D&D 5E Is the Tarrasque tough enough?

[Jack99]

There is a lot less in this version of the Tarrasque, but PCs are generally packing less heat too. Has anyone actually had a party kill a Tarrasque yet either in campaign or playtesting? The only examples I have seen show level 20 characters doing decent damage at the start but tailing off as 1 by 1 they fall.

Not since 2e

 

[Scorpio616]

How can the Tarrasque do that? Its claws do not look like they have an opposable digit. So even if the Tarrasque could pick up something and even if its arm has enough dexterity to throw something in a meaningful arch its aim would be horrible.

The person running the game makes the decisions on how well it can throw items at long distance targets.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Has anyone here actually seen the Tarrasque in action? I mean, I keep seeing these threads about how easy they are to kill, but has anyone thrown it at their players to see? I would do it, but even I hesitate to be that mean to my level 2 PCs...

 

[Chocolategravy]

They real problem is they stuck an insane CR 30 on it which should put it beyond the abilities of most level 20 parties to deal with at all. Call it what it is, a CR 20-22 monster with many glaring weaknesses brought on by being too big to fit inside a dungeon.

 

[Authweight]

It's not dumb as a brick. There are 1 Int creatures, and even they have some intelligence. It's a standard animal intelligence - it can toss stuff at you if you annoy it, just like any big animal can do.

Here, Rhinos have a 2 Int in the MM, and here is a real life one tossing a warthog:

[video=youtube_share;M8yN1sNxWg8]http://youtu.be/M8yN1sNxWg8[/video]



It's assumed the DM is capable of using the general rules for all things, monsters and PCs. Improvised weapons are part of the rules. So are the shove and grapple action for instance, neither of which are in most monster writeups either. You're not a slave to the write-up, since particularly in this edition the authors give the DM a range of additional tools which are used where appropriate for any encounter.



I would actually, but I am replying to someone who says he goes strictly by the write-up, and strictly by the write-up he can't. And if he is flexible enough to expand beyond the write-up for dropping alchemist fire, then it's fair game to use the improvised ranged attack in response. You don't get it both ways - you can't apply to strict-write-up when it benefits your position, and then flexibility outside the write-up when that pleases you. Either we're strict, or not. He has to pick one.

I don't think int is especially relevant. The issue is the plausibility of the tarrasque being able to chuck rocks or other objects with any sort of accuracy.

In my head, I see the tarrasque flinging things around, but I don't see it as something he can really control or aim. He's a big ugly brute. He smashes things, sure, but he doesn't really have the motor control or finesse to aim a tree at a tiny flying archer 150ft in the air.

Now, this is my interpretation of the tarrasque, and nobody else is obligated to stick by it. But considering there are no ranged attacks listed for it, it doesn't seem especially unreasonable to decide the tarrasque shouldn't be able to throw things with combat-effectiveness, particularly at aerial targets. The guy with flasks of acid is much more plausible and doable to me than the tarrasque flinging a tree with significant accuracy.

If you take my interpretation, which many people seem to do, the tarrasque has no good defense against a flying archer. That's just factual, I think. So for those of us who find the tarrasque flinging trees improbable, it is worth considering possible tweaks or approaches we can take to make the tarrasque threatening. If you and your players have no problem with the tarrasque flinging trees, then that works for you, but for a lot of us it's an unsatisfactory solution.

 

[Tormyr]

Has anyone here actually seen the Tarrasque in action? I mean, I keep seeing these threads about how easy they are to kill, but has anyone thrown it at their players to see? I would do it, but even I hesitate to be that mean to my level 2 PCs...

Check the video link I posted earlier in the thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb5U_JgZFxQ

 

[Wrathamon]

Uh Godzilla threw Rocks at a giant lobster ... the tarrasque can throw rocks if it needs to. Also, it probably can jump really high to eat you.

In addition, any large thing it throws doesnt have to be accurate ... the aoe is super large. Make your Dex save for half damage.


edit: is it tough enough? no, it should have its regeneration that it always had. And, it would be cool to list cool "stunts" it could do from being so large. oh it knocked a castle on you or just stepped on you not knowing you were there take 40d6 blungeon damage

 

[KarinsDad]

Uh Godzilla threw Rocks at a giant lobster ... the tarrasque can throw rocks if it needs to. Also, it probably can jump really high to eat you.

Different genre and different medium.

In addition, any large thing it throws doesnt have to be accurate ... the aoe is super large. Make your Dex save for half damage.

Interesting. Unlike Champions, D&D does not have a rule to hit a given "square" or "hex" (TMK, course, I do not have the rules for giant boulders in front of me).

edit: is it tough enough? no, it should have its regeneration that it always had. And, it would be cool to list cool "stunts" it could do from being so large. oh it knocked a castle on you or just stepped on you not knowing you were there take 40d6 blungeon damage

Agreed.

I would definitely look at older versions and other rules before running an encounter with a Tarrasque. If it is not one of the most awesome solos that a group of PCs encounters, I would not be doing it right.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think int is especially relevant. The issue is the plausibility of the tarrasque being able to chuck rocks or other objects with any sort of accuracy.

In my head, I see the tarrasque flinging things around, but I don't see it as something he can really control or aim. He's a big ugly brute. He smashes things, sure, but he doesn't really have the motor control or finesse to aim a tree at a tiny flying archer 150ft in the air.

Now, this is my interpretation of the tarrasque, and nobody else is obligated to stick by it. But considering there are no ranged attacks listed for it, it doesn't seem especially unreasonable to decide the tarrasque shouldn't be able to throw things with combat-effectiveness, particularly at aerial targets. The guy with flasks of acid is much more plausible and doable to me than the tarrasque flinging a tree with significant accuracy.

Sure. The 5e solution for "not so good at that task" is disadvantage. So give the tarrasque disadvantage to hit with an improvised boulder it's tossing at a flying target. It still has a +16 to +19 to attack with a thrown improvised weapon (rock), disadvantage makes that roughly +11 to +14 to attack with the boulder.

It will still kill that lower-level target before it can kill the tarrasque with something minor like arrows or acid or alchemist fire or a cantrip, which is really the only situation we're trying to address.

If instead we're talking about a high level flying wizard shooting fireballs and bolts of real power, then OK that wizard should have a shot at beating the thing. But the low level archer or shlub with buckets of acid? No.

 

[Mistwell]

Different genre and different medium.

Godzilla is the basis for the Tarrasque, and I have no idea why "used in the medium of film instead of the medium of printed text" is an applicable response in this instance.