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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pukunui" data-source="post: 7466135" data-attributes="member: 54629">Hi all,During this evening's game, one of the PCs was targeted by a beholder's petrification ray. The effect requires the target to make a Dex save or begin to turn to stone. The PC failed this save and became restrained. The effect then states that the target must "repeat the save". That is to say, a second Dex save, only this time with disadvantage due to being restrained. She failed this one as well (by one point) and became petrified.The player complained that it was unfair that the second save should also be a Dex save. If it had been a Con save, which does make more sense, the PC would've made the second save and not become petrified. (The DC was 15. The player rolled a 15. The PC's Dex is 9, so he had a -1 on the roll. If it had been a Con save, he would've passed, as the PC's Con is 14.)Both the medusa and the basilisk have petrifying gazes that require Con saves to resist. I'm guessing this is an instance of the designers trying to keep things simple and not have one effect call for two different types of saves, but when you think about it, it makes as much sense as an unconscious target still getting to add their Dex bonus to their AC. Having the initial save be a Dex save is fine. You're trying to physically avoid being hit by a ray. Cool.But once you've been hit, and you're starting to turn to stone, you're not longer trying to physically avoid being hit by something. You're trying to physically resist an effect. So a Con save for the second save does make more sense.Is this where "rulings not rules" kicks in? Should I have ruled that the second save was a Con save (in which case the PC would've made the save and not become petrified)? I feel like if I had done that (or were to do it retroactively), that I would then need to permanently houserule the beholder's petrification ray so that it always works that way (which is fine).What do people think?</blockquote>

Verification