New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    What the title says. The tarrasque is unthreatening if you can fly up 60 ft, as it has no ranged attacks. What are some modifications to it (ranged attacks, flight, something else?) you have to keep a wizard from flying up and casting dominate monster, Binding, etc spells on it until it fails it's SR and save?
    Last edited by Evoker; 2018-05-25 at 07:30 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Vancouver <-> Dublin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Copy-pasting an earlier attempt... Tried to adhere to the 3.5 version somewhat, while still revamping a few key things (dragon type, breath weapon, antimagic, and immunities); n.b. I balanced it around CR 20 like the original rather than making it a CR 100 god-killing entity. I decided against making it an abomination (Divine Rank 0) or giving it DR/epic, as it should be feasible to defeat it without epic weapons.


    TARRASQUE
    COLOSSAL DRAGON
    Hit Dice: 48d12+816 (1,128 hp)
    Initiative: +11
    Speed: 100 ft. (20 squares), burrow 100 ft., climb 100 ft., swim 100 ft.
    Armor Class: 33 (+3 Dex, +20 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 30
    Base Attack/Grapple: +48/+81
    Attack: Bite +65 melee (4d8+17)
    Full Attack: Bite +65 melee (4d8+17) and 2 horns +65 melee (1d10+8) and 2 claws +65 melee (1d12+8) and tail slap +65 melee (3d8+8)
    Space/Reach: 30 ft./30 ft.
    Special Attacks: Breath weapon, improved grab, pounce, swallow whole, terrifying presence
    Special Qualities: Carapace, darkvision 60 feet, hardness 20, immortality, immunity to sleep and paralysis, low-light vision, scent, spell resistance 58
    Saves: Fort +38, Ref +29, Will +28
    Abilities: Str 45, Dex 16, Con 35, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 14
    Skills: Climb +23, Intimidate +53, Jump +96, Listen +53, Spot +53, Swim +23
    Feats:Improved Initiative, Improved Multiattack, Multiattack, Preternatural Grace x4
    Epic Feats: Epic Toughness x6, Multiattack Rend, Superior Initiative
    Environment: Any
    Organization: Unique
    Challenge Rating: 20
    Treasure: None
    Alignment: Neutral
    Advancement: -
    Level Adjustment: -

    A creature of unspeakable might, sent by the gods themselves solely to destroy...

    The Tarrasque is near-divine in its power and inscrutability. It emerges from its eons of hibernation only to lay waste to civilisations that have displeased the deities.

    Although it is intelligent and comprehends an unknown number of languages, the Tarrasque never speaks.

    Combat Abilities
    The Tarrasque is swift and brutal in combat, charging to devour foes quickly.

    The Tarrasque's natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as adamantine for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and hardness.

    Breath Weapon (Su)
    Pulse of destructive power affecting everything within one mile, once every 1d4 rounds, damage 12d6 force, Reflex DC 51 half; creatures and objects reduced below 0 hit points by the force are completely disintegrated. The pulse also dispels magic and suppresses magic items as if by greater dispel magic (caster level 48th). The save DC is Constitution-based.

    Carapace (Ex)
    The Tarrasque's hide is imbued with protective magic, and generates a field that counters other magic. The Tarrasque benefits from constant inherent death ward, freedom of movement, mind blank, and true seeing effects (caster level 48th). Additionally, a counterspell attempt is made against any spellcasting within one mile of the Tarrasque as if by greater dispel magic (caster level 48th).

    Hardness (Ex)
    The Tarrasque's hide is as hard as adamantine. Subtract 20 from any damage it takes (whether physical, magical, or energy-based attacks), except for the damage from adamantine weapons. Halve the damage from ranged weapons before applying this hardness.

    Immortality (Ex)
    The Tarrasque heals naturally every round rather than every day. It may heal ability drain in this way as though it were ability damage, and regenerates lost limbs and organs every 1d4 rounds. If reduced below 0 hit points the Tarrasque continues to heal in this way, and may only be permanently slain by reducing it to -10 hit points and casting wish or miracle.

    Improved Grab (Ex)
    To use this ability, the Tarrasque must hit a Huge or smaller opponent with its bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can try to swallow the foe the following round.

    Pounce (Ex)
    If the Tarrasque charges a foe, it can make a full attack.

    Swallow Whole (Ex)
    The Tarrasque can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of Huge or smaller size by making a successful grapple check. Once inside, the opponent takes 2d8+8 points of crushing damage plus 2d8+6 points of acid damage per round from the Tarrasque’s digestive juices. A swallowed creature can cut its way out by dealing 50 points of damage to the tarrasque’s digestive tract (AC 25). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out. The Tarrasque’s gullet can hold 2 Huge, 8 Large, 32 Medium, 128 Small, or 512 Tiny or smaller creatures.

    Terrifying Presence (Ex)
    The Tarrasque is a truly awe-inspiring creature. Once each round it may make an Intimidate check as a free action against all creatures that can see, hear, or otherwise perceive it. Enemies that fail this check are shaken for 1d4+1 rounds (stacking up to panicked as normal for multiple failed checks). Remember that as a Colossal creature, the Tarrasque has a +16 bonus on Intimidate checks against Medium creatures. This is an exceptional fear effect.

    Skills
    The Tarrasque has a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on Climb checks, even if rushed or threatened. It also has a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform some special action or avoid a hazard. It can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered. It can use the run action while swimming, provided it swims in a straight line.

    New Feats
    Multiattack Rend [Epic]
    You can tear your foes limb from limb.

    Prerequisites
    Dex 15, base attack bonus +9, three or more natural attacks, Improved Multiattack, Multiattack.

    Benefit
    If you hit an opponent with two or more natural weapons in the same round, you may automatically rend the opponent. This rending deals additional damage equal to the base damage of the smallest weapon that hit plus 1 ½ times your Strength modifier. You can only rend once per round, regardless of how many successful attacks you make.

    Preternatural Grace
    You move with an agility that belies your size.

    Prerequisites
    Large size or larger, Dex 12.

    Benefits
    For the purposes of Armour Class and attack rolls, you are treated as being one size category smaller than your actual size (to a minimum of Medium).

    Any penalty to your Dexterity score from advancing your size (e.g. from enlarge person or from advancing your racial Hit Dice) is reduced by 2.

    Special
    You may select Preternatural Grace more than once. Its effects stack.
    Last edited by rferries; 2018-05-25 at 07:33 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Great, thanks. Now much more of a threat to anyone with flight.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    Breath Weapon (Su)
    Pulse of destructive power affecting everything within one mile, once every 1d4 rounds, damage 12d6 force, Reflex DC 51 half; creatures and objects reduced below 0 hit points by the force are completely disintegrated. The pulse also dispels magic and suppresses magic items as if by greater dispel magic (caster level 48th). The save DC is Constitution-based.
    1. I'm not sure what I can compare "everything within one mile" with, but I am sure that it is not a description of a breath weapon.
    2. The image I'd expect of the Tarrasque is of a terrible beast that rampages through villages and town, plowing down poor helpless people. Such weapon obliterates a typical town's population in a single round. That's not even cinematic, just plain boring.

    You should give it range and shape of a regular breath weapon (cone/line), or even a special shape, such as ray/explosion... anything that has a direction. Multiple options are also legitimate.
    You should also state that this is not the beast's preferred weapon and is only used when all perceived targets are beyond its reach.



    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    Carapace (Ex)
    The Tarrasque's hide is imbued with protective magic, and generates a field that counters other magic. The Tarrasque benefits from constant inherent death ward, freedom of movement, mind blank, and true seeing effects (caster level 48th). Additionally, a counterspell attempt is made against any spellcasting within one mile of the Tarrasque as if by greater dispel magic (caster level 48th).
    Even when one wants to make a monster significantly more powerful, the enhancements should be in context.
    I don't see how true seeing has anything to do with the creature's hide or with its theme. This is not story-telling oriented.

    Also, counterspell vs. any spellcasting within one mile is excessive. Way excessive.



    Other notes:

    - Since it's a colossal dragon, it should have Tail Sweep option.
    - If the creature's only purpose is to destroy, its Int should be way lower than 10. Such high Int would definitely make it abandon it's calling eventually.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Vancouver <-> Dublin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evoker View Post
    Great, thanks. Now much more of a threat to anyone with flight.
    Glad you like it! Feel free to adapt it further, in line with Nonsi's ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    1. I'm not sure what I can compare "everything within one mile" with, but I am sure that it is not a description of a breath weapon.
    There's precedent here for the shape (see an iron golem's breath weapon), the mile is simply a very extended range,
    2. The image I'd expect of the Tarrasque is of a terrible beast that rampages through villages and town, plowing down poor helpless people. Such weapon obliterates a typical town's population in a single round. That's not even cinematic, just plain boring.
    This is more of a Godzilla-themed Tarrasque, with all the atom-bomb association that entails.

    You should give it range and shape of a regular breath weapon (cone/line), or even a special shape, such as ray/explosion... anything that has a direction. Multiple options are also legitimate.
    You should also state that this is not the beast's preferred weapon and is only used when all perceived targets are beyond its reach.
    These can certainly be added. Note that the breath weapon is less damaging than the breath weapons of true dragons of equivalent CR.

    Even when one wants to make a monster significantly more powerful, the enhancements should be in context.
    I don't see how true seeing has anything to do with the creature's hide or with its theme. This is not story-telling oriented.
    The carapace is defense-oriented; in this case the true seeing is a defense against illusions. Think of it simply as natural armour imbued with energy that protects the Tarrasque's mind (mind blank, true seeing), body (freedom of movement), and soul (death ward). Plus I was simply too lazy to write up special qualities for each of these abilities, so I lumped them all together :D

    Also, counterspell vs. any spellcasting within one mile is excessive. Way excessive.
    No real difference to PCs, as they'll be engaging it at much closer range anyways. It simply provides an "epic" feel.

    Other notes:
    - Since it's a colossal dragon, it should have Tail Sweep option.
    It's not a True Dragon.

    - If the creature's only purpose is to destroy, its Int should be way lower than 10. Such high Int would definitely make it abandon it's calling eventually.
    That can definitely be adjusted, I just set it at that so I wouldn't have to calculate how to divide its skill points.
    Last edited by rferries; 2018-05-26 at 04:23 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    There's precedent here for the shape (see an iron golem's breath weapon), the mile is simply a very extended range,
    An exhalation of a 10' cloud of poisonous gas makes perfect sense to me.
    An exhalation of a 1-mile dispelling disintegration force-field is too far of a stretch for my suspension of disbelief to handle.


    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    This is more of a Godzilla-themed Tarrasque, with all the atom-bomb association that entails.
    Godzilla is cool.
    - Godzilla turned out benevolent.
    - Godzilla's breath weapon – despite its Colossal+ size – was roughly a 10'-wide line (maybe 15').
    - Godzilla used its breath weapon 3 times in the entire movie (4 if my memory fails me, but definitely not more than that), and its effect was maxed out when it grappled the Muto (I'd love to see a suggested rule for that).


    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    These can certainly be added. Note that the breath weapon is less damaging than the breath weapons of true dragons of equivalent CR.
    It's not the damage output that bothers me, but the fact that it contradicts the image of what I'd expect the Tarrasque to be doing.
    The Tarrasque is the ultimate terror on legs. There's no terror in annihilating everything in a 1-mile radius, just plain destruction, and it conflicts with the beast's instinct to lash out in a violent rampage.
    Also, if no one survives to tell the world of the horror, then the gods have failed in the creation of the instrument for delivering the message of exacting punishment.


    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    The carapace is defense-oriented; in this case the true seeing is a defense against illusions. Think of it simply as natural armour imbued with energy that protects the Tarrasque's mind (mind blank, true seeing), body (freedom of movement), and soul (death ward). Plus I was simply too lazy to write up special qualities for each of these abilities, so I lumped them all together :D
    . . .
    No real difference to PCs, as they'll be engaging it at much closer range anyways. It simply provides an "epic" feel.
    The Tarrasque being impervious to mental manipulation is perfectly within reason of being a tool of punishment that cannot be diverted from its calling.
    That said, I find no justification in making it impervious to deception.
    Add to that the nonsensical* counterspell ability, and confrontations with the monster are reduced to "pump up now, bar brawl later". This doesn't leave a lot of room for combat tactics and would most likely lead to long and boring encounters.

    * There isn't a precedence in the history of RPG (nor do I believe there ever will officially be) of counterspelling:
    1. Without expending action resources
    2. Without expending daily resources
    3. That affects more than one target at a time




    That said, this is your creation and if you're happy with it, leave it as it is.
    .

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evoker View Post
    What the title says. The tarrasque is unthreatening if you can fly up 60 ft, as it has no ranged attacks. What are some modifications to it (ranged attacks, flight, something else?) you have to keep a wizard from flying up and casting dominate monster, Binding, etc spells on it until it fails it's SR and save?
    1. In newer editions, the Tarrasque comes with a gravity field that prevents flight in quite a large radius.

    2. It wouldn't be difficult to give the Tarrasque the Boulder Throw ability, edited, copied and pasted from giants.

    3. If you take the Godzilla-Tarrasque route, be sure the players have hints at the very least that the Tarrasque is not what the book claims to be. No need to reveal EXACTLY what it can do, but a breathweapon should leave traces in its wake, as well as visual effects around the mouth when it is angry.

    4. +57 to Hit bonus on its bite, +81 on its free-grapple-check-that-don't-require-another-to-hit-roll.

    Meanwhile, I dug up a "lvl 20 True Samurai" (couldn't find a stock lvl 20 fighter, should check the first D&D for dummies) here: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Narcon...ade_(3.5e_NPC)

    AC 41, Grapple at +29

    So the Tarrasque hit with a -16 on its attack roll (a roll of 1 always miss), and if it rolls a 2 on its FREE opposed grapple check, the samurai only needs a natural roll of 54 to not be grappled, and then another natural 50+ roll not to be swallowed.

    That is, unless the Tarrasque also grabs the rogue and cleric. Then, if the Tarrasque rolls a 2, the True Samurai only needs a natural 14. Thank gods for that -20 stackable penalty!

    Now, you want to remove the party's only viable option to fight it. Why would you play this abomination of a game anywhere past level 6?
    I mean, Epic 6 exists for a reason!

    http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/E6_(3.5e_Sourcebook)


    EDIT: Also, what is the maximum height the Tarrasque can jump? How high does it jump on a Nat 1? I fear the rules for jump height are crippling (or else the fighter'd have a nice thing), but it might be worth looking into.
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-05-27 at 05:07 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Vancouver <-> Dublin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    An exhalation of a 10' cloud of poisonous gas makes perfect sense to me.
    An exhalation of a 1-mile dispelling disintegration force-field is too far of a stretch for my suspension of disbelief to handle..
    Haha well it IS magic... the main point is, this circumvents most of the traditional Tarrasque weaknesses (e.g. lack of ranged attacks, vulnerability to an incorporeal allip, etc.).

    Godzilla is cool.
    - Godzilla turned out benevolent.
    - Godzilla's breath weapon – despite its Colossal+ size – was roughly a 10'-wide line (maybe 15').
    - Godzilla used its breath weapon 3 times in the entire movie (4 if my memory fails me, but definitely not more than that), and its effect was maxed out when it grappled the Muto (I'd love to see a suggested rule for that).
    This is my age showing, but I'm talking about the original Japanese films, where Godzilla could destroy skyscrapers and huge monsters with his breath.

    It's not the damage output that bothers me, but the fact that it contradicts the image of what I'd expect the Tarrasque to be doing.
    The Tarrasque is the ultimate terror on legs. There's no terror in annihilating everything in a 1-mile radius, just plain destruction, and it conflicts with the beast's instinct to lash out in a violent rampage.
    Also, if no one survives to tell the world of the horror, then the gods have failed in the creation of the instrument for delivering the message of exacting punishment.
    Yeah, so you had a good suggestion about the breath weapon only being used at DM's discretion.
    The Tarrasque being impervious to mental manipulation is perfectly within reason of being a tool of punishment that cannot be diverted from its calling.
    That said, I find no justification in making it impervious to deception.
    The true seeing can be deleted, but many creatures at that CR are already immune to mental manipulation anyways (see demons).

    Add to that the nonsensical* counterspell ability, and confrontations with the monster are reduced to "pump up now, bar brawl later". This doesn't leave a lot of room for combat tactics and would most likely lead to long and boring encounters.

    * There isn't a precedence in the history of RPG (nor do I believe there ever will officially be) of counterspelling:
    1. Without expending action resources
    2. Without expending daily resources
    3. That affects more than one target at a time
    The auto-counterspell was a weaker version of a colossi's antimagic field. Do note that despite the caster level, a greater dispel magic has a maximum bonus on the dispel check of +25. The caster level can be reduced further as appropriate, the idea is to prevent spellcasters from using the standard "silver bullet" tactics on the Tarrasque.

    That said, this is your creation and if you're happy with it, leave it as it is.
    All your suggestions are good! It's just that since this is an older piece of homebrew I'm reposting, I'm not going to bother editing it (very lazy haha). It's intended more as potential inspiration for OP or anyone who sees it, they're free to edit it to suit their campaigns.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by rferries View Post
    All your suggestions are good! It's just that since this is an older piece of homebrew I'm reposting, I'm not going to bother editing it (very lazy haha). It's intended more as potential inspiration for OP or anyone who sees it, they're free to edit it to suit their campaigns.
    Got it. Say no more

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorum View Post
    1. In newer editions, the Tarrasque comes with a gravity field that prevents flight in quite a large radius.
    That is a very good suggestion.
    I'd restrict the effect to counter magical flight (as in imposing gravity) but not wing-propelled flight, because winged creatures experience gravity to full effect (they just overcome it via aerodynamics).



    Quote Originally Posted by Gorum View Post
    2. It wouldn't be difficult to give the Tarrasque the Boulder Throw ability, edited, copied and pasted from giants.
    That could work as well (with such claws, it could have an endless supply of boulders), but the image of a breath weapon for opponents it can't reach seems more appropriate for the mother of all terrors (line/ray/exploding bullet could be equally viable, using rferries' suggested breath-weapon effects).

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    WIP

    TARRASQUE
    COLOSSAL DRAGON (Apocolypes Beast)
    Hit Dice: 25d12+300 x8 (2452 hp)
    Initiative: +11
    Speed: 100 ft. (20 squares), burrow 100 ft., climb 100 ft., swim 100 ft.
    Armor Class: 50 (+5 Dex, +35 natural), touch 15, flat-footed 45
    Base Attack/Grapple: +25/+58
    Attack: Bite +45 melee (4d8+17)
    Full Attack: Bite +45 melee (4d8+20, 18-20/x3) and 2 horns +45 melee (2d8+20, x4) and 2 claws +45 melee (3d6+20) and tail slap +45 melee (4d6+20)
    Space/Reach: 80 ft./50 ft.
    Special Attacks: Apocalypse Roar, Engine of Destruction, improved grab, Maw of Eternity, Primeval Savagery, Swallow Whole, Stellar Mass, Terrifying Presence
    Special Qualities: Divinity Blessed Carapace, Darkvision 100 feet, Eternal , immunity to sleep and paralysis, low-light vision, scent, spell resistance 45
    Saves: Fort +38, Ref +29, Will +28
    Abilities: Str 50(+20), Dex 20(+5), Con 35(+12), Int 10(+0), Wis 14(+2), Cha 14(+2)
    Skills: Climb +23, Intimidate +53, Jump +96, Listen +53, Spot +53, Swim +23
    Feats:Improved Initiative, Improved Multiattack, Multiattack, Preternatural Grace x4
    Epic Feats: Superior Initiative, Mighty Multiattack
    Environment: Any
    Organization: Unique
    Challenge Rating: 25
    Treasure: None
    Alignment: Neutral
    Advancement: -
    Level Adjustment: -
    14
    A creature of unspeakable might, sent by the gods themselves solely to destroy...

    The Tarrasque is near-divine in its power and inscrutability. It emerges from its eons of hibernation only to lay waste to civilizations that have displeased the deities. The tarrasque is 180 feet tall and lumbers at a hunch due to the weight of its body. The weight of the tarrasque is so great that it has its own gravitational field. The places the tarrasque walks are imbeded with 6-12 foot deep craters. The tarrasque avoids loose soil such as sand to avoid being subsumed by the sands.

    Although it is intelligent and comprehends an unknown number of languages, the Tarrasque never speaks.

    Combat Abilities
    The Tarrasque is swift and brutal in combat, charging to devour foes quickly.

    The Tarrasque's natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as adamantine for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and hardness.

    Apocalypse Roar (Su)
    The Tarrasque unleashes a roar infused its raw will to destroy, affecting everything within a quarter mile, once every minute, damage 12d6 force, Reflex DC 40 half; creatures and objects reduced below 0 hit points by the force are completely disintegrated. The roar also dispels magic and suppresses magic items as if by greater dispel magic (caster level 12th).
    Alternatively, the roar can be a cone doubling range, damage, recovery time, and dispel caster level, or as a 20ft wide line, quadrupling range, damage, recovery time, and dispel caster level.
    The save DC is Constitution-based. Save DC is reduced by 2 per 100ft away from the tarrasque.

    Divinity Blessed Carapace (Ex)
    The Tarrasque’s armor-like carapace is exceptionally tough and blessed by the gods, any magic effect has a 50% chance of not penetrating its carapace before checking for spell resistance. If an effect fails to penetrate the carapace there is a 30% chance it will be redirected to the a random target in range of the spell using the tarrasque as the point of origin. As an immediate action the tarrasque may instead return the spell to the caster using the tarrasque as the point of origin.

    The Tarrasque's carapace is as harder then adamantine. Half any damage taken then subtract 20 from any damage it takes (whether physical, magical, or energy-based attacks). The damage from adamantine weapons is still halved, but is not subject to the 20 reduction.. Halve the damage from ranged weapons before applying this hardness. The tarrasque's carapace provides a natural armor bonus equal to its permanent constitution score. The tarrasque is immune to changes in pressure.

    Engine of Destruction (Ex)
    The Tarrasque through the raw force of moving its body overcomes all but the most resilient obstacles as if they were not even there. Only structures made of adimantine or similar hardness material at least 1/16th its height or liquids at least 1/4th its height count as difficult terrain. The tarrasque adds their strength modifier to any save vs an effect that would be prevented by freedom of movement. Any effect that does not allow a save normally the tarrasque may make a save DC 10 + 1/2 the source's HD + related ability score modifier.

    Eternal (Ex)
    The Tarrasque heals naturally every round rather than every day. It may heal ability drain in this way as though it were ability damage, and regenerates lost limbs and organs every 1d4 rounds. If reduced below 0 hit points the Tarrasque continues to heal in this way, and may only be permanently slain by reducing it to -10 hit points and casting wish or miracle. Even this only returns it to the earth, to return in a later age. Additionally the terrasque dose not need to breathe.

    Improved Grab (Ex)
    To use this ability, the Tarrasque must hit a Huge or smaller opponent with its bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can try to swallow the foe the following round.

    Maw of Eternity (Ex)
    The Tarrasque consumes the primal energies that formed the universe and which give existence its form. Any object digested by a tarrasque is subject to Mage's Disjunction. If an object is destroyed or creature is killed by the tarrasque's swallow whole they consumed wholly and cease to exist as their energies are re-purposed. Only divine beings with a rank 21+ can restore beings destroyed in such a way. The tarrasque acquires all sustinance from this process and does not require normal food or water. The tarrasque’s claws threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 18-20, dealing triple damage on a successful critical hit.

    Primeval Savagery (Ex)
    A Tarrasque makes all its natural attacks as a standard action not a full-round action, and when able to make a single attack normally the tarrasque can instead make an attack with each natural weapon.

    Swallow Whole (Ex)
    The Tarrasque can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of Huge or smaller size by making a successful grapple check. Once inside, the opponent takes 10d8+8 points of crushing damage plus 10d8+6 points of acid damage per round from the Tarrasque’s digestive juices. A swallowed creature can cut its way out by dealing 50 points of damage to the tarrasque’s digestive tract (AC 25). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out. The Tarrasque’s gullet can hold any number of creatures as it is a modified dimensional space.

    Stellar Mass (Ex)
    The Tarrasque's mass is so great it actually effects the gravity around it. In 8 miles liquids have a mild tidal effect. At 4 miles there is a marked shift in any waters, tides always are high on the side of the tarrasque. At 2 miles there is a noteable pull to the tarrasque imposing a -2 penalty to all movement based effects and efforts to move objects away and all things treat the direction of the tarrasque as -7.5% grade. At 1 miles the effect penalty is -4 and grade increase to -15%. At 1/4 mile (1320ft) the effect penalty is -4 and grade increase to -30%. At 1320ft the effect penalty is -8 and grade increase to -45%. At 660ft the effect penalty is -10 and grade increase to -67.5%. At 330ft the effect penalty is -12 and grade increase to -75%. At 165ft the effect penalty is -14 and grade increase to -87.5%. At 80ft the effect penalty is -16 and grade increase to -90%.

    Terrifying Presence (Ex)
    The Tarrasque is a truly awe-inspiring creature. Once each round it may make an Intimidate check as a free action against all creatures that can see, hear, or otherwise perceive it. Enemies that fail this check are shaken for 1d4+1 rounds (stacking up to panicked as normal for multiple failed checks). Remember that as a Colossal creature, the Tarrasque has a +16 bonus on Intimidate checks against Medium creatures. This is an exceptional fear effect.

    Titanic Form (Ex)
    The Tarrasque health total is multiplied by 8 after totaling rolls. Creatures smaller than huge cannot be targeted individually. Attacking with bite targets 20ft square with the target in one of the center squares, claws target a 15ft cone, gore attacks can be done on individual large creatures and effect a 15ft line, Tail sweep is a 60ft cone. For these area attacks the targets must reflex save DC 42 (10+ 1/2 HD + Strength mod). On a natural 1 the Tarrasque's attack was a critical.

    Skills
    The Tarrasque has a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks and can always choose to take 10 on Climb checks, even if rushed or threatened. It also has a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform some special action or avoid a hazard. It can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered. It can use the run action while swimming, provided it swims in a straight line.

    Mighty Multiattack [Epic]
    Even your secondary attacks receive your full force.
    Prerequisite: HD 21, Multiattack, Improved Multiattack, Strength 15
    Benefit: Secondary weapons gain full strength bonus to damage rolls
    Normal: You only add half strength to secondary natural weapons.
    Last edited by Lanth Sor; 2018-06-01 at 12:07 PM.

    My Homebrew: Here
    Competitions and Substystem Compendium: Here
    Mythos Stuff
    Index Discord

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanth Sor View Post
    [*snip*]
    Seems way higher than CR 20 to me. This guy can mop the floor with a pit fiend.

    Apocalypse Roar:
    The ability to roar shouldn't be a repeating attack. It's an iconic way to start combat, but other than that it defies one's expectations of the rampaging beast. I'd limit this to once every 10 minutes.
    Also, the ranges are insane and pointless. 240' radius roar (almost 3 times the creature's height) is more than enough. It still gives you 480' cone and 960' line. No way you'll need more than that.


    Maw of Eternity:
    Bad Mojo.
    even way into epic, an encounter with your suggested Tarrasque has a high probability of ending with fatalities. Not being able to revive could really ruin a player's day.


    Reflective Carapace:
    I'd say NO to reflecting cone attacks. Reflection should only affect direct attacks, not AoE effects of any sort.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    That is a very good suggestion.
    I'd restrict the effect to counter magical flight (as in imposing gravity) but not wing-propelled flight, because winged creatures experience gravity to full effect (they just overcome it via aerodynamics).
    While the gravity field is a fairly popular suggestion, it's also kind of outside the tarrasque's theme in the same way other "magical effects in a massive radius" abilities are; "unstoppable engine of physical destruction...and also you can't fly near it" doesn't quite gel.

    What I think works better is some sort of Inhale ability that draws creatures and objects to the tarrasque in a big line or cone, and if they're close enough pulls them all the way into its mouth. This is both more effective at solving the issue of flight (the problem isn't specifically that they're flying, but that they're too far away for the tarrasque to reach, so forcing creatures closer is better than forcing them down) and more thematic (the tarrasque wants to eat things, now he can eat more things at once!).

    Plus, if you want to give the tarrasque a breath weapon, having Inhale be a prerequisite to using it is great synergy. Just breathing out death and destruction every 1d4 rounds is one thing, but giving people a whole round of "Holy crap, it's gonna breathe next round and we're all gonna die, RUN!" really reinforces the terrifying reputation.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Why not just give it a pulsed magic disruption field along with a low level destructive field. Something like....

    Bane of Mortals: The Tarresque was built as a tool to keep the mortals subjugated to their gods, and to prevent them from advancing far enough to discard their gods. The Tarresque's most fearsome ability is a pulsing field of reality revision within which mortals and their tools are slowly erased from existence. All man-made objects and structures within one half mile of the Tarresque take one point of damage per round, which cannot be blocked or reduced in any way. All mortals within the radius of the Tarresque's Bane of Mortals ability take the same unblockable one damage per round, and this damage cannot be healed while within the range of the Bane of Mortals ability. All spell effects with a duration longer than 1 round are dismissed at the beginning of the Tarresque's turn.


    This keeps a single theme (An unstoppable punishment from the gods that undoes the work of arrogant mortals), while keeping the beast itself largely physical in terms of combat. It also allows for the slow and inevitable doom, while giving high level characters a chance to act without being disintegrated -- high optimization PCs can fight it while lower optimization PCs can still run from it without instantly dying. The ability can even be used to explain the Tarresque's insane regeneration / lifespan, if you fluff it as a parasitic type of ability. The ability might have to be reworded a bit for clarity, but I think the idea comes through.
    Last edited by Demidos; 2018-05-30 at 01:28 PM.
    My Homebrew:
    WIP
    The Fortunar Base Class: A Fortuneteller wielding a minor Deck of Many Things. Mid T3.

    Completed Classes
    The Grandmaster : A master of animated stattuettes and tactical magic. High tier 3.
    The Hidden Word: An infiltrator with a wide range of abilities that works best in small teams. Tier 2-3
    Web-Spinner: A martial class based around using webs. Mid T3.
    The True Warrior: A swift mundane martial combat class that can dodge and slice their way to victory. Low Tier 3.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    What I think works better is some sort of Inhale ability that draws creatures and objects to the tarrasque in a big line or cone, and if they're close enough pulls them all the way into its mouth. This is both more effective at solving the issue of flight (the problem isn't specifically that they're flying, but that they're too far away for the tarrasque to reach, so forcing creatures closer is better than forcing them down) and more thematic (the tarrasque wants to eat things, now he can eat more things at once!).

    Plus, if you want to give the tarrasque a breath weapon, having Inhale be a prerequisite to using it is great synergy. Just breathing out death and destruction every 1d4 rounds is one thing, but giving people a whole round of "Holy crap, it's gonna breathe next round and we're all gonna die, RUN!" really reinforces the terrifying reputation.
    Full disclosure:
    I hate the concept of the Tarrasque.
    I hate the balance of 3.0 / 3.5 / 3.pf at these levels. (just write "Hit and grab on a 2 unless the GM says so).
    I love that idea.

    I would personally make the inhale ability an effect centered on the Tarasque that cause a fairly hard fly check for characters of its level followed by a moderate Fortitude save to not be pulled toward it, flying or not, by 30 feet. I would also set the direction it faces AFTER every check it triggered is resolved, allowing the breath in a 180° arc. Which includes directly up.

    This way, a team that remains close to the Tarrasque is rewarded with the ability to move out of the way of the breath weapon, while those who spellsnipe from afar end up prone and a lot closer.

    Add the Boulder Throwing ability and a scary jump check, and the Tarrasque becomes as dangerous to the spellsniper as it is the melee fighter.

    Now, all you have to do is to make the rest of the party relevant. And I'm doubtful a natural attack roll of 2 giving a result of 67, with an improved grab of +81 (good luck matching that, Bob-the-quasi-epic-fighter), the "swallow whole" ability and a reach longer than a dwarf's double move is compatible with that goal.

    But that's just me.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorum View Post
    Full disclosure:
    I hate the concept of the Tarrasque.
    I hate the balance of 3.0 / 3.5 / 3.pf at these levels. (just write "Hit and grab on a 2 unless the GM says so).
    I love that idea.
    I aim to please.

    I would personally make the inhale ability an effect centered on the Tarasque that cause a fairly hard fly check for characters of its level followed by a moderate Fortitude save to not be pulled toward it, flying or not, by 30 feet.
    That's one good approach. Another one, to emphasize the "force of nature" theme, is to simply use wind effects for its breath, specifically hurricane-force winds. It already takes into account varying creature sizes, whether creatures are flying or not, and such, and treating it as wind means the various wind resistance/immunity of weather-themed classes and monsters apply nicely.

    And then maybe its breath weapon can optionally come with tornado-force winds in addition to the normal effects, so it could e.g. inhale creatures from one direction and blow them out in another direction or just blow small buildings to kindling like the Big Colossal Bad Wolf.

    Now, all you have to do is to make the rest of the party relevant. And I'm doubtful a natural attack roll of 2 giving a result of 67, with an improved grab of +81 (good luck matching that, Bob-the-quasi-epic-fighter), the "swallow whole" ability and a reach longer than a dwarf's double move is compatible with that goal.

    But that's just me.
    It's not as bad as all that, really. The tarrasque has a +57 attack bonus for its bite, sure, but it also has Power Attack, and could PA its attacks down from +57 for 4d8+17 all the way to +9 for 4d8+65 if it really wanted to, or more reasonably somewhere in the middle like +33 for 4d8+41, so just like a fighter with PA it can turn all that excess attack bonus into damage and actually stands a chance of missing in the process--and, given that it's not the sharpest sword in the armory, it's more likely to swing for the fences and hope for massive damage than to carefully calculate hit chances like a PC fighter might.

    And while getting swallowed whole is basically inevitable, 4d8+14 damage per round isn't all that dangerous at the levels you'd expect to face Big T in combat, and a prepared party buffed with resist energy (acid) or the like can cut that in half, giving a swallowed character plenty of time to get out.

    I do agree that its base stats are a liiiittle on the ridiculous side, and a hypothetical revised tarrasque should drop the numbers a bunch in favor of more interesting capabilities, but getting into melee with Big T isn't exactly a death sentence as it is.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    That's one good approach. Another one, to emphasize the "force of nature" theme, is to simply use wind effects for its breath, specifically hurricane-force winds. It already takes into account varying creature sizes, whether creatures are flying or not, and such, and treating it as wind means the various wind resistance/immunity of weather-themed classes and monsters apply nicely.

    And then maybe its breath weapon can optionally come with tornado-force winds in addition to the normal effects, so it could e.g. inhale creatures from one direction and blow them out in another direction or just blow small buildings to kindling like the Big Colossal Bad Wolf.
    I took the time to go to the link in order to destroy your argument as 3.5 / 3.PF is horribly flawed and all I could come up with is that a DC 20 might be slightly on the low side. A level 20 character has a base save of +6 (or better since progressions scale), a positive Con Modifier (either naturally or magically enhanced) and should have a protective item such as a cloak of Resistance.

    Unless built like a retard, even an otherwise frail wizard should succeed on a 7. This makes the Paladin virtually immune. I'd at least make the save partial by increments of 5. 20 means Blown Away > Knocked Down, 25 means Blown Away > Checked and 30 means Blown Away > No Effect.

    On a save of 20+, the class ability Mettle gives +5.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    It's not as bad as all that, really. The tarrasque has a +57 attack bonus for its bite, sure, but it also has Power Attack, and could PA its attacks down from +57 for 4d8+17 all the way to +9 for 4d8+65 if it really wanted to, or more reasonably somewhere in the middle like +33 for 4d8+41, so just like a fighter with PA it can turn all that excess attack bonus into damage and actually stands a chance of missing in the process--and, given that it's not the sharpest sword in the armory, it's more likely to swing for the fences and hope for massive damage than to carefully calculate hit chances like a PC fighter might.
    Spoiler: The Tarrasque as actually discussed here
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanth Sor View Post
    Base Attack/Grapple: +48/+81
    Attack: Bite +65 melee (4d8+17)
    Full Attack: Bite +65 melee (4d8+17) and 2 horns +65 melee (2d8+8, x4) and 2 claws +65 melee (3d6+8, 18-20/x2) and tail slap +65 melee (4d6+8)
    Space/Reach: 80 ft./50 ft.
    (...)
    Feats:Improved Initiative, Improved Multiattack, Multiattack, Preternatural Grace x4
    Epic Feats: Epic Toughness x6, Multiattack Rend, Superior Initiative


    First: The one as a Work in Progress is shown as having +65. This means trading 8 points of Power Attack brings it down to the original Tarrasque Level.

    Second: Neither this present rework of the Tarrasque, nor the original, even HAS Power Attack.
    EDIT: The original do have Power Attack. More on this in next post.


    Third: Power Attack is meant to be used primarily in 4 situations, none of which should apply to the Tarrasque. At least, not to the level it gives the Bob the Fighter a chance.
    1: You're almost certain to hit. No need to waste yet another attack on a target with a lot of HP but poor AC, like a Zombie. The idea is still to hit more than 3/4 of the time, so no reason to burn it down by 24.
    2: You're almost certain to miss. If you're going to hit on a Nat 20 only, better make the hit count.
    3: Your target has reasonably high DR. Since EVERY hit is affected by DR, it makes sense to sacrifice what would be "barely hit" to make sure the average damage roll increases.
    4: You're losing. This is a last gambit thing. If you're about to fall, try to take a huge bite out of your foe.

    Of course, if the DM don't meta, he should have the Tarrasque try stuff and correct its course. If one of its attacks get deflected, chances are it would be more careful and lower the Power Attack trade-off. Similarly, if its attacks connect but inflict little to no damage, it should start Power Attacking.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    And while getting swallowed whole is basically inevitable, 4d8+14 damage per round isn't all that dangerous at the levels you'd expect to face Big T in combat, and a prepared party buffed with resist energy (acid) or the like can cut that in half, giving a swallowed character plenty of time to get out.

    I do agree that its base stats are a liiiittle on the ridiculous side, and a hypothetical revised tarrasque should drop the numbers a bunch in favor of more interesting capabilities, but getting into melee with Big T isn't exactly a death sentence as it is.
    Oh. I don't mind the damage. It's the control that's messed up.

    The Tarrasque
    A swallowed creature can cut its way out by dealing 50 points of damage to the tarrasque’s digestive tract (AC 25). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out.
    Swallow Whole
    A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is noted in the creature description), or it can just try to escape the grapple.
    Let's assume the fighter got a STR of 30, a +5 short sword, power attacks at -10 to hit, and weapon specialization: Short Swords. Being swallowed whole means you're grappled, so only 1 attack per round. The average attack (3.5 base damage) deals 28.5 damage. This means 2 rounds in the stomach, no time to run away, then a 95% chance to be hit, 95% chance to be grabbed, and it all begin again.

    And that's assuming he always hit an AC 25 stomach. Being in the stomach in the first place means -4 to hit, and Power Attack at -10 means the Fighter 20 probably has 20 Base +1 Weapon Spec. + 5 Weapon enhancement - 4 Grappled Condition - 10 Power Attack. This means he requires a 13 to Hit.

    For argument's sake, let's say the Fighter succeeds 2 attack rolls out of 3. This means that when the Tarrasque bite you and use the Improved Grab feature, you spend 1 round in its mouth, 3 in its stomach, when you finally get out, you do not have a standard action left, move and create an attack of opportunity getting you grabbed (Or don't and have the same thing happens on ITS turn) only to spend 4 more rounds screwed by the grapple action economy.

    Meanwhile, even on the round you get stuck in its mouth, it can attack your allies as it does have Horns, Claws and a Tail Slap. It can then grapple and in-between the fighter's bite-swallow-exit cycles, if needs be, Swallow Whole other party members. The best part? You can't get the wizard out! He has to find his own way out. Grappled wizard (who is the one with the wish spell) with a dagger vs. AC 25, HP 50. GO!

    And all of this isn't even my argument. My argument is that spending all the encounter carving a dozen alternative entryways to the Tarrasque's stomach simply isn't fun. And since the Fighter here was kinda optimized to get out fast, chances are the Tarrasque can realistically get 32 medium creatures in its stomach at once.

    So everyone get to play "carve your way out"! Yay!
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-05-31 at 04:46 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    It's not as bad as all that, really. The tarrasque has a +57 attack bonus for its bite, sure, but it also has Power Attack, and could PA its attacks down from +57 for 4d8+17 all the way to +9 for 4d8+65 if it really wanted to, or more reasonably somewhere in the middle like +33 for 4d8+41, so just like a fighter with PA it can turn all that excess attack bonus into damage and actually stands a chance of missing in the process--and, given that it's not the sharpest sword in the armory, it's more likely to swing for the fences and hope for massive damage than to carefully calculate hit chances like a PC fighter might.
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    (...)and could PA its attacks down from +57 for 4d8+17 all the way to +9 for 4d8+65 if it really wanted to (...)
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm
    Base Attack/Grapple: +48/+81
    Bite +57 melee (4d8+17/18-20/×3)
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm
    On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus.

    ***


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    (...)or more reasonably somewhere in the middle like +33 for 4d8+41(...)
    Amusingly, this is where the Tarrasque is maxed. So I went looking for builds of melee specialists builds at level 20. It's... far scarcer than I would have imagined. Got AM BARBARIAN at 20 base AC, but the build doesn't include magic items.

    So let's go over basic maths. Base 10 + Full Plate Mithral Armor (+9) + Max Dex Bonus (+3) + Enhancement (+5) + Shield, Heavy (+2) + Enhancement (+5) + Ring of Protection (+5) + Amulet of Natural Armor (+5) + Expertise (+5) = 49 AC

    You trade-off most of your offensive abilities so that the Tarrasque hits on a 16 when fully reasonably Power Attacking, and a -8 when it is not. On top of that, you do sacrifice the slot of a Cloak of Resistance +5, have a speed reduced by medium armor and bring your to-hit bonus down by 5 on every attack roll.

    All so you basically become a glorified chew-toy.


    EDIT: The slashed parts came from an ill-conceived perception I had that Power Attack was limited to half your BaB. I stand corrected: The Tarrasque CAN attack at +9 if it so wishes. I can't fathom why it would unless the target was a defenseless commoner, a building or something, but it can.

    I guess one could argue that 3 Int means the creature could keep attacking with maximum penalty as the fighter would seem pretty much the same as the common knight to such a beast, which it managed to hit. After all, if an Int 8-14 human DM is about to do the exact same thing...
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-05-31 at 05:01 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    That said, Paizo (with which I'm fairly more accustomed) really hates martials.

    https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/comba...-combat-final/
    Power attack is inflexible, and limited to 1/4th your BaB +1.

    https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items...earl-of-power/
    The simple fact this item exist.

    http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvvs&pa...-errata-change
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean K Reynolds
    Google how long it takes to craft chain mail or full plate.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    .
    @Gorum: how did you deduce that a swallowed creature is considered grappled after being swallowed?
    The description of Swallow Whole only mentions a Grapple check for the purpose of swallowing. It says nothing about Grapple post-swallow.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    .
    @Gorum: how did you deduce that a swallowed creature is considered grappled after being swallowed?
    The description of Swallow Whole only mentions a Grapple check for the purpose of swallowing. It says nothing about Grapple post-swallow.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Swallow_Whole
    If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent held in its mouth (see Improved Grab), it can attempt a new grapple check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature. Being swallowed has various consequences, depending on the creature doing the swallowing. A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is noted in the creature description), or it can just try to escape the grapple. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker’s mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.
    There it is. And since the Tarrasque don't specify this rule doesn't apply, it does. Don't you love 3.5 and its derivatives?

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorum View Post
    I took the time to go to the link in order to destroy your argument as 3.5 / 3.PF is horribly flawed and all I could come up with is that a DC 20 might be slightly on the low side.
    That's probably because I said "hurricane-force" when I should have said "tornado-force," my bad; I meant for the inhale and exhale strength to be the same. Tornado-force winds have a DC of 30, much more respectable for 20th-level foes.

    That does make it basically impossible for lower-level creatures to save, which is perfectly in keeping with its theme, but what might actually be interesting would be giving it different areas with different wind strengths. A ridiculously-long 180-degree spread of windstorm- or hurricane-force winds and a shorter cone of tornado-force winds, say, so it could really hoover up peasants and small towns or focus its breath against those legendary sorts who can withstand a hurricane.

    First: The one as a Work in Progress is shown as having +65. This means trading 8 points of Power Attack brings it down to the original Tarrasque Level.
    Ah, my bad again. Since you led with how you hated the very concept of the 3.5 tarrasque as presented, I thought you were talking about that one, not the revised one here. But yeah, the tarrasque really doesn't need more attack bonus.

    Third: Power Attack is meant to be used primarily in 4 situations, none of which should apply to the Tarrasque. At least, not to the level it gives the Bob the Fighter a chance.
    1: You're almost certain to hit. No need to waste yet another attack on a target with a lot of HP but poor AC, like a Zombie. The idea is still to hit more than 3/4 of the time, so no reason to burn it down by 24.
    2: You're almost certain to miss. If you're going to hit on a Nat 20 only, better make the hit count.
    3: Your target has reasonably high DR. Since EVERY hit is affected by DR, it makes sense to sacrifice what would be "barely hit" to make sure the average damage roll increases.
    4: You're losing. This is a last gambit thing. If you're about to fall, try to take a huge bite out of your foe.

    Of course, if the DM don't meta, he should have the Tarrasque try stuff and correct its course. If one of its attacks get deflected, chances are it would be more careful and lower the Power Attack trade-off. Similarly, if its attacks connect but inflict little to no damage, it should start Power Attacking.
    Those are all tactical reasons to use PA, but thematically it can also represent a reckless attack that trades accuracy for power. I generally run Big Dumb Brute monsters like hill giants and ogres as PAing for a noticeable amount to start with and describe it as wild and untrained swings, and they'll only start trying for more skill if it's not working. Since Big T is even dimmer than those and would probably know in a vague way that it can PA for a whole bunch and still hit pretty much anything, and PAing for a lot makes building destruction faster, doing the same there makes sense.

    Oh. I don't mind the damage. It's the control that's messed up.
    [...]
    And all of this isn't even my argument. My argument is that spending all the encounter carving a dozen alternative entryways to the Tarrasque's stomach simply isn't fun. And since the Fighter here was kinda optimized to get out fast, chances are the Tarrasque can realistically get 32 medium creatures in its stomach at once.

    So everyone get to play "carve your way out"! Yay!
    Yep, I definitely agree that that's not fun. There are mitigating circumstances, of course (the wizard should probably have dimension door to get out, for instance), but it basically comes back to the tarrasque having far too high of a grapple modifier like everything else. It's entirely possible to make the tarrasque do everything he needs to be able to do with around 20 HD instead of 48 and a lower Str, and dropping the grapple modifier from +81 to somewhere in the +40s makes it challenging but not stupidly impossible.

    (Incidentally, a great wyrm red dragon has exactly the same problems that the tarrasque does. A 45 Str, 40-some HD, a grapple bonus above +70, very high AC with very low touch AC, etc. But where the tarrasque has "eats people, is immune to most targeted spells, can't be killed easily" the red dragon has 19th-level sorcerer casting, so hey, at least the tarrasque isn't that bad. )
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Ah, my bad again. Since you led with how you hated the very concept of the 3.5 tarrasque as presented, I thought you were talking about that one, not the revised one here. But yeah, the tarrasque really doesn't need more attack bonus.
    I know you're probably just being polite, but no need to apologize. +57 is ridiculous enough, the 8 points difference doesn't make a dent in the argument. It applies no matter which of the two versions you pick.

    All that being said, it makes me appreciate the concept of bounded accuracy worked in the 5th Edition.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Those are all tactical reasons to use PA, but thematically it can also represent a reckless attack that trades accuracy for power. I generally run Big Dumb Brute monsters like hill giants and ogres as PAing for a noticeable amount to start with and describe it as wild and untrained swings, and they'll only start trying for more skill if it's not working. Since Big T is even dimmer than those and would probably know in a vague way that it can PA for a whole bunch and still hit pretty much anything, and PAing for a lot makes building destruction faster, doing the same there makes sense.
    You see, I disagree there. Power attack is a feat. Something not everyone acquires. And even if there was another option to recklessly trade-off accuracy for damage (let say the equivalent of Full Defense for the Expertise), the feat would still implies refinement of technique. Or that Martial PCs have to suffer.

    So until it comes pre-packaged, like suggested here, power attack is not just "hitting recklessly hard".

    Lady Shivara: "Now, I need you to take a deep breath."
    Bob the Fighter: "Hum, I don't have that feat."



    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Yep, I definitely agree that that's not fun. There are mitigating circumstances, of course (the wizard should probably have dimension door to get out, for instance),
    Stop stroking back to life my seething hatred of the system. FFS, Dimension door (standard action, vocal component only) is about at the same time a Fighter can jump (Dice roll of 20, +11 skill, + 6 stats) about 9 feet high.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    but it basically comes back to the tarrasque having far too high of a grapple modifier like everything else. It's entirely possible to make the tarrasque do everything he needs to be able to do with around 20 HD instead of 48 and a lower Str, and dropping the grapple modifier from +81 to somewhere in the +40s makes it challenging but not stupidly impossible.
    And it is okay if your fighter is being useless, he's just the to soak AoOs for the wizard.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    (Incidentally, a great wyrm red dragon has exactly the same problems that the tarrasque does. A 45 Str, 40-some HD, a grapple bonus above +70, very high AC with very low touch AC, etc. But where the tarrasque has "eats people, is immune to most targeted spells, can't be killed easily" the red dragon has 19th-level sorcerer casting, so hey, at least the tarrasque isn't that bad. )
    Look, I don't doubt that there might be good games using 3.5, the Tarrasque and great wyrm red dragons. But the amount of efforts THAT would require would be so better spent elsewhere! Besides, I might be pushing it to the extreme, but look at what kind of logical statement you ended up with:

    The funny mustache leading the German National Socialist party may have killed 6 millions, but the funny mustache leading the Russian Communist Party killed 20 millions, so hey, at least the Nazi aren't that bad. )
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-05-31 at 12:47 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Pronounceable's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Make its mouth a sphere of annihilation. Not for any particular mechanical reason but as a big **** you to all the hapless peasants it's going to devour (also known as drama).
    Founder of the Fanclub of the (Late) Chief of Cliffport Police Department (He shall live forever in our hearts)
    CATNIP FOR THE CAT GOD! MILK FOR THE MILK BOWL!
    Shameless shill:

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Wow, I was away for a few days and this exploded. I strongly agree with just making an interesting monster that fits the role of what its suppose to be which is not the anoying monster that kills the kingdom, but a literal planetary attack that could spell the end. Base line tarasque is the dumb beat stick you throw at things, honestly its more of a level 12 boss.

    As to reflecting carapace, that is literally the ability pulled from the original monster, I rather like the ability.

    My Homebrew: Here
    Competitions and Substystem Compendium: Here
    Mythos Stuff
    Index Discord

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorum View Post
    I know you're probably just being polite, but no need to apologize. +57 is ridiculous enough, the 8 points difference doesn't make a dent in the argument. It applies no matter which of the two versions you pick.

    All that being said, it makes me appreciate the concept of bounded accuracy worked in the 5th Edition.
    Nah, 5e bounded accuracy causes much worse problems than 3e's bonus inflation. The 3e math means that a handful of monsters at very high levels go off into crazy town, and can be addressed by re-statting those monsters with a more sensible number of hit dice; the 5e math means that everything in the universe can be killed by a sufficient number of commoners with bows and you can't address that without ditching the entire bounded accuracy concept.

    This is sort of shown by looking at the 1e monster math, actually, since 1e and 2e basically follow the same base math as 3e as far as monsters go except that Str and Con mods are different and THAC0 and BAB are reversed. Looking at the 1e MM, you don't have high-level monsters with tons of HD for no reason, you have dragons with HD in the 9-12 range (with higher age categories granting higher HP per HD rather than more HD), gods and demon princes with HD in the high teens to low 20s, and even the dreaded tarrasque with only 25 HD, and all of those were perfectly serviceable challenges without having tons of HD.

    Now, why did the devs give dragons and tarrasques tons of HD in 3e? I have no idea, but it's well-known that dragons are heavily (and intentionally) under-CR'd, so presumably it was in a misguided attempt to make the titular monsters seem more scary and the tarrasque, as a kinda-sorta-dragon, got the same treatment; it might also be that they really wanted those monsters to have more feats so they gave them lots of HD, but that's less likely given that dragon feats are left undefined for the DM anyway and the tarrasque has a whopping 6 Toughnesses that just scream "We ran out of feat ideas!"

    You see, I disagree there. Power attack is a feat. Something not everyone acquires. And even if there was another option to recklessly trade-off accuracy for damage (let say the equivalent of Full Defense for the Expertise), the feat would still implies refinement of technique. Or that Martial PCs have to suffer.

    So until it comes pre-packaged, like suggested here, power attack is not just "hitting recklessly hard".

    Lady Shivara: "Now, I need you to take a deep breath."
    Bob the Fighter: "Hum, I don't have that feat."
    Power Attack isn't just attacking recklessly, but when most dumb bruiser are given PA, it can represent that. And houseruling away feat taxes is, if not pretty common, at least something that's been happening since long before PF was a twinkle in its creators' eyes, so I agree with pre-packaging all that stuff; I've been doing it in most of my campaigns for years.

    Stop stroking back to life my seething hatred of the system. FFS, Dimension door (standard action, vocal component only) is about at the same time a Fighter can jump (Dice roll of 20, +11 skill, + 6 stats) about 9 feet high.
    Hey, don't blame the wizard for the shortcomings of the skill system. It's Jump that's not level-appropriate there, not dimension door.

    Look, I don't doubt that there might be good games using 3.5, the Tarrasque and great wyrm red dragons. But the amount of efforts THAT would require would be so better spent elsewhere! Besides, I might be pushing it to the extreme, but look at what kind of logical statement you ended up with:

    The funny mustache leading the German National Socialist party may have killed 6 millions, but the funny mustache leading the Russian Communist Party killed 20 millions, so hey, at least the Nazi aren't that bad. )
    My point was less "the dragon's worse so the tarrasque is fine" and more "everyone focuses on the tarrasque as a uniquely unfair monster when other high-level monsters have the same problem." Like I said above, though, it's not that much effort to bring those over-HD'd monsters down to a more sensible level; removing HD is just as mechanically straightforward as adding them, and once you've done that most of the secondary problems like too-high grapple mods go away.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Nah, 5e bounded accuracy causes much worse problems than 3e's bonus inflation. The 3e math means that a handful of monsters at very high levels go off into crazy town, and can be addressed by re-statting those monsters with a more sensible number of hit dice; the 5e math means that everything in the universe can be killed by a sufficient number of commoners with bows and you can't address that without ditching the entire bounded accuracy concept.
    How is the idea that a very large number of commoners being able to fend off a dragon a bad thing? It has so much more verisimilitude!

    1. Safety in numbers means aggregating into towns make sense.
    2. Angry mobs is not something to be easily discarded.
    3. Conscription actually has meaning.
    4. Resistance movements can do a dent.
    5. No need for an artificial minion rule.
    6. The trope of a commoner rejecting a tyrant and attacking in rage, hurting said tyrant before being dispatched make sense.



    ALSO, for this very specific part of a sentence:
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    the 5e math means that everything in the universe can be killed by a sufficient number of commoners with bows
    Edit: I WISH you were right, but

    No. Werewolves can't, and they're pretty low CR. This actually annoys me about 5e. But I don't mind houseruling "Immunity" as "50% resistance and fully healed of its damage on the same initiative count on its next turn".

    Y'know, to avoid this:
    Spoiler: Not exactly safe for work because toilet humor BUT it does make a good point
    Show





    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    This is sort of shown by looking at the 1e monster math, actually, since 1e and 2e basically follow the same base math as 3e as far as monsters go except that Str and Con mods are different and THAC0 and BAB are reversed. Looking at the 1e MM, you don't have high-level monsters with tons of HD for no reason, you have dragons with HD in the 9-12 range (with higher age categories granting higher HP per HD rather than more HD), gods and demon princes with HD in the high teens to low 20s, and even the dreaded tarrasque with only 25 HD, and all of those were perfectly serviceable challenges without having tons of HD.
    I have no idea how this fits as part of your argument. I don't know about 1st Edition, 2nd Edition was a mess with THAC0 aiming at negative numbers, saves being cryptic as hell, rewarding high stats (the result of chance) with bonus XP, non-shared XP gained in unbalanced ways, varying XP progressions, non-human class-level caps, weapon speed factor, first level spells that could save-or-suck the target for months and the inability for even the smartest specialist wizard level 1 to cast a 3rd spell in his day while being virtually useless the rest of the day, being LITERALLY as weak as a kobold, and life-threatened by a common household cat.

    3.X is so very far from perfect, yet still an improvement on most aspects. I don't know why you would bring that up.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Now, why did the devs give dragons and tarrasques tons of HD in 3e? I have no idea, but it's well-known that dragons are heavily (and intentionally) under-CR'd, so presumably it was in a misguided attempt to make the titular monsters seem more scary and the tarrasque, as a kinda-sorta-dragon, got the same treatment; it might also be that they really wanted those monsters to have more feats so they gave them lots of HD, but that's less likely given that dragon feats are left undefined for the DM anyway and the tarrasque has a whopping 6 Toughnesses that just scream "We ran out of feat ideas!"
    All of this, and it doesn't occurred to you that 3.X is just horribly flawed and frankly botched? You wrote yourself that:
    " And houseruling away feat taxes is, if not pretty common, at least something that's been happening since long before PF was a twinkle in its creators' eyes, so I agree with pre-packaging all that stuff; I've been doing it in most of my campaigns for years. "

    And I wholeheartedly agree and respect you for that. I personally link THIS every chance I get.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Power Attack isn't just attacking recklessly, but when most dumb bruiser are given PA, it can represent that.
    RAI, it might. RAW it doesn't. You are a master chef that makes decent meals out of what you find in the toilet. Doesn't make what you found in there quality ingredients. It just makes your job harder for no reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Hey, don't blame the wizard for the shortcomings of the skill system. It's Jump that's not level-appropriate there, not dimension door.
    I don't. I blame the inconsistency of the whole system. I blame the whole attitude of "everything must be as it is in the real world and then magic shatters it up". I blame the fact an Heavily under-CR'd dragon won't ever be threatened by a melee specialist that is not supported by magic, no matter its level, simply because it flies and has a breath weapon. And a dragon with 3rd level spells played by a smart DM can:

    Save-or-suck the fighter causing him to grapple the ranged specialist or arcane spellcaster.
    (This is an At-Will ability of an Adult Green Dragon, level 12. And DC 16 is not that easy for Bob-the-Fighter)
    Hide and create images of itself to waste the casters pool of spells.
    Dispel any Fly effect.
    Self-Buff (Mage Armor + Shield, invisibility and mirror image would be a good starters)
    Turn itself invisible and summon nasty stuff, like swarms


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    My point was less "the dragon's worse so the tarrasque is fine" and more "everyone focuses on the tarrasque as a uniquely unfair monster when other high-level monsters have the same problem." Like I said above, though, it's not that much effort to bring those over-HD'd monsters down to a more sensible level; removing HD is just as mechanically straightforward as adding them, and once you've done that most of the secondary problems like too-high grapple mods go away.
    AHEM...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tarrasque's official stat block
    Base Attack/Grapple: +48/+81
    Remove the Tarrasque's BaB from its Grapple bonus, and you'll see the Tarrasque, with a Bab of 0, still has a Grapple bonus of 33. Bob-the-fighter, with a BaB of 20, is still at about 29. This means that out of 400 contested rolls, the Tarrasque still wins 264 times (roughly 2/3 of the time). And that is THE FIGHTER. I'd be kinda okay with those odds, but remember that to reach something I'm kinda okay with, the Tarrasque needs to grapple with a Bab of 0.

    I think you can see now that the number of HD isn't the ONLY problem.

    Edit: Spelling it out for clarity: Size mods are AT LEAST as big a problem, pun intended.
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-06-01 at 12:55 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorum View Post
    How is the idea that a very large number of commoners being able to fend off a dragon a bad thing? It has so much more verisimilitude!

    1. Safety in numbers means aggregating into towns make sense.
    2. Angry mobs is not something to be easily discarded.
    3. Conscription actually has meaning.
    4. Resistance movements can do a dent.
    5. No need for an artificial minion rule.
    6. The trope of a commoner rejecting a tyrant and attacking in rage, hurting said tyrant before being dispatched make sense.
    Because the entire premise of the game is that a group of 4 to 6 individuals with above-average training and power can do things that a bunch of guys with bows can't. If a town can fend off a dragon (or band of demons, or horde of orcs, or whatever) on its own, you don't need adventurers; if you don't need to prevent a dark god from being summoned to the Prime to save the world, but merely need to ring the temple with archers and shoot it as it emerges, you don't need heroes; if the instant Sauron tries to engage the Last Alliance he's sliced to ribbons by elf blades, you don't need the Fellowship.

    Of course, these problems can be avoided by piling on tons of immunities and special rules, but (A) the entire reason D&D switched from "immune to weapons below +Y" in AD&D to "DR X/+Y" in 3.0 and "DR X/magic" in 3.5 is because players didn't enjoy those "you must be this tall to play" mechanics--you said it yourself:

    No. Werewolves can't, and they're pretty low CR. This actually annoys me about 5e. But I don't mind houseruling "Immunity" as "50% resistance and fully healed of its damage on the same initiative count on its next turn".
    --and (B) it's better to handle something in the base math than to have to do so by adding special monsters or modifying a bunch of monsters.

    (And by the way, werewolves can, the commoners just have to use silvered arrows.)


    And you mentioned the minion rules from 4e. 3e doesn't need that rule, because monsters organically go from "too strong to stand a chance against" to "a tough but fair fight" to "a moderate challenge" to "minions to stronger enemies" as levels progress. And even very weak foes can still be a challenge in sufficient numbers--a regiment (2,000 troops) of low-level orc warriors will deal on average 95 hits and 5 crits to enemies each round just via rolling natural 20s, so you can have the LotR thing where Legolas and Gimli waltz their way through a battle without dying immediately but are still somewhat in danger, and you don't need to screw around with the math for near-level opponents to get that.

    I have no idea how this fits as part of your argument. I don't know about 1st Edition, 2nd Edition was a mess with THAC0 aiming at negative numbers, saves being cryptic as hell, rewarding high stats (the result of chance) with bonus XP, non-shared XP gained in unbalanced ways, varying XP progressions, non-human class-level caps, weapon speed factor, first level spells that could save-or-suck the target for months and the inability for even the smartest specialist wizard level 1 to cast a 3rd spell in his day while being virtually useless the rest of the day, being LITERALLY as weak as a kobold, and life-threatened by a common household cat.
    I said nothing about AD&D being intuitive or non-clunky on the whole--3e is definitely an upgrade in almost every respect--just about the monster math working out better. Remember, 3e was designed to basically maintain the same mathematical foundations of 2e but with easier and more obvious math; an AD&D fighter and a 3e fighter will have basically the same base math (before 1e NWPs, 3e feats, etc.), it's just that a newbie can pick up the 3e fighter and start playing in a few minutes while they'd still be scratching their head at what a THAC0 or save vs. breath weapon means.

    But in the AD&D-3e transition, high-level monsters were given more HD for no reason. Well, not no reason--it was to make the numbers match the old monsters after doing things like giving different types different BAB for their HD, deciding that undead had no Con and therefore needed more HD for HP and Fort saves, and such--but we don't know why they decided to do that instead of doing the monster math in some different way. If you re-stat the monsters with a reasonable number of HD, you bring things in line with the original assumptions again.

    All of this, and it doesn't occurred to you that 3.X is just horribly flawed and frankly botched? You wrote yourself that:
    " And houseruling away feat taxes is, if not pretty common, at least something that's been happening since long before PF was a twinkle in its creators' eyes, so I agree with pre-packaging all that stuff; I've been doing it in most of my campaigns for years. "

    And I wholeheartedly agree and respect you for that. I personally link THIS every chance I get.
    3e wasn't botched at all. It did exactly what it was designed to do (enable people to play 2e but with better math, fewer character restrictions, faster resolution time, etc.), and was the best-designed and -playtested game at the time at the low-to-mid levels (and probably still the best-playtested D&D-like game; the PF and 5e "playtests" were abominable), it just so happens that it also enabled a very non-AD&D playstyle that wasn't as well playtested.

    As far as being horribly flawed, no, not really. The game isn't fundamentally broken; there are a comparatively small number of feats, spells, and PrCs that are pretty darn overpowered and need to be nerfed or banned if players want to use them heavily, and some clunky parts of the system that need streamlining, to the point that most long-time DMs have a few pages of houserules about them. But a given group's issues with the game can generally be fixed with a few pages of houserules and some gentleman's agreements, as opposed to Shadowrun where the Matrix rules have never ever even slightly worked even with entire splatbooks of rules changes, or Riddle of Steel where combat just falls apart when there are more than two people involved, or White Wolf games where a bunch of kindergardeners with baseball bats are scarier in combat than many supernaturals or the like, or Burning Wheel where character creation takes roughly a decade and character options are extremely limited, and so forth.

    And hey, 3e is still going strong today (both on its own and in the form of PF), 18 years after it was first published, hardly the mark of a fundamentally broken game.

    RAI, it might. RAW it doesn't. You are a master chef that makes decent meals out of what you find in the toilet. Doesn't make what you found in there quality ingredients. It just makes your job harder for no reason.
    RAW has nothing to say about what Power Attack represents except the fluff line that says "You can make exceptionally powerful melee attacks."

    I mean, if we're at the point that you're describing flavoring a feat in a certain way as being against RAW, don't you think that's reaching a bit?

    AHEM...

    Remove the Tarrasque's BaB from its Grapple bonus, and you'll see the Tarrasque, with a Bab of 0, still has a Grapple bonus of 33. Bob-the-fighter, with a BaB of 20, is still at about 29. This means that out of 400 contested rolls, the Tarrasque still wins 264 times (roughly 2/3 of the time). And that is THE FIGHTER. I'd be kinda okay with those odds, but remember that to reach something I'm kinda okay with, the Tarrasque needs to grapple with a Bab of 0.

    I think you can see now that the number of HD isn't the ONLY problem.

    Edit: Spelling it out for clarity: Size mods are AT LEAST as big a problem, pun intended.
    You're totally right there, I was still thinking of the red dragon, where dropping the HD also drops its Str to more reasonable levels (though part of that is the Str changes due to size changes). There's no need for Colossal creatures to have 35+ Str and size bonuses to combat maneuvers, I agree; I have houserules about ability score progressions and combat maneuvers myself, but like the feat stuff that's not germane to RAW discussions.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Because the entire premise of the game is that a group of 4 to 6 individuals with above-average training and power can do things that a bunch of guys with bows can't. If a town can fend off a dragon (or band of demons, or horde of orcs, or whatever) on its own, you don't need adventurers; if you don't need to prevent a dark god from being summoned to the Prime to save the world, but merely need to ring the temple with archers and shoot it as it emerges, you don't need heroes; if the instant Sauron tries to engage the Last Alliance he's sliced to ribbons by elf blades, you don't need the Fellowship.
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    you don't need adventurers
    1. Monsters such as the Great Wyrm Blue Dragon are still IMMUNE to non-magical attacks. So you're still plainly wrong.

    1,5. If a monster such as the Balor comes by itself without effects that protect it and a sufficient number of troops to massacre the villagers, he EARNED his death.

    2. A horde of orcs have the same number advantage the villagers can have.

    3. There is the concept of minimizing the casualties. If you offer me the possibility to avoid conscription by paying some strangers part of my life's savings, I would do it in a heartbeat.

    And to drive the point home, assuming villagers are proficient with bows, properly equipped and that each one of then gets a +1 Dexterity bonus, by the time you reach the number of villagers necessary to bring down the Balor in a single round (AC 19, 262 HP, Resistance to Non-Magical weapons) with bows that should deal around 1d8+1 points of damage with a, at best, +3 to-Hit bonus (which means an average of 5.5 damage per attack, 2.75 after resistance, 0.825 after miss chance AND critical hits on Natural 20s, which means around 320 villagers), coordination, risks of betrayal and the ability to marshal such a number of troops become new challenges the PCs would have to overcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Of course, these problems can be avoided by piling on tons of immunities and special rules, but (A) the entire reason D&D switched from "immune to weapons below +Y" in AD&D to "DR X/+Y" in 3.0 and "DR X/magic" in 3.5 is because players didn't enjoy those "you must be this tall to play" mechanics--you said it yourself:
    This DESTROYS your entire argument: (Edit: Start the sentence with "In 3.X", ) If you remove the Red dragon Great Wyrm / Balor or Tarrasque's DR, they can ALL be brought down with bows and arrows if only because a Natural 20 always hit. Note: You're free to point out the difference in the number of villagers such a plan will require, but if you do, keep in mind that a penalty due the lack of proficiency means something in 5th Ed while in 3rd you still rely on the rule that a natural roll of 20 ALWAYS hit.

    EDIT: You cannot differentiate things based upon what they have in common. And both bounded and unbounded accuracy have no influence upon arming a small village and having it focus on a single enemy. Neither was designed for that. In this account (and this account only) PATHFINDER is the superior choice due to Ultimate Campaign.



    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    --and (B) it's better to handle something in the base math than to have to do so by adding special monsters or modifying a bunch of monsters.

    (And by the way, werewolves can, the commoners just have to use silvered arrows.)
    Once again, do you really want to argue that "5th Ed is just as bad as 3rd Ed" as a basis to contest the validity of bounded accuracy? Villagers can use silvered or magical arrows in EVERY edition. If you remove the "I built up a resistance or immunity to weapons" bull****, then villagers in sufficient numbers can bring down ANYTHING no matter the Edition. The question that remains is "With how much impunity should a High Level / Well-Equipped individual face low-level monsters and city guards"

    And in this regard, 5e is much more "Lords of the Rings" and 3e is much more "Dragon Ball Z".

    Now, it might be that you WANT something as cinematic as Dragon Ball Z would be and that is fine!. But if it is the case, shouldn't the high level fighter be able to throw the rogue on the back of a dragon flying 80 feets? Shouldn't he be able to frustrate the Tarrasque by dodging its attacks and breaking free of its maws when it tries to swallow him? Shouldn't he be able to tackle down and grapple a Marilith?


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    And you mentioned the minion rules from 4e. 3e doesn't need that rule, because monsters organically go from "too strong to stand a chance against" to "a tough but fair fight" to "a moderate challenge" to "minions to stronger enemies" as levels progress. And even very weak foes can still be a challenge in sufficient numbers--a regiment (2,000 troops) of low-level orc warriors will deal on average 95 hits and 5 crits to enemies each round just via rolling natural 20s, so you can have the LotR thing where Legolas and Gimli waltz their way through a battle without dying immediately but are still somewhat in danger, and you don't need to screw around with the math for near-level opponents to get that.
    Minion rule is a narrative tool that can be used or discarded at will. In 4th edition, you can still pit [High Number] level 1 non-minion orcs against High Level PCs and expect then to hit [High Number x 5%] times. I don't know WHY you would want to roll that, or even end up in the situation where chance become statistic (which is the only argument you seem to have against bounded accuracy).

    Also, neither game system handle well the "Legolas & Gimli in the middle of a battlefield" scenario, except, maybe, 4th Ed with said minion rule and the ability to take short rests between waves of orcs (which could be done as in 4th Ed a short rest could be something as simple as walking in the next room, while 5th requires at least an hour.


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I said nothing about AD&D being intuitive or non-clunky on the whole--3e is definitely an upgrade in almost every respect--just about the monster math working out better. Remember, 3e was designed to basically maintain the same mathematical foundations of 2e but with easier and more obvious math; an AD&D fighter and a 3e fighter will have basically the same base math (before 1e NWPs, 3e feats, etc.), it's just that a newbie can pick up the 3e fighter and start playing in a few minutes while they'd still be scratching their head at what a THAC0 or save vs. breath weapon means.

    But in the AD&D-3e transition, high-level monsters were given more HD for no reason. Well, not no reason--it was to make the numbers match the old monsters after doing things like giving different types different BAB for their HD, deciding that undead had no Con and therefore needed more HD for HP and Fort saves, and such--but we don't know why they decided to do that instead of doing the monster math in some different way. If you re-stat the monsters with a reasonable number of HD, you bring things in line with the original assumptions again.
    I'd suggest we drop that part of the argument. We agree that 3rd made some improvements over 2nd.



    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    3e wasn't botched at all. It did exactly what it was designed to do (enable people to play 2e but with better math, fewer character restrictions, faster resolution time, etc.), and was the best-designed and -playtested game at the time at the low-to-mid levels (and probably still the best-playtested D&D-like game; the PF and 5e "playtests" were abominable), it just so happens that it also enabled a very non-AD&D playstyle that wasn't as well playtested.
    1. The fact 3.5 exists ALONE means it was botched.
    2. The "best-designed and best-playtested game at the time", even if that was true, doesn't mean it was "well-designed" or "well-playtested", nor it means that it still compares well with more recent games, DnD or not. And frankly, 4th Ed was botched as well. I've not played enough 5th to make an absolute statement, but I've seen a multiclassed Barbarian/Druid take well over 50 base damage at level one two due to raging while shapeshifted and it doesn't bode well.
    3. You agree with me, otherwise you wouldn't specify "at the low-to-mid levels". And frankly, I don't mind 3.5 / 3,PF with the E6 rule. But if you can only play the first third of the game before it becomes HORRIBLY broken, it is botched.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    As far as being horribly flawed, no, not really. The game isn't fundamentally broken; there are a comparatively small number of feats, spells, and PrCs that are pretty darn overpowered and need to be nerfed or banned if players want to use them heavily, and some clunky parts of the system that need streamlining, to the point that most long-time DMs have a few pages of houserules about them. But a given group's issues with the game can generally be fixed with a few pages of houserules and some gentleman's agreements, as opposed to Shadowrun where the Matrix rules have never ever even slightly worked even with entire splatbooks of rules changes, or Riddle of Steel where combat just falls apart when there are more than two people involved, or White Wolf games where a bunch of kindergardeners with baseball bats are scarier in combat than many supernaturals or the like, or Burning Wheel where character creation takes roughly a decade and character options are extremely limited, and so forth.
    Just want to point out that you wrote, in the same sentence:
    "The game isn't fundamentally broken; there are a comparatively small number of feats, spells, and PrCs that are pretty darn overpowered and need to be nerfed or banned"
    and "to the point that most long-time DMs have a few pages of houserules about them."


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    And hey, 3e is still going strong today (both on its own and in the form of PF), 18 years after it was first published, hardly the mark of a fundamentally broken game.
    By these standards, Coors Light is a quality brand of beer, the Triple-A videogame industry makes quality video games and professional sports teams represent their population, and the election process a noble contest where any citizens with good ideas can rise to prominence.

    No.

    The game still goes strong because it is broken. I play in a FATE game with Snowbluff, and here's his signature: All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.

    Now, the only beef I've got with this is the "everyone" part. I'd replace it with "the vast majority".

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    RAW has nothing to say about what Power Attack represents except the fluff line that says "You can make exceptionally powerful melee attacks."

    I mean, if we're at the point that you're describing flavoring a feat in a certain way as being against RAW, don't you think that's reaching a bit?
    We're talking about what is a Feat in the first place. Here's the description:

    Quote Originally Posted by https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/
    Some abilities are not tied to your race, class, or skill-things like particularly quick reflexes that allow you to react to danger more swiftly, the ability to craft magic items, the training to deliver powerful strikes with melee weapons, or the knack for deflecting arrows fired at you. These abilities are represented as feats.
    Here "the training to deliver powerful strikes" is clearly stated to be at the same level as "the ability to craft magic items". And since both requires the same expenditure (although not the same prerequisites), it means it requires about the same amount of training. I do agree Power Attack shouldn't be a feat, or at least a lesser version of power attack should be available to those without the feat (like fighting defensively for Expertise).

    But this is an argument for "it is crap".
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-06-01 at 05:52 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Banned
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Suggestions on making the Tarrasque a better opponent.

    On a side note...

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    White Wolf games where a bunch of kindergardeners with baseball bats are scarier in combat than many supernaturals or the like
    Wait... you focus on combat in a WW game? Really?

    Errrr... well, rest assured: They noted how OP kindergartners were and issued an errata! It is called "World of Darkness: Innocents". It's a solid Nerf to kindergartners as their attacks' damage are now reduced by normal human's (or another type of supernatural's) stamina. Now, Legolas and Gimli can waltz their way through a kindergarten class without dying immediately but are still somewhat in danger!

    I do agree for Shadowrun, when we do play (and it is extremely rare), hackers are NPCs. Unplayable mess by RAW is an apt description. Trying to figure out your attack roll with recoil, recoil compensation, stacked recoil from previous rounds, rain / wind / darkness but with darkvision and smartgun assistance as well as range for your weapon type and the modifiers for medium bursts depending if you focus or fan your bullet means you'll spend a few minutes determining your dice pool for an action which takes part in an initiative pass which is itself a fraction of a period of 3 seconds.

    And I'm sure you can find a lot of people who will defend this aberration of a system, including hacking, as well as you defend 3.5 here.
    Last edited by Gorum; 2018-06-01 at 06:22 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •