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

[DEFCON 1]

I think the whole point of this scenario is to prove they didn't do a very good job building the monsters in this edition. A high level monster should be able to deal with flying enemeis with abilities in his stat block.

Jump ability, sonic scream, throw debris ability, calls down Gamera, pretty much anything at all to deal with a ranged attacker.

It is almost like they didn't learn anything from the first few decades of gaming.

No, they learned it all too well. They learned that no matter what they put in a statblock, armchair debaters would find all manner of "holes" in it and create all manner of scenarios for which supposedly outgunned creatures could defeat more powerful creatures by following the "letter of the rules".

So WotC has just said "F-that". They made a book full of really good monsters and put it upon DMs to run them fairly and in the manner they wanted... making up whatever they needed for compelling fights and drama. The good old "Rulings, not rules" rearing it's wonderful head again. And if that drives certain DMs up a wall because they don't want to make logical rulings and instead stick with hammered-out statblock rules... then WotC seems to be okay with that. As am I. And I hope against hope WotC never gives in to these armchair debaters, going back to try and "patch in" all these supposed holes, because even after they did, the armchair debaters would just move on to another ridiculous theoretical scenario that would never actually come up during play.

 

[Sage Genesis]

No, they learned it all too well. They learned that no matter what they put in a statblock, armchair debaters would find all manner of "holes" in it and create all manner of scenarios for which supposedly outgunned creatures could defeat more powerful creatures by following the "letter of the rules".

So WotC has just said "F-that". They made a book full of really good monsters and put it upon DMs to run them fairly and in the manner they wanted... making up whatever they needed for compelling fights and drama. The good old "Rulings, not rules" rearing it's wonderful head again. And if that drives certain DMs up a wall because they don't want to make logical rulings and instead stick with hammered-out statblock rules... then WotC seems to be okay with that. As am I. And I hope against hope WotC never gives in to these armchair debaters, going back to try and "patch in" all these supposed holes, because even after they did, the armchair debaters would just move on to another ridiculous theoretical scenario that would never actually come up during play.

As a bit of background, back in 2e I and the rest of my party killed the tarrasque with overwhelming magic and of course flight. We didn't even know it was the tarrasque at the time, the DM just made up a new monster with a different appearance that happened to use the same stats. In other words, reskinning. He noticed that we were pretty powerful (we were around level 10-11) and guessed correctly that the tarrasque wouldn't be that much of a problem, despite being billed as the ultimate killing machine.

I for one think that the tarrasque's RAW inability to deal with flying opponents is a genuine issue with the monster and I say so from previous experience.

So with that out of the way, I hope you'll forgive me if I'm unsympathetic towards arguments that hinge on "armchair debaters" or the like. Assuming the other side of the debate has no idea what they're really talking about is arguing in bad faith, please show some courtesy and at the very least give the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think there is anything "logical" about giving a powerful ranged attack to a creature that explicitly lacks one. If the party can defeat an ogre, then I simply draw the conclusion that the ogre is no match for them anymore. I don't let it throw rocks that explode as per a Fireball spell. There is no logic to a statblock that always changes along to perfectly counter whatever tactics the PCs try.

Finally, the slippery slope argument rings false. Sure, there will be some people who are never satisfied. That is no reason to leave all genuine problems as they are.

 

[Pickles JG]

So WotC has just said "F-that". They made a book full of really good monsters and put it upon DMs to run them fairly and in the manner they wanted... making up whatever they needed for compelling fights and drama. The good old "Rulings, not rules" rearing it's wonderful head again. And if that drives certain DMs up a wall because they don't want to make logical rulings and instead stick with hammered-out statblock rules... then WotC seems to be okay with that. As am I. And I hope against hope WotC never gives in to these armchair debaters, going back to try and "patch in" all these supposed holes, because even after they did, the armchair debaters would just move on to another ridiculous theoretical scenario that would never actually come up during play.

Full of great monsters? The humanoids are pretty good inc zombies and skelies. Their unique racial traits give them all distinct flavour best they've ever had. It's a 4e carry over but in 4e they often got hidden by the role abilities.

The CR 3 to 6 or so monsters are largely bags of hitpoints. Really what is the point of Owlbears? When they were CE they were nominally more than just bears but they could do with something to make them not just bears with beaks. Stealth, gliding or something. 4e hooting was not great as with everything having a special rule they were not distinct, but it was a try.

Leaders are also pretty lacking - monsters that give decent boost then againthis mirrors the missing warlords. You cannot be a tactical or inspirational leader you ar enot magical!

Tougher monsters and extra planars have more depth via spells which is fine - I think it was sensible to use one subsystem for all of the extraordinary powers of these things, and rangers. It does get overwhelming with the highest level spel lists, there are few monsters with about the right numbe rof abilities for a fight. (Flame skills was he ran out of spells in a 8+ round fight).
Anyway we already met a troll at first level who was driven off by our ability to ranged attack him (he was blind poor fellow). DM error

 

[Luce]

First, you do not hunt down the Tarasque,the Tarasque hunts you! It is also a big ham and (literately) likes to chew up scenery. By the time it succumbs the surrounding area will be devastated making in a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Two, being a large predator I would not find it unreasonable that it will have a bunch of flying scavengers following it, such as a flight of wyverns,manticores or chimeras or even an young dragon or two. Things which will either consider a lone wizard a snack/treat or even be smart enough to realize that he is a threat to their meal ticket.

 

[nomotog]

You can't really separate player knowledge from character knowledge, so it's maybe just a good idea to assume that the characters all know the basics and well know facts. If you want to surprise them, then your going to want to change the rules.

As to the question of how a wizard knows to use acid it's not a real big leap. To stop a creature from regenerating you need to hit them with some kind of persistent irritant like acid (or fire maybe, but the go to is acid.). It's very logical assumption to use acid on a creature that can regenerate and this assumption is helped by other regenerating monsters also being weak to acid.

 

[delericho]

As a bit of background, back in 2e I and the rest of my party killed the tarrasque with overwhelming magic and of course flight...

I for one think that the tarrasque's RAW inability to deal with flying opponents is a genuine issue with the monster and I say so from previous experience.

I almost agree with this. IMO, the issue isn't that "the Tarrasque can't deal with flyers", it's rather "the Tarrasque can't deal with flyers*... and is billed as a top-tier monster."

* Actually, not just flyers - there's an awful lot that high-level characters can do that this creature can't really counter. Which is absolutely fine... just don't bill it as one of the apex monsters.

 

[the Jester]

I think the whole point of this scenario is to prove they didn't do a very good job building the monsters in this edition. A high level monster should be able to deal with flying enemeis with abilities in his stat block.

Anyone can jump or throw things. Those don't need to be in its stat block IMHO.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

First, you do not hunt down the Tarasque,the Tarasque hunts you! It is also a big ham and (literately) likes to chew up scenery. By the time it succumbs the surrounding area will be devastated making in a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Two, being a large predator I would not find it unreasonable that it will have a bunch of flying scavengers following it, such as a flight of wyverns,manticores or chimeras or even an young dragon or two. Things which will either consider a lone wizard a snack/treat or even be smart enough to realize that he is a threat to their meal ticket.

This has got to be this thread's worst counter yet.

Please remember that we're talking about the Tarrasque as statted in the MM, not its theoretical hangarounds.

 

[Jester David]

I think the whole point of this scenario is to prove they didn't do a very good job building the monsters in this edition. A high level monster should be able to deal with flying enemeis with abilities in his stat block.

Jump ability, sonic scream, throw debris ability, calls down Gamera, pretty much anything at all to deal with a ranged attacker.

It is almost like they didn't learn anything from the first few decades of gaming.

It's more like they decided not to tack on extra and superfluous abilities to a monster to make it immune to a tactic that's always been effective against it. It may not be the best design for making an unstoppable monster, but it's good design for making a representative tarrasque that does all things you expect from a tarrasque.

Flying and using ranged attacks have always been the best way of dealing with the tarrasque. Like fighting vampires with sunlight or devils with silver.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I almost agree with this. IMO, the issue isn't that "the Tarrasque can't deal with flyers", it's rather "the Tarrasque can't deal with flyers*... and is billed as a top-tier monster."

I meant to imply as much, yes. If we were talking about dire wolves unable to deal with flying opponents then this wouldn't have been an issue.