Beholder's Eye Beams

[Hypersmurf]

The quote seems sufficient to establish the spinning trick does not work. In fact, the quote seemed worded to purposefully disallow such tactics.

The quote prevents more than three beams being aimed at a given arc. I2K isn't proposing to aim more than three beams at a given arc; he's proposing to utilise multiple arcs.

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Something similar to the "panning" effect could be done by the beholder moving in a straight line. Imagine the PCs are on a subway platform, and the beholder is the subway; first they are in front of the beholder (a little to one side, but still in the front arc), then they are to its side, and finally (and the end of the beholder's move) they are in the rear arc.

The only way this kind of thing *couldn't* work is if all the beholder's eye beams had to go off simultaneously. But if they can fire some eyes, then move, then fire other eyes, then the tactic works great.

Hypersmurf- do you think this tactic works?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf- do you think this tactic works?

I can't see why not.

A beholder is a flying creature, and as I2K notes, flying creatures have an implicit facing; there are rules for flying backwards, for turning in place, for how much a creature can turn in one space, for how far a creature can turn in a given distance. If we say "A flying creature has no facing", all these rules become meaningless, as well as the beholder's 'firing arc' rules.

So if the beholder is moving forward, that defines his 'forward arc' uncontestably, which in turn defines the other three arcs.

If he fires three rays in his forward arc, and then later in his move fires three rays from his right arc, this is not breaking any rules... even if all six rays happen to be targeted at the same creature.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I also like the way Gansk handles it by prerolling the arcs for each of the stalks. I'm not sure of the exact method, but it seemed to work well in the BoAA. The beholder isn't exactly a quick flier, either, so if he's panning and tilting a lot, his central eye will be focused elsewhere and he will not be getting far from the heroes. If the beholder gets only 3 eyes on the party per round (or antimagic, but not both), he definitely becomes a chump CR13, weaker by far IMO than any other CR13. My cat has a bigger bite than a beholder.

 

[Garnfellow]

I wonder if the eye beams ability should be revised to be a swift action instead of a free action. Or maybe drop the whole laborious piece about how many eyebeams can be used when and where -- it's really a relic of an older version of the game. There's no facing in 3e.

Either let the beholder freely use all its eyebeams on a single target in one round, or make the restriction . . . restricting.

 

[Gansk]

I also like the way Gansk handles it by prerolling the arcs for each of the stalks. I'm not sure of the exact method, but it seemed to work well in the BoAA.

For a beholder, roll d10 three times for each arc. Make sure three different eyes are linked to each arc, all eyes are represented in at least one arc, and that any duplicates are in two adjacent arcs at most. Otherwise reroll until all conditions are satisfied.

 

[Cheiromancer]

For a beholder, roll d10 three times for each arc. Make sure three different eyes are linked to each arc, all eyes are represented in at least one arc, and that any duplicates are in two adjacent arcs at most. Otherwise reroll until all conditions are satisfied.

It would probably be easier if you had a deck of cards handy; use the 1-10 for different eyes, shuffle and arrange in a circle.

 

[KarinsDad]

Notice that the arcs are not defined in terms of cardinal directions; they are defined relative to the beholder's facing: forward, backward, left, and right. Not north, south, east, and west.

He is facing north, and unleashes 3 rays in the forward arc; then he turns to face west, and unleashes 3 rays in his right arc... which is pointing north. The arcs don't prevent more than 3 rays aimed to the north; they prevent more than 3 rays aimed forward.

I do not think this is the intent. I think the sentences:

During a single round, a creature can aim only two eye rays (gauth) or three eye rays (beholder) at targets in any one 90-degree arc (up, forward, backward, left, right, or down). The remaining eyes must aim at targets in other arcs, or not at all.

mean that the Beholder cannot pan around and fire all 9 rays up (for example).

Instead, the Beholder does pick (effective) cardinal directions when he decides to fire his first arc. The rest of the arcs are at that point defined. This does not prevent the Beholder from moving around his target and being able to target with multiple arcs, but it does prevent:

9 . . . .
9 9 . . .
9 9 9 . .
9 9 9 9 B
9 9 9 9 .
9 9 9 . .
9 9 . . .
9 . . . .

Otherwise, those sentences make no sense.

Instead, I think the Beholder can do North, South, East, and West (and Up and Down) arcs, but it has to move around to get a huge advantage from this. So, this tactic has limited utility. In order to get all 9 arcs firing into some squares, the Beholder would have to be real close to his targets and double move (no attack with the bite). This is a max move of 8 squares. So, say the Beholder started at location a, in order to get all 9 rays on opponents, it would have to move in a curve somewhat like the following:

3 3 . . . . . 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 . . . 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 b 6 c 6 d 3 3 3 3 3
3 a 6 9 9 6 6 e 3 3 3 3
3 3 9 9 9 9 6 f 3 3 3 3
6 6 6 9 9 9 6 3 3 3 3 3
6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 3 3 3 3
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3

Following the arc rules in the DMG, if the beholder moves a, b, ... e, f and fires 3 rays at points a, c, and f, the squares would get the maximum number of rays each shown above (3, 6, or 9).

This is a fairly tight arc and only 10 squares get attacked by all 9 attacks.

Typically, PCs do not bunch up this closely, plus several of the squares that have the max 9 attack in them also would result in Attacks of Opportunities if threatening PCs were in them.


So at long range, the Beholder is limited to 3 rays because he cannot move fast enough to get to the other side of the party to get more.

At close range (like the example above), it can get up to 9 rays working, but it is taking a considerable risk in doing so.


And if it tries to Bite, it is really difficult to get 9 ray attacks on squares with a single 20 foot move. Firing at a, c, and d below results in 3 9 ray squares max (due to how the arc rules work, the arc at a shifts down one, the arc at d shifts up one, and the arc at b shifts to the left one):

3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 b c 3 3
3 a 9 9 d 3
3 6 9 6 6 3
6 6 3 6 6 6

Adjudicating this way both allows the Beholder to be tough at close range, but at the same time, it prevents the Beholder from doing 9 rays in the same round from 150 feet away.


Also, the game really does not have much in the way of facing rules. Declaring that facing exists for a few creatures like a Beholder, but not for the vast majority of other creatures seems like a dichotomy. IMO.


Finally, the Beholder can actually increase the number of attacks per square at close range. If it uses Telekinesis, it can pick up PCs and move them to squares that it is planning on frying with other rays. Plus, it can disintegrate the ground under the PCs, have them fall, and attack with several arcs of rays from various sides of a "pit". All in all, beholders can be extremely tough if played correctly, even using the limitations illustrated above.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, the game really does not have much in the way of facing rules. Declaring that facing exists for a few creatures like a Beholder, but not for the vast majority of other creatures seems like a dichotomy. IMO.

So can my pegasus fly north three squares, then south three squares? If we declare that facing does not exist for the pegasus, the 'turn angle' rules are irrelevant, aren't they?

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

So can my pegasus fly north three squares, then south three squares? If we declare that facing does not exist for the pegasus, the 'turn angle' rules are irrelevant, aren't they?

The flight rules don't really have to do with facing -- they're about continuity of movement. For example, say your pegasus ends its movement after flying due north. An enemy flyer moves up adjacent to it, immediately to the pegasus' south. On its next action, the pegasus could bite that enemy and then continue flying north, despite the fact that the enemy is "behind" it, according to its flight path. The rules restrict the directions that the pegasus can fly, but they don't require that it be facing the same direction it's flying.