so the thing is that tarrasque don't deal magical damage them selves so they can't actually hurt a flesh golem

Quote from LynchDeadman74352 >>

so the thing is that tarrasque don't deal magical damage them selves so they can't actually hurt a flesh golem

 Swallow deals acid damage, but that’s only one golem killed per round (bite plus chomp legendary action), so it wouldn’t take an absurd amount

Bro he was way more intelligent than that. In the book at least, he learned to speak, hunt, etc. all on his own.

the magic used to create the body and hold it all together is to powerful for non-magical weapons' to effect its magically imbued body 

I loved the part in the book where the letter describing a story being told by Dr. Frankenstein then starts telling the story that the monster tells so that you have like 2 layers of cover story on top of the actual events. And yeah, the monster was really smart, but this is made more for the monster movie interpretation of the book.

I always feel a bit sorry that the impression of Frankenstein's monster is the universal classic image of him rather than the book. In the book he's highly intelligent despite being initially child like. I'm not suggesting the entry reflect that, its just disappointing when someone draws the parallel with the near animalistic depiction.

ok how do i do a lot of lightning damage

if I add fire damage and remove fire aversion, I can make this thing a titan.

My Storm Sorcerer now has a clear goal in life: gain 50,000 gp to create this little friend using a Manual of Flesh Golems!

I hate these things

What if the creator told a golem to be free? Would a flesh or clay golem just go automatically berserk or something?

I know complaining about needless nerdy pedantry on a D&D website is a futile effort but obviously all of you know this is inspired by the popular version of Frankensteins Monster, regardless of its accuracy.

I see a lot of people talking about how Frankenstein's monster was actually intelligent and how this is thereby inaccurate. This is not Frankenstein's monster, this is a golem. Golems come from old Jewish stories which common recurring themes. In these stories, someone would create a golem not fully understanding what they had done, the golem would then turn against its master and go berserk, destroying everything in its path. Mary Shelley was without a doubt inspired by these stories, but she added that the monster being intelligent. This creature is based more on the original stories and thus is mindless and can go berserk. 

tldr: the Flesh Golem is more based on Golems stories than Frankenstein's monster

I know that this is from years ago, but Adam The monster made by Frankenstein, was Brilliant, Self Obsessed, and Petty. His attitude mirrored his father and he was no less then the man who brought him to life, if not better in each way that one one could used to measure them save morality in which the two were both lacking to their fridged end. Years later, this had to be corrected. 

Quote from TheTrueChickenKing >>

I see a lot of people talking about how Frankenstein's monster was actually intelligent and how this is thereby inaccurate. This is not Frankenstein's monster, this is a golem. Golems come from old Jewish stories which common recurring themes. In these stories, someone would create a golem not fully understanding what they had done, the golem would then turn against its master and go berserk, destroying everything in its path. Mary Shelley was without a doubt inspired by these stories, but she added that the monster being intelligent. This creature is based more on the original stories and thus is mindless and can go berserk. 

tldr: the Flesh Golem is more based on Golems stories than Frankenstein's monster

Quote from JoeyFromSchool >>

I know complaining about needless nerdy pedantry on a D&D website is a futile effort but obviously all of you know this is inspired by the popular version of Frankensteins Monster, regardless of its accuracy.

Indeed it is, Joey. And it won't stop now. Frankenstein's Monster is not any popular media product. He only exists in the novel. Every other work simply has a monster named Frankenstein, but yes, that is certainly what this monster is based on and not the Hebrew golem legends. The word comes from there, but this monster bears no resemblance in either its creation, makeup, or behavior to the golems of Jewish lore. Such golems were created rabbis, and absolutely did not involve the cobbling together of human remains. They were usually made from clay and animated with an inscription. Golem has just become the D&D catchword for any construct in humanoid or bipedal form.

Why do you say it had low intelligence?  The Monster was able to speak intelligently, philosophise and make decisions of moral and ethical value. It taught itself to read and write and planned and executed a number of ambushes against human prey 

At a minimum, it had INT 10, probably significantly higher. 

This x 100.

I don't think the commenter read the book. 

additionally, you may take a look at clay golems. not only do they have the same resistances and damage types as the flesh golem, but they also have the abiliy to gain life from acid damage. 

basically, a clay golem cannot be touched by a tarrasque, no matter how hard it tries, or even if it eats it. the tarrasque cannot deal magical damage, so the clay golem is immune. the clay golem's attacks are both melee and magical, so will eventually kill the tarrasque.

gross but cool