Beholder eye stalks

[ScionJustice]

The sword can cut someone in two with a critical hit. Just not everyone, a critical hit with a sword can also deal a nominal amount of damage (2) as well. If you want to throw out logic, you need a far better argument than you have brought. The subject of this thread is on taking out beholder eyes/eye stalks, not monks, and any argument around balance fails.

 

[Theroc]

The sword can cut someone in two with a critical hit. Just not everyone, a critical hit with a sword can also deal a nominal amount of damage (2) as well. If you want to throw out logic, you need a far better argument than you have brought. The subject of this thread is on taking out beholder eyes/eye stalks, not monks, and any argument around balance fails.

And I already told you the Rules As Written(to my knowledge) indicate no way for you do to this, and you then brought up logic(which also isn't in the RAW.)

If arguments around balance fail, then arguments using rules fail because the rules are attempting to instate balance...

I don't understand what answer you want here, besides: Yes Scion, you're right. If you tell the DM you want to hit the eyestalks, you can remove them.

 

[ScionJustice]

And I already told you the Rules As Written(to my knowledge) indicate no way for you do to this, and you then brought up logic(which also isn't in the RAW.)

If arguments around balance fail, then arguments using rules fail because the rules are attempting to instate balance...

I don't understand what answer you want here, besides: Yes Scion, you're right. If you tell the DM you want to hit the eyestalks, you can remove them.

Logic isn't in the rules? The entire game is based around applying logic to a fantasy realm with magic and monsters. Do you understand that giants are stronger than halfllings is based on the logic of them being bigger?

Second, arguments based around balance fail and that has nothing to do with arguments bases around rules. There is no reason to believe that anything is suppose to balance out, the rules don't really attempt to instill much balance and I'm glad that they don't. If you really think that, tell me how you think the rules make a 12 level barbarian, cleric, and wizard balanced.

The answer I'm looking for is one that makes sense. Is that really that hard to understand? Your arguments don't make a lick of sense.

 

[Theroc]

Logic isn't in the rules? The entire game is based around applying logic to a fantasy realm with magic and monsters. Do you understand that giants are stronger than halfllings is based on the logic of them being bigger?

Second, arguments based around balance fail and that has nothing to do with arguments bases around rules. There is no reason to believe that anything is suppose to balance out, the rules don't really attempt to instill much balance and I'm glad that they don't. If you really think that, tell me how you think the rules make a 12 level barbarian, cleric, and wizard balanced.

The answer I'm looking for is one that makes sense. Is that really that hard to understand? Your arguments don't make a lick of sense.

Logically if I hit you with a two handed longsword with a good swing, you'd be cut in half. I'm applying logic here. Then you mention HP, but don't account for bleeding.

Your argument makes no sense to me either, as you seem to just want to call me stupid, in essence.

As for balance between Wizard, Barbarian and Cleric, I'd say the balance is a barbarian has good melee skills all the time, while a wizard and cleric have a limited number of spells which can be stronger than a barbarians attacks.

 

[arcsPanacea]

The rules of D&D are built to allow people to have a faster-paced tabletop game with set, simple, and defined numbers tied to more complex situations. There are surely ways to do nearly anything in the DnD world, but asking for a Fireball [a spell you get at level 5-6 (if I remember correctly, I haven't played a Sorc/Wiz in years) mind you] to render a beholder obsolete is absolutely idiocy. For the same reason that a level 20 pixy can get hit with a 40 lb hammer and survive easily, you can't just explode all of a Beholder's eyes with a single spell unless that spell happens to kill the beholder or specifically have an effect that would do such a thing. Cleverness is nice, and it can benefit you GREATLY in D&D, but mistaking "I do fireball! It's AoE! Beholders have lots of eyes! AoE hits all eyes!!" for cleverness would be foolish.

 

[ScionJustice]

The rules of D&D are built to allow people to have a faster-paced tabletop game with set, simple, and defined numbers tied to more complex situations. There are surely ways to do nearly anything in the DnD world, but asking for a Fireball [a spell you get at level 5-6 (if I remember correctly, I haven't played a Sorc/Wiz in years) mind you] to render a beholder obsolete is absolutely idiocy. For the same reason that a level 20 pixy can get hit with a 40 lb hammer and survive easily, you can't just explode all of a Beholder's eyes with a single spell unless that spell happens to kill the beholder or specifically have an effect that would do such a thing. Cleverness is nice, and it can benefit you GREATLY in D&D, but mistaking "I do fireball! It's AoE! Beholders have lots of eyes! AoE hits all eyes!!" for cleverness would be foolish.

Please don't just call it foolish repeatedly and think you've made a point. It doesn't matter what level you get fireball at, that has no relevance.

 

[ScionJustice]

Logically if I hit you with a two handed longsword with a good swing, you'd be cut in half. I'm applying logic here. Then you mention HP, but don't account for bleeding.

Your argument makes no sense to me either, as you seem to just want to call me stupid, in essence..

I'm not arguing against your bleeding point idea here. Please stay on topic, the topic being what is in the title. My argument makes perfect sense and I have not seen one point I find credible.

 

[arcsPanacea]

The point I've made is that, while the rules of D&D don't take every matter of physics into account, they allow the player and DM an experience that more complex, all-encompassing rules cannot. No one wants to sit around for an hour arguing about whether that fireball should affect a creature once or affect it multiple times seperately for all of its limbs, weak spots, etc.

It's simply not efficient or fun. While I understand the desire to be able to take on legendary things with little-to-no effort, it does break the game to ask that the rules be bent based upon an argument that doesn't take into account the fact that the rules exist for a reason. If you want to overcome what you shouldn't, don't try to bend the rules, think of a clever and innovative way for your character to overcome the situation rather than his player.

PS | Until you show that your basis for credibility on this point is the rules of D&D and not physics, any argument on this subject, not to mention yours, is going to be irrelevant.

 

[Theroc]

I'm not arguing against your bleeding point idea here. Please stay on topic, the topic being what is in the title. My argument makes perfect sense and I have not seen one point I find credible.

Your point is AoE fire blinds/destroys eyestalks. Fireball doesn't cause a blinding affect, Beholder eyestalks don't have HP, and nowhere have I seen it written that they are 'flimsier' than a human limb. When I point to balance, you say balance is meaningless and to argue logic. I argue logic, you tell me I'm off topic when I use an example to illustrate my point.

If you don't want my opinion, just say you don't want my opinion and I'll stop bothering trying to convey my point.

~shrug~ If you want, talk your DM into letting you make a beholder useless with a single spell.

 

[Kask]

A place to start:

From the 1st Ed Monster Manual:

"...Atop the sphere are 10 eyestalks, while in its central area are a great eleventh eye and a large mouth filled with pointed teeth. The body is protected by a hard chitinous covering. The creature's eyestalks and eyes are also protected, although less well (thus the armor classes of 2 and 7 respectively). Because of its particular nature the beholder is able to withstand the loss of its eyestalks, these members are not computed as part of its hit point damage potential, and lost eyestalks will eventually grow back (1 week per lost member). The body of the monster can withstand two-thirds of its total damage potential, while the great central eye can withstand one-third this total, i.e. a beholder with 45 hit points con withstand 30 hit points of damage to its body before being killed; the eleventh eye can withstand 15 points before..."