Regeneration vs Beheading

[NerdHut]

Basic question, couldn't find the answer in my search of the RAW thread.

Trolls and other creatures have regeneration, which means you need Fire or Acid to kill them (or other energy type, if specified). In the various bits and pieces I've found about regeneration, it's also indicated that Multi-headed creatures can survive a head getting chopped off. RAW specifically says that a coup de grace against an unconsious troll doesn't work if it isn't the right energy type, but elsewhere it can be inferred that if the creature only has one head, losing it would be fatal. So should a beheading be fatal, or should the body/head regenerate the missing pieces?

TL;DR: Should beheading kill a troll, even without fire/acid?

[OldTrees1]

I would rule that the head regrows a body. However it would have to regrow the body before it could regrow any limbs so this would seriously delay the Troll. So I would consider it a defeat (especially if the head is handled afterwards).


Unless I were running a horror campaign. In that case I would rule the head, body, and even large enough pools of blood would regenerate new Trolls.

[DrMotives]

3.x doesn't seem to touch on this so much, but older editions are full of fluff about trolls regrowing new heads. Things like the loser in a clan leadership challenge would have her head removed & thrown off a cliff so she'd have to sit and sulk until she regrew a new head, etc. The simple crunch was always "The largest portion of a troll's body regenerates into a complete body again" so as to prevent a situation where you could use regeneration to reproduce. They're not amoeba after all.

There was also lots of fluff about them being strongly matriarchal and female dominant. I always figured because they look like Grendel & his mother, although clearly Grendel couldn't regenerate.

[Necroticplague]

I'd say it depends on how you cut off its head. If your trying to cut off its head normally because its unconcious, if treat it as a coup-de-grace, and it would fail unless you used fire or acid. If you're using a vorpal weapon, it would invoke the "attacks that don't deal damage ignore regeneration" clause and kill it.

[LTwerewolf]

If the setting books are any indication, not only would it not kill them but if the two parts weren't reattached to each other within a certain time, the body would grow a new head and the head would grow a new body, giving you 2 trolls to deal with.

I wouldn't rule vorpal overcomes this in any way as the existence of the troll's head isn't particularly important to its continued existence.

[Khedrac]

Part of the problem is that the fluffier side of the mechanics often gets overlooked but is important for cases like this.

The Key point with Regeneration is that other forms of attack don't deal lethal damage. This means that if you swing a normal greataxe at an unconsious troll you cannot cut the head off - describe it how you like (e.g. "the blow rebounds off the rubbery skin of the neck, probably causing some internal bruising, but the troll is otherwise unharmed") but the head stays on.
Cutting the head off - either using an attack that can deal lethal damage (a 'coup de grace') or some other non-damage trick (such as the afor-mentioned vorpal sword) and the troll dies. Use a conventional sword? - sorry you haven't cut the head off and the question does not arise.

[LTwerewolf]

Coup de grace is pretty specific that it cannot be used with nonlethal damage.

[lord_khaine]

Trolls also specifically needs to breathe though, being living creatures. So just beat them down to - 1 thousand hp or so, then tie a knot on their lungs. And thats jobs done :smallamused:

[LTwerewolf]

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

Pretty definitive that unless the weapon that has vorpal passes the regeneration, it doesn't work.

[ShurikVch]

Part of the problem is that the fluffier side of the mechanics often gets overlooked but is important for cases like this.

The Key point with Regeneration is that other forms of attack don't deal lethal damage. This means that if you swing a normal greataxe at an unconsious troll you cannot cut the head off - describe it how you like (e.g. "the blow rebounds off the rubbery skin of the neck, probably causing some internal bruising, but the troll is otherwise unharmed") but the head stays on.
Cutting the head off - either using an attack that can deal lethal damage (a 'coup de grace') or some other non-damage trick (such as the afor-mentioned vorpal sword) and the troll dies. Use a conventional sword? - sorry you haven't cut the head off and the question does not arise.Honestly, 3E "Subdual/Nonlethal Damage" is a monumental mess! :smallmad:
Now I see why d20 Modern just gave up and removed it

[SangoProduction]

Honestly, 3E "Subdual/Nonlethal Damage" is a monumental mess! :smallmad:
Now I see why d20 Modern just gave up and removed it

I'm absolutely certain that d20 Modern didn't remove that. The martial arts/brawl feats say that much.

[ShurikVch]

I'm absolutely certain that d20 Modern didn't remove that. The martial arts/brawl feats say that much.Sorry!
I worded it incorrectly: Regeneration (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/smack/specialabilities.html) in d20 Modern don't work via Nonlethal Damage

[King of Nowhere]

I don't care what RAW say, I'd handle that the way it seem right. And to me it would seem right that a cut head may regrow, but if you cut the troll in small enough pieces, or you submerge it all for a long time, you will be able to kill it. Eventually.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I don't care what RAW say, I'd handle that the way it seem right. And to me it would seem right that a cut head may regrow, but if you cut the troll in small enough pieces, or you submerge it all for a long time, you will be able to kill it. Eventually.
That makes sense: drowning doesn't deal damage, it outright sets your hit points (first 0, then -1), and then kills you.

[J-H]

Somewhere, there's a thread that describes how a set of players created a trollpocalypse. They took a troll, cut it up into lots of small pieces (finger joints, etc), and tossed one or two pieces in every room of a castle they'd infiltrated, and then locked a bunch of doors to buy time for regrowth.

The castle occupants did not survive an sudden plague of 100+ trolls inside their defenses.

[Khedrac]

Somewhere, there's a thread that describes how a set of players created a trollpocalypse. They took a troll, cut it up into lots of small pieces (finger joints, etc), and tossed one or two pieces in every room of a castle they'd infiltrated, and then locked a bunch of doors to buy time for regrowth.

The castle occupants did not survive an sudden plague of 100+ trolls inside their defenses.
Such stories are (usually) entertaining, and worked well with AD&D, but for 3.5Ed they rely on the DM missing the rule I pointed out above - you cannot cut the troll into little pieces using a sword - you are doing non-lethal damage which means that you are not cutting it up, making the whole point moot.

[Deophaun]

Such stories are (usually) entertaining, and worked well with AD&D, but for 3.5Ed they rely on the DM missing the rule I pointed out above - you cannot cut the troll into little pieces using a sword - you are doing non-lethal damage which means that you are not cutting it up, making the whole point moot.
Wait... so I cannot trim my fingernails without doing lethal damage to myself? Because that's basically what a troll's whole body is: a readily replaceable fingernail.

Sure, the story isn't RAW legal (Rule of Cool and all), but it's not the slicing and dicing that's violating it.

[NerdHut]

Such stories are (usually) entertaining, and worked well with AD&D, but for 3.5Ed they rely on the DM missing the rule I pointed out above - you cannot cut the troll into little pieces using a sword - you are doing non-lethal damage which means that you are not cutting it up, making the whole point moot.

Actually, the way I've interpretted that part was that you can in fact remove limbs from a troll, but it's not like removing a human's arm. Leave a human's severed arm unattended and he will bleed out. Do the same with a troll, and he goes Dr. Who on you. 3.5's wording says you can't get two trolls from one, but you can infinitely regrow that single troll from one part of it, as long as it isn't dead. Which part that is, I suppose, would be DM discretion.

[SilverLeaf167]

Regeneration making you immune to weaponry would defeat the purpose of calling it Regeneration in the first place and directly contradict all sorts of fluff and rules. The word quite indisputably refers to healing your wounds and growing back (or reattaching) pieces you lost. The damage is treated as "non-lethal" because it can't kill you, but can still chop you into small enough pieces etc. to render you "unconscious" until you can heal again.

Conventional weaponry being unable to penetrate your skin is represented by damage reduction.

[Necroticplague]

It's possible to have it both ways. Unless you use their weakness, the regeneration making damage nonlethal can represent that it heals faster than sheer brute damage can do to it (i.e, while you're sawing through it's neck, you find it's healing from the last stroke before you can begin your next one).

[SilverLeaf167]

It's possible to have it both ways. Unless you use their weakness, the regeneration making damage nonlethal can represent that it heals faster than sheer brute damage can do to it (i.e, while you're sawing through it's neck, you find it's healing from the last stroke before you can begin your next one).

To a certain extent, definitely, though I assume you meant it more as a fluff thing anyway.
Generally speaking, I feel like Regeneration's ability to restore body parts is a pretty strong implication that it's possible to sever those body parts in the first place, though I realize that it's not a concrete rules statement.

[martixy]

To a certain extent, definitely, though I assume you meant it more as a fluff thing anyway.
Generally speaking, I feel like Regeneration's ability to restore body parts is a pretty strong implication that it's possible to sever those body parts in the first place, though I realize that it's not a concrete rules statement.

I agree with this sentiment.
The statement that "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." strongly implies that you have to be able to chop them off first.
Given that regeneration only heals non-lethal damage, that means that non-lethal damage can be used to chop up regenerating creatures in pieces.

[Knaight]

Such stories are (usually) entertaining, and worked well with AD&D, but for 3.5Ed they rely on the DM missing the rule I pointed out above - you cannot cut the troll into little pieces using a sword - you are doing non-lethal damage which means that you are not cutting it up, making the whole point moot.

The other way to interpret it would be that cutting it up isn't lethal for a troll the way it is for a human, and that's why it's nonlethal damage. Given the name of the ability, I'm inclined towards that interpretation.

[Jack_Simth]

Conventional weaponry being unable to penetrate your skin is represented by damage reduction.Side note, DR is explicitly sometimes healing as well! Per the Special Abilities Entry for Damage Reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction):
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below. (emphasis added)