The dreaded Sphere of Many Eyes or Eye Tyrant, indeed!
I am about to introduce one of these horrific, alien creatures into my current campaign and want to ask some...yes...questions. I have never run a Beholder before and am seeking any advice or suggestions you may have. Not so much from a 'how to role play a Beholder,' as I have a few ideas on that already, but from a DMing/mechanical/logistical perspective with respect to its MANY eyes.
I know what my Monster Manual and Monstrous Compendium says. I want to elaborate, or add a 'dash' of realism (jamesdglick, get a piece of this action, bub!), in adjudicating the use of its deadly orbs during combat.
For instance, let us take the Central Eye itself. It casts an Anti-Magic ray analogous to the 6th lvl mage spell of the same name. The magic of the smaller eyes have NO effect in that area of effect. Got that. I need clarification on this point:
1) If a priest or wizard has spell effects running (for instance, Prayer or Aid for the former, or Invisibility, Shield, or Deeppockets for the latter, let us say), I am assuming that these magical effects are completely nullified so long as those characters are within the area of effect of said Anti-Magic ray, BUT spring back into existence should the PCs exit the ray's area of effect (provided the durations are not exceeded). Correct?
2) Ok, with regard to the many other, smaller, highly mobile eyes, I could use your perspective. Just how flexible and mobile are these eyes? Do they have the maneuverability to target any creature on any side of the beholder (except directly below it)? The books say to roll a certain die based on the placement of the targets with respect to the Beholder. But what I am getting at is, can a smaller eye on one side of the monster shoot its magical effect in a complete 360 arc? Or not? The other thing to consider is that this spherical, basically levitating monster can likely pivot and roll around to employ whatever eyes it needs to use. Thus, I am wondering if the limitation on the number of eyes that the Beholder can utilize at any given time may be due to cross-over and the risk that it may accidentally "zap" one of its own, eyestalks.
If not, I am thinking of generating a basic sketch of my Beholder and placing the smaller eyes at specific intervals across its 'body' to keep track so I know where they can and cannot affect targets.
3) Finally, I was thinking of having targets of these smaller eyes make saving throws vs. Rods/Wands/Staves (or perhaps Petrification or Death for some of the 'you die (or get 'stoned) if you fail' type) to avoid their magical effects, but wondering if a save vs. Spells is warranted instead. I think this goes back to that chart in the Player's Handbook about degrees of magnitude or priority or something... Or perhaps there is a different saving throw dependent upon which eye is used. For example, maybe the eye that fires a Sleep or Charm effect uses the save vs. Spells (or Rods), but the one firing the dreaded Death spell gets a save vs Death Magic... Thoughts?
4) If the Beholder is in complete darkness, to the eyes give off some type of magical glowing effect when they fire? I was thinking, if for no other reason than 'That's COOL' or 'eerie' of describing a blazing array of various colored-rays emanating from the pitch blackness (unless the PCs have a BRIGHT light handy, or spell, to see the monster coming). Yes, I intend for each eye to have its own signature color as it is enacted.
thanks for your help, and start praying for those characters!
-Lanthorn
p.s. hoping that Rossik takes note and posts his advice given that the Beholder is his Avatar!
1) The spell does not allow a Saving Throw, so I do not believe the eye's effect would either. Therefore, the effects of all spells would be negated while the subject stood within the "path" of the eye's beam. But we need to remember the spell's description: How much of the character is "within" the beams area of effect? How large of an area/diameter does the eye's beam cover at the PC's location?
If the PC is standing closer to the Beholder than the eye beam's terminus, then perhaps the entire PC is not "covered" by the beam's effect and some of his/her's protective spells would remain in effect. Interesting.
And, yes, if the duration of the spell is still effect, then I would “rule” that the spell remain in force upon the character's leaving the area of effect.
2) No. The rays from the eyes operate in “line of sight” fashion. If the eye stalk is not long enough for the eye to “see over” the “head” of the Beholder, than that eye cannot “fire” at the target on the opposite side.
As for the Beholder 'rolling around' to employ the use of a specific eye? That would depend on whether or not it's being attacked from all sides. Perhaps it wishes to use “that” eye-beam on the PC attacking it from "that" side? Otherwise, I see no reason why it couldn't maneuver in such a fashion.
3) Rather than “degrees of magnitude,” I would base it upon what effect that particular eye's ray has. You'll have to keep track of what eye is shooting what beam, but who said the DM's job was easy?
4) Again, it would depend on the particular power/ability that “eye” has as to whether or not there would be a “light show.” Does a wand which produces “that” particular effect shoot out a visible beam of energy? Then so should the eye.
1) If a priest or wizard has spell effects running (for instance, Prayer or Aid for the former, or Invisibility, Shield, or Deeppockets for the latter, let us say), I am assuming that these magical effects are completely nullified so long as those characters are within the area of effect of said Anti-Magic ray, BUT spring back into existence should the PCs exit the ray's area of effect (provided the durations are not exceeded). Correct?
Dead on target. Biggest mistake I see people make is to treat anti-magic as a dispel effect, which it isn't. It just dampens magic in that area. So, oddly enough, right in front of the main eye is potentially the safest spot to be.
Lanthorn wrote:
2) Ok, with regard to the many other, smaller, highly mobile eyes, I could use your perspective. Just how flexible and mobile are these eyes? Do they have the maneuverability to target any creature on any side of the beholder (except directly below it)? YES The books say to roll a certain die based on the placement of the targets with respect to the Beholder. But what I am getting at is, can a smaller eye on one side of the monster shoot its magical effect in a complete 360 arc? Or not? The other thing to consider is that this spherical, basically levitating monster can likely pivot and roll around to employ whatever eyes it needs to use. Thus, I am wondering if the limitation on the number of eyes that the Beholder can utilize at any given time may be due to cross-over and the risk that it may accidentally "zap" one of its own, eyestalks.
If not, I am thinking of generating a basic sketch of my Beholder and placing the smaller eyes at specific intervals across its 'body' to keep track so I know where they can and cannot affect targets.
The creature does not float as if it is in zero gravity, such that it can "roll around in the air" as it wishes. It has an "up" and "down" orientation. As to rolling for the number of eyestalks that can fire, that takes into account both the position of the enemy but also of the eyestalks themselves whose positions effectively limit each others' fields of fire, though it is mainly just a way of limiting what this nasty creature can do all in one go. It is all about tactical options. This is one of those critters where having a diagram works well. I suggest using clear plastic and drawing 90 degree arcs on it. Then you can put the center of it over your beholder mini you will be able to see how many PCs are in what arcs, which will let you know how many eye stalks can potentially fire. Easy peasy.
Lanthorn wrote:
3) Finally, I was thinking of having targets of these smaller eyes make saving throws vs. Rods/Wands/Staves (or perhaps Petrification or Death for some of the 'you die (or get 'stoned) if you fail' type) to avoid their magical effects, but wondering if a save vs. Spells is warranted instead. I think this goes back to that chart in the Player's Handbook about degrees of magnitude or priority or something... Or perhaps there is a different saving throw dependent upon which eye is used. For example, maybe the eye that fires a Sleep or Charm effect uses the save vs. Spells (or Rods), but the one firing the dreaded Death spell gets a save vs Death Magic... Thoughts?
1. Charm person save vs, spell
2. Charm monster save vs. spell
3. Sleep save vs. spells to dodge it; see the sleep spell for effect on those that fail their save (i.e. what HD can be affected)
4. Telekinesis save vs. spell if a PC of PC's item is targeted, otherwise none
5. Flesh to stone (save vs. petrification
6. Disintegrate save vs. spells
7. Fear save v.s rods/staves/wands
8. Slow save vs. spell
9. Cause serious wounds save vs. spells
10. Death ray save vs. death magic
Because these are ray effects that can be dodged, Defensive Adjustments from 15+ Dexterity scores do apply as bonuses to these saves. People often forget this.
Innate magical abilities are treated just like cast spells, unless otherwise stated. Magic items have a lesser degree of magnitude than cast spells/innate effects, and the beholder has innate abilities. The only effect it generates that is lesser in magnitude is the Fear effect because it states that it works as a wand. Beholders are very, very dangerous. The best bet is to confine the attack space, or, if the PCs get to attack first, to jump the thing from all sides and take it down before it can fire off all ten little eyes in return.
Lanthorn wrote:
4) If the Beholder is in complete darkness, to the eyes give off some type of magical glowing effect when they fire? I was thinking, if for no other reason than 'That's COOL' or 'eerie' of describing a blazing array of various colored-rays emanating from the pitch blackness (unless the PCs have a BRIGHT light handy, or spell, to see the monster coming). Yes, I intend for each eye to have its own signature color as it is enacted.
Sounds fine to me. Gotta be able to see a ray to dodge it.
One more bit: the central eye and the smaller eyestalks can be damaged individually, meaning Called Shots vs. certain eyestalks can be a very good idea! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Ceb, thanks for also providing advice on what saving throws to use for each of the smaller eyes. I was thinking of offering what I thought each would require, but you beat me to the punch first.
I appreciate the helpful hints about the use of the smaller eyes. Though the number utilized at any given time may be somewhat random (based on position of the creature's enemies), I fully intend to dictate which of the eyes the Beholder employs during the combat scene, and at specific foes (especially rival spell-casters).
For instance, when the Beholder realizes it is facing a formidable host of priests and a wizard of some power, it will unleash the power of its central eye to encompass them, thereby nullifying their greatest assets. However, that will render them completely safe from the effects of the Beholder's smaller eyes. The monster will then have to use its minions (Charmed or otherwise) to 'deal with' the spell-casters, while it unleashes the powers of its smaller eyes on those not engulfed in the Anti-Magic Ray effect. Finally, I am under the impression that the Beholder can maintain the spell-negating effect of its central eye for MANY turns (treating it as as 12th lvl caster for duration effects as that is the minimum level needed to cast the mage equivalent of its greatest spell effect, as per Spells & Magic book).
My understanding is that the Beholder can 'fly' at Maneuverability Class B, rate 3, meaning it can move up, down, side to side, albeit slowly, yet with decent agility in spite of its bulk. Why couldn't it pivot or twist and turn?
-Lanthorn the Diabolical
p.s. Ceb, 'true that!' on called shots to those lesser (but deadly!) eyes!
The big eye is easier to hit then those smaller stalks. One can see how beholders can benefit from having archer npcs which can pick off those under the effect of its anti-magic field eye.
Beholders can be deadly for parties of many levels. mid to high level. Good thing most players don't have to deal with them often. "I dub thee, the beholder slayer."
This is my first time (ever) role-playing an encounter with a Beholder, so I am really looking forward to it! I have a background story for the creature, a tribe of troglodyte minions/guards/servants for it, and a single Charmed troll bodyguard. Oh, and now two Charmed PCs...umm..I mean 'NPCs' (until the Beholder is slain, or the spell is removed).
Yeah, Argon, the remaining party will have a stiff challenge ahead of them!
Follow-up question with respect to the Anti-Magic ray: If it behaves identically to the 6th lvl wizard spell, wouldn't this ray be invisible??? The Anti-Magic Shell creates an invisible barrier, so wouldn't the Beholder's ray from its central eye likewise create an unseen effect? I don't see why not...this could make for one helluva shock to the party, if so!
I'm afraid I don't have anything to add with respect to 2e rules of beholder magic. Instead, I'll describe to you the most difficult battle I ever fought as a player in the hopes that you will find something of benefit.
My drow witch attained 6th level (Dungeon Mag #114 version) and the DM decided it was time for Lolth to test her. Minx, as she was called, was magically transported to an abyssal plane where small asteroids floated randomly. There was no up or down except with respect to each, separate asteroid - as if each was a miniature planet.
As Minx prepared herself for a contest to the death, she spied a beholder(!) floating out from behind one of the nearby planetoids. I was shocked. I asked the DM if he thought that was fair. I mean, I was only 6th level and I was facing a beholder alone? He smiled and said, 'Yep.'
Lolth's voice then anounced that only one of us would be allowed to live through the battle. The choice was ours. Besides life, Minx's reward would be a ring she could see around one of the beholder's small eye stalks. It's victory reward would be all of her possessions. We immediately rolled initiative and began our battle. Minx was throwing spells at it and it was firing its small eye rays. Minx made most of her saving throws (only failing the less than deadly ones) while the beholder made most of its saves as well. When this didn't seem to be getting anywhere, it turned its central eye upon her and advanced to bite. It scored some hits upon Minx, but, though she had few hit points, she had a great AC. Minx, in turn, scored some hits upon its central eye with her staff and it backed off as it was going to lose the eye before it killed her. Minx was not winning this contest and was slowly losing hit points. Both of us were making our saves, so the contest would either be won randomly by one of us rolling poorly or by attrition, which Minx would lose. I kept trying to talk the beholder into calling it a draw because I didn't think I could win this contest.
We went back and forth this way a few times until Minx ran out of spells. She ran around the planetoid she was on and pulled out her scroll of Teleport. She had been saving that for when she gained high enough level to copy it into her spellbook. After some intense mental arguing, I concluded that being dead with a scroll of Teleport in her pocket would be slightly less pleasant than being alive after having burned her chance to learn that spell later, so she pulled it out and prepared to cast it. The beholder found her, however, and it was time to roll for initiative. If Minx lost and failed a save vs. the Cause Serious Wounds eye (or most any of the others), she'd be dead, etc. We rolled. No DM fudging. Minx won. She Teleported safely onto another planetoid she'd seen float by earlier and hid in a small cave (just a depression, really) while I tried to think of a tactic.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything to save Minx. I was trying to decide if playing my drow witch as a drider would be fun. The beholder was looking for Minx and I kept pouring over her character sheet, trying to find something that might help. Then, I saw it! A wand of Paralyzation. I had found it several levels ago, but never used it and completely forgot that Minx possessed it. Just then, the beholder discovered her hiding place. We resumed our battle of rays and, miracle of miracles, the beholder failed a saving throw before Minx did! It was paralyzed and unable to use any of its eye rays. Unfortunately, the DM ruled that it also lost its ability to fly/levitate and began to fall (relatively) toward a very large planetoid in the far distance. Seeing her reward plummeting beyond her grasp and knowing that the paralyzation would eventually wear off, Minx used her very last spell and cast a web between two slowly moving planetoids below the beholder like a net to catch a trapeze performer. It fell into the web and stuck there. Minx jumped from the rock she was on and used her innate drow power of Levitation to alight gracefully upon one end of the web. Her Slippers of Spider Climbing made walking out to the beholder a snap and her magical dagger made assassinating the helpless beholder a piece of cake. That is, it would have if I hadn't rolled a natural 1 for Minx's roll To Hit. The DM ruled that Minx slipped an fell onto her back in the web, becoming entangled in a manner preventing her Slippers from working.
Minx and the beholder were now both trapped, side by side, in the web - helpless and unvictorious. I panicked. I realized the paralyzation would wear off before the web spell's duration ended (I didn't consider that she could just dispel it. That would have lost her the prize!). Then, the DM smiled. All the other guys in our college dorm lounge were cracking up and the DM couldn't keep a straight face any longer. As Lolth, he ruled that the two of us had been entertaining enough that she'd allow us both to continue to serve her. Thus, Minx found herself returned to Greyhawk with a new treasure on her finger (a Ring of Satan, which he renamed a Ring of Lolth, from the Witch entry in the Best of Dragon, Vol. I).
From the moment the DM told me a beholder came into view until the moment Minx arrived alive back in the Flanaess, the only time I thought Minx wasn't going to die was just before she rolled that natural 1. Most difficult and stressful battle I ever fought in D&D.
My understanding is that the Beholder can 'fly' at Maneuverability Class B, rate 3, meaning it can move up, down, side to side, albeit slowly, yet with decent agility in spite of its bulk. Why couldn't it pivot or twist and turn?
It it isn't a humming bird, nor is it apparently practiced enough that it can roll around in the air such that it can then *choose* what direction is considered "up" for it at any given moment, for instance, and thus hose down the PCs with all ten eye stalks whenever it wants to. You can say it is flying however you want to. Just don't use that as reasoning to break the rules which delineate how many eyes it is intended to be able to fire. If one could just do that, the rules for how many eyes stalks a beholder can fire would be very, very different. Perhaps skewing (breaking really) the rules in the beholder's favor is not your intention though. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Ceb, nope. I don't have any intention of allowing the Beholder to fire more eyes than the rules allow. My point about its Flying powers is that, within reason of its maneuverability class rating (B) and its slow speed (MV 3), I'd think that the monster could turn, spin, look up, look down, and the like within the confines of those ratings.
Also wondering your thoughts about my comment above with respect to an invisible Anti-Magic ray...
SirXaris, amusing tale. Glad I wasn't playing the character fighting that Beholder, one on one!
I know you had your heart in your throat, but that was a funny story.
It was also kind of ironic that both of you ended up in a web within Lloth's test. Seems like it was indeed a fitting end to the scenario.
I know you had your heart in your throat, but that was a funny story.
It was also kind of ironic that both of you ended up in a web within Lloth's test. Seems like it was indeed a fitting end to the scenario.
Later
Argon
It couldn't have ended better if that had all been scripted that way. Rolling that 1 at that time was just epic.
This may be useful for some alternate eye rules, if you want to mix up the beholder's powers some Lanthorn: http://www.melkot.com/locations/underdark/EncyclopaediaSubterranica-S2-33.pdf It's a mini-adventure with some alternate rules for beholder eyes. _________________ Allan Grohe<br />https://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/greyhawk.html<br />https://grodog.blogspot.com/
As to the anti-magic ray, yes, it is invisible. There is nothing like a PC racing a phantom steed through the Underdark to catch up to other PCs on their way to Erehli-Cinlu...only to have the phantom steed suddenly disappear out from under PC. Okay, there is something worse; that being the reason why the steed suddenly disappeared (not that I am speaking from experience or anything... ). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
On a completely random encounter...I was in a local gaming shop today, and while noticing the reprints of the 3 core 1e books, just happened to notice a book by coincidence. It was entitled I, Tyrant and it was all about BEHOLDERS (nice punny title).
I flipped through the pages, not believing my incredible luck. Here is some information that I gleaned which I will share for the benefit of those reading this thread, as much of it pertains directly to our current discussion:
1) A diagram in the book has the smaller eyes all diagrammed out by location in clockwise fashion, starting with 1 being nearest the central eye and going in a round pattern (thusly, 6 is approximately towards the far back at the top of the 'head'), with 10 to the direct right of 1. These numbers correspond to the magical effects listed in your Monster Manual, Compendium, what have you (assuming they are all in the same order!).
2) I found it interesting, but completely plausible, that Beholders have very fine motor control of their smaller eyes and can, by squinting (like a human), narrow the area of effect for all their eye beams. Thusly, it is possible, say, for a Beholder to Disintegrate only part of a character, rather than the whole person, if they so chose. The same is true of its massive central eye and the Anti-Magic Ray.
There is other stuff, but this was the most pertinent to our conversation here. I was totally shocked, but gleefully so, with my complete dumb luck at having stumbled on this find. What are the chances?!
Well, it even makes suggestions on what to serve for dinner, should you choose to invite an Eye-tyrant to the party. I mean, what's not to love?
A must have, if you're planning to run a Beholder in your game. Info and stats on Hive Mothers, Elder Orbs, Beholder Priestesses (no less) and break downs on the various types and sub-species of Beholders. It even talks about the 'lack of cooperation' between Elder Orbs and Hive Mothers. Everything the "Sage" your players consult is going to need to know.
See I told you even the most respected mage's still have an evil taint in their hearts. Good thing Steve Jobs never found a way to combine an I tyrant with an ipod.
Next question. I know that Beholders can utilize the spell effects from their eyes at will. So...say the creature wants to use its Charm ability on captives (be they monstrous or human(oid)). Technically, the Beholder can keep firing its Charming eyes as often as needed, until it finally takes effect, right? Granted, I think that most captives will try to overcome the enchantment effects, as they will surely realize what is happening after the first (or second or third...) attempts, especially if they fail. This may garner them bonuses to resist. But, ultimately, the Beholder is gonna win out, yes?
Or is there a (logical?) limit to the number of times (per day, perhaps?) that the Beholder can attempt before retrying? Likely a total DM call on this one, but I can see where it would get out of hand.
Assume that such ability descriptions are for combat only. In 'reality' the beholder would have to rest and 'recharge' his magical eye abilities after every fight. This should take several hours, or days, depending upon how much it used them during the combat, but it can force itself to use them as much as necessary during a single encounter.
Nope. There is no limit, and they need not rest at all, just like a medusa or basilisk doesn't need to pop a couple aspirin due to eye strain after changing an army of heroes to stone. For beholders, firing an eye ray requires as much effort as it takes your mother to give you a disapproving look. There is no "x times/day", or "x times/encounter" limit for the eye rays. They are "at will" abilities.
And yes, a beholder can use charm person over and over and over and over until it works.
And no, the victim doesn't get a save bonus vs. succeeding charm person eye rays just because they know it is coming, just as nobody gets a save versus the second, third, and fourth fireballs chucked at them by an angry Invoker, or even the very first beholder eye ray shot at them, just because they know that the beholder is going to shoot eye rays at them. In fact, if a captive is the target of an eye ray, you would be within your rights to add a -4 penalty on the saving throw due to the target being unable to dodge the eye ray at all, assuming they are tied up or similarly restrained.
Lastly, one source (I forget which) actually makes a point about a victim having been charmed so much by one adversary, over such an extended period of time(we're talking years here), that they are pretty much a permanent mental slave- even to the point of undertaking suicidal actions on behalf of their "friend". We'll call that a DM tweak to the effect though, but it is a good one considering the circumstances. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
"Nope. There is no limit, and they need not rest at all, just like a medusa
or basilisk doesn't need to pop a couple aspirin due to eye strain after changing an army of heroes to stone. For beholders, firing an eye ray requires as much effort as it takes your mother to give you a disapproving look."
Cebrion, your examples continue to educate as well as amuse!
Unless I am wrong, victims saving vs. Charm effects get a bonus due to Wisdom, and a potential bonus if they were harmed (in this case, by the Beholder itself). I'd think that if you knew that you were being 'dominated' by a being using mental magic, you'd get a bonus to resist.
In the end, though, if it is true the Beholder can fire and refire that Charm ray over and over again, then you are probably going to succumb in the end, though I suppose I'd allow a character rolling a "20" to be immune (at least for a time).
As for your other comment about 'enslavement' due to repeated Charms cast on a victim, I dimly recall reading a similar statement...somewhere. Maybe it was not so much a 'rule' but a comment written in a module or description (Old Mother Grubb's human minions?)
Cebrion is correct by the letter of the law. My suggestion was to use it as a guideline and interpret it in a manner that might make more sense over the course of a longer period of time than a single combat encounter. Cebrion even gives us an example of doing such a thing by making it a permanent effect, which is not mentioned anywhere in the monster's decription. (I do remember that reference from some source, Cebrion, but have no idea what source it came from.)
The first time someone is hit by a charm ray I would allow a normal save. Even if a PC has encountered this before. Though if he just fought off the affects of a ray then one can argue that it constitutes an attack and grants a bonus to the save though it is not cumulative.
A successful save means the ray was dodged, not that its effects were fought off. There simply is no save bonus for being aware of what effect, of whatever type, is being targeted at a character unless otherwise stated, which it isn't in this case. There is no difference between the statements "It is trying to charm person on me." and "It is trying to disintegrate me." A character can make bazillion saves in a row, but that will gain them no "foresight save bonus" in either case (though I do believe that there is a cleric spell somewhere that does exactly this). The character will just be screwed when they fail a save. In this instance, the target character gets a Wisdom bonus and a Dexterity bonus on the save (not to mention any magic items save bonuses), and probably is at least 7th level to begin with. The beholder doesn't need to be rendered impotent. Characters should be pissing themselves when they see one, because everything it does is potentially bad news for them. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
"The beholder doesn't need to be rendered impotent."
I will make sure it has those 'great, magic' pills!
"Characters should be pissing themselves when they see one, because everything it does is potentially bad news for them."
Get the T.P. ready, guys! I haven't revealed the 'true nature' of the creature yet...but I think it is coming soon...
My interpretation of some saving throws is also that the character is able to 'resist' the effects of the magic. In the case of something like a Charm Person spell, I could see how the Beholder's ray DOES hit them, but the willpower of the victim is powerful enough to fend off the mind-altering influence.
That general store better have some medieval fantasy depends. Because if they are going to be pissing themselves, then they are gonna need some protection.
Halfling and gnomes can get by on the huggies!
Centaurs and Wemics might need wee wee pads.
I'd hate to be a carrion crawler in that adventure!
So, if the Anti-Magic ray is invisible (even though I have seen numerous pictures of it enacted as a visible beam, I like the idea of an unseen 'force field' of anti-magic), I imagine the only way to really know its range and area of effect (from a character's perspective) is from determining (to your shock, horror, and panic) in what "zone" one's spells and magical items DO NOT work!
Even a divination spell like Detect Magic will NOT work to find it, after all.
I am under the impression that the Beholder 'knows' intuitively (or from perhaps another sense entirely) the dimensions of the ray. Also, according to I, Tyrant, Beholders can adjust the size and range of their various eye effects; this makes perfect sense to me. Thusly, if confronted by a single spell-caster, the Beholder can 'focus' the Anti-Magic ray on that single enemy, thereby minimizing the cross-over of its lesser eyes into the anti-magic field!
So, if the Anti-Magic ray is invisible (even though I have seen numerous pictures of it enacted as a visible beam, I like the idea of an unseen 'force field' of anti-magic), I imagine the only way to really know its range and area of effect (from a character's perspective) is from determining (to your shock, horror, and panic) in what "zone" one's spells and magical items DO NOT work!
One could use magical rays from spells or wands as those rays are not faster than the speed of light and are visible (thus they may be dodged). However, without a wand or spell that fires rays like a machine gun fires bullets, that might not work well if the beholder is constantly moving (Magic Missile from a 9th or higher level caster might be the closest thing to that).
Better would be a handful of rocks with Continual Light cast upon them. Throwing a shower of such magically enhanced missiles over a broad area may provide a breif glimpse of the vague dimensions of the ray as the watcher sees them wink out or stay lit.
"Better would be a handful of rocks with Continual Light cast upon them. Throwing a shower of such magically enhanced missiles over a broad area may provide a breif glimpse of the vague dimensions of the ray as the watcher sees them wink out or stay lit." -SirXaris
That is very clever! I am going to be interested to see how my player handles the Beholder. He will know 'out of game' about it's powers and abilities (veteran of the game), but his characters won't! I trust in his role-playing talent not to give his PCs insights they shouldn't have. Nifty idea there, SX.
-Lanthorn
Oh, and thanks for liberating me from the "abyss count" of 666 posts! Leave it to a Heironean!
Since a paladin in hell been done he went into the Abyss and pulled out a Lanthorn. Always looking to redeem the wicked Xaris. Heironeous would be pleased.
Would you all treat the eyes, including the central one, as 'breath weapon' or 'innate ability' for determining speed factor and initiative? Maybe Wand instead (seems the most plausible)? The bite of the Beholder would be determined by the size of the beast, but not the eyes...they'd be MUCH faster!
The eyes are innate abilities, though treating them as wand effects makes sense. I would think that even though an eye would be faster then the beholder mouth, its central eye might take more time to fire then its individual stalks as it range would also be larger. Much like the speed factor for weapons. So eye stalks are like wands and the big eye like a breath weapon in that it covers a larger area.
Regarding tactics for the Beholder, here is what I am thinking:
Keep distance between the Beholder and the party so melee is out of the question and the party will need to use ranged attacks. The Beholder will have its minions close ranks to keep the PCs 'busy' while the Eye Tyrant leads out with its smaller eyes first. It intends to subdue them first and foremost in hopes of adding them to the ranks of its pawns. This means using the 'non-lethal' eyes. However, the Beholder knows the party has spell-casters in their midst, SO, it must neutralize their magic.
This will all come down to initiative, of course, but the Beholder plans to hang back (in the shadows?) from a distance, first unleashing its 'soldiers.' If it can remain 'hidden' or concealed, all the better. While the party is engaged, it will fire its eyes with non-lethal effects, such as Charm Person, Sleep, Telekinesis, Slow, and Fear. Once the 'lesser' eyes have fired, the Beholder then unleashes with a blast of its 'greater eye' and its powerful Anti-Magic ray, focusing on the spell-casters of the party. It does this secondarily so that the effects won't hinder the magic of its smaller eyes.
Furthermore, or alteratively, the Beholder may 'fixate' the effects of its Anti-Magic ray upon one or two spell-casters, narrowing the beam (by squinting) so that the area of effect is minimized, while unleashing the powers stated above against the rest of the party. This will effectively 'neutralize' the powers of the mage and priest(s) of the party while the Beholder can whittle down the warriors of the group, all the while its 'henchmen' continue to harry and overwhelm (?) the PCs.
On behalf of the PCs, I'd like to point out that if the beholder is firing its eye rays into a melee, its targets should get a bonus to AC (or to their saving throws) just as if someone were firing an arrow into a melee involving his own allies. There should also be a chance that the beholder accidentally hits an ally rather than a PC. This is because, like an arrow, the eye rays move slowly enough that they may be dodged.
To the DM, Lanthorn, I suggest that if the beholder has lots of low-level cannon fodder to throw at the PCs, it can float just behind that line of melee with its anti-magic eye covering as many PCs as possible along with its wimpy cannon fodder allies. Such allies won't be carrying any magic anyway, but if the PCs' armor and weapons are all mundane and none of their rings, wands, potions, boots, etc. can work their magic, the wimpy cannon fodder now becomes much more dangerous. Additionally, the beholder wouldn't be too worried about accidentally hitting a few of them with its other rays, so it can blast away at any PC in batttle outside the area of effect of its anti-magic ray.
Good points on the 'firing into melee' combat. I wonder if that gives the victim a +4 to the save...or that the Beholder must make a 'to hit' roll first with the eye beam with a penalty of -4 to hit (but I'd treat the victim as having base AC 10, modified by Dex and magic protections)...
As for 'wimpy' fodder, it's because of that point that the Beholder MUST intercede in a support capacity. Twice now its minions have proved ineffective in being able to handle the party on their own...the "Master" must now support the pawns to 'get the job done!' The Beholder, numerically, cannot afford any more losses to its shock troops!
Good points on the 'firing into melee' combat. I wonder if that gives the victim a +4 to the save...or that the Beholder must make a 'to hit' roll first with the eye beam with a penalty of -4 to hit (but I'd treat the victim as having base AC 10, modified by Dex and magic protections)...
+4 is the standard AC bonus when firing into melee. I think it would be more appropriate in 2nd edition to simply give a +4 bonus to the save vs. wands since no To Hit roll is initially required. However, if that save is made, there should then be a chance that the ray strikes someone else. Roll d8 as if throwing a grenade-like missile and require the next PC or NPC in that line from the beholder to then make a save. For simplicity, I wouldn't continue after a second save, though.
I very much like your suggestion on this issue, both respect to the saving throw bonus and for the grenade-like aspect if the intial target makes the roll! Good advice.
Perhaps you should join us to 2e. "We could use a guy like you in a fight."
Perhaps you should join us to 2e. "We could use a guy like you in a fight."
I enjoy 2nd edition at conventions, but for home campaigns 3.5e/Pathfinder offer more options, so they are my prefered editions of the game. I also enjoy AD&D and Basic and Expert, but playing those older editions just seems like eating a thin crust pepperoni pizza when I'd rather have a stuffed crust pepperoni lover's pizza.
SirXaris you seem to enjoy pizza. So if you get the money to start your business might I suggest a name Paladin Pizza we deliver with honor.
Sir Xaris I also like your suggestions for firing into melee. I've played all editions save 4th edition each offer something for a campaign. Though basic is just that basic rules quick setup and go.
I foresee another quizzical problem, and want 'guidance' on this, or at the very least, input:
When the Beholder fires its Anti-Magic ray, it comes out in a LONG 90 degree cone. What happens when it fires down a corridor (or hall), restricting the cone to a narrower point (filling it up, basically) but then travels into a wider room or area?
Does the ray continue forth as a straight-line 'beam' as it shoots out of the corridor? ...OR... Does it begin to widen back out, like a 'beam' of light or sound would do, and thus form a cone once more???
Particle...or ray..or both? (sorry for the science analogy...it's my curse)
Who's to say it does not maintain its width and length maybe crossing into the stone or crossing into another room. I don't believe it will extend any further then it normally would. So if its naturally length is out 100 feet, then a narrower corridor would not extend its length.
When the Beholder fires its Anti-Magic ray, it comes out in a LONG 90 degree cone. What happens when it fires down a corridor (or hall), restricting the cone to a narrower point (filling it up, basically) but then travels into a wider room or area?
Does the ray continue forth as a straight-line 'beam' as it shoots out of the corridor? ...OR... Does it begin to widen back out, like a 'beam' of light or sound would do, and thus form a cone once more???
Okay, several issues to consider.
First, certain substances typically block magic: a foot thickness of wood, six inches of stone, an inch of lead, etc. So, it seems unlikely that the anti-magic ray would extend beyond the deminsions of the corridor walls.
To determine whether it would expand at the end of the corridor (as light and sound would), you must determine if such a magical emenation would act similarly in different circumstances. One example is this: what if the anti-magic eye ray were aimed at a wal 30 feet away? Would the beam bounce off the wall and return 60 feet directly at the beholder (or ricochet off in an appropriate direction) as sound would or would it bounce in random directions so that its force was dissipated to the point that it had little effect from the point of hitting the wall (as light would). Now, what if the anti-magic eye ray were fired at a mirror instead of a stone wall? (Your PCs think they're safe hiding around the corner, do they? )
What every manner you decide for the anti-magic eye ray in regard to the issue of reflection vs. dissipation, it is probably most appropriate to apply that same logic to the smaller eye rays as well.
I never considered reflection at all. I honestly don't think the magic could be reflected. What I am puzzled by is what we call, in science, the property of diffraction.
The length of the ray cannot exceed its 150 yard (!!!) range. It's the width or breadth that has me wondering. I don't think that the Anti-magic ray can breach solid walls. That seems unlikely to me.
So, a Beholder fires its Anti-magic beam down a 10 wide corridor that travels only 40 feet long before entering a large room (let us say 40 feet by 40 feet, for argument's sake). Does the ray then widen out to fill its normal 'cone' dimension OR does it continue in a 10 foot wide beam as it shoots out of the narrow corridor?
Okay, but the widening effect is based upon diffraction, isn't it? So, if you decide that magical rays don't diffract, then the ray would simply travel in a perfectly straight line from the point it left the eye. The eye is, however, quite large and a straight line from such a large point of origin doesn't mean that every bit of the ray must follow the same path. So, the beam can form a cone. However, if it doesn't diffract, only the particles of the magical ray that shot straight down the corridor would contiue into the room at the end. So, no widening.
Having said that, another consideration is that the central eye, however large, is smaller than the diameter of the corridor, so particles of the anti-magic ray (if you decide it operates on the particle principle) could shoot straight from the central eye at almost a parralel line with the walls and create a cone into the room dependent upon how far away the beam started. It would not be a large expansion, no matter how far down the corridor the beam originated, unless it was very close to the opening into the room.
I hope you understand my explanation despite its lack of scientific language.
I was waiting for the dilithium crystal analysis from you two. The Science of Magic! Great idea for a television show.
Later
Argon
I get into constant debates with my player about just this issue. He keeps chiding me about infusing 'reality' into a fantasy game, as I mentioned earlier in some other thread.
Maybe a dilithium crystal is what is needed as a lich's phylactery! Perhaps we should ask Mystic...
Happy I get into constant debates with my player about just this issue. He keeps chiding me about infusing 'reality' into a fantasy game, as I mentioned earlier in some other thread.
Maybe a dilithium crystal is what is needed as a lich's phylactery! Perhaps we should ask Mystic... Wink
1) After rolling randomly for the number of eyes to be deployed per round, do you also randomly roll for the type of eye, or choose from the list of ten?
I pick.
2) If a character is targeted by more than one eye, do you incur penalties to save from multiple eye beams firing at the luckless person or not? For instance, if the beholder shot four beams (instead of one or two) at a single target, how many of you apply a penalty for dodging the salvo?
1) After rolling randomly for the number of eyes to be deployed per round, do you also randomly roll for the type of eye, or choose from the list of ten?
I pick.
Me too.
Quote:
2) If a character is targeted by more than one eye, do you incur penalties to save from multiple eye beams firing at the luckless person or not? For instance, if the beholder shot four beams (instead of one or two) at a single target, how many of you apply a penalty for dodging the salvo?
You could worry about that, but then it may just be unnecessarily complicating the combat sequence.
Quote:
3) Can a beholder turn upside down?
I'd think so.
I'd consider a beholder to be able to turn upside down as easily as a human can. It is the beholder's natural (err... innate) mode of locomotion, after all. The only difference, in my campaign, is that a beholder's ability to move via levitation/fly is a magical ability, so it can be dispelled - temporarily. The beholder is, after all, classified as a 'magical beast'.
SirXaris
Edit: Spelling. SX
Last edited by SirXaris on Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total
I appreciate your input, SX. According to what I read in Eye, Tyrant, however, the innate ability of the beholder to levitate/fly is not a magical ability (curiously enough), but a physiological one! They adjust bouyancy much like a fish uses its gas bladder to rise or sink in the water column. I found that an interesting factoid.
If a beholder can turn upside down (which I imagine it should be able to do), then I would assume it can also roll or pivot and turn in virtually any angle in the 3-dimensional plane.
1) After rolling randomly for the number of eyes to be deployed per round, do you also randomly roll for the type of eye, or choose from the list of ten?
I pick.
You shouldn't. You should randomize, as the beholder has as many eyes as it does, and different powers it does, for a reason. Having variety isn't the real reason though. The eyestalks can get into each others way, thus blocking line of fire, so the number that can fire are limited. Think of it like a WW I bi-plane where there is a tail gunner. You know how many times a tail gunner actually shot up his own plane chasing an enemy plane with their bullets? They also shot their own propellers off until they got that problem sorted too. Well, the beholder won't just be taking a bullet for damage, but could be taking a disintegration/flesh to stone ray and KILLING itself. Accordingly, it is probably going to be pretty dang careful when it fires those things off, and so there are a number of very realistic reasons whey it can't just hose its enemies down with whatever eyestalks it wants to, when it wants to. And that is not all of them.
You might say, "But the eyestalks can move around and so get perfect targets as they wish." Well, that would be true if the PCs were not also bobbing and weaving, trying not to be hit, bitten, etc. Lets run a merry little dance that has the beholder's eyestalks intertwining like ribbons on a Maypole. Frenetic combat does not really make for perfect eyestalk control. Combat is not a shooting gallery, even though the instance of attack is handled as if it were (for reasons of simplicity). All factors were considered in how the monster's abilties were written. Thus, the monster's entry contains very random results. Random, but deadly dangerous still. That's the beholder.
Lanthorn wrote:
2) If a character is targeted by more than one eye, do you incur penalties to save from multiple eye beams firing at the luckless person or not? For instance, if the beholder shot four beams (instead of one or two) at a single target, how many of you apply a penalty for dodging the salvo?
I am stumped on this one.
I have no idea how you came up with this. If three dragons breathe fire on a target, does the target get a saving throw penalty? How about three fireballs? Forty lightning bolts? A bazillion rays of enfeeblement? The simple answer- NO, unless you are a killer DM not satisfied with having "only" fifty TPK's on record (because the players may then think you have gone soft, such that they will then somehow think to take advantage of the person in complete control of the game). Seriously, having to make a whole bunch of saves is the penalty, because being dumped on by multiple attacks means there is more likelihood of a failed save, and that is penalty enough.
Lanthorn wrote:
3) Can a beholder turn upside down?
I'd think so.
You might as well be asking, "Can a beholder turn upside down or roll on its side, such that it can change its three-dimensional orientation at will, and thus ignore every limitation in its monster entry with regard to its eyestalks (that were specifically put in there to limit it), due to it being able to effectively choose what direction is 'up', whenever it wants to?" I don't think I need to say more on the reasons why the answer to that is "NO." However, on the Astral Plane, where there is no direction...
Lanthorn wrote:
If a beholder can turn upside down (which I imagine it should be able to do), then I would assume it can also roll or pivot and turn in virtually any angle in the 3-dimensional plane.
Same answer as above. NO, as if a beholder could do that it would basically be able to choose its orientation always, meaning it could shoot all of its eyes all of the time, and we know it can't do that. Now, on the Astral Plane, where there is no direction, you bet a beholder can do that. On the Prime? Nope. I mentioned this before, but there is a third party module that made this exact screw-up. The writer apparently thought they we being clever, but in fact they were basically ignoring the limitations built into the beholder's profile. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:58 am; edited 2 times in total
Ceb, I think this may be one of those times when I have to agree to disagree with you, at least on two of three of those key points.
I think that the beholder SHOULD be able to pick and choose which eye beam to use. True, it is limited for the reasons you mentioned, and that is why the DM has to roll (randomly) the number of beams to be fired. Otherwise, I think the beholder is too limited in what it can use...and the rules (most likely, but not always) would denote that a separate random roll would need to be made to determine which eyes can be used ON TOP of the number employed.
Your point about penalties for multiple beams being used against a single target...I can concede that point, but think it would be 'realistic' to assign a penalty if one wanted to be a 'killer DM' or add some logic (harsh or otherwise) to dodging many firings. But I will admit that I see your point.
I still don't know why it couldn't move around, left, right, up, down, and roll about an axis. It is slow, true, (MV 3) but with Class B maneuverability, and a levitation power to boot, I still think a beholder COULD (if it wanted) roll and pivot.
Perhaps somebody with access to the aforementioned "Eye Tyrant" supplement could shed lanthorn illumination on this topic...
I cast, "Summon Mystic-Scholar" on this! I think he's got a copy somewhere in his vast library...
I still don't know why it couldn't move around, left, right, up, down, and roll about an axis. It is slow, true, (MV 3) but with Class B maneuverability, and a levitation power to boot, I still think a beholder COULD (if it wanted) roll and pivot.
Can hummingbird's fly straight sideways like this?
...and straight along upside down like this?
Neither can a beholder. Just like a humming bird, a beholder has an "up" and "down"- an orientation, and one that it cannot break long enough to do anything meaningful like aim multiple eyestalk rays. Could a beholder roll over for a bit? Probably so. But could it hold that position long enough to aim ray attacks accurately? No, and so there are limitations built into what the beholder can do (and you will note that all of the limitations are linked to how the beholder's enemies move, not how the the beholder moves- big clue there). They just are not capable of doing what you want them to do to any degree that they can simply ignore their own limitations. The beholder is a very controlled flier, but it is no humming bird, let alone one unaffected by gravity.
As to the eyestalks, if you don't want the type of eyestalks that get fired to be completely random, write down where the eyestalks are positioned on the beholder. You could then rule that the targets directly outward from a particular group of eyestalks are most likely to be shot at by them, while others are not as likely to fire due to there being other eyestalks in the way, as the beholder doesn't want to risk shooting itself. The beholder can then turn its facing to get what eyes it wants to shoot in the right position. The downside of that is that its main anti-magic eye may be out of position then, opening it up to being blasted by spells. I recommend this only if you are willing to put in the time to add that detail rather than just decide that the anti-magic eye will always be in the right position and that it will always be able to fire whatever eyestalks it wants to. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:49 am; edited 2 times in total
I'm going to be disagreeing with some of what's being said here. For instance:
Lanthorn wrote:
2) If a character is targeted by more than one eye, do you incur penalties to save from multiple eye beams firing at the luckless person or not . . .
Simply . . . no. Why? Are you implying that the Beholder is "aiming" at four different points? Eye stalk #2 is aiming a little to the left, just in case the PC should "dodge" in that direction? Etc.
I, Tyrant, page 25 states: "The beholder's control over its eye attacks is not perfect; the beholder can never be sure that its attack will hit its target with pinpoint accuracy." In addition, "only a specially enchanted glass, called a sphere mirror, can successfully reflect an attack made by a beholder." Chapter 9 of I, Tyrant contains more information on this item, as well as other magical items specific to Beholders.
In the heat of combat, all four eye stalks will be aiming at the same "point" . . . let's say the PC's belt buckle. One "dodge" Save will cause all four beams to miss. Simple as that. The only need for multiple saves is in the fact that the four eye stalks are "causing" four different effects.
"You Saved against Sleep, but did you Save against Flesh to Stone?"
As for the abilities of each eye, page 25 of I, Tyrant shows a diagram numbering each eye and giving its power:
When viewing the Beholder from the front (looking at it), eye stalk #1 is to the immediate left of the central (big) eye. Eye stalk #10 is to the immediate right of it. They are numbered in a circular motion around the creature's "head."
It is for you, as the DM, to decide which stalks are aimed at which PC. And, according to page 25, the eye beams are visible to normal human eye-sight. The small eyes produce a small amount of light. The large central eye beam is easily discernible in daylight.
Yes, all the eyes have eye-lids.
As for Sir Xaris's assumption:
SirXaris wrote:
The only difference, in my campaign, is that a beholder's ability to move via levitation/fly is a magical ability, so it can be dispelled - temporarily. The beholder is, after all, classified as a 'magical beast'.
Page 24 of I, Tyrant states: "This assumption has cost the lives of many adventurers who believed they could ground beholders with anti-magic fields. In actuality, the body of the beholder produces a gas called tiusium. This lighter-than-air gas is held within several small chambers of the beholder's cartilaginous shell."
You cannot magically negate the beholder's levitation.
As for 'standing on its head,' or assuming any angle within three dimensional space, page 24 continues: "The expulsion of air through certain vessels causes the beholder to turn in place, tilt, rotate and move in any direction." (Emphasis mine)
Given that the publication stresses these two maneuvers -- "tilt" and "rotate" -- I believe that a complete 'standing on its head' maneuver would be unlikely, else the publication would have mentioned that ability.
Given these restrictions, I think that the beholder would have the following options in dealing with a PC "beneath" it:
Tilting forward: Eye stalks 1, 2, 9 and/or 10 are brought to bare upon the intended target.
Tilting right: Eye stalks 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 are brought to bare.
Tilting backward: Eye stalks 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 are brought to bare.
Tilting left: Eye stalks 7, 8, 9, and/or 10 are brought to bear. (Eye stalk powers are listed above).
And for that "super" intelligent Magic User who knows that there is "a beholder in there" and so memorizes Blindness, page 25 continues; "The beholder's eye powers are not wholly dependent upon vision. In other words, if a beholder is temporarily blinded in one eye, it still has access to the eye power."
Yikes!
They may use an undamaged eye to target the PC with the blinded eye's power. They suffer a -1 penalty to hit. If all eyes are blinded, the beholder can still attack, but suffers a -4 penalty to hit.
So there!
Interesting thus far. If I think of anything else, I'll chime in.
Or Lanthorn can cast "Summon" again.
Edit: According to page 54 of I, Tyrant sphere mirrors are 10 ft by 5 ft and are found throughout a beholder's lair. It seems that the beholder uses them to bounce its eye powers along twisted, turning tunnels to strike their enemies from great distances . . . while being safe from counter attack. Uh oh! _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
So, I just finished running a battle with a Beholder in my game. I'll post the entire episode, but let me first start by giving a bit of background.
First, we are playing 2nd ed, but I use liberally from any source and any edition. That said, I DID use I, Tyrant. I stuck with a standard beholder, as far as powers of its eyes. I was going to have it able to tilt, that it could use all of its eyes if it desired, however it never came up. Yes, that does significantly increase its power; however, that's what DMs do, especially when players have been around this long and know every trick in the book!
Anyway, now for some background. The adventure is basically the 3rd ed Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. This party started with T1-4, so this was a logical growth from that adventure. Of course, they went off doing other things in the mean time. They were just getting ready to return to the Temple of Elemental Evil for the final confrontations, which battles they are woefully under-powered to survive, so I REALLY threw them a bone. After they successfully avoided an Iron Golem in the Inner Fane, I allowed them to gain control of it. They brought it with them to the Temple of Elemental Evil. They put their Elven boots on it, so that it would be able to walk around quietly, which was actually quite an innovative move. In the course of the adventure, they found out about the beholder and sought it out....
I, for one, would much enjoy reading how you ran the beholder in your campaign. The reason for all my questions on this topic is b/c of the fact that I, too, am also playing a beholder as the main nemesis for my current campaign. Ruling the powers, abilities, and the like have become utterly pivotal, and though I don't necessarily agree with all the suggestions, I did ask, after all, and do appreciate everybody's input. Thanks again, everyone!
For the record, once my current campaign comes to its conclusion, one way or the other (the beholder has proven to be intractable and there have been numerous shifts in the balance of power between it and the party), I intend to ultimately share my 'story' as well.
Three 2nd Edition adventure modules might also offer ideas and suggestions for using Beholders, since Beholders are the main villains in the modules. They are:
1. Eye of Pain -- PC levels 4 to 8, with 35 levels total suggested for the party.
2. Eye of Doom -- PC levels 6 to 10, with 40 levels total suggested for the party.
3. Eye to Eye -- PC levels 8 to 12, with no less than 48 levels total suggested for the party.
Beholder battle. Please forgive the messed up tenses. This is a PBeM (or bulletin board) game, so this is stitched together from everyone’s postings.
Party:
Elrae: Human Bard
Emyn Frel: Avenger of Trithereon
Thorgrim Duerkas: Dwarven Fighter/Priest
Gotrek Goreblade: Dwarven Fighter-Battlerager
Isilme): Elven Bladesigner/Song Mage
Hepla: Human magicuser
Noot: Human Thief
Windsong: Elven Shadowmaster (basically a ninja)
The party waits in the hallway by the strange fountain. Horrid faces, carved from the same rock as the passage, snarl and vomit forth thin streams of water which are caught in a multi-tiered basin. The liquid has an evil smell, and the basin has become lined with some sort of aquatic growth. While you wait there, Isilme sneaks into the dark passage to scout.
The corridor she follows, thus far unremarkable, suddenly drops off. You stand at the brink of an area of 16 foot depth, its sides and floor sheathed in smooth, highly polished bronze. The corridor continues east 20 feet, opening into a chamber likewise adorned. Further progress is possible by using narrow ledges along the north and south walls of this corridor, each being a mere six inches wide — or, of course, you may climb down in or traverse the depression by magical means. It looks like there may have been some type of mechanism in the ceiling, but whatever what there is now gone and all that remains are some strange metal brackets which hold nothing.
Continuing on, the corridor leads to an octagonal chamber, its sides and floor still sheathed in polished bronze. The six-inch wide ledge extends around it at the height of the entry corridor, 16 feet above the floor. Two arched portals near the floor are visible in the north and south walls, each being six feet wide and nine feet tall. The area is completely bare of any debris, and seem unnaturally clean compared to the rest of the area. Standing in the center of the room are two hobgoblins. Assessing that the beholder must be beyond one of the arches, she returned to report what she found.
[The cool thing is they never found this area when they went through T1-4. Thus, they don't know that the bronze was there to keep in a captured umber hulk. So, they get unduly worried about it now, believing it to be some fiendish beholder trap!]
“What's with all the polished bronze?” wondered Thorgrim. “What were the hobgoblins doing in the center of the room?”
“Polished bronze would be refractive,” replied Berenn. “It could be some sort of a trap. I don't suggest walking down this corridor en mass.”
Emyn says, "Isilme, charm one of those hobgoblins and get them to walk down this hallway to see what happens. Isilme?” Emyn sighs, “Now where’d she go?”
“I am happy to wait here for now,” said Berenn. “This area looks and feels wrong. And the last time I said something was a trap, it was a trap and we almost were burned alive.”
"The narrow ledge suggests that the bronze pit is some sort of trap...perhaps to reflect the beholder's gaze so that its sorcery can hurt us multiple times, like a lightning bolt bouncing around a small room," he says. "Speaking of which, perhaps that is the spell that is needed here, although if Isilme's there and invisible, she would certainly die from the onslaught. Windsong, take point!"
Emyn says, "Isilme, charm one of those hobgoblins and get them to walk down this hallway to see what happens. Isilme?” Emyn sighs, “Now where’d she go?”
Last edited by ragnar on Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:48 am; edited 2 times in total
While the party considered its actions, Isilme had flown back to investigate the arches. Protected by invisibility and an amulet of proof against detection, she saw no danger in going alone. Flying by the hobgoblins, she went to the north arch. There was nothing but a dirty, empty room so she left, but as she flew into the southern arch, she stared right into the face of the beholder. Her spells and magic items were negated, as it was using its anti-magic eye. With a start, she became visible and fell to the ground with a thud.
The beholder looked surprised as well, but then an evil grin spread across its face.
Realizing she was still wearing the ochre robes of a priestess of the Elder Elemental God, she quickly began to spin a tale. "Kex,” she said, using the name of the beholder she learned from the hobgoblins. “The Chosen has instructed me to warn you there are infidels entering this level of the temple. I am to assist you in their defeat. Nothing must stop the ceremony."
"Ah yes," it says in a strangely sibilant voice, its long tongue flicking along rows of sharp teeth. "The ceremony. Is that today?" It slowly floats towards you. "Well, mustn't let anything disturb the ceremony now, can we? Lead the way."
She gives him an impatient look "Gladly. However, your eye is currently preventing me from doing so."
"Don't worry, elf," says Kex. "I can lift you." Its eyestalks seem to point back towards the entrance. "Now, after you."
"If I am to assist you,” she replied sarcastically, “how do I stay out of the way of that eye should we need to battle the infidels?"
It laughs in its sibilant fashion. "Oh, you won't be needed," it says, "except as a shield."
[Well looks like I am #$%&ed,” thought the player.]
"I am sure the chosen will be most displeased if you bring his servant to any harm.... Well, that and my family has a long memory for those who betray us. She smiles at him sweetly. Fine, levitate me out then."
Silently Isilme prayed that she might have a window to cast a spell while the beholder levitates her out? “It all depends on if it must turn off its anti-magic shield,” “I guess I am going to have to lead him towards the entrance and see how this pans out.” She glanced back at him uncertainly one last time before slowly turning about.”
"Of course," says Kex with a wicked smile.
The anti-magic field goes away, and Isilme instantly went invisible again. The beholder almost instantly grabbed her with telekinesis and lifted her you in the air.
"Let us be off," it says, as Isilme started floating towards the entrance, the beholder moving behind her.
“Oh, I think not,” said Isilme. Before the beholder could react, she opens a Dimension Door before her and slipped quickly through it, returning to the fountain where the rest of the party waited.
Of course, they didn’t wait. Rather, Hepla decided to go take a look at the hobgoblins herself. Peeking around the corner, she sees the hobgoblins, standing there in the center of the room 40' away (and 16' lower!). They don't seem to notice her.
Then Windsong moves silently down the corridor, stopping just behind Hepla.
Behind him is Emyn and Berenn, followed by Gotrek and Thorgrim. Elrae and Noot bring up the rear, stayed by the fountain to watch their backs.
For a moment, Hepla sees Isilme appear near the entrance to the southern archway. Isilme falls to floor, and then gets up. She seems to be talking to someone to the south, beyond Hepla's sight, and then Isilme disappears again.
“Isilme may be in trouble!” exclaimed Thorgrim. “We have to come to her aid!"
Noot, keeping his eyes closed hugs the wall hoping the creature’s gaze attacks can harm him if he doesn’t look at it.
Emyn mutters, " A man should meet his fate with eye wide open, not cowering like a child."
Berenn will pull back to the well and suggest everyone else do the same. “The best course of action is to let the golem deal with the beholder,” he said. Berenn feels the golem will be probably be immune to the beholder's spells and will squash it in no time.
Gotrek says “Let the Iron Golem go first and direct it to go to the other side of the chamber and attack the beholder from there. It should have it's back turned ( does it have a back?) or at least it's eyes on the golem, giving us a free round of attacks. (hopefully)”
As the party prepares to charge down the hallway recklessly, they heard Isilme behind them. “The Beholder is coming out!” she called, in a very unpleasant voice.
[There then followed some quick discussion about how to deal with the beholder, including having the thief hide on the ceiling with a blanket and throw it over the beholder to block its eyes.]
Berenn OOC: Sorry executive decision ... party leader prerogative. No offense to the blanket idea, but it seemed a little lame and honestly cartoonish. I was almost expecting someone to summon Wil-E-Coyote to drop an anvil on the beholder's head. So while I have been in mourning I have been racking my brain and trying to remember everything I could about Iron Golems and it seems to me they are the toughest of the constructs and neigh on invulnerable. I believe you need a +3 or better weapon to hit one and most magic is useless against them.
So this is my call, if I am wrong I take full responsibility for what happens. I just didn't think the other options had a high probability of success and a beholder can do some nasty things. So sue me!
“I still say the blanket was a good idea,” said the player of Emyn.
“This from the same guy who almost burnt the moathouse down with us in it and thought it was a good idea to launch a fireball into the party at point blank range,” said the player of Berenn. “I can't wait for us to receive a package from Acme on our next adventure!”
While you are waiting, you hear something walking down the hallway. Noot glances down (peeking from the top right corner as he's on the wall/ceiling) and he sees a hobgoblin walking towards you.
Not exposing himself, Berenn has the Iron Golem move down the hall a little ways. “Let’s see what the hobgoblin thinks of that,” he says.
The Iron Golem steps out around the corner, and the hobgoblin stops dead in it's tracks. It then turns and runs away.
Hepla morphs into a bat and flys up to land near, but not too near, Noot so she can see. As she is there she says to herself, "Stupid bat sense does not work right. I wonder how real bats do it." She flys to the next corner, where the hobgoblin disappeared, and looks around it. She is ready to fly back at the first sign of a beholder. Seeing the beholder coming out into the central room, she flies back about 30 seconds later, just passed the IG and lands back around the corner next to Berenn where she changes back into her normal form. She then tells them where the beholder was floating.
Thorgrim says, "Berenn! Send your metal friend to annihilate the beast!"
Berenn nods, and starts the iron golem walking down the hallway, with Berenn right behind it.
Last edited by ragnar on Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:51 am; edited 1 time in total
The corridor is dark, and the IG stops at the end, not being able to "see" anything. Of course, it's also on the edge of the 16' drop-off. Berenn stays just behind the corner of the wall, peeking out, and he sees the beholder floating in the air in the center of the room, maybe 40' from the iron golem. It is 20’ above the floor of its room, maybe 4’ above the level upon which the party stands. As it notices the iron golem, a grey ray shoots forth from the beholder, striking the massive construct. The ray spreads over its entire body, then just fades away having no effect on the golem at all.
Berenn looks to see if there a way for the Iron Golem to get to the beholder. “Maybe the ledge,” he wonders. “Or can he climb down into the drop off and climb up the other side?”
If there is room to do so, Emyn will use one of the javelins of lightning he found, and he takes it in hand, getting ready.
Hearing that the beholder has entered the larger room, Isilme Dimension Doors back to the beholder’s lair in the southern room. “Just wait for my Glitterdust,” she tells Hepla before leaving.
Hepla then morphs into a pixie, she has seen these when she lost the crystal ball, and be ready flying near the ceiling to cast her spell. She flies up behind iron golem’s right ear. She will be reporting when Isilme's spell goes off and firing her Light spell into the glittered eyes of the beholder, aiming at the center one.
Noot, squinting his eyes and looking mostly UP, moves along slowly. He uses his Slippers of Spider-Climbing to move along the wall, crouching above Berenn who barely peeks around the corner.
While you are discussing options, Hepla suddenly and involuntarily changes back into human form. She falls to the ground, a 10' fall which causes [2 dam]. However, she finds that her magical ability has left her.
Meanwhile, an invisible Isilme flies out behind the beholder. Suddenly, the top and rear half of the beholder is covered in Glitterdust, cast by Isilme who is inside somewhere and not in the anti-magic area.. The thing reacts quite unwell to the situation!
Hepla calls for archers and for the iron golem to step away. She crawls away to see how far she has to go to get her powers back. She doesn’t have to go far. She also looks at Noot to see if his slippers are still working. Of course, he's kind of crouching on the wall, with only his head "peeking" around the corner, so he still clings easily to the wall.
Assessing the situation, Berenn says he has a plan. “I will have the Iron Golem move back,” he says “so I can get a clear shot at the beholder.” He takes out his silk rope and ties it to an arrow. “Take the other end,” he says to Gotrek. “If I hit it, drag the beholder to the Iron Golem from around the corner.”
Gotrek nods, “Don’t miss!”
The beholder begins to turn around, searching for the opponent which cast the glitterdust, as it knows that none down the hallway could have done so while inside the area of its anti-magic eye. As it begins to fan its anti-magic cone around the room, it is hit by a gust of wind from behind, cast by Isilme who hopes to blow the thing towards the Iron Golem.
The beholder begins to move towards the golem, going about halfway there [it's still 15' away from the ledge] when it completes a 180* turn. At that point Isilme is revealed in the rear of the room as all her magic, including the gust of wind spell, suddenly fails again. Luckily, she had gone down towards the floor, and there her fly is cancelled and she drops the last foot or so to the ground. Being somewhat prepared for that, she lands lightly on the floor. The beholder's big eye seems to widen in surprise and recognition, then narrows ominously.
Without waiting, Isilme takes off running, heading back into the southern room.
Elrae waits back in the hallway, considering what he could do to possibly help.
Berenn fires his bow, hitting the beholder square in the back of hits "head?" for [10: good shot!].
The grey beam once again streaks out from one of the beholder’s smaller eyes, just missing Berenn. A large section of the wall beside him simply disintegrates. Unfortunately, it reveals him fully and Noot, no longer standing on anything, falls to the ground. He tumbles back easily, avoiding any damage and coming up on his feet. He then backs off, knowing now that the blanket idea was pretty dumb.
Simultaneously, another beam comes out of another eye, this one picking up the hobgoblin and lifting it in the air. It cries out, but is silenced as another beam lashes out from another eye, turning the hobgoblin to stone. It is then "hurled" towards you just as Hepla and Emyn come out around the corner. Hepla is slammed by the stone hogboblin, and takes [15]. She is knocked backwards against the wall and loses her spell.
The beholder turns around, trying to follow Isilme but she is too fast. It makes a very upset screeching sound, as the nimble elf escapes into the southern room.
Before the beholder can follow, Emyn steps out with his javelin, throwing it with all his might. It hits the small eyestalk which just used Telekinesis and discharges its lightning, blasting away the stalk and eye! [now it's REALLY mad!]
The beholder continues to turn, focusing its large eye down the hall again. However, as it does so, Gotrek immediately starts to pull the rope. Since the arrow is stuck in the other side of the beholder, it spins the thing around so the eye is no longer focused on the party.
Everyone else runs away, as Gotrek pulls the beholder closer.
The iron golem waits, as the beholder is drawn closer. It blasts three beams ineffectively at the iron golem, then the beholder focuses one of its eyes on the rope, disintegrating it, but not before it is within the iron golem’s reach. Another beam hits the IG, but it has no effect. The iron golem then reaches out and grabs the beholder.
“Pop that pimple!” yells Noot.
The iron golem starts to squeeze, and with a sickening “Splot!” the beholder is squashed like, well, a pimple!
Thus ends the beholder encounter. I must say, parts really made me laugh, especially the idea to throw a blanket over it! There was a full conversation that went on in other forum thread which we use for just talking about the game. It was all about creating an ACME spell that could summon anvils, rockets, etc. Still, the rope and arrow idea was actually good. Let’s also not forget, the party had an Iron Golem. Anyway, hope it wasn’t too hard to follow. I tried to edit a bit as I copy/pasted the encounter, but I know I didn’t do that great a job. I believe you can get the basic idea though. I think the Isilme player summed things up pretty well. “We did have that good ol iron golem! The room setup was very challenging. It could sit there and peg people with his eye beams and it is damn near impossible to get him with his ability to cancel magic.”
The party did a good job with the rope and arrow, though I'm surprised the beholder didn't target the PC pulling on the rope. I especially liked the ACME references. I think the blanket idea was actually a sound one, though it had little chance of success. Perhaps a Wizard could cast Minor Creation to have one appear over it's head. I'll have to check to see if that spell has a range or not...
Note: The Pathfinder version of Minor Creation has a range of 0 ft, so it would take some craftiness on the part of the PCs to accomplish such a feat.
I am curious that you mentioned (on GreyTalk, maybe) that you allowed the party the use of the Iron Golem because they were underpowered. This seems strange since there are eight party members. How can a party of eight be underpowered for the adventure? Were they of half the levels the adventure called for?
Oh, and I'm wondering now, if the Iron Golem would have been affected by the beholder's Anti-Magic beam. If so, that would have been a very effective thing for the beholder to do with its central eye.
Thanks for sharing all that with us. It was a good read and gave me a few great ideas.
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the publication I, Tyrant has a section entitled: "Ask Milord Wizard," on page 47. The question asked on page 49 is:
"What about jumping on top of it with a big blanket to cover its eyes?"
Answer:
"This tactic has been tried many times by "clever" adventurers. If the beholder's telekinesis power still functions, it will whip the attacker and blanket off. Alternately, the creature will use its disintegrate power to blast the attacker off. If neither power functions, the beholder will touch down and roll until the attacker is between it and the ground. It will twist and turn until it grinds its foe into paste (this maneuver inflicts regular biting damage plus an addition 1d6 of damage). Finally, the beholder will eat the delicious paste."
Gee, guys, I'm really sorry that the "Wile E. Coyote: 'Blanket Over the Head'" maneuver failed so miserably for you, but . . .
Ahh, my earlier "opinion" is corrected! So, an update for Sir Xaris . . . and Cebrion.
On page 24, I, Tyrant states:
"Most of the tiusium gas collects in the top of the beholder's "skull," causing the creature to float upright. However, the beholder can use its air-vents to tilt in any direction, even upside-down. Floating upside-down, however, requires an effort on the creature's part that will fatigue it after 3d6 minutes. Beholders only use this maneuver when absolutely necessary. A Reverse Gravity spell will cause a beholder to slowly turn upside-down; this will not inconvenience the beholder in any way."
So, it would seem that there is even more reason for not being beneath the beholder!
SEE! Even Lanthorn can be correct at times!!!! You all owe ME Karma for this one...
Thanks, Mystic.
Also, I doubt that anyone could move the mass of a beholder with a simple arrow imbedding an arrow. It would take a huge effort, or the power of something like an ogre. And likely the arrow would pop out, unless it was barbed. All the same, novel idea to your characters.
SEE! Even Lanthorn can be correct at times!!!! You all owe ME Karma for this one...
Thanks, Mystic.
Also, I doubt that anyone could move the mass of a beholder with a simple arrow imbedding an arrow. It would take a huge effort, or the power of something like an ogre. And likely the arrow would pop out, unless it was barbed. All the same, novel idea to your characters.
later all,
Lanthorn, the Wise
NO WAY! Lanthorn was right! Now I'll have to check off that day on my calendar.
Never read I ,Tyrant in detail, so that bit wasn't familiar. But, Lanthorn wasn't arguing based on that, in which case he wasn't right at all. And because he was trying to use it as a justification for ruining a whole monster entry's rules by fudging his way around the rules in order to buff up an antagonist. It is always wrong to break a monster in this way. The solution is, as the DM, you write up a unique monster entry that breaks the rules! Everybody knows that! Accordingly, I don't think any karma debt is warranted.
Say I write a book . . . I go on to say, "A dragon can really use its breath weapon every round, if it wants to, but doing so causes it to become fatigued after 3d6 rounds of doing so, so they usually don't do it." Would that alter the power of the dragon at all? Why, not at all! You'd have to be crazy to think that it does!
If one allows this sort of movement capability, without any sort of down side, and allows it to effectively avoid most of the limitations that have been very purposely built into the beholder, one should probably max out the monster level, as this thing it going to be as dangerous as practically anything. Adjust the XP award massively, as there is a big difference between being shot at by 1d4 eyes rays when the players are being smart (i.e. everyone stays within a 90 degree arc of the beast), and being shot at by 10 eye rays no matter what they do.
At the very least, a beholder moving in a way that is not right side up should be considered to be off- balance, and so be +2 to be hit (that is a part of the regular rules). Also, a basic beholder has 18 fatigue points, so any strenuous movement, which this obviously is, should be considered to be running at the very least, as running it is the least strenuous of the movement types that are beyond normal movement. And, if you use fatigue points for spell casting (you should, if you use fatigue at all), which innate magic use falls under, then you'd best prepare for a beholder doing the alpha strike and then going catatonic. Whoever survives will see the glowing "Insert Sword HERE for Super Awesome XP!" sign appear hovering in the air above the beholder.
There is another consideration though, which leads me to...
...having a question for Lanthorn! Which of these methods do you use?
1. The beholder's eye rays automatically hit targets, who then get saving throws to avoid the effects.
2. The beholder must roll to hit with its eyes rays, after which any targets that are hit get saving throws to avoid the effects.
The answer to this question will no doubt spark further comment. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
Lanthorn wasn't arguing based on that, in which case he wasn't right at all.
Lanthorn also didn't think that the Beholder's Anti-magic power could be deflected, but I, Tyrant makes clear that it can be, via the Sphere Mirrors located throughout the Beholder's lair.
But none of that negates the information contained within I, Tyrant.
Cebrion wrote:
Say I write a book . . . I go on to say, "A dragon can really use its breath weapon every round, if it wants to, but doing so causes it to become fatigued after 3d6 rounds of doing so, so they usually don't do it." Would that alter the power of the dragon at all? Why, not at all! You'd have to be crazy to think that it does!
As I said before, I, Tyrant states, on page 24: "A Reverse Gravity spell will cause a beholder to slowly turn upside-down; this will not inconvenience the beholder in any way."
So there was no need for this example.
Cebrion wrote:
Strenuous movement uses more fatigue . . . Innate powers use fatigue too . . . meaning the beholder will run out of fatigue points rather quickly and be screwed! If one even uses the fatigue rules that is.
Again, on page 24, I, Tyrant clearly states: "Floating upside-down, however, requires an effort on the creature's part that will fatigue it after 3d6 minutes. Beholders only use this maneuver when absolutely necessary."
I think the language here makes two things quite clear:
First, you will use the Fatigue Rules, because not doing so is clearly cheating on behalf of your NPC beholder.
Secondly, this is not an "everyday occurrence" on the part of the beholder. It only uses this maneuver when no other options remain. Any DM who ignores that fact is, once again, cheating on behalf of his NPC beholder -- a creature already so powerful that it doesn't need to cheat.
Cebrion wrote:
none of this should be allowed anyways, because nobody apparently thought out the ramifications of what they were writing and how it would work within the main rules, let alone the Players Options rules. Perhaps I am expecting too much of rules writers though.
So you agree that the Core Books are merely Guidelines and not Rules?
Cebrion wrote:
At the very least, a beholder moving in a way that is not right side up should be considered to be off- balance . . . any strenuous movement, which this obviously is, should be considered to be running at the very least, as running it is the least strenuous of the movement types that are beyond normal movement.
"Movement" should not be confused with "Maneuver." I, Tyrant makes clear that simply maneuvering into this position and maintaining the postion "fatigues" the beholder. Given these facts, I think that it is safe to assume that the beholder would not attempt to 'move down the tunnel' in this position, putting itself at an even greater disadvantage.
In addition, the DM should not suppose that the beholder would perform this maneuver while anyone was positioned above it. On page 4, I, Tyrant states: "Unfortunately, the beholder's range of vision more than makes up for this fact (poor hearing). Thieves attempting to Hide in Shadows do so with a -20% penalty."
Something that must not be over-looked is the fact that beholders are very intelligent. They don't do stupid things -- like putting themselves at a distinct disadvantage. They know -- and can assess -- their limitations and abilities very well.
Cebrion wrote:
1. The beholder's eye rays automatically hit targets, who then get saving throws to avoid the effects.
2. The beholder must roll to hit with its eyes rays, after which any targets that are hit get saving throws to avoid the effects.
As I stated in another post: "I, Tyrant, page 25 states: "The beholder's control over its eye attacks is not perfect; the beholder can never be sure that its attack will hit its target with pinpoint accuracy.""
It is apparent that the 'method to be used' has already been determined by I, Tyrant -- roll to hit.
Anyone using a different method is "cheating." Why? Because as far as I have been able to determine, I am the only one "here" who considers ALL Core Books to be merely "Guidelines."
So, anyone not following the above prescribed method is "breaking the Rules" . . . and we call that "cheating."
Another thing to consider, in this portion of the discussion, is the information on page 53 of I, Tyrant:
Sticky Ceiling:
"This is a cubic area (20' x 20' or larger) enchanted with a type of levitation magic. This enchantment causes gravity to reverse in the designated area. All creatures and objects within the magical "field" of the spell "fall" up towards the ceiling and take standard falling damage. . . . Although a thief may climb down and out of the enchanted area, other characters, including spell-casters, will have a difficult time breaking free. . . . Beholders avoid the effect of Sticky Ceiling by simply turning upside-down."
Seems these areas can be found throughout the beholder's lair. Apparently, there are times when "turning upside-down" is to the beholder's benefit.
Anyone using a different method is "cheating." Why? Because as far as I have been able to determine, I am the only one "here" who considers ALL Core Books to be merely "Guidelines."
I appreciate everything you said in your posts above except this statement. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that you are claiming that the rulebooks are all 'guidelines', not hard and fast rules, while at the same time claiming that anyone who does not follow those 'guidelines' to the letter is cheating.
Sorry, it's this simple: I call them "guidelines," and therefore do what I will. I don't really "see" anyone else that does that. Most here seem to consider the Core Books to be "the rules of the game." If this is true, then why post a thread such as this one asking (basically); "What do the rule books say? Can I do this?"
You're the DM, of course you can do that! "But do the books say I can do that?" See? This person thinks that the books are a set of rules telling "him" what he can and cannot do as a DM.
Me? Over-all, I don't care what the books say. I look, but if I don't find anything (quickly) I just do as I please. If a person wants to know "what the books say," then they are implying that they want to "play by the rules." Well, if you consider the Core Books to be "rules" and then you choose to ignore those "rules" and do your "own thing," what do you call that? Not playing by the rules is "cheating."
Me? I don't "cheat." Why not? Because the Core Books are not "rules" to me, they don't dictate what I can and cannot do. As a DM, the only "rules" I play by are my own. Call them "House Rules." But I have never thought up -- nor imagined -- every situation and so I will use the Core Books as guidelines -- searching them for ideas on how to handle certain situations. Doesn't mean that I'm going to do it the way the book suggest.
Also, I don't consider "you" to be cheating when you do it your own way, but that sentiment can only be applied to someone who doesn't think that the Core Books are 'hard and fast rules.'
"You can't do that! The Book says . . . "
You can't do that as a player and then decide that you're going to "do it different" (from the book) when it's your turn to DM. Either "the book" is "the Rules," or it's not. Native Americans (Indians) call that: "Speaking with a forked tongue." When, as a player, you insist that the DM do it "by the book" and then, as the DM, you decide not to do it "by the book," that's called "hypocrisy."
Everyone has been discussing what "the books say" in this thread, for someone to then turn around and say "well I don't accept that book's interpretation" . . . well, why discuss what the books say at all? Just do your thing and quite worrying about the books. Why bother posting a thread asking people what the books say if you have no intention of following the book anyway? Instead, just ask: "What would you do in this situation?"
So the statement in question simply translates as this: If you think the Core Books are rules, then you have to follow them, because not following the rules is cheating. (In some cases, not following the rules is called . . . law breaking. Want to see what happens when you do that?)
If you believe the Core Books are Rules then you should follow them, even when you don't agree with them. They are "the Rules." If, on the other hand, you think that they are just Guidelines, then take them . . . or leave them.
And I am not singling anyone out here, "you" is being used in the generic sense. Probably still not making any sense, eh? Oh, well.
Maybe this helps: If a "Rules Lawyer" chooses to ignore a particular book -- because he/she doesn't agree with it -- they're "breaking the rules," a.k.a. "cheating."
But, for me, if you don't want to follow "the book," you're not cheating. You're just being . . . a Dungeon Master.
And in my defense, I will add this: If I'm playing in your game (that you're DMing) then I will be your favorite player. Why? Because I don't care what the books say. You're the DM, it's your game and you said I can't do "that" . . . enough said.
Oh, I understand, Mystic. And, I think most everyone here probably agrees with you.
But, I think that the purpose of a post like this is to get help searching the rulebooks for ideas and hear the house rules ideas of other canonfire members, so that the DM can then make the best decision for his campaign based upon the best background information that can be acquired.
Thus, it is valid to ask what the books say and what alternatives people think might work, then decide whether to follow the 'rules' or make a house rule. No DM has to be all or none, as long as he plays each individual rule or house rule the same for the PCs and the monsters.
You won't find me disagreeing with you. My premise is: To thine own-self be true.
If "you" will not stick to your own principles, why should anyone else "see" your point of view?
A "rules lawyer" needs to stick to the rules -- all the rules -- even when he/she doesn't agree with a particular rule. If not, then why should anyone else listen when the "rules lawyer" shouts: "But the book says!"
The DM is merely doing what the "rules lawyer" is doing . . . picking and choosing which "rules" to follow. The DM is simply disagreeing with the "rules lawyer" as to which "rules" should be followed.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
Let me put it this way: No one "here" is wrong, for the very simple reason that each DM is entitled to run his/her game as they see fit. We simply hold different views on certain points.
What's new about that? Politics anyone? How about Religion?
But none of that negates the information contained within I, Tyrant.
Of course it doesn't, but the rules in I,Tyrant are horribly written due to not being delineated as to actually fit into the rules they refer to, though just with regards to the fatigue rules, but that is rather important if one does use fatigue rules.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
Say I write a book . . . I go on to say, "A dragon can really use its breath weapon every round, if it wants to, but doing so causes it to become fatigued after 3d6 rounds of doing so, so they usually don't do it." Would that alter the power of the dragon at all? Why, not at all! You'd have to be crazy to think that it does!
I think you are missing my point, which is that tossing out some vague rule description, which can fundamentally alter the entire functionality of a monster, and therefore its danger level, is a horrible thing to do as a rules writer. My example is very apt in illustrating that. The point is, be careful of doing that kind of thing.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
A "rules lawyer" needs to stick to the rules -- all the rules -- even when he/she doesn't agree with a particular rule. If not, then why should anyone else listen when the "rules lawyer" shouts: "But the book says!"
The DM is merely doing what the "rules lawyer" is doing . . . picking and choosing which "rules" to follow. The DM is simply disagreeing with the "rules lawyer" as to which "rules" should be followed.
I would seem that you need some correcting regarding the meaning of the term "rules lawyer". A rules lawyer is very much not just somebody who "needs to stick to the rules-- all of the rules". Rather than give my own definition, I looked for somebody else's, and Wikipedia does not disappoint:
As you can see, the term "rules lawyer" is very much a derogatory term, and, as such, it is probably not a good idea to toss the term about in any thread where the very opposite of rules lawyering is the assumed goal, as it very likely to be seen as insulting/belittling.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
As I said before, I, Tyrant states, on page 24: "A Reverse Gravity spell will cause a beholder to slowly turn upside-down; this will not inconvenience the beholder in any way."
So there was no need for this example.
[Edited for clarity] That is not why I made the statement. The statement equates to taking a described capability at face value, that being "a beholder does have the ability to move in this way (even if it is extremely taxing to it to do so)", but then applying it as "a beholder can move in this way, such that it negates all of its inherent eyestalk shooting limitations (even if it is extremely taxing to do so)" I understand why you bring up reverse gravity, but it doesn't apply to being upside down. Reverse Gravity changes orientation, which is different to hanging upside down with regards to center of gravity/balance/equilibrium. Of course reverse gravity does not inconvenience the beholder, as "up" has literally become "down" for it then, ans so it just spins a bit until it is righted, just as anyone of us would when turning right side up if upside down underwater. However, hang somebody upside down without the benefits of reverse gravity and they will be disoriented because their center of gravity/balance/equilibrium will be off, thus the +2 to be hit suggestion.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
Strenuous movement uses more fatigue . . . Innate powers use fatigue too . . . meaning the beholder will run out of fatigue points rather quickly and be screwed! If one even uses the fatigue rules that is.
Again, on page 24, I, Tyrant clearly states: "Floating upside-down, however, requires an effort on the creature's part that will fatigue it after 3d6 minutes. Beholders only use this maneuver when absolutely necessary."
I think the language here makes two things quite clear:
First, you will use the Fatigue Rules, because not doing so is clearly cheating on behalf of your NPC beholder.
Secondly, this is not an "everyday occurrence" on the part of the beholder. It only uses this maneuver when no other options remain. Any DM who ignores that fact is, once again, cheating on behalf of his NPC beholder -- a creature already so powerful that it doesn't need to cheat.
Cebrion wrote:
At the very least, a beholder moving in a way that is not right side up should be considered to be off- balance . . . any strenuous movement, which this obviously is, should be considered to be running at the very least, as running it is the least strenuous of the movement types that are beyond normal movement.
"Movement" should not be confused with "Maneuver." I, Tyrant makes clear that simply maneuvering into this position and maintaining the position "fatigues" the beholder. Given these facts, I think that it is safe to assume that the beholder would not attempt to 'move down the tunnel' in this position, putting itself at an even greater disadvantage.
In addition, the DM should not suppose that the beholder would perform this maneuver while anyone was positioned above it. On page 4, I, Tyrant states: "Unfortunately, the beholder's range of vision more than makes up for this fact (poor hearing). Thieves attempting to Hide in Shadows do so with a -20% penalty."
[Edited for lots more clarity]
I completely agree. The problem is the beholder's special movement fatigue rules are both improperly and incompletely written. The rules writers didn't take into account that a model doesn't just become "fatigued". There are different levels of fatigue, and different actions that generate different amounts of fatigue each round, etc. "Floating upside-down, however, requires an effort on the creature's part that will fatigue it after 3d6 minutes." doesn't even refer properly to the fatigue rules, which is why that statement is nearly useless. The beholder is fatigued after 3d6 rounds? Is it mild fatigue, severe fatigue, moderate fatigue? And what is the per round fatigue cost? Beholders become fatigued slowly-quickly-moderately when moving thus?/? Apparently the authors didn't know their own rules well enough to tell us anything useful, and so we need to figure out what this strenuous movement capability equates to so that it can be properly dealt within within the confines of the actual fatigue rules. If this sort of maneuvering is so strenuous for the beholder that merely doing it, and it alone, will fatigue it fully in this amount of time, it would at least be equivalent to a running (not distance moved mind you, but the effort involved), in which case it wouldn't be able to fire its eye rays at all. If it maneuvers in this way and moves normally, then I would equate it to sprinting so far as fatigue cost per round is concerned.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
none of this should be allowed anyways, because nobody apparently thought out the ramifications of what they were writing and how it would work within the main rules, let alone the Players Options rules. Perhaps I am expecting too much of rules writers though.
So you agree that the Core Books are merely Guidelines and not Rules?
Yes, and especially when they are improperly written, in which case they really are not rules at all (i.e. they don't even follow the rules/establish new rules). As we can plainly see, they basically screwed up this little bit, and so that leaves everyone else to come up with their own solution.
You may have noticed a trend in all of Lanthorn's question threads. Lanthorn asks about rules for various situations, and we all hunt down what rules there are. If such rules are not satisfying, well of course anybody can change them to work as they want to, but at least before we do so, we have a wide-eyed view of things to base a final decision on. Lanthorn seems to be seeking for solutions to conundrums that makes sense, and in the absence of them he asks for opinions on what to do. Then he comes to his own conclusion as to what he will do.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
1. The beholder's eye rays automatically hit targets, who then get saving throws to avoid the effects.
2. The beholder must roll to hit with its eyes rays, after which any targets that are hit get saving throws to avoid the effects.
As I stated in another post: "I, Tyrant, page 25 states: "The beholder's control over its eye attacks is not perfect; the beholder can never be sure that its attack will hit its target with pinpoint accuracy.""
It is apparent that the 'method to be used' has already been determined by I, Tyrant -- roll to hit.
Anyone using a different method is "cheating." Why? Because as far as I have been able to determine, I am the only one "here" who considers ALL Core Books to be merely "Guidelines."
So, anyone not following the above prescribed method is "breaking the Rules" . . . and we call that "cheating."
But then, that's just my orifice speaking. Others here probably have a different understanding of "cheating."
My point regarding this whole fudging of limitations business is that, if you are looking to fudge something then do it honestly, which, to me, also means doing it properly. The way to do that is to write up a unique monster entry. You know, like if you wanted a lich to have two heads, and therefore be able to cast two spells per turn? Well, liches can't do that, but there is one lich that can, he is unique, and he has his own rules. If you want a beholder, which normally isn't maneuverable enough to toss its own limitations out the window, but that isn't also hampered by the restrictions in I, Tyrant, then write up a unique monster entry for one. If one wants to stay within the confines of the rules, this stays true to the rules aspect of the game (i.e. a unique creature has unique rules), but it also allows for doing what one wants to (i.e. the DM has the powah!). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:57 pm; edited 9 times in total
@ Lanthorn: Glad you like the "rules" in I, Tyrant and that they are what you're looking for. Glad to help with that.
There were a couple of interesting points made, however, that spark my interest:
Cebrion wrote:
First, I, Tyrant has the eye rays needing to roll to hit. That alters the way in which the monster works.
This is actually true of the 2e Monster Manual as well. For instance, the Monster Manual states that the Death Kiss (a type of beholder) gets 10 attacks and the Eye of the Deep (an aquatic beholder) gets 3 attacks, but an average, everyday Beholder (not to be confused with beholder-kin) only gets 1 attack.
So, basically, the Monster Manual is saying the beholder is relatively easy to kill. Why? Because the beholder must attack my wizard every round with his anti-magic power (because that's what every book says it is the beholder's nature to do), meaning that he has no "2nd" attack with which to attack the fighter sneaking up on him -- but who he can clearly see with his ten other eyes.
This goes against everything else that I've read about beholders. Of course, that could just be a "misprint." But then, who can tell with "rules writers" these days.
Secondly.
Cebrion wrote:
He's asking about the Monstrous Compendium beholder entry, and looking for a way to fudge the restrictions, while still remaining within the Monstrous Compendium rules.
Which Monstrous Compendium? Lanthorn is playing Greyhawk (not, for example, Planescape) and I can't find a beholder entry in the Greyhawk specific Monstrous Compendium, nor in a "generic" one.
Like I said, a Ravenloft/Planescape specific Monstrous Compendium (or Mystara, et al) doesn't count. After all, even I, Tyrant acknowledges that there's a difference between beholders found within the different settings. ("Beholders throughout the Planes," page 66.)
On a completely random encounter...I was in a local gaming shop today, and while noticing the reprints of the 3 core 1e books, just happened to notice a book by coincidence. It was entitled I, Tyrant and it was all about BEHOLDERS (nice punny title).
I flipped through the pages, not believing my incredible luck. Here is some information that I gleaned which I will share for the benefit of those reading this thread, as much of it pertains directly to our current discussion:
1) A diagram in the book has the smaller eyes all diagrammed out by location in clockwise fashion, starting with 1 being nearest the central eye and going in a round pattern (thusly, 6 is approximately towards the far back at the top of the 'head'), with 10 to the direct right of 1. These numbers correspond to the magical effects listed in your Monster Manual, Compendium, what have you (assuming they are all in the same order!).
2) I found it interesting, but completely plausible, that Beholders have very fine motor control of their smaller eyes and can, by squinting (like a human), narrow the area of effect for all their eye beams. Thusly, it is possible, say, for a Beholder to Disintegrate only part of a character, rather than the whole person, if they so chose. The same is true of its massive central eye and the Anti-Magic Ray.
There is other stuff, but this was the most pertinent to our conversation here. I was totally shocked, but gleefully so, with my complete dumb luck at having stumbled on this find. What are the chances?!
-Lanthorn the Lucky
It was Lanthorn who originally mentioned I Tyrant in this thread as you can see above. Mystic was not aware he had it in his collection until he searched for it.
All in all we have our opinion's. So arguing who or what is plausible is redundant.
What I see from Lanthorn's question's is the following. A query to help him decide on how a decision on a ruling takes place. He has always processed the information and made a decision based on the fact's and data shared in these forums.
He doesn't address the I, Tyrant movement in that quote, but my mistake on who brought up the book. I should have reviewed the earlier bits of the thread a bit more.
Moving on...
As this addresses some apparent confusion, which others may also have (and which I may have contributed to)...
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
First, I, Tyrant has the eye rays needing to roll to hit. That alters the way in which the monster works.
This is actually true of the 2e Monster Manual as well. For instance, the Monster Manual states that the Death Kiss (a type of beholder) gets 10 attacks and the Eye of the Deep (an aquatic beholder) gets 3 attacks, but an average, everyday Beholder (not to be confused with beholder-kin) only gets 1 attack.
So, basically, the Monster Manual is saying the beholder is relatively easy to kill. Why? Because the beholder must attack my wizard every round with his anti-magic power (because that's what every book says it is the beholder's nature to do), meaning that he has no "2nd" attack with which to attack the fighter sneaking up on him -- but who he can clearly see with his ten other eyes.
This goes against everything else that I've read about beholders. Of course, that could just be a "misprint." But then, who can tell with "rules writers" these days.
It is no misprint, and there is nothing wrong with the MC/I,Tyrant beholder entries (just the I, Tyrant Fatigue rules). Eye rays are "Special Attacks: Magic", and so are not included in the # Attacks stat. The beholder can make 1 attack to the font of itself with its bite against a mage while operating its anti-magic ray eye, and the fighter to the rear is very much going to be shot at by a few eyestalks. If there are more characters around the beholder, then even more eyestalks will be able to fire. But read on for my mistake...
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
He's asking about the Monstrous Compendium beholder entry, and looking for a way to fudge the restrictions, while still remaining within the Monstrous Compendium rules.
Which Monstrous Compendium? Lanthorn is playing Greyhawk (not, for example, Planescape) and I can't find a beholder entry in the Greyhawk specific Monstrous Compendium, nor in a "generic" one.
Like I said, a Ravenloft/Planescape specific Monstrous Compendium (or Mystara, et al) doesn't count. After all, even I, Tyrant acknowledges that there's a difference between beholders found within the different settings. ("Beholders throughout the Planes," page 66.)
So, if anyone could point me to the "correct" Monstrous Compendium . . . I'd love to read it. Thanks!
This one:
Yep, that is a beholder dead center there on the cover of this generic 2E core book that everyone who plays/played 2E uses/used. No rolly polly movement = ignore shooty restrictions in there, hence the discussion.
[***Here is the mistake I was referring to***]
But, I misread something, or, more accurately, read something into what is in I,Tyrant. Something important. The I,Tyrant beholder does not need to roll to hit with its eyes rays normally, only when it is partially/fully blinded. If one eyestalk is blinded, the other eyes can guide it such that it can still be used, but the one blinded eye, and only that blinded eye, must then roll to hit with a -1 penalty. If the beholder is fully blinded(i.e. ALL of its eyes have been blinded) it can still use its eyes rays, but it then needs to roll to hit with ALL of them, and with a -4 penalty. Otherwise the eyes function as per the spells/items they approximate, and so auto-hit targets, and so these two entries do NOT present the same monster with different functioning rules at all. Now, I, Tyrant makes the point of including the eyestalk limitations too, which, if a beholder could just choose to look at enemies top-on by "rolling" on its side, at will, there would be little to no reason to include the eyestalk restrictions in this entry, and yet they are there. So, that point still remains.
I,Tyrant adds great details on the eye patterns and which eyes can shoot, but the added movement bit/fatigue is poorly handled. I can see that it was added in just to show how the beholder can move, but it fails miserably as it regards fatigue and combat limitations due to such movement.
Here is another thing I eluded to earlier though. Innate abilities used by creatures use fatigue. The Spell Point System and Channellers sections in Players Options: Spells & Magic is ideal for creatures that use magic at will, rather than need to memorize spells. If the creature has no caster level, it uses its total effective hit dice as its caster level, or the minimum caster level for that spell/effect (whichever is better). A beholder effectively has hit dice values of 9, 11, 13, or 15 (based on its THAC0- see the monster attack chart for a quick reference of the correlation). Those really nasty eye rays suck up a lot of spell points each time they are used, so this may hugely curtail what a beholder may do, and for how long, well enough. When a beholder's spell points are all used up, and it decides that it still wants to (or must) shoot eyes rays and "overdo" things, it then generates Fatigue very quickly, and it may even do so to a mortal level (i.e. it kills itself, a.k.a. "From...hell's...heart...I spit at thee!" "KHAAAN!!!" ).
Working out the effective caster levels, spell points, fatigue generated, etc. will be a hefty chore, but once compiled, those notes will save invaluable time in-game. Just take the bullet, write it up, and never, ever lose those notes. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:32 am; edited 5 times in total
I don't have a stake in this discussion/debate, so have not posted, but I have been reading avidly as tensions rose to levels not seen since earlier days of Canonfire!. In support of Lanthorn's call for calm and sanity, I humbly submit my revised, condensed, somewhat bowdlerized version of recent posts:
Lanthorn: Can beholders invert? And should they be allowed to?
Cebrion: The rules do not expressly say they cannot invert, but neither do they say they can. Since this would give an already powerful monster further advantages, let us abide by the spirit of the rules and say they cannot.
Lanthorn: Aha! I have discovered I, Tyrant. Perhaps it will reveal more information about the nefarious beholder and its abilities.
Mystic-Scholar: I too have this volume, and will peruse it. Hmmm. According to this tome, beholders can indeed invert and move about, though with some difficulty; the book provides rules for this and other maneuvers previously thought impossible. Use these rules as you wish.
Cebrion: I respectfully submit that the rules within I, Tyrant bestow too many advantages upon this monster, and recommend they not be used. Furthermore, the rules seem so distinct from those previously appearing that I propose they are alternate rules for this monster, not an addition to existing rules.
Mystic-Scholar: Ah, but are not all rules actually guidelines, subject to a DM's personal preference, so long as he applies them consistently?
Cebrion: My thoughts exactly, good sir. I merely wish to extend to Lanthorn the caveat that should he use these new parameters, he and his players may find themselves facing unforeseen difficulties.
Lanthorn: Gentlemen, I applaud both your erudition and your civility.
All right. Thread edited for civility, and and a whole lot more clarity on my part in particular.
Many thanks to you, Chevalier, for your humor. Your summary is not quite spot on though, so let me tweak a few things, as I can see that some of my previous responses (which are now edited) were, how shall I say, all over the place...
Chevalier wrote:
Lanthorn: Can beholders invert? And should they be allowed to?
Cebrion: The rules do not expressly say they cannot invert, but neither do they say they can. Since this would give an already powerful monster further advantages, let us abide by the spirit of the rules, let alone the actual rules which involve limitations, and say they cannot.
Lanthorn: Aha! I have discovered I, Tyrant. Perhaps it will reveal more information about the nefarious beholder and its abilities.
Mystic-Scholar: I too have this volume, and will peruse it. Hmmm. According to this tome, beholders can indeed invert and move about, though with some difficulty; the book provides rules for this and other maneuvers previously thought impossible. Use these rules as you wish.
Cebrion: I respectfully submit that some of the "rules" within I, Tyrant bestow too many advantages upon this monster, and recommend they not be used due to being improperly written to the point that one can assume them to mean something that they may not.
Mystic-Scholar: Ah, but are not all rules actually guidelines, subject to a DM's personal preference, so long as he applies them consistently?
Cebrion: My thoughts exactly, good sir. I merely wish to extend to Lanthorn the caveat that should he use these new parameters, he and his players may find themselves facing unforeseen difficulties because one particularly important rule presented in I,Tyrant is incompletely/improperly written.
Lanthorn: Gentlemen, I applaud both your erudition and your civility.
If everyone is good with that, we can move on, though I suggest that everyone re-read the posts on this page (page 4, which is the only page that was edited) and note that my thoughts (and not anybody else's) are much clearer and better arranged (which probably would have avoided much of this).
So, please carry on folks, and let's all be like little Fonzies (myself included). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Cebrion made the claim about fatigue points, which I do use (though I am oftentimes not as meticulous as I should be with them), with respect to beholders and their eye stalks.
So...here it is: Does the firing of EACH eye beam accrue a fatigue point, OR does the beholder accumulate ONLY one point per round, regardless of the number of eye stalks employed?
Of course, I see cases for either perspective, and wondering what everyone thinks on this, especially those of you who use fatigue ratings.
Everything has a "per spell" cost. The beholder just has the benefit of not running out of spells. Innate abilities are covered in the Player Options; Spells & Magic rules under Spell Points/Channellers. A beholder will have a good number of spell points to blast off eye rays with, and these do not use fatigue at all. Once those spell points are gone though, any further eye ray powers that are used before the beholder has chance to rest will tax it greatly. If I recall correctly, a beholder that does an alpha strike when its spell points are used up will become heavily fatigued immediately, and a second alpha strike will actually kill it.
But, just because a bolder can use all of its eyes rays doesn't mean that it will. It is a smart critter. As to figuring out its powers, the caster level will be equal to the critter's hit dice, or the minimum caster level required to create the effect, whichever is better. Depending on its hit points, a beholder will have 9, 11, 13, or 15 hit dice, and, if I recall correctly, none of its power are above 7th level. So, you will need to figure out effective caster levels, depending on how many equivalent hit dice your beholder has. If it is the 15 HD equivalent version, then things get really easy, as a beholder's eye rays are all 7th level or lower effects, meaning a 15 HD equivalent beholder shoots all powers at caster level 15. The others? Well, you will have to write all of the powers down, because you will need this information to figure out the fatigue points-per-use for every eye ray, one the spell points are gone.
If you don't use Spell Points, then spell usage actually uses no fatigue at all, and so the beholder need only worry about becoming tired from moving and biting, which both use 1 fatigue point I think. A beholder will have 8 fatigue points base (due to its hit die type), plus one fatigue point for each hit dice it has (i.e. 17-23 fatigue points in total), so it could move, bite, and shoot as many eye rays as it is able to for 8-12 rounds (depending on its hit dice) before becoming mildly fatigued. If you do use fatigue points and spell points, always keep crib sheets on your monsters, especially something like a beholder. There is no way you want to deal with figuring out all of this in-game, and you will want to double check the details I posted above.
Overall, I, Tyrant really only has one bad thing in it- the variant movement/fatigue issue. I recommend either figuring out a way for it to work (counts as running; sprinting if moving too for purposes of what it can do/fatigue cost), or simply not use it, as it doesn't really do much for the beholder in-game unless you allow it to be a means of ignoring the built-in eyestalk restrictions (which I obviously do not recommend). The rest is rather good rules-wise, that being a method for distributing eye ray attacks that is sensible, and how eye ray attacks from blinded eyes are dealt with. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Thank you for the thoughtful and very expansive response.
Next question. What happens when the beholder's anti-magic ray sweeps over an area illuminated by a Light or Continual Light spell, but NOT the actual globe itself (or center of effect) that provides that brilliance? Is the light snuffed out in the area of effect, or is it ONLY nullified if the eye beam sweeps over the center focus?
Ex: a priest casts a Light spell in the air, or upon an object, that is then tossed into a darkened room. The globe sheds light outward to 20 feet in all directions. Said beholder's anti-magic ray sweeps over the room, including the shed illumination provided by the spell, but does NOT strike the object (or area) that is casting that illumination.
Imagine a a piece of white paper with a half circle cut out of one edge, but that does not include a black dot at the center. Similarly, I would think that the magic light would be eliminated within the area of the anti-magic ray (the cut-out area), even if the magic light source is not snuffed out (the black dot). If the anti-magic ray hits the source though (if a source is designated), all light winks out. You could apply that thinking to other area effects, like stinking cloud, etc.
Or not. You could also say that any spell with an area that is contacted anywhere by the anti-magic ray is snuffed out. Light is a bit different than other area effects though, seeing as it can have a source that emits it, whereas other area effects do not have source they are emitted from. More than any other reason, I like the cut-out solution for emitted effects because it would just look interesting. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Or perhaps there is a different saving throw dependent upon 
