L&L 3/05 - Save or Die!

[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