Players' creative way of fixing a devoured intellect

[Decstarr]

Hey guys,

last night I finally dared throwing some Illithid and Intellect Devourers at my level 15 group. They have a 400 year old rock gnome bard who has spent the better part of his life in the Underdark and has dealt with Illithid and their minions before, therefore knows quite a lot about how they work.

The first encounter was really easy, therefore in the second one our warlock made a critical, tactical mistake of running in being first in initiative and then got surrounded by 5 Intellect Devourers. Due to some bad luck rolls, the first one incapacitated the 8 Int Warlock and dropped him down to 0. The next one used Devour Intellect, succeeded and went in to eat his brain.

The rest of the group took only 2 rounds to get rid of the enemies and then they used the Fighter's sun blade to cut off a round section of the Warlocks skull, pulled out the Intellect Devourer and squished it to a bloody pulp. They then took some remaining brain mass, put it back in the Warlock's skull and used Regenerate to grow back the brain. I was really surprised by this but on the spot I didn't see much reason to disallow this.

My questions are:

1) Once intellect is devoured, does the body count as dead? I would argue "No" since the wording of Devour Intellect specifically mentions "If the hosts body drops to 0 HP". If it is indeed not dead, what's its status then? It is reasonable to assume that the Intellect Devourer itself takes the place of the original brain and maintains all bodily functions?
2) Would "Devour Intellect" instantaneously and "magically" destroy all of the brain tissue? I argued "no" since by all I read and understood about these nasty little buggers, they need brains as their source of "food", so I'd argue that they have some kind of digestion system going on somewhere in their brain-bodies and it wouldn't be "realistic" that all the brain tissue is entirely gone that quickly.
3) Would "Regenerate" restore someone to his original condition after his brain got eaten? The spell description talks about the "severed body part" so its debatable whether a partly devoured brain falls in the same category as a cut-off hand or finger - since these parts are likely 100% intact.

[Unoriginal]

1) the Intellect Devourer kills the person once it eats and replaces its brains.

2) Might not anihilate all of the brain tissues, but it would make them unusable, so it's "destroyed" in a way.

3) Regeneration would not work, because the person is dead.

You *could* argue that an Intellect Devourer with an Illithid would be trained to leave the brains uneaten, like an hunting hound that wouldn't eat the preys it kills for its master. In this case, Regeneration would work, because Mind Flayers prefers their food to be alive, and so you could say "the Devourer just connect itself to the nervous system after cutting the brain's connection to it without killing the host".

[Contrast]

The MM gives hope that this might work:


The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within one round.

Which is then dashed by the regenerate spell:


The tagets severed body members (fingers, legs, tails, and so on), if any, are restored after two minutes.

I personally think this would only work if the brain had somehow been otherwise removed as the Body Thief ability 'magically consumes the targets brain'. Certainly jamming mushed intellect devourer corpse back into the skull and casting Regenerate on that isn't going to work :smalltongue:

That said, rule of cool and I'm sure there would be a bit of vestigal brain stem or something.

[Grimslade5]

I'd allow it, but I might add some sort of quirk to the warlock so there is some lasting consequences of death even temporary

[Decstarr]

1) the Intellect Devourer kills the person once it eats and replaces its brains.

If the Intellect Devourer indeed "kills" the target, why isn't it written in its description?



Body Thief. The intellect devourer initiates an Intelligence contest with an incapacitated humanoid within 5 feet of it. If it wins the contest, the intellect devourer magically consumes
the target’s brain, teleports into the target’s skull, and takes control of the target’s body. While inside a creature, the intellect devourer has total cover against attacks and other
effects originating outside its host. The intellect devourer retains its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, as well as its understanding of Deep Speech, its telepathy, and
its traits. It otherwise adopts the target’s statistics. It knows everything the creature knew, including spells and languages. If the host body drops to 0 hit points, the intellect devourer
must leave it. A protection from evil and good spell cast on the body drives the intellect devourer out. The intellect devourer is also forced out if the target regains its devoured brain by
means of a wish. By spending 5 feet of its movement, the intellect devourer can voluntarily leave the body, teleporting to the nearest unoccupied space within 5 feet of it. The body then
dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round.

I'd argue that it is more like a real-life brain dead situation than complete death because I feel like if instant death was intended, it would be worded that way. The way it is worded leaves the PCs with several options to restore the target, since the body should technically still be alive. You might of course read it in such a way that the "host body drops to 0 HP" is just written in to make sure the devourer can use the body as its tool. But I think if it was indeed "dead", the use of such a tool would be of a very limited timeframe since the body would pretty much instantly start to decay.


2) Might not anihilate all of the brain tissues, but it would make them unusable, so it's "destroyed" in a way.
If argue like that, a severed finger or foot would also be "unusable", wouldn't it? Until it is re-attached using Regenerate and grows back, it would be unusable, but it is not destroyed the way I interpret it since if it was, Regenerate would have no use at all.

The idea of giving the Warlock some quirk or maybe even a slim chance that some of the Intellect Devourer's stem remained in there and might cause issues in the future is awesome. I'll figure something out for this! Thanks guys!

[Unoriginal]

The body then dies, unless its brain is restored within 1 round.[/SPOILER]

Well, here's your answer.

[QUOTE=Decstarr;22146457]If argue like that, a severed finger or foot would also be "unusable", wouldn't it?

If you meant "Can the brain be regenerated ?", then the answer is "yes".




The idea of giving the Warlock some quirk or maybe even a slim chance that some of the Intellect Devourer's stem remained in there and might cause issues in the future is awesome. I'll figure something out for this! Thanks guys!

That's pretty much worse than leaving the guy dead, from a player standpoint. More often than not, at least.

You're permanently affecting the way this character behaves.

You can just say that trained Intellect Devourer don't eat the brain because their Illithid masters want to do it themselves.

Or, like the MM says: the Devourer is driven out of the body when the body reaches 0 HP, and then Regeneration is used to restor the brain.

[Hypersmith]

That's pretty much worse than leaving the guy dead, from a player standpoint. More often than not, at least.

You're permanently affecting the way this character behaves.

I don't think that's a bad thing, long as they aren't making huge changes. Besides, it makes sense and gives some nice consequences for a creative solution to avoid death, that might not have worked. Besides, don't players want their characters to grow and change over either course of the adventure? Like what's the point of playing if the character they make at the start does all this epic stuff with no consequences, and in the end is the exact same character they started with?

[dejarnjc]

[QUOTE=Decstarr;22146457]

That's pretty much worse than leaving the guy dead, from a player standpoint. More often than not, at least.

You're permanently affecting the way this character behaves.

Disagree, I love that kind of **** as a player. Greater opportunity to roleplay. Encourages a direction to take a character but doesn't take away player agency. Great stuff.

I also love cursed items that give players additional flaws though so maybe I'm biased.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think that's a bad thing, long as they aren't making huge changes. Besides, it makes sense and gives some nice consequences for a creative solution to avoid death, that might not have worked.

Dunno, the MM makes clear that restoring the brain after the Devourer left is a known possibility.


Besides, don't players want their characters to grow and change over either course of the adventure? Like what's the point of playing if the character they make at the start does all this epic stuff with no consequences, and in the end is the exact same character they started with?

In my experience, people might want character development, but few wants imposed changes of personality due to one incident.

My wizard in a campaign I've been playing for years is on the verge of a mental breakdown due to having to having to constantly battle two or three apocalypses at the same time, because I've decided it was logical it would take its toll on him. But I'd be rather peeved if the DM decided the wizard developed PTSD because a Beholder turned him into stone and then broke off his arm.

[Beaureguard]

[QUOTE=Unoriginal;22146502]

Disagree, I love that kind of **** as a player. Greater opportunity to roleplay. Encourages a direction to take a character but doesn't take away player agency. Great stuff.

I also love cursed items that give players additional flaws though so maybe I'm biased.

I'm with you. I love the ability to roleplay. I hate if the "quirk" becomes forced, or if I lose control over my character, but if I'm told my character now has a craving for human (or elven or whatever) brains, then I'm on board. I can roll with that. If it means the DM is going to FORCE decisions on me though, I'm a little pissed. It's like I lost my character.

It's even better if there's a mild benefit to go with it. Maybe the devourers no longer see my brain as being as good so they avoid me. Maybe I learn deep speech, detect sentience, or get some minor telepathic ability. If you're going to do something really bad but give me 60' of telepathy to balance it out, I'd happily roll with the perk/flaw. As a player if I was going to get all three of those things, I'd take a total alignment shift and start work as an advocate for the increased rights of the denizens of the underdark.

[Decstarr]

Since we're at it, can anyone offer some nice ideas for a blastlock suffering from post-brain-eaten-by-intellect-devourer-syndrome? I am kind of blank here right now :P

[Breashios]

...In my experience, people might want character development, but few wants imposed changes of personality due to one incident.

But this isn't an "incident". Looks to me like it is character death by RAW, unless someone had a wish available at the moment. If the player wants a choice, would he rather be dead (not really a big deal if there is resurrection available) or have a permanent quirk the DM describes?

[Hypersmith]

A craving for literal brains if he sees them. A serious thirst for knowledge, doesn't matter what kind, doesn't have to be useful. Getting perverse pleasure out of charming others or dominating people. I think it should be kept simple and small, a reminder of when he almost died.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Since we're at it, can anyone offer some nice ideas for a blastlock suffering from post-brain-eaten-by-intellect-devourer-syndrome? I am kind of blank here right now :P
Basically an indefinite madness. I'd probably make them roll it regardless here, if they came back to life. The last thing they could've possibly remembered is the equivalent of a mental black hole, then nothing. It would happen fast, but the last thing they would remember is their entire consciousness dying. This would be especially profound on a warlock under a Great Old One pact.

Speaking of, RAW, the only way to return to life from this is wish, true resurrection, reincarnate, or a cleric's Divine Intervention ability. The last two can be done before level 17 at least, but have caveats- reincarnate can screw with a player's build in ways they might not like (though some might actually love the change), and Divine Intervention is a crapshoot getting it to work pre-20. If you're trying to minimize harm done to the player here, you can hand wave the roll on the latter by saying the god in question was definitely listening and willing to help.

[Hypersmith]

But this isn't an "incident". Looks to me like it is character death by RAW, unless someone had a wish available at the moment. If the player wants a choice, would he rather be dead (not really a big deal if there is resurrection available) or have a permanent quirk the DM describes?

I mean of death isn't an incident idk what is

[Zalabim]

Speaking of, RAW, the only way to return to life from this is wish, true resurrection, reincarnate, or a cleric's Divine Intervention ability.
Jokes aside, I don't know of anything off the top of my head that would prevent standard Resurrection from working here too.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Jokes aside, I don't know of anything off the top of my head that would prevent standard Resurrection from working here too.
That's a nice joke.

I'd be all for giving the player a quirk because I can't see any reason that the player should have been able to be returned to life in that manner.
-The brain is listed as "magically consumed" which leaves it open to interpretation of whether or not any actual brain matter remains. For all we know it's a complex transmutation process that turns brain matter directly into energy via telepathic link.
-If the intellect devourer leaves the body, the body dies unless it's brain is restored within 1 minute
-Regeneration restores body parts after 2 minutes, not 1 minute.
-I'm assuming Resurrection wasn't used because they didn't have the material components.

When the option is being dead or having a new quirk to play around with, make sure to ask the player first. As much of a no brainer that might be for some people, others would rather be dead.

[imanidiot]

The intellect devourer's ability is logically inconsistent with the rest of the system. Why can't standard raising spells repair that damage but they can repair say decapitation? How "intact" does the body have to be? If I get shot through the eye with an arrow my body isn't "intact", that's what killed me. If I kill a Mage and eat his brain can he be raised?

Its a nonsense rule that I freely ignore in my games. If a DM imposed it on me I would just reroll a character exactly the same as the previous one. I'd even name it the same name.

[ATHATH]

Honestly, I'd just go with Rule of Cool on this one. Maybe change his type to Undead (but not make him a particular type of undead or something) or otherwise make him affected by dying partway through the process, but don't punish him for it.

[Armored Walrus]

OP, ya broke RAW as soon as you allowed the emergency trepanning via sword, so I know you're not looking for a RAW answer here. I think it was a reasonable call and rewarded the players for using the resources they had available in order to solve the problem.

Certainly wouldn't think some sort of long term side effect of it would be out of line, either. But if you didn't impose it right away then it might be problematic to introduce it later. Unless you talk to the player and let them have some input into it, or unless you make it subtle enough that it can affect them for awhile without them realizing it, and then making it clear what it is, and how to get rid of it, once they discover it.

[Dappershire]

I don't know why nobody has thought of this idea yet, but...

The PC is now an intellect devourer. A spy amongst his friends. Set to betray them when they need him most.

As DM, just speak privately with the player to see if that's an idea he is ok with. I think it likely that he would enjoy the idea. And even if he isn't sure about betraying the group (nobody likes PKing but the PKer), you can always rule that since it has all the same memories, its effectively him. It can learn to be the original PC eventually. And when the time comes to betray the group, maybe it will choose to betray its master instead.

[Temperjoke]

Intellect Devourers are made from an illithid prisoner's brain, right?

What if the quirk develops because a little bit of the intellect devourer was left inside, with the regenerate restoring part of the original brain prior to being turned into a devourer? So then, all you have to do for the quirk would be to add a different personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw from the character backgrounds. It doesn't mechanically directly interfere and is probably easier to act out than some of the indefinite madness options. If it starts to become a real problem for the group, him acting in this manner, then I would suggest a side-quest to have a more complete healing done, such as with a Greater Restoration.

[CursedRhubarb]

Perhaps the warlock has a change of taste after being revived. Rations and normal food no longer taste as good as they used too, but the thought of a brain makes their mouth water...