D&D 5E Is the Tarrasque tough enough?

[Authweight]

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.

First off, saying "well the tarrasque is bad at throwing so he has disadvantage" doesn't work very well. As you point out, even with disadvantage the tarrasque will still be pretty accurate when throwing stuff. I'm saying that in my vision of the tarrasque, the tarrasque is NOT good at throwing stuff. That's the whole point. I would say the tarrasque throwing something is more like I would roll a die to figure out where it lands, and you need to save to avoid damage. It certainly wouldn't be an attack roll made at +16, with or without disadvantage.

Now, you don't have to interpret it my way. Your tarrasque might be a skilled thrower. That just doesn't fit my idea of how the tarrasque works though, and I don't think that my interpretation is deeply unreasonable.

Also, I would argue that a high-level wizard being able to solo a tarrasque is almost as big a problem as a low-level wizard soloing a tarrasque. In actual play, few low-level wizards are going to be fighting the tarrasque, so whether or not they can do it isn't that big a deal. The bigger problem is that what is supposed to be a major campaign-ending behemoth can potentially be trivialized by a single level 20 character. No single level 20 character, all on their own, should be able to solo the tarrasque with little risk to themselves. If they can, then the tarrasque doesn't really work as it seems like it should.

Here are the ways I would deal with the tarrasque:

1) Not use the tarrasque. Figure that a non-ranged brute just isn't an appropriate challenge for high level characters.

2) Give the tarrasque a ranged attack, possibly a breath attack sort of ability. That would knock pesky flyers out of the air.

3) Give the tarrasque regeneration and/or some sort of damage reduction. Or more abilities to punish ranged attacks. New defensive capabilities to weaken gnat tactics to the point of uselessness.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

If Godzilla is the basis for the Tarrasque, it would have a cool blue breath weapon. Quote your source.

According to wikipedia, it's based on the French legend of the Tarasque:

Tarrasque

Tarasque


As for media, how many good D&D films have there ever been? Some genres work well in film (Godzilla), some do not (D&D).

 

[jadrax]

Also, it probably can jump really high to eat you.

The Jumping Rules in 5e allow you to 'jump an unusually long distance' with a Strength (Athletics) Ability Check.

With Strength bonus of +10, the Tarrasque is pretty good at this.

 

[Mistwell]

If Godzilla is the basis for the Tarrasque, it would have a cool blue breath weapon. Quote your source.

According to wikipedia, it's based on the French legend of the Tarasque:

Tarrasque

Tarasque


As for media, how many good D&D films have there ever been? Some genres work well in film (Godzilla), some do not (D&D).

It was described as "Godzilla's fantasy cousin", and Mearls posted a picture of it saying "Sorry, there's no summon jaeger spell to deal with... The tarrasque!"

Of course he's referring to the movie that took the concept of Godzilla and ran with it. He's also responded repeatedly that he's fine with the idea of it throwing rocks and such, and so has Rodney Thompson.

 

[KarinsDad]

It was described as "Godzilla's fantasy cousin", and Mearls posted a picture of it saying "Sorry, there's no summon jaeger spell to deal with... The tarrasque!"

Of course he's referring to the movie that took the concept of Godzilla and ran with it. He's also responded repeatedly that he's fine with the idea of it throwing rocks and such, and so has Rodney Thompson.

None of what you posted here supports your claim that the "Godzilla is the basis for the Tarrasque".

Godzilla might be the basis for some 5E Tarrasque artwork, but that wasn't your claim.

Godzilla might also be the basis for how some 5E designers envisioned the 5E Tarrasque, but that also wasn't your claim.

Do you wish to clarify what you meant?

 

[Wrathamon]

oh look it has a tower in its hand ... it tosses it in your area.

What type of attack is a tower falling from the sky? D&D does have rules for hitting large areas.
hmm... sounds like a number of spells that affect and area and we have spells that do this and they appear to be make a save or take damage. 1/2 damage on a miss. I am sure the idea that not all monsters are going to have rules for every weird thing they can do listed. As giant things can knock things over we need to apply DM common sense and modify something for the situation.

If a flying archer is pelting the monster with magic arrows ... the monster isnt just going to stand there and go I m a dumb monsters so I am just going to stand here and let you kill me.

It is going to either A do something to swat the fly that is irritating it, or B run away from the harassing bee and flee the area, the honey just ain't worth it.

If your vision of the Tarrasque is a monster that cant grab things (picture above shows me that isnt the case), then your vision can alter it in anyway you want to allow it to swat flying or really fast characters that it needs to. It has a reallly long tail ... and get smashed into the side of the castle as it turns around.

If a player said to me Big T cant toss a tower on me, cause it isnt listed in a stat block, I would show the picture above and say "oh he just smashed a tower and it happen to fly in your direction. It happened to be a vault with an antimagic field inside of it so your flying carpet turns off." Not only did you get hit by a giant tower, and knocked off your magic carpet, your falling and you splat on the ground.

And yes its based on a french legend meets godzilla. It has been since it was created. I think they didnt give it a breath weapon cause that was too obvious and it probably made it feel more like a dragon and they didnt want that.

 

[KarinsDad]

And yes its based on a french legend meets godzilla. It has been since it was created.

Evidence for this claim?

Not yet

"The tarrasque is a creature of French myth. It first appeared in the MM2, written by Francois Marcela Froideval."

Still not yet


The closest thing I can find is an article written in 2012 entitled "Tarrasque, Godzilla's AD&D" (probably a translation error, it probably means "Tarrasque, AD&D's Godzilla"), hardly an early source. The article does not have a single source to back up its claim and the translation is a little sketchy. It does state that it got some of its information from the web forum Dragonsfoot. Again, not exactly evidence of anything.


I suspect that a lot of people here believe that the Tarrasque was developed as a Godzilla-like creature and maybe it was. Who can say what the influences are on monster manual monsters in the mind of a designer? It's original incarnation didn't look too much like Godzilla. Nor is it's motivation Godzilla-like. It appears to exist to eat.




This really does appear to be an urban myth, probably propagated by gamers.

 

[Mistwell]

Godzilla might also be the basis for how some 5E designers envisioned the 5E Tarrasque, but that also wasn't your claim.

Yes, that was my claim. In case it's ever unclear, I am always talking about 5e in a thread labelled 5e, unless I specify otherwise. I've never made a claim about the Tarrasque of any other edition.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, that was my claim. In case it's ever unclear, I am always talking about 5e in a thread labelled 5e, unless I specify otherwise. I've never made a claim about the Tarrasque of any other edition.

Thanks for clarifying.

Although you might want to just add an adjective or two in the future: "Godzilla is the basis for the 5E Tarrasque" would have saved you two less clear posts. Specific over generic.

 

[Tormyr]

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.

First off, saying "well the tarrasque is bad at throwing so he has disadvantage" doesn't work very well. As you point out, even with disadvantage the tarrasque will still be pretty accurate when throwing stuff. I'm saying that in my vision of the tarrasque, the tarrasque is NOT good at throwing stuff. That's the whole point. I would say the tarrasque throwing something is more like I would roll a die to figure out where it lands, and you need to save to avoid damage. It certainly wouldn't be an attack roll made at +16, with or without disadvantage.

Now, you don't have to interpret it my way. Your tarrasque might be a skilled thrower. That just doesn't fit my idea of how the tarrasque works though, and I don't think that my interpretation is deeply unreasonable.

My understanding is that if a creature has an weapon attack listed in its stat block then it has proficiency in that weapon. Since the Tarrasque does not have a Rock attack, but several people including Mearls have no trouble with it having the giants' rock attack, why not simply not give it proficiency in the rock attack? That would subtract 9 from its to hit instead of the average 5 from disadvantage. So a rock attack could look like

Rock Ranged Weapon Attack: +10 to hit, range 60/240 ft., one target. Hit: 36 (4d12 + 10) bludgeoning damage.

As for a high-level, wizards, what would it do? Fireballs won't work. Bolts usually require an attack roll which means they are ineffective and might get reflected back.