Mearls Monster Makeover: Beholder

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I personally thought the whole point of he original beholders anti-magic eye was to give an area where the players were safe from all the other scary eye stalks.

It definitely felt that way. Our favourite Anti-Beholder tactic was letting our Dwarven Cleric cast Antimagic Field and stay within it. Thanks to our Ranger(Archery style) it was forced to either retreat or engage in meelee...)

 

[Ashardalon]

At 9th level or so, the clerics get Spell Immunity, right? So much for the Beholder's one 'big gun'.

Spell Immunity doesn't help any against supernatural abilities. Antimagic Field is the spell to use.

 

[Thurbane]

Stinkeroni.

Barrage is a terrible idea. Why not just give it rays and movement in one turn?

And what's so hard about antimagic zone? you can pull the ubuffed modifers off a character sheet on the fly. AC = 10 + dex + size + armor + shield, right?

The new version is simply not beholder flavored.

Agreed.

Another D&D icon sacrificed on the altar of "mechanics over flavour"...

 

[brainstorm]

Change is good

Personally, I like the intent behind the changes, and I'd take it even another step further and create a list of powers that could be substituted to customize a beholder. How fun would it be to throw a beholder at your players, have them defeat it then face another one later down the line, have them think they know what it can do, only to learn that this one has different powers? Maybe this beholder has an array of fire-related powers, or that beholder has force-related powers. Maybe the same beholders can prepare powers like spellcasters prepare spells, so that each beholder can change their own array of powers on a daily basis.

 

[Gold Roger]

I honestly don't understand how this reduces or sacrifices the beholders flavor. Aren't they still mad funky megalomanial eyeballs that fly, shot rays left and right, have charmed thralls and disintegrate Caves for themselfs?

The only thing truly removed is that they don't have statues of former foes around and that was a bit redundant with medusas anyway.

 

[Psion]

Eh... I don't follow his logic on the facing thing. Have to institute spot modifiers? For facing? No, you really don't. A beholder is a creature with eyes facing all directions, so it doesn't need to turn its "head" quickly or anything... on could easily conclude that the beholder could only rotate slowly, thus confining facing considerations to such a creature. No need to extrapolate this to all creatures.

It seems to me like Mearls is falling into a trap I usually associate with, to be frank, ENWorld... that is, when one could make assumptions, making ones that fight against the existing ruleset rather than equally fair assumptions that support it. Yeah, sometimes this can be good for generating campaign ideas, but when it just results in rules instability, it's time to stop, back up, and make the assumption that supports the existing rules.

 

[Psion]

Okay, another disagreement of assumptions:

Clerics are saddled with a number of spells that, outside of removing save-or-die conditions (paralysis, poison, fear, and so on) have no role in the game.

Okay, this I don't buy. Paralysis, poison, and fear are part of what separates the fantasy game from a historical game or (if you factor in fireballs and the like) a modern unit tactics game with a gloss of fantasy paint (fireball = grenade, magic missile = pistol, etc.)


And this despite the fact that I really have to agree that the beholder is not my favorite creature. But when it comes down to it, when I do use beholders, I use them for one reason: to frighten players. Players KNOW that beholders have death effects. So it's one creature I can drop into the game when I want to produce an authentic fear reaction. If I castrate the beholder's death effects, I lose that.

Why do you think Gygax invented the Gas Spore?

Seriously, I'd probably never use a gas spore. But you can bet it'll be in the arsenal of any high level illusionist villain I make.

 

[BryonD]

Eh... I don't follow his logic on the facing thing. Have to institute spot modifiers? For facing? No, you really don't. A beholder is a creature with eyes facing all directions, so it doesn't need to turn its "head" quickly or anything... on could easily conclude that the beholder could only rotate slowly, thus confining facing considerations to such a creature. No need to extrapolate this to all creatures.

It seems to me like Mearls is falling into a trap I usually associate with, to be frank, ENWorld... that is, when one could make assumptions, making ones that fight against the existing ruleset rather than equally fair assumptions that support it. Yeah, sometimes this can be good for generating campaign ideas, but when it just results in rules instability, it's time to stop, back up, and make the assumption that supports the existing rules.

Yep, I agree with this.

IMO
a) Facing isn't that hard and solves a lot for problems than it creates when you don't have it.
b) Beholder is a classic case of a creature where facing is significantly less meaningful.

 

[BryonD]

But when it comes down to it, when I do use beholders, I use them for one reason: to frighten players.

Also a good point that the article seems to miss out on.
Not everything is a bag of HP and stats for a single combat. Sometimes there is actually a PLOT going on....

 

[diaglo]

Why do you think Gygax invented the Gas Spore?

Seriously, I'd probably never use a gas spore. But you can bet it'll be in the arsenal of any high level illusionist villain I make.

d00d,

they made the Gas Spore a trap in the newer edition. and Green Slime, yellow and russet mold hazards

edit: and rot grubs