D&D 5E RE: Tarasque vs. 5th lv. Wizard scenario - how does Wizard know to use Acid Splash?!?

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

Well, sure, 1d4 + str if a PC threw it. And even then, I'd be inclined to bump it up. This is a building we're talking about, not a glass bottle or a table leg. I see no reason why it shouldn't deal at least 10d10 + Str damage if it hits.

BTW, where did you get the 60 ft range thing? I'm not trying to second-guess you, I'm actually concerned that I might have missed something going over the rules.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Well, sure, 1d4 + str if a PC threw it. And even then, I'd be inclined to bump it up. This is a building we're talking about, not a glass bottle or a table leg. I see no reason why it shouldn't deal at least 10d10 + Str damage if it hits.

BTW, where did you get the 60 ft range thing? I'm not trying to second-guess you, I'm actually concerned that I might have missed something going over the rules.

It's assuming the rules for improvised weapons apply (PHB 148).

 

[Paraxis]

It's assuming the rules for improvised weapons apply (PHB 148).

They should and you could infer that size scaling damage should apply too, large creatures usually do 2x dice, huge 3x, and gargantuan 4x, so an improvised weapon like a building being thrown by a tarrasque would be +0 hit and 4d4+0 dex mod damage.

4d4 for base improvised weapon scaled up to gargantuan size.
No strength mod to damage because the item doesn't have the "thrown" weapon property so the default ability mod for ranged attacks is used which is dexterity.
No proficiency bonus because the tarrasque is not proficient in improvised weapons.

So the whole throw a thing at the guy doesn't work out so well, since it is not part of his stat block. Hence my point they kinda dropped the ball on this monster and honestly many more.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

what I don't get is they fixed this in 4e by having it have a field around it that messed with flyers... why not keep the aura?

 

[Sage Genesis]

Well, sure, 1d4 + str if a PC threw it. And even then, I'd be inclined to bump it up. This is a building we're talking about, not a glass bottle or a table leg. I see no reason why it shouldn't deal at least 10d10 + Str damage if it hits.

BTW, where did you get the 60 ft range thing? I'm not trying to second-guess you, I'm actually concerned that I might have missed something going over the rules.

That's the range for improvised weapons.

Note by the way that Strength 30 is far weaker than one might think. Forget about throwing buildings around, the tarrasque can just barely lift a Pontiac Firebird from the ground - unless it's got passengers inside.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

If the tarrasque uses his made-up 'throw building' attack, why can't the wizard use his made-up 'deflect building' defense?

The fact that some people are calling for 10 points of damage from a thrown attack and some calling for close to 100 is an indication that there is zero in the way of guidelines for this sort of thing. WotC dropped the ball on this one, but it's a minor problem as the tarrasque sees little in the way of play and fixes are easy enough to implement.

Obviously, a tarrasque throwing crap would be an improvised thrown weapon attack using Strength but not its proficiency bonus. So we have an attack at +10. As for damage, you can keep the same scale as its normal attacks. I'd go with the tail in this instance as it represents a large crushing attack. About 24 damage + Strength save 20 or be knocked prone (or out of the air in this case). For range I'd use shortbow, since it feels right (80/320).

 

[Paraxis]

That's the range for improvised weapons.

Note by the way that Strength 30 is far weaker than one might think. Forget about throwing buildings around, the tarrasque can just barely lift a Pontiac Firebird from the ground - unless it's got passengers inside.

Very true.
30 x 30 = 900 lbs, doubled for large 1800, doubled for huge 3600, and then doubled again for gargantuan 7200 and that is push/drag/lift. You half that for carry of 3600 lbs.

Honestly shot puts weight about 16 pounds and go around 60 feet, a bit further for record setters, so I would ball park the weight of an item you can throw as an effective improvised weapon as equal to your strength score for a medium creature.

So if a tarrasque was medium he could effectively throw 30 pounds, x2, x2, x2 and we get 240lbs.

So it is more like a tarrasque could pick up the dumb militia men defending the town and throw them at the flying enemies attacking with +0 to hit, and doing 4d4 damage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am absolutely flabbergasted that there is an actual discussion where people are having a hard time figuring out what appropriate damage would be if you got hit by a building.

What the hell happened to common sense? If you think the game is broken because you interpret the rules to imply that getting hit by a freaking building is 4d4 points of damage, or that the game is broken because they don't explicitly tell you the exact damage for small buildings, large ones, carriages, wagons, boulders, and halflings?

Seriously?

 

[Paraxis]

I am absolutely flabbergasted that there is an actual discussion where people are having a hard time figuring out what appropriate damage would be if you got hit by a building.

What the hell happened to common sense? If you think the game is broken because you interpret the rules to imply that getting hit by a freaking building is 4d4 points of damage, or that the game is broken because they don't explicitly tell you the exact damage for small buildings, large ones, carriages, wagons, boulders, and halflings?

Seriously?

I don't think anyone said game was broken, and it has very little to do with the damage of a building or in this case a thrown man. It has to do with they didn't design the monster well, simple as that.

The whole white room "wizard vs tarrasque" thing is to highlight the fact that the designers didn't feel like they needed to put in any effort fixing things that have been issues for multiple editions, and in this case they did a good job of fixing it in the last edition, but because of some sense that fans of the old school would be upset by some progress in monster design went with the lazy safe option and just rehashed 1e/2e monsters.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think anyone said game was broken, and it has very little to do with the damage of a building or in this case a thrown man. It has to do with they didn't design the monster well, simple as that.
.

If you think a monster can only do what's explicitly defined in a stat block? That's not poor design. That's lack of imagination and/or creative thinking on the DM's part.

Seriously, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that it might up root trees, boulders, wagons, or whatever to launch at that pesky wizard. Do you really need a rule telling you can do that before you think of it yourself? And one can easily infer what appropriate levels of damage/range would be for those projectiles. I'll tell you what I tell my kid when he says he can't figure out a solution to something. Where do you think you might find it? What other similar rules might apply?

Siege weapons? There you go. Look at the siege weapons and you'll get a great idea of what kind of damage a thrown wagon or building might be.

And while I'm at it, it's getting really old to keep seeing your name pop up in literally every single thread complaining about how the rules are broken, the designers were lazy, etc. If it's so bad, play the game you like and stop crapping on every other discussion.