The Tarrasque does not have the ability to kill gods in its stomach. Being swallowed and digested by the Tarrasque doesn't kill you deader than any other effect that destroys your body, otherwise it would say in its statblock that characters who are killed by its Swallow Whole ability can't be raised from the dead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The true terror of the Tarrasque is not its stat block or abilities, nor is it its combat potential. No matter what you do, the Tarrasque won't stay dead. Even the wish spell cannot keep a Tarrasque dead for long. It will ALWAYS regenerate from the largest remaining piece of it, even if that piece is a sub-atomic particle. It may take days or weeks but it WILL regenerate. No god or magic weapon can truly kill the Tarrasque for good.
Also the Tarrasque's stomachs are the only things in the multiverse able to permanently kill gods and destroy artifacts. When you enter the Tarrasque's third stomach, you cease to exist, no magic, no divine intervention, nothing can save you or bring you back.
Tiamat, and even some CR 23+ creatures, can 1v1 crush the Tarrasque any time they fight, for the rest of eternity. But the Tarrasque only needs to win once, and they can't get rid of it.
The only thing that can permanently kill a Tarrasque, is another Tarrasque. That's why there is only one.
Also I'm pretty sure the Tarrasque doesn't care if you're immune to non-magical damage, if its stomach can erase gods and destroy MAGICAL artifacts that are typically INDESTRUCTIBLE, then there is no way you are surviving just because you're immune to non-magical damage.
While that was largely true in past editions, the current tarrasque doesn’t work that way. No wish required. No number of stomachs. Nothing about what the stomach do. It’s still incredibly fearsome, but the lore and mechanics have changed a lot, at least by RAW.
The only version of the Tarrasque that was super hard to kill was 3/3.5e (you had to beat it down to zero despite a ton of defenses and then use Wish or Miracle), and despite all that it was only CR 20 because it's just a mindless beast. Its only special property for destroying things was that it was suggested as an example of what could be the special means of destroying an artifact.
So if we're talking about lore, the Tarrasque will not lose. PERIOD. You guys are funny thinking that Tiamat could "jUsT fLy" well guess what geniuses…the Tarrasque could "jUsT bUrRoW"! lol Good luck hitting me with your lightning breath when I'm 50 feet under the ground—it does not take high intellect to figure out "hmm if I'm being attacked by this flying thing that I cannot hit, I can just dig down until I am safe"). The Tarrasque has blindsight as well—meaning it could still see Tiamat. In the event that Tiamat were to get eaten by the Tarrasque, she would be deleted from existence (hilarious that some people don't understand how the Tarrasque's stomach works). The reason there is only one Tarrasque is because it cannot reproduce and there was only one ever created not. Full stop. Finally, using epic magic (spells beyond 9th level—accessible by any race that does not rely on Mystra for magic, contrary to popular opinion—yes, your Elf Wizard could theoretically use a 20th level spell if he lived to be 1000 year old and had proper training) is the only way to permanently destroy the Tarrasque and it's done by using a Greater Wish spell.
Now if we're talking about using current 5e stats, Tiamat will not lose. Depending on how you interpret the text of Reflective Carapace, however, the Tarrasque would be totally immune to any breath weapon of Tiamat except for the green head and the white head and even have the ability to strike her back with it (which she would also be immune to).
The fight would essentially be a wet-noodle fight with neither entity able to take the other out. Using only 5e stat blocks is an absolutely and positively terrible way to run either of these two monsters and a damned travesty if you do so. Tiamat per lore can cast spells. The Tarrasque per lore can destroy artifacts and is immortal without the specific usage of epic magic. Not understanding that the different editions add to the world instead of taking away from the world is very problematic.
If you're going to invoke rules from editions that are older than some of the people participating in this thread, the Tarrasque would have even less chance against Tiamat given the power level that gods had in those editions. And regardless of edition, blindsight has never let someone see through solid barriers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Theres also the simple fact that the Tarrasque just get's out muscled by tiamat; Her aspect (not her true self, just a manifestation of her power which would be considerably weaker); Flight, breath weapons, more legendary resistances, better overall move set and mythic mode which means that she gets more health and more moves to murder the tarrasque with.
Beyond that, there is the fact that Tiamat is the mother of all evil dragons and a straight up god, as such she can likely call in cults of her followers and great Wyrms to eviscerate the great devourer for her.
Anyone picking the Tarrasque in this fight is deluding themselves or buying into too much fan canon.
Tiamat is far more powerful. Even her aspect, with the mythic form, could crush the Tarrasque. The Tarrasque has a boatload of HP but no intelligence or way to use its powerful abilities in the most effective way it possibly can. Int and wis scores for monsters are way too underrated, and Tiamat has a very high score in both of them, in addition to clear greater combat prowess. So not only is Tiamat stronger, but she can use her flight and abilities much more effectively. I think it's obvious who would win in a fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
1. This is a 5e board. Creatures can do what their 5e statblocks say they can do. If the topic invites discussion about previous editions (which it doesn't), then it's appropriate to discuss their abilities in previous editions, otherwise, we should be discussing what 5e says. Previous editions should only be brought up for lore, not mechanics.
2. The question is not about who would win between a Tarrasque and an Aspect of Tiamat, it's which one makes a better boss, with the implication they mean "final climactic fight creature" and not necessarily "head of the antagonist organisation". One can beat the other 10 out of 10 times and still be the worse choice for a climactic battle finale. Indeed, it might be precisely because they're capable of wiping the floor with the other that they're unsuitable.
I've never played either nor learnednthe lore to the necessary level to be of much use answering that question.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
2. The question is not about who would win between a Tarrasque and an Aspect of Tiamat, it's which one makes a better boss, with the implication they mean "final climactic fight creature" and not necessarily "head of the antagonist organisation". One can beat the other 10 out of 10 times and still be the worse choice for a climactic battle finale. Indeed, it might be precisely because they're capable of wiping the floor with the other that they're unsuitable.
Hmm.... My bad for misunderstanding that, the fact that the poll says "better challenge" as opposed to "better boss" is kind of misleading then. Anyways, though the question may have shifted sightly, my answer still remains Tiamat. As I said above, Tiamat is far more intelligent and wise; both mechanically in 5e, and when looking at lore. Tiamat would be able to make use of her cool features, of cover, and of brilliant battle strategies. Meanwhile, the Tarraque will have trouble doing anything more complicated than just bellowing and charging. So in short, I think a battle with Tiamat would be much cooler and dynamic than one with a Tarrasque. That being said, if you like big boss combat's without much, if any, tactics, then there's nothing wrong with that. However, I think most people prefer interesting combats, and thusly, would rather have their BBEG fight be against Tiamat than the Tarrasque.
Meanwhile, the Tarraque will have trouble doing anything more complicated than just bellowing and charging.
Bellowing and charging works when the monster really is an unstoppable engine of mass destruction (it's the core concept behind things like Godzilla movies), but the Tarrasque really... isn't (nor is anything else in 5e. One of the themes of 5e is that legions of mooks are a threat, and a core requirement for proper rampaging monsters is being impervious to legions of mooks).
Meanwhile, the Tarraque will have trouble doing anything more complicated than just bellowing and charging.
Bellowing and charging works when the monster really is an unstoppable engine of mass destruction (it's the core concept behind things like Godzilla movies), but the Tarrasque really... isn't (nor is anything else in 5e. One of the themes of 5e is that legions of mooks are a threat, and a core requirement for proper rampaging monsters is being impervious to legions of mooks)."
My post was not about the power disparity between the two though I do agree with you on that. I addressed that disparity HERE. I was talking about which made "a better boss" and a more interesting battle, as evident by the quote in that post. Yes, charging works fine if you're strong enough. But it certainly does make the combat a lot less more interesting and dynamic, whether or not the monster is strong enough to pull that bellow and charge strat off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
My post was not about the power disparity between the two though I do agree with you on that. I addressed that disparity HERE. I was talking about which made "a better boss" and a more interesting battle, as evident by the quote in that post. Yes, charging works fine if you're strong enough. But it certainly does make the combat a lot less more interesting and dynamic, whether or not the monster is strong enough to pull that bellow and charge strat off.
I wasn't specifically talking about power disparity. The point is that the core mechanic of "unstoppable rampaging monster" plotlines is that you cannot win by normal means, and thus have to get clever.
So if we're talking about lore, the Tarrasque will not lose. PERIOD. You guys are funny thinking that Tiamat could "jUsT fLy" well guess what geniuses…the Tarrasque could "jUsT bUrRoW"! lol Good luck hitting me with your lightning breath when I'm 50 feet under the ground—it does not take high intellect to figure out "hmm if I'm being attacked by this flying thing that I cannot hit, I can just dig down until I am safe"). The Tarrasque has blindsight as well—meaning it could still see Tiamat. In the event that Tiamat were to get eaten by the Tarrasque, she would be deleted from existence (hilarious that some people don't understand how the Tarrasque's stomach works). The reason there is only one Tarrasque is because it cannot reproduce and there was only one ever created not. Full stop. Finally, using epic magic (spells beyond 9th level—accessible by any race that does not rely on Mystra for magic, contrary to popular opinion—yes, your Elf Wizard could theoretically use a 20th level spell if he lived to be 1000 year old and had proper training) is the only way to permanently destroy the Tarrasque and it's done by using a Greater Wish spell.
Now if we're talking about using current 5e stats, Tiamat will not lose. Depending on how you interpret the text of Reflective Carapace, however, the Tarrasque would be totally immune to any breath weapon of Tiamat except for the green head and the white head and even have the ability to strike her back with it (which she would also be immune to).
The fight would essentially be a wet-noodle fight with neither entity able to take the other out. Using only 5e stat blocks is an absolutely and positively terrible way to run either of these two monsters and a damned travesty if you do so. Tiamat per lore can cast spells. The Tarrasque per lore can destroy artifacts and is immortal without the specific usage of epic magic. Not understanding that the different editions add to the world instead of taking away from the world is very problematic.
Tarrasques do not delete things in their stomachs
Blindsight does not allow seeing through walls, and tremorsense does not allow you to see into the air
Newer additions are addendums to both mechanics and lore. There are no mystics in 5th edition, therefore mystics go bye bye. There is no Mystra(?) in 5th edition, therefore Mystra(?) go bye bye. There are no 10th level spells in 5th edition, therefore you cannot cast them (and my understanding of the lore is you couldn't anyways).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The tarrasque is not a boss monster; it's a walking force of nature. Fighting it is the same as fighting a storm or flood or landslide. Not necessaily bad, but I wouldn't make any of them the final boss of a game.
The key point about fighting the tarrasque is time. Sure a level 1 character with some flight could solo it, but in that time the monster has destroyed half the city. If there is no time pressure, no city in its path? The fight is trivial.
Fighting Tiamat? They key point is that she wants you dead, and she has lots of plans and contingencies to achieve that.
The key point about fighting the tarrasque is time. Sure a level 1 character with some flight could solo it, but in that time the monster has destroyed half the city. If there is no time pressure, no city in its path? The fight is trivial.
The tarrasque is actually quite underwhelming at property damage, because it lacks area damage.
The key point about fighting the tarrasque is time. Sure a level 1 character with some flight could solo it, but in that time the monster has destroyed half the city. If there is no time pressure, no city in its path? The fight is trivial.
The tarrasque is actually quite underwhelming at property damage, because it lacks area damage.
Depends on how you look at it and how as a DM you handle the hitpoints of buildings. Outside of nat 1's It literally cannot miss against any building materials or elements not made out of adamantine, and deals avg damage of 148 damage (doubled to 296 due to its siege monster ability) + any legendary action attacks, also doubled, per round.
If a resilient 10x10 section of building uses the resilient hitpoints (27) recommended in the DMG, the thing can take out 8 such areas in one round (even factoring a damage threshold). Thats a few small homes (especially if the damage is to lower sections of the building) or pretty significant damage to large building or castle in one round. Of course there is a lot left up to the DM in all of this, but it would be pretty easy to have a small city (or even a large one) in absolute ruins over even a few rounds (and likely, if the thing keeps moving, it's a long fight for even high level PCs
If a resilient 10x10 section of building uses the resilient hitpoints (27) recommended in the DMG, the thing can take out 8 such areas in one round (even factoring a damage threshold). Thats a few small homes (especially if the damage is to lower sections of the building) or pretty significant damage to large building or castle in one round. Of course there is a lot left up to the DM in all of this, but it would be pretty easy to have a small city (or even a large one) in absolute ruins over even a few rounds (and likely, if the thing keeps moving, it's a long fight for even high level PCs
8 10x10 areas is a single small house. Yeah, if you fight in a hamlet with ten buildings and a population of a fifty it's gonna get flattened pretty quick, but cities are big.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Tarrasque does not have the ability to kill gods in its stomach. Being swallowed and digested by the Tarrasque doesn't kill you deader than any other effect that destroys your body, otherwise it would say in its statblock that characters who are killed by its Swallow Whole ability can't be raised from the dead.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
While that was largely true in past editions, the current tarrasque doesn’t work that way. No wish required. No number of stomachs. Nothing about what the stomach do. It’s still incredibly fearsome, but the lore and mechanics have changed a lot, at least by RAW.
The only version of the Tarrasque that was super hard to kill was 3/3.5e (you had to beat it down to zero despite a ton of defenses and then use Wish or Miracle), and despite all that it was only CR 20 because it's just a mindless beast. Its only special property for destroying things was that it was suggested as an example of what could be the special means of destroying an artifact.
Actually, in 3rd Edition you had to beat it down to -40, not 0. And its reflective carapace was a lot stronger.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Tiamat is just more interesting too, instead of being “big boy strike time” she has depth and character
insert original witty signature here:
So if we're talking about lore, the Tarrasque will not lose. PERIOD. You guys are funny thinking that Tiamat could "jUsT fLy" well guess what geniuses…the Tarrasque could "jUsT bUrRoW"! lol Good luck hitting me with your lightning breath when I'm 50 feet under the ground—it does not take high intellect to figure out "hmm if I'm being attacked by this flying thing that I cannot hit, I can just dig down until I am safe"). The Tarrasque has blindsight as well—meaning it could still see Tiamat. In the event that Tiamat were to get eaten by the Tarrasque, she would be deleted from existence (hilarious that some people don't understand how the Tarrasque's stomach works). The reason there is only one Tarrasque is because it cannot reproduce and there was only one ever created not. Full stop. Finally, using epic magic (spells beyond 9th level—accessible by any race that does not rely on Mystra for magic, contrary to popular opinion—yes, your Elf Wizard could theoretically use a 20th level spell if he lived to be 1000 year old and had proper training) is the only way to permanently destroy the Tarrasque and it's done by using a Greater Wish spell.
Now if we're talking about using current 5e stats, Tiamat will not lose. Depending on how you interpret the text of Reflective Carapace, however, the Tarrasque would be totally immune to any breath weapon of Tiamat except for the green head and the white head and even have the ability to strike her back with it (which she would also be immune to).
The fight would essentially be a wet-noodle fight with neither entity able to take the other out. Using only 5e stat blocks is an absolutely and positively terrible way to run either of these two monsters and a damned travesty if you do so. Tiamat per lore can cast spells. The Tarrasque per lore can destroy artifacts and is immortal without the specific usage of epic magic. Not understanding that the different editions add to the world instead of taking away from the world is very problematic.
If you're going to invoke rules from editions that are older than some of the people participating in this thread, the Tarrasque would have even less chance against Tiamat given the power level that gods had in those editions. And regardless of edition, blindsight has never let someone see through solid barriers.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Theres also the simple fact that the Tarrasque just get's out muscled by tiamat; Her aspect (not her true self, just a manifestation of her power which would be considerably weaker); Flight, breath weapons, more legendary resistances, better overall move set and mythic mode which means that she gets more health and more moves to murder the tarrasque with.
Beyond that, there is the fact that Tiamat is the mother of all evil dragons and a straight up god, as such she can likely call in cults of her followers and great Wyrms to eviscerate the great devourer for her.
Anyone picking the Tarrasque in this fight is deluding themselves or buying into too much fan canon.
Tiamat is far more powerful. Even her aspect, with the mythic form, could crush the Tarrasque. The Tarrasque has a boatload of HP but no intelligence or way to use its powerful abilities in the most effective way it possibly can. Int and wis scores for monsters are way too underrated, and Tiamat has a very high score in both of them, in addition to clear greater combat prowess. So not only is Tiamat stronger, but she can use her flight and abilities much more effectively. I think it's obvious who would win in a fight.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Two things to remember at this point.
1. This is a 5e board. Creatures can do what their 5e statblocks say they can do. If the topic invites discussion about previous editions (which it doesn't), then it's appropriate to discuss their abilities in previous editions, otherwise, we should be discussing what 5e says. Previous editions should only be brought up for lore, not mechanics.
2. The question is not about who would win between a Tarrasque and an Aspect of Tiamat, it's which one makes a better boss, with the implication they mean "final climactic fight creature" and not necessarily "head of the antagonist organisation". One can beat the other 10 out of 10 times and still be the worse choice for a climactic battle finale. Indeed, it might be precisely because they're capable of wiping the floor with the other that they're unsuitable.
I've never played either nor learnednthe lore to the necessary level to be of much use answering that question.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Hmm.... My bad for misunderstanding that, the fact that the poll says "better challenge" as opposed to "better boss" is kind of misleading then. Anyways, though the question may have shifted sightly, my answer still remains Tiamat. As I said above, Tiamat is far more intelligent and wise; both mechanically in 5e, and when looking at lore. Tiamat would be able to make use of her cool features, of cover, and of brilliant battle strategies. Meanwhile, the Tarraque will have trouble doing anything more complicated than just bellowing and charging. So in short, I think a battle with Tiamat would be much cooler and dynamic than one with a Tarrasque. That being said, if you like big boss combat's without much, if any, tactics, then there's nothing wrong with that. However, I think most people prefer interesting combats, and thusly, would rather have their BBEG fight be against Tiamat than the Tarrasque.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Bellowing and charging works when the monster really is an unstoppable engine of mass destruction (it's the core concept behind things like Godzilla movies), but the Tarrasque really... isn't (nor is anything else in 5e. One of the themes of 5e is that legions of mooks are a threat, and a core requirement for proper rampaging monsters is being impervious to legions of mooks).
My post was not about the power disparity between the two though I do agree with you on that. I addressed that disparity HERE. I was talking about which made "a better boss" and a more interesting battle, as evident by the quote in that post. Yes, charging works fine if you're strong enough. But it certainly does make the combat a lot less more interesting and dynamic, whether or not the monster is strong enough to pull that bellow and charge strat off.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I wasn't specifically talking about power disparity. The point is that the core mechanic of "unstoppable rampaging monster" plotlines is that you cannot win by normal means, and thus have to get clever.
Tiamat is a goddess. She’s definitely more powerful as well as more interesting.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
Newer additions are addendums to both mechanics and lore. There are no mystics in 5th edition, therefore mystics go bye bye. There is no Mystra(?) in 5th edition, therefore Mystra(?) go bye bye. There are no 10th level spells in 5th edition, therefore you cannot cast them (and my understanding of the lore is you couldn't anyways).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The tarrasque is not a boss monster; it's a walking force of nature. Fighting it is the same as fighting a storm or flood or landslide. Not necessaily bad, but I wouldn't make any of them the final boss of a game.
The key point about fighting the tarrasque is time. Sure a level 1 character with some flight could solo it, but in that time the monster has destroyed half the city. If there is no time pressure, no city in its path? The fight is trivial.
Fighting Tiamat? They key point is that she wants you dead, and she has lots of plans and contingencies to achieve that.
The tarrasque is actually quite underwhelming at property damage, because it lacks area damage.
Depends on how you look at it and how as a DM you handle the hitpoints of buildings. Outside of nat 1's It literally cannot miss against any building materials or elements not made out of adamantine, and deals avg damage of 148 damage (doubled to 296 due to its siege monster ability) + any legendary action attacks, also doubled, per round.
If a resilient 10x10 section of building uses the resilient hitpoints (27) recommended in the DMG, the thing can take out 8 such areas in one round (even factoring a damage threshold). Thats a few small homes (especially if the damage is to lower sections of the building) or pretty significant damage to large building or castle in one round. Of course there is a lot left up to the DM in all of this, but it would be pretty easy to have a small city (or even a large one) in absolute ruins over even a few rounds (and likely, if the thing keeps moving, it's a long fight for even high level PCs
8 10x10 areas is a single small house. Yeah, if you fight in a hamlet with ten buildings and a population of a fifty it's gonna get flattened pretty quick, but cities are big.