Beholder eye stalks

[allenw]

It just occurred to me that another way to look at the question is by analogy to magic items. Rings, hats, cloaks, boots, etc. (both magical and otherwise) are far more fragile than the PCs who wear them, but in 3rd Edition, failing a save vs. Fireball doesn't mean they're all in danger of destruction (unlike 1st edition... ah, happy memories ). By RAW, the worst that can happen is, if you roll a 1 on a save, *one* of your items is in danger.
So, if you want to houserule that Fireballs can destroy eyestalks, each eyestalk should get a save, *and* the same risk should apply to PC's gear. Or, you could houserule that Beholder eyestalks are like magic items, so if the Beholder rolls a 1 on a save, *one* of them might be destroyed (see Spell Descriptions :: d20srd.org). This might also imply that the eyestalks are subject to being attacked as worn items.

 

[Kask]

Even in 1st edition, though, what part of a beholder you hit was based on chance, not on called shots,

1st Ed MM "The shell under the bulette's crest, an area about a foot and one-half square, is only AC 6, and in a fierce fight the monster tends to raise its crest and expose this vulnerable area. Its eyes are armor class 4, but they are relatively small ( 8 oval)."

1st Ed DMG "If a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6,1-3 = head blow)."

So, based on this you could extrapolate a random chance %.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

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.

For rules for area of effect damage effects dealing damage to specific body parts, you should use something like this...

If a creature who fails its saving throw versus a damaging area effect takes (some percentage) of its total hit points from the effect, it may be subject to specific injuries, as adjudicated by the DM.

This is what I do, only I use 100% as the percentage of damage that must be dealt for additional effects to occur.

 

[azhrei_fje]

As you know AoE is not targeting.

Targeting was never an issue. The issue is that the rules don't allow for AOEs to damage specific body parts on a creature. Your hair is not singed when you fail a Reflex save against a fireball any more than it isn't singed if you succeed. Stop trying to divert the discussion away from your rules-related question.

Also, the reasons given why it would not work were not reasonable.

In your opinion. In my opinion they have been based directly on the RAW. Obviously your opinion is wrong. Stop trying to divert the discussion away from your rules-related question.

I was looking for a logical reason why it would or would not work, I was given illogical reasons.

In your opinion. In my opinion they have been based directly on the RAW. Obviously your opinion is wrong. Stop trying to divert the discussion away from your rules-related question.



Do you see a pattern here? It's the same pattern present in your "question" (which I am now led to believe was not a serious question but an attempt to troll the forum, looking for argument). It's a pattern that says, "I don't like your answer so I relegate it to the trash heap." That's rude and disrespectful and I will not continue to help you pursue the truth of the meaning in the rules as you apparently don't want it.

Good luck and good gaming!

 

[allenw]

1st Ed MM "The shell under the bulette's crest, an area about a foot and one-half square, is only AC 6, and in a fierce fight the monster tends to raise its crest and expose this vulnerable area. Its eyes are armor class 4, but they are relatively small ( 8 oval)."

1st Ed DMG "If a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6,1-3 = head blow)."

So, based on this you could extrapolate a random chance %.

Or you could use the aforementioned percentages from the 1st Edition MM:
"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%."

 

[Kask]

Or you could use the aforementioned percentages from the 1st Edition MM:
"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%."

Right. I was just showing different possibilities. AS you noted, my 1st post is probably the best.

 

[Virsconte]

My argument makes perfect sense

So why are you here? You are obviously just trying to astound us with your cleverness.

I have not seen one point I find credible.

You aren't looking very hard.

 

[carborundum]

For all we know their eye-stalks are stronger than steel and their eyes are made of invincible crystal.

IMC they just retract for a split second and pop out again - a beholder blink. In slow motion you can see them disappearing and reappearing from left to right as the heat wave from the fireball passes across the huge chitinous ball. They're out and active on the side closest to the blast before the other stalks have even blinked.

That said, "stronger than steel" and "invincible crystal" has a ring to it. Yoink!

 

[roguerouge]

Sure. Just design a universal called shot mechanic that doesn't lead to every attacker saying, "Called shot to the head for the win!"