D&D 5E Beholder hunting: nasty counter-tactics to Darkness?

[Celtavian]

I would not even mess with this level of rulings.

I would make two simple rules:

1) Beholder spells works like every other caster's spells. Darkness or Invisibility does not defeat their spells.
2) Beholder eyes are not random.

Why in the world would a DM allow himself to be handicapped by such stupid monster design decisions by a faceless game designer? Take control of your game and get rid of the nonsense rules (like Concentration limited to a single spell, or Attunement which has zero need in a game where the DM controls the magic item acquisition).

I find it odd that so many DMs want to play the game "exactly as written".

Take control of your game and make it "your game".

Ignore nonsensical rules.

I'm going to ignore the rule. I've never seen a mistake of this magnitude. The beholder is on the friggin cover of the Monster Manual and the designer didn't notice something like random eye rays and needs to see target being a major problem. It's pretty unbelievable to me. Have you ever seen a design mistake of this level on a monster featured on the front cover of the book they're in? One of the most iconic D&D monsters? I haven't. It kind of boggles my mind. Minor oversights you can understand. One of this magnitude I don't think I've seen before.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

You mean, how do they know a beholder is hiding there in the darkness, waiting for them to come out? The giff has to hope it rolls high on its attempt to hear the beholder (Search: active Perception, disadvantage due to Darkness) or that the beholder rolls poorly on Stealth. If not, the beholder has now gotten past your front line Darkness and can try to target the wizard/leader.

As far as tactical concerns go, once combat starts, Darkness impairs grappling not at all. Which makes perfect sense.

So this platoon of blind giff wander across a cavern and hope the beholders are still in the same place? Why are the beholders in the same place? How are the giff able to reach them? And how are the giff able to target these creatures they cannot see? (Yes, I understand Perception vs Stealth but they're blind and the beholders are flying: disadvantage on Perception, advantage on Stealth?)

 

[Coredump]

The PCs are gone now but the NPC wizard and his giff NPC platoon are still there, as described in the OP, so the question is "what happens to the giffs?"

Well... did you think that *none* of my suggestions made any sense?

If the griffs can't see through the darkness.... this is a suicide mission. How do they even navigate the ship?

 

[Charles Rampant]

Giffs go in, bodyparts come out. Turn it into a horror scene for the players. Think of the 'Mook Horror' moments from Batman films, where they all slowly disappear one at the time, ripped upwards by the prowling protagonist. And your players get to hear it going down.

I wouldn't worry, personally, with what 'should' happen from this situation; you control both sides, you can easily explain any outcome by changing the tactics and actions taken. Instead, decide what would be more fun for your players, and make it so.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well... did you think that *none* of my suggestions made any sense?

If the griffs can't see through the darkness.... this is a suicide mission. How do they even navigate the ship?

Edit: sorry, got confused on posters. Changed this next paragraph.

I liked #11. I've done that already actually, using vertical layout for room architecture and exits, but I might turn it up eleven. I also liked #6.

The ship is crashed, and not all that big in the first place, so the majority of the beholders are in tunnels they've just excavated with disintegration rays. Think XCOM: UFO defense. Only the giff on point is in the dark, others can see by torchlight, and the gnome wizard has Darkvision. The point man has to navigate by feel, which ought to make pit traps effective.

 

[KarinsDad]

I recognize a trait in you that I see in many gamers which I consider unfortunate. Instead of "might" or "could," you appear to think of things in terms of "would" or "should." You also appear to think of why things can't be instead of why they can. To me, this is not very compatible with a game based on imagination.

So here, you choose to think the beholders "would" never find themselves in a situation where they could accidentally disintegrate themselves. They "can't" do this because they're just too smart.

Me, I think they "could" because it's a neat set piece and I imagine that given the giffs' tactics with darkness, the beholders "might" try to get into a situation that puts them at some risk (again, only if they fire a ray at a target within 30 feet which they don't have to do), but also gives them an advantage. They "can" do this because their inscrutable alien minds sometimes lead them to make decisions like this.

That's our fundamental difference.

Maybe.

I just like the game to be consistent. I want the gaze attack of the Medusa to not reflect off the mirror my PC is holding to protect myself and zap my PC in the face, and I don't want the Beholder gaze attacks to work differently.

I want super intelligent monsters to use the best tactics based on their abilities and the terrain normally found in a given location, I don't just throw stuff into a game "cause it's cool". Your definition of cool might not be the same as my definition of cool.

But mainly, just because a DM or players comes up with an idea does not necessarily make it a good idea. Imagination is all nice and well, but there should still be a framework of continuity and consistency that all of the players at the table can wrap their heads around.

By using words like "unfortunate" and phrases like "not very compatible with a game based on imagination", you seem to be arrogantly saying that "my way of gaming is subpar". You are entitled to that POV, but I suspect that laughs and memories at my table last just as long as they do at yours. There are more ways to make adventures memorable than just pulling weird stuff out of the DM's butt (including Beholders blowing themselves up with their own eye rays as if they had the intelligence of Zombies) and then 12 gaming sessions later when players try to bounce a spell off a mirror, the DM no longer remembers the on the fly mechanics that he used, and a DM at a different gaming table doesn't even allow it at all because that's not how spells normally work in D&D.

 

[KarinsDad]

Have you ever seen a design mistake of this level on a monster featured on the front cover of the book they're in? One of the most iconic D&D monsters?

No. This nerfs Beholders pretty heavily. On the other hand, 5E nerfs all spell casters pretty heavily. Maybe it's a remnant of that.

 

[iserith]

Maybe.

I just like the game to be consistent. I want the gaze attack of the Medusa to not reflect off the mirror my PC is holding to protect myself and zap my PC in the face, and I don't want the Beholder gaze attacks to work differently.

The mirrors in the beholders' ship are special, made of a rare material from the Far Realm which allows for this property to occur. Most are cracked as previously established, but if the characters explore, they might even be able to find some of it that is salvageable.

I want super intelligent monsters to use the best tactics based on their abilities and the terrain normally found in a given location, I don't just throw stuff into a game "cause it's cool". Your definition of cool might not be the same as my definition of cool.

I'm not sure why you think this is a bad tactic for the beholders. It's only bad if they're within 30 feet, which they likely don't have to be.

But mainly, just because a DM or players comes up with an idea does not necessarily make it a good idea. Imagination is all nice and well, but there should still be a framework of continuity and consistency that all of the players at the table can wrap their heads around.

There is nothing inconsistent about it though.

 

[Mirtek]

I would make two simple rules:

1) Beholder spells works like every other caster's spells. Darkness or Invisibility does not defeat their spells.

Actually they already do that, quite lot spells target "a creature in range you can see"

It's the same issue for every other spell caster too

 

[MonsterEnvy]

No. This nerfs Beholders pretty heavily. On the other hand, 5E nerfs all spell casters pretty heavily. Maybe it's a remnant of that.

I don't think Random Eye Rays are a problem. And it is easily fixable to just have them guess the location of their targets. Just say the target gets advantage on the saving throw.