Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Beholder not Spectator

So, here's another example of using the wrong type of monster and having a complete disregard for the world of Faerun when creating encounters. I'm hoping Larian will fix this once they lift the level cap.

A spectator does NOT turn a person to stone. They can do things like confuse and paralyze and wound with their eyes, but not petrify.

This monster really should be a beholder or something similar based on the fact that there are petrified drow in the area, which is WAY too powerful for level 4s right now and even too much for level 5s or 6s. I'd say that the real fix is likely to not have the drow petrified or to have a basilisk or something similar. A beholder is way too strong, and a spectator doesn't fit the petrified drow scenario.

I just looked up the lore for spectators and I hadn't realized what Good Boys they were.
So yeah that Spectator we encounter shouldn't even attack us, at least not without us attacking it first. And what is it even guarding there? Obviously not the Drow.

Apparently it was summoned a while back by Xargrim when he went to meet with his rival Dhourn.

I'm not sure why it would have stuck around. Or how it petrified the drow in the first place, or why it unpetrifies them in the fight, or why they're charmed after being unpetrified.

Don't get me wrong, it all makes for a good fight, but the scene itself feels a bit shaky when you look at it too closely.

Starting to feel like that's a common theme here...

I can accept that this is some sort of strange subspecies of spectator or beholder. But if that is what they are doing, then don't call it a spectator. That's the main problem I have right now with the monsters they're using. If you call it a spectator, but it doesn't act like a spectator, and it has all sorts of abilities that don't match The spectator, then you are throwing players off. All they have to do is give it some new name and even some new lore, and that would be acceptable.

This is why I have a problem with most of the monsters in the game. If an intellect devourer is not going to act like one, then call it something else. Give it a name like Istarilgar, or whatever, and give it new lore. Something like, "lesser cousins of the intellect devourer, these creatures look very similar, but mind flayers mainly breed them to feed upon them as delicacies. They also act as grunt troops in the latest mind flayer ranks."

Then, for The spectator, call it something like, "Basilisk Spectator," with a lore that says something like, "Mutant Spectators bred by Drow from Grymforge some 120 years prior, this aggressive version of the spectator can both petrify and release victims from petrification, instantly charming them and turning them into its minions. This spectator broke free of its captivity during an incident with Selunites."

That would be acceptable. Current is not. And again, it is acceptable only if not every creature in the game is some weird, off the wall, crazy Homebrew monster. There should be Homebrew monsters mingled with normal ones.

In fairness, there are a lot of issues where people jump ahead, assuming it doesn't make sense when we really don't have enough information. And we are in early access.

Not just one patch ago, the drow were completely different, led by a female drow with a completely different name.

So, things are changing, shifting. We just happen to be in the middle of it all and trying to figure things out. Some of us are more optimistic than others.

Puzzles me that while this spectator "can petrify enemies" he never tryes that trick on us. O_o
UNLESS!

The spectator never petrifies those Drow, it was something else ... and the spectator was only summoned to guard that they will remain as they are. :P

Doesn't it un-petrify the drow?

It should also be unable to do that either.

Does it?
I mean we dont even know for sure ... it charms them, and once they are charmed, they magicaly un-petrify somehow.

Larian says the game is called BG3 with D&D5th, but the game doesn't act like BG3 using D&D5th :))))

I am all for homebrewing monsters (or tweaking it a bit ). It is done all the time on tabletop games. It would be great if they provide a reason why the spectator never uses petrify (temporary condition, an injury or illness?) but I would not say it is a really bad idea. I liked the encounter.

"When the spectator has fulfilled its service, it is free to do as it pleases. Many take residence in the places they previously guarded, especially if their summoners died. With the spectator's loss of purpose, the flickers of madness it displayed during its servitude flourish" Quote from the D&D 5e Monster Manual.

I like homebrew also. I really do. But don't call a creature a spectator if it acts like some sort of beholder that can also unpetrify people. Give it a new name and unique backstory. Don't call it an intellect devourer and have it act like some weak brain dog.

A spectator is a young beholder. It is normal for some creatures to be stronger/more developed than their peers. He has got a trick or two from daddy/ mammy. And it does prepare you for when you meet a real beholder.

Well, I do think that Us has the newborn tag and has the same stats as the intellect devourers you fight. You might assume they have been breeding new ones (there does also seem to be some kind of a "plague" on the nautiloid that was killing mindflayers).

Personally, the most useless nerf they have put was to remove the resistances on the imps and the young hellboars. I think it is a great lesson on the tutorial to learn about the resistances of some creatures. But it is a minor thing, at least for me.

These things can't hold bees. They don't even have hands!

When a beholder suffers nightmares of mites and insects that sting and nip at it incessantly...

Beeholder: all its eye rays are just replaced with projectile bee swarm attacks, and it looks more like a hovering bee hive. Its central eye cone is a honey field that slows targets in it and gives them disadvantage on dexterity checks - which are the check needed to shake off the bee swarms.

I love the lore surrounding eye tyrants - it invites you to make whatever beholder variant you can imagine, no matter how ridiculous or silly, and still fit entirely within the established lore for how beholder variants come to be.

A spectator is not a young beholder, no more than a sparrow is a young eagle.
People wondering why they were doing so little damage to the imps was one of the top three most common bug reports/questions in the first months of EA.

I agree that the imps' resistance should be put back in, but with a dedicated pop-up tutorial: "You just dealt damage to a creature with Resistance to that damage type, meaning it only takes half damage. Make sure to check the combat log or inspect creatures to view their weaknesses/strengths and change your attacks accordingly."

Agreed about imps. But then, they are too tough for little ol' Tav and Lae'zel. Wounded Imps with resistance, however, would work just fine.