Beholder's Eye Beams

[Hypersmurf]

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.

They have a 'Minimum forward speed', and a creature with Good maneuverability has 'the ability to fly backward without turning around'.

The beholder has a forward arc and a backward arc.

How can its forward speed and its forward arc, or flying backward and its backward arc, be in different directions?

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

They have a 'Minimum forward speed', and a creature with Good maneuverability has 'the ability to fly backward without turning around'.

The beholder has a forward arc and a backward arc.

How can its forward speed and its forward arc, or flying backward and its backward arc, be in different directions?

Power slides?

I was just agreeing with KarinsDad that D&D generally doesn't have facing rules -- even when you consider flight maneuverability -- and having them for the beholder would be a significant exception.

That's not to say that the beholder doesn't need facing rules or that a beholder's facing wouldn't line up with its flight direction. It's just a whole area of rules that's going to exist only for the beholder, and I'm sure it will have its own pile of complications. For example, is a beholder only allowed to bite targets in its front arc? i.e. do its eyestalk facing rules prevent it from acting in melee like other monsters?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Interesting discussion.

As a DM, I wouldn't allow the beholder to take actions that break up movement. I can't think of any other situations where it's allowed, save with special abilities (Spring Attack, Ride-By Attack, etc.) While free actions are generally unlimited, they are nevertheless actions, and must be taken before or after other actions (such as a move action). Turning in place--while flying, which as others have noted has a specific orientation--is a move action.

Therefore, the beholder could fire 3 beams into one arc before moving, then 3 beams after moving in the same direction (which, as others have pointed out, would be a different arc). Having done so, he'd be stuck (couldn't move further), and not pointing the anti-magic cone at the party.

 

[Sithobi1]

So you have to talk after you move or before? You have to whip out the material components/foci for a spell before you cast it, thus opening a window wherein you aren't threatening the surroundings with a staff? You have to draw your weapon before you move or after you move, even though the drawing of said weapon is only allowed during your move?

 

[Hypersmurf]

While free actions are generally unlimited, they are nevertheless actions, and must be taken before or after other actions (such as a move action).

Actually, you'll find that free actions are taken "while taking another action normally".

As another example, if you rule that a free action cannot be taken during another action, you'll find it very difficult to draw arrows (free action) during a full attack (full round action)...

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

They have a 'Minimum forward speed', and a creature with Good maneuverability has 'the ability to fly backward without turning around'.

The beholder has a forward arc and a backward arc.

Where in the rules does it state that a Beholder has a forward arc and a backward arc that must correspond at all times to the direction of travel that the Beholder is making? What if it is not moving in a given direction?

For that matter, where does it state that a Beholder has a minimum forward speed, or good maneuverability?

How can its forward speed and its forward arc, or flying backward and its backward arc, be in different directions?

How can you attack someone with a longspear 10 feet directly in front of you and for all intents and purposes, simulataneously attack someone else 10 feet directly behind you with that same longspear? From a common sense point of view, it could not happen, but within the game mechanics, it can.

You are trying to add non-existant "common sense" facing rules to explain your interpretation of how the rays could fire in the same direction.


Facing does not exist in the game. There are no facing rules. A shield protects from attacks from all directions. A bite can be done in any direction.

Given that since the game does not have facing rules, a Beholder could indeed fire all 9 rays in the same direction except that the Beholder rules explicitly prevent that:

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.

Continuity of movement has nothing to do with facing. It has to do with movement and only movement. A Dragon flying away from you can still bite you, or wing slap you, or grab you with it's claws, regardless of from which direction (above, below, behind, the side, or in front) you attack it.


An interpretation that the Beholder could spin around in place and fire all 9 rays down the same arc (or move slightly so that the arc changes ever so slightly, but the majority of the squares in the arc overlap) is ignoring (or minimally seriously bending) the rules quoted here.

Since we do not have facing rules at all, a Beholder can fire upwards of 3 rays North, South, East, West, Up and/or Down. One set for each direction, anytime during its movement.

That's what that rule is saying.


Note: I would not allow a Beholder to fire its anti-magic cone down an arc already used in the same round for one or more eye stalk rays either. The anti-magic cone arc should be different than arcs for the other cone, but that is more of a house rule. The actual game mechanics do not preclude it.

 

[Henry]

In our Eberron game, a single Anti-Magic Ray spell (from Spell Compendium) enabled ONE character to take out a beholder by himself.

The PC ran into an arc not covered by the AM eye of the beholder, and shot him with an Anti-magic ray. There's no saving throw, unless you target an object. The beholder tried to fly away (since it was less than useless in a 13th level battle) but the same PC summoned a pair of celestial giant eagles, and RIPPED HIM APART. By themselves.

I'd say that, given the 13th level characters out there, that the "tilt and pan" trick is not too overpowered for what the beholder is up against.

 

[Infiniti2000]

An interpretation that the Beholder could spin around in place and fire all 9 rays down the same arc (or move slightly so that the arc changes ever so slightly, but the majority of the squares in the arc overlap) is ignoring (or minimally seriously bending) the rules quoted here.

Actually, it's neither ignoring nor bending the rules. The six arcs are specifically labeled 'forward', 'backward', etc. Are they not? (I can see from the next quote you don't agree that they are labeled as such despite your previous quote presumably from the MM.) If so, then mustn't you define such arcs? If not, you can't possibly decide where the rays go.

Whatever you do, don't change the terms as given in the MM to support a position contrary to the rules. Don't change them from 'forward' to 'North' and then claim that supports your theory.

Since we do not have facing rules at all, a Beholder can fire upwards of 3 rays North, South, East, West, Up and/or Down. One set for each direction, anytime during its movement.

That's what that rule is saying.

The rules says that? I looked and looked and could not find the words North, South, East, or West. Can you please cite the rule on beholders where it mentions the cardinal directions?

You have me confused, KD. You quote what I thought was the MM (though you don't actually specify what you quoted, it could be Wikipedia for all we know).

Also, the game really does not have much in the way of facing rules.
...
Facing does not exist in the game. There are no facing rules.

Which is it? Not much or not at all?

If not at all, I can't wait to hear how you can define the 'forward' arc for a beholder. Or, how a creature has a minimum 'forward' speed.

For that matter, where does it state that a Beholder has a minimum forward speed, or good maneuverability?

I'm pretty sure it specifies Good, but not having the book at work I can't double check it. Are you saying it doesn't give the maneuverability for a beholder as Good? To respond to the other comment, obviously Hyp was using a 'minimum forward speed' as another example of a type of facing, not necessarily for the beholder because with a Good maneuverability, he can hover. Pick another creature, say a dragon, with lesser maneuverability.

 

[PallidPatience]

In our Eberron game, a single Anti-Magic Ray spell (from Spell Compendium) enabled ONE character to take out a beholder by himself.

The PC ran into an arc not covered by the AM eye of the beholder, and shot him with an Anti-magic ray. There's no saving throw, unless you target an object. The beholder tried to fly away (since it was less than useless in a 13th level battle) but the same PC summoned a pair of celestial giant eagles, and RIPPED HIM APART. By themselves.

I'd say that, given the 13th level characters out there, that the "tilt and pan" trick is not too overpowered for what the beholder is up against.

I'd say that this reflects the overpowered nature of a non-core spell, rather than the lack of effectiveness of a core monster, myself.

If you need your Beholder to be able to fire all its eye rays in one direction because you think it's too powerful, you're ignoring the 10+ Int score of the Beholder, and the fact that they don't just engage anything that moves through their area. They're smart. They have self-preservation. They're not just speed-bumps on the road to levelling. Use them intelligently, and tactically. It only needs 3 eye rays per round if the PCs never really see it because it keeps leading them through tunnels they find difficult to traverse.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, it's neither ignoring nor bending the rules. The six arcs are specifically labeled 'forward', 'backward', etc. Are they not? (I can see from the next quote you don't agree that they are labeled as such despite your previous quote presumably from the MM.) If so, then mustn't you define such arcs? If not, you can't possibly decide where the rays go.

But where does it state that forward (as a direction in the game) refers to the Beholder's direction of travel and that this direction changes as the beholder's direction of travel changes?

That is an assumption you are making.

Whatever you do, don't change the terms as given in the MM to support a position contrary to the rules. Don't change them from 'forward' to 'North' and then claim that supports your theory.

The rules says that? I looked and looked and could not find the words North, South, East, or West. Can you please cite the rule on beholders where it mentions the cardinal directions?

I do not mean "true north" when I say north, I mean a given direction on the map. In fact, I would allow any set of arcs as long as the arcs correspond to the other arcs in the same round. For example:

 1 4 4 4 4
 1 1 4 4 3
 1 1 B 3 3
 1 2 2 3 3
 2 2 2 2 3

This is one set of arcs which I labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4. These match the arc rules in the DMG.

I would also allow:

 1 1 4 4 4
 1 1 4 4 4
 1 1 B 3 3
 2 2 2 3 3
 2 2 2 3 3

where the Beholder could fire up a line and to the right of the line as its arc (or conversely, it could fire up a line and to the left of the line as its arc in a different round).

As long as the Beholder is consistent throughout the entire round, I am ok with it.

But, I am not ok with changing the direction but not the position of the Beholder and then allowing it to overlap its arcs.

You have me confused, KD. You quote what I thought was the MM (though you don't actually specify what you quoted, it could be Wikipedia for all we know).

Which is it? Not much or not at all?

Now you are arguing just to argue.

I meant that there are no facing rules. I said that there basically were no facing rules because there could be some obscure feat, PrC ability, spell, or some such that does implement some type of facing, but as a general rule, there are no facing rules.

Is it really your intent to discuss or argue this type of minutia?

If not at all, I can't wait to hear how you can define the 'forward' arc for a beholder. Or, how a creature has a minimum 'forward' speed.

Forward speed refers to movement.

Forward arc does not. Forward is used here to define a different direction than up, down, left, right, or back. It is not used to indicate a direction of travel since the Beholder is not forced to travel.

The designers had to specify 6 different directions and this is how they chose to do so. It has nothing to do with direction of travel because the book does not state that it has to do with direction of travel.

If you equate it to direction of travel, you invalidate and drop on the floor the "can aim only 3 eyes" rules. Since those rules exist, it must not be direction of travel.

I'm pretty sure it specifies Good, but not having the book at work I can't double check it. Are you saying it doesn't give the maneuverability for a beholder as Good? To respond to the other comment, obviously Hyp was using a 'minimum forward speed' as another example of a type of facing, not necessarily for the beholder because with a Good maneuverability, he can hover. Pick another creature, say a dragon, with lesser maneuverability.

I couldn't find Good Maneuverability in the MM.