D&D 5E Is the Tarrasque tough enough?

[Derren]

I think the main problem is the assumption that the Tarrasque is there to fight the players instead of eat the city.

Consider following this modus operandi:
1) eat city.
2) if city is not in range to be eaten, move full speed to nearest part of city that can be eaten.
3) stop to fight only if it cannot move.

I wonder how many city blocks and castles it could eat in 75 turns?

Even if the city gets destroyed, the Tarrasque is still dead at the end.

 

[Elderbrain]

RE: Tarasque = Godzilla assumption

Actually, Godzilla is represented in D&D not by the Tarasque but by the reptilian Gargantua... check your 2nd Ed MM!

 

[SilverfireSage]

Even if the city gets destroyed, the Tarrasque is still dead at the end.

If you're fighting the Tarrasque and it manages to destroy a city, you've lost regardless if you kill it or not.

 

[Stalker0]

A six player party at 10th level can fight an Ancient Black dragon as a deadly encounter, but not insurmountable encounter. Just by the math, it does seem that the Tarrasque is around a 30, simply because of its armor class and sheer damage outdoes absolutely every other creature by a large margin.

Agreed...but I don't think the Tarrasque is that super deadly either. Now, if you fight this guy in a head on melee slog, yes the party is hosed. But a 20th level party has fought Dragons, Demons, and all manner of creatures with crazy tricks and maneuverability. Compared to that, the tarrasque is just too simple. There are so many tricks a 20th level party has at their disposal to combat this simple brute. It is certainly worth a CR 22-24...but I don't think it is ultimately that much tougher than an ancient red dragon.


I would agree with someone who mentioned the tarrasque vs the city scenario. I think its a nice change of pace to let a super power party just wail on the tarrasque while it destroys a city...and be utterly unable to stop its destruction. Yes they will drive it off eventually...but even there power can't stop it from killing a lot of people.

 

[Atomo]

RE: Tarasque = Godzilla assumption

Actually, Godzilla is represented in D&D not by the Tarasque but by the reptilian Gargantua... check your 2nd Ed MM!

Not Godzilla there... That Gargantua came from a classic story: Gargantua and Pantagruel (written by Rabelais on 1500-and-something).

 

[Gidonihah]

Take the Tarrasque, give it the Krakens: mental attributes (22Int,18wis,20chr), Lightning blasts, Fling ability, and Swim speed. And then give it some method of healing (perhaps based off of how much it devours). Now we have something reminiscent of Godzilla that doesn't get destroyed by flying ranged attacks and might actually deserve CR30.

I greatly prefer the Krakens design for Large powerful monster that wrecks you. In my campaign I might just give the Kraken the Tarrasques carapace ability and use it instead.

 

[Derren]

If you're fighting the Tarrasque and it manages to destroy a city, you've lost regardless if you kill it or not.

To quote (from memory) a line from Avengers.
"And if we can't save it, we surely can avenge it"

And not every character is interested in saving the city anyway. The glory for killing the Tarrasque might be more tempting.

 

[Eejit]

With regard to Elephants have Int 3 in the book (someone else brought this up), that's just bad research. Elephants have one of the best non-human brains on the planet due to size, mass, and neuron complexity. Elephants should easily be Int 5 or 6.

Nope, the problem is your assumption of what the Int scores mean.

Elephants are Int 3 in the MM. So are Killer Whales. And Mastiffs. And Wolves. And Octopi. The Raven is Int 2.

That represents very nearly all of the most intelligent non-hominid families/genera/species on our planet, and quite a few examples of tool-users.


So no. Intelligence of 3 is not dumb as a brick. It's very much the upper end of animal intelligence.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nope, the problem is your assumption of what the Int scores mean.

Elephants are Int 3 in the MM. So are Killer Whales. And Mastiffs. And Wolves. And Octopi. The Raven is Int 2.

That represents very nearly all of the most intelligent non-hominid families/genera/species on our planet, and quite a few examples of tool-users.


So no. Intelligence of 3 is not dumb as a brick. It's very much the upper end of animal intelligence.

Poor numbers.

Elephants are a lot smarter than wolves. And panthers (who also have an Int of 3). Cat intelligence is generally considered low based on most research.

Elephants are smarter than baboons, but baboons are Int 4.

Apes have a 6. Elephants are easily near apes and elephants too use tools.

So either apes should be lower, or elephants should be higher.


In the big scheme of things though, the Int listed in the MM is a good enough rule of thumb for DMs to make reasonable decisions. The vast majority of animals who throw things at other creatures in the real world (apes and baboons) have Int 4 or higher. Real world creatures which have Int 3 in the MM almost never throw things at others (elephants being nearly the only exception), hence, neither should the Tarrasque. It is limited to normal animal intelligence, so it shouldn't do things in a game that an animal wouldn't. But, a given DM should feel free to ignore that.

 

[Eejit]

Poor numbers.

Elephants are a lot smarter than wolves. And panthers (who also have an Int of 3). Cat intelligence is generally considered low based on most research.

Elephants are smarter than baboons, but baboons are Int 4.

Apes have a 6. Elephants are easily near apes and elephants too use tools.

So either apes should be lower, or elephants should be higher.


In the big scheme of things though, the Int listed in the MM is a good enough rule of thumb for DMs to make reasonable decisions. The vast majority of animals who throw things at other creatures in the real world (apes and baboons) have Int 4 or higher. Real world creatures which have Int 3 in the MM almost never throw things at others (elephants being nearly the only exception), hence, neither should the Tarrasque. It is limited to normal animal intelligence, so it shouldn't do things in a game that an animal wouldn't. But, a given DM should feel free to ignore that.

Apes should be lower. Elephants aren't the only very highly intelligent animal at ~3 Int.


Many other primates other than hominids throw objects, and as most monkeys would be less intelligent than a Baboon they would surely be Int 2-3. Throwing is as much to do with physiology as intellect, and the Tarrasque is built more like a simian than any of the other Int 3 animals.


I believe the Baboons are overrated rather than the Elephants being underrated. Orcas, representing toothed whales, have the same intelligence number as elephants. That seems entirely fair.

Several raven species (and many of their close relations) use tools intelligently and they've been given an Intelligence of 2. Now *that* is too low. They should at least be on par with the tool-using octopi at Int-3. Other animals such as dogs, dolphins or orcas have very limited tool use, but are generally considered to be highly intelligent and generally on a par with elephants and hominids.