Mearls Monster Makeover: Beholder

[DaveyJones]

The problem with encounters with traps as they are now is that the type of trap is utterly meaningless. It could be a poisoned needle, a scything blade, or the most cunning death trap in existence, but it makes no difference. Either the Rogue rolls two d20s, one to find and the other to disarm the trap, or someone gets hit with the trap. Apply the effects, collect the XP, and move on.

There are then two choices in trap placement: either put them in 'odd' places so that they become random damage out of nowhere, or put them in the places a sae person would want trapped, in which case they're basically free XP - we now have 30+ years of experience with dungeon delving, so we know where to look for these things.

I'm sorry, but they've lost their appeal. (Yeah, okay, add the obligatory IMO to that statement.)

you need to play with a more imaginative group. part of the appeal is the trap. how to overcome it, the fear of what it will do, if it will reset, and many more.

edit: learning the nuts and bolts of why it was there. who built it. and so on. part of the exploration of other skills and possible roleplay. plot hook: the son of the original trapmaker wants to recover his father's bones. (i know you have seen this hook a million times on the screen or tv)

there are whole books on historical ones. heck, there are whole books on ones designed just for the game. and books are just the tip on the iceberg when it comes to imagination.

if you can imagine it... (the DM will have to figure out the CR and XP value) you can include it.

 

[Hussar]

What next? Dragons who don't get any abilities other than bite, claws and breath - because otherwise they are "too hard" to run in a combat?

I'd absolutely LOVE to see this sort of dragon. Simply build the buff's that the dragon would likely have into the age category of the dragon and away you go. Heck, there's a thread about this exact thing somewhere around here.

The problem is a lot of "tradition" is actually nostalgia. I started playing Dungeons and Dragons when I was 12 in '91. I don't have fond memories of the good ol' 70s and 80s D&D. Heck, I was born in '79. When I started playing the game beholders had already been around for a decade and a half. I've never even used or seen a beholder in use in game. To say that tradition is more important than good design completely ignores that one person's tradition is another person's annoying design.

I'm also in the boat of having never seen a beholder used in play in any edition. Actually, that's a lie, I did see one once. So, to me, there's absolutely no tradition for this monster at all. I'm very curious how many people have actually used a beholder, so I'm going to start up a poll on the issue.

 

[delericho]

you need to play with a more imaginative group. part of the appeal is the trap. how to overcome it, the fear of what it will do, if it will reset, and many more.

All those things are okay... except that the encounter with the trap boils down to two rolls:

1) Rogue Searches for trap

2) Rogue disables trap

Everything else is just description, and it's description that gets tired after ten years of playing with the same group. They want to move on and, you know, do things, not hear the DM rabbitting on for five minutes about a trap that they disarmed in ten seconds.

edit: learning the nuts and bolts of why it was there. who built it. and so on. part of the exploration of other skills and possible roleplay.

To quote Stan Marsh, "don't care, don't care, don't care." Unless the party are there for the trap (which would be a very unusual adventure, although not impossible), they just don't care why it was there, and only care who built it if they care who built the dungeon as a whole. They probably care what's behind the door that was trapped, so we get on with that. The trap itself? Eh, two rolls and you're done.

Frankly, I want better for my traps.

plot hook: the son of the original trapmaker wants to recover his father's bones. (i know you have seen this hook a million times on the screen or tv)

Nope. Can't recall ever having seen it.

there are whole books on historical ones. heck, there are whole books on ones designed just for the game. and books are just the tip on the iceberg when it comes to imagination.

if you can imagine it... (the DM will have to figure out the CR and XP value) you can include it.

But, as long as they're just reactive rather than interactive traps, they're still just two rolls: Search and Disarm.

I could say more, but there have been threads on trap design in the past, and traps aren't really on-topic for this thread, so I won't.

 

[DaveyJones]

I could say more, but there have been threads on trap design in the past, and traps aren't really on-topic for this thread, so I won't.

well the thread is about monster makeovers.

the rot grub, gas spore, green slime, yellow and russet mold were certainly monsters in the older editions.

they are hazards/traps now.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What next? Dragons who don't get any abilities other than bite, claws and breath - because otherwise they are "too hard" to run in a combat?

Mark my words:

Within the next two years we'll be seeing dragons who use Warlock rules to cast spells instead of Sorcerer rules.

 

[EvilGM]

I like the beholder makeover.
I would add variations to each individual beholder however, so the rays weren't consistently all the same.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I personally never used a beholder before 3E. I have used one twice now in a convention game (same adventure, run at different times). The facing part of it? Stinks. Mearls makeover may lack a little flavor, but it makes a great deal more sense and brings the beholder into line with the rest of the rules. Let's face it, at 60 hp, the beholder dies fast, which is why it has so many offensive attacks.

Incidentally, on the "sleep isn't a save or die effect" debate, I disagree. Sleep means you take no actions and can be coup-de-graced with ease by a weak minion.

 

[delericho]

Incidentally, on the "sleep isn't a save or die effect" debate, I disagree. Sleep means you take no actions and can be coup-de-graced with ease by a weak minion.

Or woken by a comrade with a standard action. Being put to sleep might mean your character dies, but it's not a certain death-sentence. As such, it fails the save-or-die test.

 

[delericho]

Mark my words:

Within the next two years we'll be seeing dragons who use Warlock rules to cast spells instead of Sorcerer rules.

Possibly. I doubt we'll see that in the current edition, because in general, Wizards seem loathe to release monsters that rely on systems that aren't in the same book, and I don't see them wanting to reprint all the Warlock casting rules just for that use.

In the next edition, I agree that we will see dragons using the Warlock rules... if the Warlock makes the cut and becomes one of the PHB core classes. Which, personally, I doubt will happen.

IMO, of course - I have no evidence to support either assertion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This makeover is poop (though, admittedly, not as bad as the rust monster makeover).

What is? I'm still waiting for the makeover of the housecat, which obviously is too bland for its CR......

4. I hate the nerf of the antimagic cone. Disrupt spellcasting gives one effect -- but the anti-magic cone is so much more interesting. It suppresses melee and missile characters -- the sword stop flaming, the oathbow stops working -- and more importantly stops ongoing spell effects. Nothing says "fear" like the stoneskin dropping, the flying fighter falling to the floor, and the cleric's continual flame mace going out and leaving the party in the dark. Want to stop it from interfering with itself? Make the eye rays Su abilities, and they can't be aimed more than three at a single target. Deal with the facing for the cone -- it ain't that hard, guys. And if it still really bugs you, make it an instantaneous cone whose effects have a 1d4 round duration.

It also removed the ability to face a beholder from the front, so as to make it choose either to not use its anti-magic, or not use its other eyestalks.

That said, the beholder is a pretty silly monster anyway (IMHO at least). The Spelljammer version of beholders was my favourite (and the one I used in the Dungeon of Thale, which had a beholder civilization). This is a monster for which additional permutations are a boon; the Mearls beholder could exist side-by-side with the SRD one.

I am not opposed to monster makeovers, so long as:

(1) The theme, feel, and mythology of the monster are not botched,
(2) The monster is not nerfed, and
(3) The makeover doesn't create new weird effect like your equipment "healing" damage.

Actually, (2) doesn't bother me as much as (1) and (3). Therefore, I can live with the Mearls beholder quite easily, and certainly easier than the other makeovers.

RC

RC