Save or suck Medusa petrification

[Steely_Dan]

Love it, no more child-saftey/kiddie versions of D&D (all round edges, don't worry, sport...).

 

[Imaro]

However, I think that neglects the newbie DM who simply doesn't know better. He may see a medusa and think "Cool!", not realizing until after the TPK that he may have done something undesirable.

You know, again, I think this falls under the realm of good encounter design. IMO, a newbie DM needs good encounter design advice moreso than restrictive mechanics. If the DM is educated on usage, ramifications, etc. of certain monster types (like SoD monsters) then we won't have the problem you cite in the above post. A DM can choose whether to use, not use or houserule the SoD creature. What I don't agree with is taking them out the game because a particular subgroup doesn't like their mechanics (Though IMO, this would have been where the 4e multiple monster setup could have really shined and accomodated different playstyles).

Also, it neglects groups that want to use iconic creatures with SoD abilities, but don't want to make their campaigns gritty. I don't mind PC death, but I hate high PC turnover. It screws with campaign continuity fiercely. I've played in quite a few campaigns where none of original characters survived through level 5, and the campaigns typically fell apart shortly thereafter.

See above but yeah, I think the multiple but same monster format could have easily solved this problem... but the 4e design team decided not to go that route.

In the latter two cases, putting some "training wheels" on SoD creatures (with the option to remove them) could significantly affect a campaign. The newbie is far less likely to accidentally derail his campaign, and I can run a campaign in my style, while Imaro takes the training wheels off and runs his games hardcore.

I'd have no problem if they took this route, maybe a high fantasy,in-between fantasy(default) and gritty sword and sorcery version of each monster to accomodate the different playstyles.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You know, again, I think this falls under the realm of good encounter design. IMO, a newbie DM needs good encounter design advice moreso than restrictive mechanics. If the DM is educated on usage, ramifications, etc. of certain monster types (like SoD monsters) then we won't have the problem you cite in the above post. A DM can choose whether to use, not use or houserule the SoD creature. What I don't agree with is taking them out the game because a particular subgroup doesn't like their mechanics (Though IMO, this would have been where the 4e multiple monster setup could have really shined and accomodated different playstyles).

I agree that good encounter design advice is crucial. I don't consider it to be sufficient though. After all, I still recall when I was a kid teaching myself D&D, when I'd peruse sections of the books that I found interesting and ignore the rest. Magic items garnered a great deal of my interest in those days; encounter design advice, not so much.

Once I was a bit older and got around to reading the guidelines in the DMG (and even moreso, advice on ENWorld) I definitely agree that I became a better DM for it. A new DM will most likely read the rules (or, at the very least, the rules he's most likely to need) but there's no guarantee he'll do so with sections of advice.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

Thank you, yes. If the DM ignores how to set DCs, then pg. 42 in 4e also becomes "mother may I" play. If you can't trust your DM to follow the rules, then you shouldn't play with them.

 

[Imaro]

I agree that good encounter design advice is crucial. I don't consider it to be sufficient though. After all, I still recall when I was a kid teaching myself D&D, when I'd peruse sections of the books that I found interesting and ignore the rest. Magic items garnered a great deal of my interest in those days; encounter design advice, not so much.

Once I was a bit older and got around to reading the guidelines in the DMG (and even moreso, advice on ENWorld) I definitely agree that I became a better DM for it. A new DM will most likely read the rules (or, at the very least, the rules he's most likely to need) but there's no guarantee he'll do so with sections of advice.

See I don't think I can get down with this... it seems to imply that since a subset of DM's won't read the books thoroughly, but also want to run the game correctly, then we should remove anything that might be challenging (and possibly interesting) for all DM's to use. I honestly believe that if you don't read the books thoroughly then you've made a conscious choice to figure it out on your own (which honestly can be a whole different type of fun if everyone is down for it) and thus yes, you will get TPK's, Monty Haul campaigns, etc. But that's your choice.

 

[Hussar]

The issue I've always had with SoD effects, particularly area of effect ones, is that they are far more deadly than the difficulty of the creature warrants. Say Ms Medusa gets surprise - that's about a 50/50 chance of a PC being turned to stone. 5 PC's=very, very close to 100% of at least one PC dying.

It screws very hard with encounter design. The encounter goes from "Somewhat challenging" - the PC's avert their gaze and the Medusa gains a bit of bonuses - to "instantly lethal" - the PC's are surprised and everyone is caught in the effect.

Granted, this IS better than the 3e design where averting your gaze didn't automatically negate saving throws, granted 50% miss chances (thus making the encounter last twice as long) AND the medusa could force a saving throw once per round in any case.

See, I look at it like this. If you created a monster that did your HP+10 (or whatever the death threshold is for your system) on a successful hit, what would you peg the CR of that creature? Why is that different than area of effect save or die effects? The odds of killing a PC are pretty darn close.

And, as far as the whole Player Paranoia issue goes, I can totally see this. If you start pulling this sort of thing with NPC's, very, very quickly, your group will never take prisoners, will kill first and ask questions later, and can turtle up. It's no different than random traps in a dungeon. Sure, you only have three traps in the whole dungeon, but, the players have to treat every situation as trapped. So, they go through the whole routine of checking, poking, prodding, whatever, every single time. They have to, because they don't know where the traps are.

It really fosters a very specific playstyle. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but, if you don't actually WANT that playstyle, then it can be a bad thing.

 

[Warbringer]

I agree with hussar that ultimately, why I have no problem with SOD, it should be reflected in the end game potential .... Otherwise, a DC 15 trap that does 3d6 damage and one that does 30 d6 damage are the same challenge.

It's not just the difficulty, it's the outcome .... So double or triple xp on SOD abilities please

 

[Fanaelialae]

See I don't think I can get down with this... it seems to imply that since a subset of DM's won't read the books thoroughly, but also want to run the game correctly, then we should remove anything that might be challenging (and possibly interesting) for all DM's to use. I honestly believe that if you don't read the books thoroughly then you've made a conscious choice to figure it out on your own (which honestly can be a whole different type of fun if everyone is down for it) and thus yes, you will get TPK's, Monty Haul campaigns, etc. But that's your choice.

It's not merely for that though. I simply said that, at least in this particular case, it would also help with that. As I said before, adding "training wheels" to SoD effects (with the option to remove them) would allow me to run my style of campaign with a far greater degree of freedom than most editions of D&D have afforded me.

I'll grant you, you can't make D&D foolproof, and if you could it probably wouldn't be a game you or I would want to play. That said, I think that creating safety nets wherever reasonable is a good thing.

For example, they might include an optional wealth guideline table, that explains if you have X wealth your PCs are Y levels more powerful than the baseline. DMs are free to ignore it, but those that want or need the guideline will have it.

Sure, you can give advice on distributing loot on top of that, but don't believe that voids the usefulness of a wealth table.

 

[chaochou]

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

I agree. I don't have the original KotB anymore and didn't even remember a medusa in it, but this particular encounter is written with a little more sophistication than 'There are 4 gobins in this room. They attack.'

What I see there is an opportunity to break away from killing things and taking their stuff. It's chained to the wall, for pete's sake. Shadowy thing with writhing hair in a cell? As a player I'd be pretty disappointed to get turned to stone, or even 'surprised', in that situation. I'd be thinking - 'Yeah, I'll set you free, snake-hair woman - in that cave full of orcs.'

As for Save or Die more generally, I would have liked to see some sort of HP cap mechanic. Without that I'd like them used judiciously. To get dramatic tension out of that mechanic, the effects must be forseeable and obvious, either through cultural awareness (medusa) or some kind of foreshadowing (petrified warriors in battle pose) - both is perfect.

So I'd have no problem with a dragon's breath weapon, for example, being a hit roll and then save (for full damage, say) or die. Dragon's breath being, in terms of legend, about as insta-death as you can get.

But 'Here's a random thing to fight. Make an INT check. Okay, you know it's a cockatrice' doesn't do it for me. Context is everything, imo.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This seems like a well-written, if soft, ability. No problems here.