| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, see, that's where I disagree: I don't think it's really a problem.
I like that it has stats - that's one of the things that makes it cool, instead of just kind of frustrating (though repeated retcons are frustrating for personal reasons that do not reflect poorly on developers).
I like things to have rules structures attached. Many don't. I get that. It's lame for me when they don't, but it's cool for them, so it's not really a bad thing for the game to have those elements.
Things like the Tarrasque can certainly be problematic, but they aren't inherently.
Its just there to be used and hopefully make a good gaming experience.
I find stats do that better than a lack of them, for me.
And, to be clear, I think some of the Devs wanted to make Big T. "easy PC proof" - but I don't really feel that can or should be possible. And I think some other Devs know it. The thing that Big T. is probably most intended for, though, is inspiring new players and GMs. Older players who have had lots of exposure to the community, really shouldn't worry about it too much.
For example, RAWyering the thing will get you hung up on the word, "yet." What does that mean?
- simplest: eternally recursive "always true" statement that does nothing but make the regeneration stat block more complex than it needs to be and also deceptive at best
- real-life context/lulz: well, it was printed in 2011, and it's now 2017...
- in-lore contest: well, it was updated, but since in-lore 2012 connects to the 1920's, that time has still long past
And that's the thing. Why is it there? None of those make too much sense. Instead, it's there to challenge and inspire. "Hey, GM, make up a new end condition." "Hey, players, rise to the challenge."
That is what Big T. is for, and it's what its real purpose is. By RAW or by fiat, the block is there to inspire. Get people to rise to the occasion. That's why it's I like it, anyway.
| 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.
Fafnheir is kind of easy to keep dead though. You just need to have an undead or construct deliver the killing blow. Or anything that will be immune to the ability damage caused by the death curse.
Also, high level adventures would be merely inconvenienced by the curse.
For 100 gp per day you can get a restoration from a party member (hopefully) and not worry about the charisma damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the books?
Simple enough: kill it then while he's dead, teleport its carcass to a demiplane where you have a suitable number of constructs programmed to keep using coup de grace whenever it gets back to life. Then contact some Empyreal Lord and have he lend you a couple of angels to do the same for all eternity.
Problem solved, by the books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
can some one link to the fafnheir creature page i cant seem to find it
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/dragons/linnorm/fafnheir/
Fafnheir is kind of easy to keep dead though. You just need to have an undead or construct deliver the killing blow. Or anything that will be immune to the ability damage caused by the death curse.
Or a Summon, an Asura, a wizard with Moment of Prescience, a high will save guy with a reroll buff, etc.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, when I look at the Big T's protection from being slain, I don't see a set of hard and fast "yes" or "no" standards. I see an open canvas for creating a story in which the PCs put the thing down.
I also see a monster that's in dire need of a revamp, but that ties into the action economy and the problems with solo bosses. (But what if its limbs have their own statblocks, and what if you can only truly damage it hy attacking a "core" accessible via swallow whole?)
But consider having its kill condition tied into your story. In my dead home game, the party would fight and eventually work with a band of Tieflings that hail from a post apocalyptic planet with their own Big Bad Monster that rises every century to feed and rampage. The party learns that each planet has a similar beastie, and eventually learn of the Tarrasque. The final battle is them fighting a dynamic Big T until its weakened, wherein a mix of Time Stop, Gate, and Wish forms a portal between two worlds. The mouth of the Tiefling's beast comes out and devours the Tarrasque whole. Bam, no more Tarrasque, and the other beast will never go hungry again thanks to a regenerating snack.
Doesn't that sound more fun than "kick this can down the road 1000 or so years" to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fafnheir is kind of easy to keep dead though.
As with Terrasque, the challenge for the players is to have a legitimate reason for knowing the mechanism of resurrection.
One can build a whole campaign around finding clues about Fafnheir's origins, weaknesses, powers, etc. It would take you to the First World, across the Linnorm Kingdoms, possibly to other regions with connections to the First World such as the Verduran Forest, seeking out other ancient creatures/beings with an interest in his destruction (if any...some may object). And of course if you did it, you have the rightful claim to King and a prophesied mandate to unite all the kingdoms. Pretty cool stuff!
Terrasque is a kaiju. There's maybe a campaign about his impending escape and a race against the clock, but...eh. That doesn't really excite me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fafnheir is kind of easy to keep dead though.As with Terrasque, the challenge for the players is to have a legitimate reason for knowing the mechanism of resurrection.
One can build a whole campaign around finding clues about Fafnheir's origins, weaknesses, powers, etc. It would take you to the First World, across the Linnorm Kingdoms, possibly to other regions with connections to the First World such as the Verduran Forest, seeking out other ancient creatures/beings with an interest in his destruction (if any...some may object). And of course if you did it, you have the rightful claim to King and a prophesied mandate to unite all the kingdoms. Pretty cool stuff!
Terrasque is a kaiju. There's maybe a campaign about his impending escape and a race against the clock, but...eh. That doesn't really excite me.
At a certain point the knowledge that successfully identifies Fafnheir will tell you. There's some DC that will get you that info, and so some player will certainly find a way to reach that level (if necessary).
Problem solved, by the books.Well, only until a cult of destruction wipes out the guardians and allows it to awake.
And that's my friend is the WHOLE point of the Terrasque's "no way to really kill it" rule: it's always possible to reuse it in future stories.
The PCs win but who knows? In a millenium or two some evil cult can enact a ritual to find out the prison's location and free the monster. Or maybe there's SEVERAL prison's like that, each one holding a different Spawn of Rovagug and they plan to compromise them and let all of the spawns loose on the unknowing multiverse at the same time!And guess what? Once they come up with their "foolproof plan for apocalypse made simple" a bunch of murderhoboes WILL stand up and stop their plan in the name of allmighty plunder!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does that even work?
In short? Shenanigans. Shenanigans that I previously linked in the thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.That's my big problem with a lot of the upper-echelon creatures, and why I groan whenever I hear someone want stats for the gods.
I don't know where people got this toxic mind frame that things that are truly gigantic or otherwise godlike should have no stats. This only serves to hurt the game at higher levels by having nothing impressive or cool to challenge your characters against. This makes me glad that the average player doesn't have too much say of what goes in the game and what doesn't.
| 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.
Horror Adventures got a new monster type that works essentially as Freddy Kruger, Jason or Pyramide head, it has potential to be immortal too as it hunts. Sic one of these on the big T.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know where people got this toxic mind frame that things that are truly gigantic or otherwise godlike should have no stats. This only serves to hurt the game at higher levels by having nothing impressive or cool to challenge your characters against. This makes me glad that the average player doesn't have too much say of what goes in the game and what doesn't.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.That's my big problem with a lot of the upper-echelon creatures, and why I groan whenever I hear someone want stats for the gods.
While I would rathef have the stats than not, fo some folks they would rather it be either a mystery or something that they don't have to worry about being contradicted by metagame knowledge or the players seeing differently.
So, for example, a Player with maxed out Know Planes, by the rules and a good roll, should be able to identify a given deity's abilities though a DM might want to rule that these are beyond the skill's abilities. If there are stats, that gives credence to the players feeling like they should be able to do so, and we would have a DC to aim for.
If we do not have stats, though, it means that the DM has a lot more room to either say no or to alter the DC as they like. My psrsonal opinion is it is better overall (for everyone), to have those stats, and allow the people that do not want them to simply not use them.
^^^That's the one!^^^
(This post is made in agreement with DM Beckett. :D)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know where people got this toxic mind frame that things that are truly gigantic or otherwise godlike should have no stats.
"Toxic" is a pretty strong word. It's just a preference.
A happy medium on some of these monsters at the extreme high end would be a framework for powers and abilities rather than explicitly listing everything out and calling it a day. In the early AD&D days, artifacts, for example, had a framework for powers and drawbacks, and the DM chose from a list of suggested powers to customize each one. A similar framework for these monsters would be interesting.
Of course, GM's can do that today. And they more or less need to because high-level play is already kind of a mess. But having actual stats causes friction with some players who have expectations that everything should be as it is in the books. Which is not how the game is played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At a certain point the knowledge that successfully identifies Fafnheir will tell you. There's some DC that will get you that info, and so some player will certainly find a way to reach that level (if necessary).
The GM is free to apply modifiers to those DC checks as needed. The GM can even say that they just won't succeed on unique beings like Fafnheir, where there's not really an extensive body of knowledge to draw from.
Knowledge checks are really just abstractions of research the character has done combined with other information they have picked up over their lifetime. Abstracting an entire campaign to a Knowledge check is a thing you can do, but it sounds like a lot less fun to play. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only like a DC 29 to know about the existence of Linorm Death curses (Lowest CR of a Linorm is 14 + 15 for a rare creature). You don't need to know what it does just that the curse exists So you can easily justify spamming remove curse on the slayer to be safe, doubly so if they start taking ability drain/damage.
As far as I can tell that would prevent Fafnheir's resurrection. And that's assuming you just don't make the save to begin with. So he's not really all that hard to keep dead assuming you're at a level where you can kill him in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we do not have stats, though, it means that the DM has a lot more room to either say no or to alter the DC as they like. My psrsonal opinion is it is better overall (for everyone), to have those stats, and allow the people that do not want them to simply not use them.
See I vastly prefer many things, at the very least the gods, not having stats. If players want to take on the task of killing a god, it's much harder for me to say no when it has stats and there is a win condition. Sure, as a GM I can say "I'm not using those" but players don't particularly care for that much.
Besides, if you really want stats for deities you can go rip out the stats from the 3.5 pantheons and file off the names and replace special abilities as necessary but it gives you a starting point.
Really though, deities are the only things I don't want to have stats. I'm okay with everything else being able to be killed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does that even work?In short? Shenanigans. Shenanigans that I previously linked in the thread.
You don't actually believe I read everything in a thread, do you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't actually believe I read everything in a thread, do you?How does that even work?In short? Shenanigans. Shenanigans that I previously linked in the thread.
Sometimes people miss the details, and that's fine. That's why I linked it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Planeshift if somewhere nasty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some Spawn of Rovagug (or maybe just a swarm of gremlins?) ate my attempted reply yesterday so let's see if I can remember what I wanted to say...
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.
I like the idea of the Tarrasque as well, to the point of featuring it right in the title of my current homebrew campaign, "Time of the Tarrasque." I've worked its depredations into the history of the world, and into the greater cosmology. The main conceit of the game is that the PCs will be the heroes who have to fight it in this generation--but first they have to survive to reach high enough level to face it. My players have bought into that, right from 1st level, without the need for me to mention any such destiny in-game. One PC hails from the last land to be visited by the Tarrasque, one was raised in a tribe that worships it as a god, another belongs to an obscure cult dedicated to a dragon god (The Lost Egg) that the Tarrasque ate before it even hatched, and another has nightmares of being killed by the beast in a previous life.
The campaign's initial idea came years ago, upon seeing that the 3E Monster Manual had an Advancement line for this supposedly unique creature. Clearly it gets stronger as it devours heroes who are powerful enough to threaten but not kill it! Reasoning from there, I decided that its MM/Bestiary stat block represents the compiled lore of centuries of survivors reporting on what it could do, so that data might not be entirely reliable--or current. I even said as much to my players when one of them shared one of these "How to kill the Tarrasque at the lowest possible level" threads with the group. Do your own research in character, then take your chances!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't you lure the Tarrasque into a Sphere of Annihilation? Given that:
"Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character."
Bypasses its regeneration clause entirely. It never gets a saving throw against the effect that instantly, and utterly destroyed it (so the racial feature that revives it should never trigger). In addition, not being a deity itself, the above clause prevents the Tarrasque's racial feature from restoring it to life anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See the "no method to truly kill it has been discovered" argument, which is more or less the ultimate fallback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but I haven't killed it. I've "Utterly Destroyed" it. After touching the Sphere of Annihilation the Tarrasque no longer exists. Short of Rovagug itself returning it from the void (or spawning another), it never will again.
Of course, this does still require GM fiat; as you cannot just buy a Minor Artifact at the Magic-Mart. In some realities, the Sphere of Annihilation may have already been destroyed (sucks for reality C-32).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A sphere of annihilation is actually a minor artifact, meaning there is (probably) more than one of them - they are not necessarily unique.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know where people got this toxic mind frame that things that are truly gigantic or otherwise godlike should have no stats.
It comes from the facts that at the highest level of play the game is effectively broken if you play hard with the rules and that it's preferable to have nothing rather than a bad option (as, once there is an official rule or stat block or whatever, players are going to know about it).
And I'm not suggesting that every high end monster should be statless, just certain ones (gods, demigods, and super-uniques quasi-divines like the Terrasque)
This only serves to hurt the game at higher levels by having nothing impressive or cool to challenge your characters against.
I thought we'd already established that, as statted, the Terrasque isn't really a challenge? There's still plenty of big things that would honestly be more challenging (great wyrm dragons, for example, being high-level sorcerers in addition to their already formidable physical abilities). Also, not having stat blocks allows you more freedom. It's a lot less jarring for players to stat up something that doesn't have a block than to rebuild or remove stats from a character that does.
At high levels, real challenge is rarely "here's a big monster, go" because that basically boils down to a couple knowledge checks and the appropriate application of spells. When everything has a stat block, there isn't really a challenge unless you get into an arms race with the players, which is just annoying (see: the progressive evolution of the Terrasque and its regeneration). The one time I had planned for players to actually go head-to-head with the Terrasque, the plan involved a recovered and repaired Giant war golem that they piloted as a unit to fight it hand-to-hand (think Power Rangers with less camp). It was a ball. I had to jury rig a bunch of stuff, but it worked.
This makes me glad that the average player doesn't have too much say of what goes in the game and what doesn't.
Derision noted.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we do not have stats, though, it means that the DM has a lot more room to either say no or to alter the DC as they like. My psrsonal opinion is it is better overall (for everyone), to have those stats, and allow the people that do not want them to simply not use them.See I vastly prefer many things, at the very least the gods, not having stats. If players want to take on the task of killing a god, it's much harder for me to say no when it has stats and there is a win condition. Sure, as a GM I can say "I'm not using those" but players don't particularly care for that much.
Besides, if you really want stats for deities you can go rip out the stats from the 3.5 pantheons and file off the names and replace special abilities as necessary but it gives you a starting point.
Really though, deities are the only things I don't want to have stats. I'm okay with everything else being able to be killed.
And that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying one side is right or wrong. Simply desiring different things. I, personally, would rather have the stats and not use them than not have them and want them.
Back in the 3.5 days, on occasion, when most of the party couldn't make a game, we would hand out "Deity Character Sheets" and just have a big royal rumble. I also, and this is just me, feel robbed when we beat a major enemy or threat because of ST Fiat. Doing something that a Level 1 NPC class could have done if they happened to have that special PC identifier floating over their head is like taking home a participation trophy.
On the other hand, I've also been the DM where I really wish a published AP/Module/Scenario would have left things more vague and open to personalization, as written.
But, please keep in mind that what I was suggesting is that people that have preferences as you do are not "toxic".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but I haven't killed it. I've "Utterly Destroyed" it. After touching the Sphere of Annihilation the Tarrasque no longer exists. Short of Rovagug itself returning it from the void (or spawning another), it never will again.
Of course, this does still require GM fiat; as you cannot just buy a Minor Artifact at the Magic-Mart. In some realities, the Sphere of Annihilation may have already been destroyed (sucks for reality C-32).
It requires DM fiat to have it stay dead as well as the DM is the Arbiter of weather or not "No form of attack can suppress his regeneration / there's no way to kill it applies to a sphere"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh... kind of? It really depends on how you define it.
I see everything as more-or-less equally "GM fiat" and "actual, practical rules the GM follows, same as the players" - though the GM can, of course, fudge, massage, or alter those rules, the way they function, or whatever... but doing so means that the GM is altering the rules on the player.
Even artifacts themselves have rules - hard ones. If the GM deviates from these, s/he is deviating from the rules just as much as if s/he declared that all attacks were basically Vital Strike, now - no multiple attacks due to BAB, anymore.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, in the slightest.
Where artifacts "differ" from other magical items, though, is that they fall outside of the presumed game-balance - they are never included in WBL, and are not necessary to any particular game.
This is interesting, because it is functionally identical to the role that monsters play. Not all monsters, of course, but individual or specific ones. So, for example, a GM need never place kobolds in the game once. Perhaps that's because there are no kobolds in that campaign setting, or perhaps there are (because, say, it's in Golarion) and either the PCs just don't go to the places they are or they are never featured (maybe because the GM doesn't like them, or the AP never mentions them, or any host of other reasons).
In this instance, kobolds play the role of artifacts - there is no particular need or reason for them to be in the story, so they are excised. Does this, then, make them pure GM fiat? To some extent, yes, and to some extent, most definitely not.
I suspect if the GM slapped down a 1st level kobold warrior with 83 strength, 72 dexterity, 91 constitution, and 23 each intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, a +5 to all attacks, damage, AC, and saves, and an extra 200 hit points, and the ability to use wish as a spell-like ability at-will, the players are going to call "shenanigans" - "kobold" has a very specific meaning, after all, as does "1st level," and "warrior."
These are rules and meanings that the GM can certainly change, but doing so alters the fundamental tenets of what makes the game a shared experience.
Artifacts - and creatures like the Tarrasque - are the same way. There is never a real reason to have them in the game, unless the GM wants to tell a story involving them. But if the GM does tell a story involving them, they have rules that they should follow, for the sake of the game itself.
I thought we'd already established that, as statted, the Terrasque isn't really a challenge?
I want to call myself out, here (I'm using your quote, because it's the most recent).
I'm calling myself out, because I'm very guilty of minimizing the threat that is the Tarrasque. But I would like to amend my previous statement to clarify the point, and, hopefully, foster communication.
Big T. isn't really a challenge... once you can reliably beat him.
This may seem like tautology, and it kind-of is, but it's an important caveat to make. The reason the Tarrasque is so famous is because it looks terrifying.
When you first read about it, the Tarrasque appears to be a godlike nigh-unstoppable monstrosity. Look at that hp! That strength! Those attacks! Those defenses! That regeneration! Holy CARP, look at that regeneration! Again!
... but for many players, eventually they will hit a point of system mastery (presuming they play "enough"*) where Big T. is just an annoying brute. Perhaps that's not their first campaign. Perhaps it is. Perhaps they hit that system mastery by level three. Perhaps they never get it.
But especially for the purposes of discussing things on these forums, in general, most people** here have system mastery that Big T. will not be a threat by the time you get to the levels where it would be appropriate to face him. In fact, long before I ever got to internet forums, Big T. stopped becoming a genuine threat to my players (though some of them were still super-intimidated by him, for some reason that's beyond me; they could literally smack around demon lords and even take down demigods, and I casually mention the Tarrasque was in the region, and three of them go all squirrely and decide to leave the area - it would have been, "So much for that plot hook." but the others just shrugged and crushed it).
And that's really what I mean. By the time the "No, you can't ever keep it dead." clause comes in with Big T.'s regeneration, you've most likely hit a point where Big T. is no longer a relevant threat to the PCs. There are plenty of bigger and badder challenges out there - things that can and will threaten the PCs more.
As just one example, a "properly"**** prepared and played lich is much harder to keep down than Big T. - and, with the plethora of options available to full casters, it represents a much larger and more deadly threat than Big T., too.
And yet, that's a thing, too: even liches really shouldn't ever be a thing that can never go away. They should, in fact, exactly be things that can and will go away - that can be beaten... unless your players have signed up in advance for a game they can't win.
Bear in mind, this isn't to say that the PCs must win, or that a GM can't spring a surprise on their players... but for the former, it should be "fair" and for the latter you really need to know your group - I can't count the number of times people have posted on this forum (and, even more, the now-defunct WotC forums) with things like, "All I did was have an immortal uber-villain that kept coming back to life, and, after they thought they'd killed him and the campaign was over, he came back and murdered them and all of their descendants in their sleep and burned all of their soul stuff so they can't ever be restored, even by gods, and now all my players are mad at me: why me?" or some-such^ and it's fundamentally because he didn't know his players, and sprang a surprise they wouldn't be okay with on them.
There isn't, fundamentally, anything wrong with that kind of game - but it can be harmful. And, ultimately, there isn't anything fundamentally solid or praise-worthy about that kind of game, either.
I suggest things like Call of Cthulu is meant more for games you can't really win and you leave an existential threat hanging over the PCs and even victory is just temporary.
PF is usually more for games where you can punch Cthulu out (or, perhaps, use his biggest weakness: a boat^^).
That said: of course there is no wrong way to play. That's the awesome thing about it. And that's the important thing to remember when we're debating, too - we have RAW (and RAI and RAtT), and Lore which we can debate and correct with, but anything else is pretty much, "Sure, go for that, if it's a home game and your Players will like it."
** ***
***
****
^
^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take it to zero HP however you do, then use a Wish to teleport the carcass to the deepest recesses of the bottom of the ocean.
"Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation."
Not counting the use of logic like lack of oxygen or crushing pressure; at best it regenerates once, tries to inhale air as the first thing it does and immediately begins making Constitution checks for drowning.
"When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns."
Or do we assume the Tarrasque's caveat of "nothing surpresses Regen" somehow applies to drowning in this one specific case?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way I would handle that is hes dead until he gets set into an oxygen rich environment again then boom hes back. So you basically made it someone else problem but hey he will most likely be gone for your life time and then some.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't mind the consistent revisions to the Tarrasque stat block to patch previous vulnerabilities, though the ultimate conclusion is concerning. I feel some of these were glaringly obvious flaws in it's design that needed fixing.
As for others, I think there's diminishing returns for "clever" solutions to problems. It's usually only ever "clever" the first time. After that it turns into "exploitative". Especially in cases when it's not something a player has come up with themselves but something they heard about or read about online; then you're just taking someone else's clever idea.
That being said, were I to run a campaign featuring the tarrasque, I'd personally be inclined to reward creativity. Let the players devise a new way to kill the beast permanently, whether it be by researching and creating a brand new spell or forging a new artifact that cancels out Big T's regeneration or some other method.
I probably wouldn't have a memitim's aura alone be enough to do it, but perhaps if the PC's took inspiration from it, or found a way to amplify it's aura, or used it to augment a method they devised on their own.
I suppose that all falls under the realm of GM fiat but the point is I'm more inclined to encourage players to come up with their own solutions rather than spotting little exploits in the rules that the devs missed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take it to zero HP however you do, then use a Wish to teleport the carcass to the deepest recesses of the bottom of the ocean.
"Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation."
Not counting the use of logic like lack of oxygen or crushing pressure; at best it regenerates once, tries to inhale air as the first thing it does and immediately begins making Constitution checks for drowning.
"When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns."
Or do we assume the Tarrasque's caveat of "nothing surpresses Regen" somehow applies to drowning in this one specific case?
"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."
EDUT: Incidentally, is there anything actually stopping you from just Magic Jarring the thing? It's not a mind-affecting effect and T's will save is laughable for a creature of its level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, possession effects work great on Big T and kaiju.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some campaigns the solutions proposed of 1. Find and employ a sphere of annihalation. 2. Transport and imprison on the bottom of the ocean. 3. Find and convince a psychopomp to stand guard over its prison. 4. Find and convince an immortal angel to stand guard over the prison; all sound pretty damn amazing to my mind.
In campaigns where wishes grow on trees and players are allowed to simulacrum into creatures they've never personally seen then it isn't a challenge at all. However I know in the games we play these things would be awesome challenges in and of themselves.
Of course as in all encounter or adventure design having just one creature is a fairly limited concept and the doomsday cult/fallen angel/angry psychopomp that let the thing free in the first place could all add substantial complications. The Tarasque is a creature of plot and story and it deserves a good plot to make it truly come alive. Flicking to a page in the bestiary and rolling initiative doesn't really work for this beastie... or any epic adventures to be fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd be satisfied with the Tarrasque being treated like a greater artifact in terms of destruction requirements, i.e there's a specific set of conditions that need be filled. I know 4th edition did this with some of their CR 30 'deities' like Tiamat and Lolth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Force it into a death hibernation and leave it for a few eons and let Starfinder deal with it lol
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually...if you could find a remote enough place you could make it essentially impossible to find unless someone already knew where it was.
While in hibernation, a spawn of Rovagug’s damage reduction improves to 50/epic and it gains immunity to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance as well as all divination effects.
That immunity to all divination effects means if you stuck it in some far corner of the universe, someone would either have to know where it was in the first place, or stumble across it randomly.
"Got a tee-rask in my pocket (universe), and I think it'll never melt...~!"