| Matthew Downie |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there were Beholders in Pathfinder, which there aren't, they'd probably be CR 13, around the level of a Young Adult red dragon.
Dragons have excellent resistances (both Spell Resistance and good saving throws), which mean it would probably survive whatever the Beholder tried to do to it, and the Dragon could take down the Beholder pretty fast.
| Anguish |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let's take a quick look at the 3.5e beholder (CR13) versus say... a (Pathfinder) adult red dragon (CR14), I'd have to break it down like this...
A beholder had fly 20ft. The dragon has fly 200. Meaning the beholder can't get close to the dragon unless the dragon wants it to happen. Not a chance.
A beholder had nasty eye rays that reach 150 feet. The dragon has Int 16, which allows it to not act moronically.
A beholder had 93 hit points. The dragon has 7 1st-level slots, and knows magic missile. At CL7th, that's 98 hit points on average.
What if the dragon is hungry? Well, he also knows invisibility, haste, and has Power Attack. Sneak up, open up and have lunch. Average of something like 139 damage, and to hit it'd have to roll a 3, 5, 5, 7, 7, 7 to do it all. Heck, he'd do 99 without Power Attacking, and only need to not roll natural ones to do it.
Also, as Matthew has pointed out, the dragon has such high saves that he only fails against the beholder's rays on natural 1s. Literally.
Now. That's a 3.5e monster versus a Pathfinder monster, but as things currently stand, without serious reworking, the apex predator (dragon) has the deck heavily stacked in his favor.
supervillan
|
This thread reminded me that a long long time ago I wrote a short story about such an encounter as a school assignment when learning word-processing.
If I remember rightly (it was a long time ago), in my story the dragon (a blue dragon) emerged victorious. In AD&D (long time ago), the beholder had separate armour classes for its body, eyes and eyestalks. You could directly attack the central eye. So I think what happened in my story is that the dragon put out the beholder's central eye and then killed it with a breath weapon attack. In AD&D, a dragon's breath weapon did damage equal to the dragon's maximum hit points, although the dragon could only use its breath weapon three times per day. AD&D dragons also saved as though they had double hit dice.
| Zhangar |
I remember a thread over in the EN World boards where James recommended giving the Advanced template adjustments to most 3.5 monsters to get them to the appropriate Pathfinder numbers for their CR. (I.e., Pathfinder monsters are slightly buffed over their 3.5 versions to compensate for Pathfinder PCs being stronger.)
I'd still expect a dragon v. beholder fight to end in the beholder getting wrecked without a lucky break (like the dragon rolling a 1 on a save v. Charm Monster or Flesh to Stone).
The dragon could probably completely blind the beholder in two rounds if it decided to be a jerk and just sunder every eye.
| AaronUnicorn |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Important to remember, if the Beholder uses its antimagic eye on the dragon, it doesn't get its eyerays either.
Right. And a Beholder without magic is pretty unfrightening.
A dragon without magic is still an enormous lizard with claws, teeth, a tail, and the ability to fly.
"Go ahead. Stop us from using magic."
| Jeraa |
Important to remember, if the Beholder uses its antimagic eye on the dragon, it doesn't get its eyerays either.
And with the dragons multiple natural attacks compared to the beholders bite, the beholder is definitely better off not using the central eye.
One thing to remember about dragons is that in 3.5 D&D, they were (supposedly deliberately*) given a lower CR than they should of had. The general idea was that you never randomly encountered a dragon. You had time to prepare appropriate damage and defensive abilities for that dragon, making the fight easier. Dragons are actually stronger than their CR indicates. Pathfinder made some changes to dragons so even if that held true it might not be so in Pathfinder, however.
*It was one of those things that was supposedly done intentionally. Like intentionally including trap options inferior to other options to reward system mastery. Whether or not that is actually true or the designers of 3.X D&D just weren't too good at their job can probably be debated, however.
The Shifty Mongoose
|
It looks to me as if we're assuming that the dragon's fighting the beholder in open terrain, like a field or a big cavern.
Though even if the terrain favoured the beholder, it'd still have to bank on a single failed save on the dragon's part. (Are the eye rays spell-like, or supernatural? If the former, then it'll be even worse if the dragon has SR)
Another advantage dragons have, that isn't related to relative CR, is that they're marginally more willing to co-operate than beholders, each of whom see themselves as perfect and other beholders as poseurs. If you're comparing a beholder to, say, a metallic dragon, and this is part of a homebrew adventure rather than a hypothetical grudge match, the dragon can even have access to family, friends, or even a group of PCs the dragon is secretly helping.
| Tim Emrick |
Or add the Eye King template to a dragon, and watch your players [DELETED] themselves.
(That template is 3PP, from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary, but it's probably the closest you're going to get to a Pathfinder beholder, given Paizo's stance on not releasing anything that even resembles Wizards' non-OGC monsters.)
| Ventnor |
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Val'bryn2 wrote:Important to remember, if the Beholder uses its antimagic eye on the dragon, it doesn't get its eyerays either.Right. And a Beholder without magic is pretty unfrightening.
A dragon without magic is still an enormous lizard with claws, teeth, a tail, and the ability to fly.
"Go ahead. Stop us from using magic."
"What happens when we turn the magic off?
Fascinating. It appears that you cease to be a terrifying beholder and become a fragile multi-eyed sack of fluids. While I?
| AaronUnicorn |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AaronUnicorn wrote:Val'bryn2 wrote:Important to remember, if the Beholder uses its antimagic eye on the dragon, it doesn't get its eyerays either.Right. And a Beholder without magic is pretty unfrightening.
A dragon without magic is still an enormous lizard with claws, teeth, a tail, and the ability to fly.
"Go ahead. Stop us from using magic."
"What happens when we turn the magic off?
Fascinating. It appears that you cease to be a terrifying beholder and become a fragile multi-eyed sack of fluids. While I?
That comic was exactly what I had in mind, yes.
| Gozer "Bone Splitter" |
RISE, RISE I SAY!!!!
Funny enough there is a "fight" between a Mind Flayer, Red Dragon, Beholder, and a young Elminster in Elminster Making of a Mage. The fight is described pretty well and all of the adventurers with Elminster were more scared of the Beholder than anything else. Also the Beholder was able to use the anti-magic eye and still use rays. Just saying.
You may rest again thread.
Val'bryn2
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is never a problem with the beholder using eye rays, except for the cone where its antimagic cone is aimed. If it's facing the fighter while a rogue is sneaking up on it, the rogue will probably be eating a disintegrate ray. It isn't somehow immune to its own abilities.The novels have always been good about completely ignoring the actual game system.
| Klorox |
SInce this has been necroe'd, I'll ask my question, does the Beholder's central eye's antim magic effect dispel the dragon's breath?
Otherwise, an old enough dragon is quite able to physically destroy the beholder in spite of its eye rays, which might be nullified if the beholder has to use its anti magic cone to prevent the dragon from using its own spells, breath etc...
| Kayerloth |
SInce this has been necroe'd, I'll ask my question, does the Beholder's central eye's antim magic effect dispel the dragon's breath?
Otherwise, an old enough dragon is quite able to physically destroy the beholder in spite of its eye rays, which might be nullified if the beholder has to use its anti magic cone to prevent the dragon from using its own spells, breath etc...
A dragon's breath weapon is a supernatural ability. Supernatural abilities do not function within an antimagic area.
| Kayerloth |
Which brings the issue, if a Beholder wants to use its eye rays, it has to open itself to the breath weapon, if it disables the dragon's breath weapon, it'll have to contend with the dragon's vastly superior natural attacks.
Maybe. Depending on the dragons size a Beholder might be able to focus the cone of the antimagic without necessarily including the whole dragon leaving part of it subject to a ray attacks(s). But that would be pretty tricky to do against dragon who'd likely make the save(s) anyway. The only way I even remotely seeing this work out for the typical beholder is if the terrain could be used in a manner highly favorable to the beholder such as squeezing the dragon into tight quarters. Add in some favorable Charm Monster/Person allies and maybe, big maybe. I sure wouldn't bet on the Beholder but it is a cunning intelligent adversary for any one to come up against.
| Kayerloth |
Good question. Then again the antimagic cone doesn't have to encompass the dragon, only be effecting the bw where it would strike the beholder which might not even directly strike the dragon. As for things like only part of the target of a spell ray being in the area of the cone ... that's vague, some might call it cover (of some degree), particularly where something like Disintegrate applies which doesn't have to hit the 'whole' building to knock a hole in part of it. Might need to dig through the various ruling on Antimagic Field to get a handle on that.
Val'bryn2
|
If knocks a hole in the building, sure, but the spread of the disintegrate ray would be checked at the antimagic field. It's really easy for the dragon to manuever either into or out of the antimagic field.
A beholder has next to no chance. Comparing it to an adult copper dragon, a comparable cr based on the version differences, the beholder's eye rays have a DC of 17, the dragon's saves are 14, 10, 13. If the dragon takes the battle at range, it goes for magic missiles and its breath weapon. The beholder's going to save on a 17 or higher, doing roughly 40 damage in a round. The beholder can't keep up, a speed of 20 is no match for a speed of 200. They both have a chance to slow the other, the beholder saves on a 13 or higher, while the dragon saves on a 4 or higher, 3 or higher if it's using the fort targeting saves. And even then, in a flat, open location, the beholder can't attack because the dragon's speed is greater than the beholder's range. If it goes to close range, in more cramped quarters, we're pitting the beholder's +2, 2d4 damage against the dragon's ac of 29, DR 5/magic. No prayer of hitting, and even if it does, next to no damage. The dragon, meanwhile, has 6 attacks, 3 hit on a 5+, 3 on a 10+. Just on the first three that are almost guaranteed to hit, a third of the beholder's hp is gone. That's not even taking into account Power Attack or Vital Strike.