpreted as damage, you still die on the third round. It certainly seems to go very strongly against the intent of the Tarrasque to make it killable by suffocation, anyway. And, in case you didn't notice, monsters can't die of starvation by RAW -- starvation never does more than fatigue you and give you nonlethal damage. (Which makes sense, because the rate at which it takes something to starve to death varies hugely and doesn't obviously depend on HD, which makes it something DMs should adjudicate on the fly. The Tarrasque may well never need to eat, but only become weakened by not eating.) Rules as a written document don't have intent. There are things that are true under the rules and things that aren't. Intent requires an agent capable of making decisions - once those rules are written and published, that agent (the writer) has signed off on what they currently say. I'll first note that the OP merely says the Tarrasque is vulnerable to starvation. I'll admit it can't kill it. When the Tarrasque "drops" to -1 HP, that's the equivalent of taking total HP+1 damage. (*You* think that "dropping" HP isn't the same as damage. I don't. Houserule territory.) He converts this lethal damage to nonlethal. He heals the normal amount of nonlethal damage through regen on the next turn. First, see my analysis above on dying the third round anyway, and thus this debate doesn't even matter. Second, it is accepted that drowning/suffocation works against Trolls and similar creatures. Regeneration does not stop drowning/suffocation from working. It would if it dealt damage. Which gives you all the 'rules intention' you could possibly want, if you believe in such things. (I don't think this actually constitutes an argument, but you might). Third, things only do damage if they explicitly say they do damage. For instance, attacks in combat do damage because of the following passage: When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures. Damage reduces a target’s current hit points. Damage dealing spells also explicitly say they deal damage. If it doesn't say it deals damage, it *doesn't deal damage*. Its that simple. (Basic constructionist rules - if the rules system doesn't define x as a y, x is not a y). Yeah, Trolls and other regenerating creatures don't do this. Other regenerating creatures don't explicitly convert everything to nonlethal damage and don't have a clause explicitly saying "Can only be killed by X". Except they do. Regeneration is always accompanied by a 'can be hurt normally by x, y, and z' clause. Which are the *only* things that can deal lethal damage to them, as per the rules on regeneration. *Everything else that deals damage converts it to nonlethal damage*. Which would imply that suffocation would be converted to nonlethal damage against trolls under your interpretation because they aren't specifically vulnerable to it. It never actually says that. "Even if it fails its save" does not obviously exclude effects that have no save -- *you* interpret it that way, but the rules are written in English and have leeway in how they're interpreted. ("Don't stop talking even if he falls asleep" doesn't mean you're allowed to stop talking if he starts out already asleep.) The Tarrasque's Regeneration ability. The relevant sentence has been bolded. Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability. The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead. If the tarrasque loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 1d6 minutes (the detached piece dies and decays normally). The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump. Note it never says it regenerates if it doesn't receive a save at all. Only if it fails a save. (Presumably making the save prevents it from getting killed by the effect that allows the save). The Sphere of Annihilation allows no save at all. If they wanted the Tarrasque protected from a Sphere of Annihilation, all they would have had to say is something to the effect of 'successful disintegration or death effects instead apply max hp+10 nonlethal damage'. Such a clause would cover all eventualities. Note that the clause about disintegration is actually totally useless - since disintegration doesn't inflict lethal damage, a disintegration spell can never reduce its hp to 0 or less, and therefore never reduce it to dust. Anyway, SoAs don't turn a creature to dust. They suck the creature in and the creature disappears through a "hole in existence". It's very unclear what this means. Sigh... Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed. emphasis added. I suppose that doesn't have to kill the Tarrasque... but I'm not sure what 'alive' combined with 'utterly destroyed' means. Ruling solely based on flavor, I could go either with the idea that since the Tarrasque is unkillable except by the specific method given, that SoAs simply ignore the Tarrasque completely. I could also rule that the SoA is an exception that sucks the Tarrasque in, based on the idea that SoAs don't really "kill" the creatures they suck in so much as transport them someplace from which they can never be returned, barring deific power. Flavor is not rules. The reality of flavor is determined solely by the quality of the rules backing it up. But no, there is no obvious ruling here that doesn't contradict something somewhere. I suppose the non-contradictory conclusion is that things like SoA and Suffocation make the Tarrasque 'utterly destroyed' or 'dead' without actually 'killing' it... whatever that means... A linguistic headache for sure. Occam's Razor certainly suggests we toss "only" from the Tarrasque rules text. There are actually rules-based reasons to make this interpretation as well. Interpreting the rules otherwise leads to far-reaching conclusions about the rules (such as Trolls are immune to Suffocation/Drowning, because regeneration works against it) which violates the primary source statement of those rules, and is therefore wrong. Nothing in the rules makes it at all clear that there's a difference between HP "dropping" and taking lethal damage. You're imposing your own interpretation on everyone else as fact. Answered above. The nice thing about this article is that it presented different opinions for people to judge on their own, without the stupid flamewars about who's right and who's wrong that plague the boards. I'll agree with you that the first question you name was poorly answered by not directly addressing the person's question, but I disagree that issues as contentious as means by which the Tarrasque can be killed -- which is and has always been a live debate -- are so obvious that you're the sole arbiter of the matter, and you are Absolutely Right and we all have to defer to you. I am not absolutely right. But I am willing to critically read and extensively quote the rules. The rules are absolutely right. If my interpretation of the rules is wrong, I can be proven so by quoting the passages that prove my mistake. (Edit: snipped)
Squirrelloid 05-07-07, 03:52 AM	As long as I've got a google-cached version of the old thread, this question about my conclusion on the Tressym deserves to be answered. The correct answer is: Yes, but your fellow party member loses his class levels and gets reduced to average attribute scores for his race. ("the familiar uses the base statistics for a creature of its kind"). In other words, you could do it, but you don't want to do it. Can you site a source for this ruling? Something in the RAW (core or elsewise) that backs this up? I used the FRCS version of Improved Familiar (since its the one that allows you to have a Tressym). It specifically includes the words "the familiar uses the base statistics for a creature of its kind". It also just allows you to acquire a creature of that type as a familiar, without any other restrictions or limits. In relation to the answers posted on the Ask Wizards page, i'll note that Tressym have an intelligence higher than 2 normally, so clearly Improved Familiar lets you avoid that limitation. This should also answer Limit's issue with my conclusion. (Note that (1) FRCS is considered 3.5 legal by WotC because they haven't reprinted it to the best of my knowledge yet it is referenced continually by FR material, and (2) Tressym are not on the list of the SRD 3.5 version of Improved Familiar, so technically that version of the feat is an inappropriate reference. If you assume that Tressym are a legal target with the new version of the feat, then yes, you'd probably conclude that player characters cannot be targetted - not that you'd want to target them with the FRCS version anyway, even though you can. I say probably because all the relevant lines in the familiar rules that require it to be "normal" also refer to it as being an "animal", and those restrictions are clearly removed by the feat which allows you to choose non-animals (and therefore you aren't limited to "normal animals" but it also doesnt say 'replace the word animal with the creatures type, it just lets you choose other things - which theoretically eliminates those whole sentences). Therefore, one could certainly argue you could target a party-member who was playing an appropriate creature using the SRD version, and its unclear whether it actually works).
Stormbrand 05-07-07, 04:37 AM	Originally Posted by SRD Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability. The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead. If the tarrasque loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 1d6 minutes (the detached piece dies and decays normally). The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump. Emphasis mine. No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. Blanket rule to refer to when in doubt. The tarrasque regenerates even ifit fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. 'Even if' implies an extreme example, not a limitation. The sentence exists to clarify that the regeneration cannot be bypassed, even by unnatural means. The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead. Only - as in 'this and nothing else.' A big point is made of the thing refusing to die. My conclusion is that you can drown the tarrasque, suffocate it (one helluva plastic bag), do anything you like. Without the Wish/Miracle, it will recover. The rules for suffocation & drowning are instant death, it just happens later. Of course, drowning it would be a pretty effective end to the tarrasque, since the damn thing is pretty difficult to well, move.
Seeker95 05-07-07, 07:52 AM	The OP is complaining that an April Fools article asking for community members to answer stupid or nonsensical questions was followed up with an article of answers from those community members that contains contradictory answers from those community members that chose to respond. And he accuses WotC of giving wrong answers. I guess I should start a thread complaining that WotC is disseminating misinformation every time it allows a thread to remain on these Boards when it contains incorrect answers.
Erato 05-07-07, 08:35 AM	It’s not terribly relevant, but shouldn’t this be in RPG Boards Business section? And I agree with Seeker95, if that’s really the case.
Zherog 05-07-07, 10:43 AM	It’s not terribly relevant, but shouldn’t this be in RPG Boards Business section? Why? It has nothing to do with the boards and everything to do with rules questions.
Seeker95 05-07-07, 10:58 AM	And I agree with Seeker95, if that’s really the case.Just to clarify. From the OP:Some of you may remember the thread where I pointed out completely incorrect responses by Ask Wizards employees on really simple rules questions. complaining about the inability to read or reference the rules by WotC employees specifically tasked with answering rules questions is unacceptable. Is it so much to ask that the people paid to answer rules questions actually read the rules they answer questions about?And here are the opening paragraphs of the article he is talking about:On April Fool’s Day this year, we put forward our first set of “Ask Wizards Stumpers” – questions that defied easy answer… or any answer at all. While we feared to delve too deeply into these questions, we challenged the DMs, sages, and rules lawyers extraordinaire within the community to put forward your own answers. And so, following are the solutions you provided. Our thanks to everyone participating (and especially to Robert and Sam, who tackled not one but virtually every question).The answers Squirrelloid is disagreeing with were provided by non-employees.
Phrennzy 05-07-07, 11:54 AM	My Goodness the drama is thick in these parts.
Squirrelloid 05-07-07, 02:04 PM	Edit: I have removed all reference to WotC employees and Ask Wizards employees in the OP (if i missed any PM me and I'll remove them).
Squirrelloid 05-07-07, 02:16 PM	Regeneration (Ex) No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability. The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead. If the tarrasque loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 1d6 minutes (the detached piece dies and decays normally). The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump. Emphasis mine. Sigh. Suffocation and Drowning "inflict" no "damage". They set your hp total to a particular number. If they inflicted damage, clearly it would become nonlethal. They do not, and the rules never say they do. 'Even if' implies an extreme example, not a limitation. The sentence exists to clarify that the regeneration cannot be bypassed, even by unnatural means. And it specifically mentions (1) the disintegration spell and (2) "death effects", which is all it protects against. The following sentence specifically triggers off a failed saving throw - if there is no saving throw then there is no regeneration. Only - as in 'this and nothing else.' A big point is made of the thing refusing to die. So suffocation makes it dead but not slain. This is actually a valid linguistic distinction, as slain (like kill) is death by violence. Slay 1. to kill by violence. 2. to destroy; extinguish. 3. sley. 4. Informal. to impress strongly; overwhelm, esp. by humor: Your jokes slay me. 5. Obsolete. to strike. –verb (used without object) 6. to kill or murder. –noun 7. sley. Suffocation is not killing with violence, and therefore this prohibition against slaying the Tarrasque by any other method doesn't apply. It logically applies to things which *deal damage*, and are therefore violent. My conclusion is that you can drown the tarrasque, suffocate it (one helluva plastic bag), do anything you like. Without the Wish/Miracle, it will recover. How? It has actual negative hp and regeneration cannot restore hp damage, only remove nonlethal damage. The rules for suffocation & drowning are instant death, it just happens later. Instant (see also instantaneous) are well defined terms in D+D. Suffocation is not 'instant death' because its effect time is longer than instantaneous.
wrecan 05-07-07, 02:53 PM	Two WizOs have commented on this thread and did not say that the quoted people were not Wizards employees when they easily could have.Are you under the misimpression that the WizOs are locate din Renton Washington and can walk down to the next cubicle and find out the dienties of the contributors?! The WizOs have no idea who those peope are and neither do you. Let's take WotC at its word when they wrote that these were answers from folks in the forum community, okay?
Stormbrand 05-07-07, 03:30 PM	Sigh. Suffocation and Drowning "inflict" no "damage". They set your hp total to a particular number. If they inflicted damage, clearly it would become nonlethal. They do not, and the rules never say they do. Already I can see how the first thread sparked a flame war, so I am not staying. Simply don't take this as the point being conceded, take this as me wanting to post on things that will be more fun and interesting. And it specifically mentions (1) the disintegration spell and (2) "death effects", which is all it protects against. The following sentence specifically triggers off a failed saving throw - if there is no saving throw then there is no regeneration. As examples. So suffocation makes it dead but not slain. This is actually a valid linguistic distinction, as slain (like kill) is death by violence. Suffocation is not killing with violence, and therefore this prohibition against slaying the Tarrasque by any other method doesn't apply. It logically applies to things which *deal damage*, and are therefore violent. Really? Have you never heard of a murder trial? In all seriousness, suffocating someone is generally considered violent. How? It has actual negative hp and regeneration cannot restore hp damage, only remove nonlethal damage. If it is HP damage, it is therefore nonlethal - because it is the tarrasque. Instant (see also instantaneous) are well defined terms in D+D. Suffocation is not 'instant death' because its effect time is longer than instantaneous. Effect 1, Effect 2, Effect death. That is how it works. The thing cannot die.
WotC_ScottR 05-07-07, 03:40 PM	Two WizOs have commented on this thread and did not say that the quoted people were not Wizards employees when they easily could have. I have already stated that if I receive confirmation that they are not I will remove all such references. My reading of the first couple of paragraphs in no way prohibits the answering of the questions by WotC employees. Rather, it just *also* allows for the community to have provided some answers. Some answers are provided by people with screen names, who are obviously board members. It seems perfectly reasonable that some WotC employees would have provided some answers to seed the article to get it started. And if any proof was provided in the previous thread for your statements I am unaware of it, as the thread got moved because of flaming before I had a chance to see any such responses. Edit: Actually, I just removed all reference to WotC employees and Ask Wizards in the OP (if i missed any PM me and I'll remove them). I'm far more interested in the rules-debate, and there's no point in arguing about who is responsible for the errors at this point. If the OP had followed the original thread further over the weekend they would have seen posts from me, the Senior Brand Manger for D&D, saying that the article was 1) an April Fools and 2) that attempts to answer questions posed in the April Fools article were actually made by members of the community (and conversely not WOTC employees). I beleive these two points were clearly made (by me and other posters) but the flame war continued and the Wizos rightly removed the original thread. Can we stop this now?
Squirrelloid 05-07-07, 03:48 PM	Already I can see how the first thread sparked a flame war, so I am not staying. Simply don't take this as the point being conceded, take this as me wanting to post on things that will be more fun and interesting. Look, the rules explicitly define everything that deals damage as doing so. If something doesn't say it is damage, it isn't. Its that simple. For example, when you gain a negative level you lose 5 hp. This is not "damage", and works against creatures that regenerate. As examples. Of what? Death effects are not attacks that deal damage - its specifically mentioning them to let you know they don't work and explain mechanically what they do. It can't be an example if it has to give a mechanical explanation. Really? Have you never heard of a murder trial? In all seriousness, suffocating someone is generally considered violent. uh... Suffocating to death is not violent. If you have to hold a pillow over their face, and restrain them to cause it to happen, then it could be violence (if there is a struggle, for example). The example 'Creating a cube of Force walls and waiting for its air to run out' involves no violence whatsoever. Suffocating (and Drowning) in D+D are status conditions, not acts at all. Circumstances which cause those status conditions can be violent or not, but it is the status condition which causes death, not the circumstances. If it is HP damage, it is therefore nonlethal - because it is the tarrasque. Excuse me. Regeneration does not restore lost hp. Suffocation deals no damage, it resets your hp total. A suffocating person at 0 hp (from round 1) who takes 5 damage (-5hp) is still set to -1 hp the following round from suffocating. Effect 1, Effect 2, Effect death. That is how it works. The thing cannot die. Except its all one effect. And it cannot be slain, not it cannot die. There is a valid distinction between the two. Alternately, should you stop at "effect 2" as you call it (-1hp) it will 'bleed' to death unless it stabilizes - repeat until it fails to stabilize.
Squirrelloid 05-07-07, 03:50 PM	If the OP had followed the original thread further over the weekend they would have seen posts from me, the Senior Brand Manger for D&D, saying that the article was 1) an April Fools and 2) that attempts to answer questions posed in the April Fools article were actually made by members of the community (and conversely not WOTC employees). I beleive these two points were clearly made (by me and other posters) but the flame war continued and the Wizos rightly removed the original thread. Can we stop this now? I have already removed all references to WotC employees from the OP and title. The rules discussion is a valid thread topic, although if you ask I will gladly delete all relevant posts by myself.
WotC_ScottR 05-07-07, 04:05 PM	I have already removed all references to WotC employees from the OP and title. The rules discussion is a valid thread topic, although if you ask I will gladly delete all relevant posts by myself. I think the topic is totally valid as a discussion of rules eg "can the tarrasque be suffocated? Here some community people have said xy&Z about it". I resent the implication that WOTC nefariously lied in the article by posing staffers as commuinity members and that we tried to cover it up by removing the thread where where were called out on it. The tone taken by the OP in the postings and even in thread titles is inflammatory and vilifies us by implying we are liars. I would like that to stop now that it is clear the comments in the article were from members of the community. Thanks
WotC_ScottR 05-07-07, 04:08 PM	I have already removed all references to WotC employees from the OP and title. The rules discussion is a valid thread topic, although if you ask I will gladly delete all relevant posts by myself. Thank you
CCS 05-07-07, 04:12 PM	Ok, so you've managed to "prove" that the people answering the questions sent in don't know what they're talking about. SO WHAT? Really, when I read you're examples, all I could think of was a similar situation a few years back concerning Games Workshop & their minitures game 40k. We had endless debates at the one shop I used to play at due to some poorly phrased rules. So a few people called up the "Rulz Boyz" at the # provided by GW over the course of the week. Supposedly these people had the answers..... So next weeks game arives and the two players proudly repeat wht the Boyz had told them. They each had a different answer! To the same question. But they'd called the listed #! How could that be! And thus the argument now became one of wich RB was right. At this point several of us older gamers had to point out that the GW Rulz Boyz very often provided shoddy, inconsistant, answers. And should never be relied upon. Why? Because they were in fact just the Mail Order people who also got tasked with answering rules questions. Not rules specialists themselves, just the same guys you'd talk to if you placed an order by phone. Our younger counterparts didn't believe us. So over the course of the afternoon we ran an experiment. We picked one question that had one specific, KNOWN, correct answer within the base rule book. We called them 5 times, from 5 different cell-phones, over the course of 10 hours. We spoke to 5 different people. We recieved 2 completely wrong answers! We recieved 1 correct answer reached via the wrong proccess. We recieved 1 correct answer WITH the correct reasoning. And we recieved one answer of: "Well, it really depends how you want to play." So, a 1/5 chance of getting a correct answer to a basic question - in a game where there's not suppossed to be any wiggle room rules wise. It's either A, or it's B. Not C, not x because you felt like it on the third Saturday of the month. Not 50% of A/B.... Just A OR B. That was the last time anyone at that shop ever called the company # for help. So, in a game as complex and maleable as D&D, where every DM has all the power needed to change ANYTHING.... WHY do you expect the company rulz guy to be any more qualified than those 5 Games Workshop employees were. Whatever they reply with? Learn to take it with a large dose of salt. Because in THIS game it really DOES "Just depend how you want to play".
wrecan 05-07-07, 04:51 PM	Edit: Never mind