Beholder's Anti-Magic Ray
Erick Asplund
only work on spells and spell effects? Will it prevent a wand from
firing? What about a magical item such as plate mail +2?
Staffan Johansson
It affects items too. The plate mail would be considered normal plate
mail, and the wand would say "psst" when its wielder attempted to use
it.
--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Drive defensively. Buy a tank.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> Does the anti-magic ray of the beholder affect magic items, or does it
> only work on spells and spell effects? Will it prevent a wand from
> firing? What about a magical item such as plate mail +2?
That anti-magic ray indeed negates wands, IIRC even swords and armor
become disable when in area of effect of the ray.
Jonh Stout
: > Will it prevent a wand from firing?
: and the wand would say "psst" when its wielder attempted to use it.
Would this use a charge?
Or would it not even function enough to waste a charge?
--
Jonh David Stout >>+_+<< jo...@polter.net
"Yah, I'm still a junkie, are you still a bitch?"
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
I would rule that the magic could not be called on if wand in AOE,
no craged used, if out of AOE but spell passed though AM ray the
spell fails and charge is used.
Michael Scott Brown
Jonh Stout <jo...@geist.polter.net> wrote:
>: > Does the anti-magic ray of the beholder affect magic items,
>: > Will it prevent a wand from firing?
>: and the wand would say "psst" when its wielder attempted to use it.
>Would this use a charge?
>Or would it not even function enough to waste a charge?
The item is effectively nonmagical while in the beam; it can't
even be activated (not even a "psst"). So there is no risk of
charge loss. Firing a wand from a safe place *into* an AM zone
is a different matter, obviously.
-Michael
Agent86
> I would rule that the magic could not be called on if wand in AOE,
> no craged used, if out of AOE but spell passed though AM ray the
> spell fails and charge is used.
Say I fired a +3 arrow(dagger, bolt, whatever) through the AOE to hit a creature on
the other side of it. would it be +3 when it got there or would it have been
negated? This happened IMC I let it by and gave them the bonus, now I wonder...
Agent86
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
magical bonus, based on description of beholder, if fired though one
ray to strike another monster, the arrow would lose +3 while traveling
though the AM-ray regain it out of the ray. If the arrow was fired
fully in the ray toward main eye the effect would be that of a normal
arrow. If fired at eyestalk, in this case I would rule that the +3 to
hit was negated, but if eyestalk was hit the +3 damage would apply. As
DM it is always your call and if you consider that you might have erred
it is always better to err in a way that keeps the game fun for all.
B Wood
> Say I fired a +3 arrow(dagger, bolt, whatever) through the AOE to hit a
> creature on the other side of it. would it be +3 when it got there or
> would it have been negated? This happened IMC I let it by and gave them
> the bonus, now I wonder...
AM Ray is like the 6th level AM Shell.
If you fired a +3 arrow, it would be *negated* (just a normal arrow) as it
passed through the Ray, until it passsed through the other side, where it
would return to being a +3 magical arrow.
AM doesn't dispell, it negates.
L31king
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.990126...@apache.utdallas.edu>, B
Wood <fen...@utdallas.edu> writes:
>
>AM Ray is like the 6th level AM Shell.
>
A queston on the AM ray and Am shell....
Say Mr. Fighter/Mage casts AM shell on himself before geting in the AM ray,
would the two effect each other (think about the casual sequences here)? Would
the ray pass through the shell, hitting things behind? Could the fighter walk
up to the beholder(s) (with all the other party members trying to squeeze into
the AOE) and beat the complete and utter snot out of them while not having to
frett about such unpleasantries as being instantly slain?
RK
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
Well it depends on a few things, If the Beholder can turn off anti
magic ray as some have sugjested by closing main eye. The fighter could
still get blasted.
The AM shield could indeed protect other patty members, from eyestalk
effects, unless it is ruled by DM that instaed of magic the effect is
psionic, which at least one poster has used. This to allow eyestalk
effects not to be canciled by the Beholders AM-ray.
The best way I know of to get a beholder is to attack from below.
BTW it would appear that the beholder levitation might not be magical,
(something to effect of innate) if so the AM-sheild would not stop
beholder biting any in AoE if the fighter got blasted.
Hope your games go well.
Joshua Kaufman
wrote:
>L31king wrote:
>>
>> Say Mr. Fighter/Mage casts AM shell on himself before geting in the AM ray,
>> would the two effect each other (think about the casual sequences here)? Would
>> the ray pass through the shell, hitting things behind? Could the fighter walk
>> up to the beholder(s) (with all the other party members trying to squeeze into
>> the AOE) and beat the complete and utter snot out of them while not having to
>> frett about such unpleasantries as being instantly slain?
>>
>> RK
>
>Well it depends on a few things, If the Beholder can turn off anti
>magic ray as some have sugjested by closing main eye. The fighter could
>still get blasted.
Uh sure, but not by magical effects.
>The AM shield could indeed protect other patty members, from eyestalk
>effects, unless it is ruled by DM that instaed of magic the effect is
>psionic, which at least one poster has used. This to allow eyestalk
>effects not to be canciled by the Beholders AM-ray.
I'd say that you would have a hard time convincing me that the eyes
are not magical. Especially when it says in the MM: Special
Attacks: Magic. Also there is no mention of Beholders as psionic
creatures in the CPsiHB, so I would say their abilities are magical,
and thus an AMS would work nicely to negate it.
Although one thing that is kinda contradictory here is the creature's
own AMS eye. If it stops magic from passing through it, you would
think that any of the eyes used on a party member, if they were
magical, would fail because the beholder's own magic douldn't get past
the AMS. So when thinking about that, I tend to think the eyes are
not magical and thus cannot be stopped by AMS. Because after all, the
creature's own AMS doesn't stop its eyes.
>
>The best way I know of to get a beholder is to attack from below.
Nyah, attack it from behind. Well have your mages attack it from
behind. The fighters can deal with them in the front.
Michael Scott Brown
>I'd say that you would have a hard time convincing me that the eyes
>are not magical. Especially when it says in the MM: Special
>Attacks: Magic. Also there is no mention of Beholders as psionic
>creatures in the CPsiHB, so I would say their abilities are magical,
>and thus an AMS would work nicely to negate it.
AMS would block psionics anyway (using S&P psionics ideas).
>Although one thing that is kinda contradictory here is the creature's
>own AMS eye. If it stops magic from passing through it, you would
>think that any of the eyes used on a party member, if they were
>magical, would fail because the beholder's own magic douldn't get past
>the AMS. So when thinking about that, I tend to think the eyes are
>not magical and thus cannot be stopped by AMS. Because after all, the
>creature's own AMS doesn't stop its eyes.
?? It is my understanding that a Beholder *can't* blast
someone in the central eye-beam with its topside eyes.
>>The best way I know of to get a beholder is to attack from below.
>Nyah, attack it from behind. Well have your mages attack it from
>behind. The fighters can deal with them in the front.
Behind=ten eyes can turn and zap the mages. Bad. Bad. Bad.
-Michael
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
> >I'd say that you would have a hard time convincing me that the eyes
> >are not magical. Especially when it says in the MM: Special
> >Attacks: Magic. Also there is no mention of Beholders as psionic
> >creatures in the CPsiHB, so I would say their abilities are magical,
> >and thus an AMS would work nicely to negate it.
>
> AMS would block psionics anyway (using S&P psionics ideas).
*S* Well it is good to hear something stops psionics
>
> >Although one thing that is kinda contradictory here is the creature's
> >own AMS eye. If it stops magic from passing through it, you would
> >think that any of the eyes used on a party member, if they were
> >magical, would fail because the beholder's own magic douldn't get past
> >the AMS. So when thinking about that, I tend to think the eyes are
> >not magical and thus cannot be stopped by AMS. Because after all, the
> >creature's own AMS doesn't stop its eyes.
>
> ?? It is my understanding that a Beholder *can't* blast
> someone in the central eye-beam with its topside eyes.
>
This was also my understanding that AM-ray stoped eyestalk effects,
however, it appears that eyestalks can ain in same general direction
under 2nd. The beholder main eye radiates an AM-ray of 90 degress, if
being attack from from one side, 90 degree angle d4 eyestalks can act,
(prehaps main eye not looking that direction or eyestalks fire along the
edge of the ray), if attacked from more sides, for each addition 90
degrees another d4 stalk can act, of course a maximun of 10 eyestalks if
surrounded. The beholder will also turn it's main eye at any starting
to cast a spell.
> >>The best way I know of to get a beholder is to attack from below.
> >Nyah, attack it from behind. Well have your mages attack it from
> >behind. The fighters can deal with them in the front.
>
> Behind=ten eyes can turn and zap the mages. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Well a max of 4 seems to be indicated per 90 dergress, beholder replying
to attacks from abouve can use all ten, attacks from below appear to be
safe from any attack, though prehaps bite might be allowed.
>
> -Michael
robb...@ozemail.com.au
mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
> >>The best way I know of to get a beholder is to attack from below.
> >Nyah, attack it from behind. Well have your mages attack it from
> >behind. The fighters can deal with them in the front.
>
> Behind=ten eyes can turn and zap the mages. Bad. Bad. Bad.
How about throwing a blanket over it in a manner akin to using a net? Perhaps
even a magical cloak to get a chance of saving vs disintegrate? At the very
worst it takes one round to deal with the blanket as opposed to dealing with a
player.....
You can afford to be arrogant when you're the best....
Durath Darkfriend
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Larry Mead
: In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.990126...@apache.utdallas.edu>, B
: Wood <fen...@utdallas.edu> writes:
: >
: >AM Ray is like the 6th level AM Shell.
: >
: A queston on the AM ray and Am shell....
: Say Mr. Fighter/Mage casts AM shell on himself before geting in the AM ray,
: would the two effect each other (think about the casual sequences here)? Would
: the ray pass through the shell, hitting things behind? Could the fighter walk
: up to the beholder(s) (with all the other party members trying to squeeze into
: the AOE) and beat the complete and utter snot out of them while not having to
: frett about such unpleasantries as being instantly slain?
This is a common tactic against heavy magic using/carrying
critters/persons. Here, the beholder floats up in the air out of reach
of any weapon and waits for the AMS to wear off.
: RK
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Staffan Johansson
> How about throwing a blanket over it in a manner akin to using a net? Perhaps
> even a magical cloak to get a chance of saving vs disintegrate? At the very
> worst it takes one round to deal with the blanket as opposed to dealing with a
> player.....
Use Telekinetic eye to get the blanket off quickly, use Death,
Disintegrate and Flesh to Stone eye on whomever tried the trick.
robb...@ozemail.com.au
Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> wrote:
> robb...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > How about throwing a blanket over it in a manner akin to using a net?
Perhaps
> > even a magical cloak to get a chance of saving vs disintegrate? At the very
> > worst it takes one round to deal with the blanket as opposed to dealing
with a
> > player.....
>
> Use Telekinetic eye to get the blanket off quickly, use Death,
> Disintegrate and Flesh to Stone eye on whomever tried the trick.
Sure, but you still distract the beholder for a round. Then what if the
strong fighter actually holds the blanket closed and wrapped around the
beholder.
Is it dangerous, sure. Is it more danerous than taking on a non distracted
beholder - I suspect not
Rob
Joshua Kaufman
Scott Brown) wrote:
>Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
>
>>Although one thing that is kinda contradictory here is the creature's
>>own AMS eye. If it stops magic from passing through it, you would
>>think that any of the eyes used on a party member, if they were
>>magical, would fail because the beholder's own magic douldn't get past
>>the AMS. So when thinking about that, I tend to think the eyes are
>>not magical and thus cannot be stopped by AMS. Because after all, the
>>creature's own AMS doesn't stop its eyes.
>
> ?? It is my understanding that a Beholder *can't* blast
> someone in the central eye-beam with its topside eyes.
Is that the case? Because the central beam has a pretty wide radius.
90 degree radius, 140 yard range. I guess the beam works like a
plane, and therefore the eyestalks shoot their plane at a lower or
higher level from the anti-magic shell.
>>>The best way I know of to get a beholder is to attack from below.
>>Nyah, attack it from behind. Well have your mages attack it from
>>behind. The fighters can deal with them in the front.
>
> Behind=ten eyes can turn and zap the mages. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Nope, you are restricted to 1-4 eyes. But the mage cannot be
attacked by the anti-magic ray. Granted, the mage still may be in
trouble, but at least the mage can do something behind the beholder.
Joshua Kaufman
Scott Brown) wrote:
>Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
>>I'd say that you would have a hard time convincing me that the eyes
>>are not magical. Especially when it says in the MM: Special
>>Attacks: Magic. Also there is no mention of Beholders as psionic
>>creatures in the CPsiHB, so I would say their abilities are magical,
>>and thus an AMS would work nicely to negate it.
>
> AMS would block psionics anyway (using S&P psionics ideas).
Where in S&P does it say this? I know it doesn't work if you are
using the CPsiHB.
Michael Scott Brown
>> ?? It is my understanding that a Beholder *can't* blast
>> someone in the central eye-beam with its topside eyes.
>
>Is that the case? Because the central beam has a pretty wide radius.
>90 degree radius, 140 yard range. I guess the beam works like a
>plane, and therefore the eyestalks shoot their plane at a lower or
>higher level from the anti-magic shell.
Cone, actually.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>> AMS would block psionics anyway (using S&P psionics ideas).
>
>Where in S&P does it say this?
In the section on psionics. (duh!)
>I know it doesn't work if you are using the CPsiHB.
As of HLC, TSR's 'official' vision of the AMS is clarified as an
anti *supernatural* field (not just magic, but since magic is most
common the moniker is still workable). S&P's psionics rules
tap into this interpretation.
Complete Psi is a bit older and assumed that anti-magic is
simply anti *magic*. GM's will have to decide which ideas they
like best for their campaigns, of course.
-Michael
Joshua Kaufman
Scott Brown) wrote:
Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
AMS? I guess I am having trouble seeing this visually, because it
would seem the AMS eye would put up enough of a force field to prevent
the beholder's eye effects from moving through it.
Michael Scott Brown
>> Cone, actually.
>
>Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
>AMS?
They don't! The beholder creates an antimagical region in the front
and zaps things on its flanks and rear when it's central eye is open.
-Michael
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> On 5 Feb 1999 17:50:55 GMT, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael
> the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
One version of the Beholder did so indicate that indeed it workrd that
way. There is an opinion that allows for closing eye, further it can be
allowed inclose fighting melee, that the eyestalk could hit head of elf
or taller fighter. *shrugs*
StephenJ
Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> On 5 Feb 1999 17:50:55 GMT, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael
> Scott Brown) wrote:
>
> >Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
> >>> Cone, actually.
> >>
> >>Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
> >>AMS?
> >
> > They don't! The beholder creates an antimagical region in the front
> > and zaps things on its flanks and rear when it's central eye is open.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense. What if everything attacks it from
> the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
The Beholder's strategy would seem to vary depending upon the location of
opponents with magical and non-magical attack forms, and their relative danger to
him/it...
--
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congratulations to ERIC DICKERSON for being enshrined in
the Pro Football Hall of Fame! A Ram-Power Shout-Out to
the greatest running back ever! Thanks for the memories,
ED!
******************************
Joshua Kaufman
Michael Scott Brown
>> They don't! The beholder creates an antimagical region in the front
>> and zaps things on its flanks and rear when it's central eye is open.
>
>That makes absolutely no sense. What if everything attacks it from
>the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
*And neither is the attackers' magic*.
Fair tradeoff, IMO.
Note that the beholder doesn't always have the central eyebeam
going; it can lower it for a while if it wants to shoot nastier
eyebeams at frontal foes.
Thus, the monster can exert some control over the conditions of
battle it experiences; it can go high magic and just blast away
with its crown of eyes or it can be conservative and negate
the most threatening magic facing it.
-Michael
towo...@concentric.net
>That makes absolutely no sense. What if everything attacks it from
>the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
Then it A) Closes its eye, or B) Turns so it's eye isn't facing that
direction THEN blasts.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
S. Wilson
> This is a common tactic against heavy magic using/carrying
> critters/persons. Here, the beholder floats up in the air out of reach
> of any weapon and waits for the AMS to wear off.
While you pepper him with arrows from your long bow.
Hemlock
S. Wilson
> >I know it doesn't work if you are using the CPsiHB.
>
> As of HLC, TSR's 'official' vision of the AMS is clarified as an
Many campaigns assume that anything that violates *our* laws of physics is
"magic." Dragons flying, giant creatures violating square-cube, etc. Under
this interpretation, what happens to a dragon flying in an anti-magic
zone?
Hemlock
Rob Bruce
Joshua Kaufman wrote in message
<1F5116DA9B97B3D2.05CF482E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>On 5 Feb 1999 17:50:55 GMT, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael
>Scott Brown) wrote:
>
>>Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
>>>> Cone, actually.
>>>
>>>Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
>>>AMS?
>>
>> and zaps things on its flanks and rear when it's central eye is open.
>
>the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
The it must close the AMS eye. You can't have the benefit of the AMS
defence and the ability to use many magic functions as well (or at least not
in the same direction)
Rob
Larry Mead
: On 5 Feb 1999 17:50:55 GMT, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael
: Scott Brown) wrote:
: >Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
: >>> Cone, actually.
: >>
: >>Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
: >>AMS?
: >
: > They don't! The beholder creates an antimagical region in the front
: > and zaps things on its flanks and rear when it's central eye is open.
: That makes absolutely no sense. What if everything attacks it from
: the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
Yes, that is why the beholder doesn't always have the AMR on, or "points"
it at an angle to be able to shoot some forward attackers while safe from
others magic.
Roy and Susan
Larry Mead wrote in message <79kj4g$2g7$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>...
>Joshua Kaufman (jk...@mpb.com) wrote:
>: On 5 Feb 1999 17:50:55 GMT, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael
>: Scott Brown) wrote:
>
>: >Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
>: >>> Cone, actually.
>: >>
>: >>Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
>: >>AMS?
>: >
>: > They don't! The beholder creates an antimagical region in the front
>: > and zaps things on its flanks and rear when it's central eye is open.
>
>: That makes absolutely no sense. What if everything attacks it from
>: the front? Then the magical eyes aren't useful.
>
>Yes, that is why the beholder doesn't always have the AMR on, or "points"
>it at an angle to be able to shoot some forward attackers while safe from
>others magic.
>
>DMGorgon
Which is exactly why I started a thread a while back about the fact that I
let Beholders "blink" to fire their own eyes through the Anti-magic arc so
as to make them less vulnerable to a direct frontal rush.
Works fine for me, but you may want to look at that other thread for some
other opinions.
Roy Northern
Michael Scott Brown
>> As of HLC, TSR's 'official' vision of the AMS is clarified as an
>> anti *supernatural* field [snip]
>
>Many campaigns assume that anything that violates *our* laws of physics is
>"magic." Dragons flying, giant creatures violating square-cube, etc. Under
>this interpretation, what happens to a dragon flying in an anti-magic
>zone?
My brief summary didn't cover all the nuances, naturally.
The idea is, that magical/supernatural effects cannot *propagate*
through the AMS. Magical creatures and their special abilities aren't
affected by the AMS until they try to project their magic outward
through the AMS field. As long as they keep their magic "inside"
or only work by touch then the AMS won't suppress it.
A Lich in an AMS could still freeze people with its touch, and its
funky lifeforce arrangement would be unharmed, but it couldn't fire
any spells off or use any magical items as usual.
-Michael
Quietus
> On 5 Feb 1999 09:28:24 GMT, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael
> Scott Brown) wrote:
>
> >Joshua Kaufman <jk...@mpb.com> wrote:
> >>> ?? It is my understanding that a Beholder *can't* blast
> >>> someone in the central eye-beam with its topside eyes.
> >>
> >>Is that the case? Because the central beam has a pretty wide radius.
> >>90 degree radius, 140 yard range. I guess the beam works like a
> >>plane, and therefore the eyestalks shoot their plane at a lower or
> >>higher level from the anti-magic shell.
> >
> > Cone, actually.
>
> Okay, if it works like a cone, how does the other eyes go past the
> AMS? I guess I am having trouble seeing this visually, because it
> would seem the AMS eye would put up enough of a force field to prevent
> the beholder's eye effects from moving through it.
>
______________________________________________________________________________
It is my understanding that the ray is like a cone, and the Beholder
cannot use it's eyes through it's A-M ray, However, we're dealing with a
highly intellegent creature here. It could simply close it's central eye
long enough to blast it's enemies into oblivion, then immediately reopen
it to resume it's protection. (Wouldn't that be a nice surprise to spring
on a player who has read the monsterous manual and is trying to exploit
that weakness? <Insert evil laugh here> ;) )
"My name is Quietus,
My gift is Death...
And I am in a _Very_ giving mood this day."
-Lord Quietus, Master Necromancer-