D&D 5E Anybody actually TRY soloing the Tarasque...?

[Joe Liker]

Because I am asserting that the plan WON'T WORK, that's why. They say a 5th level Wizard can solo the Tarasque, and I deny it. If I were to play it out and the Tarasque wins, the other side will just claim that (if I run the PC) I didn't try hard enough to kill it, or (if I act as DM) that I rigged things to ensure a Tarasque victory. The only way to persuade them that their strategy will not work is for THEY THEMSELVES to play it out and see that I'm right... otherwise they won't change their minds, see?

That's not true. If you try it and the wizard loses, your next step would be to report back, telling us step by step what you did and exactly how the Tarrasque managed to win.

Then we'd tell you how you did it wrong, and you'd be welcome to take that knowledge and try again.

 

[Authweight]

This won't help at all, but I can run a test right here:

Before battle: Wizard casts fly, then approaches tarrasque.

Round 1: wizard attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque does nothing because there's nothing he can do about it.

Round 2: wizards attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque does nothing because there's nothing he can do about it.

Round n: wizard attacks tarrasque for the nth time. Tarrasque dies.


Or here's another test:

Round 1: wizard attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque throws a rock and it does a billion damage because the DM says it does. Tarrasque wins.


Or a third test:

Round 1: wizard attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque throws a rock as though he's a giant, doing decent damage.

They continue until one of them wins.


My point is that there's not really anything to test at all here. The debate isn't about how the rules will interact with each other - it's just about what the rules even are, and how the game should be run. For any set of conditions, it's very obvious what the outcome will be. The question is what set of conditions best matches a particular game. And the answer to that is - it varies. Different games are different. Under certain conditions/assumptions, the tarrasque is absurdly strong. Under other conditions/assumptions, it is very weak.

 

[Wrathamon]

wouldnt the archer run out of arrows?

 

[Wrathamon]

why couldnt the tarrasque just run away from the flying wizard? why would he just sit there and die?

 

[machineelf]

The Tarrasque wouldn't be throwing a rock, it would be throwing a boulder ... hence giant rock throwing damage rules and a dead wizard.

 

[Authweight]

The Tarrasque wouldn't be throwing a rock, it would be throwing a boulder ... hence giant rock throwing damage rules and a dead wizard.

This is fine, but it's a ruling, not a rule, and many DMs may prefer not to do this for various reasons (they prefer to not add to RAW, throwing boulders doesn't fit their idea of what the tarrasque can do, etc). My point remains: what matters are the parameters of the test. If you decide to let the tarrasque throw boulders, then you have a dead wizard. If you decide to say the tarrasque can't do that, then you have an impotent tarrasque.

 

[Authweight]

wouldnt the archer run out of arrows?

Well, first off we're probably talking about a wizard casting cantrips, so ammo isn't an issue. Even if it were an archer, then the archer could have a buddy fly next to him carrying a giant stack of arrows or something (that wouldn't strictly be soloing the tarrasque, but it is still in the spirit of the test I feel). Also, many groups prefer to handwave ammunition (against RAW, but a very common house rule IME).

why couldnt the tarrasque just run away from the flying wizard? why would he just sit there and die?

Well, the tarrasque could probably run away, but in many cases that would mean victory for the wizard anyway (hurray, we drove him off. Let's do that again next time too). Either way, unless you give the tarrasque some way to make ranged attacks, he's not a threat to anyone in the air.

 

[Wrathamon]

Actually, no someone was talking about some elf archer ...

and, if he ran off back to the sea or burrowed back into the ground or what now he could come back later. Oh your fly spell wore off. Oops...

 

[GreenTengu]

How far up can a flying Wizard fly and still be in range for its spells to work?

The Tarrasque is 50' tall and have 30 Strength, so I imagine it can jump a fairly decent distance. I would think the Tarrasque would have a decent chance of grabbing that Wizard. Plus, it is immune to a lot of abjuration spells, so you can't really rely on those.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This won't help at all, but I can run a test right here:

Before battle: Wizard casts fly, then approaches tarrasque.

Round 1: wizard attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque does nothing because there's nothing he can do about it.

Round 2: wizards attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque does nothing because there's nothing he can do about it.

Round n: wizard attacks tarrasque for the nth time. Tarrasque dies.


Or here's another test:

Round 1: wizard attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque throws a rock and it does a billion damage because the DM says it does. Tarrasque wins.


Or a third test:

Round 1: wizard attacks tarrasque. Tarrasque throws a rock as though he's a giant, doing decent damage.

They continue until one of them wins.

or here is another

round 17 of tarrasque rampaging city the wizard casts fly

round 18 wizard maneuvers to a position to being blasting

round 19 wizard begins his nickel and dimeing

round 20-100 wizard continues and has tarasuqe has been destroying the city/town/village has eaten NPCs and caused tons of collateral damage

round 101, tarasque uses its full speed and extra actions to flee, wizard can not keep up

round 102-XXX tarasque continues to broaden range until it hits next city... rince reapet...

end- The wizard may finally take it down, or a city defense, or it may just go back to sleep... but it rampaged for a long time killing lots and lots of targets... Tarasque goes down as legend, no one remembers the wizard who tried...