[3.5] Can a staggered beholder cast eye beams?

[SkazzK]

Hiya folks!
I've built a rogue with the Staggering Strike feat from Complete Adventurer. Now the DM has been hinting at a future full of evil beholders, trying to scare us.

Here's the thing: RAW, the Staggered condition limits the creature to either a move action or a standard action per round. It doesn't say anything about free, quick, swift actions and what have you.

Beholder eye beams are free actions. But they're also spell-like abilities that, to my mind, require a certain amount of concentration to aim and pull off. They do require a ranged touch attack, after all...

Long story short, I can't find anything conclusive in the rules as written, and I'm not sure about the rules as intended. Could you provide me with your points of view? If you were the DM, would you allow a staggered beholder to keep on firing eye beams as usual?

[Name1]

RAI, I'd say a staggered character has "Restricted Activity", which is defined in the SRD as follows:
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round’s worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free actions as normal). You can’t take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).

RAW, staggered doesn't mention that it restricts the players activity, so I'm not 100% sure, sorry.

[SkazzK]

... so I'm not 100% sure, sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about, I don't think anybody can be truly sure :)

Another thing I'm wondering about... Do beholder eye beams provoke attacks of opportunity? I've found some discussions here and there discussing rays and ranged touch attacks and whether or not they provoke, but they mostly boil down to "No, they don't, the provocation is part of the act of casting a spell."
Which isn't exactly the case with a beholder. Any thoughts?

[Name1]

From what I could gather, Beholder's don't provoke when they use their eye rays, due to it being a supernatural ability, not a spell-like one.

I also believe that the rays don't allow SR (again, SU) and in the case of Disintegrate enemies do not suffer partial effects of the respective spell (since they save against being affected by the rays, not against the actual spell, but automatically fail their saves against the carried effect. We see that due to the Finger of Death-Ray specifically stating that additional damage will be taken if the save succeeds and the target will be instantly slain ("as though by the spell") if the save fails, which is normally part of the spell).

[Fizban]

I'd say that if you allow PCs to talk while staggered, the Beholder should keep it's eye rays while staggered. The eye rays don't provoke, though you could change that with some interesting blanket rulings like "anything that uses a ranged attack provokes" (which would also apply to spells, even if they cast defensively). There's the feat Supernatural Opportunist which lets you make AoOs in response to supernatural abilities, but the DM could still rule that as a free action the Beholder's eye rays should beat that, like a quickened spell.

[SkazzK]

I initially thought I'd be able to get the drop on these multi-eyed bastards somehow, but it looks like I'm up a certain creek without a paddle. That is, unless I can somehow both blind it and stop it from flying...

Thing is, I haven't played with the party in question yet, and will be jumping into an existing campaign tomorrow. I have no idea if the wizard has any tricks up her sleeve like glitterdust, blind, greater invisibility, etc.

So I'm still looking for ways I can reliably get my sneak attacks against beholders without relying on others, preferably in the form of cheap mundane or minor wondrous items. Maybe a wand of some sort...? I've got a few thousand GP left to invest if I forgo the wand of wraithstrike I've tentatively bought...
Your input is appreciated!

[Name1]

A wand of Ray Deflection might work...
I mean "Any ray attack directed at you is automatically reflected harmlessly away" seems like a surefire way to annoy a beholder...

[Firest Kathon]

"anything that uses a ranged attack provokes" (which would also apply to spells, even if they cast defensively).
That is already the rule. A non-defensively cast spells with a ranged attack roll (e.g. Ray of Enfeeblement) even provokes twice, once for the spellcasting and once for the ranged attack. See the actions in combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) table:




Action
Attack of Opportunity


Attack (ranged)
Yes


Cast a Spell
Yes



The rules for magic do not specify that the ranged attack roll that comes with a targeted spell follows any special rules, so the normal rules for ranged attacks take effect and it provokes attacks of opportunity.

[Name1]

actions in combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm)

The rules for magic do not specify that the ranged attack roll that comes with a targeted spell follows any special rules, so the normal rules for ranged attacks take effect and it provokes attacks of opportunity.

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. Yeah, it does provoke an AoO due to it being a ranged attack/ray. You don't get double though: The Eye Rays aren't spells.

So yes, I guess it does provoke, because while (Su)s don't provoke on their own, the ranged attack part still could.

[SkazzK]

That's all true, but the beholder's eye beams are supernatural abilities, not spells. It says quite clearly towards the end of the MM that supernatural abilities (to my great dismay) don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Unless the ranged touch attack that comes with using the ability is enough to provoke on its own.

If you think about it fluffily, the reason ranged attacks provoke is that they take up your attention and force you to move in a way that is detrimental to your melee defense. I don't think this is the case with the beholder's point-and-pew-pew beams.
I'm curious about the crunch of it, though...

[LTwerewolf]

The attack is anything that is an attack action using a ranged weapon. Eye beams don't provoke at all.

[SkazzK]

A wand of Ray Deflection might work...
I mean "Any ray attack directed at you is automatically reflected harmlessly away" seems like a surefire way to annoy a beholder...

I'm afraid the only way I'm going to get that is "D'urrr... PCGen said it was only 250 GP."
Cost to buy is spell level (4) x caster level x 750, right? I'm a bit hazy on wand creation rules, but unless it's possible to create a wand with caster level 1 for 3000GP, I can't afford it.

[Name1]

I'm afraid the only way I'm going to get that is "D'urrr... PCGen said it was only 250 GP."
Cost to buy is spell level (4) x caster level x 750, right? I'm a bit hazy on wand creation rules, but unless it's possible to create a wand with caster level 1 for 3000GP, I can't afford it.

If you wanted a 50-uses wand, yes, that would be the price, but you can buy 4 Scrolls a 4*7*25 gp a piece, for a cost of 2800gp for four characters.

[Firest Kathon]

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. Yeah, it does provoke an AoO due to it being a ranged attack/ray. You don't get double though: The Eye Rays aren't spells.
So yes, I guess it does provoke, because while (Su)s don't provoke on their own, the ranged attack part still could.

That's all true, but the beholder's eye beams are supernatural abilities, not spells. It says quite clearly towards the end of the MM that supernatural abilities (to my great dismay) don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Unless the ranged touch attack that comes with using the ability is enough to provoke on its own.
If you think about it fluffily, the reason ranged attacks provoke is that they take up your attention and force you to move in a way that is detrimental to your melee defense. I don't think this is the case with the beholder's point-and-pew-pew beams.
I'm curious about the crunch of it, though...
I fully agree that as (Su) abilities, the usage of the eye beams does not provke AoOs in itself (I only wrote about spells in my example above), however I maintain that the ranged attack effected by the eye beams provokes. That may or may not make sense in this case, but that is hardly a benchmark for D&D rules...


The attack is anything that is an attack action using a ranged weapon. Eye beams don't provoke at all.
I read the rules to mean that any ranged attack provokes, no matter the source. Even if you insist on requiring a weapon, spells and abilities with an attack roll count as weapons in all other cases (e.g. Weapon Focus feats, damage boni, etc.), so I see no reason why it should not be the case here. Do you maybe have a rules quote to support your interpretation?

[LTwerewolf]

I read the rules to mean that any ranged attack provokes, no matter the source. Even if you insist on requiring a weapon, spells and abilities with an attack roll count as weapons in all other cases (e.g. Weapon Focus feats, damage boni, etc.), so I see no reason why it should not be the case here. Do you maybe have a rules quote to support your interpretation?

You're confusing your information here. First, the attacks of opportunities section actually defines what they mean by attack, which is something using "a ranged weapon" for the ranged. It's in the phb. For the second part, that would mean that the eye rays are all weapon-like abilities right? Well no, they're not. First we need to look at the definition of weapon-like spell.


Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects.

Ok, so let's look at some eye rays. Charm monster? No damage done here. Charm person? same. Fear, flesh to stone, sleep, slow telekenesis? Nope. Disintegrate? Yeah that does damage. So does inflict wounds. Finger of death is arguable but let's say it does. The problem here is that the beholder eye rays aren't spells. But spell-like abilities follow the same rules, so that's something. But they're also not spell-like abilities, and su abilities don't really follow the same rules. In fact, it's even directly stated that supernatural abilities don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

So yeah, that's why they don't provoke. Just because something has a ranged attack roll does not make it provoke an attack of opportunity, and just because something is magical and uses an attack of opportunity doesn't make it a weapon-like spell.

p.s. Also note that weaponlike spells make no mention of being treated as ranged weapons for attacks of opportunity, but rather say they "function as weapons in certain respects," and only goes on to describe certain things. AoO need not apply.

[SkazzK]

LTwerewolf: thanks for taking the time to dig so deep. I think you're probably right, so I hope you don't mind me asking another question:
Would your logic apply to beholder mages' spells as well? They're cast from a spell stalk, but as far as I can tell they're still spells.

Also, I hope you won't hold it against me if I try and convince my DM that you're, in fact, wrong ;)

[lytokk]

With all these spells, don't forget about that annoying antimagic eye. What about a bag of flour or smokesticks? That could go a way to blinding a beholder. Is pepperspray a D&D item yet?

[Sliver]

I don't think trying to intentionally deceive the DM of a group you are just joining is a good idea... Of course, admitting to what the rules say and trying to get a houserule by is different...

And if you were just making a joke... Ummm... Okay then...

[Beheld]

If you wanted a 50-uses wand, yes, that would be the price, but you can buy 4 Scrolls a 4*7*25 gp a piece, for a cost of 2800gp for four characters.

why would you suggest he save 200gp for 46 fewer spell uses?

[SkazzK]

I don't think trying to intentionally deceive the DM of a group you are just joining is a good idea... Of course, admitting to what the rules say and trying to get a houserule by is different...

And if you were just making a joke... Ummm... Okay then...

Oh, don't worry, we've been friends since we were six years old, and I'm just coming back from an extended break caused by my lvl. 0 human, class to be determined, abysmal stats so far except for CHA 18, being born ;)

I don't see him holding anything against me. He'd sooner congratulate me on beating him in a battle of wits.

[LTwerewolf]

LTwerewolf: thanks for taking the time to dig so deep. I think you're probably right, so I hope you don't mind me asking another question:
Would your logic apply to beholder mages' spells as well? They're cast from a spell stalk, but as far as I can tell they're still spells.

Also, I hope you won't hold it against me if I try and convince my DM that you're, in fact, wrong ;)

Beholder mage is casting spells, which specifically provoke. The fact that it's using the same stalks is unimportant. I'm not going to be offended regardless of what you do, however if your dm knows the truth then they might easily be offended. I recommend trying to get a house-rule so that the monster is defeat-able. Beholders as written are pretty hard to murder for non optimized folk.

Also for the item discussion: partially charged wands are a thing.

[Name1]

why would you suggest he save 200gp for 46 fewer spell uses?

The 3000 gp he mentioned were the budget he has for the mission. The reason why I mentioned a wand was because that was the formula he mentioned (4*7*750). So he'd instead save 19000 gp for 46 fewer spell uses and still be in his budget.

[Firest Kathon]

You're confusing your information here. First, the attacks of opportunities section actually defines what they mean by attack, which is something using "a ranged weapon" for the ranged. It's in the phb.

Can you please give me a page reference for that? I read page 137 of my PHB and it says there (emphasis mine):

Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provike attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
So neither this parapgraph nor the table (which I linked above) are exclusive lists. As a further support of my point of view, Pathfinder uses exactly the same language and table for AoOs, and they have clarified this in their FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qdc). It is, of course, not binding for D&D 3.5.


For the second part, that would mean that the eye rays are all weapon-like abilities right? Well no, they're not. First we need to look at the definition of weapon-like spell.

Ok, so let's look at some eye rays. Charm monster? No damage done here. Charm person? same. Fear, flesh to stone, sleep, slow telekenesis? Nope. Disintegrate? Yeah that does damage. So does inflict wounds. Finger of death is arguable but let's say it does. The problem here is that the beholder eye rays aren't spells. But spell-like abilities follow the same rules, so that's something. But they're also not spell-like abilities, and su abilities don't really follow the same rules. In fact, it's even directly stated that supernatural abilities don't provoke attacks of opportunity. [...]

p.s. Also note that weaponlike spells make no mention of being treated as ranged weapons for attacks of opportunity, but rather say they "function as weapons in certain respects," and only goes on to describe certain things. AoO need not apply.

I agree with you here, the weapon-like spells rules do not apply with regards to AoOs.


So yeah, that's why they don't provoke. Just because something has a ranged attack roll does not make it provoke an attack of opportunity,
I disagree.

and just because something is magical and uses an attack of opportunity doesn't make it a weapon-like spell.
I agree.

[Fizban]

Since you bring up not just getting sneak attack, but getting sneak attack against a Beholder while hopefully neutralizing it's eye rays: Smokestick/other nonmagical smoke seems like your best bet. Combine with a source of Blindsight or other miss chance negation, dance around until you evade the antimagic cone, then ranged attacks. Depends on being able to box the beast in to a certain extent and having the team on board.