Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 9055273" data-attributes="member: 97077">In a recent game of mine where the PCs were making their way out of the Abyss, they came across what looked at first to be a normal beholder in a bone tower. Only this was actually two beholders fleshwarped by a sibriex to be a single creature. So sure, on one side it projected the antimagic cone. But if it turned around or you got behind it, you found yourself looking at its second face and steeped in a wild magic cone. It had a higher CR, more hit points, higher DCs, etc. When it reached half HP or fewer it would tear apart and now have double its regular eye ray attacks. Because I change things from time to time, the PC in your example above is actually wrong and acting on erroneous assumptions could lead to a bad result. Knowing this, players in my games tend to verify their assumptions before acting on them which is, in effect, mitigating against the &quot;metagaming&quot; you say you don't like. That's not why I do it, but it's a byproduct of what I do. And I don't have to ask players to pretend to forget what they think they know or judge encounter difficulty around that notion.As well, it's roleplaying to portray the character as stating what the character thinks about beholders and it's roleplaying to portray the character as knowing nothing at all about them. Roleplaying is just saying what your character does, thinks, and says. It's just what your character thinks could be wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 9055273, member: 97077"] In a recent game of mine where the PCs were making their way out of the Abyss, they came across what looked at first to be a normal beholder in a bone tower. Only this was actually two beholders fleshwarped by a sibriex to be a single creature. So sure, on one side it projected the antimagic cone. But if it turned around or you got behind it, you found yourself looking at its second face and steeped in a [I]wild magic[/I] cone. It had a higher CR, more hit points, higher DCs, etc. When it reached half HP or fewer it would tear apart and now have double its regular eye ray attacks. Because I change things from time to time, the PC in your example above is actually wrong and acting on erroneous assumptions could lead to a bad result. Knowing this, players in my games tend to verify their assumptions before acting on them which is, in effect, mitigating against the "metagaming" you say you don't like. That's not [I]why [/I]I do it, but it's a byproduct of what I do. And I don't have to ask players to pretend to forget what they think they know or judge encounter difficulty around that notion. As well, it's roleplaying to portray the character as stating what the character thinks about beholders and it's roleplaying to portray the character as knowing nothing at all about them. Roleplaying is just saying what your character does, thinks, and says. It's just what your character thinks could be wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification