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

[Roger]

the scenario [...] relies on illegal Player knowledge

Dang, I would play the heck out of a campaign based on the premise that the PCs are in possession of illegal knowledge.

I'd better run off and write that up; thanks for the idea.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Derren]

Didnt tarrasque have immense regeneration? How does the wizard bybass that?

It doesn't have any regeneration in 5E.
But now some people will argue that of course it has superregeneration. This ability was just so minor that the designers decided not to include it and adding it is in no way a house rule or an admission that the Tarrasque is missing something.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It doesn't have any regeneration in 5E.
But now some people will argue that of course it has superregeneration. This ability was just so minor that the designers decided not to include it and adding it is in no way a house rule or an admission that the Tarrasque is missing something.

There's no point in getting sore over other people being wrong on the Internet. Yes, the 5E Tarrasque is a decent monster but a terrible uber-monster[1]. At least WotC learned from their mistake--Tiamat is a pretty decent uber-monster with most of the things the Tarrasque is missing. Killing Tiamat is still possible but non-trivial and pretty much requires specialized tactics, whereas killing the Tarrasque can easily happen almost accidentally in the course of a normal adventuring day. (This was true in 2nd edition as well. I can't speak for 3rd or 4th, having played neither.)

In answer to the question, "How does the wizard know to use Acid Splash?" the answer is "As soon as a spell reflects off the Tarrasque, a sane adventurer will either give up or use something non-reflective, i.e. save-based and not attack-based. Acid Splash is a classic saved-based spell, and many wizards take Fire Bolt + Acid Splash specifically so they have a decent save-based at-will attack. It's the obvious choice." The only question is whether it is indeed obvious that the wizard should persevere over the full 10-20 minutes of attacks required to kill the stupid thing, or just give up and go around.

At least in 5E it is no longer trivial to Magic Jar the Tarrasque, since you have to polymorph it into a human first.

[1] Falx, the planet populated entirely by creatures that look exactly like the Tarrasque, is still scary despite any individual Tarrasque's wimpiness.

 

[keterys]

I do find it interesting that they took long enough to give the Giant Ape an adequate ranged attack, but missed out on the Tarrasque. That's an intriguing omission, given the relative history of things.

 

[Umbran]

I do find it interesting that they took long enough to give the Giant Ape an adequate ranged attack, but missed out on the Tarrasque.

When King Kong fights the giant dinosaur on Skull Island, Kong wins. This proves the superiority of giant apes over giant lizard-things, in general.

 

[Fanaelialae]

(Sigh...) YES, the Tarasque could throw a waggon, etc. But the Godzilla comparison is wrong. Comparing the Tarasque in size or strength to Godzilla is like comparing the Moon in size to Jupiter... they're both huge, sure, but one is vastly larger than the other. To accurately Stat out Godzilla ' Strength score, you'd have to use 3e/3.5 rules or Pathfinder, where there's no upper limit on how high it can go (and Godzilla, accurately done to even his weakest movie version, would be one hell of an Epic monster, with a ridiculous CR number...) Godzilla could step on the Tarasque with his foot, for crying' out loud! Doesn't mean Mr. T is a whimp, but hey, size matters! The maximum strength score possible, with a Gargantuan creature, only gets you to a lift of (I believe) 7,200 pounds, and that doesn't mean you can actually THROW that load, just move it. Godzilla, on the other hand, has picked up and thrown creatures weighing far more than that in his films. So, no comparison.

Since I'm the one who brought Godzilla up I assume you're referring to my post. However, you're ignoring the part where I said that I don't think the encumbrance rules work well for the Tarrasque, and that IMO they should be ignored in its case. Meaning that the Tarrasque would be able to lift significantly more than 7,200 lbs.

Godzilla was just the first big monster that came to mind. You don't like Godzilla, pick another enormous monster for a point of reference on what the Tarrasque would be capable of. Assuming you're even interested in following that advice, which I get the feeling you're not, so enjoy playing as you like.

*sigh*

You are approaching this from a prescriptive point of view. The tarrasque is described as really bloody dangerous, ergo it can do such-and-such. My point is that statblocks don't work that way. They are descriptive instead of prescriptive. Statblocks show what a monster is or does, not what it ought to do. A comparison to godzilla is to my mind silly because the tarrasque isn't based on godzilla, it's based on the tarrasque. Which predates godzilla by centuries.

Obviously I'm approaching this from a prescriptive POV, I never claimed otherwise. And yes, statblocks are descriptive.

However, if we didn't need a prescriptive viewpoint in the game, there would be little purpose for the DM. Statblocks are great, because they really help the DM out, but if that's all you use then you may as well script monster actions (if orc is adjacent to enemy he attacks the most wounded with his greataxe, else if he is within 30 ft he charges the most wounded enemy, else he attacks the most wounded enemy with his bow) and remove the DM entirely. D&D as an advanced Choose Your Own Adventure. The DM brings improvisation and creativity to the table, elevating D&D from a boardgame to an RPG. If the PCs employ non-traditional tactics, there's nothing wrong with the DM improvising in order to give them a challenge (or simply teach them that they shouldn't bite off more than they can chew, in the case of a lone 5th level wizard taking on the Tarrasque).

And can we please forget about Godzilla? I've already stated (in the post you quoted) that it was just an example and what I meant was a really huge, strong monster. I should have instead said... you know what, nevermind.



I do agree that it would have been nice if they'd included something in the Tarrasque's stats that would have allowed him to deal with flying enemies by default. However, I can see a reason why the designers may have chosen otherwise; that being, it isn't really the Tarrasque's schtick. Regardless of whether or not the Tarrasque could hurl a tree at an annoying pest, that isn't what it would do if given any alternative. The Tarrasque doesn't try to flatten people from a distance, it charges in and tears them apart. Even 4e's gravity aura, which I like, is divergent from the three editions of Tarrasques that preceded it.

Regardless, I agree with those who've said that this is a white room scenario. None of my players would ever sit around doing nothing while the party mage tries to solo the Tarrasque. They'd want a piece of the action! But maybe I'm just blessed with really cool players.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I wonder why they made sure not to include that, but made sure to include the details for an orc throwing a javelin.

I suppose they wanted the mechanical implementation of this attack to vary from table to table.

I don't know their exact reasons for going this direction, in this instance--but they've been clear that "each table is different" is part of the 5E design mandate.

 

[Kobold Stew]

When King Kong fights the giant dinosaur on Skull Island, Kong wins. This proves the superiority of giant apes over giant lizard-things, in general.

That's only true in versions of the tales told by ape-descendents, however.

Lizardfolk and intelligent dinosaurs tell the true version of what happened on Skull Island...

 

[keterys]

I suppose they wanted the mechanical implementation of this attack to vary from table to table.

Occam suggests that's not the case.

Sometimes designers forget things. It happens.

Certainly, if a wizard tries to solo a tarrasque with a fly spell and an acid splash, better hope the Tarrasque is also chained down to the ground or something, cause otherwise there's no reason for it to stay there being slowly poked.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Occam suggests that's not the case.

Sometimes designers forget things. It happens.

If so, then they forgot a lot of things, and did so in a manner that served their stated design goals.

Which, while not impossible, does leave open the possibility that Occam's not in your corner after all.