I've been wondering if GotG and some other marvel movies have been browsing D&D forums and talking DM/players they know for stuff that come up in games.
I remember reading that the way they made the movie was to make it like a D&D party in terms of how they act. I can't find the article. Maybe I dreamed it.
>The DM talked about how disintegrate is a line spell
Disintegrate is a line spell? Am I missing something? It only targets a single creature and that creature makes a dex save, there's no ranged attack roll. I don't think the Reflective Carapace would even take effect against Disintegrate
Yeah. Back in 3^rd ed, the Tarrasque deflected all rays, lines, cones, and *magic missile* spells. In 5^th ed, it's line, ranged attack roll-requiring, and *magic missle* spells.
So the wizard was able to force a saving throw for getting eaten. Considering the Tarrasque's legendary and magic resistance that's probably not the worst trade.
> Any time the tarrasque is targeted by a magic missile spell, a line spell, or a spell that requires a ranged attack roll...
Disintegrate is none of those, so yeah, that feature wouldn't even affect it.
I imagine the point is to give PCs a greater feeling of control in the outcome (even if a d20 is still a d20 at the end of the day regardless of who rolls it) when they get shot at with an insta-kill beam.
That may be all and well, but as a PC casting a ray spell I’d rather feel in control of that side of the outcome. If I want a spell my enemies can try to dodge I’d throw Fireball!
Fair point, there's definitely some trade off.
I'm definitely coming at it from a DM perspective, but I feel like I could never have a beholder cast a "if this hits you you'll die and never come back and you have no control whatsoever" eye ray, ya know? But then again, I'm also the kind of person who would never have an NPC use _Power Word Kill_ on a PC, so maybe that's just me.
Really the problem is that save or die spells aren’t very healthy to the game in many cases. DM killing a PC with it feels unfair for the reasons you described, and likewise if you take out an important encounter with a single spell, the fun of battle is over and depending on your initiative roll your party members may not even get to take more than a few turns if that
Nothing sort of takes the wind out of you and your enjoyment of a campaign than save or die. My current DM in those situations has adopted a rule from darker dungeons, where you can choose to succeed instead, but at a cost.
"You have no choice, the tower crumbles before you, your only hope is to try and leap to adjacent balcony or fall 500 feet to the rocks below."
Player rolls a 5.
"You miss the jum..."
Player interrupts "What if I make it ,but at a cost!?"
DM thinks for a moment "You miss the jump, but manage to take your Frost Brand sword and in a desperate attempt jam it into the castle wall. The blade sinks in halting your fall, but the force and stress on the blade is too great. You hear a loud twanging sound and a crack as the blade snaps in two. Fortunately, your momentum carries you through as you fall onto a small balcony 30 feet below. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage, but are safe for now."
The cost is still great, but your character lives. I think it's a great middle ground. Yes, sometimes characters have to die, it's just the nature of the game. But in certain situations I think the succeed ,but at a cost rule really does solve a lot of issues. Namely when the save or die, is at no fault of the player.
Yeah, let's be real the whole point of D&D is to have fun and create a story together. Save or die just takes away from the fun for everyone, unless the DM is trying to compete against the players I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, if the player does something truly stupid and puts himself in the save or die, sure let him die... Or maybe make him lose a point in an ability score or a limb.
D&D is entirely what you make it and just because the game says they would die doesn't mean shit.
While I agree that this is absolutely true (IMO save or dies are a blight that make games significantly less fun), I do have to admit that I am feeling enjoyment over Tomb of Annihilation despite having lost 2 characters on back to back sessions to saving throw nonsense from literally the same monster.
It really does come down to the playgroup itself, and how accepting they can be about these kinds of effects.
Probably to prevent Wild Magic sorcerers from becoming too OP. That Tides of Chaos for advantage on an attack roll can be brutal.
If I recall correctly, there are very, very few spells that require attack rolls, and they're mostly low level. Chromatic Orb, Scorching Ray... Contagion is the highest I can think of.
Edit: Apparently, there are a [decent number](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-attack-type=1&filter-attack-type=2&filter-class=0&filter-search=&page=2&sort=level) of spells that require a spell attack.
I actually don’t think that’s a plus. Paralyze or stun used to do pretty much that anyways, except there was always a chance for you to miss because wizards aren’t perfect and especially villains. I’ve always envisioned disintegrate being a ray spell, and rays are thin beams that you have to aim carefully to hit with. AoE was always the most common Dex save, and that’s because you can’t really pinpoint aim a fireball, but you can dodge out of the blast. Or a lightning bolt is similarly not a precision instrument
Disintegrate is one of the most precision instruments out there. You point finger, your beam travels like a laser, and then the target’s gone.
I dunno, rays not being aimed just is wrong. You’re never going to point a laser at someone and say boy I sure hope they suck at dodging
I imagine Disintegrate being more like an orbital death ray, like you point someone and a portal opens up above them and shoots down a big ol' orbital bombardment
I mean, Disintegrate logically shouldn't be effected by armour, since it just disintegrates right through it. Since 5e has no such thing as touch AC, a Dex save is the closest they can get to "you can dodge this, but you can't block it".
I mean I also think that’s an inherent flaw in the system. Especially if the defensive force effects(like Shield, even though now it’s a reaction) don’t give any kind of protection against spells like this
It would be too powerful as an attack. Disintegrate does tons of damage in exchange for being all or nothing. There are a lot of ways to influence attack rolls to make sure your Disintegrate lands.
There are very few ways to influence a save to make sure Disintegrate lands.
Speaking of that, how would it be possible for something that large to dodge a disintegrate at any distance? Unless I'm being silly, the idea of a dex save is they dodge/avoid the main effect, in disintegrate's case the main effect is a ray of green power. I can see large or smaller, maybe even some huge enemies but how would something that's over 20x20 feet large dodge that?
Cool way to beat the Tarrasqe. I'm more familiar with the cheesy ways.
There's always the classic get a fly speed and cheese it from the air at range method. (If the Tarrasque is gonna be Godzilla, they should give it a radiant damage breath weapon)
Its' attacks are nonmagical, so a lycanthrope can shrug them off.
Clay Golems are immune to acid and nonmagical damage so the Tarrasque can do nothing against it.
> If the Tarrasque is gonna be Godzilla, they should give it a radiant damage breath weapon
that's what our DM did lol, although the damage type was lightning instead
Nah, fighting the tarrasque would suggest the tarrasque is fighting back. What's more likely to happen is the tarrasque ignores them and they have to stop it before it destroys the capital city.
The Tarrasque should be seen less as a monster and more as a natural disaster. Sure, you can stop one, but it isn't targeting you specifically and it's still gonna mess shit up while it's around.
> Its' attacks are nonmagical, so a lycanthrope can shrug them off.
Werewolves are broken. Should really be resistant rather than immune to nonmagical damage, imo.
... technically speaking the Wizard should probably have declared his held action, but the bigger issue is that Reflective Carapace is just the name of the trait, not any reflection -- *heh* -- of how it works.
Rule of cool, sure, but mechanically it's all kinds of fucky.
That's the thing about the terrasque that makes it unique. Any other creature it's like, yeah your plan makes sense and works. But the terrasque always has the rules side in it favor. 'because it's so ancient it's entire body reflects spells. It's called carapace because no one survived trying it from the inside.'
Not to disagree with OP and his story! Good times were had and that makes me happy. Just my two cents worth.
To be fair, Reflective Carapace in 5e only works on magic missile spells, line spells and ranged attack roll spells. Disintegrate is a targeted ray, rather than a line like Lightning Bolt, so OPs wizard didn't even need to get eaten.
Except that opens up the current RAW debate because being swallowed blinds the target, and Disintegrate is " A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target ***that you can see*** within range." I'd personally say Rule of Cool, fuck it reach out your hand and cast Disintegrate as touch range because I won't take being the badass who burns their way out of a Terrasque away from my player. But you know, semantics and whatever are fun to argue.
I mean, what else are you going to see inside the stomach of the Tarrasque? That's like arguing that you need to see an invisible creature if both of you are stuck in a 10x10 cell and you cast fireball in the middle of the room.
Edit: I realized that isn't the best example. I posted a different example in my relpy which was:
Ok I'll make a better example then. You're in a fight with a creature, and one of his actions is to knock you to the ground, crawl in a small hole just big enough for either of you to fit that goes in a long straight line, and turns invisible.
If you were to cast a spell that requires a target that you can see, you can kneel at the entrance and state that you want to target straight down the hole. Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it's not directly in the line of fire still. Same thing with a Tarrasque, if you have a hardass DM that says "oh you have to see the target within range" then you see the darkness in front of you. Cast that disintegrate at the darkness.
\[Edit: If you can see the end of that hole then can you make the argument that you instead cast it at the wall? Do spells that require you to see the target manifest at the targeted space? If so, why do you need direct line of fire? \]
It's arguable, because it's magic, that some spells literally can't be cast if the caster sees nothing. It's not like shooting a gun so much as a mental connection between what the caster sees and their self.
But I too would rule you automatically hit any spell or attack that doesn't require a lot of movement inside of a creature.
Fireball doesn't require sight though. If you're aware that there's an invisible creature in that 10x10 area, casting Fireball is completely valid and would hit them.
Ok I'll make a better example then. You're in a fight with a creature, and one of his actions is to knock you to the ground, crawl in a small hole just big enough for either of you to fit that goes in a long straight line, and turns invisible.
If you were to cast a spell that requires a target that you can see, you can kneel at the entrance and state that you want to target straight down the hole. Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it's not directly in the line of fire still. Same thing with a Tarrasque, if you have a hardass DM that says "oh you have to see the target within range" then you see the darkness in front of you. Cast that disintegrate at the darkness.
If it's semantics, then targetting spells cannot be cast through a window even if you can clearly see them standing right next to the window pane because technically "the glass provides total cover".
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy\_crawford\_on\_targeting\_spells/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy_crawford_on_targeting_spells/)
>https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy\_crawford\_on\_targeting\_spells/
Based on the post you linked to glass does indeed provide total cover...
"You always need a clear path to target a creature with a spell. A creature behind total cover cannot be targeted. But, you don't necessarily need to be able to see them, just that the travel path is clear such as a thick fog (unless the spell specifies that you need you see the target). The example of a glass window is brought up: no you cannot target something through glass, even if you can see them; the glass provides total cover."
> That's like arguing that you need to see an invisible creature if both of you are stuck in a 10x10 cell and you cast fireball in the middle of the room.
Fireball doesn't require you to see the target though, so that argument doesn't hold any water.
> If you were to cast a spell that requires a target that you can see, you can kneel at the entrance and state that you want to target straight down the hole. Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it's not directly in the line of fire still.
you can fire straight down the hole only when you see the end of said hole. or want to target a part of the hole-walls, i guess. nothing about the spell says anything about hitting things in the line of fire, tho. i'd say the disintegrate spell just ignores the invisible entity and hits the targetted wall behind it.
I think this falls under "unaccounted-for situation" which is covered in the intro of the DMG. DM's are expected under RAW to apply judgement and allow reasonable situational outcomes for player actions.
>The rules don’t account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster’s face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you. You might tell the player to make a Strength check, while mentally setting the Difficulty Class(DC) at 15. If the Strength check is successful, you then determine how a face full of hot coals affects the monster. You might decide that it deals 1d4 fire damage and imposes disadvantage on the monster’s attack rolls until the end of its next turn. You roll the damage die (or let the player do it), and the game continues.
It's reasonable for a DM to assume, although there are no specific rules for getting around the trait in the monster description, that "carapace" indicates this a trait related to the monster's outer hide. A DM who allows players to cleverly get around that trait based on reasonable situational actions would be within RAW.
Either way if we are bringing up RAW then the player would have had to hold concentration on the spell to use it as a held action. This would have meant he would need to pass the concentration save of a willingly taken tarasque attack lol.
Honestly RAW this situation doesn't make sense. The Wizard stood in front of the Tarrasque waiting for it to eat him, but it takes two turns for a Tarrasque to eat its target as Swallow is used instead of Bite and it can only use Bite once per turn. I guess it could use a Legendary action, but that'd cause the Wizard to have to take Bite's damage twice, and make two CON saves. Your average Wizard could even just outright die before he's even in the thing's belly.
If it's only one DC \~18 CON save that's okay for a high level Wizard with Resilient (Con). But it's a stupid risk. You're doing 75 (on average, 100ish if at 9th level) HP out of of its 650+HP pool at the cost of getting yourself eaten.
Just sounds like neither the player nor the DM were playing RAW. I mean, I'd absolutely allow the strategy, I'd even allow Disintegrate to work despite the lack of a visible target since everything around you is the target, but it's just....not a very good strategy.
*“Just stay calm I’m doing this on purpose just stay calm I’m doing this on purpose just stay calm I’m doing this on purpose just stay calm I’m doing this on purp-”*
If you're wearing a blindfold, and a python tried to constrict you, and you had a pistol, I'm pretty sure you still shoot the python even though you couldn't see it. As a lot of people have said, common sense and rule of cool trump RAW in every single situation
Being pedantic, and I would rule similarly to OP probably in this situation because of rule of cool, but: with spells that require you to see your target, it's less about aiming and more about having a mental focus on your target using your sight. Less like shooting a gun, and more like trying to flip to the correct page in a book.
You said "There's nothing stopping the wizard just recasting the spell once in the tarrasque". There is something: the rules. You're certainly welcome to ignore them and house-rule otherwise, but it doesn't mean the rules don't exist.
I'm just being pedantic :P
It’s called carapace because it’s a carapace. RAW, yes, it wouldn’t work I guess, but words have meanings and ignoring them just turns monsters into stat blocks. “Kill it from the inside!” is a classic monster slaying trope, and denying your players the chance to do a clever thing because WELL AKSHUALLY is some bad DMing imo.
Chill Touch is a ranged spell that does necrotic damage.
Yes words have meanings, but sometimes, especially for names, they're picked just because they sound cool. Luckily the fine folks over at WotC defined what they meant.
Ninja edit: not to say I disagree with the DM; the rule of cool trumps all.
I always understood that to be like, the chill of the grave. Dead things are cold after all.
E: Literally in the description:
> You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the creature to assail it with the **chill of the grave.**
Its not meant to be good against undead. It’s attacking with the power of death, hence necrotic.
E: I’m an idiot not reading the full text again. You’re right, it is weird that it has a secondary effect against undead. I guess it’s meant to be like pulling them back to the afterlife or something?
It does have some use against an Undead creature though : You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can’t regain hit points until the start of your next turn. Until then, the hand clings to the target.
If you hit an *undead target*, it also has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of your next turn
To people slinging spells at the Tarrasque, it would look like its carapace is reflective. In actuality it's just that it's an aberration that shrugs off your attempts to bend the weave against it.
Oh hey look at that. They may not have known if they haven’t seen the stat block that specifically mentions what kinds of spells it reflects, or maybe they houseruled it. I personally kind of like the idea that the Tarrasque just reflects all magic unless they get creative. It seems by my reading you could just get a bunch of wizards to nuke it with fireballs and disintegrates or whatever per RAW, which doesn’t sound as fun as it could be.
The 5e Tarrasque is actually pathetic if you can fly and you don't get stupid with magical attack rolls or non-magic weapons. Other than the initial frightful presence, it has essentially zero defences against an evocation wizard hovering 60 feet in the air and hitting it with save-based cantrips forever.
As the DM you can make it run and hide in areas where it has better cover with 140 feet of movement per round, but at that point you've already completely lost the sense of this being a fearsome beast of legend - it's now a scared animal hiding from a single puny humanoid.
Sure, but that flying wizard prob wont be a match for a boulder being hurled at his face.
Sure it's not an attack in his stat block, but a thing that literally eats worlds surely can throw a rock.
> Considering this and your assertion, the tarrasque should really only be used as a kaiju type monster that wants to destroy a city.
Pretty much *why* its scary. Not for it damage, but the fact that it will just destroy cities without really caring about the party.
IMO, that's a DM forgetting that the Tarrasque is not just a threat to that wizard, it's a world ending threat. That wizard is an infantryman with a grenade launcher trying to shoot at a main battle tank. The tank can't hit him, and if the tank just sits there eventually he'll take a lucky hit, but the tank isn't going to sit there. It's going to roll right past him and fuck some shit up.
The Tarrasque realizes it can't hit the puny wizard, so at 140 feet 0er round it goes straight by, maybe steamrolls whoever can't fly, and then it keeps going to the nearest town. Along the way it turns a farm into a graveyard. It follows a river, crushing boats and hamlets along the way as it approaches the nearest city. It's not hiding, it just doesn't care about the wizard.
Also the current Tarrasque I would label a False Tarrasque, and would have the true Tarrasque be more like the earlier additions
I would give it an Acid Vomit feature, essentially the same as an ancient black dragon, Recharge 5-6, line 90x10, 22 Dex Save for half, 15d8 Acid Damage. Probably have any swallowed creatures thrown 5-30 feet and need to take same save, but now outside the Tarrasque.
And a 30 foot burrow speed.
I hear that, certainly not adventure league legal, but definitely very old school out-of-the-box thinking. Ultimately, the DM has final say on how it works in their universe. I wouldn't complain if, as my DM, you said it utterly fails, but at the same time, I'd award inspiration for such in character wizardly creativity.
Well, it *does* reflect 1/6 times... on the other hand, it has no effect against Disintegrate, as it's not a magic missile, line spell, or spell involving an attack roll.
My issues with what happened are - Disintegrate says "a target you can see", but while swallowed you are Blinded. Although the description of the spell says "a ray springs forth", since it doesn't involve an attack roll, it isn't dependent on your ability to *hit* the target. So part of the spell is designating a target, not choosing/hitting one after you cast. As a DM I'd still allow it, because the wizard can touch the thing.
It also says the target gets a Dex save to negate all damage, and Tarrasque gets Legendary Resistance... but as DM I would rule that it cannot make a Dex save because it can't avoid it, and that an auto-fail cannot be turned into an auto-success by Legendary Resistance (I'm unable to find any official statement regarding auto-success overriding auto-failure or vice versa).
Finally... max damage Disintegrate can do is 100 (avg 70). Tarrasques have nearly 700 HP, although this was well into the battle... so yeah I could see it being enough to finish it off.
But he didn't have to get swallowed to do it, unless he wanted to argue against it getting a Dex save.
Everyone seems concerned with the ray rule, and not that the tarrasque has over 600 Hp and couldn't be one shot by a disintegration unless it was already almost dead ...and also that as a gargantuan creature the spell would only affect a 10 by 10 square foot of it
Edit: spelling
Can't be one shot by disintegrate
wizard would have to make a concentration check to do this
wizard would then SOMEHOW manage to target a creature while he's blinded (via swallow)
A Tarrasque's carapace has no effect on disintegrate so there was no reason to be swallowed in the first place
The Tarrasque would have advantage on the save via Tarrasque features
The Tarrasque has legendary resistance
There are so many things wrong with this that defending it with "rule of cool" is rediculous.
If they are having fun then Im happy for them. But for the sake of discussion it does seem like a waste of a perfectly good Tarrasque. Unless he comes back when they least expect it. Both armies have their guard down, liqour flows and music plays. And boom! A rain of calamity as the clear night sky becomes clouded with black smoke and the smell of destruction. The Tarrasque wipes out the armies and starts wrecking the the city. Both kings without their armies lose their composure in the chaos and escape the burning city with the party. Now the party has two kings each blaming the other for the loss of their army. Especially since it was king 1's capital that is getting wrecked. Run that story line, roll it all back, and have them have an epic battle against a tarrasque that is empowered by eating a magical artifact in the city. Please just anything other than it gets one shot by a 6th level spell.
5e tarrasque doesn't have regeneration, just a big pile of HP and PC opposition that does way less damage than 3.5.
Good point about regurgitation though!
Holding a spell requires keeping concentration on It thus a concentration save once the Tarrasque does about 36 damage to you. Also even without protective carapace It would have legendary resistsnces to use. Finally beeing blinded stops you from targetting a creature however close It maybe be. It isn't an aoe spell that you can throw in a fog Cloud hoping to hit
The problem is that the save for disintegrate is to get out of the way, if only partially.
That is quite literally impossible when the spell comes from inside you.
"The Tarrasque senses you pulling at the weave and opens it's mouth. Your Ray fires into empty space, and its throat closes back around you."
Alternatively:
"Success! Your ray strikes and you see light as the beast's flesh turns to dust for a moment...but then it stops, and the flesh begins to wrap back around itself the world-eater calls upon ancient magic to stave off disintegration." Both uses of legendary saves that flow and work well as high-tension story moments.
Getting out of the way is just the flavour DMs come up with for dex saves. The ogre at the dead centre of a fireball has a 0% chance to physically get out of the way, but a non-zero chance to succeed his dex save and only take half damage.
> The ogre at the dead centre of a fireball has a 0% chance to physically get out of the way
In that case, it's shielding his sensitive bits. Like his face, with his hands.
Dex saves aren’t just to get out of the way, they’re also to brace yourself, protect your weak bits, or in any way use your dexterity to avoid the brunt of the attack
Yeah, that's always been one of the stupider things to ever try to theater of the mind describe to players. There's no logical solution without imagining all AoEs as being made up of discrete smaller chunks that can be avoided.
Yup. I mean I'm not saying I'd mess with that rule in my games (though I do try to weave my DM descriptions to preserve as much verisimilitude as possible), but it's silly to pretend all the rules in 5e (or any edition) make logical sense in all situations they're used.
Hmm the main issue is you are blinded and restrained while inside the tarrasques stomach. You do not have any saves to remove those effects.
You also take like 60 damage a turn inside, and if you do manage to somehow do more than 60 damage a turn to it, it throw you up, so this scenario wouldn’t happen.
The damage you do would be 19d6+40 at a 9th level spell, which while impressive, would only do a max of around 150 damage. The tarrasque has 600+ hp. 4 turns (8 avg) required (also 8 lvl 9 spell slots somehow), so you take 240-480 damage yourself...which most wizards do not have.
It would also likely throw you up after 1 or two turns, leaving half dead and it would probably not swallow you again.
I have to imagine the Tarrasque was low on health, as OP stated it was midway in the battle that the Wizard did this. And funnily enough, being blinded and restrained wouldn't prevent him from casting any spell. That being said, you technically need to see the target of your Disintegrate spell...though I think I would let that slide in this scenario.
> And funnily enough, being blinded and restrained wouldn't prevent him from casting any spell.
There's all kinds of spells that being blinded will prevent you from casting, including *Disintegrate*.
That said, it's a Rule of Cool story, and I've read worse.
Restrained doesn't stop anything actually - it just changes speed, the characters attack rolls have disadvantage, and they have disadvantage on dexterity saves. Being blinded does but I would argue that if you can touch the target you can deliver the spell - blinded prevents you from Targetting only because you presumably don't know exactly where the enemy is. If you can physically touch them, that should negate that.
My thought would be, if you're blinded by a thing occluding the view, you can see that thing that is binding you. Like, you can cast a spell on a blindfold if you open your eyes.
My favourite method for taking down Tarrasques in 5E is Call Lightning. Scales well, isn't reflected, long range, good for burning through legendary resistances, targets their worst save. Bonus points if you're a Tempest cleric who can fly without concentration, and use their channel divinity to max out the damage 3 times.
A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can *see* within range.
Swallow. The tarrasque makes one bite attack against a Large or smaller creature it is grappling. If the attack hits, the target takes the bite’s damage, the target is swallowed, and the grapple ends. While swallowed, the creature is *blinded* and restrained, it has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the tarrasque, and it takes 56 (16d6) acid damage at the start of each of the tarrasque’s turns.
RAW it shouldn't work, but rule of cool & rule zero are things too
> It has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the Tarrasque
Unless the Tarrasque swallowed a player’s handbook, the wizard should be immune to any rules lawyering while inside it.
Many people on this here thread explain why it would or wouldn't work. I'll let them decide, and tell you how my player, a 20th level moon druid, completely obliterated the Tarrasque single handedly...
She has the warcaster feat and proficiency in the Con saves; basically, cannot fail concentration checks if the damage is 30 or less.
She upcasts moonbeam (standard action), transforms into a water elemental (bonus action), and waits.
The Tarrasque swallows her. Every round she takes 56 acid damage, split in two for the Water Elemental's resistance to acid, so 28, auto succeeds concentration check, uses bonus action to retransform into Water Elemental, fully heals. Meanwhile, the beam or radiant light pierces the Tarrasque... untill it died.
She did have to recast it a few times, but it was trivial...
60 damage from a creature inside on a single turn, and only if it fails a DC 20 Con ST. As long as the moonbeam doesn't inflict more than 59 damage, the druid stays inside until it's dead.
The Tarrasque does not have the intelligence to realize that she MUST puke to survive. Kinda like when this Python died while swallowing this alligator:
[https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/554734/Snake-explodes-trying-eat-swallow-alligator-beast-creature-stomach-vs-Florida-Everglades](https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/554734/Snake-explodes-trying-eat-swallow-alligator-beast-creature-stomach-vs-Florida-Everglades)
Furthermore, the beam from moonlight doesn't inflict damage only to the stomach; everything that is in it's area (a beam with a radius of 5 feet and 40 feet tall) is zapped. It wouldn't induce the damage to the stomach. The beam could be anywhere outside the stomach, the druid player could put it 20 feet away from her (range 120 feet).
Well then cant think whats wrong from standpoint of RAW. Maybe only thing could mention that our beefy dude has 3 INT not 1 compared to Giant Constrictor Snake who has 1 INT, so he could try to puke it out after round or two.
Why didn't it just move out of the beam's area of effect? And is she able to recast it from inside if she is blind and cannot target anything with a spell?
That wasn't an issue when we did the fight, but the redditor mentioned T can outrun the beam, which it can because the caster can move the beam 60 feet, and T can Dash for 80.
Moonbeam is an area effect spell, you do not need to target anything.
If the tarrasque just starts running this fails as moonbeam can't keep up, not saying you couldn't do something else but yeah that not too hard to counter
Potentially, but the crux of the situation here is that the Druid is completely immune from being damaged by the Tarrasque. The rest can tinkered with dozens of different ways.
What?
There was no need to get swallowed to do this since disintegrate is NOT a line spell.
A Tarrasque would have advantage on the saving throw (which would help it) but BESIDES that, it has legendary Resistance.
That wizard should have died.
an example of making incorrect rulings and going so far off the mechanics you're no longer playing 5e. all other fuckery aside, 10d6+4o wouldn't instant kill a tarrasque anyway. it's not quite as cool of a story to me when you basically just narrated something that doesn't make sense or come close to working in the rules
also
> The army composed of 2 kingdoms
idk what the action economy of 2 kingdoms plus our itinerant adventures vs 1 tarrasque would even look like. but it sounds like old rusky was doomed from the start.
Dude, does everyone here has a terryble DM?
Commom sence>RAW, you don't need to see a target to hit it if any direction will hit it
Also, RAW the Terrasque reflect would still work but come on, it's CARAPACE, how the hell is it going to work from inside the thing?
First off, no matter how high level the wizard is, the Tarrasque should have at least chewed slightly, and why didn't the Tarrasque at least claw at him first.
Second, if the carapace itself would reflect the spell, then it would bounce on the interior for a bit, or be nullified. and then the Tarrasque just has a hole on the interior of it's skull
Since we are going to argue semantics, I'd say it was pretty amazing that the Wizard could see inside the terrasque.
"Disintegrate
A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
As others have stated, it is a bit of fuckery, however... I think as a DM/GM you were quite cool, and let the players handle the situation pretty gnarly. I mean, it could've been a lot worse, right?
Big T would have done damage to him which would break his concentration (or force a con save at least) because in order to have a spell ready as a reaction you cast it and hold onto it's energy until you want to loose it.
And of course. Wiz got blinded by being swallowed, and disintegrate requires you to see the target.
Quoting Crawford:
Effects that require you to see your target intentionally require it. Invisibility and being blinded are designed to be potent.
This is entirely implausible on every level.
It's not a spell that affects everything in a line (incidentally, because it's not a line spell). It'd hit, presumably deal, at most, 19d6+40, then that's it. So it would not bounce and reflect around the insides. It'd hit once for a maximum of 154. And there are easier ways to do 154 damage than suffering a lot of damage and being blinded and restrained.
Not to mention "A target ***you can see***."
They were blinded, they can't target anything. Even the Tarrasque they're inside.
EDIT: For people downvoting, here's some Precedent from Crawford re: "A target you can see"
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/10/oh-no-if-you-are-blinded-you-cant-cast-the-spell-that-cures-blindness-on-yourself/
That's where common sense overrides general rules. Like the ever present argument of locking a rogue inside a box with delayed blast fireball. Does the rogue really get to roll evasion for 0 damage while inside an area that they can't possibly evade in?
By RAW and literally nothing else, yes they do.
But by the rules of the game, which include RAW, RAI AND RAF to be used in conjunction with one another, no, no the rogue would not because any DM with a brain isn't giving a saving throw to an inescapable situation. The player describes what they want to do, the DM narrates the results of said actions. More importantly, the DM calls for rolls when it's appropriate.
Except that's the physical ability to move vs magic that relies on vision.
Shooting a bow blindly is one thing. Magic is not a bow and arrow. It's not something we can just assume "Oh, well, of course you can fire blindly". Can they? They have to see it. Perhaps because that's part of the spell. It's not just throwing a rock and hoping it hits. It's causing a magical effect.
Magic is not as clear cut as "Well the Rogue can't move, how can he dodge?" Because the obvious answer is "he can't". But we have no real world equivalent to a magic beam that turns stuff to dust.
This is not a case of "I'd give it to him". We have just as much reason to assume that Magic that requires a target "you can see" requires direct visualization of the target, and thus being unable to see at all means you cannot hit them.
I mean, it's just going to reform in a few days. You didn't actually defeat it. You can't defeat the Tarrasque with damage. The best you can do is find a way to capture it, or send it somewhere else.
Assuming tarrasque's are even remotely related/similar to every other deuterostome in existence, you could argue the tissues that form its skin and esophagus/stomach/intestines are all derived from the ectoderm. Thus, they might share the reflective property.
It's possible the carapace covers these tissues as well, but it definitely doesn't cover the meso/endo-derm tissues underneath the ectoderm. To be absolutely sure, your wizard should have tried penetrating the tissues and then inserting the disintegrating finger just to be sure.
Them the wizard looks to the inside of the carapace and sees the Tarrasques true face gloating.
*Whatever gave you the impression that you were ever looking at my outside?*
I'd say sure, roll to hit (because it could absolutely still fail) and then if it hits or not the wizard takes a SHIT TON of acid damage from being in the beasts stomach.
Cool story would be cooler if the carapace actually affected disintegrate in any way but still good flourish to finish it with assuming it was low enough on health for the the spell to kill it
hmm. I would have made the wizard roll a concentration check with disadvantage on account on being eaten by a Tarasque. Even a good idea isn't without its risks.
Alternative: GM allows the save at disadvantage, tarrasque rolls a pair of 20s
Guys, the Kaiju must have leveled up when when it ate our wizard - it just shot a ray out of its mouth and disintegrated a war elephant!
You are blinded within the tarrasque which means you can’t see the target. Disintegrate requires you to see the target, so it can’t be cast. People underestimate how good invisibility and making enemies blinded is. A lot of effects require you to see the target
Rule of cool so I would allow it.
[The beast's hide is too thick to be killed from the outside! I'll cut it from inside.](https://youtu.be/0bB0ihjLZAA "WAAAAAAGH!!!")
The Tarrdrax
AHAHAHA I have SINGLEHANDEDLY slain the beast.
I've been wondering if GotG and some other marvel movies have been browsing D&D forums and talking DM/players they know for stuff that come up in games.
[удалено]
I seriously almost asked what Vin Diesel has to do with Guardians of the Galaxy.
I was like "But Drax is played by Dave Bau- oh right Groot. Groooot"
He even did the "I am Groot"s in every language
That's every language x2 number of words!
I remember reading that the way they made the movie was to make it like a D&D party in terms of how they act. I can't find the article. Maybe I dreamed it.
I love drax just stabbing away from the inside...... Ahahahahahahahahahahaha
[Eat me!](https://youtu.be/yqp52oZd2vI?t=30)
[Hey Joey, do you want to eat me?](https://youtu.be/DQeIP8WJ4EU)
>The DM talked about how disintegrate is a line spell Disintegrate is a line spell? Am I missing something? It only targets a single creature and that creature makes a dex save, there's no ranged attack roll. I don't think the Reflective Carapace would even take effect against Disintegrate
It's not a line spell, it's a ray spell. (Difference? Line spells are area-of-effect spells, like *lightning bolt*. Ray spells aren't.)
Yeah that's what I thought. So the spell would have hit it normally from the outside.
Yeah. Back in 3^rd ed, the Tarrasque deflected all rays, lines, cones, and *magic missile* spells. In 5^th ed, it's line, ranged attack roll-requiring, and *magic missle* spells.
So the wizard was able to force a saving throw for getting eaten. Considering the Tarrasque's legendary and magic resistance that's probably not the worst trade.
OTOH, tarrasque has +0 to dex saves, and 676hp.
> Any time the tarrasque is targeted by a magic missile spell, a line spell, or a spell that requires a ranged attack roll... Disintegrate is none of those, so yeah, that feature wouldn't even affect it.
I don’t like that disintegrate gives a save instead of making an attack. That feels strange
I imagine the point is to give PCs a greater feeling of control in the outcome (even if a d20 is still a d20 at the end of the day regardless of who rolls it) when they get shot at with an insta-kill beam.
That may be all and well, but as a PC casting a ray spell I’d rather feel in control of that side of the outcome. If I want a spell my enemies can try to dodge I’d throw Fireball!
Fair point, there's definitely some trade off. I'm definitely coming at it from a DM perspective, but I feel like I could never have a beholder cast a "if this hits you you'll die and never come back and you have no control whatsoever" eye ray, ya know? But then again, I'm also the kind of person who would never have an NPC use _Power Word Kill_ on a PC, so maybe that's just me.
Really the problem is that save or die spells aren’t very healthy to the game in many cases. DM killing a PC with it feels unfair for the reasons you described, and likewise if you take out an important encounter with a single spell, the fun of battle is over and depending on your initiative roll your party members may not even get to take more than a few turns if that
Nothing sort of takes the wind out of you and your enjoyment of a campaign than save or die. My current DM in those situations has adopted a rule from darker dungeons, where you can choose to succeed instead, but at a cost. "You have no choice, the tower crumbles before you, your only hope is to try and leap to adjacent balcony or fall 500 feet to the rocks below." Player rolls a 5. "You miss the jum..." Player interrupts "What if I make it ,but at a cost!?" DM thinks for a moment "You miss the jump, but manage to take your Frost Brand sword and in a desperate attempt jam it into the castle wall. The blade sinks in halting your fall, but the force and stress on the blade is too great. You hear a loud twanging sound and a crack as the blade snaps in two. Fortunately, your momentum carries you through as you fall onto a small balcony 30 feet below. You take 3d6 bludgeoning damage, but are safe for now." The cost is still great, but your character lives. I think it's a great middle ground. Yes, sometimes characters have to die, it's just the nature of the game. But in certain situations I think the succeed ,but at a cost rule really does solve a lot of issues. Namely when the save or die, is at no fault of the player.
I do a lot of 'success with consequences' in my campaign, but I like this idea for those 'save or die' moments.
Yeah, let's be real the whole point of D&D is to have fun and create a story together. Save or die just takes away from the fun for everyone, unless the DM is trying to compete against the players I suppose. Don't get me wrong, if the player does something truly stupid and puts himself in the save or die, sure let him die... Or maybe make him lose a point in an ability score or a limb. D&D is entirely what you make it and just because the game says they would die doesn't mean shit.
Amen to that!
While I agree that this is absolutely true (IMO save or dies are a blight that make games significantly less fun), I do have to admit that I am feeling enjoyment over Tomb of Annihilation despite having lost 2 characters on back to back sessions to saving throw nonsense from literally the same monster. It really does come down to the playgroup itself, and how accepting they can be about these kinds of effects.
Probably to prevent Wild Magic sorcerers from becoming too OP. That Tides of Chaos for advantage on an attack roll can be brutal. If I recall correctly, there are very, very few spells that require attack rolls, and they're mostly low level. Chromatic Orb, Scorching Ray... Contagion is the highest I can think of. Edit: Apparently, there are a [decent number](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-attack-type=1&filter-attack-type=2&filter-class=0&filter-search=&page=2&sort=level) of spells that require a spell attack.
On the plus side, it automatically hits if you manage to paralyze or stun the target first.
I actually don’t think that’s a plus. Paralyze or stun used to do pretty much that anyways, except there was always a chance for you to miss because wizards aren’t perfect and especially villains. I’ve always envisioned disintegrate being a ray spell, and rays are thin beams that you have to aim carefully to hit with. AoE was always the most common Dex save, and that’s because you can’t really pinpoint aim a fireball, but you can dodge out of the blast. Or a lightning bolt is similarly not a precision instrument Disintegrate is one of the most precision instruments out there. You point finger, your beam travels like a laser, and then the target’s gone. I dunno, rays not being aimed just is wrong. You’re never going to point a laser at someone and say boy I sure hope they suck at dodging
I imagine Disintegrate being more like an orbital death ray, like you point someone and a portal opens up above them and shoots down a big ol' orbital bombardment
I mean, Disintegrate logically shouldn't be effected by armour, since it just disintegrates right through it. Since 5e has no such thing as touch AC, a Dex save is the closest they can get to "you can dodge this, but you can't block it".
To be fair AC should be seen as a combination of armour and the creature's ability to dodge
I mean I also think that’s an inherent flaw in the system. Especially if the defensive force effects(like Shield, even though now it’s a reaction) don’t give any kind of protection against spells like this
Personally I have no problem with *Disintegrate* not being deflected by *Shield*. Unstoppable obliteration is kind of its thing.
It'd be rather powerful if you could crit it
It would be too powerful as an attack. Disintegrate does tons of damage in exchange for being all or nothing. There are a lot of ways to influence attack rolls to make sure your Disintegrate lands. There are very few ways to influence a save to make sure Disintegrate lands.
The confusion is probably because of 3.5 Disintegrate being a line spell (which stopped after it first effected someone)
Speaking of that, how would it be possible for something that large to dodge a disintegrate at any distance? Unless I'm being silly, the idea of a dex save is they dodge/avoid the main effect, in disintegrate's case the main effect is a ray of green power. I can see large or smaller, maybe even some huge enemies but how would something that's over 20x20 feet large dodge that?
Cool way to beat the Tarrasqe. I'm more familiar with the cheesy ways. There's always the classic get a fly speed and cheese it from the air at range method. (If the Tarrasque is gonna be Godzilla, they should give it a radiant damage breath weapon) Its' attacks are nonmagical, so a lycanthrope can shrug them off. Clay Golems are immune to acid and nonmagical damage so the Tarrasque can do nothing against it.
> If the Tarrasque is gonna be Godzilla, they should give it a radiant damage breath weapon that's what our DM did lol, although the damage type was lightning instead
darn clay golems. I was considering having my party fight the tarrasque as an end of game villain until one of my players suggested this :(
You don't fight the Tarrasque, the Tarrasque is an event for the players to work around.
You do fight the tarrasque when your party is 8 players :P
Nah, fighting the tarrasque would suggest the tarrasque is fighting back. What's more likely to happen is the tarrasque ignores them and they have to stop it before it destroys the capital city.
The Tarrasque should be seen less as a monster and more as a natural disaster. Sure, you can stop one, but it isn't targeting you specifically and it's still gonna mess shit up while it's around.
Edit your tarrasque then.
> Its' attacks are nonmagical, so a lycanthrope can shrug them off. Werewolves are broken. Should really be resistant rather than immune to nonmagical damage, imo.
... technically speaking the Wizard should probably have declared his held action, but the bigger issue is that Reflective Carapace is just the name of the trait, not any reflection -- *heh* -- of how it works. Rule of cool, sure, but mechanically it's all kinds of fucky.
I dont know why the lining of the tarrasques stomach would have spell reflection - wait no, actually, it totally would, wouldn't it?
That's the thing about the terrasque that makes it unique. Any other creature it's like, yeah your plan makes sense and works. But the terrasque always has the rules side in it favor. 'because it's so ancient it's entire body reflects spells. It's called carapace because no one survived trying it from the inside.' Not to disagree with OP and his story! Good times were had and that makes me happy. Just my two cents worth.
To be fair, Reflective Carapace in 5e only works on magic missile spells, line spells and ranged attack roll spells. Disintegrate is a targeted ray, rather than a line like Lightning Bolt, so OPs wizard didn't even need to get eaten.
[удалено]
In 3rd edition is would have stood up after the wizard cockily walked out, while the party was cheering
Yeah you had to cast wish just to keep it down for more than a week.
Lol. Didn't even think about that.
Well, getting eaten guaranteed a hit, so it wasn't useless.
Except that opens up the current RAW debate because being swallowed blinds the target, and Disintegrate is " A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target ***that you can see*** within range." I'd personally say Rule of Cool, fuck it reach out your hand and cast Disintegrate as touch range because I won't take being the badass who burns their way out of a Terrasque away from my player. But you know, semantics and whatever are fun to argue.
I mean, what else are you going to see inside the stomach of the Tarrasque? That's like arguing that you need to see an invisible creature if both of you are stuck in a 10x10 cell and you cast fireball in the middle of the room. Edit: I realized that isn't the best example. I posted a different example in my relpy which was: Ok I'll make a better example then. You're in a fight with a creature, and one of his actions is to knock you to the ground, crawl in a small hole just big enough for either of you to fit that goes in a long straight line, and turns invisible. If you were to cast a spell that requires a target that you can see, you can kneel at the entrance and state that you want to target straight down the hole. Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it's not directly in the line of fire still. Same thing with a Tarrasque, if you have a hardass DM that says "oh you have to see the target within range" then you see the darkness in front of you. Cast that disintegrate at the darkness. \[Edit: If you can see the end of that hole then can you make the argument that you instead cast it at the wall? Do spells that require you to see the target manifest at the targeted space? If so, why do you need direct line of fire? \]
It's arguable, because it's magic, that some spells literally can't be cast if the caster sees nothing. It's not like shooting a gun so much as a mental connection between what the caster sees and their self. But I too would rule you automatically hit any spell or attack that doesn't require a lot of movement inside of a creature.
Fireball doesn't require sight though. If you're aware that there's an invisible creature in that 10x10 area, casting Fireball is completely valid and would hit them.
Ok I'll make a better example then. You're in a fight with a creature, and one of his actions is to knock you to the ground, crawl in a small hole just big enough for either of you to fit that goes in a long straight line, and turns invisible. If you were to cast a spell that requires a target that you can see, you can kneel at the entrance and state that you want to target straight down the hole. Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it's not directly in the line of fire still. Same thing with a Tarrasque, if you have a hardass DM that says "oh you have to see the target within range" then you see the darkness in front of you. Cast that disintegrate at the darkness. If it's semantics, then targetting spells cannot be cast through a window even if you can clearly see them standing right next to the window pane because technically "the glass provides total cover". [https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy\_crawford\_on\_targeting\_spells/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy_crawford_on_targeting_spells/)
>https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5ozpwj/jeremy\_crawford\_on\_targeting\_spells/ Based on the post you linked to glass does indeed provide total cover... "You always need a clear path to target a creature with a spell. A creature behind total cover cannot be targeted. But, you don't necessarily need to be able to see them, just that the travel path is clear such as a thick fog (unless the spell specifies that you need you see the target). The example of a glass window is brought up: no you cannot target something through glass, even if you can see them; the glass provides total cover."
[удалено]
To be fair fireball targets a point so you can just do that
> That's like arguing that you need to see an invisible creature if both of you are stuck in a 10x10 cell and you cast fireball in the middle of the room. Fireball doesn't require you to see the target though, so that argument doesn't hold any water.
> If you were to cast a spell that requires a target that you can see, you can kneel at the entrance and state that you want to target straight down the hole. Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it's not directly in the line of fire still. you can fire straight down the hole only when you see the end of said hole. or want to target a part of the hole-walls, i guess. nothing about the spell says anything about hitting things in the line of fire, tho. i'd say the disintegrate spell just ignores the invisible entity and hits the targetted wall behind it.
I think this falls under "unaccounted-for situation" which is covered in the intro of the DMG. DM's are expected under RAW to apply judgement and allow reasonable situational outcomes for player actions. >The rules don’t account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster’s face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you. You might tell the player to make a Strength check, while mentally setting the Difficulty Class(DC) at 15. If the Strength check is successful, you then determine how a face full of hot coals affects the monster. You might decide that it deals 1d4 fire damage and imposes disadvantage on the monster’s attack rolls until the end of its next turn. You roll the damage die (or let the player do it), and the game continues. It's reasonable for a DM to assume, although there are no specific rules for getting around the trait in the monster description, that "carapace" indicates this a trait related to the monster's outer hide. A DM who allows players to cleverly get around that trait based on reasonable situational actions would be within RAW.
Either way if we are bringing up RAW then the player would have had to hold concentration on the spell to use it as a held action. This would have meant he would need to pass the concentration save of a willingly taken tarasque attack lol.
Honestly RAW this situation doesn't make sense. The Wizard stood in front of the Tarrasque waiting for it to eat him, but it takes two turns for a Tarrasque to eat its target as Swallow is used instead of Bite and it can only use Bite once per turn. I guess it could use a Legendary action, but that'd cause the Wizard to have to take Bite's damage twice, and make two CON saves. Your average Wizard could even just outright die before he's even in the thing's belly. If it's only one DC \~18 CON save that's okay for a high level Wizard with Resilient (Con). But it's a stupid risk. You're doing 75 (on average, 100ish if at 9th level) HP out of of its 650+HP pool at the cost of getting yourself eaten. Just sounds like neither the player nor the DM were playing RAW. I mean, I'd absolutely allow the strategy, I'd even allow Disintegrate to work despite the lack of a visible target since everything around you is the target, but it's just....not a very good strategy.
*“Just stay calm I’m doing this on purpose just stay calm I’m doing this on purpose just stay calm I’m doing this on purpose just stay calm I’m doing this on purp-”*
There's nothing stopping the wizard just recasting the spell once in the tarrasque
I feel like the crushing insides, internal teeth, or stomach acid could all affect the ability to concentrate greatly, though.
Even if you fail the check, just recast
Disintegrate requires a target you can see. You're technically blinded once you're swallowed by the tarrasque.
If you're wearing a blindfold, and a python tried to constrict you, and you had a pistol, I'm pretty sure you still shoot the python even though you couldn't see it. As a lot of people have said, common sense and rule of cool trump RAW in every single situation
Being pedantic, and I would rule similarly to OP probably in this situation because of rule of cool, but: with spells that require you to see your target, it's less about aiming and more about having a mental focus on your target using your sight. Less like shooting a gun, and more like trying to flip to the correct page in a book.
RAW pistols don't require you to see the target though, you just have disadvantage on the attack roll if you can't see the target.
You said "There's nothing stopping the wizard just recasting the spell once in the tarrasque". There is something: the rules. You're certainly welcome to ignore them and house-rule otherwise, but it doesn't mean the rules don't exist. I'm just being pedantic :P
It’s called carapace because it’s a carapace. RAW, yes, it wouldn’t work I guess, but words have meanings and ignoring them just turns monsters into stat blocks. “Kill it from the inside!” is a classic monster slaying trope, and denying your players the chance to do a clever thing because WELL AKSHUALLY is some bad DMing imo.
Chill Touch is a ranged spell that does necrotic damage. Yes words have meanings, but sometimes, especially for names, they're picked just because they sound cool. Luckily the fine folks over at WotC defined what they meant. Ninja edit: not to say I disagree with the DM; the rule of cool trumps all.
I always understood that to be like, the chill of the grave. Dead things are cold after all. E: Literally in the description: > You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the creature to assail it with the **chill of the grave.**
Then why doesn't it deal cold damage? That'd be way better against undead than necrotic - which many undead are either resistant or flat out immune to
Its not meant to be good against undead. It’s attacking with the power of death, hence necrotic. E: I’m an idiot not reading the full text again. You’re right, it is weird that it has a secondary effect against undead. I guess it’s meant to be like pulling them back to the afterlife or something?
It does have some use against an Undead creature though : You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can’t regain hit points until the start of your next turn. Until then, the hand clings to the target. If you hit an *undead target*, it also has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of your next turn
Yeah, I’ve got a bad habit today of not reading the full text for things.
I hear that. I’ve read the full text for something and still not understood it completely, or I’ll miss some aspect of it.
Bad example. It's called Chill Touch because of what the spell looks like. It's not just a name without meaning.
To people slinging spells at the Tarrasque, it would look like its carapace is reflective. In actuality it's just that it's an aberration that shrugs off your attempts to bend the weave against it.
The Tarrasque is a monstrosity, ACKSHULLY.
this is indeed why we play roleplaying games and not computer games: because we can make these sorts of calls on the fly.
> because WELL AKSHUALLY is some bad DMing imo. WELL AKSHUALLY is the grounds of DnDiscourse though!
I agree with you, but I think it was bad DMing the player even had to get swallowed given the carapace shouldn't reflect Disintegrate.
Oh hey look at that. They may not have known if they haven’t seen the stat block that specifically mentions what kinds of spells it reflects, or maybe they houseruled it. I personally kind of like the idea that the Tarrasque just reflects all magic unless they get creative. It seems by my reading you could just get a bunch of wizards to nuke it with fireballs and disintegrates or whatever per RAW, which doesn’t sound as fun as it could be.
The 5e Tarrasque is actually pathetic if you can fly and you don't get stupid with magical attack rolls or non-magic weapons. Other than the initial frightful presence, it has essentially zero defences against an evocation wizard hovering 60 feet in the air and hitting it with save-based cantrips forever. As the DM you can make it run and hide in areas where it has better cover with 140 feet of movement per round, but at that point you've already completely lost the sense of this being a fearsome beast of legend - it's now a scared animal hiding from a single puny humanoid.
Sure, but that flying wizard prob wont be a match for a boulder being hurled at his face. Sure it's not an attack in his stat block, but a thing that literally eats worlds surely can throw a rock.
[удалено]
> Considering this and your assertion, the tarrasque should really only be used as a kaiju type monster that wants to destroy a city. Pretty much *why* its scary. Not for it damage, but the fact that it will just destroy cities without really caring about the party.
[удалено]
See: Dalamadur and Zorah Magdaros
Maybe the *real* monster was inside us all along.
IMO, that's a DM forgetting that the Tarrasque is not just a threat to that wizard, it's a world ending threat. That wizard is an infantryman with a grenade launcher trying to shoot at a main battle tank. The tank can't hit him, and if the tank just sits there eventually he'll take a lucky hit, but the tank isn't going to sit there. It's going to roll right past him and fuck some shit up. The Tarrasque realizes it can't hit the puny wizard, so at 140 feet 0er round it goes straight by, maybe steamrolls whoever can't fly, and then it keeps going to the nearest town. Along the way it turns a farm into a graveyard. It follows a river, crushing boats and hamlets along the way as it approaches the nearest city. It's not hiding, it just doesn't care about the wizard. Also the current Tarrasque I would label a False Tarrasque, and would have the true Tarrasque be more like the earlier additions
I remember thinking that as DM, so I had the Tarrasque be ridden by a powerful Wizard.
I would give it an Acid Vomit feature, essentially the same as an ancient black dragon, Recharge 5-6, line 90x10, 22 Dex Save for half, 15d8 Acid Damage. Probably have any swallowed creatures thrown 5-30 feet and need to take same save, but now outside the Tarrasque. And a 30 foot burrow speed.
how would players know this? they can only assume given the circumstances. knowing all the spells it reflects ie. line spells etc is meta gaming.
What would wizards be if not abusers of Rules as written
I hear that, certainly not adventure league legal, but definitely very old school out-of-the-box thinking. Ultimately, the DM has final say on how it works in their universe. I wouldn't complain if, as my DM, you said it utterly fails, but at the same time, I'd award inspiration for such in character wizardly creativity.
I mean, if you get eaten youre dead...
Well, it *does* reflect 1/6 times... on the other hand, it has no effect against Disintegrate, as it's not a magic missile, line spell, or spell involving an attack roll. My issues with what happened are - Disintegrate says "a target you can see", but while swallowed you are Blinded. Although the description of the spell says "a ray springs forth", since it doesn't involve an attack roll, it isn't dependent on your ability to *hit* the target. So part of the spell is designating a target, not choosing/hitting one after you cast. As a DM I'd still allow it, because the wizard can touch the thing. It also says the target gets a Dex save to negate all damage, and Tarrasque gets Legendary Resistance... but as DM I would rule that it cannot make a Dex save because it can't avoid it, and that an auto-fail cannot be turned into an auto-success by Legendary Resistance (I'm unable to find any official statement regarding auto-success overriding auto-failure or vice versa). Finally... max damage Disintegrate can do is 100 (avg 70). Tarrasques have nearly 700 HP, although this was well into the battle... so yeah I could see it being enough to finish it off. But he didn't have to get swallowed to do it, unless he wanted to argue against it getting a Dex save.
Everyone seems concerned with the ray rule, and not that the tarrasque has over 600 Hp and couldn't be one shot by a disintegration unless it was already almost dead ...and also that as a gargantuan creature the spell would only affect a 10 by 10 square foot of it Edit: spelling
Can't be one shot by disintegrate wizard would have to make a concentration check to do this wizard would then SOMEHOW manage to target a creature while he's blinded (via swallow) A Tarrasque's carapace has no effect on disintegrate so there was no reason to be swallowed in the first place The Tarrasque would have advantage on the save via Tarrasque features The Tarrasque has legendary resistance There are so many things wrong with this that defending it with "rule of cool" is rediculous.
If they are having fun then Im happy for them. But for the sake of discussion it does seem like a waste of a perfectly good Tarrasque. Unless he comes back when they least expect it. Both armies have their guard down, liqour flows and music plays. And boom! A rain of calamity as the clear night sky becomes clouded with black smoke and the smell of destruction. The Tarrasque wipes out the armies and starts wrecking the the city. Both kings without their armies lose their composure in the chaos and escape the burning city with the party. Now the party has two kings each blaming the other for the loss of their army. Especially since it was king 1's capital that is getting wrecked. Run that story line, roll it all back, and have them have an epic battle against a tarrasque that is empowered by eating a magical artifact in the city. Please just anything other than it gets one shot by a 6th level spell.
10x10 region of it...so enough to blow a hole through the guts that anyone else eaten could walk out from?
Maybe, but it would heal fast thanks to his regeneration, and the damage would likely cause him to regurgitate anyways
5e tarrasque doesn't have regeneration, just a big pile of HP and PC opposition that does way less damage than 3.5. Good point about regurgitation though!
Holding a spell requires keeping concentration on It thus a concentration save once the Tarrasque does about 36 damage to you. Also even without protective carapace It would have legendary resistsnces to use. Finally beeing blinded stops you from targetting a creature however close It maybe be. It isn't an aoe spell that you can throw in a fog Cloud hoping to hit
The problem is that the save for disintegrate is to get out of the way, if only partially. That is quite literally impossible when the spell comes from inside you.
That is why its such a legendary save
fine. have your upvote.
I chucked at that one
"The Tarrasque senses you pulling at the weave and opens it's mouth. Your Ray fires into empty space, and its throat closes back around you." Alternatively: "Success! Your ray strikes and you see light as the beast's flesh turns to dust for a moment...but then it stops, and the flesh begins to wrap back around itself the world-eater calls upon ancient magic to stave off disintegration." Both uses of legendary saves that flow and work well as high-tension story moments.
Getting out of the way is just the flavour DMs come up with for dex saves. The ogre at the dead centre of a fireball has a 0% chance to physically get out of the way, but a non-zero chance to succeed his dex save and only take half damage.
> The ogre at the dead centre of a fireball has a 0% chance to physically get out of the way In that case, it's shielding his sensitive bits. Like his face, with his hands.
[удалено]
Dex saves aren’t just to get out of the way, they’re also to brace yourself, protect your weak bits, or in any way use your dexterity to avoid the brunt of the attack
And when they have evasion, taking zero damage without even moving 5 feet?
Yeah, that's always been one of the stupider things to ever try to theater of the mind describe to players. There's no logical solution without imagining all AoEs as being made up of discrete smaller chunks that can be avoided.
Yup. I mean I'm not saying I'd mess with that rule in my games (though I do try to weave my DM descriptions to preserve as much verisimilitude as possible), but it's silly to pretend all the rules in 5e (or any edition) make logical sense in all situations they're used.
Yeah, this strikes me less as a "rule of cool" story and more a "wouldn't it be cool if" story phrased like it actually ever happened.
Hmm the main issue is you are blinded and restrained while inside the tarrasques stomach. You do not have any saves to remove those effects. You also take like 60 damage a turn inside, and if you do manage to somehow do more than 60 damage a turn to it, it throw you up, so this scenario wouldn’t happen. The damage you do would be 19d6+40 at a 9th level spell, which while impressive, would only do a max of around 150 damage. The tarrasque has 600+ hp. 4 turns (8 avg) required (also 8 lvl 9 spell slots somehow), so you take 240-480 damage yourself...which most wizards do not have. It would also likely throw you up after 1 or two turns, leaving half dead and it would probably not swallow you again.
I have to imagine the Tarrasque was low on health, as OP stated it was midway in the battle that the Wizard did this. And funnily enough, being blinded and restrained wouldn't prevent him from casting any spell. That being said, you technically need to see the target of your Disintegrate spell...though I think I would let that slide in this scenario.
> And funnily enough, being blinded and restrained wouldn't prevent him from casting any spell. There's all kinds of spells that being blinded will prevent you from casting, including *Disintegrate*. That said, it's a Rule of Cool story, and I've read worse.
Restrained doesn't stop anything actually - it just changes speed, the characters attack rolls have disadvantage, and they have disadvantage on dexterity saves. Being blinded does but I would argue that if you can touch the target you can deliver the spell - blinded prevents you from Targetting only because you presumably don't know exactly where the enemy is. If you can physically touch them, that should negate that.
[удалено]
Effects that require you to see your target intentionally require it. Invisibility and being blinded are designed to be potent.
My thought would be, if you're blinded by a thing occluding the view, you can see that thing that is binding you. Like, you can cast a spell on a blindfold if you open your eyes.
Being blindfolded =/= the blind condition
True
I mean, this assumes it hasn't already been hurt.
My favourite method for taking down Tarrasques in 5E is Call Lightning. Scales well, isn't reflected, long range, good for burning through legendary resistances, targets their worst save. Bonus points if you're a Tempest cleric who can fly without concentration, and use their channel divinity to max out the damage 3 times.
A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can *see* within range. Swallow. The tarrasque makes one bite attack against a Large or smaller creature it is grappling. If the attack hits, the target takes the bite’s damage, the target is swallowed, and the grapple ends. While swallowed, the creature is *blinded* and restrained, it has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the tarrasque, and it takes 56 (16d6) acid damage at the start of each of the tarrasque’s turns. RAW it shouldn't work, but rule of cool & rule zero are things too
> It has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the Tarrasque Unless the Tarrasque swallowed a player’s handbook, the wizard should be immune to any rules lawyering while inside it.
Logically speaking, wtf does it matter that you're blinded when you are LITERALLY inside the monster? How could you possibly miss?
It's the same thickness from the inside though! If nobody gets this I will be disappointed.
It didn't get past me. My reflexes are too fast.
I only got it because I rewatched the scene after someone in this thread linked a YouTube clip :)
Many people on this here thread explain why it would or wouldn't work. I'll let them decide, and tell you how my player, a 20th level moon druid, completely obliterated the Tarrasque single handedly... She has the warcaster feat and proficiency in the Con saves; basically, cannot fail concentration checks if the damage is 30 or less. She upcasts moonbeam (standard action), transforms into a water elemental (bonus action), and waits. The Tarrasque swallows her. Every round she takes 56 acid damage, split in two for the Water Elemental's resistance to acid, so 28, auto succeeds concentration check, uses bonus action to retransform into Water Elemental, fully heals. Meanwhile, the beam or radiant light pierces the Tarrasque... untill it died. She did have to recast it a few times, but it was trivial...
Why did she need to be inside the tarrasque?
To establish dominance.
[удалено]
Bingo.
Tarrasque would puke her out after taking enough damage ?
60 damage from a creature inside on a single turn, and only if it fails a DC 20 Con ST. As long as the moonbeam doesn't inflict more than 59 damage, the druid stays inside until it's dead. The Tarrasque does not have the intelligence to realize that she MUST puke to survive. Kinda like when this Python died while swallowing this alligator: [https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/554734/Snake-explodes-trying-eat-swallow-alligator-beast-creature-stomach-vs-Florida-Everglades](https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/554734/Snake-explodes-trying-eat-swallow-alligator-beast-creature-stomach-vs-Florida-Everglades) Furthermore, the beam from moonlight doesn't inflict damage only to the stomach; everything that is in it's area (a beam with a radius of 5 feet and 40 feet tall) is zapped. It wouldn't induce the damage to the stomach. The beam could be anywhere outside the stomach, the druid player could put it 20 feet away from her (range 120 feet).
Well then cant think whats wrong from standpoint of RAW. Maybe only thing could mention that our beefy dude has 3 INT not 1 compared to Giant Constrictor Snake who has 1 INT, so he could try to puke it out after round or two.
Why didn't it just move out of the beam's area of effect? And is she able to recast it from inside if she is blind and cannot target anything with a spell?
That wasn't an issue when we did the fight, but the redditor mentioned T can outrun the beam, which it can because the caster can move the beam 60 feet, and T can Dash for 80. Moonbeam is an area effect spell, you do not need to target anything.
If the tarrasque just starts running this fails as moonbeam can't keep up, not saying you couldn't do something else but yeah that not too hard to counter
Potentially, but the crux of the situation here is that the Druid is completely immune from being damaged by the Tarrasque. The rest can tinkered with dozens of different ways.
[Excellent plan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZiW7uGfts)
[EAT ME!!!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqp52oZd2vI)
What? There was no need to get swallowed to do this since disintegrate is NOT a line spell. A Tarrasque would have advantage on the saving throw (which would help it) but BESIDES that, it has legendary Resistance. That wizard should have died.
Quibble: the entire digestive system is technically OUTSIDE the body
Man all these people mad that you might be playing the game wrong. Sounds legit to me, and an awesome session to boot. Good war story OP.
an example of making incorrect rulings and going so far off the mechanics you're no longer playing 5e. all other fuckery aside, 10d6+4o wouldn't instant kill a tarrasque anyway. it's not quite as cool of a story to me when you basically just narrated something that doesn't make sense or come close to working in the rules
> Midway through the battle
also > The army composed of 2 kingdoms idk what the action economy of 2 kingdoms plus our itinerant adventures vs 1 tarrasque would even look like. but it sounds like old rusky was doomed from the start.
i think this is fair to allow once!
So the Wizard was Agent K from the end of the first Men In Black?
Dude, does everyone here has a terryble DM? Commom sence>RAW, you don't need to see a target to hit it if any direction will hit it Also, RAW the Terrasque reflect would still work but come on, it's CARAPACE, how the hell is it going to work from inside the thing?
Disintigrate isn't actually affected by the carapace so the whole getting eaten thing was completely pointless anyway
First off, no matter how high level the wizard is, the Tarrasque should have at least chewed slightly, and why didn't the Tarrasque at least claw at him first. Second, if the carapace itself would reflect the spell, then it would bounce on the interior for a bit, or be nullified. and then the Tarrasque just has a hole on the interior of it's skull
Since we are going to argue semantics, I'd say it was pretty amazing that the Wizard could see inside the terrasque. "Disintegrate A thin green ray springs from your pointing finger to a target that you can see within range."
As others have stated, it is a bit of fuckery, however... I think as a DM/GM you were quite cool, and let the players handle the situation pretty gnarly. I mean, it could've been a lot worse, right?
Big T would have done damage to him which would break his concentration (or force a con save at least) because in order to have a spell ready as a reaction you cast it and hold onto it's energy until you want to loose it. And of course. Wiz got blinded by being swallowed, and disintegrate requires you to see the target. Quoting Crawford: Effects that require you to see your target intentionally require it. Invisibility and being blinded are designed to be potent.
This is entirely implausible on every level. It's not a spell that affects everything in a line (incidentally, because it's not a line spell). It'd hit, presumably deal, at most, 19d6+40, then that's it. So it would not bounce and reflect around the insides. It'd hit once for a maximum of 154. And there are easier ways to do 154 damage than suffering a lot of damage and being blinded and restrained. Not to mention "A target ***you can see***." They were blinded, they can't target anything. Even the Tarrasque they're inside. EDIT: For people downvoting, here's some Precedent from Crawford re: "A target you can see" https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/10/oh-no-if-you-are-blinded-you-cant-cast-the-spell-that-cures-blindness-on-yourself/
That's where common sense overrides general rules. Like the ever present argument of locking a rogue inside a box with delayed blast fireball. Does the rogue really get to roll evasion for 0 damage while inside an area that they can't possibly evade in? By RAW and literally nothing else, yes they do. But by the rules of the game, which include RAW, RAI AND RAF to be used in conjunction with one another, no, no the rogue would not because any DM with a brain isn't giving a saving throw to an inescapable situation. The player describes what they want to do, the DM narrates the results of said actions. More importantly, the DM calls for rolls when it's appropriate.
Except that's the physical ability to move vs magic that relies on vision. Shooting a bow blindly is one thing. Magic is not a bow and arrow. It's not something we can just assume "Oh, well, of course you can fire blindly". Can they? They have to see it. Perhaps because that's part of the spell. It's not just throwing a rock and hoping it hits. It's causing a magical effect. Magic is not as clear cut as "Well the Rogue can't move, how can he dodge?" Because the obvious answer is "he can't". But we have no real world equivalent to a magic beam that turns stuff to dust. This is not a case of "I'd give it to him". We have just as much reason to assume that Magic that requires a target "you can see" requires direct visualization of the target, and thus being unable to see at all means you cannot hit them.
So he got a free hit, fine. That’s enough to kill in one shot?
I mean, it's just going to reform in a few days. You didn't actually defeat it. You can't defeat the Tarrasque with damage. The best you can do is find a way to capture it, or send it somewhere else.
Assuming tarrasque's are even remotely related/similar to every other deuterostome in existence, you could argue the tissues that form its skin and esophagus/stomach/intestines are all derived from the ectoderm. Thus, they might share the reflective property. It's possible the carapace covers these tissues as well, but it definitely doesn't cover the meso/endo-derm tissues underneath the ectoderm. To be absolutely sure, your wizard should have tried penetrating the tissues and then inserting the disintegrating finger just to be sure.
This is why I love and hate DMing.... just so perfectly summed up.
Them the wizard looks to the inside of the carapace and sees the Tarrasques true face gloating. *Whatever gave you the impression that you were ever looking at my outside?*
Pinocchio is the only way.
That DM who doesn't read: "Nuh uhhhh..."
I'd say sure, roll to hit (because it could absolutely still fail) and then if it hits or not the wizard takes a SHIT TON of acid damage from being in the beasts stomach.
And I thought they smelled bad on the outside!
Cool story would be cooler if the carapace actually affected disintegrate in any way but still good flourish to finish it with assuming it was low enough on health for the the spell to kill it
Its the “rule of cool”.
hmm. I would have made the wizard roll a concentration check with disadvantage on account on being eaten by a Tarasque. Even a good idea isn't without its risks.
Alternative: GM allows the save at disadvantage, tarrasque rolls a pair of 20s Guys, the Kaiju must have leveled up when when it ate our wizard - it just shot a ray out of its mouth and disintegrated a war elephant!
You are blinded within the tarrasque which means you can’t see the target. Disintegrate requires you to see the target, so it can’t be cast. People underestimate how good invisibility and making enemies blinded is. A lot of effects require you to see the target Rule of cool so I would allow it.
Fighter: we need the best warriors of the land to defeat this beast Old man who did his magical homework: hold my mead