So just question as I'm catching up on the end of Critcal Role campaign, slight spoilers but not major. This is just theory crafting on my part.
So just wondering if fighting something with an anti- magic cone, if you attack something with spells that require saving throws, do they avoid getting canceled out, or do they still need worried canceled.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
Fair point, but I've never encountered a DM that ruled that way, and in the typical case of a beholder, it would likely result in the beholder's death.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
Fair point, but I've never encountered a DM that ruled that way, and in the typical case of a beholder, it would likely result in the beholder's death.
Maybe that's why they're so ill-tempered! If they ever rolled their eyes, they'd collapse into a pile of mush.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
Fair point, but I've never encountered a DM that ruled that way, and in the typical case of a beholder, it would likely result in the beholder's death.
Maybe that's why they're so ill-tempered! If they ever rolled their eyes, they'd collapse into a pile of mush.
This is why no one has ever seen a teenage beholder
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While Beholders do have 11 eyes, only one of them can project an Anti-Magic Cone, so it's more correct to say "If they ever rolled their eye, they'd collapse into a pile of mush" It is also said that "Beauty lies in the eyes of the Beholder" and I have always thought there should be a gem of some kind inside their eyes. They would make a great componenst for magic items or a spell foci. Perhaps one of the eyes could be used as a magic item allowing the holder to counter a spell, project the beam of the given kind, so you could make a Wand of Disintegration, or use the large one for an Anti-Magic Cone.
It would be great to use the beautiful Eye of the Beholder against other Beholders and turn them into mush.
That's an interesting question. Can beholders move all their eyes independently, like a chameleon? Do the 10 eyeballs in the stalks all move together, while the central eye can look elsewhere? Do the eyeballs in the stalks have to be looking at their target at all to fire off a beam, or is the beam the equivalent of a no-look pass in the NBA?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That's an interesting question. Can beholders move all their eyes independently, like a chameleon? Do the 10 eyeballs in the stalks all move together, while the central eye can look elsewhere? Do the eyeballs in the stalks have to be looking at their target at all to fire off a beam, or is the beam the equivalent of a no-look pass in the NBA?
I always assumed the eyes were looking in different directions most of the time. Because that's the weirder option, and beholders are nothing if not weird.
That's an interesting question. Can beholders move all their eyes independently, like a chameleon? Do the 10 eyeballs in the stalks all move together, while the central eye can look elsewhere? Do the eyeballs in the stalks have to be looking at their target at all to fire off a beam, or is the beam the equivalent of a no-look pass in the NBA?
3.5 had splatbooks for specific enemy types. The Aberrations book, Lords of Madness, had a lot of useful info about Beholders, like why matter exists (i.e. why Beholders don't disintegrate everything that isn't a Beholder). It covered basic questions like this; the answer is that all of the eye-stalks can operate independently, much like on a mantis shrimp. Each eye contains multiple lenses, meaning, among other things, a Beholder only needs one eye to have depth perception, rather than two. Their eyes are excellent - for example, at 120 feet, they can count the legs on a mosquito.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
Fair point, but I've never encountered a DM that ruled that way, and in the typical case of a beholder, it would likely result in the beholder's death.
While I'm on the topic, this isn't true. Beholders don't instantly die in an AMF. The big thing about an AMF that bothers a Beholder is that magic is part of their diet - their eyes absorb a miniscule amount of magic from just about any magic they see. To give you an idea, it would take "many months" for a Beholder to deplete an L1 spell scroll of magic. This absorbed magic is fed directly to their brains. If you cut off their supply via an AMF, it's rather like grumpy old man syndrome - they get progressively more cantankerous and paranoid and irritated. They won't die of magic starvation, but they'll just keep getting more and more bothered, like an addict cut off from their supply, only no amount of going cold turkey will fix it. That's why Beholders hoard magic items - looking at the items literally soothes them.
That's an interesting question. Can beholders move all their eyes independently, like a chameleon? Do the 10 eyeballs in the stalks all move together, while the central eye can look elsewhere? Do the eyeballs in the stalks have to be looking at their target at all to fire off a beam, or is the beam the equivalent of a no-look pass in the NBA?
For what it's worth, in 4e you could not get a bonus from flanking them. The ability was "all-around vision" or something like that, implying that their eyes were looking in different directions. This makes it even more ominous when they all turn to focus on you...
While I'm on the topic, this isn't true. Beholders don't instantly die in an AMF. The big thing about an AMF that bothers a Beholder is that magic is part of their diet - their eyes absorb a miniscule amount of magic from just about any magic they see. To give you an idea, it would take "many months" for a Beholder to deplete an L1 spell scroll of magic. This absorbed magic is fed directly to their brains. If you cut off their supply via an AMF, it's rather like grumpy old man syndrome - they get progressively more cantankerous and paranoid and irritated. They won't die of magic starvation, but they'll just keep getting more and more bothered, like an addict cut off from their supply, only no amount of going cold turkey will fix it. That's why Beholders hoard magic items - looking at the items literally soothes them.
I didn't say they'd die instantly, I said that if they included themself in their own cone, they'd likely die. A beholder inside an AMF gets one attack per round at +5 for 4d6 damage. They're basically a punching bag if the encounter was balanced around their usual CR.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So just question as I'm catching up on the end of Critcal Role campaign, slight spoilers but not major. This is just theory crafting on my part.
So just wondering if fighting something with an anti- magic cone, if you attack something with spells that require saving throws, do they avoid getting canceled out, or do they still need worried canceled.
You cannot cast any spells whatsoever within an antimagic zone.
If you're inside the cone, the spell is canceled, if you're outside the cone, you'll hit a part of the creature that is outside the cone and thus it will work fine. Same with attack rolls.
That assumes the creature isn't inside its own cone. Cones can include their point of origin in their area of effect if the producer of the cone wants the cone to.
Fair point, but I've never encountered a DM that ruled that way, and in the typical case of a beholder, it would likely result in the beholder's death.
Maybe that's why they're so ill-tempered! If they ever rolled their eyes, they'd collapse into a pile of mush.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
This is why no one has ever seen a teenage beholder
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While Beholders do have 11 eyes, only one of them can project an Anti-Magic Cone, so it's more correct to say "If they ever rolled their eye, they'd collapse into a pile of mush" It is also said that "Beauty lies in the eyes of the Beholder" and I have always thought there should be a gem of some kind inside their eyes. They would make a great componenst for magic items or a spell foci. Perhaps one of the eyes could be used as a magic item allowing the holder to counter a spell, project the beam of the given kind, so you could make a Wand of Disintegration, or use the large one for an Anti-Magic Cone.
It would be great to use the beautiful Eye of the Beholder against other Beholders and turn them into mush.
<Insert clever signature here>
That's an interesting question. Can beholders move all their eyes independently, like a chameleon? Do the 10 eyeballs in the stalks all move together, while the central eye can look elsewhere? Do the eyeballs in the stalks have to be looking at their target at all to fire off a beam, or is the beam the equivalent of a no-look pass in the NBA?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I always assumed the eyes were looking in different directions most of the time. Because that's the weirder option, and beholders are nothing if not weird.
3.5 had splatbooks for specific enemy types. The Aberrations book, Lords of Madness, had a lot of useful info about Beholders, like why matter exists (i.e. why Beholders don't disintegrate everything that isn't a Beholder). It covered basic questions like this; the answer is that all of the eye-stalks can operate independently, much like on a mantis shrimp. Each eye contains multiple lenses, meaning, among other things, a Beholder only needs one eye to have depth perception, rather than two. Their eyes are excellent - for example, at 120 feet, they can count the legs on a mosquito.
While I'm on the topic, this isn't true. Beholders don't instantly die in an AMF. The big thing about an AMF that bothers a Beholder is that magic is part of their diet - their eyes absorb a miniscule amount of magic from just about any magic they see. To give you an idea, it would take "many months" for a Beholder to deplete an L1 spell scroll of magic. This absorbed magic is fed directly to their brains. If you cut off their supply via an AMF, it's rather like grumpy old man syndrome - they get progressively more cantankerous and paranoid and irritated. They won't die of magic starvation, but they'll just keep getting more and more bothered, like an addict cut off from their supply, only no amount of going cold turkey will fix it. That's why Beholders hoard magic items - looking at the items literally soothes them.
For what it's worth, in 4e you could not get a bonus from flanking them. The ability was "all-around vision" or something like that, implying that their eyes were looking in different directions. This makes it even more ominous when they all turn to focus on you...
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I didn't say they'd die instantly, I said that if they included themself in their own cone, they'd likely die. A beholder inside an AMF gets one attack per round at +5 for 4d6 damage. They're basically a punching bag if the encounter was balanced around their usual CR.