Is Durkon going to Regenerate his mom's arm?

[Draconi Redfir]

i always just kinda figured Sigdi just didn't want her arm back. That's as valid an excuse as any, probably more so.

[RatElemental]

i always just kinda figured Sigdi just didn't want her arm back. That's as valid an excuse as any, probably more so.

People usually do have reasons for wanting or not wanting things. Even if they don't know all the reasons.

[Listening Here]

I strongly suspect Elan would not advise Durkon to regenerate Sigdi’s arm before the final battle with Xykon. Storytelling logic dictates that if he did then Durkon would be tying up all personal loose ends clearing the way for a tragic final battle death. But if he waited then it’ll lend well to a strong happy ending montage.

[Jay R]

People usually do have reasons for wanting or not wanting things. Even if they don't know all the reasons.

Yes, of course. She doesn't want it back because she never let go. Down under tons of rock, she is still holding on.

[Peelee]

Yes, of course. She doesn't want it back because she never let go. Down under tons of rock, she is still holding on.

And she still would be. Regenerate doesn't dissolve the lost arm or teleport it back onto the torso. It just creates a new arm.

[Fyraltari]

And she still would be. Regenerate doesn't dissolve the lost arm or teleport it back onto the torso. It just creates a new arm.

Even if it would it would still be stupid not to regenerate her arm because of that.

[Angrith]

Even if it would it would still be stupid not to regenerate her arm because of that.

No, it would be illogical. People often think emotionally when loved ones are involved, not logically. From the strips we've seen with Sigdi, I could 100% believe that she doesn't want her arm back because that sacrifice is one of her connections to Tenrin. That said, I'm sure that eventually she'll let Durkon restore the arm. It just may or may not be before he has to leave to fight Xykon.

[Rrmcklin]

Yes, of course. She doesn't want it back because she never let go. Down under tons of rock, she is still holding on.

And once again I have to say: stop saying this is if it's her stated reason. It is not.

And she still would be. Regenerate doesn't dissolve the lost arm or teleport it back onto the torso. It just creates a new arm.

And more than that, she knows perfectly well he's living it up (in a manner of speaking) in Valhalla, which is why she probably wouldn't have brought him back even the Dinner Party Five hadn't of died.

I get that things like this are sentimental/not totally logical, but Sigdi's actually stated thoughts on the situation just don't mesh with the "she doesn't want to let go, and getting a new arm would be doing that" theory.

[zimmerwald1915]

And once again I have to say: stop saying this is if it's her stated reason. It is not.

That it isn't her stated reason makes it more likely. What is the drama in being open and honest with people?

[Draconi Redfir]

I feel like "Not wanting her arm back" is plenty reason enough to not want her arm back.

She doesn't want it back because she's good. doesn't need it. She's moved on without it. Forcing a new arm on her would be incredibly rude. that's all you really need.

[Anymage]

On a re-read of 1129, "I ne'er let go" is what Sigdi said when it was implied that she let go of Tenron. When the issue of her arm was raised, she said it was an issue of her happiness vs. the lives and souls of other dwarves. The arm's narrative point could easily be another thing that the money could have been spent on, to highlight the sort of dwarf that Sigdi is.

I'm guessing that Durkon will pick a combat useful seventh level spell today. (Destruction is coincidentally a seventh level spell. However, unless Rich bends the rules for irony's sake, it doesn't affect undead.) The stakes are high, and Sigdi can handle one more day just fine. But once the threat is concluded and the dwarves vote not to destroy the world, two things will happen. First, in universe, the odds that Durkon will absolutely need all his spell slots the next day will plummet. Spending a seventh level slot on something his mom admits would make her happy has a much lower opportunity cost. And second, narratively speaking, the plot for this book will be in wind down mode. Having his exile ended and being able to tangibly help his mom out like that are exactly the sorts of things that Durkon would do at the end of his growth arc.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm guessing that Durkon will pick a combat useful seventh level spell today. (Destruction is coincidentally a seventh level spell. However, unless Rich bends the rules for irony's sake, it doesn't affect undead.)

Undead are immune to effects that require fort saves, but the spell specifies 10d6 damage even if the Fort save is made. Do they get immunity to the whole spell or just the instant-death effect?

[Jasdoif]

Undead are immune to effects that require fort saves, but the spell specifies 10d6 damage even if the Fort save is made. Do they get immunity to the whole spell or just the instant-death effect?

Destruction doesn't affect objects, so undead are immune to the spell entirely.

[Lacuna Caster]

Destruction doesn't affect objects, so undead are immune to the spell entirely.

But that's the question. Does this non-object-effect immunity extend to the entire spell, or just the instant-death effect?

[Jasdoif]

But that's the question. Does this non-object-effect immunity extend to the entire spell, or just the instant-death effect?

Pretty sure I meant "immune to the spell entirely" when I said "immune to the spell entirely".

[Lacuna Caster]

Pretty sure I meant "immune to the spell entirely" when I said "immune to the spell entirely".

Okay, but what's your reasoning there? Is this spelt out explicitly somewhere in the DMG or designer commentaries or what?

[Jasdoif]

Okay, but what's your reasoning there? Is this spelt out explicitly somewhere in the DMG or designer commentaries or what?

The trait itself is pretty clear.

Traits
....

• Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

....

Destruction is an effect that requires a Fortitude save and does not affect objects nor is it harmless, so undead are immune to the effect...including that part of the effect that's conditional on failing the save.

[Lacuna Caster]

The trait itself is pretty clear.
Destruction is an effect that requires a Fortitude save and does not affect objects nor is it harmless, so undead are immune to the effect...including that part of the effect that's conditional on failing the save.

But that's the ambiguity. The destruction spell can be argued to have two different effects, and only one of them is dependent on the results of a fort save.

I mean, if this is the convention in general play, I'm happy enough to go along with that, but the wording itself isn't 100% clear to me.

[Jasdoif]

But that's the ambiguity. The destruction spell can be argued to have two different effects, and only one of them is dependent on the results of a fort save.

I mean, if this is the convention in general play, I'm happy enough to go along with that, but the wording itself isn't 100% clear to me.

The spell itself is the effect that requires a Fortitude save. ("Effect" is a pretty generic term; covering the mechanical results of spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities....) You can certainly argue that passing the save and failing the save have different results...both of which are dependent on the effect undead are immune to.

[Kish]

Also, this:

The destruction spell can be argued to have two different effects, and only one of them is dependent on the results of a fort save.

is incorrect. There's a result for passing the Fortitude save; there's a result for failing the Fortitude save. There is no result that doesn't involve rolling the save first.