>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 >>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
>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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 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.
>>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.
>>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?
>>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.
>>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!
>>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.
>>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".
>>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 (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
>>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.
>>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.
>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 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
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.