Yet the reason why the adventurer gets away (unless other creatures join the combat, even if they are on his side) is not because the DM decides that the narrative would be better (although he might certainly believe that, too), but because the rules say that under this circumstances the Tarrasque moves slower.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E I have something... THE TARRASQUE!
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Yet the reason why the adventurer gets away (unless other creatures join the combat, even if they are on his side) is not because the DM decides that the narrative would be better (although he might certainly believe that, too), but because the rules say that under this circumstances the Tarrasque moves slower.
Easy fix :
allow any legendary creature to use its legendary action as a standard action during its own turn.
And allow them to expand all their legendary point in exchange of an increased speed during its own turn.
Basicaly, the Tarasque is able to crush you to a bloody pulp outside its normal turn because what would be simple defensive footwork/parry for you is a earth shaking attack for this kind of creatures. That's why it's legendary : it can destroy a mountain the same way you crush a sandcastle, it fells trees like you walk upon grass and so on.
If you ever need to simulate a human attacking an ant-hill, from the ants point of view, give him legendary status.
Yes, Derren - that makes it a narrativst *rule*, instead of a narrativist GM ruling. If the game itself is said to support narrative, that must be *in the rules* not in stuff the GM does outside the rules.
It is, effectively an automatic throttle on the beastie - when it has already offed a lot of people, it gets toned down (not just in speed, but overall) just a touch. Not much - just an action or two. In the usual case, this is because the thing has already pasted most of the party, and we are running close to TPK.
Toning down a too-tough monster can be considered supporting either or both interesting game play, or interesting story. Thus - don't be so quick to try to shove it into one pigeonhole. The same mechanic can actually serve multiple goals.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
It seems to me that restricting the creature's legendary capabilities to the stature of the challenge it faces is not the intended outcome of the rules (though I could be wrong).
Here's how I'd houserule it. A legendary creature gets his 3 legendary actions per turn. Period. When he is engaged with multiples foes he has to space them out so that they are taking place in a more believable manner (rather than bursting them all at once). He also is benefited by this, since he can adapt to his foes.
If he has 3 or more foes (an assumed situation for a general D&D adventure) he can only take one action at the end of each creature's turn. If he has less foes, he can take more than one action at the end of their turn. If he's only fighting one opponent--too bad for that poor critter, because the legendary creature will take all three of his legendary actions at the end of their turn.
Here's how I'd houserule it. A legendary creature gets his 3 legendary actions per turn. Period. When he is engaged with multiples foes he has to space them out so that they are taking place in a more believable manner (rather than bursting them all at once). He also is benefited by this, since he can adapt to his foes.
If he has 3 or more foes (an assumed situation for a general D&D adventure) he can only take one action at the end of each creature's turn. If he has less foes, he can take more than one action at the end of their turn. If he's only fighting one opponent--too bad for that poor critter, because the legendary creature will take all three of his legendary actions at the end of their turn.
If you want to rationalize it that way to yourself fine. Too bad that it doesn't work that way with the Sphinx.
I really wonder why some people feel the need to start arguing about it with rather questionable arguments "Its narrative because thats exactly how I would narrate!" instead of just saying "Yes, its gameist, but I do not mind/I like it because..."
They seem to take criticism of 5E rather personally.
By the way, I just saw that the Sphinx could kill the Tarrasque easily as the Tarrasques weapons are not considered magical and Freedom of Movement should take care of the swallow attack.
Last edited:
Nothing personal about it. I just found the criticism to be weak, using loaded terms that tended to limit one's thinking on the matter.
If the sphinx is in within reach at the end of its own turn, and the tarrasque chomps, then the tarrasque will then get its own turn to swallow before the sphinx can escape by teleport or spending movement with Freedom of Movement.
Freedom of Movement will mean it isn't restrained while swallowed (so, it won't suffer disadvantage, and so on), but as written, it still must do 60+ points of damage in a single round in order to get regurgitated. While it is possible for it to do that much damage, it isn't guaranteed. The sphinx isn't immune to the acid, so it has about four rounds to get free.
And, if it does manage to get out, and keeps fighting, it may get swallowed again, and have to go through the whole thing all over.
That was more to showcase the lack of magical weapons on the tarrasque. But as long as the Sphinx moves away from the Tarrasque after attacking it should be fine.
Last edited:
Michael Morris
First Post
Both the sphinx and tarrasque require magical weapons to hit. In previous editions there was a global rule stating that creatures requiring magic to be damaged could damage other creatures with that same resistance property. I would be surprised if that rule wasn't in 5e.
If it was, why list that the weapon count as magical in the Sphinx's entry?
Michael Morris
First Post
To save space most likely. Surely the sphinx isn't the only monster with that attribute.
Similar Threads
