Beholders in combat

[tec97]

I'd thought about dropping this into the beholder-hit dice thread, but rather than jack it, started a new one...

As a mechanical question, do you allow small-eye beholder abilities to effect characters caught in the anti-magic field of the central eye?

[llenlleawg]

I don't (or wouldn't, since I haven't DMed enough encounters with beholders to have a pattern!). Basically, I think the beholder has to be careful with the strategy as much as the PCs, keeping his central eye on any obvious spellcasters, while taking out the rest with his other spells. The PCs could bunch up, of course, making the beholder unable to use spells on them if he wants to keep the MUs in check, but then the beholder might turn and zap them with this Slow spell instead.

[Deleted]

Totally agree with Ilenlleawg. Fighting a beholder is probably the most tactically interesting combat you can have in OD&D. This is one of the few OD&D monsters you might need miniatures or graph paper for. Later D&D said the central eye covers a 45 degree arc in front of its body (which seems reasonable). That means that area is bathed in anti magic, IF THE BEHOLDER CHOOSES TO KEEP ITS CENTRAL EYE OPEN (it can just shut it if it wants). If the party stays in that arc, they are bathed in antimagic, but are safe from the little eyes. If the party tries to flank the beholder or an assault from above, then the little eyes can come into play as well. Say something like 1-4 or 1-6 little eyes can attack per round per occupied 45 degree arc.

[simrion]

Here's another Beholder tactic question. Do you allow beholders to turn their gaze/bodies in 90/180/360 degree arcs or are they limited to simple up/down levitation with right and left turning? Ended up being a point of contention in a game...a player thought his character would be safe running beneath a Beholder and it turned downward @ 90 degrees to fry him.

[makofan]

I would think the beholder would have full control and be able to fry him

[Lord Cias]

Personally I'd rule that the beholder can turn himself on his side or upside down, but doing so is slow or a bit disorienting. Thus the beholder couldn't turn a full 90 degrees and use its eye rays immediately, perhaps giving up initiative in doing so or not being able to do both in the same round if it lost initiative. Note that beholders are relatively slow moving creatures.

[delta]

Okay, instead of making a new thread, I'll resurrect this one -- it's mostly about the Beholder's anti-magic effect, which is what I'm wondering about.

Here's the thing I'm noticing: in 0E/1E, the central effect is described as an "anti-magic ray", without any dimensions, but the "ray" descriptor is mostly used for just single-target effects (compare to the "death ray" description of finger of death). Later, as of 2E+, the antimagic effect was described as a big cone -- but that always struck me as self-defeating, because it couldn't use it's deadly eyes against targets in that area. As I write this tonight it seems more sensible in OD&D to interpret it as a single-target attack, such as maybe one of the following:

• Casts an antimagic shell on an unwilling victim
• Prevents magic by target for one round while ray is on them
• Casts a dispel magic effect on one victim

Obviously, any of those would be best used against a clearly identified party wizard, while the other eye effects plaster the rest of the party. Although by giving an antimagic shell, if you interpret that with some area beyond personal, some of the party could scrunch up inside it to avoid other eye effects.

What seems most likely here? (And should there be a saving throw?)

[Desparil]

Dec 22, 2021 23:40:17 GMT -6 delta said:

Okay, instead of making a new thread, I'll resurrect this one -- it's mostly about the Beholder's anti-magic effect, which is what I'm wondering about.

Here's the thing I'm noticing: in 0E/1E, the central effect is described as an "anti-magic ray", without any dimensions, but the "ray" descriptor is mostly used for just single-target effects (compare to the "death ray" description of finger of death). Later, as of 2E+, the antimagic effect was described as a big cone -- but that always struck me as self-defeating, because it couldn't use it's deadly eyes against targets in that area. As I write this tonight it seems more sensible in OD&D to interpret it as a single-target attack, such as maybe one of the following:

• Casts an antimagic shell on an unwilling victim
• Prevents magic by target for one round while ray is on them
• Casts a dispel magic effect on one victim

Obviously, any of those would be best used against a clearly identified party wizard, while the other eye effects plaster the rest of the party. Although by giving an antimagic shell, if you interpret that with some area beyond personal, some of the party could scrunch up inside it to avoid other eye effects.

What seems most likely here? (And should there be a saving throw?)

A good question. I will note that, at least as of 1E, a ray can be more than single target. From the Players Handbook:

When a Fear spell is cast, the magic-user sends forth an invisible ray which causes creatures within its area of effect to turn away from the spell caster and flee in panic.

Its header notes an Area of Effect: 6" long cone, 3" diameter at end, ½'' at base.
This is consistent with the Wand of Fear, which is brought in straight from OD&D with only a slight reduction in diameter. The DMG description says:

a pale amber ray springs from the tip of the wand, a cone 6" long by 2" in base diameter

The OD&D description refers to it as a cone instead, but just a few lines below the effect of a Paralization (sic) Wand is described as

A paralization ray of the same dimensions as a Fear Wand

As additional data points, Prismatic Spray also shoots seven discrete rays across an area of effect, though only one or two rays may hit any given target. If we bring Unearthed Arcana into it, we also have Sunray with Area of Effect: 1" diameter sphere. The main counterexamples are Ray of Enfeeblement (Target: one creature) and one of the possible effects for Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, though the latter is specifically called out as a "thin ray" with a successful saving throw indicating that it missed and potentially requiring another creature standing behind the original target to attempt a save.

So it seems that Gygax was inconsistent, but at least in some cases used the words "ray" and "cone" interchangeably.

[delta]

Dec 23, 2021 11:10:54 GMT -6 Desparil said:

I will note that, at least as of 1E, a ray can be more than single target. From the Players Handbook <Fear spell, etc.>...

It's a good thing to look at; I also noticed that, starting with the legacy in the OD&D wands. As a bit of a counterargument, while 0E (Sup-I) describes the beholder fear effect as a "ray", in the 1E (MM) writeup that's been singularly changed to not say that anymore (just says "as a wand"). So what's left in the 1E beholder writeup are 3 little-eye "rays" that are all clearly single-target effects (flesh-stone, disintegrate, and death ray a.k.a. finger of death). Arguably that indicates Gygax taking some steps toward cleaning up the ambiguity; and at least in the 1E beholder context all of the little-eye effects described as rays are single-target.

[Desparil]

Dec 23, 2021 13:33:35 GMT -6 delta said:

Dec 23, 2021 11:10:54 GMT -6 Desparil said:

I will note that, at least as of 1E, a ray can be more than single target. From the Players Handbook <Fear spell, etc.>...

It's a good thing to look at; I also noticed that, starting with the legacy in the OD&D wands. As a bit of a counterargument, while 0E (Sup-I) describes the beholder fear effect as a "ray", in the 1E (MM) writeup that's been singularly changed to not say that anymore (just says "as a wand"). So what's left in the 1E beholder writeup are 3 little-eye "rays" that are all clearly single-target effects (flesh-stone, disintegrate, and death ray a.k.a. finger of death). Arguably that indicates Gygax taking some steps toward cleaning up the ambiguity; and at least in the 1E beholder context all of the little-eye effects described as rays are single-target.

Interesting, I actually didn't even think to look at the little eye with the fear effect. That inspired me to look at the Spectator in Monster Manual II, which has a paralyzation ray from one of its eyes - this is single target, though Gygax feels it necessary to specify that it affects one target only. Browsing the same book, I also happened to notice this tidbit in the Tarrasque's description:

Bolts and rays such as lightning bolts, cones of cold, and even magic missiles are useless against the tarrasque.

This seems to indicate that he considers a cone of cold to be a ray, as it certainly isn't a bolt. This inspired me to also check out the ogre-mage, since I recalled it being able to cast a cone of cold, and lo and behold in the original Monster Manual it's actually described as a ray of cold!

create a ray of cold the same dimensions as that of a cold wand which does 8 - 8-sided dice of damage

Also interesting that there is no cold wand in 1E, as it has been renamed the Wand of Frost, so this is clearly copied forward from OD&D. Not too surprising since the Monster Manual came out nearly 2 years before the DMG.

Another big factor in favor of the cone interpretation is the aquatic beholder-kin, the Eye of the Deep, also from the Monster Manual:

The creature has a large central eye which emits a blinding flash of light to, dazzle and stun those in its ray (cone ½" at eye extending 3" to a 2" diameter base) for 2-8 melee rounds unless a saving throw versus death ray/poison is made.

I do think that later editions have made the size of the anti-magic cone excessively large, I believe it's typically given a 90 degree arc. Personally, I think it should be something like a cone ½" at the eye extending 14" to a 5" diameter base. This is based on the observation that, while there are of course exceptions, the majority of cone effects in AD&D conform to a form factor where the diameter of the base is one-third of the length, plus or minus some rounding. This ratio gives an approximately 20-degree arc to the anti-magic ray, which is much more workable in terms of being able to effectively utilize its eyestalks against other opponents.

[delta]

Desparil Good stuff, thanks for those other details! You're right that in 2E it's specified as a 90-degree cone; in 3E the implication is that it's 45-degrees like all other cones. I agree I think I'd find more utility from a traditionally thinner cone (like half as wide as it is long).

On the other hand, I guess for theater-of-the-mind I'd find it even easier to handle if it was just single-target (somehow).

[cometaryorbit]

Dec 23, 2021 18:02:03 GMT -6 delta said:

On the other hand, I guess for theater-of-the-mind I'd find it even easier to handle if it was just single-target (somehow).

I agree. A simple single-target ray that acted as Dispel Magic, plus temporarily deactivated magical items and maybe turned off spellcasting (for a few rounds?)

-

I'd noticed the description of the OD&D paralysis wand as a "ray" despite being cone-shaped, and found it odd, but didn't notice other interchangeable uses of ray/cone.

[Starbeard]

Cones are cool, but my own instinct is to make the big eye a single-target ray. I figure the effect is based on its gaze, and I for one have a fairly difficult time looking at more than one spot at a time.

Edit: but as a concession, I would allow the beholder to roll around into whatever position it likes—but always more or less in the direction of movement, it can't just Lionel Blair itself around the table.

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2021 22:10:35 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Cones are cool, but my own instinct is to make the big eye a single-target ray. I figure the effect is based on its gaze, and I for one have a fairly difficult time looking at more than one spot at a time.

Edit: but as a concession, I would allow the beholder to roll around into whatever position it likes—but always more or less in the direction of movement, it can't just Lionel Blair itself around the table.

I always thought since they were so alien and weird they wouldn't even really experience vertigo or have a sense of up or down as we recognize it. They could roll completely over and still see the world perfectly with no disorientation.