Beholder Antimagic Ray vs Wiz Antimagic field

[Frostbiter01]

Technically, since facing changes are free, the Beholder could fire three eye rays down the tunnel, rotate 90 degrees and fire another three eye rays down the same tunnel, rotate again and fire the last three eye rays down that same tunnel, then turn and aim the Big Eye down as well.

Except, of course, that the rules say he can only fire three (maximum) in any quarter. If you allow the facing change to fire and then suppress, then it would also allow the Gattling gun effect, and I think we all know that that's wrong.

There is normally no "facing" in combat, the Beholder being a rare exception. Because of this there are no rules for whether it takes a Move or a 5'step to change facing or not. So, based on what's (not) written in the rules, his ability to turn and select his weapon's arc doesn't need any kind of "on the run" ability, no Move available.

I think we are putting too much into the wording. If you play with miniatures it is clear The 90 degree arc is clearly seen and the creature can fly and turn has a fly rating of 20' per movement action. It is not stuck going in a straight line so when it turns the eye is facing a different direction but the same 90 degree arc from the beholder's point of view, it is not based on the room location at the beginning of his movement. SO the beholder can be looking forward fire his eyes in the other three quadrants and turn during flight a different direction and fire nor 3 rays in the area he was just facing. The big eye does not keep facing the same way it turns in flight thus a FLYBY attack. I would hate to see how you played your beholders they were probably one and done. These rules are based on the beholder not from the vantage of the players about not facing them to begin with.

 

[Imaculata]

As I understand it, the rules for the Beholder were always meant so that the creature needs to make a trade off between either attacking with his eyes, or hitting them with his anti magic field. The anti magic field does not dispel effects, it only suppresses them. So the central eye needs to stay fixed on them for the anti magic field to work. While they are in the field, any spells, potions and magic items stop working for as long as they are inside the field. Once they are out of the field, everything works again.

So imagine a player plays a wizard, with a fly spell. The Beholder does a fly by attack, where its anti magic field passes over the wizard, and then the Beholder goes back into cover. That is not going to work. The fly spell is only temporarily disabled, but by the end of the Beholder's turn it works again. So that is not enough time to fall down. The rules require that the Beholder is committed to his action. So that means keeping the central eyes focused on the players for it to work.

The rules don't say anything explicitly about him changing his facing multiple times to fire all his beams, and then ending his turn with the central eye focused on the players. But I think we can all agree that would be cheating, because you would be firing multiple times in the same arc. Keep in mind that a round is about 6 seconds. So how often could you realistically turn around AND attack within 6 seconds? Well countless times really. D&D normally does not take facing into account, because during combat you are probably constantly looking around. This is why the rules talk about arcs. A Beholder is always looking in all directions, but even if he turns around, the arcs are still in the same spot, so it doesn't matter.

An example: A beholder flies towards a location in front of him, but there is a player to his right. He fires 3 eye beams from his right arc. Now what happens when he turns around to face the player? Can he attack the player again? No. It is still the same arc, despite him turning to face the player.

Now suppose the beholder makes a 90 degree turn around the player, changing his position so that it flanks the player, after also shooting 3 rays into its right arc during its move. can it attack again now? Yes. The Beholder committed to a movement, so that he would be able to hit from a different arc. This would seem completely within the rules.

If you are looking for more ideas on how to use Beholders, I recommend checking out the book Lords of Madness, which offers plenty of new feats and abilities for Beholders, along with new beholder types.

 

[Greenfield]

I think we are putting too much into the wording. If you play with miniatures it is clear The 90 degree arc is clearly seen and the creature can fly and turn has a fly rating of 20' per movement action. It is not stuck going in a straight line so when it turns the eye is facing a different direction but the same 90 degree arc from the beholder's point of view, it is not based on the room location at the beginning of his movement. SO the beholder can be looking forward fire his eyes in the other three quadrants and turn during flight a different direction and fire nor 3 rays in the area he was just facing. The big eye does not keep facing the same way it turns in flight thus a FLYBY attack. I would hate to see how you played your beholders they were probably one and done. These rules are based on the beholder not from the vantage of the players about not facing them to begin with.

The rules ARE "the wording".

I've played with players who like to argue the letter of the law, when that's in their favor, then turn around and argue "realism" (what you're doing) when that gives them the answer they want.

I'm a rules guy. It may not always make sense, and it may not always be "right", but if I can point to the rule in a book that supports my position it becomes inarguable.

Now certainly anyone can rationalize their way around the rules, as you appear to be doing. It's not a good way to play though, in my opinion.

My question to you then is this: Why start this thread, all of these threads in fact, if you've already decided upon the answers? Why ask for help you clearly don't want?

 

[Frostbiter01]

The rules ARE "the wording".

My question to you then is this: Why start this thread, all of these threads in fact, if you've already decided upon the answers? Why ask for help you clearly don't want?

First let me thank you for the help. Though I may not accept an answer in full especially if it is subjective many of these answers have helped me and I plan on changing their use going forward. It is evident that some who are answering either are not playing 3.5 or have not played it in a while. Some are playing PF or 3.0 for sure. So I need to sift through what is stated opinion and stated rules and if those rules are sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast/TSR.

The rules say nothing to support the Beholder cannot turn multiple times in a round thus the fly description. It says it may fire 3 eyes in each 90 degree arc. If it were standing still with the eyes open then there are three arcs (even if tilting) that 3 eyes which is 9 of their 10 firing around the room. If the big eye is closed that would mean 12 but the eyes can fire only once or do you assume that means 12 can fire since they are fee actions? I mean the wording does say 3!

If you make a 3 dimensional model you will find that these arcs are also 3 dimensional. Now if you draw them coming over top of the beholder you will find a spot where they all meet at a single square or point (if no grid). At this point a flying creature could easily straddle all the arcs and get fired on by all of them. Because he was in the 90 degree arc that is specified by the rules.

Furthermore the rules state, "A beholder can tilt and pan its body each round to change which rays (eyes) it can bring to bear in any given arc." This one sentence people are basing their whole argument. My first question was if it was having to tilt to bring finger of death against a wizard does that mean I need to map out where these eyes are or are they like the pic posted earlier in this thread that shows the eyes so long they can fire in any arc? No one said they mapped the eyes out which is what this sentence was saying to do or so I thought.

The second part this has to work with his Flyby attack feat and the fact that he can move 20' twice in a round and the eye rays are free actions. He does not have to stop to fire rays. Ahh but if you go forward about 10' wont who was covered in the front arc by the eye now be in the left arc or the right arc and be fired upon. Your rendering is basically saying well if they started in this arc the beholder can't move forward or turn to put them in another arc twice in the same round. That makes no sense. You are interpreting this from the player perspective such as "I want to stay in this arc so he can only hit me with those 3 rays or just the antimagic ray cuz Lord knows he can’t hit me with that and turn? Really? Lets also add the fact these creatures are super intelligent more so than the players who with this knowledge may just try to stay in one arc.

I am not sure if you use minis and a battle map but it makes more sense if you do. It basically saying that at any point along my 20' plus 20' of movement I can only bring 3 rays to bear in a 90 degree arc or the big eye with anti- magic if I decided it should stay open this round. Though it can hover, its fly speed is rated as Good so there is a turning arc if he went down and wanted to turn around and come back this time with the opposite eyes facing you again, they can only fire once per round, it would be allowed because it still meets the rule that only 3 (at the given time) can fire in that arc.

So when you say why ask, because I am looking for more precise answers. If you don't play with minis then you won’t see what I just talked about, if you did you would see how preposterous what you are saying looks like if you put it into motion. I can hear the fighter now as I move down the passage with the Beholder. "Wait I was already in one arc (the anti-Magic ray) so no matter how close he gets and I end up on his side he can’t hit me this round with those other eyes! No wonder these epic creatures die so easily. These rules are from the monsters point of view and the Lords of Madness seem to describe it the same way when it says what the eyes can see, the perspective is from the Beholder not the players.

So as I said many of the answers are great, some are just not making sense and don't play out well on the battle map. I wish others would also take some advice on this too and see it from a different view.

 

[Imaculata]

Lets try and figure this out by using some visualization. So in this picture we have our beholder, who is facing south (indicated by the pink arrow). I've color coded the different arcs: 1 = Down, 2 = Left, 3 = Up, 4 = Right. The Beholder can also aim up and down, which would be 5 and 6. But for the purpose of clarity, lets focus on just these four arcs.

In this example, the Beholder is facing Logue. So the central eye must be closed in order for the Beholder to attack at all. So lets assume the central eye is closed, and the Beholder fires up to 3 rays at Logue.

Next, it moves to the right (indicated by the red arrow) and is now facing east. Some may argue that this also changes the arc from the Beholder's perspective. I'd argue that the arcs don't change. Even though the Beholder is now facing a different direction, he would still need to attack in arc 1 to hit Bioran.

Although the rules are vague, I think the rules intend to limit the amount of attacks a Beholder can do in each direction. Now you could get around this limitation by flanking Bioran from a different angle, so you can attack in arc 2, 3 or 4. This is my interpretation of the rules. And the reason I think they should be interpreted this way, is because of the way 3.5 handles facing. The rules assume that facing is not important, since a character in combat is constantly looking around. So if facing determined the direction of the arcs, that would make it way too easy to completely ignore the arc-rule entirely. And I don't think that is what they meant. I think they meant to limit the number of attacks in each direction.

 

[Greenfield]

Let's consider the "Shot on the Run" feat along with its relatives Spell on the Run and Spring Attack ("Melee on the run", if you will), and what they mean.

Whether it's with a blade, a bow, a spell or a spell-like ability, a character can move, attack, then move again.

What they can't do is attack, move, and attack again. That's what is being proposed, and it's not what any of these feats/abilities do.

 

[Frostbiter01]

Let's consider the "Shot on the Run" feat along with its relatives Spell on the Run and Spring Attack ("Melee on the run", if you will), and what they mean.

Whether it's with a blade, a bow, a spell or a spell-like ability, a character can move, attack, then move again.

What they can't do is attack, move, and attack again. That's what is being proposed, and it's not what any of these feats/abilities do.

Ok this one helps me a lot with the understanding of handling the Beholder. Greenfield, tell me if I misunderstand your suppositions here in your reply.

You are saying that even though the eye rays fire as a free action (though limited to firing once/round) it is not like the free action of yelling out fire, fire as you move down the hall way, all the way down the hallway? You are saying that some free actions can be done anytime but this free action only occurs if they take a standard action for combat? Did I get your assumption there correct? You also quote a normal monster can move and attack or attack them move. With flyby they can attack at anytime during their movement which is a feat the Beholder has. SO yes it can run and gun so to speak. But it gives up its second move action. The last action item you state they cannot move, attack then attack again. The assumption is that all the eyes must fire at the same time then, correct? Also I am assuming you are not counting the main eye as an attack as it presents the Antimagic ray as always on, no different than a wizard attacking while having an Antimagic field on as he moves about. You meant he could not fire more rays even if they had not fired prior? Am I correct in stating your assumptions?

 

[Frostbiter01]

View attachment 74662

In this example, the Beholder is facing Logue. So the central eye must be closed in order for the Beholder to attack at all. So lets assume the central eye is closed, and the Beholder fires up to 3 rays at Logue..

If that is the case not only would you have the 3 rays at Logue you would fire 3 more from 4th arc at Bioran.

Next, it moves to the right (indicated by the red arrow) and is now facing east. Some may argue that this also changes the arc from the Beholder's perspective. I'd argue that the arcs don't change. Even though the Beholder is now facing a different direction, he would still need to attack in arc 1 to hit Bioran.

First the facing argument here is an issue. In all versions before and after whenever facing is decreed, the facing follows the face of the creature. Just check out gaze weapons if you must, they are not 360 degrees. You can sneak up on them. The main reason is he eye ray of anti magic can fire only one way. Even your diagram says you are looking at this from the player perspective. If I rename arcs 1 - 4 as forward, left, Backward, and right it would be the same way as you have described it because you are setting up per your player instead of the creature. I can rename them that way because those exact descriptions don't change no matter what the creature does. The creature creates the arcs and where he swings his eye determines that. In fact in some books state the arc (especially if the main eye is closed) can be driven like a line right through the beholder center. Thus getting 6 eyes blasting the party ahead (3 to the left of the center line and 3 to the right of the center line). When the eye is open you are forced to the arcs you have above. (Nice Pic by the way). So I could have a totally different arc if the eye is closed compared to the arc when it is open.

Although the rules are vague, I think the rules intend to limit the amount of attacks a Beholder can do in each direction. Now you could get around this limitation by flanking Bioran from a different angle, so you can attack in arc 2, 3 or 4. This is my interpretation of the rules. And the reason I think they should be interpreted this way, is because of the way 3.5 handles facing. The rules assume that facing is not important, since a character in combat is constantly looking around. So if facing determined the direction of the arcs, that would make it way too easy to completely ignore the arc-rule entirely. And I don't think that is what they meant. I think they meant to limit the number of attacks in each direction.

Yeah I would not use your method as it does not make sense except that it does if only attacking at a single time in the game. Again please do not think the Antimagic ray is an attack it is more like a spell that is active at the time of combat and just happens for good or bad to shift with movement.. If we look at it that way that it is not an attack but a circumstance as it moves its body then it will attack on the fly one at a time when it can shoot its eyes and come to rest with the main eye facing a new direction and now Antimagic field going that way. If I have some one on watch over a wall or if someone has a ready action t unleash a bolt at the opening of the door facing matters. And it can change if they target a diff door.

 

[Imaculata]

If that is the case not only would you have the 3 rays at Logue you would fire 3 more from 4th arc at Bioran.

The example is not about that though. I'm trying to answer how the arcs work, not how to best reduce Bioran to a pile of dust. Obviously if you wanted to hit both characters, you could do so without moving or changing facing at all. But what I wanted to illustrate, is that the positioning of the arc does not change just because the monster changes facing.

Of course in this example I could have also drawn a pillar in between the Beholder and Bioran, so the Beholder has a reason to change position in order to hit him. But I did not want to clutter up the explanation too much with extra details.

First the facing argument here is an issue. In all versions before and after whenever facing is decreed, the facing follows the face of the creature. Just check out gaze weapons if you must, they are not 360 degrees.

But not when it comes to the ray attacks from the eyes. Facing only matters for the direction of the anti magic field from the central eye, which disables one arc. But it has no relevance to the arcs that determine which eyes can attack which player.

The creature creates the arcs and where he swings his eye determines that.

No, I think that is an incorrect way to describe it. Try and imagine it as areas of effect. The creature does not create the arcs, but they are spaces surrounding the Beholder that only a limited number of eye stalks can occupy. The rules try to simulate the fact that the 10 eye stalks aren't all on the same side of the creature, and thus they can't all attack in the same direction. The eye stalks can aim at any target within any of the arcs that I've illustrated, plus also up and down. But only three at a time in any arc, because just like in the illustration, the Beholder only has about 3 eyes on each side of its body.

In fact in some books state the arc (especially if the main eye is closed) can be driven like a line right through the beholder center. Thus getting 6 eyes blasting the party ahead (3 to the left of the center line and 3 to the right of the center line).

If this is true, it may only be true for older or newer versions of D&D. I don't remember ever reading it in the 3.5 PHB, DMG, Monster Manual, or even Lords of Madness. I try not to mix the rules of other versions. None of the descriptions of 3.5 Beholders that I've read make mention of being allowed to aim 6 eyes in the same arc. What you are describing is basically having two half-arcs face the party at the same time, so it can attack with 6 eyes simultaneously. That seems to be bending the rules to do exactly the opposite of what was intended.



In the above example two arcs are facing Bioran at the same time, which would technically allow the beholder to fire 6 eye rays at Bioran. Is this intended? I don't think it is. Its not like the beholder has 6 eye stalks growing on one side of its body all of a sudden. It should still only attack with 3 eyes in Bioran's direction. So I don't think you should be rotating the arcs to get two arcs to face one character. Just keep them like they are in my previous example, with one arc facing the target directly.

Now in the picture I lined up the target directly below the Beholder. Obviously if Bioran was south east of the Beholder, the arcs WOULD be rotated like in this picture, so that again only one arc is attacking him.

When the eye is open you are forced to the arcs you have above. (Nice Pic by the way). So I could have a totally different arc if the eye is closed compared to the arc when it is open.

Thanks, you're welcome. I thought it would make the discussion a bit easier, so we're not talking past each other.

I don't think the Beholder has a totally different arc if the central eye is open or closed. I think if the central eye is open, it simply has one less arc that it can fire in. So with it's central eye closed, it can fire in 6 arcs, but if it is open, it can only fire in 5 arcs (because the one it is facing automatically cancels any magic effects, including its own). So for example in the top left example, if the central eye is open, then it can only fire in arcs 2,3,4,5,6, but not in 1. The arcs themselves, nor their position do not change, regardless of the facing of the creature, or whether its central is open or closed.

 

[Greenfield]

Ok this one helps me a lot with the understanding of handling the Beholder. Greenfield, tell me if I misunderstand your suppositions here in your reply.

You are saying that even though the eye rays fire as a free action (though limited to firing once/round) it is not like the free action of yelling out fire, fire as you move down the hall way, all the way down the hallway? You are saying that some free actions can be done anytime but this free action only occurs if they take a standard action for combat? Did I get your assumption there correct? You also quote a normal monster can move and attack or attack them move. With flyby they can attack at anytime during their movement which is a feat the Beholder has. SO yes it can run and gun so to speak. But it gives up its second move action. The last action item you state they cannot move, attack then attack again. The assumption is that all the eyes must fire at the same time then, correct? Also I am assuming you are not counting the main eye as an attack as it presents the Antimagic ray as always on, no different than a wizard attacking while having an Antimagic field on as he moves about. You meant he could not fire more rays even if they had not fired prior? Am I correct in stating your assumptions?

You described a sequence that said:

1) Move over the vertical tunnel.
2) Fire eye rays down at the party.
3) Use further movement to bring another eye (Anti-Magic Cone) to bear, and use it.

This amounts to move, attack, move and attack.

Flyby Attack allows a single move and a standard action, with the standard action taking place at any point in the movement.

The Free Action aspect of the Beholder's eye beams muddies the waters a bit, but the intent of the rules is clear: Move-act-move is legal under Flyby, Move-act-move-act is not.