Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Brother Ebony 03-16-05, 12:14 PM	Does anyone know what the consequences of casting Blindness are on a beholder? Possibility 1: It does not work because of the the main eye. Possibility 2: All of the eyes shut down except for the main eye. Possibility 3: All of the eyes shut down. Possibility 4: All of the abilities of the eyes continue to work, but the beholder cannot see to target them. Any other possibilities? I'm at a loss.
Zherog 03-16-05, 12:15 PM	Possibility 4: All of the abilities of the eyes continue to work, but the beholder cannot see to target them. This is how I'd rule it.
Brother Ebony 03-16-05, 12:17 PM	This is how I'd rule it. Could you please explain to me the reasoning behind this ruling?
Aracor 03-16-05, 12:32 PM	Easy. It doesn't say that a beholder's eyebeams have a prerequisite of it being able to see. It should be able to flail them around blindly. ~Aracor
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 01:16 PM	This discussion is continued from another site Here (http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=29466&page=1&pp=25) The question is more about the effect on the central eye. Blinding the eye stalks is a given. Please read then give answers and also please explain how you came to said conclusion.
Zherog 03-16-05, 01:42 PM	I don't have my books here (and beholders aren't part of the SRD), but Aracor pretty well nailed my logic. I don't recall anything within the description of the beholder that links the abilities of any of its eyes (central eye or eye stalks) to the ability for that eye to actually see. The blindness spell removes the sense of sight from a creature; it does nothing to supress magic - unless that magic is directly tied to sight.
IMarvinTPA 03-16-05, 01:43 PM	Should the beholder fail his fort save and become blind, he would have to treat all targets as invisible. His central eye produces an antimagic cone, but the magic that blinds him is behind/in the eye and thus not affected by it. He could use the abilities of his eye stalks, but his ability to do so would be severely hampered. He can shoot people with the rays, but he has to pick the right square, and still suffers a 50% miss chance. Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you're aiming at. IMarv
Aracor 03-16-05, 02:06 PM	The answer is the same. Blindness doesn't specifically target the eye, it targets the creature. The antimagic cone radiates from the eye. If the beholder could target ITSELF with the antimagic, it would see. But it can't; it radiates that field from the eye. ~Aracor
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 02:13 PM	He could use the abilities of his eye stalks, but his ability to do so would be severely hampered. He can shoot people with the rays, but he has to pick the right square, and still suffers a 50% miss chance. Again not really questioning the eye stalks, mearly the central eye. When someone casts blindness what I think of is an actual shriviling (being a permanant effect and all) of the eyeballs, which I believe would fit into necromancy quite well (the school blindness/deafness comes from). One would think the effect would be negated on the central eye which is actually producing an antimagic field. Also it should be noted that the antimagic must be produced inside the eye as the way they turn the field off is by shutting their eyelid, trapping said antimagic behind their eyelid. If blindness were to effect the opitic nerves of its victim however than the beholder's antimagic ability wouldn't be able to save it from this spell as the nerve rests behind the eyes. Originally suggested by Brother Ebony was that the spell might effect the communication between the eyes and brain but I think that has been pretty much ruled out as the spell lacks the [Mind-Affecting] effect.
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 02:23 PM	The answer is the same. Blindness doesn't specifically target the eye, it targets the creature. The antimagic cone radiates from the eye. If the beholder could target ITSELF with the antimagic, it would see. But it can't; it radiates that field from the eye. ~Aracor Cute. You can't just say, well it targets the creature. That doesn't make any sense, we are looking for what you believe the CAUSE of the blindness would be and would that work on a beholder?
IMarvinTPA 03-16-05, 02:54 PM	Cute. You can't just say, well it targets the creature. That doesn't make any sense, we are looking for what you believe the CAUSE of the blindness would be and would that work on a beholder? The spell has a permanent duration, which means it doesn't cause any physical damage. If it were an instantaneous duration, I would assume the eyes got burned out and would require a Regenerate to fix. The former leaves the eye to create a cone, while the latter creates a blackened eye socket. IMarv
Brother Ebony 03-16-05, 03:03 PM	When someone casts blindness what I think of is an actual shriviling (being a permanant effect and all) of the eyeballs, which I believe would fit into necromancy quite well (the school blindness/deafness comes from). If this entire argument comes about because of how you picture the spell working, then my recommendation is: Think of it some other way. The way the spell is worded, it creates a magical effect that blinds the subject of the spell permanently. In order to do this, it need not effect the eye itelf. If the spell impacts something associated with the eye (such as the optic nerve) instead of the eye itself, it certainly works. Since the spell does not specify that it effects the eye or the teeth or the optic nerve, we can visualize it whatever way we want, so long as the end result is the blindness of the creature. It's magic. You say "It doesn't work on the eye itself." I say, "It does not have to damage the eye in order to work."
Zherog 03-16-05, 03:06 PM	Yep. "Permanent" in D&D really just means, "Forever, or until somebody dispels it." Since the effect can be dispelled, I'm left to believe the eyes are still there - they just don't produce sight. Since the spell does not say it gets rid of the eyes, and as I recall the beholder entry is not dependent upon sight, then I have to believe everything still functions. Cute. You can't just say, well it targets the creature. Actually, he can say that: Blindness/Deafness ... Target: One living creature He's exactly right - the spell targets a creature, not the eyes (or ears, in the case of deafness).
Evil Wizard 03-16-05, 03:10 PM	For all we know, blindness affects the optic nerve itself, which bypasses the anti-magic shooting out straight ahead from the main eye. It doesn't say anything about a specific defence against blindness, so go with it. But I think I have to agree that it could still use its eye rays. It just wouldn't be able to aim them properly, and probably would just start shooting randomly. Blinding a beholder then hiding right underneath it while it blasts lasers everywhere gives me a very amusing mental image, in fact.
Finarin Panjoro 03-16-05, 03:24 PM	I agree. Blind but functional. If a dispel magic can restore his sight then no physical damage has been done. The magic is suppressing his sight, not damaging his eyes, nerves, or whatever. The magic targets the creature (see its entry) not the eyes so the anti-magic cone would have no effect on the Beholder's ability to see.
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 04:59 PM	If this entire argument comes about because of how you picture the spell working Really that has nothing to do with it, and as IMarvinTPA aptly pointed out to me my mental picture was flawed. But regardless cause and effect always applys, even with magic. If the effect is blindness what is the cause? Is the magic effecting the eyes themselves? Or something else? Can we at least agree that if the spell were to be affecting the eyes themselves than it would have no effect on the central eye?
IMarvinTPA 03-16-05, 05:05 PM	Can we at least agree that if the spell were to be affecting the eyes themselves then it would have no effect on the central eye? I feel that even if the spell directly affected the eye, the central eye would be blind. I do not imagine the anti-magic effect starting within the eye, but from the surface of the eye out. This means the critical part of the eye for seeing is not protected by the anti-magic aura. IMarv
Aracor 03-16-05, 05:10 PM	I agree with IMarvinTPA. Even if the spell effects the eye itself, which is unclear and therefore iffy at best, the central eye would still be effected. Like I said, the antimagic cone radiates from the eye, so it's not affecting the eye itself. Which means that the eye would still be blind, unless the beholder could find a way to target itself with the antimagic effect. ~Aracor
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 05:13 PM	I feel that even if the spell directly affected the eye, the central eye would be blind. I do not imagine the anti-magic effect starting within the eye, but from the surface of the eye out. This means the critical part of the eye for seeing is not protected by the anti-magic aura. IMarv Yeah but it doesn't say the antimagic is produced on the surface of the eye, but neither does it say its produced inside the eye. Funny how you never realize how vague the rules really are till something like this comes up, I mean come on have you read the spell discription of Blindness/Deafness.
Aracor 03-16-05, 05:28 PM	Yes. It blinds the creature. Period. It doesn't say how, it doesn't have to. It's a permanent blindness effect (and one of my favorite spells to chain, incidentally). There's nothing to suggest that a beholder's central eye would be immune to it, so it's not. Simple. ~Aracor
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 05:43 PM	Yes. It blinds the creature. Period. It doesn't say how, it doesn't have to. It's a permanent blindness effect (and one of my favorite spells to chain, incidentally). There's nothing to suggest that a beholder's central eye would be immune to it, so it's not. Simple. ~Aracor Don't speak to me in absolutes. "There's nothing to suggest that a beholder's central eye would be immune to it, so it's not. Simple." How about an antimagic cone radiating from it? Should give one pause to consider what effect or counter-effect it should have.
Aracor 03-16-05, 06:32 PM	What's wrong with absolutes? How about an antimagic cone radiating from it? Should give one pause to consider what effect or counter-effect it should have. I gave pause to consider it. My conclusion is that it has no effect. You're missing the point of antimagic field. If it was affecting the beholder, said beholder would be immune to all magic. Magic would just fall apart when it tried to affect it. You're basing the fact that blindness maybe affects the eyes directly, which the text doesn't support, I might add; and saying that because the eye radiates an antimagic field, it wouldn't be affected. Like I said, in that case any magic would have the same problem, because antimagic field isn't specific. I've never seen any evidence that a beholder would be rendered immune to magic thrown at it, so my conclusion is that it isn't. Therefore blindness still works. The beholder's antimagic cone would still work, but it wouldn't be able to aim its eye rays accurately any more because it couldn't see. Why try to make things more complex than they have to be? That's my question. ~Aracor
Lord Asmodeus 03-16-05, 06:48 PM	Cause its more fun that way, thats why. Well I guess I'm just adament about this because he originally tried to argue that it would shut down the antimagic field, and that it affected the signals between the brain and the eye. So maybe I'm just being unreasonable now because I'm stuck in "no" mode
Aracor 03-16-05, 11:55 PM	I don't know of any reason why the antimagic field would shut off. There's nothing that links a beholder's ability to see with its ability to generate an antimagic cone (at least in the current edition). Add that to the fact that it's simply a magical effect that prevents sight from working, I see no reason why the antimagic cone would shut off. But I DO think it would stop it from seeing, regardless of the cone. Otherwise why would there be a difference between blinding it and blasting its eyelid while closed with a scorching ray? Logically, if it's immune to one of those, it should be immune to both. ~Aracor
PhaedrusXY 03-17-05, 02:54 AM	So maybe I'm just being unreasonable now because I'm stuck in "no" modeAdmitting you have a problem is the first step towards a solution. :P
Vatras 03-17-05, 04:54 AM	My ruling on this would be that all eyes of the beholder go blind, denying it normal sight. It can still use its rays, which are treated as weaponlike spells and governed by all the rules of shooting blind at unseen foes (so he will in all likelihood not be able to hit anything).
Shatteredtower 03-17-05, 05:54 AM	It helps to remember that if the beholder's central eye was immune to blindness because of the antimagic field it projects, the beholder would be unable to use its other rays at all! The reason for this is that the antimagic field would then extend through the creature's own space. It can't be localized within that space to affect only part of itself; it's all or nothing for such an effect. But I'd agree that blindness does not prevent the use of any of the beholder's rays.
Talchar 03-17-05, 05:56 AM	My 2 CP worth, You cannot blind a beholder's central eye, it manifiests a continous anti-magic field. The beholder can supress this effect by closing its eye. (it does not shut off anti-magic effect) A blindness spell result would be the elimination of the beholders 360 degree arc of vision but functionally, the beholder is crippled. This would result, in having the beholder being able to see & be unable to use its eye stalk attack(s), (Frontal Arc), or close its central eye and be forced to fire blind (front arc). Right & Left rear arcs the beholder would always fire blind. The one real issue that this topic brings to mind, is that of beholder vs beholder combat... oh the futility of it all.
Shatteredtower 03-17-05, 06:03 AM	You cannot blind a beholder's central eye, it manifiests a continous anti-magic field. Funny that I addressed that issue just before you posted. ;) The one real issue that this topic brings to mind, is that of beholder vs beholder combat... oh the futility of it all. Not really. Whichever catches the other by surprise usually wins. Failing that, it's a matter of closing enough to be able to move out of the cone of effect the other beholder produces and blast away, hoping for a quick win before retaliation is an option.
Talchar 03-17-05, 06:33 AM	Not really. Whichever catches the other by surprise usually wins. Failing that, it's a matter of closing enough to be able to move out of the cone of effect the other beholder produces and blast away, hoping for a quick win before retaliation is an option. Hide skill +10, Spot Skill +22, things look grim for the good guys. I would imagine a beholder v heholder battle would end up a balltle of lair design, traps, and use of slaves, as the beholders cancel each other out. I would imagine that the TK ability would be decisive as its effective STR 18, vs beholders 10, would be a big advantage.
Shatteredtower 03-17-05, 06:56 AM	Hide skill +10, Spot Skill +22, things look grim for the good guys. But who are the good guys in a beholder vs. beholder battle? ;) I would imagine a beholder vs heholder battle would end up a battle of lair design, traps, and use of slaves, as the beholders cancel each other out. I would imagine that the TK ability would be decisive as its effective STR 18, vs beholders 10, would be a big advantage. Sometimes. They're more than capable of circumventing each other's central eye cone, should it come to that. Their saving throws make failure unlikely against most of the rays, especially those that allow a Will save, but the chance for a quick kill is pretty good at close range when a Fort save is required. Besides, charmed creatures aren't the most reliable forces in a beholder vs. beholder fight. They're more hot potatoes than anything else, since control can end up passing back and forth or simply be overcome by antimagic with no telling how the victims will react.
Lord Asmodeus 03-17-05, 10:28 AM	In a beholder vs. beholder battle it would probably just come down to bite attacks, which is probably why in beholder society the biggest one rules.
Brother Ebony 03-17-05, 12:43 PM	Cause its more fun that way, thats why. Well I guess I'm just adament about this because he originally tried to argue that it would shut down the antimagic field, and that it affected the signals between the brain and the eye. So maybe I'm just being unreasonable now because I'm stuck in "no" mode Maybe you are. Would it help if I reminded you that I never said what you claim I said? ...he won't be able to see to target. Think of it as an "Invisibility" spell in reverse. If you follow up the blindness with a deafness spell, he has no way to target from a distance. He HAS to close in order to defeat you, and the blindness and deafness are permanent. He may be able to fire his rays, but he'll be fighting in the dark. After that, it's just a matter of clean-up.
Talchar 03-17-05, 06:11 PM	But who are the good guys in a beholder vs. beholder battle? ;) That is easy, everyone knows that the beholder with the (4h)eye stalk that has a green star shapped mark is the good guy. Besides, charmed creatures aren't the most reliable forces in a beholder vs. beholder fight. They're more hot potatoes than anything else, since control can end up passing back and forth or simply be overcome by antimagic with no telling how the victims will react. Hmmm, Beholder wars, that could make a basis for interesting adventure.
Lord Asmodeus 03-17-05, 11:30 PM	Maybe you are. Would it help if I reminded you that I never said what you claim I said? Oh come on now Mouser Taken from WebRPG "You're not casting it on the eye. The eye has nothing to do with it. You're casting it on the Beholder. The blindness spell permanently disrupts the communication between the eye and the brain. Or the ear and the brain." And "The spell description clearly says: "You call upon the powers of unlife..." In other words, Negative Energy, right? The same Negative Energy that you would use to cast a Harm spell or a Cause Serious Wounds spell, right? So saying that this spell is cast on the Beholder as a being is accurate, isn't it? A Magic Missile cast on a Beholder works, doesn't it? A Cause Serious Wounds works on a Beholder doesn't it? And so, if there is a way to remove the capacity of the eye to see without actually destroying the eye, that would solve the problem of the eye being an anti-magic field generator, wouldn't it? So my solution of saying the Beholder, as a result of this spell, has had his optic nerves burned out of his skull without effecting the eyes one iota, that would be as useful a description as any other description, wouldn't it? In order to prove me wrong to my satisfaction, you will have to show me where in the spell description it specifically denies my explanation.?"
Talchar 03-18-05, 12:42 AM	In order to prove me wrong to my satisfaction, you will have to show me where in the spell description it specifically denies my explanation.?" Aberration Type: An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three. So, does a beholder have an optic nerve? what about a skeleton? Dracolich? a mimic?
PiT_FiEnD 04-15-05, 02:03 AM	I feel that if you were to blind a Medusa or someone/something with a gaze attack that they would no longer be able to make gaze attacks due to there eyes being completely lifeless and unable to see. I feel the same should be said for the Beholder that it's eyes become unable to function. 1) if it's central eye is open to start with it can't be affected by the spell 2) if it's central eye is closed it would make the fort save to see if affected by spell 3) If affected by spell, Beholder goes WTF? Opens central eye, possibly suppressing the Blindness (not dispelling) realizes it can't fire while it's antimagic field is up. 4) So it then closes it's central eye, so it will be able to fire it's eye beams, only to find out somebody turned out the lights again. this is how i would play it, whether or not it's magic abilities can even function out of an eye which is blinded is a different thing. I would probably lean closer towards the eyes not functioning, but if i did allow it i would probably give the beholder a chance of shooting it's self on a critical miss, why you ask, why not i say :D Congratulations you have found the Beholders Achillies Heel
solbergb 04-15-05, 07:03 PM	Now for real fun think about glitterdust. Unlike Blindness, it coats the outside of the eyes for sure. I believe in that case the central eye would be unaffected but the other eyes might be unable to fire their rays, since the eye is being rendered directly nonfunctional, similar to shutting the eyelid. I saw a Gaut run that way once, but I believe each DM will have his own interpretation. Of course sticking a glitterdust to an aberration is difficult given that good will save...harder than sticking a blindness.
Talchar 04-16-05, 08:20 AM	So, if you kill a beholder, then take the central eye lid, and place it on your shield, will it block magic?