PDA

View Full Version : Tarrasque killing without wish?



Rift_Wolf
2008-02-14, 09:02 AM
If you Plane Shifted a Tarrasque to the Elemental Plane of Water, regeneration doesn't cover damage taken from drowning. Wouldn't it just die from drowning?

Arakune
2008-02-14, 09:09 AM
If you Plane Shifted a Tarrasque to the Elemental Plane of Water, regeneration doesn't cover damage taken from drowning. Wouldn't it just die from drowning?

He probably are immune to planeshift. The sad thing is, you can't tear him apart to the atomic level and call it a day...

Studoku
2008-02-14, 09:13 AM
It would be as good as dead, but would probably come back to life if someone planeshifted it back again.

Belial_the_Leveler
2008-02-14, 10:28 AM
Death from suffocation bypasses regeneration-so even if you planeshift Big T back, it is still dead.

However, an easier way to kill it is to Teleport it to the depth of the ocean. The deeper point of sea on Earth is roughly 11 kilometers. That's more than 35.000 feet. Assuming Toril (or any campaigh setting) has an oceanic Abyss just as deep, big T is in trouble.

Someone teleported to the depths of the ocean at that point would be in danger of suffocation but also will take pressure damage. 350d6 damage per minute to be exact. Sure, fortitude saves can stave off both pressure damage and suffocation but by the time anyone swims a mile or so, dozens of rounds would have passed. In addition, the depths totally lack light so noone can see and it is very easy to get lost.

Douglas
2008-02-14, 10:56 AM
Death from suffocation may bypass most forms of regeneration, but it does not bypass the Tarrasque's regen. There are no exceptions whatsoever to the rule that "The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead." That statement is unequivocal, has no exceptions for anything but Wish and Miracle, and takes precedence over any other rules by being more specific.

Drowning would, however, qualify as an effect that would normally cause instant death and deals 868 nonlethal damage instead. So, once Big T finally can't hold his breath any more, you would be able to finish him off with a Wish or Miracle without any extra damage dealing first.

Thoughtbot360
2008-02-14, 10:57 AM
Ah the memories. My first exposure to the Tarrasque was a secondhand story of something that happened in-game while I wasn't there.

DM: You see a Tarrasque.

Necrocleric: *Confidently on the brink of flippancy* Kill it.

rest of the Party: ........

Bard: Do you even know what a Tarrasque is?

Necrocleric: *shakes head then speaks in the same manner* Kill it.

Bard: *has monster manual* Here's a picture (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG240.jpg)

Necrocleric: Run away! *moves his arms up and down so as to simulate running*

...at least it wasn't a gazebo

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-14, 11:04 AM
The Tarrasque's regeneration is much better than normal regeneration:


Regeneration (Ex):
No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability.

The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

So yes, you could drown him, but you'd still need wish or miracle to legitimately kill him (and you'd need to do it while he's "drowned").

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Feralgeist
2008-02-14, 11:05 AM
The suffocating would just keep it pretty much dead, not exactly dead.


Would it starving to death kill it though?

Zim
2008-02-14, 11:20 AM
The suffocating would just keep it pretty much dead, not exactly dead.

So it's only mostly dead. Better hope it doesn't find true love. :smallbiggrin:

Arakune
2008-02-14, 11:27 AM
So it's only mostly dead. Better hope it doesn't find true love. :smallbiggrin:

But he truly loves death and destruction. And people. Especially with pepper.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-14, 11:34 AM
Would it starving to death kill it though?
No.

The bit about it only being killed via wish or miracle is a more specific rule than any of the rules that normally allow you to overcome defenses similar to those of the Tarrasque. As it is a more specific rule, it automatically trumps the general rules.

Belial_the_Leveler
2008-02-14, 11:35 AM
Regeneration (Ex)
No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability.
The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

Actually, no. No form of attack deals lethal damage to the Tarrasque and the tarrasque takes maximum nonlethal damage instead when it fails its save against an instantly lethal effect. Effects that neither deal damage nor have a saving throw are not affected by its regeneration.

The Tarrasque dies normally in the following circumstances:

a) It is subject to a lethal effect with no saving throw that doesn't deal damage. Such effects don't have death converted to nonlethal damage. Suffocation kills it. While there is a fortitude save to keep one's breath, there is no save to escape actual suffocation after you run out of breath-so the clause "if it fails a save vs death..." doesn't apply.

b) It is subject to lethal ability drain. This includes poisons that deal constitution drain, any blood-drinker's constitution drain (such as a vampire's) or a shadow's strength drain.

c) It is subject to effects that remove a being's regeneration such as Greymantle and Ebon Ray. Note that unlike the above effects, effects that deal unhealable damage instead (instead of specifically removing regeneration) do not work because the Tarrasque is immune to unhealable damage.

d) It is subject to effects that remove, destroy or devour its soul such as Trap the Soul, a Demiliche's Soultrap and Souleater. So, you could whack a tarrasque to unconsciousness then summon or call a Devourer or other soul-eating thingy to eat it-or you could cast Trap the Soul on a diamond, put the diamond in a cow and have Big T swallow the cow.

e) It is subject to effects that utterly destroy a target without killing it. Such effects include the Unname and Necrotic Termination spells, any temporal paradox that results in the Tarrasque never being born (or similar) and Epic Spells that remove it from time.

f) It is subject to transmutations that alter its form. As an Extraordinary ability, Regeneration is removed during those transformations. If the Tarrasque dies while it doesn't have its regeneration, it dies normally. So, flesh to stone, vitrify, baleful polymorph, polymorph any object and the like can be used to kill it. Disintegrate would fall into this category-but because it is a Ray, it is deflected by the Tarrasque's carapace.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-14, 12:48 PM
Points A and B do nothing about the explicit clause that the Tarrasque can only be killed by raising its nonlethal damage and using wish or miracle. That is an additional clause beyond the effects of regular damage and death effects. (Also of note: Strength drain or damage is not lethal. It is merely paralytic. The only kind of ability damage or drain that is lethal is Constitution.)

Points F and C are actually viable, as they do away with the ability that provides this clause.

Point E: If it effect doesn't kill it, how can you say it dies? "Point D" seems to pretty well fall into this category for the most part as well, I think.

Jack Zander
2008-02-14, 11:38 PM
Planeshift if to the Positive Energy Plane. It gains HP each round until it explodes from joy (at twice it's maximum HP).

Aquillion
2008-02-15, 12:02 AM
Actually, no. No form of attack deals lethal damage to the Tarrasque and the tarrasque takes maximum nonlethal damage instead when it fails its save against an instantly lethal effect. Effects that neither deal damage nor have a saving throw are not affected by its regeneration.
The problem is the paragraph you left out:

The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.
That covers anything that would 'slay' the terraqsue. However, I would tend to agree with (e) -- if it is affected by something whose description implies that it is a "step beyond death" (e.g. a sphere of annihilation) which doesn't mention killing or slaying specifically, I think that that would bypass all of the terrasque's defenses. It is debatable whether you have actually 'slain' it at that point, but it doesn't exist anymore so the point is mostly moot.

For example, reading the sphere's description:

Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character.It doesn't mention death, and it does specifically prevent anything that touches the sphere from being restored by anything short of a deity (which would override the Terrasque's wording on needing 'a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead', since the word 'keep' implies that it can die from things other than wish or miracle, but promptly comes back -- something a Sphere of Annihilation strictly prevents without deity-level intervention. Since the Terrasque is not a deity, it cannot regenerate back from being annihilated on its own.)

If you want to be strict about it, a Sphere of Annihilation doesn't make the terrasque "permanently" dead; its regeneration ability is just 'temporarily' negated until a deity intervenes and lets it operate. But from a practical standpoint, a terrasque that touches a sphere is just as much destroyed as everyone else.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-15, 12:25 AM
Shrink Item and making it permanent after repeated successful permanent Baleful Polymorphs (losing regeneration and other abilities) and killing the subsequent animal form depending on how that mechanic would work in your game and tossing it in a lead lined iron chest (divinations) and dropping deep into the ocean leaving it a problem for the future heroes.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-15, 12:46 AM
Shrink Item and making it permanent after repeated successful permanent Baleful Polymorphs (losing regeneration and other abilities) and killing the subsequent animal form depending on how that mechanic would work in your game and tossing it in a lead lined iron chest (divinations) and dropping deep into the ocean leaving it a problem for the future heroes.Sounds like a quest hook.:smallbiggrin:

Ganurath
2008-02-15, 12:53 AM
I think the best way to deal with Mr. T is to either drop a really big rock on him from really high up, or burn luck rerolls for wild empathy.

Woland
2008-02-15, 12:57 AM
The Tarrasque can 'only' be killed by wish.

It's just bad design on WoTC's part. Making something like that, sucks all the interesting out of an encounter.

Lemur
2008-02-15, 01:09 AM
The tarrasque's regeneration will never recover from taking an infinite amount of damage. Therefore, with suitable cheese, such as an infinite-damage-punch crusader, the tarrasque should be effectively defeated permanently, even if he isn't technically dead.

TheOOB
2008-02-15, 01:29 AM
The tarrasque's regeneration will never recover from taking an infinite amount of damage. Therefore, with suitable cheese, such as an infinite-damage-punch crusader, the tarrasque should be effectively defeated permanently, even if he isn't technically dead.

Of course, without using wish or miracle there is the chance that it will somehow becomes released again in a future generation. That, and there is no such thing as infinite damage, just arbitrarily large.

Reinboom
2008-02-15, 01:40 AM
That, and there is no such thing as infinite damage, just arbitrarily large.

The omniscificer (http://forums.gleemax.com/archive/index.php/t-546612.html) would like a word with you.

Khanderas
2008-02-15, 02:20 AM
My take on it is... Immune. Immune to drowning, Immune to plane shift, Immune to disintregration, Immune to death by massive damage, Immune to death effects, Immune to being trapped in a pit, Immune to mindcontrol, Immune to attempts to tame him, Immune to whatever.

Infact if you DO manage to kill him (wish included), he is Immune to that too and basically respawns 6 months later.

My idea on this is that some things should be unkillable even by a Wizard level 12 :smallmad: (excepting the Wish naturally).

He can still be included in games, but the mission should be less "kill the beast, collect the reward but more of minimising the damage he does (evacuation, distracting him with a herd of cattle to uncivilized areas).


Maybe I am coming on too hard here, but isn't the T the vengeful tool of a vengeful god somehow ? Feels kinda unclimatic to have 3-5 PC bounce in and zap him dead then bounce back to town for afternoon tea.

Khanderas
2008-02-15, 02:30 AM
The Tarrasque can 'only' be killed by wish.

It's just bad design on WoTC's part. Making something like that, sucks all the interesting out of an encounter.
WoTC fails on many levels, but having one monster that needs something more then 3-5 midlevel "special" people to whack at it with swords is not one of them.
Sure, perhaps they should have said they needed a spell of 8th level that only exist in one copy deep in the dungeon of Dhepazheck, but then the PCs use Wish to emulate that anyway, while complaining that it is such a McGruffin.

I don't quite understand how needing a wish once it is 'dead' makes the encounter unintresting. I find it to be the other way around.
Too often a monster face a finger of death and either dies or gets another one. Repeat until dead. Legendary creatures reduced to bags of loot and xp.
Fine in a videogame, but using pen-and-paper your DM can give you anything for nothing if he wishes. No challenge, no point, no fun.

Reinboom
2008-02-15, 02:48 AM
I must disagree with you Khanderas.

I have had a GM throw the tarrasque at us once.
The situation went something like this:
*encounter starts,
"Oh, what the hell. This thing isn't dying. Try something else."
*about 30 minutes later after trying various random things, getting torn apart because of it, someone finally realizes its a tarrasque (most of us had only skimmed through the monster manual then)*

"It's a tarrasque. It can only be ultimately killed by wish. Anybody have wish or miracle?"
*chatter of 'nope'*
"Well.. uh... so... this village is screwed. What a waste of time. Wanna do something else?"
*chatter of 'definitely'*


We all decided it would be more efficient for us just to let it eat for its couple weeks fill than the time it would take for us to try to get a scroll of wish to defeat the creature. The sorcerer definitely didn't have wish (and would never think about taking it, wish is a pretty crappy spell.) and our cleric was dead.

A tarrasque that can only be killed by wish or miracle is an uninteresting, boring, encounter. Since the tarrasque is just big and hard to kill. It doesn't do anything neat, or exciting. Just doesn't die.

Khanderas
2008-02-15, 03:03 AM
I can see your point SweetRain. My view of this is from another direction. The way I see it, Mr T is not ment to be slain for XP. Plenty of monsters to do that. Mr T is the monster for PC's and DM's to have the option of having to do something else then... kill it.

Perhaps your DM wanted for you to save the village by evacuation / distraction or maybe not. Perhaps he wanted you to kill (or atleast fight) something epic, I don't know.

If it was the former someone (King or his general or some other authority) should have let the PC's know the mission was not to kill it, since it cannot be done without Wish. If it was the latter then Wish should be on the table somehow, either by PC's being a caster or a scroll (possibly provided by a kingdoms court Wizard).


Obviously I cannot, and should not, tell people how to play. I just feel that it is woefully easy to take the path of killing the thing (whever the thing is) and move on. Should be atleast a change of pace to have MrT devour an uninhabited forest then a couple of towns.
... I want... No I need something that is bigger and badder then the PC's. I know that places me in the minority in theese forums (if the posts about the mass killing of Forgotten Realms in preparation of 4th edition is any indication), but its something I gotta live with.

Krusty Kobold
2008-02-15, 03:06 AM
tool of a vengeful god is just an old wives tale.

why does everybody want to kill the being from an undiscovered plane of existance, huh? IT'S JUST A BABY!!! it cant find it's momma and is going through a bad case of separation anxiety and has anyone ever cared enough to try to help the poor lil' fella get home? NO! you're all selfish is what i say. you bunch of big meany pants-es.

now play nice with it or when it's parents (roughly 6-7 times the size and power) find it, they're gonna come after you adventurers. bullies.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-15, 05:30 AM
I agree that needing a specific spell to permanently kill it is kinda boring.
The tarrasque was designed to be the iconic level 20 BBeG. A rampant force of nature that awakes some time and the heroes need to hold back.
A better way to deal with it would make the regeneration, after it's taken bellow 0, take a longer time to work. So, if the heroes put him down to the -800, they have a few days to find a special ritual or something to seal it away before it rises again. It *will* get back. The players need to find a way to banish, seal, whatever. The idea of the monster being unkilable by itself is an interesting idea, but the mechanic rules are uninteresting.

Wraith
2008-02-15, 06:17 AM
If you Plane Shifted a Tarrasque to the Elemental Plane of Water, regeneration doesn't cover damage taken from drowning. Wouldn't it just die from drowning?


The tarrasque's regeneration will never recover from taking an infinite amount of damage. Therefore, with suitable cheese, such as an infinite-damage-punch crusader, the tarrasque should be effectively defeated permanently, even if he isn't technically dead.

Bolded for my convinience, because that's basically the crux of the argument.

It is perfectly easy to DEFEAT a Tarrasque without using the Wish spell. Plane Shift it to somewhere that does infinitely reoccuring damage, trap it at the bottom of the ocean, teleport it into the middle or a mountain, or have Pun-Pun use "I Win" and dump the remains in a barrel of acid to counteract it's regeneration.

Because killing it automatically results in a defeat, but defeating it is not necessarily the same as killing it. And in D&D you probably get the same experience for defeating an enemy as you do for killing it. The detail is up to your GM, and as a GM I wouldn't argue with someone who'd gone to the trouble of setting up an elaborate trap involving a big hole into the Abyss to basically achieve their objective.

Heck, in a way it's BETTER to drop him into another plain because he won't be "dead" but he'll never, ever, EVER bother anyone ever again. Wins all 'round.

Besides, the people who live on top of the Tarrasque's 'nest' are obviously morons, because it doesn't occur to them to go live somewhere else. You could technically just Teleport it 100 miles away and tell them it's dead, they won't know the difference. Quest complete! :smallwink:

Reinboom
2008-02-15, 06:26 AM
or have Pun-Pun use "I Win" and dump the remains in a barrel of acid to counteract it's regeneration.

Eh... pun-pun can get wish as a spell-like ability via solar, efreet, or similar.
So, pun-pun can kill it. :smallconfused:

Voyager_I
2008-02-15, 07:17 AM
Of course, we all know that the Tarrasque will never actually stay dead, since no matter how you deal with it (Wish, Plane Shift, Teleport it to the bottom of the Sea), it basically becomes Sealed Evil in a Can (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SealedEvilInACan).

Everyone knows that some stupid "Dark Sorcerer" will always come along and open that can, releasing the Terrible Horror upon the world once again. Probably because their daddy never hugged them or some other Freudian crap...

Starbuck_II
2008-02-15, 07:19 AM
Can't you just say Pazuzu 3 times and get a wish?



Everyone knows that some stupid "Dark Sorcerer" will always come along and open that can, releasing the Terrible Horror upon the world once again. Probably because their daddy never hugged them or some other Freudian crap...

Or they are existentialist, they are all about suffering. They are like the original emo's.

Nietzche went insane and he enjoyed it. He loved power and selfish-ness. tarresque would be right up his ally.

Sartre would be only existentalist that would disagree, he thinks every person should be a model for others.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-15, 07:44 AM
A better way to deal with it would make the regeneration, after it's taken bellow 0, take a longer time to work. So, if the heroes put him down to the -800, they have a few days to find a special ritual or something to seal it away before it rises again.
Actually, I think the intended trope is, "Oh $%!@! The Tarrasque is about to arrive! We've only got a week to figure out how to stop it before it gets here!" That is, you find your wish before fighting the tarrasque. Just like you find the silver arrows before fighting Ganon. Or find the phylactery before fighting the lich (even 1d10 days might not be enough time to get it before the lich comes back, otherwise). And so on.

The quest for the appropriate weapon always comes before the final battle.

And that's the thing about the Tarrasque. It's just one big walking Cliché. That's why it has only one way of being killed.

Khanderas
2008-02-15, 09:04 AM
And that's the thing about the Tarrasque. It's just one big walking Cliché. That's why it has only one way of being killed.
Meh, what isn't a big walking cliché ?
Certainly isn't orcs, half-orcs, elves, halflings, gnomes, nymphs, mother bears, bear cubs, werewolves, wearbears, wizards, sorcerors, BBEG, heroes, magical talking swords, master plans...
I could do that all day :D

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-15, 10:23 AM
Meh, what isn't a big walking cliché ?
Certainly isn't orcs, half-orcs, elves, halflings, gnomes, nymphs, mother bears, bear cubs, werewolves, wearbears, wizards, sorcerors, BBEG, heroes, magical talking swords, master plans...
I could do that all day :D

Okay, you're right. Should have been more specific.

Cliché Plot Device. Most of the others aren't plot devices in and of themselves, though they do make using various devices easier.

Thamir
2008-02-16, 12:20 AM
Swallowed by a super large tarrasque!!:smallbiggrin: (I know there is only one but think about it, the damage from the tarasque clawin its way out would be regenerated it would be effectively dead. (Unless it came out the other end!:smallwink: ))

Jack_Simth
2008-02-16, 12:57 AM
Of course, without using wish or miracle there is the chance that it will somehow becomes released again in a future generation. That, and there is no such thing as infinite damage, just arbitrarily large.
I take it you've never heard of the d2 Crusader, then?

There's a stance in Tome of Battle available to Chaotic Crusaders which, when active, has you roll and add again on any die that rolls the maximum result - recursively - so if you're using, say, a Greatsword with 2d6 damage, and roll a 6/1 on the original, you roll the 6 again and add it to the result. So if you roll 6/1, reroll the 6, and get a 3, you've got 10 base weapon damage. Well, it's recursive - if you've got a 1d4 dagger and roll thirty 4's in a row, followed by a 1, you're dealing 121 base weapon damage.

A small dagger deals a 1d2 - 50/50 odds of a reroll, normally.

There's a spell out there that causes all rolls of 1 on weapon damage dice to be treated as rolls of 2. If you're using a d2 weapon (small dagger, usually) then if you roll a 1, you're treated as rolling a 2. If you roll a 2, you roll again and sum the result. If you hit, you'll be "rolling" forever (you always roll a 2, regardless of how the die shows up). The damage is not only uncapped, short of your DM calling cheese, you actually have an infinite damage loop that takes no actions (for your character) after the attack roll. Infinite damage. Mr. T isn't getting back up until after an infinite amount of time has passed (or someone uses a Wish or similar to undo the attack).

SyrkthTheGreedy
2008-02-16, 01:43 AM
Here's something fun to batt about the thread . . .

After the Tarrasque is dead . . . can it be rezzed? If it can, what the heck prompted you to do it?
or on a more serious note . . .

What if there is no such spell as miracle or wish in the world it is encountered on? Just keep hitting it?

I can see a cult of "death-keepers" established, lasting for hundreds of years, their only task to keep the monster from rising again. They build an elaborate fortress/temple complex, complete with even more elaborate mechanisms all in an effort to keep the beast down . . . for the good of the world!
Too bad they kill anyone who comes near their lair for fear of the beast's return, garnering them a sinister reputation and just the hook for the PC's to come storm the place.:smallwink:

Or you could have your PC's build a bunch of golems to do that for you. Cuz really, if you're fighting the Big T, you might as well have golem servants or automatons or something by then.:smallbiggrin:

konfeta
2008-02-16, 05:09 AM
A small dagger deals a 1d2 - 50/50 odds of a reroll, normally.

I wonder how the DM would describe it.


The halfling, with a fiery gaze, firmly grips his dagger. He has seen the mighty beast defeat his allies in mere moments... yet he has faith in himself, his dagger, and the power of plot. He closes his eyes, and lunges at the beast. STAB! As the tiny knife tinks at the monster's foot, it has the cosmic powers of infinity surging through it, and the Tarrasque explodes.

In the air, the chunks turn into rocks; rocks fall and everybody dies. **** you, man, **** you.

Aquillion
2008-02-16, 06:40 AM
There's a spell out there that causes all rolls of 1 on weapon damage dice to be treated as rolls of 2. If you're using a d2 weapon (small dagger, usually) then if you roll a 1, you're treated as rolling a 2. If you roll a 2, you roll again and sum the result. If you hit, you'll be "rolling" forever (you always roll a 2, regardless of how the die shows up). The damage is not only uncapped, short of your DM calling cheese, you actually have an infinite damage loop that takes no actions (for your character) after the attack roll. Infinite damage. Mr. T isn't getting back up until after an infinite amount of time has passed (or someone uses a Wish or similar to undo the attack).I'm still not sure situations like that work the way people say they do, per RAW.

The thing is, you're not supposed to just handwave dice rolls and say "Oh, that obviously comes to XYZ." You're supposed to physically roll the number of dice required and add the result, rolling again as many times as necessary when something like this requires it. In fact, the rules here are very, very clear: The stance in question says that when you roll the maximum, you must roll again. This is non-optional. It doesn't say "Roll again, unless you've set up a situation where you are obviously going to roll forever -- then, tell you what, we'll say you do infinite damage, just between friends." It says that when you roll the maximum, you pick up those damn dice and roll them again, and you keep doing it until you stop rolling the maximum.

You can probably see where this is going by now. You've broken the game, but not the way you wanted to... by a strict RAW interpretation of how these abilities act, you don't do infinite damage, you simply never stop calculating the damage. Ever. At no point does it actually reach infinity; in fact, it's debatable whether you ever actually do damage (since you never get a chance to stop calculating the amount you would do.)

I would argue that, since the wording of the ability in question specifically requires that you physically reroll the dice after a maximum, and since each reroll takes up time in the real world, it is not possible to do infinite damage through this trick in any case. Eventually, you, in the real world, will die of old age or whatever. At that point, you can't roll the dice anymore; you're stuck with whatever damage total you had before you died. While very high, this is not infinite. (Technically, the game doesn't continue even at that point, since you need to keep rolling but can't on account of being dead. Perhaps this case will be covered in a later errata.)

Obviously, you can handwave it to infinity with a DM houserule. Good luck with that. But if you want to have a strict RAW discussion with no DM fiat and no houserules, I don't see any way you could ever stop calculating the damage there (I have the same objection to most of the other infinity-tricks, incidently. Setting an infinite-calculation loop doesn't give you an infinite result; it forces you to keep calculating forever unless the rules specifically state otherwise... or until you get bored and go play something else.)

Eldritch_Ent
2008-02-16, 07:10 AM
But... Can't you always choose to supress the effects of a positive spell or effect, such as haste, Spell resistance, or fire immunity, unless otherwise states? In which case, the Crusader can just say "I'm forgoing the effects of this spell now." and then simply roll until he actually gets a one.

Of course, you could always decide to make your PC roll dice until he dies, but that seems a bit harsh. A better way to express the infinite damage rolling is just strike that player down with a curse of Eternal Pacifism from his god, (as he can't make another attack as the first is still technically calculating.) but that still strikes me as way too far on the rules side of the "Rollplaying VS Roleplaying" thing... Just smiting him with pacifism without the whole math jockeying part seems a bit cooler.

Armar
2008-02-16, 07:13 AM
*Snip*


This can be prevented by using a dice rolling program that understands cumulative rerolls and recognizes functions that lead to infinity, and thus can calculate that the final result of the roll is infinity. Programming this kind of program would not be too hard, even for an information technology student.

brant167
2008-02-16, 09:41 AM
1) Put max ranks in cooking
2) Take a 20 make 25 tons of Tobasco sauce
3) Find Kobold Village
4) Find epic level caster
5) Bluff Kobolds
6) Dip the Kobolds into the sauce of spicy Tiamat power.
7) Pop some popcorn
8) Lure Tarrasque to said village
9) Watch the big T. have its full
10) Laugh
11) Have said epic caster cast "Nail to the Sky" on the Tarrasque (send the beast into orbit and let the vacuum of space take care of it)
12) Take a 20 make 25 tons of Tovasco sauce
13) Find a Gnome village
14) Wait for the Tarrasque to enter back into the atmosphere....

WrstDmEvr
2008-02-16, 01:02 PM
First, you knock it out. Then, you cut him into two perfectly symmetrical halves. Which side regenerates the other half? :smallamused:

Chronos
2008-02-16, 01:07 PM
(Technically, the game doesn't continue even at that point, since you need to keep rolling but can't on account of being dead. Perhaps this case will be covered in a later errata.)What makes you assume that you can't take actions while dead?:smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2008-02-16, 01:17 PM
First, you knock it out. Then, you cut him into two perfectly symmetrical halves. Which side regenerates the other half? :smallamused:

so now you have TWO Tarrasques. Way to go.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Worira
2008-02-16, 02:39 PM
Actually, a small dagger does d3 damage. A small unarmed attack does 1d2.

Frodo punch!

WrstDmEvr
2008-02-16, 02:58 PM
so now you have TWO Tarrasques. Way to go.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Meh. I ask a vampire to drain its blood while I'm waiting

EDIT: Whoa, I just wondered what gender the Tarrasque is.

Collin152
2008-02-16, 03:40 PM
so now you have TWO Tarrasques. Way to go.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Now he ins't unique, so you can turn into one!

Reinboom
2008-02-16, 03:44 PM
I got it!
Make a wish that states that Tarrasque no longer require a wish to be killed!

puppyavenger
2008-02-16, 03:53 PM
I got it!
Make a wish that states that Tarrasque no longer require a wish to be killed!

Which is the same thing without the effort or time constrants.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-16, 03:56 PM
Mirror of Opposition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#mirrorofOpposition). It won't die, but the 2 of them will kill and eat each other for the rest of eternity and you don't have to deal with it. That's enough of a victory for me.

Collin152
2008-02-16, 04:24 PM
Which is the same thing without the effort or time constrants.

Except it can't come back.

Aquillion
2008-02-16, 04:38 PM
This can be prevented by using a dice rolling program that understands cumulative rerolls and recognizes functions that lead to infinity, and thus can calculate that the final result of the roll is infinity. Programming this kind of program would not be too hard, even for an information technology student.

But the basic rules in the PHB actually describe rolling dice. They say that XdY tells you to roll a X dice with Y many sides. It doesn't say to use a computer program that calculates the limit of the function that describes the dice you are currently rolling, it says to actually roll X Y-sided dice and use the result. By RAW, you gotta use dice.

Obviously, your DM can let you use whatever method you want, but it isn't really a good idea to rely on houserules and DM fiat for something like this.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-16, 04:46 PM
But the basic rules in the PHB actually describe rolling dice. They say that XdY tells you to roll a X dice with Y many sides. It doesn't say to use a computer program that calculates the limit of the function that describes the dice you are currently rolling, it says to actually roll X Y-sided dice and use the result. By RAW, you gotta use dice.

Obviously, your DM can let you use whatever method you want, but it isn't really a good idea to rely on houserules and DM fiat for something like this.But WotC has tacitly approved dice-rollers by including one with 4.0.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-16, 05:17 PM
This can be prevented by using a dice rolling program that understands cumulative rerolls and recognizes functions that lead to infinity, and thus can calculate that the final result of the roll is infinity. Programming this kind of program would not be too hard, even for an information technology student.

Not one that legitimately rolled dice. Sure you could get a dice rolling program which knew that rolling the dice an infinite number of times would give you an infinite result, but it's still got to actually *do it*. Otherwise it's not rolling dice, it's just handwaving, which we've already pointed out is contrary to RAW.

Jayngfet
2008-02-16, 08:21 PM
I'm making a world...there are multiple tarrasques, but they sleep for much longer and don't need wish or miricle to keep them dead(they have more hd though)

the mother tarrasque on the other hand is bigger, blood red, has earthquake and reverse gravaty as spell like abilities, but only wakes up every few hundred years, also has a 120ft line of fire and a 40ft cone of lightning

she births every thousand or so years

when I'm done with the world I'll make everyone ignorant to this, the npc tell the pc usual tarrasque stuff, they start in a tarrsque ravaged town.

Aquillion
2008-02-16, 11:11 PM
This can be prevented by using a dice rolling program that understands cumulative rerolls and recognizes functions that lead to infinity, and thus can calculate that the final result of the roll is infinity. Programming this kind of program would not be too hard, even for an information technology student.Also, come to think of it, what you described is not only 'hard', it is impossible. You could have a program that recognizes specific infinite loops, but a general-purpose program capable of recognizing any function that loops infinitely is not possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem).

Demented
2008-02-17, 04:38 AM
But if you want to have a strict RAW discussion with no DM fiat and no houserules, I don't see any way you could ever stop calculating the damage there (I have the same objection to most of the other infinity-tricks, incidently. Setting an infinite-calculation loop doesn't give you an infinite result; it forces you to keep calculating forever unless the rules specifically state otherwise... or until you get bored and go play something else.)

It's a theoretical exercise. In theory, real-world time is irrelevant, since time progresses in rounds and the rolling exists outside of the game (for that matter, in the exercise the game proceeds by itself; rolls are automatic). By the next round it is implied that all results before then are concluded. What you would have dealt is a mathematically incalculable amount of damage... Which is probably worse for the Tarrasque than a simply infinite quantity of damage.

Aside from that, I'd want to check your claim that physical dice rolls are required, just to be thorough... But that's only for the sake of argument. As a matter of principle, I'd expect them to mention only dice rolling. Improvisation is implied, because they can't cover everything; they might as well cover one thing well (playing the game with dice) and leave the rest up to you.

Rutee
2008-02-17, 05:02 AM
That covers anything that would 'slay' the terraqsue. However, I would tend to agree with (e) -- if it is affected by something whose description implies that it is a "step beyond death" (e.g. a sphere of annihilation) which doesn't mention killing or slaying specifically, I think that that would bypass all of the terrasque's defenses. It is debatable whether you have actually 'slain' it at that point, but it doesn't exist anymore so the point is mostly moot.
If I point out that death by suffocation or starvation isn't technically being slain but dying, do I get a point?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-17, 07:00 AM
Also, come to think of it, what you described is not only 'hard', it is impossible. You could have a program that recognizes specific infinite loops, but a general-purpose program capable of recognizing any function that loops infinitely is not possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem).

It doesn't need to work it out for every case, though, just for the specific case of re-rolls.

Worst case scenario, you could cheat and write a program which just said "print infinity" and declare that it was the "d2, reroll 2s, 1 counts as 2 die rolling engine".

You could also fairly trivially write a computer program that worked out all the possible outcomes of a single die roll, and if it saw that all of them led to a re-roll, declared the result to be infinity. It still wouldn't matter, though, because it would still be handwaving the answer.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-17, 07:03 AM
It's a theoretical exercise. In theory, real-world time is irrelevant, since time progresses in rounds and the rolling exists outside of the game (for that matter, in the exercise the game proceeds by itself; rolls are automatic).

I'd very much suggest otherwise. Rolling happens outside the fictional reality of the game world, but it doesn't happen outside the *game*. Indeed it's a very, very big part of the game.

It's a lot like the omniscificer. Sure *technically* that Infinite-DC Knowledge check gives you infinite items of information about this monster, but that doesn't mean you can just cherry-pick the ones you want. You have to sit there where the GM *tells* you infinite things about the monster.

The game rules don't actually decide what happens IC - the DM does that - the game rules say what happens *at the table*.

Randel
2008-02-17, 03:05 PM
A few ideas:

1. Somehow boost the save DC for Stone to Flesh hight enough that it can petrify the Tarrasque... then smash the statue. (not sure if its immune to petrification though)

2. Trap it in a cage of permanent Walls of Force. Not dead, but can't escape until someone releases it.

3. Get a Sphere of Annihilation and hit the terrasque with it.

4. Hit it with a prismatic wall or prismatic sphere. (I read a funny story about how a cleric with prismatic sphere as a domain spell got swallowed by a tarrasque and then cast prismatic sphere while inside it. the violet effect sent the tarrasque to the Abyss.)

5. Jump on its back and toss a portable hole into a bag of holding, creating a rift that sucks everything within a 10-foot radius into the astral plane. Not sure if that would get the Terrasque as well... maybe if it swallows someone or something that can do the tossing while inside it.

LibraryOgre
2008-02-17, 03:40 PM
Mirror of Opposition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#mirrorofOpposition). It won't die, but the 2 of them will kill and eat each other for the rest of eternity and you don't have to deal with it. That's enough of a victory for me.

Did you watch Transformers? Did you see the property damage of the final fight? Imagine that applied from a fight between two tarrasques...

My favorite method is still the getting eaten by a crocodile (http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=2908) method... you dive inside the tarrasque, put a bag of holding inside a portable hole, and rift him to the Astral Plane. You then Plane Shift home.

Talic
2008-02-18, 02:41 AM
People are referring to non attack methods to deal lethal damage, and kill the tarrasque.

The last line of the tarrasque's immunity is unequivocal. The tarrasque may be slain ONLY if its nonlethal damage is equal to current HP +10. Even if a form deals lethal damage, such as drowning, that just changes the Current to -10. After that, since 0 nonlethal damage is equal to -10 (current hp) +10, you may then cast the wish or miracle to make it stick.

There is NO way to kill the tarrasque without wish... Unless you use miracle. Even Vengeful Gaze of God (which specifically prevents lethal damage) would just mean that it needed to heal for a really long time.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 03:11 AM
People are referring to non attack methods to deal lethal damage, and kill the tarrasque.

The last line of the tarrasque's immunity is unequivocal. The tarrasque may be slain ONLY if its nonlethal damage is equal to current HP +10. Even if a form deals lethal damage, such as drowning, that just changes the Current to -10. After that, since 0 nonlethal damage is equal to -10 (current hp) +10, you may then cast the wish or miracle to make it stick.

There is NO way to kill the tarrasque without wish... Unless you use miracle. Even Vengeful Gaze of God (which specifically prevents lethal damage) would just mean that it needed to heal for a really long time.
You're entirely correct. The Tarrasque can not be slain by another individual without Wish. Nothing in the Tarrasque's immunity explicitly states that it is immune to natural death. Drowning and explosion through positive energy are not being slain.

Unless, of course, DnD presents a definition to slain that is counter to the real world one, which is certainly within its prerogative, and supersedes real world definitions. Incidentally, the odds of my selling my soul on graduation seem to be increasing :smallbiggrin:

Mal666
2008-02-18, 03:52 AM
polymorph any object it to a bunny. or possibly a triceratops to make the duration longer. (as a terrasque looks similar)... looking quickly at examples,that makes the duration permanent...

so your party druid can use animal empathy more easily and get it to follow you around untill you dispell it mid fight against a ballor and giggle :P

or just stab it normally, or disintegrate it. it has none of its abilities after being polymorphed, so it should work.

Mal666
2008-02-18, 03:54 AM
ohohohoh!

modify memory on it! so it only remembers that its always liked you and is your friend :D

Talic
2008-02-18, 07:10 AM
You're entirely correct. The Tarrasque can not be slain by another individual without Wish. Nothing in the Tarrasque's immunity explicitly states that it is immune to natural death. Drowning and explosion through positive energy are not being slain.

Unless, of course, DnD presents a definition to slain that is counter to the real world one, which is certainly within its prerogative, and supersedes real world definitions. Incidentally, the odds of my selling my soul on graduation seem to be increasing :smallbiggrin:

Well, even if that's true, it invalidates the exercise. If it dies from natural causes, it wasn't killed. It just died. That is, unless DnD presents a definition of "kill" that is counter to the real world one, which is certainly within its perogative, and supercedes real world definitions. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Your Semantics-Fu is strong, grasshoppah... But it is no match for my Rules-Lawyer-Jitsu. :smallamused:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-18, 08:41 AM
You're entirely correct. The Tarrasque can not be slain by another individual without Wish. Nothing in the Tarrasque's immunity explicitly states that it is immune to natural death. Drowning and explosion through positive energy are not being slain.

Unless, of course, DnD presents a definition to slain that is counter to the real world one, which is certainly within its prerogative, and supersedes real world definitions. Incidentally, the odds of my selling my soul on graduation seem to be increasing :smallbiggrin:

Of course, to get even more rules lawyerly, the drowning rules never say that the creature even dies, just that it "drowns". Nowhere is the "dead" condition mentioned in the drowning rules.

And of course there's all the stuff about the implications or otherwise of the "dead" condition...

Another note about starving. The rules say that "A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage." Since all monsters are "characters" in 3.5, this rule should apply to all monsters equally.

This means that actually the Tarrasque should never wake up, because if it slumbers for a few thousand years, it should be making Constitution checks with DC in the millions to avoid taking nonlethal damage.

Of course, I suppose it would actually regenerate that damage anyway at the rate of 40HP a round...

[Edited to add]

So thinking about it, anybody with even the tiniest bit of regeneration, or even Rapid Healing, should be able to survive indefinitely without food. So why are Trolls always so damned hungry?

Rutee
2008-02-18, 12:36 PM
Well, even if that's true, it invalidates the exercise. If it dies from natural causes, it wasn't killed. It just died. That is, unless DnD presents a definition of "kill" that is counter to the real world one, which is certainly within its perogative, and supercedes real world definitions. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Your Semantics-Fu is strong, grasshoppah... But it is no match for my Rules-Lawyer-Jitsu. :smallamused:

No, in this case, you claim legal responsibility in forcing it to die a natural death without ever once exposing it to an attack that deals HP Damage. While you claim direct responsibility, you did not "Make an attack that deals HP damage", and thus, you have done nothing subject to his regeneration. You are also not subjecting it to a Death Effect, lest one consider that route, as a death effect is an unnatural magical effect, not a natural death. If protection from a natural result in this fashion was a valid result of immunity to death effects, Shivering Touch wouldn't kill dragons. PAralysis is the natural effect of Dex 0. Yet dragons are immune to paralysis effects; This, however, is not a paralysis effect..


Of course, to get even more rules lawyerly, the drowning rules never say that the creature even dies, just that it "drowns". Nowhere is the "dead" condition mentioned in the drowning rules.

Drown - v. 1. to die under water or other liquid of suffocation.
2. to kill by submerging under water or other liquid.

There are other definitions, of course.

Talic
2008-02-18, 03:31 PM
No, in this case, you claim legal responsibility in forcing it to die a natural death without ever once exposing it to an attack that deals HP Damage. While you claim direct responsibility, you did not "Make an attack that deals HP damage", and thus, you have done nothing subject to his regeneration. You are also not subjecting it to a Death Effect, lest one consider that route, as a death effect is an unnatural magical effect, not a natural death. If protection from a natural result in this fashion was a valid result of immunity to death effects, Shivering Touch wouldn't kill dragons. PAralysis is the natural effect of Dex 0. Yet dragons are immune to paralysis effects; This, however, is not a paralysis effect..


If you'll handily open up your dictionary, you'll find that "kill" and "slay" are synonymous. They mean the same thing. If you killed it, then it was slain. By the strictest interpretation of the RAW, the tarrasque is immune to any method of contriving its demise, without the addition of a wish or miracle spell. However, accidental drowning, that should still work. Why is that? Well, who's to understand the ways of those crazy, CRAZY gods? Maybe they wanted to laugh when the unstoppable killing machine tripped and fell in a lake? Who knows?

Rutee
2008-02-18, 04:14 PM
If you'll handily open up your dictionary, you'll find that "kill" and "slay" are synonymous. They mean the same thing. If you killed it, then it was slain. By the strictest interpretation of the RAW, the tarrasque is immune to any method of contriving its demise, without the addition of a wish or miracle spell. However, accidental drowning, that should still work. Why is that? Well, who's to understand the ways of those crazy, CRAZY gods? Maybe they wanted to laugh when the unstoppable killing machine tripped and fell in a lake? Who knows?

Legal responsibility for a killing is not the same as the textbook definition of killing, though there is significant one-way derivation. You have forced it into circumstances that caused its death. This is, to say the least, not in the definition of "Slain". The Tarrasque is, further, not immune to all means of its own demize except for Wish or Miracle. It does not say that it can not /die/ without Wish or Miracle, merely that it can not be /slain/ without Wish or Miracle. The text is quite unequivocal on this point.

As to your synonyms, poppycock. Synonyms in a dictionary actually refer to similar words, not identical ones. This is why language is a nuanced thing, rather then all the different synonyms of "Kill" meaning the same thing (Hence why they only contain their own definitions, and not, in addition, the definitions of each other)

Frosty
2008-02-18, 05:25 PM
Of course, I suppose it would actually regenerate that damage anyway at the rate of 40HP a round...

So thinking about it, anybody with even the tiniest bit of regeneration, or even Rapid Healing, should be able to survive indefinitely without food. So why are Trolls always so damned hungry?

Actually, the rules specifically states that regneration doesn't work against starvation/thirst.

sikyon
2008-02-18, 06:19 PM
People are referring to non attack methods to deal lethal damage, and kill the tarrasque.

The last line of the tarrasque's immunity is unequivocal. The tarrasque may be slain ONLY if its nonlethal damage is equal to current HP +10. Even if a form deals lethal damage, such as drowning, that just changes the Current to -10. After that, since 0 nonlethal damage is equal to -10 (current hp) +10, you may then cast the wish or miracle to make it stick.

There is NO way to kill the tarrasque without wish... Unless you use miracle. Even Vengeful Gaze of God (which specifically prevents lethal damage) would just mean that it needed to heal for a really long time.

Just remove the Regeneration (Ex) ability and you're good to go. Polymorph any object, kill it. It'll revert to being a Tarrasque, but at that point it has already been slain, so the clause no longer applies, nor does fast healing or such.

the_tick_rules
2008-02-19, 01:56 AM
well the drowning wouldn't kill permanetly, but unless the tarrasque could free itself it would just die over, and over, and over. my personal fav is to build a large portal to say plane of air, throw some beef at the horizon, wait for the tarrasque to come and turn it on. let him fall for all eternity.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 02:00 AM
well the drowning wouldn't kill permanetly, but unless the tarrasque could free itself it would just die over, and over, and over. my personal fav is to build a large portal to say plane of air, throw some beef at the horizon, wait for the tarrasque to come and turn it on. let him fall for all eternity.

No, the drowning does kill the Tarrasque permanently. The Tarrasque's Regeneration doesn't cover instant death. It covers Death Effects. Drowning is not a Death Effect. Death Ward does not help you against Drowning. A Magical Instant Death is a Death Effect. Drowning is not.

Talic
2008-02-19, 02:18 AM
Legal responsibility for a killing is not the same as the textbook definition of killing, though there is significant one-way derivation. You have forced it into circumstances that caused its death. This is, to say the least, not in the definition of "Slain". The Tarrasque is, further, not immune to all means of its own demize except for Wish or Miracle. It does not say that it can not /die/ without Wish or Miracle, merely that it can not be /slain/ without Wish or Miracle. The text is quite unequivocal on this point.

As to your synonyms, poppycock. Synonyms in a dictionary actually refer to similar words, not identical ones. This is why language is a nuanced thing, rather then all the different synonyms of "Kill" meaning the same thing (Hence why they only contain their own definitions, and not, in addition, the definitions of each other)

Then definition 1 of "kill", as provided by dictionary.com. As we all know, dictionaries list definitions in order of most common to least common usage:



1. to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.


Now, the definition includes any form of death, and specifically directly equates it to slay. Thus, any contrived means to kill the tarrasque by means that do not include wish or miracle, will automatically fail, by the myriad mysterious protections of the tarrasque.

Accidental death is still ok, but any form of contrived death, by the strictest interpretation of the english language and RAW, is prohibited, unless followed by wish or miracle.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 02:23 AM
Accidental death is still ok, but any form of contrived death, by the strictest interpretation of the english language and RAW, is prohibited, unless followed by wish or miracle.
Kill is not Slay. Your synonym theory has already been disproven.

The definition of Slay
1. to kill by violence.
2. to destroy; extinguish.
3. sley.
4. Informal. to impress strongly; overwhelm, esp. by humor: Your jokes slay me.
5. Obsolete. to strike.
–verb (used without object)
6. to kill or murder.
–noun
7. sley.

Your attack has done none of those. Your attack moved its existence.

You might as well give up now. The best you can do is make me rephrase myself with airtight wording even if you find something. The RAW's language is big enough to drive a truck through if you REALLY want to.

Rift_Wolf
2008-02-19, 02:34 AM
well the drowning wouldn't kill permanetly, but unless the tarrasque could free itself it would just die over, and over, and over. my personal fav is to build a large portal to say plane of air, throw some beef at the horizon, wait for the tarrasque to come and turn it on. let him fall for all eternity.


Problem with that is it'd be really bad for anything underneath the tarrasque if it ever reached something to land on...
Elemental plane of water is less messy. Presumably if the Tarrasque is at 878hp non-lethal damage, it stops moving. So it'd just float around for eternity, probably turning into a planar encounter map (I can imagine it picking up lots of seaweed and debris and stuff, and hundreds of dire sharks trying to bite chunks off it only for them to be regenerated infinitely)

Rift_Wolf
2008-02-19, 02:35 AM
well the drowning wouldn't kill permanetly, but unless the tarrasque could free itself it would just die over, and over, and over. my personal fav is to build a large portal to say plane of air, throw some beef at the horizon, wait for the tarrasque to come and turn it on. let him fall for all eternity.


Problem with that is it'd be really bad for anything underneath the tarrasque if it ever reached something to land on...
Elemental plane of water is less messy. Presumably if the Tarrasque is at 878hp non-lethal damage, it stops moving. So it'd just float around for eternity, probably turning into a planar encounter map (I can imagine it picking up lots of seaweed and debris and stuff, and hundreds of dire sharks trying to bite chunks off it only for them to be regenerated infinitely)

Talic
2008-02-19, 03:04 AM
Kill is not Slay. Your synonym theory has already been disproven.

The definition of Slay
1. to kill by violence.
2. to destroy; extinguish.
3. sley.
4. Informal. to impress strongly; overwhelm, esp. by humor: Your jokes slay me.
5. Obsolete. to strike.
–verb (used without object)
6. to kill or murder.
–noun
7. sley.

Your attack has done none of those. Your attack moved its existence.

If the attack has killed it, then it HAS done #6. It has killed or murdered. Since the sentence in the tarrasque's description uses the past participle of slay without object, that's the definition that we have to go by anyway. Thanks for proving my point. I hoped you'd look up slay.


You might as well give up now. The best you can do is make me rephrase myself with airtight wording even if you find something. The RAW's language is big enough to drive a truck through if you REALLY want to.
Problem is, there's no such thing as "airtight wording", when at the root of the matter, in this specific instance, kill = slay. If you kill it, then you've slain it.

Legal responsibility only applies when legal issues are involved. As it is not against any law listed in RAW to kill a tarrasque, the LEGAL definition of kill is not applicable. So, we have to go by the textbook definition.

To deprive of life in any fashion.
To cause the death of.
To Slay.

Word it all you want. It's simple. It's straightforward. Why does Protection from evil protect against sleep, and not against crushing despair? It's the nature of the magic. Why is the tarrasque unable to be killed without wish or miracle, by RAW? It's the nature of the beast.

Homebrew whatever you like. By RAW, you are wrong, I am right. It's clear, it's simple, and no amount of semantic gibbering on will change that.

Rephrase whatever you want, in whatever silly fashion you want. It won't change that basic truth.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 03:10 AM
Homebrew whatever you like. By RAW, you are wrong, I am right. It's clear, it's simple, and no amount of semantic gibbering on will change that.
Sorry, no. The Drown effect is the exact same logic, exact same wording that allows Shiverring Touch To work. The RAW is on my side, you are simply attempting to extrapolate the wrong definition. Simple fact is, mechanically speaking, your attack does not kill the tarrasque. The drowning effect from the Plane of WAter kills it. You've declared a victory where none is present.

Edit: Oh god, I'm an idiot.



REgeneration (Ex)

No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability.

The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

If the tarrasque loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 1d6 minutes (the detached piece dies and decays normally). The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump.
Drowning is not a death effect. Regeneration is not subject to his drowning even if it is the direct cause of an attack (EX A Spell Effect that states "On a failed save, the creature drowns."), unless that spell explicitly states that the drowning is a death effect. Barring a redefinition of "Death Effect", You are unequivocally incorrect, and I will not further respond to your arguments.

Talic
2008-02-19, 03:34 AM
Sorry, no. The Drown effect is the exact same logic, exact same wording that allows Shiverring Touch To work. The RAW is on my side, you are simply attempting to extrapolate the wrong definition. Simple fact is, mechanically speaking, your attack does not kill the tarrasque. The drowning effect from the Plane of WAter kills it. You've declared a victory where none is present.

Edit: Oh god, I'm an idiot.


Drowning is not a death effect. Regeneration is not subject to his drowning even if it is the direct cause of an attack (EX A Spell Effect that states "On a failed save, the creature drowns."), unless that spell explicitly states that the drowning is a death effect. Barring a redefinition of "Death Effect", You are unequivocally incorrect, and I will not further respond to your arguments.

Because you're wrong. Even if he does not regenerate at super high speed, it was not killed. By the specific definition of kill and slay, the tarrasque cannot be slain. That it will have to recover at the standard rate is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion.

As for declaring yourself an idiot, I wouldn't go that far. You're just outmatched. No shame in that.

And if the drowning kills it, and not you, then you have not killed it. If you have not killed it, then you have failed to kill it without wish or miracle. If you did "kill it", then, by definition, you could not have, as the tarrasque's special case wording trumps whatever rules-lawyer-fu you bring to the table.

Edit: This is what is known as a "Catch-22". You cannot win without rendering yourself unable to win.

Mal666
2008-02-19, 04:38 AM
if you have deliberatly drowned it, then you've killed it. Similarly if you've made it impossible for the tarasque to eat, you have starved it to death.
this also goes onto the logic that if you've teleported it to a place that does not support life, then you have also killed it. (positive, or negative energy plane, plane of water, plane of fire[go ahead and find any water there, dare you])

or you could just create a wall of iron high enough and seal the top (making it eeventually suffocate, or full it with water (create water! look mum, i killed a tarasque with a level 0 spell!)

just remember people, you've not only comitted murder, you've also committed genocide as there is only one of it left. a definatly evil act, :P and i'm sure that some god would object and drop an avatar on you for doing so.

Talic
2008-02-19, 06:09 AM
if you have deliberatly drowned it, then you've killed it. Similarly if you've made it impossible for the tarasque to eat, you have starved it to death.
this also goes onto the logic that if you've teleported it to a place that does not support life, then you have also killed it. (positive, or negative energy plane, plane of water, plane of fire[go ahead and find any water there, dare you])

However, if you deliberately do those things, they will not kill it. The tarrasque's entry states that it may not be killed, except by raising it's nonlethal damage to equal it's current hp +10, and then casting a wish or miracle to destroy it. If you attempt to kill it by ANY OTHER METHOD, then you are trying to kill it in a way that, by that very text, MAY NOT KILL IT.


or you could just create a wall of iron high enough and seal the top (making it eeventually suffocate, or full it with water (create water! look mum, i killed a tarasque with a level 0 spell!)

Depending on how much iron you'd need to suffocate it, before it clawed its way through the iron, or how many times you needed to cast the create water, with LoE, before it did the same, or swam up to where you were and ate you. Either way, you run afoul of the text above. All methods of contriving the tarrasque's death that qualify as "killing" the tarrasque, by D&D standards, cannot kill it, by those same standards, unless a wish or miracle is used. Period.


just remember people, you've not only comitted murder, you've also committed genocide as there is only one of it left. a definatly evil act, :P and i'm sure that some god would object and drop an avatar on you for doing so.
Actually, so far, it's still Attempted Murder. Much lower crime. All recipes for the tarrasque's killing must include a dash of Wish or a sprinkle of Miracle, or else the Rules Gods won't be able to stomach it.

Smight
2008-02-19, 07:58 AM
what if you shrink him and shove im in a bag of holding?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 08:26 AM
Actually, the rules specifically states that regneration doesn't work against starvation/thirst.

Good point.

In that case woot! The Tarrasque is dead and we don't have to do anything, because nowhere in RAW does it allow for the possibility that different creatures can go without food for different lengths of time.

Talic
2008-02-19, 08:37 AM
Good point.

In that case woot! The Tarrasque is dead and we don't have to do anything, because nowhere in RAW does it allow for the possibility that different creatures can go without food for different lengths of time.

If that is the case, however, the exercise is moot, because, as it is dead, it cannot be killed by anyone.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-19, 08:56 AM
However, if you deliberately do those things, they will not kill it. The tarrasque's entry states that it may not be killed, except by raising it's nonlethal damage to equal it's current hp +10, and then casting a wish or miracle to destroy it. If you attempt to kill it by ANY OTHER METHOD, then you are trying to kill it in a way that, by that very text, MAY NOT KILL IT.

Even, even, if for sake of argumemt drowning did not kill the tarresque as he is unconscious and needs mouth to mouth resusitating (no one will give): he is again taken down.

So you beat the encounter. He may some day return, but he is taken out for along time. Millions of nonlethal because he has the death part of drowning happening over and over and over and over and over.

Talic
2008-02-20, 01:25 AM
Even, even, if for sake of argumemt drowning did not kill the tarresque as he is unconscious and needs mouth to mouth resusitating (no one will give): he is again taken down.

So you beat the encounter. He may some day return, but he is taken out for along time. Millions of nonlethal because he has the death part of drowning happening over and over and over and over and over.

Correct, if that path is true. However, still not dead. The goal was to KILL the tarrasque. Oh, and I doubt he'd need mouth to maw resuscitation. Get him on dry land, he'd recover in time.

Solo
2008-02-20, 01:47 AM
Wait, has anyone managed to actually kill it without Wishicle yet? yet?

Talic
2008-02-20, 02:39 AM
Wait, has anyone managed to actually kill it without Wishicle yet? yet?

There's a valid arguement for the Tarrasque's natural death, or death by accident, but the specific text of the Tarrasque's entry directly prohibits any method of contriving it's death that does not include wish or miracle. Even if those methods are mechanically identical in all other aspects to a death by starvation, drowning, or the like, any attempt to cause the tarrasque's death in a manner that qualifies as "killing" it directly runs afoul of the line stating that the tarrasque may only be slain if its nonlethal damage is raised to equal its current HP +10, and then a wish or miracle is cast". Thus any attempt to "kill" the tarrasque MUST, by definition, use one of those spells.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 05:33 AM
Wait, has anyone managed to actually kill it without Wishicle yet? yet?

Polymorph was, I think, suggested as an option, because it blanks the rules text which makes it unkillable by other means.

Personally I like the "wait for it to starve" option.

Talic
2008-02-20, 06:30 AM
Polymorph was, I think, suggested as an option, because it blanks the rules text which makes it unkillable by other means.

Personally I like the "wait for it to starve" option.

Perhaps, now what level would you have to be to bust the Tarrasque's SR32?

How about Fort +38? That gives a level 19 wiz about a 50/50 shot of bypassing SR, and 5% shot of succeeding. 2.5% per round. Granted, with fly, and enough time, it'll eventually work. You reach greater than 50% chance of success after 28 castings, assuming a 50% passing of SR and a DC less than 41.

As for waiting for it to starve, then you haven't killed it.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-20, 08:54 AM
Perhaps, now what level would you have to be to bust the Tarrasque's SR32?

How about Fort +38? That gives a level 19 wiz about a 50/50 shot of bypassing SR, and 5% shot of succeeding. 2.5% per round. Granted, with fly, and enough time, it'll eventually work. You reach greater than 50% chance of success after 28 castings, assuming a 50% passing of SR and a DC less than 41.

As for waiting for it to starve, then you haven't killed it.

Array Resistance adds to SR check. Or a Wild Mage Wizard with Practiced spellcaster gets +1d6 caster with no penalty (due to Ptacticed spellcaster).

Aquillion
2008-02-20, 10:03 AM
There's a valid arguement for the Tarrasque's natural death, or death by accident, but the specific text of the Tarrasque's entry directly prohibits any method of contriving it's death that does not include wish or miracle.Disagree. I presented this argument earlier, but to point:

Anyone but the most pedantic would agree that when you hit something with a Sphere of Annihilation (or cause it to touch it, or whatever), you have, for all intents and purposes, killed it.

Aha!, you say. So doesn't that activate the Tarrasque's special defense?

Well, not exactly. You're forgetting the exact wording of the Tarrasque's regeneration ability, which explicitly does not prevent him from being killed at all (and, in fact, explicitly makes it clear that he can be killed normally):


The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.The bolded part implies that you can 'kill' it with other effects, but without a wish or miracle to 'keep it dead' it immediately springs back to life, preventing you from effectively having 'slain' it. This is reinforced by the fact that the ability is listed under 'regeneration', not 'immunities' -- the tarrasque is not immune to death, it simply regenerates fast enough to prevent it from being 'slain' by virtue of coming back immediately unless you use something to keep it dead.

Simple, right? Obviously that will activate if you attempt to slay him via Sphere of Annihilation.

Aha! But that's when the sphere's own special properties come into play, which read:


Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character.The tarrasque is not a deity, and, therefore, its regeneration ability is cancelled the instant it comes into contact with the sphere -- it cannot restore itself from that without divine intervention.

Another note: The tarrasque's defenses (the important, wish-requiring ones) are soley contained within its 'regeneration' ability. Therefore, anything that nullifies or specifically supecedes regeneration abilities will kill it normally, since none of the text in that section will protect it anymore.