Food for Thought: Running the Thought Eater

[Palanan]

At long last, I’ve reached the point in my campaign where I can introduce a thought eater, one of my favorite creatures from Bestiary 5. But after re-reading the entry, I still have a couple of questions:

1. According to the text, the thought eater can’t consume a spell or mental stat unless the victim takes damage from a bite attack. But the damage from that attack is listed as 1d3-3, which seems to make it impossible to actually take any damage. Is this some odd Pathfinder convention? Is cancelled-out damage still enough to trigger the ability?

2. I’m also puzzled that the victim of the bite attack is able to choose which spell they lose, or if not a spellcaster, they can choose which mental stat is drained. Is there some mechanical reason why this should be the case? What’s the in-world logic for someone being bitten by a strange floating skeleton and deciding whether to become a little less intelligent or a little less intuitive? And is there any reason not to simply randomize this instead?

[Malroth]

Minimum damage from any attack is 1 even with a 1d3-3, that -3 is simply there to offset any later bonuses.

[Yanisa]

Minimum damage from any attack is 1 even with a 1d3-3, that -3 is simply there to offset any later bonuses.

In Pathfinder minimum damage (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Minimum-Damage) is 1 nonlethal damage.

Not that that changes a lot.

[Palanan]

Okay, I appreciate the clarification about minimum damage.

What about my second question, as to why it’s the character that chooses which spell or mental stat is drained? That seems very strange, both in-game and mechanically.

[Daefos]

It may help to think of it not as the in-game person being given the choice. The player is given the choice so that they don’t get completely hosed over by a CR 2 creature; the character, meanwhile, has no input.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Daefos
It may help to think of it not as the in-game person being given the choice. The player is given the choice so that they don’t get completely hosed over by a CR 2 creature; the character, meanwhile, has no input.

The text seems clear that it’s the character who does the choosing:

“A spellcaster chooses which spell or spell slot she loses from this ability.”

It goes on to describe the “victim” losing stat points. Since a player isn’t the one losing stat points, and isn’t the one casting spells, it seems clear the text is referring to the character in the game.

[Daefos]

The text seems clear that it’s the character who does the choosing:

“A spellcaster chooses which spell or spell slot she loses from this ability.”

It goes on to describe the “victim” losing stat points. Since a player isn’t the one losing stat points, and isn’t the one casting spells, it seems clear the text is referring to the character in the game.

Rules text do not always distinguish between the player and their character. For instance, let's take the example of the Sorcerer:

A sorcerer must pick one bloodline upon taking her first level of sorcerer.
Obviously, the Sorcerer character can't choose their bloodline. It was, by definition, decided for them when they were born. The Sorcerer player is the one who decides, but at no point is the word "player" or similar language ever used. It's always "the sorcerer". No distinction is made between the player and the character in the text.

The situation with the Thought Eater is similar. Like you said, it makes no sense for the in-universe character to get a vote on how their mind is violently assaulted. In that case, you refer back to the sorcerer example: when a completely literal reading of the text leads to characters able to make decisions that do not make sense in-universe, then you can usually assume that the text is referring to the player, even if that is not explicitly stated. Otherwise you're arguing that a first level sorcerer gets to retroactively decide their ancestors.