How large of a bullet would you need to take a tarresque down?
>>44642654
What edition?
But generally speaking, bullets won't do shit no matter how large, you need magical weapon.
>>44642654
Large enough that you can't reasonably call it a bullet anymore.
>>44642654
How big is a Terrasque? What kind of creature is it?
Height?
lbs/kg?
>>44642654
By the time you got one big enough, it would be a shell, not a bullet.
>>44642654
a meteorite might dent it
>>44642654
The Junon canon may be up to that task
>>44642692
Ok, I just googled one.
You'd need to have probably 5 or 6 full auto .50 cal machineguns firing at it for a good 20-30 seconds before it even sustained enough damage to affect it.
But realistically you're going to need vehicle mounted weapons to stop something that large.
>>44642654
Let's start with 120mm M829 rounds and woek our way up from there.
It barely matters, because it's not going to be down for long.
>>44642654
>>44642770
Well, silly magical reanimation stuff aside. Once you start detonating HE shells on and around it, you'll be taking chunks out of it, eventually blowing limbs off and exposing organs. A few well placed barrages would do the trick.
Is it like Wolverine? If you destroy all the genetic material, can he actually resurrect?
>>44642654
a 50 cal between the shoulder and neck would take it in one blow
dumbasses think its the size of the bullet not where it hits
>>44642914
>between the shoulder and neck
What, on the perfect armored carapace with no weaknesses?
A Tarrasque gets hit by one of these.
What happens?
>>44642840
I'm thinking DU shells. Blow holes, burn, and give that bitch heavy metal poisoning all at once.
>>44642654
One bullet because guns are the deadliest thing and will always kill anything in fantasy world in one shot because fantasy people are dumbasses who don't know what guns are and guns are perfect instruments of destruction and always will kill in one shot fantasy idiots who don't know what gun is.
>>44642654
Meet Little David.
>>44642944
>perfect armored carapace
not seeing the soft spot in the picture you yourself posted?
the same weakpoint that goes right to the heart that exists on nearly every mammal and reptile?
>>44642914
>dumbasses think its the size of the bullet not where it hits
Size of the round matters anon. Not to mention type of round, and how much powder is behind it. A .22 to the neck would be less than a mosquitoe bite to that thing. but a .50 to the neck would def open a hole.
>>44642944
Anything larger than a 7.62 would ignore that armor after the first few rounds beat a hole in it.
>>44643168
Oh definitely. A few rounds from an Abrams would drop that thing. A sabot would punch a hole clean through it, while simultaneously sucking all of its internal organs out through the exit would. 1 dead terrasque, field dressed and tidy.
>>44643118
Why would they throw a tank at a Tarrasque?
>>44643314
Isn't 120 mm 5d8 or something? I know it hits breddy hard.
>>44643118
The effort is cute, but throwing a bust at The Tarrasque isn't gonna do anything.
ITT faggots don't know they can only be killed by a wish spell
Mechanically any bullet could knock one out with enough attacks from a strong enough character, but they literally cannot be killed outside of magic. Just knocked out for a while.
>>44643279
Hell I'm not sure if .50 would be enough. His whole hide's like an Elephant's skull. The Carapace is probably closer to tank armor than an exoskeleton.
>>44643695
>implying fireball is any different.
Just throw anything with explosion capabilities until it dies.
>>44643118
I didn't know kamikaze techniques were allowed.
Or did the pilot of the plane just fly into it by accident?
>>44642654
A calibre of at least 10'-20', so a 2x4m NATO should do it.
Size is irrelevant at sufficient velocity.
>>44644768
Let's just blast it with the fastest thing possible then! Everyone get your flashlights, we're gonna kill the king of beasts with photons!
>>44644463
Did they build a scrap Bombard out of a fucking highway lightpole?
>>44643334
Bump that up to 5d800 and we may be closer to a solution here. We're talking about rounds that are rated to go through better than 4 feet of steel.
>>44646922
Actually the D20 stats for a 120 mm cannon is around 5d20 or something. Or I'm getting it mixed up with a smaller cannon. Dunno, mang, don't have source on hand, but the damage scaling in the modern weapons department is fucking silly bad in D20
>>44646922
That doesn't make sense other, because it's a penetrative round. It's not that it does so much damage so much as that it ignores DR and armor
ITT: Retards that know nothing about ballistics
>>44642654
a good 14.5mm or above should do the trick
>>44646922
>>44647189
The problem with D20 is that it doesnt scale damage in a linear proportional way. A 120 MM smoothbore firing APCR should deal hundreds of points of damage based on its real world performance, but then it would be out scaling 9th level spells, and be able to kill swiftly gods
>>44647160
For what purpose?
>>44647350
>anon proves he doesn't know how D&D works
pls
If this were realistic in the slightest the Tarrasque would collapse under its own weight.
You've got to use in-game metric for it to work, not real life metric.
>>44647405
> 14.5mm (russian round)
> penetrates 30mm steel at 500m
> can't wreck the creature with a couple of shots
pls
>>44647440
Again
>using real life statistics
>in a fantasy game where realism is so long gone that you could piss as an attack and do more damage than someone swinging a hammer
Your problem is that you are trying to say "yes, I can shoot this fantasy creature, that is as large as a big hill, that regenerates from death short of divine intervention or the altering of reality unerringly, and it will work."
If it were a realistic setting I would agree with you, but it isn't, so you're wrong in this instance.
>>44647536
> large as a big hill
I thought i was the size of a elephant. Sorry.
>>44642654
20mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20mm_tarasque
Here's the usual approaches for defeating tanks. You could try nuclear weapons, but considering that was how Godzilla was created that's probably how you got in this mess in the first place.
>>44644361
Fireball can't kill it either. Literally all legal damage it takes is turned into nonlethal damage. It explicitly says in the creature description that it can ONLY be killed by a wish spell, after knocking it out.
But I wouldn't expect you to know that.
>>44647697
Lethal*
So it seems most here dont know what the Tarrasque is. Its a terrifying monster that is damn near impossible, or actually impossible, to kill.
Based on a monster from french folklore, the creature is a massive 70 ft long creature that towers at least 40 feet to the shoulder. It features a carapace that can literally reflect magic, has regeneration so powerful it can be reduced to a fine powder and come back from that, and is so supernaturally terrifying that anybody close to it is reduced to a quivering wreck.
In 2e and 3.x, in order to kill it, you must reduce it to negative 10 HP, then cast a wish spell worded to specifically kill it. In PF, its just not killable.
OPs question is a trick question. There are no bullets that can kill it, only very powerful magic, and only in some universes.
>>44647367
To get past 4000 fps.
Only did like 3800 or something like that.
I wonder if there was ever a .50 BMG Ackley Improved
>>44647571
It's basically godzilla, maybe a bit bigger because it's thicker.
>>44647850
To be fair, OP didn't specify "kill" but rather "take down." If we interpret that to mean "cause enough damage to incapacitate (until it regenerates) then anything that can reliably deal more than 15 damage (the tarrasques DR) in sufficient quantity would " take it down."
But you're right, a lot of people here don't seem to know shit.
>>44647367
To get a bullet to 5000f/ps(almost a mile a second). It failed at 4600 (.87mi/s). Fun bit: its called the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer
The diameter or length of a round does not directly translate to damage done.
Damage done depends on a lot of factors, internal architecture of the round, density of penetrated material, mass of the round, velocity of the round, strength of the material etc.
For example: Modern lightweight rife rounds, such as the 5.56 NATO are designed to tumble inside the target after penetrating a certain depth. Using them on thin targets such as rabbits will not damage the internal organs as much as using them on thicker targets, such as humans. The tumbling round will cause a cavity to form inside the target and rip open arteries and veins, which is the main killer in all firearms related injuries.
Hollowpoint munitions are designed to split open inside the target, and increase the diameter of the round, which transfers more kinetic energy/momentum to the target and allows cavities to form even with lower penetration depth.
>>44648011
I believe the spirit in the wording asks how big of a bullet would you need to down it in a single shot.
But I don't know, I'm not OP.
>>44648062
f/ps is redundant, since both the / and the p stand for "per".
>>44647367
http://www.gswagner.com/bigreloading/refmaterial/ackley.html
>>44643239
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/LittleDavid.ogv
Neat
>>44648164
I figure its worth it since i'd probably get a dumbass asking what Frames Per Second has to due with bullet velocity.
>>44648260
ft/s works.
>>44643321
No, stupid, they were going to throw the plane at it. Planes are aerodynamic and shit.
>>44648288
I'm to tired for this shit...
>>44643334
Humans have like HP of 4-8 at level 0, and it doesn't increase much to level 1.
Firearms are not going to roll beyond 1D2 damage + a status condition anybody with some Con will just ignore.
The end result is that a fuckhuge missile would only need to deal 10-30 damage on impact in DnD to work like its RL counterpart.
>>44646806
I i remember well; that was the effort of a mastermind artilliery expert who wanted to build a cannon to launch satellites.
he was doing shit on canada; but funding stopped and he decided to work for saddam hussein.
When he built this cannon, the mossad murdered him before he finished it fearing that it would be used to bomb israel.
>>44642654
>>44648779
except, you know, guns have stats and they're not 1d2.
>>44648976
Yeah, their 1D3
Even a anti tank rifle wouldn't go far beyond 3D4.
>>44648847
You know, I've always wondered why they don't actually show the ships firing on the planet, especially since they go through the trouble of showing them turning their turrets towards said planet, and that they have a bajillion of them around it.
And where the hell do the giant bullets come from, anyway?
>>44648011
>But you're right, a lot of people here don't seem to know shit.
Excuse me for not being an expert on your magical monster from a little boy's board game, mister.
>>44649616
You sound upset. Why would you post in a thread about killing a magical creature if you don't know anything about it?
>>44649071
Pistol, 2d6. Revolver, Shotgun, Automatic rifle, 2d8. Hunting rifle, 2d10. I'm curious where you're coming up with your numbers, because they're complete bullshit.
>>44642654
152mm two-part shell, fired at roughly 700m per second. For best results, use an anti-bunker round.
>>44642654
80cm superheavy gun shell might do it
if you use a bunch of them
>>44642840
Does anybody auctualy do the whole doesn't stay dead thing I keep the huge regen but when it's dead it stays dead.
>>44644768
Get the rail guns
I understand the us navy has made great strides in them lately
>>44642654
12-inch AP shells, I'd say and plenty of them. Alternately, you could use bigger and less, or just a handful of 18-inch High Explosive shells to its soft underbelly. I don't care how hardcore it is, NOTHING lives through the guns of a Yamato-class.
>>44650876
A human combatant in a modern army won't have more than 6-10HP. 3D4 overkills such a thing entirely.
Modern guns don't cause a lot of damage, because people die from internal damage once our skin is pierces.
Nor does it not help guns are fired in volleys, with supression fire, shooting 3-20 bullets in what is a Round in DnD. 20D2 is a lot of damage.
>>44654823
Please tell me how the damage from a gun differs from any trusting weapon or arrow/bolt.
>>44655503
Beyond the fact that the projectile does not have a solid mass behind it? No difference.
Especially when reaching 2000-4000N for weapon usage is feasible, while low caliber handguns is at 400N to 700N.
Actual war weapons seem to be around 1200N to 1800N, to avoid over penetration.
>>44654823
Aside from the fact that HP doesn't work that way, you're still missing the part where firearms are already statted out and work nothing like the way you propose.
>>44655561
Okay in one instance your 1d2 rifle bullet goes completely through the leg of a person while a 1d6 arrow doesn't even penetrate all the way and is still in the wound, making the person bleed out slightly slower. It's just pants-on-head-retarded that you think a upgraded ranged weapon does a third of the damage as its 5,000 year old downgraded bow?
>>44655561
5.56 nato from a glance at Wikipedia is 1767J
7.62 nato is 3304J
.50bmg is 18000 to 20000J
9mm nato ball is 570J
12 gauge ranges from about 2000ft/lb to to 3000ft/lb sorry could not find it in metric.
>>44655561
The military does not care about over penetration only the police do.
>>44655790
Yes, and thats how it works.
Its deadly because it forces status conditions and cripples organs.
By contrast, handguns and AK47s doesn't deal "real damage".
By increasing their impact point, they would stop being impressive and deal no internal damage for the most part.
Which would be silly, if DnD did not have Outsiders, Golems, Constructs and Elementals in its HP model.
>>44655863
Overpenetration means the target has a hole in it, instead of shrapnel shattered all over its interns.
Which deals considerably less damage, but allows you to shoot at cover to ignore it.
Pop pop poping as supression fire also helps.
>>44646806
>>44648812
No, what happened was a british artillery designer came up with a design for a cannon.
This cannon works by sequentially detonating charges along the length of the barrel propelling the payload to ever increasing speed with each detonation.
Britain didn't want to build one, but SADDAM HUSSEIN DID! So to Iraq he went, building Project Babylon, with a cannon diameter about 3 meter wide and a barrel length of about a mile that could have, if it'd been completed, send satellites into orbit (or just rapidly bombard every city in Iran, pakistan, india, Thailand, cambodia or vietnam with explosives).
>>44655941
most of this will pass through you right ass it begins to fragment.
>>44655503
Arrows are more like being stabbed with a wooden stake, whereas bullets are like having a small explosive bubble of air teleported into your body.
Now a thrown breezeblock...there is ultimate power.
>>44642654
a few of whatever these use should do the trick
>>44655941
You're so, so wrong I don't even know where to start. Did you get kicked out of /k/ or something?
Caliber doesn't matter nearly as much as shot placement, but you're acting as if a through-and-through is barely more than a scratch. Secondly, shooting at cover to make your bullets fragment? What the ever living fuck? "Sarge, I have a clear shot!" "NEGATIVE! Hold your fire until he's behind cover!"
Third, you're failing to address body armor at all. Also, the Hague convention is the real reason why the military doesn't use hollowpoints.
Last, you're still wrong, because firearms don't deal d2s. Which is a good thing, because all your reasons are pants on head retarded.
>>44647355
Indeed
Its interesting to look at the systems real problems I used to be so bothered by people spewing bullshit about 3e that I clamped down and refused to admit that there were some problems with it.
My dming got so much better when I admired it had a lot if flaws.
Still my favorite edition though.
>>44655941
Yes it cripples organs that's represented in the high damage its not a system that handles damage in an in depth way
Or an overly realistic way for that matter
That depends on how fast it's going.
The answer is always going to be 'One, at sufficient velocity'.
>>44642654
One tarrasque sized bullet that has been enchanted with a wish spell.
Small caliber burst fire will do nothing, the beast has DR 15. And DR applies per bullet.
>>44642654
280 mm AFAP
>>44642654
That depends?
How big of a guy is he?
Anyone got the webm of that scientifically accurate space anime, where it shows the bombardment of that planet?
Because, I think something that big would work just about perfectly.
>>44661189
Oop, already posted up at >>44648847. Sorry about that. It's what I get for not checking the thread first.
>>44642654
Size doesn't matter.
What matters is the metric fuckton of deadly magical enchantments you would need to apply to the bullet.
And then after the first round of apply deadly enchantments, you would apply the completely overpowered enchantments that would somehow shut down the Terrasque's illogically insane healing factor.
And then you magically fire the bullet because aside from modern-ish artillery rounds, nothing else is going to actually make that bullet hit the Terrasque hard enough to hurt it.
>>44643118
RIP tank, I guess
>>44649084
A massive installation bigger than those ships, the Yamato destroyed a similar one when it exited the solar system.
>>44645407
Kek
>>44649616
Nigga, you're on /tg/...what the fuck did you expect?
>>44642654
(1/2)
Let's get an actual answer to this going, eh? Not definitive, because some things have to be assumed, but an answer.
-We're working off 3.5 rules, and using the DMG's modeling for modern weapons.
-You can't get crits on things you can't hit normally (that is, when to-hit+20 is less than AC).
-The people firing the weapons aren't adding damage on top of the weapon's damage dice.
-We have as many guns as we want and as many people to fire them as we want, but no other meaningful resources (no piles of magic, yada yada).
An automatic rifle does 2d8 damage, doing 1 damage 1.56% of 5% of the time. Its maximum firing range is 800', or 160 squares. 160 * 160 = 25,600, so that's the most people that could possibly attack a Tarrasque in one round under these parameters, and even that's stretching it. 25,600 * 0.0156 * 0.05 = 19.968, which is well under the Tarrasque's regeneration of 40. That doesn't kill.
Hunting rifles deal 2d10, so let's take a look at them. They deal 0.35 damage on average on a successful hit. 25,600 * 0.35 * 0.05 = 448, which is quite a bit. Frightful Presence isn't meaningful under these parameters, nor are the people the Tarrasque kills. With all these in place, the Tarrasque gets bodied. THAT SAID, if the Tarrasque is smart enough to actually run away (for the 80'/round modifier), killing it without marching people directly into the Tarrasque is questionable. Let's check out the other printed weapons.
Let's assume laser weapons bounce off its carapace, but the antimatter rifle doesn't. 6d8-15 yields an average of 12.0271 (I had to add two dozen results by hand, so that might be off, but... should be at very least right ballpark) per confirmed hit, or 0.601355 per person firing. That means it takes ~1427 people to kill it in a round, on average, with a 1,200 foot range... post too long, will summarize number to kill in following.
>>44662527
(2/2)
So, let's start firing when the Tarrasque is 200' from the leading edge of the column, give us a 60-tile wide column, and have the Tarrasque McBookIt after the first round of lighting it up. The Tarrasque has about 15 rounds to get away from the back of a column of 300 people or less. 100 damage per round before regeneration is JUST more than exactly enough on average, but this is the TARRASQUE. Let's be certain and bump it up to 120. That puts us at 200 people on the dot (once you round up the fractional person), which seems entirely reasonable to mobilize for any civilization with antimatter. Doesn't tickle the jollies of the /r9k/ crowd, but whatever.
Summary: If you want to kill the Tarrasque with published 3.5 lead, you either surround it with a literal modern army's worth of dudes with hunting rifles, or you pray that carapace doesn't bounce antimatter.
Note: Fragmentation grenades do 0.046405 damage per shot fired, can only be fired once per two man-rounds, and a 700' maximum range, so they would need something like... by my math, a little over 7000 people shelling it to kill on average. So, yes, you could deploy over 9,000 grenade launchers to kill it. I was going to ask why you would want to... but now that I think about it, why WOULDN'T you want to?
>>44642874
technically yes.
Practically you cannot kill it. Not by DnD rules.
When it should die it just plunges into a coma.
Best you can do you can plunge it into a coma and stop its regeneration (drown it)
>>44662869
>Best you can do you can plunge it into a coma and stop its regeneration (drown it)
Or impale it with enough Immovable Rods, they will grow into the body making it unable to move. Then you can harvest it for meat, scales and magic ingredients.
>>44642654
Would
>pic related
put it into coma?
>>44662930
dumbass, forgot the picture
>>44662632
My b, frag grenades give DC 15 Reflex for half, so make that more like 18,000 people.
Trying to one-shot it is impossible; anyone with a grenade launcher big enough to do so can't even hit a square on anything but a nat 20, and if you were to chase it around movement modes generally don't scale well At All.
That said, if you wanted to Wile E. Coyote the fucker, you could drop a bullet weighing about 24 metric tons and flatten it for at least a round; tack on a metric ton for every round you want to wait for whatever keeps it down. So, taking the "bullet = 1/10 lb" figure from the DMG, using the 5 inch bullet in OP's image for reference, and assuming the length scales to the cube root of the weight...
You want a bullet about half as long as the Tarrasque to put down the Tarrasque as a remotely safe minimum. I dunno how you're gonna Wile E. Coyote it down, but you already have a bullet that size and more dudes than you can count; get creative!
>>44649616
There's this cool thing called Google...
>>44656077
>Now a thrown breezeblock...there is ultimate power.
Kharn agrees.
>>44662941
If we run by the table fix that stops d10s from breaking how damage scaling normally works in D&D, and model that as a grenade launcher made for a Huge creature... nowhere near close. Imagine TF2's Soldier, lying along something like a 15 mile stretch, practically pressing his rocket launcher onto Tarrasque's head and PRAYING he hits one of the surrounding squares with a natural 20.
Falling objects scale to stupid damage quite a bit earlier than weapon dice do.
A minigun would probably work given their pathetic touch AC
>>44662978
I KEEP FORGETTING THE REFLEX DC FOR HALF
Make that a 60-mile Soldier. Yeah... D&D has REALLY poorly published rules for big bad weapons, and funny enough, there's no save against falling objects. Though because of how falling objects work and how big Tarrasque is, a Colossal creature (if they were miraculously able to pick up the bullet I mentioned earlier) would be better off dropping it from 20 feet up or less (auothitting) than doing anything else.
Incidentally, since creatures can move to squares without error no matter how large they are, one could make a very good argument for "Tarrasque steps on literally anything Huge or smaller, it takes about 1500 damage".
D&D 3.5 is a VERY CLOWNY GAME.
>>44642728
I don't know... maybe if you rigged up another half a dozen reactors from around the world with it, you might be able to piss it off something fierce, at least.
>>44644369
no, the Tarrasque just insulted the prophet Muhammad (pork be upon him)
>>44663049
t... that is a Operation Upshot–Knothole picture from Grable test.
It uses M65 Atomic Cannon and W9 warhead.
Its a 15kt yield Nuclear warhead, gun delivered, detonated at 960 m height.
And you are telling me it would not OP it ?
fucking hell, DnD has problems.
>>44648097
The 5.56 NATO round is not designed to tumble. Its designed to wound, so as to take the wounded soldier, and a buddy or two (to evac/first aid) out of the fight. No one stops fighting to tend to a dead buddy.
Problem is, 7.62 kill us which kind of sucks.
>>44663131
D&D 3.5 simply doesn't model modern military weapons.
...also, the Tarrasque is immune to fire damage, so a substantial portion of the immediate damage wouldn't register anyway, and it's immune to radiation sickness. You'd need to model it with ridiculous physical or sonic damage on top of the fire damage--the kind that is probably accurate for a weapon that size, but the kind that's absolutely unprecedented in first party 3.5 material--to kill it.
Don't fuck with Tarrasque, and don't use D&D for /r9k/.
>>44642654
If you think of the Terrasque as a mundane animal of great size, you could probably take it out with 14.5×114mm.
But it's not a mundane animal, it's a magical beast with regenerative abilities and an impossibly durable hide. You probably couldn't hurt it with conventional weapons at all.
>>44642654 (OP)
There is a realistic rpg called phoenix command, made by a rocket scientist guy that also create ballistic programs for cops.
One book has some rules about animals.
A guy reverse engenieered this book to find the formula to use when you want deal with stuff other than humans
I used his formula and got this:
PEN mod = 0.0981600
DC factor = 0.357390
penetration mod is multiplied by the penetration of the weapon, penetration is used to see if it will penetrate the armor and do penetrating damage or it will do blunt damage, it also influence damage since if you penetrate more you will do more damage.
Dc factor is multiplied by DC and DC is damage class that related to the damage you will receive
Ok but what all this stuff will actually means?
A unarmored human with will stat of 10 (humans goes from 3 to 18 and yes 3d6 IF rolling at random) and health stat of 10 and gun skill of 1 (goes from 0 to 20)
geting shot from a FN FAL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL) at a 600 yard distant from a armor piercing bullet at the stomach
11 hours after getting shot (assuming no one tried to heal him and he dont recieve more damage) he roll another d100 (00-99) and if he roll higher than 22 he dies.
also after he got shot would roll a d100 (00-99) and would get
00-60 = knoked out
61-94 =Stunned
95-96 =Dazed
97-97 = Disoriented
98-99 = Nothing happens
with the modifiers that tarrasque would get, the story would be differnt
The knocout roll would be
00-26 = knoked out
27-53=Stunned
54-82 =Dazed
83-97 = Disoriented
98-99 = Nothing happens
and after 65 hours, if he rolled less than 77 on the roll he would die
>>44663557
Mind you, that doesn't really take 'Regeneration' or 'Skin hard enough to bounce most weapons like a tank' into account.
>Implying the tarasque is not already dead, vanquished by the pure christian faith of a young maiden
baka baka
>>44643118
It'd stagger for a bit.
Then the hole would heal up with a nasty slurp sound and it'd keep rampaging.
Just throw some atomic bomb that disitengrate every single bit of the tarrasque fast enought to not make him regenrate before this happen.
Then there will be no single bit of tarrasque and so no thing called tarrasque to go back to it usual form by regeneration
>>44663726
>disitengrate EVERY SINGLE BIT of X
I think this kind of thing is impossible no matter what is the value of X
>>44663726
The Tarrasque can regenerate disintegration. Like, expressly that won't kill it.
>>44663751
>The Tarrasque
If you destroy every single bit of tarrasque fast enought (before he regenerate even a single bit of himself)
This thing called tarrasque wouldnt exist and so it wouldnt be able to regenerate back into life because it doenst exist.
Expecting tarrasque to regenerate back on this case is like expecting a tarrasque to suddently appear on real life by regeneration.
A tarrasque dont exist on real life, and also wouldnt exist, if you destroyed EVERY (the important part) single bit of him.
>>44663795
Except for the fact that yes, it can? A disintegrate spell merely pisses it off and I doubt a nuke would wipe it out so hard it couldn't regenerate.
>>44663726
>Just throw some atomic bomb that disitengrate
Uh, there's a 1in4 probability that any disintegration effects on the tarrasque will reflect back on the caster.
So have fun with all those atomic bombs.
The only way to deal with a tarrasque short of a wish spell is to use animal ken to tame it and use it as a massive mobile weapons platform.
>>44663847
>on the caster
caster???
There is no magic on reality
>>44642654
Take a tarresque down, or take a tarresque out? Because those two things are very different. You could incapacitate one for a little while if you hit it directly with heavy artillery, but killing the thing would most likely take a shell significantly larger than the beast itself.
A particularly large nuke might be able to do the job, and if worst comes to worst you can just bury it.
>>44663912
There is also no wish spells. So good luck keeping it dead.
>>44663947
>There is also no wish spells. So good luck keeping it dead.
when I said disintegrate I was not talking about spells
I was talking about an explosion so powerfull that destroy every single bit of the tarrasque before he regenerate even the smallest bit
>>44663997
Which would not kill it.
>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.
So yeah. It would piss it the fuck off but not kill it. As 'Incurable' 'Kill it instantly' and 'Disintegrate' covers most of your talk about nukes.
>>44664027
It gets even worse with the 4e one. Which is even more unkillable. If it would be killed it's only a matter of time before the earth rebirths it.
Also planes would not like it's aura of 'No flying allowed'
>>44663912
It's not a "magic" thing, it's explicitly rays and disintegrate effects reflect and hit the caster.
So the person who launches the bomb gets bombed. They're kinda designed so you can't just fly around above it on a tensor disc and attack it with anything that can actually damage it from range - you literally kinda need to be a well built bunch of martials backed by buff casters to fight it to the point where you can then wish it dead.
>>44662897
Ahh yes, the city built around the tarrasque. RPG.net, when it was good.
>>44656318
>Secondly, shooting at cover to make your bullets fragment?
If your bullets ignore cover, because it overpenetrates too hard, you can shoot at enemy in cover.
Its not rocket science.
And its far more useful in a war zone than something intended to kill something in the open.
>>44658759
1D2 damage per bullet hit
Bunch of reflex and con checks to see if the target actually gets wounded. Deals damage if the saves fail.
Bullets needs to bypass soak and damage resistance(I.E Barbarians flat damage resistance) to even roll for status effect damage.
>>44663203
Damage resistance of 15 would also make it completely immune to shrapnel.
A AC of 35 means its impossible to get anything to hit it properly.
>>44664802
Realistically that AC is all natural AC, meaning armor piercing rounds would ignore that natural armor.
>>44642746
The outcome of your quick search disappoints me. You need something big like this.
https://youtu.be/dzWfu3STLtQ
>dig a reinforced hole
>lure it nearby
>shoot it with helicopters
>use bulldozers to push it in the hole once it goes out
>pour concrete over it
Easy
Clearly, the "easiest" way to get rid of a Tarrasque is to teleport it to somewhere where it won't be a problem. Like somewhere in deep space.
>>44647160
EARSPLITTEN LOUDENBOOMEN! This was a records attempt to see the highest velicity a .22 (a really small round that kids shoot easily) can be shot at.
>>44642654
This is D&D. It's a super-hero game. Any bullet would do. After all, daggers can kill giants, slimes, treants and demons.
Think less 9mm and more 9m.
>>44665346
>Like somewhere in deep space.
So, how much damage does a tarresque do as it re-enters the atmosphere?
And how pissed off is a flaming meteoric tarresque before it forms a crater?
>>44665507
For every 200 pounds of weight you add 1d6 for every 10 ft fallen. This is capped at a maximum of 20d6 per 200 lbs. Since the tarresque weighs 130 tons (260,000 pounds) you can cap your terminal velocity tarresque at 26,000d6 damage upon impact.
>>44665690
>>44663834
>A tarrasque dont exist on real life, and also wouldnt exist, if you destroyed EVERY (the important part) single bit of him.
>Except for the fact that yes, it can? A disintegrate spell merely pisses it off and I doubt a nuke would wipe it out so hard it couldn't regenerate.
so this means if as some example there is a tarrasque just on china (this is just to explain he is not on usa)
suddently a tarrasque can start to regenerate itself into existing on USA?
>>44664153
>So the person who launches the bomb gets bombed.
1- Get atomic bomb detonator
2-Put it near tarrasque foot
3-He detonetate the atomic bomb
4-A atomic bomb is thrown into a tarrasque and the one that made this attack (tarrasque) receives the attack (atomic bomb)
5-Go back to 4
>>44666262
I hate to ask this, but are you misunderstanding something vital to the conversation?
>>44664697
You literally know nothing about ballistic science and military tactics.
>>44666262
A tarrasque /cannot be disintegrated./ All lethal damage is turned into /nonlethal/ damage, and nonlethal damage can't disintegrate something. Therefore, a nuke would just knock the thing unconscious.
Your entire argument is based on the false premise that a Tarrasque can't regenerate from disintegration, but it's a moot point, because it can never be disintegrated in the first place.
>>44666917
>Your entire argument is based on the false premise that a Tarrasque can't regenerate from disintegration, but it's a moot point, because it can never be disintegrated in the first place.
Thanks for clarifying me
>>44642654
Video related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nOkO8Sh2xs
>>44656077
Project got cancelled because it's too noisy for combat.
>>44654823
Number of times it's feasibly possible to stab/shoot/whatever is not the same as the number of attacks in dnd. You might be able to flail away with a sword at a dummy about once a second, but you still only get 1 'attack', since you're likely only landing one solid blow. In the case of full auto weapons, they do a higher base damage to reflect the number of shots, rather than getting 20 attacks per round.
>>44664818
Pretty sure firearms don't work that way in 3.5, but in pf a musket round'll go straight through that if fired from close enough
