Beholder's Eye Beams

[Infiniti2000]

Now I just find myself wondering, if a beholder was meant to be able to fire all of its eye beams at any target, what was the purpose of adding in the note about firing arcs in the first place?

It's still restrictive, just not as much as others interpret it to be. Interpreting it the other way makes it very tactically disadvantageous for a beholder to be in a tunnel.

I believe there's an Improved Maneuverability feat in the Draconomicon. That's a great feat for a beholder.

In melee, would that rotation (if it can even be done) cause AoOs?

It's not specified, but I'd say no. The beholder is not leaving a threatened square.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It's still restrictive, just not as much as others interpret it to be. Interpreting it the other way makes it very tactically disadvantageous for a beholder to be in a tunnel.

I tend to disagree. I don't feel it's restrictive in any meaningful way. It also strikes me as misleading. On top of that, allowing the beholder to fire off all of its eyebeams in the same arc breaks its CR, IME.

I think it far more likely that it was meant to only be able to fire 3 beams in any one direction.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why is it once per round? The beholder can tilt and pan as much as its maneuverability allows.

A beholder can tilt and pan its body each round to change which rays it can bring to bear in an arc.

The purpose of this sentence is to allow the Beholder to change which rays can be fired in which arcs each round. The purpose of the sentence is not to invalidate the previous sentence that the Beholder is limited to 3 rays per arc. For example:

Round one: arc one: disintegrate, charm monster, telekinesis: arc two: fear, finger of death, charm person, arc three: etc.

Round two: arc one: telekinesis, fear, finger of death: arc two: charm person, slow, charm monster, arc three: etc.

What rules in the beholder description are using to restrict the beholder's movement? He has Good maneuverability and yet you are saying he cannot use that maneuverability. None of the rules you've quoted would imply that.

I have not once limited the Beholder's movement in any way in any of my posts.

I have instead stated that an arc is not based on facing. It is based on direction. Just like the rules state (forward, backwards, up, down, right, or left).

It matches well with it. The beholder can fire only a certain number of eye rays per arc per round. But, he can change the positioning of those arcs.

Well, you keep saying it works well, but you continue to avoid saying how.

Where is your rules support that it can change the positioning (I assume you mean direction) of the arcs?

With your "change the positioning" comment, you appear to be adding facing rules. You appear to be claiming that the directions of the arc change when the facing of the creature (which does not exist in the game) changes (if I understand you correctly).

Even the flying movement rules do not have facing in them. They have direction. The creature has to continue flying in the direction it has been flying. It does not have to continue flying in the direction it has been facing because there is no facing in the game.

A dragon can bite someone in any square around it, even if it is flying in the opposite direction.

At the very least, based on what you said in this last post, the beholder could target 6 rays on one opponent. He can tilt/pan once per round, right? And yet, your statements here would leave me to believe that you think he can't even do that much. Please explain this inconsistency.

Tilt/pan is descriptive text to explain how the Beholder can change which rays associate with which arc each round. It does not mean that he can move arcs around, nor does it invalidate the "3 rays per arc" rule that proceeds it in the text.

Note: As posted earlier, I agree with you that the Beholder can target a single opponent with more than three rays in the same round if the Beholder changes its position relative to the target. It has to fly around the target (in a limited arc since it only has a Speed of 20) to do so, but it can be done. What cannot be done is targeting a single opponent with more than 3 rays from far away (e.g. 100 feet) since the Beholder cannot move quickly enough to get to a different side of the opponent (and hence target it with rays from a different arc) in the same round.


Btw, the 3E Beholder was also limited to 3 rays per arc, but it could fire all 9 rays (10 if you count its main eye) straight up. So, people wanted to rotate (using the pan/tilt language) the Beholder so that its main eye was "facing" the ground so that it could fire all 10 rays into a single arc. When the Sage was asked about this, he said it was not allowed.

From: Lord Pendragon
Posted At: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:21 AM
Conversation: A question about beholders.
Subject: A question about beholders.

Dear Sage,

Once again, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to answer questions pertaining to the D&D game. I really appreciate the care you show the gaming public, outside of your regular job. I really appreciate whatever time you can spare us! ^_^


I have a question regarding beholders. In the Monster Manual, it stats that they can only use 3 eyestalks if a target is in front of, behind, or to the right, left, or bottom of the creature. But, it can use all 10 of its eyestalks if a target is above it.


What I'd like to know is, can the beholder rotate itself forward, so that its central eye is facing down and all 10 eyestalks are facing forward, and this hit a single creature (not above it) with all 10 of its eyestalks?

No.

 

[Arnwyn]

I tend to disagree. I don't feel it's restrictive in any meaningful way. It also strikes me as misleading. On top of that, allowing the beholder to fire off all of its eyebeams in the same arc breaks its CR, IME.

I think it far more likely that it was meant to only be able to fire 3 beams in any one direction.

Yeah, that's my impression, as well. I doubt my question/example in my post above can be done.

I think KarinsDad had the right of it, based on the specific wording in the beholder entry.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Note: As posted earlier, I agree with you that the Beholder can target a single opponent with more than three rays in the same round if the Beholder changes its position relative to the target. It has to fly around the target (in a limited arc since it only has a Speed of 20) to do so, but it can be done. What cannot be done is targeting a single opponent with more than 3 rays from far away (e.g. 100 feet) since the Beholder cannot move quickly enough to get to a different side of the opponent (and hence target it with rays from a different arc) in the same round.

Do you consider the forward arc and the cone of the antimagic central eye to cover the same 90 degree angle?

Or can the antimagic eye cover 45 degrees of the left arc and 45 degrees of the backward arc, say?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Do you consider the forward arc and the cone of the antimagic central eye to cover the same 90 degree angle?

Or can the antimagic eye cover 45 degrees of the left arc and 45 degrees of the backward arc, say?

I'll answer by comparing the 3E Beholder with the 3.5 Beholder:

3E

Antimagic Cone (Su): A beholder's central eye continually produces a 150-foot antimagic cone extending straight ahead from the creature's front. This functions just like antimagic field cast by a 13th-level sorcerer. All magical and supernatural powers and effects within the cone are suppressed-even the beholder's own eye rays. Once each round, during its turn, the beholder decides which way it will face, and whether the antimagic cone is active or not (the beholder deactivates the cone by shutting its central eye). Note that a beholder can bite only creatures to its front.

3.5

Antimagic Cone (Su): A Beholder's central eye continually produces a 150 ft cone of antimagic. This functions just like antimagic field (caster lvl 13th). All Magical and supernatural powers and effects within the cone are suppressed -- even the beholder's own eye rays. Once each round, during its turn, the beholder decides whether the antimagic cone is active or not (the beholder deactivates the cone by shutting its central eye).

WotC expressly removed the concept of facing with Beholders from 3E to 3.5.

So, I suspect some people are clinging to the 3E concept of Beholder facing when discussing 3.5. But, there is no Beholder facing in 3.5.


Wotc kept the concept of arcs for the rays. Since the Antimagic Cone is a cone (and hence 90 degrees) and the arcs are 90 degrees, it seems reasonable to limit the cone to one of the normal arcs (forward, back, up, down, left, or right).

This is not explicitly stated, but it seems like a reasonable adjudication. A DM could also have a different 90 degrees for the Cone and the Arcs, but this seems overly complex.

So in answer to your question, a Beholder since he has good maneuverability should be able to face its Center Eye up, down, right, left, forward, or back. But, that direction stays constant from the time it sets the directions of the arcs in round x until it changes it in round x+1. Ditto for whether the eye is opened or closed. Once set, it stays that way until changed the next round.


It is also reasonable to allow the x-axis / y-axis arcs to be whichever direction the Beholder wants with the exception of up and down. In other words, the left, right, forward, and back arcs can be spun around however the DM wants, but the Beholder gets the same number of squares in each arc. For example:

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

or

 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

or

 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

etc.

The reason for limiting this in the up and down directions is that adjudication of 3 dimensional arcs that spin (or tilt) only on the x-y axis is easy. But tilting on the x-z, y-z, or x-y-z axes is for most people, an adjudication nightmare (since we do not have 3D cubes like we have 2D squares).



But, my take is that there is no predefined forward arc for the cone in 3.5. The arc is whichever direction the Beholder decides for that round. In 3E, facing information was in the description, but that was yanked for 3.5.

From my understanding, the movement rules allow for "turning in place" and specify a direction of movement. But, this is only for movement and is different than specifying a facing (although, I suspect some people might equate it) or even changing facing. Nothing in the 3.5 rules precludes a Beholder from moving in one direction and firing its central eye in a totally different direction since there is no facing.

Hence, the Beholder can point 3 rays max per arc followed by the cone of the Antimagic Cone into the same arc (note: I'm changing my earlier stance to allow the Beholder to fire off 3 rays and follow it up with the AMC because nothing in the rules appears to limit this and in order to fire back into that arc the next round, he must either turn off the AMC or for an entire round change the arc of the AMC on the next round).

3 Rays per Arc max and no set facing for the AMC seems to both match the intent of the designers (as per the changes they made between 3E and 3.5) and the RAW.

Does this answer your questions?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Even the flying movement rules do not have facing in them. They have direction. The creature has to continue flying in the direction it has been flying. It does not have to continue flying in the direction it has been facing because there is no facing in the game.

This is not strictly true...

The flying rules indicate whether a creature with a given maneuverability can fly backwards. This is indicative of facing.

Later
silver

 

[KarinsDad]

This is not strictly true...

The flying rules indicate whether a creature with a given maneuverability can fly backwards. This is indicative of facing.

This is not strictly true...

The flying rules indicate whether a creature with a given maneuverability can fly backwards. This is indicative of moving backwards.

Move Backward: The ability to move backward without turning around.

Reverse: A creature with good maneuverability uses up 5 feet of its speed to start flying backward.

Turn: How much the creature can turn after covering the stated distance.

Turn in Place: A creature with good or average maneuverability can use some of its speed to turn in place.

Maximum Turn: How much the creature can turn in any one space.

Note: the word "turn" here really refers to a direction of travel, not a facing. Turn here has absolutely no bearing on the game mechanics except with regard to direction of travel. There are no other game mechanics rules at all (tmk) which would take advantage of any facing interpreted by these rules. For example, a creature with good maneuverability uses up 5 feet of movement to start flying backwards, but once started, it can fly just as fast "backwards" each round as "forwards"


In other words, a creature with perfect or good maneuverability can fly forward as part of their movement and then go in reverse, all in the same move action. There is no need to continue moving forward.

Just like a PC can walk forward and then go backwards in the same move action.


Btw, would you rule that a good maneuverability creature that is moving "forward" has to use up 5 feet of movement to start moving "backwards", but if it is moving "backwards", it does not have to use up 5 feet of movement in order to change back to "forwards" again? Do you really think that was the intent of the designers, or was it to mean that if the creature switches to the opposite direction (i.e. goes in reverse to its current direction), it has to use up 5 feet of movement?


In real life, we associate moving forward with a facing. But, the game purposely has no facing like 1E and 2E did.

And yes, the terminology here could be better, but the terminology here is consistent with what we as humans associate with movement (e.g. turning around).


This is no different than the terminology used for the Beholder arcs (forward, back, left, right, up, and down). It's difficult to discuss movement without using words like forward or backwards, just like it is difficult to discuss a direction without using words like forward or backwards.

 

[Caliban]

Does that really work in 3.5? There's no facing and no turning. Me, I'd consider it a dubious reading of the rules and definately against their intent.

Oh, it is. That doesn't really matter to some people though. Apparently three "save or die" effects in a single round on one target just isn't enough.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Oh, it is. That doesn't really matter to some people though. Apparently three "save or die" effects in a single round on one target just isn't enough.

You create some tough beholders. By the book, there's only 1 save or die effect.

This is no different than the terminology used for the Beholder arcs (forward, back, left, right, up, and down). It's difficult to discuss movement without using words like forward or backwards, just like it is difficult to discuss a direction without using words like forward or backwards.

I agree that the terminology is difficult to discern. "Facing" as we're using it here specifically refers to the rules on flanking, AC penalties, and such, either as per 1e/2e rules or variants of 3.x. So, I'm trying not to say facing when I really only mean, as you've used it, direction: whether that 'direction' is heading (as per flying), the direction a person is currently looking (e.g. detect magic), or the directional unit vector for the positioning of an arc. With that in mind, let me respond to one point you made earlier.

With your "change the positioning" comment, you appear to be adding facing rules. You appear to be claiming that the directions of the arc change when the facing of the creature (which does not exist in the game) changes (if I understand you correctly).

No, I am claiming that the directions of the arcs change when the direction of the creature changes.