What was wrong with Regeneration in 3.5? [Archive]

Psyren

2013-09-23, 12:55 PM

As a guess, the Pathfinder version seems a little more team friendly. Now instead of everybody needing that special something to be able to harm the monster, only one person needs it and the whole team can contribute to the killing. It also sidesteps some confusion with lethal vs non-lethal damage.

Well, a quick look says it's certainly simpler for the DM to keep track of. Instead of separately tracking permanent and temporary HP loss, there's just one total to track. Fire/acid? No healing next round.

If I'm reading it right, it looks like in Pathfinder Regeneration is Fast Healing plus reattaching/regrowing body parts and no-death-without-fire/acid/etc.

I don't remember anyone bemoaning the old Regeneration rules, but treating it as fast-healing-interrupted-by-vulnerability is certainly quicker and more elegant.

I would guess it's some combination of these two explanations. It also lets you beat a troll/hydra with a torch without it taking forever and a day.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-09-23, 01:07 PM

What was wrong with beating the creature in question over the head until it doubles over and then using Coup-De-Grace? It's not like the party just needs to stand around while the sorcerer shoots the troll with his rays of fire.

Coup-De-grace them with what? technically speaking the only spells you can only coup de grace with melee touch spells. A simple alchemist fire doesn't do much damage. (neither do flaming weapons). So a troll has a good chance to survive that. Especially annoying if your fighting multiple trolls. What you describe often fails in practice unless the DM house rules you can coup'de'grace with rays of fire or simply has the troll auto-fail the save against the 2d6 fire damage from the alchemist fire.

Alignment regenerations are easy because all the damage from the weapon count as alignment X. But the elemental ones can be a bit of a headache.

PF streamlines the process you beat the creature into unconsciousness just like before then hit it with a little of damage X to shut off its regeneration for 1 round. Then you almost certainly kill it with a Coup'De'Grace because your not relying on what may be a small amount of elemental damage to do it.

It also makes tracking lethal and non-lethal damage easier in cases where some of the party's attacks overcome the regeneration and some don't.

Keneth

2013-09-23, 01:23 PM

You don't need a weapon capable of overcoming regen to perform a cdg; Nothing in the cdg rules says you need to deal lethal damage. Just grab an axe and hit hard. :smallconfused:

Shalist

2013-09-23, 01:31 PM

Coup de Grace

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

While a CDG doesn't turn nonlethal damage into lethal damage, it does force a rather hefty fort save vs. death that'll probably do the trick.

johnbragg

2013-09-23, 01:32 PM

PF streamlines the process you beat the creature into unconsciousness just like before then hit it with a little of damage X to shut off its regeneration for 1 round. Then you almost certainly kill it with a Coup'De'Grace because your not relying on what may be a small amount of elemental damage to do it.

I don't like the "flavor" of bludgeoning a 50 hp troll down to negative hit points, do nominal fire-damage and then coup-de-grace. Seems to cheapen regeneration at the end there. "Oh, the fearsome beast is regenerates anything but fire--but once it's down, fire damage that a normal human might survive is enough to kill it dead."

Would a good tweak be that the "coup-de-grace" is you have to hit its Constitution score in fire/acid damage? Searching in another tab....ok, 23 feels a little high. Maybe just hit its Con bonus, +6? I kind of like that--it's not too difficult, but it's not automatic either.

ACtually, maybe a better mechanic would be one point of fire damage per Hit Die. So homebrewed regenerating hobgoblins, a fire-cantrip keeps them down permanently. A troll needs you to do enough fire damage to totally kill a regular tough human. A 20HD creature would need some serious setting on fire.

Andreaz

2013-09-23, 01:48 PM

Would a good tweak be that the "coup-de-grace" is you have to hit its Constitution score in fire/acid damage? No point. Regeneration lets you literally grow limbs back. Just say a coup de grace won't make it stay dead unless you burn the remains or whatever analog for other kinds of damage is.
This way if you bludgeon a troll to the negatives and CdG it, it'll die for a few days and come back. Faster if someone tries to treat the corpse. Burn the remains afterwards and it's all good.

Easy to play with, gives regeneration validity and doesn't nullify mundane options to kill them.

Lanson

2013-09-23, 01:55 PM

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. 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.

Actually, Coup de grace cannot be performed unless the damage overcomes regeneration. It's under the regeneration rules, not CDG rules

Zanthy1

2013-09-23, 01:57 PM

No point. Regeneration lets you literally grow limbs back. Just say a coup de grace won't make it stay dead unless you burn the remains or whatever analog for other kinds of damage is.
This way if you bludgeon a troll to the negatives and CdG it, it'll die for a few days and come back. Faster if someone tries to treat the corpse. Burn the remains afterwards and it's all good.

Easy to play with, gives regeneration validity and doesn't nullify mundane options to kill them.

How we always played is the same in how people would kill a lich, so to speak. You kill the thing (Lich or troll or whatever) and, in the case of the lich destroy its phylactery, but in the case of a regenerator, just deal with the body. So simply burning the trolls body would do the trick, once its in the negatives. However My DM also makes it so simply torching the body doesn't instantly prevent it form rising. The creature gets 1 round per HD, if the fire (for example) stays burning the whole time then the critter is gone, but if its interrupted, then there is a chance the critter gets back up. (Interrupted by an ally or something)

Andreaz

2013-09-23, 02:00 PM

Actually, Coup de grace cannot be performed unless the damage overcomes regeneration. It's under the regeneration rules, not CDG rulesPF did away with that IIRC, which is why I, at least, tried to answer handling CdG and regeneration.

johnbragg

2013-09-23, 02:03 PM

No point.... Just say...it'll die for a few days and come back. Faster if someone tries to treat the corpse. Burn the remains afterwards and it's all good..

I'm 100% okay with that.

However My DM also makes it so simply torching the body doesn't instantly prevent it form rising. The creature gets 1 round per HD, if the fire (for example) stays burning the whole time then the critter is gone, but if its interrupted, then there is a chance the critter gets back up. (Interrupted by an ally or something)

I'm okay with that too. Does it have to be continuously burning fire, or could a caster use a fire spell to do enough damage in one round to keep it dead? (Or I suppose anybody with a bunch of flasks of oil...)

Psyren

2013-09-23, 02:04 PM

You don't need a weapon capable of overcoming regen to perform a cdg; Nothing in the cdg rules says you need to deal lethal damage. Just grab an axe and hit hard. :smallconfused:

Looks like you missed this line:

An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage.

This is why you can't CDG the Tarrasque.

PF did away with that IIRC, which is why I, at least, tried to answer handling CdG and regeneration.

PF has similar wording actually:

Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning.

Thus you need to "switch it off" before you can truly kill them.

Shalist

2013-09-23, 02:07 PM

Actually, Coup de grace cannot be performed unless the damage overcomes regeneration. It's under the regeneration rules, not CDG rules
Ah, gotcha. Back to CDG/Sneak attacking with a level-0 'acid splash (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidSplash.htm)' wand for gobs of relatively cheap, stylish acid damage.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 02:08 PM

Ah, gotcha. Back to CDG/Sneak attacking with a level-0 'acid splash (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidSplash.htm)' wand for gobs of relatively cheap, stylish acid damage.

In PF, you don't need to kill them with the wand. Zap them with it once to turn off the regen, then have everybody dogpile on the downed enemy and rip it to shreds.

Story

2013-09-23, 02:20 PM

I would guess it's some combination of these two explanations. It also lets you beat a troll/hydra with a torch without it taking forever and a day.

Hydras don't have regeneration anyway.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 02:24 PM

Hydras don't have regeneration anyway.

Meh, Regenerate Head, close enough.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-09-23, 02:35 PM

I don't like the "flavor" of bludgeoning a 50 hp troll down to negative hit points, do nominal fire-damage and then coup-de-grace. Seems to cheapen regeneration at the end there. "Oh, the fearsome beast is regenerates anything but fire--but once it's down, fire damage that a normal human might survive is enough to kill it dead."

Its really the same way in 3.5 you beat the troll down with non-lethal damage then Coup'de'grace it with a little bit of fire. PF just made it a bit easier on the groups.

Story

2013-09-23, 02:37 PM

Lord Vukodlak

2013-09-23, 02:40 PM

Meh, Regenerate Head, close enough.

It actually is important when discussing changes to a mechanic that Hydras don't have it in either version and are thus irrelevant.

Edit: It looks like Hydras were nerfed a lot in PF for some reason. 5 headed Hydras went from 55hp and fast healing 15 to 47 hp with FH 5.

Though the hydra head regeneration is probably closest to a flavorful regenerating creature.
Say a Troll instantly recovered from any wound in 1d4 rounds unless you also dealt five points of fire damage to each wound...

Akal Saris

2013-09-23, 03:08 PM

Lanson

2013-09-23, 03:27 PM

Good, because hydras were damn scary in 3.5 :P

Can someone say "Level Appropriate Encounter" *wink wink*

I wonder how many low op groups Hydras have torn to shreds.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 03:32 PM

<-- fondly remembers his last hydra fight. Bart got to drop that thing with one shot. Course he had Ray of Stupidity. Did the same to a purple worm, but accidentally dropped it on another character. Never seen someone take that much damage in one hit and survive. :smallcool:

Keneth

2013-09-23, 04:50 PM

Looks like you missed this line

I totally did. I mean, I must have been aware of it at some point, we've always used flame blades or similar methods of finishing off trolls, but for some reason I've spent the last few years thinking you could just cdg regenerating creatures with any weapon.

Ok, so that's definitely one of the issues of 3.5 regeneration which I'll take into account when designing my own version. It just seems unnecessarily complicated.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-23, 05:03 PM

How we always played

This. This sentence, right here, is why you're wrong. You're not providing hard evidence of the rules supporting your view, you're providing anecdotal evidence from your group. We don't play with your group, so all we have in common is the rules as written.

TuggyNE

2013-09-23, 08:38 PM

I totally did. I mean, I must have been aware of it at some point, we've always used flame blades or similar methods of finishing off trolls, but for some reason I've spent the last few years thinking you could just cdg regenerating creatures with any weapon.

Ok, so that's definitely one of the issues of 3.5 regeneration which I'll take into account when designing my own version. It just seems unnecessarily complicated.

But ... it's essential to the point of Regeneration (as "can't be killed except with X"), and I don't really see how PF's version is either substantially simpler in concept or substantially more logical.

Chronos

2013-09-23, 08:50 PM

I've always basically ignored regeneration during a fight, and then dealt with it afterwards. How, precisely, one deals with it is of limited importance mechanically, since it's after the fight, when you have plenty of time. It does make a difference to the flavor, though, and building a big bonfire to toss the body on feels a lot more appropriate than just singing it with a candle and then whacking it once or twice with a sword.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 08:50 PM

But ... it's essential to the point of Regeneration (as "can't be killed except with X"), and I don't really see how PF's version is either substantially simpler in concept or substantially more logical.

PF is still "can't be killed except with X" so I don't see the problem. The only difference is that only 1 person needs to bring X, and that person doesn't need to be the guy striking the killing blow.

TuggyNE

2013-09-23, 09:46 PM

PF is still "can't be killed except with X" so I don't see the problem. The only difference is that only 1 person needs to bring X, and that person doesn't need to be the guy striking the killing blow.

There's nothing wrong with PF's version. I'm just saying that as far as complexity goes, it's not significantly superior to 3.5's. (The advantage it has is pretty much just that party combat against a regenerating foe is easier to coordinate in practice, which is certainly no small thing, but is unrelated to my point.)

Keneth

2013-09-24, 01:23 AM

I've always basically ignored regeneration during a fight, and then dealt with it afterwards.

This is precisely what I plan to avoid. The way I see it, how you finish off a regenerating creature is irrelevant, I don't want regeneration to just be fast healing with some extra work once the encounter is finished, or one that gets turned off by a cantrip just because. I want it to be mechanically relevant during a fight, and simple to deal with after the encounter.

There's nothing wrong with PF's version. I'm just saying that as far as complexity goes, it's not significantly superior to 3.5's.

And I wasn't proposing otherwise, I already consider PF version to be a complete mess, but as stated before I was under the mistaken impression that regeneration was simpler to deal with in 3.5 where, as it turns out, it's just as needlessly complicated.

johnbragg

2013-09-24, 05:48 AM

This is precisely what I plan to avoid. The way I see it, how you finish off a regenerating creature is irrelevant, I don't want regeneration to just be fast healing with some extra work once the encounter is finished, or one that gets turned off by a cantrip just because.

Not "just because"--just because it's a fire cantrip. Fire, the thing that stops them from regenerating.

I want it to be mechanically relevant during a fight, and simple to deal with after the encounter.

Everything is simple _after_ the encounter.
Players: "We burn the bodies"
GM: "You do that." If you're keeping track of equipment, it takes N flasks of oil.

Where the details matter is _during_ the encounter with say two trolls and six ogres. The troll is down, great--what has to happen to so that the troll doesn't get back up while the party is finishing off the ogres?

And I wasn't proposing otherwise, I already consider PF version to be a complete mess, but as stated before I was under the mistaken impression that regeneration was simpler to deal with in 3.5 where, as it turns out, it's just as needlessly complicated.

Is the troll wounded? Yes.
Did it take fire damage? No.
The troll gets 5 hp back.

That's complicated? Am I missing something?

It's a lot simpler than the 2E mechanic where fire and acid do permanent damage, and everything else does temporary damage.

Keneth

2013-09-24, 07:03 AM

Not "just because"--just because it's a fire cantrip. Fire, the thing that stops them from regenerating.

Except the very notion that a splash of energy damage applied anywhere on the body could entirely negate a creature's regenerative capabilities is ridiculous at best.

What exactly was the point of your argument? "Why does a regeneration get turned off by a tiny amount of fire damage? Because it's fire damage and that stops them from regenerating." Wow, nice job there.

So yeah, it's just because.

Everything is simple _after_ the encounter. If you're keeping track of equipment, it takes N flasks of oil.

And that is simple how exactly? If you're trivializing post-encounter activities, that's your business, but by current 3.5 rules you have to keep poking the troll with your sword while the other guy is pouring alchemist's fire over it or building a pyre. There should be no need for that, it's just a pointless chore for a game mechanic that contributes nothing of value to the gameplay. And what if it's not fire? What if it's sonic or lawful? Are you gonna have one guy beat the creature until sunrise when the cleric gets new spells? PF made the job a little easier, but I don't like their approach.

Where the details matter is _during_ the encounter with say two trolls and six ogres. The troll is down, great--what has to happen to so that the troll doesn't get back up while the party is finishing off the ogres?

Exactly. Except that's not actually what's happening in practice. Just like Chronos said, you can pretty much ignore regeneration in a fight and just deal with it afterwards.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 07:56 AM

And that is simple how exactly? If you're trivializing post-encounter activities, that's your business, but by current 3.5 rules you have to keep poking the troll with your sword while the other guy is pouring alchemist's fire over it or building a pyre.

I think you're overcomplicating this. Regen is what, 5-15 HP a round? Unless you're dealing with the Tarrasque anyway. Any fighter, barbarian or rogue worth the paper his sheet is printed on can quickly pile the nonlethal on so high that it'll take him 10 minutes or more to pull himself together - plenty of time to start a fire or even get away if it turns out you have nothing on hand to seal the deal. You may have to "poke it" a couple of times after it goes down but that's hardly the chore you make it out to be. Even a solar only has regen 15.

johnbragg

2013-09-24, 08:19 AM

Except the very notion that a splash of energy damage applied anywhere on the body could entirely negate a creature's regenerative capabilities is ridiculous at best.

What exactly was the point of your argument? "Why does a regeneration get turned off by a tiny amount of fire damage? Because it's fire damage and that stops them from regenerating." Wow, nice job there.

So yeah, it's just because.

I could elaborate a bit. Regeneration is an advantage bestowed by the gods, balanced by a vulnerability bestowed by the gods. Regeneration 5 or 10 or 50 is suppressed by one point of fire damage because fire to trolls is like Kryponite to Superman. So, hypothetically, if their regeneration were taken away, trolls would be vulnerable to fire the way the Wicked Witch of the West is vulnerable to water. And sure, a creature with regeneration(50), without regeneration would be a walking Molotov cocktail.

And that is simple how exactly? If you're trivializing post-encounter activities, that's your business, ...

Every group I've played with has "trivialized" post-encounter activities in terms of, once you're not in physical danger, you can perform multi-round actions by declaring them, if it's not hard to do. "We use oil flasks to set the corpse of the troll on fire before it comes back to life" falls under "not hard to do". If you and your group enjoy going through the details, well, okay.

but by current 3.5 rules you have to keep poking the troll with your sword while the other guy is pouring alchemist's fire over it or building a pyre.

???
From the SRD:
Regeneration: .....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.

So poking it with your sword isn't even necessary, unless you have a flaming or acidic sword, in which case, one shot does the job.

EDIT: I see now, you're hacking the troll to keep it below 0 HP. If alchemists' fire isn't fast enough, flasks of oil should be. Cantrip up a spark and ba-Boom! Troll-B-Q!

Coup de grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

So RAW do not mention coup-de-grace by setting the body on fire, and can be read to exclude anything but melee and missile weapons. If you want to play that spells or fire can't be use for a coup-de-grace, I think that's your interpretation.

There should be no need for that, it's just a pointless chore for a game mechanic that contributes nothing of value to the gameplay.

Well, yeah. I don't see anything in the SRD that says you have to do that, though. Is there some book text that supports what you're saying the stupid, jacked-up rule in need of changing is?

And what if it's not fire? What if it's sonic or lawful? Are you gonna have one guy beat the creature until sunrise when the cleric gets new spells?
Well, that's why those regeneration types get higher CRs, isn't it?

And what, you can't cast Stone Shape on the dungeon floor beneath the creature, ram a few swords through it and then let him play Excalibur when he wakes up? Heck, we did that to trolls once just to be jerks.

PF made the job a little easier, but I don't like their approach.

I do.

Exactly. Except that's not actually what's happening in practice. Just like Chronos said, you can pretty much ignore regeneration in a fight and just deal with it afterwards.

I don't know how you can ignore regeneration in a fight in D&D. Regeneration affects current HP total, which determines whether the monster is up and fighting, or it's down and not fighting. If it gets back 5 hp per round, and you're ignoring that, it's going to go down a lot faster than it should. That's not the rules' fault, that's your table's fault.

Chronos

2013-09-24, 08:36 AM

johnbragg

2013-09-24, 09:06 AM

Obviously the DM, who's actually tracking the thing's HP, can't ignore the regeneration. But from a player's perspective, the way you deal with it is "hit it until it stops moving, then move on to hitting something else". In other words, just the same way the players deal with any other monster. The only difference is that attrition tactics are less effective, but those are very seldom effective anyway.

Oh, that makes sense. Tactically, if the choice is "d4 with a torch, suppress 5 hp of regeneration this round" for an effective 6-9 or "5d4+5 Magic Missile" for 10-25 then go with the Magic Missile.

Although usually, you'll want to spend the action to coup-de-grace to keep it down, once it's down. Unless the trolls are just meat-shields for the real threat.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 09:13 AM

Oh, that makes sense. Tactically, if the choice is "d4 with a torch, suppress 5 hp of regeneration this round" for an effective 6-9 or "5d4+5 Magic Missile" for 10-25 then go with the Magic Missile.

In 3.5 it would be: "d4 with a torch, is it dead yet? Okay, we'll try again next round."

In PF it's: "d4 with a torch, REGEN IS OFF KILL IT KILL IT!" (everybody CdG)

As you can see, having the weapon with the necessary element is much more of a requirement in the former scenario.

(Now I wonder - can you CdG with a torch in 3.5?)

johnbragg

2013-09-24, 09:22 AM

In 3.5 it would be: "d4 with a torch, is it dead yet? Okay, we'll try again next round."

In PF it's: "d4 with a torch, REGEN IS OFF KILL IT KILL IT!" (everybody CdG)

As you can see, having the weapon with the necessary element is much more of a requirement in the former scenario.

I actually way over-rated the damage from a torch in 3.5. It's gauntlet damage +1 for fire. So 1 point of fire damage.

In 3X it was more "It's down! Get it with the torch before it gets up!"

(Now I wonder - can you CdG with a torch in 3.5?)
I think so, by RAW.

Coup de grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage.

As long as an "improvised weapon" counts as a "melee weapon." Coup-de-grace with a gauntlet sounds stupid, but it doesn't say you can't CDG with a bludgeoning weapon.

You could also rule in that if he's CDG eligible, he's not "stabilized", so he's losing one HP per round anyway, so at that point any damage means "he's dead, Jim."

Chronos

2013-09-24, 09:44 AM

Rijan_Sai

2013-09-24, 11:45 AM

Just a couple of things that bothered me while reading this:

Its really the same way in 3.5 you beat the troll down with non-lethal damage then Coup'de'grace it with a little bit of fire. PF just made it a bit easier on the groups.
If you beat a troll down with NL damage, then the CDG has to go through all of the trolls normal HP to even threaten to kill it.

You could also rule in that if he's CDG eligible, he's not "stabilized", so he's losing one HP per round anyway, so at that point any damage means "he's dead, Jim."
Somewhat corollary to the above, "most*" of the time, a Regenerating creature is going to reach CDG eligibility status due to non-lethal damage, (probably with some leathal thrown in.) As such, most likely* he/she/it is not bleeding out, and is just unconsious...until "hirt's**" regen brings hirt's NLD back down below the current normal HP total.

*Not verified
**"HIs/heR/iT'S"

The other issue with Pathfinder's version of regeneration is, if you get the troll down to almost dead, using nothing but fire damage, and then miss him for one round, he can start regenerating it all again just like any other damage.

I agree. At least with 3.5, the lethal damage stays until healed normaly (CLW, 1/HD from sleep, etc.)

Jade_Tarem

2013-09-24, 11:49 AM

Having GM'd and played quite a bit of PF and 3.5, I still kind of prefer PF's version. Mechanically, it's a special defense that raises the monster's effective HP over its apparent HP unless the party uses its weakness against it. It also allows a monster to turn a fleeing or hiding ability into healing, running off long enough to regenerate and then coming back.

It isn't hard to calculate, as has been pointed out, and killing them really isn't that hard once you have a character (barbarian? rogue?) that can reliably do a lot of damage to a giant meat sack. Instead of asking every character what kind of damage they're doing with every attack, I just have to keep track of whether or not Creature X took acid damage this round or not.

Story

2013-09-24, 11:52 AM

If you beat a troll down with NL damage, then the CDG has to go through all of the trolls normal HP to even threaten to kill it.

Unless the troll fails its fort save. And even with minimal damage, it's going to fail after 20 rounds on average.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 12:05 PM

The other issue with Pathfinder's version of regeneration is, if you get the troll down to almost dead, using nothing but fire damage, and then miss him for one round, he can start regenerating it all again just like any other damage.

Your chances of everyone in the party missing a helpless target are so slim that this is a very corner case though.

If you beat a troll down with NL damage, then the CDG has to go through all of the trolls normal HP to even threaten to kill it.

My problem with 3.5, the CdG has to be a type that bypasses their regen for it to even have a chance at working. So if all you've got is a torch or acid splash, the big finish is going to take quite a while.

Whereas in PF, you can beat them down, hit them once with the torch, then have the rogue deliver a automatic sneak-crit on them, forcing a fort save that will likely be in the 30s. You can fluff this if necessary as torching the area right above their heart before plunging in your weapon of choice, or torching their neck before severing the head etc.

Having GM'd and played quite a bit of PF and 3.5, I still kind of prefer PF's version. Mechanically, it's a special defense that raises the monster's effective HP over its apparent HP unless the party uses its weakness against it. It also allows a monster to turn a fleeing or hiding ability into healing, running off long enough to regenerate and then coming back.

+1. Regen fights have tension for both sides because of this mechanic - the players can't let the monster get away because it can come back at full strength, and the monster has to avoid whoever can turn off its regen because one hit from that person suddenly makes it vulnerable to everything from the rest of the party to summons and even to traps or other environmental hazards in the area.

It isn't hard to calculate, as has been pointed out, and killing them really isn't that hard once you have a character (barbarian? rogue?) that can reliably do a lot of damage to a giant meat sack. Instead of asking every character what kind of damage they're doing with every attack, I just have to keep track of whether or not Creature X took acid damage this round or not.

+2. Tracking one person's damage type is easier than tracking for 4+ people.

Chronos

2013-09-24, 12:32 PM

Your chances of everyone in the party missing a helpless target are so slim that this is a very corner case though.

Who said anything about a helpless target? A troll with 1 HP left is still just as hard to hit as ever. It's got third-degree burns all over its body, but those burns heal up just fine.

Keneth

2013-09-24, 12:40 PM

You may have to "poke it" a couple of times after it goes down but that's hardly the chore you make it out to be

Tell that to the fighter relentlessly swinging at a motionless corpse. :smalltongue: I'm not saying it's hard or even time consuming, it's just a pointless chore that serves no purpose. It's like requiring your players to make toilet breaks, or burning those bandit bodies so they don't spread disease. Regeneration is supposed to be primarily a combat ability, and it serves very little purpose there. Worse still, even though it's supposed to be far stronger than fast healing as far as RAW is concerned, in Pathfinder it ends up being weaker in combat. That's not ok with me.

Regeneration is an advantage bestowed by the gods, balanced by a vulnerability bestowed by the gods. Regeneration 5 or 10 or 50 is suppressed by one point of fire damage because fire to trolls is like Kryponite to Superman.

While a cute explanation, it's based on absolutely nothing. The closest fluff comes to anything like that is in Salvatore's novels where trolls catch fire like a pile of sawdust. But in novels trolls can also regenerate from parts, allowing them to multiply when their limbs get severed, so make of that what you will.

Aside from Tarrasque, which is Rovagug's spawn in PF, I see regeneration as a perfectly natural extraordinary ability and it makes zero sense to me that it would be disabled simply by minor damage to any part of the body. I might have been reasonably ok with it if it only happened on a cdg.

Every group I've played with has "trivialized" post-encounter activities

That's good for you, but I'm a stickler for hard rules. When mechanics are provided, the rules are observed as described regardless of the complexity of the task. And the situation is not always as simple as "burn the bodies", sometimes fire isn't readily available or can't be used, sometimes you're in a dangerous spot and you can't afford to spend several minutes dealing with the bodies. The simple fact is that the rules for finishing off regenerating creatures are annoying and deserve to be changed, but not at the expense of its combat utility as it was attempted in Pathfinder.

I don't see anything in the SRD that says you have to do that, though.

You don't have to do anything, you can ignore any number of mechanics if you want, but by RAW, you have to do the whole dance.

And what, you can't cast Stone Shape on the dungeon floor beneath the creature, ram a few swords through it and then let him play Excalibur when he wakes up?

Any problem is solvable by introducing an arbitrary number of extra variables into the equation. Each such scenario implies that you were prepared to deal with the situation, and more often than not, that's not the case. I don't mind players getting inventive, but I don't see regeneration as an ability that should require such measures.

iT'S

*its

Lanson

2013-09-24, 12:41 PM

My problem with 3.5, the CdG has to be a type that bypasses their regen for it to even have a chance at working. So if all you've got is a torch or acid splash, the big finish is going to take quite a while.

Actually, if the creature doesn't die from the initial damage, it has to succeed on a fort save of 10+damage dealt or else die anyways, so you don't have to work through it's entire healthpool, just as many hits as it takes to make it fail a save... which could end up being it's entire healthpool, since it's got a decent fort save.

@Chronos He was referencing that without overcoming regeneration you could only deal nonlethal damage, which will knock the troll out. Unconscious opponents are helpless targets, and valid CDG targets.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 01:40 PM

Who said anything about a helpless target? A troll with 1 HP left is still just as hard to hit as ever. It's got third-degree burns all over its body, but those burns heal up just fine.

If he has 1 HP left and any nonlethal at all then he is unconscious, remember? Under what circumstances would he be that badly beat up but have no nonlethal at all, yet the party reliably disabled his regen enough to bring him down to 1?

So like I said, it's a very corner case.

Tell that to the fighter relentlessly swinging at a motionless corpse. :smalltongue: I'm not saying it's hard or even time consuming, it's just a pointless chore that serves no purpose.

Unless your fighter/rogue hit like limp noodles, you're not going to need more than 1 or 2 hits to completely overwhelm anyone's regen. A solar has regen 15, and by the time you face one your melee should be capable of triple-digit damage. So I'm just not seeing the justification for terms like "relentlessly swinging" or "pointless chore."

And if your melee are really that weak then you've got much more serious problems anyway.

Worse still, even though it's supposed to be far stronger than fast healing as far as RAW is concerned, in Pathfinder it ends up being weaker in combat. That's not ok with me.

What's not okay with me is the tedium of needing to beat an unconscious troll over the head with your torch because the wizard ran out of scorching rays.

Actually, if the creature doesn't die from the initial damage, it has to succeed on a fort save of 10+damage dealt or else die anyways

Right, but for a torch that's going to be a fort DC of 11. Now check the Troll's fort save entry in the SRD and tell me what you see.

Lanson

2013-09-24, 01:53 PM

Right, but for a torch that's going to be a fort DC of 11. Now check the Troll's fort save entry in the SRD and tell me what you see.

I wasn't saying you were wrong, but that's why I mentioned in my post that it will probably end up failing a save before it's healthpool is totally drained. 5% to fail no matter what does bear mentioning, since the odds increase with the more hp it had left.

Unless the DM is being malicious and gives it a way to reroll failed saves... or makes them a Half Black dragon Horizon Walker with fire planar mastery.

Edit: And I dont know many DM's who would force you to roll each attack with the torch while it's unconscious unless another fight is a couple rounds away, so they might just remove the tedium from clubbing it to death with 1 pt of fire damage each round.

georgie_leech

2013-09-24, 02:05 PM

If he has 1 HP left and any nonlethal at all then he is unconscious, remember? Under what circumstances would he be that badly beat up but have no nonlethal at all, yet the party reliably disabled his regen enough to bring him down to 1?

A wizard rolled well on a fireball and did enough damage to bring it to 1 hp. The troll runs away, behind a rock or something. It starts regenerating.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 02:09 PM

I wasn't saying you were wrong, but that's why I mentioned in my post that it will probably end up failing a save before it's healthpool is totally drained. 5% to fail no matter what does bear mentioning, since the odds increase with the more hp it had left.

Well, you have fun over there taking 20 on your CdG check :smalltongue: I'll stick with Pathfinder where I just lightly toast the patch over his aorta and say to the ninja "he's all yours Hayabusa."

And I dont know many DM's who would force you to roll each attack with the torch while it's unconscious unless another fight is a couple rounds away, so they might just remove the tedium from clubbing it to death with 1 pt of fire damage each round.

Thing is, he might not be the last one left - which is particularly important if you're henpecking one to death while the others are busy healing up in their respective corners.

And if the DM is willing to "fast-forward," he can do the same in PF just as easily.

A wizard rolled well on a fireball and did enough damage to bring it to 1 hp. The troll runs away, behind a rock or something. It starts regenerating.

And the rest of the party is... playing tiddlywinks? Discussing the weather? Furious onanism?

georgie_leech

2013-09-24, 02:21 PM

And the rest of the party is... playing tiddlywinks? Discussing the weather? Furious onanism?

Fighting all the other trolls? Killing the Evil Wizard that set the troll on them in the first place? It happens to be a lone Wizard that did the Fireballing?

It's ultimately not a point about the mechanics themselves, but about the fluff-crunch disconnect between burns that can't be regenerated... being regenerated. On the other hand, if you go the HP:MoR route and say that such damage "confuses" a Troll's regeneration temporarily as it tries to figure out what to do with the scar tissue, it fits better, including the supressed regeneration from that kind of damage.

Rijan_Sai

2013-09-24, 02:23 PM

*Notes that he forgot about the Fort save for CDG*

*its

The capitalization was correct (for emphasis), the punctuation was not. I stand corrected.

johnbragg

2013-09-24, 02:53 PM

Regeneration is supposed to be primarily a combat ability, and it serves very little purpose there. Worse still, even though it's supposed to be far stronger than fast healing as far as RAW is concerned, in Pathfinder it ends up being weaker in combat. That's not ok with me.

Why is supposed to be "far stronger" than fast healing? The only advantage is it keeps working after you drop below zero, which is obviously good, but it's balanced against a vulnerability to a specific energy type or types.

While a cute explanation, it's based on absolutely nothing.
But it nicely fits the new-school Pathfinder RAW, which I am mentally houseruling in to any 3.X campaign I ever run. And why would there be fluff detailing that? How many sages would ask the question? And if they found the answer, how many people would be interested enough to spread that new knowledge around? It's not like you can lure the trolls into an Anti-Regeneration Field. So I'd say this "knowledge" would take a DC 30 or 40 check.

I see regeneration as a perfectly natural extraordinary ability and it makes zero sense to me that it would be disabled simply by minor damage to any part of the body. I might have been reasonably ok with it if it only happened on a cdg.

So you don't like that 1 point of fire damage suppresses troll regeneration for a round, but you're more okay that 1 point of fire damage to an unconscious troll kills it?

That's good for you, but I'm a stickler for hard rules. When mechanics are provided, the rules are observed as described regardless of the complexity of the task. And the situation is not always as simple as "burn the bodies", sometimes fire isn't readily available or can't be used, sometimes you're in a dangerous spot and you can't afford to spend several minutes dealing with the bodies.

If any of that sort of thing applies, then the encounter isn't really over. If that's the situation, you're still counting time in rounds.

And if you can't use fire, then you basically can't kill those trolls today, sorry. Cut off the hand and heads (the pointy bits), put them in a sack or sacks and vamoose.

Although I think part of the disagreement is on how long a fire-based CDG takes.
SRD: Oil. You can pour a pint of oil on the ground to cover an area 5 feet square, provided that the surface is smooth. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 1d3 points of fire damage to each creature in the area.

So a pint of oil is plenty to douse a troll in. And 2d3 damage should be enough for a coup-de-grace. I don't see how that adds up to "several minutes." You just want to make sure the thing is dead, you don't need to do a full cremation. By RAW, of course. If you want to houserule that regenerators have to be burned down to the bone to kill them dead, that's fine. But don't blame RAW for it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm
Regeneration.....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.[/I]

You don't have to do anything, you can ignore any number of mechanics if you want, but by RAW, you have to do the whole dance.

The reason I quoted SRD was that SRD doesn't seem to support what you're saying. So where are the rules written that you're citing as RAW that killing a regenerating creature is a process that takes say 5 minutes?

Any problem is solvable by introducing an arbitrary number of extra variables into the equation. Each such scenario implies that you were prepared to deal with the situation, and more often than not, that's not the case. I don't mind players getting inventive, but I don't see regeneration as an ability that should require such measures.

Sigh. That particular campaign, we were underground, so my cleric having Stone Shapes prepared was pretty sensible. And no, we didn't HAVE to leave the trolls to wake up impaled on rusted swords stuck into the walls, but it was _funnier_ that way. We even talked the goody-goodies into it because it was merciful because we didn't have to kill them.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 03:02 PM

Fighting all the other trolls? Killing the Evil Wizard that set the troll on them in the first place? It happens to be a lone Wizard that did the Fireballing?

It's still a corner case unless, again, your melee hits like limp noodles. Since anybody with fire damage can disable the trolls' regen and then anybody can then unleash the fury all over the poor monster, focus fire is much more effective and the chances of a troll running behind a rock are slim to none. (And even if he does... you could... I dunno... go behind the rock and kick his ass before he regens more than 2 rounds?)

It's ultimately not a point about the mechanics themselves, but about the fluff-crunch disconnect between burns that can't be regenerated... being regenerated.

Let's say you burn a troll down to 1 HP and he stays awake for 3 years. Under 3.5 rules, he'll stay at 1HP forever, even if he chops off all the seared stumps and burnt patches of his skin. That's a much bigger disconnect to me.

georgie_leech

2013-09-24, 03:07 PM

It's still a corner case unless, again, your melee hits like limp noodles. Since anybody with fire damage can disable the trolls' regen and then anybody can then unleash the fury all over the poor monster, focus fire is much more effective and the chances of a troll running behind a rock are slim to none. (And even if he does... you could... I dunno... go behind the rock and kick his ass before he regens more than 2 rounds?)

You're missing the point. It's not about it being a practical game concern, but a world building one. The picture most people have with regeneration doesn't allow for trolls regenerating fire damage in any circumstance, so the fact that said circumstances exist is the problem, not how common they are.

Let's say you burn a troll down to 1 HP and he stays awake for 3 years. Under 3.5 rules, he'll stay at 1HP forever, even if he chops off all the seared stumps and burnt patches of his skin. That's a much bigger disconnect to me.

I agree, hence why I actually do prefer the PF version, with HP:MoR's explanation as to how that worked.

johnbragg

2013-09-24, 03:10 PM

Furious Onanism?

From the Compendium of Rejected Spells. Save DC is based on the combined Charisma modifiers of all members of the opposite sex within line of sight, apply half-modifiers for semi-compatible races (Human:Hobgoblin) and ignore modifiers for incompatible races. (Human:Troll)

. On the other hand, if you go the HP:MoR route and say that such damage "confuses" a Troll's regeneration temporarily as it tries to figure out what to do with the scar tissue, it fits better, including the supressed regeneration from that kind of damage.

It fits quite well, but HP:MoR is what now?--selfninja'd, ah, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

georgie_leech

2013-09-24, 03:12 PM

It fits quite well, but HP:MoR is what now?--selfninja'd, ah, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

Heh. Beware, if you enjoy overly pedantic examination of worlds (and you're on a D&D forum discussing rules minutiae, so you do) reading it will quickly cause you to be trapped in the story.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 03:19 PM

You're missing the point. It's not about it being a practical game concern, but a world building one. The picture most people have with regeneration doesn't allow for trolls regenerating fire damage in any circumstance, so the fact that said circumstances exist is the problem, not how common they are.

Indeed, there are fantasy examples of trolls with years-old burns and such - but I'm okay with PF Trolls simply not working that way.

There are examples of PF regen in fiction too. Take the Regenerators and Ouroboros from Resident Evil for instance - fire bypasses their regeneration and makes them vulnerable to other forms of attack (including bullets and even knives) but if you aren't able to kill them, they can recover completely, particularly from a narrative standpoint.

Chronos

2013-09-24, 04:00 PM

Wait, what nonlethal damage? I thought we had established that in Pathfinder, regeneration doesn't result in the creature taking nonlethal damage.

Quoth Psyren:

Let's say you burn a troll down to 1 HP and he stays awake for 3 years. Under 3.5 rules, he'll stay at 1HP forever, even if he chops off all the seared stumps and burnt patches of his skin. That's a much bigger disconnect to me.
Yes, I agree, a creature staying awake for three years is a big disconnect to me, too. What does that have to do with regeneration? If he sleeps once every 24 hours, like almost every living creature does, he'll heal that damage the same way anything else does, too.

Psyren

2013-09-24, 04:48 PM

My bad on the nonlethal, but there's really no difference between the two if you can pound something down to -1000 and it won't stay dead. This is particularly relevant for beings that hold a grudge like devils.

Part of it depends on how your DM describes things too. If you're fighting some trolls for instance, most players will know to keep an eye out for the regen, but if you're fighting something a bit less common like Aghasuras then you might grind them into negatives without realizing they're not actually dead. Most players, if their DM says "he's down" or "you dropped him" will assume that means death and move on to the next, then loot and leave.

The troll was an extreme example to show how silly these things can get - a creature that can supposedly regenerate even lost body parts, needing to sleep to heal like everybody else.

JusticeZero

2013-09-24, 05:39 PM

The bookkeeping is easier. That in and of itself is a sufficient reason.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-09-24, 05:49 PM

Ok, I saw some people saying CDG with a weapon that deals nonlethal won't work, am too lazy to read the entire thread, and searching for "suffo"got nothing, so....

You don't even need to CDG them in 3E. just beat them massively unconscious while another PC simultaneously suffocates the regenerating monster to death. Drowning also works if a body of water is handily nearby. It takes a little while, but it's delightfully fool proof.

...That's how we always took out Ogre Magi and the like...

Sorry if someone did actually already mention this.

Norix

2013-09-25, 03:58 PM

Personally I like the Pathfinder rule better as you can use more than one (two) damage type(s) to deal "lethal" wounds to a creature with regeneration (CdG aside). What I don't like is that 1 point of that "special" damage is enough to finally kill it. I also want "regenerators" to be scary monsters.

That is why I'm thinking of using the following (adapted) house rule:

Regeneration
Breaking Damage: Damage that bypasses regeneration counts as breaking damage.
Regeneration threshold: Regeneration value + 1/2 racial HD + Constitution modifier
A creature with regeneration that has taken a total amount of breaking damage equal or greater to its regeneration threshold since the beginning of its last turn does not heal any damage and can die normally for one round. If a creature with regeneration is reduced below 0 hit points it does not heal any damage for 1d4+1 rounds, though its regeneration still prevents it from dying. After this period of time, at the beginning of its next turn, the creature instantly heals enough damage to put it at positive hit points equal to twice its regeneration threshold or half its maximum hit points, whichever is lower.

For one, this makes it harder to negate regeneration completely while still allowing everybody to deal "lethal" damage. And second, it does not trivialize what happens once the creature is down (assuming it was solo). If you don't have the appropriate damage type you have 2-5 rounds to run away or to figure out something else. I think I would still allow a CdG to kill a creature with regeneration, though the save DC would only consider the breaking damage part (i.e. low DCs). Special case: If the creature doesn't fall unconscious when below 0 hit points (e.g. Diehard feat) the regeneration would just continue to heal at the normal rate.

Flavor: Fire/Acid is not the Troll's kryptonite, but it can inhibit the Troll's regenerative abilities if he is exposed to it too much in a short time (like an infected wound heals slower than a clean one). Once the Troll is unconscious his body enters a state of shock in order to survive and every cell increases its regeneration speed for a short amount of time (like an adrenaline rush).

Example: A Troll would have a threshold of 14. Thus a flaming sword would not be enough to kill it. A fireball or scroching ray would, though. I would also allow you to chop him into pieces in order to accumulate increased (per piece) fire damage from burning (provided you have a source, like oil). What you can't do is "hit him for 15min and make a fire place", unless you want to risk him getting a few more swings/bites at you.

What do you think? Would that make "good" and scary regenerators? Maybe even CR+1?