D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3.5: SoD vs. Regeneration?

[Pergentile]

Try this one with your DM:

By his understanding of the rules, A Finger of Death spell deals just enough lethal damage to render the target dead.

So a Sleep spell obviously deals just enough nonlethal damage to render the target(s) unconscious. Because everything must be measured in damage. Right?

So let's expand the applications of this way of thinking:

By the same reasoning, an effect that Sickens the target obviously deals 4 points of damage to all ability scores (since it applies a -2 penalty to all ability checks). With me so far?

Now play a focused Conjurer, take the Cloudy Conjuration feat and go to town with your no-save 4 damage to all abilities on every Conjuration spell you cast!

I loled.

 

[Tharkon]

The DM's the one to ultimately decide but Regeneration does not normally affect Death effects or any other any other effect that is not lethal damage.

Read the specific text of the Tarrasque's Regeneration ability and compare it to the Troll's. Seeing as they are differently described they must be different, no?

Making the troll undead would make it immune to death effects, but also makes it lose it's regeneration ability.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

He often tends to read into things where nothing is written. Says certain things are confusing and that the writers were unclear, even though the answer is perfectly clear if you just focus on the actual phrasing. That if it doesn't say something specifically, it can be implied to mean that you can assume it means something that it doesn't say.

I've discovered recently that there is a very common type of rules lawyer who not only misinterprets everything they read, but in every case chooses the most staggeringly nonsensical interpretation of the rules possible. The more I deal with people like this, the less and less enamored I find myself of games that have a lot of rules to pervert in this fashion.

 

[irdeggman]

or end up with tons of house rules spawned by the initial action/interpretation.

 

[Tharkon]

Also, I don't like to assume things, yet I have never really had a problem with D&D, so that implies that the rules are pretty much specified.

But just in case they are not I always go by Use Common Sense and The DM Decides.

Like most creature's entries don't state when they flee, yet using common sense I can assume a wolf with 1 hit point flees, or at least retreats to such extend that it is protected by it's pack since it does not want to die, unless the DM says it does not for whatever reason. Depending on the DM I might not even comment on this, he probably has his reasons whatever they are, maybe the wolf was commanded or it is secretly a werewolf.

But if the DM tries to use the rulebook as a reason and the rulebook does not state what he says, then he is wrong, and either has to follow the rulebook or decide that the rulebook does not apply to this situation.

 

[FEADIN]

My DM is saying that SoD (Save or Die) spells, (Phasmasmal Killer being the spell in question.) still deal "damage," just doing enough damage to reduce hit points to -10, and are thus turned into non-lethal damage by regenerators (trolls being the example encountered.) So unless an SoD can be shown to deal CON damage instead of HP damage, it won't kill a troll.

How can I refute him? Or is he right?

On his next birthday buy him glasses.

 

[Greenfield]

First, I'll make the general disclaimer that when it comes to rules interpretations at the game table, the DM is never wrong. If this is how he interprets the rules for his game, then those are the rules. I've seen DMs make decisions and rulings I didn't like. I've never seen a DM be wrong.

Now that that's been said, let's look at specifics. Is the DM amenable to reason? That is, does he realize that his interpretation is, shall we say, a bit creative? That it contradicts the written rules?

If he already knows that he's creating a house rule, rather than reading the RAW creatively, then the discussion is done. Either play by his rules, or find a new game.

If he doesn't realize that he's off the charts and into the "here be monsters" territory, then show him the precise example from the book and give him a chance to reconsider his interpretation. At that point he will either change course, or decide to make his reading a house rule. If that happens, then see previous paragraph.

 

[airwalkrr]

OP, I would ask your DM a very simple question before you bring up any of the FAQs and such. Technically, your DM is quite wrong. But that may not be the point from his perspective. Right or wrong about the RAW, he may not care. Ask this: Do you believe a creature with regeneration cannot be killed by a phantasmal killer spell because you believe phantasmal killer is too powerful or do you believe a creature with regeneration cannot be killed by a phantasmal killer spell because you believe in following the rules and believe that is what the rules say?

If your DM answers the former, then there is no point discussing this with him. I have a feeling it's more of the former and less of the latter though in any case. If your DM answers the latter, then ask him if he is interested in hearing a cogent argument in your favor. He might not be. He is the DM after all and it is his game. But if he isn't, just make him aware of the fact that you expect him to be consistent in his ruling. Also explain to him that you disagree, but will respect his judgment as long as it is his game.

Many DMs have a knee-jerk reaction to save-or-die spells because they already feel spellcasters are unbalancing to the game. If this is the case, just to avoid any future "surprises," it might be a good idea to try to proactively determine how spells will work in interesting cases like this. Chances are that if he doesn't think phantasmal killer can kill a creature with regeneration, he doesn't think finger of death or disintegrate can, or even magic missile for that matter. Feel free to ask him about as many cases as you can think of before choosing a spell simply so that you know what to expect. If he doesn't want to give you an answer (i.e. he is "that" kind of DM), then just accept that you are playing with a DM who has mercurial temperament and a tendency to make arbitrary rulings.

There are a lot of DMs out there who really don't care what the rules say or why because they have a particular point of view on how things "should" be. I encountered such a DM at a convention this past weekend, who, even after being shown in the 4e PH where it quite clearly said a creature without cover or concealment cannot use Stealth to hide, insisted that the rules were poorly worded and that his creature (which did not have cover or concealment) was hidden to my character since my Perception didn't beat the creature's Stealth check. I didn't press the point for long because I realized he simply wasn't going to change his mind because he didn't care about what the rules said so much as what he thought the rules ought to say. And that's fine. My character didn't die and we (the players) won anyway. We still had fun and that is what matters.

 

[krupintupple]

I know that. The trouble is convincing my DM that phantasmal killer doesn't deal hp damage unless the fort save is successful. He often tends to read into things where nothing is written. Says certain things are confusing and that the writers were unclear, even though the answer is perfectly clear if you just focus on the actual phrasing. That if it doesn't say something specifically, it can be implied to mean that you can assume it means something that it doesn't say.

He seems like a really smart individual, so next time you play, say "So, the authors were kinda unclear: nowhere in the PHB does it say I shouldn't add my Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis and Cha bonuses to my armour class, damage, saves and attack rolls. I'm just going to go ahead and assume that this was how it was intended to be and do just that. High fantasy and all that, no?"

 

[Karei]

Most of this is not really on topic, which I suppose is my fault for complaining to perfect strangers about issues that I really should bring up with my DM so we can discuss and work it out.


Anyway, he is not unreasonable, just in my opinion, sometimes a little off center. If I show him an "official" word on the matter he will accept it, either a solid book source, or Word of God from the producers. If he decides to house rule something, (he doesn't usually) I don't complain, but I just would prefer that he recognize that he is house ruling it when he does that.