The rules text is "The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds"... (for example, the allip's wisdom drain explicitly does not produce a wound),
Still a pointless language debate. Look, for arguments sake take your head out of your ass. Wound can literally mean an injury to someone's feelings so you're a moron. The Allip's Wisdom Dragon is an attack just as Ability Score Loss classify it as an attack that capable of critical hit on a natural 20 that further can negated by Fortification. It's not my fault you can't wrap your head around the Incorporeal concept or the entire field of medicine and want to language in a language debate that lowers the IQ of everyone around you.
Your response to me was bizarre and had no bearing on anything. I'm going to be generous and give you a fresh chance to engage with me on this issue.
Sure.
It seems to me that the crux of this issue is determining what "incurable or bleeding wounds" are.
Indeed.
You put forth it is an effect that prevents the creature from healing back to the full number of hit points it is entitled to.
Problem, "entitled to" is ambiguous. Do you mean a creature's maximum HP which is based on his current constitution score? No, your hypothesis is the Terrasqua is immune to to any effect that would alter his constitution score so near as I can guess this is to be defined as default creature entry states for maximum HP.I simply put forth "wound" is an extremely open term best outlined by the following explanations contained in the examples.
At this step, I have not assumed one thing or another. Only observe ambiguity and asked for clarification.The Examples.1. Mummy Rot
You put forth it alters your Con, thus max HP vs the entry's HP.
The scientific method is about trying to prove your hypothesis wrong, not looking for support, but whatever.I earlier made no direct assumptions on this. Only observations. Mummy Rot deals con damage, can insta kill, it's a disease, it can only be cured by a spell, something like this is not part of normal regeneration, etc. These are all facts.
What I did mention was it is possible to interpret this to negate a lot of stuff based on the fact this extraordinary ability can negate a magical curse effect. But let's really go into this. My assumed interpretation of your "entitled to" means any maximum hp change is invalidated. I choose to exemplify Flesh-To-Stone. As a lifeless statue the HP of the object is calculated based on material and thickness. There is an extremely tiny chance this statue's maximum HP exactly equal's the terrasuqa's maximum hp entry. By your standards it negates several Transmutation effects such as Flesh-To-Ice/Stone and Polymorph.2. Wounding
Your point is it deals Con damage, alters max hp like Mummy Rot and so it's negated.
Mine was Ability Damage is neither bleeding (which D&D defines as ongoing damage) or incurable (you naturally heal 1pt/day). I also asked why the uncurable Drain ignored at this point.
Your current definition forces you to admit at the very least Con Drain is negated.3. Curse Wound
Your point is it prevents you from reobtaining HP preventing your current HP from ever equally your "entitled to" maximum.
So was mine, but I addressed the fact this would extend to Thirst, Hunger, Vile, and Suffocation. All of which are typically un-healable effects.
Your current definition agrees.So, all the examples fit with the proposed meaning. That makes this a wholly viable interpretation.
Except for the whole Flesh to Stone part right? Do you see how easy it is to create a hypothesis that does incorporate unintended effects now? Now, wait for it...
I'd say what you have here is a reading of the rules which is RAW, but is unlikely to be accepted outside of theoretical optimization because there is an alternative reading that is also RAW, and is more likely to be RAI.
RAW/RAI, nothing can kill a Terrasqua but Wish. Flesh to Stone followed by a vigorous usage of a hammer should actually fail by
some means so does it really feel out of place now that you think about it?
Now, I choose Flesh to Stone to be my primary antagonist rather than Ability Drain. Not so we can sit around debating what those some means are (dear god please don't). But I choose it to purposely side step the established Ability Drain point you seem to be arguing to try and give you a better neutral stance as you read into this. The only three real points I've brought up and cared to enforce is interpretation, why is Ability Drain allowed, and the Big-T is immune to HP loss from Suffocation.
The latter as you can see is an extremely strong point, so much honestly no one has posted a rebuttal for it. Ability Drain is an observation, Wounding is not an incurable wound, Drain is. This is being refuted based on the strawman incorpereality is in capable of causing wounds dispute the fact I am addressing Ability Drain
it's self. screw the Allip strawman maybe I'm talking Touch of the Graveborn can be delivered as a corporeal bite attack, it deals slashing/piercing bite damage plus 10d6 negative energy plus 1d6 str drain. *ahem* Even you have to back off for a moment to present a real rational reason why
Wisdom Drain might be excluded, even if you simultaneously build accreditation that
Consultation Drain would be negated. A middleman choice rather than total opposition like a few others have tried. And then there is Mummy Rot, which in a way has tricked you into creating a definition that could use a little editing. Which highlights the possibilities of open interpretation now don't it?
