Beholder Encounters

[Talar]

Hello y'all, so I was curious as to how others run encounters with a beholder. I recently ran one and was sort of disappointed with how it went. I had higher expectations for it. Beholders are supposed to be solo monsters which limits them somewhat, but are still supposed to be memorable encounters (I still hear from some old vets about beholder fights from 2nd edition.) So what kind of encounters with beholders does the playground have?

[Steampunkette]

I've had Beholder above the player's level beefed up with extra hp be a great solo monster.

I've also used multiple be holders having a fight amongst themselves turn and attack a higher end party which was awesome.

Once I even had a pair of poisoned be holders with it wis change damage bound to a wicked Knight of the Order of the Elder Eye. That was a near tpk, but soon worthwhile.

I haven't fought or run a 5e beholder, yet. I can't wait.

[BWR]

Hello y'all, so I was curious as to how others run encounters with a beholder. I recently ran one and was sort of disappointed with how it went. I had higher expectations for it. Beholders are supposed to be solo monsters which limits them somewhat, but are still supposed to be memorable encounters (I still hear from some old vets about beholder fights from 2nd edition.) So what kind of encounters with beholders does the playground have?

Beholders in 3.5 are rather wussy compared to 2e. a combination of having to make attacks with the eye rays, low DCs and low hit points. And a weak bite attack doesn't sit right with me for something with a mouth like that.

Best thing to do is just beef them up a bit.

[Broken Crown]

Hello y'all, so I was curious as to how others run encounters with a beholder.... Beholders are supposed to be solo monsters which limits them somewhat, but are still supposed to be memorable encounters (I still hear from some old vets about beholder fights from 2nd edition.) So what kind of encounters with beholders does the playground have?

In my experience, beholders are an excellent example of the "rocket tag" problem that 3rd Edition has at higher levels: With ten attacks/round, many of them save-or-lose, a beholder that wins initiative has a good chance of taking out the PCs before they have a chance to act, but if the beholder loses initiative, it's similarly not tough enough to survive the PCs' first strike if they're high enough level to be fighting a beholder in the first place. Either way, it doesn't make a very satisfying encounter.

(I had the same difficulty with AD&D beholders, too: Very powerful offensively, but not very tough if you know what you're doing.)

I find that beholders work better if you give them some minions: Have them soak up damage, keep melee characters from closing, and keep the pressure on casters. It'll also increase the CR of the encounter, which lets you throw the beholder against more powerful PCs, who will consequently be less likely to die in the first round from bad saves.

(Besides, beholders really ought to have minions. They have at-will Charm Monster, and they're presumably not called Eye Tyrants for nothing.)


I recently ran one and was sort of disappointed with how it went. I had higher expectations for it.

I'm curious: How did it turn out? Did it die too fast, or was there some other reason it was unsatisfying?

[arrowstorm]

Beholders can levitate, so make its lair such that walking around is terrible, but would be awesome if one could fly.

[Âmesang]

Beholders in 3.5 are rather wussy compared to 2e. a combination of having to make attacks with the eye rays, low DCs and low hit points. And a weak bite attack doesn't sit right with me for something with a mouth like that.
That might explain why my only (as of yet) beholder fight was won a touch quicker than expected. Being a major spellcaster I was very much worried about the antimagic field… and anything Fort/Ref based. Okay, I was just worried. Seems it worked out being one of the few times the party managed to actually work together, trying to disorient the foe by circling around him and basically being four against one.

(I'm not entirely sure if the referee was fully aware of just how beholders work — Hell, I've been playing 3rd Edition for a decade or so and I still get confused about the amount of eye rays per turn and the angle of firing and whatnot.)

[Segev]

Beholders are, as others have said, somewhat glass cannons. Glass cannons tend not to be thrilling encounters in white rooms/open fields. They either TPK or get smashed very quickly. The most fun fighting them is probably going to come from the tactics required to get that drop on them. (e.g. with a Beholder, knowing how to avoid the anti-magic cone and to get to the creature)

One thing that I don't think is considered much is that the anti-magic cone can only point one direction at a time, but that facing is not a "thing" in 3.5, so in theory the Beholder can rotate to follow any one character, if needs be, with it. So it should at least be able to keep, say, the wizard inside it. Conversely, if the party lacks sufficient range, the beholder can try flying up out of their reach (though he's going to run into range limitations of his own with his powers if he's not careful). In a white-room/open cavern-or-field type encounter, he's best off trying to nail the obvious arcane caster with his fort-based save/lose effects, then bathing him with his anti-magic eye and keeping it there, and hitting the most likely high-range foes with charm effects (especially if they're fighters or rogues). Unfortunately, if he loses initiative to somebody who can do a lot of damage, he is not likely to survive anyway.

The best way to run Beholders is in their own lairs. These lairs have narrow tunnels with little to no respect for gravity with a lot of blind corners and peep-holes through which the creature can appear, fire off rays, and move on. They can arrange themselves so that the party can only approach through the anti-magic cone, shutting down all but the mundane attackers. They can position themselves so that reaching them requires a climb check or at least an ascent up difficult terrain. They can then retreat backwards or down a side-tunnel to come around from another angle, and even have an eye-stalk-sized hole through which to peep and harass. And they can use disintegrate to carve new tunnels if they need to, or to collapse features onto invaders.

Failing their own lairs, they work decently in buildings large enough for their bulk. Disintegrating floors beneath their foes is a good way to split a party or at least keep the party from reaching them, especially since they can shut down flight magic in controlled areas (which, in a building, they can control). Beholders are smart creatures; you have to use them as such. And that means taking pains to make sure the poor things aren't caught out in the open when initiative is rolled. Ideally, they should attack first, possibly before the party is 100% aware of their presence/location.

[Fizban]

Another part of the problem might be something that for lack of a better term I'll call the "Beholder Effect." Odds are at least one person at the table, if not all of them, will know exactly what and how dangerous a Beholder is. Most people do not play at maximum effectiveness at all times I think, they'll coast along doing their part but also goofing off if they know they're not in serious danger. Then a Beholder comes around the corner, all the players jerk upright, and all characters suddenly become tactical geniuses because they know that this is a threat and they need to crush it fast. If you're building your encounters based on the usual laid back style the sudden change will turn a balanced encounter into an easy one, and unlike the players suddenly turning on their A-game you can't just retcon in a perfect lair+minions+etc mid-combat.

Only way to counter it is to match the level of assumed player tactics to the wow-factor of the threat, which results in a pretty massive gulf in actual difficulty between "normal" looking stuff and dragons/beholders/whatever. Well you could also run all your monsters a black-boxes by changing the visual descriptions and enforcing hard limits on what you get from knowledge checks (seriously, the later monster manuals that actually have that pre-written are so stingy it's useless), but I consider that pretty bad form unless you've caught somebody deliberately cheating (and haven't kicked them out for some reason).

[GungHo]

They need some extra things... like bonuses to hit, more hit points are mechanical things. However, they are geniuses (even if they're arrogant) and should use that to their advantage. They aren't going to just float in the middle of a smooth cavern and let you surround them. They will wear you down with charmed proxies, make you walk through rough terrain, etc.

However, as others said, beholders are iconic, as are things like rakshasas, mind flayers, dragons, and the like. People up their game around them and make adjustments to the metagame when they are around. There's no getting around that without using a different monster that isn't called a beholder. Even if you file off the serial numbers and make it a floating rastafarian gentleman whose dreadlocks end in gibbering mouths that projectile vomit 8 rays of varying effects, they're going to figure it out.

[Xerlith]

Three words: Nonassociated. Class. Levels. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)

A Beholder with one-two initiator levels for some tasty counters and/or boosts, Factotum levels for... Stuff. You can add Carmendine Monk 2/Swordsage2 to it and enjoy the carnage.

[Talar]

Sorry for not replying sooner, finals week at my University happened.



I'm curious: How did it turn out? Did it die too fast, or was there some other reason it was unsatisfying?

Looking at the comments people have made, it's apparent to me that the fault rests in that I did not prepare enough. Of course I did not think the players would charge straight in either. It was disappointing to me because I do not like killing PC's if I think it was an unfair situation, in that there really was not much they could do beyond not even adventure in that part of the dungeon. And every round a beholder should be throwing at 3 save or dies (disintegrate, finger of death, and flesh to stone [I know disintegrate is technically not a SoD but the damage is high enough that it essentially is]) and so from that aspect running the beholder was not enjoyable. And its lair was lack luster because ideas were not fully fleshed out. Also the party immediately threw out a mass conviction so making their saves against any eye ray was rather trivial for them.

Though now I sort of want to homebrew a new beholder so that they can be more viable monsters. The minions thing is an excellent point, and would add a lot of flexibility to beholder encounters.

[Techwarrior]

Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of running Gauth (lesser Beholder) at the appropriate level range (5-8) as opposed to Beholders at their level range.

Another thing you can do to make Beholders a better encounter is adding HD. Aberration HD are cheap for the CR and give the creature much needed Hp, to hit, and save DC's. Adding 8 hit die (you decide if it increases in size, I'd potentially ignore that) gives it +6 bab, 3 feats, 2 stat adjustments, 8d8+32 (average of 66) Hp, and +4 save DC. That CR 15 starts to look a little more reasonable, and the eye rays stay relevant if you want to just keep adding HD, although I'd stop at around 16 or 17.

[Quertus]

That might explain why my only (as of yet) beholder fight was won a touch quicker than expected. Being a major spellcaster I was very much worried about the antimagic field… and anything Fort/Ref based. Okay, I was just worried. Seems it worked out being one of the few times the party managed to actually work together, trying to disorient the foe by circling around him and basically being four against one.

(I'm not entirely sure if the referee was fully aware of just how beholders work — Hell, I've been playing 3rd Edition for a decade or so and I still get confused about the amount of eye rays per turn and the angle of firing and whatnot.)

The players responded to a beholder... by surrounding it? Enabling it to use all 10 eye stalks each round. And this was a GOOD thing?


Hello y'all, so I was curious as to how others run encounters with a beholder. I recently ran one and was sort of disappointed with how it went. I had higher expectations for it. Beholders are supposed to be solo monsters which limits them somewhat, but are still supposed to be memorable encounters (I still hear from some old vets about beholder fights from 2nd edition.) So what kind of encounters with beholders does the playground have?

Beholders in 3.x seem so much more squishy than in 2e because 3.x PCs deal so much more damage. And are, in general, much more optimized than their 2.x counterparts. Seriously, if you brought someone equivalent to 95% of the 3.x characters I've seen back in 2e, you'd - at best - be politely asked to bring someone else.

My 3.x beholders have never had a problem with hitting their foes. They just lose init and die fast. Hat of Disguise + disguise skill + pretend to be a wizard throwing lots of ray spells is fun, but still gets the beholder targeted and squished - although I may try it again some day, but this time as a DMPC. Cloak of Elven Kind + hide skill + pretend to be an intermittent Antimagic field is fun. Paragon beholder + minions sounded fun, but epic party was epic. What I really want to do some day is throw some party against the ultimate mutant: the multi-headed beholder.

[neonchameleon]

Hello y'all, so I was curious as to how others run encounters with a beholder. I recently ran one and was sort of disappointed with how it went. I had higher expectations for it. Beholders are supposed to be solo monsters which limits them somewhat, but are still supposed to be memorable encounters (I still hear from some old vets about beholder fights from 2nd edition.) So what kind of encounters with beholders does the playground have?

2e produced I, Tyrant (http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Monstrous-Accessory/dp/0786904046/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1450539735&sr=8-2&keywords=I%2C+Tyrant) - a whole book about Beholders. That includes things like mirrors or necro-beholders.

Personally my approach to Beholders is either pitch them as a local evil wizard or having those giant floating gunships start by floating through a village and glaring at everyone, looking as impregnable as tripod invaders from War of the Worlds. There's no immediate emotional hook.

And then there are gas spores...

[Darth Ultron]

Beholders have suffered hard with the general nerfing of D&D over the years.

In the Old School style of game play, beholders where a huge and deadly threat. A beholder encounter would likely kill at least two characters and the group only had a 50% chance of success.

In New Way style of gaming, the beholder is just an encounter. It will take a couple minutes of game time, and the players will most likely win.

What is the big difference in the play styles? Character death. In OS, the beholder is sure to kill a couple characters, because the DM role plays them that way. In NW, well no characters die ever, so nothing has changed.

[Skorj]

The best way to run Beholders is in their own lairs. These lairs have narrow tunnels with little to no respect for gravity with a lot of blind corners and peep-holes through which the creature can appear, fire off rays, and move on. They can arrange themselves so that the party can only approach through the anti-magic cone, shutting down all but the mundane attackers. They can position themselves so that reaching them requires a climb check or at least an ascent up difficult terrain. They can then retreat backwards or down a side-tunnel to come around from another angle, and even have an eye-stalk-sized hole through which to peep and harass. And they can use disintegrate to carve new tunnels if they need to, or to collapse features onto invaders.


I like this, but I've had success with a somewhat opposite approach. A memorable fight involved a beholder in a swamp, in light morning fog, just at the very edge of visibility. It made for a very dramatic reveal, as the beholder is completely silent and the silhouette wasn't completely obvious at first in that environment. Panic around the table!

I find beholders work in D&D like main battle tanks in modern warfare: a lot of firepower at range, but very vulnerable to all-too-common weapons (or spells and ranged attacks, in the case of D&D). Camouflage helps get the first shot, keeping distance helps reduce the sorts of attacks the party can bring to bear: a beholder really wants to keep opponents between 100 and 150 feet away. The anti-magic cone is surprising effective for this as long as the terrain doesn't just let the party charge on foot. Cave passages too steep to climb, as Segev highlighted, work well for this, a simple chasm works as well. Nothing like dropping flying attackers out of the sky with anti-magic, preferably (to the beholder) into the cliché river of lava.

As many others have said, beefing up the eye ray DCs to where no one wants to make multiple saves per round is a good approach. Ultimately, though, beholders by themselves are only scary overlevel. Once the party knows to "throw everything we have at it instantly before someone fails a key save", it's instead a fun part of a larger battle. Just as tanks don't solo fight infantry in the modern world, and instead they serve as a base of fire that moves with a screen of friendly infantry, beholders make for nice dense ranged offense in a larger fight (this is best when mixed with an interesting backstory about why a beholder is working for someone else, or vice-versa - the party arranging for the beholder to betray its allies would make for a very memorable fight).

[Cluedrew]

Some people have said to remember that beholders are smart. I would go farther than that as in many depictions beholders are sentient, human level intelligence and communication skills. That means the beholder could in theory be the mastermind instead of the monster or very much both.

Now this is almost an entirely a narrative solution, you might have to combine it with some mechanical solutions. But if you try this don't limit yourself to combat encounters, even if the other battles are played out indirectly.

[Theodred theOld]

Check out Lords of Madness for some background on beholder society and how beholders think and view the world. While you're there pick up an Overseer. Much more deadly than a run of the mill beholder but far less mobile. These guys act as the coach/director/leader in groups of beholders due to their ability to command other beholderkin. Rather than the lone paranoid beholder, you now have access to organized and coordinated packs. Mix in gauths and other beholderkin as needed and follow the previous terrain advice and your players will soon learn to fear the eye.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

What if you put the beholder in a suit of armor? Like pic related?
http://i63.tinypic.com/b3v68p.jpg

Could make for some interesting treasure...

[Markoff Chainey]

Our regular DM loves beholders and uses them often for the storyline, but very rarely in direct combat. (They are sometimes the masterminds behind plots or our employers in disguise.)

I remember when we once ended up in the lair of one by accident. It was a really great evening, because traveling through the lair built by a paranoid genius was a lot of fun and atmospheric.

The beholder fight itself was a matter of 3 turns... TPK. :smalleek: Mainly because we were a group with 1 flyer, 1 ranged char and 3 sitting ducks fighting a beholder trapped in a lava-pit filled with tricks like mirrors and magic traps.

I should add that our DM planned to kill us at some point anyway because of the storyline that needed us to die, but that is a long story.

But that is how I expect a fight with a beholder... she is a paranoid genius and no matter what the stat box says, fighting her at home will be a nightmare. And it is very unlikely that you will meet her at some other place.

[Quertus]

The beholder fight itself was a matter of 3 turns... TPK. :smalleek: Mainly because we were a group with 1 flyer, 1 ranged char and 3 sitting ducks fighting a beholder trapped in a lava-pit filled with tricks like mirrors and magic traps.

Is there RAW support for using a mirror to bounce a ray? If so, that's all 10 rays every round, making the beholder a bit more dangerous.

One way or the other, it sounds like I need to add beholders to the list of reasons why "shaky" is a valid flaw.

[Braininthejar2]

Make him a cult leader. Have some frothing, lovecraftian Great Mother cultists to serve as fodder and build the mood.

Use higher level cultists (charmed adventurers? cohorts?) to buff the beholder and cover up his weaknesses.

[Segev]

Is there RAW support for using a mirror to bounce a ray? If so, that's all 10 rays every round, making the beholder a bit more dangerous.

There's a canonical magic item called the "sphere mirror" that is not actually spherical, but is, instead, something that only reflects images of spherical things. It explicitly can serve not just as a bounce-pad, but as a source for any ray bounced off of it.