Mearls Monster Makeover: Beholder

[Psion]

But what isn't boring is the idea that while you're still alive you know there's a real possibility that you might die. There's that valid threat that creates excitement and anxiety.

Exactly.

If you don't want a flurry of deaths in the game, don't lace it so heavily with death effects. Its only necessary to create the high likelihood of death every once in a while to create a lasting boost of emotional tension to the game.

To me, the beholder is just the sort of creature who exists just to inject those moments into a game.

 

[catsclaw227]

Personally, I am with Dr. Awkward in this particular argument.

I like the new beholder better because it makes the game easier to run. Flavor is my business, and I can flavor it up as much as I need, but I like the mechanics to be simple enough and easy to run on the fly.

One thing I hated was the facing mechanic in beholders. I ignored it in the past, but it made the anti-magic cone swanky so I was sorta stuck between "rulesets".

OK - so if facing is important during a beholder fight, is it important to use facing rules for the PCs against the beholder's mooks? Mechanically, facing is bleh. Facing always seemed more wargamey than no facing, why introduce it for one monster?

I think the barrage rules make more sense with the simplified explanations given in this thread, so I'll keep it. It would be a pleasant suprise in-game.

And the whirring bladed hallway? I say keeeeewl! It reminds me of that scene in Galaxy Quest, when they were tryin to figure out why the hell they had the "stomper hallway".

I like the changes. I say that improving mechanics doesn't make the game less flavorful. I sense that the change in some iconic beasts scares people who think that everyone needs to have the oldfashioned vanilla ice cream instead of something else. Or a better analogy would be being told that snail-mail is better because it's what someone is used to -- no email allowed! if it improves the funtionality of my game, I will make the flavor of the beholder stay iconic myself with good DMing.

 

[Felix]

One thing I hated was the facing mechanic in beholders. I ignored it in the past, but it made the anti-magic cone swanky so I was sorta stuck between "rulesets".

Do you house rule Arcane Sight, Detect Evil, Detect Magic, Detect Thoughts, and the Symbol spells as well?

Because that's the same mechanic: a longer-than-instantaneous duration for a cone effect (or burst, for the Symbols). It is not a facing issue.

And the whirring bladed hallway? I say keeeeewl!

In a comedy game, like in GalaxyQuest, it works great. In a game where this trap is meant to be something that prevents entry, then the only use for it that would be more effective than the "No hallway in the first place" option would be to mislead intruders into thinking the room beyond is important. But in that case, it's not so much a trap as it is a deception.

Sure, there's a use for it, but not in the "Authorized People Don't Get Hurt, Intruders Do" sense that I believe most traps are put there for in the first place.

 

[DaveyJones]

To keep people from going down the hallway without permission, perhaps? I didn't invent the "spinning blade hallway." It's a old fantasy standby. And it provides both a challenge to players and a cinematic angle on the concept of a trap.

If you really want to have the DM just rolling for random damage without warning every once in a while, and call that fun, that's your business.

If I were going to design a reactive trap that didn't suck, however, I'd model mine off some of the old AD&D modules like White Plume Mountain, in which there were complicated trap rooms that had a system that could be figured out and/or disabled. Much better than "(roll) ow (roll) ow (roll) ow."

aren't the PCs in a tomb or dungeon or a place where the possibility of a trap exists? shouldn't they be looking for traps and not getting complacent?
i don't think you understand what random damage means.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Play. Two. Characters.

I played the "mob of adventurers" shtick in 1st edition. It was fun for a while, but having expendable faceless mooks is not quite as satisfying as playing a single character in whom I put some time and effort.

In other words, know going in that sometimes you're gonna die, and make the requisite arrangements ahead of time to have something else to play - or at least roll for - during such times.

I would really like to know, is playing multiple characters at the same time something that most people do? Because I'd be surprised if this weren't exactly a popular answer to the problem of what to do if your character gets taken out of play.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If you want a barrage ability, how about a Mass Inflict Light Wounds ability? 1d8+HD in damage to everyone! I'd also advocate for boosting the charm to charm monster, and keeping the AntiMagic Eye as per the MM. To me, the antimagic eye is a way of stopping the PC's and scaring them in a Mexican standoff kind of way.

I'm not a fan of save or die. I kind of like the 3.5 Hold Person approach - give the target a chance to break free of an effect, rather than taking them out of the fight entirely.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

aren't the PCs in a tomb or dungeon or a place where the possibility of a trap exists? shouldn't they be looking for traps and not getting complacent?
i don't think you understand what random damage means.

Well, then we get into the whole "I'm taking 20 on every single 5 foot square in the dungeon" problem. If you don't let them do that by, for example, taking advantage of their slowness by attacking them periodically, you're telling them that they can't afford to search for traps.

I know that if I were deciding where to put traps in my dungeon, I'd place them essentially at random, because there would be no pattern to learn, and if you were searching only obvious places like doors, you'd miss them. And if you did try to take the time to find them all, I'd have plenty of time to arrange for your doom.

So on the one hand, they're complacent if they don't search for traps all the time. And on the other hand they're being reckless if they do.

Forget the whirling blades. How about a deadfall bridge? If you don't put a key (or whatever trigger) into a keyhole on the bridge, it drops you into a pit of spikes. It'll be easy for the owner to use the bridge on a daily basis. It's obviously a trap, although it may require some figuring out, so it's not just a reactive step-here-take-damage zone. It can be disabled with an open locks roll to finesse the lock, or a disable device roll to untrap the bridge. There's also the potential to bypass it completely by expending spells and the like.

I think that's a much better trap than random darts and knives flying out of the walls at you, for a variety of reasons.

 

[EricNoah]

The few times I have used beholders in the past, I always retrofitted it in some way. I did often get rid of the save-or-die stuff ("this beholder's disintegration eye was cut off years ago in a battle with blah blah blah"). I often picked different powers for some of the other rays. I never bothered with the antimagic cone. I think Mike's revision is a step in a good direction.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The thing I miss about the Beholder from earlier editions is the methods for targetting the eyetalks or the main eye or the main body. I thought that added a nice touch, and allowed the PC's to pick their posion - they could go for the eyes, and leave the beholder alive, or go for the body, risk greater danger, but kill the thing.

 

[catsclaw227]

Do you house rule Arcane Sight, Detect Evil, Detect Magic, Detect Thoughts, and the Symbol spells as well?

Because that's the same mechanic: a longer-than-instantaneous duration for a cone effect (or burst, for the Symbols). It is not a facing issue.

These aren't spells that are as important in a 6sec per round battle, like the beholder's anti-magic cone. In a non-copmbat scenario, its easy to deal with a PC looking around with the duration cone effect. It is not as simple in melee, when the cone will be most effective.

In a comedy game, like in GalaxyQuest, it works great. In a game where this trap is meant to be something that prevents entry, then the only use for it that would be more effective than the "No hallway in the first place" option would be to mislead intruders into thinking the room beyond is important. But in that case, it's not so much a trap as it is a deception.

Sure, there's a use for it, but not in the "Authorized People Don't Get Hurt, Intruders Do" sense that I believe most traps are put there for in the first place.

I see your point here, and maybe the whirring blades trap is a goofy example (and I was trying to state that, whle goofy, it is fun), but the bridge idea mentioned above makes more sense than an "oops! more instant damage" type trap.