D&D 5E Is the Tarrasque tough enough?

[Mistwell]

Let's take something more familiar as an example:

6 foot tall human with 12 Str.

We both agree that he can high jump 4 feet for a total of 10.

We really don't. I've asked you twice for where you get that rule, and you have not responded to that request. I gave up asking where the rule is at that says you add height, and just height, to a jump. If you have a rule that supports that assertion, I'd love to see it. There is nothing I know of, anywhere, that says you add your height to what you can attack above you with a jump, unless you use the jump rules. And the jump rules are quite specific - it's not just height, it's height multiplied by 1.5. There is no rule anywhere that I know of that let's you add you height and Reach, but not height times 1.5, to attack something above you during a jump. Quote me that rule, please. Or don't, and just keep ignoring the request.

As for the rest of your post, you disagree with my interpretation, but then claim it's not a reasonable interpretation because you disagree with it. To me, that's unreasonable. And it was particularly unreasonable when you said it was not just an interpretation, and not just a house rule, but "beyond" a house rule and "making stuff up". At the point where I am arguing with a guy whose point seems to be "agree with me or I dismiss you", I don't see why it's productive to go on with this debate. I've explained how I view the rule, you've explained how you view the rule, our views differ, let's just leave it at that.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, ridiculous that it can only jump 13ft? which is barely anything considering how big it is. Which you could say is a omission in the PHB but that is the player's handbook. You dont play 70ft long creatures. They added more monsters to the MM, instead of Monster rules.

Is it ridiculous? A normal person can typically only running jump 1 plus foot off the ground. A 6 foot athlete would typically be able to get 2 foot jump, 6 feet height, plus 2 feet reach to barely reach a basketball hoop at 10 feet. Some athletes can get higher (average NBA vertical leap is 28 inches, Michael Jordan could do 48 inches).

Granted, 5E has super jumps with guys in plate mail and 20 str jumping and reaching 8+6+3=17 feet in the air.

But a creature being able to running jump 13/50 = 26% of it's height is reasonable. In the real world, humans typically can only running jump between 16% to 33% of their height (some can do a bit better).

And in the real world, the larger and heavier a creature is, the less percentage it can jump. I read somewhere that Elephants cannot jump (actually, they will not jump and cannot be trained to do so, they even step off of platforms and such and do not jump down because of their weight, they always want at least one foot on the ground).

 

[KarinsDad]

We really don't. I've asked you twice for where you get that rule, and you have not responded to that request.

So, you are claiming that the rule 3 feet plus 1 foot for Str 12 plus 6 foot height of creature is not the highest that creature's head can be off the ground based on the rules?

The creature's head can be higher than this?

 

[SilverfireSage]

I disagree. Stopping the walking apocalypse in 10 minutes is a feat the bards will sing about for ages. Complaining you didn't stop it in 2 minutes is just silly.

Chalk it up to a general failure of the D&D combat system that battles of this magnitude are so laughably short in real time (any boxing match would end in round 1 in D&D)
If the differene between two approaches is a mere 8 minutes, I would certainly chose the way that doesn't risk my life even if the damage to my house would be greater.

The difference isn't in an amount of time, it's in the level of destruction. 8 minutes is a long time for a Tarrasque to smash through a town, and can mean life or death in a fire. I think it's equally silly to think it's ok to attack the Tarrasque in a way that's safe but will take a long time versus attacking it and possibly saving the town because you killed it faster.

 

[Mistwell]

So, you are claiming that the rule 3 feet plus 1 foot for Str 12 plus 6 foot height of creature is not the highest that creature's head can be off the ground based on the rules?

The creature's head can be higher than this?

Don't answer my question with a question. This is the fourth time I've asked, and at this point I think we can all conclude from your silence that you have no answer. For posterity, again, the question is:

"Please show me a rule (anywhere) that says you add your height (and just your height, not 1.5 times your height) to any equation involving what you can attack above you during a jump?"

It's not hard to answer, if you have a rule in mind. It's just "PHB Page X". That's it. Four times, no answer.

 

[KarinsDad]

Don't answer my question with a question. This is the fourth time I've asked, and at this point I think we can all conclude from your silence that you have no answer. For posterity, again, the question is:

"Please show me a rule (anywhere) that says you add your height (and just your height, not 1.5 times your height) to any equation involving what you can attack above you during a jump?"

It's not hard to answer, if you have a rule in mind. It's just "PHB Page X". That's it. Four times, no answer.

I am trying to answer your question. There is no specific single rule, but there are a series of rules that lean towards one interpretation and not the other. You are stuck on "I refuse to accept multiple RAW rules without this one RAW rule being there". When the answer is, there is no RAW rule, but a reasonable adjudication should be possible, then why are you harping on "there is no RAW rule"?


So, let me try again to discuss this with you.

A 6 foot tall human. Does not jump. He has a reach 5 attack.

How high up into the air in feet can he attack a foe (flying creature off the ground) without jumping?

There are no longer squares in 5E, so this is a reasonable question. Maybe it has multiple different answers, but some should be more reasonable than others. 20 feet up is not reasonable.

That's a simple question. Can you give me a simple adjudication for this or not?


Note: You do realize that the next question is: A 3 foot tall halfling. Does not jump. He has a reach 5 attack. How high up into the air in feet can he attack a foe (flying creature off the ground) without jumping?

 

[Mistwell]

I am trying to answer your question. There is no specific single rule, but there are a series of rules that lean towards one interpretation and not the other. You are stuck on "I refuse to accept multiple RAW rules without this one RAW rule being there". When the answer is, there is no RAW rule, but a reasonable adjudication should be possible, then why are you harping on "there is no RAW rule"?

Here is why I am harping on it. This is the standard you set forth in this thread earlier when I tried to interpret how multiple rules fit together with each other in a similar manner:

Must be the advanced math.

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.

So yes, making the creature taller than the book says, and adding in an additional 25 feet goes a bit beyond houseruling.

Are we clear now? You set a standard that very clearly did not tolerate a lack of a precise rule to back up my assertions. When I tried to interpret how two rules fit together, you insulted me repeatedly for doing it. And now it turns out you have been doing the same damn thing this whole time. And you want me to be forgiving of it, despite having explained when you were insulting me that these things make you less forgiving.

There is no rule you're quoting. You're interpreting two rules and trying to piece them together as best you can based on your experience, which is exactly what I was trying to do.

So, let me try again to discuss this with you.

A 6 foot tall human. Does not jump. He has a reach 5 attack.

How high up into the air in feet can he attack a foe (flying creature off the ground) without jumping?

There are no longer squares in 5E, so this is a reasonable question. Maybe it has multiple different answers, but some should be more reasonable than others. 20 feet up is not reasonable.

That's a simple question. Can you give me a simple adjudication for this or not?

I don't know what part of "don't answer my question with a question" was unclear, but don't answer my question with a question. What rule are you claiming supports your position? If it's just how you would rule it given there is no rule to cover it, that's fine, but it makes your earlier nasty bashing of me look pretty damn bad.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't know what part of "don't answer my question with a question" was unclear, but don't answer my question with a question.

Sorry, but if you are not willing to have a discussion, I am not willing to play your stupid games.

 

[Stalker0]

Sorry, but if you are not willing to have a discussion, I am not willing to play your stupid games.

And neither am I...which I why we are going to table this discussion. You both can take it to PMs, but we will leave it out of the thread.

--Stalker0

 

[Eejit]

And in the real world, the larger and heavier a creature is, the less percentage it can jump. I read somewhere that Elephants cannot jump (actually, they will not jump and cannot be trained to do so, they even step off of platforms and such and do not jump down because of their weight, they always want at least one foot on the ground).

The square-cube law obviously cannot apply to such colossal monsters in their magical world, or they wouldn't exist in the first place.