Beholder eye stalks

[ScionJustice]

We all know beholders have some super powerful abilities from their eye rays, but we also know that eye are very vulnerable and not being encased in a skull will make them even more vulnerable. In 3.5, is there any rules on how much damage the eye can take before they are destroyed. I was figuring if you hit a beholder with a fireball/other area spell (it's anti-magic eye is closed) that the damage should be enough to destroy all of the eyes.

If you don't know of any rule in 3.5, do you have any house rules on this subject?

 

[Theroc]

I didn't think D&D did the whole, "Damage a specific appendage" thing.

 

[ScionJustice]

If you have eyes that are incredibly powerful and they are outside the main body, just attached by flimsy stalks, I think it's appropriate that you can destroy an eye(s) instead of having to finish off the entire creature. I know in 2nd edition there were rules on this, and it only makes sense that you could do this.

 

[Theroc]

If you have eyes that are incredibly powerful and they are outside the main body, just attached by flimsy stalks, I think it's appropriate that you can destroy an eye(s) instead of having to finish off the entire creature. I know in 2nd edition there were rules on this, and it only makes sense that you could do this.

So, if I'm fighting a level 20 monk, I should be able to cut his arms and legs off, because they're very powerful and just attached to flimsy joints, right?

Edit: As a note, I do not know the RAW standpoint, though I don't recall anything to indicate this, so I'd assume it'd be a DM fiat. I personally don't feel the beholder should be given such a weakness unless similar things can be done to the players.

 

[ScionJustice]

So, if I'm fighting a level 20 monk, I should be able to cut his arms and legs off, because they're very powerful and just attached to flimsy joints, right?

Edit: As a note, I do not know the RAW standpoint, though I don't recall anything to indicate this, so I'd assume it'd be a DM fiat. I personally don't feel the beholder should be given such a weakness unless similar things can be done to the players.

If you did enough damage to a monk that it was reasonable to cut a limb off and you had some kind of called shot. Limbs are certainly stronger than eyes and eye stalks, I don't know why you would compare the two. You say that you don't think that a beholder should have this weakness, so why would a beholders eyes not get burnt with 35 damage to them? They are very flimsy, out side the body, and eyes are very weak. Apply logic to the game, that's why a two handed sword does more damage than a caltrop, logic.

 

[Theroc]

If you did enough damage to a monk that it was reasonable to cut a limb off and you had some kind of called shot. Limbs are certainly stronger than eyes and eye stalks, I don't know why you would compare the two. You say that you don't think that a beholder should have this weakness, so why would a beholders eyes not get burnt with 35 damage to them? They are very flimsy, out side the body, and eyes are very weak. Apply logic to the game, that's why a two handed sword does more damage than a caltrop, logic.

Applying Logic to the game? Alright. Why doesn't a single Two handed Swordstroke auto-kill on a critical blow. A very good stroke with a good greatsword would cleave a man in two. Also, by logic, any fire-based attack would have a very high chance of catching you on fire.

Lightning would have a highly magnified effect on an enemy wearing metal armor, and would ALSO have a chance to catch you on fire.

Logically, if I get stabbed I bleed, so I should hemorrage HP, instead of the wounding enchantment reflecting that, as all slashing/piercing weapons would.

Not trying to attack you, trying to point out that logic can't always be applied. I usually prefer logic, but why bother hitting the beholder directly if you can just have the group focusfire each eye first, then finish off the completely crippled BBEG?

 

[ScionJustice]

Is your argument that logic should not be applied to D&D?

 

[Kask]

Lightning would have a highly magnified effect on an enemy wearing metal armor, and would ALSO have a chance to catch you on fire.

Or, it could happen like real life when a power line worker that wears a metalic conductive suit that causes the electricity to take the path of least resistance to ground and thus having NO effect on the body...

 

[Theroc]

Or, it could happen like real life when a power line worker that wears a metalic conductive suit that causes the electricity to take the path of least resistance to ground and thus having NO effect on the body...

That depends how the suit was set up... and whether or not you were sweating underneath the suit, Kask. If you were sweating and your skin touched the metal during the encounter, bam! lightning reroutes through the body.

Scion:
My argument is that logic does not ALWAYS apply, especially in cases where it skews balance. If I score a critical hit with a greatsword on an unarmored opponent, logically, they'd be mortally wounded... but that's hardly fair to Monks, now is it?

 

[Kask]

If I score a critical hit with a greatsword on an unarmored opponent, logically, they'd be mortally wounded... but that's hardly fair to Monks, now is it?

The way hit points are defined, you didn't actually damage a high level monk, so yes parts are unrealistic. It is important to have certain fundamentals grounded in what we can understand without explanation though.