| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After looking at the rules if I wanted to kill the Tarrasque i'd just suffocate it.
Regeneration doesn't work on suffocation (or starvation/thirst) and the Tarrasque has no immunity and it's special entry on regeneration doesn't apply as it isn't being suppress or dying from a failed save that kills it instantly (especially with slow suffocation that doesn't involve a save).
If a spawn is forced into an environment where it cannot breathe and would suffocate, it goes into hibernation until conditions are right for it to reawaken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the right answer is just to Greater Possession and BE THE TARRASQUE.
Obviously, the right answer is just to Greater Possession and BE THE TARRASQUE.
Immune to mind affecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the right answer is just to Greater Possession and BE THE TARRASQUE.Immune to mind affecting.Not mind-affecting.
School necromancy
Yeah, Possession (after dispelling an Unholy Aura/Protection from Good or similar, if necessary) and Plane Shift (usually to the Plane of Fire (if aquatic or otherwise without fire resistances) or Plane of Water (if not water breathing)) are pretty reliable ways to save or lose the super high CR threats. Drive your Possessed body into whatever prison/compromising spot you want, or send it to burn up or drown.
Big mind-affecting immune bruisers like the tarrasque and mind-affecting resistant ones like the kaiju tend to have relatively low will saves for their CR, so if you can beat the SR the save isn't a huge problem. Same but more so for Imprisonment since you can get the "I know your name" save penalty.
The end result is that gods (and in this case the spawn of a god) cannot be killed in Pathfinder.
This, uh... this is demonstrably untrue in-canon, more than once.
EDIT:
...but the method has yet to be discovered...Printed in Bestiary 1 in 2011, Bestiary 6 had indeed not yet been discovered.That is irrelevant. Book printing dates are not an acceptable method of bypassing the Tarrasque's complete immunity to suppression of its regeneration.
The end result is that gods (and in this case the spawn of a god) cannot be killed in Pathfinder. The Tarrasque is specifically immune to all attempts to suppress its regenerative abilities. This includes the abilities of significantly weaker creatures.
Short of GM fiat, you cannot kill the Tarrasque by design.
Charnel God from Bestiary 6: "The gods are no less strange and terrifying in death than in life. Though the death of any god is staggeringly rare, some do meet violent ends, often at the hands of other deities."
They totally can die. Though a bit off topic.
The end result is that gods (and in this case the spawn of a god) cannot be killed in Pathfinder.This, uh... this is demonstrably untrue in-canon, more than once.
I'm kind of sad that I have to point out that, if one followed my post to the end, I mentioned very specifically that they can only be killed by GM fiat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who ever this Jim fiat guy is he must be a bad@$$.
I'm kind of sad that I have to point out that, if one followed my post to the end, I mentioned very specifically that they can only be killed by GM fiat.The end result is that gods (and in this case the spawn of a god) cannot be killed in Pathfinder.This, uh... this is demonstrably untrue in-canon, more than once.
Indeed you did, but the latter statement contradicts the first, which creates a very different impression from, "It happens, in canon, but is exclusively narrative, and not mechanics-based."
I cropped the latter statement out, not because I missed it, but because, in context with the first, the over-all tone gives no available leeway "in Pathfinder," making it seem that the latter is merely a choice that "some GMs" (with implied negativity, or divergence from the hypothetical "norm") might make, but isn't supported in the game setting.
My point is that, in the game setting, gods are, in fact, able to be killed.
A lot got killed by a jerk god that was imprisoned.
One got killed either by swarm damage or Mass Combat Rules, depending. (I'm voting for Mass Combat Rules, because it makes a lot of sense, mechanically - it just lines up so very neatly.)
Two got killed by "rocks fall real hard."
One got beheaded (but, I supposed, not permanently killed, yet, though he's got stats, and a stated method of killing him for realsies).
One got killed by being ret-conned into being a minor goddess instead of a major one.
One got killed by <404 ERROR, FILE NOT FOUND>.
One had stats so you could kill him (which was pretty cool), but that got ret-conned out, because they decided they didn't like that, after-the-fact.
Plus, it really depends on what you call a "god."
Spawn of gods or godlike figures include:
- a pretty normal tiefling (he died, if the AP is finished right)
- the Tarrasque et. al. (most of which seem to be able to die)
- maybe a dragon (he's celestial, so that's nice)
- a much less pleasant dragon
- one person's PC (this one is totally the direct spawn of a god, doesn't even start out mythic)
So, again, that's not really a point in favor of any given creature able to be killed or not. And that's my point - while mechanically something may seem invulnerable, nothing in Pathfinder is invulnerable.
Incidentally, if JJ's take on the matter is to be accepted, Rovagug has a totes material plane dude who'd beat him: Azathoth.
So that's also a thing.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing about the Tarrasque.
It is not, and never has been, all that scary.
It has a lot of hype, and a really annoying end condition.
It's also a thing that's meant to be defeated, and can be.
There are muuuuuuuultiple ways.
I find the insistence that, "It can't ever be killed! It says so!" to be incredibly inane by this point. There is no narrative point in doing this.
It has even been retconned since its first appearance in the bestiary to shut down various tactics people used to use against it... still not scary.
If the regeneration is truly unbeatable, and it can never stay dead, ever, no matter what, than what the GM has is a tool to... irritate the players. That's all. It doesn't humble them. It doesn't prove there's something bigger or badder or better than they are. It annoys them.
If you want to do that, allow me to introduce, Gobever. He's identical to a first level goblin, except that he insta-heals all damage as soon as it's done, and he never stays trapped in a prison, magical or mundane.
What is this monster? Annoying.
That's it. He will never prove to be a true threat to heroes that have reliable methods of beating him.
By the time you get to, "No, your clever tactics are wrong and you should feel wrong." arguments, Big T. becomes nothing more than similarly annoying to Gobever.
Infinite enemies that can never be permanently put down don't make for good stories. They don't even make for interesting stories, nor do they provide any means to reign in OP players.
See, Big T. can cause an existential threat to PCs by threatening people other than themselves. But you know what? So can Gobever. Simply have him target lower-level people that the PCs care about - this is, incidentally, the exact same tactic you'd use Big T. for - and it's a tactic that, if used enough, will cause the PCs to simply withdraw from the world and no longer care about NPCs, because the players are tired of their loved ones being targeted by a jerk GM who won't let them win because "it says you can't."
There is no reason to draw a line in the sand at Big T. and his regeneration.
At all.
And, here's the thing. By the time you've (as a GM) lost so much control that you need to enforce the "No, he can never stay dead." clause, you've already lost any hope for real control of the game, and you're using in-game reasons to try and fix an out-of-game problem by "punishing" the players for basically doing a good job. And, you know, I suppose that might work for a few groups. The vast majority, though? It's a terrible idea, and causes nothing but hurt feelings.
See, Big T. represents a really cool challenge. There's this guy. He's really powerful, and has lots of immunities. It causes problems for the world, and is really hard to get rid of. No one has discovered a method, yet!
... but there is a key word there: "yet."
That means that people can come up with methods. And, just perhaps, there are ways of ignoring the DR entirely.
... but then again, relying on that word as an absolute hard standard leads to nonsense, because it's always "yet" - there will never be a time at which the book's wording magically updates. Which means we get to stupidville where he can never die, and just becomes "Ho-hum. That one thing we have to deal with. Again."
My problem with people refusing to let poor old Big T. die, is the same problem many people have with Sephiroth or Cthulu. Those things are awesome, but when fans buy into the hype and no longer accept the actual limits on the very creature/whatever as described within the works they come from, it ceases to be a cool, scary thing, and just kind of becomes a recurring annoyance that's dealt with quickly and you move on. From there, it either becomes a recurring gag, or frustrating, and the game ends.
There are lots of ways to end the Tarrasque.
If you don't accept, "I am no man." as the counter, or "I was from my mother's womb ripped!" than there's really nothing to be done. Take it up with Tolkien and Shakespeare - their names sound kind of dumb, anyway, and I guess few people will be satisfied reading their stuff, you know?
To the actual argument, I find the only two rules-objectionable thing to be whether or not the aura counts as an attack, and the question of order of operations. I'unno. That, I think, is where the actual rules could go either way. But if it does count, well... those daggum bone devils - gotta suck to be them, you know?
EDIT: Also, to be clear, I have no problem with personal campaigns coming to different conclusions. "It can't die, in my campaign." can be totally valid, for a variety of reasons. But, "It can't die, and you should feel bad for outsmarting the rules." is just a really frustrating thing that actively penalizes people for being clever. I don't like that. On the other hand, I have no problem with a GM saying, "Look, your idea is great, and I like it, but I can't run the game the way I intended with it - like, it's too far to be recognizable. Do you want to hit 'I win.' or continue with the campaign?" and workshop that first with the player, and then with the group as a whole. That's just how you deal with things. I don't know, but that seems more reasonable.
Do I really need to go from generals to specifics for every possible meaning of what I was trying to express so that I don't have to defend my points down to the minutiae?
Okay, so perhaps I was not as eloquent as I could have been with my statements. CorvusMask said it quite well earlier, they can be killed but, within the Pathfinder system (and the official Pathfinder setting of Golarion), only through plot devices as opposed to mechanical rules.
What's more is that we seem to even agree on the point of the matter! Nothing is invulnerable in Pathfinder or any other D20 system I know of simply because of GM power and plot devices, but some are invulnerable using the mechanics provided to play the game (like Golarion deities). So I have no idea why you had to prove me wrong when I fundamentally agree with you.
As a side note, I assume the reference to beheading a god to kill it is about Ydersius. But, Ydersius is not a dead god, not really. The PCs don't even technically fight Ydersius in that AP, but an avatar of him that is only vulnerable because it is not fully regenerated and divine. Even 'killing' it only sends its body back into the Darklands (and below), which it can come back from. It's a similar situation to Cthulhu in Pathfinder. You 'kill' it but really all you do is delay it for a few hundred or thousand years until someone else tries to bring them back again. They never truly die and stay dead.
This was far more time that I ever expected to spend trying to explain myself on this thread. Perhaps I'll just not bother in the future if I have to worry about writing my posts as if I have a panel of rules-lawyers waiting in the wings to nit-pick them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The end result is that gods (and in this case the spawn of a god) cannot be killed in Pathfinder.This, uh... this is demonstrably untrue in-canon, more than once.
EDIT:
...but the method has yet to be discovered...Printed in Bestiary 1 in 2011, Bestiary 6 had indeed not yet been discovered.That is irrelevant. Book printing dates are not an acceptable method of bypassing the Tarrasque's complete immunity to suppression of its regeneration.
The end result is that gods (and in this case the spawn of a god) cannot be killed in Pathfinder. The Tarrasque is specifically immune to all attempts to suppress its regenerative abilities. This includes the abilities of significantly weaker creatures.
Short of GM fiat, you cannot kill the Tarrasque by design.
Charnel God from Bestiary 6: "The gods are no less strange and terrifying in death than in life. Though the death of any god is staggeringly rare, some do meet violent ends, often at the hands of other deities."
They totally can die. Though a bit off topic.
I'm an alchemist not a ninja, how dare you even!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do I really need to go from generals to specifics for every possible meaning of what I was trying to express so that I don't have to defend my points down to the minutiae?
Okay, so perhaps I was not as eloquent as I could have been with my statements. CorvusMask said it quite well earlier, they can be killed but, within the Pathfinder system (and the official Pathfinder setting of Golarion), only through plot devices as opposed to mechanical rules.
What's more is that we seem to even agree on the point of the matter! Nothing is invulnerable in Pathfinder or any other D20 system I know of simply because of GM power and plot devices, but some are invulnerable using the mechanics provided to play the game (like Golarion deities). So I have no idea why you had to prove me wrong when I fundamentally agree with you.
As a side note, I assume the reference to beheading a god to kill it is about Ydersius. But, Ydersius is not a dead god, not really. The PCs don't even technically fight Ydersius in that AP, but an avatar of him that is only vulnerable because it is not fully regenerated and divine. Even 'killing' it only sends its body back into the Darklands (and below), which it can come back from. It's a similar situation to Cthulhu in Pathfinder. You 'kill' it but really all you do is delay it for a few hundred or thousand years until someone else tries to bring them back again. They never truly die and stay dead.
This was far more time that I ever expected to spend trying to explain myself on this thread. Perhaps I'll just not bother in the future if I have to worry about writing my posts as if I have a panel of rules-lawyers waiting in the wings to nit-pick them.
Could make it simpler by just saying "Gods generally don't die during normal games." vs "Gods don't die in pathfinder." "Unless gm fiat."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do I really need to go from generals to specifics for every possible meaning of what I was trying to express so that I don't have to defend my points down to the minutiae?
My point was not in calling you out as a bad person who should feel bad, but rather I was responding to the over-all tone of your post in the context of this thread, at-large. There are many, many instances when a post will have a different tone than intended.
Okay, so perhaps I was not as eloquent as I could have been with my statements. CorvusMask said it quite well earlier, they can be killed but, within the Pathfinder system (and the official Pathfinder setting of Golarion), only through plot devices as opposed to mechanical rules.
Eh, see Curchanus. :)
I'm not really concerned with your eloquence, by-the-by. I don't even dislike you, how you post, or anything else!
But, in-context, I explained how your post came across.
"Gods don't die in Pathfinder." is an absolute and covers not only rules, but also setting - so both fluff and crunch. Any follow-up feels like you're saying that "some" GMs alter the setting to make this happen.
What's more is that we seem to even agree on the point of the matter! Nothing is invulnerable in Pathfinder or any other D20 system I know of simply because of GM power and plot devices, but some are invulnerable using the mechanics provided to play the game (like Golarion deities). So I have no idea why you had to prove me wrong when I fundamentally agree with you.
I didn't try to "prove" you anything.
I took one statement, responded to that one statement.
You then expressed that you felt sad because you felt you "had" to point out something that I (unbeknownst to you) had already noticed.
I explained that, while I'd noticed that thing, I felt it was worth pointing out that the way you'd originally expressed the idea comes across in a manner that very well may belie your point or belief (as I was not particularly reading your mind, at the time, I chose to presuppose that your words, as-presented, were your intent).
This is more or less a straight-forward conversation, so far.
As a side note, I assume the reference to beheading a god to kill it is about Ydersius. But, Ydersius is not a dead god, not really. The PCs don't even technically fight Ydersius in that AP, but an avatar of him that is only vulnerable because it is not fully regenerated and divine. Even 'killing' it only sends its body back into the Darklands (and below), which it can come back from. It's a similar situation to Cthulhu in Pathfinder. You 'kill' it but really all you do is delay it for a few hundred or thousand years until someone else tries to bring them back again. They never truly die and stay dead.
First:
One got beheaded (but, I supposed, not permanently killed, yet, though he's got stats, and a stated method of killing him for realsies).
... so, again, you seem to be attempting to prove me wrong, by pointing out something that I had already and explicitly pointed out.
Second, I'm going to presuppose that you have either prepared, run, or played the AP in question.
To avoid spoilers...
And yet, the PCs, as PCs are given the option of actually killing him, for real and forever, by putting him in front of Pharasma and doing it that way. This is an actual recommended thing as part of the "Beyond Serpent's Skull" section (which starts on page 58 of the PDF). More specifically, it's on page 61, under the broad section of "Finishing Savith's Job" and the more specific "Skull of Ydersius" section (even more explicitly under "Destruction"):
Destroying the skull of Ydersius is a near-impossible task tantamount to killing a god, though methods exist by which such a feat might be achieved. For example, should the skull be reunited with Ydersius’s body, the god returns to life, though in a weakened state. This manifestation, though powerful, can be combated and even slain, though it regenerates from nearly any wound short of re-decapitation. For an instant, before the whole body begins to regenerate, Ydersius’s spirt is untethered from his form. If Ydersius is dragged bodily before the throne of the goddess Pharasma in the Boneyard and slain in her presence, the death deity can judge the serpent god’s momentarily freed essence in that instance, causing his body and skull to disintegrate into dust. Some suspect that a manifestation of Ydersius in the Great Beyond would prove far more powerful than one forced to manifest on the Material Plane.
Curiously, that is a rules text which outlines how to kill him. Huh.
And it's worth noting, per the rules, there are multiple methods.
It then goes on to give one example of those multiple methods, and there are plenty of canonical ways to accomplish this. It also states that "Some suspect" that he'd be more powerful in the Great Beyond, but that holds all the solidity of air, given that it gives no actual indication of how to handle that, nor who these creatures might be. It certainly could indicate people who actually know what they're talking about, or delusional lunatics. Wouldn't fault a GM for taking that and running with it - that's why that line is there, after all - but in-print we have actual stats for the dude, and a method of killing him for real.
This was far more time that I ever expected to spend trying to explain myself on this thread. Perhaps I'll just not bother in the future if I have to worry about writing my posts as if I have a panel of rules-lawyers waiting in the wings to nit-pick them.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to nit-pick you.
I originally opposed only one point that you brought up. I have followed that up with a few more, here, because you seem to have gotten the impression that I was attacking your general point.
I only continued this conversation because you clearly felt that I didn't understand the rest, and thus I thought it better to explain myself.
Clearly that seemed to you that I was attacking you or attempting to nit-pick your argument. This is untrue.
If you are concerned about the fact that two people opposed your post, this is why I edited mine to say "Ah, ninja'd." upon realizing that someone else had already covered this topic. I'm uncertain how much history you have around the boards, but that was my way of acknowledging that I was neither first, nor best in this particular element - effectively ceding my claim. When you responded to my post, in particular, however, it seemed that you were inviting me back into the conversation.
I am sorry that my words apparently come across as overly critical. I, personally, have no problem with you posting here, and, frankly, I'm always happy to have someone as well-written as you are, whether I agree with that person or not.
I've told numerous people that we're passionate nerds here - that means a lot of us will find it important to differentiate on things that others might consider minutiae; to us, the impression or turn of phrase is strong enough to warrant a continuation of the conversation or outright rejection of a seemingly salient (if seemingly incorrect) point made by another poster. This is (by me, at least) not an attempt to shame or reject said poster - it's more a genuine expression of interest in the topic, and an expression of the general desire to get things as correct as possible so that we're all on the same page when discussing things.
Either way, let me be clear: I'm glad you're around, and that you posted, one way or the other. I'm only sorry that, for whatever reason, our interactions seem to leave you with the impression that you're being rejected. My apologies - I seem to have expressed that aspect of my posting, poorly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well it wouldn't kill it but you could just teleport or gate the terasque into the center of the sun so no one has to deal with it anymore
The sun mysteriously going dark a month later would make for a pretty good plot hook, don't you think?
To say nothing of the powerful beings living on the sun who might become seriously annoyed with the PCs for sending them a new neighbor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well it wouldn't kill it but you could just teleport or gate the terasque into the center of the sun so no one has to deal with it anymoreThe sun mysteriously going dark a month later would make for a pretty good plot hook, don't you think?
To say nothing of the powerful beings living on the sun who might become seriously annoyed with the PCs for sending them a new neighbor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Everyone is making the same arguments both for killing and not killing.
I'm pretty sure that at least one of the sides is wrong
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much radiation damage the sun deals to it.
Do you want to turn the Taarasque into some sort of irradiated nightmare creature? Because this is how you get an unkillable monster to spread radiation across the land.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much radiation damage the sun deals to it.
None. Radiation is a poison effect, which Big T is immune to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eziah says what?well it wouldn't kill it but you could just teleport or gate the terasque into the center of the sun so no one has to deal with it anymoreThe sun mysteriously going dark a month later would make for a pretty good plot hook, don't you think?
To say nothing of the powerful beings living on the sun who might become seriously annoyed with the PCs for sending them a new neighbor.
Oh for Fraks sake. I'm pissed off at those prissy politicians and their petty politics back on Golarion and what do they do? THEY LET THEIR FRGGN DOG RUN ALL OVER MY LAWN, LEAVING LITTLE DOG SPAWN ALL OVER! The nerve... Wait until I clone this sucker and send them a few radioactive pups back! that'll teach them... grumble grumble.
Quoted from; Eziah the Reclusive.
Do I really need to go from generals to specifics for every possible meaning of what I was trying to express so that I don't have to defend my points down to the minutiae?
Okay, so perhaps I was not as eloquent as I could have been with my statements. CorvusMask said it quite well earlier, they can be killed but, within the Pathfinder system (and the official Pathfinder setting of Golarion), only through plot devices as opposed to mechanical rules.
...
This was far more time that I ever expected to spend trying to explain myself on this thread. Perhaps I'll just not bother in the future if I have to worry about writing my posts as if I have a panel of rules-lawyers waiting in the wings to nit-pick them.
You are of course correct. Having Ydersius judged by Pharasma is of course a GM fiat plot device and not a rule of the pathfinder game. Gods die permanently only when the story allows it to be the case, though that has been the case in d&d for a long time. Your post made it quite clear that you considered plot an exception to your statement (which after all was quite succinct).
Don't let the quantity of a posters words batter you into silence, particularly when they're fairly repetitive and dare I say it patronising.
On the topic at hand. Of course the Tarasque can't be destroyed, only subdued temporarily... that is at the core of the creature and the threat it poses. I suggest that if some people don't like this aspect of the Tarasque they simple choose a different creature or adapt the tarasque for their home game. Though if you change the core element I don't really see the point of calling it a tarasque. It seems very strange to me that success by imprisonment would be annoying to some people. Very odd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having Ydersius judged by Pharasma is of course a GM fiat plot device and not a rule of the pathfinder game. Gods die permanently only when the story allows it to be the case, though that has been the case in d&d for a long time. Your post made it quite clear that you considered plot an exception to your statement (which after all was quite succinct).
For a GM plot device, it has a lot of hard rules behind it, including explicit description in a printed book's stat-block...
By that token, the fact that people play, you know, Pathfinder, as it's written in the books is also "GM fiat plot device" or even if they play in Golarion.
And I'll grant that's true, but in a manner very different from what the vast majority of people mean when they say those sorts of things. Effectively, a GM may say, "No that doesn't work." - because of course they may, that's written into the Core as the most important rule - but it needs to be clarified that a GM is doing that, because then we're not talking about the same game, or the same setting.
Don't let the quantity of a posters words batter you into silence, particularly when they're fairly repetitive and dare I say it patronising.
Hey, you're talking about me! Cool!
And, obviously, you do dare!
That said, as I attempted to note, I'm certainly not interested in being patronizing, though I can easily see that could be a tone taken. After all,
There are many, many instances when a post will have a different tone than intended.
It sucks, but it's one of the reasons I use so many words - to help minimize tone-deafness as much as possible. Obviously doesn't always work. Alas!
Also, in the future, The Sword, please feel free to mention me by name when I irritate you, for some reason, and directly approach me. I much prefer that, to vague insinuations, and it allows us to discuss things rather than presume the motives of others! Thanks! :D
On the topic at hand. Of course the Tarasque can't be destroyed, only subdued temporarily... that is at the core of the creature and the threat it poses. I suggest that if some people don't like this aspect of the Tarasque they simple choose a different creature or adapt the tarasque for their home game. Though if you change the core element I don't really see the point of calling it a tarasque. It seems very strange to me that success by imprisonment would be annoying to some people. Very odd.
Actually, it's really not the "core" of the creature, depending on what you're talking about.
In the original legend it was killed by a commoner rabble (though it's implied that this is because it permitted this, considering all the stuff it survived, previously).
In PF, the original can be destroyed by a host of methods, and the remake can be destroyed by others. You can't even argue legacy, though, because in 3.5 (which PF was sold as the continuation of, originally), it explicitly had an "off" switch - clearly, the change was, to some extent, intentional, but it's neither a solid nor permanent solution, RAW. There is very little a game developer can do to "Think-Tank Proof" their creatures, and the Internet is nothing, if not a think tank for like-minded individuals.
Of course, going back the actual Tarrasque lore in printed Golarion materials, if it's still alive, it's a ret-con from Legacy of Fire; specifically page 52 of The Final Wish, which details several hypothetical methods of resurrecting it (this is explicitly made clear that it is dead, as it calls these attempts to "reunite flesh and soul"). So... you know, not really originally part of his history in PF, as a setting, either.
In any event, I think you ignored both a clarification of acceptance of potential rules arguments against this particular trick working, and a very important edit in your conclusion of what does and does not annoy. Rather, what annoys is the absolute and unilateral rejection of a concept with no acknowledgement of its worth, one way or the other! It is explicitly, the expressed (intentionally or otherwise) attitude of, "No, and you should feel ashamed for thinking it." that I object to, not the particular use within a given campaign. Hope that helps!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't suppose we can all just agree that the Terrasque is basically a stupid concept--the fantasy RPG equivalent of a pissing contest that seemingly escalates with every revision--and that we're better off focusing on game elements that are actually playable?
No? OK. Carry on, then.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Terrasque is a plot device and, in my opinion, is best used as such. If I had my druthers, the rules would specify that the Terrasque can be killed, but not by weird rules corner cases. It (again, in my opinion) should be the focus of a campaign (or at least a major point in one).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the hibernation entry? I didn't see it in the bestiaryAfter looking at the rules if I wanted to kill the Tarrasque i'd just suffocate it.
Regeneration doesn't work on suffocation (or starvation/thirst) and the Tarrasque has no immunity and it's special entry on regeneration doesn't apply as it isn't being suppress or dying from a failed save that kills it instantly (especially with slow suffocation that doesn't involve a save).
If a spawn is forced into an environment where it cannot breathe and would suffocate, it goes into hibernation until conditions are right for it to reawaken.
The tarrasque has the god-spawn type and hibernation is listed under its defenses.
Hibernation itself is defined under the god-spawn type.
The Terrasque is a plot device and, in my opinion, is best used as such. If I had my druthers, the rules would specify that the Terrasque can be killed, but not by weird rules corner cases. It (again, in my opinion) should be the focus of a campaign (or at least a major point in one).
See, this is a valid way of looking at it, but, to me, anything that is published is (or, rather, can be) a plot device, when used in a campaign. This means that making something "only" a plot device feels weirdly arbitrary and specific. I understand why some differentiate, but to me, having the rules with a clear-cut aspect makes a thing more accessible.
Then again, making the creature immune to anything but <plot> is a really uncharacteristic stat block. It just doesn't seem to be how Paizo likes to build their stuff. And, while it may be some thing they shift to in the futures, I, at least, am grateful they don't: with the way statblocks are currently printed, it allows and encourages creative thinking. This is a good thing. As soon as you get to, "Nah - it's entirely arbitrary, don't even try."-territory, it feels as though the game has lost something, to me.
But, I suppose, it's cool that others feel differently: different people have different tastes, and that's part of what makes a big game like this so great!
EDIT: added a sentence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't suppose we can all just agree that the Terrasque is basically a stupid concept--the fantasy RPG equivalent of a pissing contest that seemingly escalates with every revision--and that we're better off focusing on game elements that are actually playable?
No? OK. Carry on, then.
But... but... but... then what would be argue about?
I don't wanna go back to Paladins and alignment! You can't make me! Nooooo~!
That reminds me, I'm required by law to wonder, if a mythic paladin Tarrasque trips into a chasm, and there's no one around to hear it, does it still... fall?!
Aaaaaahhhnnnj? Aaaaaaaahhhhhh? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How to Kill the Tarrasque in 10 simple steps!
(Watch out for that first step... it's a doozy!)
Step 1: Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque
Step 2: Continue to Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque. (to buy time)
Step 3: Lay out several (many) Portable Holes
Step 4: Cut Tarrasque into pieces
Step 5: Fill Portable Holes until all Terrasque pieces are in a hole.
Step 6: Close/Pick up all Portable Holes.
Step 7: Place them in a normal sack.
Step 8: Place an Open Bag of Holding on the ground.
Step 9: Move 15' away from Bag of Holding.
Step 10: Throw Sack containing portable Holes into Bag of Holding!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about Green Slime? Has anyone thought of beating the Terrasque down to negative whatever and then throwing a boat load of Green Slime on the body? You could even use that Psychopomp to suppress it's regeneration while its body turns slowly to green slime.
Green Slime (CR 4): This dungeon peril is a dangerous variety of normal slime. Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. Bright green, wet, and sticky, it clings to walls, floors, and ceilings in patches, reproducing as it consumes organic matter. It drops from walls and ceilings when it detects movement (and possible food) below.
A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal's hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.
Of course if the Terrasque just regenerates faster than the Slime can transform it you get a very pissed of Terrasque that is shedding massive gobs of Green slime...
Unfortunately, Big T. is immune to ability damage - even the older version.
EDIT: to be clear, this is why people try to focus on ability drain, and is one of those instances in the rules (along with the restoration spell-line) where the differences actually matter (along with PF reclassifying "damage" as always temporary and "drain" as always "permanent until fixed with magic").
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
How to Kill the Tarrasque in 10 simple steps!
(Watch out for that first step... it's a doozy!)Step 1: Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque
Step 2: Continue to Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque. (to buy time)
Step 3: Lay out several (many) Portable Holes
Step 4: Cut Tarrasque into pieces
Step 5: Fill Portable Holes until all Terrasque pieces are in a hole.
Step 6: Close/Pick up all Portable Holes.
Step 7: Place them in a normal sack.
Step 8: Place an Open Bag of Holding on the ground.
Step 9: Move 15' away from Bag of Holding.
Step 10: Throw Sack containing portable Holes into Bag of Holding!
Can't the tarrasque literally break through the barriers between realities and realms, crashing down like a meteor? I fail to see how trapping it "nowhere" would hold it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The proper way to kill Tarrasque is to get him in a room with Fafnheir and let them duke it out for eternity.
(How to get him in a room with Fafnheir is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Can't the tarrasque literally break through the barriers between realities and realms, crashing down like a meteor? I fail to see how trapping it "nowhere" would hold it.How to Kill the Tarrasque in 10 simple steps!
(Watch out for that first step... it's a doozy!)Step 1: Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque
Step 2: Continue to Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque. (to buy time)
Step 3: Lay out several (many) Portable Holes
Step 4: Cut Tarrasque into pieces
Step 5: Fill Portable Holes until all Terrasque pieces are in a hole.
Step 6: Close/Pick up all Portable Holes.
Step 7: Place them in a normal sack.
Step 8: Place an Open Bag of Holding on the ground.
Step 9: Move 15' away from Bag of Holding.
Step 10: Throw Sack containing portable Holes into Bag of Holding!
The point is multiple portable holes inside a bag of holding, and thus cause it to be "lost forever" (as it is part of the contents).
That said, looking at the entry for each, I don't think the "lost forever" clause has been retained - instead, it looks like it just drops them off into the astral plane.
Although, no, the PRD entry still retains that wording, at least if a portable hole is put in a bag of holding (the wording is lost if you do so in reverse). I wonder if it's errata, or editing mistake? Either way, it looks like an even better (if time-intensive) variant of this would be to chop the pieces into a lot of bags of holding, and relying on this part of the text:
or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag immediately ruptures and is ruined, and all contents are lost forever.
... as that could actually hypothetically apply to a creature. Hm. I wonder if you could actually chop it up fast enough to do that, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could use a very large bag of holding or a very large portable hole
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could use a very large bag of holding or a very large portable hole
"We're going to need a bigger Hole."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't suppose we can all just agree that the Terrasque is basically a stupid concept--the fantasy RPG equivalent of a pissing contest that seemingly escalates with every revision--and that we're better off focusing on game elements that are actually playable?
No? OK. Carry on, then.
See, I like the Tarrasque. It's a big nasty monster that can't be killed (at least by conventional methods). Like Pyramid Head. Except you can't plane shift pyramid head, or summon endless monsters to delay him, or any of the other ways to negate the Tarrasque. Never the less, the extreme strength of magic in D&D aside, it's still a cool concept and should you ever have a game get to the point where the big T shows up, it should make for an entertaining evening. Possibly a tad anticlimatic if you have a high level caster in the party, but it should still be fun while it lasts. It's not in the fight itself, it's in the dramatic flourishes as the creature rises from it's sleep, and slowly meanders towards the party, the party's reactions as they realize the time is here, they're fighting one of the iconic D&D monsters, FINALLY.
It only becomes problematic, a pissing contest, if you will, when people start to argue about the nitty gritty of what "unkillable" means. That isn't the fault of the Tarrasque, though, just a side effect of human nature. You could say the same about Paladins, for having arguable moral quandaries built into the definition of the class, and we like Paladins right? (and I swear, if this turns into an argument about Alignment morality just because I mentioned the P word, I will brood. Loudly.)
For the record, I've got nothing against having a pleasant discussion about whether the Tarrasque can be killed, and how to do so. The only problem is when it turns nasty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could use a very large bag of holding or a very large portable hole
I think they (portable Holes) only increase in size by weight capacity, not volume. and as a colossal creature volume is a big issue when dealing with Tarrasque.
The choice to doing portable holes into bag of holding was an intentional one, as exactly what happens are distinct differences.
"If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole, a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: the hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process."
So if you put the Tarrasque in Bags of Holding, I have serious reservations that it would fit in one bag at 1,500 lbs. or 250 cubic ft. So you now need multiple bags. Placing bags of holding into a portable hole you may not have both bags in the hole at the exact same moment, if one enters before the rest then the hole colapses and you still have a bag of holding with tarrasque parts. You also have the hassle of shoveling the creature into a hole about 18-24" diameter, rather than into a 6' diameter hole. Finally the text for the text does not identify the objects as being destroyed, thus even though lost forever, nothing clearly states that something lost can not be found by something else that is lost, thus a lost creature could release the tarrasque resulting in it breaking through the barrier of the planes as noted above.
The portable holes into a bag of holding takes the surrounding 10' with it. So you ensure all the portable holes are in the bag of holding. Then the holes and the bag are destroyed, note nothing denoting that the space they previously contained being destroyed. The text also says nothing about contents being released. There is now nothing to find, thus nothing to potentially be released. And even if all the pieces could potentially regenerate to try to regrow, they would be limited to the relatively minuscule and powerless size of the space that was contained within the portable hole. With the portable holes themselves destroyed, there is no way to access the space they once contained.
I think the phrase only 'killed by plot' is being taken to mean the Tarasque is undefeatable without bags of holding. In fact it absolutely should be defeatable by a way that's written into the story through some form of quest. It's just that defeating it involves other ways then killing it.
Incidentally a DM is well within their rights to say that a sufficiently large creature wouldn't be drawn into a detonating portable hole.
The party might not be able to kill the magical plague that's ravaging the kingdom but they can defeat it. The Tarasque is the same principal: a force of nature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I like the Tarrasque. It's a big nasty monster that can't be killed.
...
For the record, I've got nothing against having a pleasant discussion about whether the Tarrasque can be killed, and how to do so. The only problem is when it turns nasty.
In all honesty, I have little against Tarrasque, either. My main complaint is that it's statted out when it's really a pure plot device. Obviously, I was less eloquent in my earlier post. ;)
It kind of underscores the glaring problems with extreme-high-level game play that has plagued D&D and its successors since the beginning: PC power level is so high that monsters need to be over-the-top (some might say ridiculous), world-ending threats. But realistically there can only be so many of those before the game goes beyond "suspension of disbelief" into a numbers exercise.
This isn't PF's fault, though. At least, not entirely. It's what they inherited and had to build from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though Fafnheir is equally outrageous in the "epic monster that can't be killed" department, I actually like him a lot more. And don't mind that he's statted out. Why? Becuase he's intersting. There's a whole story and campaign setting around him that he fits into. The writeup about him really gives you a feel for his place and purpose in the world.
Tarrasque arguably has that too, but I have the same problem with it that I do with Rovagug: "I like destruction" as a motivator is, well, boring.