![]() A prime example and actually very much tailored to this thread is this: Changing a monster for the simple sake of freaking out the players seems a bit too loose. Changing the stats of monsters to suprise the players is all well and fine, but there should be some ingame reason for why the change has occured. How long do you think they will recall this great victory against a so wicked beholder ? The whole fight will be more fun for both you and the players. Instead, change the beholder, change the stats, the powers, build it so the PC group will be surprised and give them a real freakin' challenge. It was quite specific that the party could close with the beholder in this case, and in general, if they came across one at range, they've got problems.ĭrexlorn wrote:The books, the books, the books.ĭon't let the books rules or ruins your game. If it closes the central eye, it gets toasted by spells and items from everything, and the fighter in front of it gets all his magic bonuses back (it's an anti-magic area, not a dispel magic, so things like haste and giant strength potions kick back in) if it keeps it open, the tough fighter is immune to everything it throws at it and it can't get away because it's too slow. The beholder is still mean at distance, but up close, its abilities work against it. "Eyestalks" - not central eye, which is why I'd treated that differently (always treated the eyestalks like wands as others have mentioned). I assume then that it could turn off or close the central eye to allow others to function in front of it. It also says that the beholder may activate the powers of its eyestalks at will. ![]() While the 1st Ed MM doesn't state anything about the central eye negating the other eyes' spell effects, the 2nd Ed MM does specifically state that the central eye negates all spells and abilities including the effects from its own other eyestalks. But there's something that feels wrong about this, as I've always believed beholders to be really nasty to run into. So send in the biggest fighter with the lowest THAC0 directly at the beholder to chop it into little pieces - the fighter will be totally immune to the beholder's eye effects, and can easily take the 2-8 damage per round that the beholder could do by biting.Īs far as I can tell, this makes a beholder suddenly incredibly weak provided you can get close to it as it's the eys that make it so dangerous. Their logic went like this: if the PC is in front of the beholder, then it's in its anti-magic ray, and so even though the PC's magic items/spells won't work, the PC is immune to any of the beholder's eye effects. So something like a beholder should be nasty, but not impossible to deal with, especially in this case since they knew there was one ahead of them. In particular, they have a couple of sick fighters in the party who can deal out huge amounts of damage in melee in a short period of time. The party in question is, as you can guess from the length of the campaign, fairly tough: averaging about 12th level, with some serious magic items. I ran into this the last session I GMd (it's a 14 year old campaign now) and for the life of me I can't see a flaw in the PCs' argumner, but I'm sure there must be.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |