Having played across a variety of editions in D&D I have to say that this is probably the best MM I have seen put out in terms of art, story on how to use the monsters, and simplicity on actualy monster mechanics for DM use.
That said ...
While there is a wealth of things in here to challenge low and mid range players, nearly every single high CR threat falls flat on its face.
http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_MonstersCR.pdf provided by WotC helps organize the book by CR as a helpful guide. So lets look at the last few categories for signature examples ...
CR 20 ~ Demilich with cool powers that will mess up a low level party
- Problem? = Hitpoints.
- 80 HP ... already in Lost Mines of Phandelver, and Horde of the Dragon Queen we see player parties hitting that level of damage easily at low levels in a SINGLE round long before they are ever supposed to be exposed to a threat like this. If this creature looses intiative to something as simple as a mid level fighter with a magic bow that action surges ... game over.
CR 24 ~ Ancient Red Dragon ... the signature game monster almost
- Problem? = weak sauce damage
- A bit of a throwback to 4E solos where the damage output fails to match the CR rating. In the beginning of the game equal CR creatures to a player level could one shot a player in a round making combat tense and dangerous. By the higher CRs ... a monster will need multiple rounds to kill a naked player who is ignoring it and reading a book. The dragon with its main attack routine if all three attacks hit is about 50 damage maybe with another 40 off turn from legendary actions ... OR ... 90 damage on a breath. But players are easily walking around with well over 100+ HP by the time they get anywhere near that CR level. In the two or three turns it will take the dragon to focus fire a single player down you can bet the party has already made a nice pair of red scale boots out of it or simply healed away all the dragons damage. It might be a long fight as the beast flies around but its not a scary fight.
CR 30 ~ Tarrasque the legendary godzilla returns
- Problem? = Lost its signature regenration and abiltiy to deal with anything out of melee range
- This version has zero ability to deal with any threat that is out of the reach of its teeny tiny T rex arms, and with no regeneration its can be murderficated by anything that can do range damage consitently. Such as a level 5 mage with a fly spell and empowered cantrip acid splash that can solo this in about 10 minutes after it appears anywhere in the game world. Its a bit of a narritve problem when the highest CR monster by far has stories that go "know that fearsome beast of legend that we assembled a legendary team of heroes to beat it? Yeah the local hedge mage got bored and ganked it as the king was still doing a monologue to ask the heroes for help ... "
Whats the take away ... ?
Dont let your players get anywhere near high CR creatures or the murder hobos will crack them open and drink their XP and level multiple times off these fights unless you start adjusting them.
The Dragon fear on the Dragon will be the big thing to debuff the PCs if they are not prepared.
Shadewyn wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Let me just say that I've stayed up three hours past my usual bedtime just reading the MM. Haven't done that since High School reading 1st edition material. So many adventure hooks, adventure ideas, fluff that I my mind is reeling with possibilities. All around fantastic book. I especially enjoy the legendary and regional effects.
As for challenging combat, I'm not too worried. I think the above posters have made good cases why it won't be much of an issue.
I'd also note that the demilich in particular is a high-level spellcaster from memory, which makes it one of the most dangerous things in the setting.
thespaceinvader wrote:
Demilich also gets a drop to zero hp/Fear on save effect on a recharge. If someone beats the Demilich on initiative even better, he can Legendary Vile Curse someone to give them disadvantage against the Howl. Life Drain also effectively gets it double the HP given its resists.
Oh and antimagic field ~1 in 6 rounds from the Lair, which if cast on himself makes the Demilich invulnerable (except possibly to Monk's fists as they only hit *as* magic weapons without necessarily *being* magical).
DerelictDroid wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
can't the Tarrasque just grab a tavern and throw it at that pesky wizard?
sometimes I think we get so stuck on stats, that we forget obvious things...
As an AD&D 2e player I think the fluff in the MM is sub par. It's a great improvement over the last two editions, but it falls short of 2e. Overall, I'm not finding this monster manual to be as fun of a read as my 2e MM. IMO, in order for it to be great mimic innards would be a delicacy. I also find that the text trying hard to force a particular concept on me or it's not saying much of anything at all.
As for the monsters being underpowered, I agree that some monsters need to be corrected. The greatest disapointment is the The Pit Fiend. He is just a high damage dealing meat bag and nothing more. No longer can he cast spells like Wish, detect invisibility, hold person, improved invisibility, polymorph self, produce flame, pyrotechnics, advanced illusion, animate dead, charm person, infravision, know alignment (always active], suggestion, and teleport without error. He has a teleport power, but it's been nerfed and limited to a combat function.
I was hoping for an optional side bar that re-introduced the classic demon and devil powers, but there was nothing of the sort. It was nice to see an option for dragon spell casters, but the demons and devils got nothing.
It would also have been nice to see a knowledge check block. That's one thing from the 4e MM that I didn't mind.
Don't get me wrong, the MM is still a great improvment over what we got from 3e and 4e. I think the vampire and the mummy was done rather well. I'm even happy that the Shadow drains strength.
btw, did anyone notice that Lolth is listed as a god in the PHB, but listed as a Demon lord in the MM?
FFSAA wrote:
These concerns are unfounded, really.
The demilich is nigh invincible, can drain about 60 hit points per turn if he's got enough people in range, and can send everyone within 30' to death save territory on a failed save. That's not to mention the Acererak option for Trap the Soul on a Charisma save.
The ancient red can cast antimagic on itself and proceed to melee the party with impunity. Failing that, it can bite for nearly 100 damage on a crit, and it can put about 450 points of damage on a party of five, which is a hell of a resource strain. Wing attack prone DC is 25, so good luck cornering it. All in all, the ancient red is probably one of the most fearsome monsters in the book if played with a modicum of intention.
And the tarrasque... don't get me started. +19 to hit means he hits pretty much every time, which means he can swallow a target in less than a round. Once you're in there, you're blidned and restrained - good luck getting out. His innards are still AC 25 and you have to deal 60 damage in a single turn. He'll eat a party in 30 seconds, or have them running in fear in 6. Take your pick.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Guys, you guys, I just realized that if you catch a lich while he's asleep, you can just Forcecage him and steal all of his treasure! ZOMG! Or you can auto crit a Drow that's asleep in its favorite white room, effectively killing it before it even acts!
Seriously, though, encounters are as hard or as easy as you (or your players!) make them.
A lot of the big bads can wipe out non-fighters pretty quickly. But big, tanky fighters with their sack o' HP's can wade through most anything. In some cases, this might mean they're constantly "the last man standing." Agree high CR's can be tough if they're fighting solo. Minions, lair effects, tactics, traps, etc., will be key to the challenge (though one would think a single Tarrasque is enough? it used to be...). A Dragon in flight is a TERRIBLE foe. TERRIBLE. Carpet bombing. Fear Monger. I'd worry...
dmgorgon wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
cranebump wrote:
CCS wrote:
This reinforces to me that we need to see alot more high-level playtesting to know for sure, and there hasn't been enough of that yet from that I can tell.
Also, I echo the comment that it was weird to see Devils/Demons with so few of their classic at-will magics, but I understand why the devs did it, and as a DM I'll probably appreciate it, even if it does dial down the 'cool' factor of these monsters for me. And of course easy to houserule.
Shadewyn wrote:
eleran wrote:
Delazar78 wrote:
In My opinion, the Tararasque, being a CR 30 monster, and by far the highest level threat we've seen...is designed to be a capstone of a long adventure going from 1-20 (and i'd hazard a ways at lvl 20 as well). I don't think a DM who crafts such a long campaign would be considered "inexperienced", and I'd think that said DM would know very intimately what his party is capabable of, and so also know how to craft such encounters in such a way to challenge/counter them.
Just my 2 cents. Not every monster in the monster manual (especially the legendary 'end game' monsters), needs to cater to "new DM running his first combat". By this point, and with the fluff i've read so far in 5e, it is abundantly clear that thinking out side the box (in this case, the stat block), and coming up with creative actions (such as throwing a house), is encouraged.
Also, I do agree that 5e criticism's should be allowed and encouraged, as it builds a healthier game. I think what I (and a few others here) is saying is that there are solutions outside the stat block, such as encounter design (other monsters supporting, lair design, etc), that can help mitigate some of these concerns.
Regards,
Pinwarp.
Shadewyn wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Personally I'd like to see an average combat party encounter played out a few times to get a feel for how the monster design is really working. The assumption would be average PCs(not hugely optimized) with a decent level of magic items, with some resources already expended(HP, spell slots) with a small amount of prep(wiz/cleric already have their concentration spells up), without the use of certain spells that are probably OP(force cage, contagion, druid cheese infinate HP shifts). The monster should also be somewhat smart in target choices, although the monster shouldn't play like an optimized psychic.
Then have them fight it out vs a single legendary, a single legendary in their lair and a full legenday + minions + lair encounter.
Dracones wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Timborama wrote:
eleran wrote:
RE: the tarrasque and the ease with which it can be "plinked" to death from afar ... who's to say it hasn't got some allies that can fly to its defense? Why must it be all by itself? Maybe there's a dragon or two hoping to cash in on the tarrasque's appearance. Maybe there are some crazed cultists who have woken the tarrasque and therefore want to see it succeed in its mission of destruction - and maybe some of them can fly up and engage the cowardly PCs in airborne melee. Maybe the tarrasque's appearance is part of some Armaggedon scenario, involving earthquakes and volcanoes and meteor strikes - meteors that could conveniently fall right where the PCs are hovering.
Shadewyn wrote:
pukunui wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Tonight, I and a couple of friends ran a Ftr17 (Battlemaster) and Ftr11(Champ)/Barb6 against some encounters.
First against a Marinith (CR16 Demon). They wasted it. The battlemaster kept it feared for most of the combat using Menacing Attack (I couldn't find any rules saying you can't keep applying menacing attack?). This fight went on for quite some time due to damage resistances and no magic weapons with the party, however they were never in any real danger.
The second fight was the Adult Red Dragon (CR17 - Legendary). They had a bit more trouble but dispatched it:
Some points:
- I wasn't using lair actions, and I wasn't flying the Dragon around constantly. This probably lowered the difficulty of the encounter.
- The Ftr17 took A LOT of damage, but also dished out an insane amount of damage (94 in one round).
- The Dragon's AC makes it pretty easy to hit.
- Dragon averaged about 60-70 damage per round including legendary actions.
- The Ftr17 FEARED the dragon using Menacing Attack (had to use a legendary save), and the dragon did NOT fear him.
- The Ftr11/Barb6 didn't take much damage at all from the Dragon, mostly from its breath weapon. Immune to Fear.
- The fight ended with Ftr17 on 59/225HP having used all his battle dice, second wind, and action surges, and the Ftr/Barb on 130/180ish having used most of his resources as well.
- They wouldn't be in any shape to take on any futher encounters for the day, so probably about right for a CR17 encounter (slightly lower).
- I also do realise I could have been significantly more annoying by having the dragon fly around and try to waste the barbarians rage etc, waiting for breath recharges, but they're not actually THAT intelligent, and I wanted to see how they went in a straight up fight.
The third fight was against a couple of beholders (CR13 each), which wasted them.
DaveDash wrote:
So what DaveDash is trying to say, is that Owls are smarter than dragons.
Because one of those two swoop in from above and grasp their prey before it can escape, and so it can't fight back. And the other sits there like an idiot while its prey goes to town on it 
(the owls are not what they seem!)
dmgorgon wrote:
Timborama wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Dracones wrote:
eleran wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Personally i like using magic jar against the terrasque.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Timborama wrote:
DerelictDroid wrote:
Timborama wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
My take:
Art is too big/takes up too much space; as for the actual crunch of the monsters, I find I prefer some of the playtest versions (the playtest pit fiend is much more interesting); and I prefer my own conversions of some monsters (yugoloths, modrons, deva, salmanders, mephits).
Also some missing info (physical descriptions).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
DavidArgall wrote:
I'd also point out that T as described in the new MM is 50' tall and 70' long. Has 15' reach. The white-room flying, cantrip-using 5th level wizard is going to take a few claws to the face...or maybe just one.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Ahh gotcha. I was having flashbacks to playing a Necromancer in Everquest 1 where you'd fear a monster, run behind it and whack it to death while it was running away doing nothing back.
But that still sounds like a lot of bad rolls. 6-7 attacks per round at +9 to hit even disadvantaged should've burned off some HP from the PCs. And too bad they were Str prof classes otherwise the tail grapple would've negated it. It sort of just sounds like it was the right party makeup and bad dice rolls on the monster.
DerelictDroid wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
@Shadewyn.
I think Acid splash does no damage on a save. Better off casting Enchanted Weapon on a couple of sharpshooting dex based Fighters with a longbow (or fly them). *Might* be able to kill the big T before it gets to them.
I get your overall point though, that yes, the Big T doesn't feel like CR30 to me, and isn't that well equipped to deal with ranged threats. It's kind of like they built the guy and then just slapped the same CR on him as in previous editions, yet he is without a doubt lacking some previous edition defences.
Mistwell wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
What??
Are you seriously arguing that a line in the book about jumping that says you can extend your arms above your body by an amount equal to half your height means you can reach your hands up, than add your melee reach in top of that?
That means a 10 ft tall Ogre can melee attack things 20 ft above him despite only having a 5 ft reach, without even jumping.
Lol, you sure are a funny one. Not only are you wrong about your initial premise (melee reach is a specific thing, which is not the reach beig talked about in jumping). Your second premise is also wrong (that you add your melee reach on top of how far you extend your arms during a jump). And your conclusion is very wrong.
Even if we believe that the tarrasque can jump 13 ft and reach attack a further 25 ft above his head (despite having a 15 ft reach) that only gets you 38 ft above his head. Since basically all cantrips have a 60+ ft range, a flying spellcaster is easily within range of Big-T while still out of its reach.
Lawolf wrote:
I think my ruling would be that you either get to reach your hands over your head or you get your combat reach.
No double reach shenanigans.
And just because you can stretch your arms and reach up there, doesn't mean you can attack. Good luck attacking with a maul for example if you're running around with your arms stretched out to maximum length in front of you.
The combat rules are pretty clear. You control a square of NxN squares (or feet), and your combat reach can extend N more squares (or feet) beyond that, specified by the reach entry. The T can also jump a maximum height of 13ft, with a 10ft runup.
Attacking on the Z axis includes the 4 squares it controls (20ft on the Z axis), plus 10ft increase for the jump (rounded down if you use a grid), plus it's reach of 15ft.
20 + 10 + 15 = 45ft, or 48ft without a grid.*
It can't reach the Wizard.
*(or 5ft more if it's actually 5 squares, don't have the MM on me right now).
DaveDash wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
If Acid Splash has a range of 60ft the Wizard will be ~60ft above the Tarrasque when attacking.
So the 50ft high (on all 4s) Big T crouches a little under the bombardment (to 40ft height?) and readies an action to stand up on two legs (to 75ft), jump (+13ft), and attack (+15ft reach) when the wizard swoops down to attack.
When attacking a crouching Big T the wizard will be 100ft in the air. Big T stands (75ft), jumps (88ft) and attacks (103ft).
Of course a Sorcerer could Distant Spell, but he wouldn't have enough metamagic points to take down the Tarrasque with acid splash.
Anyway, it's a pointless discussion as the Tarrasque will still be able to make improvised attacks, like any other creature or PC in the history of TTRPGs. That'll include throwing horses at flying irritants.
Ive always found the Tarrasque to be very cool in concept of a monster but always a little poor in execution for what it's supposed to be.
The "art" of making this big bad an effective nightmare at the table is the DM's ability to narrate what it is and what it's capable of doing, which is more or less... "Godzilla"
I see two encounters I would want to run with this thing, the first is encountering it in some cave and having the party be the idots who accidentally wake this thing up. "Run, slow it down, or stay and die" the second encouter would be it surfacing right in the middle of some greater city, and potentially knocking down structures that are bigger than it is, just causing a huuuuuge mess and massive casualties while the PC's attempt to put it to rest/slumber/kill it.
The problem I have with it in this edition, is just how quick it can be encountered and taken out by a token party of 4 level 20's with no magic items. "Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard."
The Demi Lich and Ancient Red...are MUCH MUCH more nasty and as a DM very easy to tip the curve on as far as making a threatening/deadly encounter. The Lair Actions on both of those monsters can cause a lot of trouble.
The Tarrasque is the ultimate turtle, unlike Godzilla he cant punch a giant boulder Rodan threw at him like a vollyball and have it smash back into Rodan's face.
Or breathe a radioactive cloud!
The thing that irks me from a narrative standpoint is the Tarrasque really has no allies either. Big Red and the Demi Lich fluff both mention having pals nearby. Big T is a loner at heart.
1eejit wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
1eejit wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
WARNING: The follow gameplay footage may be to graphic for some sensitive DMs
Tonights tale of high adventure and epic heroism centers on the following cast at level 20 facing their greatest challenge ever ... the legendary Tarrasque!
- DM ~ No one knows their real name, many suspect DM is their initials.
- Player Red Beard ~ Dwarf fighter so drunk on ale that they forgot to pick a subclass and currently dual wields two beer mugs as improvised weapons
- Player White Robe ~ Halfling cleric of Life that has vowed never to do damage to any creature
- Player Grey Fingers ~ Elf Theif with a noble background that beleives that actual combat is beneath them much less mucking about doing sneak attacks
- Player Black Wand ~ Human Wizard who bends the very power of the universe to his will mainly to compensate for his follow travellers failings.
Play begins ...
DM: "... and so after ages of slumber the Tarrasque shakes itself loose from its earthen tomb and slouchs toward your home town of MetropolisTokyoNewYork. What do you do?"
Red Beard ~ "I fill up my tankards of ale, cause I think filled beer mugs should do more improvised weapon damage than empty ones"
Grey Fingers ~ "I kick the local tavern musician out of my lap while stealing their instument and declare that this travestry shall not stand!"
White Robe ~ " I hand the poor musician gold coins to compensate for Grey Fingers theft and then offer them a free sermon literature on the benefits of choosing the path of Life"
Black Wand ~ "Really ... seriously, this is what you do? Fine ... I cast FLY at a higher spell slot level to effect my entire group and then cast TELEPORT to bring us out of the tavern over the city wall where the beast approaches"
DM ~ " You arrive in time to see the foul beast tie on a pair of magical high top shoes designed to douple its jump height! You didnt think I would make this easy did you? Lets roll for initiative!"
Grey Fingers ~ "I go first, so I whip out that mandolin I stole from the tavern and with my RELIABLE TALENT class feature I proceed to bust out a passable rendition of 'Blurred Lines' song for the next 4 minutes and 23 seconds!"
Red Beard ~ "Oh hells no! I love that sick beats. I drop my tankards of ale and loosen up my beard braids and proceed to rock out mid air. Whipping my beard hair back and forth in the ancient dwarven mosh pit style of beard banging. Its sorta like head banging for human Metallica fans, and is one of the few cultural things we dinna mind borrowing from the humans"
DM ~ "Okay ... well, the beast doesnt perceive you as a threat just yet I guess. It punches a building down and tosses a few screaming villagers into its mouth."
White Robe ~ "Loss of life will not stand! By the power of my goddess Cyrus of the subcult Miley, I call down from the heavens the wrath of the faithfull and demand that this beast cease its violence and TWERK. In fact I burn ever spell slot I have and chain cast that comand spell 22 times."
DM ~ "Well thats DC = 19 and the creature has a +0 will save ... so it spends the better part of the next two and a half minutes stopped dead in place with its toungue hanging out the side of its mouth and tail in the air, although it does break off the top of a bell tower to use as a foam finger substitute"
Black Wand ~ "Unlike some people I took a subclass, so I POTENT CANTRIP the spell ACID SPLASH for an average of 14 damage per cast. So at 12 damage after figureing in a few lucky saves, round how long till its dead?"
DM ~ " 10 minutes, which means your home and the town is set to ruin while you fly like cowards out of its reach. The king looses favor with you, the princess divorces you out of shame and ..."
Black Wand ~ "FINE ... geez dont be so emo ... Okay I actually use non cantrips and cast POLYMORPH a dozen times. It ignores the first three, gets lucky on a few saves but the 90% failure rate catches up eventually. I turn it into a gerbil, stuff it into Red Beard for safe keeping and then teleport us all out to a wasteland where we can kill it in peace with cantrips and it cant hurt anyone for 10 minutes."
DM ~ "And that concludes another exciting tale of high adventure and epic heroism in D&D agaisnt the games deadliest threat"
P.S. Don't forget that with its Int of 3, the Tarrasque isn't smart enough to use tools or improvised attacks. It is as smart as a typical beast, not a person.
Also a typical improvised ranged attack isn't going to reach any archer or spellcaster tht has the spell sniper feat (a very good feat by the way).
Lawolf wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
You put a lot of work into this, so I will reply:
Shadewyn wrote:
This is a funny debate.
Why do foolish white room theorycrafters insisit on thinking they have the slightest clue about 'what will happen' when 'party x' meets 'monsters y'?
Why don't they get me over to DM these creatures and when their party ends up with a TPK due to using lame tactics and laughably simplistic assumtions about the 'fact' maths triumphs in spite of the tactical choices the monsters make, then perhaps they will stop making dumb posts like this.
You want to know how an ancient Red Dragon plays against an appropriate level party? - PLAY THE GAME with a GM with half a brain and watch your hollow assumptions collapse around your ears...
In the playtest I nearly hammered a 5 man 11th lvl party with Gnolls, a few minor demons and an Ogre Magi... but then I know how to GM and run my monsters with more than a single brain cell between them...
Caliburn101. wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MrRob wrote:
One thing to note about monster deadliness is that healing doesn't really scale with player HP. I think a critical part of 5E tactics will be to wear down players over time. If you make the long journey to the dragon's den, defeat his army of kobold sycophants and manage getting within a space that you can engage him in combat with out him simply dropping boulders or livestock on you from far above, you're probably not going to to be at full HP. Can you safely take a long rest at the foot of the dragon's den? Maybe. But even if you've got some kind of magical way to protect yourself overnight, an ancient dragon's probably going to have seen that trick used a dozen times or more, and has probably come up with a diabolical plan for dealing with it.
I don't have the PHB in front of me so I don't know if this would actually work, but e.g. your Leomund's tiny hut gets covered in 10,000 pounds with of coins and treasure from the dragon's horde.
In other words, these monsters only look easy on paper if you expect them to fight fair, which is probably the last thing you should expect from a villain.
We ran some more arena combat last night. Balor and a couple of demons (CR9 ones beginning with G, very annoying spells) vs four level 17 PCs.
I hand picked this encounter to synergise the Balors mobility with the darkness and grapple abilities of the smaller demons. It resulted in a TPK.
However, I am getting the feeling from running these combats that these high CR monsters cannot stand up on their own against a party with full resources. I'll have to see what the designers intent is with the DMG, but a lone Balor (considers hard based on XP budget) is no match for 4 Level 17s.
I think RCanine is right.
I don't think anything that isn't significantly higher CR or doesn't have Legendary actions cannot be expected to stand alone against a full party. And from what I can tell, the significatly higher CR encounters will be very swingy; my 2nd level party beat a CR 5 hill giant, but as a 3rd level party was wiped out by a CR6 Chasme.
I also think that the CRs for the monsters seemed to be assigned by "feel" rather than any underlying system. For example, a Beholder at CR13 [esp if you don't have a paladin in the group] is FAR deadlier than many monsters with twice the CR because of the way that saves (don't) work.
-Polaris
Slyck314 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Running a few more encounters.This time a series of lair fights, with short rests in between. I plan on running 4 lair fights.
Party makeup: Halfling Ftr11/Barb6, Human Ftr17(Battlemaster) dex based, Human Ftr11/Sorc6 dex based. Hill Dwarf Cleric 17 Wardomain.
Lair Encounter 1:
So far, Mummy Lord (CR16) plus 8 Mummys (CR3 each). The party absolutely wasted them.
- The Ftr11/Sorc6 with Elemental Weapon (Fire) tore apart the Mummy Lord. It was dead round 2 of combat.
- Cleric took care of 5 mummys with turn undead (they had advantage due to lair).
- Again, the Ftr11/Sorc6 tore up the remaining mummys.
- ~19K XP which the DMG states should be between medium and hard. I'd say this was more easy (but minus Elemental Weapon it would probably be harder).
Lair Encounter 2 (ongoing):
- Two beholders (CR13 each, plus lair).
- First beholder dropped pretty quick (again, mostly due to the Ftr11/Sorc6 and Elemental Weapon);
- Disintegrated the Ftr17's heavy crossbow.
- Both beholders flew up so out of the Ftr11/Barb6's melee range, forcing him to use a bow;
- Cleric got off a bless which helped A LOT, but he is stuck in the anti magic field, and quite slow means it's hard for him to get out;
- Ftr11/Sorc6 is charmed (AFAIK won't attack the beholder but won't attack his friendlies either);
- Ftr17 is being restrained up in the air with a telekenetic ray;
- Ftr/Barb is raging uselessly and trying to break charm concentration with a bow;
- Combat is up to the start of round 3, with the party having to roll about 12 saving throws so far.
- Fun fight so far, with the party using a few indomintables to stay in the game, and expending a couple of spells so far;
We will see how they go to finish the fight.
I'm dicovering you have to get creeative to challenge the PCs. I had level 3 PCs kill a CR6 wyvern and level 6 PCs jkill a tweaked CR10 stone golem I buffed up a lot.
Hordes of lower level monster seem to work better. The way xp budgets work and low xp values on low level CR critters mean you can get more bang for you buck using them. I used 2 hill giants+4 Ogres+4 dire wolves against my level 6 PCs and that was a tough fight. The care bear healing rates also make it hard as i PCs can short resta lot of class abilities and features recharge (healers feat for example).
Solos do not work and CR+4 can be defeated, not sure how high above the party level one could go and still win.
I'm finding it a little difficult to create encounters. Generally you need around 4 deadly encounters or 6 medium/jhard/deadly encounters to grind PCs down along with limiting short rests. Since it is also difficult to die creatures form previous edition that were scary are normally not that bad in particular wraiths, wights, wyverns etc. Anything with level drain or save or die mechanics is not very scary now. Even a bucket of damage save effect like Wyvern poison is not that scaryas it will "only" KO you not kill you barring things like low hit points and critical hits.
Its fun for now still but I suspect we will be bored soon once the new shiny feeling wears off. The game seems to be either to easy or two swingy rocket tag with creatures like Hobgoblins, Gnolls, Ogres, and Bugbears being very dangerous in the right situations and somewhat useless in others.
Zardnaar wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Oh something else about the wizard (and presumably party) vs the Tarrasque. Remember that Fly grants 60' of 3-D movement. That means that the wizard can hover ninety feet above the Tarraque's head (or a total altitude of 140' above the ground). The wizard can then fly down thirty feet, fire the acid splash and fly back up. Jumping up as some have suggested is an action. So you could either jump up as a reaction or attempt to swipe as a reaction but not both (and the wizard never gets within reach so no AoO reaction opportunities).
If you are going to use the Tarraque's mobility, I get to use the far superior mobility granted by Fly.
-Polaris
Edit: Wizard Evokers get Potent Cantrip. Acid splash will ALWAYS do damage with Potent Cantrip even if the Beast makes his save. It doesn't matter.
Polaris wrote:
Also, you have to remember that often when the PCs find and can challenge the boss monster/main villain, the PCs will already be battered and bruised. Rarely will there be a situation where the PCs have a full night's rest directly before they have to face a main villain.
5e adventure design focuses more on the adventuring day rather than just an encounter.
@DaveDash, I love your encounter reports. I find that very interesting. Try developing a series of smaller combats and then get to the boss to see how the party fares too.
That's where you'll see less of a white room result and more of a gaming experience result.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Polaris wrote:
One thing that's worth noting is that it's not clear the game truly has a concept of a solo creature. People are treating any Legendary creature as identical to a 4e solo, but note that the XP of a legendary and non-legendary creature of the same Challenge is identical, and that they do not necessarily have higher HP or damage (the dragons and big T do have a lot of HP, but it's largely a function of their size). Look at something like the Aboleth. There's really nothing about it that screams overwhelming power, although it's a potentially scary foe with its strong mind control. It seems like the Legendary tag may really be more about cool factor, something that allows the most iconic creatures to be scary (and not go down like chumps to one spell for those with resistance) but not necessarily something that arms them to threaten TPK on an equal party.
So, it seems to be that being a Legendary is not actually an exception to the normal expectation that Challenge X vs Party Level X is merely supposed to cause an expenditure of some resources, not actually threaten TPK. The greater than challenge 20 creatures may be an exception to this to some degree, but its fairly clear they're still designed on that same kind of math. This means (much like several people in the thread have said) that a truly 'all or nothing', full resources vs near-TPK encounter is almost certainly going to require multiple creatures. Used alone, you have to stick to the resource math, which means prior encounters etc.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Grifford wrote:
So to continue on my combat encounters.
Two Beholders in their lair (22,000XP or "medium -> hard"):
- The combat continued on until about round 5-6. The lone beholder couldn't really capitalise on it's rays, so while it contnued to be annoying, it was eventually defeated.
- It almost however got off a petrify on the Ftr/Barbarian and THEN on the Cleric (which would have been disasterous). However the Ftr failed his first save, then made his second save. The Cleric made his first save against petrification
- One thing I wasn't sure of is if the beholder is subject to concentration. Initially I thought it was, but then later reviewing the second part of the fight, I don't think it is. This is because the lair can shoot eye rays, and it surely doesnt need to concentrate (or force the beholder to). It's also not strictly casting those spells as one entity. This makes abilities like charm a bit more dangerous.
- Never leave home and fight beholders without a bless spell.
Next encounter was 5 Drow Elite Warriors, 2 Drow Mages, and 1 Drow Priestess. I wanted to test a larger number of weaker mobs to test the 'action econony'.
XP 18000ish or medium to hard encounter.
- I rolled poorly on the initiative on the mages. With their low HP and AC, going up against dex based ftr's with the sharpshooter feat, they really didn't stand much of a chance.
- As soon as they could, the Drow used darkness and tried to protect the priestess, shooting their hand crossbows at party members but attemptng to remain hidden.
- By round 2, one mage was dead, the priestess was on 2 HP, and the other mage was slinking around wounded invisible.
- War Cleric dispelled the darkness surrounding the priestess, and the Barbarian used his mobility to move in and kill her.
- The remaining Mage rolled a poor stealth check, and the Ftr/Sorc killed him even rolling disadvantage.
- The remaining Drow Warriors caused a bit of a problem for the party due to their darkness spells, and only one party member (The Cleric) had dark vision.
- The Barbarian ended up grapple/shoving Drow he could find to negate his disadvantage for being blind. This actually worked quite well.
- The fight dragged on to about round 7. The Cleric didn't want to AoE and waste a spell slot with Flame Strike to speed things up.
- The Cleric would have taken a TON of damage if it wasnt for the fact he had resistance to normal weapons AND poison.
- After this fight, one party member had expended all their healing hit dice. Cleric also had to waste a couple of spell slots on healing.
Next up I plan another lair encoounter that is going to be rather hard, maybe the varient vampires in the MM with a number of spawn, then a BBEG end fight against a pit fiend and devils, with no short rest in betwen. See how they go when they have to conserve action surges and rage.
One thing to note about all this I think is that if you are to give away +1 weapons to everyone in your campaign, you will dramatically effect the balance of a lot of encounters. And elemental weapon is an amazingt 3rd level spell, probably better than Haste for an archer type. Haste I think would be better if you're in melee/attack range.
"eleran"<span> wrote:
I'm not too fussed if I 'win the game early', and that's what the 'hedge mage kills the tarasque' seems to be about.
Though I think if you're having the liche stand out in the open like a good little boy scout rather than walk out from behind a column, cast, then step back to complete cover - then somethings deeply wrong.
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
I have read this entire thread and just wanted to point out a few things.
The first is just my own personal thoughts reguarding the tarasque. I always felt it was a unique creature(at least on the prime material). therefore I would not allow it to be killed, just forced back into hybernation for another century or whatever. second being a unique creature of legend there would be no average hit points, it would get the full 990 it deserves.
my second point is that with all this garbage about using acid splash is just that garbage. I read the spell description for acid splash, wich says the caster hurls balls of acid at their target wich immediately told me an attack roll must be used. but i dont take all things on face value so i researched other spells that described hurling , namely chromatic orb (balls of energy), and fire bolt (motes of fire).
Both require an attack roll in their description, wich reinforces my original thought when reading the Acid splash description.
Therefore in closing said wizard would have to make an attack beating a 25 AC.
ps In my games you better believe big T will be throwing whatever is available, and using the crouching tiger springing dragon tactic.
danyc wrote:
According to the Tarrasques description, it is 50 ft tall when it STANDS and 70 ft long when it
ctouches. It can never even get to 75 ft tall.
So the ranged atackers have an additional 25 ft of room to play with, meaning no matter how much you crouch or throw or bend the jumping rules, you still can't get them.
Lawolf wrote:
DM: A commoner races into the tavern. "By the gods!" he exclaims. "It is here to claim all of our souls!"
Players: We race outside to see what the commotion is about.
DM: Never have you seen such a monstrosity! This is the largest creature you have ever lain eyes on. This is bigger than any dragon, towering over the city buildings as if they were a child's wooden blocks. What do you do?
Goodly Wizard: Stay to, friends! I will vanquish this foe in short order! (to the DM) I cast fly and speed toward it with my arm outstretched, a clenched fist, and my knee bent ever so slightly for some odd reason.
Evil Brooding Wizard: I don't care. I head for the city gates as I come up with more reasons to avoid cooperative gameplay and particpating in planned adventures.
Neutral Merc Wizard: I quickly race to the Lord's Council and ask how much they're paying for me to kill it.
DM as a Lord: 150gp, sir! In advance.
Neutral Merc Wizard: Can I roll to see if I can get a thousand?
DM (sighs): Sure. But, the Tarrasque is destroying the city.
Neutral Merc Wizard (rolls): 18! Hells yeah!
DM as a Lord: Here! 1000gp! Anything! Just stop that manifestation of the Nine Hells!
Neutral Merc Wizard: On it! (to DM) I cast fly and speed toward it with my arm outstretched, a clenched fist, and my knee bent ever so slightly for some odd reason.
DM: Great! The tarrasque is causing destruction on a god-like level. It smashes through the citywatch barracks killing 15 people before you arrive. What do you do?
Wizard: I fly up 90 feet and cast acid splash.
DM: It isn't expecting you and reacts slow to your attack. You hit it for 6. It stomps through the temple of Sune killing another 12 people. What do you do?
Wizard: Acid Splash!
DM: You hit for 4. The beasts rampages through a row of shops including a smithy. Its tail flattens most of the buildings sending two fiery forges flying into a dense section of row houses and starting several small fires. Another 32 people die. What do you do?
Wizard: Acid splash!
DM: This time recognizing the threat, the tarrasque crouches down and you miss. It leaps into the air toward you, but you're too high up. It lands atop several businesses killing 8 more people. What do you do now.
Wizard: Acid Splash!
DM: You hit for 5.
Other Players: Seriously?!
Wizard: Don't worry. This will be over in 10-20 minutes game time.
17 real minutes later...
Wizard: Acid splash again.
DM: You hit it for 2. Oh. That fire that was started 30 rounds ago has spread. It trapped about 40 children in an orphanage. They're going to burn to death. Not to mention the death toll is currently over a thousand. What do you do?
Wizard: Acid splash.
DM: Oh my gawd!
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
First off, OMG this white room jumping tarrasque and persecution of lawolf is ridiculous and needs to stop, it's distracting from a really nice thread.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
Timborama wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
RCanine wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TheLastGreatMith, If you are running that kind of game, then that is cool, but you need to understand that playing monsters above their mental statistics ruins the suspension of disbelief for some players. I certainly wouldn't enjoy D&D where every monster (And an Adult Red Dragon is not a genius, 13int*) is a super tactical genius. A game of mini's or whatever? Sure. But not in a roleplaying game thanks.
That also that probably creates disparity between the challenge rating of the monsters as well, especially if you start throwing traps and things, or always having your monsters make the perfect tactical decisions every time (not even players do this).
I want to know if the CR's in the monster manual reflect the actual challenge, minus all the tactical genius crap you could pull off. That is a valid goal and a valid experiment, and is helpful to people in order to adjust their encounters accordingly. All the stuff you are proposing needs to be normalized out to actually get a feel of whether the mechanics are spot on, hence the point of this thread.
The fact of the matter is, some of the higher CR monsters I feel do *not* reflect their experience value. A Pitfiend is vastly more deadly than a Balor for 1 CR of difference, due to the wider range of tricks available to the Pitfiend. CR9 Demons that can cast power word stun are incredibly dangerous for their CR value, etc. Also at the start of the day a lot of these encounters are far less deadly than at the end of the day. And THEN with the addition of one monster, some of these encounters can go from "somewhat challenging" to TPK.
The CR seems to be more of a "feel" than an actual playtested, mathematical value. Armed with that knowledge a DM can then go and adjust the encounter accordingly by using all the tools you have mentioned.
*I also made it pretty clear in my original post that "Want to see how it goes in melee". Would have been pretty boring for my two players to just fly it round and kill them from above, wouldn't it? Given the fact I made it CLEAR this was an experiment, I don't get what your problem is.
DaveDash wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Breaking up your move
you can break up your movement on your turn using some of your speed before and after your action. for example if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action and then move 20 feet.
so you move 10' jump then attack and then move when you land.
10
3
+10
10
33 feet of movement
even if you try to give him a higher jump he still can not reach it as he only has 40 feet of movement. It would require using the legendary actions for extra movement to get that jump high enough.
so its apparent that no matter how much we would rather there is a weakness here ... that is why you have the tarasque and cultists of doom attack a city!
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Here is what I am beginning to suspect.
The CR rating is primarily there for adventure conversion purposes from 3rd edition. It's a rough guide in terms of difficulty, but the main goal is to enable DM's to easily run older adventures and have a good idea of what monster to use.
DaveDash wrote:
RCanine wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
There are some that think that Int 3 creatures as super geniuses that somehow know the exact range of spell cantrips they can't possibly have direct experience with and can intelligently ready actions to try to duck underneath them, and these same creatures are contortionists that would put Olympic Gymnasts to shame by being able to crouch down and reduce 50' of height into a mere 10' of height, and of couse can jump twice their body length and STILL attack on a reacion which would take TWO reactions (to jump and to attack) on a readied action.
I think I'm done here.
-Polaris
A Tarrasque would definitely be able to deal with flying creatures by throwing things at them as an improvised attack. Big T has survived eons, and has surely fought rocs, dragons and so on over the millenia.
1eejit wrote:
Yeah, the whole crouching down thing makes no sense. They are just making BS up right now.
Maybe if the tarrasque was prone it would count as "squeezing" and would be 20-25 ft tall instead of 50 ft. But then, it wouldn't be able to jump at all because it would need to stand (half its movement), then run 10 ft, then jump.
Oh yeah, if the Big-T readies an action, it can't even jump and attack. It has to make a running jump remember. Readying an action doesn't allow you to run and jump and make an attack. Not that a 3 int Big-T is smart enough for that kind of tactical thinking.
Oh yeah. Since the jump must be a running jump, the Tarrasque technically would have to move away from the wizard who is flying striaght above the Tarrasque. The means a running jump wouldn't even work. So the jump distance is reduced to a standing jump.
So the best a Tarrasque who is run by a bad GM who allows the 3 int beast to ready an action could get would be this. The tarrasque crouches, bringing its height to 1/2 (25 ft), the tarrasque stands from crouching (half its movement), then jumps (6.5 ft). Somehow the beast both moves and attacks with this readies action so adds its reach (15 ft). A grand total of 46.5 ft above its original position. So a 60 ft range cantrip is more than enough.
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloody hell... that white room has become so big now it can even fit the Tarraske.
1eejit wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
danyc wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Amazing.
So much certitude in the 'it can't be done because I say so and my take on the rules is absolute' camp...
The Tarrasque is 50ft tall. It is a quadraped. It has a 15ft reach. Gargantuan creatures are 20 squares or larger...
We can see from the picture it's longer than it is tall when on all fours, by about another 60-70%. That's right - the PICTURE is in the RULEBOOK - so it's relative dimensions are as RAW as anything in it's statblock!
So - when it goes on it's hind legs, taking it's proportions as shown in the picture and allowed in the rules for gargantuan creatures I could have it reach 50 + 35 + 15 = 100ft without jumping at all, and without breaking a single rule.
Any rules lawyer player in my group complaining that it did this to get them as they flew within reach wouldn't win their case I can assure you.
As for the 'it's too stupid to do anything' argument - well, as has been stated by those with at least a modicum of common sense - there are many 'Int 3' creatures capable of pack tactics, trap laying, basic tool use and reacting to threats in unexpected ways.
More than can be said of people who can't or won't see past the statblock of the creature, or the limitations of jump rules (for instance) that clearly only accurately cover medium sized bipeds.
There are no rules systems anywhere that cover every eventuality, and no rules writer would write vast amounts of 'what if' verbage to cover every eventuality. They tend to assume the GM will use common sense and a little intelligence.
A few more FACTS;
- Can virtually all quadrapeds rear up on their hind legs for a short time? Yes
- Would this make it temporarily taller? Yes
- Would this be a function of it's length? Yes
- Is a gargantuan creature limited to 20 squares? No
- Is an Int 3 creature specifically prohibited in the rules from using improvised weapons? No
- Could a gargantuan creature throw a large object as an improvised object? Yes
- Could it react to attacks by using unusual modes of attack like any number of Int 3 creatures in the real world do? Yes
An elephant - a most ungainly sizeable land animal can go on it's hind legs and reach high branches to get at food high up in trees etc. with it's trunk. So why can't a Tarrasque rear up and claw or bite?
There is no reason of course...
- It doesn't require 'House Rules' to have the Tarrasque throw a tree at a flying creature as an improvised attack...
- It doesn't require a house rule to have it rear up and/or jump higher than it's listed height + reach...
- It doesn't require a degree in animal behaviour to understand that Int 3 creatures as listed in the game are capable or surprisingly complex problem solving behaviours...
It does require judgement to understand that much of your game exists outside of the rules, or as a logical extension of those rules applied to circumstances that arise in play.
If you can't get your head around that, and are tempted once again to state some version of 'there is no detailed and specific rule for 'x' therefore it cannot happen in my gameworld' then, frankly what are you doing GM'ing?
Oh yes, before I forget... arguing that Int 3 doesn't allow certain actions to be taken by a monster WOULD require a degree in animal behavioural science to even credibly make such a claim. Those arguing that they can are extremely well supplied with documentary evidence that would make any such claim self evident in it's fundamental error.
Caliburn101. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
A tarrasque has a 10ft reach and it's a biped (well really like a bird) not a quadraped. Read the monster description. It also has a ten foot reach not a fifteen foot reach. See MM 5e page 286 what specificially states that a Tarrasque is a scaley biped. [Well the tail has a 20ft reach to be fair so I suppose if the tarrasque can do a standing high jump while standing on it's head, you'd have to be sure to be at least 35feet (40ft to be safe) above the beast's head.]
Now read the combat rules starting on page 190 of the 5e PHB. You can only move on your turn. Rearing up, jumping or any such nonsense would be part of your movement and thus only able to be done ON YOUR TURN. Sure a cat can jump and attack on it's turn, Not as a readied action.
Finally read the rules on "Ready" on page 194 of the 5e PHB. It allows you to take an action to get a specificed reaction sometime later in the round. Since this happens on a specified trigger that is not your turn you can't move as part of that action. The action can be movement (dash), but you can't attack and move as a reaction. Since you can't move and attack as a reaction, you can't do so as a readied action.
Done. Full stop. The tarrasque is boned.
-Polaris
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Even if you allowed the tarrasque to magically know that it can throw things at the wizard (and that's assuming it can correctly identify the wizard as the source of it's pain and magically knows just how to attack the wizard), you would be dealing with an improvised weapon with an attack bonus of ZERO.
Good luck with that. In any event you are now playing the Tarrasque as smarter than it is, feeble protests notwithstanding. I also note that mirror image and other such easy defensive counters don't require concentration.
For that matter the same argument applies to any character with a magical longbow and the ability to move more than 40' a turn [for a CR 30 encounter that's not hard].
The realy point which some seemed determined to lose is that this shouldn't even be a discussion. Any group less than 10th level should autolose when confronted with a tarrasque, but that isn't even close to the case.
-Polaris
Lawolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
I think the dragon fight sounded pretty damn epic.
At level 4 PCs with the dragon having a +7 Wis save, the dragon would only need a 7+ on d20 to save vs them. So that's a decent save chance with legendary resistances kicking in on a fail. But with 2 clerics I can see bad rolls burning that off quick.
It's a bit of an OP spell vs a solo that's built around having a lot of actions. In fact it still just sounds like solos are going to have a bad day when the PCs can get in lucky rolls and action deny. Multiple monsters may be the way to go in 5e. I'm really curious if this is going to be a trend: solo encounters being easy mode despite CR and group fights being brutal near TPKs.
Shadewyn wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Sorry but no. Read the movement rules in the combat section again. You can only move on your OWN TURN unless that movement is an actual action (dash).
That means what some are claiming for the Tarrasque isn't in fact possible RAW...and so have entired the realm of DM Fiat. This applies to PCs too! A PC can not charge (or jump and attack) as a readied action.
-Polaris
Edit PS: Random boulders aren't by default "thrown" weapons and so even if you used the improvised weapon rules (which strongly flies in the face of how smart the Tarrasque really is), doesn't mean it would be able to use it's strength modifier [any more than a bear would suddenly reallize it could pick up a boulder and toss it]. Unless the weapon has the THROWN property (which an improvised weapon won't), it doesn't get this benefit.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Tasha's hideous laughter is even more brutal as it is a level 1 stun + prone with a multiple round duration. Cast on a flying creature and watch them crash to the ground.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Note on FEAR + Multiattack
This was more of a positioning thing. In the encounter the players are on a parapet in a keep and the players spread out and ran into towers, around corners, etc to avoid breath attacks. All reasonable but it also made it difficult as they ran about for me to close in on them. Essentially the choice was on round 5 (as I had just flown in somewhat near on round 4 to breath and hadnt recharged yet);
- Flee
- Fear & Flee
- Advance into melee range => Fear and multiattack melee targets that are not posing any threat
- Advance into melee range into a building (or tower on parapet) => Fear and multi attack on ranger or wizard that are using the "move + ranged attack + move back into total cover"
With 80+ damage there is a real danger of going indoors and getting trapped.
- http://dmdavid.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dungeon_Masters_Kit21.jpg (found a pic ... dungeonmasters kit from 4E was terrain used as a stand in for the Greenest Keep)
- Squeeze actions, barred doors, web spells, etc all seemed like a lot of risk to gank a player. Ranger in one tower, and players were spread out in other buildings and towers (except the cleric of war who just kept daring it to come into melee (where the +10 to hit class feature would have let him rack up some damage)
Also multi atack on the dragon was by no means a garunteed kill of a player, although dirt napping the ranger would have made the dragons life a lot better assuming i wanted to risk getting locked in a tower.
Without a battle map I could have DM fudged and redrawn reality to let the dragon get the positioning needed but the players just did a smart job of playing keep away from the beast and pestering it with steady ranged damage.
A side note for those that havent run HotDQ, in the next fight essentially the party sends out a player to get killed by a dragonborn champion in solo combat to break the siege, complete with the module having the enemy champion step on the neck to salt the wounds with a failed death check. That was already gonna be a tough pill for players to choke down so I wasnt sure it was right to do a possible suicide run by sending the dragon into an area where it could get trapped just to gank a player (the players went to seperate buildings as well). The encounter was to show dragons are scary and a dead dragon defeats that.
Also a note on the saving throws ... per the PDF linked this version didnt seem to have any advantage on spell saving throws unless I missed something? Or are you interpreting the +5 to some saves as advantage?
Also recall the original premise of the encounter ... players should fear dragons. At level 1 (yup this was a CR16 versus level 1 players type encounter) there would have been complete terror. By level 4, players are already glimpsing long odds and corner cases and tricks they may see to go big monster hunting. By level 7 when the real "optional warn players this is dangerous" fight can occur to kill a dragon for real at CR16 the party will not hesitate and race out and try it. And by the OP, by level 20 when they see an accient red as the highest CR dragon what has changed?
- Dragon has double HP and Double damage compared to the CR 16 verion here
- Players by 20 will have triple to quadruple damage and quadruple to quintuple the hit points of this level 4 party
- Players will have access to abilities on defense and offense to swing this fight even more in their favor.
While we detailed a bit the point of the CR16 from Horde of the Dragon Queen wasnt that all players could easily beat it it was that, alread by level 4 players could glimps CHANCE on how to pull this off.
Yeah, I'm not seeing where blue dragons get spell resistance either.
On the positioning, the dragon can break any of those attacks/fear between moves. Also frightful prescense hits any creature "aware" of the dragon. So with 120ft range could move, fear, move, attack, move, more attacks, move, then burrow if it had enough move left. Even if PCs were hidden inside towers they'd need to make fear checks due to the dragon rampaging outside.
Franky with a dragon that large it'd probably be able to burrow up through floor as long as there wasn't too much stone thickness. If the PCs hid in a tower there's no reason why a dragon couldn't smash it down via burrowing and attacks. I don't think they'd really have much in the way of safe quarter.
Not that the dragon needed to be played to the hilt. But I think the encounter had some breathing room to go really poorly if you wanted to play it that way. A lot of it probably came down to "wow, I didn't know level 4 PCs could do all that" getting used to the system.
DaveDash wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
From these blue dragon reports, I'm concerned about the level of system mastery required to DM this edition. So many of the tactics that keep these monsters interesting requires some really creative thinking from the DM, whereas players can use pretty much the same tactics (lockdown, buff, nova) every fight.
RCanine wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
I think after dealing with flying, acid splashing wizards for eons, the Tarrasque would eventually start chucking stuff at them.
Brock_Landers wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Also, some are hardcore 4th Ed fans, and if it is not listed as an Action in the monster's description, it can't be done/they can't wrap their heads around it (and page 42 is just treadmill DCs and damage values).
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Umm, action has a very specific meaning in 5e. There are just a few actions you can take:
Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Hide, Ready, Search, Use and Object
So when ready an action says to choose an action or move, it is pretty obvious that it means you cannot move and take an action.
Not that it matters.
A tarrasque can make a standing high jump of 6.5 ft. If it could crouch to half its size (counting as prone?) that means it can only get something 50+6.5+15 ft 71.5 ft in the air. The wizard of course can hit the tarrasque from 85 ft up (25 for the crouched down size + 60 ft for the range).
So there we have it. A tarrasque who far more intelligent than the average big-T and is smart enough to crouch down and wait for a wizard to fly down before leaping up to attack still can't even reach the flying wizard.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Dracones wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Grifford wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
The rules SPECIFICALLY state that you can jump as a MOVE action in combat, not an ATTACK action. Jumping is NOT an attack action, and the reaching above your head part of a jump is in the context of MOVING not attacking.
Its right there in the rules. No ifs, no buts.
You can "theatre of mind" the Tarrasque as much as you want, but we have rules to provide a consistent predictable world for the players to adventure in, and by those rules, the Tarrasque has some glaring weaknesses.
Maybe the designers don't care,maybe they expect DM fiat, maybe it's just their limited resources couldn't playtest everything, but what it does mean is DMs need to be pretty careful of running high CR monsters because they're ill equipped as written.
DaveDash wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
The Tarrasque needs one of the following five things to transcend this weakness which, as DaveDash puts it, is hard-coded into the way the rules are written:
1) Acid immunity. Right along with Fire and Poison immunity, this would serve as an easy hard counter to the acid splash fiasco.
2) Regeneration. 10 per round as long as it has 1 hit point would do it, but it deserves 25. Frankly, it also deserves a sidebar talking about annual full health regens for the Tarrasque, countered only by a specifically-worded wish. This would tie up the grognard vote, for sure.
3) Leap Attack. Because it would kick ass. Let the Tarrasque clear its height if it high jumps as part of its move. Where it lands is the center of a DC 27 earthquake spell, recharge 5+. Done.
4) Burrow speed. It kinda needs this anyway, but this would shut down the cheesemage.
5) Grounding Aura. Ugh. Lame. Meta. Boring.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I was part of the playtest. The ability to move (including jump) and attack as a single action was very explicitly and specifically removed by the developers. They don't want PCs to be able to charge as a readied action, and the same set of rules precludes jumping+attacking as a readied action (you can of course do it on your own turn). I also note that improvised actions aren't supposed to replace or be better than the standard actions already available. Improvised actions are supposed to apply for actions that aren't covered by existing actions.
In this case Jump+Attack is easily and obviously covered under the existing action types and so it's an invalid thing to improvise...at least RAW.
-Polaris
Lawolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
No one is saying the Tarraque can't jump even as a readied action. It can. What it can't do is jump and attack as a readied action since that would take two out-of-turn actions and the ready mechanic doesn't allow for this.
-Polaris
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
There is absolutely nothing that permits a biped (of any sort) to 'crouch' for free movement either. Just as PCs are considered to occupy a cube 5'x5'x5', the tarrasque is considered to occupy a box that's 50x high. Even if I were to allow it, surely it would have combat complications from crouching so much, and surely just standing up would cost it movement (25' of movement in fact). Also jumping while bent that deeply would seem problematic (if possible at all).
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
So using these guys definition of the jumping rules you can do this:
Given: Jumping is part of your movement. You can only jump when you move.
Assumed: When you jump, you can grab onto something, even a creature.
Result: Jump up and down, 1ft at a time 15 times during your turn, allowing you to make 15 grapple attempts. Follow this up with your normal amount of attacks.
Seems legit...
P.S. I'm glad that the rules for attacking and grappling are clearly defined so that situations like this won't ever actually happen.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
I still fail to understand what all this tarrasque nonsense has to do with the MM. I wish you guys would start a new thread.
RCanine wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Page 64 of the Basic PDF specifically calls out that jumping is (part) of your movement. It is functionally identical to page 190 of the PHB. Not only that but there is nothing in the jumping rules themselves that permit you to grab anything. That would be a DM call {use an object} as part of an unattended/non-hostile object (like a rope for instance).
Now read the rules on page 72 of the Basic PDF that specifically state that you can only ready a single action as a reaction.
Finally on page 74 of the Basic PDF under grappling we find that if you grab a creature, you have to make a specific type of ATTACK ACTION to do so (under Grappling).
So there is a lot in the basic PDF about jumping and attacking and it all backs what I've been saying.
-Polaris
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I think that some people are mistaking Move as an Action. It isn't. It's not listed in the PHB as an Action. You have your Move and you have an Action. The PHB goes out of its way to state that your Action (and Bonus Action) can happen at any point during your Move. You can move, attack, move, bonus attack, and move all up to the maximum move distance you have. So, logically since a jump is part of your Move, there is no rule that prohibits someone from jumping and using their Action to attack at the top of the jump or any portion of their jump. This is all covered in the PHB on p190 under Movement and Position, specifically: "Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving." Also refer to the entire text under Breaking Up Your Move on the same page.
cccwebs wrote:
Polaris wrote:
cccwebs wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So by their faulty logic, someone could move 30 ft, then ready their action to perform a running jump attack at someone who approaches within 20 ft.
That allows a 20 Strength fighter to move 50 ft and attack.
Yeah...I'm glad the rules don't work that way. Everyone would simply ready their actions to get extra movement every round.
Orethalion wrote:
Yeah, the Ready action has some real limits when it comes to the action economy. In other versions of D&D you might delay your turn until X happens and then you get your full turn, but with Ready basically you just get to delay only having an action later down the road. So by RAW you can attack OR move(via dash), but not both. And since jumping is a move that negates doing a readied jump attack.
This is really the result of simplifying the rule system. It's a lot more basic than other editions, so you get these sorts of situations. You can pretty easily allow PCs to jump attack though simply by letting them use up move they haven't spent on their turn during their readied attack. This doesn't cause any balance issues since you're still limited to your movement rate per round. So there'd be no move 30ft, jump 20ft more to attack.
One thing that really needs to be pointed out though is that strict, by the numbers, "it's in the rules but defies logic" adherence the rules is absolutely against RAW. If you're running a game and a PC doesn't move on his turn and readies an attack where he's going to jump up 5ft to swing at a flying bat going by, but you rule he can't do that because page X, Y and Z, you're running 5e incorrectly. The rules are there to approximate the world, but it's up to the GM to make rulings for when the rules break down. And 5e more so than 3e/4e really requires the DM to do this because the core rules are simplier.
Dash is not an action to move in combat. Dash is an Action that increases your speed for the current turn. I don't see why it's such a problem to allow a creature that has enough distance remaining to use that as a "pounce" (a high jump and grapple combined) for a Ready action. There are numerous examples of creatures doing just that IRL that should be allowed in a fantasy game. As for reach, the Tarrasque is 50' tall and would have a standing high jump (I wouldn't allow a running start as a Ready action) of 6'. So there should be no logical reason to say it can't reach a creature up to 81' from the ground on a "pounce". Of course, the Lv 5 helicopter wizard can easily stay 90' off the ground keeping itself within the 60' range of the spell to attack the monster. That helicopter can maintain range from the monster and keep casting Acid Splash all day long (well at least for 20 minutes), but big bad boy has advantage on the saving throws (at most a DC 15) and will only take an average of 7 damage on a failure. It's gonna take a long time for that helicopter to needle through those 676 HP; time that the monster has been using to cause massive destruction on everything around it.
The helecopter garden mage will take a while, but a dex based Ftr11/Sorc6 with fly cast on himself + sharpshooter feat , and his buddy Level 3 Wizards magic weapon spell on him will be *considerably* faster.
About the only thing the Tarrasque can do is expend legendary actions to run away. Does this feel like a CR30 encounter?
Polaris wrote:
cccwebs wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dracones wrote:
The sad thing is that anyone who isn't trying desperately to stay in a dead argument knows that there's zilch the Tarrasque can do to deter even a 5th-level wizard. Yet here we are, watching people insist again and again that because "two actions" isn't an "action" that it falls under "improvised actions" and can thereby be fielded as a "ready action". It can't. That's a stupid thing to even hear said aloud. Try it.
What's worst of all is that even if that were a legit play, the Tarrasque would still be out of reach. Sad, but true.
There are five things that the Tarrasque needs only one of to get out from under this: acid immunity, regeneration, leap attack, burrow, or (bleh) a grounding aura.
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Seriously: best thing ever guys move, then ready an action to jump and attack to get free movement every turn.
Or jump up and down 30 times to get 30 free grapple attempts.
Where do these people get their logic from?
The developers very deliberately wanted to eradicate the ability to move and attack as a readied action (ie to charge like you could in 4e or even in 3.X). Why? Because if PCs (or monsters) could do that, then it would create some balance nightmares in the way a lot of 5e abilities (and classes) work in combat.
Agree or disagree, this was not an oversight but an actual design choice by the design team, and many monsters (not just the Tarrasque) paid the price.
-Polaris
Lawolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
The Tarrasque is big enough, strong enough and smart enough to throw heavy objects (like say, a dead horse) at the flying mage with a +10 Strength attack bonus.
Jumping isn't even necessary.
That said:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bluh, bad copy/pasting, but that seems like a way a tarrasque could take a lv. 5 mage.
tubadancross wrote:
Just because Mearls would rule it one way doesn't make it official (Tarrasque being smart enough to throw rocks at a hovering mage). Just because a dog might toss a toy occasionally to itself doesn't mean it's smart enough to throw rocks at attackers out of range. Same goes for the Tarrasque.
-Polaris
Edit PS: I notice you didn't ask him about jump+attack as a readied action. You will find that what I said is quite correct. You are not allowed to move and attack as a single improvised action.
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Just give him a burrow speed. If the cantrip wizard wants to come in after him, that's fine. Otherwise he'll destroy the city from below.
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
vssg wrote:
So a 20 strength, 6 ft tall, blade pact warlock casts jump on himself. He is fighting a flying monster that can spit acid with a range of 20 ft.
During the warlocks turn, he moves 30 ft, then readies an action to jump up and attack the monster when it is overhead.
By your logic this is possible...
But, on his turn he can only move 30 ft and attack. He cannot move 30 ft, then jump 12 more feet and still attack.
Clearly the ready an action rules don't intend for you to move more than you can on your turn. That is preposterous. How can you guys even think that.
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
At some point in the last couple pages of the Tarrasque trying to cheese bundle a "jump / charge / readied air attack" or hurl large improvized object 20' to 60' .... i think the poor level 5 mage just offers to help the discussion out by declaring it that they took SPELL SNIPER as a feat allowing them to contiue to acid splash at will ignoring the two possible counters that folks focus on.
Or ... for characters in the actual game world, we have seen in the two "official" modules that by level 5 there are on average a magic weapon dropped per party member in loot. So if that flying mage was say;
- An ELF with the ability to play with bows
- Found a magic bow (the only part of this a DM could reasonably control for which is why I wrote the original post with acid splash originally to avoid the "well I will never drop bows for mages" counter arguement)
- Took a feat for far shot with archery (cause you KNOW the same people in this thread that argue how elephants jump, will start in on how the STR stat of the tarrasque allows it to throw farther so we had better make sure we are WAAAAY out of range by several hundred feet to avoid that)
We are back to the same solo kill of Godzilla but this time the poor mage cant be naked, they have to strap on a couple pounds of arrows. But SAME RESULT
Folks are sorta obsessed with the trees and missing the bigger picture of a forest at the moment.
BIG PICTURE (I hear color helps)
- Desire for faster combat led to lower HP on monsters
- Player average damage with limited to no special resources and without dipping into specific builds (solo or in party) can often defeat epic CR challenges before the monsters (even with 100% hit rates) can average damage kill players as you get into higher CR ranges and player levels.
- Monsters damage output is a fairly predictable flat linear progression that roughly matches a non CON adjusted HP growth of players. However as CON is added in, class features for defenses, healing magics, healing potions etc ... the over all pace of player surviviaiblity far outstrips the monster ability to threaten them
- This leads to boss / solo fights becoming far less chllenging than intended.
Just like in 4E we eventualy got boosts to monster damage across the mid to high level CRs as well as increased tricks to challenge players .... I think this is what 5E will need as well. But it took a general consensus and a year plus of discussion to finally see some changes. This is why I started this thread.
Just an attempt to right the thread back to topic.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread of silliness about jumping godzilla that make elephants jealous, with special hybrid attack actions that also took feats in "improvised weapon: building toss".
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
As far as monsters being built differently than PCs, if you look in the MM there are quite a few that use weapons that vary their damage dice based on their size.
Ettin battleaxe and morningstar are 2d8 base.
Spinned devil(small) forks are 1d6 vs horned devil(large) 2d8.
Planetar(large) greatsword base is 4d6.
Formorian(huge) greatclub is 3d8.
Iron golem(large) sword is 3d10.
Yaun-ti Abomination(large) scimitar is 2d6 while Yaun-ti Malison scimitar is 1d6.
Longbows on the above are 2d8 and 1d8.
So monster size does impact weapon damage.
Orethalion wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Actually the improvised weapon rules cover this. A DM can determine that the improvised weapon is like another weapon and use those stats. That tree is like a javelin to the beast and has 60/120 range the cart is like a Giants bolder and has the fire giant ranges etc. the DM can easily determine its like a combo weapon as well the cart is like a Giants Boulder and a net hitting you for high damage and pinning you under it's weight etc. the improvised weapon rules are not as boring as 1d4 maybe can be thrown.
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Wow this thread is still going?
Guys, the Tarrasque has *never* been a reasonable opponent for high level characters. It's always been a big dumb brute that's easily defeated by anyone capable of flying and just staying out of range. The D&D 5E monster manual is just true to what the Tarrasque has always been, which is a big giant pile of numbers with a big "CHEESE ME" sign on it.
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Parrots Kea, a highly inquisitive New Zealand mountain parrot, have been filmed stripping twigs and inserting them into gaps in box-like stoat traps to trigger them. Apparently, the Kea's only reward is the banging sound of the trap being set off.[115] In a similarly rare example of tool preparation, a captive Tanimbar Corella (Cacatua goffiniana) was observed breaking off and "shaping" splinters of wood and small sticks to create rakes that were then used to retrieve otherwise unavailable food items on the other side of the aviary mesh.[116][117] This behaviour has been filmed.[10] Many owners of household parrots have observed their pets using various tools to scratch various parts of their bodies. These tools include discarded feathers, bottle caps, popsicle sticks, matchsticks, cigarette packets and nuts in their shells.[17] Hyacinth Macaws (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) have been repeatedly observed to use tools when breaking open nuts, for example, pieces of wood being used as a wedge. Several birds have wrapped a piece of leaf around a nut to hold it in place. This behaviour is also shown by Palm Cockatoos (Probosciger aterrimus). It seems that the Hyacinth Macaw has an innate tendency to use tools during manipulation of nuts, as naÃ̅ve juveniles tried out a variety of objects in combination with nuts.[11] Egyptian Vultures[edit] When an Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus) encounters a large egg, it takes a stone into its beak and forcefully throws it at the egg until the shell is broken, usually taking a few minutes. This behaviour, first reported in 1966,[118] seems to be largely innate and is displayed by naÃ̅ve individuals. Its origin could be related to the throwing of eggs and, interestingly, rounded (egg-like) stones are preferred to jagged ones.[119] In a small population in Bulgaria, Egyptian Vultures use twigs to collect sheep wool for padding their nests. Although both twigs and wool can serve as nesting material, this appears to be deliberate tool use. The birds approached bits of discarded wool with a twig in their beak, which was then either used as a rake, to gather the wool into heaps, or to roll up the wool. Interestingly, wool was collected only after shearing or simulated shearing of sheep had taken place, but not after wool had simply been deposited in sheep enclosures.[120] Brown-headed Nuthatches[edit] Brown-headed Nuthatches (Sitta pusilla) have been observed to methodically use bark pieces to remove other flakes of bark from a tree. The birds insert the bark piece underneath an attached bark scale, using it like a wedge and lever, to expose hiding insects. Occasionally, they reuse the same piece of bark several times and sometimes even fly short distances carrying the bark flake in their beak. The evolutionary origin of this tool use might be related to these birds frequently wedging seeds into cracks in the bark to hammer them open with their beak, which can lead to bark coming off. Brown-headed Nuthatches have also used a bark flake for concealing a seed cache.[11] Gulls[edit] Seagulls have been known to drop live oyster shells on paved and hard surfaces so that cars can drive over them and break the shell. So many get dropped that it is difficult to drive safely near some waterways. Certain species (e.g. the Herring Gull) have exhibited tool use behavior, using pieces of bread as bait to catchgoldfish, for example.[121] Owls[edit] Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) frequently collect mammalian dung, which they use as a bait to attract dung beetles, a major item of prey.[122] In reptiles[edit] Tool use by American alligators and Mugger crocodiles has been documented. During the breeding season, birds such as herons and egrets look for sticks to build their nests. Alligators and crocodiles collect sticks to use as bait to catch birds. The crocodilian positions itself near a rookery, partially submerges with the sticks balanced on its head, and when a bird approaches to take the stick, it springs its trap. This stick displaying strategy is the first known case of a predator not only using an object as a lure, but also taking into account the seasonal behavior of its prey.[123][124] At least four Veined Octopus (Amphioctopus marginatus) individuals were witnessed retrieving coconut shells, manipulating them, stacking them, transporting them some distance (up to 20 metres), and then reassembling them to use as a shelter.[125] The octopuses use coconut shells discarded by humans which have eventually settled in the ocean. They probe their arms down to loosen the mud, then rotate the shells out. After turning the shells so the open side faces upwards, the octopuses blow jets of mud out of the bowl before extending their arms around the shell - or if they have two halves, stacking them first, one inside the other. They then stiffen their legs and move away in a manner which has been called "stilt-walking". The octopuses eventually use the shells as a protective shelter in areas where little other shelter exists. If they just have one half, they simply turn it over and hide underneath. But if they are lucky enough to have retrieved two halves, they assemble them back into the original closed coconut form and sneak inside. This behaviour has been filmed.[11] The authors of the research article claimed this behaviour falls under the definition of tool use because the shells are carried for later use. However, this argument remains contested by a number of other biologists who state that the shells actually provide continuous protection from abundant bottom-dwelling predators in their home range. Octopuses deliberately place stones, shells and even bits of broken bottle to form a wall that constricts the aperture to the den - a type of tool use.[126] In laboratory studies, Octopus mercatoris, a small pygmy species of octopus, has been observed to block its lair using a plastic Lego block.[15] In fish[edit] Several species of wrasses have been observed using rocks as anvils to crack bivalve (scallops, urchins and clams) shells. It was first filmed [12] in an orange-dotted tuskfish (Choerodon anchorago) in 2009 by Giacomo Bernardi. The fish fans sand to unearth the bivalve, takes it into its mouth, swims several metres to a rock which it uses as an anvil by smashing the mollusc apart with sideward thrashes of the head. This behaviour has been recorded in a blackspot tuskfish(Choerodon schoenleinii) on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, yellowhead wrasse (Halichoeres garnoti) in Florida and a six-bar wrasse (Thalassoma hardwicke) in an aquarium setting. These species are at opposite ends of the phylogenetic tree in this family, so this behaviour may be a deep-seated trait in all wrasses.[127] It has been reported that freshwater stingrays use water as a tool by manipulating their bodies to direct a flow of water and extract food trapped amongst plants.[128] Prior to laying their eggs on a vertical rock face, male and female whitetail major damselfish clean the site by sand-blasting it. The fish pick up sand in their mouths and spit it against the rock face. Then they fan the area with their fins. Finally they remove the sand grains that remain stuck to the rock face by picking them off with their mouths.[129] Banded acara, (Bujurquina vittata), South American cichlids, lays their eggs on a loose leaf. The male and female of a mating pair often “test†leaves before spawning: they pull and lift and turn candidate leaves, possibly trying to select leaves that are easy to move. After spawning, both parents guard the eggs. When disturbed, the parent acara often seize one end of the egg-carrying leaf in their mouth and drag it to deeper and safer locations.[130] Archerfish are found in the tropical mangrove swamps of India and Australasia. They approach the surface, take aim at insects that sit on plants above the surface, squirt a jet of water at them, and grab them after the insects have been knocked off into the water. The jet of water is formed by the action of the tongue, which presses against a groove in the roof of the mouth. Some archerfish can hit insects up to 1.5 m above the water surface. They use more water, which gives more force to the impact, when aiming at larger prey. Triggerfish (Pseudobalistes fuscus) blow water to turn sea urchins over and expose their more vulnerable ventral side.[131] In insects[edit] Ants of the species Conomyrma bicolor pick up stones and other small objects with their mandibles and drop them down the vertical entrances of rival colonies, allowing workers to forage for food without competition.[132] Hunting wasps of the genus Prionyx use weights (such as compacted sediment or a small pebble) to settle sand surrounding a recently provisioned burrow containing eggs and live prey in order to camouflage and seal the entrance. The wasp vibrates its wing muscles with an audible buzz while holding the weight in its mandibles, and applies the weight to the sand surrounding its burrow, causing the sand to vibrate and settle. Another hunting wasp, Ammophila, uses pebbles to close burrow entrances.[133]
That's all very neat but it doesn't mean things of animal intelligence automatically and instinctively resort to tools or even types of attacks they don't normally do when confronted by danger. Much of that supposed "tool use" is instinctive as is much of supposed animal tactics (like pack tactics by wolves).
What you have quoted is a FAR CRY from being able to understand that a wizard's cantrip has a specific range, finds an object that can be thrown a great distance, and then knowing just when to toss it when the wizard is exactly in range.
This is advanced reasoning. If it would be beyond a toddler (and it would), then it certainly would be beyond the scope of an Int-3 creature...at least in time (before it was killed).
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The rules do not let you "commit" an Action and a Move as a Readied deal, end of.
Shadewyn wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris, is correct.
-Brock Landers
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
By human standards (esp in combat using weapons), animals ARE stupid.
-Polaris
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Polaris wrote:
eleran wrote:
Can I put my tarrasque in cave? Let's say roughly rectangular, about 100' wide, 200' long and 80' high.... and there is an adjacent cave full of about 100 villagers... and the whole place is going to collapse in.... I don't know... 1 minute, crushing everyone. The tarrasque is between the party and the villagers. Rescue the villagers, and/or tell me the tarrasque isn't a suitable threat.
DwarfLordSeven wrote:
Grifford wrote:
DwarfLordSeven wrote:
DwarfLordSeven wrote:
Grifford wrote:
DwarfLordSeven wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Momar wrote:
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Momar wrote:
If the MM entries for rocks are weapon entries and nothing to do with the creature are we saying that when a hill giant gives a rock to a cyclops the cyclops doubles it's range?
As a player I think we should go trade with the fire giants for some rocks
PrawnPower wrote:
Indeed, we don't have the full RAW yet, specifically the parts we'd expect to cover this in the DMG.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ask and receive:
Bearded Devil Glaive Attack (page 70 5e MM):
"Glaive: Melee Weapon attack: +5 to hit, Reach 10', one target. Hit: 8 (d10+3) slashing damage. If the target is something other than an undead or a construct, it must suceed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (d10) hit points at the start of each turn due to an infernal wound. Each time the Devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (d10). Any creature can take an action to staunch the wound with a successful DC12 Wisdom (medicine) check. The wound also closes if the target receives magical healing."
-Polaris
Why are people still suffering under the delusion that monsters use PC rules? This isn't the good old days of 3E. Monsters have their own set of poorly followed and vague rules that are not PC rules, they only very superficially look like PC rules.
FFSAA wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
And you still derived your "monsters are just like PCs" theory from that? Wow.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pretty much?
Assumption?
OK.
The bearded devil's glaive is arguable because it has that infernal wounds thing.
However, the bone devil's "hooked polearm" is very mundane in comparison, deals 1d12 at Medium size, and grapples anything it hits, making it vastly superior to every other polearm in the game without stepping into any sort of supernatural territory like the bearded devil's infernal glaive.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
truth be told, after 10 sessions of 5th ed,. as a group we decided its just not worth playing. so we gave it up. I can see the frustration, and I acknowledge that there will be some people who love it, but after going through 18 pages of commentst here I can also understand the frustration on the monster manual. as our groups DM I refused to buy it but using another players copy and trying to run games off of it, it was not worth the effort. the tarrasque questions really didnt affect us as much as say the yeti and other monsters from legacy and lost mines, etc.... overall our collective opinion was a big swing and miss by wotc.
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
caridhor wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
If my group was mainly non spellcasters without access to Magic Weapon (spell), I'd probably give them magical weapons which only can be used 1/short rest.
The DMG can't get here soon enough though, I imagine there will be some sort of scaling resistance for monsters in there.
DaveDash wrote:
If you have to do this much "house ruling" or conversion, that to me is not a good thing. I am hoping the DMG fixes alot of this, and as for magic items and magic weapons, thats one of those fun things about playing D&D, going this long without a DMG for a game that is really a complete changed from 4th ed is problematic, they really should have waited and just given us all three at once. Yeah the price tag would have hurt, but its not insurmountable.
Brock_Landers wrote:
caridhor wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
caridhor wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
I'm done trying to talk sense regarding the price of the D&D books - the counter points have all been either a) factually wrong, b) unfair comparisons, c) unevenly applied logic.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
caridhor wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
I just got HotDQ yesterday and have not had a hood read of it yet. I did notice that they are using CR 13 critters on level 7 PCs.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
danyc wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
danyc wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
danyc wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
danyc wrote:
Shadewyn wrote:
I am ok wih monster manual 1 having easier monsters, I would guess as more monster manuals come out there will be even more dangerous/ bizarre monsters that players wont quite figure out in first contact. 4th had 3 monster manuals ( and some other stuff) 3.5 had 4 monster manuals that I am aware of, and 2nd had a whole line of them. The monsters did get more difficult and different. Looking at the last 4 editions and the trends to add more critters and more complex critters, I would assume since MM1 for 5th has so many "Iconics" they will have a free hand to develop more and more unusual threats. I would also assume the possibilty of more synergized monsters to make players lives more difficult/short.
Lets actually go through some of these 'factual' assertions with real numbers.
Shadewyn wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Domesticated animal plays with toys= magic beasts r smrt. Yet nobody says monks should hit like Bas Rutten in his prime or thieves should have the hands of a cowboy action shooter. But it's ok, because they get spells now.
pukunui wrote:
darkdragoon wrote: