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

[Eric V]

That's just a more presumptuous way of saying that the design goals aren't what you, personally, are into.

Not at all. If one defines things very generically, it's easy for mistakes to become features.

Don't presume too much, double-d.

 

[Pickles JG]

That's just a more presumptuous way of saying that the design goals aren't what you, personally, are into.

Not really. Every time there is a hint of a poorly expressed rule then the apologists jump in with "ruling not rules". Whenever there is an ability that does not quite work right as written it's an opportunity for DM creativity.

It's like they are following a holy text that does what it says it does & is infallible because that's what it says it is! (FWIW I also have this issue with natural selection)

There is a huge amount of fantastic design in 5e that is subtle and hidden under the hood so it does lots of work for us, as well as all the more obvious stuff. You will not be burned as a heretic for recognising that it is not perfect and anything that spawns a 10+ page thread could probably have been done better.

 

[PnPgamer]

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...

how do you know it is the true story?

 

[Kobold Stew]

how do you know it is the true story?

The answer starts at 0:23.

 

[dd.stevenson]

It's also possible that they stated their design goals in such a way that laziness/honest mistakes always therefore look to be "done on purpose: It's a feature!"

That's just a more presumptuous way of saying that the design goals aren't what you, personally, are into.

Not at all. If one defines things very generically, it's easy for mistakes to become features.

These two statements are very different.

The designers say these features are intentional, but they're laziness/honest mistakes. ... presumption
These design goals are too broad. ... not presumption

 

[SilverfireSage]

My view of the Tarassque is thus: It needed to have a burrow speed, and the designers failed in providing that. Taking it as RAW, I would advise DMs who don't want to change it to punish people who try to defeat it through a war of acid splash attrition. It takes a while to defeat a monster of this strength with Acid Splash, so let it destroy some towns, burn a city, kill a couple hundred people before it's finally put down. Yeah, you might have some adventurers that will just be happy they got the experience, but most people won't view that as a victory when they could have potentially killed it far sooner and with less casualties.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How many cities do you expect the tarrasque to destroy in the fifteen minutes it takes somebody to kill it? Does it just instantly materialize out of nothing in the middle of downtown Tokyo, kill some people and teleport to London?

The thing is slooooow and not sneaky in the slightest. And 5e combat is fast. It can totally kill a few hundred civilians, if it pops out of a mine or something in the middle of a village (like a slumbering Bolo). But destroying multiple cities before falling to acid splash simply isn't in the cards.

 

[Elderbrain]

15 minutes presumes prior knowledge of how many h.p. it has, which might not be the "mere" 600+ you expect. As I mentioned before, it could legitimately, by-the-book have 900+ h.p.

With regards to the Tarasque not having the ability to throw objects listed in its stat block, that's because it is an implicit, improvised action which the rules allow ANYONE with appropriate limbs to take. Listing every damn thing a creature could do in its stat block would needlessly eat up page after page of the Monster Manual, just to fend off people who make arguments of this sort. Arguing that the Tarasque can't throw rocks because it's not listed in its stat block is like a DM arguing that your PC can't breathe because nowhere on your Character sheet does it specify that you can. Any monster or PC can take any action that would be physically plausible given that creature's anatomy and ability scores (i.e. a Pixie couldn't throw a huge rock, because it's not strong enough, not because rock throwing isn't listed in the Pixie stat block.)

Now, can the tarasque throw that rock AS WELL as a giant could? Probably not, since giants specialize in that kind of attack and for them it's not an improvised action. How well the Tarasque throws the rock depends on its Dexterity score. So it might not hit the Wizard right away, but it certainly can try!

Maybe the next Monster Manual need to have a page right at the front that says, in bold letters:

"ATTENTION RULES LAWYERS! ALL MONSTERS IN THIS BOOK POSSESS THE ABILITY TO TAKE INPROVISED ACTIONS NOT LISTED IN THEIR STAT BLOCKS. THE ABILITIES PROVIDED IN THE STAT BLOCKS REPRESENT TYPICAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CREATURES, NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LISTING OF EVERYTHING THE CREATURES CAN DO. HAVING THE MONSTER DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IS 100% LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE PROVIDED THE ACTION IS WITHIN THE CREATURE'S PHYSICAL CAPACITY."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The fifth level wizard does 672 damage to the tarrasque over fifteen minutes (7 damage per hit, hit 64% of the time). Is there variance in the expected time-to-kill? Sure. The tarrasque could make more saves than expected, terrain could interfere and slow things down, the tarrasque could have 900 HP instead of 650. None of this is important because it doesn't change the timescale, which remains essentially tactical. Unless you are arguing that the tarrasque can destroy two towns in twenty-two minutes but only one in fifteen, the difference between the two numbers is simply unimportant compared to the tarrasque's lack of strategic mobility.

All of this changes btw if the BBEG Magic Jars the tarrasque.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The fifth level wizard does 672 damage to the tarrasque over fifteen minutes (7 damage per hit, hit 64% of the time). Is there variance in the expected time-to-kill? Sure. The tarrasque could make more saves than expected, terrain could interfere and slow things down, the tarrasque could have 900 HP instead of 650. None of this is important because it doesn't change the timescale, which remains essentially tactical. Unless you are arguing that the tarrasque can destroy two towns in twenty-two minutes but only one in fifteen, the difference between the two numbers is simply unimportant compared to the tarrasque's lack of strategic mobility.

All of this changes btw if the BBEG Magic Jars the tarrasque.

the crux of the argument is "IF I can do even minor damage to the monster from a safe range, does that make that tactic a push over?"

the simple answer is "Most likely"

now when high power high CR monster have low end Int then having them not have a ranged attack could lesser threat then it should...


edit: to be fair I always thought the Big T was over rated, and throw them at teens level heroes no problem... I also have no issue using my Doomsday hero clix on a D&D base and use the stats from any e of Tarrasque to represent...