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

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Petrifying Gaze: Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it can't see the medusa until the start of its next turn.

Blight: Necromantic energy washes over a creature of your choice that you can see within range.

The rules are clear on this. If you're averting your eyes, you can't see the medusa. If you can't see the medusa, you can't target it with blight.

Interesting. I would have ruled the other way, because intuitively (to me) looking at the lower legs/feet but not the upper body really should work. You still see the creature, just not the face/eyes....

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.

...but, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[pemerton]

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

Why would you roll a CON save: if you look into her eyes, you're gone!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why would you roll a CON save: if you look into her eyes, you're gone!

Apparently that's not the case.

 

[jayoungr]

Is there any reason to think the Medusa's gaze shtick even counts for defensive CR purposes in the first place? AfB but I don't think it's listed in the DMG as an AC boost.

OT: Does AfB mean "away from book"? If so, I'm glad to see the acronym is still in use. I used to use it a lot back when I was in an online book discussion group, and I thought they'd invented it.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I felt they were clear, but I have the player emailing me i'm still wrong. So You know, whatever. I was just trying to see if I was going crazy or not.

It look like to me that your player is just argumentative because he doesn't like the outcome.

Averting your eyes from something in 5E means not seeing it. So any game element requiring you to see it will automatically fails you're not crazy or anything it's just as simple as that!

 

[Satyrn]

Can a mage cast sight based spells on a creature if they can't see said creature. In another set of language, can a player look at said medusa's body without provoking the gaze attack? And finally, (as after extensive debate that was quite frankly exhausting on my own part) I ruled the player could deliver the spell as a touch attack and just walk up and try and hit him. A bad ruling I realize, but I was just trying to progress the game beyond what was clearly a major hurdle.

I don't think it was a bad ruling. It got what both you and the player wanted: the game got moving again, and the player got to do his thing.

Your player is wrong about the issue, but now he has seen that there are workarounds that can work. They won't be as straightforward as simply casting a spell, they could involve much more future danger (he's now engaged in melee with the medusa, or closer to the fray), or some other complication that you can impose.

That is, if you as DM also learn that more rulings like this, made earlier, will keep the game moving faster.

Your ruling is not a bad one. It's the sort of thing I strive for as DM, to open up options and opportunities for creative combat solutions.

 

[Sunseeker]

Being able to see the creature doesn't mean you have to look it in the eyes. Using a medusa is a good time to implement facing rules. I wouldn't expect someone attacking from behind or off to the side to have to worry much about catching a medusa's gaze.

I would allow a person to look at a creature indirectly, certainly. However, for spells that require you to make an attack roll, I'd put the person at disadvantage, since you are not watching the whole movements of the creature because one or more parts of it would be deadly to observe. I would give a creature advantage on dex or str saves against effects, since again, you the spellcaster are only watching part of its movement. Magic does cool stuff, but the caster is still the brains behind its operation.

There's got to be some reasonable middle ground between "looking at it" meaning "right in the eyes" and "not looking at it" meaning "can't see any part of it".

 

[the Jester]

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

I asked Crawford about how to factor things like petrification and paralyzation into CR on Twitter and he said basically "It's really hard, and it really depends". I didn't get any real guidance, and when I analyzed the CRs of monsters with petrification that appear in the MM, I didn't get much of anything consistent. I think I even posted a thread about it some months ago.

EDITED TO ADD: Yes, there's reason to think that petrifying gaze factors into creatures' CRs. Like I said, I did the math; IIRC only the gorgon came in at its CR without some kind of adjustment (but I could be misremembering, I'll try to find that other thread).

 

[the Jester]

(... I'll try to find that other thread).

Here is the specific post in which I mention how everything comes out without factoring petrification.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ing-monsters&p=6816285&viewfull=1#post6816285

By the numbers, a ghoul would come out at CR 1/2, not CR 1; a grell at CR 1/2 or 1, not CR 3; a cockatrice at between CR 0 and 1/8, not CR 1/2; a medusa at CR 4, not CR 5; and a basilisk between CR 1 and 2, not CR 3.

On the other hand, a gorgon comes out at its listed CR- CR 5- leading me to believe that petrification or paralyzation is valued more at lower levels. Or maybe it's because it's limited use. I don't really know; I haven't been able to suss it out exactly.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

OT: Does AfB mean "away from book"? If so, I'm glad to see the acronym is still in use. I used to use it a lot back when I was in an online book discussion group, and I thought they'd invented it.

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk