Beholder vs. Dwarf

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
I've been waiting for my players to get to a level where they could encounter a beholder.  The time has arrived!


But I'm trying to wrap my head around how the beholder's powers will interact with our dwarf's Defender Aura.  The beholder can attack twice per standard.(three times when first bloodied).   So, this is one attack I'm guessing... so, as long as one attack is against the dwarf, the other's won't provoke OA's, right?  But Defender Aura inacts -2 to beholders attacks against any other also.  Does this effect attacks that happen in the beholder's aura 5 attacks on the PCs turn?


Also, any PC in aura 5 at start of turn, the beholder attacks.  With a party of 6, that could be a lot of attacks provoked.  The RC says one OA per turn, so, beholder attacks on every PC in aura's turn, dwarf and others OA's?   Geesh... that really seems to cripple beholder's powers.


Defender aura  is once per round.  OAs once per turn.  All this could really mute the beholder to nill really.  I know that the beholder flies and could put his self out of reach, but I don't want to take the fun out of it for the players by not letting them in the fight at all.


I might be off on something here. 

    
For clarity's sake, which beholder are you using?  The L9 solo?

As far as the first issue goes, those are two (or three) separate attacks; if any of them don't target the dwarf, it's a violation of the aura.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Yes... the L9 solo...


I'm sure that someone out there has run a beholder up against some PC's Defender Aura.  How did it work out for you?  It looks to me like just about EVERYTHING is going to provoke OAs from our dwarf PC. 


I'd really like to hear from some of you about things you might have learned about your beholder encounter.  My first impulse is to make sure that I use the "push" eye against that dwarf and try to keep him away from the monster.  But just in case he gets locked down with the dwarf, I want to make sure that I am being fair according to rules.


So... the beholder uses two-eye attack.  One against dwarf, one against something else, defying Defender Aura. Beholder provokes OA (here, called Battle Guardian).  Or beholder shifts, also defies Defender Aura, so, OA either way.


Go down initiative order.  Everything in aura 5 gets attacked, OAs provoked on every turn.  OAs can happen every turn according to RC pg 196-197.  So, in 6 second round, with 6 players, dwarf can get up to around 8 swings at the big eye in one round.


That's ok if that's what it is, I just wanted to make sure that I was running it efficiently to be a real threat.  Any pointers from experienced beholder DMs?          
I saw the exact same thing happen with our party when our DM threw a beholder at us.  Once our defender got in close to the beholder, the beholder's aura repeatedly triggered on our turns.  Our defender got to make one reprisal per turn, but with the beholder attacks happening on separate turns, our defender was doing more damage then two strikers put together.  With a debuff on the beholder making him vuln all for a round, the rest of the group put as many one round buffs on the defender all at once.  The beholder went down fast. It was an interesting example of watching a monster's powers work hideously against it.
It was an interesting example of watching a monster's powers work hideously against it.


No, it's an interesting example of a DM being a fool. Monsters can turn off their auras. Intelligent monsters should turn off their aura rather than letting it get them killed.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Having to be adjacent to a target is part of the weakness of a Knight as a Defender, there's absolutely no reason why a creature with genius intelligence like the Beholder wouldn't instantly try the obvious tactic of "stay out of reach of the guys with swords". That's just part of the game and  Melee Characters have the ability to deal quite a bit more damage than ranged to compensate for this. You should absolutely not baby your players by trivializing combats like that.

Keep in mind that the Knight is also going to get attacked at the start of his turn for starting in the aura, and since Beholders are smart it would recognize a Dwarf Fighter as being sturdy but not particularly nimble or strong of will, so it should be pretty trivial to Dominate or Blind with the triggered Random Eye Ray, and then Terror Ray on it's own turn as the 1st of the two Eye Rays attacks so the Dwarf can't attack it on the 2nd Eye Ray. You also can turn off his ability to Power Strike.

It's actually not an aura, it's just a triggered action which the Beholder always has the choice to not take, as Dusweaver pointed out there's absolutely no reason why the Beholder would trigger OAs (after the 1st time) unless it was already winning.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
The even-easier solution ... Solos, despite the name, should not actually be used solo.  Give your beholder a partner or two (probably a Brute or a Soldier to complement his status as Artillery) to mix it up with the dwarf and other bruisers.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I thought about a wave of some sort of minions to go with it.  I guess what could make the encounter swingy is if the dice allow the beholder to dominate the fighter.  That would be my co-hort.


Long and short of it... if the beholder gets locked down, can't push the dwarf over a ledge and/or can't dominate  the fighter, he could go down fast.


I guess my thought is this:  In RAW the dwarf can swing at the beholder potentially up to eight or so times in this round of six seconds.  In roleplay time, that seems like a lot of swinging of the great axe.


Too, for clarity of the random eye ray power that targets others on their turn.  The power actually doesn't say anything about being an aura.  Here is the stat block:

Triggered Actions: Random Eye Ray - At-Will

Trigger: The beholder is conscious and an enemy starts its turn within 5 squares of it.

Effect (no action): The beholder uses one random eye ray against the triggering enemy.


The power doesn't even say "can use" it says "uses".  That sounds like it was intended to go off everytime the trigger is activated to me, but hat's a strict reading I suppose.               
The attack triggered by violating the D-aura is an opportunity action isn't it? Last I checked you only get 1 OA per enemy per round. A knight would only get 1 off-turn attack every round against the beholder, even if it focused all 3 attacks on the knight's allies, spent an action point, and did it again. 
The attack triggered by violating the D-aura is an opportunity action isn't it? Last I checked you only get 1 OA per enemy per round. A knight would only get 1 off-turn attack every round against the beholder, even if it focused all 3 attacks on the knight's allies, spent an action point, and did it again. 



Yes... it is an opportunity action.


But according to the RC on page 196-197, an OA can be taken "once per turn, rather than once per round".


So the dwarf's great-axe is going to be spinning like an airplane propeller getting off so many hits in 6 seconds.    
But all 6 eye attacks were still on 1 turn, thus the dwarf is attacking at most, twice per 6 seconds (once on his own turn, once on the beholder's, he also can only power strike once per round), if he himself doesn't spend an action point.


Triggered Actions: Random Eye Ray - At-Will
Trigger: The beholder is conscious and an enemy starts its turn within 5 squares of it.
Effect (no action): The beholder uses one random eye ray against the triggering enemy.
The power doesn't even say "can use" it says "uses".  That sounds like it was intended to go off everytime the trigger is activated to me, but hat's a strict reading I suppose.              



Thats because its a power, which you can choose to use or not. You aren't choosing the effect, you're choosing to use the power. I think I get where I misunderstood the situation now, the around 8 attacks your mentioning is due to the triggered action thing. at the start of each of his ally's turns.  

But since this is a power, the beholder can choose not to use it. The Beholder on its turn can also move out of the aura, soaking a hit, but it'd prevent it from provoking an OA for each eye ray.


If it is impossible to choose not to use a power when it "triggers" then all player immediate actions always have to occur, they must take every OA, even if they don't want to.  
But all 6 eye attacks were still on 1 turn


No. The triggered eye ray attacks happen at the start of each of the PCs' turns.

EDIT: Ah, I see you've realised that.

EDIT2: Anyway, beholders can fly. Why on earth is it even within reach of the fighter? It should be floating 4-5 squares up so it can still use its triggered eye rays without any risk of opportunity attacks at all.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

The eye rays also do not provoke opportunity attacks, though I'm not sure if that includes attacks that are made via an opportunity action.


Clumping up infront of the beholder so that its aura effects more allies to provoke the knight attacks also makes more party members susceptible to Central Eye.  
It should be interesting and will definately take a little more in the way of tactics than most monsters I have run for the party.


Solos are always a little iffy to me just because a few good save-ends effects can diminish their threat so greatly.  If I am running a slew of monsters, odds are that I'll still have something causing harm.  Solos... immobilize, stun or daze and he becomes a punching bag.


Because of terrain, it would be easy for me to have the beholder fly out of range of the melee guys, and I may try it for a turn or two and see if my adventurers can come up with a plan.  I am anxious to see how it turns out.  Could be epic... but knowing my party, they'll think of something!     
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Solos are always a little iffy to me just because a few good save-ends effects can diminish their threat so greatly. 



Again, that's why you don't actually use Solos alone.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The eye rays also do not provoke opportunity attacks, though I'm not sure if that includes attacks that are made via an opportunity action.


Clumping up infront of the beholder so that its aura effects more allies to provoke the knight attacks also makes more party members susceptible to Central Eye.  



Hey Janx... you're right.  That changes a lot... and brings up yet another question... geesh...


It does say in the Beholder's Standard Action, At-Will Eye Rays

Effect:  The beholder uses two of the following eye rays, using each against a different target.  This attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.


Then, down at the bottom in the Triggered Actions block...
Random Eye Ray - At Will
Trigger: The beholder is conscious and an enemy starts its turn within 5 squares of it.
Effectno action) the beholder uses one eye ray against against a triggering enemy   .


So... new questions in light of this... does the beholder's triggered action get the same immunity from OAs as the description in the Eye Ray attack?  Would be logical to think so.  The attack comes from that same stat block. 


Also... back to Defender Aura... the aura itself creates a zone that places a -2 penalty to attacks against other creatures, regardless.  Got it.  It is the At-Will fighter attack "Battle Guardian" that is the "Opportunity Action" triggered when someone in Def. Aura makes attack against other creature or shifts.  My question... is this opportunity action also negated by the description in the Beholders eye ray attack.


If so... then there will be no Opportunity Attacks against the beholder at all?  This is a complete reversal from where this thread started.  And with that, I will get a TPK if I fly this thing out of melee range.     
inadvertant emoticon up there...
This thread has been moved by VCL request.

If you have any questions, please contact:
Customer Service
does the beholder's triggered action get the same immunity from OAs as the description in the Eye Ray attack?


Maybe. I suggest you post the question in the Rules Q&A forum. The folks there are much better at dissecting this sort of not-immediately-obvious rules-interpretation issue.

I will note, however, that "uses one random eye ray" is not the same as "uses its Eye Rays power, rolling randomly for which ray is used". My gut feeling is that, by strict RAW, the triggered eye rays are not immune to OAs, because nothing tells you to reference the 'Effect' line of the actual Eye Rays power (which is where that immunity is stated), only the specific ray description you randomly generate.

is this opportunity action also negated by the description in the Beholders eye ray attack.


That's a definite no. An opportunity attack is a specific game element. Other opportunity actions don't count.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Regarding the subject of not using solos solo:  The Angry DM has a terrific series of articles on how to fix solos without just piling on more monsters.

Instead of one encounter, you take the monsters total hit points and divide them by three.  Then you make three stat blocks, essentially just three variations of one stat block, each representing different stages of the solo's own resource management.  Every time a stat block is "killed" the solo disengages, all conditions on the solo end, and the PCs get to recharge one used encounter power.  Then the battle resumes using the next stat block, with the third and final stat block counting as "Bloodied" for all intents and purposes.

So while the first stat block beholder uses all the typical tricks to avoid the Defender and maximize it's eye rays, perhaps for the second stat block variation the Beholder, it's eye rays exhausted, has to engage the party with brute force, using strength-based attacks, using it's tentacles and maybe even it's tongue like a Kraken to grab and fling the party.  This would allow the Defender to shine for a while whereas in the first stat block encounter he was marginalized by the brilliant artillery style tactics of the eye rays.

It's even suggested in the article that the first of second stat blocks may be replaced by skill challenges, or that perhaps one of the stat block encounters actually does include other monsters, but that the overall encounter serves to make the solo itself much more dynamic.

I have a boss fight planned coming up where a solo artillery wizard splits into three mirror images of himself during the second stat block encounter and the encounter becomes an elite-style artillery wolf pack fight.  Then, for the final Bloodied stat block, desperate and exhausted, the wizard reforms into an magic infused solo brute.
Sleeping with interns on Colonial 1
It was an interesting example of watching a monster's powers work hideously against it.


No, it's an interesting example of a DM being a fool. Monsters can turn off their auras. Intelligent monsters should turn off their aura rather than letting it get them killed.



Except if the monster turns off his aura, he's not getting nearly enough attacks out there to be a "solo" five-monster threat.  He instead becomes a Bag Of Hitpoints.

The correct interpretation, I think, is to treat the Knight OA as an OA that the Beholder doesn't trigger with it's "do not provoke" powers.  Let it still take the Knight OA if it wants to shift away and get away from the mark, or something, but the eye rays don't provoke, therefore they don't provoke, y'know?
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
It was an interesting example of watching a monster's powers work hideously against it.


No, it's an interesting example of a DM being a fool. Monsters can turn off their auras. Intelligent monsters should turn off their aura rather than letting it get them killed.



Except if the monster turns off his aura, he's not getting nearly enough attacks out there to be a "solo" five-monster threat.  He instead becomes a Bag Of Hitpoints.

The correct interpretation, I think, is to treat the Knight OA as an OA that the Beholder doesn't trigger with it's "do not provoke" powers.  Let it still take the Knight OA if it wants to shift away and get away from the mark, or something, but the eye rays don't provoke, therefore they don't provoke, y'know?

This seems to make sense to me.  The Defender Aura would still be working for the knight, in that the beholder would be taking -2 to attacks against another creature other than the knight.  The other actions are triggered not by the aura but by defying it in some way. , which triggers Battle Guardian.


The iffy ruling here is caused by the unclear tiering of opportunity attacks vs opportunity actions.  If an opportunity action power gives the knight an opportunity attack, do you go with the the knight's right to use his opportunity action or the beholder's right  to deny the opportunity attack.


In order to be clear, The knight's fighter attack is as follows...

Battle Guardian
At-Will    Opportunity Action 

Trigger:   An enemy subject to your defender aura either shifts or makes an attack that targets an ally of yours but not you or an ally who has an active defender aura.

Effect:    You make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy.  If the attack misses, the enemy still takes damage equal to your strength modifier.


This is brought about by the knight's...


Defender Aura

At-Will    Minor Action

 Effect:    You activate an aura 1 that lasts until you end it as a minor action or until you fall unconscious.  While in the aura, any enemy takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls when it makes an attack that does not include among its targets either you or an ally of yours who has this aura active.  Marked enemys are not subject to this aura.     


So... who is the winner here?  Immunity to Opportunity Attacks or Opportunity Action (not exactly the same thing according to RC pg 196) that is an opportunity attack but not called that exactly in the power's description.


It's hard to find a middle-ground.  It looks like it's going to be all or nothing for the dwarf.  I really, truly want to do it in the right way for the characters and not rob them of their cool powers, but I also don't want to take all of the fun out of this fantastic creature by having him pummeled by sixteen blows by that one character in two rounds.


A thought... if I let the dwarf have his "Opportunity Actions" I suppose all would not be wasted with some clever tactics by the monster.  Someone mentioned earlier in this thread about the eye rays being random, but on this level 9 beholder, that isn't stated in the power description.  Couldn't I use the creature's dominate eye beam to (1) make the defender drop his aura with a minor (2) mark the creature with a different PC, effectively ending the defender's aura as  stated in that power's description.   Sorry to open a new can of worms here.   
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">So... who is the winner here?  Immunity to Opportunity Attacks or Opportunity Action (not exactly the same thing according to RC pg 196) that is an opportunity attack but not called that exactly in the power's description.


It's hard to find a middle-ground.  It looks like it's going to be all or nothing for the dwarf.  I really, truly want to do it in the right way for the characters and not rob them of their cool powers, but I also don't want to take all of the fun out of this fantastic creature by having him pummeled by sixteen blows by that one character in two rounds.



I should be perfectly clear:  I would be making a house rule and expanding the Beholder's "does not provoke OAs for these Ranged Attacks" rule to include "and also does not provoke the Knight's Opportunity Action aura-punishment, either, because Defenders who punish with Opportunity Actions did not exist and the concept was basically unthinkable when the monster was printed this way".

I would be making this house rule SPECIFICALLY to prevent the Knight from getting adjacent to the Beholder and getting a free attack on every character's turn because of the Beholder's aura.  He would still get to punish the Beholder for Shifting or Moving like normal, he just wouldn't get all the extra free attacks.


A thought... if I let the dwarf have his "Opportunity Actions" I suppose all would not be wasted with some clever tactics by the monster.  Someone mentioned earlier in this thread about the eye rays being random, but on this level 9 beholder, that isn't stated in the power description.  Couldn't I use the creature's dominate eye beam to (1) make the defender drop his aura with a minor (2) mark the creature with a different PC, effectively ending the defender's aura as  stated in that power's description.   Sorry to open a new can of worms here.   



You could, but that's mostly a waste.  You're better off with "shift away (taking the hit) then attack freely - hopefully immobilising the knight so he doesn't come back in".

The fundamental problem, though, is the timing of turns.  A smart knight will Delay until after the Beholder, then move immediately after and get himself adjacent.  Then, at the start of EVERY OTHER CHARACTER'S TURN, he gets a free shot at the Beholder because it attacks them.

Simply telling him "the eye rays don't provoke OAs, not even your OAs, for balance reasons" is a faster, simpler, and more effective solution that still makes him effective, it simply prevents him from being a blender.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
I know I'm late to the party here, but why wouldn't the beholder just pound on the dwarf and take him out, force him to retreat, etc.? If the dwarf ends up being that obvious a threat, I imagine a concentrated barrage of fire might convince him to withdraw or drop him below 0. I always try to play my monsters intelligently, but reactively, so if one person deals significantly more damage than someone else, they become the new target.

Also I echo the above sentiments: Don't have your Solo fight alone.

Terrain elements also could be a good way of forcing the PCs to keep their distance. Have the Beholder float above a pool of acid or a magical ward to keep them from going "toe to toe" with him. Beholders are crafty SOB's, they aren't going to fight fair.
I know I'm late to the party here, but why wouldn't the beholder just pound on the dwarf and take him out, force him to retreat, etc.?



That's extremely unlikely to be possible - especially since the beholder CANNOT concentrate fire off-turn.  It *must* attack people other than the dwarf and trigger the Knight's punishment.

If the dwarf ends up being that obvious a threat, I imagine a concentrated barrage of fire might convince him to withdraw or drop him below 0.



Once, maybe, but he'll get right back up.  He's a Defender - if the party is willing to spend a Daily resource or two, they can shut down "hit the defender so hard he stays down" as a plan in pretty much ANY encounter that's survivable.


Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
To the OP you're missing some key information regarding what you're asking about. 

As a Magic player in addition to a DnD player the wording on rules and powers are very important to me, for example:

Battle Guardian
At-Will    Opportunity Action 
Trigger:   An enemy subject to your defender aura either shifts or makes an attack that targets an ally of yours but not you or an ally who has an active defender aura.
Effect:    You make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy.  If the attack misses, the enemy still takes damage equal to your strength modifier.

Now let's look at what i think the power you're looking at is:

Random Eye Ray * At Will
Trigger: The beholder is conscious and an enemy starts its turn within 5 squares of it
Effect: (No action): The beholder uses one random eye ray against the triggering enemy.

As the wording states, that random eye ray from the beholder is not an attack, it is an effect, and nowhere in the block for that power does it say it makes an attack.  Therefore it does not provoke an opportunity attack from the battle guardian / defender aura.

To compare this to say the Central Eye Power from a Beholder Eye of Frost for example

Central Eye * At Will (minor/1/round)
Attack: Ranged 8; +20 vs Reflex
Hit: It does stuff, yada yada.

Notice how the way that power is written it has the word "Attack" in it.  Because that power is an attack and therefore the use of that against anything but the dwarf in question would indeed provoke an opportunity attack from him.

Many beholder powers are written like this, with "effect" and not attack.  And as a Magic player the wording on powers and rules is very important to me and the people I play DnD with, whom I also play Magic with as well.

The battle guardian needs to respond to an attack action, that random eye ray power is not an attack action it is a non-action.

Your beholder has nothing to fear from this dwarf.

Also, you may be forgetting something very important:

Opportunity actions are reactions meaning that they happen after the triggering action has resolved.  And many solos have powers that pull, push, slide, dominate, or otherwise hamper / lockdown party members.  If your knight is anything like the one in my party his will defense is probably pretty low.  A beholder would know this and take advantage of it.

Say for example this knight is in front of him, a L13 Beholder Eye of Flame might use might use its Fear Ray power to make the dwarf run 4 squares away from it.  Even if the dwarf can reduce that forced move by 1 (down to 3) or maybe less (with feats, I dunno, dwarves are the master race after all) all that Beholder needs is for that dwarf to be one more square beyond its aura.  If its aura is one, and its been pushed away 2, it cannot trigger the battle guardian feature if it is beyond the reach of the aura.

Or maybe a L9 Beholder uses its Charm Ray and hits, dominating the dwarf.  A dominated character is dazed and cannot take opportunity actions.

And a final thought on a fight with a solo:

I am currently running the against the giants campaign with one of my DnD groups.  In the first campaign there is an encounter with an adult iron dragon.  It has a power that slides enemies several squares on a hit.  And all around the room are columns with jagged spears poking out and the are all along the walls as well.  Any creature entering a square with these spears takes 10 damage (once / turn).  Now, even with the ability for a player to make a saving throw before being pushed into hindering / damaging terrain that dragon still shoved a few into spears and got some extra damage out of it. 

That's one of the simplest things you can do for a solo, put damaging terrain all around the room.  Heck, pits of acid that do 10 damage when pushed in, then ongoing 5 (save ends) would be perfect.  Because a Beholder can hover and would have full maneuverability where players would have to navigate the treacherous obstacles.

Edit: At 4am I realized it has been 2 weeks since the OP saw this thread, wish people would stop bumping old hat Tongue Out, but maybe this knowledge can save future generations of beholders.
To the OP you're missing some key information regarding what you're asking about. 

As a Magic player in addition to a DnD player the wording on rules and powers are very important to me, for example:

Battle Guardian
At-Will    Opportunity Action 
Trigger:   An enemy subject to your defender aura either shifts or makes an attack that targets an ally of yours but not you or an ally who has an active defender aura.
Effect:    You make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy.  If the attack misses, the enemy still takes damage equal to your strength modifier.

Now let's look at what i think the power you're looking at is:

Random Eye Ray * At Will
Trigger: The beholder is conscious and an enemy starts its turn within 5 squares of it
Effect: (No action): The beholder uses one random eye ray against the triggering enemy.

As the wording states, that random eye ray from the beholder is not an attack, it is an effect, and nowhere in the block for that power does it say it makes an attack.  Therefore it does not provoke an opportunity attack from the battle guardian / defender aura.

To compare this to say the Central Eye Power from a Beholder Eye of Frost for example

Central Eye * At Will (minor/1/round)
Attack: Ranged 8; +20 vs Reflex
Hit: It does stuff, yada yada.

Notice how the way that power is written it has the word "Attack" in it.  Because that power is an attack and therefore the use of that against anything but the dwarf in question would indeed provoke an opportunity attack from him.




You're wrong ... really wrong.
The use of Eye Ray is the use of a power, an attack power to be explicit. What you have here is a trigger with a specification on what happens, when the trigger is met.
So you trigger the power by starting your turn within 5 squares and Random Eye Ray activates. It tells you to use one random eye ray against the enemy. But to further know, what to actually have to do, you have to look at the power "Eye Rays", which constitutes of 10 possibilities for your attack.
So you take a d10 and follow the process of making an attack. How would you determine hit or miss, if it didn't attack with it?



Many beholder powers are written like this, with "effect" and not attack.  And as a Magic player the wording on powers and rules is very important to me and the people I play DnD with, whom I also play Magic with as well.

The battle guardian needs to respond to an attack action, that random eye ray power is not an attack action it is a non-action.




Powers are either utility powers or attack powers, per definition of the RC. Attack powers, usually have an attack roll. Should make it easy, even for MtG-players, who might have to not only look at one single power (card), but also look at the reference, which you missed here. And the reference for "Random Eye Ray" is "Eye Rays". The first does nothing without the second.


Your beholder has nothing to fear from this dwarf.

Also, you may be forgetting something very important:

Opportunity actions are reactions meaning that they happen after the triggering action has resolved.  And many solos have powers that pull, push, slide, dominate, or otherwise hamper / lockdown party members.  If your knight is anything like the one in my party his will defense is probably pretty low.  A beholder would know this and take advantage of it.

Say for example this knight is in front of him, a L13 Beholder Eye of Flame might use might use its Fear Ray power to make the dwarf run 4 squares away from it.  Even if the dwarf can reduce that forced move by 1 (down to 3) or maybe less (with feats, I dunno, dwarves are the master race after all) all that Beholder needs is for that dwarf to be one more square beyond its aura.  If its aura is one, and its been pushed away 2, it cannot trigger the battle guardian feature if it is beyond the reach of the aura.



Maybe you should reference the rules more often ...
Opportunity action take place [u]before[/u] their trigger resolves, otherwise them triggering on movement would be mostly pointless. What good would it be, to be able to make a melee basic attack against an enemy that wants to walk away from you, if you actually had to wait until he has gone? Hitting empty air on purpose?

So by trying to make yourself look cool as a seasoned MtG-player, you failed hard. Better don't brag, before giving false advice.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

To the OP you're missing some key information regarding what you're asking about. 



No, you're just wrong.

As the wording states, that random eye ray from the beholder is not an attack, it is an effect, and nowhere in the block for that power does it say it makes an attack.  Therefore it does not provoke an opportunity attack from the battle guardian / defender aura.



Except that the eye rays themselves ARE attacks.   So you have a non-attack power that says "make an attack".

Notice how the way that power is written it has the word "Attack" in it.  Because that power is an attack and therefore the use of that against anything but the dwarf in question would indeed provoke an opportunity attack from him.



"Has an attack roll" is not the definition of "is an attack" in D&D.  And even if it was, the eye rays have attack rolls.


Many beholder powers are written like this, with "effect" and not attack.  And as a Magic player the wording on powers and rules is very important to me and the people I play DnD with, whom I also play Magic with as well.



And if someone someone said that Power always meant the printed power on the card, so a buffed creature would only do the printed damage and not the buffed damage, they would be wrong.


The battle guardian needs to respond to an attack action, that random eye ray power is not an attack action it is a non-action.



It needs to respond to an attack, not an "attack action" - the fact that it doesn't take an action doesn't make it a non-attack, either.  And the eye ray the beholder uses IS an attack.

Your beholder has nothing to fear from this dwarf.



You're wrong. 

Also, you may be forgetting something very important:

Opportunity actions are reactions meaning that they happen after the triggering action has resolved. 



Nope.  Wrong again.  They're interrupts.

And many solos have powers that pull, push, slide, dominate, or otherwise hamper / lockdown party members.  If your knight is anything like the one in my party his will defense is probably pretty low.  A beholder would know this and take advantage of it.



A Knight with low defenses is weird, not normal - and the problem is the beholder is forced to attack people other than the knight.  He can't focus on the knight with these attacks, and he can't choose to not make the attacks if the knight is in his face.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
I stand corrected on the opportunity action.  For some reason I thought that they were reactions, but after looking them up in the compendium I realize I am wrong.

But I stand by everything else that I stated. 




So by trying to make yourself look cool as a seasoned MtG-player, you failed hard. Better don't brag, before giving false advice.



Pretty sure nowhere did I say I was a seasoned MtG player, or that I was good at it, just that just like the mandate in MtG is "Read the Card" whenever there's a question about rules is what I was saying I apply to these situations.  But if you want to feel like a self-important douche to win the internet, go right ahead.

I applied a method of interpretation.  This is on a forum, for discussion, for interpretation.  Like a lot of what's in DnD because the rules aren't crystal clear in every regard. 

If you want an answer that doesn't involve discussion then submit a query to a WotC rep / customer service rep.

I stand corrected on the opportunity action.  For some reason I thought that they were reactions, but after looking them up in the compendium I realize I am wrong.

But I stand by everything else that I stated.



Which is all well and fine, as long as you stand by it while understanding that it is completely and utterly wrong, in every respect.  In no way does your position reflect the rules of the game, the powers on that monster, or the mechanics of the Knight's punishment.

And, this is important, in a thread about rules questions?  It is crucially important that we make it clear that you're completely wrong and that your misinterpretation is exactly that, a misinterpretation, to avoid confusion.

I applied a method of interpretation.  This is on a forum, for discussion, for interpretation.  Like a lot of what's in DnD because the rules aren't crystal clear in every regard. 



Except
#1:  These rules ARE crystal clear, in THIS regard.
#2:  Your "interpretation" involves "ignoring all the rules and making something up".  Which is fine as a house rule, but not useful to someone who is asking how the rules actually work.


If you want an answer that doesn't involve discussion then submit a query to a WotC rep / customer service rep.



And they will say yes, and no, and maybe, and also go off on a complete tangent, and also completely misunderstand the question, because Customer Service are... not good at this.

(If you want *your* wrong answers to not be the subject of refutation - which is what this is, a refutation, not a discussion - then you should apply for a job at WotC customer service.  You won't be any less wrong, but you'll avoid having people point out how you're wrong directly, so that's something?)
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Solos are always a little iffy to me just because a few good save-ends effects can diminish their threat so greatly. 



Again, that's why you don't actually use Solos alone.


Addendum-Unless there's a really good reason. I actually ran a solo once completely by himself (at level+5) that almost mauled the party(a few of which were optimizers) at epic level.

Though this was msotly done by buffing his attack power up slightly(in exchange for lowering his HP), giving him extra turns around, being able to laugh off effects without making them completely useless(when subject to an effect for one turn, or on a failed saving throw, he could downgrade the effect to EoNT, or an EoNT effect to end as soon as his turn was over), and being able to boost his own attack or negate his aprty's(think of the Time Bender PP's Loan from the Past ability, except 1/round instead of 1/encounter) and having a 1/encounter mass stun attack with a Dazed aftereffect which nailed most of the party.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And they will say yes, and no, and maybe, and also go off on a complete tangent, and also completely misunderstand the question, because Customer Service are... not good at this.



Do you mean that customer service can't be relied on for a right answer?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And they will say yes, and no, and maybe, and also go off on a complete tangent, and also completely misunderstand the question, because Customer Service are... not good at this.



Do you mean that customer service can't be relied on for a right answer?


Not really no. There's someone....Alcestis I think?...that, with a few other users, asked CS a whole bunch of easy questions and kept a tally of how many they got right vs how many they got wrong.

Anyone have the current count for that?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And they will say yes, and no, and maybe, and also go off on a complete tangent, and also completely misunderstand the question, because Customer Service are... not good at this.



Do you mean that customer service can't be relied on for a right answer?



Yes.  Customer Service *cannot* be relied on to produce intelligible answers, let alone correct ones.

Go look through the forum histories for a bit.  I'll wait.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And they will say yes, and no, and maybe, and also go off on a complete tangent, and also completely misunderstand the question, because Customer Service are... not good at this.



Do you mean that customer service can't be relied on for a right answer?



Yes.  Customer Service *cannot* be relied on to produce intelligible answers, let alone correct ones.

Go look through the forum histories for a bit.  I'll wait.



So, if customer service for WotC who owns, operates, and writes DnD can't be relied upon to provide clear answers then what makes anybody else more of an authority than they are?

I'm not defending them, because I've had questionable answers from them too.  But I don't see how it makes any other forum user any more of an authority on the rules than they are, or me, or you.  Because if something they say can be questioned than so can other people and what they say on rules.  You say my interpretation of the rules is wrong.  I say that's your opinion.

I defer to a customer service response as the correct answer in a situation, but then they also say the dm has the final say.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And they will say yes, and no, and maybe, and also go off on a complete tangent, and also completely misunderstand the question, because Customer Service are... not good at this.



Do you mean that customer service can't be relied on for a right answer?



Yes.  Customer Service *cannot* be relied on to produce intelligible answers, let alone correct ones.

Go look through the forum histories for a bit.  I'll wait.



So, if customer service for WotC who owns, operates, and writes DnD 



HAHAHAHAHAHA wow, you have no idea who the Customer Service personnel are.


what makes anybody else more of an authority than they are?



Their ability to support their point, of course.  And it helps when the REAL writer communications back that up, which happens from time to time.

I don't see how it makes any other forum user any more of an authority on the rules than they are, or me, or you. 



Ah, but, you see, I *am* a greater authority on the rules than you are, and than customer service are, because I have a longer and more storied and more glorious history of providing defensible and logical and well-supported answers than they do, and especially than you do since your only answer I've ever seen has been dead wrong in every respect and then you've decided to defend it.

Because if something they say can be questioned than so can other people and what they say on rules. 



True!  You are welcome to question me!  You are ENCOURAGED to question me.  When you do so, however, you need to be aware that we're not arguing "here is how I would run it" and we are not arguing "in an ideal world here is what the rules would say", we are arguing "here is what the rules printed in the book actually say".

And by that measure, you're blatantly, completely, and objectively wrong, in every way.


You say my interpretation of the rules is wrong.  I say that's your opinion.



And you are wrong to say so.  That's not in dispute.

The definition of an attack is clear - it does not require an attack roll, and even if it did, the powers in question HAVE attack rolls, so that objection is clearly nonsensical.

The Knight's defender punishment triggers on an attack.  The Beholder's aura causes the beholder to make attacks, so your objection to the knight punishing them is clearly nonsensical.

The Knight's defender punishment triggers on "attacks", not "attacks that require an action", so your objection to the Knight punishing no-action attacks is clearly nonsensical.

Opportunity Attacks in general (and the Knight punishment in specific) are interrupts, not reactions, so your "they're REACTIONS" argument is clearly nonsensical - and even if you WERE right, it wouldn't prevent the problem we're discussing.  The fact that you think it would is a sign that you don't understand the problem and suffer from LSM.

The Beholder's aura is nondiscretionary and does not allow the beholder to choose to not attack, and does not allow the beholder to choose the target of it's attacks, so your suggestion that it concentrate fire is clearly nonsensical.

My position is supported by the rules in the book, and there is no wiggle room to suggest that the rules in the book say something different.  Your argument that this is "just an opinion, man" is clearly nonsensical.

You are wrong in every way, at every level.  You are fractally wrong:  Each part of your argument, examined in detail, is as wrong as your argument as a whole.

Your "that's just an opinion, and mine is just as valid" argument is included in that, for the record:  It is wrong.  Your opinion contradicts the rules we're discussing.  Mine does not.  My opinion is, thus, more valid that yours.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Ah, but, you see, I *am* a greater authority on the rules than you are, and than customer service are, because I have a longer and more storied and more glorious history of providing defensible and logical and well-supported answers than they do, and especially than you do since your only answer I've ever seen has been dead wrong in every respect and then you've decided to defend it.



So you're your own authority on certifying yourself as an authority?  I guess I'm glad that my physician didn't graduate from the university of himself.

It's okay that you're wrong dude, you can be wrong.  If you want to just ignore how things are written and then decide how they work because of your certificate of accomplishment on the internet that's your way to play.

I'm right though.  Not about the opportunity thing.  And since by your own admission customer service can't be trusted there cannot actually be a correct interpretation of this, that at best it is subjective on every level.  It could be popularly accepted though, and yet could still be wrong.  Like when people misquote the line at "Play it again, Sam."
Yeah, I'm with LoW on this one, as far as a RAW interpretation goes.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Ah, but, you see, I *am* a greater authority on the rules than you are, and than customer service are, because I have a longer and more storied and more glorious history of providing defensible and logical and well-supported answers than they do, and especially than you do since your only answer I've ever seen has been dead wrong in every respect and then you've decided to defend it.



So you're your own authority on certifying yourself as an authority?  I guess I'm glad that my physician didn't graduate from the university of himself.

It's okay that you're wrong dude, you can be wrong.  If you want to just ignore how things are written and then decide how they work because of your certificate of accomplishment on the internet that's your way to play.

I'm right though.  Not about the opportunity thing.  And since by your own admission customer service can't be trusted there cannot actually be a correct interpretation of this, that at best it is subjective on every level.  It could be popularly accepted though, and yet could still be wrong.  Like when people misquote the line at "Play it again, Sam."



ROFL, please, don't tell me you're actually arguing against someone who is one of the most trusted posters in Rules Q&A, and in addition writer of a guide that got stickied in this forum? So yes, he IS an authority by himself and what he has done over the last years in this forums. You have what to counter that?

Look, it's nice to have an opinion ... but you've got nothing more than that, while the people objecting your "arguments" (insert opinion) have backup by actual rules.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

And since by your own admission customer service can't be trusted there cannot actually be a correct interpretation of this, that at best it is subjective on every level.


No. Just no. You are not the Old Man of the Mountain. Some things are, in fact, true. Not everything is actually permitted. Words have meanings. The rules do what they say they do.

There are some cases where the rules are genuinely ambiguous and there is room for discussion. There are also cases where the rules appear clear, but lead to an obviously silly result, such as preventing certain game elements from functioning at all. In both those sorts of cases, it is entirely valid to discuss how the rules should be interpreted, and people's individual opinions become relevant.

This is not one of those cases. The beholder's eye beams are attacks, because they clearly and unambiguously fit the definition of 'attack' by the rules of the game. Having an attack roll is not necessary to be defined as an attack, but it is sufficient. If you are making an attack roll against a target, then you are attacking that target. This is actually stated in black and white in the rules. (See page 308 in the Rules Compendium for the most concise definition of the term 'attack'.)

I strongly suggest you stop digging now.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."



So you're your own authority on certifying yourself as an authority? 



No, the fact that I'm right way more often than not, and when I'm not right I change my opinion based on evidence, does that.

It's okay that you're wrong dude, you can be wrong.  If you want to just ignore how things are written and then decide how they work because of your certificate of accomplishment on the internet that's your way to play.



Nice try, but turning that around on me would work better if you weren't *wrong in every way* about what constitutes an attack, about the triggering and timing of the Knight's punishment, and if your suggested tactics didn't directly contradict how the monster's power works.

I'm right though.  Not about the opportunity thing. 



Not about *any* of it.

And since by your own admission customer service can't be trusted there cannot actually be a correct interpretation of this,



There's a HUGE excluded middle hiding in between "either customer service is perfect OR no rules can ever be known".  There are a great many rules sources other than customer service - for example, the books.  Which explain what an attack is, and why you're wrong when you say that Eye Rays are not an attack and that no-action attacks are not attacks.

It could be popularly accepted though, and yet could still be wrong.  Like when people misquote the line at "Play it again, Sam."



Or when people expect a Fighter's mark punishment to stop a Shift, due to Combat Superiority.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Sign In to post comments