Beholder Antimagic Ray vs Wiz Antimagic field

[Frostbiter01]

I will have to get the source of the arcs on beholders. It basically shows a beholder (10' space) moving down a hallway that is ten feet wide (2 blocks). With the main eye closed the beholder tilts forward allowing 3 eyes at an arc that starts to the left blocks in front of him and three that start at an arc that goes off in from the right side of the hallway blocks. Basically the first arc is 0 degree to 90 degrees and the other arc is 270 degrees to 360 degrees. So if the party of 6 had 3 on the left side of the hall way and 3 down the right side he could hit all 6 at the same time, meeting the restriction of no more than 3 rays per arc. It was pretty clear and even more so if some one tried to fly over the thing.

I would contend the facing arc is always where the face is but if we agree that what Greenfield said that you can't fire your eyes like yelling out as a free action but have to take a standard action at east then this will all be moot unless someone feels the Antimagic ray is an attack ray also and not just a condition.

 

[Imaculata]

I will have to get the source of the arcs on beholders. It basically shows a beholder (10' space) moving down a hallway that is ten feet wide (2 blocks). With the main eye closed the beholder tilts forward allowing 3 eyes at an arc that starts to the left blocks in front of him and three that start at an arc that goes off in from the right side of the hallway blocks. Basically the first arc is 0 degree to 90 degrees and the other arc is 270 degrees to 360 degrees. So if the party of 6 had 3 on the left side of the hall way and 3 down the right side he could hit all 6 at the same time, meeting the restriction of no more than 3 rays per arc. It was pretty clear and even more so if some one tried to fly over the thing.

Ah, well in that case there is no misunderstanding. It means that one arc is facing three players, and another arc is facing the other three players. That is completely allowed within the rules as I understand them.

I would contend the facing arc is always where the face is but if we agree that what Greenfield said that you can't fire your eyes like yelling out as a free action but have to take a standard action at east then this will all be moot unless someone feels the Antimagic ray is an attack ray also and not just a condition.

I don't think anyone would claim that the Antimagic ray is an attack. Its an effect that is either on or off during the turn of the Beholder.

BTW, I think these are totally logical and good questions you are asking. The wording about arcs is definitely lacking. And it deserves discussion in my opinion.

 

[Frostbiter01]

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.

The point is the main eye must be determined to be open or closed at the start of each round and can't be changed. It is basically a spell in effect at the beginning of the round so when the last move is to face going down the shaft it just means the Antimagic field has moved with the caster despite attacking with rays earlier. So it is move, attack, move and stop facing downward where the area of the eye effect is now down the shaft and it immediately takes affect on those in the shaft.

This is no different then your caster running around with some field or a Medusa running up and looking around the corner and you seeing her gaze.

 

[Frostbiter01]

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.

View attachment 74666

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..

You really have to tell me how you do these drawings. It is much easier when we have one. First the article I read covers this and shows it the same way you have drawn here. In fact go back to your old drawing and put Bioran between arc 1 and 4 and you have the same issue you say is caused here. In otherwords that situation exists no matter where you put the dividing line between arcs. That is why you can have them as you put them to as I explained and you drew up nicely here. But when the Antimagic ray is on that creates a coned arc that is unchangeable and so you are stuck with the other 3 as you drew above.



Despite our discussions on Arcs and panning and tilting and when you have to fire the eyes no one has yet to agree r disagree with me you have to plan where every eyestalk is ahead of time. It seems if you didn't then you could finger of death in any arc you desired just only once per round.

 

[Imaculata]

You really have to tell me how you do these drawings. It is much easier when we have one.

Just a little bit of Photoshop. I plucked some images from Google and quickly slapped it together. Once you know how to work with layers, then layer effects such as outlines, gradients and drop shadows are pretty simple. But I'm glad you like them.

In fact go back to your old drawing and put Bioran between arc 1 and 4 and you have the same issue you say is caused here.

Righto.

In otherwords that situation exists no matter where you put the dividing line between arcs. That is why you can have them as you put them to as I explained and you drew up nicely here. But when the Antimagic ray is on that creates a coned arc that is unchangeable and so you are stuck with the other 3 as you drew above.

Well I think in the case of this last example, you would have to decide which of the attacks from arc 1 hit Logue, and which hit Bioran. And you would also need to decide which attacks from arc 4 hit Bioran.

But this is where things get tricky, and I really wish the text in the Monster Manual was more clear on this. In this above example, can Bioran be hit by 6 eye rays? I mean, he is covered by two arcs at the same time, right? Or should the DM be rotating the arc for Bioran, so he's only in one arc? The text doesn't say that each character can only be hit three times. It just says the Beholder can only attack three times per arc.

So maybe the DM simply needs to decide what the orientation of the arcs is at the start of the round of the Beholder? Once you start making eye ray attacks, that is when the orientation of the arcs for that round is decided.

I'm starting to backtrack on some of what I said earlier, because you may be right. Maybe it IS allowed. But I think you want to avoid a situation where the Beholder simply changes his facing six times in the same round, so he can attack 10 times in one direction. I think the rules try to prevent that from happening.... but it is worded very poorly.

 

[Greenfield]

Can you get Finger of Death in any arc on any round?

By the book, yes.

Now as much fun as this discussion is, Frostbiter, in the end you and you alone are the DM. Your interpretation of the rules can't be wrong at your table.

In other words you don't need our permission to have the Beholder go gattling-gun on them, spinning in place and using all of its attacks at the same time on the same people.. That is, after all, what your "Beholder's point of view" argument pretty much allows.

I've been playing a long time, and in all that time I've never seen a DM be wrong. I have gotten up and walked out on DMs who abused the rules because "winning" was more important to them than the fun of the group, but I've never seen a DM be wrong.

So the real question is, I suppose, if you were a player and a DM did this to your character, would you feel like you were being abused? Like the DM was cheating?

If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to them.

 

[Imaculata]

I agree Greenfield, it is entirely up to the DM how hard he/she wants to make things on the players. If you want the players to shatter when petrified in mid air, that is your call. But always consider what is more fun for the players. You don't have to go easy on them on purpose. But for some things I would definitely try and keep things fair.

The rules for falling damage are pretty clear, so I'd probably stick with the book on that. But for the way Beholders attacks, and its arcs, it is up to you to interpret the rules. We can try and clarify things for you. But sometimes the text is simply vague, and it just becomes a matter of interpretation.

I enjoy discussing the matter though, because it is an interesting topic.

 

[Frostbiter01]

View attachment 74667

Ah, well in that case there is no misunderstanding. It means that one arc is facing three players, and another arc is facing the other three players. That is completely allowed within the rules as I understand them.



I don't think anyone would claim that the Antimagic ray is an attack. Its an effect that is either on or off during the turn of the Beholder.

BTW, I think these are totally logical and good questions you are asking. The wording about arcs is definitely lacking. And it deserves discussion in my opinion.

ok at first I thought you did not add the whole arc but I see you did you just overlayed with the eye arc if it is on.
Man wish I could just edit it.

 

[Frostbiter01]

Can you get Finger of Death in any arc on any round?

By the book, yes.

So you are saying that because it can tilt and pan it can always get any eye to attack any arc?

Now as much fun as this discussion is, Frostbiter, in the end you and you alone are the DM. Your interpretation of the rules can't be wrong at your table.

In other words you don't need our permission to have the Beholder go gattling-gun on them, spinning in place and using all of its attacks at the same time on the same people.. That is, after all, what your "Beholder's point of view" argument pretty much allows.

I appreciate that but when you have a table with 6 players that have over 120 ears combined in play experience you learn to DM by consensus for all to have fun, especially in their jobs they have important positions they are not usually app to say "What the DM says is what we must abide too". the main thing I wanted to create for this party was hw an iconic D&D monster should be played. It has powerful weapons, dominated servants, and a lair built for a Beholder. This is what they love that I play them as they should be played to strike fear even a 14th level Wizard. So I want to be ready to play, explain why I did it and for it to make sense. I want to act fast to keep the game moving and know how I want this super intelligent creature that hates all human life needs to act and since he has been watching the party he will seek to use rays on certain ones right away. I know they are looking to thro orbs of force and other powerful spells on him . He won't last that long unless they use a lot of spells just getting to him and though he has wiped out the Driders, the Derro and the Gargoyles they have been sapped of over half their spells. So they know it is coming next battle but it should not be DM'd as in a trophy for everyone. It is a real risk and the combination of lair and monster make for a great encounter

If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to them.

I guess you are right. I am pretty strict with my creatures and they have come to know it will not be a cake walk. This party knows some things are not meant to be fought. I like that as a layer. The DMs who gave us what we wanted and made it easy to get to the top was fun in moments but not lasting and not a challenge. The one thing they hate is when the encounter goes slow or that it does something they don't think it can do. They know me well enough that the only way that would happen is if I made a mistake on the creature and its tactics. So I will make sure this iconic DnD creature strikes the right level of fear it did in 1st edition as I think the 3.5 rules really should be used. Again just IMHO.

 

[Greenfield]

I wasn't addressing tilt or pan of the Beholder, or any other way to rationalize it, I was just saying that the rules as written don't make such a distinction.

Consider the Beholder has 10 eye rays, four quarters for them to cover, and a max of three in any quarter. Do the math. Some eyes need to be able to cover more than one quarter.

You want a rationalization? Eyes are on flexible stalks. They can reach up, out or down, twist and face just about any direction, over, under or around the Beholder's body, regardless of which way that body is facing.

Or you can say, "Because the rules say he can." Same result in the end. Option 2 is a lot easier.