Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Calico Jack Drake 05-07-05, 11:00 AM	While flipping through the Lords of Madness, I happened on the Wonderous List of Beholder Feats. On the list was a feat that allows a Beholder to target its Disintigrate eye ray to a specific area of the body. Unfortunately, there are absolutely no mechanics for this. So, as an example, if a party is facing a beholder with this feat and it uses the eye ray on a wizards head (which is a viable target per the feat), it is going to do a minimum or 5d6 even if the wizard makes the fort save. If the wizard fails the save, the head is gone. Disintigrate is now a one-shot one-kill spell not subject to the effects of Death Ward. But, let's say the wizard makes the save. Does the 5d6 remove his hair? his ear? his eye? or nothing at all and the spell just does generic damage, albeit disintigrate damage? TiA - CJ
kliate 05-07-05, 12:00 PM	My take on the situation: Case 1: Beholder hits head, target takes damage >= hp Result: The target's head disintegrates, and his body collapses to the ground (dead, of course). Case 2: Beholder hits head, target takes damage < hp Result: The target's head is badly damaged, but not gone. Treat as a normal wound. Case 3: Beholder hits nonvital area, target takes damage >= hp Result: The target's nonvital area disintegrates. This is where applying damage gets to be tricky, though. I'd be inclined to state that because that nonvital area was disintegrated, the target is still alive and doesn't actually take the disintegration damage. Ie, a fighter who has his arm blasted off survives as all the damage was applied to his now-destroyed limb. Case 4: Beholder hits nonvital area, target takes damage < hp Result: This gets even trickier - are we going to track damage to every limb of the character now? Perhaps we could apply all of the damage to the character's body at large?
Derren S. 05-07-05, 05:09 PM	Oh great. Now WotC is completly nuts. Publishing called shot feats for beholders...
Vanamir 05-09-05, 05:38 AM	Oh great. Now WotC is completly nuts. Publishing called shot feats for beholders... I second that. They have published their fair share of broken rubbish but that one tops even Vow of Poverty (aka as Vow of Over-Powerty). :looloo:
Da Dinictus 05-09-05, 05:58 AM	I second that. They have published their fair share of broken rubbish but that one tops even Vow of Poverty (aka as Vow of Over-Powerty). :looloo:I really need to find the rants against it, then. It seems powerful, but there really are some heavy restrictions to it with practically zero excemptions to its rules unless the DM would say otherwise ("So you swung that magic sword as you stashed it away? YOU USED IT!"). Still, called shots... I definitely need to see that book. Kliate seems to cover things nicely, but that still leaves us with the damage given out and whether or not we should note its effects on characters. Crickey.
Calico Jack Drake 05-09-05, 12:18 PM	As near as I can tell, the damage is done to the HP pool but to a specific location. This is why I'm trying to figure it out. The description says you can disintigrate a part of a person. but what HP% do you need to do to or do you just do superficial damage if they make their save? I know it's my call as DM but the players are going to scream the first time one of them loses an arm... or a head... Vorpal Disintigrate, anyone?
tarkin 05-09-05, 01:16 PM	I can easily see a fair, simple way to rule this. The main part is that you seem to be looking for "special rules" to boost the power. They did not list any, because NOTHING special happens. They don't get any special benefits beyond normal for a made save. When you direct a Distinigrate, it disintgrates a body part of your choice. What happens then is left up to the DM. WHATEVER the DM rules, this will be OK, because normally it would kill the victim. I personally would rule that a disintegrate bodypart of ANY type knocks someone down to -1 hitpoints, if it is vital (head/heart/) to -10 and kills them. If your DM is more conservative and says they live, so what? -------------- Next, 5d6 from disintegrate is NOT disintegration damage. It is just damage. Doing damage to a head is no different than doing damage to any part of the body. There is NO special affect that happens. You don't lose hair, you don't lose an eyebrow, you lose nothing. You just take hit point damage. ------------ Frankly, the reason they did not list any "special rules" is that the kind of "special rules" you seem to be asking for would be abusive.
Calico Jack Drake 05-09-05, 03:35 PM	First of all, settle down, Beavis... The feat like many other things is poorly written. The editors tend to forget we haven't sat in on their brainstorming sessions so we don't know the nuances of what they are trying to get accross in the suppliments. I can easily see a fair, simple way to rule this. The main part is that you seem to be looking for "special rules" to boost the power. They did not list any, because NOTHING special happens. They don't get any special benefits beyond normal for a made save. When you direct a Distinigrate, it disintgrates a body part of your choice. What happens then is left up to the DM. WHATEVER the DM rules, this will be OK, because normally it would kill the victim. I personally would rule that a disintegrate bodypart of ANY type knocks someone down to -1 hitpoints, if it is vital (head/heart/) to -10 and kills them. If your DM is more conservative and says they live, so what? There is nothing fair, simple, easy or even helpful about what you posted. I'm looking for reasonable ideas on how to adjudicate this. As a DM that's my responsibility. Specifically, I'm trying to make it so it is NOT abused. Lords of Madness has now created the idea that, by swapping out one feat from the MM for the Directed Disintigrate feat, a Beholder can disintigrate arms, legs, hands, feet and (most importantly) heads. The feat allows for the disintigration of a body part so long as the target's HP don't drop below 0. If they do, the target is subject to complete disintigration as per normal. So, it is my responsibility to look at the feat from a game balance perspective and try to fit it into the game without adequate instructions or descriptions from the creator of the feat. To that end I am looking for helpful opinions on how this should work. As written, something special does happen since a partial disintigrate can now remove an arm or a leg or worse. Next, 5d6 from disintegrate is NOT disintegration damage. It is just damage. Doing damage to a head is no different than doing damage to any part of the body. There is NO special affect that happens. You don't lose hair, you don't lose an eyebrow, you lose nothing. You just take hit point damage. That HP damage is coming from a disintigrate spell. So you're saying it's only disintigration damage if you are dropped to <0 HP? That's moronic. The damage is all coming from the same source. Up until now we didn't have to deal with what the damage actually did to a body that made the save or was not dropped to <0 HP. With the addition of directing the damage, you have to now consider what that damage is doing. I may be overthinking this, but it is a question that will come up. For instance, a Druid with Abberation WildShape can become a beholder including all of its SU abilities. If they plan on spending most of their time in that form, they can take that feat and now they are Vorpal Bunnies. One shot disintigrates that can destroy the arm wielding the killer sword, the other arm with the super shield, or just go for broke and eliminate the target's head and feast on the rest of the body (Well, ok, maybe not feast on the body... but you get the idea). All of this with a ranged touch ray once per round. Frankly, the reason they did not list any "special rules" is that the kind of "special rules" you seem to be asking for would be abusive. No, an extra paragraph or tow of "special rules" would save several hours of trying to figure this out in the middle of a game. Not having them grants the potential for massive abuse.
Derren S. 05-09-05, 03:42 PM	My advise is to simply cut out this spell from the book and place it in the "When WotC authors smoke crack" drawer.
Ogre4Hire 05-09-05, 08:23 PM	Seconded.
The_Fan 05-09-05, 09:25 PM	So...lemme get this straight... They produced a feat that allows a beholder to use one of its "save or die" beams and turn it into a "save or lose your arm," and it's overpowered? Seriously, I must be getting something wrong: Normal disintegrate beam: Step 1: Ranged touch attack Step 2: Target makes saving throw. If throw succeeds, 3-A. If throw fails, 3-B. Step 3-A: Take 5d6 points of damage. Step 3-B: Die, crumble to dust. Targeted beam to head: Step 1: Ranged touch attack. Step 2: Target makes saving throw. If throw succeeds, 3-A. If throw fails, 3-B. Step 3-A: Target takes 5d6 points of damage, possibly losing their hair if the DM is feeling funny. Step 3-B: Target's head disintegrates, leaving behind the body for his companions to loot once the beholder is dead. How is this overpowered?
Derren S. 05-10-05, 02:25 AM	Only that 3-B is not "Die", but take 26d6 damage (average 91). Also, what happens when your head takes only 5d6 damage. Loosing ones hair is a bit weak, considering that 5d6 damage is at averar enough to kill four human commoners with max HP?
Agun_de_Merak 05-10-05, 03:56 AM	for it has any special effect on character but it is more to target specific equipement piece, zap no more or shield or whatever the beholder want to disepear
Travin 05-10-05, 04:44 AM	This is my take on what I have read in this post alone... but I would say rather then go into hit locations such as arms heads...etc. The spell text state that "only the first creature or object struck can be affected" So in the situation that lets say a fighter is charging with his tower shield in front of him to "protect" him from that first ray. Because it only affect the first thing it can hit, and the player thinks if it can't see him then the shield would take... allowing him to cross the area. With this feat the beholder could without modifier or a very small modifier hit the char with 99% cover. Allowing the DM to make an encounter much much more challenging. The other thing that I would say is since a beholder has a normal int of 17 and wis of 15. It would be able to have great insight into a combat type situation. And be used by the GM to subdue the players for plot reasons. such as first turn disintegrate on the fighter +5 holy full plate... that would take the steam out of him quickly... maybe even more damaging to a player then death... in the players minds anyway. I would without question say that this could easily be abused by a DM, but as a DM it is your job not to do that... so figure out your own way of using it or simply house rule it out of the game. The books after all are guide lines to follow, but if they get in the way of the fun simply throw that part out. Oh and to The Fan in either case you get the loot from the player... the first case you just shake the dust out... as disintegrate only affects one thing... the player or a piece of gear.
kinem 05-10-05, 06:51 PM	The text of the feat could be wriiten better, but it clearly says that you can choose which parts of the target not to affect. In other words, whatever would have been disintegrated without the feat, you can now choose part of to not affect; you can not disintegrate something with this feat that wouldn't have been disintegrated without it. There absolutely no mention of the saving throw in the description of the feat. In other words, if the target (making the save or not) has enough hp that he doesn't die, you still don't disintegrate any part of him. Only if he did die, you could choose to only make his head disintegrate or whatever. The confusing part is that it then mentions the "optional" rule of allowing missing body parts to affect play. Of coure this rule is "optional" in name only; if you as DM don't allow any effect to happen to a prisoner whose foot was cut off, everyone will think you're an idiot and you'll never be able to play again. It's about as optional as not using "every weapon does 1d6" was in OD&D. With the "optional" rule, it states that you can disintegrate part of the opponent as long as he doesn't die from the damage. The hit point damage, or the no-more-head damage? Doesn't say. I think, in the spirit of the main part of the feat, it means you can't disintegrate a guy's head (unless the damage would have killed him anyway) unless, like with an undead or an ettin, losing it wouldn't kill him.
bjorntfh 05-10-05, 07:10 PM	The other thing it lets you do is reduce the damage voluntarily. I'd say you could target his arm, he fails his save and you say "Lose the arm and 30 HP (or whatever)" instead if saying "You die." Also, it lets you use disintegrate as a sculpting tool!
The_Fan 05-12-05, 08:41 PM	Just borrowed a friend's book and read it myself. Conclusion: The OP and all who jumped in supporting him don't know what they're talking about. The two more reasonable voices above me were correct. All it does is let you sculpt or reduce damage with disintegrate, not target specific areas. Honestly, I wonder if sometimes people do this on purpose...
Calico Jack Drake 05-13-05, 11:44 AM	Just borrowed a friend's book and read it myself. Conclusion: The OP and all who jumped in supporting him don't know what they're talking about. The two more reasonable voices above me were correct. All it does is let you sculpt or reduce damage with disintegrate, not target specific areas. Honestly, I wonder if sometimes people do this on purpose... Then you obviously need to go back and read it again more carefully since it specifically says you can target specific body parts and even suggests where to go in DMG to see what penalties should be applied for the loss of limbs. -CJ
The_Fan 05-13-05, 12:03 PM	*sigh* I think you miss the point. It doesn't allow you to target specific areas. Instead, it allows you to exclude specific areas. HUUUUUUUGE difference there. You're not so much targeting the head as excluding the body. Likewise you could exclude the body and head, but instead "Target" all the extremities, leaving your victim a quadruple amputee. If for some reason you wanted to, you could even exclude just the ears, resulting in having two ears as trophies. Make sense?