Beholder eye stalks

[risner]

If you don't know of any rule in 3.5, do you have any house rules on this subject?

Hydra has rules, but it is a creature specific rule.

You shouldn't add rules unless you allow the NPC's to use the same rules against PC's. In other words, it is BAD for the PC's to add house rules this way OR just unfair.

 

[azhrei_fje]

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.

I see that you've just joined ENworld, so perhaps you're not familiar with the way discussions here are typically held.

An individual (such a yourself) postulates a theory about why something should work a certain way. Then others post either (a) opposing theories that produce the same result, or (b) reasons why the initial theory is invalid or wouldn't work for some reason.

In general, someone who posts about how they would like to add a rule that isn't in the books (damage to individual eye stalks, sundering the limbs of an octopus, poking a giant in the eye with a spear) are usually told that in their game they're welcome to introduce any rule that they feel is appropriate. Such answers usually include rule quotes (or mention of rules) that describe why this shouldn't be done, but it's your game so do what you want.

In the case of beholder eye stalks, there are no rules that allow you to target individual eye stalks whether it's a melee attack, ranged attack, or area of effect. Therefore what you're postulating is not possible using the 3.x rule set. If you badly want the ability, add it to your game as a house rule.

As a general piece of advice, be careful about what rules you add. It's very easy to go down a slippery slope where a single rule change in one place means that other places should have similar rule changes. And pretty soon you have too many house rules to keep track of. Examples of this include the massive damage rule (and house rules that tweak the way it works), falling damage, and anything that is magical or magic-related related.

Good gaming!

 

[ScionJustice]

I see that you've just joined ENworld, so perhaps you're not familiar with the way discussions here are typically held.

An individual (such a yourself) postulates a theory about why something should work a certain way. Then others post either (a) opposing theories that produce the same result, or (b) reasons why the initial theory is invalid or wouldn't work for some reason.

In general, someone who posts about how they would like to add a rule that isn't in the books (damage to individual eye stalks, sundering the limbs of an octopus, poking a giant in the eye with a spear) are usually told that in their game they're welcome to introduce any rule that they feel is appropriate. Such answers usually include rule quotes (or mention of rules) that describe why this shouldn't be done, but it's your game so do what you want.

In the case of beholder eye stalks, there are no rules that allow you to target individual eye stalks whether it's a melee attack, ranged attack, or area of effect. Therefore what you're postulating is not possible using the 3.x rule set. If you badly want the ability, add it to your game as a house rule.

As a general piece of advice, be careful about what rules you add. It's very easy to go down a slippery slope where a single rule change in one place means that other places should have similar rule changes. And pretty soon you have too many house rules to keep track of. Examples of this include the massive damage rule (and house rules that tweak the way it works), falling damage, and anything that is magical or magic-related related.

Good gaming!

As you know AoE is not targeting. Also, the reasons given why it would not work were not reasonable. I was looking for a logical reason why it would or would not work, I was given illogical reasons.

 

[Kask]

As you know AoE is not targeting. Also, the reasons given why it would not work were not reasonable. I was looking for a logical reason why it would or would not work, I was given illogical reasons.

You were actually given reasons that are logical when viewed from the 3.x rules set...

 

[risner]

As you know AoE is not targeting. Also, the reasons given why it would not work were not reasonable. I was looking for a logical reason why it would or would not work, I was given illogical reasons.

You were given very reasonable and very logical reasons.

You don't care for them.

So do as you wish, just to be fair allow your NPC's to do the same to snip off the heads of your PC's with the same house rules you introduce.

 

[Keith Robinson]

Hi ScionJustice,

I think what azhrei_fje was trying to say is that you've posted your question in the rules forum, so will generally speaking get a repsonse based on the RAW. You might be better starting a new thread in the D&D 3rd Edition House Rules forum, which is a better place for discussing changes you'd like to implement and to get feedback/help, etc.

 

[allenw]

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..."

To add the conclusion of that section:
"Eyestalks take from 8 to 12 hit points each before
being lost. The body of a beholder represents 75% of potential hit area, the
central eye and the eyestalks 10% each, and the 10 small eyes 5%."

What the OP wants does seem to be somewhat in the spirit of 1st Edition (though certainly not 3rd). Even in 1st edition, though, what part of a beholder you hit was based on chance, not on called shots, and a Fireball wouldn't attack each part separately unless the DM was feeling really, really generous.
I also note that, far from being "fragile", a 1st-edition Beholder's eyestalk was AC 2 (equal to full plate mail), and had 8-12 HP (equivalent to 2-3 peasants, or 1 medium warhorse).

 

[ppaladin123]

Hydra has rules, but it is a creature specific rule.

You shouldn't add rules unless you allow the NPC's to use the same rules against PC's. In other words, it is BAD for the PC's to add house rules this way OR just unfair.

You can certainly play with a "PCs are special and play by different rules," mentality and have fun. You can't tell someone that is the wrong way to play. On the other hand, if you are going to add this kind of house rule you need to consider the implications for encounter difficulty, balance, etc.

 

[ppaladin123]

As you know AoE is not targeting. Also, the reasons given why it would not work were not reasonable. I was looking for a logical reason why it would or would not work, I was given illogical reasons.

The reason is that 3.5e has no rules for targeting individual sections of monsters. It also has no rules for "temperature that melts eye-balls," and does not allow you to blind enemies with a fireball. The authors did not give any mechanical description of the beholder's eye stalks or their relative strength. There is nothing in the current rule set that allows you to say their eyes are fragile or relatively unprotected. For all we know their eye-stalks are stronger than steel and their eyes are made of invincible crystal. For the purposes of 3.5. combat statistics, they do not exist apart from the rest of the beholder.

Examine these two statements:

"It does not specifically say I can't do it, so I can."

"This is what the rules say I can do. I can only do these things unless I make a house rule to expand my options."

D&D is the second kind of game. You are trying to argue using the first statement. You say that everything that is logical in the real world should be possible. Essentially you are arguing that there is an unwritten ruleset that applies where ever logic (as you interpret it)dictates. D&D is not the real world. It is a set a rules designed to allow everyone to get together and play the game using AGREEDED UPON RULES AND ABSTRACTIONS. Arguments over what is logical and what is possible are exactly why the rule-set exists. We are trying to avoid the, "I shot you, you are dead. No, I am not, I dodged that because the sun was in your eye," arguments that kids have when play cowboys and indians in their backyards.

Go ahead and make a houserule about fragile eye-stacks. In your world, beholders can have fragile, easy-to-target body parts and fireballs can blind monsters. Just understand that it is your world then, not a world generated with the d&d rule set alone. You will never find rules justification for this; it is a house rule. Just make sure everyone who is playing agrees to it and agrees to all the ramifications that come from it and have fun.

 

[allenw]

Hydra has rules, but it is a creature specific rule.

I note that even for the 3.5 hydra (Hydra :: d20srd.org), area effects do not affect each head separately: "Any attack that is not (or cannot be) an attempt to sunder a head affects the body"; also, "Targeted magical effects cannot sever a hydra’s heads (and thus must be directed at the body) unless they deal slashing damage and could be used to make sunder attempts" (and yes, I realize that Fireball isn't "targeted," but that's what the first quote is for).
However, area-effect fire or acid attacks *can* be used to cauterize multiple stumps of already-severed heads, so there's that tiny bit of precedent.