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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5284066" data-attributes="member: 80487">It's hard to know just what game you're playing, but I gather that it is related to 3e.First of all, your complaint has to do with treating the phenomenon as an "area of effect attack", like a fireball. (You do know, don't you, that in old D&D a fireball from a peer is effectively "save or die" on average to as many magic-users as one may have opportunity to fry?)So, it is not "SoD" itself with which you take issue, but how it is applied in certain cases in your game.In the 1st ed. Monster Manual, the basilisk "is able to turn to stone any fleshly creature which meets its glance." (In the original D&D set, it did likewise to "those whom it touches".)Now, that is on the face of it (!) not an "area of effect attack". It is specifically a mutual line of sight attack. There is no suggestion whatsoever of multiple attacks. The basilisk's "NO. OF ATTACKS" entry reads "1".Nor does it specifically entail a saving throw!This is, basically, a "do and die" situation. The DM however is free (and encouraged, in the DMG) to give characters and monsters alike a chance (however slender) to avoid even apparently certain doom. The DMG also emphasizes the confused nature of a melee, the uncertainty of any undertaking -- even of choosing which foe to attack. Some sort of roll, whether "to hit" or "to save", nearly always applies.Theoretically, more than one creature at once could choose to look the basilisk in the eyes, and it could take the latter but seconds to shift its own gaze to fulfill their effective self-destruction. Should such a case ever arise in the midst of a melee, I would be inclined to permit only two such attacks per round. However, I would not quibble if a DM ruled that any number can thus commit suicide in a single round.More typically, people are trying not to meet the monster's gaze, while it is trying to maneuver so that they do so by accident. This -- like footwork and fencing with more conventional weapons -- is for game purposes usually most conveniently handled with a dice-roll.The bottom line to which we return is that it is normally subject to the same conditions as any other attack: once per round, dependent on a roll for success. As with any other attack, there are prerequisites to make it possible in the first place, and factors that make it more difficult.Obviously, someone who cannot see the basilisk at all simply cannot "meet its gaze". There is a spectrum of circumstances -- and thus of probabilities -- between that and being unable to avoid meeting the gaze.The post grows long, so I postpone examination of the 3.5e rules. I hope it is clear that any rule that makes the basilisk's gaze an "area of effect attack" is a departure from the original game context.</blockquote>

Verification