WoTC Rich: Beholder!

[FitzTheRuke]

One of my players (a wizardophile) once boasted that none of his characters (all wizards) had ever died in a game. That, essentially, he was an unkillable death machine. I smiled and nodded... bacause I knew the Beholder was coming in the next session.

He got disintegrated.

And no, I didn't cheat.

That story brings a tear to this long-term DM's eye.

Fitz

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Man, you have missed out on the original one-monster TPK. I don't know any other regular monster that's caused so much grief to a party of the appropriate level (save DCs get way too low when the PCs start leveling up).

One of my players (a wizardophile) once boasted that none of his characters (all wizards) had ever died in a game. That, essentially, he was an unkillable death machine. I smiled and nodded... bacause I knew the Beholder was coming in the next session.

He got disintegrated.

And no, I didn't cheat.

What, no mirror images? No displacement or blur? Or did you just get lucky?

 

[Incenjucar]

Beholders are what Summon spells are for.

 

[Ahglock]

The "economy of actions" discussion has made me realise why I always hated using beholders. Their ability to cast 10+ rays per round was simply obscene. I hated using hydras for the same reason. But as a solo monster, this might actually end up balanced. I'm very interested to see how the 4th edition versions of these monsters turn out.

I realize they are now phrased as solo monsters, but how often were they run otherwise in D&D, they are kind of like dragons you usually expect to fight only one.

 

[Ahglock]

What, no mirror images? No displacement or blur? Or did you just get lucky?

Lets see the mage could of just lost initiative or even got a mirror image off then what multiple rays can chew up a lot of mirror images and lets face it you can alway hit the real caster with really small amounts of luck. Its fairly easy to waste a mage with a beholder, clerics much harder given there good in both save or die saves situation, monks even harder still. But a mage with there fort saves one hit on a touch attack and unless you were specifically prepared for that type of attack you be dead.

 

[Scrollreader]

I dunno. In our parties, mages always went around with the illusion that they were half orcs with greataxes, and so tended to get hit with will saves alot. I think it's a qustion of playstyle and optimization, really. Wizards are probably the best equipped to vary their power level dramatically in response to the above, though.

 

[Ipissimus]

What, no mirror images? No displacement or blur? Or did you just get lucky?

Beholder got the drop on the entire party except for the Rogue. Being highly intelligent, the Beholder targeted the most dangerous PC first: the Wizard.

No real chance to cast any cool sweet awesome rausetastic uber defensive spells, not high enough level to have them on continuously or any magical items to that effect either.

A good lesson in the usefulness of defensive magic that was never really learned by that party.

 

[vagabundo]

I must say, I never used a beholder, in over 20 years of D&D... Maybe the 4E one will make it.

I used it in 3.5e and it got soundly Wompped, the old bulls rush by the PCs and a low initiative roll for the beholder. It should have been a challenge but wasn't.

This beholder looks good.

 

[Dunamin]

I was actually surprised to find the 3.5 beholder much more fun to run than it looked on paper, though I'm also much looking forward to the 4E version.

Rogue: "I tumble across so the three of us have the beholder surrounded! Flanking and sneak attacks!"
DM: "No flanking bonuses or sneaks attacks for you guys. On the other hand, now the beholder can fire more rays at you."
Players: "Crap!"

 

[Plane Sailing]

Good catch, I've added it to the latest 4e update!