Beholder

[Markdoc]

Re: Beholder

 

I just checked my copy of the Monster Manual 3.5. Beholders can use 3 eyestalks in any 90 degree arc. They could potentially use all 10 eyestalks if completely surrounded by foes.

 

Yeah, but in 4E, which Lucius cited, I'm not sure the Beholder has all those groovy attacks any more. Almost all spells now just do HP damage or move a target around, which judging by the Lucius cite is probably true of the Beholder too. It looks like it just does a single or special attack. That's kind of sad ....

 

cheers, Mark

[Gary]

Re: Beholder

 

Yeah, but in 4E, which Lucius cited, I'm not sure the Beholder has all those groovy attacks any more. Almost all spells now just do HP damage or move a target around, which judging by the Lucius cite is probably true of the Beholder too. It looks like it just does a single or special attack. That's kind of sad ....

 

cheers, Mark

 

I don't have the 4E MM in front of me, but I seem to remember that the 4E version is suitably nasty. They are solo monsters, so they have 5 times the usual hit points (about 1000 I think). They have 2 action points, so they could potentially act twice in 2 consecutive rounds, and they could potentially use multiple eyes even without action points. Some of the eyestalks such as the flesh to stone one causes petrification with 2 failed saves, and most people only save on a 10...

 

If you want to talk truly nasty, 4E Tiamat gets 6 attacks each round PLUS has 2 action points. And each attack does gobs of damage...

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Beholder

 

I remember the Beholder being one of the few creatures out of the standard Monster Manual that the PC's actually feared, aside from the higher level Demons and Rust Monsters. (oh, and the Terrassque)

 

The creature is definately designed to take on an entire party of PC's. The eye-stalks should provide enough coverage so that it could battle in 360 degrees. Though I think their most feared "attack" was the Anti-magic aura from the main eyeball. It would simply wipe out all the preparatory spells the PC's had cast on themselves before hand. No Haste for you!

[Lucius]

Re: Beholder

 

How important is the idea that each eyestalk has a specialized power?

 

i.e. what if every eyestalk could use any of the abilities?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an iconic palindromedary

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Beholder

 

How important is the idea that each eyestalk has a specialized power?

 

i.e. what if every eyestalk could use any of the abilities?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an iconic palindromedary

 

 

I think its extraordinarily important. Each seperate eyestalk should have its own unique ability and thus, when said eyestalk has been severed, the Beholder looses access to that ability until it has a chance to regrow that eye.

[Curufea]

Re: Beholder

 

You could treat each eye stalk as a character.

[Markdoc]

Re: Beholder

 

How important is the idea that each eyestalk has a specialized power?

 

i.e. what if every eyestalk could use any of the abilities?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an iconic palindromedary

 

I think its extraordinarily important. Each seperate eyestalk should have its own unique ability and thus' date=' when said eyestalk has been severed, the Beholder looses access to that ability until it has a chance to regrow that eye.[/quote']

 

The WOTC guys obviously don't agree - they have trimmed the 4E Beholder down and changed it quite a lot. It now has a fire ray, fear ray, telekinesis and the central eye gives susceptibility to fire. The big daddy version (Eye Tyrant has more types, though fewer options than earlier editions. I guess it doesn't matter because you can no longer target the eyetstalks - in 4E fashion they have simplified that aspect.

 

Personally I prefer the older, more complex version - even though as a GM, I don't think I ever used a beholder in 6 years of GM'ing D&D

 

cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Beholder

 

The WOTC guys obviously don't agree - they have trimmed the 4E Beholder down and changed it quite a lot. It now has a fire ray, fear ray, telekinesis and the central eye gives susceptibility to fire. The big daddy version (Eye Tyrant has more types, though fewer options than earlier editions. I guess it doesn't matter because you can no longer target the eyetstalks - in 4E fashion they have simplified that aspect.

 

Personally I prefer the older, more complex version - even though as a GM, I don't think I ever used a beholder in 6 years of GM'ing D&D

 

cheers, Mark

 

That blows big monkey nuts. The Beholder was a very challenging creature for even experienced PC's, precisely because of everything it could do. Why would they gimp it like that? (not that I really care. I don't play D&D anymore and I can always make a PC Challenging Beholder to my specifications for Fantasy Hero)

 

I think I used the Beholder exactly twice when I was GM'ing AD&D (first edition). It was just one of those creatures that was so good, using it too often would make it lose its impact.

[Lucius]

Re: Beholder

 

For what it's worth, the more I learn about what D&D is now, the more I wonder why anyone still wants to play it.

 

Now, back to discussing Beholders.....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And I kind of resent that guy who made the palindromedary a D&D monster....and chaotic evil yet!

[Markdoc]

Re: Beholder

 

That blows big monkey nuts. The Beholder was a very challenging creature for even experienced PC's, precisely because of everything it could do. Why would they gimp it like that? (not that I really care. I don't play D&D anymore and I can always make a PC Challenging Beholder to my specifications for Fantasy Hero)

 

I think I used the Beholder exactly twice when I was GM'ing AD&D (first edition). It was just one of those creatures that was so good, using it too often would make it lose its impact.

 

For what it's worth, the more I learn about what D&D is now, the more I wonder why anyone still wants to play it.

 

Now, back to discussing Beholders.....

 

They streamlined the entire game system: basically almost all spells, attacks, etc either do HP damage or move a character for combat advantage. Our D20 group looked at the rules and decided it wasn't for us, but the intent was clearly to simplify - to remove things that needed to be looked up. There's no more saving throws (in the classic sense) no odd power descriptions that are hard to interpret, etc. Damage, healing and movement: that pretty much covers all combat.

 

I think they've done a pretty good job - it's just that they've produced a well designed game I don't want to play. OTOH, it does look like it'd be easy to transition players who have never played an FRP before, if they had played video games, and I guess that was the design goal.

 

cheers, Mark

[Curufea]

Re: Beholder

 

I think they've done a pretty good job - it's just that they've produced a well designed game I don't want to play. OTOH, it does look like it'd be easy to transition players who have never played an FRP before, if they had played video games, and I guess that was the design goal.

 

My analogy-

Checkers is a well designed game.

I personally wouldn't waste time creating a wargame campaign around it.

[Lucius]

Re: Beholder

 

They streamlined the entire game system: basically almost all spells, attacks, etc either do HP damage or move a character for combat advantage. Our D20 group looked at the rules and decided it wasn't for us, but the intent was clearly to simplify - to remove things that needed to be looked up. There's no more saving throws (in the classic sense) no odd power descriptions that are hard to interpret, etc. Damage, healing and movement: that pretty much covers all combat.

 

I think they've done a pretty good job - it's just that they've produced a well designed game I don't want to play. OTOH, it does look like it'd be easy to transition players who have never played an FRP before, if they had played video games, and I guess that was the design goal.

 

cheers, Mark

 

And after playing it, they will remain players who have never played an FRP but have played a video game.

 

Curufea has a point. The site I read seems to be saying "Not only are we no longer interested in doing a role playing game, we don't even care about doing a decent tactical simulation / wargame. Facing? Who cares about facing, that's too complicated."

 

To all: Feel free to talk about Beholders, this derail doesn't mean I've lost track of what I started out wanting to talk about....

 

Speaking of which, a question. Is the Beholder a genuine Gygax invention? Or did anything like it exist in fiction prior to D&D?

 

Sometimes I've been surprised at the things that it turns out Gygax DIDN'T invent.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is original with Lucius Alexander

[Markdoc]

Re: Beholder

 

And after playing it, they will remain players who have never played an FRP but have played a video game.

 

Curufea has a point. The site I read seems to be saying "Not only are we no longer interested in doing a role playing game, we don't even care about doing a decent tactical simulation / wargame. Facing? Who cares about facing, that's too complicated."

 

Yeah, I feel that too (as does our GM. who likes to write errata into her books - she filled the 4E books with snide comments). That said, I commented in the 4E thread, that I suspected 4E was targetted to a real market, and it looks like that's the case. 4E's print run was (according to WOTC) 50% bigger than that for 3.5 and it sold out in record time. The 4E D&D core book set went to #2 on Amazon and stayed in the top 10 for a couple of months. Note, that's top 10 for all books, not just rpgs or fantasy. So it looks like 4E qualifies as a bona fide blockbuster.

 

To all: Feel free to talk about Beholders, this derail doesn't mean I've lost track of what I started out wanting to talk about....

 

Speaking of which, a question. Is the Beholder a genuine Gygax invention? Or did anything like it exist in fiction prior to D&D?

 

Sometimes I've been surprised at the things that it turns out Gygax DIDN'T invent.

 

Yep, he cast his net far and wide for stuff, but as far as I know the Beholder is, if not Gygax's, at least from his gaming group. It's a WOTC copyrighted monster (not available under the Open Gaming Licence) which further suggests it's original.

 

And in answer to your original question about how much you can re-imagine the beastie, it looks like WOTC has removed most of the "flavour" from the current version, but it remains identifiably a Beholder.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lucius]

Re: Beholder

 

 

And in answer to your original question about how much you can re-imagine the beastie, it looks like WOTC has removed most of the "flavour" from the current version, but it remains identifiably a Beholder.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Well, the flavour wouldn't matter to a Beholder, it would matter to a Devourer.

 

Okay, to take your metaphor and run with it, if you can take the flavor out and it's still a Beholder that suggests we can have many flavors of Beholder.

 

Sweet and Sour Beholders

 

Hot and Spicy Beholders

 

Bacon Cheese Beholders

 

Dark Chocolate Beholders

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if this is heading in the same direction as chocolate orcs, and hopes not.

[phookz]

Re: Beholder

 

D&D 4E is as valid a FRP game as any other game. While I have never played it, I have read the rules and the mechanics are clean and relatively simple, and what makes a good game is the players (including the DM).

 

That aside - it is a shame they've simplified the beholder. I feel the separate eyestalks are important to the concept, and agree that it should be implemented similar to the Hydra.

 

There was a book produced by TSR years ago for the beholder that discusses ecology and society - Paizo has the PDF version for relatively cheap if anyone was interested:

http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/w/wizardsOfTheCoast/byProductType/roleplayingGames/dungeonsDragons/aDAndD2/rulebooks/monsterBooks/v5748btpy7mr2&source=search

[phookz]

Re: Beholder

 

I just looked up the 4E Beholder - the Eye Tyrant version (the level 19 version) has all the classic eyes, and can use two per round but must be on different targets:

 

• Searing Ray - Damage
  
• Withering Ray - damage with ongoing effect
  
• Sleep Ray - puts target to sleep
  
• TK Ray
  
• Hold Ray
  
• Confusion Ray - cause target to attack its nearest ally
  
• Fear Ray - Run away, run away!
  
• Petrifying Ray - petrified (two saves to get there)
  
• Death Ray - kills target (two saves to get there)
  
• Disintegrate Ray - damage with ongoing effect
  

There is an ability called Eye Ray Frenzy which allows it to attack with up to 4 eyes. The Central Eye can daze the opponent.

 

There is still a wide variety of attack types, but it does seem as if the mayhem they can cause in a singe round has been reduced.

[Clonus]

Re: Beholder

 

 

The palindromedary suggests a lot of eyes.

 

Which means a lot of attacks coming out of those eyes. Autofire attacks from the little eyes are the way I'd go, while the big eye would be the focus for something like telekinesis or mind control

[Lucius]

Re: Beholder

 

Which means a lot of attacks coming out of those eyes. Autofire attacks from the little eyes are the way I'd go' date=' while the big eye would be the focus for something like telekinesis or mind control[/quote']

 

Autofire works for multiple identical attacks - not lots of different attacks.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Autofire Palindromedary

[Gary]

Re: Beholder

 

The 4th Edition Beholder also has an aura. Every enemy within the aura gets attacked by a random eye ray at the start of its turn. Very nasty, and it does simulate that an entire party can be devastated by a single Beholder.

[Scion Zane]

Re: Beholder

 

Beholder:

 

15 Str 5pts

15 Dex 15pts Ocv:5 Dcv:5

15 Body 10pts

20 Con 20pts

20 Int 10pts Per:16-

18 Ego 16pts Md: 6

10 Com

18 pre 8pts Pre attack 3d6

 

4 Pd: 1 4Rpd:2pts

4 Ed: 4Ed: 2pts

3 Spd: 5pts

7 Rec:

40 End:

33 Stun:

88pts

 

Big center eye: Anti magic cone: 10d6 dispel 30pts, +1 cone, continues+1, 60pts= end 6

 

I did this from memory. LOL i cant remember all th eys stuff but the anti magic cone the origanal had. I was very bad for one of my chers thats why i remmberd the anti magic cone. Have fun with it. Just a ruff draft dont quote me on it

[Lucius]

Re: Beholder

 

Why duplication?

 

Why not followers?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Pondering defining the palindromedary as a duplicate.....

[phookz]

Re: Beholder

 

Why duplication?

 

Why not followers?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Pondering defining the palindromedary as a duplicate.....

 

My initial reaction to this was that a follower doesn't necessarily do what it's told, but looking at the rules they can be considered slavishly loyal, so then I thought maybe that could be valid. However, the rules for Duplication have specific verbiage under the Cannot Recombine (-0) limitation that explicitly cover simulating a body with multiple parts that can attack or function semi-independently.