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

[Eric V]

Why is applying a little thought such a forbidden notion? Could it be that when we do... the problem GOES AWAY and then there's nothing to whine about?

So...if people think the Tarrasque is not capable (int-wise, biology-wise, some other reason) of accurately throwing a rock and doing damage with it like a giant they aren't applying thought?

That's really nice, thanks.

 

[Eric V]

Even disregarding that, every edition including 5e allows for the generation of ability scores using dice, the outcome of which normally ranges from 3 to 18. It's illogical to assume that, given that the designers allow a human to have a 3 stat, that that would render the character unplayable. After all, if a human fighter with a 3 Int is possible but can't wear armor or use a sword, how is he even a fighter? Granted, depending on the edition he might be barred from being a wizard, but I cannot recall ever seeing an Int prerequisite for playing an ordinary fighter.

True enough, though I guess it depends on how you see the scores: Is 3-20 the human range? If so, then 3 is a fairly incapacitated person, and can't really use tools.

Or is 3-20 the PC range, and all actions a PC can take are capable with even the lowest Int?

If the latter, say I had a mentally incapacitated person in the game (brother of a prince or something)...what would his Int be?

 

[Fanaelialae]

True enough, though I guess it depends on how you see the scores: Is 3-20 the human range? If so, then 3 is a fairly incapacitated person, and can't really use tools.

Or is 3-20 the PC range, and all actions a PC can take are capable with even the lowest Int?

If the latter, say I had a mentally incapacitated person in the game (brother of a prince or something)...what would his Int be?

The latter, otherwise it's illogical that a PC could have an Int of 3. If a PC can have it, it makes sense that it has to leave that PC reasonably functional. After all, a character with a 3 Charisma can still interact with people just like anyone else can, he's just very bad at it.

Well, the closest D&D equivalent to mental incapacitation AFAIK is the Feeblemind spell which reduces Int to 1. Although the spell prevents communication, the targets retains the ability to recognize friends and even protect them. The spell says nothing about the target losing the ability to use weapons and armor, indicating that the target can in fact still use them. As such, I don't think true mental incapacitation could be simulated in D&D by simply giving someone a low Int score. I would say it would have to be a special (possibly permanent) condition the prince's brother was under.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok...so lets say (for the sake of argument) a Big T can throw...he would still have the range limit from the improve weapons... right?

 

[billd91]

ok...so lets say (for the sake of argument) a Big T can throw...he would still have the range limit from the improve weapons... right?

Not necessarily. Those rules are designed for a PC with PC-like scale. I'd be inclined to increase the scale proportionate to the tarrasque's size.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not necessarily. Those rules are designed for a PC with PC-like scale. I'd be inclined to increase the scale proportionate to the tarrasque's size.

umm... where would I find guidelines or rules for that? does it scale down for small creatures too (PC or Not?)

 

[Eric V]

Not necessarily. Those rules are designed for a PC with PC-like scale. I'd be inclined to increase the scale proportionate to the tarrasque's size.

I probably would be too (If I felt it was smart enough to throw; Fanaelialae at least has me keeping an open mind on the subject), but then to what?

This is where Paraxis' point comes in: If it's off the beaten path rules-wise, the devs should have brought their expertise to bear on it.

Note: This is not the same thing as saying DMs at their individual tables are incapable of coming up with some rock-throwing ability for their respective Tarrasques. It is saying that, instead of pointing out the same-as-everyone-else mechanics of an orc throwing a javelin, show me, makers-of-the-game, how you feel the Tarrasque should throw stuff. I don't need you for the former; I am buying the book for your expertise on the latter.

 

[dd.stevenson]

4.) Totally immune to all psionics is a nice touch. Unfortunately it's not immune to all magic, so there's a huge vulnerability nevertheless.

They are, however, immune to rays, bolts, etc. The category is only loosely defined--but I think it's likely a 2E inspired version of this monster would reflect acid splash (for example).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Looking at it in terms of game statistics, the scores go from 1 to 30. We know a lot today about tool use in the animal world and in our evolutionary ancestors, and, using comparisons to those creatures, a creature with an INT that close to the minimum for survival wouldn't be smart enough to use tools.

I don't think 30 is a hard cap. A Constellate (if they still exist in 5E Spelljammer) is up to 100 million square miles in size and does roughly 2 million HP of damage when it hits with a physical attack; I'm not sure how you'd evaluate one's STR but it's way over 30. Even Godzilla would probably have a STR in the hundreds or thousands, judging by carrying capacity. And of course, (N)PCs who somehow gain access to unlimited Manuals of Clear Thought/whatever can raise their stats arbitrarily high, at least in theory.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

INT 3 is as smart as an elephant, which is not a stupid animal. We're not discussing a creature with insect intelligence! Just because apes have an INT of 6 and throw rocks, is not evidence that a minimum score of 6 is necessary for a creature to throw rocks... And why does the Tarasque need to throw the rock 400 feet, when the Wizard has to remain in 60-ft. range to use Acid Splash?!? Even using the improvised weapon ranges in the PH, it could reach... and those ranges assume Small and Medium characters, not larger creatures. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a Gargantuan creature throwing a rock would at least equal the range a smaller monster like a giant could reach, and with a 30 TSR be able to heave any rock a giant could. This ain't rocket science, folks, just the application of a little common sense to a question (How far could the Tarasque throw a rock?) Why is applying a little thought such a forbidden notion? Could it be that when we do... the problem GOES AWAY and then there's nothing to whine about?

Answer to bolded question: Because wizards with Acid Splash are just one commonly-available threat. Crossbows have 400' range, longbows have 600' (which isn't even that far, maybe a city block and a half), and a Tarrasque with a 60' ranged attack will still die trivially to the first archer with a magic bow on a galloping horse. A Tarrasque with a 60' ranged attack is no more qualified to be a civilization-wrecking legend than the RAW Tarrasque is.