There is zero point in arguing whether or not the Tarrasque is fine as-written. It's not. A level 5 wizard can solo it. No amount of RAW can solve that problem for the Tarrasque, so we are all in houserule territory when it comes to bringing this titan up to snuff for that CR 30.
Here are my five suggestions, in order of preference:
1) Regeneration. Add the following trait to the Tarrasque:
Regeneration: The Tarrasque regenerates 30 hit points at the beginning of its turn, as long as it has 1 hit point remaining. Once per year, the Tarrasque regenerates to full hit points regardless of what state it is in. This is usually on an equinox or a solstice. Only a specifically worded wish spell can prevent this regeneration.
2) Acid immunity. Add acid immunity to the Tarrasque's list if immunities.
3) Leap Attack. Add the following action to the Tarrasque's list of actions:
Leap Attack (recharge 5-6)
The Tarrasque leaps 100 feet into the air as its move for the round and can make a single Bite attack at any point along this movement. The Tarrasque lands anywhere within 40 feet of where it started its turn and sets off a DC 27 earthquake spell, centered on its landing point, that lasts until the beginning of its next turn. The Tarrasque cannot be knocked prone or fall into fissures from its own earthquake effects.
4) Burrow. Add the following to the Tarrasque's speed:
Burrow 40 ft.
5) Grounding Aura. Add the following trait to the Tarrasque:
No Fly Zone: Flying creatures within 100 feet of the Tarrasque can reach altitudes no higher than 50 feet.
For the record, I hate #5. It's lame, meta, boring, and restrictive. It's still basically how 4E handled it, so I'm listing it here.
Anyway, like I said, there's no point in arguing over whether or not the Tarrasque is fine as-is. The only thing worth talking about for the Tarrasque is how to fix the obvious oversights in its design.
---
EDIT:
After a day of this... gibberish... I've run across a few additional ideas in this thread that stood out as interesting or popular houserules to address the problem. I'm only half a cup of coffee out of bed right now, so I'm ad hoccing most of this - I'm not digging through this shitheap for specifics, sorry.
Keep in mind that all of these are houserules. I exagerrated the giant rock throwing emulation because there's literally zero reason to link what a Tarrasque does with a rock to what a giant does with a rock. Doing so is a houserule no matter what, so there's nothing stopping you from making it exactly how you want it.
6) Cantrip Immunity. Add the following trait to the Tarrasque:
Cantrip Immunity: The Tarrasque cannot be harmed by lesser magics whatsoever, and is entirely immune to spells lower than 1st level.
7) Spines. Add the following action to the Tarrasque:
Spines (recharge 5-6): The Tarrasque ejects hundreds of knife-sized spines from its carapace in a cloud of bloody death. Creatures and objects within 600 ft. must make a Dexterity saving throw DC 27 or suffer 43 (6d10+10) points of piercing damage, or half as much on a successful saving throw.
8) Rock. Add the following action to the Tarrasque:
Rock: Ranged Weapon Attack. +19 to hit, range 500/1000 ft., one target. Hit: 73 (6d20+10) bludgeoning damage and if the target is a creature it must make a Constitution saving throw DC 27 or be knocked unconscious for 1 minute.
9) Kaiju Breath. Add the following action to the Tarrasque:
Kaiju Breath (recharge 5-6): The Tarrasque unleashes a 150' line of supercharged fire, cold, lightning, or thunder breath. Creatures in the area must make a DC 27 Constitution save or suffer 82 (15d10) points of damage of the chosen damage type.
10) Shrapnel Barrage. Add the following action to the Tarrasque:
Shrapnel Barrage: The Tarrasque deals damage to a building and sends a 100 ft. cone of debri flying in any direction. Creatures and objects in the area must make a DC 27 Dexterity saving throw or suffer 82 (15d10) points of slashing damage, or half as much on a successful saving throw.
I agree #5 is lame. Tarrasque should have a proficient Throw attack similar to the Cyclops or other Giants, but with longer range and greater damage due to his size and strength.
Another option is a simple Cantrip Immunity.
Hopefully there will be rules in the DMG for how to customise monsters or encounters, about their weapons, or about how improvised actions might work for them (these might be different for Legendary creatures in particular).
I think #1 is the best solution perhaps along with #3 {for a CR 30 encounter, adding both would be very appropriate}. I also wouldn't be opposed to a ranged attack of some sort (like Giant's get).
Acid Immunity alone or the leap ability alone (or really both) would only postpone the problem. Sure the Tarrasque can engage McCheesewizard, but McCheesearcher will still kill it just a handful of levels later.
-Polaris
Grifford wrote:
I don't think there's any reason to go complicated.
Add a Throw attack to its stat block. Done.
(I also don't think this is necessary, because creatures can take actions that are not in their stat block already, by the way. This is not 4E, 'throw something at jerk' is not a power that needs to be defined.)
I need more explanation. I feel like I started in the middle of a thread here. How does a level 5 wizard solo it?
Grifford wrote:
iserith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I'm confused why is it throwing a tree like a javelin? Why is it not just throwing it? 
I think the leap attack sounds friggen awesome and seems like it'd be a cool ability. Imagine the thing leap attacking into the middle of a town or castle. Brutal.
Regen is okay and fits the beast, but frankly seems rather boring.
admcewen wrote:
iserith wrote:
I am amazed at how people are still arguing over this ridiculous scenario...
Have the Tarrasque pick a large rock from the ground, rip off a tree from its roots, grab a large chunk of earth from the muddy terrain and throw it at the flying, acid-spitting imbecile... that's it, encounter over: the wizard gets swatted and falls to his/her death.
And there are even some who argue that an int. 3 creature can't think of that... 
Mr_Treegins wrote:
iserith wrote:
The javelin thing just sounds weird. A big ass t-rex lizard grabs a tree, bites the leaves/branches off, takes aim at the wizard and step, step, launches the javelin into the sky. 
I'd rather give the damng thing a recharging special leap attack. It's way more hollywood.
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Dracones wrote:
My solution is to give it my patent-pending (just kidding) Living Demiplane ability. Attacks and spell effects that originate outside of the creature's reach have no effect on it.
Mistwell wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I love how people go nuts over some meaningles detail and will fight to the death over it. The point is that the tarrasque has problems that allow it to be killed very easily. It doesn't matter if the wizard is level 5 or level 20. If you're fighting about whether or not a level 5 wizard could do this then it has gone completely over your head.
Anyway, adding regen goes a long way to fixing a lot of the problem. It's a very common ability in the bag of tricks for boss mobs in MMOs to prevent them from being soloed or low-manned. 5E has decided that bigger monsters get bigger HD but for something like the tarrasque that really doesn't seem like enough and regen might be a good fit.
Burrow is obviously to escape airborne attacks works, but having something that big going through the ground doesn't seem plausible short of some fairly fantastic magic. I think a better way might be to say it's shell is so hard on top that it can't be attacked from above, or if it doesn't move it's full distance it can turtle and reduce damage from above.
Some sort of ranged attack is reasonable. Something that big and strong could reasonably rip up chunks of the landscape and throw it huge distances. A tank can throw a shell for miles, no reason a magical creature that could swallow a tank whole couldn't toss a small boulder quite far or even a small building a decent distance.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Multiattack changed to include: May make a boulder toss in place of a claw attack or a mountain toss in place of both of the claw attacks as well as the tail attack.
Boulder Toss: Ranged Weapon Attack: +14 to hit, range 500/2000, one target.
Hit: 24 (4d6 + 10) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 20 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
Mountain Toss (recharge 4-6): The Tarrasque throws a large piece of the terrain in a 150-foot line that is 15 feet wide. Each creature in that line must make a DC 20 Dexterity saving throw or suffer 64 (12d8 + 10) bludgeoning damage and be knocked prone, or half damage on a save and not knocked prone.
I'm not sure why the Tarrasque use DC 20 for it's saves when a piddly CR 24 dragon is using 25s. Also the damage seems sorta low, but there you have it.
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Legalese-style, the tarrasque goes down.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Does anyone have a 1st Ed MM II at hand, so we can get a proper idea (mine is packed away). ...everything is so sanitised now...
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Hey, I'm on board with the chucking churches and what-not at people, but the odd leaping and readied action shenanigans some are suggesting, is not flying.
...yes, leave the pun alone...
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
So, back to the OT, how else can we mow this bastard?
Grifford wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Simple Solution:
Some obnoxiously high "burrow" number.
Mistwell wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
"Rocks are improvised thrown weapons."
- Yes they are
- No they aren't
- Yes they are
- No they aren't
Truly, at this point that all sides have expressed their arguments, that's all we 've come down to...
I wish this thread got locked...
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
I thought that only Peasents were proficient in "Throwing Rock" as a weapon, or did that get removed in the final rules?
And if so then now what can 100 of them use to defeat Dragons with?
It shoots its spines like the Pathfinder version
Spines. Ranged Weapon Attack: +19 to hit, range 150/600 ft., one target. Hit: (2d10 + 10) piercing damage
Multiattack. The tarrasque can use its Frightful Presence. It then makes five attacks: one with its bite, two with its claws, one with its horns, and one with its tail. It can use its Swallow instead of its bite. Or it can fire 3 spines.
Coupled with the regen on the first page and it's pretty much perfect.
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Anyway
It shoots its spines like the Pathfinder version
Spines. Ranged Weapon Attack: +19 to hit, range 150/600 ft., one target. Hit: (2d10 + 10) piercing damage
Multiattack. The tarrasque can use its Frightful Presence. It then makes five attacks: one with its bite, two with its claws, one with its horns, and one with its tail. It can use its Swallow instead of its bite. Or it can fire 3 spines.
Coupled with the regen on the first page and it's pretty much perfect.
MonsterEnvy wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
Grifford wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
I think I would just houserule it to add the ability to jump for some high ft number and bite one target which if it hits grapples the target (like it already does) and pulls it back down to the ground in its mouth.
abs1nth wrote:
Polaris wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
Polaris wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
The only thing this thread has done is convinced me to add a few posters to my ignore list, and that clearly some people like to argue about extremely silly things and don't seem to 'get' how D&D actually is played, you know, with real people having fun and using their brains and common sense with some guidance from a rulebook, not a bunch of munchkins seeking exploits and tricks to one-up each other or outsmart the designers.
Polaris wrote:
Bumamgar wrote:
Grifford wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
I think it should have a tractor beam breath weapon rather than a grounding zone. Being pecked to death by a flying archer is a little ignoble.
Although maybe the weight of arrows will be the archer's undoing...
Or maybe even a TARRASQUETOR BEAM!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!one!!!
YEAH!
... I'll get my coat.
Regen fits, but I wonder if it'll just be annoying maths keeping and artifically prolong a kinda concluded fight. It's not exactly lacking hitpoints.
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"An improvised weapon includes ANY OBJECT you can wield in one or two hands"
"An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
The RAW are 100% clear. A rock is an improvised weapon, and an improvised weapon can be thrown.
ITT some folks ignore the rules of the game to create a problem, not really anything new.
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Rock attacks seem to be based on CR and size, although the giant ape getting 7d6 and only 50/100, the treant getting only 180 range and the Storm Giant getting 4d12 break the pattern. I suspect some of these are errors.
I'd estimate 8d12 + STR, 75 / 300 for a CR 30 gargantuan monster from the progression of the few monsters we have. d12 from size and +1 die per 5 CR over the Hill Giant's 3 dice at CR 5. 75 base range with x4 multiplier for being gargantuan.
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Wow. 287 posts in under 12 hours. Is that a record?
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris is right. Improvised weapons only get properties like Thrown or Finesse if they resemble a weapon that already has that property.
Since there's no rock-like weapon that has the Thrown property, you can't match an improvised ranged attack with a rock to that rock-like weapon to give your improvised attack access to your Strength modifier for attack and damage.
We know this to be the case because giants don't use improvised damage rules for their thrown rocks. They have CR-based damage in d10s. Further, if the rules that giants use for throwing rocks were the same that the Tarrasque would use while improvising attacks by throwing rocks, then the giants would be dealing damage in d4s and limited to a range of 20/60. They're not, ergo the "Rock" action options for giants are just that - specific actions available only to that particular giant.
More to the point, we know that you can't model improvised weapons off monster attacks because that would completely trash the game. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are unique weapons among devils and other monsters that far outclass their PHB cousins.
A bone devil has a "hooked polearm" that would deal 1d12 at Medium and grapple the target. Why fight with a glaive when you can improvise a hooked polearm with an aluminum hockey stick?
Grimlock spiked clubs are 2d4 rather than 1d6. Why fight with a club when you can pick up a tea-table leg with a nail in it and deal 2d4?
A dire wolf's bite is listed as a melee weapon attack, for instance, so it's obvious that the presence of the word "weapon" in no way indicates that the attack in question uses a "weapon" in the same sense that improvised weapons require for comparison.
So no, monster attacks aren't open to serve as models for improvised weapons.
And no, "rock" is not a "melee weapon" in any default sense. It's an improvised weapon. When you throw a rock, it's a ranged weapon attack (Dex); when you try to crush Max Cady's head at Cape Fear, it's a melee weapon attack (Str).
OK Polaris. Please write out the part of the stat block that you think they missed out, and should be there, to allow the Big T the ability to throw a rock.
Please do it so clearly that no interperation is involved and there can be no doubts or arguments.
This is after all what you are saying they should have done so it should be fairly easy for you.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
The Big T is not broken, at all. PHB specifically talks about DM ruling and improvised attacks.
It is abundantly obvious that PHB rules about "improvised weapons" are intended for normal sized dudes throwing chairs and other normal things.... Has little to no relevance on making rulings about what the Big T might throw.
So, in my game, the Big T can grab a chunk of earth and hurl it at a flying enemy caster and squish him. Off the top of my head, wearing my DM hat, bearing in mind the rock a Storm Giant can throw and comparing with the Big T stats..... I'd rule the Big T throws a house or earth chunk as: range 80/260, +19 to hit, 10' diameter AoE, 4d10+10damage.
Best of luck Mr 5th level flying wizard.
Karnos wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Can we stop talking abotu Rocks. Its really stupid.
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
What are the stats for a rock?
Like, if my wizard goes over and throws a rock at someone (she has 16 strength and 10 dexterity), how does that work?
Do I get to do 4d10 damage?
Oraibi wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Polaris wrote:
The rocks people keep mentioning in relation to giants are not weapons but are the ammunition as previously stated in the thread. Ammunition isn't the same as a weapon. So I would agree with posters who believe that the improvised weapons rules cover the use of them as ranged attacks for characters ( player or non player ).
No, I am not saying it is logical or how anyone should or would run it. It just happens to be RAW as far as I can determine.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Strill wrote:
Has anyone actually run a campaign ending at 20th level, with the Tarrasque is the big fight at the end?
It doesn't seem too weak to me. Also, even in 4e, you didn't need an AEDU power to DM a monster that size throwing huge chunks of town square at flying wizards or archers. (Saw that comment near the begining of the thread). A giant monster tossing a sizable piece of building would go pretty far, explode on impact, and do a huge amount of bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
If it really needed to be tougher, I'd give it regeneration, and I'd make its attacks all be AoEs. Its bite has a 10' radius. Its claw swipe is a 30' cone, its tail sweep is a 80' hemisphere...You get the idea.
Caliburn101. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
For those of you arguing that the "rock" is not a weapon, please read the Hill Giant entry in the DM Basic Rules:
"their weapons are uprooted trees and rocks pulled from the earth."
This thread.....9 pages in 24 hours of arguing about rocks. You're all wrong. THEY'RE MINERALS.
Ramzour wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I'm totally going to give the Tarrasque an item known as the Oberoni. It is broken but can be used anyway.
Then, the Tarrasque is going to throw it at a wizard who is flying and kill them with it. I would apply the 20/60 limitation from the improvised thrown weapon section from the PHB, but then I remembered that the Tarrasque isn't being used by a player, so the rules governing what a PLAYER's character can do is irrelevant.
Wow this thread is geting out of control, can I ask why everyone is still argueing with someone who comes out with comments like this ? (bolded one)
"So if a ground party kills the Tarrasque and it falls on top of them, they not only survive, but take no damage because it can't attack and misses?"
"Yes. That's true with a Dragon as well. If you kill an airborne dragon and it can't attack, it misses the party on the ground."
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
admcewen wrote:
The biggest problem(s) with the Tarrasque, are not it's lack of flight, or if it can or can not hurl improvised weapons, or that it lacks ranged attacks in it's stat block, or lacks allies in it's fluff, or it's low INT score..
It's that it follows some kind of monster design formula that makes it a CR 30 monster and the developers neglected to think about the vast options of utility power that the assumed 20th level party can use against this creature. I feel like using whatever system was at hand, they loaded Big T up with maximum hit die, size and AC then added more "Tanky" aspects to him, but then never sat down at the table and playtested him, at all. I mean im sure they got lots of games in developing 5th edition, but I really dont think Big T saw any play. I just cant convince myself that Mearls or the house DM ran 4+ people playing 20th level characters at a table through an encounter with this monster and decided it was worth that CR 30, then decided it would be the capstone monster for the MM and sent it off to publishing.
Ancient Red Dragon, the Demi Lich, heck even the Beholder and the Mummy Lord pose as bigger threats because they come with much more utility at hand....at a much lower CR. Use two of them together and you can even TPK well equipped 20th level parties at less CR than big T.
I really like this edition but I dont like the current CR system.
Solution; Lower Big T's CR to 20, It will make no mechanical difference what so ever as the PC's wont benifit from the experience points, but you'll sleep better at night trying to figure out why this monster is diserving of CR -30-
A CR 30 Monster in this edition would be Demogorgon, with his crazy "go twice" mechanics of previous editions, save or be charmed for the entire fight mechanics, the ability to summon in demon allies, some nasty lair actions and the usual legendary monster stuff.
CR 30 is not the ultimate turtle, even if it has 2000 hit points.
FYI Rock is a weapon (using Strenght), the giant statblock specifically say so;
MM154 Rock. Ranged Weapon Attack: +12 to hit, range 60/240 ft., onetarget . Hit: 30 (4d10 + 8) bludgeoning damage.
The number of people in this thread >> the number of people in this thread that have actually played D&D at a real table with real people where the party encountered a Tarrasque.
For every idiotic contrived example someone comes up with to say something doesn't work, I can come up with another (probably idiotic) contrived example of why it DOES work.
I think it says a lot about the success of D&D 5e that the forum trolls are down to arguing about whether or not the Tarrasque can make Ranged attacks. And all those forum trolls that complained that the sky was falling during the playtest must feel pretty silly now that their proclamations of doom never came true.
Been playing 5e since the Starter Set came out in July and we love every second of it. But by all means, please continue the pointless arguing. Meanwhile, I'll be prepping for my game next week.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
eleran wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I don't know why the designer have removed the dash attack as a ready action. To me it doesn't seem more powerful than a readied range attack.
About the RAW game : D&D is expected to not being able to cover every situation, this is why pen and paper rpgs are better than computer games. Because there are no limits. DM have human brains that can adpat to maintain a fun game. The most specific rule is the one the DM makes to adapt to an unexpected situation. Which overrides everything. The RAW D&D game expect the DM's to do just that.
Orethalion wrote:
Updated the main post with "cantrip immunity", "spines", and "giant rock".
More ideas, less BS. C'mon people.
Karnos wrote:
Sorry Plaguescarred but just because Giants have a specific "weapon" attack involving the 'rock' does not magically and universally make 'rock' a weapon. Likewise a sling bullet is NOT a weapon. A sling loaded with bullets is a weapon.
Ergo, 'Rock' is not a weapon, it's an object. That means that the rules for objects with improvised weapons apply: I.E. Range 20/60 and either you use Dex to attack or no stat at all depending on how you adjucate ranged attacks.
The fact is that just because you throw an object does not magically give that object weapon keywords. Why can you throw an object? Because the Improvised Weapon rules allow for it. That doesn't make them thrown weapons, and it doesn't mean you get to poach MM attacks that might be "weapon" attacks.
Now if in the future 'rock' appears on a weapon table or specific weapon entry [not a weapon based ranged power but an actual bonafide weapon entry], we'll talk.
Is this ideal? No. I am merely talking about the rules as they are actually written.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The improvised weapon argument rages on - and for what? To say the Tarrasque doesn't need fixing because it can throw improvised weapons at a level 5 wizard.
Kiiinda proving the point of the thread, huh? Namely that the Tarrasque needs something else to meet its CR.
Still, if you dislike the rules for improvised weapons and feel you have to append the giant-specific rock stats to make such an attack actually help against a level 5 wizard... that's just using Rule #0 and calling it RAW. It's not wrong to houserule the Tarrasque - that's what the thread is about. It's just disingenuous to call these houserules "RAW".
I'm probably not adding much to this topic, and only read a couple of pages, but I'm shocked (and a bit depressed) by what I'm reading here...
We're arguing that a gigantic godzilla-like creature can only throw a rock up to 60' feet...? Really now?
This is the kind of nonsense that will keep new players away from the game.
Polaris wrote:
Delazar78 wrote:
[quote="Delazar78"]
I'm probably not adding much to this topic, and only read a couple of pages, but I'm shocked (and a bit depressed) by what I'm reading here...
We're arguing that a gigantic godzilla-like creature can only throw a rock up to 60' feet...? Really now?
This is the kind of nonsense that will keep new players away from the game.
[/quote]
Apparently the Tarrasque would make for a *terrible* outfielder in baseball.
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
spelley wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This thread is proof that people just love to argue about stuff.
Yes in a white room a 5th level wizard can "solo" the tarrasque. We don't "assume" the tarrasque has something to combat the Wizard, but we also can't "assume" the wizard has acid splash and fly. You can't "assume" all wizards "worth their salt" will have these spells, because that isn't true.
But all of this is just a practice in arguing because there's going to be no practical situation in which a Wizard will have infinite, open space to chase this defenseless tarrasque, unless the DM specifically tailors it that way.
Seems that the issue with citing RAW and legalese, is that it literally says two different things.
- The Tarrasque as written in MM pg286
- As Plaguescarred noted, the MM also says a DM can alter, add, or subtract things from any monster to fit their game.
Two types of RAW. Both are correct.
Synjin wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I...can't beleive that Grifford and Polaris are arguing in good faith at this point.
This is Bill Clinton "is" level embaressing to read.
Raw disagrees with you guys. And even for the sake of argument it didn't, and the Tarrasque could only throw 60' and at low damage, the proposed Whiteroom 5th level Flying Acid Splash Wizard (nearely 200 rounds to kill the thing is Soloing in your eyes, really?) is easily avoided by Whiteroom running Tarrasque for the entire length of his Fly spell. It cuts both ways guys.
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.
Orethalion wrote:
remember that the throwing rules in the PHB are for players of medium size and smaller. a bigger creature could obviously throw things a helluva lot further. I would say at least double per size catagory.
I would also say its defenetly a strength based ranged throw
so something like improvised +10 (min) 4d6 - 4d10 ( depending on the object thrown ) +10 damage objects.
if int 1 is a slug and int 2 is a dog and int 3 is a clever raven or dolphen then I think a Tarrasque can figure out how to throw an out-house at you
as to the rule as written ppl. Can a human noble from the npc section pick up a spoon and throw it at you or is he limited from that action because its not in his stat block?
This thread is really funny.
As much as I liked the tarrasque to have burrow, or ranged attack deflecting armor, I am also in the camp that says it is not necessary. RAW can always be used to circumvent monster defenses, except the flat out immunity to everything. I don´t believe, anyone would like to have the Tarrasque to have damage immunity: all and condition immunity: all. Its bad enough, that no line spell can ever hit it, making the ablative armor a borderline useless feat, as noone even tries to bring in those spells, if there is no chance to hit at all.
Improvised actions and using improvised thrown weapons is the way to go. Notice how many creatures lost their grab attacks, because they can just use grab and drag the target away and holde them in place easily when trading one of theirr attacks.
It is also quite impressive, how some people argue, that improvised weapons in the PHB are meant for all monster. If you look at monsters, all manufactured weapons scale their damage with size. I really expect the DMG to have rules and guidelines for weapons monsters can use. That should include big rocks and other improvised weapons. I can not understand how anyone honestly believes, the PHB rules for improvised weapons are meant for gargantuan creatures, when non improvised weapons in the PHB only list the damage value for medium and small sized creatures too.The DMG will cover it. Really. I also expect guidelines for improvised actions, alternate uses for inspiration etc. I would also expect guidelines how to react to downright disruptive rules lawyers, that hate 5th edition and try everything desperately to find flaws where none exist...
5th edition is not perfect. Some choices the devs made are dubious:Why give a druid lvl 2 acces to CR 1 forms, when CR1/2 would be the logical choice for that level (druid level/3 rounded down to nearest CR, or why they didn´t handle wildshape like the spell shape change: you may switch as often as you like between forms, but after getting the critters HP once, you may not increase that amount until you rest. But not giving every creature a throw thing power seems one of the better choices they made. This is such a basic action, no need to have it listed, except for giants, because they are proficient in throwing rocks. (Which is implied by having it in their power list by the introduction of the MM)
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Keen_Man wrote:
Grifford wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Grifford wrote:
If we want to use the improvised rules, we just need the Tarrasque to throw long, straight sticks at the Wizard. Splintered trees would work.
"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club."
So now our Tarrasque is hurling improvised spears (or javelins) every round. We treat them as spears or javelins, so they have either 1d6 damage with 20/60 range, or 1d6 damage with 30/120 range. Because spears and javelins have the Thrown property, we can use strength to make the attacks:
"If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the wapon."
Let's just assume the Tarrasque isn't proficient in his splinter spears. Then he gets to make 1 attack per round with a +10 modifer for 1d6+10 damage. If he is proficient (MM 9: "Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment."), then it's a +19 to hit and still 1d6+10 damage. If the target is within 20/30 feet, the roll is made normally. If the target is within 60/120 feet, the roll has disadvantage.
Even so, this lets the Tarrasque attack the airborne target for 1d6+10 damage per round, but only once per round. If the target is too high in the air, the Tarrasque can jump up some number of feet and close that distance, making a move to jump and then an attack at the top of his jump. No readied actions required. If the target is just too high, the Tarrasque can just wait to throw the splinter spear until it moves into range.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
I take no joy in pointing out that some things are flawed either (and really that was supposed to be the premise of the thread). I am starting to wonder if some people have so much invested in having 5e succeed no matter what, that no reasonable criticism of the rules is possible.
-Polaris
So why do people keep quoting rules about improvised weapons and such from the PHB in relation to the Tarrasque? Rules in the PHB are just that... rules in the PLAYER's handbook. They govern player characters, not NPCs. Certainly not monsters.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
The Tarrasque in the monster manual is the baseline or default representation, but RAW also states you can take that baseline and modify it. But the RAW representation in the MM still stands as what most people will use, or if they want to discuss the abilities it has. As soon as you modify it, it is not the same one presented in the MM, and thus is house ruled.
Bloodscythe wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Dracones wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Hello,
This thread is being temporarily locked for clean up.
Thanks,
Monica
Hello all,
The thread is now open again. Some content was removed for being disruptive. Some content was removed because it referenced other removed content, or otherwise detracted from the topic of the thread. If action has been taken against your account you will get an email. You can also see any contact from us via the help site here. Just log in using your same information you use to log into the forums, and then check My Stuff.
Please remember to stay on topic and be friendly and polite. If you feel that we failed to remove some content that you feel should be removed, please report i using the Report Comment button, or go to the help site and click Email Us, then for Product select Wizards.com Website, then Reeport Conduct. Please include links to specific posts that are of concern for you.
Thanks,
Monica
I don't see the tarrasque picking things up and throwing them at player characters. It has the same intelligence as a dog or rat. And neither of those animals is going to pick something up and use it as an improved weapon against an aggressor. It will either attack with it's claws and teeth, or retreat. Lol, if a mastiff chases me up a tree and I start lobbing pine cones at it, it isn't going to grab a rock and throw it at me, even if it had opposable thumbs. It will run and jump around the base of the tree barking at me until it gets bored and leaves, like the dumb beast with few options that it is.
That's not to say that a DM can't run a tarrasque that throws stuff at player characters. Each game is different; you can do what you want. But it isn't unreasonable to play the tarrasque as an aggressive beast that doesn't even think to pick something up and throw it. And that's not a failure to run your monster in a "tactical" way. That's really just trying to be true to its ability scores.
And the suggestion to find/be "effective DMs" instead of houseruling the tarrasque is simply rude and completely unhelpful. If the monster is perfect for you and you're confident in your ability to run it with no snags, great. Enjoy it, love it. We all play the game to have fun. But, it shouldn't be offensive to you to see a thread where someone wants a list of houseruled abilities to overcome deficiencies they see in the creature (though I admit the OP's language can come across as argumentative). It's disheartening that people can't even say something like "Well, I don't think it needs a ranged attack, but if that's what you're looking for, Attack X might be a good one." Instead, we get nonsense and almost child-like posts like "No. It doesn't need an attack. It's fine. Real DMs will know how to run it. No one agrees with you. You're a munchkin. There is no problem. There is no problem. There is no problem ad nauseam."
Now, it seems the very low level of the acid splash example served to distract a lot of people. But, is there a relatively low level party that could stomp the CR 30 creature? Can it be demonstrated that, even when not trying to solo the creature with a low level wizard, the tarrasque still has glaring weaknesses? Because if so, maybe houserules or official fixes are in order.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Actually, if it did have opposable thumbs and an arm that would allow it to throw, you would only be putting yourself in danger, since animals are capable of learning. And you, throwing objects down at it, are the perfect teacher in how to throw things. So instead of being safe where it can't reach you and waiting for it to leave, you've taught it how to injure you and even graciously left it where it could get rocks...as opposed to pinecones.
As for your argument of animals being too stupid to use tactics or tools, pure nonsense. Crows/Ravens have an INT of 2 and have been extensively proven to not only make and use tools, but use tools to obtain other tools to obtain yet other tools, to obtain their food. Lots of animals in fact, use tools and are incredibly intelligent. The Grey Wolf, while not a tool user, uses pack tactics that includes driving chased animals into traps to slow it down and use different tactics for different prey.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Whether the Tarrasque is smart enough to throw things with an INT of 3 is up to the DM. I've had squirrels throw things at me and I've known smarter animals that never do this. Tarrasques don't exist. No amount of argument will make its throwing behavior clear. In some pictures it has pretty clear hands. I've also seen pictures of cats painting. Can a cat paint in D&D? That's up to the DM. Should a cat paint in D&D? No, but guess what, it's still up to the DM. In 100 posts from now it will still be up to the DM.
The INTs shouldn't be taken as scientific numbers so such arguments are a waste of time. Brown Bears have an INT of 2 but a Cat has an INT of 3. Does anyone actually think cats are smarter than bears? Well I don't care because D&D INT scores aren't sufficient to completely describe behavior. Or do we need to discuss why a skeleton doesn't behave like a bear?
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
I have a big issue with this argument about the Tarrasque being unable to throw things. There are ZERO instances of RAW in either book (and maybe I missed one, but boy did I look) that say that the Tarrasque cannot throw a tree as a spear. The spear "fix" is a fairly pure RAW application to solve a pure RAW issue in its stat block.
But the response has been largely RAI, common-sense, and externally sourced. People talking about how Tarrasque's don't have thumbs or don't have enough intelligence to throw a tree as a spear. On the one hand, I and others have already provided evidence to show a) that the intelligence scale doesn't make a whole lot of sense as is, and b) there are real world examples where comparably intelligent animals do stuff like this (to the extent that we can talk about comparable intelligence with a D&D monster).
On the other hand, it is patently absurd to say that it doesn't make RAW sense for Tarrasque's to throw an improvised tree spear, but does make RAW sense for a house-sized boulder to deal 1d4 damage. Especially because there is actually no RAW counterargument to Tarrasque's chucking spearlike objects.
None of this is to say that the Tarrasque isn't poorly designed. It really is. But it IS to offer an RAW way out of that until we get our hands on the DMG, or we get some errata/FAQ/devposting. And Tarrasque's throwing spearlike trees is 100% RAW, whether people like it or not (again, I'm willing to acknowledg that there might be a passage I missed).
@CriticalBastard: I think it's more that the intelligence score gives us a rough idea of what kind of behavior to expect. It does matter. In this case, it's intelligence is rather low. It's a beast. It's really debatable whether or not, and to what degree, it will start improvising against an adventuring party. And the "obvious tactics" line of argumentation so far is not so obvious to me and others.
@Handon_Kast: It seems from the comments (on both sides) that a ranged attack is either necessary, or assumed as obvious and automatic. And now a picture is being used as evidence. If the tarrasque would obviously throw stuff to deal with the very real problem of ranged attackers, why would this ability not be included? Why do I need to know the stats for its Bite attack if I can see the teeth in the picture? I can just use the rules for a melee attack.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
I have a big issue with this argument about the Tarrasque being unable to throw things. There are ZERO instances of RAW in either book (and maybe I missed one, but boy did I look) that say that the Tarrasque cannot throw a tree as a spear. The spear "fix" is a fairly pure RAW application to solve a pure RAW issue in its stat block.
Handon_Kast wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Both sides agree that the creatures can ready a leap for when the mage is in range..
I think what people forget is that the Tarrasque is 50' tall and weighs hundreds of tons. It doesn't need to make a melee attack or grapple attempt to do damage. The mere act of jumping into the area of sky that the mage is in is going to cause damage to the mage. Give the Mage a DEX save to avoid the Tarrasque and call it a day.
This simply requires a bit of common sense from the DM. If you surround a Tarrasque by 5000 Goblins (that are somehow immune to Fear), are you really saying the Tarrasque can only attack five per turn and can't move? Of course not. The Tarrasque can move at will and will crush dozens of them with every step. Do the rules cover this? No, but then again, I have no desire to spend $250 on a 1200 page tome that has rules for every conceivable possibilty. This is a tabletop RPG, not a MMORG - the DM is expected to apply common sense to handle unusual situations.
Can we move on now?
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Mith: Regarding the wolf... I'm coming at this from the perspective that the tarrasque simply doesn't throw stuff and that for it do so would be out of line with its normal behavior (it stomps and smashes and eats but doesn't throw stuff) and outside the scope of its intelligence (it wouldn't think to throw something to engage a distant threat). Since you mentioned learned behavior, are you instead suggesting that the tarrasque would have acquired this behavior at some point in its lifetime? (I admit, this is largely a non-issue because even were that the case I don't see it realistically happening, but it would help to know where you're coming from.)
Regarding your various examples, again, I am well aware that wild animals use tools and solve problems. I just consider most of those examples to be very different than what we're talking about, which is improvising the use of tools in the middle of combat. Hence my reference to a study suggesting that captive animals behave differently than wild animals.
The one example I think is relevant to the tarrasque is that of the apes rolling stones down hills and dropping them off cliffs. But again, apes have a 6 intelligence, and are traditionally known for their tool use and intelligence. I don't think you could teach the tarrasque to use sign language though. Which is why it has an intelligence score. To give us an idea of what it is capable of.
Truthfully, if you asked me if I thought the tarrasque could get to a piece of food that required some problem-solving to get to... I'd say yes, given some time and trial and error it could do it. But picking up stuff to use as weapons just seems out of line for me. It already has weapons.
Regarding the orangutan, I was not concluding that it isn't intelligent because it had to see the behavior first. I was pointing out that a creature with a higher intelligence score still had to learn and acquire the knowledge before it could use it. So it doesn't seem obvious that the tarrasque would simply know to throw stuff at a flying enemy. Again, I'm coming at this from the perspective that the tarrasque doesn't already throw stuff (which I think is reasonable given its total lack of stats for throwing stuff or even any ranged attack in this edition or the last, or the one before that).
Shasarak wrote:
@Handon: I don't know if it can bite. I mean... where is the jaw strength coming from? Maybe, because it doesn't have a snout, it might be hard for it to get close enough to a hostile target to get a good grip. But my point is not that someone can't improvise a ranged attack for the tarrsque. My point is that I don't see why it is so obvious that it would throw something in the first place. People made the point that there is literally nothing wrong with the tarrasque and no changes are necessary because it can just throw stuff at flying opponents. It seems weird that the "obvious" solution to such a glaring problem wouldn't even be included in the statistics. I'm arguing that the tarrasque is not intended to throw things because it's a dumb brute and it doesn't have a ranged attack in its stat block.
@CriticalBastard: People were derailing the thread claiming there were no reasons for changes because of this throwing tactic. It was implied that DMs were bad DMs if they couldn't deal with a flying wizard in this way. That seems pretty absolute if the claim is simply that the tactic is "debatable". I'm saying it's debatable, though unlikely. Other people were basically hijacking the thread and preventing any progress counter to their beliefs. And I see no reason why the tarrasque wouldn't jump, but again the point of contention was the readied action allowing a jump and an attack, not if it would actually jump. The stone throwing is, eh, I don't see it, and obviously neither do the developers. But if that's the work-around for some people, that's ok.
Having seen a few tarrasque fights, the problem with the beast is the fight takes forever because it has tonnes of hitpoints and has a disgustingly high AC and most spells don't affect it. So regenerations just seems like it will make things drag.
Some kind of leap ability or rock hurling would probably be fine though.
I'd add regeneration 30 or so and magic immunity for spells up to 3rd level. But it wouldn't really matter in my campaigns, the tarrasque will never be used as a direct challenge to the PCs power in an open space without at the very least a timesensitive mission to protect a town / temple or something similar. Or force the PCs to enter the tarrasque's cave, setting the battleground and the threat of coming within the mellee reach of this creature.
The tarrasque is only really dangerous when you come in reach of it's attacks, which makes it hard to assign a CR. If you give it a lower CR ppl might say it is way too tough for that CR. The tarrasque is only a proper CR 30 creature when it's acting in a planned scenario with the PCs having limited options. Otherwise thinking on your feet or otherwise circumventing its CR 30 threat is what the tarrasque is about imo.
If it is OK to interpret an Int 3 creature is incapable of using an improvised weapon in a way the rules allow, then it should also be OK to interpret a Con 7 wizard cannot cast spells all day without getting tired.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I'll just leave that here.
If there is a God, this thread will close.
I just want to restate that Int is inconsistent in the MM and needs to be treated as such.
Hill Giants and Ogres (Int 5) can understand and speak common. They fashion and use tools. They wear clothes.
Apes (Int 6) can neither understand nor speak common. They fashion and use tools, likely in a similar way to Hill Giants and Ogres. And they definitely do not wear clothes.
It seems like those two Ints should be reversed, especially given that Baboons (why does this get its own stat block?) have Int 4. But the progression from Baboon (Int 4) to Hill Giant/Ogre (Int 5) to Ape (Int 6) just makes no sense. The only thing it shows is that in-game Intelligence scores are not necessarily indicative of capabilities. I mean, seriously: Bats, Bears, and Flying Snakes (??) have the same intelligence scores. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
On top of that, there is no rule anywhere that says the Tarrasque is incapable of hurling his 1d6+10 tree splinter spears.
None of this changes the fact that the developers did a shoddy job with the stat block. But it does give an RAW solution to some of the Tarrasque's woes.
Plaguescarred wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Polaris wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
What about the dude who rolled a 3 for the Int of his Dwarf Fighter, would he be allowed to throw things?
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
It's always been my understanding that sentience begins at INT 3+. I believe it's been that way since D&D began. So...a Terrasque is sentient. Barely.
I'm still liking the idea of a distruction aura/radius around it, and it throwing stuff (with its STR bonus to hit. A breaking up 5'-15' cube of matter flung at you is pretty hard to dodge). Many illustrations show it: a) walking upright, and b) with opposable thumbs. (Google image search 'Terrasque'.) I also like stealing PF's Cthulhu ability of melee attacks really being AoE's instead of single target.
I ask again: Has anyone here DMed an encounter with the Terrasque? If so...Please, take a few minutes and describe how it played out to us all.
I know, I bash this thread, and then comment again...Sorry people, LOL. I'm experiencing some insomnia, and I don't have work tomorrow.
It's starting to seem like CR in 5e is (while not as bad, IMO, as CR in 3x/PF) really...An arbitrary guide as well.
Plaguescarred won this arguement a long time ago.
lawrencehoy wrote:
seti wrote:
Polaris wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Qmark wrote:
If you have to add a missing rule, fix a rule, or adjust a rule to make it work via rule zero, you can not then state that the mechanic in question (in this case Tarrasque) is fine. That IS the Oberoni fallacy and it does apply in this case.
There is nothing wrong with houseruling, but it's frustrating to hear that the Tarrasque is fine "because I can adjust it like this" {which is in effect houseruling}. If you have to adjust it, then it's not fine. That also is the essence of the Oberoni fallacy.
So back to the OP's original point: What additions/houserules would suit the Tarrasque best?
-Polaris
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
seti wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Rocks aren't weapons? That's 100% wrong and the poster should feel embarassed for even typing that sentence. For someone who claims to be arguing from the RAW, there is a severe lack of reading comprehension going on here. Under Improvised Weapons (phb 147) it clearly states that anything that is reasonably similar to a weapon listed in the weapon table can be treated as such. They provide the example "table leg == club". Therefore, any object that can reasonably be considered a weapon is a weapon. Also, the Weapon table in the PHB does not list all weapons, a fact that it also clearly states. So something doesn't have to exist on the weapons table for it to be a weapon.
I mean, if the Tarrasque at INT 3 can figure out that a rock is a weapon, then what does that say about the intelligence of people that can't figure that out?
But most importantly: No one here has reported actually playing a real game against the Tarrasque where any of these alleged problems actually occurred. Because that's really the crux of the issue. The entire premise of the thread is that the Tarrasque is broken. I say that the original premise of the thread is wrong. Why? Because no one has given evidence that this actually happens in a real game. No one gives a steaming pile of Tarrasque crap about your white-room theory. D&D is meant to be played at a real table, with real friends, and real dice. Theorycrafting some extremely contrived example does not prove anything. Go play D&D. Go. Play. D&D.
Honestly the fact that we're having this arguement at all is kinda sad. do DMs really not think creativly and "outside the box" anymore?
Polaris wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Polaris wrote:
BrianCritchley wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
seti wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
seti wrote:
Why are you guys still offering ham sandwiches to the trolls?
Why hasnt this thread been closed by now? NOTHING is going to change from this thread except people getting pissed off at each other. It is an exercise in futility. In hindsight I think the only reason the OP started the thread was to engender an argument just like this.
eleran wrote:
I am still stunned that we are arguing about whether Int 3 Tarrasque's can throw spearlike trees when people agree that house-sized boulders deal 1d4 damage. There are literally no RAW entries in either book that prohibit a Tarrasque from doing this. I'm convinced that, at this point, some people in this thread just don't want the Tarrasque to be able to do anything. And to that end, they are willing to switch the scope of the argument to RAI/common-sense/external sources, when they have previously dismissed those exact same RAI/common-sense/external sources when it didn't suit their purposes.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
"A "rock" is not a weapon."
Laughable. Simply laughable. That would mean a crude stone axe or mace wielded by a creature is not a weapon. After all, it's just a rock tied to a stick. Put that same rock in someone's hand, their arm becomes the "stick". Improvised? Absolutely, but still a weapon nonetheless.
But all that aside...take the throwing objects off the table a moment. The Tarrasque is classified as a Siege Monster. It doesn't have to throw anything. All it has to do is swipe it's arm or tail at a building (a tactic it very much would do, having that classification) and send shrapnel flying towards the wizard for that same Concentration check, then rush in when the Wizard falls. Checkmate. All the DM has to do is make sure the encounter doesn't happen in a wide open grassy field with nothing to smash. Give the Tarrasque lots of things to obliterate and it's all over for the mage.
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Flying Wizard vs Big T...
Big T doesn't have a ranged attack, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. The wizard might win the fight eventually, but it will be a costly victory as the monster destroys a continent while it's getting dissolved by acid.
I like cantrip immunity, but I don't like having it throw rocks or trees... does it even have opposable thumbs to grip a tree? Is it smart enough to throw something? I've never seen a dog throw back the stick when we play catch, and they are Int 3, too.
I would houserule something like, since getting plinked to death by a wizard would be very frustrating:
Rage Roar: In any round where the only source of damage to the Terrasque is out of range, invisible or otherwise unable to be attacked, the Terrasque screams out it's frustrated rage in a deafening blast. All creatures within one mile that can hear must make a con save or be deafened. All creatures within 500 feet are effected as though cought in a thunderwave spell.
There would have to be an appropriate DC set for the save... not really sure what; I haven't playtested it. That does a couple things... it keeps the flying wizard in his appropriate role of "glass cannon"; someone or something needs to keep the Terrasque busy on ground level while the wizard contributes, or it will roar and let out a fairly massive area effect attack that will hit and possibly kill the wizard along with every villager, animal, vegetable and small tree within 500 feet.
It's appropriate, it's simple, and it doesn't make the wizard either completely useless or the only player that matters.
I will concede this point. The OP was originally talking about the Tarrasque "As-Is" in the MM. Meaning no mention of thrown attacks of any sort. If a DM did opt for that, then it becomes...well does that mean it gets 6 attacks? The throwing action, plus all the rest written? Does the throw replace the other 5 attacks? Two of the five? And so on.
That said, the DM's best use of the Tarrasque as-is, is the use of Siege Tactics. This creature lives to destroy stuff. A creative DM will use that to their advantage when coming up with scenarios. Flying Wizards don't stand a chance.
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
andypalmer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
spelley wrote:
spelley wrote:
Synjin wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Okay, I'm just going to not bother screaming into the void that is this conversation now. There is nothing to be gained here.
Polaris wrote:
All this jabbering back and forth and nobody thinks that the real problem isn't with the tarrasque, but is really our intrepid little Acidfly wizard? That little trick works for every solitary critter in the MM who doesn't have a ranged attack, has a fly speed less than 60', and has no escape mechanism.
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
JerboaTheFeared wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
JerboaTheFeared wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
andypalmer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Keen_Man wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
JerboaTheFeared wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford,
As the OP, I'm interested in your opinion of what I mentioned about the creature's Siege Tactics ability and how I proposed that the Tarrasque is not "broken" after all. I'll C&P it for you here in case you missed it.
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Satyrn wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
If you are going to be a troll and go for the RAW and nothing but the RAW in all aspects of your argument, and if that leads you to the conclusion that the tarrasque cannot pick up a rock and throw it, or not effectively enough to hit the flying wizard at 110' feet exactly then you must concede that the tarrasque could instead, after trampling all those villagers and soldiers trying to defend their town, pick up a bow and shoot an arrow at the wizard, without proficiency of course, as silly as it sounds. Because, RAW, anyone can use any actual weapon as long as you have two hands. No -- no interjection of reason to argue why it cannot, because INT or some other made up adjucation, because RAW doesn't explicitly exclude it, and anything you decide on your own would be a *house rule* and thus not RAW.
1eejit wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Just want to restate Handon_Kast's point, one I also have been making.
The thumb status and Int 3 of a Tarrasque have zero RAW bearing on its ability to throw trees as spears. RAW is about the rules that are written in the book. In neither the MM nor the PHB are there any rules to the contrary. The Int scale doesn't even make sense (Reference Int 6 Apes and Int 5 Ogres). There might be some common sense reasoning to suggest that Tarrasque's can't throw trees as spears, but that same common sense reasoning would also then be applicable to Tarrasque's throwing Storm Giant rocks. But as far as I can tell, this is an RAW argument, and RAW they can still chuck those trees.
That said, this doesn't discredit the very real concern with the monster's design. The Tarrasque absolutely has design flaws. That is why we are forced to use stupid tree spears instead of some awesome ability that should have been in the stat block in the first place. But those stupid tree spears are very much RAW, and they give DMs one purely RAW solution to SOME of the weaknesses of the Tarrasque.
Grifford wrote:
Also, just had Mike Mearls respond to my tweet:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/520625536117129216
Me: @mikemearls If you wanted the Tarrasque to throw rocks, would you use the Improvised Weapon rules (PHB), or the Rock rules for Giants (MM).
Mike: @ktkenshinx rock rules for giants
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Rocks rule!
Or so says King Boulderdash the Earth Elemental.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Mike's response means nothing. It's an individual opinion and not RAW. I won't even call it RAI since Mike on twitter has been wrong about RAW (sometimes egregiously so) before.
-Polaris
Synjin wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
eleran wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe,
Actually any alterations themselves are houserule (even though the alternation is allowed RAW).
Here's a good comparison from 5e:
Custom backgrounds.
RAW you are allowed to swap out with the DM's permission skills, tool proficiencies, and other elements of official backgrounds for other things of the same type (skill for a different skill, etc).
However,. the resulting background is a houseruled background since different DMs will draw different lines as to what are reasonable swaps and what aren't. Thus while the RAW permits you to make a custom background, a custom background becomes a houserule.
The same applies to monsters.
-Polaris
Handon_Kast wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
small addition which ppl seem to miss on PC's often as well. when you can jump a certain height dont forget to add your pc (or tarrasque)'s height plus reach on top of that for how high it can hit / claw
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
If I said everyone in my game gets +3 to proficiencies in their two background chosen fields, THAT would be a house-rule, because I'm changing the actual numerical mechanics.
Coming up with a new background, yet still using the same RULES (+2 proficiency to two stats), is not house-ruling anything.
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Rodney Thompson weighs in:
https://twitter.com/wotc_rodney/status/520679803108614144
Me: If you wanted the Tarrasque to throw rocks, would you use the Improvised Weapon rules (PHB), or the Rock rules for Giants (MM)?
Rodney: @ktkenshinx I would probably just make a new attack with damage commensurate to the tarrasque's other attacks so it's a viable attack option
Bloodscythe wrote:
This thread is officially a black hole.
Sorry, forums.
Polaris wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The Tarrasque is vulnerable to a ranged attacker in the same way: only if you place it in the middle of an endless field with no structures or cover within miles and miles.
But instead of that amazingly boring encounter, imagine if the Tarrasque instead is rampaging in the middle of the biggest city in the world. Because of the buildings (and the Tarrasque's propensity for simply smashing right through them as opposed to walking around them), it has total cover from any ranged attack more than 50 feet away.
And while I'm sure the next argument might be "Fine, so the Rogue just flies to get a clear shot". And gives the Tarrasque all the time it needs to completely destroy the town, which, incidentally, ushers in a new age of destruction by giving Gruumsh direct access to the world.
All that aside, I find it quite silly for people to say, "Having the Tarrasque hurt creatures as a result of smashing buildings is houseruling because the Siege Monster trait doesn't mention anything about damage." The rules don't tell you exactly how to handle TONS of situations. Remember the basic guideline that drives this entire edition: "Rulings, not rules."
There are no rules for how much damage a collapsing wall would do. Would you, as a Player, attempt to argue with your DM that you should therefor take no damage from a falling wall?
Unless, ultimately, the argument here is all around RAW, whatever that means for a game like D&D, which is nothing. So, sure, go ahead and enjoy your RAW, as interpreted by you. I'll continue to enjoy playing a game that isn't constrained by anything other than my own imagination (and the collective imaginations of my players).
Here are a number of scenarios involving the Tarrasque. Try to guess which ones would result in my players having a blast (yet probably being completely terrified) and which ones would result in them quotting passage and verse in the PHB to prove that I was cheating.
1) The Tarrasque makes a supernatural jump, high enough to chomp the pesky wizard who thought they were high enough to be safe. GULP!
2) The Tarrasque smashes through several buildings, spraying debris and chunks of masonry all over the PCs, who must save or take damage.
3) The Tarrasque sweeps through the platoon of guards deployed in a vain attempt at slowing the beast down. Many more guards are killed or injurred than would result from simply rolling the attacks on the Tarrasque's statblock.
So, as I said, yes...I am not playing RAW. But who cares? I don't care. Why should YOU care? Does the core of the game provide a robust framework capable of handling any situation easily? If so, you shouldn't care about having to go beyond what is written on a monster's statblock. Afterall, EVERY player EVER has gone beyond what is written on their character sheet. And rather than ruin the game, this has enhanced it. A monster's statblock is a baseline, a fallback. Something for the DM to do without thinking. It isn't supposed to represent a be all and end all of what a monster can do.
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Wizard flies in and attacks and flies out. Tarrasque use a lengendary action to move closer. Tarrasque's turn, moves closer and eats him. Fight over. No need to throw a thing.
:EDIT: Also to pint out, it can only use ONE Legendary action at a time, so in a one on one fight it can only move 80' and still attack, not 140' as stated up thread.
Can the Terrasque microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?
Is the air speed of a coconut-laden swallow sufficient to outrun a tree thrown like a spear by a Terrasque?
Does the Terrasque poop? If so, what is the INT score of said poop?
These are the questions that need answering. RAW and RAI are too vague.
Polaris wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Holy crap.... 302 new posts?
Ok. I really think the issue is the tone of the people arguing in favor of the tarrasque throwing spear trees as readied actions. Grifford and Polaris are not taking anything personally, and, while their positions may not be popular, what they are arguing is that the tarrasque has an issue versus ranged attackers, and the solutions to this problem that have been given are either not grounded in the rules (debatable) or do not justify dropping the matter completely and quitting the search for houserules and fixes. The rest of you guys on the other hand (and I'll group you together because you guys jump at every opportunity to group yourselves) seem to be taking this very personally, or seem somehow vested in the tree spears working as an obvious, viable solution to a ranged attacker.
The arguments about intelligence, thumbs, weapon tables, etc. are not the issue. The issue is that most of you feel the need to prove that you are better DMs and/or understand the game better by not allowing a ranged attacker to be an issue for the tarrasque. So instead of joining the discussion in a helpful way, we get the nonsense suggestion that the tarrasque can easily deal with a ranged threat by stripping trees of their roots and branches, readying his action on his turn, and throwing makeshift javelins. Ergo, no problem, unless you are a bad DM, lack imagination, or don't understand that the game is not played on a server, blah blah blah.
The funny thing is that it was very very very easy to add "Rock" to the OP, but the fact that people insisted it doesn't need its own ability, its so obvious, and there isn't a problem set the course to Futile Debate.
Anyways, whoever suggested the siege ability, I think it is awesome! It is totally in line with what the tarrasque does (rampage and destroy stuff) and gives it a ranged attack option. It also threatens a lot of people, meaning commoners running to flee the carnage can still get hit.
I also like the idea that a melee attack hits multiple targets or deals area damage or something to that effect. I don't feel like wading through all of the posts to find the exact ability but I think someone said it was inspired by Cthulhu. It makes sense and ups the ante.
What would you guys think about a roar that dispels magical effects?
EDIT: Also, the bit about the dwarf using the Bearded Devil's Beard attack was hilarious. Pure gold. But I wonder if the point Grifford was making isn't more relevant. Because I suspect that weapons in the MM aren't meant to be available for use of comparison as mentioned in the Improvised Weapons rules, and I think more examples like the Beard ability would strengthen that argument.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Animals find a way to get at something that is hurting it reguardless of its "int"
AS for ye old acid splash arguement... I would treat it the same as magic missle ... problem solved.
It's just the rock or tree flavored differently is all.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
@Orethalion: The flavor is really my biggest contention honestly. I just don't imagine the Tarrasque throwing stuff. It seems alien to me when I think about it 
.
As for the wizard doing little damage, I mentioned earlier that I think that particular example serves more as a distraction than anything else. It doesn't have to be a lone level 5 mage. It could be a level 10 party (I don't know if that's realistic or not, just an example). I'm not familiar enough with the system to know how much of a threat ranged attackers are to the Tarrasque at any level to be honest. I'm going off what I see you guys quoting/saying.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Lol, take it with the biggest grain of salt that you want. That's simply my issue with the suggestion (aside from saying trees are like javelins, which is what circumvents the need for a readied action).
Of course I don't have to state it throws stuff. I also don't have to use the Improvised Weapon rules. I can just give it a breath weapon or a property-damage-area-attack. I like those two much better than the throwing.
Being a doomsday monster doesn't really mean anything though. You could use that to justify anything that deals damage.
EDIT: Also, I think you missed my post where I stated I love the idea of the Tarrasque essentially granting itself area attacks through wanton destruction. I'm totally on board with that suggestion.
Show of hands: Who has DMed the Terrasque fighting a party (any level) in 5e? How'd it go? Did you DM it RAW, or did you houserule it up?
Any other edition(s)?
I asked this a while back, and no one replied....I really am curious.
seti wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
since the MM o pg 8 has a little block on modifying creatures. wouldnt any of the above ideas to modify the tarrasque technically per RAW?
seti wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
coil6 wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
More from Mike Mearls:
https://twitter.com/ktkenshinx/status/520621401980809216
Me: Is there a reason Tarrasque statblock lacks ranged attacks for fighting pesky enemies at distance? Seems like a big weakness
Mike: @ktkenshinx we built creatures based more on story reality, than trying to counter characters.
Mike: @ktkenshinx You *could* drop a tarrasque on to a featureless plain and fight it, or lure one there.
Mike: @ktkenshinx Expectation though is that a DM uses one in a dramatic way - tarrasque emerges in a city and starts trampling buildings/people
@Bloodscythe: The way I took it was the lack of a ranged attack was considered a weakness, and they were seeking a solution (the level 5 mage at this point is a non-issue because a ranged attacker at level 20 is still potentially a problem). I'm of the thought that if that really is a problem, it should be addressed in the stat block, instead of it being assumed the DM will handle it. Which is not to say the DM shouldn't or can't. Rather, I don't think it should come to that. The Improvised Weapon, while certainly feasible, seems inelegant to me (I know, I'm beating a dead horse here).
@Wuzzard: Yeah, I confess I couldn't keep track of everything so I wasn't sure when/why the tree javelins sprung up 
.
@ktkenshinx: Thanks for posting, it's nice to have that insight!
I am getting a real kick out of the number of times that I make a statement on the forums about something and eventually someone goes to twitter and asks Mike Mearls and he gives them pretty much the same response as I did.
In this case that the acid splashing flying wizard is going to have to compete with the tarrasque's innocent bystander kill count and city damage accrual (which I said in the other thread about this ridiculous topic).
Grifford wrote:
eleran wrote:
Perkins being the guy that made the new terrasque would be the one to ask.
Come on people, I've been gone for hours and only a few posts. How's this thread going to cross 1000 by tomorrow if no one is putting in the effort?
Wuzzard wrote:
Frankly there is little point in answering or even continuing the discussion since people's attitudes have hardened. I found the tweets from the Devs to be very interesting and enlightening but not in a very good way. Given that the tarrasque is a doomsday monster, having it demolish most of a city while it gets destroyed for good seems to me to be a good trade especially if that city can be evacuated.
As for the flying wizard or flying archer, they both work. I will concede that it's difficult to outrun the Tarrasque on a level plain...but only because of the legendary actions. If the attacker can fly [or use another movement mode the Tarrasque can't], that changes.
Fly has a speed of 60'. There is no reason why a wizard can't fly 90feet above it's head., fly down, cast acid splash and fly back up....and the only RAW counter seems to be "tree spears" [and given the Int, type of hands, and description of the critter, that seems dubious]. Flying archers also work, and they don't have to worry about tree spears (and can fly even higher and never get in range).
Let's look at the jump and attack. A tarrasque is 50' high with a Str of 30. That enables it to jump 13' in the air for a total height of 63'. Yes the jumping rules say it can outstreach it's arms to half it's body height but that doesn't mean it can get additional combat reach that way. Doing so is double dipping.
How do I know? Let's consider a more mundane example of a 6' human with a Str of 20 (+5) with a reach 5' weapon (a longsword just for example). Sure the human can jump up 8' in the air with a 10' running start and yes that human would get a reach of 3' on top of that with outstretched arms. However that only winds up being 17' [and that is far better than RL]. Are you seriously trying to tell me that said human would be able to successfully attack a creature five feet above that as a statospheric 23' up??? That would mean that the 6' tall human could attack a bird more than three full body lengths over his head. BUSHWAH! It's obvious that the jumping rules are never supposed to be used this way.
Instead with the human you jump 8' up in the air and get to add 5' for the reach of your sword for a total of 13' or 19' up from the ground which is pretty dang good!
Now let's get back to the Tarrasque. The wizard starts at 90 feet over it's head (total altitude of 140'). He comes down to 60' and attacks. The Tarrasque can jump as a readied action. He can jump 13' up. Sure his arms can go 25' more for a total of 38' over his head but so what? This was the Tarrasque's readied action and it can't attack on it. It has to wait for the wizard's turn to end so it an do it's attack with a legendary action....but what happens on the rest of the wizard's turn?
The wizard flies back up 30' (for a total move of 60') and back to a total altitude of 140'. The Tarrasque can not attack [assuming the DM lets it before it comes back down] but it's total attack altitude is only 50 (base height)+15 (claw)+13 (jump) for a total of 78' up. Even if you add an additional 25 (which is double dipping), you still only get 103' which is 37' short....thus the wizard is safe as houses.
As for flying archers, sure it will take a huge amount of ammo and lots of fly spells, but there is no reason (with magic bows) that the Tarrasque can't be shot to death with arrows with impunity either.
-Polaris
Wuzzard wrote:
The thing that bothers me the most in the entire discussion is the entire "the fact that the Tarrasque's Int value is 3 doesn't mean he's stupid".
Because that's pretty much what it means. All other discussions aside, all rule-bending and houseruling and DM fiat aside, if we're at the point that we have to take a numeric value we introduced in the game to gauge a certain's creature's performance in a particular field and say that it doesn't actually gauge anything then why we have ability scores at all?
Ability scores have a meaning. Int 3 is the intelligence of a chicken. A house cat.
Godzilla is not an Int 3 creature. A smart D&D edition would have given him something like Int 6 (animal). Much like Alien would be an Int 16 (animal) creature. But I digress on game design. Still the point is that we are discussing how we should play the Tarrasque not as an Int 3 creature but as something else because he's meant to be Godzilla, then the problem isn't uncreative DMs or DMs unable to make challenges but the guy who had the brilliant idea of giving the Tarrasque a low Int score.
Polaris wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I find it it very weird (telling) that you will not answer me.
[quote="1eejit"]
Qmark wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
1eejit wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Yeah, ape should probably be 4 or 5.
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
[quote="Brock_Landers"]
1eejit wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Lol - animals tend to use fight or flight so the wizard using acid splash and the flying bowmen won't kill the tarrasque because it will burrow underground long before it's even bloodied. Just because it doesn't have a burrow speed doesn't mean it can't dig and a DM might rule that its double damage to objects give it advantage on strength checks to dig to safety. Sure it's big so obtaining full cover will take a while but it can use legendary actions to keep moving. Alternatively, demolish some buildings on top of itself and use the rubble as cover.
Personally, since the thing dwells underground, I would have given it a burrow speed. Much simpler as the goal should be to drive it off rather than kill it.
Dellkane wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Once again, if all it takes to chase away the Herald of the Apocalypse is a level 6 wizard, then its value as a doomsday engine is slightly diminished.
Also because the "level 6 Wiz vs the Tarrasque" case is the "let's break the system" case. But a level 15 Wizard is gonna have fun killing the Tarrasque. That's still a huge problem.
So I think I can summarize the thread.
Polaris doesn't want DMs to have to use their creativity and imagination to deal with unexpected PC actions, so he wants to propose rule changes to minimize that activity. The flying ranged attack vs. Tarrasque is the example for now, but there will be countless more. We will eventually have a tome of rules so comprehensive that there are rules to cover every potential PC actoin and interaction with NPCs and Monsters.
Next up: How to exhaust a Tarrasque by raising 5000 skeletons and how the Tarrasque's abilities should be modified to prevent such an obvious design flaw.
andypalmer wrote:
Once again, let's put the Tarrasque in its natural context.
He's meant to fight what, level 18+ characters? Characters that know the potential doomsday device is coming to destroy the world. He's not gonna have to deal with one flying wizard. The Ranger will be doing it too. And the Warlock. The fighter will be decked for the fight. And so on.
His weakness against flying characters is gonna be more than crippling in a real fight.
But wait, there's more! Because D&D is well, a game no? So it's meant to be fun.
Now, imagine the FUN of playing this encounter.
Imagine the thrill and excitement when the characters starts flying and the DM starts flipping through the PHB to discover how throwing buildings works, and discussing with players how versatile are the fingers of an Int 3 monster with no opposable thumb. The joy of evaluating the damage of an improvised weapon of his size, and the happyness that will erupt when he realizes that 4d4 won't get the fighter anywhere and he tells his player the monster has suddenly developed the ability to hurl whatever comes into reach for 5d10 with great accuracy. THE JOY.
But of course none of this will become a problem at a real gaming table. Everyone will nod in agreement and appreciate the DM's inventiveness and ingenuity, and Mike will agree that not only it's completely fair that his Wizard got impaled from a tree that came out of nowhere, but the DM's adjudication strongly improved the story and enjoyment. And all the discussing about rules and design made everyone a little bit wiser, and much happier.
Yeah, the 5E Tarrasque is surely going to be a joy to whip out.
Fighting the Tarrasque from flight at a safe distance may keep the adventurers safe, but meanwhile Big T is demolishing entire city blocks. Even if they kill him they've allowed him to run rampage rather than grabbing his attention. That's a loss in my book.
If the players are appropriate level it's not such a big problem, also because the flying fighter can go close and personal till he's worn out, then let the barbarian replace him by flying away. I mean, it's so easy with the Tarrasque.
And I feel this is also a situation where the problem isn't the specifical monster (who cares if the Tarrasque is poorly designed, he's not gonna appear in a relevant number of games) but the fact that it highlights some of the weaknesses of D&D as a whole. You write a system that by level 12 allows the players to do pretty much anything they can imagine and then for the "final challenge" you go and say here "he's an oversized bear, have fun".
Dellkane wrote:
Polaris wrote:
andypalmer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Killer Whales (orca) use tools (beds of ice to stalk and trap prey), and a human can play the game with a 3 Int (totally rollable, and acceptable), that is all.
Dellkane wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
1eejit wrote:
I find the play-test Pit Fiend, vastly superior to the MM one; just make it what you want to be (but within concise rule's/restraint's...I am not kidding).
Brock_Landers wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Holy moly, there are still people talking about how the Int score of a Tarrasque has any bearing on its ability to use weapons.
1) Int scale doesn't make sense. Hill Giants and Ogres use/make tools, speak common, and wear clothes. They have Int 5. Apes only use/make tools, definitely don't speak common, and definitely don't wear clothes. They have Int 6. Ravens use tools and have Int 2. Elephants use tools and have Int 3. But Mule (Int 2) and Lions (Int 3) don't use tools, despite having the same respective scores as Ravens and Elephants. Obviously, there are huge inconsistencies in the scale.
2) More importantly, there are zero RAW entries that say Int affects the Tarrasque's ability to wield the tree spears. Anyone who tries to argue that this doesn't make sense from a logical/real world perpsective must also admit that it doesn't make sense that house-sized boulders deal 1d4+0 damage when thrown. So either the Tarrasque is going to throw treelike spears using the RAW, or it is going to throw Storm Giant boulders using the RAW.
Seriously. This is an RAW issue and it has been from the beginning. Find me one rule that shows how Int 3 Tarrasque can't throw trees and I will take back everything I said. But until that rule is found, stop making stuff up to try and be right.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
It's not a question of whether it can actually wield a tree physically, or whether it can use tools. Saying that animals use tools does not mean a specific animal will respond tactically to a situation (as it was called when it was brought up).
The Tarrasque rampages and destroys stuff. That's it. And I think the tweet from Mearls lends credence to the idea that the Tarrasque was never intended to chuck stuff in the air. It's in a city and it's doing what it does, which is wreck everything around it. In each edition it's been given ways to mitigate spells and close in quickly on melee targets or hold them in place, but never a way to actually attack anyone at a distance. That seems rather intentional.
Can it grasp stuff? I think so, looking at that picture that was put up. Can it throw it? Physically, probably. Would it? I don't think so and not in the manner that was suggested originally (readying an action). That seems contrary to its nature, and originally I thought it was too clever for something I see as a nearly mindless rampaging brute. When the Tarrasque comes out there aren't many things that stop to give it pause. But given what 3rd edition has to say about intelligence ( animal intelligence is 1 or 2, intelligence of at least 3 is humanlike) I'm not so sure about that particular part anymore.
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
RAW does not require weapon listings to be restricted to the PHB weapon list.
Handon_Kast wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Wow this is still going on?
Let me ask one question: Is there anyone other than Polaris who's trying to argue that the Tarrasque isn't capable of throwing rocks, and that such rocks can be ruled to be similar enough to a monsters weapon. And that something a monster uses that isn't part of there body is by definition a weapon?
This entire conversation is white room tripe, on both sides.
Can a Tarrasque throw a Tree in a spear-like manner? Possibly, depending on the type of tree and local evironment. So that's a DM call based on the setting In-game.
Does he have the ability to do so with Accuracy? Doubtful, for several reasons. Training and physical Ability first off, and there's the Tree itself to impede him (root system, branches, splits in structure). Throwing Javelin's and Spears takes not just strength, but judgement and reasoning ability, as well as training to accurately hit a target consistently. It's why it's still an Olympic sport.
I saw someone posit the Tarrasque would use his Teeth to strip a tree bare of roots and branches, though. Seems silly to me, but if we're giving thim the ability to Reason in that manner, I suppose that allows for the Reasoning ability as well (seems out of character to me).
Okay, so we've got the Tool, and we've got the Reasoning ability, how about Physical ability? Apes cannot throw spears, or more accurately, branches or logs in a spearlike manner. They are not physically capable. They can toss a rock, or poop, but not actually Throw it like a human can a Rock or a Spear. Why? Because they didn't evolve to. Their bone structure and musculature are not adapted for the levering motion required to do so.
So can a Tarrasque? I'd rule no, they're not physically capable of doing so, determining that their forelegs are basically used for tearing, pushing, digging and movement. I do believe a Tarrasque could toss a large rock/boulder or piece of building at Characters, but in an underhand manner similar to Softball pitches (minus the windup). I could even see a Tarrasque having the Strength to throw it 60ft (or more), but not with any kind of height over a second or third story building, which is due as much to a Tarrasque's own size and height as much as anything.
It could certainly use a tree or similar item as a Club, but more as a weapon of convenience than in any consistent manner.
All that said, the other half of the arguement is just as silly. Flying characters might be able to avoid the Tarraque for the duration of the fight, but at what cost?
Even Flying, melee party members will have to engage the creature. That puts them in jeopardy, and possibly requires the Party to expend resources protecting and/or rescueing those characters. It's also very reasonable to assume that after a few times flying in and out of range, that a Tarrasque is able to anticipate a character doing so and reacting to counter that tactic. Whether that's by using a Readied action or not, doesn't matter, but I'd also say it wouldn't be something it would always do. More in the annoyed snapping of an animal at an irritant manner.
Here's the kicker though, the Flying or non-engaged Party members do have to take into consideration their surroundings. The Tarrasque just runs amoke with no concern, destroying anything in it's way or that catches its attention. So the party has to make a choice, engage and mitigate the Tarrasque's damage or Sacrifice any bystanders in order to simply destroy the creature. Both have Pro's and Con's, if you're cold hearted enough to make those kind of sacrifices (Raistlin Majere inspired character's come to mind). Any way that goes makes for some good Storytelling though, with many different outcomes possible; Victorious but by sacrificing the Town/City/Capital, Defeated by sacrificing themselves to save the Place, Tarrasque driven off with partial damage to Place, Tarrasque victorious and moving to next target, etc.
It's all white room though, because How the DM uses the Tarrasque in his/her campaign, and how the PC's react to it are going to determine the outcome. And I don't believe it'll ever be as simple as the cases made here assume. I personally use the MM as a guideline, adapting the creatures as needed to fit my table. Sometimes that's more Fluff than Crunch alterations, and sometimes the other way around (such as creatures on a Dragon's size scale requiring Siege equipment or equivalent items/spells to do full damage). Whatever version of the Tarrasque I pull out, I can gaurantee that the PC's will not be facing an easy fight, and will probably be giving me dirty looks for several months after even if they win. But OH, the story they'll be able to tell of the encounter(s).
Regarding the Tarrasque, yes, he can throw rocks/boulders which do count as weapons in RAW.
I'm not going to read this whole thread and I only have a passing interest (because I know that if a Tarrasque ever shows up in a game I run, it will be awesome and terrifying no matter what).
Reading its stat block though I have one question. Perhaps this has come up already:
Reflective Carapace seems to make the tarrasque immune to all spells with a line shape or with a ranged roll-to-hit as well as magic missile. Is this correct?
(NB 1 as for staying out of the Tarrasque's reach... fine, my Tarrasque is likely to ignore you and head to the nearest densely populated area and kill lots of people while to attempt to whittle it down).
(NB 2 plus I like the old school flavour of throwing considerably stronger monsters at a party, so that sometimes the only way to kill them is by finding"cheats" and exploits. like those in this thread)
Intelligence 3 means -4 to intelligence checks and saves. Nuff Said.
5Shilling wrote:
andypalmer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This thread is -2 to INT. Make a frustration save, or the INT penalty is perminent.
But it is inching closer to 1000 posts, LMAO.
LupusRegalis wrote:
I can't wade through all the posts again, but I've pointed out before that there is no rock weapon listed. There is a rock attack. We all agree on that. But the ammunition for the attack is not a weapon. It's ammuntion. Ammuntion has no damage. The attack does the damage. This is how the rules work. See bows and crossbows as an example. If you take an arrow and use it with a longbow, it does 1d8, the same arrow used with a shortbow gives you 1d6 damage. A rock thrown by a hill giant does 3d10, but by a storm giant it does more damage. Strength bonuses change in relation to the giant's strength, I am referring to the actual damage of the rock attack. To continue the above example, if you throw the arrow at someone, it does not do a d6 or d8 anymore. It follows improvised weapon rules ( unless you believe it is designed to be thrown and is similar enough to existing weapons. I do not, but this is a matter of opinion I suppose. ) The rules in the monster manual say that the monsters carry ammuntion for their ranged attacks. The rock attack action is listed as a ranged weapon attack action. The rocks/boulders are the ammuntion, not the weapon attack, or a weapon. ( Also, note that as far as I know, ammuntion has no properties so the rocks do not have the thrown property. )
Mr_Treegins 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.
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Mith, are you being intentionally obtuse? Your rudeness would suggest otherwise, and yet you're having trouble it seems parsing the real world and the game world.
When he says "Ammunition has no damage", it is quite clear to anyone not going out of their way to be impolite that he is not suggesting that bullets and arrows do not hurt people in real life. Let me see if I can clear this up a bit for you.
You and others say that the tarrasque can pick up a cow or a wagon or something and throw it. And that this thing it is throwing is like the rocks that giants throw. And because those rocks are weapons, and the cow or wagon is like them, then you can use the stats of the rocks for the cow or wagon and avoid pesky things like readied actions and poor attack/range/damage modifiers.
Lucas is saying that those rocks the giants are throwing are not actually weapons, but ammunition, and as such, have no intrinsic properties of their own. An arrow has no damage value, but different types of bows do. Likewise, crossbow bolts don't have a damage value, but the two types of crossbows in the PHB do. So to continue with the analogy, the boulders would not have a damage value. The type of giant throwing the boulder would determine the attack's values.
I don't know if this is the case or not. I think it unlikely because, unless the rocks are specifically called out as being ammunition, you'd need a weapon with the Ammunition property to determine that (as fas as I can tell). No access to MM, so I can't check myself. It's all sort of moot at this point anyways.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
I really don't see what the problem is here.
The Tarrasque isn't broken.
How are you intending to use a Tarrasque? Surely as an amazing wrecking ball.
It's not meant to be indestructible, just capable of putting out incredible amounts of destruction before it is destroyed. So yes, it's vulnerable to magical ranged attacks from those that can stay out of its reach. But in the time it's taken to kill it a city is destroyed, thousands are dead and your campaign has changed in a massive way. Bombs aren't designed to survive. A pyrrhic victory is the best you can hope for - unless your PCs have been very clever - which is how it's supposed to be. (Sorry if I'm repeating what's already been said, I haven't had time to read through the whole thread).
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Once again, the focus on RAW is in my opinion myopic. If the RAW was the problem there wouldn't be any problem because any RP system, not just D&D, is meant to be tweaked when needed.
The real issue here develops this way:
Step 1: the Tarrasque, as written, has a crippling weakness against flying opponents. Aside from the ridicolous case of the level 6 Wizard (which can be used as a bullet in a forum argument about the "quality" of the system's design and little else), what this leads to is making the Tarrasque a far easier opponent that it should be.
The scenario of the lowly mage kiting the creature is irrelevant - what matters is that the creature is fundamentally helpless against a group with average creativity and a level nearing half of what the creature has. The players can engage the monster on their own terms, putting the frail characters out of its reach - if the Tarrasque insists on trying to target the Wizard or Bard or Cleric, even assuming we give him a ranged attack comparable to that of giants, we're fundamentally cutting the creature's damage output by 5. He becomes a nonthreat, and any group whose level is appropriate to facing a Tarrasque will have a very easy time facing him.
Step 2: the OP points out this problem and asks for a solution, which could lead to interesting discussion (I would personally solve the issue this way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqgdWu4IvfM).
Step 3: the audience splits in two parts: some focus on RAW to prove the Tarrasque is forever broken and unfixable by RAW and any proposed solution is illegal and illogical... which as the dozen personal attacks to Polaris prove isn't either effective or popular.
However equally bad is in my opinion the approach of those who go through daring mental gymnastics to state that we should ignore the Tarrasque's pitiful Int value (because orcas hide behind ice sleets and ravens drop acorns to break them) and play it as a tactically savvy creature, that we should borrow pieces of the RAW and ignore others and make several legitimate but arbitrary decisions that are always the most favourable to the DM and disfavourable to the players while assuming that that will not bring up any kind of problem at the table and ignoring how the system forces us to waste time making up thing to what end result?
GIving the Tarrasque a shoddy ranged attack doesn't fix anything. Yes, it solves the level 6 wizard non-problem. After that, the Tarrasque remains a joke creature for an appropriate party.
And this consideration leads to further parody posts - some claiming that even if the Tarrasque can't kill the players he still wins because he trashes a city (which fundamentally means the Tarrasque is invincible, since he just need to ignore the players under any scenario and it wins).
Bottom line is: even if decide that all RAW interpretations favour the "Tarrasque is fine, learn2play" crowd, if we say he's smart enough to throw things, he can throw things using strength and not dexterity because, he can use the rules for weapons when they favour him and ignore them when they don't (see: damage), if we do all this we still have the problem that Fly turns the Tarrasque into an hill giant with lots of HP.
So going back to the actual problem (fixing the Tarrasque), I suggest this:
1. Property: the Tarrasque's attacks count as magic weapons (this prevents any party of appropriate level from cutting its damage output in half with Stoneskin).
2. get rid of Swallow. It's good on paper, but terrible in practice. It's incredibly punishing for the poor guys who try NOT to exploit the fight and useless vs those who do. Basically you're telling the fighter and barbarian they'll suck for the whole fight and risk dying all the time while the flying casters have fun and kill it.
3. Regeneration 5. Irrelevant in proper level fights, stops most exploits.
4. New legendary action: the tarrasque sucks in all air in a 100 ft cone. Any creature inside the cone saves on Con vs DC X and is pulled 60 ft towards the Tarrasque. If the target is airborne, the save is at disadvantage. Massively limits the benefits of flying around him without making it useless (no GOTCHA effect). Smart players will still benefit from keeping out of reach but even the flying guys will need the rest of the group to survive.
5. Give him some cone breath weapon. You all wanna fly? I'll pull you in and burn you.
Point being, I don't think it's irrational to expect the designers to ask themselves "what happens to the strongest monster in the book if the players have access to Fly?" and prepare for it. ANY party that is legitimately expected to face the Tarrasque will be able to fly. And "well we can use the RAW and bend here and there to make the Tarrasque at least as good as a giant in ranged combat" is NOT an answer to the problem. Everyone here is bothered about winning a silly forum fight about the RAW, but the RAW isn't the problem here.
bille wrote:
I think alot of these arguements are more about interpetation of the rules then how they are actually wriiten.Some people like to argue it's in their nature and I suspect some of the points made are just made to see how silly/far they can take things.
The Tarrasque is not an encounter and it shouldn't be treated as one. The beast is an engine of destruction and and the "adventure" should be more about dealing with it rather then killing it. Some see the senario of Party 1 Tarrasque 0 as victory and tales to be told but ,as others have stated, at what price? Fine the party spends 100 rnds killing the creature s it tears up everything around them becuse it is too stupid do anything about the players. Does anyone actually think for one minute theese players will be seen as heroes? Maybe later on but right away? I would highly doubt it.
"A flying party of appropriate level will kill the Tarrasque much faster than a party that faces him on the ground."
Then this is an advantage of being a flying party. If the DM wants to avoid this, then change the battlefield to negate this advantage (resticted space, limited lines of sight, an impenetrable dust cloud, whatever )- no need to change the monster. Or don't use a Tarrasque - use a Dragon. The Tarrasque is what it is - vulnerable to some things, less vulnerable to others.
Thunaer wrote:
One other thing comes to mind - are we going to have this debate about every monster that might be vulnerable to this flying acid splash thing?
I really hope so . . .
Yunru wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
[quote="TheLastGreatMith"]
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
I said no such thing (i.e. that you can't pick up and use enemy arrows as weapons or the like). No one is saying that a Tarrasque can't hurl debris (including rocks) [although with it's decription and Int I think that's dodgy].
What I am saying is if you use something as a weapon that isn't designed to be a weapon, you use the improvised weapon rules unless a specific rule says to the contrary.
In this case "rock' isn't a weapon. As correctly noted it's ammunition for some ranged attack forms of some monsters. That means some other monster using it counts as an improvised weapon with all the rules attendant to that (such as 20/60 range).
-Polaris
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Welp, guess I'd better go to Orethalion's game and "improvise" the Bearded Devil's Glaive attack over and over again since that's how the game works.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Except it's a weapon attack. I have a weapon. Ergo, I can use weapon attacks.
Or does having a weapon not let you use weapon attacks anymore?
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
It's pretty simple really, the DM is expected to randomize the creatures attacks and allow the players to sodmize the creature from the air unhindered,
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and
have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An
improvised weapon includes any object you can wield
in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a
frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar
to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For
example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option,
a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar
object as if it were that weapon and use his or her
proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon
deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type
appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged
weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee
weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also
deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a
normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Actually no, it does have relevence. A Tarrasque could use a dragon's skull to make a dragon's bite attack. :P
Orethalion wrote:
Dellkane wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
No sorry, I don't touch 4chan. And if I did I'd stil hardly call it a quality source.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yunru wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Except it is there all along, I even quote it.
I'm honestly confused that some of you continue to insist the giant's rock attacks are actual weapon stats for a boulder.
It's not listed as a simple or martial weapon, it is not listed as a ranged or melee weapon, and no properties are listed for it. The MM has this to say about melee and ranged attacks:
The most common actions that a monster will take in
combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be
spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon"
might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such
as a claw or tail spike.
Note obviously that the word weapon is in quotes, meaning the weapon in the attack might not actually be a weapon. Then we get this about ranged attacks and ammunition:
A monster carries enough ammunition to make its
ranged attacks. You can assume that a monster has 2d4
pieces of ammunition for a thrown weapon attack, and
2d10 pieces of ammunition for a projectile weapon such
as a bow or crossbow.
Well, presumably the Rock attack is a thrown weapon attack, and the giant is carrying around 2d4 boulders. That is what all of this means. And that all of course makes sense, because an actual boulder is never statted out anywhere, and the attack in the giant entry is not the actual values for a boulder were it to be considered a weapon that someone could gain proficiency in. (Likewise, I can't improvise my greatsword to have Reach simply because giant greatsword attacks have Reach.)
We also have this blurb in the Stone Giant entry:
Rock Catching. If a rock or similar object is hurled at the giant,
the giant can , with a successful DC 10 Dexterity saving throw,
catch the missile and take no bludgeoning damage from it.
The rock is referred to as an object and a missile. So, an item like in the blurb about melee and ranged attacks, or ammunition, like the blurb about ranged attacks and ammunition.
Again, I think this all moot and completely irrelevant. If someone wants the Tarrasque to have a ranged attack, there are better and more creative ways to go about it. But despite the confidence and venom with which you guys debate, I don't think you're argument is as solid as you think it is.
Rocks are thrown for thrown weapon attacks. Ergo, rocks are thrown weapons (they have to be by definition). Your point is moot.
Dellkane wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Giants throw rocks. As people have pointe out in an attempt to discount them as weapons, they are listed as ammunition. The attack the giant uses to throw the rock is a ranged weapon attack. The giant doesn't have a weapon which fires ammunition. Process of elimination, those rocks are thrown weapons.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Congratulations everyone on crossing 1000. I see the surge necessary to push it over was enabled by additional tag team trolls jumping into the fray. That's why you gotta love the internet and it's "never say die" attitude, unless of course we are actually discussing killing something dead using polyhedral dice. Die die!
Didn't you know? Being trollbait is great for post counts :P
Wuzzard wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
A rock can be used an an improvised weapon.......................
With the exception of one giant all Giants do 4d10+str. One could assume therefore that a rock that size just might do 4d10 damage
Because the Creature is not proficent in thrown weapons it would get +10 to hit instead of +19
Thunaer wrote:
Here is the thing the game got out of hand because certain players out there wanted a rule for absolutely everything because they did not wish for an interpetation that they did not agree with, It seems that alot of the issues here stem more from "Why can the Dm do that and i can't" . The game was NEVER intended to be run as is, in ANY edition, the DM sooner or later must make some choices. I am sorry to tell people this but sometimes Rules Lawyering does more harm then good and to spend 26 pages arguing about shades of grey makes everyone involve4d look like idioits.
Anyone have a link where people spend 25 pages discussing story ideas?
Thunaer wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
eleran wrote:
Are we going for 2000 post now?
arnwolf666 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
And sadly we can't keep our eyes off this thread and leave well enough alone.
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Grifford wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
It also irks me when people only quote a very small fragment of a larger post to remove it from its context.
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
"Geez, I'm out of it for a little while, and everybody gets delusions of grandeur."
-Han Solo
Wow! Love coming back to this from over the weekend. Heh heh heh.
It occured to me that if RAW says you can tweak things in the PHB and MM, then what the Tarrasque can or can't do, is moot, since any changes/additions/tweaks are, in fact, RAW. The discussion of RAW is moot. This entire thread isn't about RAW, it's about CAW (Creature As Written).
That said....anyone want to jump into Roll20 and actually play it out instead of discussing hypotheticals? Flying solo 5th Level Wizard vs. Tarrasque as-written? See what happens?
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Polaris wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Since a DM is free to adjudicate any object as a weapon if they feel it resembles a weapon on the table. Let's play this out. This is pure RAW.
This is a rock attached to a stick. I'd classify this weapon as a Light Hammer. If it's in someone's hand as opposed to attached to a stick, I'd maybe step down the damage dice one step (1d3 instead of the LH's 1d4), because your arm isn't as effective in transferring bludgeoning force as a stick. So that's 1 damage on a 1-2, 2 damage on a 3-4, and 3 damage on a 5-6.
This is a Sling, with rock ammunition. Since sling bullets are no longer specified in 5E RAW (They were in 3E, not sure about 4E, and the RAW in 3E specifically said rocks can be used in Slings, but since they are not polished and balanced like Sling Bullets are, then you use 1 size catagory lower damage. That no longer exists in 5E RAW.), then Sling ammunition CAN be rocks with no Improvised Weapons feature needed, or downgrading their damage. A rock in a Sling does 1d4 damage in 5E RAW.
What say you Polaris? Agree?
1eejit wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Polaris wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Of course at CR30 the Tarrasque would probably be more effective with disadvantage and proficiency than no proficiency without disadvantage
Synjin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Just so we are clear on this you are saying that a missle is not a weapon correct.
Polaris wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Isn't this all moot anyways, since 60' is the range of Fly and Acid Splash, and is also the range for a non-weapon-catagorized Improvised Weapon? Or did I miss something.
Even if assuming everything your'e saying, Polaris, the odds are the Tarrasque hits the Wizard out of the sky and takes him out eventually.
Wizard: Flies in to within 60' on my movement and cast Acid Splash.
Tarrasque: Throws rock 60' at Wizard. Misses.
That miss can only happen so many times. And let's say he hits the Wizard once or twice but the Wizard makes his CON check and keeps flying. That CON check too is only a matter of time before that then fails. Now the Wizard takes 11d6 damage (60' high above the Tarrasque, and a 50' tall Tarrasque) and is now prone. The amount of damage needed against the Wizard to force that CON check is just a single point. The Tarrasque knows rock throwing isn't his thing. He's not looking to kill the Wizard with it. Just get him on the ground to where the real damage can occur.
Am I missing something in how combat works? It's still only move your distance and attack, correct? You can't move, attack, then move again, can you? Except for Bonus Actions.
Synjin wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Darn on my slow posting.
You do realize if you go to a monster entry like drow their short sword attack used the same exact stat block style. So is their short sword not a weapon but an action?
By raw this works as the DM is the arbiter if determining if it qualifies as like another weapon attack. You can rule it only applies to ph weapons and that fits raw. Another DM can rule it applies to some or all monster weapon attacks and that fits raw. Hooked devil or whatever if the DM rules your barbed Shepards crook is like enough go for it. Though the gm can also easily rule otherwise or that the weapon stats don't include all the effects as some represent specialized training.
Whether the beast needs fixing to resemble a cr 30 enemy is a different question. Which is sadly getting ignored in this thread.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I'd like to ask Mearls some questions about this, but I am very unfamiliar with twitter. Can someone who knows twitter PM me with Mike's twitter info and how to use it?
Thanks!
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Also, if the "Rock. Ranged Weapon Attack:" is not considered a weapon, it can bypass the damage resistance of demons and devils, etc, since it is not a nonmagical or magical weapon.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Here's an idea:
Thundrous Roar Add the following action to the Tarrasque:
Thundrous Roar (recharge 6): The Tarrasque makes a thunderous roar, unleashing a massive shockwave that affects everything within a 100' sphere. Creatures in the area must make a DC 27 Constitution save or suffer 40 (8d10) points of damage of thunder damage type.
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
As a sidenote, just checked out the last playtest bestiary, the Human Commoner has a Rock attack, +1 to hit (so gets proficiency bonus), range 20 ft./80 ft., 1d4 bludgeoning damage.
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So has anyone been able to prove where in the book a Rock is an actual weapon beyond "Well in my houserule...?"
Brock_Landers wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
eleran wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Which MM RAW? There's multiple giants who all have different numbers on their rock throwing attacks.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Guys, even in the MM entry for the ape of all things, p317 there is an entry about this "Rock. Ranged Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, range 25/50 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage". Needless to say the Ape's strength bonus is +3.
Orethalion wrote:
the_Horc wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
TheLastGreatMith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Rock: Ranged Weapon Arrack is listed under actions and not under special traits like spell casting, a Minotaurs Charge attack or a Perytons Dive Attack. If it was an ability specific to the Giant it would be listed as such. While I admit my knowledge is limited I would think that spellcasting is an action as well correct? Which would mean that the spell casting ability is specific to that creature
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
evil_warlock wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Some were arguing that Rock:Ranged Weapon attack was something specific to Giant and therefore not a weapon, Obviously this is not true.
Anyways the idea was that The Tarrasaque would toss/slap pieces of broken buildings to get at flying attackers with the feeling that since the Giants rock action was an action and not actually a weapon its statistics could not be considered Raw because it is not listed as speciifcally as a weapon (think I got that right)
Polaris 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 thought the Tarrasque already HAD regeneration that can't be prevented by anything, meaning that even if you knock it to zero, it doesn't have to make stabalization rolls because it gets right back up.
And it wouldn't take any special attack to allow it to throw a boulder...the thing is intelligent enough to understand language (even if it can't speak it), it should be able to throw a rock as an improvised weapon at some flying wizard.
Or just give it burrow, like you said, and if a wizard is pestering it from the air, it simply retreats underground...or waits 10 minutes for the fly spell to wear off, since its regeneration is larger than any cantrip that could deal damage.
Momar wrote:
You guys make me laugh over this whole Tarrasque thing, you think only the attacks listed for the monster are the only attacks that it can use...look at the iron golem for tactical info on Int, it's int is 3, but it can use a sword. (arguements over weapon profenciency have nothing to do with int) and look at the gnoll compared to the gnoll leader, the gnoll can use a spear, but the leader has to use a glaive? so if you disarm the gnoll leader and there's a spear at his feat from a dead gnoll, he can't use it? ROFL the Tarrasque is a legendary creature, it can do w/e the hell the DM says it can do. You need more? Centaur is listed with weapons of Pike and Longbow, you think these are the only weapons it can use? Oh wait you want other creatures with low int to be compared to? Ogre Zombie's int is 3 and it can use a morning star... Skeleton can use a shortbow or a shortsword, but only the skeleton minotaur can use a greataxe? really... weapons can be used by any monster that has the reasonable facility to use it, the damn Tarrasque can pick up a rock and hurl it cuz it's a weapon, and the DM rules it has profeciency in it, the wizard is dead...and stop being so closed minded that you think the attacks listed in the monsters info is ALL that it can do...that's just a short sighted DM.
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Aeonphlux wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Momar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
WHEW!
Back from a long weekend, and I... uh... oh... my god...
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
I demand a complete handbook on Rock Throwing! It will need several feats, archetypes, return of the prestige class, possibly new skills, and a modified save system that covers force, control, and accuracy. Possibly new races, such as the Halfling Rockthrower and the Dwarven Stoneshaper. This book should be a hardcover of at least 256 pages plus art, diagrams, and a new weapon list that governs each type of rock, as well as who can use each type of rock.
I really need someone way wittier than I to expand on this.
Shirebrok wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
RAW is in the PHB, houserules are in your DM's three-ring binder. If a new player sitting at your table has to be debriefed on something because it's run differently at your table, it's a houserule.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Yeah. I can (and often do) run completely homebrew adventures. Using RAW to run them. Sometimes different, yet similar, words aren't just semantics. They actually mean slightly different things.
I think the tarrasque is fine as written . . .
And now I can't wait to get a chance to use it!
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I swear to God, if you people start arguing another 1000 posts over the definition of House Rule, I'm going to throw a sword in frustration! 
Isn't it about time we argued something useful, like...what the meaning of the word 'is' is? 
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
But what if the Tarrasque picked up a bone AND a rock. Then hit the rock at the flying wizard? Would that be an improvised weapon, or nonproficient use of a gaming set? If the wizard caught the rock would the Tarrasque be out?
JerboaTheFeared wrote:
Grifford wrote:
JerboaTheFeared wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Okay. Off to lunch then I'm working off-site for the rest of the day. It's been fun "arguing" with you lot. Enjoy your houserules!
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford, when people have posted the stats for a rock, and referenced the page number for rocks DOZENS of times, and you still refuse to admit that a rock is a weapon by RAW, that is pretty sad.
Like "NO! The Earth is totally flat, you just don't know science!" level sadness.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Polaris & Grifford,
Would you let me use the stats for Club if I wanted more exotic Asian weapons like Nunchaku?
Wait. According to you, a breath weapon is not a rule? The Rocks aren't either? Nor are the stats for any weapon on the table??
What exactly do you define as a rule...?
I am pretty sure that RAW just includes any mechanics as written in the book.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
evil_warlock wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris, man...why do you persist? You've been caught in this loop of arguing with people who have already been proving wrong but refuse to admit it for years.
Stop steeping yourself in other people's idiocy.
Wuzzard wrote:
@Bloodscythe: I get your point and I agree. But I don't think that the choice, and the solution, is so simple if the Tarrasque is fighting an actual party, where the team might be split between ground and air, or ground, air, and high ground, or whatever is available. Or if the entire party is out of reach (remember, I consider the solo level 5 wizard a distraction so I'm coming from an encounter with a party vs. the tarrasque). Even if you were to give the Tarrasague the Rock ranged weapon attack, you've severely cut down his offensive power if you've forced him to rely on that.
@Gnarl: I said in my first post in this thread that the OP comes across as argumentative, and I am mostly siding with Grifford. I agree with you that the thread *may* have developed differently had different wording been used in the OP.
@ktkenshinx: I know. My comment wasn't at you. It was at the response implying that the "true" problem was Grifford and Polaris taking issue with DMs adjudicating in their games. Which is a failure to see the points they are/were trying to make.
Grifford wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Because of it's legendary status, can the Tarrasaque be given regional effects?
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
You are both correct in stating that yes they are all different however, at least to me, you are incorrect in say that these numbers are not RAW they are. Those are the stats for the weapon they are using and at least for the giants case aside from Hill and Storm the other Giants numbers ARE the same
For me the issue was that it seeemed to me in some peoples minds that it was okay to infer numbers that could be considered RAW from some areas but not others.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
This might have gone a little better if it hadn't begun with a post claiming to have unequivocly won an argument that clearly wasn't anywhere near settled. Something to keep in mind for next time!
The Tarrasque looks plenty deadly to me, but if you think you'll enjoy fighting a tougher one I see no reason not to help. Out of curiosity, though, has anyone here actually fought it? Real data is always more useful than predictions. It may be harder than you expect. Or easier than I expect. I'm more interested in how effective it is at fighting a real adventuring party's actual strategies than a lone wizard dribbling acid on it for 200 rounds in what would probably be the second-to-third most-anticlimactic final battle ever. But, should it turn out to not live up to its challenge rating, a nice ranged attack sounds like a good improvement. Sure, a creature of its size and strength could probably be expected to be able to throw large objects at foes even if the statblock doesn't specifically say so, but it's weird that there wouldn't be an example of a thrown object attack like the giants have. So, it's good that we've come up with one ahead of time; throwing stuff sounds like something the Tarrasque is likely to do. As for my contribution...
A creature that massive probably has incredibly powerful lungs. I bet it could do a lot of damage just by taking a deep breath and exhaling! So...
Deep Inhale. All creatures in a 90-foot cone must make a DC 27 Strength saving throw or be pulled 90 feet towards the Tarrasque, or 45 feet on a successful save.
Deep Exhale. All creatures in a 90-foot cone must make a DC 27 Strength saving throw or be pushed 90 feet away from the Tarrasque, or 45 feet on a successful save.
Maybe make these two actions connected so that it can only use the exhale action if it used the inhale action earlier? Anyway, this would be a good way to fight ranged attackers while still staying a melee-focused monster.
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
Khan_the_Destroyer wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
So, we all agree, a spell is not a rule, in and of itself (nor something like a dagger, etc).
...whew, that was tiresome...
Back to the big T, yeah, it blows my mind that it does not have Regeneration, I mean, really...I think I will use the 2nd or 3rd Ed version if I ever use the (not so much in 5th Ed) bad-boy...
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Yesterday, Synjin wrote:
Wow. Popular thread.
Tarrasque isn't even remotely broken.
Player: "Ok, I cast Fly then start spamming Acid Splash..."
DM: "Ok, Tarrasque throws a Gazebo at you and rolls....18. You're dead, 5 times over."
Player: "Nope, I read the Monster Manual, and it does not explicitly say the Tarrasque has a ranged attack."
DM: "GTFO of my game."
See? The Tarrasque is designed perfectly! It weeds out little power-gaming munchkin rules-lawyers. The sort who want their 5th level wizard to kill Tarrasques.
Working As Intended.
This is not the design flaw you're looking for. Move along.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Momar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
This thread was fun for a very long time. Now it has devolved into a laborious and inane semantics pedantry-fest. Yawn. I miss the epic squabbling over how high the Big T could jump. Or if he has thumbs. Or what the definition of “weapon” or "rock" is. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
I don't know if anyone has suggested this, but a simple change befitting the big T would be to add:
Improvised Projectile. Ranged Weapon Attack: +19 to hit, range 80/320, one target. Hit: 36 (4d12+10) bludgeoning damage. Special: The Tarrasque must spend its move action or 1 legendary action to ready (pick up, tear off, etc.) the ammunition (boulder, tree, house, etc.) for this attack.
I would also probably add either damage reduction or regeneration back as well. OH, and it should always have max hit points - 990HP please!
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I guess what I m getting at is technically every non "official" game is homebrew... its impossible for it to not be
Grifford wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Couldn't the Tarrasque just throw a rock or something? 
So what have we learned folks? That arguing semantics on the internet is a pointless exercise that doesn't actually benefit anyone.
As for the Tarrasque, I'd let him throw houses (probably inaccurately/Disadvantage'd but still). Radioactive Godzilla breathe is a good choice too. Anyone who tells me it's "not in the book" should STFU and DIAF.
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers 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.
Internet problems. Just back online....wow.
Ultimately, I'd say that any option or change that isn't explicitly written down is in the end a houserule (which should in no way mean that houserules are bad or even necessary in many cases). It also in no way means that I dislike DMs adjusting the game and game elements (like the Tarrasque) to make their campaign better. Indeed that's what this thread was supposed to be about.
The case of custom backgrounds is a dodgy one and one IMO right on the line. If there were a numerated list of customizable options, then I might feel differntly, but I don't see this as the same as feats, and thus I am inclined to view "customized" backgrounds as houserules even if following the guidelines of RAW...but I see the other side of that one.
That said I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that if you are changing monster entries (which may well mean changing CRs but that isn't defined), pretty clearly falls in the broad realm of houserules (not that there's anything wrong with that).
-Polaris
Thunaer wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
If we get to 2000 posts on this topic then they need to do a rewrite in the next prinring of the monster manual.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Anticipating that no one is going to find another RAW process, I just found one myself:
Starting Equipment (PHB, 143)
When you create your character, you receive equipment based on a combination of your class and background.
Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces based on your class and spend them on items from the lists in this chapter.
I believe this is the rule that Orethalion was talking about, even if he didn't quote it in full. So my question to everyone is this. Character Creation says that my starting equipment comes from my background and my class Equipment entry. But if I instead use the gold-pieces rule, is the resulting character homebrew?
The answer to this is clearly a "No" for me, because the book tells you that you can make your character in this way. It doesn't say it's an optional rule or a DM choice. It just says that you can take gold instead of starting equipment. But the end result of equipment would obviously not be part of a package or class starting equipment list and it would vary from table to table. So is it homebrew to get gold and buy equipment instead of using the background/class starting equipment?
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Is a throw dart weapon and ammunition in one?
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Still waiting...
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
So if you are Housebrewing or homeruling are you playing Dungeons and Dragons? Because by some peoples definition (not necessary in this thread) You are not.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rodney Thompson has spoken! Bunch of tweets between me and him:
Me: Are weapons in the MM statblocks actual "Weapons", like those in the weapons table of the PHB? Can other monsters/PCs use them?
Rodney: It's always going to be the DM's call, but in many situations I'd allow it. It's all going to depend on the context, though. (Source)
Rodney: Of course, things like claws and other natural weapons couldn't be passed around. (Source)
Rodney: But it largely depends on the situation. Could one giant pick up another giant's club? Most times, I'd say yes. (Source)
Me: Thanks for answers; great insights. Will DMG have rules that govern whether players/monsters can use weapons of other monsters?
Rodney: Not really--this is something that's firmly in the realm of DM adjudication, because it's so situation dependent. (Source)
Rodney: There is a fair amount of discussion about monster customization, though. (Source)
To me, this is a pretty unambiguous instance of homebrewing. He says it's the "DM's call", that it "depend[s] on the context", and "depends on the situation." He also says, and this is the least ambiguous for me, "that is something that's firmly in the realm of DM adjudication".
Between this and the examples Polaris and I have posted, it seems fairly clear that it is not RAW to just use monster statblocks to infer weapons, and then to give those weapons to other creatures. It's homebrew and houserules, but not RAW.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
But is the Tarrasque Broken?
What is the definition of Broken?
If the definition of broken is something that doesn't work as you think it should if you follow a strict RAW approach (which would make the game unplayable at worst and very dull at best), how many other things in the game could be defined as Broken?
Is D&D broken?
Are all RPGs broken?
Oh No! All that time and money . . .
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bille wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
What I find really peachy about this thread, is you have posters that are usually diametrically opposed, agreeing on certain aspects.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Also...
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-Satsuna- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Synjin wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Which is a shame, because I love puzzle encounters. Every time I've Dmed a on-eshot, I've thrown at least one puzzle fight during it(with hit/miss success).
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
I think the mediocre T (in this edition ) could use some bumping, let's get back to that.
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Not even sure where to start with a response. It's like the thread reset to page 1 arguments somewhere on this current page. Or page -1 where we are now arguing about things that aren't even remotely related to the Tarrasque.
I'm gonna try to bring it back to why you can't just use Rocks as weapons. For reference, whenever I refer to the term "RAW", I always mean mechanics/statistics/rules/elements/processes/etc. as written. Keyword: WRITTEN. As in, it is written in the book to the extent that there is no ambiguity. Like every other player on this forum, I will use RAW as shorthand for all of those things. Hopefully this will ignore some of the more inane arguments.
Our goal is obviously to get the Tarrasque to use the Storm Giant Rock. There are three ways to do this.
Option 1: Splice statblocks
MM P. 6 has a rule about modifying monsters that allows you to use abilities from one monster and move them to another. By that logic, we can move the Storm Giant Rock entry to the Tarrasque. This is not RAW, however, because the modify monsters passages says that moving abilities might adjust the CR of the monster. And we have no rules to know by how much that CR was adjusted. Maybe CR goes up by 1 for every ability. Maybe CR goes up by 0 because the ability comes from a monster with less than half the CR of the Tarrasque. Maybe CR goes up by 2 because you are giving a ranged attack to a creature without them. We just don't know. Because we are missing those rules, this approach is not RAW. There are no WRITTEN rules/processes/mechanics/etc. that explain how that CR adjustment works.
Option 2: Use Rock as weapon
Storm Giant Rock is a weapon. We know this because it says "ranged weapon attack". We also know that a DM can swap out those weapons, or just let monster use other weapons not in their statblock (MM p. 9). So, can a Tarrasque just pick up a Storm Giant Rock and throw it? The answer is "probably", but we have to infer a bunch of rules for that to work. First, we have to infer the "Thrown" property, otherwise the Storm Giant modifiers to the attack make no sense. Next, we have to infer how heavy the rock is. All weapons in the PHB have weights, or at least an entry for weight (unarmed strike has no weight). That weight is not written down anywhere, which means we have to make an educated guess at it. The reason we have to infer the weight is because otherwise anyone could use the weapon, but that obviously makes no sense at all; a Kobold can't throw a Storm GIant Rock because it's too heavy. So now we have inferred two pieces about the Rock that are not explicitly written down. That instantly moves us out of RAW territory and into houserule territory, because neither the "Thrown" property nor the weapon's weight are written down anywhere.
Option 3: Improvised weapon to emulate monster weapon
Now HERE'S an argument that I can get behind. The "Improvised Weapons" passage (PHB p. 147) says that "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club." We already know that Storm Giant Rock is a weapon because it is defined as a "ranged weapon attack". So can we improvise a weapon to emulate it? At first, I thought the answer was "Yes", but I am worried about that unwritten "Thrown" property. That's something that isn't written down anywhere, which means it isn't in the scope of RAW. Another issue is that it's impossible to say which giant improvised weapon rock corresponds with which of the half dozen different Rocks in the MM. Is the 150 lb rock the Giant Ape one? Or is the 250 lb one? We have no idea.
So it looks like Options 2 and 3 get jammed up by two things: Inferring the Thrown property and inferring the weight. If we can work our way out of those two holdups, then we might be able to use Options 2 and 3 to provide an RAW solution to the Tarrasque's issues.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I would allow the rock throwing as a multiattack with disadvantage as an improvised weapon. But I would do more than throw rocks, I would have it throwing trees, small houses, etc.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
I wonder, in all seriousness, do the posters arguing on the 'it's not RAW, so the Tarrasque needs changing' side of things really desire an official reboot of the rules to cover the game on a much greater level of detail, with more rules to cover all sorts of situations and to take GM fiat further out of the game? Because this isn't just about the Tarrasque, is it? Going down the 'it's broken, let's fix it' route we would end up with a rules set that would need a forklift to carry around, make Advanced Squad Leader seem like Risk and provide a massive barrier to entry.
This has been fun - and I will carry on reading this thread, but I really can't contribute any more. For me, the Tarrasque isn't broken. If a DM gets himself into a situation where his players have become a group of low level stunt flyers zipping around featureless plains looking for massive monsters to kill for their xp, then it's his game that's broken, not the game.
I'm not sure if there is a record for number of posts on a single thread - but good luck to you all - it's been a massive display of screen stamina and the behaviour has been, in general, impeccable!
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Since I last checked this thread, another 1154 posts. This thread is lame.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I don't see any problem myself, and have said as much in previous threads. In respect to the flying Mage - the RAW already provides the Tarrasque with a perfectly viable option: Improvised Ranged Weapon Attack.
Specifically, the Tarrasque can attack with an Improvised Rock, which would have the following statistics.
Improvised Rock
- Improvised Ranged Weapon Attack; +10 to hit, range 60/240, one target.
- Hit: 36 (4d12+10) bludgeoning damage; Concentration check DC 18.
- Crit: 62 (8d12+10) bludgeoning damage; Concentration check DC 31.
If you roll damage, the damage and Concentration DC varies as follows:
- Hit: 14-58 damage; DC 10 - 29
- Crit: 18-106 damage; DC 10 - 53.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Grifford wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Human throwing rock with no Proficiency. 
http://i.imgur.com/fvm1CJy.gif
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
So I asked Rodney and here is what I got.
@wotc_rodney Hi, I'm wondering if it you can improvise a MM monster weapon per the improvised weapon similarity rule.
Rodney Thompson @wotc_rodney
@Orethalion Only if the DM allows it based on the circumstances, & even then it's going to require the DM to figure out the damage & effects
@Orethalion A monster's attack and damage is more than just "this is how much damage this weapon does" in many cases.
@wotc_rodney Thanks. I was just wondering if I was using the improvised weapons similarity rules correctly when using a MM weapon.
@Orethalion An iron golem's sword won't necessarily deal 3d10 damage when wielded by someone else; that damage is more than just the sword
@Orethalion It's going to require some adjudication. If a PC affected by Enlarge picked up an iron golem's sword I'd just rule it d10 damage
So it looks like that's that. I am prepared to raise the white flag. 
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I'm just fascinated by the quickness with which certain people smashed and discounted certain dev tweets because they didn't happen to agree with them, while then proclaimed "victory" from other dev tweets they like, with equal fervor.
Smelly.
Grifford wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
spelley wrote:
spelley wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Synjin wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Nice to see people are acknowledging the Blackbox deal I mentioned.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
vssg wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Just so people know Vision imparing actions will not deter the Tarrasque as It has Blindsight.
Having disadvantage on their attacks is not a penalty to the Tarrasque anyway - vision impairments hurt the players more than help them.... It can hit AC20 on a 2, and AC 25 on a 6 with its massive +19 to hit... Its not like it can't smell/hear you, and know your general location (what square you are in). In fact, I have suggested that the Tarrasque fights prone on several occasions - as it would make the fight more difficult for the party, not easier.
Having disadvantage would hurt it somewhat if it was using improvised weapons however, but not to the point that it becomes a cakewalk. Said Tarrasque would hit AC20 on a 10+, and AC 25 on a 15+. Giving disadvantage to the attack would still mean it is going to hit quite often (esp. since it is only 1point less than what epic-level PCs can manage with proficiency).
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Kalani wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"-ktkenshinx-"<strong> wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever fought the tarrasque?
Fralex wrote:
I fought the Tarrasque during the 3.5 era.... Was a brutal fight which almost resulted in a TPK save for a few lucky rolls.
Give PCs the option to fight it underground before it comes to the surface and destroys the table's favoriate settlement.
Problem solved.
I meant the tarrasque in its current incarnation.
Fralex wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Fralex wrote:
Fralex wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
After a week of watching the debate, wanted to offer a slightly different take on all this.
I don't think the Tarrasque is meant to have a ranged attack. I believe flying is meant to be used to defeat it.
It's vulnerability to Acid Splash was likely an oversight by the designers.
A 5th level wizard therefore could "solo" it.
All this said, the Tarrasque is not broken and is still a level 30 CR when played RAW if the DM sets up the scenario so that:
The Tarrasque emerges from a lake/ocean some half a mile from a major metropolitan area where the hero's are.
Hereo's can intercept it 10-30 turns from the city gate (depending on actions of the party, if they had been expecting an attack, etc)
Tarrasque will run back to it's lair once it reaches half hit points.
Only a well equiped party of 4-6 20th level adventurers would have a chance to inflict enough damage on the Tarrasque to keep it from engaging the city and then destroying it before it retreats to it's lair for another age. A 5th level wizard might be able to eventually force it back to it's lair but not before it completely destroyed whatever city it decided to eat.
OB1 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
You can read how to prevent edition wars here: http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3417476
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.
I can't understand why people are putting the Tarrasque in a pit with an L5 mage. Any kind of time pressure and this cheese breaks. Have other party members and I doubt they'll work with it (sure, some will).
How about this. Wizard sprays Tarrasque. Tarrasque get mad! Destory buildings!
Boulders ranging from head sized to house sized exploding everywhere. Some of which the wizard will have to dodge (and eventually he won't). But in any case the wizard can let the Tarrasque destroy the city while he keeps plinking away. Heroic wizard!
Have evil Tarrasque-worshiping Orcs with bows attack the wizard.
Nah. The Tarrasque isn't broken, except in certain very narrow (and very boring) boundaries that I'd simply never use in a game.
Just my 2cp...
surf13 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
OB1 wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many GMs actually plan on having a tarrasque in an adventure? My group of five arcane casters, a druid, ranger, paladin, and two thieves, all between level 5 and 8, fear anything that's much more than a group of orcs or a single troll.
Grifford wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
OB1 wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
OB1 wrote:
surf13 wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Sigh.. The Tarrasque as written assumes the DM can design adventures and encounters for an EPIC-LEVEL party.
The monsters and NPCs themselves are only one facet of encounter design. If you are incapable of imagining clever and creative ways to use the Tarrasque in an encounter, this is an example of your DM skills being insufficent to run an encounter with the Tarrasque. It has nothing to do with the Tarrasque itself.
NO DM worth their salt would ever throw epic level PCs a white-room encounter. In fact, outside of inexperience - there is never a good reason to do this even at low levels. Take for example, some of the encounter designs in Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
While simplistic, even at low levels such encounters make use of time-sensitive dilemas (civilians trapped in a burning temple), terrain features (cliffs and overhangs), ambush tactics, pit traps during combat, Kobolds which have surprise backup from unexpected quarters, etc
Kalani wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Kalani, I wasn't referring to you in my comment, by the way. Just to clarify.
Kalani wrote:
Oberoni Fallacies.
Oberoni Fallacies everywhere.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Look, if you want to be a real hardcore gamer, you have to fight the tarrasque on Final Destination with all items turned off. And you can't fight it with Meta-Knight.
Love this idea, thatnk you for posting it For me the Tarrasque should never be a one off encounter For me a creature like this should be the big bad of the campaign or the next to last obstacle before the big bad. Creatures and encounters should be more then just stat blocks amd what they say they should do and a CR 30 encounjter that gives 1/4 of a level should not be seen as a yawn fest.
Kalani wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Aren't all thrown weapons STR based? From what I could tell in the MM, the Giant's were adding their STR to their Rock AB, and damage. It is therefore IMO, that they simply failed to list "thrown" as an attribute to the monsters stat-block.
You are correct however, that as-written - it is a houserule to use STR for the Rock attack (oversight or no). I missed that minor detail myself.
Only thrown weapons with the Thrown property, which rocks don't have.
And Giants using STR for rocks is a property of the Giant itself, not the rocks.
Also why I suggested earlier to give the Tarrasque something like..
"Hulking Hurler: The Tarrasque considers all thrown improvised weapons as having the Thrown property, and can use his STR for the attack and damage rolls."
Grifford wrote:
Maybe I missed something, which is entirely possible, since I didn't read all 1700+ posts in this thread, but I'm not seeing how most adventurers are going to be able to keep up with the Tarrasque, much less defeat it. Yes, that 5th level wizard can fly at a speed of 60 feet, but the Tarrasque moves at 40, and can Dash, and can move with Legendary action(s). Assuming it gets all 3 legendary actions each round and dashes with its normal action, it will be out of range of most spells after one round of running.
And it's not retreating; it's moving on to bigger prey. No matter how powerful and dangerous the PCs are, they're hardly big enough to be a snack for the Tarrasque, and certainly can't sate its appetite for destruction. It will ignore them and move 200 feet per round toward the nearest civilization, where it will destroy everything and move on before the PCs ever catch up.
Novacat wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The Weapon Table only applies to weapons most commonly used by PCs.....It is far from an exhaustive list, as any attack with the weapon keyword, is a weapon in all respects (pg 14 and 146 of the PHB define the terms melee weapon and ranged weapon specifically).
As such, any weapon (regardless of source) is a valid target for the purposes of improvised weapons, and whether the improvised weapon is similar to the weapon (or not). With that being said, some weapon attacks are extremely unlikely to be improvised....
Natural Weapons in particular would be extremely difficult (but not impossible) to improvise. For example - it would be extremely difficult to say a PCs punch counts as an improvised Fist attack - especially when it already counts as an unarmed strike, and therefore does not count as an improvised weapon. If they were wearing a heavy mailed gauntlet.....perhaps they could make a case (but the DM could just as easily increase the damage of their UA to 1d3 or 1d4, as per previous editions).
EnglishLanguage wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hey, if you don't want me answering questions, don't ask them.
And my belief that this place is more ignorant and hostile than 4chan continues to be proven.
Kalani wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I heard the devs never read these threads unless the post count tops 2000. That way they know we're serious.
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Wall of fog?
Death Dealer: As an action, the Tarrasque loosens a few muscles and lets fly a cloud of the most abominable stench. Creatures within a mile must make a DC 27 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 24 hours. While under the effects of this poison, creatures must make a DC 27 Wisdom saving throw each round or suffer the effects of a confusion spell.
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Since when is the Tarrasque a smelly-boy?
"...was daddy a smelly?" *as said by Bill/Peter in Ghostbusters 2*
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Your Obligitory Monty Python ReferenceRight, fight, stop it. This thread's got silly. Started off with a nice little idea about the Tarrasque throwing rocks, but now it's got silly.....Get on with it.
- The Colonel
Kalani wrote:
Grifford wrote:
But...is it RAW?
Synjin wrote:
You forgot the second s in the second word
Let's just pray there's no second wind
Satyrn wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The only houserule involved, is whether the Giant's Rock weapon attack counts as a thrown weapon. By RAW, it is not (it is listed as a ranged weapon), however there is some uncertaintly whether this is an editing oversight, as Giants add their STR mod to attack and damage, implying it should have the thrown property.
As written, adding the thrown property to the weapon is a houserule at present (at least until such times as an errata or FAQ clarifies the issue, if ever). Whether the Tarrasque can throw said rock or not was never in disupte (as an improvised ranged weapon). All that was in dispute was whether the Tarrasque used STR or DEX, the difference being substantial.....
+0 to hit, 4d12+0 damage vs. +10 to hit, 4d12+10 damage.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Since the tarrasque is really really big, it is technically giant, so I'm going to read that as being a giant, because that's how these threads go. Also, in my scenario, and hopefully most that include a tarrasque, the creature is storming into town hell bent on destruction. That makes it a storm giant, by bounding leaps of logic. So obviously, it is free to use a storm giant's thrown rock stats. QED.
Now, you might have noticed the hell bent part too. I'm not 100% but there's probably a bearded devil attack in there somewhere too.
Wuzzard wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Here's how I've always fixed my tarrasques. First, they are mythical creatures in a world of magic. It's not a bigger T-Rex. With that out of the way I just give them this ability:
-Reality Distortion: The Tarrasque is surrounded by an invisible, intangible reality altering dome that extends in a 60 feet radius. The tarrasque is invulnerable to any attack that originates from outside this range.
Brock_Landers wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
And like I said, them using STR is a property of the monster itself. Those monsters use STR for rock-throwing because the specifically have an ability that lets them do it. By default, throwing a rock would use DEX.
Brock_Landers wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Kalani wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Not this again.
It's already been settled that there are too many unknowns in monster weapon statistics to start cherry picking what's safe to infer and what's not.
Grifford wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Kalani wrote:
surf13 wrote:
Q: If you throw the thrown property into a forest and it hits a tree, doing enough improvised weapon damage to fell that tree, does it make a sound?
A: No. A tree's stat block does not include sound as an effect, nor does an improvised weapon do thunder damage, RAW.
Wuzzard wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
T-Mack wrote:
I actually think we have way too many players that have grown up with the Magic the Gathering type of games (which is a cool game), where they have to have the ability on the Tarrasque card or it is not there. They are the people that can''t make real world judgements like a horse is uncomfortable to ride without a saddle. Or maybe tool use saddle is how you learn to ride a horse now. I am arguing on another thread that you need training to disarm someone. Disarming is an advanced skill that not everyone can do in my opinion. Now in this thread people are arguing rocks can't be thrown as a weapon. I am telling you where I grew up we were very good at throwing rocks, and they hurt like heck. But apparently D&D worlds are safer because rocks can't be used as a weapon. Ever heard of stoning people to death. I guess we need a Magic the Gathering card that says this creature does X damage with a rock or they can't use it.
Grifford wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Terror of S'que
Note: The math below is based on a mistake on my part, thinking that creatures get their profiecency bonus on all saves. See post 1977 for the math using the appropriate bonus with the Tarrasque's +0 bonus to Dex saves.
The math below may still be useful as a guild to how useful it would be to do attacks that use the Tarrasque's Wisdom and Charisma saves.
Mainly though, I leaving the below math alone so that the conversation that follows makes sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the White Room scenario is a level 5 wizard using the Acid Splash Cantrip and the Flight spell to take on the Tarrasque.
Has anyone plugged in the numbers for that yet?
The save DC for spells is DC = 8 + Spell casting ability modifier + Proficiency bonus + Special modifiers
At 5th level, the wizards Proficiency Bonus is 3.
And for arguments sake, let us assume an 18 Int, for a +4 bonus.
Also for arguments sake, let us assume there are no Special modifiers. (1)
That would make a Save DC of 8 + 4 + 3 = 15.
Acid Splash is a save vs Dex, with no damage on a successful save. For a level 5 wizard it does 2d6 acid damage.
As a CR 30 creature, the Tarrasque has a Proficiency bonus of 9. It has no special bonuses on Dex saves. However, the Tarrasque does have the Magic Resistance trait, which gives it advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects.
Against a DC 15 save with a +9 bonus, with advantage, the Tarrasque succeeds on its save roll 93.75% of the time. (2)
On average, 2d6 is 7 damage. However, the Tarrasque is passing that save over 9 times out of 10. So, effectively, the wizard is going to average out to 0.4375 damage per round using Acid Splash (3). At that rate, it would take the wizard 1545 rounds to whittle down the Tarrasque's 676 Hit Points. (4)
Now, what if the wizard was somehow able to counter the Tarrasque's Magic Resistance ability? (5)
Then the Tarrasque's chance to save drops down to 75% (6) Subsequently, the wizard’s average damage increases to 1.75 damage per round. (7) At the improved rate, it would take the wizard 386 rounds to defeat the Tarrasque.
Flight lasts 10 minutes and can be cast twice by a 5th level wizard. That caps the wizard out to 200 rounds of flight per day,
So, unless I'm missing something significant (which I may be, 5e rules are new to me), I do not see how a 5th level wizard can defeat the Tarrasque.
Footnotes:
Figured it best to show my work to help others catch any errors. Also, those who know more about 5e rules can add insight to notes 1 and 5.
-
At this point, I have no idea how likely it is for a 5th level wizard to have a special modifier or how large it would be. Also, how likely is an 18 Int for a 5th level wizard?
-
Succeeds on 375 out of 400 possible results when rolling 2d20, using the better result.
-
7 - 93.75% (6.5625) = 0.4375
-
676 / 0.4375 = 1545.15
-
Once again, I currently have no idea how likely this is for a 5th level wizard to be able to counter the Tarrasque's Magic Resistance ability.
-
Succeeds on 15 out of 20 possible results.
-
7 – 75% (5.25) = 1.75
-
676 / 1.75 = 386.29
Kalani wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The problem is you have people trating the Tarrasque like a simple encounter and I think that is the real issue here, that a creature is nothing more then a stat block to be throw at a group of players without any thought given to the how's and the why's.
The creature doesn't need any fixing. What needs fixing is the mindset of the people that believe that the creature is a puysh over because the numbers say it is. Of course the numbers say anything you want them to say when tweaked in the right direction. In any case a good, experienced Dm will use a Tarrasque in a manner that will be meaningful whil a crap Dm will throw the Tarrasque up as a sacrifice and laugh with the rest of his players at how easily it went down and then they go off and kill some gods because their stat blocks say they can be killed pretty easily.
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
I am interested in the evil cultist that cause the Tarrasque to awaken.
ThreeofSwords wrote:
For me this is just a silly problem easily corrected by a DM with a half a brain. But it is a fun exercise. Unexpected things always pop up in RPG's, get used to it.
Kalani wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Woulld it be equally cheesy to build hot air balloons dropping bombs on all our enemies that lack attacks with the proper range. Ooh there's a Giant, let's drop rocks on him from 500 feet in the air.
arnwolf666 wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
So a group of multiple 20th level wizards casting acid splash from an unreachable height still require 50ish rounds to kill the Tarrasque.. in 45 rounds it levels a city and then runs out of range of the wizards... The Tarrasque wins.
The wizards move in closer to block its rampage as it moves to another city... the Tarrasque throws improvised javelins (trees, splintered beams of lumber from housing, debris from destroyed ships or wagons) at them, knocks a couple out of the sky, they fall to their death, and the Tarrasque continues on... the Tarrasque wins.
The wizards let it retreat and plan on hunting it down. The Tarrasque sleeps in a cave. The wizards can't stay out of range with fly spells within the cave. The Tarrasque wins.
The wizards let it retreat and stay in the city and prepare themselves in case the Tarrasque returns. The city is destroyed, thousands are dead. The wizards drove off the Tarrasque, but it lives to continue its destructive rampage the next day. The Tarrasque wins.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
[quote="Bloodscythe"]
So a group of multiple 20th level wizards casting acid splash from an unreachable height still require 50ish rounds to kill the Tarrasque.. in 45 rounds it levels a city and then runs out of range of the wizards... The Tarrasque wins.[/quote] except that 50 rounds are a mere 5 minutes. Hardly enough time to destroy a city block let alone a whole city
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek - Okay, say it doesn't destroy the whole city, it just runs away after dealing 11,600 points of damage (148 from 5 attacks, 84 from 3 legendary attacks, x2 from siege, x25 rounds before it runs) to the walls and a few dozen buildings . Then what? Since it can outrun its attackers, it can tear up the countryside or move on to the next large city and feed there. It can go into hiding for 6 hours in a lake or ocean or cavern and get it's full hit points back and then go on another rampage. Sure, you can push him back day after day, but each day another 11,600 points of damage is done to the city, slowly reducing it to rubble. Or it ignores that city all togeather and goes after easier fare in the countryside.
The bottom line is, if you can't trap it, you can't kill it and if you can't kill it, it's going to keep coming and coming until everything is gone.
Speed kills.
In fact, the longer I think on this problem the more I wonder if even a party with 6 level 20 pcs could destroy Big T on their own unless they were very specifially designed to do exactly that in which case it sounds like a great end to a 6-8 level (or even 20 level) campaign arc which is exactly what it is supposed to be.
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I just want to see if this thread can reach 2000 posts. cray cray
OB1 wrote:
Well, it's all the 5th level wizard could do, so it's really not his fault, his only other choice would be to hide or die with the rest of the population. Being very hypothetical with this example with the intention of showing that a 5th level wizard who could potentially chase a Tarrasque away from the city it's attacking (after the city takes massive amounts of damage and casualties) which would be in line with the expressed power level of that tier of play "protecting cities" and would be similar to a 5th level wizard chasing off a small army that attacked the city with similar tactics. To me it's all a part of the brilliance of bounded accuracy and the ability in 5E to not have to perfectly balance every encounter to the power level of the party.
Bloodscythe wrote:
OB1 wrote:
OB1 wrote:
Maybe not impossible, but very, very tough, and probably deadly for 1 or 2 members as deciding to slow it enough to get into melee so that your big guns can inflect so mreal damage means that you are now subject to all of those devestating attacks. But of course, that's exactly what a CR30 challenge should be for PCs 10 levels too low for it.
Thunaer wrote:
It would be far wiser to defeat the evil cultists that have awakened the Tarrasque and destroy the mechanism that has awakened it so that it may once again sleep until the end of time. Tarrasque is a Ragnarok monster, at CR30 it should TPK kill a 20th level party without careful resource management and locating additional resources beyond what one would expect of a 20th level party. Unless I am misunderstanding the nature of a +10 CR encounter in 5E (which is possible, I just know +3 and +4 CR encounter in 3.x were very difficult).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Inb4 2k posts.
Facepalm, guys. Facepalms everywhere.
Grifford wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Well, glad to see we've gone full-circle back to the Tarrasque fleeing in terror from level 5 PCs again.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Lets say that the Tarasque is attacking a city. In most midevil citys you will have smoke, flames, and lots of destruction during a Tarasque attack. Historical note: Fires would routinely wipe out major citys in the past. It was a massive threat.
It only seems to reason that IF a flying mage can keep view on it to target line of sight spells that they still have to worry about the Tarasque picking up all kinds of things and throwing it at them. (Yes that armoed horse and the Paladin riding him are going to hurt when thrown at the Mages).
It seems there are a list of conceits here to make this argument
- The Tarasque will take no defensive action
- The Tarasque will be visable for spell casting at all times
- Tarasque will be attacking alone (As if the people responsible for waking it would just chill out and have a beer while it attacked, usually something like this is unleashed for a purpose).
- The heroes fighting it ignore all the suffering it causes
- There would be no reprecussions for them taking their time
- The heroes fighting the Tarasque have the luxury of infinite time
Mathematically, yes the mage is OP however life is rarely mathmatically clear, and it makes me wonder what kind of games the TC plays. In every campaign I have ever ran every battle is full of potential civilian casualties. A good DM understands that unless the group is neutral or evil aligned they must always measure saving lives against destroying the menace, which signifigantly complicates matters especially with something like a Tarasque.
Are there really no loved ones, friends, children, food supplies, or anything else of importance to be saved?
The most horiffic part about the Tarasque is its NONMATHEMATICAL element. This isnt Orcus where you will likely fight him in places where colatteral damage to innocents is minimal. If you are facing a Tarasque it is likely to involve lots of deaths. A good DM would make sure to detail every bit of death and destruction he causes each turn and have in the back of his mind what the results of his destruction have wrought.
In the aftermath of such a battle where the low level mages bested the Tarasque there are long range reprecussions to be had. For instance, the players wait 200 turns and kill it, the town is in shambles. However this is the main food supplier to the local area. Which spell cures a magical famine for years again? Or perhaps it attacks a heavily fortified border town, leaving the kingdom open to invasion by its barbarian neighbors. No spell for that is there?
So yeah, the players can bomb the heck out of him at low levels and win. But they can live with the weight of the lives they chose not to save. An act like that has lifelong consequences.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
The more time the Tarrasque spends fleeing in terror from level 5 PCs, the more tim e the city has to evacuate or mount a defense. And if the Tarrasque just attacks the city, it leaves him open to Acid Splash killing.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Chibikabki wrote:
Actually I think an easier solution might be to change acid splash to a 1st level spell or take it out entirely as i am not too sure they thought things out when including that spell there are alot of critters especially susceptable to this spell and I am wondering if was intended.
OK new math using with the Tarrasque having +0 from Dex saving against Acid Splash.
Against a level 5 wizard with an 18 Int for the same 15 DC:
With Advantage on its saves, there are 175 out of 400 results where the Tarrasque saves successfully. 43.75%. Acid Splash at level 5 is 2d6 damage so an average of 7 damage.
Therefore, the Tarrasque is taking damage on over half the attacks.
7 – 43.75% = 3.9375
A full Fly spell is 100 rounds, so the wizard could do 393.75 damage average in one flight spell. With a second casting of Fly, the average damage is going to be 787.50.
So with updated math, the 5th level wizard with Acid Splash can do enough damage to kill the Tarrasque in 172 rounds. This is still white room math.
Versus the level 20 wizard using Acid Splash, with the DC 19 save, and no Bonus to it's Dex saves, and Advantage, the Tarrasque will succeed on its save roll a mere 9.75 % of the time. That is a small reduction to the 14 average Acid damage that Acid Splash does at 20th level.
14 – 9.75% = 12.635 average damage a round. During one flight spell, the wizard can do 1263.5 damage. Or, more significantly, at 20th level, it takes about 54 rounds to do enough damage to kill the Tarrasque. Again, this is white room math, which is notably ignoring all the various other options that are available to a 20th level character.
Looking at these numbers, I really can not blame people who see this as being a problem. (Assuming of course that someone does not come along and point out another error on my part that would change the numbers back in the Tarrasque's favor.)
Before making a judgment myself, I would also like to hear how the Tarrasque did in an actual encounter instead of theory crafting. Did the Tarrasque rampage through town while keeping ahead of it's attackers? Or does the rampage slow it down enough that the Flying opponents kept up and unleashed their attacks? Probably would need the DMG to see how fragile a city is against the Siege Monster ability. Hopefully it will also answer all the “Can the Tarrasque throw a rock like a giant or an ape?” type questions.
One thing that I'm curious about that CAN be answered now is if Acid Splash is the only ranged cantrip that can damage the Tarrasque. It is the only one I found in the free PDF, but I'm assuming the PHB has more options. Could someone with the book just check and see if there are any more ranged cantrips that avoid both the Tarrasque's immunities and Reflective Carapace? Just want to know the number. Anything more I'll get after buying the book.
Is there a way for a 5th level wizard to neutralize the advantage a Tarrasque has on its magic saving throws?
arnwolf666 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
A Pity a DM who plays monsters for major encounters as written. It's just wrong.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Creature would only be able to quick move ( 3X for 60ft total) once as it regens 1 legenary action a round and of course there is the debate by some one whether they can do more then one action around because of how things are worded...The rest of the time i would probably burn the Legenary action on its physical arrack.
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Yes, 2000 I knew you could do it.
Kalani wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Come to think of it my DM's and I too when I DM do not tell the players that they are fighting a Tarrasque, we tell the players a description, like a Colossal Behemoth arises from the Ocean with Nine Horns and 12 tails, sharp teeth, and claws attacking you. When a player gets attacked by a Wight, I don't tell the PC's they are being attacked by a Wight, I say they are being attacked by a creature with a decaying body or walking corpse. Granted Red Dragon is hard to do that with.
Mecheon wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The strategy will also depend on how the "board" is laid out and where the players ( the mage and big T ) are placed with regards to one another.
Is this mage built to be a Tarrasque killer or is it built like the Mage in the MM?
BookooHundo wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
So you say tomato, I say tomato..
If the Tarrasque is only at risk of losing to lvl 5 wizard in a "white room scenario", and the game will never actually have a "white room scenario" within it, logically we deduce that the Tarrasque is never at risk of losing to a lvl 5 wizard. Therefore it has no need to be changed. You do not have to houserule anything. The Tarrasque is not broken. The thread is based on a fallacy.
Bloodscythe wrote:
It is just as easy to say the creature was developed in a white room, without any consideration of the application of it against an appropriate level party. Shrug.
Handon_Kast wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Grifford wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Might just come down to initiative because, let's face it, the Tarrasque get's a bite in its over. If it hits on its Fear Prescence it sends the Wizard in the opposite direction for 10/rnds while it continues on trying to break stuff or looking to break stuff
Thunaer wrote:
The wizard could be a mini Silver Surfer flying ahead in fear, the harbinger of deatrh and doom, forever running ahead of the creature in constant fear.
Be worth giving the PC a flying ironing board for that.
On Using the White Room Math as Proof.
Pure math such as what I presented earlier should only be taken into consideration as a starting point for understanding. Instead, people want to take it as proof when it seems to agree with their current beliefs, and reject it when it does not.
This is a natural human reacion, but rather annoying. In short, it means that a "good" argument is one that agrees with what you already believe. If it does not, then you reject it, and look for reasons to keep your original belief. A discussion is more fruitful when both parties are willing to actually consider the that the other person may have some valid points.
Instead, our brain locks into "You're wrong because..." mode.
For example, when trying to prove that the 5th level wizard can not kill the Tarrasque, people will bring up that other factors need to be considered. And this is true. Even in my first post on this thread, I was pointing out factors I did know, and wanted more information on.
The problem lies in the in "You're wrong because..." mode thinking, the only factors that we want to consider are those that support our original stance.
Let us consider the argument that the Tarrasque will just stay out of range of the Lvl 5 wizard. In the open field senario, just the two of them, wouldn't the Tarrasque's Legendary move action only be usable once per turn, at the end of the Wizard's turn? Giving it an effective move of 60? (5e does not seem to have a double move action listed in the PDF, but it could be in the PHB) Fly gives a speed of 60, so one on one, it looks like they move at the same speed. Also of note, the Tarrasque is 70 feet long. That makes it a bit more difficult to get out of range.
If you think the Tarrasque is broken, then you probably just went "good point" If you think the Tarrasque is fine as written, then your first though was probably "No, because..." for such a reason as being an unrealistic / poorly written encounter. Which it of course is. (Or you are pulling up the page in the PHB that says a character can take a second move action instead of attacking in 5e)
In a more realistic setting such as the excellent cultist example, the Tarrasque would easily be able to get full use of its legendary actions. But is it going to be using Legendary Move each chance it gets? If so, good news for the defenders, because that means it is not using those extra actions to attack with. Is it really going to be paying that much attention on keeping away from a level 5 wizard? Or is it going to be doing Legendary Attacks and Chomps whenever it can?
Other questions:
How likely is a 50 foot tall, 70 foot tall creature be able to have cover against the wizard?
When the fires and smoke start, won't the Wizard have an easier time tracking the Tarrasque than the other way around?
Does the Wizard fail his Frightful Presense save?
If the Wizard does fail, does the Tarrasque move out of range while the Wizard is frightened, or is it busy attaking other creatures in the area? (Frightened gives disavantage on attack rolls, and the target is unable to move closer to the source of fear, but nothing says a frightened character flees).
What else is damaging the Tarrasque in the ciry?
If the Tarrasque is killed, how much of the damge would be from the single 5th level wizard casting Acid Splash?
Theory crafting is just that. A theory. We put in the factors that support the way we think the fight will go, and dismiss the factors that would not support the conclusion we want. In the whole thread, I recall only ONE post descrbing an actual encounter with a Tarrasque, and that was in a previous edition. We need to keep in mind that without any actual game play data, nothing is certain or proof.
All the factors being added to the white room scenario is painting the walls, not leaving the room.
So let us try to remain both civil and open minded.
Polaris wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
Kalani wrote:
More than 2000 posts <slow clap>
Psikerlord wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
As a DM after a long time of non stop spellcasting every round whilst avoiding the big T and controlling a flight spell I would be asking for Con checks and adding levels of exhaustion after failures. As a DM I believe I have the right to make such calls and do not think I am making a dick move in the doing.
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
BoringInfoGuy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LMAO! Wow, just wow. 52 pages of this???? Is this the most pointless thread on the internet? It's gotta at least make a Top 10 List somewhere.
*So* much wasted energy that could have been applied towards problems GMs and players actually face, instead of a 5th level wizard kiting a Tarrasque. lol. I couldn't even type that without actually laughing out loud.
What an awesome train wreck of humanity.
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
What's important about this thread is that one side has convinced itself that the Tarrasque has no significant weakness to flying attackers because it will always be surrounded by chipmunks to such a degree that it can always use its full docket of legendary actions to run away.
edit: oh yeah, that and it's one of the most contentious threads these forums have ever seen.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Surely the tarrasque could just throw a rock at the wizard?
bille wrote:
LOL to all posts above. Good stuff.
bille wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Soon this rediculous juggernaut will be so large, 5th-level wizards will no longer be needed to kill the Big-T. We'll just crush it with this thread.
eleran wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
The OP didn't mention white room in his initial post, but the past few pages have been him claiming white room ideas as the basis for his argument.
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Grifford wrote:
If a player kept spellcasting, running, concentrating on spells, fighting off fear and worrying about civillians in the Big T's path round after round I would be asking for Con checks failure gaining an exhaustion level, if the caster kept up I would be asking for more checks at shorter intervals and higher DC's. This is pliable even in a white room example.
I still want to know how the wizard will survive 5 hits with improvised ranged weapons dealing 1d4+10 damage/hit (54-62 damage after 5 hits), esp. when their maximum HP at L5 is 55 (assuming CON 20 and maximum HP/HD). Who cares whether the character makes their concentration check or not, they will be dead after a few good blows.
The OP is rigging the battle, by stating that the Tarrasque is disqualified from using improvised weapons and ready actions despite it being 100% RAW, and the Tarrasque having sufficient intelligence, and anatomy to use such. Even stupid humanoid knows how to brain something with a rock, and it has IQ at the minimum level for humanoids. As far as readied actions go, even animals know how to wait - especially true for any ambush predator.
I've only read about ten pages of this so I apologize if it's been brought up already, but has anyone considered that the Tarrasque could just Dash at the wizard? Assuming that the wizard has initiative the monster would be able to come within melee range within five rounds. It wouldn't be able to attack yet, but the wizard would have to leave a threatened space and thus invoke an attack of opportunity. Within a reasonable amount of time the Tarrasque would be able to use its melee attacks on the wizards, long before the acid splash could whittle away his HP.
I'm sure that there is a counter argument to that as well, but I don't think it counts as "broken". I know the OP didn't want this to be a discussion breaking down his initial assumption, but it is a false assumption from the start.
Oh. Of course. The original intent is that the wizard is 60 feet in the air, not merely above ground and flying 60 feet away whenever the Tarrasque gets close.
So, I supposed the best thing would be for the Tarrasque to run away from the wizard. Sooner or later the fly spell will wear off.
EDIT:
Also- there are no rules on the subject specifically, but I suspect that those regarding thrown improvised weapons only apply to player characters and NPCs. A being with a strength far greater than that of a stone giant (whose strength is already beyond the capability of any PC) should be able to at least match their range with a hurled object. It isn't expressly stated in the rules, but nothing in the rules forbids it either.
Saying that the creature lacks the proper intelligence to throw an object is incorrect as many unintelligent creatures hurl projectiles. Monkey fling poo. So do birds technically- with incredible range and accuracy. It is not unthinkable nor restricted by the rules to assume that a legendary creature could do the same.
michaeljpatrick wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Grifford wrote:
BookooHundo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Hey, found a Podcast where people actually PLAY the encounter. Imagine that. 
No idea if Cheesemage makes an appearance, or what happens. I literally stumbled upon this while GIS for Terrasque pics. I haven't heard any of it yet, but I'm going to give it a listen on the way home from work today.
Part-I
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/tarrasque-takedown-mike-shea-out-for-blood-1412655239/
Part-II
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/tarrasque-takedown-ii-the-round-table-strikes-back/
Enjoy!
I have one thing to say about DM using local wildlife and vermin to trigger Big T's legendary abilities and that is if you are going to make bag of rats rulings against player you should be consistent and follow such rulings yourself.
Another curiosity is that all vesions of the Big T I have read except for the 5E have regen it seems that there is no reason to get rid of it, every reason to keep it and if it is meant to be a solo big bad it is absolutely necessarry. Bad design decision if I may say so itself. Also I miss the 2E bite that acts as a sword of sharpness.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
We all deride players that use bag of rats so I would hope that the DM's amongst us myself included are willing to lead by example and not do such things.
Also its a DM's perogrative to alter a creatures stat block if they wish specially if they have a different vision of the creature, the creature does not represent the power level suggested or it has stengths/weaknesses that are undesirable.
As DM's when we use a creature we can use more than the stat block, there are equipment, underlings, magic items, spells statuses such as exhaustion, environmental challenges, social challenges, complications caused by PC backgrounds or organisations, the list goes on. Basically the story, phb, MM, character sheets have enough in them to deal with any sort of lacking in a creature.
Grifford wrote:
If all it does is run from a level 5 wizard, then sure.
Grifford wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Grifford wrote:
After said wizard has gained his second level of exhaustion his movement is halved and he has disadvantage on all checks, then he is Big T chow. I imagine this happens before the fly spells wear off.
Handon_Kast wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Does anyone think that failing a Frightful Presence check would be enough to call for a concentration check? I do.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford. This is from post 800.
More from Mike Mearls:
https://twitter.com/ktkenshinx/status/520621401980809216
Me: Is there a reason Tarrasque statblock lacks ranged attacks for fighting pesky enemies at distance? Seems like a big weakness
Mike: @ktkenshinx we built creatures based more on story reality, than trying to counter characters.
Mike: @ktkenshinx You *could* drop a tarrasque on to a featureless plain and fight it, or lure one there.
Mike: @ktkenshinx Expectation though is that a DM uses one in a dramatic way - tarrasque emerges in a city and starts trampling buildings/people
It seems that the designer intent is to use the Tarrasque as a wrecking ball. Sure, you can ping it over the course of hundreds of round, but in that time it will have already leveled a city and killed most of its population. This is interesting because it suggests that the monster had a very deliberate design that, although maybe possessing weaknesses, is overall well suited for its purpose.
Vindicated!
From the linked twitter post in Orethalion's above message
ktkenshinx: If you wanted the Tarrasque to throw rocks, would you use the Improvised Weapon Rules (PHB), or the rock rules for giants (MM).
mikemearles: rock rules for giants.
Kalani wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So let's summarize the bazillion posts: The OP didn't mention white room so it's not limited to white-room... the Tarrasque is broken (in all instances of the all games at all tables per the OP)... primarily because Tiamat is CR 30 but so is the Tarrasque and the two don't really compare.
So let's build on that: As pointed out multiple times, CR 30 is max. It's not even part of this debate that one CR 30 creature might be obviously more powerful than another CR 30 creature... the more powerful creature can't be represented by a higher CR because a higher CR doesn't exist.
So if we look at the argument from a white-room perspective, the Tarrasque is free to just stay out of range until the wizard runs out of flight, then move in for the kill. Tarrasque wins. What's that? The Tarrasque had to run away from a lvl 5 wizard? So what? It lived and the wizard died so, not really seeing a loss for the Tarrasque in this scenario.
If we look at the argument from an in-game encounter perspective, the Tarrasque is doing exactly what it is designed to do: destroying cities and civilizations. What's that? The Tarrasque has a weakness to flying threats? Having a weakness and being broken are not the same thing. A level 5 wizard cannot keep the Tarrasque from accomplishing its task, nor can it keep the Tarrasque from leaving to return the next day with full health.
So which is it?
A) The Tarrasque is "broken" because it should be a lower CR? Based on what? Because some creatures seem stronger than it is? Well, those stronger creatures can only possibly have a CR of 30, so this argument has no merit.
B) The Tarrasque is "broken" because it is weak against flying threats? If it can still accomplish its task/goal despite a flying threat, it's not broken. We all agree it is weak against flying threats. But having a weakness doesn't mean it is broken. And since RAW allows the Tarrasque to throw improvised javelins, as well as RAW allowing the Tarrasque to ready attacks, like a thrown improvised javelin, it still poses a real threat to flying threats. This argument is built on a flawed premise. A weakness doesn't make a creature broken. And you can't argue that the Tarrasque can't throw improvised javelins since the premise of this thread is RAW. The Tarrasque has arms, can throw things, and thanks to the rules for improvised weapons, the Tarrasque can throw improvised javelins. No debate, that's RAW.
C) The Tarrasque is "broken" because it flees from a lvl 5 wizard? Running (AKA moving at high speeds) and fleeing (running away from danger) aren't the same thing. The Tarrasque is going to run to a building, crush it, move to the next, crush it, etc. Given the "Fleeing" mindset, that would suggest the Tarrasque is fleeing from demolished buildings and corpses it leaves in its wake. This argument just seems stupid.
D) The Tarrasque is "broken" because the OP says so? Based on what? A, B, or C? They've all been disproven. D? Can't really disprove someone's opinion to the person who formed it when they can't accept that they are wrong. Only the OP can disprove D.
The only remaining argument you have is "Because I say so!". I can't disprove that one. You do indeed say so. You're just wrong. And that's been proven: See A, B, and C.
If I missed another argument you've presented to prove that the Tarrasque is broken, feel free to let me know... I'm sure it's been disproven a dozen times by now as well though.
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Would a failed Frightful Presence check call for a concentration check for concentration spells such as Fly? Also would a failed Con check for exhaustion call for a Concentration check? With both these the 5th level wizard is not going to last 200 rounds. Either he falls out of the sky by fear or exhaustion or he gets 2 levels of exhaustion and is at half speed with disadvantage on all rolls in which case the Big T catches up and the wizard is chow. Moral of the story is dont send a novice in to do an elites job even then bring a team and still expect carnage.
Grifford wrote:
A 20th level party who places the glory of killing a mythical beast over the lives of 100's of innocent and defenseless people are certainly not good.
I mean if we are just looking at this as a simple one off adventure with no consequences then who cares but if this part of a master villains grand scheme then it makes a difference to your characters reputation not to mention the politics involved at that level. Heck, chosing the creature over the population could result in many many unforseen circumstances .Hell the local Assasins guild leader could end up with some nice political ties if he didn't already.
Consequences....
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gah. Hate typing on the iPhone. Deciding. Not decvvcxvchh whatever.
Grifford wrote:
Oooh, we've brought alignment into the thread. I see ten thousand posts on the horizon.
To weigh in on this. I can't see the flying strategy as evil. They're not sacrificing the townsfolk. Because maybe rashly assaulting the thing head-on on the ground won't work and just results in dead heroes.
We can't know the airborne heroes aren't noble and good until after all else fails and they still refuse that head-on fight.
Ahglock wrote:
Satyrn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The viewpoint of "Winning" or "Losing" an urban battle with the Tarrasque depends largely on the alignment and make-up of the local government and populace I would think. Some might blame the PCs for not doing enough and be hostile towards them, whereas some might realize they did all they could and be benevolant.
In any case, being careful and cautious isn't evil in my eyes. Generals and officers often send their men into certian doom, to further the overall objective. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it's disasterous. Are those officers "Evil" because they don't go on the front lines themselves? Not in the least.
In any case, any city that a Tarrasque encounters is bound to leave victims in its wake. Said victims are juicy hooks for vengeful antagonists down the line. AKA: Orphaned child who blames the party in the coming years, etc.
Grifford wrote:
In the end it comes down to the playstyle the Dm wishes to encourage.
Throw a mindless Tarrasque into a meaningless encounter against a party that is prepared for it and watch the damage rack up, maybe he can poop out +3 weapon or brick of gold everytime someone scores a critical on him. Throw in moral choices with repercussions and it's just too much, too unfair.
Mirtek wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Limiting options to win a discussions usually means your proposition is in a bit of trouble. As an ex fireman we were told to protect ourselves first caualties second so I guess we are evil. Also something the size of Big T wont necessarily stop to fight just because the opponent is on the ground in fact something in the air may find it easier to get its attention ultimately whether it stops or continues its rampage is more defined by what you do to get its attention more so than your position. Too much one way truism happening here. To the DM's saying you have to fight it my way or else are you running an rpg or writing a novel?
Lady_Auralla wrote:
I lost track of this thread after the 15th page or so.
I was thinking that since flight is a concentration spell (with a maximum duration). It would probably be sufficent to stop the 'abusive' tactics by giving the tarrasque a recharging ability that ends concentration spells within some radius. Maybe some sort of shockwave roar.
Ultimately however it is up to the DM to shake things up if they believe that the game has fallen into a rut. I think this thread is just another example of the old argument between the players who can expect to play by the book, and the players who want to depend more on spontaneous adjudication.
Cerius wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The way I picture the tarasque being used:
The players are friends with the king of Awesome Good Town. They king is about to be invaded by the armies of Evil Town. The players are helping the war effort in the big battle by helping take out key strategic enemy positions. As the big battle is about to commence the armies of Evil Town reveal their secret weapon, the Tarasque that is renowned for swalling whole armies. It's now up to the players to take out and distract the tarasque before it wipes out the whole army of king Awesome Town, which would have the effect of leaving nothing between Awesome Good Town and the armies of Evil Town.
Anyone going to be fighting the tarasque in this scenario by flying above it in saftey while it is wrecking the army you are supposed to be helping?
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Fact: PCs max out at L20.
Fact: Creatures whose CR is equal to the average PL (party level) are deemed an average encounter.
Fact: Creatures whose CR is +2-3 levels greater than the APL are deemed challenging, or difficult encounters.
Fact: The Tarrasque is +10 CR greater than the APL. By definition, this makes it a story creature as there is no legitimate way the PCs should be facing it directly, without the aid of an entire batallion, a wing of dragons, or other such aid.
Even the most novice of DMs could easily see that the Tarrasque exists to serve the story, as even a cursory read of the DM Basic rules would indicate its CR falls well outside the Encounter Building guidelines.
I'm sorry. I call BS on the whole argument that the DM may "mistake" the Tarrasque as an ordinary combat encounter. The only time the DM could ever sincerely make that mistake is if they have zero knowledge of what a monsters CR is supposed to signify.... Such a mistake is easily corrected after what - 5 minutes?
This could only occur in respect to the Tarrasque if the DM was being foolish, and decided to run a Tarrasque combat encounter with L20 PCs - and having never DM'ed 3.5, 4E, or 5E.... The odds of that happening are slim. Most brand new DMs would realistically begin with a L1-4 party, or at the very least have several sessions under their belt as a PC - if not both.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
One solution for the tarasque. Upon seeing your level 5 wizard fly overtop its had and drop acid on it for 100 rounds the gods decide to grant the tarasque the ability to fly since mortals aren't afraid of said gods newest menacing creation.
Now ya got fight a flying tarasque.... oh shiz!
What if the Evil Cultists cast Fly on Big T?
Handon_Kast wrote:
Oh look....Tarrasque vs. Cheesemage wallpaper was just released. I sure hope that tower doesn't collapse and hit the Wizard. That wouldn't be ok at all, and totally not RAW. 
http://dnd.wizards.com/sites/default/files/media/MM3_2560x1600.jpg
Just when you thought the Tarrasque as dead, it returns!!! Dun DUN!!!!
I like to think we were directly responsible for inspiring that artist to do this piece.
We win.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Yeah. Also, the Tarrasque in the pic is ignoring the buzzing bee above it, just as I suggested.
Since there's interest in Big-T around here lately, I figured I'd necromance this thread.
Plus, has it really been since November since the last post in this? Time flies! Just like a Cheesemage... ;)
In our current campaign, the endgame is that the legendary Kraken is destined to be awoken by the resident evil cult, hellbent on world destruction. So the heroes must in turn awaken the Tarrasque (defender of the land) to stop it before it destroys all of civilization.
I'm now thinking I can't wait for the heroes to get all excited when they finally find, and do manage to get the Tarrasque awake to save them all, only to have a cadre of evil cheesemages fly in and kill it before it can manage the trek to the coast to fight its epic rival.
Glorious, anti-climatic finale FTL!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Seeing this thread is like finding the bones of the Leviathan, er... I mean Tarrasque... wow.
I can understand the argument that prior to the DMG's release, the Tarrasque was at a RAW disadvantage, but I'll be damned if I'm going to open the can of worms as to "why"... that said, the DMG has cleaned the problem described by the OP - specifically that there was nothing in the rules other than Rule Zero that kept the cheesemages from punking the Tarrasque. For instance, the falling castle in that pic would put about 18d10 on the table, if I'm remembering the DMG correctly.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
"A" tarrasque? Don't you mean THE Tarrasque?
LordCorwin wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
They just need to rewrite the Tarrasque for the next printing of the monster manual. Maybe that will end this thread. Nah who am I kidding.
I always preferred to have the big T show up around breakfast time in whatever city the PC's were taking downtime in, no warning, just show up (burrowing out of the ground), eat a bunch of NPC's, destroy something that will cause complication to the PC's lives (usually a dock where the boat they were planning to catch was going to be or a section of the wall guarding the town), dig a hole in the ground, and disappear back where it came from with a full belly. If the PC's can get to where it is and do 100 points or more of damage within 10-12 rounds (from the Big T's appearance), they can enrage it to fight some more until that full belly makes the big guy sleepy enough that it doesn't care what the PC's are doing, burrows, and disappears. The PC's look good for "driving the Tarrasque away", and if the Big T ate someone important to a PC, there is a lot of plot potential there.
Also: Half black dragon Tarrasque.
Brock_Landers wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
You are using CR wrong.
Otherwise, things like undead need to have different CR numbers based on whether there are clerics present in the group.
I can see it now, all throughout the book. Stuff like:
Bulette
CR: 5*
(*If the party has some means of flight, or have some other way of maintaining a safe distance, the Bulette has a modified CR of 1/8.)
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Eh, in my games it would depend on how well prepared the wizard is. Someone throws a castle at you while you are flying, I'm not resolving that as an attack, that's a series of skill checks, that might take multiple rounds, since I"m willing to go into slomo whem it makes sense for the scene.
IMO, using a single action resolution for things like that is a HUGE wasted opportunity.
But no real group would ever end up with a level 5 wizard facing off against the terrasque alone. The whole point of the example is to show an extreme end of a spectrum. The terrasque is still exploitable at the lower levels at which a group might face one, at which point they have far more tools with which to try and cheese kill it. Which I'm fine with, because I like to throw things at them that they have to strategize and work together and be clever in order to survive.
I find it utterly absurd that they did not give the Big T regeneration. If I ever introduce one into a campaign, I will make an amalgamation of all the edition's Tarrasque.
It's the end of the world (forums), and so the Tarrasque (thread) reawakens!
Witness the carnage and destruction left in its wake!
See how its post count tramples over all other threads!
If there is one thing we learned from this thread we can all agree on, the one thing that the Terrasque should fear, it's METAGAME CHEATING!
Soon the big, scary beast will dwarf at the might of the greatest (and last epic) thread in WotC forum history!!!
I missed this thread.
Or, insert that picture of the kitten rolling in blue yarn.
Satyrn wrote:
Nonsense. The tarrasque isn't the kind of monster that could throw a kitten.
Satyrn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Did anyone try the mending cantrip?
Clearly a Castle is an Improvised weapon,but the big T is probably a Tavern Brawler (Means he fights USING a tavern, not IN one.)
Quit artifically inflating this thread with your pad posts. You're just trying to keep the Metagame thread from catching up...
Dammit. Now I just did it too.
Dammit!
Ugh...
I'm helping 
What this thread needs is more quantum ogre!
Tarrasque HP are in fact MEAT. Well, mostly. Some of it is bone and hide.
How to kill a Tarrasque: bore it to death with a 2200+ post argument about the Tarrasque.
(chances are someone already made this joke around the 1000 post mark)
Satyrn wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
I must post here for posterity. This thread will last for all eternity! And I must be a part of it!
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
RedwoodElf wrote:
Satyrn wrote:
It could put on lipstick and a wig and lure the flying wizard down with the bashful flutter of its giant eyelashes. Be Vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting tawasques.
I'm gonna post here at 11:59:59 on October 28th, just to have this epicness be the last thing anyone sees. 
Is this thread really going on? I guess it's fitting for a Tarrasque thread not to go down easily.
PS Too bad this is going to end just like that in a few days. It's like writing on the sand now.
evil_warlock wrote: