Magic Missile Versus Beholder

[darnizhaan]

If you were the DM and a PC wanted to target a beholder's specific small eye with a magic missile, would you allow it, or say it only has the regular 5% chance to hit the small eye?

[PatW]

I'd allow it. Magic missiles always hit. Monsters are meant to be slaughtered, if the players work out how to do it easily more power to 'em.

[AxeMental]

I wouldn't. Imagine a magic missile at every eye, it would wipe out a really nasty critter pdq.

Plus, the idea is that the thing is moving around attempting not to be hit critically (the way you might throw your arms in front of your face and duck), its not like its playing dead. Plus, do you let an MU target the eyes of an enemy fighter, troll or dragon? Its not a blind spell, right?

In a similar way I'd make it difficult or impossible to hit a held item (like a lit flask of oil).

[darnizhaan]

I wouldn't. Imagine a magic missile at every eye, it would wipe out a really nasty critter pdq.

Plus, the idea is that the thing is moving around attempting not to be hit critically (the way you might throw your arms in front of your face and duck), its not like its playing dead. Plus, do you let an MU target the eyes of an enemy fighter, troll or dragon? Its not a blind spell, right?

In a similar way I'd make it difficult or impossible to hit a held item (like a lit flask of oil).

What made me ask the question was that the beholder has specific values hit point values for the eyestalks, potentially making them a 'target'. Would you just give the 75%/10%/10%/5% split chance to hit each body part? Would you say magic missiles always hit the body?

(BTW, how may hp would you give a small eye? The AC 0 body is 2/3 of total hp, the AC 7 large eye is 1/3 of total hp, the AC 2 eyestalks are 8-12 hp each, and the AC 7 small eyes are ?)

[deathsdj]

No.

I would determine randomly where the MM struck so while there might be a chance of it taking out an eye it would be a small chance.

01 - 10 A random eye stalk is hit
11 - 99 The body is hit
00 The main eye is hit.

Cheers!

MJW

[Mudguard]

Would you just give the 75%/10%/10%/5% split chance to hit each body part?

Yes, that's how it reads to me.

(BTW, how may hp would you give a small eye? The AC 0 body is 2/3 of total hp, the AC 7 large eye is 1/3 of total hp, the AC 2 eyestalks are 8-12 hp each, and the AC 7 small eyes are ?)

Auto-kill, if you happen to roll within the 5% and successfully hit AC 7?

[ken-do-nim]

Don't start down the path of called shots; forever will it dominate your destiny.

[darnizhaan]

Auto-kill, if you happen to roll within the 5% and successfully hit AC 7?

I guess you have to infer 1 hit point if no value is given.

[Flight Commander Solitude]

Ah, what an interesting question! The MM only gives hit point values for the stalks, but gives different hit probabilities for the eyestalks and the eyes themselves. Personally, I might say that hits to either the eye or the eyestalk count against the whole eyestalk.

I would not allow a called shot against an eye, or eyestalk or other bit.

Incidentally, is there a save against Magic Missile? Saves against spells is something that's always confused me a bit. Back in the day we only used saves against spells when it was somehow "obvious" that one could save against it. (Eg, save against Fireball for half damage.)

[Juju EyeBall]

Almost seems life the stalk should be AC 7 and the small eye should be AC 2 and hits to the small eye should count against the stalk's HP

[Matthew]

Would you just give the 75%/10%/10%/5% split chance to hit each body part?

Yes, that's how it reads to me.

I agree.

[Bargle]

I don't think the term unerringly hits it's target, has to conflate to pinpoint accuracy. The target is assumed to be an enemy and the MM might hit him in the head, or the leg etc.

[Flambeaux]

I don't think the term unerringly hits it's target, has to conflate to pinpoint accuracy. The target is assumed to be an enemy and the MM might hit him in the head, or the leg etc.

Interesting...I'd never considered that it didn't mean "pinpoint accuracy". It would never have occurred to me to not allow a "called shot"...it's Magic Missile, after all.

But the bigger question I'd have is why would you waste a spell against a beholder?

[EOTB]

I don't think the term unerringly hits it's target, has to conflate to pinpoint accuracy. The target is assumed to be an enemy and the MM might hit him in the head, or the leg etc.

Interesting...I'd never considered that it didn't mean "pinpoint accuracy". It would never have occurred to me to not allow a "called shot"...it's Magic Missile, after all.

But the bigger question I'd have is why would you waste a spell against a beholder?

FWIW I always interpreted it as not allowing pinpoint accuracy, either. Otherwise every spellcaster would be specifying that he was shooting at the eyes of any enemy to give them a -4 to hit penalty.

[sepulchre]

Matthew wrote:

Mudguard wrote:

darnizhaan wrote:

Would you just give the 75%/10%/10%/5% split chance to hit each body part?

Yes, that's how it reads to me.

I agree

Yes, that's how I read it too.