Great video! FYI due to the word "more" in the Petrification Ray description, it sounds like you have to fail the saving throw a total of 4 times to turn to stone, instead of the intended 3 times.
good video, basic beholders always felt a bit of a let down, especially the random eye beams - for a monster with high Int that was bizarre, I always let them beholder pick but not the same one in the same round. The changes to the eye beams themselves are interesting, will definitely look at using this next time I run one.
Hello there. Great vid as usual. I was wondering, how do you handle explaining the player monster weaknesses in a way that is narativelly satisfying. For example I know my players would not uses the vulnerable eye stalk features unless told to because this is not something they would think about mecanically. And if they do they may try to reproduce that on basically any ennemy with eyes ennemies to blind them ... . For example I am running Rime of the Frostmaiden and my players did the entire Sunblight plot without any occasion for me to introduce the duergars hammerer weakness the engine of pain trait in a satisfying way. Mmy players don't tend to think outside the box and also because idk how to explain weaknesses if they are not looking for clues about it. any advices or ideas to make weakness feel satisfying to introduce ?
I go about it in two ways - if the vulnerability seems obvious, but the players are not used to it (i.e. veteran players know a beholder's statblock and that you can't attack the eye stalks directly, while newer players might ask, because they don't know that "you can't do that"), I'll just tell them: "You can attack the beholder's eye stalks directly if you want to, in an attempt to deal damage to it AND take out a specific eyestalk" and then follow up with the mechanics of it, if one of them wants to try. The other way is to handle it with Intelligence checks, which also lends some more weight to skills such as Arcana, History, Nature, etc. So if the vulnerability is less obvious or just if you prefer to handle it that way, ask any player proficient in the relevant skill check (Arcana or History in this case), to make a check, and then usually the DC would be 10 + half the monster's CR, but it can really be anything. On a success, they get the information, or even a snippet of the vulnerability trait. I make sure to do this at the start of combat. Most of the time, it's a matter of conditioning. In vanilla D&D, players are conditioned not to ask, because vulnerabilities are rare and far between, and there's no set mechanic for knowing combat stuff about a creature. But if you prompt them do so enough, and use monsters with vulnerabilities a lot, they'll eventually begin to ask stuff like "do I know anything about this creature?" or "does it seem to have a vulnerability or something we can exploit?". But it takes time - often newer players are much better at asking these questions, because it seems logical that you could blind a beholder or cut off its eyestalks. As for them "gaming" a tactic, I have a "no cheese" rule at my game, which basically says that if a tactic becomes spammed because it is so good, the rules will change to eliminate that tactic. I.e. if a player builds a cheesy character that grapples creatures, teleports 500 feet up and drops them, or something dumb like that, and only does that in combat, then the rules will change (they'd get to change their character too, of course). If they do it once or twice across a campaign, I have no issue with it at all. As for blinding a creature, taking a -5 to attack to blind an enemy for 1 round on a hit, for example (you gash it across the eyes, and blood spills into its eyes, temporarily blinding it), is not something I'd have an issue with - unless, again, they started spamming it too much. I hope that helps any :)
I am not a D&D player, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But I think you ruin the identity of the Beholder. I mean Beholder and other such entities should feel like madness and thus making them more tactical just makes them to be one more random monster but not the incarnated insanity they are supposed to be. At least that is how I look at them.
Fair point. I love random stuff too, by the way, so I can see what you mean. On the other hand, though, I'll always prioritize fun, and a Beholder that doesn't waste half it's rays is more fun to me. But I can see keeping the random aspect, as I also mention in the video, especially if you want to make it a bit less powerful :)
Great video! FYI due to the word "more" in the Petrification Ray description, it sounds like you have to fail the saving throw a total of 4 times to turn to stone, instead of the intended 3 times.
I actually intended it this way, to make getting out of it a bit easier, but I could definitely see you going for a 3 vs 3 approach instead! :)
good video, basic beholders always felt a bit of a let down, especially the random eye beams - for a monster with high Int that was bizarre, I always let them beholder pick but not the same one in the same round. The changes to the eye beams themselves are interesting, will definitely look at using this next time I run one.
Hello there.
Great vid as usual.
I was wondering, how do you handle explaining the player monster weaknesses in a way that is narativelly satisfying.
For example I know my players would not uses the vulnerable eye stalk features unless told to because this is not something they would think about mecanically.
And if they do they may try to reproduce that on basically any ennemy with eyes ennemies to blind them ...
.
For example I am running Rime of the Frostmaiden and my players did the entire Sunblight plot without any occasion for me to introduce the duergars hammerer weakness the engine of pain trait in a satisfying way.
Mmy players don't tend to think outside the box and also because idk how to explain weaknesses if they are not looking for clues about it.
any advices or ideas to make weakness feel satisfying to introduce ?
I go about it in two ways - if the vulnerability seems obvious, but the players are not used to it (i.e. veteran players know a beholder's statblock and that you can't attack the eye stalks directly, while newer players might ask, because they don't know that "you can't do that"), I'll just tell them: "You can attack the beholder's eye stalks directly if you want to, in an attempt to deal damage to it AND take out a specific eyestalk" and then follow up with the mechanics of it, if one of them wants to try.
The other way is to handle it with Intelligence checks, which also lends some more weight to skills such as Arcana, History, Nature, etc. So if the vulnerability is less obvious or just if you prefer to handle it that way, ask any player proficient in the relevant skill check (Arcana or History in this case), to make a check, and then usually the DC would be 10 + half the monster's CR, but it can really be anything. On a success, they get the information, or even a snippet of the vulnerability trait. I make sure to do this at the start of combat.
Most of the time, it's a matter of conditioning. In vanilla D&D, players are conditioned not to ask, because vulnerabilities are rare and far between, and there's no set mechanic for knowing combat stuff about a creature. But if you prompt them do so enough, and use monsters with vulnerabilities a lot, they'll eventually begin to ask stuff like "do I know anything about this creature?" or "does it seem to have a vulnerability or something we can exploit?". But it takes time - often newer players are much better at asking these questions, because it seems logical that you could blind a beholder or cut off its eyestalks.
As for them "gaming" a tactic, I have a "no cheese" rule at my game, which basically says that if a tactic becomes spammed because it is so good, the rules will change to eliminate that tactic. I.e. if a player builds a cheesy character that grapples creatures, teleports 500 feet up and drops them, or something dumb like that, and only does that in combat, then the rules will change (they'd get to change their character too, of course). If they do it once or twice across a campaign, I have no issue with it at all. As for blinding a creature, taking a -5 to attack to blind an enemy for 1 round on a hit, for example (you gash it across the eyes, and blood spills into its eyes, temporarily blinding it), is not something I'd have an issue with - unless, again, they started spamming it too much.
I hope that helps any :)
@@EventyrGames it does help.
Thanks ^^
Very cool
I am not a D&D player, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But I think you ruin the identity of the Beholder. I mean Beholder and other such entities should feel like madness and thus making them more tactical just makes them to be one more random monster but not the incarnated insanity they are supposed to be. At least that is how I look at them.
Fair point. I love random stuff too, by the way, so I can see what you mean. On the other hand, though, I'll always prioritize fun, and a Beholder that doesn't waste half it's rays is more fun to me. But I can see keeping the random aspect, as I also mention in the video, especially if you want to make it a bit less powerful :)