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.