Just on the first three that are almost guaranteed to hit, a third of the beholder's hp is gone. The dragon, meanwhile, has 6 attacks, 3 hit on a 5+, 3 on a 10+. No prayer of hitting, and even if it does, next to no damage. 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. 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. 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. The beholder can't keep up, a speed of 20 is no match for a speed of 200. The beholder's going to save on a 17 or higher, doing roughly 40 damage in a round. If the dragon takes the battle at range, it goes for magic missiles and its breath weapon. 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. It's really easy for the dragon to manuever either into or out of the antimagic field.Ī beholder has next to no chance. If knocks a hole in the building, sure, but the spread of the disintegrate ray would be checked at the antimagic field. 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. Like intentionally including trap options inferior to other options to reward system mastery. *It was one of those things that was supposedly done intentionally. Pathfinder made some changes to dragons so even if that held true it might not be so in Pathfinder, however. Dragons are actually stronger than their CR indicates. You had time to prepare appropriate damage and defensive abilities for that dragon, making the fight easier. The general idea was that you never randomly encountered a dragon. 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. Val'bryn2 wrote: Important to remember, if the Beholder uses its antimagic eye on the dragon, it doesn't get its eyerays either.Īnd with the dragons multiple natural attacks compared to the beholders bite, the beholder is definitely better off not using the central eye. 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. Heck, he'd do 99 without Power Attacking, and only need to not roll natural ones to do it.Īlso, as Matthew has pointed out, the dragon has such high saves that he only fails against the beholder's rays on natural 1s. 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. What if the dragon is hungry? Well, he also knows invisibility, haste, and has Power Attack. At CL7th, that's 98 hit points on average. The dragon has 7 1st-level slots, and knows magic missile. The dragon has Int 16, which allows it to not act moronically.Ī beholder had 93 hit points. Not a chance.Ī beholder had nasty eye rays that reach 150 feet. Meaning the beholder can't get close to the dragon unless the dragon wants it to happen. a (Pathfinder) adult red dragon (CR14), I'd have to break it down like this.Ī beholder had fly 20ft. Well, let's take a quick look at the 3.5e beholder (CR13) versus say.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |