Save or suck Medusa petrification

[Talath]

Small steel mirror: 10 g.p.
Petrifying a medusa: priceless

I mean really, it writes itself.

 

[1Mac]

if the funky snake hairdo doesn't give it away, I'd guess when you see the first party member turn to stone, then you'll know.... "Don't look!"

Ah, but you only can come to that conclusion because you, the player, know about the Medusa from mythology. I'm asking how the characters would know. How would they know that snaky hair = turn-you-into-stone? There's absolutely no connection. How would they know that their fellow party members are petrifying because of the medusa's gaze, especially since by the rules, someone looking at the medusa from behind would also risk turning into stone?

Think of it this way: say there's a monster in Next that is very similar to the medusa, only instead of looking like a snake-haired woman, it's a three-legged labradoodle, and instead of turning you to stone by looking at you, it turns you to tapioca if you have more than one leg on the ground. How would the PCs know to start hopping around on one foot before most of the party turns into rice pudding?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm asking how the characters would know. How would they know that snaky hair = turn-you-into-stone?

Skills.

The wizard has Forbidden, Magical, Natural, and Religious Lore from being a Sage.

The rogue has Folklore from being a Commoner.

The cleric of Moradin has Heraldic and Religious Lore from being a Knight.

The cleric of Pelor has Religious Lore and Wilderness Lore and Insight from being a Priest.

Even Muscles the fighter might be able to use Perception or Survival to get to the conclusion.

It's still player-driven. The DM might say, "The prisoner gazes intently at Bill. Bill, make a Constitution save." The players then would probably get that it came from the gaze, and perhaps describe, "I attack her, but I don't want to look into her eyes."

Alternately, the player might say, "How did she do that?!", and the DM could tell them to make a check. The fighter's player might say, "I'm going to use Perception to see if I noticed anything magical about the effect," and if they make it, the DM could say, "You saw a green fire in the creature's eyes."

Or something.

 

[CM]

I have to say, putting a potion on the medusa to reverse its petrification is pretty weak.

The best argument for multiple saves vs. petrification:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv13oTULTI4]MLP: Fluttershy vs. Cockatrice (Original Scene) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kinak]

Think of it this way: say there's a monster in Next that is very similar to the medusa, only instead of looking like a snake-haired woman, it's a three-legged labradoodle, and instead of turning you to stone by looking at you, it turns you to tapioca if you have more than one leg on the ground. How would the PCs know to start hopping around on one foot before most of the party turns into rice pudding?

The medusa isn't grounded in real world mythology by accident. It was chosen in the days of yore specifically because of it's mythological connections, because the players would know what it was, be appropriately freaked out and know the tools required to handle the job.

It's like D&D vampires. Sure, you can pretend that you don't know they're vulnerable to sunlight and wooden stakes, but the reason they're there is because you know those things, so the game can play with those tropes at a visceral level without resorting to a metagame tool like an Intelligence check.

Which, by the way, is how it would have to handle your labradoodle. Have everyone roll an intelligence check when they hear its trademark baying (do labradoodles bay?). The scholar will probably get to add one of his or her skills. I'm betting tapioca labradoodles are Forbidden Lore, but that's just me.

And if they don't figure it out, things go real bad real fast. Which, if you're introducing that monster, was obviously the intent. Unlike the medusa, who's whole point is plugging into real world mythology so your players know what you're up against.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[1Mac]

It's still player-driven. The DM might say, "The prisoner gazes intently at Bill. Bill, make a Constitution save." The players then would probably get that it came from the gaze, and perhaps describe, "I attack her, but I don't want to look into her eyes."

For what it's worth, it doesn't work that way by the rules, which state that anyone looking at the medusa must make a save against petrification, regardless of whether she's looking back. That could easily be changed, though, and doesn't really affect anyone's argument.

The medusa isn't grounded in real world mythology by accident. It was chosen in the days of yore specifically because of it's mythological connections, because the players would know what it was, be appropriately freaked out and know the tools required to handle the job.

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.

Alternately, the player might say, "How did she do that?!", and the DM could tell them to make a check. The fighter's player might say, "I'm going to use Perception to see if I noticed anything magical about the effect," and if they make it, the DM could say, "You saw a green fire in the creature's eyes."

Which, by the way, is how it would have to handle your labradoodle. Have everyone roll an intelligence check when they hear its trademark baying (do labradoodles bay?). The scholar will probably get to add one of his or her skills.

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. That's true of checking to learn about other monster powers as well, of course, except in this case, understanding how to evade petrification is essential to beating the monster. That's not strategic gaming: that's hoping your knowledge check is as high as the GM would like it to be.

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.

 

[Starman]

The whole argument of SoD mechanics is one reason I really like action points (ala [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Trailblazer-New-Horizons-3-5-Roleplaying/dp/1449503608"]Trailblazer[/ame]). It gives you another way to ratchet up tension (using up your APs) and gives players a chance to avoid/mitigate bad rolls.

 

[Derren]

It's set up to throw the PCs off guard by appearing to be a rescue the prisoner scenario.

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?

 

[IronWolf]

The whole argument of SoD mechanics is one reason I really like action points (ala Trailblazer). It gives you another way to ratchet up tension (using up your APs) and gives players a chance to avoid/mitigate bad rolls.

Exactly. Trying to craft spells, special abilities and such in a manner that keeps anyone from being victim of a bad roll leads to complex and cumbersome rules. Build the spells and special abilities the way that make the most sense and let an action point mechanic help alleviate a really poor roll at a really inopportune time.

 

[Remathilis]

I wouldn't call it cool and scary and would call her having the potion stupid.

Tell Gary Gygax that:

Not being above such things, the cleric had plans for removing its snakes, blinding it, and then eventually sacrificing it at a special rite to a demon. The medusa will spare one or two of the adventurers from her gaze, promising them she has magic which will turn their companions back to flesh again, if they will free her from her chains. She does, in fact, have a special elixir*, a potion of stone to flesh in a small vial, enough liquid to turn six persons, who have been turned to stone, back to normal, but she does not intend to give it away. If freed she will attempt to “stone” her rescuers.