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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5844052" data-attributes="member: 42582">I was going to raise the same issue as BryonD - why does a successful save not represent averting one's gaze? - and then read your follow up post.So I looked at some monster descriptions.From the d20 SRD:A medusa tries to disguise its true nature until the intended victim is within range of its petrifying gaze, using subterfuge and bluffing games to convince the target that there is no danger. It uses normal weapons to attack those who avert their eyes or survive its gazeThis states that it is possible to survive the gaze of a medusa. Also, there are these rules for gaze attacks: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. An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. . . . If visibility is limited (by dim lighting, a fog, or the like) so that it results in concealment, there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won’t need to make a saving throw in a given round. These rules very strongly imply - they more-or-less entail - that the save is required only as a consequence of meeting the gaze.From OSRIC:[T]heir more feared attack mode is their gaze, which petrifies any creature that looks into their eyes. The creature may attempt a save vs petrifaction to avoid this.The reference of "this" is ambiguous - does it refer to "looking into their eyes", or does it refer to "petrification having looked into their eyes"? There is this bit of rules text that runs your way:A character attempting to fight a medusa without looking at her must accept a penalty of -4 on his or her “to hit” rolls.That implies that, if you don't take the -4 penalty then you are looking at the medusa, which in turn suggests that the save is to avoid petrificatin rather than to avoid looking into the medusa's eyes.TL;DR: you are definitely right for 3E, and probably right for AD&D/OSRIC, although I think in this latter case there is a bit more interpretive wriggle-room.</blockquote>

Verification