Save or suck Medusa petrification

Mircoles · May 25, 2012

Did anyone else happen to notice the Medusa's save or suck pertrification?

It's either make a save or avoid the gaze and have disadvantage to your attacks against it with it getting advantage to attacking you(though, the text seems a little confusing), unless you're surprised, in which case, you're rolling for a save.

Save or suck ruined more than a few games for me in the past. Having this stupidity brought back is not a good thing. In fact, it irritates me more than vancian being brought back.

1of3 · May 25, 2012

But here it is basically disadvantage all the time, unless you want to gamble.

Prism · May 25, 2012

I love it. I especially like the fact that in general the chance of turning to stone is in the players hands...suprise excepted

Brix · May 25, 2012

I don't like save or die situation. It can be a serious fun-breaker.
Read the Sean K. Reynolds article about that topic.

likewise
Subsitute immune with +10 bonus

Raith5 · May 25, 2012

Not surprised they went this way but I think it is deeply retrograde step which trades the suspense of turning to stone or two rounds or so (where something can be done) for the old style D&D feel.

bouncyhead · May 25, 2012

I suspect both the creature and the mechanic are there as playtest bait.

Traken · May 25, 2012

Here's the real test for the Medusa:

Take any person who hasn't played D&D yet is at least familiar with some Greek mythology (hell, Percy and the Lightning Theif counts). Tell them they are standing in front of a Medusa.

What do they do? They close or avert their eyes. Why do they do that? Otherwise they'll be turned to stone in an instant.

For the Medusa to be anything else is simply silly. What you might be looking for is a "creature that has snakes for hair with a gaze that slowly paralyzes and eventually turns you to stone". That's not Medusa though.

Connorsrpg · May 25, 2012

Sounds fine to me. Shouldn't you be at a disadvantage if you aren't looking at something you want to hit? shouldn't it be at an advantage. It is a medusa. It is meant to be this bad. (Nice post above Traken).

Honestly all creatures should not be made to fit into some preconceived comfort zone. It should be "Holy crap, a medusa!"

Sorry, but I just don't get that style of play. I like dangerous creatures and this one sounds fine as written to me.

'Those nasty monsters have powers too...oh, that is so unfair, our characters should be the only ones with awesome powers'....b/c that so fits in with the fantasy/mythological literature I read.... :rant:

Edit: Oh, and maybe we might just see some PCs that actually care about boosting defenses, saves, etc and not just raw attack/damage.

mach1.9pants · May 25, 2012

Traken said:
Here's the real test for the Medusa:

Take any person who hasn't played D&D yet is at least familiar with some Greek mythology (hell, Percy and the Lightning Theif counts). Tell them they are standing in front of a Medusa.

What do they do? They close or avert their eyes. Why do they do that? Otherwise they'll be turned to stone in an instant.

For the Medusa to be anything else is simply silly. What you might be looking for is a "creature that has snakes for hair with a gaze that slowly paralyzes and eventually turns you to stone". That's not Medusa though.

Wish I could XP you!