On Beholders

[Salk]

I think Glabro's arguments are reasonable and that Beholders' eye attack should be considered "gaze attack" just like the basilisk's.

 

The fact that the rays come off the eyes seems a supportive enough base for it.

 

Bullets come from guns; that doesn't mean you need to see the gun to be hit by it.

 

Let me see... Basilisk's gaze attacks come from the eyes. Humber Hulk's gaze attacks come from the eyes. The beholder's rays come from the eyes, which seem a bit different from gun's barrells to me. Respect for your point and all others' point of view but I still believe beholder's magic attacks should be considered gaze attacks.

[Guest Glabro]

Does it? I don't see anything in the description.

 

From the Shield of Balduran description:

 

The wearer can cover behind the shield and looks through its clear surface, while gazing attacks are reflected back as opponents see their own reflected image.

 

I don't think that's right: I've done it. It takes a lot of high-damage fast-attack magic, careful use of magic-resistance items, and a certain amount of tolerance to casualties.

 

Actually, to be fair that's using mage immunity spells along with the SCS component that lets beholders burn through protection spells.

 

Well, what can I say? Immunities seem to be the key there, too. A modification that enables beholders to burn through them certainly does help, but how's that sticking with the original design / PNP?

 

What about groups without mages and immunities? What if you take the Inquisitor's route of overcoming magic users - Keldorn is handily available and offered as a solution to the problems in the Unseeing Eye quest chain, and I still don't think wizards should be mandatory, at least until Imoen (if you have an Inquisitor, that is)

[Salk]

I think Glabro's arguments are reasonable and that Beholders' eye attack should be considered "gaze attack" just like the basilisk's.

 

The fact that the rays come off the eyes seems a supportive enough base for it.

 

I completely disagree, Beholder rays were never considered gaze attacks in 2nd Ed D&D. You never fought Beholders by avoiding their gaze like you did the Medusa.

I like the current implementation, beholders and terrifyingly difficult creatures to defeat - as they should be.

 

What do you think is the reason why the beholder rays come from the eyes?

 

The fact that an attack is a gaze attack doesn't automatically imply that eye contact is a prerequisite for it to work! I never said that a target looking the other way can avoid the beholder's rays.

 

A gaze attack is a gaze attack.

 

Blindness should not generally protect against gaze attacks but mirrored eyes or any reflecting surface generally should. The beholder's attack could be considered harder to reflect via general means but the Shield of Balduran does nothing but reflect back the rays, just like a mirrored surface would.

 

This is how I interpret it and I have been playing AD&D 2nd. Ed. with my friends.

 

If you have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not to be considered gaze attacks I'd be more than willing to read it.

[Drelnza]

I like the current implementation, beholders and terrifyingly difficult creatures to defeat - as they should be.

 

I don't think that's right: I've done it. It takes a lot of high-damage fast-attack magic, careful use of magic-resistance items, and a certain amount of tolerance to casualties.

 

I consider creatures that frequently cause many casualties terrifying!

 

 

The fact that an attack is a gaze attack doesn't automatically imply that eye contact is a prerequisite for it to work! I never said that a target looking the other way can avoid the beholder's rays.

 

A gaze attack is a gaze attack.

 

Blindness should not generally protect against gaze attacks but mirrored eyes or any reflecting surface generally should. The beholder's attack could be considered harder to reflect via general means but the Shield of Balduran does nothing but reflect back the rays, just like a mirrored surface would.

 

This is how I interpret it and I have been playing AD&D 2nd. Ed. with my friends.

 

If you have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not to be considered gaze attacks I'd be more than willing to read it.

 

I think that the fact that an attack is a "gaze attack" DOES automatically imply that eye contact is a prerequisite for it to work. Atleast that is how I have always interpreted D&D gaze attacks. If looking at a creature's eyes would cause trouble, it had a "gaze attack". From the 2nd Edition DMG:

 

"Monsters with a gaze attack, such as a basilisk, have the power to affect an opponent simply by making eye contact."

 

Descriptions of monsters' gaze attacks always mentioned that meeting the gaze of creatures such as Medusa, Basilisk, Umber Hulk would result in petrification, confusion. etc. The description of the beholder attacks did not say such a thing, I never considered them "gaze attacks" despite the rays emanating from their eyestalks. They are "magical" attacks not "gaze" attacks.

 

Blindness always protects against gaze attacks. If you cannot see the creatures eyes you are not at risk. In the DMG it mentons ways of trying to avoid the gaze with different penalties depending on the method. Blindness would never protect against Beholder rays. Mirrored eyes would not protect either, they are designed to protect against gaze attacks, the Beholders would not be targetting the eyes to get a successful hit with their rays!

 

This is how I always interpreted the D&D rules, but they were always just guidelines :-)

[DavidW]

I think Glabro's arguments are reasonable and that Beholders' eye attack should be considered "gaze attack" just like the basilisk's.

 

The fact that the rays come off the eyes seems a supportive enough base for it.

 

Bullets come from guns; that doesn't mean you need to see the gun to be hit by it.

 

Let me see... Basilisk's gaze attacks come from the eyes. Humber Hulk's gaze attacks come from the eyes. The beholder's rays come from the eyes, which seem a bit different from gun's barrells to me. Respect for your point and all others' point of view but I still believe beholder's magic attacks should be considered gaze attacks.

 

... but there is still no evidence for this. Some creatures have an eye-based attack which requires eye contact, and those creatures' attacks are going to be blocked by blindness (which prevents eye contact), reflected by mirrors (which cause a creature to make eye contact with itself), etc. If eye contact is not required, though, why should a beam that comes from a creature's eye be any different as regards reflection etc than a beam which comes from a creature's mouth or fingers?

 

If you have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not to be considered gaze attacks I'd be more than willing to read it.

I don't have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not reflected by holy symbols, or for that matter by cheese. I think the burden of proof is on you

[DavidW]

Does it? I don't see anything in the description.

 

From the Shield of Balduran description:

 

The wearer can cover behind the shield and looks through its clear surface, while gazing attacks are reflected back as opponents see their own reflected image.

 

Not in vanilla ToB. Here's the description:

 

Shield of Balduran +3

This shield was worn by the hero Balduran. It is part of a set of weapons and armor that was stolen from the museum in the city of Baldur's Gate.

 

STATISTICS:

 

Equipped Abilities:

Reflects beholder rays

-1 Penalty to Strength

Armor Class Bonus: 4

Weight: 5

Requires: 12 Strength

Not Usable By:

Bard

Druid

Mage

Thief

 

Well, what can I say? Immunities seem to be the key there, too. A modification that enables beholders to burn through them certainly does help, but how's that sticking with the original design / PNP?

 

It isn't really, by its own admission: its my way of getting around the fact that the game engine is a bit glitchy as regards spell turning. (If it worked the way it's supposed to, beholders could burn through spell turning by just overloading it; since that doesn't reliably work, the "burn-through" thing is intended as an alternative. As always, it's optional... but I was replying to your worry that beholders as they currently exist in SCS are too easy for wizards.

 

What about groups without mages and immunities? What if you take the Inquisitor's route of overcoming magic users - Keldorn is handily available and offered as a solution to the problems in the Unseeing Eye quest chain, and I still don't think wizards should be mandatory, at least until Imoen (if you have an Inquisitor, that is)

 

Ultimately I regard this as outside the remit of SCSII. My project was/is to get creatures to use their existing abilities as intelligently as possible, not really to cut their abilities down if they're too scary (unless, I guess, a genuinely balanced party can't handle them).

 

But, since you ask: if I had a mage-free, warrior-heavy party fighting beholders, I'd be making pretty careful and heavy use of magic-protection potions.

[plainab]

To answer whether it is a gaze attack or not one must decide which eye the attack is coming from.

 

I've read enough Forgotten Realms books with beholders in them to know that there are several eyes with different types of ray magic coming from them. The smaller eyes on stalks can sweep their rays back and forth while the larger main eye usually needs to make eye contact in order to be successful. (I say usually to give myself some leeway for being wrong.) I believe the attack that typically comes from a beholder's main eye is some form of mind control.

 

Those attacking a beholder always spoke of not looking directly at a the main eye, but that is the best place to put an arrow if you want to kill it. (Most of the time one arrow through the eye kills instantly.) Seeing the eye is not enough to come under its influence, however being directly in front while looking at it is enough.

 

So a narrow area directly in front of the beholder should probably be considered a gaze attack when coupled with a mind control attack. However, the rest of the attacks are definitely not gaze attacks.

 

Consider the small eyes to be like rotating water sprinklers setup to put out a fire. The water will only strike randomly as it passes. However, the main eye is like a fire hose held by firemen. It requires direct aiming to put the water where it is needed.

 

In the end DavidW will be correct. It is his mod and therefore his choice in how to handle the issue.

[DavidW]

To answer whether it is a gaze attack or not one must decide which eye the attack is coming from.

In the end DavidW will be correct. It is his mod and therefore his choice in how to handle the issue.

 

I think those two are disconnected, actually! Yes, ultimately it's my call, but that doesn't mean I'm currently right. I'm always prepared to change things if the right argument comes along.

[Jarno Mikkola]

I've read enough Forgotten Realms books with beholders in them...

Are you absolute sure it was FR book? As I remember the main eye being anti-magical one... from the DavidW's explanations. Or was it here:

...the main eye projects an anti-magical cone...

 

Consider the small eyes to be like rotating water sprinklers setup to put out a fire. The water will only strike randomly as it passes. However, the main eye is like a fire hose held by firemen. It requires direct aiming to put the water where it is needed.

Erhm, the analysis is a bit wrong on the fire hose part, as it's not used to actually put the fire out by itself, as the water would just spread the fire elsewhere, so the water from the hose is used to contain the fire within a field and take out some of the fires energy, so the burning can put itself out as the material that it can burn runs out.

[Salk]

I don't have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not reflected by holy symbols, or for that matter by cheese. I think the burden of proof is on you

 

Fair enough.

 

The only thing I can say is that in the BG2 game there is an item (cheese or not, it's not up to this discussion) that reflects magical attacks coming from the eyes of a monster.

 

If the source of such attack didn't have any relevance, the Shield of Balduran could be used to reflect back any Sleep, Charm, Disintegrate,ecc. ecc. cast by other monsters/wizards.

 

The fact that such attacks originate from the eyes and not from the mouth or finger seems to me a defining characteristic for such attack.

 

Said that, I must say I didn't really interpret gaze attack in the manner Drelnza proposed. Starting from the same premise, I'd agree that the Beholder's attack can't be considered a gaze attack.

[DavidW]

I don't have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not reflected by holy symbols, or for that matter by cheese. I think the burden of proof is on you

 

Fair enough.

 

The only thing I can say is that in the BG2 game there is an item (cheese or not, it's not up to this discussion) that reflects magical attacks coming from the eyes of a monster.

 

If the source of such attack didn't have any relevance, the Shield of Balduran could be used to reflect back any Sleep, Charm, Disintegrate,ecc. ecc. cast by other monsters/wizards.

 

The fact that such attacks originate from the eyes and not from the mouth or finger seems to me a defining characteristic for such attack.

 

Isn't the defining characteristic that the attack comes from a beholder? i.e., whoever made the shield enchanted it specifically to reflect attacks from beholders. (Note that it doesn't deflect umber hulk gaze attacks, for instance.)

 

(Incidentally, when I said "cheese", I meant the dairy product, not the term for overpowered magic items - sorry, bad choice of analogy!)

[Guest Glabro]

Not in vanilla ToB. Here's the description:

 

Hmm. Well, it must be some other mod, then. I'd guess Item Revisions, but I thought the only thing it does for the shield is remove it!

 

Anyway, I don't see a reason not to utilize melee against immune spellcasters via scripting, or do you think otherwise, David?

[plainab]

I've read enough Forgotten Realms books with beholders in them...

Are you absolute sure it was FR book? As I remember the main eye being anti-magical one... from the DavidW's explanations. Or was it here:

...the main eye projects an anti-magical cone...

Like I said, in my post I was trying to give myself some leeway for being wrong. The books I read with beholders also contained Phaerimm and I could easily have gotten bits and pieces mixed up. Now that I think about it the anti-magic is probably correct. The mind control was probably from the Phaerimm...

[Arkain]

[...]

 

If you have any source material indicating that the ray attacks of the beholders are not to be considered gaze attacks I'd be more than willing to read it.

 

The only thing I can offer right now are some descriptions of beholder-kin (found here). The information there makes me think that beholder rays are either handled as rays or spells (which they simulate). Unfortunately I haven't found any similar (and hopefully official) material about the standard beholder yet.

 

Personally I doubt beholder rays are considered gaze attacks.

[DavidW]

Not in vanilla ToB. Here's the description:

 

Hmm. Well, it must be some other mod, then. I'd guess Item Revisions, but I thought the only thing it does for the shield is remove it!

 

Anyway, I don't see a reason not to utilize melee against immune spellcasters via scripting, or do you think otherwise, David?

 

I don't exactly, but

 

(a) I don't want to change their melee capabilities, since I'm basically trying to write something that utilises their existing capacities

(b) SCSII is mostly assuming that the best thing to do against spellcasters is shoot rays at them so as to wear down their protections (i.e., spell turning mostly). I grant that in-game glitchiness means that doesn't work as well as it should - that's what inspired the explicit burn-through component.