Save or suck Medusa petrification

[LostSoul]

I never thought of mother-may-I as having anything to do with GM favoritism.

I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.

The former is certainly more arbitrary, but what I'm saying is that even the latter doesn't actually give any guidelines for how esoteric this knowledge is.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not sure I would like a standard 3E/4E "monster lore" check; I'd rather they used the AD&D stat (frequency?). There isn't anything information in the Bestiary to aid the DM in making that call.

 

[Valetudo]

One way to fix medusa is she can only stone one opponent. Say 2 party members are suprised, she has to pick which one she uses her gaze on.

 

[Hussar]

Hi there.
Not around much lately. Good chance that will be the trend we will see....


Anyway, just for the record....

BS!!!

There has NEVER (pre-4E) been anything close to an overt implication that you could so much as GLANCE at Medusa and actually SEE her and do anything less than instantly turn to stone. Period.

I *WILL* concede that the rules took for granted the idea that the players got the premise of Medusa and don't bother to explain the obvious. This opens up the door to ignoring the obvious. And thus the rules do permit pointless interpretations.

It is fundamental that the versions of the game have always allowed for fate to allow a character to escape a pending fate. Saving throws allow for this in a simple and functional manner. Allowing a saving throw when faced with a threat of "seeing" Medusa is completely reasonable. To then turn around and force the implication that Medusa was seen but the effect was shrugged off is reading outside of the actual text and throwing away common sense to boot. Pre-4E I never had a conversation that even approached this concept. Post 4E with its kid gloves approach, it is uncommon, but not even rare, much less unheard of. Which is just one more grain of sand on the scale of complaints against 4E.

Yes, you can corrupt the reading of the rules and the game will function quite nicely with Medusa staring contests. The idea that this was remotely intended in absurd. If Pre-4E D&D had been played this way AND that mentality was built into the mechanics throughout the game system then pre-4E D&D would have been significantly less popular than it was.

If future editions of D&D elect to cling to this mentality, that same weight will undermine them. I have no doubt there will be a niche that won't LOVE it that way. But that process will never achieve going back to being the gold standard of RPGs.

IMO.

Funny how "corrupt the reading" means "Read the rules and look at what they say". How many times do you have to be shown that you are wrong before you'll let this go? I mean, we actually quoted just about EVERY single edition of the game at you and you are not right. Not even once. In no edition of the game are you correct.

I mean, what exactly does "Save vs Turn to Stone" mean to you?

 

[Walking Dad]

I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.



Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not sure I would like a standard 3E/4E "monster lore" check; I'd rather they used the AD&D stat (frequency?). There isn't anything information in the Bestiary to aid the DM in making that call.

Perhaps and own "notoriety" entry with the skill DC? I hate 3e making it harder to know more about monsters the stronger they were.
("the rare blue skinned kobold? I now everything about them, but what is a common stone giant?")

 

[howandwhy99]

Averting your gaze meant being Blind to a creature. You showed your Rear Face and were choosing not to look at the creature you might hear coming up from behind. No saves were needed however against Medusae.

Fighting a Medusa meant a Saving Throw every round you did not turn a blind face. Making the save meant you managed to not make eye contact.

Purposefully choosing to look at one eye-to-eye meant deliberately failing the save.

Enemies like Thieves could sneak up on a Medusa from its Rear Face without needing to make a save.

I don't have a problem with with what they did here. They just didn't include facing or sight lines.

 

[variant]

As a DM, if a rogue said they wanted to sneak up on the medusa from behind, I'd let them. Naturally, if they want to be completely aware of their surroundings, they would need to risk her hearing him and looking at him if he fails a stealth roll. Otherwise, he would have to take a disadvantage on his stealth rolls while sneaking up.

 

[Hussar]

Averting your gaze meant being Blind to a creature. You showed your Rear Face and were choosing not to look at the creature you might hear coming up from behind. No saves were needed however against Medusae.

Fighting a Medusa meant a Saving Throw every round you did not turn a blind face. Making the save meant you managed to not make eye contact.

Purposefully choosing to look at one eye-to-eye meant deliberately failing the save.

Enemies like Thieves could sneak up on a Medusa from its Rear Face without needing to make a save.

I don't have a problem with with what they did here. They just didn't include facing or sight lines.

What game are you talking about here. Because from AD&D forward, this is not true. Is this an OD&D thing?

 

[howandwhy99]

What game are you talking about here. Because from AD&D forward, this is not true. Is this an OD&D thing?

Maybe it's not true you for you? Reread the MM '77, it's in there with some of what I said from the DMG on combat. The MM was designed for OD&D & AD&D.

 

[Sanglorian]

Well, you turn to stone, you turn to stone, it's not like kinda pregnant.

Why couldn't you partially turn to stone or slowly turn to stone? Your fingers turn cold and unresponsive, locking around whatever you're holding, but your heart's still beating and you can still swing your arms. Your body stiffens as your joints harden, but with difficulty you can hobble away from the beast.

You're either pregnant or you're not, but the baby doesn't pop out at the moment of conception.

 

[grimslade]

I think this is going beyond play test into the realm of game design. I do not see a problem with both Save or Die or Save, Save Again, Save or Die living side by side. They actually play well together.
The dis/advantage system makes the S,SA,SoD a much more deadly proposition than it was in 4E. The sliding scale is another thing to track during combat, but it is a small thing.

The Surprise! You're stone. effect is the price of being an uninformed third party assaulting humanoid settlements.