Knock that tarrasque onto its backside!

620 posts / 0 new
Last post

Just noticed a funny thing. 

 

Monks of the Open Hand get a fun little bonus whenever they hit with their Flurry of Blows:

 

  • It must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or be knocked prone.

Note how there's no mention of creature size here. A Monk's DC is 8 + prof bonus + wisdom mod. Assuming 20 wis, the level 20 DC for the Dex Saving Throw is 19. The previewed tarrasque has a Dex saving throw of 0, which means 90% of the time, a monk can knock a tarrasque on their back with the touch of their hand. Of course, the tarrasque can just shove it off... but that seems like a pretty silly usage of Legendary Resistance.

 

A slightly more applicable usage of this would be knocking flying monsters out of the sky. The Ancient Red Dragon has a Dex saving throw of +7, so you knock an ancient red dragon out of the sky 55% of the time. (A flying creature knocked prone falls).

 

Now, how does a monk fly up to meet his enemy in the sky? Well, they could use an external resource like a wizard... or you could just be a Monk of the Four Elements. They can Ride the Wind (cast fly) and then use Water Whip to literally whip a dragon out of the sky (knocking prone). Best part is you don't need to get through AC... it's exclusively a dex saving throw.

 

Suddenly, I'm imagining a great monastery where monks train to fight giant titans and literally bring them down out of the sky. A tiny flying gnome monk whipping an Ancient Dragon's flight sky gives me the giggles.

Dooflegna wrote:
Now, how does a monk fly up to meet his enemy in the sky? Well, they could use an external resource like a wizard... or you could just be a Monk of the Four Elements.
Slight problem - you can't be a monk of the Open hand and a monk of the four elements simultaneously. They are both mutually exclusive subclasses. As such, the monk will be 100% reliant on gaining flight from an external source, such as a carpet of flying (assuming it has combat application, and is not reserved to overland flight).

Repository: Homebrew & Original Content

 

There are days when I wish my old account did not screw up with the transition to gleemax. Having been a member since 2008 doesnt carry near the same prestige as having been a member since 2001.

 

Formerly known as glimeral (2001-2009). 

Kalani wrote:

 

Dooflegna wrote:
Now, how does a monk fly up to meet his enemy in the sky? Well, they could use an external resource like a wizard... or you could just be a Monk of the Four Elements.

Slight problem - you can't be a monk of the Open hand and a monk of the four elements simultaneously. They are both mutually exclusive subclasses. As such, the monk will be 100% reliant on gaining flight from an external source, such as a carpet of flying (assuming it has combat application, and is not reserved to overland flight).

 

 

I wasn't very clear--the Monk of the Four Elements has access to both a fly spell AND an ability that lets it knock creatures prone (Water Whip). So she can be a dragon-knocking-flying master all on her ownsome.

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

A DM with no appreciation for the Rule of Cool is a DM I don't want to game with.

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

Or a DM could look at this mechanic and think "hey, maybe monks are some of the undisputed masters at taking down titanic creatures" and make that a part of their world because she finds it really really cool.

 

Yes, it's probably an oversight, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with looking at the RAW and trying to construct the gameworld wherein monks truly can knock anything and everything onto its backside.

I think the rule of "What? No." Overrides the rule of kewl.

Wuzzard wrote:

I think the rule of "What? No." Overrides the rule of kewl.

 

If snapping a dragon's neck with your bare hands is playind D&D wrong, then I don't want to play D&D right.

Dooflegna wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

 

Or a DM could look at this mechanic and think "hey, maybe monks are some of the undisputed masters at taking down titanic creatures" and make that a part of their world because she finds it really really cool.

 

Yes, it's probably an oversight, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with looking at the RAW and trying to construct the gameworld wherein monks truly can knock anything and everything onto its backside.

 

I long ago got tired of people who take RAW and try to do outlandish things (knowing full well they are exploiting an oversight by the author).  I guess I've just been gaming too long to find this kind of stuff funny anymore.  It's just dumb to me.

It depends on your view of D&D. If you like sword and sorcery epic heroics by all means slap that dragon. If you are in to a more simulationist approach tha's cool too and you table can certainly tone down the lizard slapping.

Atheosis wrote:

 

Dooflegna wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

 

Or a DM could look at this mechanic and think "hey, maybe monks are some of the undisputed masters at taking down titanic creatures" and make that a part of their world because she finds it really really cool.

 

Yes, it's probably an oversight, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with looking at the RAW and trying to construct the gameworld wherein monks truly can knock anything and everything onto its backside.

 

 

I long ago got tired of people who take RAW and try to do outlandish things (knowing full well they are exploiting an oversight by the author).  I guess I've just been gaming too long to find this kind of stuff funny anymore.  It's just dumb to me.

 

amen brother......

maybe cool when i was a player and 15....always looking to push boundaries and feel invinceable.   now im 31 and want to enjoy a semi-believable RPG.   I would never allow this in my games either.   Perhaps when i was a kid i would.   Seems pretty obvious its an oversight.   I'm going with large and smaller which is probably the intent.

shamurai7 wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

 

Dooflegna wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

 

Or a DM could look at this mechanic and think "hey, maybe monks are some of the undisputed masters at taking down titanic creatures" and make that a part of their world because she finds it really really cool.

 

Yes, it's probably an oversight, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with looking at the RAW and trying to construct the gameworld wherein monks truly can knock anything and everything onto its backside.

 

 

I long ago got tired of people who take RAW and try to do outlandish things (knowing full well they are exploiting an oversight by the author).  I guess I've just been gaming too long to find this kind of stuff funny anymore.  It's just dumb to me.

 

 

amen brother......

maybe cool when i was a player and 15....always looking to push boundaries and feel invinceable.   now im 31 and want to enjoy a semi-believable RPG.   I would never allow this in my games either.   Perhaps when i was a kid i would.   Seems pretty obvious its an oversight.   I'm going with large and smaller which is probably the intent.

 

What's unbelievable about a monk using magic to knock a dragon down? Would it be more believable if it were a wizard using said magic instead?

shamurai7 wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

 

Dooflegna wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

 

Or a DM could look at this mechanic and think "hey, maybe monks are some of the undisputed masters at taking down titanic creatures" and make that a part of their world because she finds it really really cool.

 

Yes, it's probably an oversight, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with looking at the RAW and trying to construct the gameworld wherein monks truly can knock anything and everything onto its backside.

 

 

I long ago got tired of people who take RAW and try to do outlandish things (knowing full well they are exploiting an oversight by the author).  I guess I've just been gaming too long to find this kind of stuff funny anymore.  It's just dumb to me.

 

 

amen brother......

maybe cool when i was a player and 15....always looking to push boundaries and feel invinceable.   now im 31 and want to enjoy a semi-believable RPG.   I would never allow this in my games either.   Perhaps when i was a kid i would.   Seems pretty obvious its an oversight.   I'm going with large and smaller which is probably the intent.

So you only play as fighters, rogues, barbarians and non-magic rangers then?

 

And seriously, guys, yes, it should be able to. Because it is a monk. If you don't like their sheer strength is enough, then they're using their knowledge of pressure points to bring the opponent down

Lord_Ventnor wrote:

What's unbelievable about a monk using magic to knock a dragon down?

 

Seriously?

Mecheon wrote:

 

shamurai7 wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

 

Dooflegna wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

 

Or a DM could look at this mechanic and think "hey, maybe monks are some of the undisputed masters at taking down titanic creatures" and make that a part of their world because she finds it really really cool.

 

Yes, it's probably an oversight, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with looking at the RAW and trying to construct the gameworld wherein monks truly can knock anything and everything onto its backside.

 

 

I long ago got tired of people who take RAW and try to do outlandish things (knowing full well they are exploiting an oversight by the author).  I guess I've just been gaming too long to find this kind of stuff funny anymore.  It's just dumb to me.

 

 

amen brother......

maybe cool when i was a player and 15....always looking to push boundaries and feel invinceable.   now im 31 and want to enjoy a semi-believable RPG.   I would never allow this in my games either.   Perhaps when i was a kid i would.   Seems pretty obvious its an oversight.   I'm going with large and smaller which is probably the intent.

 

So you only play as fighters, rogues, barbarians and non-magic rangers then?

 

And seriously, guys, yes, it should be able to. Because it is a monk. If you don't like their sheer strength is enough, then they're using their knowledge of pressure points to bring the opponent down

 

Not in my game.  If you are running a game feel free to allow your players to exploit RAW to their hearts' content.  To each their own.

Mecheon wrote:

 

So you only play as fighters, rogues, barbarians and non-magic rangers then?

 

And seriously, guys, yes, it should be able to. Because it is a monk. If you don't like their sheer strength is enough, then they're using their knowledge of pressure points to bring the opponent down

 

umm... never said that.   guess to you everything is black or white eh? "well he disbelieves monks punch 2 million pound creatures around so how can he use magic?"   ha-derp.

 

well the answer is it sounds stupid to me.   honestly a large creature is even a stretch but heroic monks i'll let it slide.   

as I said before i left those wild antics behind with my childhood.  

 

My ideals are based of dozens of fantasy novels I have read over the last few decades.   I have a damn good idea of the general power level of the fantasy setting and know what amazing feats characters can achieve.

 

No where in any of these books does stuff like that happen.    What you're talking about belongs in comic books.

 

By all means though if you play dnd with the power level of comic book heroes then cool...enjoy dnd how you like it. 

We just don't do that comic book stuff in our group.

Atheosis wrote:

 

Lord_Ventnor wrote:

What's unbelievable about a monk using magic to knock a dragon down?

 

 

Seriously?

 

Seriously. Magic can do a lot of things. Why can't it knock a dragon down?

Lord_Ventnor wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

 

Lord_Ventnor wrote:

What's unbelievable about a monk using magic to knock a dragon down?

 

 

Seriously?

 

 

Seriously. Magic can do a lot of things. Why can't it knock a dragon down?

 

Because I'm not going to allow a player to exploit the fact that large creatures have low Dexterity to allow them to knock down dragons and Godzilla with ease?  This isn't a Wish spell we are talking about.  It's a simple knockdown effect on a low level ability.  

Atheosis wrote:

 

Because I'm not going to allow a player to exploit the fact that large creatures have low Dexterity to allow them to knock down dragons and Godzilla with ease?  This isn't a Wish spell we are talking about.  It's a simple knockdown effect on a low level ability.  

 

I loled @ godzilla.... Hah hah hah!!!

 

very true...   although as you can see i've been on these forums for several years I can say sadly that the rules as written crowd will never see the light.  They know damn well the intent but are constantly looking for ways to exploit things like lawyers.   they always have some justification also.  (well i can imagine a high level monk used pressure points...lol)    in their heads they always have an excuse.

 

 

it will be erratad.   then they will quiet down.   lawyers need errata.

shamurai7 wrote:

 

Mecheon wrote:

 

So you only play as fighters, rogues, barbarians and non-magic rangers then?

 

And seriously, guys, yes, it should be able to. Because it is a monk. If you don't like their sheer strength is enough, then they're using their knowledge of pressure points to bring the opponent down

 

 

umm... never said that.   guess to you everything is black or white eh? "well he disbelieves monks punch 2 million pound creatures around so how can he use magic?"   ha-derp.

 

well the answer is it sounds stupid to me.   honestly a large creature is even a stretch but heroic monks i'll let it slide.   

as I said before i left those wild antics behind with my childhood.  

 

My ideals are based of dozens of fantasy novels I have read over the last few decades.   I have a damn good idea of the general power level of the fantasy setting and know what amazing feats characters can achieve.

 

No where in any of these books does stuff like that happen.    What you're talking about belongs in comic books.

 

By all means though if you play dnd with the power level of comic book heroes then cool...enjoy dnd how you like it. 

We just don't do that comic book stuff in our group.

Wizards and Clerics are the anti-thesis of realism. Its a double standard to say someone punching things hard enough to topple them isn't believable, and yet a guy throwing fireballs willy-nilly is. Because the guy punching things is closer to reality than the wizard, far, far closer.

 

Go find me a non-D&D fantasy story where a wizard does half the stuff of a D&D one. Go on. I'm waiting

 

Also, here's Kenshiro punching a tank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ZeD40Rg8A

This isn't so much about Rules as Written as it is Rule of Cool vs Simulationist.

1eejit wrote:

This isn't so much about Rules as Written as it is Rule of Cool vs Simulationist.

 

Not even....   the rule of cool says that I as DM bend a rule to let a character do a running kick into a wood door knocking it from its hinge killing the goblin behind it. It's not cool to abuse a rule oversight.

 

The only thing i'm simulating is decades of Dnd fantasy lore and fiction.

 

Monks punching godzilla down simulates super man comics or dragonball z.

 

It all depends on what you are trying to simulate I guess because in dnd lore......thats not happenning.

1eejit wrote:

This isn't so much about Rules as Written as it is Rule of Cool vs Simulationist.

Exactly

 

Also, as for taking down large creatures, let's look at the definitive thing on taking down large creatures, the one, the only, Shadows of the Colossus

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wZiBEEiLvZg#t=234

 

This is the Third Colossus and probably the most iconic

Well then isn't it 'Rule of Cool' that my Fireball can incinerate the whole of Waterdeep, or my Fighter/Apprentice's Wizard Action Surge allow me to cast faster than an Arch Lich Wizard whose been studying magic three centuries longer than I have?

 

No it isn't - it's 'Rule of School' - and primary school at that.

 

Childish rules lawyering trying to exploit obvious rules errors and hiding behind the equally childish 'Why can't I can have nice things!' *stamp little feet* routine too often seen on these forums to justify other crap.

 

Nearly every other ability that knocks things down restricts it to Large or smaller creatures if carried out by a character. Saying you can slam dunk the Tarrasque with such an ability will be ruled firmly out until errata'd by any DM who doesn't think they are running a game of Exalted, in which characters are reincarnated Gods at the START of the game...

 

Wheaton's Law is far more applicable here - and those claiming Rule of Cool on this kind of thing need slapping in the face by Wheaton... repeatedly...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

shamurai7 wrote:

 

1eejit wrote:

This isn't so much about Rules as Written as it is Rule of Cool vs Simulationist.

 

 

Not even....   the rule of cool says that I as DM bend a rule to let a character do a running kick into a wood door knocking it from its hinge killing the goblin behind it. It's not cool to abuse a rule oversight.

 

The only thing i'm simulating is decades of Dnd fantasy lore and fiction.

 

Monks punching godzilla down simulates super man comics or dragonball z.

 

It all depends on what you are trying to simulate I guess because in dnd lore......thats not happenning.

 

Yet a monk punching godzilla's toes until it dies is a simulation you don't find jarring.

1eejit wrote:

 

shamurai7 wrote:

 

1eejit wrote:

This isn't so much about Rules as Written as it is Rule of Cool vs Simulationist.

 

 

Not even....   the rule of cool says that I as DM bend a rule to let a character do a running kick into a wood door knocking it from its hinge killing the goblin behind it. It's not cool to abuse a rule oversight.

 

The only thing i'm simulating is decades of Dnd fantasy lore and fiction.

 

Monks punching godzilla down simulates super man comics or dragonball z.

 

It all depends on what you are trying to simulate I guess because in dnd lore......thats not happenning.

 

 

Yet a monk punching godzilla's toes until it dies is a simulation you don't find jarring.

 

I'll humor the thought and say yeah... A powerful monk can perhaps break or stub a few toes to contribute to the TEAM fight where a sorc. blasts his face and the barb hacks the ankles.   Eventually causing the creature to fall.   Why not?  In star wars that is how we deal with an AT AT right?

Wait, you're calling this a low-level ability, when the only reason the Monk is getting ANYWHERE with this is because of a high proficiency bonus and legendary-like Wisdom because the Monk is a high level? 

Class features with ability score bonuses and proficiencies added are not "level-locked" abilities; they are scaling abilities.  Sure, at low level, the feature is meant for breaking  normal humanoids stances and whatnot, but this is one paragon of a Monk.  This Monk's entire arsenal should be considered up there with casters of 8th and 9th-level spells, with Fighters who are somehow able to make 5 weapon attacks in 6 seconds, with Paladins turning into Angels and flying around the battlefield.  20th-level is when you're NOT realistic whatsoever anymore.  Monks are the Oriental Martial Arts class.  In all the films, shows, stories, etc, these sorts of characters not only gain new powerful ki techniques as they get stronger, but they HONE their more basic, groundwork abilities.  To the Way of the Open Hand, this proning attack is a basic martial arts endeavour that obviously has been honed by the rules.  You can see that in how it asks for Wisdom and Proficiency.  If it was meant for just small fry, it would have a static bonus – but here, it scales both with your class level AND your Wisdom.  The idea here is, as the Monk gets wiser, the strike's placement on various enemies gets more effective.  And as the Monk gets more powerful in general, it also gets more effective.  Rather than calling this a rules oversight, where other proning abilities are focused on larger or smaller creatures, I would instead offer (and rule in my games) that is was PURPOSEFULLY left like this so that Monks could, in fact, emulate the heroes of legend and fiction, to draw on those martial arts tropes.  EVERYONE becomes supernatural by 20th level.  What is it about the Monk's particularly flavour of supernatural that it shouldn't be allowed in a game?  If it's because you don't like anime, wuxia films, martial arts tropes, etc in general, you might as well disallow the Monk entirely! 

Also, as for Water Whip, that thing is ENTIRELY supernatural from the get-go.  Why can't a 20th-level Monk create a Water Whip so huge that it could topple the Tarrasque?  I would call these ideas by my players INVENTIVE. 

What's so hard about saying Yes when the players think up a cool, flavourful idea?   ESPECIALLY when they're beyond the point of disbelief already, being at the top levels possible?

Also, shamurai7, I would read the forum rules again – namecalling, even something like that word – is against the ToS.  I'm not reporting you because you seem confused on the ToS, but someone else who's less forgiving or feels hurt by your words might.  >_>

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Caliburn101. wrote:

Well then isn't it 'Rule of Cool' that my Fireball can incinerate the whole of Waterdeep, or my Fighter/Apprentice's Wizard Action Surge allow me to cast faster than an Arch Lich Wizard whose been studying magic three centuries longer than I have?

 

No it isn't - it's 'Rule of School' - and primary school at that.

Actually I'd allow it. Of course your fireball wouldn't be the one to do the damage. Instead you just so happened to hit a particular old tavern, made of wood, bit crumbly and dilapidated

 

Unfortunately, turns out that tavern was being used as a storehouse. And has subsequently exploded

 

Congratulations, you've just caused the Great Waterdeep Fire!

 

And yeah, of course a fighter would be able to cast faster than a lich. Just because the lich has been studying magic doesn't mean they've been practicing it, whereas the fighter, well, the fighter is actually out there doing this sort of stuff, day to day, while the lich is probably locked up in a tower and not prepared to cast spells on the fly. So yeah, I'd allow it.

Kicks to the back off the knee drop everybody no matter the size if you are strong enough.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I'd be fine with this. I don't plan to houserule something away to make the game less cool.

"Encouraging your players to be cautious and risk-averse prevents unexpected epic events and-well-progress at a decent pace in general."-Detoxifier

"HOT SINGLES IN YOUR AREA NOT REGENERATING DUE TO FIRE" -iserith 

"If snapping a dragon's neck with your bare hands is playind D&D wrong, then I don't want to play D&D right." -Lord_Ventnor

Hmm, this is an interesting extension of the "Wizards Rule, Fighters Drool" phenomenom.  Monks are clearly on the fence of this issue: be they magic or be they mundane?

 

To me, the answer is clear: they are using a limited resource and so it should work as advertised.  In addition, the application of Ki clearly lets them perform magical things.

 

The fact that it is a low-level feature doesn't matter.  Are you going to tell the caster who uses a cantrip "Sorry, that doesn't work...that is a level 0 spell!"? 

 

Lastly, to me, the idea of a monk knocking down a huge (or bigger) creature also makes sense thematically.  "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is a monk expression, is it not?

If it's an actual magical "whip" of magic water, couldn't he just bind the Dragon's wings and thus justify the prone condition that way?

The dry cake is a silent killer - Mike Mearls

Reverse Gravity - Tarrasque rights itself upsidedown.

Stone to Mud

Dispel Reverse Gravity - Tarrasque falls into mud, upsidedown.

Mud to Stone - Tarrasque can't get leverage to right itself as it is pinned into the earth.

Leave it alone, or set up a roadside attraction charging coppers to "See the Tarrasque!"

 

Further, what if the tarasque had been turned into a slime?? What then! Oh, tha madness!

 

Lord_Ventnor wrote:

 

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

 

A DM with no appreciation for the Rule of Cool is a DM I don't want to game with.

I tend to find both parties fairly extremist, only wanting their own way on all matters.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

knightserpent wrote:

Reverse Gravity - Tarrasque rights itself upsidedown.

Stone to Mud

Dispel Reverse Gravity - Tarrasque falls into mud, upsidedown.

Mud to Stone - Tarrasque can't get leverage to right itself as it is pinned into the earth.

Leave it alone, or set up a roadside attraction charging coppers to "See the Tarrasque!"

 

 

Not gonna lie, pretty sure I'd rule that the Tarrasque just has to use an action or 2 to dig himself out. Good delay tactic, though

The dry cake is a silent killer - Mike Mearls

spelley wrote:

Not gonna lie, pretty sure I'd rule that the Tarrasque just has to use an action or 2 to dig himself out. Good delay tactic, though

 

Deeper and wider stone to mud.

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

I would hope my DM would rule that way.   Otherwise, I'd leave the table.

What does the math look like on the chances the 20th-level monk hits AC 25 at least once given two attacks granted by Flurry of Blows? With a Dex 20 and +6 Proficiency bonus, we're at +11 on the low end of attack bonuses. That's a 57.75% chance of forcing the tarrasque to make the Dex save. If the math is right, it goes up from there due to magic or whatever. Another +5 in bonuses, brings it up to an 84% chance. I think once you get to 20th-level, you've earned the right to smack monsters down.

 

So now what you do on the DM side is you go full on Man of Steel with it. Create a map, something like 70,000 square feet which is 20 "blocks" of 50 foot x 70 foot rectangles (roughly). If more than half the city is destroyed, the city is lost and the PCs lose. On any given turn, the Tarrasque can destroy one block. So the Tarrasque spends much of its time just rampaging and devouring the city, trying to get to its win condition (more than half the city destroyed). Perhaps it goes back to full hit points and recharges its Legendary Resistance when it takes out 10 blocks. Knocking it prone means a 50 foot by 70 foot swath of the city that it falls on gets reduced to a fine powder unless it falls in a block that is already destroyed or in an area like a park or field or whatever. Here the monk can go nuts knocking the Tarrasque prone, but he's going to have to be mindful of where he does it.

 

Hmm. I may have to write up this encounter and post it.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Atheosis wrote:

And a DM with some common sense would just say "I rule that that ability only applies to large or smaller creatures, because what you are proposing makes no sense".

 

  At some point, as a DM, you'll get sick of doing the designer's work for them and paying them to do it.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

It makes sense if you want it to make sense and doesn't make sense if you don't. It's a fictional world of magic. You can choose to think of ways it doesn't work or you can choose to think of ways it does. Just know that it's a choice and that the choice you make may be sidelining the ideas and engagement of someone at your table.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Caliburn101. wrote:

Well then isn't it 'Rule of Cool' that my Fireball can incinerate the whole of Waterdeep, or my Fighter/Apprentice's Wizard Action Surge allow me to cast faster than an Arch Lich Wizard whose been studying magic three centuries longer than I have?

 

No it isn't - it's 'Rule of School' - and primary school at that.

 

Childish rules lawyering trying to exploit obvious rules errors and hiding behind the equally childish 'Why can't I can have nice things!' *stamp little feet* routine too often seen on these forums to justify other crap.

 

Nearly every other ability that knocks things down restricts it to Large or smaller creatures if carried out by a character. Saying you can slam dunk the Tarrasque with such an ability will be ruled firmly out until errata'd by any DM who doesn't think they are running a game of Exalted, in which characters are reincarnated Gods at the START of the game...

 

Wheaton's Law is far more applicable here - and those claiming Rule of Cool on this kind of thing need slapping in the face by Wheaton... repeatedly...

 

As if being slapped by the Wesley for breaking versimilitude is something I'm going to warn my players about . . . . geeze. 

Author of Elementalism in Atlas Games' Occult Lore. DAZ 3D

Sign In to post comments