Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 6825689" data-attributes="member: 6801286">[ATTACH]74662[/ATTACH]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.</blockquote>

Verification