Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheLastEvilDrow 02-26-07, 12:52 AM	The beholder ala MM1 has a CR of 13. A strong element to this beast is it's anti-magic central eye. To save a lot of time, and weaken it significantly for a 5th level party or so, I've decided to have an individual beholder in one particular part of a dungeon, the thing is, I don't know what it's CR would be sans anti-magic eye. Does anyone have any guesses or thoughts on this?
PenderGrass 02-26-07, 03:17 AM	I would hazard a guess that even without its central eye, a beholder could easily toast a 5th level party without extenuating circumstances (i.e., terrain limitations, major buffing not normally available to a typical 5th level party, etc.). That is my best guess given the lack of information. Give more info, get a better answer. Even better answer, take a copy of all your PCs, place them in the circumstance as they are likely to be when it happens in-game. Play out the encounter as per your group's typical tactics - applying average rolls across the board. Do the test again using high rolls across the board. Do the test one more time using low rolls across the board. This should give you an idea of how well or poorly the group is likely to do. Use this method for any encounter you have a question about and you will likely never really need to ask a question like this again. :dragon: ****
Lilinthra 02-26-07, 09:31 AM	Could you use a Gauth? They are only CR 6 and would give you Beholder flavor for a more appropriate EL. If you really want to use an actual Beholder and reduce the CR, nix the anti-magic eye, and reduce the hit dice, adjusting the save DC accordingly. An unmodified beholder is smart enough to use its rays on appropriate targets (Will saves on fighter types, Fort saves on casters, etc.) and a 13th level party will probably have their weak saves about +5 or +6 higher than a matching 5th level party. There are still a lot of eye rays that are actually/effectively save or die effects, though, so I'd really recommend using a Gauth instead.
Matthew77 02-26-07, 09:38 AM	I agree with Lilnthra. Even without the anti-magic eye, the Beholder is still firing off 3 or more Save or Lose effects each round. Actually, against a low level party, the anti-magic eye loses its effectiveness anyway, because the party doesn't have enough magical effects to be worth supressing them. Maybe instead you could change the effects of the nastier eye rays... make Disintegrate = sicken, Finger of death = fatigue, Stone to Flesh = daze.
Epicweaver 02-26-07, 09:45 AM	The beholder ala MM1 has a CR of 13. A strong element to this beast is it's anti-magic central eye. To save a lot of time, and weaken it significantly for a 5th level party or so, I've decided to have an individual beholder in one particular part of a dungeon, the thing is, I don't know what it's CR would be sans anti-magic eye. Does anyone have any guesses or thoughts on this?Gauth's are definately more appropriate then... Save Fort DC17 or die spells. A pair of gauth's should be a significant challenge to the party provided they can keep full aerial mobility (make sure your casters have spells and/or your party has ranged weaponry or it's going to be the most one-sided fight ever). Gauth x2 = EL8; average party level 5th = EL+3, significantly difficult. Well, assuming four 5th level players with 28pt and standard wealth.
TheLastEvilDrow 02-26-07, 06:47 PM	The party is rolling 4d6, with some pretty decent scores but their wealth is explicit to what the DMG says for 5th level or so characters. Using the gauth instead of a gimped beholder seems MUCH simpler and more fair for the players, though it only slightly reduces the thematic elements of having a blind beholder lead a cult of humanoids under a major city. I think using gauth is a much better plan. Thank you all for the advice. :D
Epicweaver 02-27-07, 09:15 AM	The party is rolling 4d6, with some pretty decent scores but their wealth is explicit to what the DMG says for 5th level or so characters. Using the gauth instead of a gimped beholder seems MUCH simpler and more fair for the players, though it only slightly reduces the thematic elements of having a blind beholder lead a cult of humanoids under a major city. I think using gauth is a much better plan. Thank you all for the advice. :DYou could always have the gauths be lesser minions of a true beholder. Remember it's usually good to foreshadow and have a BBEG main villain type. Beholders are fantastic villains... You could even use a blind beholder mage if you wanted to (but the CR would still be about 13). At around ECL10 your party should be (moderately) prepared for a beholder encounter (if you don't pack them with precautionary deathward/stone to flesh scrolls you might risk a TPK). Checkout Lords of Madness for more Beholder goodness.
Marcus Majarra 02-28-07, 12:27 AM	We just fought a beholder with a 10th-level party and we got our asses handed us easily. We would have been defeated if one of our characters didn't have a natural fly speed and if we hadn't prepared for the encounter (using Ray Deflection scrolls). Just so you know, its anti-magic cone is a defensive ability only, and it works both for the beholder and against it. After all, anyone within the cone will be immune to its eye rays. Our partys tactic (had it worked) would have involved greater invisibility. Basically, while the beholder can see you, you're insider anti-magic it can't target you. And if it can't see you, you're outside anti-magic, and it still can't target you (since it doesn't know where you are).
allenchan 02-28-07, 01:04 AM	Whatever you end up doing, I strongly recommend reading this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20061028a
Lord Nedd 03-01-07, 12:22 AM	We just fought a beholder with a 10th-level party and we got our asses handed us easily. We would have been defeated if one of our characters didn't have a natural fly speed and if we hadn't prepared for the encounter (using Ray Deflection scrolls). My head reels trying to understand what you are saying. We fought a beholder and get chewed up. We would have been defeeated if one of the characters didn't have a natural fly speed and hadn't been ready with ray deflection scrolls. So did you get defeated or didn't you? !!?!? Getting your ass handed to you easily normally implies that you lost. Did you get mauled, but we in the end victorious? Confu-said, -LN
EscherEnigma 03-01-07, 01:50 AM	or they placed their hands firmly upon their buttocks and with great effort moved said buttocks towards their egress.
Marcus Majarra 03-01-07, 08:22 PM	Actually, almost all of us got our asses handed to us. Everyone, except the guy with the natural fly speed.
primemover003 03-01-07, 08:34 PM	Just so you know, its anti-magic cone is a defensive ability only, and it works both for the beholder and against it. After all, anyone within the cone will be immune to its eye rays. Our partys tactic (had it worked) would have involved greater invisibility. Basically, while the beholder can see you, you're insider anti-magic it can't target you. And if it can't see you, you're outside anti-magic, and it still can't target you (since it doesn't know where you are). If you're in it's anti magic cone you're not out of the woods my friend... How 'bout the power to kill a yak, from 200 yards away... with mind bullets! That's telekinesis, Kyle. How 'bout the power, to move you? A Beholder can easily use the same trick. You bunch up in his AM Eye and he lifts big, heavy, rocky or Metallic things with points and spikes and whatnot and flings them at you with Telekinesis (violent thrust), a mighty versatile Eye Power. I regularly sprinkle the gear of dozens of slain adventurers throughout the lair of a beholder for just such a purpose. It's a great way to dispose of nice secondary weapons like daggers and light maces. If you see small piles of rounded stones stacked like cannonballs you might be in the lair of a beholder!!! :behold: Violent Thrust Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level). You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects).
Marcus Majarra 03-02-07, 02:35 PM	If you're in it's anti magic cone you're not out of the woods my friend... Actually, it's the safest place to be. The only offensive ability the beholder has to use against anyone inside its antimagic cone is its unimpressive bite attack.
EscherEnigma 03-02-07, 02:58 PM	Did you just completly ignore what he posted about how a beholder can still attack people, without it's bite attack, that are in his anti-magic field? Telekinesis to throw things at them and creative uses of disintegrate, plus whatever else someone can come up with. Unless, of course, you're just arguing that it's the safest place to be because every OTHER place is even more dangerous. In which case I might agree with you.
primemover003 03-02-07, 04:11 PM	I don't know, a Beholder's HDd4 worth of arrows or HD worth of 25 pound stones at 1d6 each, HD of masterwork longswords, battleaxes, maces doing their normal dice... with the majority of my magical protections down. :behold: ------> :gah: :ghosted:
Marcus Majarra 03-03-07, 02:47 PM	While I can't argue with creative uses for disintegrate (assuming there is a way to use disintegrate creatively), telekinesis requires line of effect, even if you're using the violent thrust maneuver. The thrust itself would end the moment the propulsed object would enter the antimagic cone.
EscherEnigma 03-03-07, 03:46 PM	I know that we're dealing with magic here, so laws of physics don't always apply, but are you arguing that objects that are being magically propelled lose all their momentum the moment they enter an anti-magic zone? Seems kinda silly. "I throw this rock at you, and the moment it crosses this line in the sand where magic stops working it decides to start ignoring physics too and lose all momentum." I could understand an argument for saying that the Beholder is at a penalty on their to-hit rolls because they lose control for the last few feet, but I don't think it's enough to say that it just doesn't work. As for 'creative uses of disintegrate'... well, I imagine that a beholder knows exactly how it's cone works, and knows that if it wants to hurt people inside that it basically has to throw things at them. Or drop things on them. So if a beholder is in their lair, they probably have 'traps' set up such that it can drop things on people in different areas by disintegrating parts of things. Such as support beams, ropes, or just the base of a stalagtite to drop the rest of it on the heroes. And really, if you have a group of heroes turtling in the cone, the beholder isn't going to try to bite you. He's going to do something smart. Like run away. Without your magic, just how well can you follow him when he goes straight up and into the ceiling?
primemover003 03-03-07, 06:45 PM	That's not how Violent Thrust works, you're thinking of the Sustained Force option. Violent thrust blows all the energy of the spell into one shot. My ammo sits in a pile I use TK to throw it at you. Once it's thrown it's no different than an arrow or crossbow bolt or a giants boulder. All I need is line of effect to the objects to be thrusted. The targets merely need to be within 10/CL of the objects.
rikimaru75 03-04-07, 09:03 AM	Whatever you end up doing, I strongly recommend reading this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20061028a The Beholder is one of my favorite monsters. The only problem that I have with the variant of the Anti-magic cone is what to do with higher level parties that decide to come into a Beholder's lair? How would one advance the stats posted in the article? With regards to the modified Anti-magic eye, I think the article works well for mid-powered characters (though I think the DC22 Caster level check is kinda low...and it will probably get worse the higher in levels you go), but it fails to show how the ability is determined. It seems like it was just an arbitrary high number to put there. I like the idea of having perhaps a barrage initiative and an antimagic initiative though. So far, I have only run one encounter with a Beholder, and even with the anti-magic cone, the party did very well. The fighters were really able to shine since they were the least to get hosed.
Marcus Majarra 03-04-07, 07:09 PM	That's not how Violent Thrust works, you're thinking of the Sustained Force option. Violent thrust blows all the energy of the spell into one shot. My ammo sits in a pile I use TK to throw it at you. Once it's thrown it's no different than an arrow or crossbow bolt or a giants boulder. All I need is line of effect to the objects to be thrusted. The targets merely need to be within 10/CL of the objects. Actually, this all has no basis in fact. For starters, a projectile or a giant's boulder carries a range increment, which the violent thrust option for telekinesis does not. As there are no penalties for range, it's far more likely that the telekinesis effect is constant over the object thrown. As it is, the only difference between performing a sustained force effect and a violent thrust effect is that the latter spends all the spell's energy in a single round. Nowhere is it indicated that you suddenly become able to circumvent the need for line of effect throughout the entire use of this ability. Similarly, you couldn't use violent thrust to hurl the target objects/creatures beyond the range of the spell. I know that we're dealing with magic here, so laws of physics don't always apply, but are you arguing that objects that are being magically propelled lose all their momentum the moment they enter an anti-magic zone? Seems kinda silly. "I throw this rock at you, and the moment it crosses this line in the sand where magic stops working it decides to start ignoring physics too and lose all momentum." I could understand an argument for saying that the Beholder is at a penalty on their to-hit rolls because they lose control for the last few feet, but I don't think it's enough to say that it just doesn't work. This is all based on the unfounded assumption that the violent thrust maneuver generates momentum. As far as we know, no momentum is generated and the objects and creatures only move by virtue of the spell.
primemover003 03-05-07, 08:49 PM	Telekinesis has a Range increment. The power behind the throw is related to CL. The spell only has enough power to heave you or an object 10 feet/ caster level. You only need line of effect to the object being thrown and the only stipulation about the target is that it must be inside of the 10ft/CL limit. That's it. If the beholder used the sustained force to lift a Huge boulder above the AMF cone and dropped it would it miraculously stop at the top of the cone? No it wouldn't. Here's a WotC article that confirms it: Gamestoppers Part 10 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gs/20020614a)
EscherEnigma 03-05-07, 09:42 PM	As far as we know, no momentum is generated and the objects and creatures only move by virtue of the spell. Um... maybe I slept through my physics class, but last time I checked, it didn't really matter HOW something was moving. It moves, it gets momentum. It stops moving, it's momentum continues. Anyway, that article seems to agree with my arguement.
Marcus Majarra 03-06-07, 02:29 PM	Telekinesis has a Range increment. The power behind the throw is related to CL. The spell only has enough power to heave you or an object 10 feet/ caster level. You only need line of effect to the object being thrown and the only stipulation about the target is that it must be inside of the 10ft/CL limit. That's it. If the beholder used the sustained force to lift a Huge boulder above the AMF cone and dropped it would it miraculously stop at the top of the cone? No it wouldn't. Here's a WotC article that confirms it: Gamestoppers Part 10 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gs/20020614a) You're confusing the term range increment with the term range. Range increments exist for ranged weapons for which increased range equates to reduced accuracy. The violent thrust maneuver has no such mitigation, which justifies my claim that the object(s) hurled are moved entirely by the spell. As for the beholder using sustained force to lift the boulder above the cone, it doesn't need to use its telekinesis anymore because there's another force affecting the boulder at that time: its weight. The beholder merely moved the boulder from one point outside the antimagic cone to another point outside the antimagic cone. Regarding that article, I see it as an unfortunate disregard for line of effect rules. It's not the first time I see a disregard for existing rules within non-rules articles on the website. For example, there was, on one occasion I remember, a case of a creature with the regeneration ability, but without a Con score, in the Fight Club column. I guess the simplest way to rule this would be to CustServ it.
primemover003 03-06-07, 03:37 PM	MM, I do actually understand how range increments work... CustServ or the Sage might be the answer, but I think you're unfairly gimping the Beholder a legitimate tactic that even the WotC staff uses. I feel that TK's Violent Thrust is used to throw, not direct, objects or creatures at targets. It's a similar mechanic to Awesome Blow or the fling option of the Snatch feat. Line of Effect only needs to reach the objects being thrown, not their target. Here's another example of the tactic from Lords of Madness: Lords of Madness excerpt (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050408a&page=2) When two beholders meet on equal ground, each rotates quickly enough to keep its enemy in the area of its antimagic cone. Thus, the encounter rapidly degenerates into a frenzied battle of flashing teeth and tearing flesh. Each beholder uses Flyby Attack to swoop in, bite its enemy, and then retreat to a point where its foe cannot escape its cone of antimagic with a single move action, forcing the foe to take two moves to escape the antimagic or retaliate in a similar swoop-bite retreat tactic. Sometimes, a beholder can use the surrounding terrain to turn the tide of battle in its favor by using its eye rays to attack its enemy indirectly. For example, a beholder could use disintegrate rays to drop trees or cave in a roof on an enemy, or it could use its telekinesis eye ray to hurl objects at its enemy. (If the beholder uses the violent thrust form of telekinesis -- that is, using magic only to launch the object, which thereafter moves of its own accord as if it had been thrown -- the object maintains its velocity and trajectory even after it enters an antimagic cone.)
Marcus Majarra 03-07-07, 01:25 AM	I stand corrected then. It's a good thing, however, that the beholder's telekinesis is a ray and can only affect a single creature or object. That ray would be even deadlier if the beholder could make a habit of carrying 23 large greatswords to throw around every round at any target within range (we are talking about a 69d6 damage potential).
PenderGrass 03-07-07, 02:05 AM	I stand corrected then. It's a good thing, however, that the beholder's telekinesis is a ray and can only affect a single creature or object. That ray would be even deadlier if the beholder could make a habit of carrying 23 large greatswords to throw around every round at any target within range (we are talking about a 69d6 damage potential). But, a smart beholder could have those 23 large greatswords placed in a rack that exposes the blades and allows a single thrust to throw them all at once - as in an area effect type of trap or some such. It could also cause a large, rounded boulder to plough through a group of heroes like a bowling ball. A ray may be limited in targets, but definitely not lethality given the intelligence of a beholder and add in time for it to actually prepare its home defenses. :dragon: ****
Marcus Majarra 03-07-07, 01:54 PM	These custom-made objects would follow the standard damage per object rules from telekinesis. Of course, these objects would be of the dangerous variety (dealing 1d6 per 25 pounds; for a reasonable maximum of 15d6 given the beholder's CL). The sword rack could deal slashing damage, whereas the boulder would deal bludgeoning damage.
EscherEnigma 03-07-07, 05:10 PM	Pretty much. Of course, given enough time... heh heh. Evil idea: have a beholder prepare an avalanche. All he needs to do in order to drop the ceiling is move one rock that's large enough that it won't move by accident, but small enough that he can move it with his telekinesis or zap it with his disintegration. Mean-spirited? Unfair? Stacking things in favor of the beholder? Certainly on all accounts. But who ever said that beholders should be easy?
primemover003 03-07-07, 05:34 PM	Pretty much. Of course, given enough time... heh heh. Evil idea: have a beholder prepare an avalanche. All he needs to do in order to drop the ceiling is move one rock that's large enough that it won't move by accident, but small enough that he can move it with his telekinesis or zap it with his disintegration. Mean-spirited? Unfair? Stacking things in favor of the beholder? Certainly on all accounts. But who ever said that beholders should be easy? Well Beholders are geniuses... and evil. So being extremely deadly's in their nature! A scree trap is a cool idea, dropping what amounts to dense rubble into the area to further slow opponents.
wrecan 03-07-07, 05:57 PM	Someone needs to start a thread of 1001 Evil Beholder Tactics. I think I will.
Marcus Majarra 03-08-07, 03:28 AM	The problem with beholders, though, is that pulling those tricks off requires careful setup, and the really big stunts usually can't be used more than once per encounter. Fortunate for the creature, though, it only needs these tricks against adventuring groups with adequate preparation (namely greater invisibility or ray deflection).
primemover003 03-08-07, 10:06 AM	A hand of glory should be part of any Beholder's treasure! An extra ring slot for a Monster with 3 ring slots to begin with is huge enough, but See Invisibility is another advantage. Hell just deciding which magic items the beholder could be outfitted with could be a Thread all to itself!