Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
My take on the beholder
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justin Bacon" data-source="post: 3158063" data-attributes="member: 3795"><p>That's almost identical to the existing mechanics. The only thing you've shuffled around is the number of eyestalks that can be pointing in a particular direction.</p><p></p><p>In general, you're probably better off just using standard mechanics: The antimagic eye is a cone effect that you point in a direction on your turn. The eyestalks are ranged touch attacks.</p><p></p><p>If you don't want the beholder to target more than X number of eyestalks on a single character for balance reasons, just make that the rule: A beholder can't target a single character with more than X number of eyestalks during a single turn.</p><p></p><p>Done. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Two points:</p><p></p><p>(1) You're assuming that the beholder CAN evolve an antimagic effect that doesnt affect its own eyestalks. I see no reason for making such an assumption. Arcanists, with the complete flexibility of independent research, have never managed to perfect a version of antimagic which leaves their own spells unaffected. Why should beholders have naturally evolved such a version of antimagic?</p><p></p><p>(2) If beholders frequently fight other beholders, I can think of a <em>very</em> good reason why they would want an antimagic eye that cancels the stalks of their kin, even if it meant cancelling their own abilities, too.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can someone please explain to me why there aren't higher level sleep spells which are actually effective at knocking out higher level opponents? I really don't like the fact that, beyond the low levels, you lose the choice between killing and incapacitating.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The easiest fix for this spell is to simply allow the caster to manipulate objects at a distance as if they were physically handling them with two hands and Strength equal to 10 + the caster level. Again, why does it have to be complicated than that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good choice. The beholder really is lacking a straight-out "blast 'em" gun.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't like <em>grease</em>. It doesn't feel like a ray spell. It gives me a visual of a beholder's eyestalk gushing greasy gunk all over the floor. It doesn't feel right.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Two strong choices.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justin Bacon, post: 3158063, member: 3795"] That's almost identical to the existing mechanics. The only thing you've shuffled around is the number of eyestalks that can be pointing in a particular direction. In general, you're probably better off just using standard mechanics: The antimagic eye is a cone effect that you point in a direction on your turn. The eyestalks are ranged touch attacks. If you don't want the beholder to target more than X number of eyestalks on a single character for balance reasons, just make that the rule: A beholder can't target a single character with more than X number of eyestalks during a single turn. Done. Why does it have to be more complicated than that? Two points: (1) You're assuming that the beholder CAN evolve an antimagic effect that doesnt affect its own eyestalks. I see no reason for making such an assumption. Arcanists, with the complete flexibility of independent research, have never managed to perfect a version of antimagic which leaves their own spells unaffected. Why should beholders have naturally evolved such a version of antimagic? (2) If beholders frequently fight other beholders, I can think of a [i]very[/i] good reason why they would want an antimagic eye that cancels the stalks of their kin, even if it meant cancelling their own abilities, too. Can someone please explain to me why there aren't higher level sleep spells which are actually effective at knocking out higher level opponents? I really don't like the fact that, beyond the low levels, you lose the choice between killing and incapacitating. The easiest fix for this spell is to simply allow the caster to manipulate objects at a distance as if they were physically handling them with two hands and Strength equal to 10 + the caster level. Again, why does it have to be complicated than that? Good choice. The beholder really is lacking a straight-out "blast 'em" gun. I don't like [i]grease[/i]. It doesn't feel like a ray spell. It gives me a visual of a beholder's eyestalk gushing greasy gunk all over the floor. It doesn't feel right. Two strong choices. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
My take on the beholder
Top