E
Elderbrain
Guest
- That is only where the NAME, "Gargantua" came from. Read the description of the reptilian Gargantua in the 2e Monster Manual, it is clearly based on Godzilla. And the insectoid Gargantua is based on Mothra!
D&D 5E Is the Tarrasque tough enough?
- Thread starter Quartz
- Start date
- That is only where the NAME, "Gargantua" came from. Read the description of the reptilian Gargantua in the 2e Monster Manual, it is clearly based on Godzilla. And the insectoid Gargantua is based on Mothra!
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
The snark was uncalled for. You're free to disagree,but I wish you'd be more polite about it. I am saying "It's a bipedal creature", in the description, is what lets it do that. It's normally hunched over, but it should be able to stand up and use it's full length in a jump due to it being bipedal.
Even if you use 50 (and I am arguing you can use the length number for a jump) it's 50+25+13= 88, and then you attack. There's no rule I know of to calculate it as 50+15+13. There is no rule I know of that uses your height, and just your height, in any calculation for what you can attack. It's either reach, or the overhead calculation of the jump. And I have no idea why you wouldn't use the overhead calculation for a jump when it involves a jump - it's not just to grab or touch stuff with a jump, the rule is a broad rule for what you can get at with a jump, and that should include attacking.
No I did not. The term "Reach" (capital "R") is a defined term, and the "extend your arm" calculation is not "Reach". This is to account for creatures having particularly long Reach in their attacks. Obviously a creature could be very tall but still only have a 5' Reach, in which case their "extend arm" calculation is just height + 50% of height, and then normal attack within 5'.
Last edited:
It is standing up when it is tall. I cannot help it if you are making stuff up. And yes, when people create stuff out of whole cloth, I can be less forgiving. I apologize.
The 25 is invalid.
X height of creature plus Y reach of creature plus Z jump of creature. All of these are based off of monster description and rules.
50+15+13=78.
The extend your arm calculation is irrelevant because that (and weapon length for non-reach weapons) is what people use when they discuss a creatures 5 foot (or 10 foot or 15 foot) reach.
The word reach means "stretch out an arm in a specified direction in order to touch or grasp something". Where do you think the game designers got this term?
You don't get to stretch the arm out twice, once with reach and once with this make believe 25 feet that you created.
So yes, making the creature taller than the book says, and adding in an additional 25 feet goes a bit beyond houseruling.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
You tell me I am making stuff up, and the next sentence claim to apologize? You have an odd sense of politeness. I am telling you how I would rule it as a DM. You're free to disagree. I'm asking you not be a dick about it though.
Quote for me the rule that says a creature attacks height plus reach plus jump. I've checked it three times, and I find no such rule. The only time height is applied is during a jump, and only height x 1.5, not height x 1. Tell me the rule that mentions height and just height.
Show me a rule that says or implies that. Obviously 75 feet is not 10/15 feet, nor 25 feet, so there seems no correlation there.
It's being used to mean the range of your melee weapon attack from your position. It's a defined term in the game.
Why do you keep saying that? It's IN THE JUMP RULE. The jump rule says 1.5 height. The .5 is the 25 feet. That's the rule. You may disagree about the application of that rule, but stop acting like I made the rule up. If you missed it, OK then go back and read it. If you disagree with my interpretation, OK say that then. But stop with the dickish comments please.
Wait now my reading it that wasn't even houseruling it's what, badwrongfun? What does that even mean, to go beyond houseruling?
I disagree here. Unless you work for a city state, your kingdom will have more than one city.
Sure it's a victory at a high price, but still a victory.
Unless you are saying that winning a war is pointless if only one of your cities is in ruins at the end.
Also note that 100 rounds may sound long, but actually is a mere 10 minutes. Hardly enough to destroy a village even for the tarrasque. There will likely be more damage from secondary sources (such as fires started from the smashed buildings spreading through town) than from the direct damage the tarrasque could inflict in its 10 minute rampage
SilverfireSage
Explorer
Thats an incredibly callous way of looking at it. So it's ok if thousands of people die as long as we killed the beast because there is more than one city? If I was a high level character, my number one priority would be to stop it from killing people. If that happens, I've failed, and anything from then on is just an attempt to mitigate more death.
So you would go home / surrender the war after the first casualty? You would stop trying to put out the fire after the first building collapsed?
Stopping Godzilla in a mere 10 minutes is an amazing feat, even if one block oft Tokio is in ruins. Theres almost nothing anyone could demand to have been done better. Demanding a flawless victory is just unrealistic and silly
Yes, but one cannot use both values: reach of "jump rule", and reach of "reach rule".
If you are trying to "reach above you" to touch something, you can use the 50+25+13=88.
If you are trying to "reach above you" to attack something, you would use the 50+15+13=78.
One does not get to use maximum jumping reach and then add on normal reach to it. Normal reach effectively includes how far from the body a creature can reach in order to attack.
For a 6 foot tall human with 20 Str, adding both reaches means that he can attack 6+3+3+5 = 17 feet into the air, about 5/3 the height of a basketball hoop. Using common sense DM adjudicating that only one of the two reaches can be used means 12 feet for a touch, 14 feet for an attack. Still ridiculously high numbers (the Jump rules do go a bit overboard), but not trying to use two reach rules to nearly double the reach.
Last edited:
SilverfireSage
Explorer
I don't recall ever stating that you should give up after the first casualty, so kindly stop with the straw men. My point is that if you allow the Tarrasque 100 rounds to do whatever he wants when you could have killed it sooner? You've lost. If your house was on fire, would you shoot it with a squirt gun from far away until it was out because that's the "safe" way to do it? I doubt it.
Boarstorm
First Post
Let me see if I can break down the "jump" argument so we can continue to discuss it without talking past one another.
@KarinsDad is interpreting the jump rule to mean that the distance described in the rule is with arms fully extended above his head, so that hand (or claws) barely reach that height.
@Mistwell is interpreting the jump rule to mean that the distance described in the rule is with arms down (so that the height reached is basically shoulder-level), and the creature is able to then use its arms (to the tune of the creature's Reach) to surpass that height.
Do I have that right?
@KarinsDad is interpreting the jump rule to mean that the distance described in the rule is with arms fully extended above his head, so that hand (or claws) barely reach that height.
@Mistwell is interpreting the jump rule to mean that the distance described in the rule is with arms down (so that the height reached is basically shoulder-level), and the creature is able to then use its arms (to the tune of the creature's Reach) to surpass that height.
Do I have that right?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
