Is it just me, or a bunch of mid-level casters could take up the Tarrasque?

[Citan]

Hi all!

Was looking at some high-level monsters, and since there are regularly threads dedicated to Tarrasque, I decided to refresh my memory about it.

This time, I noticed something very interesting: a freaking -4 on INT saves.
Of course, it has advantage on saving throws against spells, and it has Legendary Resistances too (3*round "auto-success").

But still... Phantasmal Force is a 2nd level spell, targets INT save on first time then requires an INT *action* against your spell save DC.

So, with a -4 against let's say a properly optimized level 10 caster (+5 cast stat, +4 prof bonus) a normal creature (no advantage, +0 bonus) would need to roll at least 17.
The Tarrasque with a -4 would normally have no chance of succeeding ever.
Even with advantage actually, since it would require to roll 21 haha. It just insta-fails.

So just 4 casters, provided of course they can all act before the Tarraque (or at least survive) would be enough to make a Phantasmal Force sticks permanently. Because Legendary Resistances don't apply to checks either.

Edit: thanks to Malifice for pointing out a blatant mistake: for INT *saves*, Tarrasque actually has a dedicated +5 modifier, so chances of it passing without any external feature (Bend Luck, Portent, whatever else) is actually around 70% with advantage.

So while applying a Phantasmal Force is still doable, unless you make a niche party of Heightening Sorcerers to cancel out advantage or Diviner Wizards choosing the right day, it's probably not even worth the try.

...
...
Ahem, carrying on anyways... XD

And Phantasmal Force does not apply any kind of condition stricto sensu, it just creates an illusion that the creature has to treat as being real.
There is no obligation for that creature to pay any real attention to it however.

So, unless I missed something above, we can consider Phantasmal Force as an auto-succeed spell as long as spammed 4 times in one round.
So then the question becomes: is there a way to create an illusion that would be threatening enough to make it the prime target for a Tarrasque?

I genuinely wonder because, between the sheer level of raw power and the very lackluster mental stats, I can't imagine myself anything that would attract it enough (especially if the party continues attacking it instead with plain weapon attacks -as low as chance to hit may be- or the help of conjured allies such as Animate Objects or Conjure Animals).

Thoughts?

[smcmike]

The Tarrasque gets all these white-room treatments because it’s a terrible monster in a white room. If I remember correctly, a first level character with the proper mobility, the right cantrip, and time to kill can beat it eventually.

That said, I like you Phantasmal Force plan, which is probably useful in any tarrasque encounter. The real question is the thought process of a giant murder machine.

[Citan]

The Tarrasque gets all these white-room treatments because it’s a terrible monster in a white room. If I remember correctly, a first level character with the proper mobility, the right cantrip, and time to kill can beat it eventually.

That said, I like you Phantasmal Force plan, which is probably useful in any tarrasque encounter. The real question is the thought process of a giant murder machine.
Exactly.
Between something "real" that will deal at most a few HP of damage per turn (overall like a mosquito bite for a human) and several other pesky little creatures that will overall deal more damage, I wonder how you could make a Tarrasque stick its attention onto that target?

Even if that low-intelligence means that tactics are not its forte, you can probably get its focus for one turn or two, but once it realizes that this "real" thing can't apparently be killed, why wouldn't it turn towards all the other ones around?

It's imo plain instinct to just target the one that feels the most threatening to you, and the illusion will most probably always be the lowest threat...

Hence my topic: if anyone here feels she/he grasps how a Tarrasque would think, now is the time to share your genius ^^

(Also, you're wrong about first paragraph, cantrips won't work, it's plain weapon attacks -probably longbow- that can take it down with kiting tactics).

[Jerrykhor]

{Scrubbed}

[Willie the Duck]

Ever since the Tarrasque debuted in AD&D 1e's Monster Manual II, it has been routinely so unstoppable -- sometimes breaking the otherwise existing game rules -- that the usual way to defeat it was to either 1) get some DM buy-in/reward for good (or cheesy) thinking, 2) find a busta-busta to this busta (like sick a sphere of annihilation on it and see who the DM decides wins), or 3) find some loophole/oversight in its near invulnerabilities (often by using some obscure splatbook published after the publication of the Tarrasque stats, such that the Tarrasque's designer didn't know that they had to mention that the Tarrasque was immune to <psionic/incarnum/artificer/etc.>-based shutdowns.

Now 5e came along and made the Tarrasque an actual engage-able monster (using the rules in the books)... and it is pretty lackluster. Yeah, as smcmike mentions, a sufficiently patient flyer with a magic bow can kite the thing to death with impunity.

Citan, your Phantasmal Force example is definitely more interesting a way to defeat it. It exploits an issue that Dragons had in 3e--namely that all the otherwise hard exterior defenses in the world won't help you if you have one, tiny, undefended vulnerability (for the dragons it was dex-based ability damage). This is a great concept... except yes, how does it defeat the Tarrasque? Only by making the Tarrasque focus on the phantasm and not the PCs running up and hitting it with magical sharp, pointy sticks. I would say that a demigod would be something a Tarrasque would consider a threat. Or perhaps an awakened and prime material Great Old One. Maybe a creature of myth and legend (if such a think exists in a world where phoenixes and krakens and titans and Tarrasques already are a thing). Maybe another Tarrasque <mind blown!>. But that all depends on the Tarrasque knowing what any of these things are and being able to recognize them. That's going to be a DM's call.


It doesn't matter what the Tarrasque's stat block is, i don't care, and you shouldn't care either. Its just another monster that a DM can possibly use if he likes, or use with some tweaks, or not use at all. A stat block is not a rule, and even if it was, it still can be houseruled by the DM. There really is no point in complaining about a monster's stat block being broken, can be cheesed or whatever. If you are the DM, you have unlimited power, if you are not, don't assume it will be as per the books.

Threads like these are useless.

So, nothing matters and you don't care and neither should anyone else, and why bother with having game rules because DMs can house rule? Are you having an existential crises or making some comment about the concept of published rulebooks? :smalltongue:

[smcmike]

(Also, you're wrong about first paragraph, cantrips won't work, it's plain weapon attacks -probably longbow- that can take it down with kiting tactics).

First level characters don’t normally have access to magical weapons. Why wouldn’t Acid Splash work, exactly?

[Citan]

First level characters don’t normally have access to magical weapons. Why wouldn’t Acid Splash work, exactly?
I never spoke about first-level characters. :)
Although you're wrong here technically too: Shillelagh and Magic Stone being available some way or another (of course, I don't pretend going to attack a Tarrasque in melee -or even with a sling- is any reasonable course of action).
And Acid Splash would never work because...
1. Any normal people would not want to stay as close as 60 feet to a creature that can reliably deal somewhere around 150 damage per round consistently (not including possible critical), and possibly preventing any escape (Grapple).
2. Acid Splash is a DEX *save*, for which Tarrasque has advantage (so ~20% chance) and Legendary Resistance, so a lone caster would never even scratch it.
3. Several casters are 1d6 die, at best 1d8, even with a 18 CON you won't sport much higher than around 150 HP.

So technically you'd suicide yourself as soon as you finish the turn on which you cast Acid Splash, provided Tarrasque didn't smash you before.

You asked for my thoughts, and here they are...

It doesn't matter what the Tarrasque's stat block is, i don't care, and you shouldn't care either. Its just another monster that a DM can possibly use if he likes, or use with some tweaks, or not use at all. A stat block is not a rule, and even if it was, it still can be houseruled by the DM. There really is no point in complaining about a monster's stat block being broken, can be cheesed or whatever. If you are the DM, you have unlimited power, if you are not, don't assume it will be as per the books.

Threads like these are useless.
1. Stats block exists for a reason, like the whole set of rules, as a way to ease the work of a DM and give common ground of interaction to everyone.
2. I didn't ever complain about Tarrasque being powerful.
3. Considering the Phantasmal Force does very little damage by itself, that it does not force at all any kind of condition on the Tarrasque either (not even preventing it to attack other people or running away if things go south for it), I don't understand how you could qualify this idea of "cheese" even if someone found an idea of "sticky illusion" that everyone agrees to judge reasonable.

That's why, on that note, my title is about mid-level casters taking *up* the Tarrasque, and not taking *down* because I don't see any guarantee on killing it through this method. While I feel it could, however, be appropriate to "calm it", divert it from a close-by village or possibly routing it away.

So basically, you didn't even properly read the thread and just came to unleash passive-agressive off-topic statement.
I feel you are in an awkward position to put any judgement on the "usefulness" of a thread here...

[ZenBear]

The Tarrasque is sadly a joke in this edition. He can easily be killed by even a level 1 character, or any character with access to flight and about an hour of free time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/5gojln/how_to_kill_the_tarrasque_in_less_than_an_hour_5e/#ampf=undefined

If I ever run it, I’ll be home brewing a few changes to it, give it some kind of ranged attack and give it back its regeneration and unkillability without a Wish. It’s supposed to be an unstoppable ultimate force of nature, like Godzilla. Godzilla wouldn’t go down to a lowbie adventurer like a biotch.

[Morty]

Tarrasque was already a joke in 3e, so it's not like this is new. A purely physical monster with melee attacks just isn't going to be much of a threat in a game where people can just fly around and pelt it with magic or ranged attacks. IIRC 4e gave it an anti-flight aura, but I don't know how well that worked. Though I guess here you don't even need flight; you just exploit 5e's saving throw rules.

[smcmike]

And Acid Splash would never work because...
1. Any normal people would not want to stay as close as 60 feet to a creature that can reliably deal somewhere around 150 damage per round consistently (not including possible critical), and possibly preventing any escape (Grapple).

We aren’t talking about normal people, we are talking about silly white room fights, and we aren’t talking about staying 60’ away, we are talking about kiting from the back of a fast horse.



2. Acid Splash is a DEX *save*, for which Tarrasque has advantage (so ~20% chance) and Legendary Resistance, so a lone caster would never even scratch it.

Never is exactly the wrong word to use here. The word is “eventually,” as in “a lone caster would eventually melt the Tarrasque into a puddle of acid.”



3. Several casters are 1d6 die, at best 1d8, even with a 18 CON you won't sport much higher than around 150 HP.

So technically you'd suicide yourself as soon as you finish the turn on which you cast Acid Splash, provided Tarrasque didn't smash you before.

I’m a little confused by what you mean here. Obviously if the caster gets hit, he’s dead. His hit points are irrelevant.

Assuming we are on a boundless plain, and the Tarrasque’s gameplan is to eat the caster and his horse, every turn should be a variation on the following:

Tarrasque moves 100’ towards the caster using Dash and Legendary Move.

Caster splashes Tarrasque with acid and uses his mount’s 120’ of movement to end on a spot 160’ away from the Tarrasque.

[SirGraystone]

Yes by the rules if you use metagaming there's way to beat a Tarrasque. But here's how such a fight should work.

One wizard cast phantasmal force, DM rolls being his screen and either save or use legendary resistance and tell the player the Tarrasque is not affected by his spell. Another wizard may try the same thing and will get a similar answer from DM. Then the rest of the group will try something else thinking the monster is immune or have too good save and not waste his few last minutes of live casting spells that doesn't work.

If they just keep trying phantasmal force then it's clear to the DM that they are meta-gaming.

[malachi]

We aren’t talking about normal people, we are talking about silly white room fights, and we aren’t talking about staying 60’ away, we are talking about kiting from the back of a fast horse.



Never is exactly the wrong word to use here. The word is “eventually,” as in “a lone caster would eventually melt the Tarrasque into a puddle of acid.”



I’m a little confused by what you mean here. Obviously if the caster gets hit, he’s dead. His hit points are irrelevant.

Assuming we are on a boundless plain, and the Tarrasque’s gameplan is to eat the caster and his horse, every turn should be a variation on the following:

Tarrasque moves 100’ towards the caster using Dash and Legendary Move.

Caster splashes Tarrasque with acid and uses his mount’s 120’ of movement to end on a spot 160’ away from the Tarrasque.

Until the Tarrasque eventually realizes that its being hurt, and instead moves 100' back instead of 100' forward (leaving them 260' apart). At that point, the caster can't start casting acid splash again until the Tarrasque ends a turn within 80' of him (if the Tarrasque is any further away, the caster can't Acid Splash and keep in a safe spot). If attack-roll cantrips can hurt the tarrasque, spell sniper would make it possible for a caster to keep hurting the Tarrasque even once it started running away - up until the Tarrasque decides to dig into the ground, or until the DM starts calling for exhaustion rolls on the horse (how long can one run at max speed before getting exhausted? How long can the Tarrasque run at max speed before getting exhausted?)

[Xetheral]

You don't need a Phantasmal Force of a threat. Instead just make a Phantasmal Force of a supply of its favorite food hovering in mid-air. It will happily snap up the food, and then be forced by the spell to rationalize why the food is still there.... So you end up with a Tarrasque happily chomping on an inexhaustible supply of its favorite food until the spell duration expires. (Just make sure there aren't any apparent threats nearby that might be a higher priority than a tasty snack.)

[Citan]

We aren’t talking about normal people, we are talking about silly white room fights, and we aren’t talking about staying 60’ away, we are talking about kiting from the back of a fast horse.



Never is exactly the wrong word to use here. The word is “eventually,” as in “a lone caster would eventually melt the Tarrasque into a puddle of acid.”


My bad, I confused action economy of Legendary Resistances (per day) and Legendary Actions (per round). ^^

Does not invalidate the rest though: no reason why you would manage to kill it since you just damage it but has otherwise no way to control what it does and have very limited range.

The reason why kiting can work is when you have enough movement to adjust the distance whatever your target is doing.
If you are on a normal mount, then Tarrasque would just fly up above or Dash away once it realizes you are seemingly an unapproachable target.

Also, I don't see why the Tarrasque couldn't just Ready an action to use Frightening Presence as soon as you get into range, completely shutting you off because not only will the caster have a high chance of failing the save, it seems kinda obvious your horse *will*. Meaning it gives it one full minute to think on next best move, possibly Dashing away full speed (100 feet) if you were starting to really eating into its HP. So long for Acid Splash, even distant.

And level 1 characters don't normally have access to flying mounts neither to Fly spell.

Soo... Back to your drawing board mate. :smallbiggrin:

[SirGraystone]

BTW the Tarrasque move is 40', dash +40', Legendary action move (after the wizard) +20', Legendary action move (after the horse) +20' = 120'

[smcmike]

Until the Tarrasque eventually realizes that its being hurt, and instead moves 100' back instead of 100' forward (leaving them 260' apart). At that point, the caster can't start casting acid splash again until the Tarrasque ends a turn within 80' of him (if the Tarrasque is any further away, the caster can't Acid Splash and keep in a safe spot). If attack-roll cantrips can hurt the tarrasque, spell sniper would make it possible for a caster to keep hurting the Tarrasque even once it started running away - up until the Tarrasque decides to dig into the ground, or until the DM starts calling for exhaustion rolls on the horse (how long can one run at max speed before getting exhausted? How long can the Tarrasque run at max speed before getting exhausted?)

You’re right. A caster on a horse can’t kill the Tarrasque if it decides to run away. Still, making a Tarrasque turn tail is pretty sweet.

Actually, my strategy runs into a pretty big problem if the Tarrasque just decides to sit still and wait for the pesky caster to come within range. Assuming the Tarrasque does nothing on its turn, the caster can’t move to within range and back out to a safe spot with 120’ of movement. He’d have to cast Longstrider on his mount.

Worse, the Tarrasque could ready an action to move toward the caster as soon as he comes within 60’. This spells doom for the entire strategy. I am pleased to say that a caster on a horse isn’t gonna beat a Tarrasque.

A caster with wings, though....

[Boci]

Until the Tarrasque eventually realizes that its being hurt, and instead moves 100' back instead of 100' forward (leaving them 260' apart). At that point, the caster can't start casting acid splash again until the Tarrasque ends a turn within 80' of him (if the Tarrasque is any further away, the caster can't Acid Splash and keep in a safe spot). If attack-roll cantrips can hurt the tarrasque, spell sniper would make it possible for a caster to keep hurting the Tarrasque even once it started running away - up until the Tarrasque decides to dig into the ground, or until the DM starts calling for exhaustion rolls on the horse (how long can one run at max speed before getting exhausted? How long can the Tarrasque run at max speed before getting exhausted?)

Congratulations, Big T does not automatically lose to a first level wizard on a horse. Truely you have saved his honour as an elder force of near unstoppable annihilation.

[smcmike]

BTW the Tarrasque move is 40', dash +40', Legendary action move (after the wizard) +20', Legendary action move (after the horse) +20' = 120'

Good point. I assumed the horse and the wizard shared a turn, but that seems like a misreading of the rules.

As a side point, the whole kiting strategy turns on the wizard and the horse being able to interweave their actions. I assume that’s how people generally actually play mounted combat?

[NecroDancer]

Couldn't have the Tarrqause just rip up a bolder from the ground and throw it at any flying character? I don't understand why everyone assumes the Tarrqause can't stop flying enemies.

The Tarrqause could also just ignore any kiting enemies and move to a location that offers less room for the enemy to manuever.

[smcmike]

Couldn't have the Tarrqause just rip up a bolder from the ground and throw it at any flying character? I don't understand why everyone assumes the Tarrqause can't stop flying enemies.

The Tarrqause could also just ignore any kiting enemies and move to a location that offers less room for the enemy to manuever.

In actual play, absolutely. That’s why I said from the start that the white room analysis was dumb. But if you are limiting yourself to the creature’s statblock, no, it doesn’t have a ranged attack.

[Citan]

You’re right. A caster on a horse can’t kill the Tarrasque if it decides to run away. Still, making a Tarrasque turn tail is pretty sweet.

Actually, my strategy runs into a pretty big problem if the Tarrasque just decides to sit still and wait for the pesky caster to come within range. Assuming the Tarrasque does nothing on its turn, the caster can’t move to within range and back out to a safe spot with 120’ of movement. He’d have to cast Longstrider on his mount.

Worse, the Tarrasque could ready an action to move toward the caster as soon as he comes within 60’. This spells doom for the entire strategy. I am pleased to say that a caster on a horse isn’t gonna beat a Tarrasque.

A caster with wings, though....
I thought about this to first include in my above post, but it actually doesn't work.
As far as I understand, when you decide to "control" the mount it acts on your turn.
So you could move in to 60 feet, have the Tarrasque execute its Readied Dash action putting it only 20 feet to you, but then order your mount to Dash away another 60 feet (so now you're 80 feet away). Then comes Legendary action of Tarrasque closing in 20 feet (so now 60 feet away).

Wait...
That actually works!
Because then Tarrasque just needs to Dash on its turn. So putting itself in OA range. Then you'd need to order your horse to Disengage, so it moves away only 60 feet. Then comes Legendary move eating into 20 feet. So the next round Tarrasque can close in with normal move and eat both caster and mount in a yummy chump action.


Good point. I assumed the horse and the wizard shared a turn, but that seems like a misreading of the rules.

As a side point, the whole kiting strategy turns on the wizard and the horse being able to interweave their actions. I assume that’s how people generally actually play mounted combat?
It's not (at least in my comprehension).
PHB gives to options: "control" mount or make it "act independantly".
Since in the first case, mount moves and act on your Initiative and can only Dash/Disengage/Dodge, it is my understanding that it completely "shares" your turn (like you fused ^^) so Tarrasque would only have one Legendary Action.

[smcmike]

I thought about this to first include in my above post, but it actually doesn't work.
As far as I understand, when you decide to "control" the mount it acts on your turn.
So you could move in to 60 feet, have the Tarrasque execute its Readied Dash action putting it only 20 feet to you, but then order your mount to Dash away another 60 feet (so now you're 80 feet away). Then comes Legendary action of Tarrasque closing in 20 feet (so now 60 feet away).

Wait...
That actually works!
Because then Tarrasque just needs to Dash on its turn. So putting itself in OA range. Then you'd need to order your horse to Disengage, so it moves away only 60 feet. Then comes Legendary move eating into 20 feet. So the next round Tarrasque can close in with normal move and eat both caster and mount in a yummy chump action.

Actually, it’s worse for the caster than that. The Tarrasque’s tail attack has a reach of 20’. He’s within opportunity attack range as soon as ready action dashes.

[Citan]

Actually, it’s worse for the caster than that. The Tarrasque’s tail attack has a reach of 20’. He’s within opportunity attack range as soon as ready action dashes.
Wow, didn't notice that. Good point. :)

On that note, putting aside the whole "level 1" discussion, I feel like one way of sure-killing the Tarrasque *could* (with big *) be having several high-level resilient characters like a Barbarian or Champion mount on its back and try and "grapple" it (as in keeping yourself attached of course, not pulling the grappled conditions XD) while picking at it with one-handed weapons.

As a DM, I would certainly rule that only the Tail attack is usable then, and it's something one could bear for several turns (even taking into account that Tarrasque could make one Tail attack per turn). Of course, characters would need to resist the "knocked prone" effect otherwise I'd rule they drop to the ground as Tarrasque is moving.

Overall I agree though, a creature with no AOE or ranged ability is not very impressive.

[SirGraystone]

Of course kitting a Tarrasque could be done using the Chases rules in DMG p.252, which among other thing let you dash 3 + Constitution mod. time before making you roll Constitution check with DC 10 for levels of exhaustation. A riding horse has Con 12, which let it dash 4 rounds before starting Con. check at +1, the Tarrasque has Con 30 so can dash 13 rounds before doing con check at +10. Which one do you think will be exhausted first?

[UrielAwakened]

Couldn't have the Tarrqause just rip up a bolder from the ground and throw it at any flying character? I don't understand why everyone assumes the Tarrqause can't stop flying enemies.

The Tarrqause could also just ignore any kiting enemies and move to a location that offers less room for the enemy to manuever.

Realistically, probably not.

It has an intelligence of 3 and throwing something, accurately, with any sort of power, is sort of a thing that only humans can do. It probably extends to human-like races as well but without greater intelligence, there's no realistic way for it to realize it can use boulders as a tool, pick them up, and accurately throw them.

The 5e Tarrasque is pretty terrible all around. I miss the 4e Tarrasque's gravity well aura and I recommend anyone planning on running a Tarrasque encounter at higher levels to add it back in. It probably needs regeneration too.

[JoeJ]

In actual play, absolutely. That’s why I said from the start that the white room analysis was dumb. But if you are limiting yourself to the creature’s statblock, no, it doesn’t have a ranged attack.

It doesn't have a special ranged attack in it's statblock, but any creature can improvise an action.

[mrumsey]

Realistically, probably not.

It has an intelligence of 3 and throwing something, accurately, with any sort of power, is sort of a thing that only humans can do. It probably extends to human-like races as well but without greater intelligence, there's no realistic way for it to realize it can use boulders as a tool, pick them up, and accurately throw them.

I mean, on earth, yeah. But I don't have any exposure to 900 ton world-eating behemoths to gauge the throwing abilities of large-scale....things. I don't really know what animal, creature, beast(?)...would be close to a Tarrasque.

He could be [insert contemporary high-quality ball thrower name here] for all I know.

[robbie374]

Actually, it’s worse for the caster than that. The Tarrasque’s tail attack has a reach of 20’. He’s within opportunity attack range as soon as ready action dashes.

But remember that you cannot ready both action and movement: readying Dash is rather pointless.

[Malifice]

Hi all!

Was looking at some high-level monsters, and since there are regularly threads dedicated to Tarrasque, I decided to refresh my memory about it.

This time, I noticed something very interesting: a freaking -4 on INT saves.
Of course, it has advantage on saving throws against spells, and it has Legendary Resistances too (3*round "auto-success").

But still... Phantasmal Force is a 2nd level spell, targets INT save on first time then requires an INT *action* against your spell save DC.

So, with a -4 against let's say a properly optimized level 10 caster (+5 cast stat, +4 prof bonus) a normal creature (no advantage, +0 bonus) would need to roll at least 17.
The Tarrasque with a -4 would normally have no chance of succeeding ever.
Even with advantage actually, since it would require to roll 21 haha. It just insta-fails.

So just 4 casters, provided of course they can all act before the Tarraque (or at least survive) would be enough to make a Phantasmal Force sticks permanently. Because Legendary Resistances don't apply to checks either.
And Phantasmal Force does not apply any kind of condition stricto sensu, it just creates an illusion that the creature has to treat as being real.
There is no obligation for that creature to pay any real attention to it however.

So, unless I missed something above, we can consider Phantasmal Force as an auto-succeed spell as long as spammed 4 times in one round.
So then the question becomes: is there a way to create an illusion that would be threatening enough to make it the prime target for a Tarrasque?

I genuinely wonder because, between the sheer level of raw power and the very lackluster mental stats, I can't imagine myself anything that would attract it enough (especially if the party continues attacking it instead with plain weapon attacks -as low as chance to hit may be- or the help of conjured allies such as Animate Objects or Conjure Animals).

Thoughts?

The beast cant NOT not act. It has legendary actions.

If Im plonking the miniature down 30' away from your wizard PCs on the board, be very afraid.

[smcmike]

But remember that you cannot ready both action and movement: readying Dash is rather pointless.

I’m a bit confused by this comment. Why is readying Dash useless? You don’t need any movement on top of Dash to wreck the caster’s day.

DM: The Tarrasque stands and looks at you, as if waiting for you to do something. (Ready action Dash)
Caster: Ok, I’ll ride my horse to 60’ away to cast Acid Splash, then....
DM: Wait. As soon as you are 60’ away, the beast springs into action and dashes 40’ towards you. It is now 20’ away, and it looks like you are within ranged of its tail.
Caster: Um, I will, um..... die?


Edit: I guess I used the wrong terminology - you don’t need to call this movement a Dash. Just ready movement.

[Citan]

The beast cant NOT not act. It has legendary actions.

If Im plonking the miniature down 30' away from your wizard PCs on the board, be very afraid.
I'm sorry, I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make?
I never said the Tarrasque couldn't act...
During PC's turns at start or once it is under the effect of Phantasmal Force.

Sure, the Tarrasque can make one Attack every PC's turn while they are plowing at its Legendary Resistances. But as long as at least one caster can make a 4th Phantasmal Force it sticks. And only during its own turn can the Tarrasque expect a decent chance of outright killing one of its enemies. Otherwise, even mid-level casters, as frail as they may be, can bear one attack.

So my point was "is there any illusion compelling enough to durably draw its attention even with other creatures hurting it around"?
If the answer is fully positive, then the Tarrasque will keep targeting it, so the caster maintaining the illusion won't have to worry about concentration.

If the answer is mildly positive (illusions probably keep it interesting one round most), then same or different casters could "take turns" in creating different illusions to "refresh" the interest of the beast every 1-2 rounds while other people attack it (much more resource-intensive, but party just has to plan accordingly).

If the answer is no, then my case proved wrong, end of story.

Really, I wonder what point you were trying to make... ^^

[Malifice]

I'm sorry, I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make?
I never said the Tarrasque couldn't act...
During PC's turns at start or once it is under the effect of Phantasmal Force.

Sure, the Tarrasque can make one Attack every PC's turn while they are plowing at its Legendary Resistances. But as long as at least one caster can make a 4th Phantasmal Force it sticks. And only during its own turn can the Tarrasque expect a decent chance of outright killing one of its enemies. Otherwise, even mid-level casters, as frail as they may be, can bear one attack.

So my point was "is there any illusion compelling enough to durably draw its attention even with other creatures hurting it around"?
If the answer is fully positive, then the Tarrasque will keep targeting it, so the caster maintaining the illusion won't have to worry about concentration.

If the answer is mildly positive (illusions probably keep it interesting one round most), then same or different casters could "take turns" in creating different illusions to "refresh" the interest of the beast every 1-2 rounds while other people attack it (much more resource-intensive, but party just has to plan accordingly).

If the answer is no, then my case proved wrong, end of story.

Really, I wonder what point you were trying to make... ^^

Hang on. Are you trying to say the Tarrasque is going to just sit there and wail on an illusion thats dealing it 1d6 psychic damage a round?

Why would it do that? Surely its got better things to do? It might play with it for a bit mind you.

Also, it has an Int save of +5 (with advantage, and 3/ LR). Not -4. Its only at -4 to investigate the illusion after it sticks.

The Tarrasque can simply ignore the PF spell, walk over to the caster and eat him on his turn. As DM id have it wail on it for a bit mind you, or have the spell distract it for a bit. Should the spell stick.

[Contrast]

Yes by the rules if you use metagaming there's way to beat a Tarrasque. But here's how such a fight should work.

One wizard cast phantasmal force, DM rolls being his screen and either save or use legendary resistance and tell the player the Tarrasque is not affected by his spell. Another wizard may try the same thing and will get a similar answer from DM. Then the rest of the group will try something else thinking the monster is immune or have too good save and not waste his few last minutes of live casting spells that doesn't work.

If they just keep trying phantasmal force then it's clear to the DM that they are meta-gaming.

By that logic spellcasters should never bother casting spells on any enemy with legendary resistances.

[Malifice]

By that logic spellcasters should never bother casting spells on any enemy with legendary resistances.

Not until the Monk has gotten close and spammed Stunning fists.

God darn thats a killer ability. Finally seen it up close in my own games.

[Boci]

By that logic spellcasters should never bother casting spells on any enemy with legendary resistances.

No no, its worse than that. They need to cast a spell twice, and then never cast it again on that creature, or else they will be metagaming around legendary resistance.

[MaxWilson]

Ever since the Tarrasque debuted in AD&D 1e's Monster Manual II, it has been routinely so unstoppable -- sometimes breaking the otherwise existing game rules -- that the usual way to defeat it was to either 1) get some DM buy-in/reward for good (or cheesy) thinking, 2) find a busta-busta to this busta (like sick a sphere of annihilation on it and see who the DM decides wins), or 3) find some loophole/oversight in its near invulnerabilities (often by using some obscure splatbook published after the publication of the Tarrasque stats, such that the Tarrasque's designer didn't know that they had to mention that the Tarrasque was immune to <psionic/incarnum/artificer/etc.>-based shutdowns.

We remember AD&D a little differently.

The AD&D2 Tarrasque was never unstoppable, only unkillable due to its regeneration, and the standard ways of dealing with it included such straightforward approaches as "polymorph it into a toad" (needs a 7th level wizard) or "Magic Jar into its body and laugh maniacally about becoming the Tarrasque." These are not obscure loopholes that the Tarrasque's designer didn't know about.

But that was okay, because the fluff didn't require the Tarrasque to be unstoppable, just big and scary. People always forget that the Tarrasque's fluff is not "hardest monster in the game," it's just "most feared creature native to the Prime Material plane," and even that was arguable. 2nd edition even had an entire planet (Falx) whose surface was covered with creatures indistinguishable from the Tarrasque. (And the interior of the planet was full of illithids.) But there were much bigger and scarier things out there including Zaratans, Stellar Dragons, and Constellants; they just weren't widely-known. Think of the AD&D2 Tarrasque as the D&D equivalent of, say, Jack the Ripper: not necessarily the most dangerous serial killer out there, but possibly the most famous.

[Boci]

We remember AD&D a little differently.

The AD&D2 Tarrasque was never unstoppable, only unkillable due to its regeneration, and the standard ways of dealing with it included such straightforward approaches as "polymorph it into a toad" (needs a 7th level wizard) or "Magic Jar into its body and laugh maniacally about becoming the Tarrasque." These are not obscure loopholes that the Tarrasque's designer didn't know about.

But that was okay, because the fluff didn't require the Tarrasque to be unstoppable, just big and scary. People always forget that the Tarrasque's fluff is not "hardest monster in the game," it's just "most feared creature native to the Prime Material plane," and even that was arguable. 2nd edition even had an entire planet (Falx) whose surface was covered with creatures indistinguishable from the Tarrasque. (And the interior of the planet was full of illithids.) But there were much bigger and scarier things out there including Zaratans, Stellar Dragons, and Constellants; they just weren't widely-known. Think of the AD&D2 Tarrasque as the D&D equivalent of, say, Jack the Ripper: not necessarily the most dangerous serial killer out there, but possibly the most famous.

It seems highly unlikely to me that Big T, who stomps around what, every couple hundred years, would have more popularity than the most recent active evil dragon. Flying and fire breath will likely catch people'e imagination more than regeneration. At best he'd have a cult following, much like in real life.

[Willie the Duck]

We remember AD&D a little differently.

I only really remember it in 3e, where it broke normal rules (hp went down to -30, I think). I don't remember a lot of AD&D games which ever really got to that level.

EDIT: Oh look, these things are nothing special! I think I must be remembering their rep.


Think of the AD&D2 Tarrasque as the D&D equivalent of, say, Jack the Ripper: not necessarily the most dangerous serial killer out there, but possibly the most famous.

I think the 'can't be permanently killed' bit probably has something to do with that (regardless of how often that really comes up).

[Citan]

Hang on. Are you trying to say the Tarrasque is going to just sit there and wail on an illusion thats dealing it 1d6 psychic damage a round?

Why would it do that? Surely its got better things to do? It might play with it for a bit mind you.

Also, it has an Int save of +5 (with advantage, and 3/ LR). Not -4. Its only at -4 to investigate the illusion after it sticks.

The Tarrasque can simply ignore the PF spell, walk over to the caster and eat him on his turn. As DM id have it wail on it for a bit mind you, or have the spell distract it for a bit. Should the spell stick.
Wow. How could I miss that?

Thank you very much for straighting that out. Stupid me, not even able to properly read a datasheet. XD

Good thing it doesn't completely negates the premise, just makes it harder.

On your last paragraph though: that's exactly the point of discussion: is there a way to make an illusion "interesting" enough to keep a Tarrasque occupied several rounds... :)

[Legendairy]

By rules the grapple-stab may work. However, most animals when something is biting/stinging/annoying them enough they can roll over, how fairs the resilient guy when Big T drops back and rolls over a few times? I’m not being condescending I’m curious, are there actually any rules for this?

[UrielAwakened]

I mean, on earth, yeah. But I don't have any exposure to 900 ton world-eating behemoths to gauge the throwing abilities of large-scale....things. I don't really know what animal, creature, beast(?)...would be close to a Tarrasque.

He could be [insert contemporary high-quality ball thrower name here] for all I know.

A dinosaur. And dinosaurs couldn't use tools either.

[Lunali]

I’m a bit confused by this comment. Why is readying Dash useless? You don’t need any movement on top of Dash to wreck the caster’s day.

DM: The Tarrasque stands and looks at you, as if waiting for you to do something. (Ready action Dash)
Caster: Ok, I’ll ride my horse to 60’ away to cast Acid Splash, then....
DM: Wait. As soon as you are 60’ away, the beast springs into action and dashes 40’ towards you. It is now 20’ away, and it looks like you are within ranged of its tail.
Caster: Um, I will, um..... die?


Edit: I guess I used the wrong terminology - you don’t need to call this movement a Dash. Just ready movement.

Will not result in immediate death though, readied actions cost your reaction, so no AoO when you run away.

[smcmike]

Will not result in immediate death though, readied actions cost your reaction, so no AoO when you run away.

Ah good point! The death would take a round or two.

[Trask]

whenever people suggest that you could just eternally outrun or fly above the tarrasque, I always wonder why the tarrasque doesnt chuck a piece of masonry, a rock, or a tree at them and just flatten them.

[MeimuHakurei]

whenever people suggest that you could just eternally outrun or fly above the tarrasque, I always wonder why the tarrasque doesnt chuck a piece of masonry, a rock, or a tree at them and just flatten them.

Mainly because there's no way of reasonably estimating how much damage that would deal (mid- to high-level PCs would likely be able to take the hit, albeit being worn down) and the Tarrasque has an awkward anatomy with limbs that lack fine manipulation.

Also, it's mainly a ball of DM fiat in the shape of an oversized guinea pig that is mainly run by people who hate players making informed decisions or those pointing out just how much the Tarrasque doesn't live up to its CR.

[Afrodactyl]

My argument is: if the tarrasque supposedly can't catch the PC, why would it even bother trying? If I was putting my PCs up against Big T and they start kiting it with a level one Wizard on a flying broom, Big T is going to ignore it and start chewing his way through the nearest town like the civilian smorgasbord it is.

[Malifice]

Mainly because there's no way of reasonably estimating how much damage that would deal

Its a CR30 monster. I'd look up in the DMG what the expected damage of a CR30 is and deal that.

[Boci]

Its a CR30 monster. I'd look up in the DMG what the expected damage of a CR30 is and deal that.

So every monster now automatically gets a ranged attack that deal damage apropriate to its CR?

[LudicSavant]

It is not just you. The Tarrasque is a pretty weak monster. It's very much a "closet troll" type monster. That is to say, it is only dangerous in a small space that you can't get out of for some reason. It is not even remotely dangerous in its advertised environment of rampaging around a city like Godzilla.

[smcmike]

My argument is: if the tarrasque supposedly can't catch the PC, why would it even bother trying? If I was putting my PCs up against Big T and they start kiting it with a level one Wizard on a flying broom, Big T is going to ignore it and start chewing his way through the nearest town like the civilian smorgasbord it is.

True, but if it can’t find cover from the wizard, it dies eventually, which is the point.

[Lunali]

So every monster now automatically gets a ranged attack that deal damage apropriate to its CR?

Well, it's an improvised attack, so no proficiency bonus, making it relatively ineffective against a similar level opponent, but should be enough to deal with pesky flies.

[Trask]

honestly considering it has such unsuited anatomy for throwing stuff you could remove proficiency and give it disadvantage. it would still be more than suitable for dealing with one level 6 wizard flying above using acid splash.

thats the problem with white room fights, tossing one tree is perfectly reasonable for a monster like that to do, but somehow that is subverting player expectations? as if they a monster should only ever do whats listed as its actions?

[smcmike]

honestly considering it has such unsuited anatomy for throwing stuff you could remove proficiency and give it disadvantage. it would still be more than suitable for dealing with one level 6 wizard flying above using acid splash.

thats the problem with white room fights, tossing one tree is perfectly reasonable for a monster like that to do, but somehow that is subverting player expectations? as if they a monster should only ever do whats listed as its actions?

While I agree that DMs should be free to improvise monster actions as they see fit, I don’t really buy this one. The Tarrasque has a better anatomy for throwing things than most animals, since it has grasping hands, but it’s still basically an animal, and there are no animals that are even slightly adept at throwing things. I don’t think it’s a given that it should be able to throw something and hit an enemy flying 60+ feet above it. It’s not like you can even use the rules for improvised weapons, which max out at 60’.

The real problem with white room games is that people get upset by their silly outcomes, as if those outcomes have any relevance whatsoever for actual play. In actual play, the Tarrasque is good at its job, which is to be big and scary and knock buildings over.

[Boci]

In actual play, the Tarrasque is good at its job, which is to be big and scary and knock buildings over.

Its a CR 30 monster, of course its big and scary and can knock over things. If that's all it was meant to be good at it would pretty anything would have been suffciient. You could remove its legendary actions, special qualities (well, maybe keep siege monster) and it would still satify the job described.

In reality, a monster with stats exists so that characters can fight and ideally defeat it, so "is this an interesting encounter" also needs to be taken into consideration. And this is a bit harder to pin down. Some groups will enjoy Big T on legacy and scale alone. Sure, an acnient dragon is way worse when you consider the options each has, but an ancinet dragon isn't unique, and it isn't Big T. Big T is basically a puzzle monster, having quite good defences, and devastating if limited in scope attacks. Puzzle are always going to be hit or miss, some groups enjoy them some groups hate them. It worth noting that the most famous monster being a puzzle monster is a unfortuante, since you don't want players to know much about them.

Big T is not the best designed monster, I don't think anyone will disagree with me here. But whether or not that is presented is usuable, will vary from group to group with their preferences. To some extent this is true with all monsters (maybe not goblins), but Big T is a notable example.

[Malifice]

So every monster now automatically gets a ranged attack that deal damage apropriate to its CR?

As the DM, yep. If I want to give a monster a ranged attack, I just do it.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

whenever people suggest that you could just eternally outrun or fly above the tarrasque, I always wonder why the tarrasque doesnt chuck a piece of masonry, a rock, or a tree at them and just flatten them.

Probably because it's a shelled quadruped with the brains of a chihuahua.

[Lance Tankmen]

to be fair it picking up a rock and hurling it wouldnt be that homebrewed... players do it. it isnt defenseless against air

[Boci]

to be fair it picking up a rock and hurling it wouldnt be that homebrewed... players do it. it isnt defenseless against air

It has 3 intelligence, its effectivly an animal. Its unlikely such a monster would be given an ability were it not to protect a legacy. Like a bear. Can they pick up a rock and throw it? They have the same intelligence modifier Big T has.

[jas61292]

Here is the thing with a Tarrasque: no DM who knows anything about it will ever use it as a direct combat. The whole concept of the white room combats with it is ridiculous on its face, and even just directly fighting to the death, with terrain and such taken into account, is still not going to happen.

The Tarrasque is a creature you use because of the effects it can have on the world around it, not because it is a fun and interesting fight. The goal of a fight with a Tarrasque is not to kill it. It is to kill it before it destroys the town. Sure, a group of mid level casters or whatnot could totally take it down in ideal situations, but not before it ravages the town and three other neighboring villages. Such a "victory" over the Tarrasque is an abject failure.

[Boci]

Here is the thing with a Tarrasque: no DM who knows anything about it will ever use it as a direct combat. The whole concept of the white room combats with it is ridiculous on its face, and even just directly fighting to the death, with terrain and such taken into account, is still not going to happen.

The Tarrasque is a creature you use because of the effects it can have on the world around it, not because it is a fun and interesting fight. The goal of a fight with a Tarrasque is not to kill it. It is to kill it before it destroys the town. Sure, a group of mid level casters or whatnot could totally take it down in ideal situations, but not before it ravages the town and three other neighboring villages. Such a "victory" over the Tarrasque is an abject failure.

Why not choose a monster that can destroy a town and is also an interesting and fun fight? Plenty of high CR monsters can threaten a town or even a city, and are way better designed than the Tarrasque.

[NecroDancer]

Ok idea. If you want to make Big-T feel more "epic" you should add two new abilities.

1. The 4e Gravity Well ability. It basically makes it extremely hard to fly around the Tarrqause because of the Tarrqause is warping gravity due to its presence.

2. The ability to cast earthquake a couple of times. The reason being that the Tarrqause is able to cause an earthquake by slamming its fists into the ground.

That's how you make the Tarrqause feel more epic. If you don't like these changes I've made then just use the Tarrqause without these modifications, it's your game.

Also keep thinking up clever ways to beat the Tarrqause, OP I really like your phantasmal force idea.

[Ganymede]

I'm surprised that no considering has been given to whatever villainous power has summoned the Tarrasque. Y'all are treating this encounter like it was rolled up on the Wandering Monster table.



there are no animals that are even slightly adept at throwing things.

The MM's ape is a completely unremarkable animal, with no magic or supernatural enhancement, and it is very adept at throwing things.

That aside, the Tarrasque isn't an animal. It is a monstrosity and a titan. Conventions that apply to animals wouldn't necessarily apply to monstrosities or titans. It is much like how you could roll up a PC with an intelligence equal to the Tarrasque, but still assume it can use weapons and equipment in some rudimentary fashion because it is a humanoid and not an animal. Creatures often know how to do what is in their nature even if they lack intelligence, which likely explains why an animated sword (Int 1) knows how to use a sword.

What is the nature of a Titan? That's an open question, but it certainly doesn't stretch credulity that throwing things fits in there.

[Boci]

The MM's ape is a completely unremarkable animal, with no magic or supernatural enhancement, and it is very adept at throwing things.

It has 6 intelligence, double that of Big T. It also has a climbing speed, which implies a greater fine manipulation with their hands.

[Ganymede]

It has 6 intelligence, double that of Big T. It also has a climbing speed, which implies a greater fine manipulation with their hands.

I think everyone already knows that a Tarrasque isn't an ape. That was not the point of my post.

[Boci]

I think everyone already knows that a Tarrasque isn't an ape. That was not the point of my post.

No, the point of your post was "if an ape can do it, why can't the Tarrasque", to which I responded that every rules indication was that an ape was significantly more capable than the Tarrasque.

[Ganymede]

No, the point of your post was "if an ape can do it, why can't the Tarrasque", to which I responded that every rules indication was that an ape was significantly more capable than the Tarrasque.

Are you pranking me?

Literally the only reason I mentioned an ape in my post was to correct another person who said that there are no animals that are adept at throwing things. That was it. In fact, in the next two sentences of my post, I make the exact opposite point.

Somehow, you took that single sentence, attached a bunch of extra meaning and significance to it, then ignored everything else I said. For your convenience, I'll quote the rest of my post now.

"That aside, the Tarrasque isn't an animal. It is a monstrosity and a titan. Conventions that apply to animals wouldn't necessarily apply to monstrosities or titans. It is much like how you could roll up a PC with an intelligence equal to the Tarrasque, but still assume it can use weapons and equipment in some rudimentary fashion because it is a humanoid and not an animal. Creatures often know how to do what is in their nature even if they lack intelligence, which likely explains why an animated sword (Int 1) knows how to use a sword.

What is the nature of a Titan? That's an open question, but it certainly doesn't stretch credulity that throwing things fits in there. "

[Boci]

Are you pranking me?

Literally the only reason I mentioned an ape in my post was to correct another person who said that there are no animals that are adept at throwing things. That was it. In fact, in the next two sentences of my post, I make the exact opposite point.

Somehow, you took that single sentence, attached a bunch of extra meaning and significance to it, then ignored everything else I said. For your convenience, I'll quote the rest of my post now.

"That aside, the Tarrasque isn't an animal. It is a monstrosity and a titan. Conventions that apply to animals wouldn't necessarily apply to monstrosities or titans. It is much like how you could roll up a PC with an intelligence equal to the Tarrasque, but still assume it can use weapons and equipment in some rudimentary fashion because it is a humanoid and not an animal. Creatures often know how to do what is in their nature even if they lack intelligence, which likely explains why an animated sword (Int 1) knows how to use a sword.

What is the nature of a Titan? That's an open question, but it certainly doesn't stretch credulity that throwing things fits in there. "

An animated sword knows how to use itself, not a sword. What other 3 int creatures knows how to use thrown weapons?

[Ganymede]

An animated sword knows how to use itself, not a sword. What other 3 int creatures knows how to use thrown weapons?

Your behavior baffles me.

[LudicSavant]

No, the point of your post was "if an ape can do it, why can't the Tarrasque"

That's totally not what he said. Ganymede just corrected smcmike's incorrect statement, then moved on to something else.


Why not choose a monster that can destroy a town and is also an interesting and fun fight? Plenty of high CR monsters can threaten a town or even a city, and are way better designed than the Tarrasque.

Other monsters are better equipped to actually threaten a city, too.

[Boci]

That's totally not what he said. Ganymede just corrected smcmike's incorrect statement, then moved on to something else.

Fair I missed that, though Ganymede did say apes were "a completely unremarkable animal", which isn't quite correct. They are human's closest living relatives, in fact humans are classified as apes, which seems pretty remarkable.


Your behavior baffles me.

So, no creatures with 3 int that throw weapons.

[LudicSavant]

The reason animals generally don't throw stuff IRL isn't because it is beyond their ability to figure out the basic concept, it's because humans are the only build that is actually physically good at throwing things.

For all of their great strength, gorillas are physically worse at throwing things than humans. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImYu9dJM4kQ)

The thing about humans is that D&D and similar fantasy fiction has conditioned people to think of humans as a basal set of capabilities that other things expand on. But that's not true at all. Humans have a lot of really overpowered abilities compared to the rest of nature before you even count their intelligence.

So, if we're going to talk about realistic expectations, the question wouldn't just be whether a creature would be smart enough to throw things, it would be whether they even can physically do so with any real effectiveness.

[Boci]

So, if we're going to talk about realistic expectations, the question wouldn't just be whether a creature would be smart enough to throw things, it would be whether they even can physically do so with any real effectiveness.

Realistically it would be both. The physical capability to throw something isn't wroth much if they lack the intelligence to use that ability tactically.

[JoeJ]

What other 3 int creatures knows how to use thrown weapons?

Dwarves, wood elves, drow elves, halflings, variant humans, dragonborn, half-elves, half-orcs. Player characters of all of those races can have an intelligence as low as 3, and all of them are able to use both normal thrown weapons and improvised thrown weapons.

The intelligence score, like all six ability scores, has specific effects given in the rules. It's not especially useful for determining anything else.

[Boci]

Dwarves, wood elves, drow elves, halflings, variant humans, dragonborn, half-elves, half-orcs. Player characters of all of those races can have an intelligence as low as 3, and all of them are able to use both normal thrown weapons and improvised thrown weapons.

Only as PCs, as NPCs their intelligence is given in the Monster Manual, and none of them have Int 3. PC rules are irrelevant for monster rules, since the two are kept deliberatly seperate in 5th ed.

If a monster can use weapons, its given in the profile. A DM can add that ability, in the same way they could add wings or spellcasting.

[LudicSavant]

Dwarves, wood elves, drow elves, halflings, variant humans, dragonborn, half-elves, half-orcs. Player characters of all of those races can have an intelligence as low as 3, and all of them are able to use both normal thrown weapons and improvised thrown weapons.

The intelligence score, like all six ability scores, has specific effects given in the rules. It's not especially useful for determining anything else.

So much this.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think it's unreasonable to let the Tarrasque chuck stuff. I wouldn't give it proficiency to its attack, but its +10 Strength modifier should be enough to hit a lot of things anyway.

Is it fully realistic? No. Is the Tarrasque, or wizards, or dragons, or most ANYTHING in D&D? Also no.

[OvisCaedo]

Ehh. Big T's weakness against flying targets has been established for a pretty long time, at this point, and I think the designers would be well aware of it. 4e gave it gravity well, and while it's a different set of developers, the Pathfinder version gave it spine launching. The complete omission of any special mechanic or ranged attack on him in 5e just feels kind of deliberate.

I feel like he's really just not meant to throw things. But I suppose it's not like I think designer intent is infallible, there's a lot about 5e I'm not fond of.

[Specter]

I think that against a high-level party, you need to give the Tarrasque a 'rock throw' option to avoid making it too kitable.

[UrielAwakened]

whenever people suggest that you could just eternally outrun or fly above the tarrasque, I always wonder why the tarrasque doesnt chuck a piece of masonry, a rock, or a tree at them and just flatten them.

As discussed, accurately throwing something is a tactic that only humans have ever demonstrated the ability to do.

Extending this to monstrous creatures without the sufficient intellect or anatomy to do so is somehow less believable than a giant monster existing in the first place.

You may as well just magically give it the ability to fly while you're at it, it's anatomy isn't capable of either one from a realistic perspective so why not go for the one that's actually terrifying and magical instead of the one that's laughably ham-fisted.

[UrielAwakened]

I'm surprised that no considering has been given to whatever villainous power has summoned the Tarrasque. Y'all are treating this encounter like it was rolled up on the Wandering Monster table.




The MM's ape is a completely unremarkable animal, with no magic or supernatural enhancement, and it is very adept at throwing things.

That aside, the Tarrasque isn't an animal. It is a monstrosity and a titan. Conventions that apply to animals wouldn't necessarily apply to monstrosities or titans. It is much like how you could roll up a PC with an intelligence equal to the Tarrasque, but still assume it can use weapons and equipment in some rudimentary fashion because it is a humanoid and not an animal. Creatures often know how to do what is in their nature even if they lack intelligence, which likely explains why an animated sword (Int 1) knows how to use a sword.

What is the nature of a Titan? That's an open question, but it certainly doesn't stretch credulity that throwing things fits in there.

And if the MM Ape was more realistic it wouldn't be able to throw things either.

Real-life apes are horribly clumsy with projectiles. In fact an ape throwing a rock at you is probably the equivalent of an 8 year old doing so, despite their ridiculous strength.

[Trask]

As discussed, accurately throwing something is a tactic that only humans have ever demonstrated the ability to do.

Extending this to monstrous creatures without the sufficient intellect or anatomy to do so is somehow less believable than a giant monster existing in the first place.

The creature's art implies grabby hands, I dont think its that silly.

Its certainly not more ridiculous than a gigantic monster immune to all damage except magic existing in the first place.

[UrielAwakened]

The creature's art implies grabby hands, I dont think its that silly.

Its certainly not more ridiculous than a gigantic monster immune to all damage except magic existing in the first place.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-thing-humans-are-better-other-species-throwing-180949897/

It's more than just the hands. It's the wrists, the stance, the posture, the pelvis, the coordination and upper-level thinking that facilitates triangulating a creature's position with your own, etc..

As I said, feel free to do what you want, but the idea of anything but humanoids throwing projectiles stems from a complete lack of knowledge about biology in the community, and is way more ridiculous to me than magical flying dinosaurs. Magic you can at least handwave as "magic." But this is just "My DM is bad at science."

It's like when people overestimate the DC on stuff like rope climbing.

[Trask]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-thing-humans-are-better-other-species-throwing-180949897/

It's more than just the hands. It's the wrists, the stance, the posture, the pelvis, the coordination and upper-level thinking that facilitates triangulating a creature's position with your own, etc..

As I said, feel free to do what you want, but the idea of anything but humanoids throwing projectiles stems from a complete lack of knowledge about biology in the community, and is way more ridiculous to me than magical flying dinosaurs. Magic you can at least handwave as "magic." But this is just "My DM is bad at science."

It's like when people overestimate the DC on stuff like rope climbing.

Might want to tell that to WotC

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/11/dd-monster-spotlight-the-tarrasque.html

Heres official art (I think you can find it in the DMG), its upper body looks fairly humanoid here. Large biceps, high shoulders, a bend of the elbow. And as I said originally, if you wanted it to be bad at throwing you could just give it disadvantage.

Also privileging the science of animal's ability to throw things over the science of limitations of how big an animal could actually become seems extremely arbitrary to me. As well as the whole host of anti "scientific" monster features located in D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-thing-humans-are-better-other-species-throwing-180949897/

It's more than just the hands. It's the wrists, the stance, the posture, the pelvis, the coordination and upper-level thinking that facilitates triangulating a creature's position with your own, etc..

As I said, feel free to do what you want, but the idea of anything but humanoids throwing projectiles stems from a complete lack of knowledge about biology in the community, and is way more ridiculous to me than magical flying dinosaurs. Magic you can at least handwave as "magic." But this is just "My DM is bad at science."

It's like when people overestimate the DC on stuff like rope climbing.

* UrielAwakened casts Science at the Tarrasque. INT save, DC 18.
* Tarrasque rolls a 3. Uses Legendary Resistance.
* Science is ineffective!

[Ganymede]

Why do people keep responding to the part of my post about apes, and not the part where I said, "the Tarrasque isn't an animal"?

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'd probably buff the Tarrasque if i ran it. DnD 4e and Pathfinder have some good ideas, but the simplest thing is to just give it back it's trademark regeneration. That alone changes it substantially.

[smcmike]

The case for allowing the Tarrasque to throw things is entirely based upon balance. Players would be able to kite it if it couldn’t throw things, therefore it should be able to throw things.

I don’t like this design philosophy. It’s too limiting. Not every big bad monster needs to have a solution for everything. If kiting is an actual problem in your game, I’d rather see it solved with some regeneration or a burrowing speed, both of which seem like more natural fits for this big hunk of teeth.

[Snails]

The case for allowing the Tarrasque to throw things is entirely based upon balance. Players would be able to kite it if it couldn’t throw things, therefore it should be able to throw things.

I don’t like this design philosophy. It’s too limiting. Not every big bad monster needs to have a solution for everything. If kiting is an actual problem in your game, I’d rather see it solved with some regeneration or a burrowing speed, both of which seem like more natural fits for this big hunk of teeth.

No. The particular argument now is that the T. Is basically a titan -- a living force of nature described in a highly anthromorphized form whose motivations are probably not easily understandable by humans. Such a being is "divine", in a fashion. Building mountains, mountain ranges, islands, chucking boulders/mountains/islands are a known thing for these folk.

It is a dumb animal to people who insist it is a dumb animal. It is a legitimate opinion, built on a foundation of circular reasoning.

I have no problem with arguments about how to kill a stat block in a white room. This titan argument is pointing out how a stat block in a white room makes even less sense for this creature than most everything else you might find in a MM. There are other creatures I would put on this list: the Wish granting ones, plus a few others like the Unicorn.

[UrielAwakened]

Empyreans are also Titans and they have an Int of 21. Which is why they can do the "hurl boulder" and "shape reality" thing.

It's a pretty terrible argument to try and lump all titans together, it's clearly not something that means those abilities are expected.

As far as I know, as with most things in 5e, there is literally no mechanical effects of being a titan.

[Boci]

It is a dumb animal to people who insist it is a dumb animal. It is a legitimate opinion, built on a foundation of circular reasoning.

And the intelligence score of 3. What does that mean to you, if not that the Big T is meant to be pretty dumb? Is Big T wasn't meant to be dumb, surely he would have been given a higher intelligence score, like 8, or at least 6?

[Trask]

And the intelligence score of 3. What does that mean to you, if not that the Big T is meant to be pretty dumb? Is Big T wasn't meant to be dumb, surely he would have been given a higher intelligence score, like 8, or at least 6?

I think part of his point is that its a different class of creature. A PC could theoretically have 3 intelligence, but that doesnt make them an animal because a 3 intelligence is not the same for PCs as it is for monsters. Similarly, hes saying that 3 intelligence for a godlike being, force of nature is not equal to 3 intelligence for a mundane animal.

Its an argument that, admittedly, has no real basis in whats written down, but there really isnt any guideline for interpreting what each ability score means at various values. I happen to agree just because it makes sense in my head.

Most of 5e's use of ability scores is to achieve a certain archetype, not emulate reality. So is it fitting for this titanic beast of legend that emerges from the earth to destroy civilization to be able to pick up chunks of crumbling masonry and chuck them? I think so.

Does it perhaps not much sense (even though some of the Tarrasque art I've linked to before showed a reasonably humanoid upper body)? Maybe, but not much less sense than a 3 str 20 dex character hurting a stone gargoyle with a thin sword.

[Boci]

I think part of his point is that its a different class of creature. A PC could theoretically have 3 intelligence, but that doesnt make them an animal because a 3 intelligence is not the same for PCs as it is for monsters. Similarly, hes saying that 3 intelligence for a godlike being, force of nature is not equal to 3 intelligence for a mundane animal.

I think the PC comparison is muddying the water unneccissarily. Yes, a PC can theoretically have 3 intelligence, but the vast majority won't. If the DM uses PB, then a PC cannot have 3 intelligence. Even if rolling is allowed, a DM may ask a player to reroll, or buff a 3, and if allowed how that is roleplayed is up to the people invovled.

With Big T there is no such consideration, no variables. It has 3 Intelligence. 3 inteeligence is 3 intelligence, on a mortal or god-like being. Is the Big T wasn't meant to be dumb, why did the writters consciesly choose to give him 3 intelligence?

PCs and monsters work off different rules. Comparing them isn't useful.

[Trask]

I think the PC comparison is muddying the water unneccissarily. Yes, a PC can theoretically have 3 intelligence, but the vast majority won't. If the DM uses PB, then a PC cannot have 3 intelligence. Even if rolling is allowed, a DM may ask a player to reroll, or buff a 3, and if allowed how that is roleplayed is up to the people invovled.

With Big T there is no such consideration, no variables. It has 3 Intelligence. 3 inteeligence is 3 intelligence, on a mortal or god-like being. Is the Big T wasn't meant to be dumb, why did the writters consciesly choose to give him 3 intelligence?

Because he is dumb and was meant to be. My point was only that ability scores are used to represent a certain archetypal creature, monster or PC, no represent reality, and certainly not science.

So is it archetypally fitting for this titanic beast to throw chunks of the building its currently eating? I think so. So that 3 int probably doesnt hinder it from doing so.

[Boci]

Because he is dumb and was meant to be.

Cool, glad we agree then.

[UrielAwakened]

Because he is dumb and was meant to be. My point was only that ability scores are used to represent a certain archetypal creature, monster or PC, no represent reality, and certainly not science.

So is it archetypally fitting for this titanic beast to throw chunks of the building its currently eating? I think so. So that 3 int probably doesnt hinder it from doing so.

Tool-use is related to intelligence.

Animals with 3 Int cannot use tools.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tool-use is related to intelligence.

Animals with 3 Int cannot use tools.

Rules cite for that? From 5e?

And are chunks of the landscape being thrown really tools?

[Specter]

Reminder: Apes have crap intelligence and can also throw rocks at stuff.

[Boci]

Reminder: Apes have crap intelligence and can also throw rocks at stuff.

Reminder, 6 is twice that of 3, and two increments up on the modifier.

[UrielAwakened]

Reminder: Apes have crap intelligence and can also throw rocks at stuff.

Reminder that their Int is 6 and even Apes are pretty terrible at throwing stuff.


Rules cite for that? From 5e?

And are chunks of the landscape being thrown really tools?

Yes. It's using an object. That's a tool.

I could buy a Tarrasque firing spines from its back because presumably it was born with them and learned how to use them instinctually. There are several lesser-intelligence animals that have an evolutionary adaptation that involves firing a projectile from its back or mouth.

Throwing a rock is a world apart from that. Why not have an Octopus wielding eight longswords while you're at it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Reminder that their Int is 6 and even Apes are pretty terrible at throwing stuff.



Yes. It's using an object. That's a tool.

I could buy a Tarrasque firing spines from its back because presumably it was born with them and learned how to use them instinctually. There are several lesser-intelligence animals that have an evolutionary adaptation that involves firing a projectile from its back or mouth.

Throwing a rock is a world apart from that. Why not have an Octopus wielding eight longswords while you're at it.

I'm still waiting for rules cites...because that's not a rule I've ever seen and I know it was a rule in previous editions.

BTW--Intelligence scores don't mean what people think they do.


Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning

Intelligence is about memory and deduction. That's about it.

[Snails]

And the intelligence score of 3. What does that mean to you, if not that the Big T is meant to be pretty dumb? Is Big T wasn't meant to be dumb, surely he would have been given a higher intelligence score, like 8, or at least 6?

It means he is pretty dumb for a god-like being, just like a Int 3 PC is pretty dumb as creatures who are perfectly capable of using complex tools are dumb.

Manipulating hunks of big stuff like mountains is in the mental wheelhouse of titans, even very very dumb ones. In fact, one might reasonably assert that is what dumb titans were born to do. We might as well argue about whether moles are smart enough to make tunnels.

Now, of course, marking T as a titan is just a personal opinion. Just like marking T as pretty much a big animal is a personal opinion, with the caveat that T is much more unlike any animal we know than titans we have read about.

[UrielAwakened]

Lmao you people are ridiculous.

Even a human being with Int of 3 isn't using tools. There are people who need others to feed them in real life, precisely because their mental facilities do not allow them to use or understand tools to that extent. A person with an Int of 3 is less intelligent than an actual ape. That is profoundly handicapped.

This is just a bunch of DMs who don't know as much as they think they do trying to come up with any justification for their boneheaded interpretation of a monster.


I'm still waiting for rules cites...because that's not a rule I've ever seen and I know it was a rule in previous editions.

BTW--Intelligence scores don't mean what people think they do.

Yeah it's a shame you're playing the edition that decided rules were unimportant right.


Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

Wtf do you think "the ability to use tools" stems from in a biological sense.

[Boci]

It means he is pretty dumb for a god-like being, just like a Int 3 PC is pretty dumb as creatures who are perfectly capable of using complex tools are dumb.

That's a terrible way to design a game, and I am almost certain the writers of 5thed were smarter than that. Like, at least intelligence 12, maybe even 14.

But no seriously, whilst some games themetically might benefit from 3 intelligence not always being 3 inteligence, 5th ed is not that game, and given how well it was designed overall, I doubt it let something like that slip through.

PCs do not follow the same rules as monsters, but monsters follow the same rules. Intelligence 3 for one monster is intelligence 3 for another.

[hamishspence]

Even a human being with Int of 3 isn't using tools. There are people who need others to feed them in real life, precisely because their mental facilities do not allow them to use or understand tools to that extent. A person with an Int of 3 is less intelligent than an actual ape. That is profoundly handicapped.

Aren't apes normally Int 2?

As The Giant pointed out:



In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon. This does not describe most real-world people with mental handicaps (to my knowledge). Which means the bulk of the spectrum of mental handicaps probably sits somewhere below 3 and above 2, because it's a system designed for action-adventure and it doesn't need more granularity than that.



EDIT: Apparently 5e is radically different from previous editions in having Int 4 Baboons and Int 6 Apes.

Still, the basic point, that RAW, Int 3 adventurers can read, speak, and write a language (unless they are Barbarians) and have an alignment, still matters.

[Specter]

Reminder, 6 is twice that of 3, and two increments up on the modifier.

Wow. What? I had no idea. Comparatively, is it possible for apes to speak and stuff?

[UrielAwakened]

Yeah I mean the difference between an Ape and a Human is the same as the difference between a Tarrasque and an Ape.

People are seriously grasping at straws here.


Aren't apes normally Int 2?

As The Giant pointed out:

Apes are far smarter than the average animal and have an Int of 6.

Of note that intelligence lets them learn things like patterns, understand language, and, oh yeah, use tools.

And no, apes cannot speak because physically their biology does not allow them to form words. However, they can, and do, understand sign language when taught.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aren't apes normally Int 2?

As The Giant pointed out:

This rules quote is not from this edition. There is no such stipulation in the rules whatsoever.

For example, an INT 1 PC (due to feeblemind) still knows right from wrong and has an alignment.

[Snails]

Well, as written, applying Intelligence could be argued as necessary for "innovating" any genuinely new solution to a complex problem.

The question is how much manipulating hunks of mountain in many violent ways is something that requires any thought to a dumb titan. I would say: none at all.

[Trask]

Lmao you people are ridiculous.

Even a human being with Int of 3 isn't using tools. There are people who need others to feed them in real life, precisely because their mental facilities do not allow them to use or understand tools to that extent.

This is just a bunch of DMs who don't know as much as they think they do trying to come up with any justification for their boneheaded interpretation of a monster.



Yeah it's a shame you're playing the edition that decided rules were unimportant right.



Wtf do you think "the ability to use tools" stems from in a biological sense.

Whats ridiculous is the fact that you keep equating ability scores in D&D to real life ability. They just don't work that way, theres literally NOTHING in the rules that would have 3 int PC be unable to feed themselves, and I doubt you'd tell a player that anyway.

Your comments are dripping with condescension but you don't seem to actually grasp what is being said. Also, maybe you completely missed it but official art of the Tarrasque portrays it as having a humanoid upper body, if you want to bring up the fact that the pelvis plays into throwing stuff, or any other reason why it wouldnt be able to throw, just give it disadvantage, make it throw stuff half as far, whatever. But its still a Godzilla sized beast lobbing a building, which is fitting archetypally, thats the important part.

thumbs, humanoid upper body, ancient godzilla type force of nature = being able to throw a rock. But no maybe it should have spines that it can just launch from its body at high speeds and then they regenerate?

You are being SO arbitrary in your application of "realism" that maybe you are the one who is not as smart as you think you are.

[Boci]

The question is how much manipulating hunks of mountain in many violent ways is something that requires any thought to a dumb titan. I would say: none at all.

That stance I get. Its not how I'd run Big T, but I don't look at it an think "that's terrible game design" like I do when see the argument that Big T's 3 intelligence is worth, like at least an 8 in humanoid terms.


Still, the basic point, that RAW, Int 3 adventurers can read, speak, and write a language (unless they are Barbarians) and have an alignment, still matters.

Pcs and monsters follow different rules. Comparing them is not useful.

[hamishspence]

This rules quote is not from this edition.

True - but similar principles apply. The rules don't specifically handicap low Int adventurers to the extent that they cannot use tools, cannot read and write, etc.

[Snails]

That's a terrible way to design a game, and I am almost certain the writers of 5thed were smarter than that. Like, at least intelligence 12, maybe even 14.

But no seriously, whilst some games themetically might benefit from 3 intelligence not always being 3 inteligence, 5th ed is not that game, and given how well it was designed overall, I doubt it let something like that slip through.

PCs do not follow the same rules as monsters, but monsters follow the same rules. Intelligence 3 for one monster is intelligence 3 for another.

An Int 3 orc can still use a crossbow, and the rules as written imply the possibility of such. Arguing about the specialness of PCs seems unimportant here.

I am not sure I understand your point.

[Citan]

I'm still waiting for rules cites...because that's not a rule I've ever seen and I know it was a rule in previous editions.

BTW--Intelligence scores don't mean what people think they do.



Intelligence is about memory and deduction. That's about it.
It's funny how you mislead yourself when you quoted the PHB in your own post.


Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

"Ability to reason" =/= "deduction": it's also making projections, evaluating probabilities, in general creating many kind of different relationships between thoughts, thoughts that can relate to completely abstract or totally concrete things/ideas and everything in between. And evaluating the reliability of all those thoughts and relationships to build more complex reasonings.

Deduction is a tool of reasoning (among many others), not the reasoning itself. :)

Besides that, guy, don't you think that this particular question has been running on fumes since a few dozen posts? Or should I on the contrary edit the OP to reflect the evolution in topic (not criticizing, I'm fine with it, it's just that title and content went sideways from each other)?

This rules quote is not from this edition. There is no such stipulation in the rules whatsoever.

For example, an INT 1 PC (due to feeblemind) still knows right from wrong and has an alignment.
This however is an interesting point. It implies that one can have "morals" with close to zero ability to reason.
This is imo a true discrepancy between a "rules system" and reality (I think this statement I make here is one that could break into a monthly-long, thousands-of-posts strong thread ^^).

This supports your view though: whether we agree or not that this design choice relates to reality, it does imply that in 5e universe, the ability to comprehend fully abstract concepts is totally unrelated to Intelligence.
Meaning that the concept of "throw an object" should be acceptable by those terms. :)

[UrielAwakened]

Whats ridiculous is the fact that you keep equating ability scores in D&D to real life ability. They just don't work that way, theres literally NOTHING in the rules that would have 3 int PC be unable to feed themselves, and I doubt you'd tell a player that anyway.

Just to be clear your argument that two numbers, one of which is higher and one of which is lower, cannot be compared and extrapolated even though the numbers are attached to real things that really exist and measure a thing that really exists.

All because nobody is holding your hand to point to a rule that explicitly says to do that.

In a game where climbing a rope doesn't have a set DC.

Got it.


Your comments are dripping with condescension but you don't seem to actually grasp what is being said. Also, maybe you completely missed it but official art of the Tarrasque portrays it as having a humanoid upper body, if you want to bring up the fact that the pelvis plays into throwing stuff, or any other reason why it wouldnt be able to throw, just give it disadvantage, make it throw stuff half as far, whatever. But its still a Godzilla sized beast lobbing a building, which is fitting archetypally, thats the important part.


Because I think nothing of you. You've made zero good points.


thumbs, humanoid upper body, ancient godzilla type force of nature = being able to throw a rock. But no maybe it should have spines that it can just launch from its body at high speeds and then they regenerate?

You are being SO arbitrary in your application of "realism" that maybe you are the one who is not as smart as you think you are.

Magical things can be magical and non-magical things need to be realistic.

As I said, a Tarrasque throwing something is as believable as a Tarrasque flying around so just let them fly, because that one is way more terrifying.

Again we're not arguing about an ability it actually has. Even the designers don't think it should be able to throw things apparently.

[Ganymede]

Tool-use is related to intelligence.

Animals with 3 Int cannot use tools.

This is not an actual rule; in D&D, a creature's intelligence score simply doesn't cover that.

Case in point, compare the ape with the ogre.

The ape has an intelligence of 6 and figured out how to throw rocks.

The ogre has an intelligence of 5, can build simple tools, use complex tools, has a rudimentary culture, and is bilingual.

It would be folly to attribute the difference in capability to their respective intelligence scores as the ape is the one with the higher score. The expanded capability of the ogre has more to do with the fact that it is a giant and not a beast (animal); we simply expect giants to have a greater capability to do these things than beasts.

The tarrasque isn't a beast (animal), it is a titan. That doesn't tell us a whole lot considering titans are varied and eclectic creatures, but it also means that our expectations of what a beast (animal) can accomplish aren't necessarily applicable here.

[Boci]

An Int 3 orc can still use a crossbow, and the rules as written imply the possibility of such. Arguing about the specialness of PCs seems unimportant here.

Orcs don't have 3 intelligence, they have 7. PCs specialness makes them an unuseful gauge for what a monster can do with int 3. No printed monster with 3 int can do that. That seems important. Again, nothing a DM can't change, but still important.

[UrielAwakened]

This is not an actual rule; in D&D, a creature's intelligence score simply doesn't cover that.

Case in point, compare the ape with the ogre.

The ape has an intelligence of 6 and figured out how to throw rocks.

The ogre has an intelligence of 5, can build simple tools, use complex tools, has a rudimentary culture, and is bilingual.

It would be folly to attribute the difference in capability to their respective intelligence scores as the ape is the one with the higher score. The expanded capability of the ogre has more to do with the fact that it is a giant and not a beast (animal); we simply expect giants to have a greater capability to do these things than beasts.

The tarrasque isn't a beast (animal), it is a titan. That doesn't tell us a whole lot considering titans are varied and eclectic creatures, but it also means that our expectations of what a beast (animal) can accomplish aren't necessarily applicable here.

Apes can also use simple and complex tools, have a rudimentary culture, and can learn multiple sign languages.

I fail to see this argument's point.

Also if everybody could stop using the, "This is not an actual D&D rule" defense in an argument defending an ability a creature doesn't even have that would save me a lot of time.

If you want to go by strict D&D RAW I already won this argument when the Tarrasque was printed.

[Trask]

Just to be clear your argument that two numbers, one of which is higher and one of which is lower, cannot be compared and extrapolated even though the numbers are attached to real things that really exist and measure a thing that really exists.

All because nobody is holding your hand to point to a rule that explicitly says to do that.

In a game where climbing a rope doesn't have a set DC.

Got it.


Because I think nothing of you. You've made zero good points

Magical things can be magical and non-magical things need to be realistic.

As I said, a Tarrasque throwing something is as believable as a Tarrasque flying around so just let them fly, because that one is way more terrifying.

Again we're not arguing about an ability it actually has. Even the designers don't think it should be able to throw things apparently.

I'm not saying that the numbers being higher and lower doesnt matter. But would you seriously say that a 3 int PC cant even eat? Can a 5 int pc not even talk? That just doesnt make any sense to me.


So you have 0 manners and just act like a jerk? Good to know.

Official art of the Tarrasque has a humanoid torso, holding things in thumbed hands with apparently ability to chuck them. Thats all im going to say about that. The designers dont list every possible thing a creature can do, there isnt a "knock over building" action.

[Snails]

Orcs don't have 3 intelligence, they have 7. PCs specialness makes them an unuseful gauge for what a monster can do with int 3. No printed monster with 3 int can do that. That seems important. Again, nothing a DM can't change, but still important.

Orcs have Int 7 just like Humans have Int 10. That there are physically stronger or weaker orcs and humans, both PCs and NPCs, AND mentally smarter and dumber orcs and humans, both PCs and NPCs, has been a thing since forever.

[UrielAwakened]

Kangaroos are bipedal but would do poorly as pitcher for an MLB team.

Are you done yet.


Orcs have Int 7 just like Humans have Int 10. That there are physically stronger or weaker orcs and humans, both PCs and NPCs, AND mentally smarter and dumber orcs and humans, both PCs and NPCs, has been a thing since forever.

It's pretty clear from a casual glance that 10 across the board is considered the median for human, and then racial modifiers are the difference in their median from humans.

So the average Orc has an Int of 8 (or whatever Orcs get as an Int penalty) and are stronger.

But while the bell curve for humans might be 3 to 18, and Orcs from 1 to 16, for Tarrasques there is no bell curve. Because there's just one and it's 3.

Just like how for Bears the Int curve isn't from -8 to 10. It's just 2. The intelligence in the species just does not vary enough from member to member to need a range.

Part of this variance is absolutely again due to Intelligence by the way. Being reasonably intelligent makes you capable of learning or self-improving in ways your species normally could not. You're also able to make purposely bad choices, or survive due to a societal caretaking when normally you would not.

A bear with 10 less Con than normal would never survive long enough to reach adulthood while a human with 10 less Con than normal has access to medicine and relatives that will care for it.

[Ganymede]

Apes can also use simple and complex tools, have a rudimentary culture, and can learn multiple sign languages.

I fail to see this argument's point.

I can't find that information anywhere in my D&D supplements.

For instance, I can quote a line that says ogres can craft flint tipped spears and worship Vaprak the Destroyer. I can also quote the portion of the ogre's stat block that says they can speak Common and Giant.

I can't find anything of that nature regarding apes. What rulebook/supplement are you even referencing here?



Also if everybody could stop using the, "This is not an actual D&D rule" defense in an argument defending an ability a creature doesn't even have that would save me a lot of time.

If you want to go by strict D&D RAW I already won this argument when the Tarrasque was printed.

Naw. Improvising actions is squarely the realm of DM discretion.

"When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

You are technically correct in that you can tell yourself that the tarrasque you control as DM cannot hurl a chunk of masonry at a foe. We wouldn't call that "strict D&D RAW" though.

[UrielAwakened]

I can't find that information anywhere in my D&D supplements.

That's weird my Tarrasque wasn't printed with a Ranged Weapon Attack.

[Ganymede]

That's weird my Tarrasque wasn't printed with a Ranged Weapon Attack.

This has already been addressed, I'll go ahead and repost it for your convenience.



When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures



Naw. Improvising actions is squarely the realm of DM discretion.

"When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

You are technically correct in that you can tell yourself that the tarrasque you control as DM cannot hurl a chunk of masonry at a foe. We wouldn't call that "strict D&D RAW" though.



But yeah, mine was a serious inquiry. What D&D supplement is giving you all this information about apes?

[UrielAwakened]

I looked again and I couldn't find any errata that gave a Tarrasque a Ranged Weapon Attack.


But yeah, mine was a serious inquiry. What D&D supplement is giving you all this information about apes?

I know real life facts about apes and unless I have reason to believe D&D apes are somehow less than fully-derivative of real-life apes I use it to inform my game knowledge.

Same as I do for how fire works, how hard ropes should be to climb, and whether or not PCs need to sleep.

[JNAProductions]

Are you still going on about realism?

Again-the Tarrasque is NOT REALISTIC. Nor are dragons, or wizards, or krakens, or empyreans, or...

I will say, I do like the people who pointed out that it's very archetypal for a big, lumbering monster to chuck a piece of masonry. That's the logic you need, not "Is it realistic?"

[hamishspence]

I will say, I do like the people who pointed out that it's very archetypal for a big, lumbering monster to chuck a piece of masonry.

Especially if the big lumbering monster appears to have opposable thumbs.

[UrielAwakened]

It's not about realism it's about what's anatomically reasonable.

Anatomically, it flying is just as believable.


Especially if the big lumbering monster appears to have opposable thumbs.

People who think that's all it takes to throw something accurately should just not post until they've actually read this thread. I'm tired of reiterating how much more it takes to a bunch of people that have no idea what they're talking about.

[hamishspence]

The point people have been making is that the 5e Tarrasque basically looks like a man in a suit, with a tail. It's basically humanoid in shape - just a few little differences.

The 4e tarrasque on the other hand, that was fully quadrupedal - but the 5e Tarrasque, not so much.

[JNAProductions]

It's not about realism it's about what's anatomically reasonable.

Anatomically, it flying is just as believable.

People who think that's all it takes to throw something accurately should just not post until they've actually read this thread.

Anatomically reasonable sounds an awful lot like you're trying to apply reality to this.

Do you say dragons can't fly, because their bodies are too big relative to their wings?
Do you say wizards can't cast fireball, because waggling your fingers in real life doesn't let you shoot fire?
Do you say krakens can't summon lightning bolts, because in real life, electric eels and similar don't actually shoot lightning 120' away?

[Trask]

It's not about realism it's about what's anatomically reasonable.

Anatomically, it flying is just as believable.



People who think that's all it takes to throw something accurately should just not post until they've actually read this thread.

Yeah a humanoid torso might help. Which it has.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/tarrasque-attack.jpg

[UrielAwakened]

The point people have been making is that the 5e Tarrasque basically looks like a man in a suit, with a tail. It's basically humanoid in shape - just a few little differences.

The 4e tarrasque on the other hand, that was fully quadrupedal - but the 5e Tarrasque, not so much.

And those people are all really wrong.


Do you say dragons can't fly, because their bodies are too big relative to their wings?
Do you say wizards can't cast fireball, because waggling your fingers in real life doesn't let you shoot fire?
Do you say krakens can't summon lightning bolts, because in real life, electric eels and similar don't actually shoot lightning 120' away?

No because those are all magical traits or can be explained pretty easily by making assumptions about bone density.


Yeah a humanoid torso might help. Which it has.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/tarrasque-attack.jpg

Nothing about that torso is humanoid.

More important is its pelvis which is nowhere near correct.

[Ganymede]

I looked again and I couldn't find any errata that gave a Tarrasque a Ranged Weapon Attack.

This is the second time you've ignored direct rules references that address this point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and quote them again.

For one, the Monster Manual rules are clear that creatures are not actually limited to taking actions exclusively in their stat block.

"When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures."

Among those actions available to all creatures is the ability to improvise an action.

"When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

Whether chucked by a massive creature or pushed off of a ledge by a human, crushing someone with a piece of falling masonry would seem to fit within the universe of improvised actions.



I know real life facts about apes and unless I have reason to believe D&D apes are somehow less than fully-derivative of real-life apes I use it to inform my game knowledge.

Same as I do for how fire works, how hard ropes should be to climb, and whether or not PCs need to sleep.

Those are all your applications of DM discretion. Some DMs will base their expectations of what an ape can do based on their close, personal friendship with Jane Goodall, while others might base it on what they read about in Michael Crichton's Congo. Your out-of-game background knowledge of higher primates from whatever source certainly doesn't privilege your use of DM discretion above anyone else's though.

That's just you using your prerogative as DM to rule on something not explicitly covered by the rules. That's cool and all, and it fits within my position that a tarrasque's capability to hurl pieces of the environment is a DM call, but you're acting like yours is the only correct call.

[UrielAwakened]

Those are all your applications of DM discretion. Some DMs will base their expectations of what an ape can do based on their close, personal friendship with Jane Goodall, while others might base it on what they read about in Michael Crichton's Congo. Your out-of-game background knowledge of higher primates from whatever source certainly doesn't privilege your use of DM discretion above anyone else's though.

That's just you using your prerogative as DM to rule on something not explicitly covered by the rules. That's cool and all, and it fits within my position that a tarrasque's capability to hurl pieces of the environment is a DM call, but you're acting like yours is the only correct call.

DMs can do whatever they want.

But it's no more believable than making it fly. And again, if the answer is, "How do you deal with flying enemies," just making the Tarrasque fly is a way better answer.

[Ganymede]

DMs can do whatever they want.

But it's no more believable than making it fly. And again, if the answer is, "How do you deal with flying enemies," just making the Tarrasque fly is a way better answer.

As long as you're not pretending your DM call here is the only correct call, it's fine by me. No one's forcing your tarrasques to hurl masonry, after all.

[hamishspence]

The Tarrasque is basically "D&D Godzilla". Now Godzilla comes in many versions, with differing degrees of humanoidness. The least so, is the "Zilla" from the 1998 movie - from the waist down, it's mostly theropod.

But from the waist up, it's mostly humanoid.

The tarrasque is at least as humanoid as 1998 "Zilla" if not more so.

[JNAProductions]

No because those are all magical traits or can be explained pretty easily by making assumptions about bone density.

Really? Dragons cannot fly in an antimagic field, then? Or are their bones so brittle and thin that the lightest tap will break them?

Because both those are inconsistent with what's written in the game. They have no notes about antimagic fields stopping them from flying, and their HP hardly indicates something with hollow, easy to break bones.

Edit: I mean, heall, even bald eagles have hollow bones, and they still have a GIANT wingspan. Even WITH bone density approaching that of air, dragons still wouldn't be able to fly.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Really? Dragons cannot fly in an antimagic field, then? Or are their bones so brittle and thin that the lightest tap will break them?

Because both those are inconsistent with what's written in the game. They have no notes about antimagic fields stopping them from flying, and their HP hardly indicates something with hollow, easy to break bones.

Wrong. Read Sage Advice (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf). Pages 14 and 17.

[hamishspence]

That's 3e though.

The specific quote:



You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature.



Basically it boils down to "Even in an antimagic field, a dragon is still full of magic that allows it to exist, fly, etc."

[JackPhoenix]

Corvids and octopi can use tools. They have Int 2 and 3, respectively.

Zombies have Int 3 and are literally mindless... to the point that they walk straight into a pit if there's an opponent on the other side, off a cliff if there's a living creature down there, yet some of them can use weapons with proficiency.


Yeah a humanoid torso might help. Which it has.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/tarrasque-attack.jpg

That's also not 5e Tarrasque. Too many fingers, different position of shoulders, thicker arms, and smaller carapace.

This is 5e Tarrasque (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/d/df/Monster_Manual_5e_-_Tarrasque_-_Cory_Trego-Erdner_-_p287.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150302142118)

[JoeJ]

Even a human being with Int of 3 isn't using tools. There are people who need others to feed them in real life, precisely because their mental facilities do not allow them to use or understand tools to that extent. A person with an Int of 3 is less intelligent than an actual ape. That is profoundly handicapped.

That's not remotely true. A human with an Intelligence of 3 is just as able to use tools and weapons as a human with an intelligence of 20. Intelligence does not have any effect at all on the ability to use tools or weapons. A human with an intelligence of 3 can even be a wizard if they want to.

[Ganymede]

Even a human with an intelligence of 1, such as a person blasted by the Feeblemind spell, can still function and use tools on a rudimentary level.

[LudicSavant]

The Tarrasque is basically "D&D Godzilla".

It's more like the Tarrasque wishes that it was basically D&D Godzilla.

Compared to Godzilla, it is small in stature, physically weak, and lacks a radioactive death laser that can take out distant threats.

[Snails]

I have a crazy idea: Maybe there is such thin textual support for the hypothesis that Int 3 beings cannot use tools because the hypothesis is...wrong?

I grant that an argument can be made that Int has everything to do with the ability to create new tools on the spot or create novel tactics with known tools in a new situation.

Of course, this opens up a whole new line of inquiry: How much can even a quite dumb being happen to know when its lifespan is indefinitely long and thus its experience might be broad in ways that humanoids might have trouble comprehending?

Heck, perhaps some archwizard 11,000 years ago recognized an inconvenient weakness in his plan to use Big T in his evil plans, and he decided to teach it to throw rocks?

[Boci]

I have a crazy idea: Maybe there is such thin textual support for the hypothesis that Int 3 beings cannot use tools because the hypothesis is...wrong?

Because the support that an int 3 monster can use tools has just been overwhelming. Look at all the monsters in 5th edition that have 3 intelligence and use tools in their profile or fluff. There...., then the....and who could forget everybody's favorite.... . (And before the go to response emerges, note that I said "have" and not "can have".)

[smcmike]

Or maybe there isn’t a general rule about intelligence and tools, but the Tarrasque just doesn’t look like much of a thrower?

How are we still arguing this? There obviously is not an answer to this question in the rules. It’s within the discretion of the DM.

Personally, I would distinguish between the sort of mayhem that a raging monster might inflict and deliberate aiming at distant targets. This thing is designed to smash an urban environment, and in doing is definitely gonna inflict mass damage with falling masonry and whatnot. When faced with a cavalry charge, he might grab the first horse and fling it into the line. This isn’t very well modeled by the rules, of course, but that’s the type of thing I’d like to seen from a cinematic standpoint.

Aiming at a flying creature is different. That’s advanced throwing technique is what that is. Humans are excellent throwers and we basically do not even attempt to throw things at creatures in mid flight.

[Ganymede]

And there's always the host of dumb-dumb creatures in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes that wield fairly complex equipment or can do intelligent things like speak languages, which just further muddies the water.

There's the Intelligence 2 Hellfire Engine that is capable of wielding cannons and flails and understands Infernal.

There's the Intelligence 3 Oaken Bolter that knows how bolt throwers work and is able to fire harpoons at great distances, and it knows a language.

There's the Intelligence 3 Stone Defender that is quite capable with a shield and knows a language.

There's the Intelligence 4 Choker that speaks Deep Speech.



How are we still arguing this? There obviously is not an answer to this question in the rules. It’s within the discretion of the DM.

There were a couple of people arguing that there actually was an answer to this question in the rules. They're wrong, of course, but they're still posting here.

[Boci]

There were a couple of people arguing that there actually was an answer to this question in the rules. They're wrong, of course, but they're still posting here.

I'd love to see you quote me say there actually is an answer in the rules.

[Dalebert]

It made some people angry last time a thread like this popped up and I pointed out that a first level flying cleric, e.g. An arakocra, can solo a tarrasque and kill it by spamming Sacred Flame for about 45 minutes.

[Willie the Duck]

It made some people angry last time a thread like this popped up and I pointed out that a first level flying cleric, e.g. An arakocra, can solo a tarrasque and kill it by spamming Sacred Flame for about 45 minutes.

Poppin in 2 days after the 6-week limit just to say that isn't going to improve on that.

[Derpaligtr]

The Tarrasque gets all these white-room treatments because it’s a terrible monster in a white room. If I remember correctly, a first level character with the proper mobility, the right cantrip, and time to kill can beat it eventually.

That said, I like you Phantasmal Force plan, which is probably useful in any tarrasque encounter. The real question is the thought process of a giant murder machine.

I've found that Mr. T isn't just a bad white room monster, but a bad one in general.

The easiest fix would be a "Throw Earth" ability. Much like rock throw that giants get but... Well... Bigger.

Or, if you like Kaiju, a radiant/neurotic breath weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

Or, if you like Kaiju, a radiant/neurotic breath weapon.

It's obviously a typo, but what would neurotic breath weapon even do?

[Derpaligtr]

It's obviously a typo, but what would neurotic breath weapon even do?

Existential crisis inducing? Probably a cha save.

[Blood of Gaea]

I personally give the Tarrasque Prismatic Spray as a breath weapon (Recharge on 5 or 6 of a d6 roll when used, otherwise recharges at dawn). I also allow it to jump up to its normal movements speed and make a biting attack, this isn't compatible with it's multiattack.