Beholder's combat

[Lord Pendragon]

Mmm...my party is about the right level to meet a Beholder. It's good to know that they aren't as tough as I've always thought, even if I can't quite bring myself to believe it!

Regarding the actual discussion rolleyes: ) I'm with Valorian. The SRD states:

During a round, the creature can aim only three eye rays at targets in any one arc other than up (forward, backward, left, right, or down). The remaining eyes must aim at targets in other arcs or not at all.

This seems pretty cut and dried.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Mmm...my party is about the right level to meet a Beholder. It's good to know that they aren't as tough as I've always thought, even if I can't quite bring myself to believe it!

Regarding the actual discussion rolleyes: ) I'm with Valorian. The SRD states:

During a round, the creature can aim only three eye rays at targets in any one arc other than up (forward, backward, left, right, or down). The remaining eyes must aim at targets in other arcs or not at all.

This seems pretty cut and dried.

Erm, yeah. "Other than up." So if it's cut and dried, it's *supporting* the argument that they can bring all 10 to bear in that direction.

As to whether or not it can tilt, well.....they're CR 13. They build massive lairs "focused on the vertical". They have a continuous feather fall effect. It seems silly to claim they're limited to some arbitrary orientation based upon the surface of the earth. With a 20 foot move, and only 3 eyes per round, 4 13-th level characters will wipe the floor with this thing with minimal effort. YMMV.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Yeah, cut and dried.

Up = all 10 eyestalks.

Any other direction = only 3.

Not, "only 3 unless the beholder tilts itself," just "only 3."

As in, if a PC is anywhere around the beholder besides flying in the air above it, the beholder can only bring 3 eyestalks to bear.

*scratching head* If there's latitude to argue otherwise here, I guess I'm just too dumb to see it, so I suppose I'll bow out here and let the discussion carry on without me to hinder it.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Yeah, cut and dried.

Up = all 10 eyestalks.

Any other direction = only 3.

Not, "only 3 unless the beholder tilts itself," just "only 3."

As in, if a PC is anywhere around the beholder besides flying in the air above it, the beholder can only bring 3 eyestalks to bear.

*scratching head* If there's latitude to argue otherwise here, I guess I'm just too dumb to see it, so I suppose I'll bow out here and let the discussion carry on without me to hinder it.

Yeah, that's what I mean. "Up" is relative to what way it's oriented. I suppose you're saying that since the SRD uses absolute directions, it's implying that the beholder can't tilt and use relative directions. Fair enough. Given the text in the MM description about vertical lairs, and the high CR, I just see them as a lot more powerful. Oh well, if we ever end up playing together, I'll be sure to mention "I'm the 10-eyestalks guy" if I DM.

 

[Altalazar]

Up is relative to the bottom of the beholder, not the plane of the surface of the Earth. So 'up' can become north if he beholder only faces the ground and points its 'up' to the north.

I would rule that while in such a position, the beholder's move options would be more limited - perhaps just (real) up and down, or just slower than normal, but given the description of how it flies, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to face the ground in flight. It just isn't that big of a deal to be able to do it, given the description of the creature.

Maybe it is hard to do, maybe they need to make a beholder-tumble roll to face the ground, but it all fits with the description.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Okay, I will make one last plea for logic.

We all know that the MM entry for the beholder mentions only 3 eye beams being usable in any one direction other than up. Now, building on that:

Given: A beholder can only bring three eye-stalks to bear in any direction (left, right, forward, backward, down) other than up.

If the beholder can freely orient itself so that 'up' is facing forward, and thus bring all ten eye-stalks to bear on a creature in front of it, then they would not have mentioned a three eye-stalk limit at all.

Given: The description of the beholder in the MM does mention a limit of three eye-stalks per direction.

Conclusion: The beholder cannot freely orient itself.

If the beholder can reorient itself to bring all ten eye-stalks to bear, but must make a tumble check to do so, then they would have mentioned such a check in the description.

Given: A mention of a tumble check, or for that matter any mechanic for a beholder to realign itself, is not included.

Conclusion: The beholder cannot orient itself by making a tumble check or through some other mechanic.


Now, having said all that, it occurred to me that the easiest thing to do is just email the Sage.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Okay, I will make one last plea for logic.

(SNIP good arguments)

Now, having said all that, it occurred to me that the easiest thing to do is just email the Sage.

It's not logic vs. lack of logic. It's an interprative difference. There *is* a clear use for the definition of "3 eyes per arc" even if the beholder can re-orient itself. If it re-orients, then it's still limited to 3 eyes per arc, just in different directions. For example, if it turns face down, making all 10 point to the front, then it can only bring 3 eyes to bear in the Up, Down, Left, Right, and Back directions.

The more I talk about this, the more sense it makes. How would you run an encounter in another plane, where direction is meaningless, and combat is 3-D? It doesn't seem to hold up.....


But you're right, somebody should mail the Sage.

 

[ControlFreak]

My party is in the middle of an encounter with a Beholder (we had to stop for the night halfway through). So far the Beholder has only done peripheral damage to the group (used its antimagic cone to turn off some Winged Boots over a boiling volcanic stream . Once the group found their way across the stream the wizard put up a wall of force blocking further attacks from the beholder (not really since the beholder can easily disintegrate the wall). Aside from the antimagic cone, the Beholder unleashed one mini-barrage of non-lethal attacks (charm/sleep/fear) on one of the party members, all of which were saved (dwarven cleric - probably not the best choice). Now that the beholder realizes just how tough the group is, it will probably try to gain more of an advantage by focusing its WILL attacks on stupid-looking party members (half-orc) and FORT attacks on weaker-looking party members (wizard).

CF

 

[Orco42]

Well according to the D&D Movie a beholder can look in one direction will all eyes.

Also they have an INT of 1 as you can trick them with a rock.

 

[Altalazar]

Yes, the logic is somewhat flawed. There IS a reason to mention the orientation because of the central eye.

According to the book:

Front: 3 eyes plus central eye.
Bottom Side and Back: 3 eyes NO central eye
Top: 10 eyes NO central eye

It really does not say anything about whether or not it can face the ground.

But whether it can or not, the information above still needs to be known.

So the logic doesn't quite hold up as listed. You are forgetting the central eye.