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

[SilverfireSage]

Why did this thread get made again? Hasn't this topic been beaten to death already? The people that argue that the Tarrasque can't do anything that's not in its rules and that nothing should be changed and that the designers are bad won't change their minds. Likewise, the people who say that we can just modify all monsters that we please, and there's nothing wrong with the developers assuming people can change monsters if they find them lacking won't change their minds either. This is a fundamental dichotomy of 5E right now, and there's no point rehashing it all.

 

[Paraxis]

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.

But it isn't a siege weapon, because it is an improvised weapon, there are rules and that is what we are discussing.

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.

You know what I am tired of, you and people like you that come into discussions about the RULES of the game, and start saying useless things like "just wing it" "DM just makes crap up" "The solution is your imagination"..blah blah blah.

We are not talking about how the DM can do whatever he wants, we ALL understand that, we do, so maybe you can stop shouting it from the roof tops as the answer to real rules questions and concerns.

When talking about rules it is not productive to say, "just ignore them".

So step off.

 

[Eric V]

I wonder if the DMs who come up with all sorts of advantageous attacks for the Tarrasque that are expressly missing from its stat block would allow the for the same (advantageous attacks not in the rules) for the PCs?

I can't know for sure, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[sidonunspa]

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.

Umm, you DON'T NEED to stat out every little thing the monster can do... that way leads to madness


Siege Monster + 30 Strength = throw a building or boulders

 

[Eric V]

If we are talking common sense...can the Tarrasque even pick up a building?

(30 strength means 900 pounds of lift for a Medium creature, then doubled per each size increase, so 1800, then 3600, then 7200)

So a Tarrasque can lift 7,200 pounds, or 3.6 tons. Do buildings weigh less than 4 tons?

I don't think it's officially capable of doing some of the things people here are saying it can. I am sure it's much more powerful in your imagination, but not in the Monster Manual and understood by the rules set out in the game.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

But it isn't a siege weapon, because it is an improvised weapon, there are rules and that is what we are discussing.



You know what I am tired of, you and people like you that come into discussions about the RULES of the game, and start saying useless things like "just wing it" "DM just makes crap up" "The solution is your imagination"..blah blah blah.

We are not talking about how the DM can do whatever he wants, we ALL understand that, we do, so maybe you can stop shouting it from the roof tops as the answer to real rules questions and concerns.

When talking about rules it is not productive to say, "just ignore them".

So step off.

I dunno, I think that "ignore the rules" is a pretty decent piece of advice in this case. Maybe, RAW, the Tarrasque doesn't work, especially if placed in a large, open area with nothing to throw.

However, this would be a terrible use of the Tarrasque, and is a situation that I hopefully never encounter. A fight with the Tarrasque is greater than the sum of its parts. What happens when a tall building full of civilians begins to topple, and the rest of the party can't reach them because they don't have flight?

And if we're on the subject of improvised weapons, then I'll go out there and say that I don't think a thrown boulder counts as an improvised weapon in this case. If anything, I'd base it off the stone giant's rock throw, which does 4d10 + 6 damage for a CR7 creature. I mean, the Tarrasque is an ancient, primordial force of destruction. It should be pretty adapt at tearing up and chucking rubble, to the point where they become a real menace.

So yeah, RAW Tarrasque may not work as well, especially when fighting in a vacuum scenario. But vacuum scenarios almost never come up, and any DM worth his or her salt will improvise some kind of meaningful throwing attack based on the plethora of examples in the Monster Manual. So I don't think it's really all that big of a deal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But it isn't a siege weapon, because it is an improvised weapon, there are rules and that is what we are discussing.

Improvised weapons rules are in the Player's Handbook. Last time I checked, tarrasque's weren't PCs. So it seems like it makes a lot more sense to me to use some common sense, and realize that a building/boulder/wagon isn't anything close to what a weapon that a PC might use who isn't proficient in. And even if you're lacking in that basic level of common sense, we can look at other monsters who throw things. Like giants. And extrapolate from there what sort or range and damage a tarrasque would do.

Using the PC's improvised weapon rule as a way to support how you think the rules are broken seems awfully disingenuous to me, because I know you're smart enough to see the fundamental flaw in doing so (as I just mentioned).

You know what I am tired of, you and people like you that come into discussions about the RULES of the game, and start saying useless things like "just wing it" "DM just makes crap up" "The solution is your imagination"..blah blah blah.

We are not talking about how the DM can do whatever he wants, we ALL understand that, we do, so maybe you can stop shouting it from the roof tops as the answer to real rules questions and concerns.

When talking about rules it is not productive to say, "just ignore them".

So step off.

I'm not shouting DM fiat from the rooftops. I'm saying it gets really old that you appear in every thread complaining about 5e and how it's broken, the designers are lazy, the design is horrible, etc. And seeing as your logic is on extremely shaky ground (see above), I'm beginning to wonder if you're just complaining because that's what you do. To which I say, stick with games you like and stop crapping on literally every discussion in the 5e forum.

Also, this isn't about just using your imagination, because figuring out that a tarrasque can throw a big object if wants isn't really all that imaginative. What we're talking about is that for simple common sense things, there doesn't need to be a rule for literally everything. Which is what you seem to be implying or arguing for. If you honestly can't figure out for yourself that a hurling wagon would probably do more damage than an improvised table leg a PC uses, I don't know what to tell you.

I wonder if the DMs who come up with all sorts of advantageous attacks for the Tarrasque that are expressly missing from its stat block would allow the for the same (advantageous attacks not in the rules) for the PCs?

I can't know for sure, but I kind of doubt it.

And you would be very wrong. All of us that have argued in favor of doing things (not just advantageous attacks, but anything it would reasonable do), sure as hell encourage that from our players, and do so when we are players ourselves.

Unless something is expressly forbidden, it should be allowed within reasonable interpretation.

That applies to everyone and everything. Monsters, PCs, NPC, etc. If a player wants to leap on a table and do a flying tackle on a target, let them try it, even if it doesn't explicitly say so on their character sheet.

 

[SilverfireSage]

I wonder if the DMs who come up with all sorts of advantageous attacks for the Tarrasque that are expressly missing from its stat block would allow the for the same (advantageous attacks not in the rules) for the PCs?

I can't know for sure, but I kind of doubt it.

And you'd be wrong. There are so many things, soooooooo many things, that the player's can do that aren't expressed in the PH or any other rulebook explicitly. Handstands? Not in the rules. Trying to gouge someone's eye out with a spoon? Not in the rules. Surfing down a flight of stairs on a shield while shooting a bow? Not in the rules. But these are all things that we would expect a player to be able to do, and thus, we allow it using the rules as written as a guideline for those things. Surfing down a flight of stairs might require an acrobatics check and perhaps a concentration check to maintain the ability to shoot. Trying to gouge someone's eye out with a spoon might give the player disadvantage on the attack to do so. The developers of this game realized that they are only human and therefore cannot possibly identify the hundreds of thousands of scenarios that will pop up when millions buy their books and play their game. With that in mind, they created a simpler, more flexible game that allowed for common sense and DM judgement to rule, with the books facilitating and guiding the players towards the adventure. Striking out common sense just to try and poke holes in the rulebooks isn't fair to their design or a good conversational tactic either.

I agree with an old thread on here. Has this situation ever actually come up in a campaign? Has anyone actually run this in real time with the Tarrasque as part of the adventure? Because until someone does and reports back, these kinds of threads are just pointless speculation.

 

[Paraxis]

If tarrasques were meant to do things giants do like throw rocks long distances and for good damage, it should be listed in the stat block. Since it isn't we must use the rules we have for improving weapons attacks, hence the crappy 4d4 damage 60' range they get stuck with.

The rules exist for a reason they are the go to source for rules judgements by the DM.

For instance your example of player leaping on a table and doing a flying tackle on a target.

Leap up on a table, (follow rules for jumping page 182 phb), fly tackle (jumping again, followed by either a shove attack to knock prone or a grapple to grab the target) you can't knock the guy back 5', and knock prone, and grapple him because that would be 3 actions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If tarrasques were meant to do things giants do like throw rocks long distances and for good damage, it should be listed in the stat block. Since it isn't we must use the rules we have for improving weapons attacks, hence the crappy 4d4 damage 60' range they get stuck with.
.

Again, no you don't. Not only is it untrue that you "must use the rules" (that's untrue just on the face of things), but those rules are clearly for PCs. That's why it's in the PHB and not DMG. I swear, between this, and your posts in the thread about how magic items break the game based on something happening with less than a one in a billion chance, I'm swinging more and more into the "here to troll" belief rather than the "just want an honest conversation" belief.

Double irony for the sig you have.

Lucky for me there's an easy way to fix this.