D&D 5E Beholder Legendary Action

Werebat

Explorer

• Apr 24, 2017

• #1

I know it is not in the text, but would it be unreasonable for a DM to allow a beholder to use a legendary action to refocus its central eye (antimagic field)?

Seems like it would make sense for it to be able to do so, and also keeps the central eye power useful to the beholder rather than just something the players can meta game into a disadvantage for it ("I move 15' to the left, cast, and then 5' to the right so it can't hit me with its eye rays!").

What do you folks think?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

jgsugden

Legend

• Apr 24, 2017

• #2

Reasonable. You're the DM. Tweak away.

 

S

schnee

First Post

• Apr 24, 2017

• #3

I'm a big fan of doing stuff like that to make solo monsters a lot more of a challenge.

The DM of my current adventure has given the enemy Necromancers a small radius effect of anti-magic. It makes it a lot more nerve-wracking to see at least half of our spells fail outright; we've had to adopt radically different tactics in those circumstances.

It didn't matter that it wasn't a player character obtainable ability; it mattered that it was fun.

 

J

jimmytheccomic

First Post

• Apr 24, 2017

• #4

Moving the anti-magic field might be more useful as a reaction or an interrupt, than a Legendary.

 

Werebat

Explorer

• Apr 24, 2017

• #5

jimmytheccomic said:

Moving the anti-magic field might be more useful as a reaction or an interrupt, than a Legendary.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea. It's not like the beholder is going to be using its reaction for much else.

 

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

• Apr 24, 2017

• #6

I like it better as a Legendary action than a reaction mainly because it burns a valuable Legendary action to refocus it's anti-magic field. Beholders are already very powerful without adding a new reaction ability.

 

J

jimmytheccomic

First Post

• Apr 24, 2017

• #7

Warmaster Horus said:

I like it better as a Legendary action than a reaction mainly because it burns a valuable Legendary action to refocus it's anti-magic field. Beholders are already very powerful without adding a new reaction ability.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the Legendary happens between players turns, so it doesn't really address the initial problem- PCs will still hop in and out on their turn.

 

A

Arnwolf666

Adventurer

• Apr 24, 2017

• #8

I just let the beholder follow people wherever it wants with its eyes. It's not like people are frozen in time waiting for their turn on the initiative count. Hate it when rules make it feel that way. That's things DM's need to fix on their own with Rule #1

 

T

Tormyr

Adventurer

• Apr 25, 2017

• #9

That's a 150' cone with 120' eye rays. If the beholder is far enough away (90') and airborne, at least some of the characters should have a lot of difficulty escaping and doing something on their turn.

Beholders are also slow. A reposition might work as a legendary action, but a reaction might be a bit much (although don't let my thoughts on it stop you ).

As for running out of the cone, doing something and then running back into the cone, why cannot the beholder rotate a bit, fire its eye rays, and then rotate back?

 

B

Brandegoris

First Post

• Apr 26, 2017

• #10

Werebat said:

I know it is not in the text, but would it be unreasonable for a DM to allow a beholder to use a legendary action to refocus its central eye (antimagic field)?

Seems like it would make sense for it to be able to do so, and also keeps the central eye power useful to the beholder rather than just something the players can meta game into a disadvantage for it ("I move 15' to the left, cast, and then 5' to the right so it can't hit me with its eye rays!").

What do you folks think?

Click to expand...

I find it entirely reasonable