Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Carlsen" data-source="post: 5841213" data-attributes="member: 61749">I find it unfortunate that all discussions of save or die effects end up revolving around the Medusa. I'll address that quickly and move on. There are two creatures being discussed, the Medusa and a medusa (much like the Pegasus and a pegasus).The Medusa is a singular creature of legend. In that legend, her gaze kills every time without question. For those who want this creature in a campaign setting, there is no need for any save or die rules. Characters that gaze into Medusa's eyes die. Whether this is fair or not is dependent on how the DM provides information and runs the encounter.A medusa is a creature that is conceptually based on the Medusa, but is already different simply by not being the only one. I have no problem whatsoever with having a separate monster using more restrictive save or die rules. To be fair, though, we should probably give it a somewhat different name, like Medusa-kin or the like.Include a nice sidebar describing the historical myth of Medusa and how to use it in a game.For other creatures, such as the Basilisk or Cockatrice, I think the proposed system might work well. It can work well for spells as well.Though how those spells and abilities are presented matter. The effects of all save-or-die abilities should always start with a lesser ability, and then have the save-or-die effect be dependent on hit points. For example, Disintegrate starts by describing the damage it deals, then goes on to say that creatures below a certain number of hit points must save or die.The order of presentation matters. These are not powerful death effects with token abilities on a miss. These are powerful attacks with the potential for a save-or-die effect. Closely sticking with this design philosophy will make for a more satisfying experience.</blockquote>

Verification