L&L 3/05 - Save or Die!

[jodyjohnson]

Player's don't intentionally have staring contests with Medusas.



They sometimes do entertain having Level-draining experiences with Succubi.

How 5e handles Succubi is probably more important than Medusa from the player standpoint.

1e was 1 level drained per round with 1 minute rounds. So you can last 1 minute per level with no mechanics to force further contact. That seems like a suitable length of encounter. Good old fashioned junior high fantasy role-playing.

2e and 3.x had much shorter rounds and added mechanics to force unwanted continuing engagement. Commonly a PC wouldn't last more than 1-2 minutes with near guaranteed fatality.

4e sounds a lot more like marriage. She only kisses you once per day, doesn't kill you, but makes you do whatever she wants. And she's not even a demon anymore.


DMs worry about how the Medusa is modelled, players pay more attention to the Succubus. 2e/3e Succubus was more in the Save or Die vein with the mechanics.

 

[keterys]

Honestly, I'm a lot more curious how the _Beholder_ works

 

[BryonD]

Do I really have to go and quote every single Monster Manual again? I mean, you already admitted I was right once, so, why the sudden change of heart?

To the contrary, you are the one that gave up and walked away....

No, the presumption has NEVER been "you avoid looking her in the eye". Not once. Not one single instance of the medusa in D&D has followed this model. EVERY single version, from Basic D&D onwards (I can't speak to OD&D, I don't have access to those books) says that if you look at a medusa THEN you make a saving throw.

You can continue to present your homebrew as what the rules say all you like, but, you've always been wrong. Provably wrong. Go back and actually READ the books. In 3e, it's a FORT save, not a will save (which is what avoiding doing something is), in earlier editions, it was save vs petrification - the exact same save as if you were hit by a Stone to Flesh spell or a Gorgon's breath attack.

Now, you can certainly house rule all you like. That's fine. But, please, stop presenting your house rules as something that's always been in the rules, because never, not one single time, in all the history of D&D, has the medusa worked the way you claim it does.

As I said, there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from playing that way.

And yet everyone I've ever played with seems to implicitly understand the concept.

If you don't grok concept being the guiding principle and the idea that the rules presume that they don't have to reteach every bit of mythology to you, then so be it.

I think you are far and away a radical corner case here for whom this isn't glowingly obvious.

But that really doesn't matter. In the end if I was the only human on earth that wanted Medusa to actually be right, the fact would still remain that pre-4E every version of D&D has been fully compatible with that ideal.

I'm not saying that you can't turn things on their head to your hearts content. Of course, I'm also not the one with a sig declaring that my own experience is limited to "ludicrous" gaming.

What I am saying is that:
-every pre-4E system was fully capable of getting it right
-every group I've ever played with has understood this without need for any conversation
-I'm a bit shocked that this isn't obvious to you as well, much less that you claim the opposite to be understood.
-I think that is an interesting note that fits in extremely well with so many other debates we have had and your negative comments about so many of your historic experiences.
-I don't care one way or another if a system allows you to get it wrong, I don't even really care if it EXPECTS you to get it wrong, so long as it also provides QUALITY options for getting it right.

 

[BryonD]

These rules very strongly imply - they more-or-less entail - that the save is required only as a consequence of meeting the gaze.

But the 3E rules for "gaze" are not specific to Medusa.
They are applying a general rule for gaze attacks to the specific case here.

There is no obligation under those rules to describe being subject to a gaze attack as having yourself SEEN the source of that attack.

If you want to hold this to a standard that I must prove that getting it is wrong is ruled out, then I simply won't go there. I again readily agree there is room for getting it wrong.

But if you combine the generic gaze rules with what is common knowledge about Medusa then it is trivial to come to the correct conclusion. It is only by refusing to use common knowledge and rational thinking that the potential for confusion comes.

I've said many times before, on other topics, that no rule system can ever cover every situation and if you expect to play an RPG purely by the guidance of the rules with no DM thoughtfulness, then the quality of that experience will be very limited. And in this specific example I believe that the threshold of DM thoughtfulness is very low indeed and the reduction in quality for not applying it is very high. But there is no stick there to enforce that. You can ignore that or use it as you will.

Again, the bottom line remains that you are completely free to choose to get it wrong. But you can also choose to get it right entirely by the rules.
And I'm shocked by the idea that there are people throwing such basic common understanding by the wayside. If they just find it more fun and choose to play that way then more power to them!! I fully endorse play what you like. But claiming this is understood and intended is silly.

In the end I guess I'd just say that I'd wager that playing in a game DMed by any 3E designer and saying "I look at Medusa" would not be responded to with "roll a fort save" but instead "ok, you forfeit your save, you turn to stone."

 

[Dausuul]

If you don't grok concept being the guiding principle and the idea that the rules presume that they don't have to reteach every bit of mythology to you, then so be it.

I think you are far and away a radical corner case here for whom this isn't glowingly obvious.

I agree with you on how the medusa should work. But the written rules about medusae explicitly state you can survive the medusa's gaze--at DC 15, it's not even very hard--and all the mechanics support that interpretation.

It uses normal weapons to attack those who avert their eyes or survive its gaze.

This, combined with the fact that the gaze attack rules specifically mention the medusa, makes the intent of the rules crystal clear. If you look at the medusa, you get a Fort save. If you avert your eyes, you get a 50% chance to avoid looking at the medusa, and a Fort save if that fails, with the drawback that the medusa gains concealment against you. You're tying yourself in knots trying to claim that the rules don't say what they clearly do.

Now, can you house-rule it to work differently? Of course you can! But if you're willing to adjust the RAW with house rules, I don't see your beef with the 4E version. It's the easiest thing in the world to replace the progressive saves of 4E with "Turn to stone. Turn directly to stone. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 XP."

What I don't understand is why you're so invested in proving that The Old Way Was Right. Why not just say the old way was wrong, the new way is also wrong, and you think a third way is the way to go? I'm perfectly ready to say I don't like how medusae have been handled in D&D from day one. Any saving throws should be Reflex-based and should be contingent on averting your eyes--if you look straight at the medusa, that's all she wrote. Furthermore, the medusa should be designed as a high-level solo monster, something you'd fight in the equivalent of low epic tier. We'll see if 5E's designers agree.

 

[keterys]

The medusa has not worked the way some people want in any edition of D&D. The D&D medusa is not the Medusa from myth.

So, how it works in D&D Next is pretty immaterial. Which is why we should talk about _some other monster_ and some other mechanics.

 

[BryonD]

I agree with you on how the medusa should work. But the written rules about medusae explicitly state you can survive the medusa's gaze--at DC 15, it's not even very hard--and all the mechanics support that interpretation.

What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?

Again, I remain rather shocked that this is even a conversation.

It is obvious enough, to me, that the idea is applying the general "gaze attack" mechanics to the specific case of Medusa and using that to answer the question "did you see her?" and NOT the question "did seeing her turn you to stone this time?".

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?

I once described a big lizardy thing poking its head around a corner, and one of my players told me he was staring it in the eye to show he wasn't afraid (he was expecting it to be a wyvern).

It was a basilisk.

We all agreed (including him) that he shouldn't get the normal saving throw; and when we'd stopped laughing long enough the rest of the party killed it and recovered his statue.

 

[GM Dave]

I once described a big lizardy thing poking its head around a corner, and one of my players told me he was staring it in the eye to show he wasn't afraid (he was expecting it to be a wyvern).

It was a basilisk.

We all agreed (including him) that he shouldn't get the normal saving throw; and when we'd stopped laughing long enough the rest of the party killed it and recovered his statue.

This is as good as the campaign I played in that thought it would be a good plot device if he had a nuclear bomb/missile detonate inside the cargo hold of our ship playing Alternity.

The GM kept insisting that he had calculated that according to the rules the bulkheads of the ship would contain the explosive and we'd be okay.

The whole group just looked at the GM and shook their heads and said, 'No, we're dead'.

This ended our Alternity campaign.

 

[pemerton]

But the 3E rules for "gaze" are not specific to Medusa.
They are applying a general rule for gaze attacks to the specific case here.

There is no obligation under those rules to describe being subject to a gaze attack as having yourself SEEN the source of that attack.

There is the passage that refers to surviving the gaze of the Medusa, that both Dausuul and I cited.

There is the fact that if you are blindfolded or otherwise are not looking at it or cannot see it (perhaps based on a concealment % chance), you don't need to save.

There is the fact that it is a Fortitude save, which is obviously a "toughing it out" thing rather than an "averting one's eyes" thing (the latter would be either Reflex as Dausuul suggested, or Will - to avoid the lure of the gaze - as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggested). For the sceptical, here is the relevant text from the SRD on Fortitude saves:

These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health.​

A Fortitude save does not represent averting one's eyes. It represents, in this case, "standing up to" the petrifying gaze of the Medusa, which threatens the "vitality and health" of one's body.

If you want to hold this to a standard that I must prove that getting it is wrong is ruled out, then I simply won't go there.

<snip>

It is only by refusing to use common knowledge and rational thinking that the potential for confusion comes.

<snip>

But you can also choose to get it right entirely by the rules.

Given that the rules state that it is possible to survive the gaze of a medusa - presumably by toughing it out, given that the save in question is a Fortitude save, I don't agree. I'm not holding you to some standard of not getting it wrong. I'm just quoting the relevant rules text.

As I said in the post to which you replied, what you say may be true of AD&D (a Petrification save, for example, might reflect averting one's eyes at the last minute, rather than toughing it out) although I think the OSRIC text pushes somewhat in Hussar's direction. But it seems to me just obviously false of 3E.

This is one respect in which the difference between the strongly simulationist leanings of 3E - including its simulationist reconceptualisation of saving throws - and the more fortuen-in-the-middle approach of AD&D becomes apparent.

You're tying yourself in knots trying to claim that the rules don't say what they clearly do.

<snip>

What I don't understand is why you're so invested in proving that The Old Way Was Right.

This.

But if you're willing to adjust the RAW with house rules, I don't see your beef with the 4E version. It's the easiest thing in the world to replace the progressive saves of 4E with "Turn to stone. Turn directly to stone. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 XP."

And this. I don't see any difference between houseruling away the saving throw of the 3E PC who goes eyeball-to-eyeball with the Medusa, and houseruling away the first two SSs of an SSSoD Medusa.

And just to reiterate - as I said above, I think AD&D may be a different beast here. The wiggle room in the OSRIC text at least opens the possibility to the alternative reading, although I think it is still most naturally read as implying that the save represents resistance/endurance rather than averting one's eyes.

 

[Hussar]

No, BryonD I didn't give up and walk away, I had actually shown you to be wrong, and figured that nothing more needed to be said after you agreed. But, apparently, it needed to be pinned down a bit more. So, with that in mind:

The sight of a medusa will turn a creature to stone unless the victim saves vs Turn to Stone.

Pretty cut and dried there.

Let's move on to 2e D&D:

found here Once the medusa is within 30 feet, it strikes, trying to get its victim to look into its eyes. Any creature within 30 feet must make a saving throw versus petrification or turn instantly to lifeless stone.

Again, you only make a saving throw AFTER you look at the medusa. No save for avoiding its gaze.

Now on to 3e D&D, and let's actually use the books, not the SRD shall we, since the books trump the SRD:

It uses normal weapons to attack those who avert their eyes or survive its gaze

Always helps to go to the primary source. So, I'll admit, I can't quote from OD&D or the 1e Monster Manual or the 3.5 Monster Manual, but, in 3 of the 6 pre-4e editions, you are flat out wrong.

So, can we please, please, have a SoD discussion without descending yet again into your medusa fetish?

 

[D'karr]

And just to reiterate - as I said above, I think AD&D may be a different beast here. The wiggle room in the OSRIC text at least opens the possibility to the alternative reading, although I think it is still most naturally read as implying that the save represents resistance/endurance rather than averting one's eyes.

The text in the 1e Monster Manual is:

Medusae are hateful humanoid creatures which dwell in dark caves or caverns, venturing forth on occasion to seek prey. They try to beguile humans to look into their eyes.

The gaze of a medusa's eyes will turn creatures within 3" to stone unless they make their saving throw versus petrification. If an opponent averts his eyes, the medusa rushes up so that its asp-like head growth can bite at the victim. The range of such attacks is but 1', and the victim bitten must save versus poison or die. If the medusa's gaze is reflected back, the creature will turn itself to stone! Medusa speak both....

It seems clear that averting your sight is not part of the petrification save. You must save if you have gazed into her eyes. If you save you don't turn to stone. If you decide not to look she comes forward and attacks with her "snake-hair".

 

[Hussar]

Heh, it's kinda fun to look at the evolution of a monster side by side by edition. After all, the whole "Look into her eyes" thing is a 2e addition, removed in 3e. In 2e, you could also keep a dead medusa's head and use it for a weapon for several days. Now how's THAT for broken.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], the Modlvay text seems pretty cut and dried!

And [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], thanks for that. Generally OSRIC follows the AD&D text pretty closely, but in this case there is a bit of divergence.

I would still be willing to allow the interpretive wriggle room in AD&D, because it is a common feature of AD&D to be inconsistent or sloppy in its rules text (even within books, let alone across them), and the "averting the eyes" interpretation would fit with the essay on saving throws that is towards the end of the combat chapter in the DMG. (From memory, Moldvay Basic does not have the same text on saving throws, and it a more tightly written edition, which means I don't think that it opens up the same wriggle room.)

I don't see that there is any wriggle room in 3E, though, because (i) it has an explicit account of what a Fort save means that is quite different from AD&D, and (ii) it has an explicit reference to surviving a Medusa's gaze (both in the SRD which I quoted and the MM which Hussar quoted). Unlike the AD&D text, this stuff is all unambiguous and all pushes in the same direction.

And just for compleness: in a staring contest with a Medusa, the SRD indicates that a character would have to roll two saves per round:

Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn.

. . .

A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action. The creature simply chooses a target within range, and that opponent must attempt a saving throw. If the target has chosen to defend against the gaze as discussed above, the opponent gets a chance to avoid the saving throw (either 50% chance for averting eyes or 100% chance for shutting eyes). It is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before its own action and once during the creature’s action.​

With two saves required per 6-second round, even a character who fails only on a 1 has only about a one-third chance of lasting a minute.

 

[FireLance]

Heh, it's kinda fun to look at the evolution of a monster side by side by edition. After all, the whole "Look into her eyes" thing is a 2e addition, removed in 3e. In 2e, you could also keep a dead medusa's head and use it for a weapon for several days. Now how's THAT for broken.

Frankly, it was even more broken in the original myth, because the head lasted for a good deal longer than just several days. It's obvious that 2e's fetish for game balance completely destroyed all semblence of simulationism, and 3e was even worse.

 

[Sunseeker]

Player's don't intentionally have staring contests with Medusas.

Says you. I for one stare down Meduas' in my sleep!

 

[Hussar]

What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?

Again, I remain rather shocked that this is even a conversation.

It is obvious enough, to me, that the idea is applying the general "gaze attack" mechanics to the specific case of Medusa and using that to answer the question "did you see her?" and NOT the question "did seeing her turn you to stone this time?".

What would I do? Presuming pre-4e? Tell them to roll a fort save, precisely what it says in the rules. 4e? I'd roll the attack. Again, precisely what it says in the rules.

Mostly because I have no interest in home-brewing this particular creature. If the player wants to endanger his character this way, more power to him. After all, in any edition of the game, unless you avert your eyes, you are looking at the medusa every round anyway. What difference does it make if player specifically states that he's looking? He's already assumed to be looking in the first place.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Says you. I for one stare down Meduas' in my sleep!

Yeah, but do you sleep with your eyes open? Better watch out for the hair!

 

[Living Legend]

I have not read most of this thread, so forgive me if this was brought up, but I agree that this idea has many merits but also doesn't quite fit. If there is going to be a hp range for these effects to work then maybe extend that idea so if a target is bloodied then lesser effect (a medusa's gaze paralyzes them), but if the target has 25 hp or left then they are turned to stone (greater effect).

Something like this might make it a little better for the PC using such effect against a monster situation, so they don't have to worry about using the spell with no effect at all, since bloodied is common knowledge, but still have the chance for a powerful effect if the monster is wicked hurt. Of course this is a little more complicated so not sure, and there will always be the question of what happens at low levels when a target is bloodied at 25 hp or similar.

Just an idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Even if I wanted to run a high-lethality game, there's no way I could follow your suggestions. Character creation is more than just rolling stats and picking powers/feats, it's an investment.

As soon as you mention powers/feats you're already into a system that does not have fast character generation at anything above very low level.

And, I suppose the investment level in part depends on how difficult a given player finds it to come up with a basic character personality. For some it's trivially easy, others find it a challenge. And all you need is the basics; the fine details of the personality will develop themselves during play.

Making multiple characters because they're all going to die next week makes them meaningless. Why put the love and effort into creating, developing, role-playing a character you're going to replace in a week? Secondly, I'm a slow player, I take time to consider my options, and there's no way I could run multiple characters, or just jump into an NPC.

I'm not a slow player, I just take an option and go with it; which in combat at least is somewhat realistic given a reasonable fog-of-war assumption.

I'd like to see ways to run a high-lethality game without filling the dumpster with dead characters every week. The THREAT of lethality is what's important, not actual death. Expecting to die, coming very close to death, seeing a single character die and knowing you could be next, that's what creates tension. Throwing characters into the meat grinder is more a war-crime than a tension builder.

Agreed, though in my case the threat of death often becomes actual death due to low-wisdom players and-or dice that need to meet a blowtorch.

I have been in games such as you describe, Lanefan, and I have even run them a couple times. This is especially true for a one-shot game, or a short campaign designed to only play a specific series of adventures. In such games, players don't make the same investment in creating a story, a personality (as in my current campaign), because they know the PC may die. In fact, they fear SoD and death much less, since they aren't committed to their somewhat disposable characters. If the new PC is lower level, and with less gear (or even level 1), a couple deaths means that the adventure is over, because the party isn't tough enough to continue--well, time to start a new game. That has happened to me as a DM three times over the years, and to me once as a player. Yay.

Your point about lower-level replacements voiding the adventure speaks to an issue I have with 3e/4e - the math is too fine-tuned. In 1e/2e you could chuck a 3rd-level character in with a party of 6ths and it'd have a chance of surviving long enough to catch up a bit. Not so much these days...

I usually have replacements come in a level or so below the party average, but I put a floor on it to prevent too much backsliding.

Lanefan