D&D 5E [Question] Medusa and Sight Based Spells (Magic Missile, Blight, etc.)

[Nevvur]

First off, 5e doesn't really have target locations, so there's no such thing as targeting a foot unless you house rule that in.

Second, peripheral vision. The medusa's ability works if you can see her eyes. Not if you focus on them, if you see them. When looking at a person's foot from a short distance, I can see their head in my peripheral vision, so I can see their eyes, even if the details don't register in my conscious perception.

This sort of explanation might start a sort of logic arms race with your player, though. "What if I go prone so her head isn't in my peripheral vision?"

The ability for mechanics to imitate reality cannot cover every conceivable variable involved in their implementation. Yet they exist for a purpose, and if the variables harm gameplay, a DM is within his rights to disregard them.

In my opinion, negating the most dangerous aspect of the medusa without a cost (or at least something more clever than "I look at her feet") is an exploit that gets negated through the awesome power of DM fiat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

IF that is true, then it is goofy as ----. It is essentially an insta-kill ability. If that doesn't raise the Challenge Rating, then Challenge Ratings are badly designed.

(1) Yes, Challenge Ratings are badly designed. The very idea of CRs is flawed, and the execution is even worse--it's basically just HP * DPR, with no real weight given to tactical considerations like mobility or ranged attacks or stealth, as if the monster is expected to just mindlessly attack until it's dead. They're good for novice DMs who are just starting out, but after that they are best ignored except for calculating kill XP--and you should simply give up on expecting any correlation between kill XP and challenge level. Treat CR as simply a measure of the amount of life force (or "quickening", as @Tony Vargas called it once) that the PCs are able to harvest from the monster, nothing more than that.

(2) I checked my DMG and Petrifying Gaze is not listed in the modifiers table of things that affect CR.

 

[77IM]

In a pitched battle, with people running around flinging spells and steel at each other, it would be very easy to look at the medusa's eyes BY ACCIDENT unless you turn completely away from her. I'd allow a player to target spells near the medusa (like casting fireball at a space right next to her) but even then I'd have them make an ability check to avoid rolling for scatter. (I like to use Intelligence checks for any question of precise spell targeting.) I also like your ruling about delivering a touch attack, as I've always held that touching something allows you to perceive it just as accurately as seeing it, for spell-targeting purposes.

 

[epithet]

How I would handle it:

Averting your gaze to avoid the save means you don't look at the medusa at all. If you want to look at the medusa without seeing her eyes, and you can explain how you're going to do that (for example, holding your hand over your eyes and peering under it to see where her feet are) that's fine - the gaze attack specifies that you have to see her eyes, after all - but that's going to take your action to do. The character can use a bonus action if he's got one, or cast the sight-based spell next round. Attack rolls are made with disadvantage against someone you're trying not to make eye contact with. Shielding your eyes also means attacks against you have advantage. If either the character or the medusa moves more than 5 feet, then the character would need to use another action to carefully look at the medusa from the butt down again.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How I would handle it:

Averting your gaze to avoid the save means you don't look at the medusa at all. If you want to look at the medusa without seeing her eyes, and you can explain how you're going to do that (for example, holding your hand over your eyes and peering under it to see where her feet are) that's fine - the gaze attack specifies that you have to see her eyes, after all - but that's going to take your action to do. The character can use a bonus action if he's got one, or cast the sight-based spell next round. Attack rolls are made with disadvantage against someone you're trying not to make eye contact with. Shielding your eyes also means attacks against you have advantage. If either the character or the medusa moves more than 5 feet, then the character would need to use another action to carefully look at the medusa from the butt down again.

That's a good ruling. I would add that the most important part is: explain this ruling to the player, then say, "Do you still want to try [to cover your eyes this round]?"

Player Agency (n.): “the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention” -Mateas, 2001

Surprises are fine, rules "gotchas" are not. DMs should make sure players are not surprised at the way rules are adjudicated, after the action is declared.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In a pitched battle, with people running around flinging spells and steel at each other, it would be very easy to look at the medusa's eyes BY ACCIDENT unless you turn completely away from her.

This. And I tend to think that the uncertainty of trying to look at a medusa but avoid direct eye contact is already a part of the saving throw against her gaze attack.

Also remember that the medusa is quite intelligent and knows full well what her eyes can do, so if you're staring determinedly at her knees or whatever she's just going to try to catch you by bobbing her head down to knee level.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

(1) Yes, Challenge Ratings are badly designed./QUOTE]Yeah, but at least the concept has gotten more useful as the editions have rolled on - though a more useful version of a not very useful thing does end up being still not very useful.

(2) I checked my DMG and Petrifying Gaze is not listed in the modifiers table of things that affect CR.

I believe that to be because as much threat as it can add to the encounter is counter-balanced by how easy (in a relative sense) it is to avoid being affected by it (meaning you are more likely to have a character taken out of the fight by the attack routine of a Medusa or Basilisk than by their petrification ability).

 

[pemerton]

I tend to think that the uncertainty of trying to look at a medusa but avoid direct eye contact is already a part of the saving throw against her gaze attack.

Except, for some odd reason, it's a CON save rather than a DEX (reflex) or WIS (intuition/perception) save.

This started with 3E, I think (Fort save), and continued in 4e (attack vs Fort).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Except, for some odd reason, it's a CON save rather than a DEX (reflex) or WIS (intuition/perception) save.

This started with 3E, I think (Fort save), and continued in 4e (attack vs Fort).

Eh. Probably the KISS principle. You could have players roll a Dex save and then a Con save every round, but that gets tedious. Just bundle them into one.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Except, for some odd reason, it's a CON save rather than a DEX (reflex) or WIS (intuition/perception) save.

This started with 3E, I think (Fort save), and continued in 4e (attack vs Fort).

Good thing too it's not Dex, or else the second save on round 2 (the one that turns you to stone if you fail) would be made at disadvantage for being restrained.

Beholders' petrifying rays are a Dex save, and for this reason they are quite nasty. They're about the closest thing 5E has to a pure save-or-die.