I got into an argument with a friend on who would win, a tarrasque or a dragon, my premise was that the dragon couldn't use it's breath weapon because it was magical and the reflective carapace would deflect it, he said it wasn't applicable because it wasn't a spell. So my question is, suppose a bronze dragon fought a tarrasque, would the breath weapon count as a line spell? or would the reflective carapace not work?
Public Mod Note
(Davyd):
Thread moved to Rules & Game Mechanics
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
If you homebrew a dragon's breath weapon as being a magical effect and reflectable by the carapace, what is then the reasoning, to not make attacks by magical weapons also reflectable? Both have a magical source....
I think, if you go that way, and make everything magical also reflectable here, this opens up a huge can of worms.
the devs have explained that there is the magical nature of the D&D universe that allows the existence of the various fantastical creatures (including dragons and tarrasques), and then there is the active manipulation of the weave that occurs around spellwork and magic items, where only the latter is considered "magical". I would argue that the same explanation would benefit from the consideration that the former is the mundane for the D&D world; no "magic" involved, even if that "mundane" would be considered impossible/magical in the real world.
All of that is moot though, as the Tarrasque ability specifically says line spell, not line effect, which means only spells. the dragon doesn't cast a spell to breathe fire/cold/lightning/etc., so it doesn't apply to the Tarrasque.
Of note: if a magic item allowed a non-spell line-based effect, that wouldn't trigger the reflective carapace either, even though it would be considered "magical", as again, the ability only targets spells
No form of attack deals lethal damage to the tarrasque. The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp). The tarrasque is immune to effects that produce incurable or bleeding wounds, such as mummy rot, a sword with the wounding special ability, or a clay golem’s cursed wound ability.
The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.
If the tarrasque loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 1d6 minutes (the detached piece dies and decays normally). The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump.
Because 5e is a “kinder, gentler D&D” than previous editions. Back in 2e we would start with 3 PCs because we knew two of them would be dead before they hit 2nd level (or 3rd if we were lucky). Fifth Edition is all about “the narrative” and all the PCs are generally expected to live until the end of the campaign.
Just look at the Adventure books now. They are written as whole campaigns and most groups finish one around 12th level and then start over with new characters on a different one.
Back then, the Tarrask was designed to be nigh-unkillable, now a 1st level party could theoretically pull it off.
Just look at the Adventure books now. They are written as whole campaigns and most groups finish one around 12th level and then start over with new characters on a different one.
Already the case in 3e, no ?
I wouldn’t know, I never bought any. I either homebrew my adventures or else update my old 2e stuff. I haven’t seen a single “adventure” that has been published since WotC bough the IP that I have liked, so I haven’t bought a single published adventure since 1999.
In 5th edition, there is a difference between supernatural and powered by spells. The reflective carapace is specific to spells.
There is, sometimes, but it needs specific precision here. And where it really lacks percision is not with "Spell-like", it's between Extraordinary and Supernatural, actually.
It is quite precise in this case. Is it a spell? Is it in the list of spells in any of the sourcebooks? Does the statblock call it a spell?
But the answer to "is it magical?" is simply "does the game call it magical anywhere." And the answer to "is it a spell?" is "does the game call it a spell anywhere?" It doesn't seem all that fuzzy to me.
Edit: The only thing that makes it at all fuzzy is that apparently people don't know that is the question that they should be asking themselves.
"As a test, I've removed the parts of the feature that allow you to adjudicate it." No thanks. That isn't constructive posting. I've already said the way you can tell is if a feature says it is magical. Removing that statement removes your ability to tell.
Also, if you take the statement in SAC to be saying that Dragons are in fact magical, you are reading out of it what you want, and not what it is saying.
The question as to whether or not a dragons breath weapon counts as a line spell has been answered. Additionally, Sage Advice Compendium does indeed provide clarification as to if something counts as magical.
Let's not devolve things into arguments about what makes sense or not; mechanics and narrative often become divorced at times. That separation of rule and lore doesn't change the former from a RAW standpoint, and doesn't stop the DM from changing it at the table.
I got into an argument with a friend on who would win, a tarrasque or a dragon, my premise was that the dragon couldn't use it's breath weapon because it was magical and the reflective carapace would deflect it, he said it wasn't applicable because it wasn't a spell. So my question is, suppose a bronze dragon fought a tarrasque, would the breath weapon count as a line spell? or would the reflective carapace not work?
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
A breath weapon is not a spell, and so would not be reflected by the carapace.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you homebrew a dragon's breath weapon as being a magical effect and reflectable by the carapace, what is then the reasoning, to not make attacks by magical weapons also reflectable? Both have a magical source....
I think, if you go that way, and make everything magical also reflectable here, this opens up a huge can of worms.
In 5th edition, there is a difference between supernatural and powered by spells. The reflective carapace is specific to spells.
the devs have explained that there is the magical nature of the D&D universe that allows the existence of the various fantastical creatures (including dragons and tarrasques), and then there is the active manipulation of the weave that occurs around spellwork and magic items, where only the latter is considered "magical". I would argue that the same explanation would benefit from the consideration that the former is the mundane for the D&D world; no "magic" involved, even if that "mundane" would be considered impossible/magical in the real world.
All of that is moot though, as the Tarrasque ability specifically says line spell, not line effect, which means only spells. the dragon doesn't cast a spell to breathe fire/cold/lightning/etc., so it doesn't apply to the Tarrasque.
Of note: if a magic item allowed a non-spell line-based effect, that wouldn't trigger the reflective carapace either, even though it would be considered "magical", as again, the ability only targets spells
OK, so basically the 5e tarrasque can be beat by a dragon, or a lvl 1 wizard with winged boots?
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Basically, yeah. Or a 1st level Aarakocra Bard with Vicious Mockery and enough time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Because 5e is a “kinder, gentler D&D” than previous editions. Back in 2e we would start with 3 PCs because we knew two of them would be dead before they hit 2nd level (or 3rd if we were lucky). Fifth Edition is all about “the narrative” and all the PCs are generally expected to live until the end of the campaign.
Just look at the Adventure books now. They are written as whole campaigns and most groups finish one around 12th level and then start over with new characters on a different one.
Back then, the Tarrask was designed to be nigh-unkillable, now a 1st level party could theoretically pull it off.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I wouldn’t know, I never bought any. I either homebrew my adventures or else update my old 2e stuff. I haven’t seen a single “adventure” that has been published since WotC bough the IP that I have liked, so I haven’t bought a single published adventure since 1999.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It is quite precise in this case. Is it a spell? Is it in the list of spells in any of the sourcebooks? Does the statblock call it a spell?
But the answer to "is it magical?" is simply "does the game call it magical anywhere." And the answer to "is it a spell?" is "does the game call it a spell anywhere?" It doesn't seem all that fuzzy to me.
Edit: The only thing that makes it at all fuzzy is that apparently people don't know that is the question that they should be asking themselves.
That's because it's a 5e Tarrasque.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
"As a test, I've removed the parts of the feature that allow you to adjudicate it." No thanks. That isn't constructive posting. I've already said the way you can tell is if a feature says it is magical. Removing that statement removes your ability to tell.
Also, if you take the statement in SAC to be saying that Dragons are in fact magical, you are reading out of it what you want, and not what it is saying.
The question as to whether or not a dragons breath weapon counts as a line spell has been answered. Additionally, Sage Advice Compendium does indeed provide clarification as to if something counts as magical.
Let's not devolve things into arguments about what makes sense or not; mechanics and narrative often become divorced at times. That separation of rule and lore doesn't change the former from a RAW standpoint, and doesn't stop the DM from changing it at the table.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here