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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Simply, because tons of things that sound cool on paper fall apart when executed in real life. When the rubber hits the road you find out how your plan reacts with the variables of a dynamic environment and that always changes things. So doing the solo attack instead of theorizing it gives a legitimate example rather than a theory.

I haven't found this to be true. A 20th level party that looks on paper like it's going to beat the pants off Tiamat using crazy-high Stealth rolls, paladin smites and potions of Fire Giant Strength, will in fact beat the pants off Tiamat using paladin smites and potions of Fire Giant Strength. It's not the "real life execution" that makes things hard and complicated--it's the presence of an unpredictable adversary. But if you're the guy who's planning on playing the adversary, there is zero point in playing things out in a solo D&D game, especially when it comes to dominant strategies like "kite the Tarrasque to death using mounted combat and the Magic Weapon spell."

If you want it to be exciting, you need at least two people: one guy to run the PCs, and one guy to run the Tarrasque; and neither guy should have full knowledge of the other guy's capabilities. (I.e. the Tarrasque should DEFINITELY be house-ruled in some way or other.)

In a game of perfect information, the MM Tarrasque loses. So make it a game of imperfect information.

 

[Siuis]

Eh. Max level party in featureless plain within generic combat distance of an enemy isn't how the game actually functions, though; there are always complicating factors that get routinely ignored on paper.

As for needing things to be uncertain... yes. But that's not an argument, that's a given (though in a sufficiently complex or we'll executed system one can play both parties against themselves at full power and achieve an unexpected result)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Eh. Max level party in featureless plain within generic combat distance of an enemy isn't how the game actually functions, though; there are always complicating factors that get routinely ignored on paper.

Straw man.

 

[Elderbrain]

Oh god(s), not the Tarrasque thread again... look, either rule that Acid Splash needs an attack role, disallow Acid Splash as a spell, make the Tarrasque immune to acid, or just rule that the Tarrasque's spell reflection ought to have been written in such a way as to reflect Acid Splash too. It's clearly an oversight on the designers' parts, one that is easily fixed by a DM and cooperative PCs. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find other monsters with weaknesses that could be exploited to make them easy kills. While not quite as egregious as the Tarrasque example, everbody's had the experience of seeing a lower-level PC beat a higher-CR monster, or a low-CR monster or trap kill a higher-level PC under the right (wrong?) circumstances. Should a Human Commoner's CR be lowered because a Tiny spider could kill him?

 

[Siuis]

Straw man.

A straw man is when a hollow and oversimplified 'argument'' is presented and argued against in lieu of the actual argument. That's not what's happening here. What's happening is saying that a projection of charact we sheets and monster stats is sufficient to extrapolate results ("A 20th level party that looks on paper like it's going to beat the pants off Tiamat using crazy-high Stealth rolls, paladin smites and potions of Fire Giant Strength, will in fact beat the pants off Tiamat using paladin smites and potions of Fire Giant Strength.") Saying that you're leaving out other relevant detail is just stating facts. You may feel those details don't truly matter, which is where my contention lies.

I find terrain, weather, context and dice to always affect how things go. Hell, what words I use to describe situactions change them, with some of my player base. Hence, I don't accept that looking at the character sheet and monster bloc are enough to play the game, and I don't accept that running just those details gives you a good understanding of the game. That's all.

Oh god(s), not the Tarrasque thread again... look, either rule that Acid Splash needs an attack role, disallow Acid Splash as a spell, make the Tarrasque immune to acid, or just rule that the Tarrasque's spell reflection ought to have been written in such a way as to reflect Acid Splash too. It's clearly an oversight on the designers' parts, one that is easily fixed by a DM and cooperative PCs. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find other monsters with weaknesses that could be exploited to make them easy kills. While not quite as egregious as the Tarrasque example, everbody's had the experience of seeing a lower-level PC beat a higher-CR monster, or a low-CR monster or trap kill a higher-level PC under the right (wrong?) circumstances. Should a Human Commoner's CR be lowered because a Tiny spider could kill him?

Well, I mwan, a tiny spider is still as large as a house cat, right? Seems legit to me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A straw man is when a hollow and oversimplified 'argument'' is presented and argued against in lieu of the actual argument. That's not what's happening here. What's happening is saying that a projection of charact we sheets and monster stats is sufficient to extrapolate results ("A 20th level party that looks on paper like it's going to beat the pants off Tiamat using crazy-high Stealth rolls, paladin smites and potions of Fire Giant Strength, will in fact beat the pants off Tiamat using paladin smites and potions of Fire Giant Strength.") Saying that you're leaving out other relevant detail is just stating facts. You may feel those details don't truly matter, which is where my contention lies.

A straw man is a misrepresentation of a rhetorical opponent's position, which misrepresentation is then refuted in lieu of the actual position.

The Tiamat fight took place in her lair per Rise of Tiamat maps, not a "featureless plain within generic combat distance". I certainly don't think in terms of featureless plains--I think in terms of cities, and the Tarrasque moving between cities through terrain of various types. If any of the terrain types is a deathtrap for the Tarrasque, then that is a failure of the Tarrasque design--I don't want a Tarrasque which is fearsome only as long as it confines itself to deep forests.

 

[Azurewraith]

And that is why Phantom Steed is better for Tarrasque-killing than Fly is. In fact you can kite the Tarrasque indefinitely using only a regular, bog-standard, 60 gp horse. It has 40' movement, +40' for Dash, +20' for legendary action, so 100' total if it's not throwing rocks or anything. Meanwhile you've got 60' + 60' (Mount's Dash) = 120', without any action cost to yourself. After 50 minutes of fighting you can spend 10 minutes summoning a new steed[1] while your current steed runs away from the Tarrasque some more.

The advantage of a Phantom Steed is that it's faster (200' instead of 100' per round, which obviates any potential issues with Legendary Actions if the DM (rightfully) decides that it's stupid for the Tarrasque to slow down when it's only fighting one opponent) and it's disposable, and probably won't get tired out like a regular horse does.

[1] Yes, it's goofy that 5E lets you cast ritual spells from horseback. Yet another example of how good DMing requires foresight--I don't have to actually play out this scenario in an actual game to know that I don't want ritual spells to be cast from horseback. The time to fix it is now, before the game starts.

I cant believe I got to page 7 before someone mentioned this...

I think, if I remember correctly, you can solo at level 1 with a horse and ray of frost?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I cant believe I got to page 7 before someone mentioned this...

I think, if I remember correctly, you can solo at level 1 with a horse and ray of frost?

IIRC Ray of Frost won't work--Tarrasque reflects all spell attacks with a ranged attack roll. In theory you could attempt it with Acid Splash, but in any practical scenario I think it's actually better to wait for level 3 and just rely on Magic Weapon, since Acid Splash has such a low range.

In practice what this means is that the 5E Tarrasque is not a civilization-ending menace against any civilization with both horses and wizards. If you want it to have single-handedly destroyed major ancient civilizations, you need to either (1) rewrite the Tarrasque, e.g. by giving it burrowing and unstoppable regen except via [esoteric weakness procedure]; or (2) make those ancient civilizations totally nonmagical.

The Tarrasque might be able to destroy Puerto Rico because Puerto Rico has no wizards and probably not a lot of large explosive weapons that can do Thunder damage, or ways to do Electrical damage--but it couldn't destroy Waterdeep, because a monster which is even theoretically killable by a 3rd level wizard is definitely killable by a coalition of mid-level wizards. At best, if it surprises everyone, it's going to destroy a section of town while the wizards are getting themselves organized. (Or it might kick off a civil war as various factions vie to take control of it--I'm not well-versed in Waterdhavian faction politics to know if they actually commit violence against each other.)

P.S. I may be twisted, but "6 Champion Fighter PCs try to save Puerto Rico from Godzilla^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe Tarrasque by luring it into jury-rigged electrical death traps" sounds more fun to me than anything else you could do with the 5E Tarrasque.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I seem to recall the Tarrasque having regeneration in previous editions. Wonder why they took it out....would address this very annoying situation, which may technically be accurate, but really really dumb if it ever happened.

 

[Miladoon]

Soloing the Tarrasque with lvl 5 wizard = Math game
Making the Tarrasque your pet = D&D