Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cobaltstarfire 02-21-05, 01:32 AM	Well I was talking to a friend about it, here's our convo. BlueMetasphere: I still think you can kill a terrasque without a wish by drowning it XXXXX: possibly, but I would suspect it could hold it's breath for a long time BlueMetasphere: yeah but once it runs out of breath... XXXXX: well, yeah, then the problem becomes getting it to go into water and keeping it there long enough for it to drown BlueMetasphere: yeah BlueMetasphere: hehe BlueMetasphere: but if it could be done XXXXX: true BlueMetasphere: if somehow the terrasque was drowned would you rule it dead without the wish? BlueMetasphere: because the wish spell is just needed to keep it from regenerating [right?] XXXXX: hmm XXXXX: I'm torn XXXXX: because though all magical beasts need to breathe, the monstorous manual's phrasing says the ONLY way is to use wish or miracle after nonleathal damage is equal to it's total hp+10 XXXXX: only tends to exclude other ways but breathing is kind of important BlueMetasphere: yeah BlueMetasphere: hmmm BlueMetasphere: you know but under monster type it does say that it has to breath BlueMetasphere: like you said BlueMetasphere: wouldn't that in a way superscede it? BlueMetasphere: the need for a wish that is XXXXX: wow, the terrasque can hold it's breath for quite a while BlueMetasphere: hehehe XXXXX: hmm XXXXX: well, in the DMG drowing is explained that once a save is failed then a monster will go down to 0 hp, then on the second round down to -1, then they die BlueMetasphere: so they don't even get to go to -9 before they die? XXXXX: nope BlueMetasphere: eesh XXXXX: and regeneration doesn't help with the whole damage taken thing XXXXX: but then again a terrasque doesn't have normal regen because it can even regen back from a failed save on a distengrate spell or death effect BlueMetasphere: yeah but drowning doesn't do any real damage in the sense of hitting someone with a sword XXXXX: well neither does disentigrate BlueMetasphere: I see disintigrate as making something well...disentigrate BlueMetasphere: drowning is just filly of the lungs with water and the brain dying from lack of oxygen XXXXX: wait, scratch that, it does deal damage and if it deals enough the thing fades away BlueMetasphere: disentigrate? XXXXX: yeah XXXXX: but symbol of death can outright "kill" it XXXXX: it stops the thing from breathing XXXXX: and it can regen from that BlueMetasphere: hmm BlueMetasphere: terrasque regeneration confuses me XXXXX: yeah, same here XXXXX: I'd probably ultimately rule that it can't regenerate so long as it's completely immersed in water but doesn't "die" until a miracle or wish is cast one it XXXXX: or at least so long as it can't continue to breath BlueMetasphere: so as long as it stays underwater it stays dead XXXXX: basically BlueMetasphere: but if it comes out it'll eventualy come back to life? XXXXX: yeah, it seems that's the way it's regen works XXXXX: at least to me it does XXXXX: you might want to ask the boards though because I still am not sure if that's how it's supposed to work BlueMetasphere: okay XXXXX: I don't think anyone has ever considered drowning a Terrasque before BlueMetasphere: I'm sure it's been thought of somewhere before What do you all think? :confused:
nick012000 02-21-05, 01:40 AM	You can also starve or dehydrate the tarrasque to death. In short, if it bypasses regeneration (like starvation, drowning, dehydration do) you can kill it with them. Though with the Tarrasque's swim score, he won't have much trouble staying afloat unless you dump him to the Elemental Plane of Water or something.
Derren S. 02-21-05, 01:41 AM	I still think drowning kills the Tarrasque without wish Reasons: 1. That a wish is needed to kill it is part of the regeneration entry 2. Drowning completly bypasses regeneration 3. That Tarrasque has no ability which lets it stay alive when its HPÜ reach -10 4. The regeneration only says that no form of attack deal real damage, and drowning is no attack. Drowning is a bit hard to do, but a extended Misame is still the only save or die spell which works on the Tarrasque (And before it got the save it was a instant tarrasque slayer)
nick012000 02-21-05, 01:44 AM	And so's a psion with Empathic Transfer: Hostile, and enough time.
cobaltstarfire 02-21-05, 01:50 AM	XXXXX: but symbol of death can outright "kill" it XXXXX: it stops the thing from breathing XXXXX: and it can regen from that Same basic thing as drowning, but maybe not. We think that if it were to be submerged permanently it'd stay dead, but if it came out, it'd eventualy come back to life.
nick012000 02-21-05, 02:05 AM	Symbol of Death is a death effect, and is therefore covered by the regeneration of the Tarrasque. Drowning is not. Besides, the fluff of death effects is that they attack the soul, anyway. So the tarrasque has an especially hardened soul.
Slagger the Chuul 02-21-05, 02:45 AM	Disintegrate and death effects are just examples, according to the text of its regeneration the tarrasque will recover from any effect that kills it instantly provided that it fails a saving throw. Happily, this doesn't cover ability checks (just saving throws), like those made to avoid drowning.
angryman 02-21-05, 03:44 AM	I can see a brave cleric with Plane Shift and a forked rod to the elemental plane of water...
Ra-Tiel 02-21-05, 05:11 AM	I can see a brave cleric with Plane Shift and a forked rod to the elemental plane of water... Hello. Why so complicated? All you need is a level 17 wizard. How to do it: a) Time Stop b) Reverse Gravity c) prepare 5 Wall of Force spells in midair but leave to top one a bit open d) when mr T. "falls" upwards close the force cube e) levitate upwards and ready your decanter of endless water f) have a coke and watch the show Graphical display: fill water in here \/___ |.....| |.T..| |.....| ------ _________________Ground level Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel.
Derren S. 02-21-05, 05:18 AM	Have a lvl 20 druid with lots of extended Miasmas, let him fly around in bird form casting Miasma at Big T with natural spell untill he fails a save. No water, same result.
cobaltstarfire 02-21-05, 07:01 AM	Hello. Why so complicated? All you need is a level 17 wizard. How to do it: a) Time Stop b) Reverse Gravity c) prepare 5 Wall of Force spells in midair but leave to top one a bit open d) when mr T. "falls" upwards close the force cube e) levitate upwards and ready your decanter of endless water f) have a coke and watch the show Graphical display: fill water in here \/___ |.....| |.T..| |.....| ------ _________________Ground level Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel. You are awsome :clap:
SilentOne 02-21-05, 02:27 PM	What's Miasme? I've looked all over for the spell but can't find it anywhere.
thugmeister 02-21-05, 02:30 PM	From the SRD: The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10- foot square per level. The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails. So you can't have a Floor of Force or a Ceiling of Force by way of this spell. Furthermore, unless made permanent (2500XP each which would cost more than Miracle or Wish), they only last 1 round/level. The Tarrasque can hold its breath for 35 rounds before it begins drowning. Even with Extend on all of them its going to come out of your 17th level wizard's bucket damp and angry but far from dead.
Derren S. 02-21-05, 03:07 PM	What's Miasme? I've looked all over for the spell but can't find it anywhere. A druid spell from Master of the Wild/Complete Divine was the most broken spell untill it was errataed. In its original 3.0 version it was a 4th level spell with medium range which filled the lungs of a creature with gas making it unable to breath for 5rounds/caster level with no save. So everything without dispell magic was dead. In 3.5 the duration was cut to 3rounds/level and I think the spell level raised to 5. Still with extend spell a killer to nonmagic creatures (or creatures without silent dispell magics) Now it was errated to have a fort negates save, but still one of the only "instant" death spells which works on the Tarrasque
Frozen Yakman 02-21-05, 03:37 PM	Con Ability Drain will also kill the creature without a need for the Wish spell.
Derren S. 02-21-05, 03:39 PM	Istn't the Tarrasque immun to ability drain? Or only to damage?
obrysii 02-21-05, 07:48 PM	I always thought it was really easy to kill the Tarrasque by getting a bunch of casters to Stoneshape it in, and then use a Decanter of Endless Water to drown it...using Stoneshape whenever needed after it has almost clawed it's way through the current layer of rock.
kilos 02-22-05, 06:41 PM	Hello. Why so complicated? All you need is a level 17 wizard. How to do it: a) Time Stop b) Reverse Gravity c) prepare 5 Wall of Force spells in midair but leave to top one a bit open d) when mr T. "falls" upwards close the force cube e) levitate upwards and ready your decanter of endless water f) have a coke and watch the show Graphical display: fill water in here \/___ |.....| |.T..| |.....| ------ _________________Ground level Just my :twocents: _Ra-Tiel. Quick question to that. Mr. T takes up a 30ft sqaured area. So my question is, do you need to cover the entire area the creature is in to make it go upward, because if so, then assuming Mr. T is twenty feet tall, you'd need to be level 54 to get him 10 feet off the ground. Because it's 10ft^2 per two caster levels and just to over his base area of 30ft by 30ft by 20ft(estimated height), which would be level 36... But, if you only had to cover a few squares, instead of all of them, then it would be easy... So, do you think you'd need to cover the whole area, or not. Because if you didn't have to then I'd suggest you take a really low level wizard with 6 scrolls of "wall of force", one scroll of "reverse gravity" and a tied up elephant, or other large animal used as bait. You set up the walls of force before hand, 30 feet above the bait. You hide 100 ft away from the bait, under some bushes, or in a hole, or something of that nature. Once Mr. T, reaches the bait, the plan goes the same as before. Reverse gravity, the sixth wall, going up top and turning on the tap. Except this time it is done by a 7th level Wizard. Such a high level due only to the cost goods, of 18,025gp, needed to carry out this mission. Not including the cost of the animal... but that can't be a big cost... and if you're a wizard just whip up an illusion of a nice tasty treat. But this only works if the creature in the reverse gravity area need not be entirely in the area.
Antioch 02-22-05, 06:57 PM	My take on the subject is that yes, you could in a sense drown a tarrasque if you managed to keep it submerged long enough, but it wouldn't permanently be dead. So long as it was under water or kept in a condition that would prevent it from breathing, it would remain "dead", but should it be surfaced or exposed to oxygen it would eventually recover. So basically you would still need the wish or miracle spell to finish it off.
Edymnion 02-22-05, 07:02 PM	Essentially, its a loophole in the rules that no non-munchkin DM would allow to be exploited. The spirit of the rules is that the Tarrasque cannot die without dropping it's HP and casting Wish. It recovers from anything else better than Godzilla. Personally, I use the 3.0 rules for him here. You have to take him down to -30 hp and cast Wish, and drowning only takes him down to -10. He is unconcious, yes, but that just means he can't attack. His regeneration still works to keep him at -10, his carapace still reflects spells, all that. And once he's exposed to the air again, he can breath, and his hitpoints start regenerating back up to full again. Essentially, unless your DM is brand spanking new, or absolutely refuses to do anything but the exact wording of any rule, there is no easy way to kill the Tarrasque.
Antioch 02-22-05, 07:08 PM	Essentially, its a loophole in the rules that no non-munchkin DM would allow to be exploited. The spirit of the rules is that the Tarrasque cannot die without dropping it's HP and casting Wish. It recovers from anything else better than Godzilla. Personally, I use the 3.0 rules for him here. You have to take him down to -30 hp and cast Wish, and drowning only takes him down to -10. He is unconcious, yes, but that just means he can't attack. His regeneration still works to keep him at -10, his carapace still reflects spells, all that. And once he's exposed to the air again, he can breath, and his hitpoints start regenerating back up to full again. Essentially, unless your DM is brand spanking new, or absolutely refuses to do anything but the exact wording of any rule, there is no easy way to kill the Tarrasque. My ruling attempts to follow the "spirit" of the rules by keeping it alive but pretty much disabled until it is allowed to breath. You could have an adventure or campaign where its frozen in ice and reanimates when its body is removed, or even bound underwater or something.
d_nychus 02-23-05, 12:33 AM	Essentially, its a loophole in the rules that no non-munchkin DM would allow to be exploited. The spirit of the rules is that the Tarrasque cannot die without dropping it's HP and casting Wish. It recovers from anything else better than Godzilla. Personally, I use the 3.0 rules for him here. You have to take him down to -30 hp and cast Wish, and drowning only takes him down to -10. He is unconcious, yes, but that just means he can't attack. His regeneration still works to keep him at -10, his carapace still reflects spells, all that. And once he's exposed to the air again, he can breath, and his hitpoints start regenerating back up to full again. Three huge problems in that. #1 You cannot, under any circumstances, bring the tarrasque to -30 hp. Subdual damage does not work that way. That was a huge error in the 3.0 MM, which was altered in the errata for it. The errata made you have to give it 870 subdual damage before a wish could be made to kill it. Under the original version, the tarrasque is totally unkillable. #2 Drowning does not take you -10 hp. It takes you to 0 hp, then to -1 hp, then it simply kills you, totally ignoring hp altogether. Since it ignores hp, it ignore regeneration. #3 Regeneration cannot restore actual hp loss, only subdual damage. If, say, the tarrasque were drowned to 0 hp, and then allowed to breath again, he would not heal any of the lost hp without magic from another or natural healing. If he were reduced to -1 and then allowed to breath again, he would still be unconscious, though he would not "bleed" to death. 3.5 does not change any of this, though 3.5 did eliminate the ability loss flaw in the tarrasque, so a necromancer with a single wraith can no longer (eventually) kill the tarrasque like he could in 3.0. That was a much bigger abuse than drowning the thing. Essentially, unless your DM is brand spanking new, or absolutely refuses to do anything but the exact wording of any rule, there is no easy way to kill the Tarrasque. No, even with the exact wording of the rules, the tarrasque is pretty tough to kill. Drowning is a way to avoid the wish, but normally, by the level that you can successfully pull off a setup to drown that thing, using a wish spell would make much more logical sense. Even the miasma tactic will take a LOT of attempts and overall effort to pay off.
Slagger the Chuul 02-23-05, 02:15 AM	Because if you didn't have to then I'd suggest you take a really low level wizard with 6 scrolls of "wall of force", one scroll of "reverse gravity" and a tied up elephant, or other large animal used as bait. You'd probably need a whole lot more scrolls to even attempt it, since the average wall of force will expire long before the tarrasque does.
Sproik 02-23-05, 02:34 AM	:noway: I totally disagree. From the SRD: 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. That's it. The only way. No drowning, no suffocation - just that.
d_nychus 02-23-05, 02:59 AM	That's a clause in the Regeneration section. Hence, anything that bypasses regeneration bypasses that clause.
cobaltstarfire 02-23-05, 03:46 AM	Well I couldn't say anything about brand spanking new Edymnion, the person I was conversing about this with has been playing mostly as a DM since 2nd ed, and he's a darn good dm too (I've never actualy been DM'd by him but everyone ALWAYS wants him to dm, and he has a very good grasp of the rules.) It's not a muchkin thought either, none of the people in my gaming groups are munches, we have one twinker that's an AWSOME Role player as well, but no munchkins. I personaly like the he stays dead until unsubmerged but that's only becasue of an evil campaign idea I came up with a few seconds before he said I should take the question to the boards for opinion. That'd fit into one of my crazier BBEG's that might cause all the oceans on the planet to be evaportated. And then the great terrasque awakens. :D At the same time I'm not sure if that'll work, because we still haven't gotten the rules figured out. (assuming a character culd even *keep* a terrasque submerged long enough to drown it.) If the making force walls thing works out somehow, I'd say that it'd be something thought of before using a wish spell at any rate. They'd have to kill the terrasque at least twice before they realized they have to do more than chop it up to keep it dead. Chances are someone meeting a terrasque the first time if they somehow manage to kill it then it comes back if they had a wish they'd probably try to wish it dead before they killed it. Of course that doesn't work either so then what? Ignoreing the fact that 5 permanent walls of force cost the same xp as nearly 3 wishes, and go grab an ancient wyrm silver dragon for the reverse gravity and we'd be set to kill the thing without having to fight it. I mean seriously how many real people want to directly attack a terrasque to begin with? (assuming the terrasque was real of course :) ) I wonder if that was understandable, I'm kinda tired...
shift244 02-23-05, 04:19 AM	:noway: I totally disagree. From the SRD: 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. That's it. The only way. No drowning, no suffocation - just that.:D i think what sproik is trying to say is tha by RAW, it is hard written in text that the ONLY way to slay the creature is that. all other alternatives, even those that bypasses HP, does not slay it. so it still lives! :P
Sproik 02-23-05, 04:58 AM	That's a clause in the Regeneration section. Hence, anything that bypasses regeneration bypasses that clause. That's an interesting leap - I can see why you have decided that. I would not agree with that decision on the basis that the position of the statement is a minor detail. However, consider also that drowning does not 'bypass regeneration'. - Drowning Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns. It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain. This does not 'bypass regeneration' at all. The monster drops to zero hit points, then -1 hit point. However, the third stage of drowning is actually impossible - it can only die when wished dead. I am perfectly happy for it to be unable to regenerate once it has reached 0 or -1 hit point however - given that regeneration does not restore hit points lost to suffocation.
NinjaPenguin 02-23-05, 06:07 AM	The old 'Kill the Tarrasque' problem... I believe that the spirit of that clause in the regeneration section basically says the following: Damage wont kill it, non-lethal damage down to -800-odd wont quite kill it, etc, etc... drowning doesn't do damage at all, it doesn't add any non-lethal damage to the total, it is not a death effect. I personally would take a good long look at the party who thunk up trying to drown the thing, read over the rules a few times, and say: Good job, bonus XP for creativity! I think this is a MUCH better idea than the old 2ed Bag of holding inside a partable hole inside a bag of holding routine :P
d_nychus 02-23-05, 08:53 AM	That's an interesting leap - I can see why you have decided that. I would not agree with that decision on the basis that the position of the statement is a minor detail. It is not a leap, because all of the Combat section is set up in sections like that. Anything under one header is a part of that section descriping one ability or one related group of abilities. Aside from the brief blurb at the very beginning, and only the beginning, of the Combat section to describe in general how the creature fights, everything single statement HAS to be a part of one the sections describing a special quality or ability. For your counter argument to be considered possible, the clause that immediately follows the clause about wish that states a tarrasque can reattach limbs would have to NOT be a part of the regeneration section. I don't know about you, but that seems like something that should be only included in a section on regeneration. However, consider also that drowning does not 'bypass regeneration'. - Drowning Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns. It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain. This does not 'bypass regeneration' at all. The monster drops to zero hit points, then -1 hit point. However, the third stage of drowning is actually impossible - it can only die when wished dead. I am perfectly happy for it to be unable to regenerate once it has reached 0 or -1 hit point however - given that regeneration does not restore hit points lost to suffocation. How on Earth can you come to that conclusion? Drowning is not an effect that deals hp damage. It sets your hp to 0 hp the first round, then -1 the second, and simply kills you on the third round. No damage is ever dealt. And, since by the SRD: In 3.0, on Regeneration Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage (for example, disintegration and most poisons) ignore regeneration. which had been what I was refering to in my previous post, and In 3.5, on Regeneration Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. , one can see that since drowning does not deal any sort of damage, it utterly ignores regeneration. Thus, by the rules as written, the tarrasque dies if it is ever drowned, without need for a wish. Really, why is this so bad? Do any of you realize how near impossible it is to trap the tarrasque in a way where drowning would be possible? With that much Strength, and that much Constitution to make the duration needed ludicrous, you're talking near-to-full Epic level play. And, by then, who cares if you use a wish or not?
Wayward Son 02-23-05, 09:34 AM	That is not dead Which can eternal lie And with strange eons Even death may die. :D I thought the quote fitting for the discussion. Personally, I go with the "unconscious until air is restored" camp, and I agree that it's ludicrous to think it will be in any way easy to keep the creature submerged until that point. Considering this is a unique creature with some unique abilities, I see the quoted text regarding the only means of killing it as overriding the normal regeneration rules. In this one, singular instance, a lack of oxygen isn't enough to destroy it. (I mean, even the flavor text mentions the creature sleeping buried for generations between attacks, IIRC. Not in a cave, but buried.) While the idea is clever, it's also simple, and you have to assume someone has tried it before. Let it "defeat" the creature, but leave the possibility of its return later on. (On the point of its "uniqueness", I had the thought "there's only one of these things in all of the planes." The evil thought that followed was "what if each plane had its own Tarrasque?" Imagine the chewy terror of an Infernal Tarrasque. The crunchy pain of an elemental Earth Tarrasque. Could you end up with a noble, radiant Celectial Tarrasque? :angelhide :rofl: Ahh, this is getting silly.)
d_nychus 02-23-05, 11:25 AM	:D I thought the quote fitting for the discussion. Personally, I go with the "unconscious until air is restored" camp, and I agree that it's ludicrous to think it will be in any way easy to keep the creature submerged until that point. Hey, you're fine to run it any way that you, but the question was on the RAW, and the RAW says that the tarrasque will die if somehow drowned. Considering this is a unique creature with some unique abilities, I see the quoted text regarding the only means of killing it as overriding the normal regeneration rules. But it does not override the fact that drowning bypasses regeneration. In this one, singular instance, a lack of oxygen isn't enough to destroy it. (I mean, even the flavor text mentions the creature sleeping buried for generations between attacks, IIRC. Not in a cave, but buried.) Source? I just reread the entire flavor text, and see no mention of the tarrasque being buried. While the idea is clever, it's also simple, and you have to assume someone has tried it before. Let it "defeat" the creature, but leave the possibility of its return later on. Simple? It's simple to trap a creature that can shred through even 1-foot thick adamantine in under a minute via Power Attack, can hold its breath for almost 10 minutes, and is virtually immune to all forms of magic? No, trapping the tarrasque is NOT simple; it is, in fact, a much more difficult task than to just have a few fighters and barbarians stomp on it enough to allow for a wish to finish it off. Frankly, as a DM, if my players managed to pull off the drowning the tarrasque trick successfully, I would be impressed, and feel they deserved the XP. (On the point of its "uniqueness", I had the thought "there's only one of these things in all of the planes." The evil thought that followed was "what if each plane had its own Tarrasque?" Imagine the chewy terror of an Infernal Tarrasque. The crunchy pain of an elemental Earth Tarrasque. Could you end up with a noble, radiant Celectial Tarrasque? :angelhide :rofl: Ahh, this is getting silly.) Well, if you hearken back to 2e, each plane DOES have a tarrasque, and there is even a planet in Spelljammer that is inhabited by nothing but giant lizard creatures, illithids, and a couple hundred tarrasques. Nice little vacation spot, there.
Mootilator 02-23-05, 02:16 PM	Excuse me if this is a really stupid question, but is it possible that a Tarrasque doesn't actually have the same need to breathe that we do? That it might just have been a divinely created creature that wasn't MEANT to be slain short of using a wish? Again...sorry if it sounds totally stupid, but saying that it has to breathe "just like us" is just an assumption. And before you say that it isn't realistic...think about what we are talking about. Besides, "breathing" is pretty vague anyway. It's possible to obtain oxygen without using the exact same system that WE do, right?
Derren S. 02-23-05, 02:32 PM	The Tarrasque is a magical beast and so it needs to breath normally. Don't forget that drowning/suffocation and starving use the same rules. So when the Tarrasque can't drown it also can't starve.
Drachasor 02-23-05, 02:47 PM	That's a clause in the Regeneration section. Hence, anything that bypasses regeneration bypasses that clause. Nothing automatically bypassess regeneration. It isn't a trait of suffocation that allows it to bypass regeneration, nor a trait of starvation. It is a trait of *standard* regeneration that allows those effects to bypass it. The custom rules for the Tarrasque's regeneration override the standard rules however, and hence it cannot be killed by such effects, merely reduced to -10 hitpoints. -Drachasor
Ogre4Hire 02-23-05, 02:49 PM	(On the point of its "uniqueness", I had the thought "there's only one of these things in all of the planes." The evil thought that followed was "what if each plane had its own Tarrasque?" Imagine the chewy terror of an Infernal Tarrasque. The crunchy pain of an elemental Earth Tarrasque. Could you end up with a noble, radiant Celectial Tarrasque? :angelhide :rofl: Ahh, this is getting silly.) What about a Psuedonatural Tarrasque? :88E:
d_nychus 02-23-05, 03:43 PM	Nothing automatically bypassess regeneration. It isn't a trait of suffocation that allows it to bypass regeneration Uh... Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. ...right. , nor a trait of starvation. It is a trait of *standard* regeneration that allows those effects to bypass it. What part of the Tarrasques regeneration specifically says that it stops drowning and suffocation? I see nothing at all to support that. Aside from a the clause about ignoring ability damage, and the clause about needing a wish to kill it once the nonlethal damage reaches 868 (or 870 in 3.0), nothing else is changed about regeneration. Since nothing else is changed, the default takes effect when specific questions that are not affected by the changes made for this one creature. The custom rules for the Tarrasque's regeneration override the standard rules however, and hence it cannot be killed by such effects, merely reduced to -10 hitpoints. -Drachasor Well, if a tarrasque is somehow reduced to -10 hp, it is dead, regardless of regeneration, because regeneration does not restore actual hp loss, only nonlethal damage. I think you need to reread how Regeneration works.
d_nychus 02-23-05, 03:44 PM	What about a Psuedonatural Tarrasque? :88E: Hmm, Cthuhlu's mentally challenged cousin?
Drachasor 02-23-05, 03:52 PM	d_nychus: First read: REGENERATION Creatures with this extraordinary ability recover from wounds quickly and can even regrow or reattach severed body parts. Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage, and the creature automatically cures itself of nonlethal damage at a fixed rate. Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away. The creature’s description includes the details. Creatures with regeneration can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts. Severed parts die if they are not reattached. Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage. As you can see, exemptions on regeneration for Suffocation and the like come from the standard form of regeneration. It isn't a special quality of Suffocation at all. Now read: 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. Read the bolded passage, and now read: 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. Clearly suffocating is "and effect that would kill it instantly", so the Tarrasque merely takes it's hitpoints +10 in non-lethal damage. The Tarrasque's modified regeneration rules override the standard lethality of Suffocation on regenerating creatures, since the Tarrasque has a broad-spectrum immunity to such death-causing effects. I read the relevent passages, unlike what you thought, and the above is the most logical conclusion. -Drachasor
Melpomene 02-23-05, 04:01 PM	This reminds me of the last Terrasque thread I was in, discoussing other ways to bypass the regen. My feelings on that, and here too, is, even when reduced to -10 HP, the terraque doesn't die. The terrasque can be slain IFF it has the ~900 nonlethal on it + wish, and is immune to death from "conventional" HP damage. YMMV.
Derren S. 02-23-05, 04:01 PM	Regeneration still does not apply as the Tarrasque only gets HP damage when it fails a save against a instant kill effect and suffocation has no save. Also it isn't even an instant kill effect as it takes three rounds or more to kill someone. Defineatly not instant.
Mercurius 02-23-05, 05:10 PM	This drowning idea occurred to me at least half a year ago, actually. Seems to me that, were there a way to do it, getting the tarrasque to the bottom of the ocean would be more than enough. He couldn't get to the surface fast enough while still holding his breath, even with his swim score. Of course, getting him there is a different story. Actually, it seems to me that the Tarrasque probably can't traverse oceans for just that reason (drowning), which would generally be stuck on one continent or die of drowning. Sucks for everyone on that continent, but not everyone else. *shrug* I'd still rule you needed the wish to finish it off, though.
Drachasor 02-23-05, 05:23 PM	Regeneration still does not apply as the Tarrasque only gets HP damage when it fails a save against a instant kill effect and suffocation has no save. Also it isn't even an instant kill effect as it takes three rounds or more to kill someone. Defineatly not instant. I'd note that the constitution checks are basically a save after a fashion; They even call it a save. Also, the entry on the Tarrasque's regeneration ability goes on to talk about "the only way to slay" it. -Drachasor
Derren S. 02-23-05, 05:30 PM	You may argue as much you want, but constitution checks are not saves and thus the special regeneration doesn't apply. And even if you consider those checks a save, suffocation doesn't kill instantly so regeneration doesn't apply either way. Also, suffocating is not slaying. Slaying involves an other creature who activly does something to kill which doesn't apply when drowning/suffocation.
Drachasor 02-23-05, 05:31 PM	Additionally I'd note that one can argue the Tarrasque can't suffocate, as it is also something that "produces incurable" wounds, and hence he is immune to it. That line and the line about the "only way" to kill make it pretty clear that one is severly limited in the final methods used to slay it. At best there are various ways to get the required non-lethal damage, but one always needs a wish (or something similar) to finish the job. -Drachasor
Derren S. 02-23-05, 05:34 PM	Suffocation doesn't produce wounds and the effects of suffocations are cureable, just not with regeneration.
Drachasor 02-23-05, 05:35 PM	You may argue as much you want, but constitution checks are not saves and thus the special regeneration doesn't apply. And even if you consider those checks a save, suffocation doesn't kill instantly so regeneration doesn't apply either way. Also, suffocating is not slaying. Slaying involves an other creature who activly does something to kill which doesn't apply when drowning/suffocation. If you are going to use an, imho, inane semantic arguement like that, then you have to allow that them calling the check a save means the check *is* a save. It's instant death in 3 rounds.... I think you are losing track of the spirit of the rules here. Using similar logic one could make a 6+ level equivalent to "disintigrate" that functioned similiar mechanically, but the Tarrasque wouldn't be immune because it wasn't "disintigrate." which is pure foolishness. Heck, you're allowing anything in that isn't death magic and has any sort of delay involved in its effects...so Phantasmal Killer with a 3 round delay on death is in....just make the new spell. -Drachasor
Derren S. 02-23-05, 05:44 PM	You are grasping straws. A Pahntasmal Killer delayed by three rounds is still an instant kill as delaying delays the whole effect, not only part of it. When casting a delayed phantasmal killer the whole effect starts after three rounds and slays instantly, while drowning starts in round one and kills in round three. And when you look in the PHB you can clearly see that ability checks and saves are something totally different. And I am fully convinced that the ruling that drowning kills the Tarrasque instantly is in the spirit of the ruling. The Tarrasque is nearly impossible to slay, but that doesn't include things like drowning which don't fall under "slaying"
Elendur 02-23-05, 05:47 PM	Just to clarify, the 5 walls of force thing doesn't work, right, because you can't make a wall on the horizontal plane?
SigmaJargon 02-23-05, 05:51 PM	Actually, though I was initially skeptical that this might not work, I think it might work, if you have a lenient DM.... You see, the proof relies on getting around the phrase, "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." Certainly, drowing is an effect with a saving throw that kills - but this isn't an instant effect, so it would function normally. On the other hand, the "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." So, the drowning seems to kill it, but it CANNOT be slain without Wish or Miracle, period. So you have a paradox, for the Tarrasque is dead, and yet not dead. Both sides have quite legitimate arguements. As always, in cases of this kind, DM ruling is required.
Drachasor 02-23-05, 05:52 PM	You are grasping straws. A Pahntasmal Killer delayed by three rounds is still an instant kill as delaying delays the whole effect, not only part of it. When casting a delayed phantasmal killer the whole effect starts after three rounds and slays instantly, while drowning starts in round one and kills in round three. And when you look in the PHB you can clearly see that ability checks and saves are something totally different. And I am fully convinced that the ruling that drowning kills the Tarrasque instantly is in the spirit of the ruling. The Tarrasque is nearly impossible to slay, but that doesn't include things like drowning which don't fall under "slaying" Riiiight, so a new version of Phantasmal Killer that had a similar mechanic to drowning (in terms of progressive effects) certainly wouldn't be overpowered compared to the old, but it can now suddenly kill a Tarrasque? -Drachasor
Derren S. 02-23-05, 05:53 PM	I say it again, Drowning doesn't offer a save, only constitution checks. Riiiight, so a new version of Phantasmal Killer that had a similar mechanic to drowning certainly wouldn't be overpowered compared to the old, but it can now suddenly kill a Tarrasque? This spell is called Miasma and can kill the Tarrasque as it is slowly suffocating it.
Drachasor 02-23-05, 05:59 PM	No offense Derren, but I think you are engaging in the worst form of rules lawyering. You're ignoring the spirit of the system on having the Tarrasque be extremely hard to kill. It's the kind of thing that makes DM less than charitable towards anything a player wants. Anyhow, suffocating is a an instant death effect, because even if you get a heal spell each round, you still die instantly on the third. -Drachasor
Derren S. 02-23-05, 06:07 PM	Can you proof that it is against the spirit of the game that the Tarrasque can drown? No, you can't. It is still very hard that some spells exist which can kill it without a wish is a problem of the spells. But, ok lets use your arguments that Drowning is an instant kill. The Tarrasque would only be immun to the 3rd round effekt of killing (which will be converted to nonlethal damage) but it is still at -1 hp and dieing, so unless the Tarasque stabilizes it dies anyway. If it stabilizes, it has to recover naturally. If the Tarrasque makes that and recovers it it instantly drowning again and it begins anew until the Tarrasque finally dies.
d_nychus 02-23-05, 11:17 PM	No offense Derren, but I think you are engaging in the worst form of rules lawyering. What is bad about us actually finding how the game really works? That's what the original question asked, if this were possible, and how it works, in the RAW. Frankly, you really should be more careful on how you read the rules. There have been a number of times that you have been outright You're ignoring the spirit of the system on having the Tarrasque be extremely hard to kill. You're kidding, right? You're telling me that it is easier to somehow trap and submerge a creature that can rip through one foot of adamantine in a minute, has an inherent + 17 to Swim checks, can hold its breath for nearly ten minutes, and is virtually immune to magic than it is to simply have a full frontal assault with your highly skilled warriors and spellcasters until a mage can wish it away? No, no way. I doubt drowning the thing is even realisitically possible until Epic levels, and, by then, the tarrasque is should not be much of a challenge anyways. Hell, even maisma has only a slim chance to ever succeed, with the errata. Conceivibly, a 13th level Druid using Extend spell would have a highly remote chance of pulling it off, though he would have to risk getting into Close range, which would make him tarrasque bait for a few rounds without careful planning. At 16th level, the duration actually is long enough to definately kill it should the spell actually get through the SR and the Fort save, but that is still a long shot. There is no guarantee for success until way into Epic levels, when the tarrasque's threat level is non-existant. It's the kind of thing that makes DM less than charitable towards anything a player wants. So, not allowing a clever idea that is super hard to pull off but is supported by the RAW to actually work is somehow more charitable. Gotcha. Anyhow, suffocating is a an instant death effect, because even if you get a heal spell each round, you still die instantly on the third. -Drachasor Yep, and regeneration does nothing to stop it, because it is not an effect that requires a saving throw. The tarrasque's regeneration ability only stops death effects that require a save.
Loren Pechtel 02-24-05, 12:43 AM	It seems to me that drowning would not actually kill Mr. T but it would effectively do so--he would be stuck in the negative hp's. However, if some fool healed him, he would come back.
Freefall 02-24-05, 12:47 AM	Can you proof that it is against the spirit of the game that the Tarrasque can drown? This just struck me as being a very rules-lawyerish response to his statement. Anyway, no we can't really prove that drowning is supposed to be covered by the Tarrasque's death-resistant nature. As far as I remember none of the editions specify that it can't drown/suffocate, and I don't have anything by Gygax saying the same, so it can't really be proven (not by me anyway). However, I would say that it can be inferred. The death-by-Wish description has always been probably the most notable part of its writeup. The thing is basically designed to be unkillable without the use of the most powerful of all arcane spells (or at least it was until the ELH came out). The thing is effectively immune to all standard offensive magic in a very unique way, used to be immune to all psionics, has always required magical weapons to harm, and on top of that was completely unkillable by raw physical force alone. On top of that, 2E (not sure about 1E) had a few extra lines on its supposed nature, about how it was thought to be the agent of Elemental Lords, or the living death machine of forgotten Elder Gods, and so forth. The net result of all this for me is that the Tarrasque is supposed to be a highly mystical creature and is not supposed to be killable through mundane methods at all, and drowning is pretty mundane. The fact that contriving a way to drown the thing will actually be more difficult than bringing it to -10 hp and casting Wish doesn't really matter to me, it's the principle that I care about. (BTW, would it be possible to get swallowed, make your way into the lungs, open up a decanter of endless water, and drown it that way? Easier than trapping it in an enclosed area). Actually, I was just wondering, does anyone know if drowning bypassed regeneration in 1E or 2E like it does in 3E? I'm inclined to think that regen was a bit different back then (it certainly seemed less codified).
d_nychus 02-24-05, 12:51 AM	Just what stops him from dying on the third round of drowning? Nothing in regeneration can even possibly apply to drowning, since it is not an attack that deals hp damage (and it causes a death effect that has no save, which, again bypasses the tarrasque modification of regeneration).
d_nychus 02-24-05, 01:25 AM	This just struck me as being a very rules-lawyerish response to his statement. Anyway, no we can't really prove that drowning is supposed to be covered by the Tarrasque's death-resistant nature. As far as I remember none of the editions specify that it can't drown/suffocate, and I don't have anything by Gygax saying the same, so it can't really be proven (not by me anyway). And yet, you and many others continue to claim it, despite the actual rules as written stating otherwise. However, I would say that it can be inferred. The death-by-Wish description has always been probably the most notable part of its writeup. The thing is basically designed to be unkillable without the use of the most powerful of all arcane spells (or at least it was until the ELH came out). The thing is effectively immune to all standard offensive magic in a very unique way, used to be immune to all psionics, has always required magical weapons to harm, and on top of that was completely unkillable by raw physical force alone. On top of that, 2E (not sure about 1E) had a few extra lines on its supposed nature, about how it was thought to be the agent of Elemental Lords, or the living death machine of forgotten Elder Gods, and so forth. Well, a good portion of that has stayed the same, but, at the same time, 3e changed a LOT of things. Who is to say that this is not merely one of the changes that 3e brought, and the tarrasque is now supposed to be slightly more killable? That has happened with things like demons and devils. The net result of all this for me is that the Tarrasque is supposed to be a highly mystical creature and is not supposed to be killable through mundane methods at all, and drowning is pretty mundane. The fact that contriving a way to drown the thing will actually be more difficult than bringing it to -10 hp and casting Wish doesn't really matter to me, it's the principle that I care about. It's the priciple I care about, too. A rule is a rule, and nothing in the entry of the tarrasque alters anything with drowning or suffocation. It alters many other aspects of regeneration, but not that one. Maybe it was overlooked. Maybe it was supposed to be unkillable without a wish in 3e. Hell, it's a good bet it was supposed to be. But that still does not change the fact that rules as written allow for it to be done. And you cannot reduce the tarrasque to -10 hp. His regeneration forbids it. However, you can bring his nonlethal damage up to 868, whereupon a wish may be used to slay the creature. (BTW, would it be possible to get swallowed, make your way into the lungs, open up a decanter of endless water, and drown it that way? Easier than trapping it in an enclosed area). By the rules, no. When you are trapped inside, you can only use your weapons to ust your way out, if you choose. I don't think it allows for The Incredible Journey to the heart and lungs, though that would make for some interesting stories. Actually, I was just wondering, does anyone know if drowning bypassed regeneration in 1E or 2E like it does in 3E? I'm inclined to think that regen was a bit different back then (it certainly seemed less codified). Just checked, as well as I could. In 2e, yes, drowning did bypass regeneration, because it automatically killed you if you failed a Con check. I could not find the drowning rules in 1e, just a chance for drowning while swimming (a lovely flat percentage based on weight carried and armor worn).
urial angel of death 02-24-05, 05:23 AM	i would just like to clarify some thing said awhile ago wall of force can be placed horizontally the stronghold builder's guide suggests using it as a floor
Wayward Son 02-24-05, 09:58 AM	Hey, you're fine to run it any way that you, but the question was on the RAW, and the RAW says that the tarrasque will die if somehow drowned. This point has already been well-covered by others. If you disagree, hey, you're fine to run it any way that you like. I hold with my interpretation of the RAW, as discussed. But it does not override the fact that drowning bypasses regeneration. The RAW of the Tarrasque's listing does, however. See above. Source? I just reread the entire flavor text, and see no mention of the tarrasque being buried. I'll get right onto digging my 1e and Living Greyhawk materials out of storage to check. :rolleyes: Simple? It's simple to trap a creature that can shred through even 1-foot thick adamantine in under a minute via Power Attack, can hold its breath for almost 10 minutes, and is virtually immune to all forms of magic? No, trapping the tarrasque is NOT simple; it is, in fact, a much more difficult task than to just have a few fighters and barbarians stomp on it enough to allow for a wish to finish it off. Of course, it's not all that simple to have the big-muscle types stomp on it, either. It tends to get offended and devour them. The idea of drowning the Tarrasque is a simple one, the execution of the plan is much harder, just as the frontal assault is easier to plan than to execute. Frankly, as a DM, if my players managed to pull off the drowning the tarrasque trick successfully, I would be impressed, and feel they deserved the XP. As would I. I never said the PCs pulling off the task wouldn't deserve full XP. An encounter's xp award depends on "overcoming the challenge" of the encounter, not on killing everything in the room. If the challenge here is "stopping the Tarrasque's path of destruction", then putting it into a coma at the bottom of an ocean would do the trick. Full XP, no death required. Admittedly, they have only delayed the creature for a while, but they have still overcome the challenge. Well, if you hearken back to 2e, each plane DOES have a tarrasque, and there is even a planet in Spelljammer that is inhabited by nothing but giant lizard creatures, illithids, and a couple hundred tarrasques. Nice little vacation spot, there. I can only imagine, as I was out of D&D for most of 2E, and never really dug into Planescape or Spelljammer (although I do have the old Spelljammer box set, largely untouched, in the above-mentioned storage space). If I recall from 1E, the "Prime" Tarrasque was theorized to have been born in the Twin Cataclysms that destroyed the ancient empires on which the current world was built (it's been too long to remember the spelling of those empires, if anyone wants to fill in). Whether it was a creation of one side or the other as an ultimate weapon, or simply the result of the massive release of magical energy during the Cataclysms is anyone's guess. It seems 2E Planescape played around with its origin and made that theory invalid. All anyone really knows is that it seems to burrow up from under the surface every few generations (or even decades) and rampage across the surface in a frenzy of destruction for a while (anywhere from days to months), then burrow down and vanish. No magics are ever able to find its resting spot, and the tunnel fills in behind it (like most burrowing creatures in D&D). Expeditions to find it while sleeping are discouraged by most civilized kingdoms, for fear of waking it early and sending it on a new rampage.
d_nychus 02-24-05, 11:08 AM	i would just like to clarify some thing said awhile ago wall of force can be placed horizontally the stronghold builder's guide suggests using it as a floor That is a special use form building magical stronghold, and not a normal use of the spell. Just as you can craft a bracers of armor using the spell mage armor, even though the spell does not vary in it's bonuses from +1 to +8. If you crafted a huge trap, spending the appropriate money and xp, then, yes, you could have a horizontal wall of force, but not in normal casting.
d_nychus 02-24-05, 11:22 AM	This point has already been well-covered by others. If you disagree, hey, you're fine to run it any way that you like. I hold with my interpretation of the RAW, as discussed. The RAW of the Tarrasque's listing does, however. See above. However, your interpretation has no backing in the rules. In fact, you specifically have to ignore certain aspects of the rules in order to arrive at your reading. I'll get right onto digging my 1e and Living Greyhawk materials out of storage to check. :rolleyes: So, you have no source stating this with the 3e incarnation. Hey, if it says it buries itself in 1e, that's fine and dandy, but we are not discussing 1e. We are discussing 3e. Of course, it's not all that simple to have the big-muscle types stomp on it, either. It tends to get offended and devour them. The idea of drowning the Tarrasque is a simple one, the execution of the plan is much harder, just as the frontal assault is easier to plan than to execute. I guarantee you that successfully executing a full frontal assault is more likely than successfully trapping the tarrasque and drowning him. As would I. I never said the PCs pulling off the task wouldn't deserve full XP. An encounter's xp award depends on "overcoming the challenge" of the encounter, not on killing everything in the room. If the challenge here is "stopping the Tarrasque's path of destruction", then putting it into a coma at the bottom of an ocean would do the trick. Full XP, no death required. Admittedly, they have only delayed the creature for a while, but they have still overcome the challenge. Hey, I totally agree with you there. I can only imagine, as I was out of D&D for most of 2E, and never really dug into Planescape or Spelljammer (although I do have the old Spelljammer box set, largely untouched, in the above-mentioned storage space). Can I have it? :D I could use the additional ship figs. By the way, both of those campaigns have some very good flavor, even if they also have some incredibly dumb ideas mixed in with them (giant space hamsters and way overpowered NPCs who never do anything to save the multiverse). If I recall from 1E, the "Prime" Tarrasque was theorized to have been born in the Twin Cataclysms that destroyed the ancient empires on which the current world was built (it's been too long to remember the spelling of those empires, if anyone wants to fill in). Whether it was a creation of one side or the other as an ultimate weapon, or simply the result of the massive release of magical energy during the Cataclysms is anyone's guess. Yes, that's the Greyhawk origin. However, there are other campaign worlds. It seems 2E Planescape played around with its origin and made that theory invalid. (I think you mean Spelljammer) How so? Who says that some powerful wizard in Suel or something didn't somehow summon it from another Prime Reality world to wreck havoc, and the thing was too powerful for him to control? Or somehow a few pieces of the orignal creation was sent to the other planet and grew into multiple tarrasques? All anyone really knows is that it seems to burrow up from under the surface every few generations (or even decades) and rampage across the surface in a frenzy of destruction for a while (anywhere from days to months), then burrow down and vanish. No magics are ever able to find its resting spot, and the tunnel fills in behind it (like most burrowing creatures in D&D). Expeditions to find it while sleeping are discouraged by most civilized kingdoms, for fear of waking it early and sending it on a new rampage. That's been modified in 3e, however.
Elendur 02-24-05, 11:25 AM	One thing this discussion points out to me is how poorly the drowning rules interact with everything else. You have an effect that changes your hit point total without doing damage. That's just weird. Seems like it should do Con damage instead. So how long would it take for a decanter of endless water to fill up a T cage?
d_nychus 02-24-05, 11:38 AM	Personally, I agree the drowning rules need an overhaul. The rules as written are extremely odd compared to the rest of 3e, as they are a hold back from 2e. And just what "cage" could you make that would hold the tarrasque, anyways? That is the important question. The thing can rip through adamantine in mere seconds, and wall of force would not last long enough (4 minutes with Extend spell at 20th level, and about 8 minute minimum to even have a chance to drown the tarrasque.) Frankly, pre-Epic, I don't know of a good way to hold it in one place to drown it.
Drachasor 02-24-05, 11:55 AM	Just what stops him from dying on the third round of drowning? Nothing in regeneration can even possibly apply to drowning, since it is not an attack that deals hp damage (and it causes a death effect that has no save, which, again bypasses the tarrasque modification of regeneration). However, it doesn't bypass the "only be permanently killed" part of the regeneration line. This means, ostensibly, that he can regeneration from any sort of damage that isn't backed up with a wish (or equivalent). For all intents and purposes, drowning is a form of attack and hence can't deal lethal damage to a Tarrasque, as is clearly indicated in the regeneration descriptor. I agree with Elendur that this whole thread indicates how poorly Drowning interracts with the rest of the system. Hmm, in my mind, it should probably be modified so that it is requiring Fort Saves. If you fail a save then you take 1d4 temporary ability damage to all stats (lack of oxygen to the brain and muscles) each round. That wouldn't work out too badly. Another way to handle it is with Non-lethal damage, probably 1d6 to 1d10 once you start suffocating. Something like that. -Drachasor
Drachasor 02-24-05, 12:02 PM	But, ok lets use your arguments that Drowning is an instant kill. The Tarrasque would only be immun to the 3rd round effekt of killing (which will be converted to nonlethal damage) but it is still at -1 hp and dieing, so unless the Tarasque stabilizes it dies anyway. If it stabilizes, it has to recover naturally. If the Tarrasque makes that and recovers it it instantly drowning again and it begins anew until the Tarrasque finally dies. The Tarrasque would certainly automatically stabalize (immune to bleeding effects), but it would never have to since no form of attack can deal it lethal damage. So Drowning could immobolize the Tarrasaque for a long time (until it is brought out of the water)...and I don't have a problem with that. Some insane and high level wizard/cleric/other entity is bound to do that sooner or later. Though, it actually is unclear wether the Tarrasque would begin drowning again once it had taken the HP + 10 non-lethal though. I could see an arguement for saying the Tarrasque is out for a round of suffocation, then starts regenerating again and the suffocation process begins anew (including rounds before fort saves are required). That gives the Tarrasque many minutes to move. Eventually he'd get out unless someone was keeping an eye on him. -Drachasor
Derren S. 02-24-05, 12:10 PM	1. Drowning is not an attack 2. Do you really have to resort to reword what its written in the rules to support your point? It says that the only way to slay the Tarrasque is a wish and as I said before, slaying is not the same as killing. 3. Drowning doesn't deals damage so it can't be blocked by regeneration as it affects the real HP and the >Tarrasque has no ability which lets it survive beeing at -10 HP or lets it not be dieing when at negativ HP. 4. The HP loss by dieing is not a bleeding effect. It is not even damage but a loss of HP which also isn't prevented by regeneration. 5. That the Tarrasuqe stabilizes is not certain. Its the same 10% chance for everyone. And recovering without outside help is even harder. Its more likely that the Tarrasque will die. I agree that Suffocation is not very good integrated in the system (Starving is even worse as at least as I have read it you can't starve to death in D&D) but without people pointing out this mistakes no one is correcting them.
Mootilator 02-24-05, 12:28 PM	"Really, why is this so bad?" Personally, I don't think it's "so bad", but keep in mind, as tenacious as "they" are about it NOT being possible, aren't those who think that it IS possible just as argumentative about it? Essentially, you are asking "what's the big deal?", yet you are devoting as much time to it as anyone, right? Would it be "so bad" that someone adheres to the spirit of the game as opposed to a rigid "letter of the law" type of play? I don't particularly care either way and neither way is "right". It's just styles, that' s all.
Heironymus_Vann 02-24-05, 12:39 PM	Hello. Why so complicated? All you need is a level 17 wizard. How to do it: a) Time Stop b) Reverse Gravity c) prepare 5 Wall of Force spells in midair but leave to top one a bit open d) when mr T. "falls" upwards close the force cube e) levitate upwards and ready your decanter of endless water f) have a coke and watch the show Unfortunately, Walls of Force must be vertical (per SRD) so you can't make a "force box" out of them. HV
Drachasor 02-24-05, 01:43 PM	1. Drowning is not an attack 2. Do you really have to resort to reword what its written in the rules to support your point? It says that the only way to slay the Tarrasque is a wish and as I said before, slaying is not the same as killing. 3. Drowning doesn't deals damage so it can't be blocked by regeneration as it affects the real HP and the >Tarrasque has no ability which lets it survive beeing at -10 HP or lets it not be dieing when at negativ HP. 4. The HP loss by dieing is not a bleeding effect. It is not even damage but a loss of HP which also isn't prevented by regeneration. 5. That the Tarrasuqe stabilizes is not certain. Its the same 10% chance for everyone. And recovering without outside help is even harder. Its more likely that the Tarrasque will die. I agree that Suffocation is not very good integrated in the system (Starving is even worse as at least as I have read it you can't starve to death in D&D) but without people pointing out this mistakes no one is correcting them. *Sigh* You are just making silly semantic arguements over what they are really getting at. "Slay" is used for flavor and color, not as a limitation. Intention or happenstance in no way change the nature of the damage or effect a Tarrasque is suffers. The same with "attack" and drowning...by similar logic you could say a rain of fire isn't an "attack" on anyone, but for all practical and game purposes it is. It is simply ludicrous to propose that a creature that can be fully disintigrated into fine dust and still regenerate would be stopped by a simple thing like some water in its lungs. You have to twist and rules-lawyer every fact on the Tarrasque to get to that position, and it is nothing any reasonable DM would allow. And bleeding to death when below 0 hitpoints does deal damage to you (1 point a round) and it is stopped by regeneration since that is a type of healing. -Drachasor
Elendur 02-24-05, 02:44 PM	It says that the only way to slay the Tarrasque is a wish and as I said before, slaying is not the same as killing.Slaying not the same as killing? Look, I don't really have a problem with big T drowning, but you really have gone off the rails here. Let's move on before people start posting dictionary definitions.
cobaltstarfire 02-24-05, 02:56 PM	I'd say lure it to the ocean then get lots and lots of good aquatic dragons to help you <.< >.> They can eventualy get it to the bottom and bind it, then have generation of guards to watch over the all mighty terrasque to make sure he doesn't reappear above water. It'd make for an interesting little story anyway... Both sides do have good points, although the drowns untill exposed back to air camp is more intuitive to makeing some really wonky campaign involving the water... which could be interesting.... and just to end this semantic argument slay tr.v. slew, slain, slay·ing, slays 1. To kill violently. 2. past tense and past participle often slayed Slang. To overwhelm, as with laughter or love: Those old jokes still slay me. v : kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered" And now the thesaurus Main Entry: slay Part of Speech: verb Definition: kill Synonyms: annihilate, assassinate, blow away, bump off, burn, butcher, chill, cook, cool, cut off, destroy, dispatch, do, do in, down, dust off, eliminate, erase, execute, exterminate, finish, hit, knock off, lay low, liquidate, massacre, mow down, murder, neutralize, put away, rub out, slaughter, snuff, waste Remember, we're all friends keep it nice so a wizo doesn't come along and zap the thread. Edit: Well if only I posted faster, hehe :D
friedmad 02-24-05, 02:57 PM	lure the tarrasque over a camoflaged 500-foot-deep pit. see it fall in. set the decanter of endless water a-gushing...go home, do your wife or the local half-elf harlot, have a hearty meal, a good night's rest, repeat 28 times, go back to the pit and collect your decanter, then level up....
Heironymus_Vann 02-24-05, 03:13 PM	All of these arguments seem to imply that T will cooperate nicely. The big question is, how do you get T into water and keep him there. It has +81 grapple and is collossal, so grappling by and large isn't an option. It can overcome Epic DR (since it has DR/Epic its natural weapons are assumed to overcome same) so it can easily dig through anything. From Str alone is has Climb and Swim at +17, so the 500ft just mentioned isn't really an option. And really, what's the point? It is big and dumb, and really doesn't do much damage (relatively speaking). Personally, I'd rather just True Dominate it and keep it as a pet... maybe set it up as my "rancor" in a pit under the audience chamber of my stronghold. perfect place to send unwanted guests to; with a +20 will save and SR 32 it might take a powerful enchanter at most a couple of tries to get the spell off. Naturally thereafter you cast spell immunity (break enchantment, etc) on it every day to keep some meddling intruder from ruining your day! HV
Derren S. 02-24-05, 03:16 PM	It is simply ludicrous to propose that a creature that can be fully disintigrated into fine dust and still regenerate would be stopped by a simple thing like some water in its lungs. You have to twist and rules-lawyer every fact on the Tarrasque to get to that position, and it is nothing any reasonable DM would allow. When the Tarrasque is disintegrated to dust then it is dead and stays dead as its real HP reach 0 which doesn't happen because of the regeneration. No dust. A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected. And bleeding to death when below 0 hitpoints does deal damage to you (1 point a round) and it is stopped by regeneration since that is a type of healing.-Drachasor You are again wrong. It is HP loss and no damage and thus not stopped by regeneration. And as regeneration doesn't heal real HP it doesn't prevent someone from dieing. Also the regeneration entry explicy says that it can't restore HP lost due thirst, starvation and suffocation so the point is mood. (But mentioning suffocation is unneccesary as it doesn't deal nonlethal damage) Dying (-1 to -9 Hit Points) A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable (see below). Please read the rules before posting false arguments.
d_nychus 02-24-05, 03:22 PM	lure the tarrasque over a camoflaged 500-foot-deep pit. see it fall in. set the decanter of endless water a-gushing...go home, do your wife or the local half-elf harlot, have a hearty meal, a good night's rest, repeat 28 times, go back to the pit and collect your decanter, then level up.... ...find it waiting for you with one foot in your house after digging its way out of the earth with its average 400 points of damage per round to innanimate objects, level down, and get eaten...
d_nychus 02-24-05, 03:31 PM	However, it doesn't bypass the "only be permanently killed" part of the regeneration line. This means, ostensibly, that he can regeneration from any sort of damage that isn't backed up with a wish (or equivalent). It's not an attack form that deals hp, so it utterly ignores regeneration, and therefore, all clauses in the regeneration section. For all intents and purposes, drowning is a form of attack and hence can't deal lethal damage to a Tarrasque, as is clearly indicated in the regeneration descriptor. But it is not an attack form that deals hp damage, hence it ignores regeneration. I agree with Elendur that this whole thread indicates how poorly Drowning interracts with the rest of the system. Hmm, in my mind, it should probably be modified so that it is requiring Fort Saves. If you fail a save then you take 1d4 temporary ability damage to all stats (lack of oxygen to the brain and muscles) each round. That wouldn't work out too badly. Well, it definately needs more work, but I think that's a decent start. Another way to handle it is with Non-lethal damage, probably 1d6 to 1d10 once you start suffocating. Something like that. -Drachasor Well, more damage than that. Otherwise, a PC could be underwater for hours before dying. Maybe 1d6 per HD or something.
Wayward Son 02-25-05, 10:00 AM	However, your interpretation has no backing in the rules. In fact, you specifically have to ignore certain aspects of the rules in order to arrive at your reading. *sigh* It's backed, very clearly, by the text in the Tarrasque's entry. As that has already been covered, repeatedly, in this thread, I won't go into it again. You can only run over the dead horse so many times before you just have bloody leather. So, you have no source stating this with the 3e incarnation. Hey, if it says it buries itself in 1e, that's fine and dandy, but we are not discussing 1e. We are discussing 3e. I'm discussing Greyhawk, the core setting for the game. 'Nuff said. I guarantee you that successfully executing a full frontal assault is more likely than successfully trapping the tarrasque and drowning him. Which in no way makes it easier, or makes the idea simpler. It just makes it more likely to succeed (and I agree, it does, though many deaths are likely unless the PCs are of high epic levels). Hey, I totally agree with you there. Huzzah! :) Can I have it? :D I could use the additional ship figs. By the way, both of those campaigns have some very good flavor, even if they also have some incredibly dumb ideas mixed in with them (giant space hamsters and way overpowered NPCs who never do anything to save the multiverse). No, I tend to packrat most of the things I like. Call it greed. :D I agree, the flavor of the kit was great, but I had a lot of trouble finding players around that time. College brought with it new systems (Champions was our game of choice for a while), and D&D wained for a long time. 3E actually brought me back to the system, and I like what they've done. Yes, that's the Greyhawk origin. However, there are other campaign worlds. Indeed. Since it is the core setting, it's the one I tend to use for common reference. In either case, es macht nicht.
d_nychus 02-25-05, 10:27 AM	Which in no way makes it easier, or makes the idea simpler. It just makes it more likely to succeed (and I agree, it does, though many deaths are likely unless the PCs are of high epic levels). Actually, according to the CR system, a group of 18th - 20th level characters SHOULD be able to beat a tarrasque in a direct confrontation, and still have enough umph left in them to tackle something else before resting. In fact, a 20th level party should theoretically be able to tackle four of these things a day, routinely. However, it would cost the party wizard 3,500 xp per shot, while everyone else is soaking up the xp. Not exactly fair.
ikki 02-25-05, 11:15 AM	lure the tarrasque over a camoflaged 500-foot-deep pit. see it fall in. set the decanter of endless water a-gushing...go home, do your wife or the local half-elf harlot, have a hearty meal, a good night's rest, repeat 28 times, go back to the pit and collect your decanter, then level up.... You forget something. It will sit there as the water rises.. then float as it rises higher, and when the water is level with the pit, climb out. A much better trick is to surround it by a force sphere, and then burn the air away. Suffocation. Or just leave it in the sphere, to starve. Alternatively get some epic guy with magically boosted strength of 2000, colossal and armored, who will just strangle it ;) Ofcourse with 2000, you might throw it into the sun :D
Ogre4Hire 02-25-05, 12:47 PM	To me, it seems that while drowning a Tarrasque does not, strictly speaking, break the mechanics of Mr. T's description, it certainly breaks the spirit. Really, I think the easiest way to deal with the Tarrasque would be to lure it through a Gate to one of the Outer Planes (Limbo seems to be a good choice, since nobody is likely to even realize it's there).
eRaz0r 02-25-05, 01:10 PM	Alternatively get some epic guy with magically boosted strength of 2000, colossal and armored, who will just strangle it ;) Ofcourse with 2000, you might throw it into the sun :D Ahh - now the Hulking Hurler has an alternative ammunition to the Orcish Shot Put. Ranger : I shoot arrows at it! Wizard : I cast MDJ at it ! Fighter : I run toward it, fully expecting it will be a corpse before I get there. Cleric : I put my books down long enough to heal someone because I'm really not overpowered, no not really. Hulking Hurler : I throw THE TARRASQUE at it ! I win !
Slagger the Chuul 02-25-05, 04:38 PM	To me, it seems that while drowning a Tarrasque does not, strictly speaking, break the mechanics of Mr. T's description, it certainly breaks the spirit. Unless you decide that the need to breathe might be an intentional weak point (if a very hard one to attack due to its general toughness). Now where did I put that oxygen-destroying weapon used on the last large reptile? :)
d_nychus 02-25-05, 05:21 PM	Unless you decide that the need to breathe might be an intentional weak point (if a very hard one to attack due to its general toughness). Now where did I put that oxygen-destroying weapon used on the last large reptile? :) Wow, that literally describes every Godzilla movie Toho has made in the last decade. The irony.
obrysii 02-25-05, 07:02 PM	Wow, that literally describes every Godzilla movie Toho has made in the last decade. The irony. And yet, perfect.
Vatras 02-26-05, 05:15 PM	You cannot kill the Tarrasque by drowning. (Waiting form the noise to abate.) Because everyone else already did kill the poor thing :)
Callahan 02-26-05, 08:01 PM	To me, it seems that while drowning a Tarrasque does not, strictly speaking, break the mechanics of Mr. T's description, it certainly breaks the spirit. Really, I think the easiest way to deal with the Tarrasque would be to lure it through a Gate to one of the Outer Planes (Limbo seems to be a good choice, since nobody is likely to even realize it's there). although it is a good idea to get rid of the thing and have some poor shmucks 10,000 ears in the future worry about it when they drain the ocien, open a gate to the water plane or just want a closer look at the "dead lizard".
Drachasor 02-28-05, 11:57 AM	Wow, that literally describes every Godzilla movie Toho has made in the last decade. The irony. Godzilla didn't die though....did he? -Drachasor
d_nychus 02-28-05, 01:39 PM	Only in one. And the Son of Godzilla mutated and grew to become the new Godzilla. Might sound stupid, but the actual scene where that takes place is pretty cool.
Neodymium 03-04-05, 10:31 AM	Alternatively get some epic guy with magically boosted strength of 2000, colossal and armored, who will just strangle it ;) Ofcourse with 2000, you might throw it into the sun :D With that kinda Str, he could probably throw the DM into the sun.
Tealgorthian 03-04-05, 04:21 PM	Why not... just use Deathwatch, drown it down to -1 hp, deal nine points of subdual damage, and Wish it dead?
d_nychus 03-04-05, 04:43 PM	Why not... just use Deathwatch, drown it down to -1 hp, deal nine points of subdual damage, and Wish it dead? Because that wouldn't work. Hit point do not affect not nonlethal/subdual damage, and vice versa. They are independent of each other. The only time they relate is if you have more subdual/nonlethal damage than you have current hp, you go unconscious, or if you have exactly the same amount of subdual/nonlethal as your current hp, you are staggered. If you do what you suggest, the tarrasque would still be at -1 hp, and have 9 points of subdual/nonlethal, which it would regenerate in one round.
Tealgorthian 03-04-05, 04:50 PM	Because that wouldn't work. Hit point do not affect not nonlethal/subdual damage, and vice versa. They are independent of each other. The only time they relate is if you have more subdual/nonlethal damage than you have current hp, you go unconscious, or if you have exactly the same amount of subdual/nonlethal as your current hp, you are staggered. If you do what you suggest, the tarrasque would still be at -1 hp, and have 9 points of subdual/nonlethal, which it would regenerate in one round. My mistake, I thought drowning did subdual damage. However, the drowning would reduce it to -1 hp, yes?
d_nychus 03-04-05, 06:04 PM	Yup. But you also cannot cast wish to kill a tarrasque unless its subdual/nonlethal damage is at 868 (in 3.5) or 870 (in 3.0). Having a real hit point level of -1 is utterly a mute point for the tarrasque in terms of wishing to kill it. However, by the rules as written, it would still "bleed" at the rate of 1 hp per round, and die at -10 hp. Regeneration cannot affect real hp, only subdual/nonlethal.
Zaffudo 03-04-05, 06:04 PM	4 pages. Sheesh. Here’s the deal- Using the RAW, the big T. can be drowned. That’s it and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile, because it just ain’t so. Using a logical deduction and the way the rules are actually written (Something I might add that Derren has done well) I don’t see how anyone can argue with it intelligently. That having been said, I think it’s an oversight. It’s a mistake, and it’s pretty obvious that the intent of the designers was to make the Tarrasque unkillable through any means other than Subdual Damage & a Wish. So, if we’re discussing the exact ‘letter of the law’ so to speak, then sure, you can drown the sucker. If we’re talking intent then you can’t. Any attempt to reconcile the two is not going to work because you are each trying to prove something different. P.S. As a side note, I’ve noticed a lot (and I mean a lot) of people who posted for the anti-drowning used arguments based entirely on flavor text from older editions. I cannot stress enough how bad an idea this is. 3rd edition is not, I repeat, is not any of the older editions. The Tarrasque of today is not the unholy monster of total destruction unequaled by anything else that it once was. You may play it different in your games (and if that’s what works for you I certainly hope that you do) but when discussing the RAW, you can’t think in those older terms. If you’re going to we might as well start discussing why Weapon Specialization was nerfed from +1/+2
d_nychus 03-04-05, 06:14 PM	4 pages. Sheesh. Here’s the deal- Using the RAW, the big T. can be drowned. That’s it and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile, because it just ain’t so. Using a logical deduction and the way the rules are actually written (Something I might add that Derren has done well) I don’t see how anyone can argue with it intelligently. That having been said, I think it’s an oversight. It’s a mistake, and it’s pretty obvious that the intent of the designers was to make the Tarrasque unkillable through any means other than Subdual Damage & a Wish. It's also pretty obvious that the drowning rules are pretty funked up, too, when you get right down to it. 2e rules for 3e play do not really set well. So, if we’re discussing the exact ‘letter of the law’ so to speak, then sure, you can drown the sucker. If we’re talking intent then you can’t. Any attempt to reconcile the two is not going to work because you are each trying to prove something different. That, and frankly, the amount of effort and resource costs it would take to drown the tarrasque is how much that it makes a direct confrontation with significant fatalities (and subsequent ressurections) seem cheap and easy by comparison. Seriously, I cannot image it being done without extremely special circumstances before Epic levels, and by then, a party of PCs SHOULD have an easy time at killing the tarrasque, regardless of the methods. Just like a second level party should have an easy time killing a kobold. P.S. As a side note, I’ve noticed a lot (and I mean a lot) of people who posted for the anti-drowning used arguments based entirely on flavor text from older editions. I cannot stress enough how bad an idea this is. 3rd edition is not, I repeat, is not any of the older editions. The Tarrasque of today is not the unholy monster of total destruction unequaled by anything else that it once was. You may play it different in your games (and if that’s what works for you I certainly hope that you do) but when discussing the RAW, you can’t think in those older terms. If you’re going to we might as well start discussing why Weapon Specialization was nerfed from +1/+2 Actually, if you want to get technical, WS still is +1/+2; +1 for Weapon Focus, a requirement, and +2 for Weapon Specialization. A better example would be why the fighter went from saving successfully against virtually any spell at high levels in 2e to being spell-bait in 3e.
Aerunation 03-05-05, 04:50 AM	"the tarrasque can be slain only by raising it's nonleathal damage total to its full normal hit points + 10 and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead" -monster manual key words.... -only -wish -miracle -keep -dead ....so the "rules as written" say that it dies at -10 subdual damage technically. Wish or miracle keep it dead for good. If not, it will come back to life the next round. The way I see it, you have to wish or miracle him "for real dead" after he drowns.
Derren S. 03-05-05, 05:21 AM	....so the "rules as written" say that it dies at -10 subdual damage technically. Wish or miracle keep it dead for good. If not, it will come back to life the next round. The way I see it, you have to wish or miracle him "for real dead" after he drowns. Why? When drowning, the Tarrasque really dies (either at the thrid round of drowning or when it is bleeding to death, depending on your ruling on "instant death effects with a save"). Its real HP reach -10 and when that happens you are death. Regeneration doesn't prevent that and the Tarrasque has no ability which lets it stay alive. The wish is only there to make the subdual damage real damage and is part of the regeneration ability. No regeneration, no wish needed.
Token 03-05-05, 06:26 AM	Just shapechange into another tarrasque and go manno e manno. Or cast imprisonment on it.
d_nychus 03-05-05, 10:06 AM	"the tarrasque can be slain only by raising it's nonleathal damage total to its full normal hit points + 10 and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead" -monster manual Yup. All of that is a part of the regeneration quality description. If something bypasses regeneration, like drowning does, it bypasses that statement. key words.... -only -wish -miracle -keep -dead Yup. Key words for slaying it via effects that are influenced by regeneration. Drowning is ignored by regeneration. Therefore, this phrase matters not for drowning. ....so the "rules as written" say that it dies at -10 subdual damage technically. No, that is an impossibility. There is no such thing as a negative number for subdual/nonlethal damage. Subdual/nonlethal damage starts at 1, and only goes up. Remember, the original printing of the 3.0 tarrasque could not be killed by damage followed by a wish spell at all, because it was written wrong. Since there is no way to have -30 damage with a regenerating creature like that, it was impossible to kill in that method. The errata and I think a subsequent printing fixed that error. Wish or miracle keep it dead for good. If not, it will come back to life the next round. The way I see it, you have to wish or miracle him "for real dead" after he drowns. The rules as written totally disagree with you, however.
Thieran 03-05-05, 11:09 AM	The point d_nychus makes is totally clear. Why don't you start do believe it? It may not be in the designers' intention, but from a "technical" point of view he is right. That's what the rules say.
Callahan 03-05-05, 12:52 PM	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. Basically I see this as the only way a Terrasque can be killed. As a DM I feel that any cheap shot like teleporting a Terrasque to the bottom of the ocean or using a sphere of disintegration is a cheap shot at abusing rules to try and cheat your way to victory. It's unfair to me as a DM and unfair to other player. I would not cheat anyone out of a complete role playing game by letting someone cheap shot their way through a game. If this means that the PC have to act like their characters to win, then all the better, it's all up to the DM and players in the end.
Legacy-Warrior 03-05-05, 07:57 PM	Sorry this isn't very pretty however hopefully we can put this to rest here. ~~ From Troll Description Regeneration (Ex): Fire and acid deal normal damage to a troll. If a troll loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 3d6 minutes. The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump. From Tarrasque Description 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. Text on Regeration Regeneration (Ex): A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage. The creature automatically heals nonlethal damage at a fixed rate per round, as given in the entry. Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal lethal damage to the creature, which doesn’t go away. The creature’s descriptive text describes the details. A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace. The attack cannot be of a type that automatically converts to nonlethal damage. Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore 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; details are in the creature’s descriptive text. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally. A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability. ~~ Ok, after a lot of investigation here's what we have. -At first I was on the side that drowning would not kill it. However when we look at the second paragraph of REGERATION it clearly says it would. -Secondly I noticed that there are major differences between Troll and Tarrasque. This is clearly for a reason otherwise the Tarrasque would have been given the standard regeneration text, it has not been given that however. This led me to believe that it was infact an infinate loop of interpretation. -Thirdly I finally decided to look up the entire text regarding regeneration. While it is attached to the paragraph on regeneration that effects such as drowning and starvation bypass regeneration it simply lists these as "blanket" effects that cover all forms of regeneration. Above this however it clearly states that certian attack forms do deal lethal damage, typically fire and acid. It also states to determine the specific nature of a regenerative trait one must reference the listed creature. So... It comes down to one of two things at it's most unfortunate murky nature. For some reason certian players have decided to first reference a specific creature as the basic rules regarding specific traits (ie. regeneration) when the basic rules regarding these traits are given a section of their own for generic "blanket" information. This is an incorrect persuit method as this will always lead to any exceptions to the rules needing to be listed under the traits section rather than the specific monster. This is because applying the logistics of the basic trait information will always be applied last thus always negate any detail or exception that has been given to certain aspects which is clearly not the purpose of having certian listings with information other than just a bold REGENERATION listed under the creature traits. In short this method of referencing and interpretation only serves to make any creature with specific trait information genericly traited. Thus the text listed under Tarrasque has priority over the generic information listed in regeneration, as the text in regeneration specifically says it should. So here we have the key factor: "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." This is exception text that clearly states there is a one singular way to kill the tarrasque. The second option: Even if the incorrect order of reference is persued it only leads to a cycle of interpretation which is where the thread has been for the previous pages/posts. This discussion should, in it's ultimate nature, be to provide clarity and not to stand stubbornly in personal views as many such threads are reduced to. That being said I have read the thread in its entirety and consider myself to have learned something on the subject as I hope we all have. We should all also take into account that the sake of fun is the purpose of the game and are free to persue avenues differently than are given as these "are merely guidelines" as we have all become accustomed to hearing. :) Personally I wish they would've just had text that says "Unkillable: Can not die except by- X, Y, Z." But unlike the Tarrasque we'd die from lack oxygen if we held our breath on that one. Fun > Logistics > Unclear Rules Just have fun above all else guys & gals.
d_nychus 03-05-05, 08:19 PM	Basically I see this as the only way a Terrasque can be killed. As a DM I feel that any cheap shot like teleporting a Terrasque to the bottom of the ocean or using a sphere of disintegration is a cheap shot at abusing rules to try and cheat your way to victory. It's unfair to me as a DM and unfair to other player. I would not cheat anyone out of a complete role playing game by letting someone cheap shot their way through a game. First off, no way in hell the sphere of annihilation can kill the tarrasque. Too weak. By the time effects that can drown the tarrasque become available, but not necessarily viable, the party should have a good chance of killing the tarrasque just on their own combat prowess, and that by the time the effects become useable, the party should be able to handle 4-5 tarrasques a day in straight, stand up fight encounters. Seriously, what you call a 'cheap shot' is not even remotely as cheap are you seem to think it is. No one is going to even have the potential to kill the tarrasque by drowning until about levels 17-20, and even then only with a very slim chance for success, and no one is going to reliably kill the tarrasque by drowning until Epic levels. And, at Epic levels, the tarrasque is a freakin' kobold encounter. The tarrasque drowning is not game breaking, or even flavor breaking. It's too hard to pull off to even remotely be anything but an Epic undertaking. Pre-Epic, it is possible, but so unlikely that it's virtually impossible. And since the tarrasque is an easy encounter any point after the change over to Epic, who cares if someone figures out a way not to have the group spellcaster lose XP for the encounter? If this means that the PC have to act like their characters to win, then all the better, it's all up to the DM and players in the end. Right, so all PCs must be linear, inside the box, nondynamic thinkers. Got it.
awiler 03-05-05, 08:55 PM	lure the tarrasque over a camoflaged 500-foot-deep pit. see it fall in. set the decanter of endless water a-gushing...go home, do your wife or the local half-elf harlot, have a hearty meal, a good night's rest, repeat 28 times, go back to the pit and collect your decanter, then level up.... What happens if the Tarrasque doesn't drown before being able to swim to the top?
Callahan 03-06-05, 01:49 AM	Right, so all PCs must be linear, inside the box, nondynamic thinkers. Got it. ****ing up campaigns by meta gaming and cutting corners does not make you a none linear RPer.
d_nychus 03-06-05, 10:49 AM	****ing up campaigns by meta gaming and cutting corners does not make you a none linear RPer. As I said, this is, in no way, cutting corners. This is, in fact, trying to AVOID the easiest way to overcome the tarrasque. And, seriously, is it really metagaming to know that creatures that breath can drown?
TrustTymora 03-07-05, 05:07 AM	By the rules I would think that the Tarrasque is NOT permanently dead. The only way to keep it dead is as described. Until then it gets to drown over and over again every 1d6 minutes. TT
Ginyu549 03-07-05, 05:36 PM	All right, I can't believe I'm actually throwing in on this one, but it seems everyone here is making the assumption that the tarrasque doesn't have gills. None of the other water-breathing creatures in the MM say in their descriptions that they can breathe water or have gills, but I would imagine that the tarrasque probably does. This seems to be more in the spirit of the creature IMO (since I love godzilla I play the tarrasque like a version of him/her/it) What good is godzilla if it can't survive underwater? BTW- If you (somehow) dumped the Tarrasque into a deep ocean trench or something it would probably be crushed into a tiny ball of bloody pulp by the pressure.
Derren S. 03-07-05, 05:49 PM	Because water breathing is included in the Aquatic subtype those creatures have. So no, no water breathing for the Tarrasque.
DiamondShade0 03-07-05, 08:52 PM	The tarrasque has the topmost-regeneration, and the book say that only wish/miracle can kill it, so i think that he doesnt even need to breath
MadScientist!! 03-07-05, 09:44 PM	****ing up campaigns by meta gaming and cutting corners does not make you a none linear RPer. Which is metagaming? In Situation A, the Heros (tm) see a tarrasque. They decide to use the typical strategy of hit it until it hurts, and wish that is is dead. If they are trying to fight it in a standard fashion (ie. Hack and Slash), then they will have to know what it is for it to be killable, because of it's unique damage rules. In Situation B, the characters find a big, mean ugly creature that they cannot hurt using normal means. They try to fight it several ways, but alas, several ressurections later it is still going strong. They have seen that in the water it tries to go to the top, so they assume that it has to breath to live. This ques(sp?) a side quest for the characters to find some sea dragons or whatever that can effectively bind it in the ocean floor. Time is of the essence here, because brave knights are giving their lives to draw it away from the cities until the characters can come back to take it down. Enlisting the aid of several sea dragons, they lure the tarrasque into the water, where it is grappled by the dragons, who bring him to the bottom of the ocean. After eight minutes of fierce tidal waves from the sea, all becomes quiet, and the characters help the people of the kingdom rebuild their once proud nation.
Colmarr 03-08-05, 02:13 AM	D_nychus, your position, as far as I can tell, is based on the statement that suffocation and drowning ignore regeneration. That statement is true in relation to the regeneration abilities of every other creature in the MM. Drowning and suffocation will kill a Troll. Your argument is that: A. Drowning defeats the general game mechanic called "regeneration" B. Creatures with "regeneration" die if they drown. C. The Tarrasque has an ability named "regeneration" D. Therefore the Tarrasque dies if it drowns. If the Tarrasque's regeneration was the same as a Troll's, you would be correct. However, the tarrasque has a number of unique aspects to its regeneration that other creatures don't have, such as the protection from death effects, the quickened regrowth of body parts, and the immunity to "wounding" effects. It must follow from that that the Tarrasque's "Regeneration" is not regeneration in the usual mechanical sense of the term. The Regenerate entry for the tarrasque says there is only one way to kill it. It is as unambiguous as the english language can be. 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. Even if we ignore the part about Wish and Miracle "keeping" the Tarrasque dead, the specific rule for the Tarrasque (which overrides any general rule about regeneration) is that the only way to kill it is by raising nonlethal damage to 868 hp. As neither drowning nor suffocation inflict nonlethal damage at all, they cannot kill the Tarrasque.
Derren S. 03-08-05, 03:36 AM	Why is the Tarrasque regeneration different? Answer: It isn't. It is stronger than a trolls regeneration, but is still regeneration and therefor ignored by drowning. Or do you say that a gold dragon breath weapon is a special breath weapon with different rules because it is stronger than a black dragons breath weapon? Wish is needed to turn of the regeneration of the tarrasque. No regeneration, no wish. When the tarrasques's HP reach -10 it is dead. Drowning gets the HP down to -10. Logical conclusion, the Tarrasque can drown. It has no ability to let it live when its HP reach -10 not even its regeneration does that. Drowning can't deal nonlethal damage, as it doesn't even deal damage.
Colmarr 03-08-05, 04:20 PM	Derren, your analogy is, WADR, inappropriate. Nothing in the entries for the breath weapons of either Gold or Black dragons contradicts, adds to the effect of, or is inconsistent with the general rules for breath weapons. The Tarrasque's "Regeneration (ex)" entry adds a number of clauses that are not part of the usual regeneration ability. If you accept that the Tarrasque's regeneration ability is different at all to normal regeneration (by which I mean the SRD definition, not the regenerative abilities of other creatures), which I think you must, then the deductive process you and d_nychus are espousing cannot be accepted. There is a step missing; the step which says: "where the wording of the Tarrasque's regeneration ability would lead to a result inconsistent with the usual rules for regeneration, the usual rules supercede the Tarrasque's entry in the MM". Not only is that step not present, it is clearly contrary to the intent of the creature's designer (who has clearly spelled out that there is only one way to kill the Tarrasque), and also contrary to the general interpretive rule that exceptions trump the rules they disobey. It occurs to me now that much of the current debate may be based on an incorrect interpretation of the disputed sentence as being a commentary on the rules. The designer is not commenting on the Tarrasque's abilities, he is setting them. Having been set (in stone, so to speak), no amount of rules-lawyering (however creative) can get around that.
Derren S. 03-08-05, 04:31 PM	It occurs to me now that much of the current debate may be based on an incorrect interpretation of the disputed sentence as being a commentary on the rules. The designer is not commenting on the Tarrasque's abilities, he is setting them. Having been set (in stone, so to speak), no amount of rules-lawyering (however creative) can get around that. Yes, and the rules say the Tarrasque can drown.
d_nychus 03-08-05, 05:38 PM	Derren, your analogy is, WADR, inappropriate. Nothing in the entries for the breath weapons of either Gold or Black dragons contradicts, adds to the effect of, or is inconsistent with the general rules for breath weapons. See Deep Dragons, and Fang Dragons. The Tarrasque's "Regeneration (ex)" entry adds a number of clauses that are not part of the usual regeneration ability. Yes, but none of those affect how drowning works. If something is not covered by the specific case, then the general case applies. If you accept that the Tarrasque's regeneration ability is different at all to normal regeneration (by which I mean the SRD definition, not the regenerative abilities of other creatures), which I think you must, then the deductive process you and d_nychus are espousing cannot be accepted. How? The tarrasque regeneration is normal except for a few listed exceptions, and none of those exceptions even remotely have to deal with drowning. As it stands, if you want to go for the rules as written, you HAVE to go with what Derren and I have posted. There is a step missing; the step which says: "where the wording of the Tarrasque's regeneration ability would lead to a result inconsistent with the usual rules for regeneration, the usual rules supercede the Tarrasque's entry in the MM". Err, that's incorrect. I think you meant to post "where the wording of the Tarrasque's regeneration ability would lead to a result inconsistent with the usual rules for regeneration, the Tarrasque's entry in the MM supercede the usual rules." The way you posted it, a tarrasque's regeneration would not stop ability drain because it is not a usual regeneration ability. Not only is that step not present, it is clearly contrary to the intent of the creature's designer (who has clearly spelled out that there is only one way to kill the Tarrasque), and also contrary to the general interpretive rule that exceptions trump the rules they disobey. Actually, that step is present; it just does not matter in this argument. There is nothing in the tarrasque's regeneration section that would alter drowning. It occurs to me now that much of the current debate may be based on an incorrect interpretation of the disputed sentence as being a commentary on the rules. The designer is not commenting on the Tarrasque's abilities, he is setting them. Having been set (in stone, so to speak), no amount of rules-lawyering (however creative) can get around that. Right. When the regeneration effect comes into play, only a wish or miracle can kill off the tarrasque. However, drowning totally bypasses regeneration, and therefore the need for a wish or a miracle to finish off the tarrasque does not apply. Having been set (in stone, so to speak), no amount of rules-lawyering (however creative) can get around that.
Colmarr 03-08-05, 09:06 PM	Yes, but none of those affect how drowning works. If something is not covered by the specific case, then the general case applies. The last step in the rules for drowning says that the creature dies. The specific exception to which I am referring says that the only way to kill the Tarrasque is to inflict nonlethal damage then use a spell. The general rules say that a drowned creature dies. The exception says that the Tarrasque doesn't die [paraphrased] unless you pound it then wish it dead. The exception wins. Effectively, you are saying that because the rules for drowning don't say "unless noted otherwise elsewhere", they apply equally to every creature that needs to breathe normally. However, that argument cannot be applied simply to the drowning rules. It applies to all of the rules or none of them. Requiring an "unless noted otherwise elsewhere" clause is neither needed nor reasonable. Examples: You can't add Weapon Focus to grapple checks. The special ability of the Mancatcher weapon says you can. If you cast an arcane spell in armour, you suffer ASF. If you're a bard or a hexblade in light armour, or you use the Still spell feat, you don't. Spellcasters can only cast spells from the spell lists for the classes they have. The Arcane Disciple feat says otherwise. As a matter of general principle, exceptions trump rules. If instead, you are arguing that the relevant text is not an exception to the drowning rules simply because it does not specifically mention drowning, you are arguing that because the designer forgot to mention something, that ommission overrules the explicit statement that there is only one way to kill the Tarrasque. Bear in mind that you are therefore also arguing that the Tarrasque is killed by starvation and hot/cold environments, all of which cause non-lethal damage which cannot be cured until the circumstances causing them are rectified. So, for illustrative purposes, do you suggest that putting Walls of Force around the Tarrasque and renewing them as appropriate in a frostfell region will ultimately kill it? Cold and exposure deal nonlethal damage to the victim. This nonlethal damage cannot be recovered until the character gets out of the cold and warms up again. Once a character is rendered unconscious through the accumulation of nonlethal damage, the cold and exposure begins to deal lethal damage at the same rate. So, the Tarrasque takes non-lethal damage. Because it's regenerate ability doesn't specifically mention cold, it can't renegenerate that damage. The nonlethal damage eventually knocks it out. It then takes lethal damage and dies when it hits -10. Is that your interpretation? The tarrasque regeneration is normal except for a few listed exceptions, and none of those exceptions even remotely have to deal with drowning. I suppose what all this boils down to is this: How does this wording: 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. not provide an exception to this wording: In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.? The answer is that it is an exception. Whether the exception is placed in the text of the regenerate ability or not is irrelevant. Err, that's incorrect. I think you meant to post "where the wording of the Tarrasque's regeneration ability would lead to a result inconsistent with the usual rules for regeneration, the Tarrasque's entry in the MM supercede the usual rules." The way you posted it, a tarrasque's regeneration would not stop ability drain because it is not a usual regeneration ability. Correct. And in that respect, the Tarrasque is just the same as every other regenerating creature. Nothing in the general rules for regenerate affect ability drain. Nothing in the Tarrasque entry affects ability drain. Why would the Tarrasque be immune to it? Right. When the regeneration effect comes into play, only a wish or miracle can kill off the tarrasque. However, drowning totally bypasses regeneration, and therefore the need for a wish or a miracle to finish off the tarrasque does not apply. False. The Tarrasque's regeneration is always "in play". The fact that drowning bypasses every other sentence of either normal regeneration or the Tarrasque's regeneration does not mean that it ignores the one, very specific, sentence we are talking about.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-08-05, 09:26 PM	Got to side with Colmarr on this one, gang. If 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. then that's the only way to do it. Period. End of story. No starvation. No suffocation. No freezing to death. This one doesn't get any clearer than that. Dump a Tarrasque in an ocean, and the best you can get it down to is -10 hp. Unconcious, but not dead. Of course, unconcious in the middle of the ocean is nice, since it'll stay that way until its lungs clear. Mouth to mouth on a Tarrasque, anyone?
TrustTymora 03-08-05, 09:31 PM	Simply put I don't mind Derren S posts about the drowning damage killing it. It does, it just doesn't do it permanently. As stated the Tarrasque regrows lost limbs or body parts. After drowning 1d6 minutes later all body parts necessary for life are present. These body parts have been re-grown. The argument that regeneration doesn't apply is simply wrong. The parts damaged by the drowning are useless / wither away / or however you want to describe it and NEW body parts are regrown. If you don't want this to happen then you must use the ONLY method possible to slay the Tarrasque which is clearly listed. TT
Colmarr 03-09-05, 12:51 AM	I think TrustTymora raises an important point in a roundabout way. "Drowning" is a process. However, to say something "drowns" is commonly interpreted to mean "is killed through inability to breathe caused by an inhaled substance". I agree completely that the Tarrasque can go through the process known as drowning. However, for the Tarrasque, the end point of that process is not death. Unfortunately, the rules don't spell out exactly what it is. Given the mechanical three-step nature of death by drowning, I'd have to say it stays unconscious at -1hp until it can breathe (ie. steps one and two apply as they do not contradict the Tarrasque's abilities. Step three does, so it does not occur). OK (unrelated to the above paragraphs of my post) for a rules-lawyer view that is more munchkiny than I ever thought I'd be. Nowhere do the game rules define the end state of the drowning process, they simply say "she drowns". What effect does this have on a creature? The rules do not say. Is it dead? If it were human or humanoid, or in any way related to any creatures that currently or ever lived in the real world, I think we'd all agree that the answer is yes. The Tarrasque is not such a creature, and in the absence of a RAW description of the state of a drowned creature, no one can suggest their interpretation is correct as per RAW. D_nychus, in relation to your reference about Fang dragons and Deep dragons, I don't have access to materials that describe their breath weapons. In what ways do you say they contradict the general rules?
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-09-05, 01:44 AM	to get a lot of what I have to say out of the way, I'll just say that I'm in the "Drowning won't kill" camp and I agree, generally speaking, with Colmarr. Not only because of the reasons he's posted, but because I think it's absurd that a creature that can regenerate from being turned to a giant pile of dust from a successful disintegrate spell can be taken down by not being able to breathe. Even going by the rules, drowning kills and the Tarrasque is immune to being affected by any effect that kills it unless it's had the requisite nonlethal damage and wish/miracle. If anything, drowning it would do most of the nonlethal damage and some follow-up attacks on the unconcious beast and a wish/miracle could also do it.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 02:20 AM	Got to side with Colmarr on this one, gang. If then that's the only way to do it. Period. End of story. No starvation. No suffocation. No freezing to death. This one doesn't get any clearer than that. Yes, it can. You're only using a part of the section to "prove" your point. Look at the WHOLE phrase: 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. So, after spending a paragraph saying ways that the tarrasque cannot be physically damaged, it merely states how you can actually finish off the tarrasque...through physical damage. Really reads more like the 'only' is meant to show an exception to the above statement, not as a rule on the whole, which is impossible to have in the second paragraph of a section on regeneration, anyways. Dump a Tarrasque in an ocean, and the best you can get it down to is -10 hp. Unconcious, but not dead. Of course, unconcious in the middle of the ocean is nice, since it'll stay that way until its lungs clear. Nope, not by the rules. Anything that is at -10 hp is dead, period. No form of regeneration may alter that. This holds very true for the tarrasque.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 02:53 AM	The last step in the rules for drowning says that the creature dies. The specific exception to which I am referring says that the only way to kill the Tarrasque is to inflict nonlethal damage then use a spell. Where does it say that? All I see is a way to defeat it when its regeneration is a factor. The general rules say that a drowned creature dies. The exception says that the Tarrasque doesn't die [paraphrased] unless you pound it then wish it dead. The exception wins. That would be true if the exception covered more than just the regeneration rules. Drowning ignores regeneration, and therefore ignores that rule. The general wins. Effectively, you are saying that because the rules for drowning don't say "unless noted otherwise elsewhere", they apply equally to every creature that needs to breathe normally. However, that argument cannot be applied simply to the drowning rules. It applies to all of the rules or none of them. Requiring an "unless noted otherwise elsewhere" clause is neither needed nor reasonable. That makes absolutely no sense, and is utterly false. The basic rules of D&D state that the specific rules supercede general ones. This is told and explained time and time again. However, when no specific rules alter the general, the general always holds true. What you are doing is taking specific rules for a specific ability, and applying it to ALL rules, which is not how the game works. Examples: You can't add Weapon Focus to grapple checks. The special ability of the Mancatcher weapon says you can. If you cast an arcane spell in armour, you suffer ASF. If you're a bard or a hexblade in light armour, or you use the Still spell feat, you don't. Spellcasters can only cast spells from the spell lists for the classes they have. The Arcane Disciple feat says otherwise. As a matter of general principle, exceptions trump rules. Right. It's just you are applying an exception to something to which it does not apply. I cannot, for instance, also say that Weapon Focus can also apply to Bull Rushing when using Mancatcher because it is another opposed roll. That is what you are doing with the tarrasque regeneration; applying the exception to aspects of the rules to which it does not apply. If instead, you are arguing that the relevant text is not an exception to the drowning rules simply because it does not specifically mention drowning, you are arguing that because the designer forgot to mention something, that ommission overrules the explicit statement that there is only one way to kill the Tarrasque. No, I am arguing that the GENERAL RULES come into play when a specifc case does not alter them. Nothing in the tarrasque's regeneration says that it can stop death brought by drowning as a part of its specific reading, and the general rules specifically state that anything that does not deal damage, such as drowning, ignores regeneration. Therefore, drowning works normally on the tarrasque. Bear in mind that you are therefore also arguing that the Tarrasque is killed by starvation and hot/cold environments, all of which cause non-lethal damage which cannot be cured until the circumstances causing them are rectified. No, because starvation does not kill; hot/cold, no, because the lethal damage can be regenerated. At the worst, the tarrasque can be frozen/burnt and made unconscious. Those are the rules. So, for illustrative purposes, do you suggest that putting Walls of Force around the Tarrasque and renewing them as appropriate in a frostfell region will ultimately kill it? No, but you could freeze it, and effectively put it in a coma. So, the Tarrasque takes non-lethal damage. Because it's regenerate ability doesn't specifically mention cold, it can't renegenerate that damage. The nonlethal damage eventually knocks it out. It then takes lethal damage and dies when it hits -10. Is that your interpretation? Wow, do you even read the rules? You're misunderstanding about three rules at the same time. Here is what happens. The tarrasque takes nonlethal damage that cannot be healed. Once it reaches 858+ nonlethal damage, it goes unconscious. When it goes unconscious, it starts taking lethal damage. This lethal damage is not stated as being 'incureable,' so regeneration applies. The tarrasque then takes 1d6 lethal damage per minute, which is then converted into 1d6 nonlethal damage, and then the tarrasque regenerates 40 nonlethal damage per round. There is absolutely no way for nonlethal damage to ever bring a character to -10 hp. Nonlethal damage goes up. Lethal damage, or damage to hp, go down. I suppose what all this boils down to is this: How does this wording: not provide an exception to this wording: ? Because it only applies to regeneration. The answer is that it is an exception. Whether the exception is placed in the text of the regenerate ability or not is irrelevant. You're kidding, right? That is the KEY to the relevance. What is inside the regeneration section applies to the regeneration section. It cannot affect anything that does not relate to that ability. Correct. And in that respect, the Tarrasque is just the same as every other regenerating creature. Nothing in the general rules for regenerate affect ability drain. Nothing in the Tarrasque entry affects ability drain. Why would the Tarrasque be immune to it? Uh, because the tarrasque's regeneration ability specifically states it? False. The Tarrasque's regeneration is always "in play". The fact that drowning bypasses every other sentence of either normal regeneration or the Tarrasque's regeneration does not mean that it ignores the one, very specific, sentence we are talking about. Nothing in the tarrasque's regeneration ability section even remotely supports that. The tarrasque's regeneration ability works as normal for any regeneration ability, except where it is specifically noted. The specific reading mentions nothing about it stopping drowning, or suffocation. What it does do is list a specific number of effects that regeneration normally does not affect, but this specific version of regeneration applies. None of which have anything to do with drowning.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 03:04 AM	I think TrustTymora raises an important point in a roundabout way. "Drowning" is a process. However, to say something "drowns" is commonly interpreted to mean "is killed through inability to breathe caused by an inhaled substance". I agree completely that the Tarrasque can go through the process known as drowning. However, for the Tarrasque, the end point of that process is not death. Unfortunately, the rules don't spell out exactly what it is. Given the mechanical three-step nature of death by drowning, I'd have to say it stays unconscious at -1hp until it can breathe (ie. steps one and two apply as they do not contradict the Tarrasque's abilities. Step three does, so it does not occur). No, it does not. Regeneration only applies to damage-dealing effects. Drowning deals no damage. Therefore, that one minor blurb in regeneration cannot possibly apply, because regeneration as a whole, does not apply. OK (unrelated to the above paragraphs of my post) for a rules-lawyer view that is more munchkiny than I ever thought I'd be. Nowhere do the game rules define the end state of the drowning process, they simply say "she drowns". What effect does this have on a creature? The rules do not say. Is it dead? If it were human or humanoid, or in any way related to any creatures that currently or ever lived in the real world, I think we'd all agree that the answer is yes. The Tarrasque is not such a creature, and in the absence of a RAW description of the state of a drowned creature, no one can suggest their interpretation is correct as per RAW. D_nychus, in relation to your reference about Fang dragons and Deep dragons, I don't have access to materials that describe their breath weapons. In what ways do you say they contradict the general rules? Actually, I was mistaken. I thought dragon breath weapons were listed as dealing straight energy damage, while the Fang Dragon and Shadow (Not Deep) deal ability damage and negative levels. My mistake. A better example are the (Native) and (Living Construct) subtypes, both of which have rules that directly contradict the normal rules for Outsiders and Constructs, respectively.
Thieran 03-09-05, 09:13 AM	This may sound weird, but... isn't it possible to ask one of the game designers? Until then, d_nychus' point seems to be the most intelligent. His interpretation of the rules seems to be the correct one. This doesn't mean the designers intended this - it may be just a "hole" in the rules. If the designers want that the only way to kill the tarrasque is the one mentioned in its Regeneration ability section, then they will have to publish an erratum.
cobaltstarfire 03-09-05, 02:50 PM	Holed cows this thread is still going :P In responce to what people have said about a terrasque not having to breath. Having to breath and eat is an inherent part of the magical beast type. From the SRD Traits A magical beast possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). * Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. * Proficient with its natural weapons only. * Proficient with no armor. * Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe. (bold added for emphasis) I personaly still don't know what camp I'm in still...but I just thought I'd point out the fact that terrasques do indeed need to breathe in order to survive so people will stop thinking they don't.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-09-05, 03:13 PM	So, after spending a paragraph saying ways that the tarrasque cannot be physically damaged, it merely states how you can actually finish off the tarrasque...through physical damage. Really reads more like the 'only' is meant to show an exception to the above statement, not as a rule on the whole, which is impossible to have in the second paragraph of a section on regeneration, anyways. Nope, not by the rules. Anything that is at -10 hp is dead, period. No form of regeneration may alter that. This holds very true for the tarrasque. No, it says the only way it can die is through the process. It cannot reach "dead" without a wish and all of that. So it drowns. It reaches -10 hp. Then it tries to reach "dead". And then, oops, it goes "where's the wish?". And since there's no wish, it can't reach "dead". So it's stuck at -10. It doesn't matter where the "the only way a tarrasque can be slain" is. It's in the description, therefore it works. It's the same thing as a Balor's Vorpal Sword. The sword is in the description, therefor the balor has it. Maybe this is bad editing? Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that "the only way to slay is yadda yadda..." That makes absolutely no sense, and is utterly false. The basic rules of D&D state that the specific rules supercede general ones. This is told and explained time and time again. However, when no specific rules alter the general, the general always holds true. General rule: Drowning kills regenerating creatures. Specific rule: the only way to kill a tarrasque is to get it to -10 and wish it dead. Specific rule wins. Drown the tarrasque, wish it dead, you win. But no wish, no dead tarrasque. Nothing in the tarrasque's regeneration ability section even remotely supports that. The tarrasque's regeneration ability works as normal for any regeneration ability, except where it is specifically noted. The specific reading mentions nothing about it stopping drowning, or suffocation. What it does do is list a specific number of effects that regeneration normally does not affect, but this specific version of regeneration applies. None of which have anything to do with drowning. You mean, the line that says you can only kill it wish a wish doesn't seem to be an exception to how you can kill it? Try that again. The only way to kill it is with -10 hp + wish. Is drowning killing? Yes. Is suffocation killing? Yes. Is starvation killing? Yes. Is exposure to the elements killing? Yes. Are any of those reducing it to -10 hp and then wishing it to stay dead? No. So they won't do the job alone, because they are not included in the list of things that can permanently kill the tarrasque.
Drachasor 03-09-05, 03:14 PM	I find it a little odd that the "drowners" say that going from full hitpoints to 0 is "not taking damage" when you are drowning. It clearly *is* taking damage, that damage being the amount necessary to reduce one to 0 hitpoints. As such, the Tarrasque is immune to such damage. It can be argued that the Tarrasque does take Full Hitpoints + 10 in non-lethal when it "drowns" however. Frankly, a line in the Tarrasque description explicitely stating that it can only die by one means seems to rule out drowning, no matter the lawyering. -Drachasor
Colmarr 03-09-05, 03:58 PM	No, it does not. Regeneration only applies to damage-dealing effects. Drowning deals no damage. Therefore, that one minor blurb in regeneration cannot possibly apply, because regeneration as a whole, does not apply. Actually, the Tarrasque's regeneration clearly applies to a number of things that aren't damage, such as death effects. Normal regeneration only applies to damage. The Tarrasque's regeneration is unique and your logic that it doesn't apply to drowning doesn't follow. Perhaps another example. Are you saying that (assuming you can reach the Tarrasque's neck), a Vorpal Sword will kill the tarrasque outright? The regenerate rules normally don't affect vorpal kills. The Tarrasque's "only dies..." ability suggests it doesn't. What do you say? Ultimately, your argument is that an exception to every rule about death in the game (which is what the specific sentence is) doesn't in fact apply to death by drowning because it's in a section named after (but not identical to) an ability drowning bypasses. WADR, that's crazy. As for ability drain, the Tarrasque's regeneration entry says nothing about ability drain, but I now see it in the Special Qualities section of the creature summary.
Elendur 03-09-05, 04:31 PM	This is all about the placement of the "only way to kill" text, right? If the same text was in it's own section, not under the regeneration section, we'd all agree it covers drowning, yes?
d_nychus 03-09-05, 04:44 PM	No, it says the only way it can die is through the process. It cannot reach "dead" without a wish and all of that. So it drowns. It reaches -10 hp. Then it tries to reach "dead". And then, oops, it goes "where's the wish?". And since there's no wish, it can't reach "dead". So it's stuck at -10. It doesn't matter where the "the only way a tarrasque can be slain" is. It's in the description, therefore it works. It's the same thing as a Balor's Vorpal Sword. The sword is in the description, therefor the balor has it. Maybe this is bad editing? Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that "the only way to slay is yadda yadda..." Look, if you reduce the tarrasque to -10 hp, you don't even need a wish. It's dead, period, regeneration or not. What you mean is that when the tarrasque's nonlethal damage is at +10 its hp, you may use a wish to finish it off. READ THE RULES ON REGENERATION. What you are saying does not make any sense at all. Really, if you are going to get into a rules debate, LEARN THE RULES. General rule: Drowning kills regenerating creatures. Specific rule: the only way to kill a tarrasque is to get it to -10 and wish it dead. Again, utterly wrong. See above. LEARN THE RULES. Specific rule wins. Drown the tarrasque, wish it dead, you win. But no wish, no dead tarrasque. No, because it only applies to effects that interact with regeneration. Drowning ignores regeneration. Nothing outside of regeneration says the tarrasque is immune to drowning. Repeat 10,000 times. This is getting beyond stupid. You mean, the line that says you can only kill it wish a wish doesn't seem to be an exception to how you can kill it? Try that again. The only way to kill it is with -10 hp + wish. Is drowning killing? Yes. Is suffocation killing? Yes. Is starvation killing? Yes. Is exposure to the elements killing? Yes. Are any of those reducing it to -10 hp and then wishing it to stay dead? No. So they won't do the job alone, because they are not included in the list of things that can permanently kill the tarrasque. If the tarrasque is at -10 hp, then it is dead, dead. You don't need a wish, and you don't need to drown it. LEARN THE RULES.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 04:48 PM	I find it a little odd that the "drowners" say that going from full hitpoints to 0 is "not taking damage" when you are drowning. It clearly *is* taking damage, that damage being the amount necessary to reduce one to 0 hitpoints. As such, the Tarrasque is immune to such damage. Except that drowning does not say anything about damage dealt. It simply reduces hp to 0, -1, and finally kills. It can be argued that the Tarrasque does take Full Hitpoints + 10 in non-lethal when it "drowns" however. Frankly, a line in the Tarrasque description explicitely stating that it can only die by one means seems to rule out drowning, no matter the lawyering. -Drachasor No, it cannot be argued that. That is not how drowning works. It sets your hp at a certain level, with no damage being dealt. And no amount of poor reading of the rules can make a section of the regeneration ability apply to anything beyond regeneration.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 04:58 PM	Actually, the Tarrasque's regeneration clearly applies to a number of things that aren't damage, such as death effects. Normal regeneration only applies to damage. The Tarrasque's regeneration is unique and your logic that it doesn't apply to drowning doesn't follow. Yes, those are SPECIFIC, LISTED EXCEPTIONS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE DRWONING. Thank you for taking one section of what I said totally out of context in order to try to discredit me for your poorly-thoughtout arguments. Perhaps another example. Are you saying that (assuming you can reach the Tarrasque's neck), a Vorpal Sword will kill the tarrasque outright? The regenerate rules normally don't affect vorpal kills. The Tarrasque's "only dies..." ability suggests it doesn't. What do you say? No, it can cut off the head, but regeneration says that lost body parts regrow in 1d6 minutes, even the head. Ultimately, your argument is that an exception to every rule about death in the game (which is what the specific sentence is) doesn't in fact apply to death by drowning because it's in a section named after (but not identical to) an ability drowning bypasses. WADR, that's crazy. No, it is not an exception to every rule in the game about death. It is an exception with respect to those rules listed in the regeneration ability. As for ability drain, the Tarrasque's regeneration entry says nothing about ability drain, but I now see it in the Special Qualities section of the creature summary. Ah, I thought that was a part of regeneration, not just a special quality of its own. What I was remembering was the listing of mummy rot and wounding effects in regeneration. I remember the 3.0 tarrasque had no immunity to ability drain, and, as written, the ONLY way to kill it was to damage or drain its Constitution or drown it, because it was impossible to ever wish it away. You cannot bring a creature to -10 hp when regeneration applied to every attack. You can only go up.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 05:00 PM	This is all about the placement of the "only way to kill" text, right? If the same text was in it's own section, not under the regeneration section, we'd all agree it covers drowning, yes? More than likely, depending on exactly how it was written.
Ogre4Hire 03-09-05, 05:09 PM	This is all about the placement of the "only way to kill" text, right? If the same text was in it's own section, not under the regeneration section, we'd all agree it covers drowning, yes? No, it's an exersise in perpetual motion, similar to the arguement over whether Strength should be subbed for Cha with Intimidate checks. And d_nychus, please don't spam. If you want to answer to multiple posts, just Reply, then Copy your reply and Edit it into your first post.
Drachasor 03-09-05, 05:31 PM	Except that drowning does not say anything about damage dealt. It simply reduces hp to 0, -1, and finally kills. ..... No, it cannot be argued that. That is not how drowning works. It sets your hp at a certain level, with no damage being dealt. And no amount of poor reading of the rules can make a section of the regeneration ability apply to anything beyond regeneration. This is generally an extremely pedantic view that assumes a level of precision far higher than what is in the texts. It also seems to lend itself to programmers I think, with the idea of inheretence and so forth. This, however, is not how the system works exactly. The Regeneration section is not just a modification of regeneration, it is a modification of the entire creature. Hence statements like "the only way X can be killed is by...." apply to the Tarrasque in whole, not just to regeneration. It may not follow a programmer's object oriented approach to reading this, but that's how the creature entries do work (even if this issue seldom comes up). -Drachasor
Thieran 03-09-05, 06:55 PM	It may not follow a programmer's object oriented approach to reading this, but that's how the creature entries do work (even if this issue seldom comes up). For example? When do creature entries work in such a way?
Colmarr 03-09-05, 07:52 PM	D-nychus, there is no need for this discussion to get unfriendly. Your last couple of post have bordered on being abusive. Please keep it civil. You have criticised me for picking on one aspect of your argument. I am doing no such thing. I am focusing on the step in your argument that I disagree with. Ultimately, this issue in this debate boils down to one main issue. All the others are corrolaries. Does the Tarrasque's regenerate entry apply to processes or effects not normally affected by regenation? You say it doesn't because there is no specific reference to drowning. I say that there is a specific reference to death, and that since drowning causes death, there is an applicable exception. Death by drowning is still death. Unless you can point out where the rules state that text under the Tarrasque's "regenerate" heading does not apply unless the effect it is affecting is normally affected by the SRD form of regeneration, I think you lose this debate (I don't mean that in an abusive or condescending fashion. It must be remembered though, that it is you who is trying to establish a ruling. You bear the onus of proof). Up to this point, I have proceeded on the common-sense view that drowning causes death. If we are really going to get into minute RAW discussions, I withdraw that concession. I repeat my earlier statement that nowhere in the rules does it say that drowning actually kills creatures. Nor does drowning as a game mechanic reduce a creature to -10hp. Even if you consider your position correct that the Tarrasque is killed by drowning, you cannot establish it per RAW. Your position (and I accept that you hold the same view of mine) is a houserule.
d_nychus 03-10-05, 04:37 AM	This is generally an extremely pedantic view that assumes a level of precision far higher than what is in the texts. It also seems to lend itself to programmers I think, with the idea of inheretence and so forth. This, however, is not how the system works exactly. The Regeneration section is not just a modification of regeneration, it is a modification of the entire creature. Hence statements like "the only way X can be killed is by...." apply to the Tarrasque in whole, not just to regeneration. It may not follow a programmer's object oriented approach to reading this, but that's how the creature entries do work (even if this issue seldom comes up). Umm, as Thieran asked, where does it say that? Does that mean I can make all my gorgons turn people to stone with their gore and trample attacks because their breath weapon does it as well? How about applying the bone devil's poison to in his stinger to all his bite and claw attacks as well? In all seriousness, you're dead wrong on the programmer's approach. D&D has become so rules-specific that you DO have to look at the rules almost in the same way you would look at a program. You have the general functions, and their specific use modifications. Basically, you always follow the general functions until the specific uses state otherwise. In this case, the specific use does not say anything different about drowning, so the general function is used. And the general function says that drowning ignores regeneration. D-nychus, there is no need for this discussion to get unfriendly. Your last couple of post have bordered on being abusive. Please keep it civil. Okay. Please try reading the rules before getting into a rules debate then. It tends to help. It is insanely frustrating to be in an arugument with someone who posts the same mistakes over and over again, especially when they are not even a major part of the argument. The "bringing the tarrasque to -10 before wishing" statement you have made in multiple posts is tantamount to saying 1 + 1 = 3. It shows you do not understand the game mechanics of how regeneration and nonlethal damage even work, and discredit your argument. You need to deal 868 nonlethal damage to the tarrasque before wishing it away, and that does not in any way, shape, or form, mean -10 hp. Those are two shockingly different events. At one, the tarrasque is merely unconscious, but succeptible to being wished away; at the other, the tarrasque is irrevocably dead, with or without a wish. Technically, taking the tarrasque to -10 hp is impossible with the RAW. Drowning does not take anyone to -10 hp, it kills them. You have criticised me for picking on one aspect of your argument. I am doing no such thing. I am focusing on the step in your argument that I disagree with. Uh, right. I'll leave others who have read the thread to decide. Anyways... Ultimately, this issue in this debate boils down to one main issue. All the others are corrolaries. Does the Tarrasque's regenerate entry apply to processes or effects not normally affected by regenation? Exactly. You say it doesn't because there is no specific reference to drowning. I say that there is a specific reference to death, and that since drowning causes death, there is an applicable exception. Death by drowning is still death. No, it says death effects caused by a failed save. Drowning has no saving throw. Nowhere does it say anything about being immune to death in general, just death caused by failed saving throws. Unless you can point out where the rules state that text under the Tarrasque's "regenerate" heading does not apply unless the effect it is affecting is normally affected by the SRD form of regeneration, I think you lose this debate (I don't mean that in an abusive or condescending fashion. It must be remembered though, that it is you who is trying to establish a ruling. You bear the onus of proof). Sigh. This is really pointless. In otherwords, I have to prove that the general rules for abilities apply unless modified by the specific ability entry. Oddly enough, finding a line that states exactly that is pretty tough, as it is assumed that people who read are smart enough to understand what an exception to the general rule is. How's about this? It's from official errata, and does state exactly what you ask for. Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source is correct and any secondary reference is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically. The MM Glossary is actually the primary reference for regeneration for monsters (try running regeneration without using the rules laid out in the glossary entry; it can't be done, period). The tarrasque's entry has a few specific exceptions to the regeneration ability, which are "called out specifically." None of these include allowing regeneration to influence drowning in any way. Those specific exceptions aside, regeneration works as normal, as per the general policy on primary and secondary sources. Up to this point, I have proceeded on the common-sense view that drowning causes death. If we are really going to get into minute RAW discussions, I withdraw that concession. I repeat my earlier statement that nowhere in the rules does it say that drowning actually kills creatures. Nor does drowning as a game mechanic reduce a creature to -10hp. Even if you consider your position correct that the Tarrasque is killed by drowning, you cannot establish it per RAW. Your position (and I accept that you hold the same view of mine) is a houserule. I already have established it, many, many, many, many, MANY times in this thread. By the RAW, any breathing creature that is under water or any other substance it cannot breath starts to drown. Drowning does not deal any hp damage. The regeneration ability specifically says that anything that does not deal hp damage is ignored by regeneration. The need to cast a wish when the tarrasque is at 868 nonlethal damage to kill it is a specific part of the regeneration ability. Because of this, if the tarrasque drowns, it bypasses regeneration, and, therefore, the need for a wish spell. Since there is no game definition of drowning, the general use of the word must apply, and therefore mean the tarrasque is dead. It is as simple as that. Houserules do not matter at all in a core rules discussion, as this was. I do not make houserules when I answer a thread that asks a core rules question. I may offer ideas for houserules, I might tell my own houserules, but I do not argue that my houserule is the correct reading of the RAW. Your argument is solely based on a clearly incorrect useage of a part of a special quality description. You do not apply a part of regeneration to more than what regeneration normally covers, unless it is explictly stated. You do not make a red dragon's physical attacks deal fire damage because its breath weapon is fire energy. You do not give fast healing to a vampire's children of the night because the vampire himself has it. No, it's an exersise in perpetual motion, similar to the arguement over whether Strength should be subbed for Cha with Intimidate checks. Or the Interaction of Heighten Spell with other Metamagics, which I think is on its 2000th post or something like that, without anything new being said. I'm going to give this thread up after this. It's pointless, and nothing will come out of it. I thought it was fun for a while, now it is merely angering me. And d_nychus, please don't spam. If you want to answer to multiple posts, just Reply, then Copy your reply and Edit it into your first post. Yeah, sorry about that. SPAM: Good for feeding Britain during Nazi bombardments, bad for the internet.
Kem 03-10-05, 05:21 AM	Slain/Kill/Slay all refer to forcing it to die. Drowning is the creature itself dieing. It is not slain or killed. If you drown you are dead. You Died. You where not slain, or killed. You just plain ol died. Now I can kill you by forcing you to drown. But notice how I have to force you to drown? I can't actually drown you myself, I have you FORCE YOU to drown. Or will you say that the Tarrasque has an infinite lifespan since it cannot die? I don't see it being immortal, and in fact its a magical beast. If it was immortal or had an infinite lifespan it would say it wouldn't it? It it didn't need to breath wouldn't they mention that? Like maybe as a difference from other beasts of its type? Or maybe give it a type that didn't need to breath?
Thieran 03-10-05, 11:36 AM	I think that's a very good point, Kem (and all the others who made the same point). 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. Even if this sentence was written "outside" the Regeneration paragraph, it would not apply to drowning, because drowning the the tarrasque is no attack form. You don't slay or kill the tarrasque - the tarrasque drowns, regardless if the tarrasque was tricked into drowning or drowned by its own error. It's simple to prove that: everyone would agree that if a being that cannot breath underwater is thrown into the sea from a ship, it would drown in exactly the same way as if its head was held under water by force. So even if the sentence about the only way to slay the tarrasque would be part of the creature's general description, it would be possible for the tarrasque to drown. For all who won't believe that, imagine the following scenario: the tarrasque enters by its free will a portal to the Elemental Plane of Water. What happens? Of course it drowns! And regarding the rules, it is no difference if the tarrasque enters a portal to the Elemental Plane of Water or is lured into the ocean by an adventuring party.
Elendur 03-10-05, 12:03 PM	Well, the title of the thread is 'drowning a Tarrasque kills it without a wish?', not 'Can a suicidal Tarrasque jump into the plane of water and drown?' If you drown something, you are obviously slaying. Although, I guess if the Tarrasque does it of his own free will, he's slaying himself. Since we're back to the dictionary definition of 'slay', I guess we're done. But I've said that before...
Derren S. 03-10-05, 12:25 PM	Well, the title of the thread is 'drowning a Tarrasque kills it without a wish?', not 'Can a suicidal Tarrasque jump into the plane of water and drown?' If you drown something, you are obviously slaying. Is there a difference? No it isn't. In both cases it is the Tarrasque who is drowning without any outside effect. The adventurers only set up the situation in one case, but that doesn't change the fact that the Tarrasque dies by drowning.
Transit 03-10-05, 12:40 PM	I have to disagree with the idea that drowning doesn't cause damage. Of course it does. It deals enough hp damage to drop a drowning creature to 0 hit points. Just because it specifically damages the creature to a certain point (0 HP) rather than giving random damage dice to roll, doesn't imply that somehow the hit point loss due to drowning isn't "damage." Everywhere else in the rules "loss of hit points" = damage, and damage = "loss of hit points." If the game designers didn't intend drowning to involve hit points, they could have skipped the loss of HP and just said: Miss the CON check and you're Drowning. Round 1 = Disabled, Round 2 = Unconsious and Dying, Round 3 = Dead. Instead they specifically mention HP damage occuring over three rounds. The loss of HP has to be "damage" and there has to be a couple of rounds to act, because otherwise drowning is an instant and unavoidable kill. EXAMPLE: My PC falls into a lake, fails his CON check and begins to drown. He's now at 0 HP and disabled. The barbarian in the party grabs my PC and hauls him onto the shore. The Cleric in the party goes to cast Cure Light Wounds. You channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). "But wait! The HP loss from drowning isn't damage!" All magic items, potions and spells use the same "cures points of DAMAGE" wording, so if the hit point loss from drowning isn't "damage" then RAW there is no way to stop, survive or recover from drowning. (Other than natural healing, which says "restores lost hit points" instead of "cures damage." But if you're drowning in three rounds, you don't have time for several days of peaceful bed rest.) I think it's obvious this isn't what is intended by the drowning rules. "Loss of hit points" = damage, and damage = "loss of hit points." Drowning causes damage.
Derren S. 03-10-05, 12:50 PM	When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns. Show me where the word "Damage" is mentioned. It is exactly as you said. 1st round = disabled, 2nd round = dying 3rd round = dead.
Drachasor 03-10-05, 01:30 PM	As far as these special abilities go, you need to be primarily reading them as "this is how said ability changes the creature as a whole." The book references are how a generic ability modifies a generic creature, but if a particular ability modifies differently, then so be it. One of the peculiarities of the Tarrasque's regeneration is that it makes it immune to death by conventional means. That's a modification on the Tarrasque creature its regeneration gives it. You can overcome that with a wish and that's it. Indeed, this is how the primary sources system works. The Tarrasque is the primary source for information and rules on the Tarrasque. Then the Monster Manual in general, then elsewhere. The Tarrasque explicitely states it can't be killed by anything short of giving it max hp + 10 non-lethal damage and wishing it dead. Drowning doesn't do that, so drowning can't kill it. Drowning to death also produces incurable wounds, and since that isn't the way to kill the Tarrasque, he's immune to it. Oh, and as far as "drowning doesn't deal damage" goes....it says it drops hit points to stated amounts. So now if something is "dropping your hitpoints to lower levels" that doesn't mean damage? Come on! Arguements about "slay" and "damage" are so ridiculous I don't even know why you people are presenting them. For one, "slay" can't mean "murder" or "intentional killing" because the ability is extraordinary...can't tell the difference in motivations. It is ludicrious to propose that the Tarrasque wandering through a gate into the Elemental Plane of water wouldn't die, but someone transporting it there to kill does kill it (and it is against the rules governing the Tarrasque). It's a petty semantic arguement and we shouldn't quibble over it. -Drachasor
Derren S. 03-10-05, 01:41 PM	The Tarrasques regeneration makes it immun to death as long as the regeneration applies which is in nearly all cases. Drowning is not one of those cases and ignores the regeneration and the "Can only be slain by a wish" part of it. It is that simple. Drowning doesn't do damage which can be converted to nonlethal damage. it sets the real HP to a fixed amount. Death by drowning allows no save. This are all points which obviosly negate the regeneration, but so far some people still want to pass their houserules as raw and imo that won't change. When rules can't convince them, nothing can.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-10-05, 01:54 PM	Drowning doesn't do damage which can be converted to nonlethal damage. it sets the real HP to a fixed amount. Death by drowning allows no save. assuming that the third round of drowning is a death effect, then it does deal the tarrasque exactly 868 points of nonlethal damage. Because that's what the tarrasque's regeneration does for it. It says so quite clearly. Therefore, drowning does, in fact, according to raw, deals nonlethal damage to the tarrasque. Whether drowning allows a save or not is irrelevant. This are all points which obviosly negate the regeneration, but so far some people still want to pass their houserules as raw and imo that won't change. When rules can't convince them, nothing can. Regeneration, yes. The tarrasque's regeneration, which has the the specific rule (tarrasque's regen) vs. general general rule (drowning rules), no. This isn't regeneration (as the general rule for all creatures with regen) vs. drowning, which drowning specifically states that it negates. This is about one unique creature's regeneration that states that it is specifically immune to death effects, which drowning would count as. Therefore, it falls under the rules in this situation as dictated by the tarrasque's regeneration stat block. Know what you're talking about before you accuse others of being wrong.
d_nychus 03-10-05, 01:57 PM	When rules can't convince them, nothing can. That's why I'm giving up. If people want to be wrong, they will be wrong, no matter what evidence and proof you put in front of them. I've taken time and effort to show the correct rules. I've done what I can to help those who ask for it on this subject. But I have been assailed by people who clearly either do not understand the RAW, or refuse to use the RAW. People who only see what they want to see, and not what the rules actually say. This is an exercise in futility. I just rest assured that I know the true facts, and no amount of what others claim to the contrary can affect that.
Drachasor 03-10-05, 02:23 PM	That's why I'm giving up. If people want to be wrong, they will be wrong, no matter what evidence and proof you put in front of them. I've taken time and effort to show the correct rules. I've done what I can to help those who ask for it on this subject. But I have been assailed by people who clearly either do not understand the RAW, or refuse to use the RAW. People who only see what they want to see, and not what the rules actually say. This is an exercise in futility. I just rest assured that I know the true facts, and no amount of what others claim to the contrary can affect that. The Tarrasque entry overrules anything else regarding the Tarrasque or his abilities. That's RAW, which I believe you quoted. Part of that entry details the only way he can be killed. It is explicitely stated as "the only way to slay...". The only way you can try to get around that is by stating something other than the Tarrasque entry governs the properties of the Tarrasque more than the entry itself. This simply isn't how it works, however, the entry specifics overrules specifics elsewhere. -Drachasor
d_nychus 03-10-05, 02:35 PM	The Tarrasque entry overrules anything else regarding the Tarrasque or his abilities. That's RAW, which I believe you quoted. Part of that entry details the only way he can be killed. It is explicitely stated as "the only way to slay...". The only way you can try to get around that is by stating something other than the Tarrasque entry governs the properties of the Tarrasque more than the entry itself. This simply isn't how it works, however, the entry specifics overrules specifics elsewhere. BUT ONLY IN THE REGENERATION SECTION!!! THE MODIFICATIONS TO REGENERATION ONLY AFFECT REGENERATION!!! IN NO WAY CAN ONE ADDITION TO REGENERATION BE APPLIED TO SOMETHING THAT BYPASSES REGENERATION TO BEGIN WITH!! God, it's like trying to explain walking to a rock.
Kem 03-10-05, 03:48 PM	assuming that the third round of drowning is a death effect, then it does deal the tarrasque exactly 868 points of nonlethal damage. Not everything that kills is a death effect. A Coup de Grace (sp?) is not a death effect. Only Spells have the death effect descriptor.
Drachasor 03-10-05, 04:46 PM	BUT ONLY IN THE REGENERATION SECTION!!! THE MODIFICATIONS TO REGENERATION ONLY AFFECT REGENERATION!!! IN NO WAY CAN ONE ADDITION TO REGENERATION BE APPLIED TO SOMETHING THAT BYPASSES REGENERATION TO BEGIN WITH!! God, it's like trying to explain walking to a rock. And I am saying is the views you just expressed are wrong. That's not how it works. Everything in the Tarrasque's regeneration section modifies the creature as a WHOLE. If it says magic missiles heal it in the regeneration section, then magic missiles heal it. If it says it can heal from eating dirt and/or PCs with bunnies, then it is healed from that. You might argue it is out of place, but that's how the entries work, which is especially important to remember for the Tarrasque, who has a particularly long and involved regeneration section. Other sections with other monsters work similarly. Most of the time they only refer to what that particular section does, but sometimes they include other things, such as the Shambling Mound's Electricity Immunity section, which details how it gains temporary constitution from electrical attacks. I would say this applies even if you find some way to bypass the electrical immunity with an electrical attack. Even if you disagree with that, you are being horribly pedantic and twisting the spirit of the words by saying "drops in hitpoints" aren't damage, and "slaying" isn't just a colorful word for dying but they mean the exact dictionary definition. You drop out that verbal silliness of yours and even your view confirms that the Tarrasque is not killed by drowning. Lastly, I would ask you one more time, where in the description of DROWNING does it say that it bypasses regeneration? Nowhere? That's what I thought. -Drachasor
Xavim 03-10-05, 04:53 PM	D_nycus, it's really quite straightforward. The tarrasque's entry states that there is only ONE way to kill it. Therefore you can only kill it one way. All other text is superfluous. Thus any and all arguments in favour of alternate means of killing said beastie that are not that ONE way, will not work because the RULES EXPLICATELY STATES in the monster's entry (which overrides the ability description in the back of the book) that it can only be killed in ONE (1, une, unno, ichi, I ) way. You cannot, and have never been able to, kill the Tarrasque in any other way other than WISHING it DEAD. EVER. (the drowning bit is in the description of the regeneration ability)
Derren S. 03-10-05, 04:57 PM	Yes it is straightforward. The regeneration says it can only be killed by a wish. And this is correct when regeneration applies. But when you negate the regeneration, the "only killable by a wish" is also negated. What has been or what the intention is, is of no relevance here as the question was if it is possible by the rules to drown the tarrasqe. And yes, by the rules drowning kills the Tarrasque without a wish. @Drachasor Drowning doesn't deal damage. Does Slay Living deal damage? No it doesn't. But it sets the HP to -10! Thats irrelevant because it isn't done through damage. -10 HO is just the in game term of dead. Same with drowning, it makes a creature disabled, then dieing and then death. That is all represented by different HP values (0, -1, -10) but like Slay Living, drowning deals no damage.
Kem 03-10-05, 05:07 PM	Lastly, I would ask you one more time, where in the description of DROWNING does it say that it bypasses regeneration? Nowhere? That's what I thought. Yeah cause it says it in Regeneration that drowning/suffocation and such bypass it. Nothing in the Tarrasque entry negates that so it still applies.
Xavim 03-10-05, 05:07 PM	No it doesn't since the tarrasque's regeneration cannot be negated. My god, regen in the ability description also says disintegrate bypasses regen but when the tarrasque's entry says it doesn't people don't have a problem having it regen from disintegrate. NOTHING DAMAGES THE TARRASQUE. Here's what happens when you try to drown the tarrasque. reduced hp to 0, heals 40, reduced to 0, heals 40. When a creature's statblock says that it can only be killed in ONE WAY (you know, the meaning of ONLY) then it can be killed through that means ALONE. All other text in the entirity of Dungeons and Dragons no longer applys unless it explicitly mentions the tarrasque. Also the part of the tarrasque's entry that negates the suffocation bit is that little sentence "The only way to kill..." bit.
Derren S. 03-10-05, 05:12 PM	Where does the tarrasques regeneration entry say that it works against drowning (Something which is specially mentioned in the normal regeneration entry that regeneration doesn't work against it)? Nowhere, so what makes you believe that the tarrasques regeneration is effective against drowning? And you have shown that you don't understand regeneration. Regeneration only heals nonlethal (=subdual) damage. Drowning affects the real HP which regneration doesn't heal. As for the "The only way to kill" part, read the previous comments as I don't want to repeat the rules over and over again. The DMg regeneration text doesn't apply to the tarrasque? So you can kill it with a normal sword as the tarrasques regeneration doesn't say that it works against normal physical attacks. Unless the Tarrasques regeneration says otherwise, the general regeneration rules apply. And the tarrasques regeneration doesn't mention drowning in any way.
Xavim 03-10-05, 05:18 PM	Quote: Drowning affects the real HP which regneration doesn't heal. Quote: Tarrasque: No form of attack deals lethal damage to the Tarrasque. Do you want a diagram maybe? a flow chart? perhaps a legion of cheerleaders spelling out the quote in bubbly melifulous voices oozing with preteen glee?
Derren S. 03-10-05, 05:21 PM	Do you need glasses or a dictionary? Drowning is no attack. What a attack is is clearly defined in the rules. Or does holding your breath dispell invisibility because you are attaking yourself?
Xavim 03-10-05, 05:38 PM	Wow... just wow... I find it interesting that you consider an effect that drops you to 0hp as not being an attack. What do you call it? A momentary laps of fortitude? Quote: PHB 305 Attack: Any of numerous actions, intended to harm, disable, or neutralise an opponent. why is it that when the tarrasque's regen entry states that it IS effective against death effects, you listen to that point but when it says that the ONLY way to kill it is through using a Wish you ignore it? Death effect negate regen, since the tarrasque's regen description doesn't apply to things that negate regen the blurb about the tarrasque regenerating from death effects must just be the writers practicing their skills at typing. Your arguement is flawed in its entirety beacause you are quoting rules that are overwritten by the tarrasque's regen ability. What part of "The only way to kill the tarrasque by ..." can't you understand. I realise you really want this to work since it seems like such a nice rule lawyery thing to do, but guess what it doesn't work.
Derren S. 03-10-05, 05:44 PM	Drowning is no attack, because it is no action and I find it laughable that you in your despair consider it an attack. Who is attacking the Tarrasque? The water? And Drowning is also no death effect, at least no one which the regeneration would neagte as drowning offers no save and the regeneration specifically calls for a save. And even if the 3rd round won't kill the tarrasque it would now slowly bleed to death as it can't regenerate real HP loss. And it says "The only way to slay...", not to kill. That is a difference, but apparently you seem to ignore such details when they speak against you. And yes, I am doing rules lawering. And that is only possible because I am right by the rules. The Tarrasques regneration doesn't overwrite the normal regeneration, it expands it. Otherwise you could kill the tarrasque with swords as the tarrasques regeneration doesn't say that normal damage is converted to nonlethal damage.
Xavim 03-10-05, 05:50 PM	Slay doesn't mean kill? the words: No form of attack deals leathal damage to the Tarrasque doesn't mean that normal damage is converted to non-lethal? there is your problem right there. There is no more I can say... you've crushed any sliver of hope I had for humanity. Excuse me a moment, I'm going to go out and slay 3000 people since it obviously doesn't involve killing. since that you know... would be mean.
Derren S. 03-10-05, 05:52 PM	Does suicide mean murder? Thats about the level you are argumenting. Slaying is a special form of killing. Slaying is intentional but killing can happen as accident even witouth a second person. And as the regeneration entry says slay and not kill deaths which can't be defined as slaying are not covered.
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 03-10-05, 05:52 PM	Wish is needed to kill tarrasque, end of story. If your sole argument is that "drowning" bypasses the wish requirement because it isn't clearly stated, I'd like for you to point out to me where it says the tarrasque breathes. Neither is pointed out, but we assume that wish is needed to kill tarrasque just as we assume that the tarrasque breathes. Otherwise, your theory would work but the tarrasque doesn't breathe so you still lose. =)
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-10-05, 05:53 PM	Do you need glasses or a dictionary? Drowning is no attack. What a attack is is clearly defined in the rules. Or does holding your breath dispell invisibility because you are attaking yourself? I didn't realize that an effect that kills you isn't an attack. Of course it must mean that the only time regeneration will apply against it is when someone uses drowning as a form of attack. :rolleyes: In any case, drowning is an effect that causes death, which the entry in the tarrasque's regeneration clearly says that when it is affected by a death effect, it merely takes the stated nonlethal damage. So no, no rules cheat for drowning. Why do I call it a rules cheat? because you say that drowning somehow causes death on the tarrasque when other, more obvious and direct methods (such as failing a fortitude save vs. wail of the banshee if it penetrated its resistance to spells) but not because it couldn't breathe. Or how it specifically stated that it could regenerate from being turned into dust but not from being drowned. I doubt very much that it was the "intention" of either the authors or RAW to convey that interpretation.
mvincent 03-10-05, 05:57 PM	On the other hand, the "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." So, the drowning seems to kill it, but it CANNOT be slain without Wish or Miracle, period. So you have a paradox, for the Tarrasque is dead, and yet not dead. Both sides have quite legitimate arguements. As always, in cases of this kind, DM ruling is required.Schroedinger's Tarrasque? I'm kinda surprised this is being debated. The line "The tarrasque can be slain only by..." seems pretty darn conclusive to me. Sure, I'd let drowning bypass regeneration... but regular regen is not what is preventing Mr. T from dying... rather, it's the line "The tarrasque can be slain only by...". Come one! Drowning a monster like this never works in the movies! Most of those Godzilla/Toho monsters just go to sleep when underwater for too long (same with Freddy, Vampires, Midguard Serpent, Cthulhu, etc.). I mean, the tarrasque even has a turtle shell for goodness sake...
Derren S. 03-10-05, 05:59 PM	Oh my god! When someone jumps out of a window gravity and the earth is attacking them as the impact kills them! When will the first relatives of suiciders sue Newton and god? And now we have the proof that water is evil as it attacks innocent divers. And the creature type says that the tarrasque must breath as there is nothing in the magical beast entry which says they don't. Outsiders for example don't breath. Again, I am not saying that drowning the tarrasque is the intention, but it is in the rules.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-10-05, 06:20 PM	And the creature type says that the tarrasque must breath as there is nothing in the magical beast entry which says they don't. Outsiders for example don't breath. Again, I am not saying that drowning the tarrasque is the intention, but it is in the rules. I'm I'm saying that it is. Because the entry for the tarrasque's regeneration specifically states that it is immune to death effects and drowning is a cause of death - ie a death effect. Therefore, no death is caused by drowning - only nonlethal damage, which the entry specifically states will happen when exposed to said death effect. I said nothing about the creature entry for magical beast. That's irrelevant.
Drachasor 03-10-05, 06:20 PM	So, again, if someone pushes the Tarrasque into the Elemental Plane of Water or an ocean, then a wish must be used because that's an "attack" meant to "slay"? On the other hand, if the Tarrasque wanders in to one of those scenerios it dies because it's not an "attack"? That's just ridiculous. -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-10-05, 06:23 PM	I am also going on the record as saying that things which drop hitpoints do *deal* damage. They just deal a variable amount depending on the creature, and it is more economical to use the word "drop" instead "is dealt enough damage to bring the target to". Anything that reduces your hitpoints and only your hitpoints is dealing you damage. -Drachasor
Admiral Yi Sun Shin 03-10-05, 06:28 PM	Hah, I stand corrected =) But I still say you need a wish to kill him, as creative as process is, there is too much reading between the fine print for my liking. But that is my own opinion, if you want to run things otherwise at your gaming table, suit yourself. Well I feel stupid. =P
Derren S. 03-10-05, 06:28 PM	1. The tarrasque is immun to death effects caused by a failed save. Drowning has no save. A Powerword Kill would also kill the tarrasque when it had 99 HP. 2. Even when you push the tarrasque through a gate to the water plane you are not drowning the tarrasque, the water is. So you aren't slaying it. 3. It should make you thinking when you have to bend the rules to your favor to support your argument.
Drachasor 03-10-05, 06:47 PM	1. The tarrasque is immun to death effects caused by a failed save. Drowning has no save. A Powerword Kill would also kill the tarrasque when it had 99 HP. 2. Even when you push the tarrasque through a gate to the water plane you are not drowning the tarrasque, the water is. So you aren't slaying it. 3. It should make you thinking when you have to bend the rules to your favor to support your argument. Mages don't slay people, fireballs do. lol. -Drachasor
mvincent 03-10-05, 06:51 PM	1. The tarrasque is immun to death effects caused by a failed save. Drowning has no save. A Powerword Kill would also kill the tarrasque when it had 99 HP. 2. Even when you push the tarrasque through a gate to the water plane you are not drowning the tarrasque, the water is. So you aren't slaying it. 3. It should make you thinking when you have to bend the rules to your favor to support your argument.I'm still not seeing how you are getting around the "The tarrasque can be slain only by..." rule
Drachasor 03-10-05, 06:52 PM	I'm still not seeing how you are getting around the "The tarrasque can be slain only by..." rule He's going by a strict dictionary definition of the word, rather than more common usage and in particular the meaning that it was clearly meant in the Tarrasque text. -Drachasor
mvincent 03-10-05, 07:15 PM	He's going by a strict dictionary definition of the word, rather than more common usage and in particular the meaning that it was clearly meant in the Tarrasque text.Slay: "To kill violently" Ah. So, he believes non-violent means can kill the Tarrasque without needing a wish? Wow. That certainly seems like a fascinating interpretation.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-10-05, 08:52 PM	He's going by a strict dictionary definition of the word, rather than more common usage and in particular the meaning that it was clearly meant in the Tarrasque text. -Drachasor Except Power Work Kill is Slaying under any definition of the word.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-10-05, 09:23 PM	1. The tarrasque is immun to death effects caused by a failed save. Drowning has no save. A Powerword Kill would also kill the tarrasque when it had 99 HP. Nowhere in the description does it say that the death effect must allow a save. It merely says that If on a failed save... or something to that effect. 2. Even when you push the tarrasque through a gate to the water plane you are not drowning the tarrasque, the water is. So you aren't slaying it. But you are drowning it and drowning it is killing it - i.e. - you are invoking a death effect that the tarrasque can regenerate from. 3. It should make you thinking when you have to bend the rules to your favor to support your argument. I haven't bent anything.
Kem 03-11-05, 02:10 AM	If your sole argument is that "drowning" bypasses the wish requirement because it isn't clearly stated, I'd like for you to point out to me where it says the tarrasque breathes. Its a magical Beast. All magical Beasts by definition have to breath unless their descriptions says otherwise. MM3.5 page 311. Now I would direct people to the "Regeneration" entry on the next page. First. It makes all damage non-lethal. Next. Each Regen entry has ways to bypass this. Therefore anything that deals damage has to be spelled out to deal that damage in each regen entry. Next. It points out that things that don't do damage ignore Regeneration. THEN. It points out that Regeneration does not heal hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Since the big boy doesn't have anything in its ability that stops starvation, thirst or suffocation, we know that regeneration does not heal the hit points lost. Now for the people that wanna debate if drowning is "damage". Here is a quote from "Death Attack" in the SRD. In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has –10 hit points. Now what this means is if I hit you with Slay Living, not only are you dead but your HP are now -10. I am not dealing you some kind of damage to get there. I am only killing you instantly. Your HP just become -10.
Kem 03-11-05, 02:17 AM	But you are drowning it and drowning it is killing it - i.e. - you are invoking a death effect that the tarrasque can regenerate from. No. The Tarrasque Suffocates because he is out of air. Not because of a death effect. He just dies.
Kem 03-11-05, 02:19 AM	And the creature type says that the tarrasque must breath as there is nothing in the magical beast entry which says they don't. Outsiders for example don't breath. Outsiders breath.
Thieran 03-11-05, 03:49 AM	In DnD, kill is the same as slay. No "petty semantic argument" here. But: In DnD, dying by drowning is the same as dying by being drowned. As I and others have pointed out, a tarrasque entering the Elemental Plane of Water by its own free will of course dies. In the DnD game, it makes no difference if it is transported there by adventurers or goes there by its own free will. In either case, it dies. Another try: Imagine the following: Two tarrasques stand 1000 feet apart from each other, each one in front of a portal to the Elemental Plane of Water. The left tarrasque is about to enter the portal by its own free will. The right tarrasque is about to enter the portal because it has been tricked to do so by player characters. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE LEFT ONE IS GOING TO DIE AND THE RIGHT ONE NOT? Think again.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 03:58 AM	No. The Tarrasque Suffocates because he is out of air. Not because of a death effect. He just dies. no, he takes 868 points of nonlethal damage. because the tarrasque is regenerates from death effects. Suffication, drowning, and starvation all have the same result as any death effect -- which is stated, in the regen description for the tarrasque and specifically for the tarrasque that the big guy is able to regenerate from that.
Derren S. 03-11-05, 04:01 AM	The tarrasque can regenerate from "Effects which result in death when a save is failed". This is not the case when drowning. And even if, the Tarrasque is now at -1 HP and bleeding to death. Same result.
Kem 03-11-05, 04:04 AM	no, he takes 868 points of nonlethal damage. because the tarrasque is regenerates from death effects. Suffication, drowning, and starvation all have the same result as any death effect -- which is stated, in the regen description for the tarrasque and specifically for the tarrasque that the big guy is able to regenerate from that. Its not a death effect. A death effect kills you. Suffocation means you die if you need to breath. It points out that things that don't do damage ignore Regeneration. It points out that Regeneration does not heal hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. If you notice, Big-T's regen entry does NOT say it regens from Suffocation. If you want to say he doesn't need to breath to live, you better first give him a type that doesn't need to breath.
Drachasor 03-11-05, 10:30 AM	Its not a death effect. A death effect kills you. Suffocation means you die if you need to breath. It points out that things that don't do damage ignore Regeneration. It points out that Regeneration does not heal hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. If you notice, Big-T's regen entry does NOT say it regens from Suffocation. If you want to say he doesn't need to breath to live, you better first give him a type that doesn't need to breath. So, I don't see how you guys who claim it suffocates get out of the following scenerios: 1. Being shoved into the elemental plane of water doesn't kill it (clearly an attack to drown it), but wandering in does kill it, since that's not an attack. The only way to argue out of that is to say that a mage doesn't kill anyone when he fireballs a group of peasents, only the fireball kills people. 2. Natural lightning from a storm must hurt the Tarrasque's real hitpoints. That's not an "attack". True of any other form of environmental, non-fire, damage. Both of which are ludicrous. Basically you guys have a few petty semantic arguements. Taking "slay" in D&D totally out of context as well as "attack," and are building this fantasy that somehow that means the Tarrasque can be killed by drowning. The simple fact is these words have broader connotations in D&D, and you can't just ignore that. -Drachasor
mvincent 03-11-05, 12:06 PM	If you notice, Big-T's regen entry does NOT say it regens from Suffocation.You seem to be expecting the game designers to address the consequences of all conceivable means of harming the tarrasque, despite the fact that the rules already say "The tarrasque can be slain only by..." Arguing about death effects, regen, etc. seems silly compared to addressing that single line. Now, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the monster's abilities (rather than trying to find rules loopholes or areas that the authers may not have covered in minute detail, even though they didn't need to) please continue: The D&D picture of the tarrasque has it with a turtle shell and webbed hands (this is in keeping with legends about it). Also, here are some excerpts from the (real) historical legends about the tarrasque: "Long time ago a huge monster emerged from the sea and chose the river Rhone as its new home. It was a dragoness, half land mammal, half fish. She outsized twelve elephants, had teeth like swords and a skin like iron. Her father was the water dragon Leviathan, her mother the giant snake Onachus, and her name was Tarasque." and "The Tarasque had destroyed all bridges and devoured everyone who wanted to cross the river. At last the inhabitants of the troubled area tried to lure the dragoness into a trap. Near the town Avignon there was a deep swamp. Whoever got there was lost. So they bound animals to trees near the trail leading to the swamp. The beast followed this line of prey. But when she approached the trap, she turned around and fled back to the river." I probably wouldn't have water be a hinderance to the beast myself, even if the writer's didn't think to include applicable rules. ... but please, feel free to play the game anyway you like... just realize how you must sound to others when you post to this board.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 01:39 PM	So, I don't see how you guys who claim it suffocates get out of the following scenerios: 1. Being shoved into the elemental plane of water doesn't kill it (clearly an attack to drown it), but wandering in does kill it, since that's not an attack. The only way to argue out of that is to say that a mage doesn't kill anyone when he fireballs a group of peasents, only the fireball kills people. 2. Natural lightning from a storm must hurt the Tarrasque's real hitpoints. That's not an "attack". True of any other form of environmental, non-fire, damage. Again, your lack of knowledge of the rules invalidates your argument. 1. The wizard did not do an attack to kill the tarrasque, the environment killed it. The wizard merely transported it, which, in a sense is an attack, just not a lethal one. And, by definition, the fireballs are an attack, since they are an effect created by the wizard solely for the purposes of inflicting damage. 2. Lightning deals damage, and ANY effect that deals damage is subject to regeneration. Both of which are ludicrous. As is your argument. Basically you guys have a few petty semantic arguements. Taking "slay" in D&D totally out of context as well as "attack," and are building this fantasy that somehow that means the Tarrasque can be killed by drowning. The simple fact is these words have broader connotations in D&D, and you can't just ignore that. Not according to the rules glossary. And that is all that matters in a rules argument. Again, you fail to deliver any credible evidence. Seriously, give up. you make yourself sound less informed on game rules every time you post on this subject. You seem to be expecting the game designers to address the consequences of all conceivable means of harming the tarrasque, despite the fact that the rules already say "The tarrasque can be slain only by..." Yes. Otherwise, by the rules, those methods still harm the tarrasque. Remember, in 3.0, the easiest way to kill a tarrasque was to make/control a wraith, and have it attack the tarrasque until it died. Since the wraith was incorporeal, the tarrasque could never harm it, and since the tarrasque was not immune to ability damage or drain as it is in 3.5, the wraith would eventually kill it. I think the earliest this could be done was 6th level or so, using a few certain builds and domains, but I don't remember. I know that by 10th level, an evil cleric could easily kill a tarrasque without using a wish or miracle, though it might take a few days. Arguing about death effects, regen, etc. seems silly compared to addressing that single line. No, arguing that that line has any bearing on anything outside of what regeneration covers is silly. It is a part of regeneration, and therefore is subject to the general rules of regeneration, except for those modified by the specific entry. Nothing in the specific entry changes anything about drowning or suffocation. Therefore, that line is ignored by effects that ignore regeneration, such as drowning and suffocation. To argue otherwise means that you do not understand the rules as written.
Mercurius 03-11-05, 02:21 PM	Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage. The creature automatically heals nonlethal damage at a fixed rate per round... Certain attack forms... deal lethal damage to the creature, which doesn't go away. The creature's descriptive text describes the details.... Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage (for example, most poisons and disintegration) ignore regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. 1) Regeneration converts lethal damage from attacks into nonlethal damage. 2) Nonlethal damage counts upwards from 1, while lethal damage counts downwards from the creature's max hit points. 3) Regeneration heals nonlethal damage, not lethal damage. 4) A creature's regeneration entry describes the details of bypassing its regeneration to deal lethal damage 5) Attacks that don't deal hit point damage are not affected by regeneration. 6) Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from Suffocation. 7) Suffocation does not deal damage that is converted into nonlethal damage. 8) A tarrasque's regeneration does not have a "bypass" to deal lethal damage. 9) Since it doesn't have any type of weakness that actually allows for lethal damage (such as fire and acid for trolls) it would be impossible to kill a Tarrasque via conventional damage, aside from that which its regeneration could not heal 10) Suffocation does not deal damage that regeneration can heal 11) The tarrasque converts all typical damage that regeneration can heal into nonlethal damage 12) Damage from any attack (drowning is not an attack, it is a result of environment in the same way as suffering from high or low temperatures) is converted to nonlethal damage 13) Suffocation does not deal actual damage at any rate. Certainly not damage that can be overcome by regeneration. 14) The tarrasque would be unkillable by means of damaging it unless you could bypass its regeneration except that the Regeneration section of the Tarrasque does include a means of bypassing its regeneration. 15) The means of bypassing a Tarrasque's regeneration via attacks requires first making its nonlethal damage total equal its hit points +10 (868) and then casting wish 16) Wish in this manner effectively converts all accrued nonlethal damage into lethal damage, thereby bypassing regeneration. 17) The Wish clause is there to indicate how one can overcome the Tarrasque's regeneration via an attack, not as the only means to kill a Tarrasque.
Kem 03-11-05, 02:38 PM	So, I don't see how you guys who claim it suffocates get out of the following scenerios: :rolleyes: Because There is more to it then that... 1. Being shoved into the elemental plane of water doesn't kill it (clearly an attack to drown it), but wandering in does kill it, since that's not an attack. The only way to argue out of that is to say that a mage doesn't kill anyone when he fireballs a group of peasents, only the fireball kills people. If I push you into water and you drown, I caused you to drown, but I did not drown you. The fireball kills the peasents, you caused the peasents to die. 2. Natural lightning from a storm must hurt the Tarrasque's real hitpoints. That's not an "attack". True of any other form of environmental, non-fire, damage. Lightning Deals damage, drowing does not. Natural Lightning does not get past "All damage taken is non-lethal". Drowning doesn't deal damage. Both of which are ludicrous. Right. Glad you noticed. Basically you guys have a few petty semantic arguements. Taking "slay" in D&D totally out of context as well as "attack," and are building this fantasy that somehow that means the Tarrasque can be killed by drowning. The simple fact is these words have broader connotations in D&D, and you can't just ignore that. Thats right. Attack has a specific definition. This definition does not apply to Drowning. Nor does damage. They has specific definitons that you refuse to accept.
Kem 03-11-05, 02:45 PM	You seem to be expecting the game designers to address the consequences of all conceivable means of harming the tarrasque, despite the fact that the rules already say "The tarrasque can be slain only by..." No, I'd expect them to at least contradict something in the regeneration entry if they want something in regeneration to be ignored. One sentance. "Big T does not need to eat, breath or sleep". Wow thats hard or maybe adding Suffocation next to disintegrate? I know they can't handle everything. But regeneration isn't everything. This is not a rule in the Suffocation section, it is something specifically in rengeneration. Big-T doesn't ignore it. So he dies. ... but please, feel free to play the game anyway you like... just realize how you must sound to others when you post to this board. :rolleyes: Anymore thinly veiled insults you care to toss around?
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 02:56 PM	Lightning Deals damage, drowing does not. Natural Lightning does not get past "All damage taken is non-lethal". Drowning doesn't deal damage. you're right. drowning kills and is therefore a death effect. So it DOES fall under the tarrasque's regeneration rules and instead if dying, takes 868 points of nonlethal damage. Thats right. Attack has a specific definition. This definition does not apply to Drowning. Nor does damage. They has specific definitons that you refuse to accept. and an attack doesn't necessarily have to be by someone. The difference between having someone drown you with a spell or event is hardly different from falling into the water and drowning. It's still an attack on the tarrasque that would kill it. ie the tarrasque is still recieving an attack upon its body from environmental factors. Therefore, it cannot kill it because the tarrasque's regeneration protects it.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 03:22 PM	TheDarkestOfAngels: Even if drowning is a death effect, which I am certain it is not, the tarrasque's regeneration only prevents death effects that HAVE A SAVE. Drowning does not have a save. Therefore, the tarrasque's regeneration does nothing against drowning. Therefore, the tarrasque's regeneration does not protect it from drowning.
mvincent 03-11-05, 03:22 PM	I'd expect them to at least contradict something in the regeneration entry if they want something in regeneration to be ignored. One sentance. "Big T does not need to eat, breath or sleep".It seems like it would still allow for other loopholes (as yet unmentioned). I believe the writer's intent was to not allow any loopholes and I feel their "can only be slain by" line does this adequately. You may not, but ignoring writer's intent can lead to serious oddities when it comes to D&D rules. Anymore thinly veiled insults you care to toss around?My apologies if you took that as a non-constructive statement. Honestly, it wasn't intended as an insult, but perhaps this is: That section wasn't intended for you.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 03:25 PM	It seems like it would still allow for other loopholes (as yet unmentioned). I believe the writer's intent was to not allow any loopholes and I feel their "can only be slain by" line does this adequately. You may not, but ignoring writer's intent can lead to serious oddities when it comes to D&D rules. Loophole or not, intent or not, by the rules as written, drowning kills the tarrasque. That is a fact of the rules. The "can only be slain" line is solely a part of regeneration, and thus is ignored by any effect that ignores regeneration, such as drowning.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 03:27 PM	TheDarkestOfAngels: Even if drowning is a death effect, which I am certain it is not, the tarrasque's regeneration only prevents death effects that HAVE A SAVE. Drowning does not have a save. Therefore, the tarrasque's regeneration does nothing against drowning. Therefore, the tarrasque's regeneration does not protect it from drowning. nowhere in the tarrasque's regeneration does it state that any of the stated effects must have a save. drowning should be a death effect for little other reason that because it is an effect that causes death - since drowning kills. Like I said before... it'd be stupid to think that a creature that can completely regenerate from being disintegrated is somehow vulnerable to drowning. Loophole or not, intent or not, by the rules as written, drowning kills the tarrasque. That is a fact of the rules. The "can only be slain" line is solely a part of regeneration, and thus is ignored by any effect that ignores regeneration, such as drowning. Either that or it means that regeneration applies to everything except being brought to 868 points of nonlethal damage followed by a wish or miracle. The definition that appears to be the more likely actual definition.
Kem 03-11-05, 03:30 PM	nowhere in the tarrasque's regeneration does it state that any of the stated effects must have a save. ??? 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).
Kem 03-11-05, 03:31 PM	Either that or it means that regeneration applies to everything except being brought to 868 points of nonlethal damage followed by a wish or miracle. The definition that appears to be the more likely actual definition. Which is funny, because suffocation doesn't deal non-lethal damage, ever.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 03:34 PM	nowhere in the tarrasque's regeneration does it state that any of the stated effects must have a save. drowning should be a death effect for little other reason that because it is an effect that causes death - since drowning kills. Like I said before... it'd be stupid to think that a creature that can completely regenerate from being disintegrated is somehow vulnerable to drowning. I guess I must be stupid then. But at least I am right. 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. The only time a death effect gets turned into 868 nonlethal damage is when a save is failed. Period. No other condition is listed, or even hinted at. Either that or it means that regeneration applies to everything except being brought to 868 points of nonlethal damage followed by a wish or miracle. Err, no, regeneration has a listed number of effects that is covers, and the tarrasque's specific entry adds on to that list. However, it is far, far short of 'everything.'
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 03:35 PM	yes, kem - the entry says that "if the tarrasque fails its save..." it doesn't say "the effect MUST allow a save" it doesn't say that the tarrasque is any less resistant to effect that don't allow a save. Which is funny, because suffocation doesn't deal non-lethal damage, ever. except that suffocation kills - which the regen entry for the tarrasque says that it can regenerate from - ie take as nonlethal damage as any other death effect.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 03:37 PM	Which is funny, because suffocation doesn't deal non-lethal damage, ever. To be fair, slow suffocation does, which is being trapped in an area with little ot limited oxygen. It's just not true for normal suffocation.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 03:37 PM	The only time a death effect gets turned into 868 nonlethal damage is when a save is failed. Period. No other condition is listed, or even hinted at. if the save is failed. notice that it doesn't say that the save is a requisite condition for the effects to be regenerated against. Err, no, regeneration has a listed number of effects that is covers, and the tarrasque's specific entry adds on to that list. However, it is far, far short of 'everything.' despite the clearly stated condition that it can ONLY be slain by the listed effects. IE the non-listed effects do not harm it.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 03:41 PM	yes, kem - the entry says that "if the tarrasque fails its save..." it doesn't say "the effect MUST allow a save" it doesn't say that the tarrasque is any less resistant to effect that don't allow a save. Do you have any understanding of what an "if/then" conditional is? In order for the second part to come into effect, the first part must be true. The only time that the tarrasque converts a death effect into 868 nonlethal damage is when it FAILS A SAVE against a death effect. So, not only does the death effect HAVE to have a save, the tarrasque also HAS to fail the save. except that suffocation kills - which the regen entry for the tarrasque says that it can regenerate from - ie take as nonlethal damage as any other death effect. Only if suffocation has a save. See? Another conditional.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 03:44 PM	if the save is failed. notice that it doesn't say that the save is a requisite condition for the effects to be regenerated against. Yes, it does. In the if/then conditional. There is no way for the second part to come into effect UNLESS the first part occurs. If the entry said "Immune to death effects," you might have case. As it stands, you are utterly and clearly wrong. despite the clearly stated condition that it can ONLY be slain by the listed effects. IE the non-listed effects do not harm it. Again, that is ONLY a part of the regeneration ability, which drowning and suffocation both ignore.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 03:51 PM	Do you have any understanding of what an "if/then" conditional is? In order for the second part to come into effect, the first part must be true. The only time that the tarrasque converts a death effect into 868 nonlethal damage is when it FAILS A SAVE against a death effect. So, not only does the death effect HAVE to have a save, the tarrasque also HAS to fail the save. except that if it were required, it would be stated as a requisite like other entries, such as how creatures that are immune to magic (such as golems) can still be effected by spells that do not allow for spell resistance. Instead, it is not. It simply says that if it fails a save, it gets effected by the following effects. Yes, it does. In the if/then conditional. There is no way for the second part to come into effect UNLESS the first part occurs. If the entry said "Immune to death effects," you might have case. As it stands, you are utterly and clearly wrong. but the entry doesn't say that failing the save is a requirement instead, it says that if the save is failed, but it doesn't say anything about whether effects that have a save at all is a requirement. If anything, it means something closer to that even if the save is failed against... and no, I am not wrong. Again, that is ONLY a part of the regeneration ability, which drowning and suffocation both ignore. except that they are not on the listed effects - the only ones able to kill it - which are listed on that regeneration entry.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 04:05 PM	except that if it were required, it would be stated as a requisite like other entries, such as how creatures that are immune to magic (such as golems) can still be effected by spells that do not allow for spell resistance. Instead, it is not. It simply says that if it fails a save, it gets effected by the following effects. It does state a requisite, just like a golem's immunity to magic. The tarrasque needs to fail a save against the effect. Unless that occurs, the effect is treated as normal. If the effect has no save, then there is no possiblity of a failed save. Technically, if the tarrasque was at 99 hp, a power word kill would kill it without needing a wish. An impossible occurance, but true. but the entry doesn't say that failing the save is a requirement instead, it says that if the save is failed, but it doesn't say anything about whether effects that have a save at all is a requirement. If anything, it means something closer to that even if the save is failed against... and no, I am not wrong. Yes, you are wrong, very wrong, and clearly do not understand how basic conditional sentences work. The 'if' part is the requirement, the 'then' part is the outcome. This is a basic part of the English language. except that they are not on the listed effects - the only ones able to kill it - which are listed on that regeneration entry. Huh? They are not listed in the effects that regeneration affects, and the "can only be slain" phrase is limited to the regeneration section. Therefore, suffocation and drowning, which bypass regeneration, bypass this phrase.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 04:16 PM	It does state a requisite, just like a golem's immunity to magic. The tarrasque needs to fail a save against the effect. Unless that occurs, the effect is treated as normal. If the effect has no save, then there is no possiblity of a failed save. except that it says "If" and not "needs to" fail a save. Technically, if the tarrasque was at 99 hp, a power word kill would kill it without needing a wish. An impossible occurance, but true. It's impossible because that, even if the tarrasque were somehow reduced to 99 hit points, power word kill is still a death effect. A spell based death effect on top of that. In other words, it would only do nonlethal damage, just as any other death effect. Yes, you are wrong, very wrong, and clearly do not understand how basic conditional sentences work. The 'if' part is the requirement, the 'then' part is the outcome. This is a basic part of the English language. No, I am not. A sentence such as If >blank< is true, then >blank< effects will take place would be the sentence you're looking for. except that the entry doesn't say that the "If" effect must allow a save in order for the "then" effect to occur. Huh? They are not listed in the effects that regeneration affects, and the "can only be slain" phrase is limited to the regeneration section. Therefore, suffocation and drowning, which bypass regeneration, bypass this phrase. you're right. they aren't listed in the effect that regeneration - the general rule for regeneration - affects. however, the tarrasque's regeneration specifically states that the only effects that can bypass the regeneration must be done by inflicting the requisite nonlethal damage before using wish or miracle. Therefore, suffocation and drowning might bypass a troll's regeneration or a balor's regeneration (or was it the pit fiend... enh whatever) but not the tarrasque's.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-05, 04:20 PM	Technically, if the tarrasque was at 99 hp, a power word kill would kill it without needing a wish. An impossible occurance, but true. So I guess Power Word Kill doesn't slay anyone?
Ludliffes 03-11-05, 04:23 PM	I am in no way thinking to end this discussion after so many pages. I will offer, however, for what it's worth, the view of someone who has not English as is first language (and I know, it shows), and as such is surprisingly sometimes able to more objectively grasp the meaning of sentences that cause endless discussions, thaks to a more "external point of view". The reasoning of the "Drowning will kill the Big T" camp are perfectly valid, logic, and consistent. I dislike them, however, because they put terrible pressure on the developers, who suddenly must become a cross between a perfect law-maker and a mathematician to even think to rule about something. To me is clear what were the intentions of the designers about the Terrasque. (Not that I think that I can convince any of you). This is a fantasy game, and rulers always start with simple concepts, and try to describe them within the framework of the current rules, sometimes failing to do so because they are human. In this case, they were thinking about a giant unkillable, always returning beast. To see this, just read the entry in the old, not errated, 3.0 SRD. Yes THAT one, the first written, and as such the most likely close to the original intentions. "No form of attack deals normal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if disintegrated or slain with death magic: These attack forms merely reduce it to -10 hit points. It is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as a sword of wounding, mummy rot, or a clay golem’s wound ability. The tarrasque can be permanently slain only by reducing it to -30 hit points and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead" As it was already pointed out, technically this period does not work, because you cannot have -30 nonlethal damage. But, for god's sake, who cares? As a DM, it is crystal clear what was meant. You are in battle and damage the T. Yes damage, the hell with the distinction of lethal and nonlethal. As the beast goes to -10, it does not die. It always keep regenerating. Always. And don't say to me regeneration does not heal real damage. I don't care, these are metagaming concepts, I am talking about what's happening on the battlefield in my fantasy view. So what I can do? Answer: deal damage again until it is at -30. Wish it to remain dead. Note that the SRD says "to KEEP it dead". In a sense, the beast already died when it reached -10. But dying is never permanent for the Tarrasque. Only magic as powerful as a wish can prevent the return of the beast. But wait! what about magic that bypasses hp and kills immediately? answer: nothing. The beast will turn to -10 hp. Of course, it is dead. After that, it will regenerate again. Note that the old SRD does not mention saving throws. Drowning? well, it is not mentioned, but how can a beast so powerful as to regenerate after a succesful Destruction spell (nothing remains, not even dust after that, Disintegrate pales in comparison) to be affected by water in its lungs? oh, of course it would die. So, put it at -10. You know what's happening next. It will regenerate. Got it? At this point, rule lawyers come, and point out that a level 7 cleric could kill it by using a wraith. Also, all the stuff was labeled as regeneration, and regeneration works on nonlethaldamage yadda yadda yadda. Oh my... well let's say the tarrasque is not affected by ability damage/drain, ok? and you must deal +868 points of nonlethal damage before the wish. Phew, we've done it. "I am drowning it!". Gasp. Where is this coming from? Oh, regeneration.... 3.5 ed was largely built under the pression of rule lawyers to counteract against many loopholes of munchkins gamers. It lost some flavor in the process (imo, of course) but it quenched somewhat the protests. Still, it will never be perfect. I can happily live with the 3.0 SRD description of the big T without fearing wraiths. I know that I cannot demonstrate that according to the rulers, the T. was not supposed to be killed permanently by water. Hell, they could even have changed their minds since then, or say, now, that yes it would be killed permanently, just to avoid changing again the text. Finally, I know that according to some people the spirit of the rules does not matter, but to me the RAW is important only as long as not it is not clear what were the original intentions. It is simply pointless, to me, to write in the description text about required wishes to "keep it dead" when Miasmas or Power Word: Kill (at 99 HP) could slay the beast. Anyway, I think that both discussing camps have their reasons and none of them have really a poor understanding of logic.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 04:26 PM	Ugh, this why I gave up this thread originally. First, I get into a running argument with someone who does not understand the rules of the game, and now I'm up against someone who clearly does not understand the rules of basic English. TheDarkestOfAngels: You're wrong, I have already proven you wrong, Kem has already proven you wrong, the rules of the English language have proven you wrong, and anyone who reads your posts will know you are wrong. I'm not going to get into a stupid "No, you're wrong," "No, you're wrong," with you, so just give it up. I am not responding to your repeated listings of erroneousness material.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 04:28 PM	So I guess Power Word Kill doesn't slay anyone? Huh?
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-05, 04:36 PM	Huh? "The tarrasque can only be slain by reducing it's hit points to -10 and wishing it dead." Weren't you the one arguing the tarrasque can drown because that's not "slaying"? And now, you say I can use Power Word Kill on it... I guess death spells don't count as slaying anymore? Your attempts to avoid dealing with "The tarrasque can only be slain by reducing it's hit points to -10 and wishing it dead" seem to be leading you into throwing your own logic in the blender and hitting "puree" This should be a good indication you're not on the right path.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 04:40 PM	Ugh, this why I gave up this thread originally. First, I get into a running argument with someone who does not understand the rules of the game, and now I'm up against someone who clearly does not understand the rules of basic English. TheDarkestOfAngels: You're wrong, I have already proven you wrong, Kem has already proven you wrong, the rules of the English language have proven you wrong, and anyone who reads your posts will know you are wrong. I'm not going to get into a stupid "No, you're wrong," "No, you're wrong," with you, so just give it up. I am not responding to your repeated listings of erroneousness material. niether you nor kem have done any such thing. you want to leave? Fine. go. the world is a better place. contact someone at WotC. contact anyone who has any idea what was written in the monster manuel or knows what the tarrasque is. I guarentee that they're answers will be the same as mine - that the tarrasque is immune to drowning, suffocation, and starvation like any other death effect. The tarrasque WILL take 868 points of nonlethal damage instead of dying and the tarrasque will regenerate back to conciousness at the earlest opportunity UNTIL the specifically listed conditions - that a wish or miracle be cast - to kill the tarrasque with any permanence. This is not only the inteniton of the rules, but as they are listed, in plain english, on the tarrasque's regeneration entry. You want to believe you know the english language better than me? Fine. I don't care. But the entry is clear in how it was intended to be read.
Ludliffes 03-11-05, 04:45 PM	*Deleted text for misunderstanding*
Derren S. 03-11-05, 04:45 PM	niether you nor kem have done any such thing. you want to leave? Fine. go. the world is a better place. That shows that you don't (or can't?) actually read what we write. You want to believe you know the english language better than me? Fine. I don't care. But the entry is clear in how it was intended to be read. Intention is not discussed here. What is written is. But you seem to not to be able to understand this.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 04:50 PM	"The tarrasque can only be slain by reducing it's hit points to -10 and wishing it dead." Weren't you the one arguing the tarrasque can drown because that's not "slaying"? Nope Your attempts to avoid dealing with "The tarrasque can only be slain by reducing it's hit points to -10 and wishing it dead" seem to be leading you into throwing your own logic in the blender and hitting "puree" This should be a good indication you're not on the right path. You're confusing me with someone else, and trying to disprove something I wrote by saying I contradicted myself with something that I DID NOT WRITE. This should be a good indication you're not on the right path. Anyways, I really suggest you use the errata if you use the 3.0 MM for the tarrasque entry. As written, the tarrasque cannot be killed by any means OTHER than drowning/suffocating it, or siccing a wraith or some other creature that does ability damage upon it. Bringing the tarrasque to -10 hp is impossible, and thus so is ever using a wish to slay/kill/destroy/whatever it. Those of us who use the rules right are not avoiding that statement, just using it in its proper context. That is, within the regeneration ability.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 04:51 PM	That shows that you don't (or can't?) actually read what we write. to the contrary, I do and can read what you write, and no, you clearly haven't. The only think I haven't decided is whether either of you have read the rules or know the english language yourselves. however, my ability to comprehend the english language (which I am perfectly capable of) is not the topic of this discussion and I consider this a personal attack by saying that I can't. If I see anything like this again from anyone, I will start reporting people. Intention is not discussed here. What is written is. But you seem to not to be able to understand this. and I have shown how what was intended is also written in the text, but all of you who think drowning is more effective or as effective at killing the tarrasque as using the most powerful spell in the game -after- dealing the nonlethal damage somehow missed several very important aspects in the description and in the rules in general regarding this topic.
Derren S. 03-11-05, 04:53 PM	How have you proven it? By over and over repeating your false argument which was shown false multiple times in multiple aspects?
d_nychus 03-11-05, 04:55 PM	Ludliffes, I think you and I have tempers to match. :D
d_nychus 03-11-05, 04:57 PM	Derren, don't bother. He's either a troll, or just really does not know what he's talking about. Either way, he is not worth your time or effort. No one who reads his drivel is going to think it is anything but.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 04:59 PM	How have you proven it? By over and over repeating your false argument which was shown false multiple times in multiple aspects? by pointing out that a) a saving throw is not a requirement for the tarrasque to be able to regenerate from the listed effects - notably death effects b) drowning is a death effect c) the only way to kill the tarrasque - ie avoid its regeneration is to bring its nonlethal damage to 868 points and using a wish. meaning you can drown it, but you still have to wish it dead. otherwise, as its regeneration entry states, it will begin rengerating itself back into conciousness as soon as the effect causing it to drown is lifted. niether you, nor kem, or d_nychus have prooven any of these things wrong since a) effects with a listed saving throw are NOT listed as a requisite in the regeneration entry b) any effect that causes death, such as drowning, is a death effect c) drowning is not one of the listed effect that will kill it along with wish or miracle + the nonlethal damage
Kem 03-11-05, 05:03 PM	and I have shown how what was intended is also written in the text, but all of you who think drowning is more effective or as effective at killing the tarrasque as using the most powerful spell in the game -after- dealing the nonlethal damage somehow missed several very important aspects in the description and in the rules in general regarding this topic. Actually. You see Regeneration says it doesn't heal hit point loss from Suffocation. Big-T doesn't have an entry anywhere saying he can heal that damage. THIS is why it bypasses regeneration. Not because it says "Suffocation bypasses regen". Its also not a death effect, it doesn't kill instantly. It doesn't deal damage. It has no save. What else does it need to do to NOT fit anything stated in the T's regen entry?
Kem 03-11-05, 05:05 PM	b) any effect that causes death, such as drowning, is a death effect No it isn't. Drowning is not a death effect. Suffocation just says that you suffocate. It doesn't kill you. You just die. Or is dieing of old age also a death effect?
Mercurius 03-11-05, 05:06 PM	Um... I tried to post some sort of argument a page back taking a slightly different look at the Wish clause of the regeneration. I can see that it really didn't matter, but I'd just like to more or less voice my opinion again. The wish clause in Mr. T's regeneration is the effect that allows killing damage to be affected upon him. It's the functional mechanical equivalent of how fire and acid do lethal damage to a troll. The only way to do killing damage through an attack (and I contest that suffocation is not an attack) is to cast a wish after exceeding it's maximum hit points in nonlethal damage. It effectively "turns off" the Tarrasque's regeneration and kills it. If you were able to get it to -10 hit points (an impossibility except through methods that do not deal actual damage, such as drowning (which still does not count as a death effect, nor does it do HP damage). Basically, the "can only be slain" part of the regeneration description is the way out of constantly having to stab it to keep it asleep for ever. It's the "this ends the cycle" bit. It's not the be-all and end-all. And why is suffocation not a death effect? Because, look at the construct type description. There'd be absolutely no reason to mention that constructs don't need to eat, sleep, or breathe if their immuntiy to death effects covered death via those methods. Same for undead.
Derren S. 03-11-05, 05:09 PM	a) Where is your proof? The actual text and the english language speaks against you When A, then B. Without A there is no B. b) Where is you proof? So you think someone who is drowned can't be raised by raised death as anyone killed by a death effect needs ressurection or better. c) Drowning affects the real Hp and doesn't do nonlethal damage. Regeneration doesn't cover HP lost by drowning, the tarrasques special regeneration doesn't cover this.
Mercurius 03-11-05, 05:10 PM	b) any effect that causes death, such as drowning, is a death effect So, stabbing someone and doing enough damage to kill them is a death effect. Looks like we can't kill constructs or undead via HP damage, then. :rolleyes:
Ludliffes 03-11-05, 05:14 PM	Actually, answering TheDarkestOfAngels, who posted above you. Considering that you did not pick up on that, I question your reading ability. Sorry, I apologize. You quoted TheDarkestOfAngels only in the second sentence, I was thinking the first one was against me. I will edit the post.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 05:16 PM	Um... I tried to post some sort of argument a page back taking a slightly different look at the Wish clause of the regeneration. I can see that it really didn't matter, but I'd just like to more or less voice my opinion again. The wish clause in Mr. T's regeneration is the effect that allows killing damage to be affected upon him. It's the functional mechanical equivalent of how fire and acid do lethal damage to a troll. The only way to do killing damage through an attack (and I contest that suffocation is not an attack) is to cast a wish after exceeding it's maximum hit points in nonlethal damage. It effectively "turns off" the Tarrasque's regeneration and kills it. If you were able to get it to -10 hit points (an impossibility except through methods that do not deal actual damage, such as drowning (which still does not count as a death effect, nor does it do HP damage). Basically, the "can only be slain" part of the regeneration description is the way out of constantly having to stab it to keep it asleep for ever. It's the "this ends the cycle" bit. It's not the be-all and end-all. And why is suffocation not a death effect? Because, look at the construct type description. There'd be absolutely no reason to mention that constructs don't need to eat, sleep, or breathe if their immuntiy to death effects covered death via those methods. Same for undead. Even though I'm sure this won't resolve anything, I will say you're perfectly right, Mercurius, and I'm sorry your last post got swallowed up in the spamming, which was a unfortunate product of my posting in response to others. I need to stop posting in this thread. I'm definately done for the day with this.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-05, 05:16 PM	Actually. You see Regeneration says it doesn't heal hit point loss from Suffocation. Big-T doesn't have an entry anywhere saying he can heal that damage. THIS is why it bypasses regeneration. Not because it says "Suffocation bypasses regen". Its also not a death effect, it doesn't kill instantly. It doesn't deal damage. It has no save. What else does it need to do to NOT fit anything stated in the T's regen entry? Not kill the Tarrasque. There is only one way to kill it, after all. And drowning isn't it. And suffocating isn't it. And starvation isn't it. And having it's body obliterated by Implosion isn't it. And having it's head cut off by a vorpal sword isn't it. Reducing it to -10 HP and wishing it is. Otherwise, we get the following stupid example: I take the Tarrasque. I put in in a giant Resilient Sphere. I pump the air out. Oh, look, the Tarrasque is suffocating! It dies! I take the Tarrasque. I cut it's lungs out. Oh, I am trying to "slay" it. It regenerates. Or even better I take the Tarrasque. I turn it into a small pile of dust with a non-ray disintegration effect. Oh, it regenerates. Never mind it didn't have anything to breathe from, with, or into while it was a small pile of powder on the ground. Can't die from it. But, leave it alone for a while, and it'll die of hunger anyways. Yaright.
Derren S. 03-11-05, 05:19 PM	That are logical conclusions, but the rules say otherwise.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-05, 05:23 PM	the rules say "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." You have not managed to provide a substantial argument as to why "slay" should not include all forms of death-dealing. If you try to convince me that "slay" must be "bring about death through violent external means", allow me to remind you that this will mean you are telling me "the tarrasque can suffocate, but you can't strangle it." Good luck convincing anyone arguing with anything approaching an open mind that that's a tenable position.
Mercurius 03-11-05, 05:23 PM	Reducing it to -10 HP and wishing it is. *sigh* That's not it either. Because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REDUCE A REGENERATING CREATURE TO -10 HP VIA AN ATTACK THAT DOES HP DAMAGE. It is, however, possible to reduce it to -10 via suffocation, but since regeneration doesn't fix actual lethal HP loss, it's dead. Like I said, the Wish is a clause that allows the nonlethal damage that the T has suffered to become lethal, thereby killing it. That's why you need to exceed its HP by 10 points. So that once it converts to killing damage, it reaches -10 HP.
d_nychus 03-11-05, 05:23 PM	But, leave it alone for a while, and it'll die of hunger anyways. Actually, stupid as this may sound, there is no way for ANY character in the game to die of starvation.
Mercurius 03-11-05, 05:26 PM	the rules say "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." You have not managed to provide a substantial argument as to why "slay" should not include all forms of death-dealing. If you try to convince me that "slay" must be "bring about death through violent external means", allow me to remind you that this will mean you are telling me "the tarrasque can suffocate, but you can't strangle it." Good luck convincing anyone arguing with anything approaching an open mind that that's a tenable position. Look back a page at my 17 point explanation. It still won't convince you, I'm sure, but it's as logical as I can get it, and I'd like to see actual counters to it anyway. ;)
Kem 03-11-05, 05:27 PM	Not kill the Tarrasque. There is only one way to kill it, after all. Thats right. One way to kill it. Many ways for it to die. Reducing it to -10 HP and wishing it is. Thats not it either... Otherwise, we get the following stupid example: I take the Tarrasque. I put in in a giant Resilient Sphere. I pump the air out. Oh, look, the Tarrasque is suffocating! It dies! I take the Tarrasque. I cut it's lungs out. Oh, I am trying to "slay" it. It regenerates. Because its lungs are replaced. Also you are unable to mechanically remove its lungs. Next, who said it has lungs? Oozes need to breath, do they now have lungs? Or even better I take the Tarrasque. I turn it into a small pile of dust with a non-ray disintegration effect. Oh, it regenerates. Never mind it didn't have anything to breathe from, with, or into while it was a small pile of powder on the ground. Can't die from it. Disintegrate cannot turn the Big T into dust. Why? Because it doesn't do real damage, which is a requisite for that effect (if it dies from this damage).
Mercurius 03-11-05, 05:30 PM	Disintegrate cannot turn the Big T into dust. Why? Because it doesn't do real damage, which is a requisite for that effect (if it dies from this damage). That's a great point. I hadn't thought of that before now.
Kem 03-11-05, 05:32 PM	"the tarrasque can suffocate, but you can't strangle it." You deal non-lethal damage, that gets healed, how do you intend to suffocate it by strangulation? You can't even Coup de Grace him, ever.
Mercurius 03-11-05, 05:34 PM	You can't even Coup de Grace him, ever. I guess Wish is kinda like the Coup de Grace for the Tarrasque... :thinks:
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-05, 07:13 PM	Look back a page at my 17 point explanation. It still won't convince you, I'm sure, but it's as logical as I can get it, and I'd like to see actual counters to it anyway. ;) Your 17 point explanation is nice and logical, but if fails to see that the "only way to slay it" line is a direct exception to suffocation/drowning being lethal despite regeneration. There are many ways to die under normal regeneration, but only one for the tarrasque's variety of regeneration. And that's to beat it to a fine paste and wish it doesn't pull itself back together again. Your supposition that wish is used to turn nonlethal damage into lethal damage is as good an explanation as any. It still does not change the fact that you still need a wish to get the thing to stay dead.
Kem 03-11-05, 07:20 PM	Your 17 point explanation is nice and logical, but if fails to see that the "only way to slay it" line is a direct exception to suffocation/drowning being lethal despite regeneration. There are many ways to die under normal regeneration, but only one for the tarrasque's variety of regeneration. And that's to beat it to a fine paste and wish it doesn't pull itself back together again. Your supposition that wish is used to turn nonlethal damage into lethal damage is as good an explanation as any. It still does not change the fact that you still need a wish to get the thing to stay dead. I don't want to slay it, kill it or anything. Its just going to Die. Regeneration, even Big-T's, doesn't heal suffocation damage. It doesn't override this simple, little thing. So it stays at -10hp.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-05, 07:26 PM	It can't "just die". It has to be finished off. The Tarrasque's regeneration heals everything but 868 hit points damage + wish. The only way it can die is to be slain.
Drachasor 03-11-05, 08:09 PM	You guys can't have it both ways. No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. Either drowning is an attack, or it isn't. If drowning isn't an attack, then lightning from natural sources isn't an attack. Hence, natural lightning deals normal damage to the Tarrasque, because it isn't a form of attack. Unless the attack part doesn't matter, in which case we are again back to the fact that drowning does deal damage. Drowning deals a variable amount of damage; enough to bring the target to 0 HP, then -1 HP, then -10 HP. You are again back to the ludicrous claim that having hitpoints "dropped" is not the same as being dealt damage. If you are at 0 HP, then you have clearly taken lethal damage. If it is from drowning, then it is just as much an attack as from natural lightning. I would note again, that if something supposedly kills the Tarrasque that doesn't involve a wish, then it is producing an INCURABLE WOUND, and the Tarrasque is immune to such an effect. I have yet to see anyone try to weasel out of that (though perhaps I missed it). Anyone care to respond to this? Again, the Tarrasque has a line that states it can only be killed one way, and that affects the entire creature. There is nothing in any of the books that says drowning bypasses all things related to regeneration. AT BEST you can say that damage dealt from drowning isn't restored by regeneration, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the line that indicates the Tarrasque is still alive no matter what drowning does. Again however, it is pure foolishness to claim drowning somehow isn't an attack and doesn't deal damage. Just because the writers use words that aren't exactly the same but for game intents and purposes mean the same thing. -Drachasor
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-11-05, 08:28 PM	No it isn't. Drowning is not a death effect. Suffocation just says that you suffocate. It doesn't kill you. You just die. Or is dieing of old age also a death effect? notice that "drowned" is not a seporate condition from being dead. any effect that causes death is a death effect. death results in becoming dead from a prior condition of being alive You see Regeneration says it doesn't heal hit point loss from Suffocation. actually, suffocation deals nonlethal damage. on the last round, you still die from suffication, which deals 868 points of nonlethal damage to the tarrasque since it can regenerate from death effects. EDIT: sorry, I was thinking of starvation when I wrote this. but you are wrong anyway. suffocation doesn't deal hit point damage, instead it sets your hit points to 0 hit points upon a failed save in the first round, -1 on the second, and death on the third. the tarrasque is immune to any attack that deals lethal damage and suffocation, in order to bring the tarrasque's hit points to 0 or -1 must bring the hit pionts down from its maximum, it is therefore lethal damage and does not come down from its maximum as lethal damage at all. the reason being that having 0 or -1 hit points means you have lethal damage even though suffocation doesn't inflict lethal damage. Big-T doesn't have an entry anywhere saying he can heal that damage. THIS is why it bypasses regeneration. Not because it says "Suffocation bypasses regen". the tarrasque can't heal the nonlethal damage caused by suffication and starvation, but the tarrasque is not killed from being suffocated or starved. Its also not a death effect, it doesn't kill instantly. It doesn't deal damage. It has no save. What else does it need to do to NOT fit anything stated in the T's regen entry? first, it is a death effect and it doesn't matter whether it kills the tarrasque instantly. The tarrasque still takes all forms of attack as nonlethal damage, as per the first clause of its regeneration. Second, whether it deals damage or not is irrelevant to this discussion and I never said that it does deal any form of damage. The only type of damage that either starving, suffocation, and drowning produce is produced only by starving and the tarrasque can regenerate from that, since the nonlethal damage it produces is incurable. third, in order to bypass the tarrasque's regeneration clauses that state that it can regenerate from them, it needs to either be a method that specifically states that it bypasses all forms of regeneration, including the tarrasques, or it needs to be listed on the listed "only way to kill" methods of actually killing the tarrasque. since drowning does none of these things, it is exempt from killing the tarrasque. a) Where is your proof? The actual text and the english language speaks against you When A, then B. Without A there is no B. no, it doesn't. read the entries: first "No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque." second: "The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect." third: "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)." in the first line we establish that nothing that harms the tarrasque will harm it at all. - i.e. deal lethal damage or otherwise present itself as a lethal threat to the tarrasque's health. in the second line, it states that the tarrasque will even regeneration upon a failed saving throw against spells and death effects. - i.e. the tarrasque will regenerate from any spell or effect that can kill or destroy it - such as from disintegration. this line does not say that the death effect need be instantaneous. it does not say that the spell or effect requires to have an allowable saving throw, but it does say that "even if on a failed saving throw" meaning that "even if the tarraque was allowed a saving throw and failed it, it can regenerate from it" and it later gives rules for death effects - stating that it instead gives nonlethal damage in the stated amount instead of killing it outright. The third line continues the "even if" line and specifies that if a saving throw is failed, then the effects occur. notice that this line does not indicate that the effect must allow a saving throw, it instead lists the effects upon a failed saving throw. huge difference. so, no. the english language does not disagree with me. b) Where is you proof? So you think someone who is drowned can't be raised by raised death as anyone killed by a death effect needs ressurection or better. huh? where does it say that a death effects requires that a resurrection spell or better to come back? unless the description for a specific death effect (such as a specific spell) states otherwise (such as dying from old age) then they can be raised or resurrected as per the normal rules. c) Drowning affects the real Hp and doesn't do nonlethal damage. Regeneration doesn't cover HP lost by drowning, the tarrasques special regeneration doesn't cover this. drowning affects hit points, sure, but the tarrasque's regen entry specifically states that no attack deals nonlethal damage. Unless I'm mistaken, dealing any form of damage to anyone is a form of attack from someone or something. In this case, its drowning. In the last round, when death would normally come, the tarrasque instead takes lots and lots of nonlethal damage instead of dying, since that death effect is a death effect. So, stabbing someone and doing enough damage to kill them is a death effect. Looks like we can't kill constructs or undead via HP damage, then. :rolleyes: constructs and undead do not die - they have to be alive in order to be killed. Instead, they are destroyed upon reaching 0 hit points and their monster manuel entry specifically states that they are destroyed instead of killed. this means that dying and being destroyed mean two different things. Construct Type: A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature. Features: A construct has the following features. —10-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric). —No good saving throws. —Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the construct has an Intelligence score. However, most constructs are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Traits: A construct possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —No Constitution score. —Low-light vision. —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease , death effects, and necromancy effects. —Cannot heal damage on their own, but often can be repaired by exposing them to a certain kind of effect (see the creature’s description for details) or through the use of the Craft Construct feat. A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality. —Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. —Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). —Not at risk of death from massive damage. Immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points or less. —Since it was never alive, a construct cannot be raised or resurrected. —Because its body is a mass of unliving matter, a construct is hard to destroy. It gains bonus hit points based on size, as shown on the following table. <table snipped> —Proficient with its natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with any weapon mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with no armor. —Constructs do not eat, sleep, or breathe. Undead Type: Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces. Features: An undead creature has the following features. —12-sided Hit Dice. —Base attack bonus equal to 1/2 total Hit Dice (as wizard). —Good Will saves. —Skill points equal to (4 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the undead creature has an Intelligence score. However, many undead are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Traits: An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —No Constitution score. —Darkvision out to 60 feet. —Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). —Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects. —Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. —Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score. —Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). —Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks. —Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed. —Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead. —Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry. —Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. —Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Drachasor 03-11-05, 08:42 PM	I would note for you pedantic rule-lawyer types this following thing once again. The text on drowning declares that the constitution checks you make are saves. Being defined as such, they fall under the Tarrasque's regen proviso. It surely isn't a normal save, but the rules define it as a save. You can't get out of that. -Drachasor
Ludliffes 03-12-05, 02:10 AM	It's surprising how people can fill pages upon pages discussing the same simple concepts, detailing them to death, and after some point questioning each other logical abilities. Face it people, English itself it's a rather simple language, and the topics discussed here aren't rocket science. Question: can drowning kill the T.? The key sentence here is the "The tarrasque can be slain only by ...". Here are the possible answers: 1# "The wish-slain clause is put in the regeneration section. As such it is pertinent only to those effects that are affected by regen. Drowning is not one of such effects. It is true that Big T.'s regen is in some way special, but it is a regeneration nonetheless and the general rules still applies, unless otherwise specifically noted in the tarrasque section. Nothing in this regard it is written. So yes, the beast dies" 2# "Tarrasque's regeneration is special and it is thoroughly defined in the text. It says that "the ONLY...". It is a broad statement and applies universally. "Death effects" is referred to anything that can cause death and that's includes drowning." I do think that #1 is more consistent with the rules, and by pure logic, it is stronger than #2, that needs to assume that the terrasque rules are somewhat special in the way they are written. Remember however, that we aren't trying to demonstrate a mathematical theorem or some universal logical truth. We are dealing with a game and we speculate on sentences that are written by people whose logic itself can be flawed. That's why I wrote that trying to understand the designers intention is important. I have already expressed my thoughts in an earlier post, you can continue with the discussion....
Derren S. 03-12-05, 03:46 AM	huh? where does it say that a death effects requires that a resurrection spell or better to come back? unless the description for a specific death effect (such as a specific spell) states otherwise (such as dying from old age) then they can be raised or resurrected as per the normal rules. Raise Dead spell description. A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. So, by your reasoning Raise Dead is a useless spell as anything which kills you is a dead effect and raise dead doesn't work. Maybe you should read the description of "Death Attack" in the back of the PHB or DMG which narrows it to spell or special effect. And drowning is non of both. Do you have anything better to offer as your constant mantra of "It deals damage, it is a attack"? Mybe a rule which supports your argument? You know to proof something you have to show rules which support your pont, but so far you haven't found any rule which works for your argument.
Kem 03-12-05, 04:00 AM	It can't "just die". It has to be finished off. The Tarrasque's regeneration heals everything but 868 hit points damage + wish. The only way it can die is to be slain. Why not? It still needs to eat and breath.
Kem 03-12-05, 04:04 AM	Unless the attack part doesn't matter, in which case we are again back to the fact that drowning does deal damage. Drowning deals a variable amount of damage; enough to bring the target to 0 HP, then -1 HP, then -10 HP. You are again back to the ludicrous claim that having hitpoints "dropped" is not the same as being dealt damage. If you are at 0 HP, then you have clearly taken lethal damage. If it is from drowning, then it is just as much an attack as from natural lightning. Wrong. Drowning doesn't deal damage. You just lost those hit points. Drowning only suffocates you. Which means, since you need to breath, that you die. First you drop unconsious (0 Hit Points), then you go to -1. It doesn't say that you take damage equal to your current hit points. It says you are dropped unconsious (0HP).
Kem 03-12-05, 04:23 AM	If drowning isn't an attack, then lightning from natural sources isn't an attack. Hence, natural lightning deals normal damage to the Tarrasque, because it isn't a form of attack. :rolleyes: Please actually READ the regeneration entry folks. Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage, and the creature automatically cures itself of nonlethal damage at a fixed rate. Which appears BEFORE Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Now, why would it do this if that was regarded as damage? Wanna know why? Because you are LOSING those hit points. Nothing is damaging you. You are failing to satify your needs. You are dieing. Nothing is dealing you damage. Sometimes you take damage, but nothing is doing that damage to you. You can say that drowning(non-slow) deals damage till you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that you are dead because you can't breath. The water around you isn't killing you, its your inability to breath it that is killing you. Then, you are unconsious with 0 HP. Don't bother asking how much damage, you are NOW AT 0hp. Since Big T needs to breath (go ahead, find proof that he doesn't, he even has scent and a big shnoze to go with it), he can die from lack of breathable material. Regen doesn't save him because regen can't heal the hit point loss from suffocation. I would note for you pedantic rule-lawyer types this following thing once again. The text on drowning declares that the constitution checks you make are saves. Being defined as such, they fall under the Tarrasque's regen proviso. It surely isn't a normal save, but the rules define it as a save. You can't get out of that. So? It doesn't instantly kill him because he failed the "save". Its not a death effect, nor is it similiar to Disintegrate in any manner. Love the insults, keep em coming.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-12-05, 09:17 AM	Why not? It still needs to eat and breath. Only for personal comfort. It can't suffocate or starve to death. Since the only way to bring about its death has to involve a wish spell, there's no way for the Tarrasque to die of natural causes. Ergo, it will not stop being alive unless it's "slain".
Derren S. 03-12-05, 09:42 AM	Only for personal comfort. It can't suffocate or starve to death. And your proof is? So far you and the others who think the Tarrasque can't drown have failed to prived any rule to cover this (at least a rule which wasn't wrongly quoted.)
Drachasor 03-12-05, 11:32 AM	And your proof is? So far you and the others who think the Tarrasque can't drown have failed to prived any rule to cover this (at least a rule which wasn't wrongly quoted.) That's completely untrue. You are the people claiming that "losing hitpoints" is somehow not "taking damage" when they are exactly the same thing. All you have to stand on are stupid semantic word games wherein you ignore what the authors of the passages are actually saying. You do the same thing with "slay", and then try to twist out of the scenerio where someone uses water to drown the Tarrasque (which fits the definition of the word slay). Your arguements there did not convince, nor do they in general. Losing Hitpoints is the same as taking damage. Being slain is the same is being killed. -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-12-05, 11:33 AM	So? It doesn't instantly kill him because he failed the "save". Its not a death effect, nor is it similiar to Disintegrate in any manner. It's an effect that instantly kills him in 3 rounds. Are you saying that a non-death effect that kills someone 3 rounds after the save isn't an "instant" death, even if it does instantly kill when it takes effect? -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-12-05, 11:34 AM	:rolleyes: Please actually READ the regeneration entry folks. The Tarrasque's entry overrules starvation and suffocation rules in the regeneration entry. -Drachasor
Drachasor 03-12-05, 11:36 AM	As far as I can tell, no one has responded to the fact that any effect that supposedly kills the Tarrasque is producing an incurable wound. The Tarrasque is immune to such effects. Only a wish with the necessary subdual damage can override this. -Drachasor
robertliguori 03-12-05, 12:18 PM	As far as I can tell, no one has responded to the fact that any effect that supposedly kills the Tarrasque is producing an incurable wound. The Tarrasque is immune to such effects. Only a wish with the necessary subdual damage can override this. -Drachasor Look, it's like this: The tarrasque has an exceptionally nasty form of regeneration. Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Therefore, yes, the tarrasque does not regenerate from drowning, because the hit point loss from drowning bypasses the clause in the Regeneration entry. If you bypass the regeneration entry, then you don't need a wish.
Drachasor 03-12-05, 12:35 PM	Look, it's like this: The tarrasque has an exceptionally nasty form of regeneration. Therefore, yes, the tarrasque does not regenerate from drowning, because the hit point loss from drowning bypasses the clause in the Regeneration entry. If you bypass the regeneration entry, then you don't need a wish. You're reading that the wrong way around. It is a property of standard regeneration, NOT drowning, that makes it unable to handle drowning damage. The Tarrasque, however, does not have standard regeneration, and if it has a line that contradicts the regeneration proviso on drowning, then it can work against drowning. The Tarrasque's entry does have such a proviso, and it happens to cover a bunch of things, drowning being one of them. -Drachasor
Mercurius 03-12-05, 01:38 PM	You're reading that the wrong way around. It is a property of standard regeneration, NOT drowning, that makes it unable to handle drowning damage. The Tarrasque, however, does not have standard regeneration, and if it has a line that contradicts the regeneration proviso on drowning, then it can work against drowning. The Tarrasque's entry does have such a proviso, and it happens to cover a bunch of things, drowning being one of them. -Drachasor *sigh* The Tarrasque entry does indeed have specific provisos which make it different from standard regeneration. These it calls out in its description (such as by pointing out that disintegrate or death spells don't kill it). However there is nothing in the description that specifically says that a Tarrasque's regeneration ignores drowning. Therefore, since it doesn't say that it overrules the drowning clause of normal regeneration, it doesn't actually overrule it. When it doesn't list an exception, it doesn't have an exception and the general rule is used. The Wish/Miracle clause explains how you in fact can stab a Tarrasque and eventually kill it anyway, even though normally that would just keep piling on the non-lethal damage. If the Wish/Miracle clause wasn't there, then you would be unable to kill the Tarrasque by anything other than suffocation, because there would be no way to make normal damage bypass its regeneration otherwise. Death Attack: A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target, such as finger of death. Neither raise dead nor reincarnation can grant life to a creature slain by a death attack, though reincarnation and more powerful effects can. Ergo, drowning is not a death attack, unless drowning victims can't be brought back by raise spells, and unless drowning is a spell or special ability, which it is not. Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. Ergo, drowning is not an attack, unless you assume that inanimate water has an intent. Even so, there is no attack roll, though clearly attacks are defined differently elsewhere so as to deal with invisibility issues. However, invisibility has specific instances that also count as attacks for the purpose of its cancellation, rather than redefining attack in general: The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe... Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Underlined sections have pertinence here, because drowning is not an attack even by the invisibility description's much broader definition of "attack". Drowning: Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns. It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain. Unconscious: Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points. A character who is unconscious as a result of having current hit points between -1 and -9 who becomes stable has a 10% chance every hour of becomming conscious... The drowning rules here have a specific clause that states that a creature becomes unconscious, even though he effectively has 0 hp, rather than the usual -1 to -9. Note that the drowning rules do NOT identify the Con check as a save, as you earlier argued, but instead simply call it a check. Additionally, it makes no mention of being an attack, a death effect/death attack, or HP damage. In the same way that a decrease in Constitution can lead to a loss of HP that is not damage, drowning leads to a decrease in HP that is also not damage. Any way, I've provided as many quotes to back up my arguments as I can. They've all been definitions from the PHB and DMG 3.5 glossaries that explain the terms you insist mean one thing, even though they don't actually say that they do. I know that this probably won't convince anyone, but I'd like to belive that I've at least said my piece.
Drachasor 03-12-05, 03:01 PM	The Tarrasque's regeneration has a proviso that covers drowning and many other things, by stating NOTHING can kill it except for giving it adequate non-lethal damage and following that with a wish. It states that it is immune to effects that produce incurable wound (this definitely includes being slain from drowning). It doesn't need to comment on drowning explicitly if it has such broad comments. Drowning doesn't need to be a death attack to fall under these guidelines (indeed, it doesn't even need to be an attack). -Drachasor
Mercurius 03-12-05, 03:08 PM	The Tarrasque's regeneration has a proviso that covers drowning and many other things, by stating NOTHING can kill it except for giving it adequate non-lethal damage and following that with a wish. It states that it is immune to effects that produce incurable wound (this definitely includes being slain from drowning). It doesn't need to comment on drowning explicitly if it has such broad comments. Drowning doesn't need to be a death attack to fall under these guidelines (indeed, it doesn't even need to be an attack). -Drachasor Umm. No. If drowning was an incurable wound, you might be right, but there's no indication that it is. Additionally, if the regeneration section didn't need to call out specific instances since it had such a broad comment, it would NOT have to mention that disintegrate or other death effects don't kill it when it fails its save.
d_nychus 03-12-05, 03:11 PM	The Tarrasque's regeneration has a proviso that covers drowning and many other things, by stating NOTHING can kill it except for giving it adequate non-lethal damage and following that with a wish. Except for the fact that drowning specifically ignores regeneration in total, and nothing in the tarrasque entry amends that. It states that it is immune to effects that produce incurable wound (this definitely includes being slain from drowning). So, if a normal PC is underwater until he is at 0 or -1 hp, he cannot ever regain hp again, because, somehow, drowning is incureable? It doesn't need to comment on drowning explicitly if it has such broad comments. None of those broad comments even remotely cover drowning. Drowning doesn't need to be a death attack to fall under these guidelines (indeed, it doesn't even need to be an attack). It certainly needs to be something covered under those broad statements in order to be affected. Unfortunately, drowning is not something that is covered by any of the modifications in the specific entry of the tarrasque. Therefore, drowning operates normally, and, thus, ignores regeneration.
Kem 03-12-05, 03:39 PM	Only for personal comfort. It can't suffocate or starve to death. Since the only way to bring about its death has to involve a wish spell, there's no way for the Tarrasque to die of natural causes. Ergo, it will not stop being alive unless it's "slain". There is a difference between: Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe. See. Outsiders can eat or sleep if they want to. Magical Beasts have no such provision.
Kem 03-12-05, 03:43 PM	The Tarrasque's regeneration has a proviso that covers drowning and many other things, by stating NOTHING can kill it except for giving it adequate non-lethal damage and following that with a wish. -Drachasor Nothing is killing it, its just dieing. When you die of suffocation what killed you?
Mercurius 03-12-05, 03:45 PM	Nothing is killing it, its just dieing. When you die of suffocation what killed you? The water, which is clearly a malicious attacker :P
d_nychus 03-12-05, 03:54 PM	"...and now, gentlemen, having narrowed down the suspects to those with the most obvious motives to kill Lord Brendenshire, I must make one retraction. The strangest piece of evidence was that he was found floating in the back pool. One may only assume that he was brought and placed there after the murder. But upon a brief autopsy, I have found he was slain (not killed, mind you) by INCUREABLE DAMAGE!! Therefore, gentlemen, we have out suspect. THE SWIMMING POOL ITSELF KILLED LORD BRENDENSHIRE FOR NOT BEING WRITTEN INTO HIS WILL!!"
ShiverTheBard 03-12-05, 04:06 PM	Why does it matter? Will anyone posting here actual ever fight the damn thing?
Kyuketsukiouji 03-12-05, 04:08 PM	There is a difference between: Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe. See. Outsiders can eat or sleep if they want to. Magical Beasts have no such provision. But, again, the Tarrasque itself has a provision. It's regeneration ability can cure anything save a wish.
d_nychus 03-12-05, 04:11 PM	But, again, the Tarrasque itself has a provision. It's regeneration ability can cure anything save a wish. Source?
Dilt 03-12-05, 04:57 PM	Truth be told, this arguement is pointless. It is simply 'What is stated in the rules' VS 'What the authors meant when they made this ability'. The rules state that the Tarrasque CAN drown, and this has been proved many times over. The only defense to that is the author's meaning. this topic is endless, and only a fix of the rules to specifically cover drowning will ever make everyone shut up about what is right and wrong. You should just leave the opinions to each individual DM, and they can set their own rules about Tarrasque killing. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' here, just settle on your opinion and leave. People usually are not listening when you argue one way or another, so in theory, you would argue forever. I suggest this topic coming to a close... arguing like this is pointless. Edit: Changed a bit for clarification.
d_nychus 03-12-05, 05:54 PM	Truth be told, this arguement is pointless. It is simply 'What is stated in the rules' VS 'What the authors meant when they made this ability'. It is through your own interpertation of the rules that allows you to say 'Yes, it can drown', or, 'No, it cannot drown'. The fact is, this topic is endless, and only a fix of the rules to specifically cover drowning will ever make everyone shut up about what is right and wrong. You should just leave the opinions to each individual DM, and they can set their own rules about Tarrasque killing. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' here, just settle on your opinion and leave. People usually are not listening when you argue one way or another, so in theory, you would argue forever. I suggest this topic coming to a close... arguing like this is pointless. I agree it is pointless, but that does not change the fact that BY THE LETTER OF THE RULES, which was initially what was asked in this thread, the tarrasque does, in fact, drown. If people want to play differently, fine by me. I don't care.
Kem 03-12-05, 05:57 PM	But, again, the Tarrasque itself has a provision. It's regeneration ability can cure anything save a wish. Well, except for damage that comes from Suffocation, starvation or thirst.
Colmarr 03-13-05, 04:28 PM	In reading this post, bear in mind that I was away for the weekend and freely admit to not having read pages 7 - 9. It's clear that there are posters on this thread who have adopted the approach that their interpretation is right and everyone else is not just wrong; they are also stupid. I can accept that they consider their position correct. I cannot accept that they refuse to see that there are valid arguments to the contrary. As it is clear that there can be no resolution of this debate (which is threatening to turn into a flame war), I will satisfy myself with setting out my issues with the arguments put forward by those people. If they still do not see that there is another, equally valid, side to the argument, so be it. 1. They have not, and cannot, establish per RAW that drowning kills a creature. Attempts to do so have been conspicuously absent since I raised the point. (For those who consider this a spurious argument, in part I agree. However, I also consider it spurrious to suggest a general immunity to death doesn't apply to drowning, so sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.) For those who argue that slay does not mean kill, Merriam Webster disagrees: Slay: to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers; broadly : to strike down : KILL 2. They have not established that drowning doesn't deal damage. Note that in the second round, the drowning creature "drops" to -1. It doesn't "become -1" or "appear at -1", or "change to -1". 3. As per general RAW, the only way to kill a creature (except perhaps for some special undead abilities) is to drain its Con to 0 or reduce its HP to -10. It is clear that drowning does neither. 4. They are assuming that the Tarrasque's regeneration entry works as per the general definition in the glossary of the MM. This assumption is flawed given that the Tarrasque's regeneration entry includes a number of provisions that do not apply to normal regeneration and a sentence seen nowhere else in the entire gamut of D&D material. 5. They agree that there can be exceptions to the general rules, but argue that the subject sentence is not an exception because it's not specific enough. As I pointed out before. Death is death, regardless of cause, and the Tarasque can only be killed/slain by raising its nonlethal damage to X.
WizO_Sith 03-13-05, 04:32 PM	Ok, this thread is pretty flame-y. Let's cut it out or I'll be forced to lock it. Thanks.
Thieran 03-14-05, 05:50 AM	Truth be told, this arguement is pointless. It is simply 'What is stated in the rules' VS 'What the authors meant when they made this ability'. The rules state that the Tarrasque CAN drown, and this has been proved many times over. The only defense to that is the author's meaning. this topic is endless, and only a fix of the rules to specifically cover drowning will ever make everyone shut up about what is right and wrong. You should just leave the opinions to each individual DM, and they can set their own rules about Tarrasque killing. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' here, just settle on your opinion and leave. People usually are not listening when you argue one way or another, so in theory, you would argue forever. I suggest this topic coming to a close... arguing like this is pointless. This is very reasonable. I agree.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-14-05, 09:57 AM	Well, except for damage that comes from Suffocation, starvation or thirst. Noooo...since that's part of the "regeneration" concept, and the tarrasque's specific "regeneration" entry includes a clear exception to that. Ways to kill a regenerating creature: ---------------------------------- 1-Suffocation 2-Starvation 3-Thirst 4-Exposure to elements 5-Damage of a type it can't regenerate 6-Beating it to a pulp and wishing it dead Ways to kill a tarrasque ---------------------- 6-Beating it to a pulp and wishing it dead. (the only....)
Derren S. 03-14-05, 11:36 AM	Again, this is how you would like it to be, but by the rules drowning/suffocating is also possible.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-14-05, 09:16 PM	Raise Dead spell description. A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. So, by your reasoning Raise Dead is a useless spell as anything which kills you is a dead effect and raise dead doesn't work. Fair enough. I can accept that as valid evidence to the contrary to my statement putting the term 'death effects' on anything that kills. However, upon closer inspection of the rules a "death effect" is not clearly defined - at least in the SRD v3.5. It's irrelevant now, in any case, I don't need drowning to be a death effect to be right, anyway - simply because virtually every sentence of the tarrasque's regeneration clearly says that nothing can harm it to that effect. Maybe you should read the description of "Death Attack" in the back of the PHB or DMG which narrows it to spell or special effect. And drowning is non of both. I've already read it. DEATH ATTACKS In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly. • Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack. • Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive. • In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has –10 hit points. • The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks. this niether narrows it to a spell nor a special effect. It simply states that, in most cases, a death attack has a fortitude save that, if the save fails, the character dies instantly. While a "death attack" has some clear similarities with a "death effect" in regard to immunities and such, this ability does not define itself as a "death effect" in any way. Do you have anything better to offer as your constant mantra of "It deals damage, it is a attack"? Mybe a rule which supports your argument? You know to proof something you have to show rules which support your pont, but so far you haven't found any rule which works for your argument. you mean, aside from all the ignored rules and lines supporting my case? I've found several. Just because you and the others refuse to give them any quarter and just listen to your own arguements and present them as though they were the correct interpretation of the rules doesn't mean they are, really, the correct ones. "No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque." In order for drowning to affect the tarrasque, it MUST first get the tarrasque to 0, then -1 hit points. Which can only mean that the tarrasque has lethal damage because of drowning. Killing the tarrasque is dealing the tarrasque lethal damage, as it must bring its hit points to -10, plus the fact that it causes the tarrasque to be dead. So far you and the others who think the Tarrasque can't drown have failed to prived any rule to cover this (at least a rule which wasn't wrongly quoted.) and what rules were wrongly quoted? You just lost those hit points. Drowning only suffocates you. Which means, since you need to breath, that you die. First you drop unconsious (0 Hit Points), then you go to -1. Unless I am mistaken, there are only a few ways you can, in the general rules, loose hit points. You take lethal damage. You lost a level/racial hit dice/whatever. Your constitution score gets knocked down. Drowning, going strictly by what the rules for drowning are, simply states that the tarrasque has 0 hit points in the first round, -1 hit points in the second round, and death in the third round. Drowning does not, in any way, state a specific sort of damage. This does NOT mean that being at 0 hit points because of drowning isn't lethal damage. It also doesn't say what sort of damage/loss/whatever brings those hit points down from whatever to 0 either, but, more importantly, it doesn't state that the hit point loss isn't lethal damage. However, one little detail is missing as far as this little scenario goes and i can't believe it was ignored until this point. So I'll bring it up with a quesiton: If the "hit point loss" that drowning inflicts is not lethal damage, then what happens if, after either rounds one or two, the victim of drowning is able to breathe again? Were this hit point damage (such as from the deck of many things where you can permanently loose a small number of hit points) then the loss would be irrecoverable except by leveling up. Drowning doesn't force its victims to either loose levels or racial hit dice (such as from level drain) it can only be in the form of lethal damage that has been done to the tarrasque. The difference between drowning and being stabbed or damaged from a spell is that the hit point loss is set to a specific number with drowning. IE in the first round, you are unconcious with 0 hit points. You can only exist at 0 hit points if you have lethal damage. The tarrasque regenerates ALL lethal damage inflicted by anything. The tarrasque cannot come down to 0 hit points without having lethal damage, just like any other creature. instead, the tarrasque can only have the difference between 0 hit points and his maximum # of hit points in nonlethal damage or no damage whatsoever, but it cannot have lethal damage due to drowning. It doesn't say that you take damage equal to your current hit points. It says you are dropped unconsious (0HP). The only way possible for any creature in D&D to be at 0 hit points is to have lethal damage dealt to you. Drowning does no other form of identified hit point loss. Since the tarrasque's hit points would be brought down to 0 and -1 with the first and second rounds, the tarrasque can only have 0 or -1 if the tarrasque has lethal damage. Since the third round deals niether nonlethal damage nor uses a wish or miracle to slay the tarrasque, the third round doesn't happen. Now, why would it do this if that was regarded as damage? Wanna know why? Because you are LOSING those hit points. Nothing is damaging you. You are failing to satify your needs. It would have to damage the tarrasque to bring it to 0 hit points at all. If it didn't, then no creature would be able to restore lost hit points from drowning, even after they're able to breathe again. Instead, you do regain lost hit points and you can only regain lost hit points after the first or second round of drowning by breathing and healing the damage, as per any other wound. You are dieing. Nothing is dealing you damage. Sometimes you take damage, but nothing is doing that damage to you. By the rules, you can only die if you have -10 hit points or 0 constitution or you fail your saving throw versus a death attack. If drowning were to "simply kill you" then it must do one of the above. Since the tarrasque regenerates all lethal damage, is immune to constition damage and death effects and attacks that deal lethal damage, then drowning cannot kill the tarrasque without specifying exactly what it does that does not involve doing one of the above. You can say that drowning(non-slow) deals damage till you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that you are dead because you can't breath. The water around you isn't killing you, its your inability to breath it that is killing you. Then, you are unconsious with 0 HP. Don't bother asking how much damage, you are NOW AT 0hp. and no creature can be at 0hp NOW without having lethal damage inflicted upon him or her or it. Since Big T needs to breath (go ahead, find proof that he doesn't, he even has scent and a big shnoze to go with it), he can die from lack of breathable material. If he can regeneate from being a pile of dust for an indefinate period of time, he can regenerate from having his body damage from a lack of breathable air. This is exactly the sort of failed logic that makes this arguement quite out of whack with the obvious intentions of the description of the tarrasque. But I guess WotC will have to hire lawyers instead of game designers to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Regen doesn't save him because regen can't heal the hit point loss from suffocation. suffocation is not any different from drowning, unless you're talking about slow suffocation, which inflicts nonlethal damage as the air gradually runs out. After the requisite time is depleated, rules that paralell the drowning rules begin. Therefore, yes, the tarrasque is immune to the hit point loss from all forms of suffocation. So? It doesn't instantly kill him because he failed the "save". Its not a death effect, nor is it similiar to Disintegrate in any manner. disintegrate is not a death effect, nor is a spell with the death descriptor, nor is it describted as either a death effect or a death attack. In fact, the tarrasque would be immune to the hit point damage inflicted anyway, making the description in regeneration perhaps more of a "no matter how much damage is inflicted upon the tarrasque, such as from failing the fort save from disintegrate, the tarrasque will regenerate anyway." Which I find amusing, considering that drowning does significantly less damage to the tarrasque's body. You're reading that the wrong way around. It is a property of standard regeneration, NOT drowning, that makes it unable to handle drowning damage. The Tarrasque, however, does not have standard regeneration, and if it has a line that contradicts the regeneration proviso on drowning, then it can work against drowning. The Tarrasque's entry does have such a proviso, and it happens to cover a bunch of things, drowning being one of them. -Drachasor *sigh* The Tarrasque entry does indeed have specific provisos which make it different from standard regeneration. These it calls out in its description (such as by pointing out that disintegrate or death spells don't kill it). However there is nothing in the description that specifically says that a Tarrasque's regeneration ignores drowning. correct. and this much is confirmed by WotC Custserv, whom I contacted on the matter. However, this does not mean it IS affected by drowning either. Therefore, since it doesn't say that it overrules the drowning clause of normal regeneration, it doesn't actually overrule it. actually, the tarrasque's regeneration, still not being the "general/standard regeneration" would fall outside still of the proviso that drowning bypasses regeneration. In other words, drowning covers "general" regeneration whereas drowning doesn't cover "tarrasque" regeneration. Which means that drowning doesn't cover this form of regeneration AT ALL. When it doesn't list an exception, it doesn't have an exception and the general rule is used. The Wish/Miracle clause explains how you in fact can stab a Tarrasque and eventually kill it anyway, even though normally that would just keep piling on the non-lethal damage. If the Wish/Miracle clause wasn't there, then you would be unable to kill the Tarrasque by anything other than suffocation, because there would be no way to make normal damage bypass its regeneration otherwise. The wish/miracle clause is specifically cited as the only way for it to be slain. For those of you who told me I wasn't following standard english in regard to the if/then statement, you are ignoring this, much more obvious english sentence stating that "this event occurs ONLY when doing the following trigger events." Since drowing isn't of those trigger events, then the tarrasque cannot die because of those things. In other words, the tarrasque cannot be slain by anything other than the specific things cited as the only method it could be slain by, which did not include drowning, suffocation, or starvation. Death Attack: A spell or special ability that instantly slays the target, such as finger of death. Neither raise dead nor reincarnation can grant life to a creature slain by a death attack, though reincarnation and more powerful effects can. Ergo, drowning is not a death attack, unless drowning victims can't be brought back by raise spells, and unless drowning is a spell or special ability, which it is not. Fair enough, thought I went by the SRD description (which is also found in the DMG page 292.) Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. Ergo, drowning is not an attack, unless you assume that inanimate water has an intent. Even so, there is no attack roll, though clearly attacks are defined differently elsewhere so as to deal with invisibility issues. Water doesn't have any greater intent than a cast spell or knife. In any case, the description, which I will requote and underline the parts of pertinence: Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. drowning fits the first underlined sentence just fine. There's just no attack roll. This I find amusing, since this means that magic missile, pushing a rock over a ledge on top of a victim, most traps, or generally any of those wonderful effects that don't require any attack roll is apparently not considered an attack. (then you can include all of those "indirect attacks - given your explaination below." for all sorts of logic problems and inconsistancies.) However, given that the glossery is full of shortened & easy-access (and sometimes wrong) information (check the defination of a surprise on 314.) However, there are many, many forms of attack in D&D that do not require an attack roll that are still considered an "attack." The definition you found is far more likely the definition of a ranged or melee attack. Drowning being an attack just as much as any spell or effect that will harm its victim. attack roll or not. However, invisibility has specific instances that also count as attacks for the purpose of its cancellation, rather than redefining attack in general: The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe... Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Underlined sections have pertinence here, because drowning is not an attack even by the invisibility description's much broader definition of "attack". except that this definition only works for the purposes of invisibility and not attacks in general. ie specific vs. general. Otherwise, this definition would only limit what is an "attack" to spellsw with a specific target or area of effect that included a foe. This also could imply that the target could be an ally and the invisibility would not wear off. However, a sensible DM realizes that a "direct attack" means that there is no middle action that causes something else to happen to someone else and that a "direct attack" would mean that the individual did an action that harmed another. For drowning's case, there is no individual, but because water (or whatever medium) is suffocating an individual by merely being present, it is still performing an action (drowning/suffocating) by simply not being breathable. Similarly to how the negitive effects of another plane or area with very harsh weather attacks individuals that happen to be on the plane or in the area and not adequately protected against it. Drowning: Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns. It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain. Unconscious: Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points. A character who is unconscious as a result of having current hit points between -1 and -9 who becomes stable has a 10% chance every hour of becomming conscious... The drowning rules here have a specific clause that states that a creature becomes unconscious, even though he effectively has 0 hp, rather than the usual -1 to -9. Note that the drowning rules do NOT identify the Con check as a save, as you earlier argued, but instead simply call it a check. Additionally, it makes no mention of being an attack, a death effect/death attack, or HP damage. In the same way that a decrease in Constitution can lead to a loss of HP that is not damage, drowning leads to a decrease in HP that is also not damage. and the tarrasque's regeneration clause lacks any specific mention that any affect that does affect the tarrasque must allow for a save. Instead, it only gives provisions if a save is failed. Any way, I've provided as many quotes to back up my arguments as I can. They've all been definitions from the PHB and DMG 3.5 glossaries that explain the terms you insist mean one thing, even though they don't actually say that they do. I know that this probably won't convince anyone, but I'd like to belive that I've at least said my piece. same here. The only difference with me is that because I disagree with the conclusions brought about by a few of the other people here, they've concluded that I'm some sort of illiterate or idiot instead of providing amiable counterevidence that didn't rely on interpretation instead of hard-line proof. Except for the fact that drowning specifically ignores regeneration in total, and nothing in the tarrasque entry amends that. drowning specifically mentions that it ignores regeneration, yes. drowning does not specifically mention the tarrasque's regeneration, which is not the regeneration in the "general" guidelines, to which drowning's "Specific" ruling overrides. Drowning is the "general" rule in this case and the tarrasque's regeneration is "specific." Meaning that it isn't covered by drowning at all. So, if a normal PC is underwater until he is at 0 or -1 hp, he cannot ever regain hp again, because, somehow, drowning is incureable? it would have to be if it wasn't lethal. it's the only other way that the tarrasque's hit points can be at eitehr 0, -1, or -10. Unless there is a third form of hit point damage that drowning is. It certainly needs to be something covered under those broad statements in order to be affected. Unfortunately, drowning is not something that is covered by any of the modifications in the specific entry of the tarrasque. Therefore, drowning operates normally, and, thus, ignores regeneration. incorrect. the tarrasque's regeneration is not the form of regeneration that drowning covers. aside from that, the "only" clause of the tarrasque's regeneration does not mention drowning as one of the only factors that can slay the tarrasque permanently. Nothing is killing it, its just dieing. When you die of suffocation what killed you? a distinct lack of breathable air. I agree it is pointless, but that does not change the fact that BY THE LETTER OF THE RULES, which was initially what was asked in this thread, the tarrasque does, in fact, drown. wrong. by the letter of the rules, the tarrasque's regeneration does not address drowning, specifically, and drowning does not cover the tarrasque's regeneration. meaning that this is a gap in the rules. If people want to play differently, fine by me. I don't care. I agree. Just as an important note, I did contact custserv about the issue. I stated: "There was a discussion on the Wizards forum regarding the interpretation of the Tarrasques regeneration in regard to drowning. The question was whether it would be possible to drown the tarrasque. The reasons cited on the message board that it could drown because the regeneration entry for the tarrasque lacked any specific mention of drowning and that drowning actually bypassed regeneration, among other reasons. The reasons cited that drowning would not kill it is because drowning can be considered an instantaneous death effect and it would therefore only deal nonlethal damage and that the regeneration specifically cites that it can only be killed by bringing its nonlethal damage to a certain point and casting wish, among other reasons. Anyway, the real question is whether or not drowning can kill the tarrasque and why this is so. Thank you, in advance, for any help in the matter." They responded: "According to the rules laid out by the description of the Tarrasque drowning is not covered, and is therefore up to the GM to decide." So there you have it. Apparently, this is a gaping hole in the rules. Looks like the regen entry for the tarrasque needs to be amended again. (not that the rules for drowning, suffocation, and starvation couldn't use an overhaul as well.) In any case, the final word as far as WotC appears to be concerned is apparently: "is therefore up to the GM to decide." The response came from Zephreum Aristotle Games Support Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 though if any of you want to get a different answer, you can try. certainly nothing stopping you. I'm surprised it wasn't done earlier. Again, this is how you would like it to be, but by the rules drowning/suffocating is also possible. possible but not lethal to the tarrasque's life.
Kem 03-15-05, 03:16 AM	The only way possible for any creature in D&D to be at 0 hit points is to have lethal damage dealt to you. Wrong. The only way to have 0HP is to have 0HP. Drowning doesn't DEAL damage. Slay Living doesn't DEAL damage. Both reduce your current HP. Drowning to 0, -1 then finally -10. Slay Living to just -10. Keep in mind that you don't tally lethal damage, you subtract it from your current HP. This is why the Big-T has that clause about being gaining 868(?) non-lethal damage when hit by a death effect. By the rules, you can only die if you have -10 hit points or 0 constitution or you fail your saving throw versus a death attack. :rolleyes: Power Word: Kill Death Domain Power
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-15-05, 03:17 PM	Wrong. The only way to have 0HP is to have 0HP. The only way to have 0 hit points is to have lethal damage dealt to you. If it wasn't lethal damage dealt to you by drowning, no one could recover after the first or second round of drowning. Drowning doesn't DEAL damage. Slay Living doesn't DEAL damage. Both reduce your current HP. Drowning to 0, -1 then finally -10. Slay Living to just -10. that's correct, but the tarrasque is immune to slay living since it can qualify to be all of either a death attack, a death effect, or a spell with the death descriptor. drowning DOES deal damage. it's the only way that those hit points can be reduced to, can exist at, or be set to 0 or -1 or -10 at all unless it is a death attack, death effect, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor or it states that it can specifically bypass the tarrasque's regeneration (as opposed to regeneration in general.) Keep in mind that you don't tally lethal damage, you subtract it from your current HP. I don't believe a standard of measurement is mentioned in any of the books. Again, if drowning didn't cause lethal damage, then you could recover from drowning using different rules of recovering those lost hit points or you couldn't recover them at all, since virtually all of the hit point regeneration/curing/healing spells cover lethal damage and nonlethal damage instead of any other form of hit point damage. In any case, if you didn't die from drowning, you can recover normally. Just like from any other wound. Meaning that the damage dealt was lethal in nature. And the tarrasque CANNOT have lethal damage nor can the tarrasque even die from the third round, as the death from drowning fails to provide any sort of wish or miracle spell or nonlethal damage. The three components that are REQUIRED to slay it. This is why the Big-T has that clause about being gaining 868(?) non-lethal damage when hit by a death effect. and as so many people just love to point out, you can't have 0 or -1 or -10 hit points from nonlethal damage. Useless semantics, I believe, most people would realize how much nonlethal damage you have saying either the collective total or your current hp you're above or below zero and recognize the difference by stating that it's through nonlethal damage. if you had a hundred hit points and you said you had only 5 hit points left, most people would think it was because you took damage. if you said you had 5 hit points left because of subdual/nonlethal damage, then most people would realize that you've taken 95 points of nonlethal damage. Power Word: Kill Death Domain Power the upper one is a spell with the death descritpor and the lower is a registered death effect. both of which the tarrasque is immune to.
Thieran 03-15-05, 05:01 PM	They responded: "According to the rules laid out by the description of the Tarrasque drowning is not covered, and is therefore up to the GM to decide." Doesn't that settle the matter?
Kyuketsukiouji 03-15-05, 05:11 PM	Doesn't that settle the matter? Doesn't that just say "the rules don't talk about it, you decide"
ShiverTheBard 03-15-05, 05:47 PM	Why does it matter? Will anyone posting here actual ever fight the damn thing? Seriosly, how many people here will actually ever fight it? May I submit that is just a big ego fest between rules lawyers?
mvincent 03-15-05, 07:37 PM	May I submit that is just a big ego fest between rules lawyers?Well, certainly (but so are most things on these boards). It's just for fun (as is the game itself). I would concede that the "drowner" side has a viable case if they: a) Assume that the wish stipulation is only applicable to the regeneration rules, and b) Are not concerned with the writer's intent Earlier posters said this was the case, so I have no disagreement with the "drowners" here. However, you can also come up with a lot of down-right wierd (i.e. invalid) D&D rules interpretations if writer's intent is not taken into account... so even RAW isn't always 'correct' (whether it is for you in this case is entirely up to you). For my own personal rulings (in this case) I would look to historical precedent to determine intent: In AD&D, the Wish stipulation wasn't listed under Mr. T's regeneration rules. It was a rule by itself. ... of course, historically (i.e in legend), the Tarrasque was an aquatic creature, but that probably doesn't apply here unless you like to add historic flavor to your rules.
Kem 03-15-05, 11:02 PM	drowning DOES deal damage. it's the only way that those hit points can be reduced to, can exist at, or be set to 0 or -1 or -10 at all unless it is a death attack, death effect, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor or it states that it can specifically bypass the tarrasque's regeneration (as opposed to regeneration in general.) Damage is a specific thing, you can be resistant to it, you can be immune to it, you can treat it as non-lethal. Death Effects don't deal damage, they just kill you. When you die, you have -10 HP. I don't believe a standard of measurement is mentioned in any of the books. You keep track of Non-Lethal Damage, nothing in any book mentions or talks about tallying lethal damage. if you had a hundred hit points and you said you had only 5 hit points left, most people would think it was because you took damage. if you said you had 5 hit points left because of subdual/nonlethal damage, then most people would realize that you've taken 95 points of nonlethal damage. You can't have 5 HP due to subdual damage. You CAN have 95 points of subdual damage. If I have 5HP it could be because I just got hit with a raise dead spell and am level 5 now. And I was killed by drowning (for instance). No damage was taken. OR, I could have been hit with Phantasmal Killer. THEN hit with a raise dead and become level 5. There is a none-death effect/attack. A reduction to -10 HP, and being brought back to life with 5 HP. Meanwhile I took no damage. At all. Unless Phantasmal Killer has a clause saying you take lethal damage equal to your HP +10 if you fail the saves... Which it doesn't. the upper one is a spell with the death descritpor and the lower is a registered death effect. both of which the tarrasque is immune to. Yeah and neither deal damage to get you to -10, reduce y6ou to 0 con, nor have a save as a death effect. Therefore your statement "By the rules, you can only die if you have -10 hit points or 0 constitution or you fail your saving throw versus a death attack." is false. I don't care if Big-T is immune, what you said was false, and I provided 2 examples to prove it. I could also put forth Phantasmal Killer, which is not a death effect/attack.
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-15-05, 11:48 PM	Damage is a specific thing, you can be resistant to it, you can be immune to it, you can treat it as non-lethal. Death Effects don't deal damage, they just kill you. When you die, you have -10 HP. Look at the quote of mine drowning DOES deal damage. it's the only way that those hit points can be reduced to, can exist at, or be set to 0 or -1 or -10 at all unless it is a death attack, death effect, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor or it states that it can specifically bypass the tarrasque's regeneration (as opposed to regeneration in general.) next time, please read what I write before you respond to it, because what I said parallels exactly what the rule for being dead (which I believe is in the DMG) is. drowning does deal lethal damage. the tarrasque CANNOT be at 0 or -1 or any number without it. Unless of course, you can find a specific state of having hit points that is niether lethal damage nor nonlethal damage that can reduce hit points and the rules for regaining and loosing hit points in this fashion. To my knowledge, only the two forms exist and drowning, in bringing hit points to a specified number, does not specify any amount of nonlethal damage. Therefore, the damage can only be lethal and drowning, in bringing hit points down from any number above 0 and -1 therefore deals damage. UNLESS you can proove that hit points can, at all, ever, exist at 0 or -1 without having lethal damage. You keep track of Non-Lethal Damage, nothing in any book mentions or talks about tallying lethal damage. Like I said I don't believe a standard of measurement is mentioned in any of the books. This is a nice little statement, but it isn't a page number nor a reference to any rule in any book that I see. In any case, I never said the rule didn't exist, I said I don't believe one is mentioned. Furthermore, I said that I don't believe one was mentioned in the books. So telling me that this is how it's done does not provide any sort of proof, but showing me a page number or SRD link is. You can't have 5 HP due to subdual damage. You CAN have 95 points of subdual damage. If I have 5HP it could be because I just got hit with a raise dead spell and am level 5 now. And I was killed by drowning (for instance). Like I said. Useless semantics. Word play. Either way, saying "I'm down to 5 hit points because of nonlethal damage" and "I have 95 points of nonlethal damage" mean the same thing for all intents and purposes. It doesn't change the basic nature of nonlethal damage nor does it imply that lethal damage was taken. It's still 5 hit points away from unconciousness and a 110 hit points away from death. OR, I could have been hit with Phantasmal Killer. THEN hit with a raise dead and become level 5. There is a none-death effect/attack. A reduction to -10 HP, and being brought back to life with 5 HP. Meanwhile I took no damage. At all. Unless Phantasmal Killer has a clause saying you take lethal damage equal to your HP +10 if you fail the saves... Which it doesn't. no, it just isn't a spell with a death descriptor. Instead, it has both the mind-affecting and fear descriptors, since it uses fear and is a mind-affecting effect in order to kill the victim. Death effects are not thouroughly described in any D&D book as far as I know, but this spell fits the description of a death attack. Remember In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly. • Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack. • Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive. • In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has –10 hit points. • The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks. Phantasmal Killer: Phantasmal Killer Illusion (Phantasm) [Fear, Mind-Affecting] Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One living creature Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with), then Fortitude partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject simply by forming the fears of the subject’s subconscious mind into something that its conscious mind can visualize: this most horrible beast. Only the spell’s subject can see the phantasmal killer. You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage. If the subject of a phantasmal killer attack succeeds in disbelieving and is wearing a helm of telepathy, the beast can be turned upon you. You must then disbelieve it or become subject to its deadly fear attack. Death Ward Necromancy Level: Clr 4, Death 4, Drd 5, Pal 4 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects. This spell doesn’t remove negative levels that the subject has already gained, nor does it affect the saving throw necessary 24 hours after gaining a negative level. Death ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks even if those attacks might be lethal. Phantasmal killer is a spell that qualifies as both a "death spell" and a "magical death effect" and it even qualifies as a "death attack". Therefore, you're wrong. Yeah and neither deal damage to get you to -10, reduce you to 0 con, nor have a save as a death effect. Therefore your statement "By the rules, you can only die if you have -10 hit points or 0 constitution or you fail your saving throw versus a death attack." is false. The tarrasque's regen description doesn't state that a death effect with an allowable save is required. It states that a death effect merely gives the tarrasque 868 points of nonlethal damage upon a failed save. 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. I apparently can't say it enough, but it says "even if it fails a saving throw against death effects" and then gives rules for "if the save is failed" It does NOT say a save is REQUIRED for these rules to be in effect. I don't care if Big-T is immune, what you said was false, and I provided 2 examples to prove it. I could also put forth Phantasmal Killer, which is not a death effect/attack. I never said that either of those spells you just mentioned deal lethal hit point damage in the first place and phantasmal killer IS a death attack and likely a death effect, assuming they're seporate entities (given their lines of similarities, despite no clearly stated connection between them.)
Kem 03-16-05, 02:01 AM	Phantasmal Killer is not a death effect. You can be raised by raise dead if you die from it. In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly. • Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack. • Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive. • In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has –10 hit points. • The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks. Phantasmal Killer does no such thing as the first line. You are clearly adding abilities and "effects" to things that are not there in the first place.
Kem 03-16-05, 02:03 AM	This is a nice little statement, but it isn't a page number nor a reference to any rule in any book that I see. Fine drowning does deal lethal damage. Page number please? Provide a page number that says that drowning deals damage. Provide a Page number that Death Effects deal damage. As of yet, all your proof is by adding abilities to spells and effects that those things did not have. Without page numbers. You cannot, anywhere, provide a single line of text that says that you must take damage to have fewer HP then Maximum. Meanwhile I can provide lines of text that reduce your HP to a number without mentioning damage anywhere in the ability description. next time, please read what I write before you respond to it, because what I said parallels exactly what the rule for being dead (which I believe is in the DMG) is. Page number? Keep in mind that Dead does not mention death effect or death attack anywhere in its descirption. Only "Spell or Effect".
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-16-05, 02:48 AM	Phantasmal Killer is not a death effect. You can be raised by raise dead if you die from it. Proove it. Virtually everything else in that description fits what phantasmal killer does. On top of that, raise dead makes no specific mention that it raises someone after being killed by phantasmal killer. You are clearly adding abilities and "effects" to things that are not there in the first place. I've done no such thing. Raise Dead Conjuration (Healing) Level: Clr 5 Components: V, S, M, DF Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Touch Target: Dead creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None; see text Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than one day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw. Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell loses one level (or 1 Hit Die) when it is raised, just as if it had lost a level or a Hit Die to an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised). This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means. A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised, in addition to losing spells for losing a level. A spellcasting creature that doesn’t prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell, in addition to losing spell slots for losing a level. A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current Hit Dice. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell. A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age. Material Component: Diamonds worth a total of least 5,000 gp. No mention of bringing back someone killed by phantasmal killer is made in this entry, nor does it say in the phantasmal killer entry in my above post that raise dead will bring someone killed by "this spell." I added nothing. Page number please? Provide a page number that says that drowning deals damage. Page 304 of the DMG under the rules of drowning: "In the first round, she falls unconcious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying." On page 134 of the PHB under the catagory of "damage" under (and not included with) the first paragraph on the second column, states "Damage reduces a target's hit points." Hit points and the loss thereof is described in the PHB page 145. "The most common way for a character to get hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points, whether from an orc's falchion, a wizard's lightning bolt spell, or a fall into molten lava. You record your hit point total on your character sheet. As your character takes damage, you subtract that damage from your hit points, leaving you with your current hit pionts. Current hit points go down when you take damage and go back up when you recover." On 145 and beyond describes the various states between being at 1 hp or above, dying, being dead, becoming stable, recovering lost hit points, temporary hit points, healing, and nonlethal damage. Not once do I see any form of hit point reduction or loss that isn't lethal damage. Were the hit point loss from drowning NOT lethal damage, it would be described somewhere, but it is not. Instead, whatever type of hit point loss you're trying to convince me exists does not in the rules. Provide a Page number that Death Effects deal damage. I never made this implication. As of yet, all your proof is by adding abilities to spells and effects that those things did not have. Without page numbers. I usually use the System Reference Document, since everything in it is catalogued so it's more easily found (and more easily searched through.) I did quote the SRD several times. I have not added anything to anything else. If I am erroneous in my statements, then proove it so by providing me with the incorrect assertion that I made and the wrongly used proof or lack thereof. Don't just tell me I'm wrong and expect to believe so. but... whatever... You cannot, anywhere, provide a single line of text that says that you must take damage to have fewer HP then Maximum. You mean, outside the basic rules of combat in D&D? There is only one kind of hit point loss in D&D that I know of that's recoverable. That's lethal damage. Meanwhile I can provide lines of text that reduce your HP to a number without mentioning damage anywhere in the ability description. Perhaps it isn't mentioned because it's a general rule in the PHB. Just like how the description for everything that does damage at all doesn't specifically mention that it does lethal damage. Do you know how many times that fact would have to be repeated if they had to mention it? In fact, the only times in any book or with any form of hit point loss does it specify a damage type is when it isn't lethal damage (such as nonlethal damage) a specific type of lethal damage (such as fire damage) or a different type of damage (such as irrecoverable/permanent hit point loss.) Since drowning lists no specific type of hit point loss, it must fall under the general rule for loosing hit points. ie lethal damage. Page number? Keep in mind that Dead does not mention death effect or death attack anywhere in its descirption. Only "Spell or Effect". yes. it says "Killed outright by a spell or effect." I said: "drowning DOES deal damage. it's the only way that those hit points can be reduced to, can exist at, or be set to 0 or -1 or -10 at all unless it is a death attack, death effect, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor or it states that it can specifically bypass the tarrasque's regeneration (as opposed to regeneration in general.)" does what I said disagree with the definition of being dead? Spells and effects produce all of "death attacks," such as Phantasmal Killer, Death effects, such as the death domain power, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor, such as power word kill and the catoblepas' death eye-rays, respectively. Since no power or effect or spell specifically states that it bypasses the tarrasque's regeneration, nothing can harm it outside of what the tarrasque's "only be slain by" clause states can slay it. Hense, the last part of my statement. Page number? 300 of the DMG Unless otherwise stated, I do mean the 3.5 books.
Kem 03-16-05, 05:27 AM	Interesting. You proved me right when I wasn't even trying to get you to. Thank you. Proove it. Virtually everything else in that description fits what phantasmal killer does. On top of that, raise dead makes no specific mention that it raises someone after being killed by phantasmal killer. :rolleyes: Yeah ok. Raise Dead raises someone from the dead. Phantasmal Force has no clause that says that Raise Dead won't work. As such, if you are dead then you can be raised from the dead. No mention of bringing back someone killed by phantasmal killer is made in this entry, nor does it say in the phantasmal killer entry in my above post that raise dead will bring someone killed by "this spell." Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to –10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. See, the character is dead by being killed outright by a spell, so the character cannot benefit from magical healing but can be restored to life via magic. Raise Dead is magic. Since Phantasmal Killer has no clause that says that raise dead won't work, Raise Dead does work since it produced the DEAD condition. Page 304 of the DMG under the rules of drowning: "In the first round, she falls unconcious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying." On page 134 of the PHB under the catagory of "damage" under (and not included with) the first paragraph on the second column, states "Damage reduces a target's hit points." Yeap thats all correct. Now let me see... Nope, nothing in drowning says its damage. You just fall unconsious (0HP) then the next round you drop to -1 and are dying. Nothing about you taking a point of damage. Hit points and the loss thereof is described in the PHB page 145. "The most common way for a character to get hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points, whether from an orc's falchion, a wizard's lightning bolt spell, or a fall into molten lava. You record your hit point total on your character sheet. As your character takes damage, you subtract that damage from your hit points, leaving you with your current hit pionts. Current hit points go down when you take damage and go back up when you recover." Phew there is a default way to record your HP. I'm glad. You keep track of your HP total, and just subtract off the damage you take. You can have your HP set to something without taking damage (which I already showed you). I like how the most common way to lose hit points is to take lethal damage, not how the only way to lose hit points is to take lethal damage. On 145 and beyond describes the various states between being at 1 hp or above, dying, being dead, becoming stable, recovering lost hit points, temporary hit points, healing, and nonlethal damage. Not once do I see any form of hit point reduction or loss that isn't lethal damage. Were the hit point loss from drowning NOT lethal damage, it would be described somewhere, but it is not. Instead, whatever type of hit point loss you're trying to convince me exists does not in the rules. You mean like Power Word Kill? No damage that is lethal or non-lethal is taken but you still have -10 HP. I usually use the System Reference Document, since everything in it is catalogued so it's more easily found (and more easily searched through.) I did quote the SRD several times. I have not added anything to anything else. If I am erroneous in my statements, then proove it so by providing me with the incorrect assertion that I made and the wrongly used proof or lack thereof. Don't just tell me I'm wrong and expect to believe so. but... whatever... Phantasmal Force has no death descriptor for starters. Why should I have to quote something when you quote it for me then add something to it? You mean, outside the basic rules of combat in D&D? There is only one kind of hit point loss in D&D that I know of that's recoverable. That's lethal damage. If you die from... Phantasmal Killer, you have -10 HP and have taken no damage. If you are brought back via Raise Dead, you have "Your Level" in Hit Points. Since you have taken no damage, apparently you are unable to heal? No you can "Heal" as long as your current HP total is below your Max HP total. Perhaps it isn't mentioned because it's a general rule in the PHB. Just like how the description for everything that does damage at all doesn't specifically mention that it does lethal damage. Do you know how many times that fact would have to be repeated if they had to mention it? Thats why there is a rule on damage, and the rules for keeping track of HP that you quoted. yes. it says "Killed outright by a spell or effect." I said: "drowning DOES deal damage. it's the only way that those hit points can be reduced to, can exist at, or be set to 0 or -1 or -10 at all unless it is a death attack, death effect, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor or it states that it can specifically bypass the tarrasque's regeneration (as opposed to regeneration in general.)" does what I said disagree with the definition of being dead? Phantasmal Force does not have the Death Descriptor not does it say it produces a Death Attack. As such it is just a spell that kills the subject. Raise Dead Still Works. This is why dead says "Spell or Effect" and not "Death Spell or Death Effect". Spells and effects produce all of "death attacks," such as Phantasmal Killer, Death effects, such as the death domain power, or a spell or special ability with the death descriptor, such as power word kill and the catoblepas' death eye-rays, respectively. Since no power or effect or spell specifically states that it bypasses the tarrasque's regeneration, nothing can harm it outside of what the tarrasque's "only be slain by" clause states can slay it. Hense, the last part of my statement. Page number? 300 of the DMG Unless otherwise stated, I do mean the 3.5 books. You quoted Phantasmal Killer for me, show me where it says "Death Effect" "Death Attack" or "[Death]" --------------------------------------------- Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration. Whoa nelly, that means that since All these "save or die" spells now deal lethal damage (to get you to -10) they no longer ignore Regeneration! Interesting, how long have you been sitting on this gem?
TheDarkestOfAngels 03-16-05, 07:31 PM	Raise Dead raises someone from the dead. Phantasmal Force has no clause that says that Raise Dead won't work. As such, if you are dead then you can be raised from the dead. Indeed niether phantasmal killer nor raise dead state have any statements stating that one won't work on the other. But then again, none of the other death-effect spells and powers state that either. Given the definition of what constitutes a "death attack," which is defined as In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly. What, in Phantasmal Killer does not follow this specific item? The rest of the definition for a "death attack": • Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack. • Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive. • In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has –10 hit points. • The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks. describes what is true for all of the spells, powers, and effects that qualfy under the quote immediately above this one. Therefore, phantasmal killer is a death attack and raise dead will not operate for this spell and raise dead, as you stated, says nothing to refute any of this. See, the character is dead by being killed outright by a spell, so the character cannot benefit from magical healing but can be restored to life via magic. Raise Dead is magic. that's correct. Except that raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack (from the description of a death attack) or a death effect (from Raise Dead's description). Since Phantasmal Killer has no clause that says that raise dead won't work, Raise Dead does work since it produced the DEAD condition. "no clause" doesn't necessarily mean it works the way you says it does. "No clause" means it says nothing in this regard. Meaning that either it's a gap in the rules, or, more likely, it's covered in a general rule such as the one I provided. Just like how every other spell or power with a death effect or a spell with the death descriptor or a bon-a-fied death attack all don't say that raise dead won't recover someone killed by "this effect" or "this spell" in its description unless there are spell or power-specific rules on how to handle it, such as the description for descruction. I provided this general rule and I've given its location in the DMG. Nothing it says disagrees with any rule in Phantasmal killer or Raise dead PLUS the method in which Phantasmal killer kills its victim is described in the definition of a death attack. My assertion is a very valid one. Secondly, spells are not the requirement to produce the condition of being dead as per described in the rules. By the rules, a character can be killed outright by a spell or effect. Yeap thats all correct. Now let me see... Nope, nothing in drowning says its damage. You just fall unconsious (0HP) then the next round you drop to -1 and are dying. Nothing about you taking a point of damage. that's right Kem. In the first round, you fall unconcious. The second, you drop to -1. the third, you drown. If you look at that nice definition of taking damage I provided, you'll see that... well... I'll provide all that information again: "Damage reduces a target's hit points." In the first round, you fall unconcious at 0 hit points. In the second, you drop to -1. In order to "fall unconcious at 0 hit points" and especially to "drop" to -1, you have to be in a state of conciousness which means you have to have less damage than your total maximum. Meaning your hit points dropped. The paragraph below describes this in better detail as the process of how you take damage. "The most common way for a character to get hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points, whether from an orc's falchion, a wizard's lightning bolt spell, or a fall into molten lava. You record your hit point total on your character sheet. As your character takes damage, you subtract that damage from your hit points, leaving you with your current hit points. Current hit points go down when you take damage and go back up when you recover." considering that you can only "fall unconcious" at 0 hit points if you were concious before and considering that merely existing at a lower state of hit points from a prior condition means you've taken damage -according to the rules of taking damage and hit point loss- the first and second rounds of drowning ARE considered to be hit point loss. Phew there is a default way to record your HP. I'm glad. You keep track of your HP total, and just subtract off the damage you take. Indeed. Particularly since it that particular line also prooves my point since you have to record a lower current hit point status than from when you were drowning in order to drown. Once again, meaning you've taken damage. You can have your HP set to something without taking damage (which I already showed you). You've prooven nothing of the sort. I like how the most common way to lose hit points is to take lethal damage, not how the only way to lose hit points is to take lethal damage. I like how the rule in regards to taking damage establishes itself as the general rule of how that, when you take damage, it's lethal damage and, being a general rule, would require a specific ruling that is absent in the drowning rules in order to overrule it. Notice that any form of hit point loss that is not lethal damage is always mentioned in the specific entry for whatever causes that damage. You mean like Power Word Kill? No damage that is lethal or non-lethal is taken but you still have -10 HP. Power word kill does not grant hit point loss. It is a spell that produces the condition of being dead. Which I must apparently reiterate. Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to –10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. Phantasmal Force has no death descriptor for starters. Why should I have to quote something when you quote it for me then add something to it? niether a "death attack" or "death effect" is a spell with the "death descriptor." Death attacks are described on the page number and SRD catagory I quoted - notice that a death attack is not a spell descriptor, but instead a description of a form of attack that instantly kills and usually allows a fortitude save. Both of which happen in phantasmal killer. If you die from... Phantasmal Killer, you have -10 HP and have taken no damage. If you are brought back via Raise Dead, you have "Your Level" in Hit Points. Since you have taken no damage, apparently you are unable to heal? No you can "Heal" as long as your current HP total is below your Max HP total. yes. as per described in the section outlining recovering from lethal and nonlethal damage. If you exist in a state in which your hit point total is less than your maximum, the general rule is that you can recover. Drowning makes no specific rule to contradict this and that is the only way it could. Thats why there is a rule on damage, and the rules for keeping track of HP that you quoted. that's correct. Such as when you "fall unconcious" at 0 hp you are either a) subtracting whatever number of hit points you currently have in order to achieve said state or b) not subtracting any number because you already are unconcious at 0 hit points or less In either case, lethal damage has been taken and noted. Phantasmal Force does not have the Death Descriptor not does it say it produces a Death Attack. As such it is just a spell that kills the subject. Raise Dead Still Works. This is why dead says "Spell or Effect" and not "Death Spell or Death Effect". "death spell" or "death effect" is merely a more specific form of "spell" or "effect" respectively. saying they're not the same is inaccurate the former is a subset of the latter. Second, you've no proof that phantasmal killer is not a death attack nor do you have any proof that raise dead DOES work on someone killed by phantasmal killer. On top of that, a death attack describes what phantasmal killer, as a spell, does. It therefore qualifies as a death attack and you've given me no contradicting evidence to the contrary. You quoted Phantasmal Killer for me, show me where it says "Death Effect" "Death Attack" or "[Death]" I have indeed prooven that phantasmal killer is not a spell with the death descsriptor. a "death attack" and a "death effect" are not spell descriptors or is it either outside the perview of being part of a spell nor is it somehow, as per the rules, tied into spells or magic-based powers with the death descriptor, but more generally concerning anything that, at least in the case of the defined "death attack" that has a fortitude save in which a failed save produces the effect of death. Even then, a fortitude save is only "usually" a requirement. Whoa nelly, that means that since All these "save or die" spells now deal lethal damage (to get you to -10) they no longer ignore Regeneration! Interesting, how long have you been sitting on this gem? when, exactly, didn't save or die spells ignore regeneration? I don't seem to recall saying anything in regard to save or die spells with regenration. the tarrasque's regeneration, maybe, but not general regeneration. They don't deal hit point damage or change the status of one's hit points, unlike the first two rounds of drowning. It produces a dead character. If you look at the rules for taking damage, you'll see that save or dies do not produce damage at all. that's why it's called save-or-die instead of save or take enough damage to die. Unlike these save or dies, the first two round of drowning actually reduce your hit points to a specific number. death attacks, death effects, and spells with the death descriptor do not. They set you to being "dead" which just happens to be the same as being at 0 constitution or -10 hit points. How a character died depends on how the said character can be brought back from the dead. In either case, raise dead will bring the character's constitution up to a stated minimum or heal the character's hit points to a specified number. ie raise dead removes the status of "dead" and grants enough hit points in healing to raise the bearer's hit points from -10 to a number that equals the character's hit dice.