Save or suck Medusa petrification

[sblock=Spoilers for B2]The old B/X medusa had one attack - for 1d6 + poison (save vs. Poison or die in one turn). If you avert your eyes, she gets a bonus of +2 to her "to hit" rolls. That means she's hitting AC 0 on a 14.

I don't have the module any more, but I think that there was a scroll of stone to flesh there.[/sblock]

I am interested to see how people run this encounter: will some DMs have the medusa grab someone's face and force them to meet her gaze? Do you have to make a save if you attack from behind? Will some DMs just roll with the encounter being advantage medusa vs. disadvantage PCs? How will DMs determine if the PCs are "surprised" or not?

1Mac said:

That's okay, though I have a few objections. KM, you say skill-checks are still player-directed, but this gets into mother-may-I territory pretty quickly. How hard should the check be? Depends on how easily the GM wants his players to find out how to beat the monster.

Click to expand...

That's only true if the DM ignores how to set DCs. DCs are supposed to be set based on the task's difficulty (DM Guidelines, page 2). If you ignore that, then I can see the game turning into mother-may-I play in some cases.

stevelabny said:

Game of Thrones is the hottest thing in books and movies right now.

Didn't you get the memo? People actually ENJOY trying to figure out who they can trust and who they can't.

And since there is no skill list with sense motive on it to "trick" players into thinking that its the only way to find out if someone is lying... the possibilities of how to decide if someone is trustworthy are endless.

Click to expand...

Well, not everyone.

Off-topic:

I recently played a session in a new 4e Eberron campaign that, earlier, had seemed like it would have Firefly-like heists and runnin' from the law.

I show up and find out that it is instead supposedly more like Game of Thrones(which I have never seen), and I effectively quit this new campaign of my gaming group when, long story short, the only way to not be killed by our druglord master was to kill a bystander to ANOTHER crime that had inadvertently resulted in the death of an innocent.

So, please, keep Game of Thrones away from my D&D.

I can live with a creature with a powerful SoD effect like the medusa as written if that creature is understood and used more as a trap than a regular combat encounter. The whole point of the creature is the "qvert your eyes" part, and once you do that the combat becomes trivial since everyone will be using the disadvantage option.

The two interesting parts of the encounter hinges on the possibility of the players not realizing it's a medusa and the single round they look directly at her, and perhaps if they concoct some clever idea to even the odds, like using a mirror or blow powdered pepper to the medusa's face's general direction. This mirrors what makes a trap interesting, realizing that it's there and the plan to avoid or disarm it.

That said, I wouldn't place this kind of SoD creature without a way for the players to know beforehand to be careful without metagaming, the same way I won't go "Rocks fall! everyone save or die!" on my players, simply because I want my players to be clever and attentive to what I say and not instead to develop a Standard Dungeonnering Procedure involving prodding everything with 10 foot poles and assuming every creature is hostile unless proven otherwise.

1Mac said:

I was trying to remove the variable of player familiarity with the monster in question so that we could focus on the issue of whether save-or-die effects are desirable. It sounds like a lot of people are saying they are because they are iconic for certain familiar monsters, so I wanted to see if save-or-die was just as desirable for unfamiliar monsters. This also elides the whole player-knowledge-vs-character-knowledge issue, which is a whole other can of worms.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're separable in this case. The monster (and encounter) are designed assuming that you know how to avoid the save or die effect, so any comparable encounter would require the players finding out about the effect beforehand.

The petrification on surprise thing can be bad if the DM is out to kill the party but, frankly, we don't need any help in that regard. That said, if my group went into a known medusa's lair without taking precautions, I'd probably petrify a couple in the surprise round and not feel the least bit bad.

But if the choice is whether to have save or die effects that you can avoid by modifying your tactics, I'd say absolutely yes. Old school save or die on hit poisons don't do a lot for me, but they're also not in the rules, so I'd say I'm on the same page with them there.

1Mac said:

There's also the not-insignificant matter that before any of these checks are possible, someone has to turn into stone (or custard), unless the GM makes everyone roll for knowledge ahead of time like Kinak suggests, in which case we're back to the ease of the encounter being determined by the GM's whimsy.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, the GM doesn't need any help killing characters. The ease of every encounter is at the GM's whimsy, regardless of what edition you're running.

You can have them make an Int check, give them a clue, wait for them to request information about the monster, or just have them start making saves. You could also fill a room with save-or-die poison gas without any hints or rolls to notice it. And if that's the kind of game you enjoy, go for it.

I personally enjoy games where the players are strategic and cautious. That's not for everyone, by any means, but a monster that says "think ahead or start making death saves" is a good start. I'm also a fan of overlevel encounters that need to be avoided or planned for.

Now I have to put in clues, but I consider that my job. Some DMs will just kill the party, others will spell out the situation, and yet more won't use monsters like that at all. I think that's awesome.

Cheers!
Kinak

Imaro said:

Only it's not... the original myths don't have people slowing down but still able to act. You either are turned to stone or not. Where D&D's mythology diverged was the way in which the medusa's gaze could be countered... however it was in all editions (except 4e) and mythology a one chance thing.

Click to expand...

Not so. The gaze turned you to stone. DND's addition was that it could be resisted. Typically this was one die roll. 4e introduced another die roll the next round. DND medusa's are only vaguly based on the mythology.

I'd have a lot more respect for this argument if the DND Medusa was a unique creature (or set of creatures) that was cursed by the Gods and turned people to stone without any save. You look; you're stone.

Changing the turning-to-stone mechanic to stretch it out over an extra round is not as big leap as putting the mechanic there in the first place.

Hey I have no problem with your preferences, and I've already stated that my players didn't have this reaction of panic in 4e at all with MSoD (Multiple Save or Die). What I have a problem with is stating your preferences like they are objectively better for all.

Click to expand...

I never said it was better. I said that "if" it was better for the game. Of course, it is my preference to have SOD mostly gone from the game, but I can work around them if I need too by introducing house rules.

I'm saying that's the way it worked in myth and in D&D (except 4e). Again 4e is the outlier here... not every other edition and myth.

Click to expand...

Again not true. DND, in any edition, doesn't really correspond with the myth.

I don't see such a huge change in the mechanic from previous edition to 4e either, but that's just my opinion not a fact.

Remathilis said:

Tell Gary Gygax that:

Click to expand...

I would, if I could. But I also believe in evolution of adventure design and learning from old mistakes.

---

BTW, it makes no sense for the mirror trick to work in D&D. The Medusa is not a unique creature like in the myth, but a race. I would expect an immunity to medusa gaze attacks for all medusas, or there wouldn't be a working society. There is also nothing that says it would work in the rules.
I really hope NEXT isn't the edition of handwaving. I like the Living Worlds game concept with using the same characters with multiple DMs. A change of how nearly everything works for the same character after playing in another DM's game is not an exiting thought.

vagabundo said:

I don't see such a huge change in the mechanic from previous edition to 4e either, but that's just my opinion not a fact.

Click to expand...

If, IYO, it's not a huge change why are you complaining about it returning to one save?

I really like the way the Medusa is written up in the playtest.

Derren said:

Hmmm...
Is it possible that WotC tries to manipulate the opinion of SoDs by specifically put such a scenario in the playtest because they didn't want to include them anyway and just want to make people like that decision more?

Click to expand...

Case in point - see how this style of play engenders paranoia?

In all seriousness though, that doesn't seem to be the case Derren; as someone pointed out earlier, this encounter is from the original Keep on the Borderlands.

Fanaelialae said:

Case in point - see how this style of play engenders paranoia?

In all seriousness though, that doesn't seem to be the case Derren; as someone pointed out earlier, this encounter is from the original Keep on the Borderlands.

Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't have to mean anything.

"Hey guys, we are putting back the old design on traps into the game. Can you play this modified classic module and tell us if thats Ok or if we should use the 4E design?"
Hands you Tomb of Horrors.