D&D 5E RE: Tarasque vs. 5th lv. Wizard scenario - how does Wizard know to use Acid Splash?!?

[sidonunspa]

lets look at the Storm Giant...

they have a 29 Str and can throw a rock for 4d12+9.......... so the Tarrasque should be able to pick up and throw a structure that deals, at least, 4d12+10

btw, the Storm Giant is Huge.. the Tarrasuqe is Gargantuan, so if we use pure strength lift capacity they should do 6d12+10 (Double the weight, add 2d12 to be nice, I would make it 8d12+10)

congrats... a small brick building deals 6d12+10 on a successful hit

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the whole point of this scenario is to prove they didn't do a very good job building the monsters in this edition.

Of course, theorycraft proves little. What matters is how the creature acts in play. And in play, I think this is probably fine. The acid splash damage feels like an option of last resort to do something, and it works for what it's worth. Everyone else is doing *more* to the creature. And flight + acid splash isn't the silver bullet it seems like on paper (ready an action to move 40 ft. when the wizard comes close enough to acid splash, legendary action at the end of the wizard's turn to move another 20, HEY GUESS WHO IS IN MELEE...if it gets another legendary action, go ahead and swat Captain Concentration Spell! If the wizard is at the very limit of their fly, maybe take a double move...if you're T, you probably only need to hit that mosquito ONCE to knock it out of the sky, and an OA will do that for you).

A high level monster should be able to deal with flying enemeis with abilities in his stat block.

I think this is a debatable proposition. A monster should be a challenge to the party with their stat block. A wizard buzzing around and dropping d6 acid bombs isn't going to save the day here in practice.

 

[Elderbrain]

Re: The point of the thread

What I wanted discuss was NOT whether the Wizard can or can't kill Mr. T using the Fly/Acid Splash tactic, but whether it was acceptable for a Player to attempt it at all given that his PC couldn't know that the Tarasque is harmed by acid and lacks regeneration. It's the same as if the Players had their PCs go to town and buy silver weapons, and when asked why, said "To use against Devils", thereby revealing that the Players have read the MM info about Devils taking damage from such... a no-no, in my book, unless they acquired the info in-game.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

NOT[/b] a flying boulder or wagon from a monster. We have monsters who do that already. Why you would fall back on a rule in the PHB that clearly doesn't apply and ignore the monsters who already do a similar ability strikes me as very odd.

Took the words right out of my virtual internet-mouth.

 

[Klaus]

The DMG has a whole Improvising Damage section (pg 249), calling out those times when *monsters* do unexpected stuff. I'd go with that:

A tarrasque scooping up a Gargantuan handful of debris and flinging it at a pesky wizard looks to me like being "hit by falling rubble in a collapsing tunnel", which is listed as dealing 4d10 damage. Monsters get their attack values either by their CR, or by the same formula as PCs (ability score + proficiency bonus). Since this is an "improvised" attack, the tarrasque doesn't get it's full +19 to hit (+10 Str and +9 proficiency), and instead gets the flat +14 for a CR 30 creature. As for range, you could add the tarrasque's 15-foot reach to the improvised weapon long range of 60 feet (making it 35/75). Alternatively, you could borrow the range of a storm giant boulder (60/240).

After going through all this, the numbers we get (+14, 4d10 damage) is pretty close to the Hurl Rock ability of a storm giant (who's merely CR 13), so it wouldn't be out of place for a DM to just use those stats. If something by-the-books is preferred, though, you can stick to +14, 4d10 damage, range 20/60 or 35/75.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Personally, if I ever need to know what the Tarrasque can move I'll just ask myself "Could Godzilla Do It?"

I see this kind of sentiment come up a lot when discussing the tarrasque. And it confuses me. What does godzilla have to do with it? The tarrasque is a historical European myth and it's many times smaller and weaker than godzilla. It's like asking what a Fighter can lift up and considering "Could Herakles do it?"

 

[Fanaelialae]

I see this kind of sentiment come up a lot when discussing the tarrasque. And it confuses me. What does godzilla have to do with it? The tarrasque is a historical European myth and it's many times smaller and weaker than godzilla. It's like asking what a Fighter can lift up and considering "Could Herakles do it?"

Smaller, yes, although given that the MM denotes it as being 50 ft tall, 70 ft long, and weighing hundreds of tons, it's still really big. Weaker, I'm not so sure about. It's Gargantuan sized with a Strength of 30. Based on RAW, that's as strong as anything in the 5e world can ever be (because anything bigger than Huge is Gargantuan, and 30 is as high as ability scores go). It's a creature of legend just as Herakles was a man of legend. As such, I consider Godzilla a much better analog to the Tarrasque than Herakles to a Fighter.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Smaller, yes, although given that the MM denotes it as being 50 ft tall, 70 ft long, and weighing hundreds of tons, it's still really big. Weaker, I'm not so sure about. It's Gargantuan sized with a Strength of 30. Based on RAW, that's as strong as anything in the 5e world can ever be (because anything bigger than Huge is Gargantuan, and 30 is as high as ability scores go). It's a creature of legend just as Herakles was a man of legend. As such, I consider Godzilla a much better analog to the Tarrasque than Herakles to a Fighter.

Godzilla is not 50 feet tall. Godzilla is hundreds of feet tall. And just because the tarrasque has maximum D&D strength doesn't mean it's as strong as godzilla. Might as well say it's got the strength of Superman if you go by that logic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Godzilla is not 50 feet tall. Godzilla is hundreds of feet tall.

I already said that Godzilla is bigger.

And just because the tarrasque has maximum D&D strength doesn't mean it's as strong as godzilla. Might as well say it's got the strength of Superman if you go by that logic.

I'm really not interested in debating with you what percentage of strength one fictional monster has versus another. That wasn't my point at all. My point was that the tarrasque is really strong, and you could easily use another really strong monster as as basis for what it might be capable of, rather than use the encumbrance rules which don't work well in this instance.

The tarrasque IS supposed to be a walking cataclysm after all. I don't think it's unreasonable that a creature of legendary destruction would possess monumental strength appropriate to such a purpose.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Godzilla is not 50 feet tall. Godzilla is hundreds of feet tall. And just because the tarrasque has maximum D&D strength doesn't mean it's as strong as godzilla. Might as well say it's got the strength of Superman if you go by that logic.

depends on which Godzilla you're talking about. Either way, not sure what it has to do with a tarrasques ability to throw a wagon, boulder, or whatever. Do you disagree that a tarrasque can do that?