D&D 5E Has anyone fought and killed a Tarrasque?

[FormerlyHemlock]

It can destroy any civilization that doesn't have magic, since it's entirely immune to non-magical attacks. It could destroy the modern US, for example, though it would take a while.

Technically this isn't quite true, since for reasons that make no sense to me (and therefore don't count when I'm DMing), Crawford has ruled that non-magical weapon immunity doesn't protect you from falling damage. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/31/immunity-to-bludgeoning-does-take-damage-from-falling/ So the modern U.S. military just has to trick the Tarrasque onto... a mountainside, or the Grand Canyon, after it's rigged with explosives. Any given fall will only cause 20d6 damage, so you have to make sure the fall is broken up into many little falls of around 200' each. Falling a total of 2000' or so should kill it.

Also, there's thunder/lightning damage. (What damage type should an Oxygen Destroyer do? Force?)

 

[Ashrym]

It can destroy any civilization that doesn't have magic, since it's entirely immune to non-magical attacks. It could destroy the modern US, for example, though it would take a while.

The game makes no assumption about the availability of magic weapons or the rarity of spellcasting classes, beyond assuming that player can play a wizard or cleric unless the DM says otherwise. The Tarrasque, as written, could easily destroy a significant subset of possible civilizations. It could even have been created by a magical civilization for the purpose of destroying a neighboring non-magical civilization.

That's not true because magic isn't the only source of damage that can hurt the Tarrasque or give kiting ability. Granted, that's a heck of a lot of vials of acid for the direct approach, but a person shouldn't sell the indirect approach short.

Luring it away from the town will save more lives than attacking it in the town. Luring it some place like a sea side cliff or tar pits would be a typical approach for a giant monster like that. Elephants are on the equipment list and big enough that they are allowed to use the shove action on something that size if appropriately trained or skilled with animal handling in order to knock it off that cliff or into those tar pits. It's even possible to bury the Tarrasque in enough rubble that it doesn't have the strength to get out or to get it lost.

This isn't a game in which we simply compare hit points to damage. It never has been as much as that's what's often demonstrated on internet forums.

EDIT: [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] ninja'd me

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So the modern U.S. military just has to trick the Tarrasque onto... a mountainside, or the Grand Canyon, after it's rigged with explosives. Any given fall will only cause 20d6 damage, so you have to make sure the fall is broken up into many little falls of around 200' each. Falling a total of 2000' or so should kill it.

Dropping rocks, in the form of a mountainside, is just bludgeoning damage from improvised weapons. You could drop the ground out from under it, to make it take fall damage, but it's probably just going to take a nap after the first three instances in a day. You can't exactly goad it into a high place when it's immune to your prod.

That's not true because magic isn't the only source of damage that can hurt the Tarrasque or give kiting ability. Granted, that's a heck of a lot of vials of acid for the direct approach, but a person shouldn't sell the indirect approach short.

Acid vials don't have sufficient range to be a threat, and I'm not sure enough could be created within any given community to actually kill it. It's not like anyone in a fantasy setting has a factory to crank this stuff out, although maybe a modern country could get one of those firefighting helicopters to try dousing the thing.

In any case, the point remains: The Tarrasque could be as dangerous as it's portrayed, if you don't assume easy availability of magic (or sufficiently-advanced technology).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Dropping rocks, in the form of a mountainside, is just bludgeoning damage from improvised weapons. You could drop the ground out from under it, to make it take fall damage, but it's probably just going to take a nap after the first three instances in a day. You can't exactly goad it into a high place when it's immune to your prod.

Dropping rocks isn't the plan. As I said already, you'd want to lure it onto a mountainside or the Grand Canyon, then get it to fall a total of about 2000' feet, with no individual fall being more than 200' so that you don't waste any falling damage. Yes, this would involve blasting charges. No, you wouldn't rely on the Tarrasque moving where you need it to go, and you wouldn't give it a chance to nap.

Not that the U.S. military would ever fight a Tarrasque in the first place.

Another method is to drown it.

Incidentally, its carrying capacity is absolutely pathetic (on the order of only three tons maximum) so dropping a mountainside on it isn't as bad of an idea as you might think. Eventually it will starve to death, IIRC in less than a week.

Acid vials don't have sufficient range to be a threat, and I'm not sure enough could be created within any given community to actually kill it. It's not like anyone in a fantasy setting has a factory to crank this stuff out, although maybe a modern country could get one of those firefighting helicopters to try dousing the thing.

In any case, the point remains: The Tarrasque could be as dangerous as it's portrayed, if you don't assume easy availability of magic (or sufficiently-advanced technology).

Dangerous to a community? Sure. Dangerous to a civilization? Not likely. Not for any civilization that would be worth remembering a thousand years later. Nobody cares if the Tarrasque destroys a civilization of impoverished goatherds living in the middle of the Sinai. The Tarrasque is only interesting if it's famous for destroying Atlantis or Netheril or Elvenhome or some other civilization that a PC would actually care about--which means it needs a rewrite.

Unstoppable-without-Wish Regen + no restrictions on fear aura + Immutable Form + burrowing is probably sufficient.

 

[Ashrym]

In any case, the point remains: The Tarrasque could be as dangerous as it's portrayed, if you don't assume easy availability of magic (or sufficiently-advanced technology).

It's not particularly dangerous regardless if people simply flee and leave behind livestock for it to eat or by luring it away, as mentioned. Nearly 200 rounds of kiting it certain isn't doing much to save the town from destruction unless it is being lured away. The luring part is not part of the magic.

If the Tarrasque ignores the small amount of damage the wizard is doing then it's still going to be dangerous to everything around it. And that still assumes kiting isn't interrupted by damage or obstruction. One round of attacks is going to slaughter that 5th wizard when he or she takes 80 damage in that one round so it doesn't seem to not be dangerous.

Eventually, even an animal is going to look for cover or safety to hide from damage if it is starting to get injured and that's going to put an end to the kiting too because line of sight for targeting the Tarrasque comes into play if to goes to ground. You seem to be spending too much time focusing on what cannot be done to really consider what can be done.

 

[Maxperson]

Technically this isn't quite true, since for reasons that make no sense to me (and therefore don't count when I'm DMing), Crawford has ruled that non-magical weapon immunity doesn't protect you from falling damage. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/31/immunity-to-bludgeoning-does-take-damage-from-falling/ So the modern U.S. military just has to trick the Tarrasque onto... a mountainside, or the Grand Canyon, after it's rigged with explosives. Any given fall will only cause 20d6 damage, so you have to make sure the fall is broken up into many little falls of around 200' each. Falling a total of 2000' or so should kill it.

Also, there's thunder/lightning damage. (What damage type should an Oxygen Destroyer do? Force?)

Yeah. I saw that ruling and have the same opinion of it that you do.

 

[discosoc]

Interesting responses. One thing that stands out is how many people consider it weaker than it's presented because of "cheese" rules that can be used to kill it. In a vacuum, I'd agree. But in the context of the thing rampaging through a city, is it really a "win" if the city is leveled and tens of thousands of people while a 5th level mage or whatever, kills it in 200 turns of kiting?

I mean, mechanically it's a victory, but as a GM I'd definitely play up on the feeling of "victory at what cost?" thing. To me, it's the kind of monster that wins, even if it loses.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Interesting responses. One thing that stands out is how many people consider it weaker than it's presented because of "cheese" rules that can be used to kill it. In a vacuum, I'd agree. But in the context of the thing rampaging through a city, is it really a "win" if the city is leveled and tens of thousands of people while a 5th level mage or whatever, kills it in 200 turns of kiting?

People are expendable. Cities are expendable. If the monster can't rampage across the countryside with impunity, then it's not living up to the image it's trying to present, which is that of the unstoppable beast against which resistance is useless.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Interesting responses. One thing that stands out is how many people consider it weaker than it's presented because of "cheese" rules that can be used to kill it. In a vacuum, I'd agree. But in the context of the thing rampaging through a city, is it really a "win" if the city is leveled and tens of thousands of people while a 5th level mage or whatever, kills it in 200 turns of kiting?

(1) It can't kill tens of thousands of people in 200 turns.
(2) If it's eating thousands of people, there's probably more than just a single 5th level mage attacking it. So it won't last 200 turns.

 

[Ashrym]

People are expendable. Cities are expendable.

Sounds like your characters are a bit uncaring. Not that there's anything wrong with that if that's the type of character you want to portray but I think that would be an opinion that varies. Personally, my characters are rarely portrayed like that. For them, the entire point of facing the Tarrasque in the first place would be to save as much as they could instead of consider that which they are saving expendable.

Mind you, I still never actually see the Tarrasque because DM's prefer the concept and preventing the Tarrasque from ever appearing. After some thought in this discussion I'm wondering if it has just as much to do with the Tarrasque not living up to concept as it does with keeping the truly mythic as mythic.