Mearls Monster Makeover: Beholder

[GreatLemur]

You can go too far with the "consistency" philosophy.

That's definitely true, but when you're talking about a critter whose standard move of locomotion is magical flight, it seems pretty reasonable to say that it can turn on a dime, making facing irrelevant.

 

[MojoGM]

The solution then, to allow for all possibilities in a fantasy world, would be to have facing.

And a dozen other painfully specific tracking mechanisms. Thus overcomplicating the game. That's not a good solution.

If you only have a few cases where a certain mechanic is needed, I hold you are better off focussing the detail where you need it. You can go too far with the "consistency" philosophy.

I think you either need to remove facing entirely or introduce it for everything. Otherwise it gets way too confusing.

I have to remind one of my players every week that there is no facing in 3.5. Then all of a sudden they fight a beholder and there is facing? Then it is gone again?

Overall I like the changes made to the beholder. Not all of them, I may make a few tweaks here and there, but I think it keeps the beholder flavor while making them easier to run.

After all, it's how you present an encounter to the players that makes it interesting...

 

[BryonD]

Where'd that come from?

Sorry, I find this argument silly. Because something has stats that are actually workable and well designed, the game has suddenly become a plotless hackfest?

Wanna frighten a group with a Beholder-set them against it at a lower level.

The changes do nothing but remove plot element pieces and repalce with pure combat ease pieces.

Move away from plot and towards hack is bad.
Misrepresenting that position as "plotless hackfest" is also bad.

It is, in fact, another reason to get entirely rid of facing. I don't see why we need more than three maneuverabilities-can change only straight line/round, can change direction while moving 1/round, may fly however the heck it wants.

How do they change direction 1/round if they don't have a facing?
And letting everything fly like a dragonfly is an even worse option.

 

[radferth]

I once played in very high level 2nd ed campaign in which beholders rays worked fine in their anti magic cones. Those were some nasty critters.

Personally I have no problems with the current version of beholders, but since I like to simplify things on the fly, having a wonky mechanic here and there doesn't phase me much. In general, it seems to me that it is too easy to switch out a monster's spell-like abilities for others to worry too much about redesigns based on this. If you want to face a lower-level party with a beholder, give them one with flesh to stone changed to hold person, and disintegrate for magic missle, or whatever.

 

[Arnwyn]

This particular redesign was much better than his previous attempts, at least.

I'm fine with most of the changes he made (I was worried he was going to remove the charm person power because "it's useless in combat", but it looks like good sense prevailed - ie. the realization that yes, there are other factors involved that don't include straight combat). Though I would have dumped charm person and kept charm monster. At least his heart was in the right place, there. :\ Otherwise, I think the chosen eye powers that were removed and/or modified (inflict light wounds to this "blast ray" thingy) were the best choices. The ability to fire them up to twice a round at whoever was also appreciated.

I was also fine with the improvement in save DCs (though I'd instead/also improve the beholder's stats, which are too low IMO) and I think the anti-magic eye power is much improved, as well.

But what's up with the goofy "barrage" ability? Trying to simplify and then adding that multiple iniative mess? I re-read that ability multiple times and still didn't get it. Bad, bad, bad.

But still... better than the previous disasters he came up with.

 

[Gold Roger]

The changes do nothing but remove plot element pieces and repalce with pure combat ease pieces.

Move away from plot and towards hack is bad.
Misrepresenting that position as "plotless hackfest" is also bad.

You still didn't tell me what plot abilities where removed, because I don't see any that have been removed

How do they change direction 1/round if they don't have a facing?
And letting everything fly like a dragonfly is an even worse option.

You move 20ft in a straight line, then 40ft in another direct from there, no facing.

Dragonfly flying may not be ideal. But I prefer it for something I have to read multiple sides for and then use maybe 1 per gaming year.

The solution then, to allow for all possibilities in a fantasy world, would be to have facing.

And a dozen other painfully specific tracking mechanisms. Thus overcomplicating the game. That's not a good solution.

If you only have a few cases where a certain mechanic is needed, I hold you are better off focussing the detail where you need it. You can go too far with the "consistency" philosophy.

I think the new Beholder is an impressive example how this continuity can be held while keeping these things as possibility. The change of the eye ray mechanics doesn't change heck about their working in the game world. The way the cone works is still, efectively, a kind of facing. But this time around they keep elegantly and uncomplicated within the constrains of the game.

 

[Gold Roger]

But what's up with the goofy "barrage" ability? Trying to simplify and then adding that multiple iniative mess? I re-read that ability multiple times and still didn't get it. Bad, bad, bad.

It's terribly written, but here's how it works:

Beholder has two initiative counts. Each turn he choses one as his normal initiative. The other is Barrage. In that round he can shoot two extra rays. These rays may only be of the blast or telekinesis variety, but are under no other constrained, so he can fire the same ray twice at the same target, which he usually can't.

It's not such a terrible ability.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But what's up with the goofy "barrage" ability? Trying to simplify and then adding that multiple iniative mess? I re-read that ability multiple times and still didn't get it. Bad, bad, bad.

It's not hard at all. To summarize:
1. Roll 2 initiatives.
2. When the beholder's first initiative comes up, it can choose to either barrage or act normally
3. A barrage allows it to shoot two rays, both of which must be chosen from blast ray or telekinesis ray.
4. The next time its initiative comes up, it much choose the option it did not choose the first time: if it acted normally, it must now barrage.
5. Once both actions have been performed, the choice "resets" and the next time the beholder's initiative comes up, he may choose to barrage or act normally. Return to step 2.

It's a unique mechanic, but it's a little bit like having an effect that "goes off" at a particular initiative count.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You move 20ft in a straight line, then 40ft in another direct from there, no facing.

Dragonfly flying may not be ideal. But I prefer it for something I have to read multiple sides for and then use maybe 1 per gaming year.

I agree. Since number of turns allowed per movement is already an established an uncontroversial mechanic (Psionic Charge, f'rex), and one which does not require facing, flight manoeuvrability could be much simplified by defining each manoeuvrability class in terms of the number of times each round it could change direction. You're not normally allowed to turn when you charge, but that doesn't say anything at all about your facing while you're charging. So why should facing matter if flight manoeuvrability is determined by whether or not you're allowed to change direction?

Still, to keep things making sense momentum-wise, I could see "changes in direction" being limited to changes from horizontal to diagonal, or vice versa. So if you were travelling north, and are allowed one change, you may only turn northeast or northwest on your turn. This does, however, require keeping track of which direction a flying creature was moving at the end of last turn. It's not hard if you're using miniatures to slip an arrow counter under the mini, but if you're not using miniatures, it's probably worth it to just handwave flight altogether.

To a certain extent, this is already how the flight rules work, but they're overcomplicated and worded in such a way as to make flight a chore to adjudicate.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A Beholder's Charm ability at work: