D&D 5E Beholder Legendary Action

[Warmaster Horus]

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?

This. A beholder will usually divert it's primary eye while using it's secondary ones. Players could dart in/out of cone on their turns to avoid Legendary eye rays but a Legendary Pivot could adjust to those moves at the use of Legendary action.

 

[aco175]

I would caution trying to nerf the casters in this scenario. I like the idea of moving the antimagic field as a legendary action, but not allowing the caster to use his abilities is not fun. The casters could think about tactics though and move apart from each other so at least one can use his abilities. As a reaction it either seems like targeting the caster, which is not fun, but sound tactics for survival on the beholders part, or allows the caster to merely move half his speed and wait until the beholder turns before moving the other half of his speed before casting. This last part seems a bit hokey rules-wise.

 

[Werebat]

This. A beholder will usually divert it's primary eye while using it's secondary ones. Players could dart in/out of cone on their turns to avoid Legendary eye rays but a Legendary Pivot could adjust to those moves at the use of Legendary action.

Could be useable as a reaction OR a legendary action.

I mean seriously, what the players are trying to do with this little maneuver -- literally run sideways out of someone's field of vision -- is silly, especially if the person they are trying to do this to is intentionally tracking them with their eyes.

The rule is that the beholder can adjust the cone's direction at the start of their turn ONLY. There HAS to be some limitation so it doesn't become active all the time, in a 360 degree field, whenever it is to the advantage of the beholder (and inactive whenever it is not). But I think RAW is a bit limiting to the beholder and invites silly munchkin stuff to the table.

Edit: I like it being both. The reaction version represents the beholder tracking one guy with its central eye -- say, a caster -- while the legendary action represents it suddenly shifting the focus of its central eye to a different area.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

Or even just a straight-up part of its action. Instead of "The beholder focuses its central eye pointing northeast", just "the beholder focuses its central eye on Mordenkainen." After all, that's how eyes work normally--they focus on a creature or an object, not a direction per se.

 

[Tormyr]

Could be useable as a reaction OR a legendary action.

I mean seriously, what the players are trying to do with this little maneuver -- literally run sideways out of someone's field of vision -- is silly, especially if the person they are trying to do this to is intentionally tracking them with their eyes.

The rule is that the beholder can adjust the cone's direction at the start of their turn ONLY. There HAS to be some limitation so it doesn't become active all the time, in a 360 degree field, whenever it is to the advantage of the beholder (and inactive whenever it is not). But I think RAW is a bit limiting to the beholder and invites silly munchkin stuff to the table.

Edit: I like it being both. The reaction version represents the beholder tracking one guy with its central eye -- say, a caster -- while the legendary action represents it suddenly shifting the focus of its central eye to a different area.

Ah, I had forgotten that it had to set the direction at the beginning of its turn. I would play it as the beholder setting up the cone so everyone but one is covered at the start of its turn, and it hammers that target. The PCs cannot see where the the cone is. So the concept of where it is facing and its hard limits are not detectable until a PC crosses the boundary and experiences the difference. In most cases the PCs should not have enough movement to move, fire, and return to the safety area.

 

[Tormyr]

Duplicate post.

 

[Werebat]

I would caution trying to nerf the casters in this scenario. I like the idea of moving the antimagic field as a legendary action, but not allowing the caster to use his abilities is not fun. The casters could think about tactics though and move apart from each other so at least one can use his abilities. As a reaction it either seems like targeting the caster, which is not fun, but sound tactics for survival on the beholders part, or allows the caster to merely move half his speed and wait until the beholder turns before moving the other half of his speed before casting. This last part seems a bit hokey rules-wise.

Truly, even a beholder's eyes would well up with tears at the plight of the poor, poor casters in D&D...

 

[Prakriti]

There is already an official rule for this. It's called facing. Beholders are basically special monsters who make use of this optional rule even if it's not generally part of your campaign.

The way it works is that a creature can change its facing whenever it ends its move, or "as a reaction when any other creature moves" (DMG, p. 252).

 

[Brandegoris]

There is already an official rule for this. It's called facing. Beholders are basically special monsters who make use of this optional rule even if it's not generally part of your campaign.

The way it works is that a creature can change its facing whenever it ends its move, or "as a reaction when any other creature moves" (DMG, p. 252).

Where has THIS guy been!!!?? Am I right??? Thanks for the clarification!