Talk:Tarrasque

Tarrasque can't fly

In 4e, the tarrasque grounds any creature with flying within it's range.--Anonykota 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ITA: Viewspam. NightRapier 18:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not the 4e fighting again

Is Rick James gonna have to {{editwar}} a bitch? --NotBrandX 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The exact length of time it takes depends on the skill level of the mounted archers. The Tarrasque has a resist of 10, and tons of hit points...you really want to go through the math of how long it takes to roll 'natural 20s' for first level archers, as opposed to "18 or better" for third level archers, etc., factoring in that resistance? I don't have a book right in front of me, but go look up "Halfling Outrider" (3rd level), from MM. We're looking at an expected damage of less than 1 point, so 1,000 rounds or more of combat. Yeah, that'll take hours. Now look at the speed of the Outrider. Then look at the speed of the Tarrasque. Pretty sure it's less, but it certainly isn't more. There's nothing the Tarrasque can do to increase its speed that the halfling can't do as well. It fundamentally cannot catch up. The idiot's claim doesn't matter, of course, in the face of this problem.

I'm the mathfag that did the charts in Talk:Dice pool, and I wrote the "Grog vs. Neo" essay, so YES I WANT TO SEE THE MATH. GOOD GRAVY JESUS LORD HALLELUJAH GIVE ME NUMBERS HARRALLALGHWHGWWHHAAALLLG please and thank you. Or, fuck it, I'll dig out my own books, I was amused enough to buy the first three of 4e, which should be enough, unless they erratta'd something relevant. --NotBrandX 02:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The length of time it'll take really does depend entirely on the skill level of the archers involved. Keep in mind, 4e uses non-euclidean geometry, so if the Tarrasques focuses on one archer, for example, that archer can ride in a diamond (i.e., a circle under 4e's metric), while the 'central' archer can plink away.

Too late, I did the math already. Updated the page. BTW, whoever told you you only needed Halfling Outriders was smoking crack, they don't possibly have enough +tohit for their attacks to... (what? I'm writing on the wiki here. I should read what? where? give me that... aw, Jesus, did they really?). Sorry. PH, pg 276, "Automatic Hit: If you roll a nat 20, your attack automatically hits." Over on pg 278 it says you only crit for max damage if rolling a 20 would've resulted in a hit even without the nat-20 rule, but even with that, your Halfling Slingers (no 1/2ling Outriders in the MM) still do only 5-10 points of damage, or 1-8 with 1/2ling-sized longbows, still not enough to penetrate Resist(all)10. If you had something that could do 1d6+5 range 10/20, and needed nat20s to hit, and the Tarrasque is always forcing one of the two to double-move instead of attacking, the gang would do an average of .0083 hit points per round, taking 170,400 rounds, or 11.83 days of non-stop combat. Fuuuuuck, even the beardiest of neckbearded DMs wouldn't allow that. --NotBrandX 04:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, guess I'll have to find someone with a MM2, pretty sure 'halfling outrider' is there (it's an actual mounted archer, as opposed to just putting a slinger on a horse). I'll try to get my friend to post here again, my memory is less than perfect, sorry. This does neglect the APs of the Tarrasque, so it might actually take 3 such mounted archers (again, I'd have to see the HP vs possible damage to know for sure if the tarrasque can even kill one archer). Even so, using slingers on horseback instead of archers, you have a situation which, with certainty, leads to the death of the tarrasque, no actual heroes required. It's not about whether the GM would 'allow' it, it's a thought exercise, showing what you can do under the rules. This is why it's an interesting thing to consider, as compared to the silliness with the 3rd level spellcaster and the allip, where you have to make up rules about the breathing capability of a burrowing creature and make up rules about how such a creature falls over and make up more rules about shoveling capacity--no DM would allow that, either, but nobody cares because you're obviously outside the rulebook (i.e., being your own DM) anyway.

The assumptions for the 4e fight are pretty extreme, however. You can build a +1 javelin with minimal cost, eliminating the need for arrows. A level 1 goblin has a 17 dexterity, making the assumption of 11 dexterity quite extreme, even for NPCs. I'll definitely have to think about these three examples, it really seems one of these is not like the other. Sanity

Ok, here's the thing.

1) The first 'beating the tarrasque' scenario requires 20 levels of character building. One might argue about assuming the character can actually find the tarrasque, but a level 20 character could well have access to that kind of resources. Similarly, the items are credible, as id everything else. It's a commentary on how even a 'destroyer of armies' can be carefully beaten by well thought out planning.

2) The second 'beating the tarrasque' is pure stupid. The allip didn't even exist at the time the tarrasque was made, there's no explanation how the level 3 character can find the tarrasque, and there's no explanation about why the tarrasque doesn't just step over the allip and kill the character, and that's not even mentioning the 'giant clothespin' stupidity. Since the allip is post-tarrasque, a DM can fix this issue simply by adjusting the rules in a number of trivial ways (epic creatures immune to drain, epic creatures can override non-epic immunities, so it can hit the allip, etc.). Anyway, this is just stupid, and not even funny. At best, it's a commentary about how adding new rules/creatures can cause conflicts with old rules/creatures, but nobody cares about such an obvious thing. I'd give it points for originality, but the core idea is actually plagiarized, with the original source uncredited, as a google search reveals.

3) The third 'beating the tarrasque' is interesting, demonstrating the tarrasque, supposedly a destroyer of armies, cannot defeat any village that can buy 3 +1 javelins and 3 basic horses (that's well under 2,000 gold, less than a level 2 party would have accumulated). While this would be a much more boring fight than in case 1), above, this feature of being boring, combined with the general poor design and lack of foresight of the 4e tarrasque, makes for good commentary, and makes the 4e tarrasque, with it's descriptors of 'boring, poor design, no foresight' being an excellent, excellent, representative of 4th edition.

One of these is indeed not like the others: case 2). As it is stupid, and plagiarized, I'm removing it from this page. It could go on its own page (much like the Dungeons and Dragons 5e troll, which is at least credited), but has no business here. Sanity

I see you've finally registered, Doom. To Tl;DR what he just said for people: "The number-crunched theories on defeating the 3.5e Tarrasque are stupid! The assumed and not-number crunched theory for beating the 4E tarrasque is an innovative work of genius!" It's quite obvious that we're dealing with an edition-war goon.

I'm going to undo your edits. The second case isn't plagiarized. Someone did indeed go over this tactic online, but it wasn't copy-pasted; not even close. I'd agree if the player copied the actual writing, but he didn't. He simply explained the tactic involved, in his own words. The right to cast a couple of spells to thwart the 3.5e tarrasque isn't a published, owned right, so it's not plagiarism. Brush up on the concept and the definition before you make such a bold claim. What you're saying is identical to saying that picking the same feats and gear as another fighter who talked about his choices online is plagiarism. Making a tactically similar choice is not plagiarism, and even if it was, you can't prove that what the contributor did was plagiarism since he didn't use any of the same writing or copy anything. For all you know it's just two dicks who came up with the same dickish strategy, considering how obvious and common it is.

And don't try to argue you can remove the section because "it wouldn't work." That's not the point. Whether it works doesn't matter, this isn't an informative page, it's a page of humor. Deal with it.

That said, if you continue to vandalize the page and remove content you don't like, I'll call the admin in immediately to lock the page, citing it as a continuation of the 4E page debacle. Next fallacious edit, I will do it. So choose wisely. --76.94.191.184 00:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Not sure I understand half of what you're attempting to say here. Anyway, this isn't an original idea, it's caused alot of fighting, and adding the 'some of them are retarded' line is stupid. There's only one thing that's stupid. Remove the stupid thing, remove the cause of fighting. Real simple. If the troll article really needs to exist, put it on its own troll page, like other troll articles. And, ip address, you are zabasaz. Why are you referencing 'the player' instead of 'I'? Reading around, I see you're accused of sockpuppeting often. I guess I can see why, now.

I'm not the player, the person who made that section is my friend Stiggaz. You should know I don't play 3.5e, I play 4E, Doom. --76.94.191.184 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as humor goes, no. This isn't a humor page. The first "kill the tarrasque" isn't about humor, and neither is the 4e "kill the tarrasque". The troll one might, arguably, be, but it doesn't belong. Sanity

Wasn't aware it was up to you the mood of the page. In any case, Doom, your arguments that you could just change the rules on the tarrasque to make it immune to the allip is house-ruling. There's nothing wrong with house-ruling, but you say house-ruling is wrong when it's done to fix something in 4E, so I'd like to bring it up. Enjoy. --76.94.191.184 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, your trolling is not needed. Just stop, already. By the way, your page says you were playing 3.5 fairly recently, so stop lying about that, too. -- Doom

Zabasaz, I'm hard pressed to figure out what you may or not be trying or not trying to say or not say in your basically incoherent posts. On this very page you argue that this 'joke' is both serious, and a joke, and, looking around at your other posts elsewhere, I see you have a tendency to lie and deceive that cannot be attributed to simply incoherence on your part. You're simply trolling here, arguing for the sake of argument, and it is not appreciated. Go away. Sanity

Alright, you pretending to be multiple people and personally attacking me as per usual aside, how about this; I have found multiple posts on multiple sites describing the exact same mounted archer strategy to kill the 4E tarrasque that you put on this page. Two can play at this game; if you want to remove the 3.5e method involving the wizard with the allip, you also have to remove the entire 4E tarrasque section too, because they are both guilty of the same exact form of "plagiarism." In before you claim there is a difference using some logical fallacy and continue to remove onto the allip one. --76.94.191.184 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are sockpuppet, and making, frankly, bizarre allegations. Look up "reaction formation". For your other concerns, I've not seen the mathematics worked out elsewhere, and would love to see it. Link? Your work still counts as trolling. Move it to another page, please. Also, I note you seem to have an unhealthy fascination with rectal pain. Ask your doctor about the O'Regan procedure; while in your case the band should probably be placed around your neck, you should look into it. Sanity

[1] - Here you go. Link to a thread where, on page 11, Frank Trollman states that you can use the same exact strategy against the 4E tarrasque involving two mounted archers pulling ahead. And who's that two posts above? WHY, it's Doom! And we know it's Doom, because he's quoting HIS ENTIRE USERPAGE! And what do you know, Doom is the guy who created, defended, and took care of the 4E article. On aside, about Doom's accusations that I "don't take credit for my work," I love how in that post he goes ahead and claims that all those points about 4E WEREN'T written by him, when in fact they were, or of course added to. And about the accusations of me being a troll, just stop. Wikifag isn't going to fall for it. I am acutely aware of your tactics: Use multiple faces to repeatedly call me a troll and plead with me to stop undoing your vandalism so that I look like the bad guy. Trust me, Wikifag has dealt with this shit before and he's definitely smart and perceptive enough to pick off such a fundamental, basic strategy. Cut it out. --Zabasaz 00:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

More insanity, and no mathematics at all. You are again trolling, creating argument and discord where before there was none. Please stop. Sanity

The original 4E post had no mathematics either, NotBrandX added it in when he thoroughly thrashed the logic. But yeah. I will continue to undo your vandalize (blanketed as "removal of plagiarism" since you have failed to put forth any logic and prove you are anyone other than Doom. It is scary how aggressive 4E haters are, sometimes. --98.148.37.26 06:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, wonder who this 'new guy' is. NotBrandZ didn't 'thrash' the logic, merely demonstrated how it works even under the worst possible scenario. You're a little confused there, but that's not unusual for Zab. You are, again, lying about that entire post being all complaints just by me. Yes, you know it's me who made that post in the forum, not because I'm quoting the entire page, but also because I'm the one making the post (from my account, moron). Gee, Zab (and imaginary friends), if you have a problem with those posts in another forum, go to the forum and tell everyone there how wrong they are. I'm sure it'll be easy for you, since you're so smart and stuff. In any event, take your drama off this site. And, are you even aware the current issue is about something in 3.5? It's scary how stupid 4rons are, often.--Doom

To summarize, having failed to cause an argument about NotBrandX's post, you now wish to cause an argument about me. Having been shown that you will engage in stalking and intimidation tactics, I'm not motivated to discuss my identity. We're back where we started: you're simply trying to cause more argument and discord. Please stop. Sanity

What the fuck are you even talking about? All I am doing is telling you to stop removing a perfectly fine section on the page, and I only bring up that site to use your own logic for its removal against you. You're not even responding to me, you're just making up random crap and going around in circles. This talk page discussion has become useless spam. I've e-mailed the admin, with any luck he'll see through this illusion and deal with you once and for all. --76.94.191.184 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it asking why trolling is so important to you isn't likely to get an answer? Sanity

Okay, this is ridiculous.

The wizard/allip method of Tarrasque-defeating isn't a "troll method". It was not put there to provoke incandescent rage in people that like third edition (although it appears to have succeeded regardless). It's interesting and somewhat amusing that it's actually technically possible, and I would remind everyone that our "angle", as it were, is to present information in a humorous fashion. Neither is it "plagiarism". Nothing on the page is. Nobody is trying to take credit for the tactics and techniques detailed on the page; they're just there. None of it needs to be removed on that basis. So basically, the page is fine, although the 4e section doesn't read very well, so stop removing things from it arbitrarily.

Regarding the individual behaviour of people involved, chill out and take a step back. I do not want any more drama on the wiki, and the matter does not need anymore discussion. If I see any more bitching from anyone, I will ban them. If I see anyone commenting on the bitching of others, I will ban them, too. There will be no excuses. --Wikifag 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wikifag for clearing it up. Hopefully someone won't resort to selectively editing the section rather than blanking it to damage the quality of its content, I remember something like that happened before so I'm on guard, but so long as it isn't being blanked I'm happy. (And no, I really didn't put it there, I just think its pretty funny. I did add the last part, though, about doing it at level 1.) It's Zab, btw, too lazy to login and haven't had my coffee. --76.94.191.184 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's wonderful, but I don't need approval and I'd rather the issue was quietly dropped by everyone involved. --Wikifag 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimers - Yes we know it's not plausible, chill out

Somebody is adding disclaimers to the page, you don't need to do that. People can tell whether or not something on this page is a joke/whether or not it works on their own. Kinda kills the joke when you TELL people before they read it that it's a joke. So, yeah, I removed your disclaimers, please don't put them back. -Zabasaz 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. It's that butthurt 4E hater again. No wonder. Wish he'd just get banned already. -Zabasaz 13:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you whined that someone should cite the source instead of looking yourself, I am going to cite it now. Monster Manual I of 3.5e, page 314. Explains that hit points lost through suffocation do not regenerate. The tarrasque's regeneration is the same kind of regeneration with the exception that a coup de grace/disintegrate spell doesn't work. Therefore, by blocking its nasal passages (it has nostrils and a constitution score, and therefore clearly respires) you could technically cause it to suffer damage from suffocation (as per normal rules, nowhere does it say he's immune to suffocation) and trap it in a state where it can't act until it regenerates. You aren't killing it, just DEFEATING it. So, yeah. You can continue to whine, slap, cry, and edit the page to say this isn't true, but it is. And you can keep saying it's "house-ruling" to allow this, but since the rules say you can, it'd be closer to house-ruling if you DIDN'T allow it. Enjoy your butthurt. :3 --Zabasaz 22:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry moron-boy, you haven't met the criterion, namely explaining the aspect of Tarrasque physiology that guarantees that when it falls over, you'd be able to shovel into its nostrils, cited how this would cause asphyxiation for this creature, nor have cited how a creature that hides underground for years would necessarily asphyxiate from a few shovel-fulls of dirt in its nose. Also, moron-boy, how can you say it's a joke up top, and then say it works here. Are you too stupid to read your own writing? Yes, apparently. --[[Special:Contributions/216.115.147.203|FriendofDoom]

Jesus, calm the fuck down. We're not doing a presentation before the CEO; this is all playing around and min/maxing junk. We use the Tarrasque for these exercises because it's got a big bullseye on from the fluff describing it as "an invulnerable immortal engine of destruction even the gods don't mess with." The "How To Defeat" sections AREN'T SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE, and even the most mentally retarded DM will use alternate tactics or houserule some shit... like having a Tarrasque being carried in a blimp. (you, uh, did notice that picture in the article, right? )

Everyone who likes the crunchy parts of D&D will do the "okay, in a fight, who would win: Unicron or the Death Star?" type exercises, but nobody *actually* pits Unicron versus the Death Star in a simulation. It would be ridiculous and suicidal to try shoveling dirt into a Tarrasque's nostrils to permanently incapacitate it, but it's plausible enough to be funny. --NotBrandX

Wow. Looks like BobTheMighty is flipping the fuck out. --NotBrandX 16:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry, I'll help him out. --Doom

Yes, it's a joke, just making it even funnier --BobtheMighty

Oh, okay. Improvements are good. --NotBrandX

Honestly, it seems less like you're trying to make it funnier, and more like you're trying to just tell everyone it doesn't work. Which is part of the joke, so you don't need to do it, that'd be redundant. Please, just leave it be, your edits are contrary to the author's intent so it's kind of a slap in the face. Might I recommend instead you use this creativity to make your own section in the same vein? --Zabasaz 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He did, but some 4rry asshole keeps making edits contrary to the author's intent. Maybe you could get him/you to read his/your post, right here, at some point? --Sanity

Wisdom Damage

The 3.5 build to defeat the Tarrasque has one major flaw: The Tarrasque is immune to ability damage :3 --109.122.10.47

Verified: In the 'Special Qualities' section of the Monster Manual entry you will find: "Carapace, damage reduction 15/epic, immunity to fire, poison, disease, energy drain, and ability damage, regeneration 40, scent, spell resistance 32" --NotBrandX

Er, no. The allip causes wisdom drain, not wisdom damage. They're two separate things. -- 82.181.33.235

Does that mean "hit point drain" can bypass damage resistance? Since hit points regenerate with normal rest, any melee damage would be "hit point drain." It may be a different word, but I assert that 'drain' is synonymous with 'damage.' --NotBrandX 15:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This effect permanently reduces a living opponent’s ability score when the creature hits with a melee attack. The creature’s descriptive text gives the ability and the amount drained. If an attack that causes ability drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the indicated amount (if the damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice). Unless otherwise specified in the creature’s description, a draining creature gains 5 temporary hit points (10 on a critical hit) whenever it drains an ability score no matter how many points it drains. Temporary hit points gained in this fashion last for a maximum of 1 hour.

Some ability drain attacks allow a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). If no saving throw is mentioned, none is allowed.

Points lost to ability drain, is permanent, though restoration can restore even those lost ability score points.

Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#abilityDrain - It's worthy of note that some features in D&D 3.5e specify immunity to ability drain and damage separately, which implies to me that the two things are different. Certain feats, domains, creatures, etc are immune to "ability drain, ability damage to physical stats," or other such variants of this statement, while the Tarrasque is only immune to ability damage, though I don't see anything about ability drain. It does mention energy drain which is negative levels, not ability scores. That said, I removed the prompt to see the discussion though if anyone puts forth any further developments they're free to readd it if it changes the conclusion. --Zabasaz

Can you explain where in this source it says drain and damage are treated separately, and can you give an example of a monster that is immune to one, but it specifically says not immune to the other? Thanks! Sanity

where in this source it says drain and damage are treated separately Zabasaz already said: the d20SRD description of special abilities. You should have read the citation before you asked. For the super lazy: the first line is "Some attacks reduce the opponent’s score in one or more abilities. This loss can be temporary (ability damage) or permanent (ability drain).". That implies pretty strongly that "ability damage" and "ability drain" are separate from each other, both types of ability score loss abilities. Furthermore, the same section has seperate sub-headings for 'ability damage' and 'ability drain.' I doubt you'll find a monster description that says a monster is resistant to one but vulnerable to the other, since all monsters are vulnerable to any attack unless specified otherwise -- thus it is only necessary to state where a monster resists or enjoys immunity. --NotBrandX 04:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird, the internet must be acting up again, the first line in the linked source is under Special Abilities:

Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like....

But I did find it after knowing that it's definitely in there. It's still pretty idiotic and just troll-bait, though, especially since the description under Drain say it has a damage die (i.e., it's a type of damage). Sanity

As I recall, the Pleasure Domain for Clerics in BoVD grants a cleric immunity to ability drain, but only partial immunity to ability damage. The only off-the-top-of-my-head example of ability drain and damage both being specified in one entry, but as different mechanics. --Zabasaz

Dear Zabasaz/174.106.244.48

Stop meddling with the "how to defeat" section. Please apply your superior wits by fixing the article, not by giving destructive criticism. --206.248.139.149 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the unstated assumption of the 4E section is "the Tarrasque is too stupid to do anything about the horses" (and also "the GM is too stupid to hit one of the parties involved with a lightning bolt for trying to do something involving over a thousand rounds of combat in the first place") so pointing this out rather defeats the point of it. Anyway, the real way to defeat the Tarrasque is to show that Tarraism won't affect our lives, to unite as one country and feel pride as Americans in our nation and our heritage. Tim 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

God Bless (enchantment, Cleric 1) America! --NotBrandX 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Its also worth pointing out that a warhorse has 53 hit points; the tarrasque hits with its basic attack for at most 28 + ongoing. Even if it does burn through a couple of action points just to take out a horse or two, so what? The gist of the article, namely that a militia of just a few horsemen, is still going to beat the thing, eventually, through a long grinding, 4e-style fight. There doesn't even need to be heroes, any town that can fight off a few dozen orcs can fight off the 'destroyer of armies'. Why is Zabasaz still around? I'm terrified of touching the article because of this menace, or else I'd clean it up a bit. Sanity

"Bribe the DM"

Moving this edit war to the Talk page. The "how to kill the tarrasque" seems to attract people who keep wanting to say "nuh-uh! no you can't!"

• Sept 5: added "Bribe the DM (this is legal) to allow a burrowing creature to suffocate on dirt."
• Sept 12: removed "File:tarrasque.jpg|How to kill tarrasque - illustrated"
• Sept 12: "Bribe the DM" removed.
• Sept 15: re-added "Bribe the DM ..." Reason: "The SRD says Servant cannot attack 'in any way' ... suffocating a creature is an attack."
• Sept 16: re-removed "Bribe the DM..." changed "Cast Unseen Servant" to "Shovel dirt". Reason: "Flimsy excuse, you didn't edit Unseen Servant part, you just want to ruin our fun."
• Sept 16: added "Don't bribe the DM because even hinting at that is RUINING FUN..." Reason: "adding one line is 'ruining fun' but deleting a line about 'bribing the DM isn't? Get a grip."

If you really wanted to use 'bribe the DM' as a joke, you'd make it a separate joke, not a counter-argument. Using it to shoot down someone else's idea isn't funny, it just sounds bitter. --NotBrandX (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)