![]() ![]() Whichever you choose, you'll be rooting out all of your colleague's little secrets.īecause here, what is at stake is your morality: can you survive as an honest man in Beholder's society? That is the question. and his strange project.Īnd you'll be free to use any means at your disposal: you can choose to play as a true believer serving the Regime, or as a resistance mole. But according to a letter left to him by his deceased father, he has a mission to accomplish: to bring the secret "Heimdall" project to an end.Īs a penpusher starting out your career in the halls of power on the very lowest rung, you'll soon be climbing through the ranks to discover the truth behind your father's death. You'll be playing as Evan, who has just started his new job at the Ministry (with a capital "M"). In this game, you won't be playing as the concierge of an apartment building spying on its residents. It's a world that draws heavily on 1984, in a game developed by Warm Lamp Games, an independent studio from Siberia, of all places (so some authentic experience when it comes to the Gulag!). ![]() It's a cheesy way to build a creature gracing the cover of the Monster Manual.More than just a sequel, this is a whole new story set in the same totalitarian state as the first game. You could easily use greater invisibility and have some class beat on the beholder with no fear of its eyes. This is just a mistake by the game designers that turned beholders into a joke creature using a common tactic available to multiple classes. So there is no traditional weakness against darkness comparable to a vampire's sunlight weakness. I do not recall an edition where beholders were essentially useless against darkness. Darkness has never traditionally made beholders impotent. Sunlight is pointed out as specifically affecting vampires and is traditional vampire lore. Nowhere does it say darkness affects a beholder like sunlight affects a vampire. In a game where a creature like a beholder is supposed to be this incredibly fearsome creature, it is pathetic that a common 2nd level spell a party can easily use tactically can turn a beholder encounter into a joke where they can do nothing. Next time that will just mean "include other aberrations on a beholder ship who are melee-specialized" but for I want the beholders to work with what they've got, even though the PCs are no longer onscreen, so I can describe what the PCs find if they come back later to investigate. The gimmicky play is a reward for players who use their brains instead of their d20s, but I don't want the gimmick to scale up to unlimited levels. This thread is for brainstorming ways to work around it. In both cases you either run away or learn to work around it. If you had a 4th level version of Silence that was mobile it would be equally as terrifying to wizards as Darkness should be to beholders. The fact that Darkness shuts them down is no more unthematic or unaesthetic than the fact that sunlight shuts down vampires, that mirrors/averted eyes shut down medusas, or that Silence shuts down wizards. I don't think it's cheesey for Darkness to shut down beholder eyes because "harm you by looking at you" is kind of their thing. One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread: There are more ways to make adventures memorable than just pulling weird stuff out of the DM's butt (including Beholders blowing themselves up with their own eye rays as if they had the intelligence of Zombies) and then 12 gaming sessions later when players try to bounce a spell off a mirror, the DM no longer remembers the on the fly mechanics that he used, and a DM at a different gaming table doesn't even allow it at all because that's not how spells normally work in D&D. You are entitled to that POV, but I suspect that laughs and memories at my table last just as long as they do at yours. Imagination is all nice and well, but there should still be a framework of continuity and consistency that all of the players at the table can wrap their heads around.īy using words like "unfortunate" and phrases like "not very compatible with a game based on imagination", you seem to be arrogantly saying that "my way of gaming is subpar". ![]() Your definition of cool might not be the same as my definition of cool.īut mainly, just because a DM or players comes up with an idea does not necessarily make it a good idea. I want super intelligent monsters to use the best tactics based on their abilities and the terrain normally found in a given location, I don't just throw stuff into a game "cause it's cool". I want the gaze attack of the Medusa to not reflect off the mirror my PC is holding to protect myself and zap my PC in the face, and I don't want the Beholder gaze attacks to work differently. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |