# Save or suck Medusa petrification



## Mircoles (May 25, 2012)

Did anyone else happen to notice the Medusa's save or suck pertrification?

It's either make a save or avoid the gaze and have disadvantage to your attacks against it with it getting advantage to attacking you(though, the text seems a little confusing), unless you're surprised, in which case, you're rolling for a save.

Save or suck ruined more than a few games for me in the past. Having this stupidity brought back is not a good thing. In fact, it irritates me more than vancian being brought back.


----------



## 1of3 (May 25, 2012)

But here it is basically disadvantage all the time, unless you want to gamble.


----------



## Prism (May 25, 2012)

I love it. I especially like the fact that in general the chance of turning to stone is in the players hands...suprise excepted


----------



## Brix (May 25, 2012)

I don't like save or die situation. It can be a serious fun-breaker.
Read the Sean K. Reynolds article about that topic.

likewise
Subsitute immune with +10 bonus


----------



## Raith5 (May 25, 2012)

Not surprised they went this way but I think it is deeply retrograde step which trades the suspense of turning to stone or two rounds or so (where something can be done) for the old style D&D feel.


----------



## bouncyhead (May 25, 2012)

I suspect both the creature and the mechanic are there as playtest bait.


----------



## Traken (May 25, 2012)

Here's the real test for the Medusa:

Take any person who hasn't played D&D yet is at least familiar with some Greek mythology (hell, _Percy and the Lightning Theif_ counts).  Tell them they are standing in front of a Medusa.

What do they do?  They close or avert their eyes.   Why do they do that?  Otherwise they'll be turned to stone in an instant.

For the Medusa to be anything else is simply silly.  What you might be looking for is a "creature that has snakes for hair with a gaze that slowly paralyzes and eventually turns you to stone".  That's not Medusa though.


----------



## Connorsrpg (May 25, 2012)

Sounds fine to me. Shouldn't you be at a disadvantage if you aren't looking at something you want to hit? shouldn't it be at an advantage. It is a medusa. It is meant to be this bad. (Nice post above Traken).

Honestly all creatures should not be made to fit into some preconceived comfort zone. It should be "Holy crap, a medusa!"

Sorry, but I just don't get that style of play. I like dangerous creatures and this one sounds fine as written to me.

'Those nasty monsters have powers too...oh, that is so unfair, our characters should be the only ones with awesome powers'....b/c that so fits in with the fantasy/mythological literature I read....

Edit: Oh, and maybe we might just see some PCs that actually care about boosting defenses, saves, etc and not just raw attack/damage.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 25, 2012)

Traken said:


> Here's the real test for the Medusa:
> 
> Take any person who hasn't played D&D yet is at least familiar with some Greek mythology (hell, _Percy and the Lightning Theif_ counts).  Tell them they are standing in front of a Medusa.
> 
> ...



Wish I could XP you!


----------



## Someone (May 25, 2012)

I find unrealistic that male PCs would be looking at her eyes anyway.


----------



## Pickles JG (May 25, 2012)

Some of the worst encounters I had in 3e involved surprise & die situations - an unspotted Wight Assassin & a Bodak that got surprise. Players dieing before making a meaningful action is in no way fun. It is not even frightening as it happens before you can get nervous. So the except while surprised clause is right out. 

I can live with the other mechanic as choosing to get disadvantage or risk stony death might be exciting, except I expect everyone will be averting their gaze, we will see.

I am not sure the myths specify how fast the Medusa turned people to stone so having it take some time (a few seconds) seems plausible. I am pretty sure they do not mention saving throws.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2012)

Pickles JG said:


> Some of the worst encounters I had in 3e involved surprise & die situations - an unspotted Wight Assassin & a Bodak that got surprise. Players dieing before making a meaningful action is in no way fun. It is not even frightening as it happens before you can get nervous. So the except while surprised clause is right out.
> 
> I can live with the other mechanic as choosing to get disadvantage or risk stony death might be exciting, except I expect everyone will be averting their gaze, we will see.
> 
> I am not sure the myths specify how fast the Medusa turned people to stone so having it take some time (a few seconds) seems plausible. I am pretty sure they do not mention saving throws.




A few seconds is perfectly acceptable and in line with what is depicted in the movies. A combat round is 6 seconds long. Turning to stone in a combat round is thus a few seconds and perfectly fine.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Medusa being save or stone is absolutely positively the #1 BEST thing I've seen so far in the playtest. 

ITS A FREAKIN MEDUSA. 

Its what they do. 

Adventurers explore. Dragons breathe fire.  MEDUSAS TURN YOU TO STONE.

At any table I ever play at, in any game I ever run, thats what Medusas will do.


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

I vote that the Medusa Queen is a unique creature that can turn you into stone instantly and will often hide in shadow and jump out and say boo!!

Her children, and their progeny; all the other snake haired Medusa chicks, don't have her power, instead they slowly petrify you or have other interesting powers.

Their should really be a Unique entry for some creatures and Medusa - the original - would fit in there.


----------



## Dornam (May 25, 2012)

Medusa petrifying with a gaze is classy and not at all a problem.

Automatically able to avert eyes is elegant.

Maybe being hosed if the Medusa has surprise is fine - unless a jerk DM does it 24/7. 

Really this is not a design problem, the 4e Medusa was!


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

But unless the players are surprised or stupid, they won't turn anyone to stone. It is just a creature that gets always advantage and you always have disadvantage against. Not very exiting.


----------



## Traken (May 25, 2012)

The Medusa ducks behind some rubble and hides.  The adventurers stop averting their eyes.  The Medusa charges.  They are surprised and don't get to avert their eyes.

Nothing is terribly exciting on a flat, open field without a dragon being involved.


----------



## Mattachine (May 25, 2012)

In my game, every medusa is THE, original medusa!

They all have to be exactly as I remember her being described in a Greek myths book I read in middle school, or in that titans movie.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

So multiple save or sucks in one combat are your way to go? I'm not sure they meant "getting behind a rock and out again" to be a condition for a surprise round. If they do, I'm out of this.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> In my game, every medusa is THE, original medusa!
> 
> They all have to be exactly as I remember her being described in a Greek myths book I read in middle school, or in that titans movie.



Then you surely know that "Medusa" in the myth is the name of one of the gorgons, right. Yes, D&D has to be so close to the myth...


----------



## Traken (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> So multiple save or sucks in one combat are your way to go? I'm not sure they meant "getting behind a rock and out again" to be a condition for a surprise round. If they do, I'm out of this.




See, this is one of those expectations that has to be hashed out during the early playtests.  

If there is a section named "Surprise," does that mean that *every* mention of the word surprise is specifically referring to that section?  Does that mean they can never use that word again?

To you, the surprise in the Medusa entry is referring specifically to the section that states you get a -X to initiative.  

To me, the surprise in the Medusa entry is referring to any time the players can not reasonably know the location of the Medusa and thus are unable to avert their eyes.

If they are averting their eyes by staring at their feet and the Medusa somehow gets here eyes to be next to their feet, I'll throw out the rules and say they are surprised and have to make a saving throw.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Medusas petrify, and swords kill with a single blow. Just because the movies show one thing, doesn't mean that it can't be mechanically represented by other means. After all, if medusas petrify (full stop), PCs shouldn't get a saving throw to resist.

I don't care for those kinds of gotcha traps. They're cheap shots as far as I'm concerned.

Averting your eyes is fine and good, but given the scenario as presented, the PCs aren't very likely to suspect anything (I certainly wouldn't be expecting _that_). Given that the PCs are likely to be taken by surprise and have a 50% or less chance of making their save, odds are that half the party will be turned to stone before they can even realize the danger they're in.

And what is the solution? A cop out. As long as the remaining PCs can defeat her, she happens to be conveniently carrying a potion of unpetrification, that she'd have no reason to have based on both her lore and circumstances. It's the kind of thing that irritates me deeply as both a player and DM.

I was hoping we'd see a hp threshold on SoS/SoD monster abilities, as is the case with the nastier PC spells but alas, not as yet.


----------



## amerigoV (May 25, 2012)

I have no problem with it. Sometimes, players need to stop and think as to how to overcome an obstacle. 

On the save or suck critters, a good DM will highlight the ability on some poor redshirt (re: gnome bard ) just to heighten the "oh crap" factor.


----------



## Grazzt (May 25, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> Medusa being save or stone is absolutely positively the #1 BEST thing I've seen so far in the playtest.
> 
> ITS A FREAKIN MEDUSA.
> 
> ...




Yeah this. Medusa of legend/mythology didn't "slow" a victim or anything else. Look at her eyes, turned to stone. The end. Chances are good anyway the party has access to 'flesh to stone', so the petrification is really nothing more than a speed bump anyway.


----------



## Dornam (May 25, 2012)

Yeah funny, how much the name of the most famous of all the Gorgons stuck and is now used instead the "real" racial name. Happens all the time I guess (in German the name "Jeep" is often used for All Terrain Vehicles with most people not knowing that it is actually a brand).


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I was hoping we'd see a hp threshold on SoS/SoD monster abilities, as is the case with the nastier PC spells but alas, not as yet.




My other favorite part about this is that PC binary abilities have thresholds high enough that _every goblin in the room is going to sleep_.

It's awesome.

Combats need to be fast and dirty. If you're going up against the Medusa without being prepared, you _deserve_ to get petrified.

Don't want to get turned to stone?

Do some recon before busting into the room.

You've got Charm Person and some social skills. Use 'em.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

amerigoV said:


> I have no problem with it. Sometimes, players need to stop and think as to how to overcome an obstacle.
> 
> On the save or suck critters, a good DM will highlight the ability on some poor redshirt (re: gnome bard ) just to heighten the "oh crap" factor.



But that is the problem. Stop and thinking doesn't help against being surprised. And over coming the situation is just fight the thing while being at a disadvantage. Not a clever mirrorshield or anything.

And you cannot highlight anyone in this situation, unless you fudge the dice. Unless your bard has a really high constitution, it is more likely than he fails the save than the fighter.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 25, 2012)

There are very good reasons why 4e ditched one-roll save-or-suck effects almost completely.

None of those reasons have gone away. This is a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My other favorite part about this is that PC binary abilities have thresholds high enough that _every goblin in the room is going to sleep_.
> 
> It's awesome.
> 
> ...




Are you aware of the scenario that's presented in the playtest module? That's not the kind of situation that I would expect to need recon or Charm Person.

IME, this is the kind of gotcha play that engenders ultra-paranoid players who bog down play by insisting on thoroughly checking every five foot square for traps before moving forward. They take absurd precautions in everything they do, because they feel the DM is out to get them (which, given the scenario, I'd say is true because it makes little sense - why didn't they at least place a bag over her head). 

I've been in those kinds of games in the past, but I found them tedious and they're not the type of game I like to run.


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Okay, took a glance at the Medusa. I do not see what the fuss is about. Pretty much I can avoid having to make a save against turning to stone by averting my eyes. If I avert my eyes I use the Disadvantage mechanics. 

That seems to make sense to me. If I can't look directly at my target it only stands to reason that I am going to have a hard time being as effective as I can be.


----------



## amerigoV (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> And you cannot highlight anyone in this situation, unless you fudge the dice. Unless your bard has a really high constitution, it is more likely than he fails the save than the fighter.




The goal is to kill the bard....


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> Yeah this. Medusa of legend/mythology didn't "slow" a victim or anything else. Look at her eyes, turned to stone. The end. Chances are good anyway the party has access to 'flesh to stone', so the petrification is really nothing more than a speed bump anyway.




This is the problem though. DND Medusa race is not the Mythic Medusa. It's loosely based on the mythic one, but it's its' own thing.

Medusa's sisters looked similar to her but could not turn people to stone.


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Lurks-no-More said:


> None of those reasons have gone away. This is a step in the wrong direction.






Fanaelialae said:


> I've been in those kinds of games in the past, but I found them tedious and they're not the type of game I like to run.




Okay, you don't like the mechanics for the Medusa.

How would you mechanically represent the Medusa's ability to turn people to stone and keep the game the way you would want it mechanically?


----------



## Sanglorian (May 25, 2012)

The problem with Save or Suck powers is that their very extremism encourages work-arounds. Everyone in a fight against the medusa is going to avert their eyes, because the alternative is too extreme. The result? No one is in any danger of turning to stone. 

Even if people are surprised or do peek, the mythological/pop culture expectation that someone turns instantly to stone is lost with the relatively low saving throw DC. And even if people do turn to stone, the Caves of Chaos medusa comes conveniently with a potion of depetrification! 

The end result is that far from being consequential and frightening, petrification is either an inconvenience (disadvantage for a whole combat) or a road-bump. What could be very cool ('Jimmy's turning slowly to stone! We've got to break the medusa's gaze somehow!' or 'She's pulling Anne's head around and if we don't break the grapple their eyes will meet!'') becomes a slog as everyone averts their eyes and misses an awful lot more, or just shrugs their shoulders at the occasional petrified ally and slathers the victims with depetrification potion at the end of the fight.


----------



## ferratus (May 25, 2012)

If the medusa is supposed to be the same thing as in the original myth, and have a save or die petrifying attack, I want the gods to personally help me to defeat her by giving me their godly powerful magic items.

A save or die medusa of myth was not found in a cavern in the caves of chaos or a random dungeon encounter.   She was a creature of god-like power that everyone knew and tried to avoid.


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Sanglorian said:


> The problem with Save or Suck powers is that their very extremism encourages work-arounds. Everyone in a fight against the medusa is going to avert their eyes, because the alternative is too extreme. The result? No one is in any danger of turning to stone.




So is this advocating that everyone needs to try to make the save with no chance to avert their eyes?



			
				Sanglorian said:
			
		

> Even if people are surprised or do peek, the mythological/pop culture expectation that someone turns instantly to stone is lost with the relatively low saving throw DC. And even if people do turn to stone, the Caves of Chaos medusa comes conveniently with a potion of depetrification!




Would you have been happier with a higher DC? I would be all for a higher DC, but I can understand the lower one representing that when you decided to take your peek that she happened to be looking at another party member, was turned to the side or some explanation such as that.

As for the potion. This is one adventure, it isn't a requirement to provide a potion of depetrification if the DM was building their own adventure. So in this case, it is an inconvenience, but that might not be the case all of the time.

As I asked earlier - what would be your mechanical suggestion for handling the medusa's special ability to turn people to stone?


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> Okay, you don't like the mechanics for the Medusa.
> 
> How would you mechanically represent the Medusa's ability to turn people to stone and keep the game the way you would want it mechanically?




Well, there are multiple options here, but off the top of my head I'd probably use an hp threshold mechanic.

Basically, characters below X hp turn to stone if they see her. Characters at or above X hp are lucky enough to sense something is amiss and only catch a glimpse from the corner of their eye, resulting in being restrained rather than petrified, as their body stiffens.

That removes the gotcha factor (unless a PC didn't heal after taking damage, which is itself a choice). But it's very unlikely that half the party will be petrified in the first round, unless they're pressing forward when they should be retreating.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

Sanglorian already said it. A risk has to be worth taking or nobody is taking. And the situation in the adventure had none of the statue garden or other things that could give clever players a hint that they should avert their eyes.
First action from me as a DM if I ever run this adventure? Give the medusa some brains and let her spout the potion on the floor. Why should she carry around the single remedy of her best weapon?
And why would she even carry one in that situation???


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> ...
> 
> As I asked earlier - what would be your mechanical suggestion for handling the medusa's special ability to turn people to stone?



This:


Fanaelialae said:


> Well, there are multiple options here, but off the top of my head I'd probably use an hp threshold mechanic.
> 
> Basically, characters below X hp turn to stone if they see her. Characters at or above X hp are lucky enough to sense something is amiss and only catch a glimpse from the corner of their eye, resulting in being restrained rather than petrified, as their body stiffens.
> 
> That removes the gotcha factor (unless a PC didn't heal after taking damage, which is itself a choice). But it's very unlikely that half the party will be petrified in the first round, unless they're pressing forward when they should be retreating.




Or using the 4e mechanic.
Or the one in Mutants and Masterminds 3e (cumulative saving throws with degrees of failure, migrated by the core use of a re-roll mechanic).

Almost all mechanics I know are better than this.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Sanglorian said:


> The end result is that far from being consequential and frightening, petrification is either an inconvenience (disadvantage for a whole combat) or a road-bump. What could be very cool ('Jimmy's turning slowly to stone! We've got to break the medusa's gaze somehow!' or 'She's pulling Anne's head around and if we don't break the grapple their eyes will meet!'') becomes a slog as everyone averts their eyes and misses an awful lot more, or just shrugs their shoulders at the occasional petrified ally and slathers the victims with depetrification potion at the end of the fight.




Disclaimer for conversation for all previous and future responses: I saw the medusa statblock in the bestiary, I did not read the Caves of Chaos yet. I don't know if it is a GOTCHA as presented or not. 

Anywho, to specifically respond to this... I'm not even saying the 5e medusa is great, I'm saying that I was happy to see save or sucks/dies brought back.  But even as written, there's tons of ways to avoid the "road-bump" you describe. 

Have something else in the room besides a medusa. Other monsters who are now picking on your disadvantage?  A key or a small moving object players have to find before the medusa can finish a ritual or kill her prisoner?  

WHERE IS IT?  I dunno, I'm looking at my feet.  WELL, LOOK AROUND???  Are you kidding me, there's a freakin medusa in the room...you look around.  Will the adventurers risk looking around the room to find the item or save the princess or whatever?  Or will their fear saves their lives, but ensure a "failed" mission? 

As always, if a solo monster is the only thing in the room...something has most likely gone horribly wrong.


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> So is this advocating that everyone needs to try to make the save with no chance to avert their eyes?




Why should they get a save? There are no mentions of people resisting the petrifying gaze of Medusa of legend.

I think we should feel free to rewrite the DND medusa gaze power to something that is more game friendly - it can still be deadly. The HP threshold mechanic in the post above would work for me, up to that point her gaze would cause Slow Petrification: 1/2 movement+disadvantage;Restrained;Paralysed (each round the save is failed).


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> Disclaimer for conversation for all previous and future responses: I saw the medusa statblock in the bestiary, I did not read the Caves of Chaos yet. I don't know if it is a GOTCHA as presented or not.
> 
> Anywho, to specifically respond to this... I'm not even saying the 5e medusa is great, I'm saying that I was happy to see save or sucks/dies brought back.  But even as written, there's tons of ways to avoid the "road-bump" you describe.
> 
> ...




Read page 27 of the Caves and you'll understand what we're talking about here. The above does not fit the scenario at all.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> Disclaimer for conversation for all previous and future responses: I saw the medusa statblock in the bestiary, I did not read the Caves of Chaos yet. I don't know if it is a GOTCHA as presented or not.



The gotcha moment is present.




> Have something else in the room besides a medusa. Other monsters who are now picking on your disadvantage?  A key or a small moving object players have to find before the medusa can finish a ritual or kill her prisoner?
> 
> WHERE IS IT?  I dunno, I'm looking at my feet.  WELL, LOOK AROUND???  Are you kidding me, there's a freakin medusa in the room...you look around.  Will the adventurers risk looking around the room to find the item or save the princess or whatever?  Or will their fear saves their lives, but ensure a "failed" mission?



By the mechanics, nothing of this is penalized by the medusa in the  room. The rules only penalize you attacking it or attacked by it,  nothing else.
So, nice idea, but not supported by the current rules.



> As always, if a solo monster is the only thing in the room...something has most likely gone horribly wrong.



It is the only thing in the room in this adventure. (Unless you count the de-petrification potion.)


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Well, there are multiple options here, but off the top of my head I'd probably use an hp threshold mechanic.
> 
> Basically, characters below X hp turn to stone if they see her. Characters at or above X hp are lucky enough to sense something is amiss and only catch a glimpse from the corner of their eye, resulting in being restrained rather than petrified, as their body stiffens.




Interesting. I am not sure I would like having the amount of HP tied into my other skills/abilities to perceive things, but an interesting idea. I would be afraid that this might lead to HP starting to tie into other things. i.e. oh, down to half HP, then you roll at disadvantage to make that jump check or to climb that wall even though your Strength score has not been affected yet.

So in this isolated incident I think I can see where you are going with this. But then I would ask why doesn't lower HP affect other abilities in other scenarios which I think might make things overly complex. 

My opinion only though, thanks for offering another mechanical option to consider.




			
				Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> That removes the gotcha factor (unless a PC didn't heal after taking damage, which is itself a choice). But it's very unlikely that half the party will be petrified in the first round, unless they're pressing forward when they should be retreating.




Tying more things into HP might also further encourage the 15 minute adventuring day too, right? If being down a few HP have a further reaching effect on my other abilities I have even less motivation to push on if I can't get back to full HP.




Walking Dad said:


> This:
> Or the one in Mutants and Masterminds 3e (cumulative saving throws with degrees of failure, migrated by the core use of a re-roll mechanic).




Cumulative saving throws can be interesting, though they can add complexity as you try to remember which round you are in to know what DC you are trying to beat, etc.

I am fine with re-roll mechanics. They work as a bandaid for a lot of situations!


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> Why should they get a save? There are no mentions of people resisting the petrifying gaze of Medusa of legend.
> 
> I think we should feel free to rewrite the DND medusa gaze power to something that is more game friendly - it can still be deadly. The HP threshold mechanic in the post above would work for me, up to that point her gaze would cause Slow Petrification: 1/2 movement+disadvantage;Restrained;Paralysed (each round the save is failed).




I am confused on the point you are trying to make. You seem to indicate initially that people shouldn't get a save, but then describe an alternative mechanic that requires saves?

Which point are we debating? Whether a save should be required at all or how should the save work?


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> This is the problem though. DND Medusa race is not the Mythic Medusa. It's loosely based on the mythic one, but it's its' own thing.




Yep, and until 4e the D&D mythology of the medusa race was as a save or stone creature.  I mean you do realize that the D&D medusa was defined and it was 4e that is the outlier by changing it to a non-save or die creature, right?



vagabundo said:


> Medusa's sisters looked similar to her but could not turn people to stone.




Not sure why this is important to the discussion.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> By the mechanics, nothing of this is penalized by the medusa in the  room. The rules only penalize you attacking it or attacked by it,  nothing else.
> So, nice idea, but not supported by the current rules.




I disagree, if you're within 30 feet, you can see her eyes. Unless she's averting her eyes, which she obviously wouldn't,  you have to avert your eyes to avoid her gaze.  And averting your eyes means you are at disadvantage to the medusa and granting advantage to ANYTHING that attacks you.  

There is nothing that says you have to try to attack her or she has to try to attack you. All you have to do is look at her. 

And I just read her area of the Caves of Chaos... while it might seem to be a surprise gotcha... the fact that she has the vial means its NOT. Unless the entire party fails the surprise save, which is extremely unlikely, it really is just meant to be a cool and scary encounter.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> Interesting. I am not sure I would like having the amount of HP tied into my other skills/abilities to perceive things, but an interesting idea. I would be afraid that this might lead to HP starting to tie into other things. i.e. oh, down to half HP, then you roll at disadvantage to make that jump check or to climb that wall even though your Strength score has not been affected yet.
> 
> So in this isolated incident I think I can see where you are going with this. But then I would ask why doesn't lower HP affect other abilities in other scenarios which I think might make things overly complex.
> 
> My opinion only though, thanks for offering another mechanical option to consider.




The thresholds already exist for spells though. For example, if the cultists cast Hold Person on you, the threshold is relevant (not that any of the PCs can actually exceed it). Sleep is another example of this mechanic in play. 

Really, it's not all that different from the old HD limits on certain effects, except that you can wear down stronger creatures to the point where they become susceptible. That's an improvement in my book.

There's no need to penalize jump checks at a certain threshold. The whole idea is that high hp make you _less_ susceptible to harm, _not_ that low hp make you more susceptible (beyond the fact that your hp are low, anyway).



> Tying more things into HP might also further encourage the 15 minute adventuring day too, right? If being down a few HP have a further reaching effect on my other abilities I have even less motivation to push on if I can't get back to full HP.




I don't think so. At the point where the party is at half hp and out of healing, it's time to rest anyway. Anything more than a trivial fight is likely to be deadly at that point.

Since the majority of healing is confined to being between encounters (Hit Dice), a hp threshold might certainly create tense moments in a battle when a fighter takes a hit, but I don't see it impacting the 15MWD much, if at all.


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Yep, and until 4e the D&D mythology of the medusa race was as a save or stone creature.  I mean you do realize that the D&D medusa was defined and it was 4e that is the outlier by changing it to a non-save or die creature, right?
> .




It was still save or die in 4e, you just got two chances to save. 

People are arguing that because the mythic creature did something in the legend then that is how it should be in DND. Well DND isn't particularly true to the mythic version anyway, so changing how the attack works in the rules is fair game. If having multiple saves works for the game then we should have that.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

Sanglorian said:


> The problem with Save or Suck powers is that their very extremism encourages work-arounds. Everyone in a fight against the medusa is going to avert their eyes, because the alternative is too extreme. The result? No one is in any danger of turning to stone.




Aren't people who are surprised in danger of turning to stone? 



Sanglorian said:


> Even if people are surprised or do peek, the mythological/pop culture expectation that someone turns instantly to stone is lost with the relatively low saving throw DC. And even if people do turn to stone, the Caves of Chaos medusa comes conveniently with a potion of depetrification!




Someone will eventually fail and turn to stone. I mean I'm failing to see how multiple saving throws in 4e, which were (unmodified) 50/50 and often resulted in no body turning to stone are any better in this aspect?? As far as the Caves of Chaos encounter goes... well it's just that, bad encounter design... which is a different can o worms than the actual medusa as a monster. 



Sanglorian said:


> The end result is that far from being consequential and frightening, petrification is either an inconvenience (disadvantage for a whole combat) or a road-bump. What could be very cool ('Jimmy's turning slowly to stone! We've got to break the medusa's gaze somehow!' or 'She's pulling Anne's head around and if we don't break the grapple their eyes will meet!'') becomes a slog as everyone averts their eyes and misses an awful lot more, or just shrugs their shoulders at the occasional petrified ally and slathers the victims with depetrification potion at the end of the fight.




Again I think theres quite the "OH Crap!!" factor when even one person is surprised and turned to stone in a party... what I've never seen in 4e is that type of frantic fear when facing a monster like this, instead I see players betting the averages... "Ok, well she still has two saves before she turns to stone... everyone focus fire now!!". 

My reading of the surprise rules seem to imply that if the Medusa can get out of their view, it can regain surprise since the rules say surprised can be gained if PC's are unaware of a creatures approach. IMO if you add some treacherous terrain (so the PC's can't continuously keep their eyes closed and move safely) then the encounter with a medusa is going to play out as a pretty frightening and epic battle... similar to the scene in Clash of the Titans where the medusa uses knowledge of her lair and hit and run tactics to continuously catch the warriors off guard and petrify them. This could easily end up being a desperate, gritty, and frightening battle unless the PC's either coordinate well, come well prepared or get lucky. IMO, of course.


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> The thresholds already exist for spells though. For example, if the cultists cast Hold Person on you, the threshold is relevant (not that any of the PCs can actually exceed it). Sleep is another example of this mechanic in play.




Interesting! I had not made it to the Sleep and Hold Person spells yet. Still not sure I like the mechanic, but if they do decide to stick with that mechanic I could see it might be applicable to apply to petrifying gaze as well.



			
				Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Really, it's not all that different from the old HD limits on certain effects, except that you can wear down stronger creatures to the point where they become susceptible. That's an improvement in my book.
> [




Yeah, I default to "well it should just be based on HD, its easier." But I say that because that is what I know and am used to. If it did switch to an HP value it could let those typically low level spells become useful again at later stages of combat.

Might take me a bit to warm up to it, but I am keeping an open mind. I need to actually get some players so I can see how it plays out in combat!

I don't think so. At the point where the party is at half hp and out of healing, it's time to rest anyway. Anything more than a trivial fight is likely to be deadly at that point.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> I disagree, if you're within 30 feet, you can see her eyes. Unless she's averting her eyes, which she obviously wouldn't,  you have to avert your eyes to avoid her gaze.  And averting your eyes means you are at disadvantage to the medusa and granting advantage to ANYTHING that attacks you.
> 
> There is nothing that says you have to try to attack her or she has to try to attack you. All you have to do is look at her.



You extrapolate the fluff, not reading the actual rules. It says "it", not anyone or that you get penalized on other actions.



> And I just read her area of the Caves of Chaos... while it might seem to be a surprise gotcha... the fact that she has the vial means its NOT. Unless the entire party fails the surprise save, which is extremely unlikely, it really is just meant to be a cool and scary encounter.



???
I wouldn't call it cool and scary and would call her having the potion stupid.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> It was still save or die in 4e, you just got two chances to save.




Save or die is commonly used to refer to the phenomenon of "one save failed = bad thing happens". But, I think you knew exactly what I meant so I'm not going to play semantic games... but no, 4e did away with save or die for the most part. 



vagabundo said:


> People are arguing that because the mythic creature did something in the legend then that is how it should be in DND. Well DND isn't particularly true to the mythic version anyway, so changing how the attack works in the rules is fair game. If having multiple saves works for the game then we should have that.




And you're using the counter argument that D&D defined the medusa outside of that mythology... but ignoring the fact that 4e in turn disgarded the established D&D mythology for the medusa and created it's own which is even further from the classic mythology... 

I think what's being said (and I could be wrong) is that a few/some/many/most D&D fans liked the previously established mythology for the D&D medusa and didn't want it to further deviate from classical mythology/pop culture as was done in 4e.

Sorry, my games worked fine with the SoD medusa so I'm not sure your "works for the game" comment makes any sense. It's a purely subjective preference, which I can respect that you have... but stating it as a fact doesn't make it true.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> And I just read her area of the Caves of Chaos... while it might seem to be a surprise gotcha... the fact that she has the vial means its NOT. Unless the entire party fails the surprise save, which is extremely unlikely, it really is just meant to be a cool and scary encounter.




No, that just means that because it's a gotcha encounter, a solution was *contrived* so that it wouldn't be seen as entirely unfair. Realistically though, it's far from impossible that most or all of the party will be stoned during the gotcha. If all of them are stoned, obviously it's a gotcha TPK. Even if not, the medusa isn't exactly a pushover. There's certainly no guarantee that they can win that fight.

It's totally a gotcha situation. The fact that a contrivance was added is, IMO, stupid. Based on the lore, she shouldn't have it because medusa prize their statues. Based on her situation she wouldn't have it because it would have likely been taken from her. IMO, it's a terribly written scenario. But moreover, it's the SoD medusa that enables this scenario to be written. A threshold medusa wouldn't.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> You extrapolate the fluff, not reading the actual rules. It says "it", not anyone or that you get penalized on other actions.
> 
> 
> ???
> I wouldn't call it cool and scary and would call her having the potion stupid.




I don't think so. the IT in that sentence is the PC, not the medusa. Replace all "creature" and "it" in that sentence with "the PC". 

Which of course brings up the point again about how HORRIBLY this stuff is written. 

And as for a medusa having a potion to reverse her stone to flesh stupid... I don't think it is. She can use her gaze to protect herself, but might need valuable information from her victim, or something else. Medusas are intelligent and speak Common. 

PCs are capable of healing enemies they have incapacitated and often do. What would make a medusa different?


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> You extrapolate the fluff, not reading the actual rules. It says "it", not anyone or that you get penalized on other actions.
> 
> 
> ???
> I wouldn't call it cool and scary and would call her having the potion stupid.




I don't think so. the IT in that sentence is the PC, not the medusa. Replace all "creature" and "it" in that sentence with "the PC". 

Which of course brings up the point again about how HORRIBLY this stuff is written. 

And as for a medusa having a potion to reverse her stone to flesh stupid... I don't think it is. She can use her gaze to protect herself,and to make her pretty statues, but she might need valuable information from her victim, or something else. Medusas are intelligent and speak Common. 

PCs are capable of healing enemies they have incapacitated and often do. What would make a medusa different?


----------



## Sadras (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> What I've never seen in 4e is that type of frantic fear when facing a monster like this, instead I see players betting the averages... "Ok, well she still has two saves before she turns to stone... everyone focus fire now!!".




Exactly, 4E fixed nothing for Medusa's. If they had made those effects (slow, restrained) take effect automatically in those rounds without any saves, until the last round where the character rolled 1 save or turn to stone, it would have been much more interesting.
Might not have solved the entire problem, but it would have made the Medusa and creatures like the Beholder much more lethal and exciting.

As for the people complaining that the Medusa carries a scroll of depetrification. Its obvious, she would bring back to life those which she would want to interrogate, keep as slave after gouging out their eyes, or procreate with....use you imagination people. It makes complete sense.


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

For what it's worth, like the spell-casting evil priests, the medusa is also in the original adventure, exactly like that.

She even has the potion of stone to flesh. She tries to petrify most of the PCs, then promises them the potion if they free her. In a pinch, she could probably even use it on some of them to get some guards for her way out, although that's not spelled out.

Also in the original, the snake poison was save or die. You're getting off easy 

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Dykstrav (May 25, 2012)

I realize that not everyone is going to share my experiences in this  regard or my opinions, and that's fine. We want different things out of  the game.

One of the things that I rarely see addressed is that most of the people that don't like save-or-die effects in previous editions don't have the same complaints about it in the PC's hands. A medusa turning someone into stone with a single failed save is wrong, but a first-level PC sorcerer with_ sleep_ or _color spray_ is fine and dandy? A wizard with _disintegrate_ is awesome, but a beholder with a _disintegrate_ eye ray is messed up? Nah, that pig won't fly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I like save-or-die effects, both as a player and as a GM. In my mind, the characters should be legendary adventurers _because they survived an encounter with a terrifying monster_... Not survive the encounter _because they're adventurers_. Maybe it's a subtle distinction, but I enjoy a challenge and I fully expect some PC casualties every few sessions. I don't want the rules set to inherently provide my character with insulation from terrible things. Adventuring is dangerous. You wallow in gold and fame because you took the big risks, you survived when lesser people perish. If you don't want to risk a horrible death, maybe you're not cut out for adventuring. Most people in the world are farmers and craftsmen precisely because they don't want to have their intestines ripped out by an owlbear.

All that being said... It's my experience that many people's problems with save-or-die aren't really with the concept itself, but with ass-hat GMs that used save-or-dies to screw the PCs. A bad GM will _find_ a way to screw you over, regardless of what the rules say. If they can't do it within the context of the rules, they'll resort to "rule zero" or something similar. The multiple saves thing feels like we're all being asked to wear kid gloves because some jerk GM in Hoboken used an encounter with thirty medusas to screw his PCs. "This is why we can't have nice things."

For my part, I'm glad that save-or-die effects are in.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

[sblock=Medusa room]
And why did her jailers let her keep it, instead taking it for themselves in the case the catch their captives eyes? Also the creature is intelligent and tries to flee. What if the petrifies some and then succeeds getting away?
[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Save or die is commonly used to refer to the phenomenon of "one save failed = bad thing happens". But, I think you knew exactly what I meant so I'm not going to play semantic games... but no, 4e did away with save or die for the most part.




Well, no it didn't.  What it did was make the odds fairly predictable - 1 in 8 without any modifications.  You still have SoD, it's just that the odds are quite a bit more in favour of the PC's and the PC's gained the opportunity to stop the process by killing the Medusa.

For those who want a "mythical" medusa, why aren't you complaining about the saving throw?  I mean, you can have staring contests with this creature and not turn to stone, so long as you make your saving throw.  It most certainly is not "Look at the medusa and turn to stone" from myth.  It's EXACTLY the same as every other medusa in D&D.  The only difference in 4e is the change in odds.

Which in no way actually represents the mythical medusa.  We've had this argument over and over and over again (where's [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] when you need him?) for the past two years.  The D&D medusa has NEVER been, "See it and turn to stone".  Not in any edition of D&D.  Why would it be so now?

With the save DC that low, we're talking about a 50/50 chance of very low level characters being able to see the Medusa and not turn to stone.


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> I am confused on the point you are trying to make. You seem to indicate initially that people shouldn't get a save, but then describe an alternative mechanic that requires saves?
> 
> Which point are we debating? Whether a save should be required at all or how should the save work?




I'd prefer a graduated approach to the save. I don't think we need to need to go back to save or die to create fear in our encounters. 



Imaro said:


> Save or die is commonly used to refer to the phenomenon of "one save failed = bad thing happens". But, I think you knew exactly what I meant so I'm not going to play semantic games... but no, 4e did away with save or die for the most part.




The 4e Medusa was one of the few creatures in 4e that had a save or die mechanic. The fact that it had two saves really doesn't make any difference, other than give the players a change to react.

4e mostly ditched SOD it was the better for it. 



> And you're using the counter argument that D&D defined the medusa outside of that mythology... but ignoring the fact that 4e in turn disgarded the established D&D mythology for the medusa and created it's own which is even further from the classic mythology...
> 
> I think what's being said (and I could be wrong) is that a few/some/many/most D&D fans liked the previously established mythology for the D&D medusa and didn't want it to further deviate from classical mythology/pop culture as was done in 4e.
> 
> Sorry, my games worked fine with the SoD medusa so I'm not sure your "works for the game" comment makes any sense. It's a purely subjective preference, which I can respect that you have... but stating it as a fact doesn't make it true.




I don't agree that 4e disregarded the DND mythology for the Medusa and it is certainly as close to the myth as the rest of DND. The mechanic was redone as it was a different ruleset. 

I'm sure some do like save of die effects, but many do not. I personally do not like them as one save or die. I do like if there is a chance for some player intervention, having had a player panic because his character was slowly turning to stone was great fun.

"works for the game" comment is about finding an approach in 5e that helps bridge the gap for different playstyles. Saying that the Medusa in DND needs SOD because that's the way it worked in myth is just silly.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> [sblock=Medusa room]
> And why did her jailers let her keep it, instead taking it for themselves in the case the catch their captives eyes? Also the creature is intelligent and tries to flee. What if the petrifies some and then succeeds getting away?
> [/sblock]





1>Were you gonna frisk her snakes???

2>Then the chase is on! Or the hunt for an alternate source of Stone to Flesh magic. The researcher might not know where it is, but he knows where to find someone who does!  

But what happens if after someone in the party is turned to stone, another monster or a PC randomly decides to smash and shatter the statue???

Um...the PC is dead. 

That is supposed to be something that CAN happen.


----------



## The Red King (May 25, 2012)

If looking at a Medusa made you turn to stone immediately, every time, then no one would be alive to tell you what it looked like.  You need saving throws to avoid looking, and you need to be able to fight it without looking at it.  

But dont tone it down.  A Medusa NEEDS to be deadly.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Dykstrav said:


> I realize that not everyone is going to share my experiences in this  regard or my opinions, and that's fine. We want different things out of  the game.
> 
> One of the things that I rarely see addressed is that most of the people that don't like save-or-die effects in previous editions don't have the same complaints about it in the PC's hands. A medusa turning someone into stone with a single failed save is wrong, but a first-level PC sorcerer with_ sleep_ or _color spray_ is fine and dandy? A wizard with _disintegrate_ is awesome, but a beholder with a _disintegrate_ eye ray is messed up? Nah, that pig won't fly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.




I agree that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But in case you didn't notice, PC SoD spells now use a hp threshold. IMO, the medusa should too.

As for players who only want SoD for themselves, that doesn't match my experience at all. In my groups, we tried SoD spells a few times and found them exceedingly anti-climactic. To the point where we avoided using them from thereon in. 

There's nothing quite like looking forward to an epic fight against a hated foe, only to have that taken away by a natural 1 on a Fortitude save in the first round. It's a real letdown. That applies both to PCs and monsters, in my experience.

Granted, I don't mind if SoD is used to clean up trash, so to speak. The current hp limit on sleep limits it's SoD aspect to that use. If half a dozen kobolds are put to sleep in the first round, fine. The party didn't have to waste time cutting through them. However, the same shouldn't apply to a PC or ogre, IMO, unless they've already taken a beating.


----------



## Sadras (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> [sblock=Medusa room]
> And why did her jailers let her keep it, instead taking it for themselves in the case the catch their captives eyes?




Maybe they did not frisk her, she is dangerous afterall - i mean she does have a head full of 'poisonous' snakes so who would want to get that close?


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> [sblock=Medusa room]
> And why did her jailers let her keep it, instead taking it for themselves in the case the catch their captives eyes? Also the creature is intelligent and tries to flee. What if the petrifies some and then succeeds getting away?
> [/sblock]



The adventure doesn't have an answer for that. I'd just say she hid it from them, although I certainly wouldn't argue with moving it to the high priest's quarters.

That gives some great roleplaying opportunities too (admittedly, not so much for the petrified players, although in my game I'd cheerfully petrify one then let them play the medusa until they're back). "I want revenge and you want your friend back. Together we can kill him and meet both our goals, etc. etc."

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> There's nothing quite like looking forward to an epic fight against a hated foe, only to have that taken away by a natural 1 on a Fortitude save in the first round. It's a real letdown. That applies both to PCs and monsters, in my experience.




I like an action point or hero point system for this. Spend one and re-roll. Or add a modifier prior to the roll to further enhance you chance of making the save. By putting this "safety net" to really bad rolls via an action point or hero point system the rest of the rules can be less complex and do away with scaling or trying to remember how many hit points one needs to be below to suffer which effect.

Get the final fight and and roll a 1? Spend your action point and move on. It helps avoid the letdown experience without adding complexity of variable conditions to the spells.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 25, 2012)

I'm at two minds.

This is an iconic power for a medusa.

Save or suck/die's well...suck.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, no it didn't. What it did was make the odds fairly predictable - 1 in 8 without any modifications. You still have SoD, it's just that the odds are quite a bit more in favour of the PC's and the PC's gained the opportunity to stop the process by killing the Medusa.




Uhm, if there's a chance to "stop it" beyond one save... it isn't SoD is it??


----------



## Ravenheart87 (May 25, 2012)

Are people really that afraid of facing challenging enemies? It's not a goblin that you're going to face in every corner. It's a medusa, a rare and deadly monster. She's not supposed to be player friendly. You can be careful or bold and face the consequences - or you can use your mind and come up with some strategy to avoid the penalties. Poilish your shield, use a mirror, put a bag on her head and so on.

In my campaign the adventurers faced a cockatrice a few months ago. It was a random encounter, they surprised the monster, yet they were stupid enough to attack and anger it. The gnome magic user turned to stone. We had a good laugh about the ideas how to use the statue, the gnome's player rolled a new character, and now the party has a new quest too: to find someone who can cast stone to flesh.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> The 4e Medusa was one of the few creatures in 4e that had a save or die mechanic. The fact that it had two saves really doesn't make any difference, other than *give the players a change to react.*




Emphasis mine... that is the difference.



vagabundo said:


> 4e mostly ditched SOD it was the better for it.




4e mostly ditched SoD... the game was worse for it. See how easy it is to state opinion as fact and not back it up with any evidence. 





vagabundo said:


> I don't agree that 4e disregarded the DND mythology for the Medusa and it is certainly as close to the myth as the rest of DND. The mechanic was redone as it was a different ruleset.




Only it's not... the original myths don't have people slowing down but still able to act. You either are turned to stone or not. Where D&D's mythology diverged was the way in which the medusa's gaze could be countered... however it was in all editions (except 4e) and mythology a one chance thing. 



vagabundo said:


> I'm sure some do like save of die effects, but many do not. I personally do not like them as one save or die. I do like if there is a chance for some player intervention, having had a player panic because his character was slowly turning to stone was great fun.




Hey I have no problem with your preferences, and I've already stated that my players didn't have this reaction of panic in 4e at all with MSoD (Multiple Save or Die). What I have a problem with is stating your preferences like they are objectively better for all.




vagabundo said:


> "works for the game" comment is about finding an approach in 5e that helps bridge the gap for different playstyles. Saying that the Medusa in DND needs SOD because that's the way it worked in myth is just silly.




I'm saying that's the way it worked in myth and in D&D (except 4e). Again 4e is the outlier here... not every other edition and myth.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Ravenheart87 said:


> Are people really that afraid of facing challenging enemies? It's not a goblin that you're going to face in every corner. It's a medusa, a rare and deadly monster. She's not supposed to be player friendly. You can be careful or bold and face the consequences - or you can use your mind and come up with some strategy to avoid the penalties. Poilish your shield, use a mirror, put a bag on her head and so on.
> 
> In my campaign the adventurers faced a cockatrice a few months ago. It was a random encounter, they surprised the monster, yet they were stupid enough to attack and anger it. The gnome magic user turned to stone. We had a good laugh about the ideas how to use the statue, the gnome's player rolled a new character, and now the party has a new quest too: to find someone who can cast stone to flesh.




Personally, it's that I find nothing challenging about random rolls, though I wouldn't be surprised if others felt the same way. 

A challenging foe has an interesting set of abilities that encourages the players to think outside the box in defeating it. SoD just encourages the players to roll well. IMO, rolling well isn't a skill.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 25, 2012)

Traken said:


> Take any person who hasn't played D&D yet is at least familiar with some Greek mythology (hell, _Percy and the Lightning Theif_ counts).  Tell them they are standing in front of a Medusa.



They'l presumably say "_*A*_ medusa? Medusa is the proper name for one of the gorgons, you fool! Don't you know anything about Greek mythology?"

It's almost as if myth and D&D can be similar, but are not identical.



Fanaelialae said:


> IME, this is the kind of gotcha play that engenders ultra-paranoid players who bog down play by insisting on thoroughly checking every five foot square for traps before moving forward.



Agreed. Game mechanics that reward this sort of character behaviour should be excised.



ferratus said:


> If the medusa is supposed to be the same thing as in the original myth, and have a save or die petrifying attack, I want the gods to personally help me to defeat her by giving me their godly powerful magic items.



Hah. Indeed.



vagabundo said:


> It was still save or die in 4e, you just got two chances to save.



I liked the idea in 4E, but don't think it was executed very well. Being surprised and blowing a save is no fun, and since we're playing a game for fun, I expect to be able to have fun, most of the time.

But in 4E it was too easy to get bonuses to saves. You needed to fail two or three saves to get the big nasty effect, which I think is fine in concept, but it was too easy to make those saves very high-percentage rolls. I ran a game from 1st to 24th level, and I don't think one character ever suffered an ultimate bad effect like this, because they always had their saves buffed and never failed the last one.

There should have been a feeling of danger, but the odds were set too low to really feel it. I would have preferred something in between 3E's chances and 4E's chances.



Sadras said:


> Exactly, 4E fixed nothing for Medusa's. If they had made those effects (slow, restrained) take effect automatically in those rounds without any saves, until the last round where the character rolled 1 save or turn to stone, it would have been much more interesting.
> Might not have solved the entire problem, but it would have made the Medusa and creatures like the Beholder much more lethal and exciting.



Indeed. I think this would have been a better execution.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Are you aware of the scenario that's presented in the playtest module? That's not the kind of situation that I would expect to need recon or Charm Person.




Really?

The set up is that she's pretending to be a normal prisoner so that she can then get freed and also petrify a few PC's for fun.

Presumably, the cultists know what she is, and thus recon is key: hearing them talk about "that _thing_ the boss has tied up in back" isn't an option? The party has to go through waves of acolytes and the dark priest himself to get there and no one thought to take prisoners?

Then, the party lays eyes on her, and they don't get a chance to see through her bluffs and lies and see what she truly is?

The moment she DOES try to petrify a PC (which is only a DC 12), the combat just becomes "fighting with disadvantage" until the medusa escapes or is slain.

Not to mention the initial warning in big bold letters right at the beginning of the adventure that if the PC's are not careful they will get pwned? 



> IME, this is the kind of gotcha play that engenders ultra-paranoid players who bog down play by insisting on thoroughly checking every five foot square for traps before moving forward. They take absurd precautions in everything they do, because they feel the DM is out to get them (which, given the scenario, I'd say is true because it makes little sense - why didn't they at least place a bag over her head).




She's back in a locked chamber. I don't really think it's an area of high traffic. There's nothing saying where the key to the chamber is, so she might not even be the prisoner of the cultists who are there now. 

I don't get the "gotcha" argument. An adventurer is you, and you are in a world of danger and monsters. If you walk through every door with your guns blazing, bad things happen. 

This isn't a "screw you!" moment, it's a "be careful" moment. It preserves the possibility of character death and the challenge of playing a game. It only goes very badly for the PC's if they fail to detect her lies, fail to do any recon, fail all of their saves, and also let her escape.

Run it. I bet most players do _just fine_.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Personally, it's that I find nothing challenging about random rolls, though I wouldn't be surprised if others felt the same way.
> 
> A challenging foe has an interesting set of abilities that encourages the players to think outside the box in defeating it. SoD just encourages the players to roll well. IMO, rolling well isn't a skill.




Hmmm, I think a SoD enemy (when used correctly) promotes strategic challenges in preperation and thinking outside the box. In most SoD situations you want to eliminate or minimize the chance that you will even have to roll the die. 

You seem to be equating "challenging" with "tactically challenging". I think that's a mistake because not everyone who plays is looking for (or even enjoys) a tactical challenge. This is, IMO, a very 4e mindset.


----------



## Ravenheart87 (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, I think a SoD enemy (when used correctly) promotes startegic challenges in preperation and thinking outside the box. In most SoD situations you want to eliminate or minimize the chance that you will even have to roll the die.
> 
> You seem to be equating "challenging" with "tactically challenging". I think that's a mistake because not everyone who plays is looking for (or even enjoys) a tactical challenge. This is, IMO, a very 4e mindset.




My thoughts exactly. Avoiding the SoD is part of the challenge and thinking outside the box. Plus an adventurer should know (or learn) when to fight, when to avoid an encounter and when to flee. You don't have to fight every monster in your way - it's a waste of time and resources.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Really?
> 
> The set up is that she's pretending to be a normal prisoner so that she can then get freed and also petrify a few PC's for fun.
> 
> ...




It's set up to throw the PCs off guard by appearing to be a rescue the prisoner scenario.

It's exactly the sort of thing that makes players suspicious of every single NPC they interact with. I've had DMs that tried to screw us with 90% of the "harmless" or "benevolent" PCs that we met. I have no wish to impart such paranoia upon my players. I've always found that sort of thing to be of great detriment to the game.

Granted, I have wolves in sheeps clothing, but they're the exception rather than the rule. As in, not much more than once or twice in an entire campaign. This encounter would be a complete waste of that.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2012)

Game of Thrones is the hottest thing in books and movies right now. 

Didn't you get the memo? People actually ENJOY trying to figure out who they can trust and who they can't. 

And since there is no skill list with sense motive on it to "trick" players into thinking that its the only way to find out if someone is lying... the possibilities of how to decide if someone is trustworthy are endless.


----------



## jshaft37 (May 25, 2012)

Maybe I'm the only one who got excited for the Roleplay opportunities with the way the Medusa was presented?

At first she tries to convince the PCs to let her free by posing as a damsel in distress.  If she needs to up the ante, she can petrify a PC or two to try to force their hand to free her.  She's bound to the wall, so she can't do much in the way of attacking and petrifying all the PCs won't get her down either  This isn't really a combat challenge at all, its roleplaying.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> It's set up to throw the PCs off guard by appearing to be a rescue the prisoner scenario.




Yep, a classic... and a little cliched at this point, but I don't see how this in any way makes it inherently wrong or bad.



Fanaelialae said:


> It's exactly the sort of thing that makes players suspicious of every single NPC they interact with. I've had DMs that tried to screw us with 90% of the "harmless" or "benevolent" PCs that we met. I have no wish to impart such paranoia upon my players. I've always found that sort of thing to be of great detriment to the game.




I'm really lost as to how this one encounter with one NPC can be equated to... "90% of the "harmless" or "benevolent" PC's that a party will meet in their entire adventuring career."



Fanaelialae said:


> Granted, I have wolves in sheeps clothing, but they're the exception rather than the rule. As in, not much more than once or twice in an entire campaign. This encounter would be a complete waste of that.




Hmmm, so it's not that you disagree with this type of encounter... this particular one is just a complete waste of a "wolf in sheeps clothing" type encounter... so what would be a few examples of the type that wouldn't "waste" this type of encounter.  I'd be particularly interested in some examples that fit a sandbox style game.


----------



## rjdafoe (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Read page 27 of the Caves and you'll understand what we're talking about here. The above does not fit the scenario at all.




Uhhhh,

Let me remind everyone here that this is a play test.  It is designed to test the capabilities of the party, the monsters and the rules.  It is more than likely that this was setup that way on purpose as a way to specifically test mechanics.  And the potion is there so the play test will continue.

The mechanics are fine as written.  You cannot look at this play test adventure of what things should be like or are default.  I has a specific purpose and I think that scenario is perfect for a play test.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 25, 2012)

Although I tend to prefer SoD Medusae, here's a good counter-example.

In the Shackled City path (3.5), there's an encounter late in the game where (iirc) four crystal pillars suddenly explode as the party passes, releasing four Medusa Assassins within melee distance of the party.

That's not exactly a "care and tactics" use of the monster there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> It's set up to throw the PCs off guard by appearing to be a rescue the prisoner scenario.




Right.

That's part of what is great about it.

It rewards inventive thinking. It challenges the party to be on guard for danger even when it is not obvious that danger is around. It creates thusly a player-psychology experience of risk, excitement, and tension. As Michael Bay will tell you, this is good stuff for fun times having.



> It's exactly the sort of thing that makes players suspicious of every single NPC they interact with. I've had DMs that tried to screw us with 90% of the "harmless" or "benevolent" PCs that we met. I have no wish to impart such paranoia upon my players. I've always found that sort of thing to be of great detriment to the game.




Run it. See what happens. 



> Granted, I have wolves in sheeps clothing, but they're the exception rather than the rule. As in, not much more than once or twice in an entire campaign. This encounter would be a complete waste of that.




Run it. See what happens.


----------



## Ravenheart87 (May 25, 2012)

jshaft37 said:


> Maybe I'm the only one who got excited for the Roleplay opportunities with the way the Medusa was presented?




No, but it seems some people can't see that, because they are busy being disappointed by the fact, that their poor Mary Sue characters might be threatened in the dark dungeon by challenges they can't overcome only with tactical movement and optimized damage output. Kids, the Caves of Chaos isn't meant to be a place for picnic. 

Heck, I'm beginning to sound like a grognard...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 25, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> I liked the idea in 4E, but don't think it was executed very well. But in 4E it was too easy to get bonuses to saves. You needed to fail two or three saves to get the big nasty effect, which I think is fine in concept, but it was too easy to make those saves very high-percentage rolls. I ran a game from 1st to 24th level, and I don't think one character ever suffered an ultimate bad effect like this, because they always had their saves buffed and never failed the last one.




I agree, partially, as this depends on party make-up. My real issue was that you had to fail 2-3 saves in a row. One successful save started you back at the beginning again. Now, 2-3 saves non-consecutively might be a good compromise. I would definitely enjoy that more than either the 4E approach or prior edition approaches. Even if it were a "lessening the impact of Save or Die Effects" sidebar in the Medusa entry.

Then again, I would probably change averting your eyes to Advantage on your save instead of avoiding the save entirely, in addition to the disadvantage to attack, and advantage when attacked.


----------



## 1Mac (May 25, 2012)

So how do the PCs know to avert their gaze?


----------



## Grazzt (May 25, 2012)

1Mac said:


> So how do the PCs know to avert their gaze?




if the funky snake hairdo doesn't give it away, I'd guess when you see the first party member turn to stone, then you'll know.... "Don't look!"


----------



## Wulfgar76 (May 25, 2012)

For a medusa to feel like a medusa, it needs a scary permanent petrification effect - for me.

That said, I don't like one-bad-roll SoD effects. They are boring, frustrating and suck the fun right out of the game with one random dice roll. I'd like to see one more "layer of insulation" to avoid being turned to stone:

1. You are subject to the Medusa's gaze, either on your turn or the Medusa's. You fail your Con Save and begin turning to stone. You grow slower and attack with less effectiveness as your skin turns to cracked gray stone, you have have precious seconds before you become a permanent stone statue.

2. It's now your turn, you've failed the initial save and you are rapidly turning to stone. You have one round to do something about it. You might dig for a potion to stop the petrification process, call for help from an ally, or at least get in one good final attack before you turn to stone. 

3. At the end of your turn you roll _a second_ Con save. If you fail, you permanently turn to stone.  If you pass, your physical determination, and good luck, has fought off the petrification - at least for now. As the battle continues there's always the chance you might meet the medusa's gaze again, starting the process anew.

_Save or Die_ is still boring and always will be. In my opinion, _SaveTwice or Die_ is a much more balanced and exciting way of handling this type of mechanic.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Ravenheart87 said:


> No, but it seems some people can't see that, because they are busy being disappointed by the fact, that their poor Mary Sue characters might be threatened in the dark dungeon by challenges they can't overcome only with tactical movement and optimized damage output. Kids, the Caves of Chaos isn't meant to be a place for picnic.
> 
> Heck, I'm beginning to sound like a grognard...




It has nothing to do with Mary Sue characters. I'm perfectly happy to kill characters, and to have my characters die. The difference is that SoD often creates unfair kills unless used with GREAT care. I'm perfectly happy to kill the PCs, but I don't like to feel like I'm being cheap, and SoD typically feels that way.

I can drop a mountain on the players. I can even only do so under one particular circumstance, in the spirit of "fairness". That doesn't make it good for the game.

I'd be fine with guidelines for creating special monsters and traps that are instant kill. I'd just rather those be the exception than the rule. You can easily make the 4e Medusa deadlier by just skipping the extra saves. Very simple, just ignore some text. Adding those saves in takes significantly more work.


----------



## Talath (May 25, 2012)

Small steel mirror: 10 g.p.
Petrifying a medusa: priceless

I mean really, it writes itself.


----------



## 1Mac (May 25, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> if the funky snake hairdo doesn't give it away, I'd guess when you see the first party member turn to stone, then you'll know.... "Don't look!"



Ah, but you only can come to that conclusion because you, the player, know about the Medusa from mythology. I'm asking how the characters would know. How would they know that snaky hair = turn-you-into-stone? There's absolutely no connection. How would they know that their fellow party members are petrifying because of the medusa's gaze, especially since by the rules, someone looking at the medusa from behind would also risk turning into stone?

Think of it this way: say there's a monster in Next that is very similar to the medusa, only instead of looking like a snake-haired woman, it's a three-legged labradoodle, and instead of turning you to stone by looking at you, it turns you to tapioca if you have more than one leg on the ground. How would the PCs know to start hopping around on one foot before most of the party turns into rice pudding?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2012)

1Mac said:
			
		

> I'm asking how the characters would know. How would they know that snaky hair = turn-you-into-stone?




Skills.

The wizard has Forbidden, Magical, Natural, and Religious Lore from being a Sage.

The rogue has Folklore from being a Commoner. 

The cleric of Moradin has Heraldic and Religious Lore from being a Knight.

The cleric of Pelor has Religious Lore and Wilderness Lore and Insight from being a Priest.

Even Muscles the fighter might be able to use Perception or Survival to get to the conclusion. 

It's still player-driven. The DM might say, "The prisoner gazes intently at Bill. Bill, make a Constitution save." The players then would probably get that it came from the gaze, and perhaps describe, "I attack her, but I don't want to look into her eyes."

Alternately, the player might say, "How did she do that?!", and the DM could tell them to make a check. The fighter's player might say, "I'm going to use Perception to see if I noticed anything magical about the effect," and if they make it, the DM could say, "You saw a green fire in the creature's eyes."

Or something.


----------



## CM (May 25, 2012)

I have to say, putting a potion on the medusa to reverse its petrification is pretty weak.

*The best argument for multiple saves vs. petrification:*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv13oTULTI4]MLP: Fluttershy vs. Cockatrice (Original Scene) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

1Mac said:


> Think of it this way: say there's a monster in Next that is very similar to the medusa, only instead of looking like a snake-haired woman, it's a three-legged labradoodle, and instead of turning you to stone by looking at you, it turns you to tapioca if you have more than one leg on the ground. How would the PCs know to start hopping around on one foot before most of the party turns into rice pudding?



The medusa isn't grounded in real world mythology by accident. It was chosen in the days of yore specifically because of it's mythological connections, because the players would know what it was, be appropriately freaked out and know the tools required to handle the job.

It's like D&D vampires. Sure, you can pretend that you don't know they're vulnerable to sunlight and wooden stakes, but the reason they're _there _is because you know those things, so the game can play with those tropes at a visceral level without resorting to a metagame tool like an Intelligence check.

Which, by the way, is how it would have to handle your labradoodle. Have everyone roll an intelligence check when they hear its trademark baying (do labradoodles bay?). The scholar will probably get to add one of his or her skills. I'm betting tapioca labradoodles are Forbidden Lore, but that's just me.

And if they don't figure it out, things go real bad real fast. Which, if you're introducing that monster, was obviously the intent. Unlike the medusa, who's whole point is plugging into real world mythology so your players know what you're up against.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## 1Mac (May 25, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's still player-driven. The DM might say, "The prisoner gazes intently at Bill. Bill, make a Constitution save." The players then would probably get that it came from the gaze, and perhaps describe, "I attack her, but I don't want to look into her eyes."



For what it's worth, it doesn't work that way by the rules, which state that anyone looking at the medusa must make a save against petrification, regardless of whether she's looking back. That could easily be changed, though, and doesn't really affect anyone's argument.



Kinak said:


> The medusa isn't grounded in real world mythology by accident. It was chosen in the days of yore specifically because of it's mythological connections, because the players would know what it was, be appropriately freaked out and know the tools required to handle the job.



I was trying to remove the variable of player familiarity with the monster in question so that we could focus on the issue of whether save-or-die effects are desirable. It sounds like a lot of people are saying they are because they are iconic for certain familiar monsters, so I wanted to see if save-or-die was just as desirable for unfamiliar monsters. This also elides the whole player-knowledge-vs-character-knowledge issue, which is a whole other can of worms.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Alternately, the player might say, "How did she do that?!", and the DM could tell them to make a check. The fighter's player might say, "I'm going to use Perception to see if I noticed anything magical about the effect," and if they make it, the DM could say, "You saw a green fire in the creature's eyes."





Kinak said:


> Which, by the way, is how it would have to handle your labradoodle. Have everyone roll an intelligence check when they hear its trademark baying (do labradoodles bay?). The scholar will probably get to add one of his or her skills.



That's okay, though I have a few objections. KM, you say skill-checks are still player-directed, but this gets into mother-may-I territory pretty quickly. How hard should the check be? Depends on how easily the GM wants his players to find out how to beat the monster. That's true of checking to learn about other monster powers as well, of course, except in this case, understanding how to evade petrification is essential to beating the monster. That's not strategic gaming: that's hoping your knowledge check is as high as the GM would like it to be.

There's also the not-insignificant matter that before any of these checks are possible, someone has to turn into stone (or custard), unless the GM makes everyone roll for knowledge ahead of time like Kinak suggests, in which case we're back to the ease of the encounter being determined by the GM's whimsy.


----------



## Starman (May 25, 2012)

The whole argument of SoD mechanics is one reason I really like action points (ala [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Trailblazer-New-Horizons-3-5-Roleplaying/dp/1449503608"]Trailblazer[/ame]). It gives you another way to ratchet up tension (using up your APs) and gives players a chance to avoid/mitigate bad rolls.


----------



## Derren (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> It's set up to throw the PCs off guard by appearing to be a rescue the prisoner scenario.





Hmmm...
Is it possible that WotC tries to manipulate the opinion of SoDs by specifically put such a scenario in the playtest because they didn't want to include them anyway and just want to make people like that decision more?


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Starman said:


> The whole argument of SoD mechanics is one reason I really like action points (ala Trailblazer). It gives you another way to ratchet up tension (using up your APs) and gives players a chance to avoid/mitigate bad rolls.




Exactly. Trying to craft spells, special abilities and such in a manner that keeps anyone from being victim of a bad roll leads to complex and cumbersome rules. Build the spells and special abilities the way that make the most sense and let an action point mechanic help alleviate a really poor roll at a really inopportune time.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> I wouldn't call it cool and scary and would call her having the potion stupid.




Tell Gary Gygax that:



			
				Original B2: Keep on the Borderlands (1981) said:
			
		

> Not being above such things, the cleric had plans for removing its snakes, blinding it, and then eventually sacrificing it at a special rite to a demon. The medusa will spare one or two of the adventurers from her gaze, promising them she has magic which will turn their companions back to flesh again, if they will free her from her chains. She does, in fact, have a special elixir*, a potion of* stone to flesh* in a small vial, enough liquid to turn six persons, who have been turned to stone, back to normal, but she does not intend to give it away. If freed she will attempt to “stone” her rescuers.


----------



## LostSoul (May 25, 2012)

[sblock=Spoilers for B2]The old B/X medusa had one attack - for 1d6 + poison (save vs. Poison or die in _one turn_).  If you avert your eyes, she gets a bonus of +2 to her "to hit" rolls.  That means she's hitting AC 0 on a 14.

I don't have the module any more, but I think that there was a scroll of stone to flesh there.[/sblock]

I am interested to see how people run this encounter: will some DMs have the medusa grab someone's face and _force_ them to meet her gaze?  Do you have to make a save if you attack from behind?  Will some DMs just roll with the encounter being advantage medusa vs. disadvantage PCs?  How will DMs determine if the PCs are "surprised" or not?



1Mac said:


> That's okay, though I have a few objections. KM, you say skill-checks are still player-directed, but this gets into mother-may-I territory pretty quickly. How hard should the check be? Depends on how easily the GM wants his players to find out how to beat the monster.




That's only true if the DM ignores how to set DCs.  DCs are supposed to be set based on the task's difficulty (DM Guidelines, page 2).  If you ignore that, then I can see the game turning into mother-may-I play in some cases.


----------



## Gothikaiju (May 25, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> Game of Thrones is the hottest thing in books and movies right now.
> 
> Didn't you get the memo? People actually ENJOY trying to figure out who they can trust and who they can't.
> 
> And since there is no skill list with sense motive on it to "trick" players into thinking that its the only way to find out if someone is lying... the possibilities of how to decide if someone is trustworthy are endless.




Well, not everyone. 

Off-topic:

I recently played a session in a new 4e Eberron campaign that, earlier, had seemed like it would have Firefly-like heists and runnin' from the law.

I show up and find out that it is instead supposedly more like Game of Thrones(which I have never seen), and I effectively quit this new campaign of my gaming group when, long story short, the only way to not be killed by our druglord master was to kill a bystander to ANOTHER crime that had inadvertently resulted in the death of an innocent.

So, please, keep Game of Thrones away from my D&D.


----------



## Someone (May 25, 2012)

I can live with a creature with a powerful SoD effect like the medusa as written if that creature is understood and used more as a trap than a regular combat encounter. The whole point of the creature is the "qvert your eyes" part, and once you do that the combat becomes trivial since everyone will be using the disadvantage option. 

The two interesting parts of the encounter hinges on the possibility of the players not realizing it's a medusa and the single round they look directly at her, and perhaps if they concoct some clever idea to even the odds, like using a mirror or blow powdered pepper to the medusa's face's general direction. This mirrors what makes a trap interesting, realizing that it's there and the plan to avoid or disarm it.

That said, I wouldn't place this kind of SoD creature without a way for the players to know beforehand to be careful _without_ metagaming, the same way I won't go "Rocks fall! everyone save or die!" on my players, simply because I want my players to be clever and attentive to what I say and not instead to develop a Standard Dungeonnering Procedure involving prodding everything with 10 foot poles and assuming every creature is hostile unless proven otherwise.


----------



## Kinak (May 25, 2012)

1Mac said:


> I was trying to remove the variable of player familiarity with the monster in question so that we could focus on the issue of whether save-or-die effects are desirable. It sounds like a lot of people are saying they are because they are iconic for certain familiar monsters, so I wanted to see if save-or-die was just as desirable for unfamiliar monsters. This also elides the whole player-knowledge-vs-character-knowledge issue, which is a whole other can of worms.



I don't think they're separable in this case. The monster (and encounter) are designed assuming that you know how to avoid the save or die effect, so any comparable encounter would require the players finding out about the effect beforehand.

The petrification on surprise thing can be bad if the DM is out to kill the party but, frankly, we don't need any help in that regard. That said, if my group went into a known medusa's lair without taking precautions, I'd probably petrify a couple in the surprise round and not feel the least bit bad.

But if the choice is whether to have save or die effects that you can avoid by modifying your tactics, I'd say absolutely yes. Old school save or die on hit poisons don't do a lot for me, but they're also not in the rules, so I'd say I'm on the same page with them there.



1Mac said:


> There's also the not-insignificant matter that before any of these checks are possible, someone has to turn into stone (or custard), unless the GM makes everyone roll for knowledge ahead of time like Kinak suggests, in which case we're back to the ease of the encounter being determined by the GM's whimsy.



As I mentioned above, the GM doesn't need any help killing characters. The ease of _every _encounter is at the GM's whimsy, regardless of what edition you're running.

You can have them make an Int check, give them a clue, wait for them to  request information about the monster, or just have them start making saves. You could also fill a room with save-or-die poison gas without any hints or rolls to notice it. And if that's the kind of game you enjoy, go for it. 

I personally enjoy games where the players are strategic and cautious. That's not for everyone, by any means, but a monster that says "think ahead or start making death saves" is a good start. I'm also a fan of overlevel encounters that need to be avoided or planned for.

Now I have to put in clues, but I consider that my job. Some DMs will just kill the party, others will spell out the situation, and yet more won't use monsters like that at all. I think that's awesome.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Only it's not... the original myths don't have people slowing down but still able to act. You either are turned to stone* or not*. Where D&D's mythology diverged was the way in which the medusa's gaze could be countered... however it was in all editions (except 4e) and mythology a one chance thing.




Not so. The gaze turned you to stone. DND's addition was that it could be resisted. Typically this was one die roll. 4e introduced another die roll the next round. DND medusa's are only vaguly based on the mythology. 

I'd have a lot more respect for this argument if the DND Medusa was a unique creature (or set of creatures) that was cursed by the Gods and turned people to stone without any save. You look; you're stone. 

Changing the turning-to-stone mechanic to stretch it out over an extra round is not as big leap as putting the mechanic there in the first place. 



> Hey I have no problem with your preferences, and I've already stated that my players didn't have this reaction of panic in 4e at all with MSoD (Multiple Save or Die). What I have a problem with is stating your preferences like they are objectively better for all.




I never said it was better. I said that "if" it was better for the game. Of course, it is my preference to have SOD mostly gone from the game, but I can work around them if I need too by introducing house rules. 



> I'm saying that's the way it worked in myth and in D&D (except 4e). Again 4e is the outlier here... not every other edition and myth.




Again not true. DND, in any edition, doesn't really correspond with the myth. 

I don't see such a huge change in the mechanic from previous edition to 4e either, but that's just my opinion not a fact.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Tell Gary Gygax that:



I would, if I could. But I also believe in evolution of adventure design and learning from old mistakes.

---

BTW, it makes no sense for the mirror trick to work in D&D. The Medusa is not a unique creature like in the myth, but a race. I would expect an immunity to medusa gaze attacks for all medusas, or there wouldn't be a working society. There is also nothing that says it would work in the rules.
I really hope NEXT isn't the edition of handwaving. I like the Living Worlds game concept with using the same characters with multiple DMs. A change of how nearly everything works for the same character after playing in another DM's game is not an exiting thought.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> I don't see such a huge change in the mechanic from previous edition to 4e either, but that's just my opinion not a fact.




If, IYO, it's not a huge change why are you complaining about it returning to one save?


----------



## Melkor (May 25, 2012)

I really like the way the Medusa is written up in the playtest.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Derren said:


> Hmmm...
> Is it possible that WotC tries to manipulate the opinion of SoDs by specifically put such a scenario in the playtest because they didn't want to include them anyway and just want to make people like that decision more?




Case in point - see how this style of play engenders paranoia? 

In all seriousness though, that doesn't seem to be the case Derren; as someone pointed out earlier, this encounter is from the original Keep on the Borderlands.


----------



## Derren (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Case in point - see how this style of play engenders paranoia?
> 
> In all seriousness though, that doesn't seem to be the case Derren; as someone pointed out earlier, this encounter is from the original Keep on the Borderlands.




Well, that doesn't have to mean anything. 

"Hey guys, we are putting back the old design on traps into the game. Can you play this modified classic module and tell us if thats Ok or if we should use the 4E design?"
Hands you Tomb of Horrors.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Yep, a classic... and a little cliched at this point, but I don't see how this in any way makes it inherently wrong or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's the gotcha style of DMing that SoD engenders that I object to. I'm sure that there are plenty of DMs who understand how to use SoD properly, but I've seen quite a few who did not (especially true of new DMs, who may or may not learn better).

I never said that every DM does that, which seems to me what you're implying. However, it can help to encourage an atmosphere of paranoia. IME, paranoia bogs play down, as players spend hours trying to plan for every contingency the DM might throw at them. Or it leads to SOP, where they slather on Death Wards and keep their wands of Stone to Flesh close at hand, thereby rendering any real risk from the encounter null and void. It's not the style of play I like.

I prefer tension to paranoia. In that sense, most of the rest of the caves is good (although a tad underdeveloped for my tastes). There are a lot of creatures in the caves, and the players stand no real chance if they manage to alert more than one or two groups to their whereabouts. That creates tension and risk, because runners become a high priority target (as they'll no doubt bring more of their kind).

I never waste a wolf in sheep's clothing on a throwaway encounter. When I use one, it's an NPC who I intend to use repeatedly. There will be multiple opportunities to discover the NPC's treachery, and he'll do more harm than simply turning them to stone (and then turning them back via the contrivance he carries). Using it on a throwaway encounter such as this one is a waste and worse, because it shows that the DM is willing to use gotcha throwaway encounters. Those encounters, in turn, will engender an atmosphere of paranoia in the players.

Like I said elsewhere, I have no issue with SoD being an option. However, I'd very much like to see an hp threshold or even SoSoD option in the MM. The simplest way that I can see is to put the rules in there and then tell DMs that they can ignore them if they want a deadlier game (preferably with advice for doing it the right way).

The problem is that, despite all the foreshadowing wisdom, it doesn't necessarily work. In the scenario, there are no statues to warn the players. Sure, the DM might drop hints via the cultists, but some DMs might not realize they should while other DMs might forget to do so. I've seen wandering monster tables in modules that included SoD monsters, while 3.x had dragons on the tables (a creature that was underrated for it's CR on purpose, because the designers assumed that players would knowingly be hunting the dragon). 

My point is that it's not always so cut and dry. Make SoD creatures that default to a power level where it's fair and reasonable to drop them on any wandering monster table. Then, if the DM wants to use them as a set piece, give advice for making them deadlier.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

We played ToH with 3.5 rules. It was a depressing slow crawl with rolling a check for every inch of stone. An in the end my character died.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Derren said:


> Well, that doesn't have to mean anything.
> 
> "Hey guys, we are putting back the old design on traps into the game. Can you play this modified classic module and tell us if thats Ok or if we should use the 4E design?"
> Hands you Tomb of Horrors.




Keep on the Borderlands is not comparable to Tomb of Horrors. Not by a long shot.

I think it likelier that they intended to put in a mitigating mechanic and just didn't get to it. After all, several approaches have been thrown around in this thread alone, so it may be that they weren't able to settle on an approach and went with the default. They did state that monster design is still a work in progress. However, the topic was brought up and since it's something that I feel quite strongly about, I felt like sharing my opinion.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 25, 2012)

1Mac said:
			
		

> That's okay, though I have a few objections. KM, you say skill-checks are still player-directed, but this gets into mother-may-I territory pretty quickly. How hard should the check be? Depends on how easily the GM wants his players to find out how to beat the monster. That's true of checking to learn about other monster powers as well, of course, except in this case, understanding how to evade petrification is essential to beating the monster. That's not strategic gaming: that's hoping your knowledge check is as high as the GM would like it to be.
> 
> There's also the not-insignificant matter that before any of these checks are possible, someone has to turn into stone (or custard), unless the GM makes everyone roll for knowledge ahead of time like Kinak suggests, in which case we're back to the ease of the encounter being determined by the GM's whimsy.




I agree that it's not really the most....mmm...intuitive way to handle things. I'd prefer if the stat block of the Medusa helped DMs better determine when a player might be subject gaze and what "averting the eyes" entails. That's something I think is useful for the monster's entry (or even just generally, as many monsters have gaze attacks, and they should probably all work similarly).


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> We played ToH with 3.5 rules. It was a depressing slow crawl with rolling a check for every inch of stone. An in the end my character died.




We played ToH with 3.5 rules and it was awesome! Our group had a good time with it and it was very, very deadly. 

Sometimes it isn't the rules that are the issue it is the style of the DM of the game. Or even the group that plays the game. These things can't be fixed by the rules.


----------



## ferratus (May 25, 2012)

I'm always baffled when people argue that save or die in previous editions is more faithful to the myth than save or die in 4e.   The 4e version of petrification simply means the petrification takes 18 seconds.  That's it.  You cannot tell me that the myth is so precise to say that it was instantaneous death, like a fish being flash frozen.   The myth simply says that when you look at a medusa, you turn to stone.  As someone pointed out, the novelty is allowing the save in the first place. 

But really, I still don't understand why poison, petrification and curses are instantaneous death, but falling from a great height, a knife to the head, and electrocution are handled through hit points.    If you are struck by lightning, it is certainly a crap shoot whether you will survive the experience or not, but a lightning bolt or call lightning spell doesn't make you do a save or die saving throw like finger of death or disintegration do.

Lethal poisons are quite obviously better handled through hp loss rather than save or die because no poisons act instantly.   Instead poisons cause their victim to become progressively weaker, a process that takes a few minutes to a few weeks, until they die.    Ongoing hp damage is the one that obviously offers greater sense of realism and verisimilitude, and it is only the gamist desire of the DM to see his player sweat over a single roll that justifies it.

Yeah, I'll say it.   Save or Die is gamist, because it is absolutely arbitrary as to what goes under the hit point system and what goes under save or die.   There is no reason why ongoing hp damage can't represent petrification, with being brought to 0hp being the petrified state.   There is no reason why the gaze attack of a medusa can't be a contest of wills between the medusa and the party, with the party losing hp as they fall under the gaze attack.   In fact, it would be a better model, since you don't have the problem of the medusa's gaze coming to nothing, and have the party laughing at it, if they happen to fluke succeed on all their saving throws.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 25, 2012)

I play D&D mostly as a PbP. My RL group prefers other games. In PbP any old school paranoid inch by inch exploration is bad IMHO.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> We played ToH with 3.5 rules and it was awesome! Our group had a good time with it and it was very, very deadly.
> 
> Sometimes it isn't the rules that are the issue it is the style of the DM of the game. Or even the group that plays the game. These things can't be fixed by the rules.




I agree, it won't help in the case of DMs who enjoy killing players. That's a style issue. Either the players enjoy meatgrinders / gritty games or they don't.

However, I think that neglects the newbie DM who simply doesn't know better. He may see a medusa and think "Cool!", not realizing until after the TPK that he may have done something undesirable.

Also, it neglects groups that want to use iconic creatures with SoD abilities, but don't want to make their campaigns gritty. I don't mind PC death, but I hate high PC turnover. It screws with campaign continuity fiercely. I've played in quite a few campaigns where none of original characters survived through level 5, and the campaigns typically fell apart shortly thereafter.

In the latter two cases, putting some "training wheels" on SoD creatures (with the option to remove them) could significantly affect a campaign. The newbie is far less likely to accidentally derail his campaign, and I can run a campaign in my style, while Imaro takes the training wheels off and runs his games hardcore.

As a side note, I don't really care for the idea of action points or reroll points. They have a cascade effect throughout the entire system, and you can't ever be reasonably sure how many a player will have when he meets a SoD effect. Players in a campaign with regular SoD may be forced to horde them for these occasions, while players in a campaign without SoD may be able to spend their points as they will, creating a disparity in ease between the two.


----------



## IronWolf (May 25, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> I play D&D mostly as a PbP. My RL group prefers other games. In PbP any old school paranoid inch by inch exploration is bad IMHO.




Oh I agree. That would not be a lot of fun.

I still think this is less a result of the rules and more dependent on the style of game the DM runs. I am confident I could run ToH in PbP format and not have it turn into a paranoid, inch by inch, mind-numbing exploration.


----------



## vagabundo (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> If, IYO, it's not a huge change why are you complaining about it returning to one save?




Just because I think that they are similar doesn't mean I don't think 4e got it more right - the devils in the details. Or that I'm a fan of SOD at all. I don't like everything in 4e.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 25, 2012)

Love it, no more child-saftey/kiddie versions of D&D (all round edges, don't worry, sport...).


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> However, I think that neglects the newbie DM who simply doesn't know better. He may see a medusa and think "Cool!", not realizing until after the TPK that he may have done something undesirable.




You know, again, I think this falls under the realm of good encounter design. IMO, a newbie DM needs good encounter design advice moreso than restrictive mechanics. If the DM is educated on usage, ramifications, etc. of certain monster types (like SoD monsters) then we won't have the problem you cite in the above post. A DM can choose whether to use, not use or houserule the SoD creature. What I don't agree with is taking them out the game because a particular subgroup doesn't like their mechanics (Though IMO, this would have been where the 4e multiple monster setup could have really shined and accomodated different playstyles).



Fanaelialae said:


> Also, it neglects groups that want to use iconic creatures with SoD abilities, but don't want to make their campaigns gritty. I don't mind PC death, but I hate high PC turnover. It screws with campaign continuity fiercely. I've played in quite a few campaigns where none of original characters survived through level 5, and the campaigns typically fell apart shortly thereafter.




See above but yeah, I think the multiple but same monster format could have easily solved this problem... but the 4e design team decided not to go that route.



Fanaelialae said:


> In the latter two cases, putting some "training wheels" on SoD creatures (with the option to remove them) could significantly affect a campaign. The newbie is far less likely to accidentally derail his campaign, and I can run a campaign in my style, while Imaro takes the training wheels off and runs his games hardcore.




I'd have no problem if they took this route, maybe a high fantasy,in-between fantasy(default) and gritty sword and sorcery version of each monster to accomodate the different playstyles.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 25, 2012)

Imaro said:


> You know, again, I think this falls under the realm of good encounter design. IMO, a newbie DM needs good encounter design advice moreso than restrictive mechanics. If the DM is educated on usage, ramifications, etc. of certain monster types (like SoD monsters) then we won't have the problem you cite in the above post. A DM can choose whether to use, not use or houserule the SoD creature. What I don't agree with is taking them out the game because a particular subgroup doesn't like their mechanics (Though IMO, this would have been where the 4e multiple monster setup could have really shined and accomodated different playstyles).




I agree that good encounter design advice is crucial. I don't consider it to be sufficient though. After all, I still recall when I was a kid teaching myself D&D, when I'd peruse sections of the books that I found interesting and ignore the rest. Magic items garnered a great deal of my interest in those days; encounter design advice, not so much.

Once I was a bit older and got around to reading the guidelines in the DMG (and even moreso, advice on ENWorld) I definitely agree that I became a better DM for it. A new DM will most likely read the rules (or, at the very least, the rules he's most likely to need) but there's no guarantee he'll do so with sections of advice.


----------



## Libramarian (May 25, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> That's only true if the DM ignores how to set  DCs.  DCs are supposed to be set based on the task's difficulty (DM  Guidelines, page 2).  If you ignore that, then I can see the game  turning into mother-may-I play in some cases.



Thank you, yes. If the DM ignores how to set DCs, then pg. 42 in 4e also becomes "mother may I" play. If you can't trust your DM to follow the rules, then you shouldn't play with them.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I agree that good encounter design advice is crucial. I don't consider it to be sufficient though. After all, I still recall when I was a kid teaching myself D&D, when I'd peruse sections of the books that I found interesting and ignore the rest. Magic items garnered a great deal of my interest in those days; encounter design advice, not so much.
> 
> Once I was a bit older and got around to reading the guidelines in the DMG (and even moreso, advice on ENWorld) I definitely agree that I became a better DM for it. A new DM will most likely read the rules (or, at the very least, the rules he's most likely to need) but there's no guarantee he'll do so with sections of advice.




See I don't think I can get down with this... it seems to imply that since a subset of DM's won't read the books thoroughly, but also want to run the game correctly, then we should remove anything that might be challenging (and possibly interesting) for all DM's to use.  I honestly believe that if you don't read the books thoroughly then you've made a conscious choice to figure it out on your own (which honestly can be a whole different type of fun if everyone is down for it) and thus yes, you will get TPK's, Monty Haul campaigns, etc.   But that's your choice.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2012)

The issue I've always had with SoD effects, particularly area of effect ones, is that they are far more deadly than the difficulty of the creature warrants.  Say Ms Medusa gets surprise - that's about a 50/50 chance of a PC being turned to stone.  5 PC's=very, very close to 100% of at least one PC dying.

It screws very hard with encounter design.  The encounter goes from "Somewhat challenging" - the PC's avert their gaze and the Medusa gains a bit of bonuses - to "instantly lethal" - the PC's are surprised and everyone is caught in the effect.

Granted, this IS better than the 3e design where averting your gaze didn't automatically negate saving throws, granted 50% miss chances (thus making the encounter last twice as long) AND the medusa could force a saving throw  once per round in any case.

See, I look at it like this.  If you created a monster that did your HP+10 (or whatever the death threshold is for your system) on a successful hit, what would you peg the CR of that creature?  Why is that different than area of effect save or die effects?  The odds of killing a PC are pretty darn close.

And, as far as the whole Player Paranoia issue goes, I can totally see this.  If you start pulling this sort of thing with NPC's, very, very quickly, your group will never take prisoners, will kill first and ask questions later, and can turtle up.  It's no different than random traps in a dungeon.  Sure, you only have three traps in the whole dungeon, but, the players have to treat every situation as trapped.  So, they go through the whole routine of checking, poking, prodding, whatever, every single time.  They have to, because they don't know where the traps are.

It really fosters a very specific playstyle.  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but, if you don't actually WANT that playstyle, then it can be a bad thing.


----------



## Warbringer (May 26, 2012)

I agree with hussar that ultimately, why I have no problem with SOD, it should be reflected in the end game potential .... Otherwise, a DC  15 trap that does  3d6 damage and one that does 30 d6 damage are the same challenge.

It's not just the difficulty, it's the outcome .... So double or triple xp on SOD abilities please


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 26, 2012)

Imaro said:


> See I don't think I can get down with this... it seems to imply that since a subset of DM's won't read the books thoroughly, but also want to run the game correctly, then we should remove anything that might be challenging (and possibly interesting) for all DM's to use.  I honestly believe that if you don't read the books thoroughly then you've made a conscious choice to figure it out on your own (which honestly can be a whole different type of fun if everyone is down for it) and thus yes, you will get TPK's, Monty Haul campaigns, etc.   But that's your choice.




It's not merely for that though. I simply said that, at least in this particular case, it would also help with that. As I said before, adding "training wheels" to SoD effects (with the option to remove them) would allow me to run my style of campaign with a far greater degree of freedom than most editions of D&D have afforded me.

I'll grant you, you can't make D&D foolproof, and if you could it probably wouldn't be a game you or I would want to play. That said, I think that creating safety nets wherever reasonable is a good thing.

For example, they might include an optional wealth guideline table, that explains if you have X wealth your PCs are Y levels more powerful than the baseline. DMs are free to ignore it, but those that want or need the guideline will have it.

Sure, you can give advice on distributing loot on top of that, but don't believe that voids the usefulness of a wealth table.


----------



## chaochou (May 26, 2012)

Melkor said:


> I really like the way the Medusa is written up in the playtest.




I agree. I don't have the original KotB anymore and didn't even remember a medusa in it, but this particular encounter is written with a little more sophistication than '_There are 4 gobins in this room. They attack_.'

What I see there is an opportunity to break away from killing things and taking their stuff. It's chained to the wall, for pete's sake. Shadowy thing with writhing hair in a cell? As a player I'd be pretty disappointed to get turned to stone, or even 'surprised', in that situation. I'd be thinking - 'Yeah, I'll set you free, snake-hair woman - in that cave full of orcs.'

As for Save or Die more generally, I would have liked to see some sort of HP cap mechanic. Without that I'd like them used judiciously. To get dramatic tension out of that mechanic, the effects must be forseeable and obvious, either through cultural awareness (medusa) or some kind of foreshadowing  (petrified warriors in battle pose) - both is perfect.

So I'd have no problem with a dragon's breath weapon, for example, being a hit roll and then save (for full damage, say) or die. Dragon's breath being, in terms of legend, about as insta-death as you can get.

But 'Here's a random thing to fight. Make an INT check. Okay, you know it's a cockatrice' doesn't do it for me. Context is everything, imo.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2012)

This seems like a well-written, if soft, ability. No problems here.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 26, 2012)

For those who hate the depetrify potion, just change it that the blood of a medusa can undo the stoning effect (common knowledge in Dnd world). That way you get your potions effect without the weird flavor.

I'm personally fine with the scary stoning effect with the ability to avert your eyes. I think the surprise factor might be too strong though.


----------



## Flobby (May 26, 2012)

Oops nevermind...


----------



## Mircoles (May 26, 2012)

I definitely  prefer the 4e method. It's more of a nail biter and won't cause a one round tpk.

The medusa in the Caves of Chaos encounter definitely has great potential for a one round tpk. 

As for the vial of depetrification, the medusa is female and does have a place to hide a small vial. A place hard to check with a bunch of irritated snakes trying to bite your eyeballs out.


----------



## vagabundo (May 26, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> For those who hate the depetrify potion, just change it that the blood of a medusa can undo the stoning effect (common knowledge in Dnd world). That way you get your potions effect without the weird flavor.




In myth the blood from the left side was said to be able to bring back the dead and the blood from the right side was said to be a deadly poison.

Or maybe that was the other way around. lol that's a deadly mistake.



> I'm personally fine with the scary stoning effect with the ability to avert your eyes. I think the surprise factor might be too strong though.




And medusas should be able to get surprise most of the time. Unless the PC's are going to pepper every lone female with arrows at one hundred paces.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 26, 2012)

But in 4e there you can´t just avert the eyes.

Clever play should be rewarded. And stupid play should be punished. I could live with a "warning round"

like first safe: paralyzed
second round: petrified

and then someone disrupting your eaye contact allowing for a new save...


----------



## vagabundo (May 26, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> But in 4e there you can´t just avert the eyes.
> 
> Clever play should be rewarded. And stupid play should be punished. I could live with a "warning round"
> 
> ...




I could live with that. It would make for a nice encounter, especially if she had some Grimlock buddies to add to the mix.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 26, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> But in 4e there you can´t just avert the eyes.
> 
> Clever play should be rewarded. And stupid play should be punished. I could live with a "warning round"
> 
> ...



What clever play? Averting your eyes is the no-brainer. If there is only one reasonable reaction, it hasn't anything to do with cleverness.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 26, 2012)

Yeah, but not beeing able to do anything is bad game design.

Also players who never played could figure out that it has something to do with looking in their eyes and avert them.

I especially like the 3 possibilities against medusa in 3.x:

look, avert, close eyes.

With different risks and penalties.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> For those who hate the depetrify potion, just change it that the blood of a medusa can undo the stoning effect (common knowledge in Dnd world). That way you get your potions effect without the weird flavor.
> 
> I'm personally fine with the scary stoning effect with the ability to avert your eyes. I think the surprise factor might be too strong though.




Now this is a very cool idea.  Loads of flavour.  Yoink.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 26, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> What clever play? Averting your eyes is the no-brainer. If there is only one reasonable reaction, it hasn't anything to do with cleverness.



Agreed. Using a mirror is similarly not clever, it's de rigueur.

Knowing the trick to defeat a particular monster is not "clever", a I understand the word.


----------



## ferratus (May 26, 2012)

I also don't mind save or die so much if the DM gives appropriate warnings to the creature.  For example, when rolling a cockatrice on a random encounter table during a D&D basic game, I let the party see the lizard-chicken chase a rabbit out of the bushes and petrify it.  The party still attacked the creature anyway (being PC's) but I didn't feel guilty about petrifying someone.   I certainly didn't feel guilty about doing it the second time (after a few rounds of failing to petrify people because of saving throws).

If there is plenty of warning, or save or die monsters are infamous enough that they don't show up with suprise attacks (the great and terrible medusa lairs here, watch out!) then the mechanic is certainly easier to swallow.

Otherwise the game's expectations should be tempered so that the point of the game is to defeat a dungeon, not have a long term character arc or goals.   Tomb of Horrors is not a dungeon that you put in the middle of a long-running plot heavy campaign (sorry Ari, but your Tomb of Horrors super adventure is fundamentally flawed in concept).   I would much rather have save or die monsters be on a dial of lethality, with the monsters and spells that do this in a "tomb of horrors" module.  

Barring that, I would at least like for those types of save or die abilities to be clearly marked as being disruptive to long-term plot heavy campaigns.   A lot of DM's simply don't realize that they have to completely rewrite their campaigns when a few bad save or die rolls kill half the party.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> For those who hate the depetrify potion, just change it that the blood of a medusa can undo the stoning effect (common knowledge in Dnd world). That way you get your potions effect without the weird flavor.




That's like the basilisk in Pathfinder. They ease up the petrification powers from relatively weak and low CR with the CR 3 cockatrice through the CR 5 basilisk up to the CR 7 medusa. 

I'm kind of liking the averting eye = taking disadvantage and not having an ongoing chance to look at the medusa. It's simpler than most previous editions.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 26, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Are you aware of the scenario that's presented in the playtest module? That's not the kind of situation that I would expect to need recon or Charm Person.
> 
> IME, this is the kind of gotcha play that engenders ultra-paranoid players who bog down play by insisting on thoroughly checking every five foot square for traps before moving forward. They take absurd precautions in everything they do, because they feel the DM is out to get them (which, given the scenario, I'd say is true because it makes little sense - why didn't they at least place a bag over her head).
> 
> I've been in those kinds of games in the past, but I found them tedious and they're not the type of game I like to run.




So then, isn't the solution just to not use Medusae, and similar creatures in that way, in your game? Personally, I don't think I've every put a Medusa in one of my adventures.

I mean, we're confronted with a conflict between two play styles in a system that's trying to be as inclusive as possible. If the system excludes all SoS-ness, then that playstyle is excluded. If the system includes SoS critters, then SoS-averse games can simply avoid using those creatures, and thus both playstyles are still available. Seems that leans toward SoS effects being in/default, IMO.

Now, its also possible that later playtests will allow or encourage us to experiment with variations on the SoS theme. I can easily envision a situation where the DMG has a chapter on changing the way saves work so that SoS-averse games can have their Medusa and kill it, too.

Its just too early in the process to get too excited about anything.


----------



## 1Mac (May 26, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> That's only true if the DM ignores how to set DCs.  DCs are supposed to be set based on the task's difficulty (DM Guidelines, page 2).  If you ignore that, then I can see the game turning into mother-may-I play in some cases.



I don't think they mitigate mother-may-I at all in this case. How does the GM determine whether the level of expertise required to know how to defeat a medusa is "moderate" or "advanced", "extreme" or "master"? Nothing in the guidelines say how to do that, so it's entirely up to the GM to determine how esoteric that knowledge is.

For the record, I have no problem with pg-42-style GM empowerment. Such empowerment is necessary for a roleplaying game to function. I do have a problem with a single check with arbitrary difficulty determining whether an encounter is fairly easy or certainly lethal, with no in-between.


----------



## BryonD (May 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Which in no way actually represents the mythical medusa.  We've had this argument over and over and over again (where's [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] when you need him?) for the past two years.  The D&D medusa has NEVER been, "See it and turn to stone".  Not in any edition of D&D.  Why would it be so now?
> 
> With the save DC that low, we're talking about a 50/50 chance of very low level characters being able to see the Medusa and not turn to stone.



Hi there.
Not around much lately.  Good chance that will be the trend we will see....


Anyway, just for the record....  

BS!!!

There has NEVER (pre-4E) been anything close to an overt implication that you could so much as GLANCE at Medusa and actually SEE her and do anything less than instantly turn to stone.  Period.

I *WILL* concede that the rules took for granted the idea that the players got the premise of Medusa and don't bother to explain the obvious.  This opens up the door to ignoring the obvious.  And thus the rules do permit pointless interpretations.  

It is fundamental that the versions of the game have always allowed for fate to allow a character to escape a pending fate.  Saving throws allow for this in a simple and functional manner.  Allowing a saving throw when faced with a threat of "seeing" Medusa is completely reasonable.  To then turn around and force the implication that Medusa was seen but the effect was shrugged off is reading outside of the actual text and throwing away common sense to boot.  Pre-4E I never had a conversation that even approached this concept.  Post 4E with its kid gloves approach, it is uncommon, but not even rare, much less unheard of.  Which is just one more grain of sand on the scale of complaints against 4E.

Yes, you can corrupt the reading of the rules and the game will function quite nicely with Medusa staring contests.  The idea that this was remotely intended in absurd.  If Pre-4E D&D had been played this way AND that mentality was built into the mechanics throughout the game system then pre-4E D&D would have been significantly less popular than it was.

If future editions of D&D elect to cling to this mentality, that same weight will undermine them.  I have no doubt there will be a niche that won't LOVE it that way.  But that process will never achieve going back to being the gold standard of RPGs.

IMO.


----------



## Sanglorian (May 26, 2012)

BryonD said:


> It is fundamental that the versions of the game have always allowed for fate to allow a character to escape a pending fate.  Saving throws allow for this in a simple and functional manner.  Allowing a saving throw when faced with a threat of "seeing" Medusa is completely reasonable.  *To then turn around and force the implication that Medusa was seen but the effect was shrugged off is reading outside of the actual text and throwing away common sense to boot.*  Pre-4E I never had a conversation that even approached this concept.  Post 4E with its kid gloves approach, it is uncommon, but not even rare, much less unheard of.  Which is just one more grain of sand on the scale of complaints against 4E.



 (emphasis added)

In 3E at least, the saving throw to avoid petrification is a Fortitude one—the save used to resist physical effects on the body. When two people meet a medusa's gaze, the tougher one is more likely to resist being turned to stone.

How could that effect be anything other than people seeing the medusa and the effect being shrugged off? It might not be spelled out, but it doesn't have to be—we know how Fortitude saves work in other circumstances.


----------



## LostSoul (May 27, 2012)

1Mac said:


> I don't think they mitigate mother-may-I at all in this case. How does the GM determine whether the level of expertise required to know how to defeat a medusa is "moderate" or "advanced", "extreme" or "master"? Nothing in the guidelines say how to do that, so it's entirely up to the GM to determine how esoteric that knowledge is.




I think we might have two different versions of what mother-may-I means. 

I imagine the player saying something like, "I've got some Folklore; do I recognize what this thing is?"  At that point the DM has to make a judgement call.

If the DM's judgement call is based on his relationship with the player, how the player asked, if the player promised to buy him a beer after the game, etc., instead of how the DM envisions his campaign world, then I think you could describe that as mother-may-I.

If the DM's judgement call is based on how esoteric the knowledge is - so he can point to a DC - the DM is making a setting-design decision.  I don't think it's mother-may-I because his decision isn't related to the player's statement (except that the player's statement has forced him to make that call).

I think the advice in the booklets points to the latter option.


----------



## 1Mac (May 27, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> If the DM's judgement call is based on his relationship with the player, how the player asked, if the player promised to buy him a beer after the game, etc., instead of how the DM envisions his campaign world, then I think you could describe that as mother-may-I.
> 
> If the DM's judgement call is based on how esoteric the knowledge is - so he can point to a DC - the DM is making a setting-design decision.  I don't think it's mother-may-I because his decision isn't related to the player's statement (except that the player's statement has forced him to make that call).
> 
> I think the advice in the booklets points to the latter option.



I never thought of mother-may-I as having anything to do with GM favoritism. The former is certainly more arbitrary, but what I'm saying is that even the latter doesn't actually give any guidelines for how esoteric this knowledge is. I don't want to quote the sections in question so as not to violate the EULA of the playtest, but the definition of, say, an "Advanced" difficulty is essentially tautological, meaning it's entirely up to the GM to decide how difficult the task is.

Again, I don't have a problem with that in general, but not when it comes to a single life-or-death check.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 27, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Yeah, I'll say it.   Save or Die is gamist, because it is absolutely arbitrary as to what goes under the hit point system and what goes under save or die.   There is no reason why ongoing hp damage can't represent petrification, with being brought to 0hp being the petrified state.   There is no reason why the gaze attack of a medusa can't be a contest of wills between the medusa and the party, with the party losing hp as they fall under the gaze attack.   In fact, it would be a better model, since you don't have the problem of the medusa's gaze coming to nothing, and have the party laughing at it, if they happen to fluke succeed on all their saving throws.




Yup.

Those who are concerned about a possible loss of a proper SoD roll are ignoring the fact that if I make my save I get to walk up to her and attempt to plant my dagger exactly between her eyes.  The D&D Medusa in play in every edition has never closely resembled the Medusa of myth, because in most editions there are zero consequences for those who happen to have good dice (so far).  In fact, IME some PCs in higher level play would outright taunt these things, because they are only failing on a 1 or 2.  Is that the awesome "authentic" Medusa we are trying to honor?

An obnoxious tactical penalty is a better result for a standard beast IMO, because at least it make some sense to simply say "I catch a glimpse of her asps and I put my gaze towards her feet just in time.  Now I am not fighting my best I cannot look properly at my enemy."

SoD was originally a quick and dirty mechanic for deciding when a "unit" was sufficiently disrupted to be ineffective for the remainder of our mass battle on hand.  Whether the unit was truly dead was not something gamers at the table usually thought so much about.  Do you track your losses over the course of a game of Risk?  We care who wins the battle, right?  

If we keep in mind that units were originally 20 or 100 men, then handling these things sort of how many other mass battle system handle Morale Checks is a "good enough" mechanic.  It became ackward when 1 unit = 1 man.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 27, 2012)

Well, you turn to stone, you turn to stone, it's not like kinda pregnant.


----------



## LostSoul (May 27, 2012)

1Mac said:


> I never thought of mother-may-I as having anything to do with GM favoritism.




I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.



1Mac said:


> The former is certainly more arbitrary, but what I'm saying is that even the latter doesn't actually give any guidelines for how esoteric this knowledge is.




Yeah, I agree with that.  I'm not sure I would like a standard 3E/4E "monster lore" check; I'd rather they used the AD&D stat (frequency?).  There isn't anything information in the Bestiary to aid the DM in making that call.


----------



## Valetudo (May 27, 2012)

One way to fix medusa is she can only stone one opponent. Say 2 party members are suprised, she has to pick which one she uses her gaze on.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Hi there.
> Not around much lately.  Good chance that will be the trend we will see....
> 
> 
> ...




Funny how "corrupt the reading" means "Read the rules and look at what they say".  How many times do you have to be shown that you are wrong before you'll let this go?  I mean, we actually quoted just about EVERY single edition of the game at you and you are not right.  Not even once.  In no edition of the game are you correct.

I mean, what exactly does "Save vs Turn to Stone" mean to you?


----------



## Walking Dad (May 27, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree with that.  I'm not sure I would like a standard 3E/4E "monster lore" check; I'd rather they used the AD&D stat (frequency?).  There isn't anything information in the Bestiary to aid the DM in making that call.



Perhaps and own "notoriety" entry with the skill DC? I hate 3e making it harder to know more about monsters the stronger they were.
("the rare blue skinned kobold? I now everything about them, but what is a common stone giant?")


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 27, 2012)

Averting your gaze meant being Blind to a creature. You showed your Rear Face and were choosing not to look at the creature you might hear coming up from behind. No saves were needed however against Medusae.

Fighting a Medusa meant a Saving Throw every round you did not turn a blind face. Making the save meant you managed to not make eye contact.

Purposefully choosing to look at one eye-to-eye meant deliberately failing the save.

Enemies like Thieves could sneak up on a Medusa from its Rear Face without needing to make a save.

I don't have a problem with with what they did here. They just didn't include facing or sight lines.


----------



## variant (May 27, 2012)

As a DM, if a rogue said they wanted to sneak up on the medusa from behind, I'd let them. Naturally, if they want to be completely aware of their surroundings, they would need to risk her hearing him and looking at him if he fails a stealth roll. Otherwise, he would have to take a disadvantage on his stealth rolls while sneaking up.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Averting your gaze meant being Blind to a creature. You showed your Rear Face and were choosing not to look at the creature you might hear coming up from behind. No saves were needed however against Medusae.
> 
> Fighting a Medusa meant a Saving Throw every round you did not turn a blind face. Making the save meant you managed to not make eye contact.
> 
> ...




What game are you talking about here.  Because from AD&D forward, this is not true.  Is this an OD&D thing?


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 27, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What game are you talking about here.  Because from AD&D forward, this is not true.  Is this an OD&D thing?



Maybe it's not true you for you? Reread the MM '77, it's in there with some of what I said from the DMG on combat. The MM was designed for OD&D & AD&D.


----------



## Sanglorian (May 27, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Well, you turn to stone, you turn to stone, it's not like kinda pregnant.




Why couldn't you partially turn to stone or slowly turn to stone? Your fingers turn cold and unresponsive, locking around whatever you're holding, but your heart's still beating and you can still swing your arms. Your body stiffens as your joints harden, but with difficulty you can hobble away from the beast. 

You're either pregnant or you're not, but the baby doesn't pop out at the moment of conception.


----------



## grimslade (May 27, 2012)

I think this is going beyond play test into the realm of game design. I do not see a problem with both Save or Die or Save, Save Again, Save or Die living side by side. They actually play well together.
The dis/advantage system makes the S,SA,SoD a much more deadly proposition than it was in 4E. The sliding scale is another thing to track during combat, but it is a small thing.

The Surprise! You're stone. effect is the price of being an uninformed third party assaulting humanoid settlements.


----------



## avin (May 27, 2012)

*The Medusa* should petrify on sight.

DMs who dislike that mechanic could easily avoid to put that kind of monster in game or just use lesser versions of the creature... but THE Medusa should kill on sight.


----------



## billd91 (May 27, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.




Favoritism? That's not really the gist of Mother May I. It's about more about arbitrary authority.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Maybe it's not true you for you? Reread the MM '77, it's in there with some of what I said from the DMG on combat. The MM was designed for OD&D & AD&D.




Could you post the relevant sections from the DMG?  Because the MM doesn't say what you think it says.

And again, what do you think Save vs Petrification actually means?  Because it doesn't mean, "I look away in time" because the same save is used against a cockatrice.

Hey, I realize that people like this house rule, but, it's not what the rules say and claiming that 4e suddenly made big changes is not true.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 28, 2012)

Did anyone else happen to notice the "0 hp = suck" rules?

It's either avoid reaching 0 hp or you're knocked out of the combat. "0 hp = suck" ruined more than a few games for me in the past. Having this stupidity brought back is not a good thing. In fact, it irritates me more than vancian being brought back.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> Did anyone else happen to notice the "0 hp = suck" rules?
> 
> It's either avoid reaching 0 hp or you're knocked out of the combat. "0 hp = suck" ruined more than a few games for me in the past. Having this stupidity brought back is not a good thing. In fact, it irritates me more than vancian being brought back.




I don't understand. Can you elaborate? (On the "0 hp = suck" part and the "ruined games for me" part)

It does remind me of a point I've been thinking of for a while: What if SoD effects didn't kill you, but just dropped you to 0 hp? "Save or 'dying'"?


----------



## Ratskinner (May 28, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.




I don't think so. I believe "Mother may I?" refers to the sometimes high-handed authority wielded by early-edition DMs. Mostly this happened because DMs had to fill in a lot more blanks than in recent editions. When combined with an antagonistic attitude, this lead to a situation where the PCs could do virtually nothing without the DM's express permission. It is seen as part of the bad half of "DM empowerment". People who experienced particularly atrocious incidents of it are likely to not have fond memories of early editions.

As D&D evolved, starting in 3e and culminating in 4e. Players and PCs were given increasingly defined capabilities. So, for instance, its possible in 4e for a combat to resolve without a player ever asking the DM "can I do X?" or "can I reach Y with this spell?" I know because I've DM'ed several that way. This is highly unlikely to occur in older editions, both because of "Theatre of the Mind" issues _and_ because doing something fancy like...pushing an enemy back with your attack _required _the DM to adjudicate how that happened. 

This looseness or incompleteness in the rules is why there are such varied experiences with older editions. Some people felt that fighter only got to say "I attack", while others felt that they did all sorts of cool things...and the truth is both are right, because it was campaign/DM dependent. (Although, I must say, despite all the griping around here about how weak and boring and horrible fighters were before 4e came and rescued them from obscurity...I _never_ had trouble finding people to play fighters or their close kin.) 

Now, 4e did offer a solution to the "Mother May I?" DM smothering the players' creativity. However, that cure seems to have been worse than the disease. Given some of the things my local 4e haters have said, this was a big part of why 4e "didn't feel like D&D" for them. Additionally, by defining every PCs abilities so rigidly, they also rather rigidly defined playstyle. I know that this is a spot of some contention, so I'll just say that I, personally, had a lot of trouble adapting 4e to fit a less "gonzo magic" playstyle. 

How this will play out in 5e is rather up in the air, of course. Personally, I think they just need to focus on better DMing advice and guidelines. Early editions tended to have an attitude that lead to DMs cackling from behind the screen at the exquisite tortures they had devised for the players. While this may have been a misinterpretation of "Gygaxian" play...I don't think its an irrational one. (see "Horrors, Tomb of") If they can more clearly define the DMs role as less of an adversary, and more of a...Director, writer, co-creator...whatever, this would go a long way, IMHO.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 28, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> I don't think so. I believe "Mother may I?" refers to the sometimes high-handed authority wielded by early-edition DMs.




The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.

It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.
> 
> It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.




Oh, I certainly tend to agree. I think it is the absolute core of all 4e's issues. However, I'm not trying to make war on 4e, just explain the nature and origin of the phrase.


----------



## CM (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.
> 
> It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.




Except 4e didn't do this. There's a whole damn table on suggested damage values and DCs for this sort of thing that the DM is free to use or ignore. Not every DM is a superman who always comes up with a fair DC and is consistent in rulings. We're human too, and taking some of the burden off our shoulders is welcome, in my opinion.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.
> 
> It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.




Not really though.  If you step away from D&D's incessant need to have a rule for everything and look at other systems you can see that you can have broad rules that cover large amounts of actions.  You can do all sorts of cool things without the DM having to ad hoc new rules every time.

"How do I jump over the pit" isn't really something that DM's need to be making up rules about.  Savage World's Rule of 3 for example, where, after mods, so long as you score 3, you succeed.  So, the Player says, "I want to jump over the pit" the DM says, "Strength check", Player rolls and succeeds or fails.

What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5 different tables.  Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check".  It makes organized play an absolute nightmare for one and for another, makes any discussion of the mechanics virtually impossible because everyone's playing a different game.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 28, 2012)

CM said:


> Except 4e didn't do this.




To clarify: I wasn't saying that 4E did. I was just commenting on the wider meme.



Hussar said:


> Not really though.  If you step away from  D&D's incessant need to have a rule for everything and look at other  systems you can see that you can have broad rules that cover large  amounts of actions.  You can do all sorts of cool things without the DM  having to ad hoc new rules every time.




Good rules support rulings. I agree with pretty much everything you said 100%.


----------



## pemerton (May 28, 2012)

LostSoul said:


> If the DM's judgement call is based on how esoteric the knowledge is - so he can point to a DC - the DM is making a setting-design decision.  I don't think it's mother-may-I because his decision isn't related to the player's statement (except that the player's statement has forced him to make that call).





LostSoul said:


> I'm not sure I would like a standard 3E/4E "monster lore" check; I'd rather they used the AD&D stat (frequency?).  There isn't anything information in the Bestiary to aid the DM in making that call.



"Mother may I?" is probably a bit of a rough-and-ready, flexible notion.

For me, the game veers into "Mother may I?" territory when the player has little or no information with which to frame his/her choices, and little or no resources to draw on, in respect of action resolution.

So if the GM is at large to set the DC, and the player can't learn what that DC is, or shape it, I start to get a "Mother may I?" vibe. It doesn't alleviate that vibe that the GM is not playing favourites, but is rather trying to be faithful to the game and setting. Because the GM's sense of faithfulness isn't something that the player has control over.

The opposite extreme from "Mother may I?" would be HeroQuest revised or 4e-style DC-setting - based on a pass/fail cycle in the first case, on level in the second case.

In the middle would be the rules providing the GM with guidance on how to turn the fiction into a DC, like your example of basing a Lore check on monster rarity.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

I just realized why I like more hard-coded rules than "DM arbitrary". I play PbP. Having to ask and wait for the DM's answer on most action is slowing down everything to a nightmarish crawl.
So, DM empowerment is great, if you play almost always with the same people in an environment that allows instant question-answer with your DM.

But I would like to see an alternative for other gaming styles, where many decisions are based on defined rules, so I can post the roll with the action I want to do, and not a question what I should roll first.



Hussar said:


> ...
> 
> What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5 different tables.  Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check".  It makes organized play an absolute nightmare for one and for another, makes any discussion of the mechanics virtually impossible because everyone's playing a different game.



I absolutely see this. And I think organized play is a think D&D Next should be able to support.


----------



## Sadras (May 28, 2012)

Medusa (petrification) reworked - proposal 1
Medusa can only target one victim a round.
Medusa can surprise as per 5E.
Victim reveives a saving throw versus Paralysis.

Saving Throw - Succeed: Victims takes 1d12 damage and is S_lowed_ till the end of his/her turn.

Saving Throw - Failed: Victim takes 2d12 damage an is _Paralyzed_, *cannot avert eyes *(transfixed). *Certain Death next round*, *unless* someone is able to *block the line of sight* between the Victim and the Medusa (tackling the Medusa and bringing her to the ground...etc)

Averting one's eyes in combat institutes Disadvantage/Advantage rules as per 5E.

Medusa (petrification) reworked - proposal 2
Medusa can only target one victim a round.
Medusa can surprise as per 5E.
Victim is automatically _Paralyzed_, takes 1d12 damage *and receives a saving throw on the next round*. *The Medusa need not maintain eye contact in the next round*, effects work naturally.

Saving Throw - Succeed: Victims takes 1d12 damage and is _Slowed_ till the end of his/her turn.

Saving Throw - Failed: Victim is Petrified.

Averting one's eyes in combat institutes Disadvantage/Advantage rules as per 5E.

Note: The damage die can vary depending on the challenge rating/HD of the Medusa.


----------



## IronWolf (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.
> 
> It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.




Excellent, someone that has summed up my thoughts without me typing paragraphs and paragraphs of post trying to arrive at that. If the rule system is codified to the degree there is no DM judgment then the DM can be replaced by a computer at that point.



CM said:


> Except 4e didn't do this. There's a whole damn table on suggested damage values and DCs for this sort of thing that the DM is free to use or ignore. Not every DM is a superman who always comes up with a fair DC and is consistent in rulings. We're human too, and taking some of the burden off our shoulders is welcome, in my opinion.




And the system before provided suggested DCs for many of the skills and appropriate DCs as well. It seems when one sees a table they read that as set in stone or have a hard time judging situations that aren't explicitly covered on the table.

To me the answer isn't more tables and charts that try to encompass all of the possible situations but doing a better job of letting players and GMs know these are guidelines and the DM will need to make judgment calls.



Hussar said:


> Not really though.  If you step away from D&D's incessant need to have a rule for everything and look at other systems you can see that you can have broad rules that cover large amounts of actions.  You can do all sorts of cool things without the DM having to ad hoc new rules every time.




I hate this need for a rule for everything, I much prefer the guideline style you describe below. I do feel this has been around since 3.x though.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> "How do I jump over the pit" isn't really something that DM's need to be making up rules about.  Savage World's Rule of 3 for example, where, after mods, so long as you score 3, you succeed.  So, the Player says, "I want to jump over the pit" the DM says, "Strength check", Player rolls and succeeds or fails.




Depending on system we have this with D&D as well and had it in 3.x as well. If I want to jump over a pit it would be jump check. Both player and DM should know the mechanic for many basic actions, though they won't necessarily know the DC.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5 different tables.  Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check".  It makes organized play an absolute nightmare for one and for another, makes any discussion of the mechanics virtually impossible because everyone's playing a different game.




Agreed - this does get out of control.



pemerton said:


> For me, the game veers into "Mother may I?" territory when the player has little or no information with which to frame his/her choices, and little or no resources to draw on, in respect of action resolution.




The rules of several editions provide guidelines for any number of situations that need resolved through a check. Rarely does a situation come up that we can't quickly agree on what kind of check something is. In some cases a player comes up with some really cool idea of something to do and suggests what they think the most appropriate check would be. The DM frequently says that sounds good and assigns an appropriate DC based on difficulty.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> So if the GM is at large to set the DC, and the player can't learn what that DC is, or shape it, I start to get a "Mother may I?" vibe. It doesn't alleviate that vibe that the GM is not playing favourites, but is rather trying to be faithful to the game and setting. Because the GM's sense of faithfulness isn't something that the player has control over.




I don't think the player should necessarily know the specific DC. If they want to make a jump they should know the approximate difficulty through description or the GM saying that jump looks possible but it would be difficult. The player can then decide whether they want to try the jump, knowing they have a chance, but not a guaranteed chance.

Plus, knowing the DC simply isn't possible as a book can't outline every possible scenario. There has to be room for judgment by the DM unless we really want 4 or 5 types of jumps with no modifiers for the difficulty on a windy, rainy day.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> In the middle would be the rules providing the GM with guidance on how to turn the fiction into a DC, like your example of basing a Lore check on monster rarity.




Yes - looks like we might actually be on the same page! I agree. Let's stop adding more and more tables and spend more time on guiding the DM on how to turn fiction into a DC which will hopefully result in more predictable results in the long run.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> ...
> Plus, knowing the DC simply isn't possible as a book can't outline every possible scenario. There has to be room for judgment by the DM unless we really want 4 or 5 types of jumps with no modifiers for the difficulty on a windy, rainy day.
> ...



All your samples should just cause Disadvantage and not modify the DC. The DC would just be set by the distance.

But wait, jumping distant is just determined by your run-up and Strength, without any roll at all.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2012)

Ironwolf, just pulling out this comment:



			
				IW said:
			
		

> Depending on system we have this with D&D as well and had it in 3.x as well. If I want to jump over a pit it would be jump check. Both player and DM should know the mechanic for many basic actions, though they won't necessarily know the DC.




But, that gets to my point about having a different rule for everything.  Why do we need a "jump check"?  Something that I think 5e is really pushing for is much broader apply-able (if that's a word - Firefox spellchecker seems to think so) simpler rules.  Instead of having a "jump" check and a "climb" check and a "swim" check, you simply have a "strength" check that covers everything strength related.

Which makes for a much better ruleset, IMO.  You have one rule that is broadly applicable.  It becomes pretty obvious most of the time which rule should be applied when something comes up that isn't quite covered - how do you rule "diving" in d20 for example?  Is it a swim or a Dex check?  Could be either or maybe something else.  

Makes the necessity to look up rules a lot less frequent if nothing else.


----------



## pemerton (May 28, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> knowing the DC simply isn't possible as a book can't outline every possible scenario. There has to be room for judgment by the DM unless we really want 4 or 5 types of jumps with no modifiers for the difficulty on a windy, rainy day.



Well, there is the approach that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described, by which DCs are set in accordance with a general formula. 4e uses a similar approach.

For a more simulationist approach to work, the target numbers need to be within a fairly tight band, so there's not too much room for discretion to operate.


----------



## IronWolf (May 28, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, that gets to my point about having a different rule for everything.  Why do we need a "jump check"?  Something that I think 5e is really pushing for is much broader apply-able (if that's a word - Firefox spellchecker seems to think so) simpler rules.  Instead of having a "jump" check and a "climb" check and a "swim" check, you simply have a "strength" check that covers everything strength related.
> 
> Which makes for a much better ruleset, IMO.  You have one rule that is broadly applicable.  It becomes pretty obvious most of the time which rule should be applied when something comes up that isn't quite covered - how do you rule "diving" in d20 for example?  Is it a swim or a Dex check?  Could be either or maybe something else.
> 
> Makes the necessity to look up rules a lot less frequent if nothing else.




I agree with you. I don't have any issue with the broader categories for checks. I used jump as an example, but I am good with making the category much larger. I am all for rules as guidelines and less straight jacket.


----------



## IronWolf (May 28, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> All your samples should just cause Disadvantage and not modify the DC. The DC would just be set by the distance.




Heh! I have to get used to that!



			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		

> But wait, jumping distant is just determined by your run-up and Strength, without any roll at all.




I drift towards DM judgment on this. Yes, the player now knows how far they can jump, but if there are conditions that make that particular jump more difficult or less of a given then I need a way to present a chance of failure.

Jumping across a 10' gap on a sunny, breezeless day is much different than making the same jump in a heavy thunderstorm at night.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> Did anyone else happen to notice the "0 hp = suck" rules?
> 
> It's either avoid reaching 0 hp or you're knocked out of the combat. "0 hp = suck" ruined more than a few games for me in the past.



I assume this is a facetious comment, trying to imply that those who don't like SoD effects can't handle not being able to win all the time? If not, please correct me, but that's the only reading I can arrive at.

Hit point loss is not binary - that's the difference, of course. You typically have decision points along the way. If you lose some HP, you have various ways you can deal with that, or you can choose to continue on without them. Strict SoD, on the other hand, is one roll and you're out, sometimes without warning.

That's the difference.


----------



## IronWolf (May 28, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Hit point loss is not binary - that's the difference, of course. You typically have decision points along the way. If you lose some HP, you have various ways you can deal with that, or you can choose to continue on without them. Strict SoD, on the other hand, is one roll and you're out, sometimes without warning.




I don't mind SoD in my games, though I do like for games that use SoD to have some form of action point or hero point mechanic. To me it offers the way out if the rolls are going really bad without having to tweak a lot of spells to "lighten" them up a bit. 

Of course a critter could still hit you with a couple SoD effects right away and deplete your action points, but sometimes the heroes just aren't meant to win.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 28, 2012)

*munches some more popcorn*

I look forward to the discussions of rust monsters and level-draining undead.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> ... level-draining undead.



permanent or temporary level drain?

And destroying the groups gear should be based on the story and the DM decision, not by a roll.


----------



## Sadras (May 28, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> And destroying the groups gear should be based on the story and the DM decision, not by a roll.




Why?

Raises fist and cries out at the sky "Damn you Olgar Shiverstone"


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Why?
> 
> Raises fist and cries out at the sky "Damn you Olgar Shiverstone"



Because he can plan the timing of his adventure. And how much treasure the PCs end u with after the adventure. Just going in, rust monster random encounter, main armor and weapon destroyed and the fighter will call it a day before the wizard can.


----------



## IronWolf (May 28, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> Because he can plan the timing of his adventure. And how much treasure the PCs end u with after the adventure. Just going in, rust monster random encounter, main armor and weapon destroyed and the fighter will call it a day before the wizard can.




A planned rust monster encounter would be fine though, right? You would just rather not see a rust monster as a random encounter?


----------



## Sadras (May 28, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> Because he can plan the timing of his adventure. And how much treasure the PCs end u with after the adventure.




That doesnt seem like a strong argument not to include the random element of equipment destruction by a die roll. What about "PC death" by random die roll, does that disturb your sense of DM planning and PC treasure-distribution balance or does that also have to be planned and part of a story?



> Just going in, rust monster random encounter, main armor and weapon destroyed and the fighter will call it a day before the wizard can.




So you believe in encounter balance and anything that upsets the apple cart like a _Rust Monster_ is a no-no? What if the _Rust Monster_ is not a random monster - but designed within adventure? Also its not always necessary to kill every beast a party sees. They could go around it; trick it; bar it from them; use fire to force it away; any other wonderful and creative methods to 'defeat' it, but to simply say no _Rust Monster_ because I want my fighter to not lose his sword, well then it seems you place greater value on the equipment than character/team roleplay and problem solving.


----------



## Imaro (May 28, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> permanent or temporary level drain?
> 
> And destroying the groups gear should be based on the story and the DM decision, not by a roll.








Walking Dad said:


> Because he can plan the timing of his adventure. And how much treasure the PCs end u with after the adventure. Just going in, rust monster random encounter, main armor and weapon destroyed and the fighter will call it a day before the wizard can.




Uhm... what about sandbox campaigns? You're assuming everyone uses and enjoys the same playstyle (pre-planned story) as you... you really shouldn't.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... what about sandbox campaigns? You're assuming everyone uses and enjoys the same playstyle (pre-planned story) as you... you really shouldn't.



And others shouldn't assume that everyone does sandbox style.

And yes, I dislike PCs dying by a random die roll. I play mostly PbP, which means the player is out of the game for a month at least, even if a new character is reintroduced at the earliest opportunity.
I also like to fit my games to the players backgrounds. With enough players gone, the story isn't going to work.
I always roll open and never fudge rolls, so I look for rules that also support my preferred style of play.


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

Sadras said:


> ...
> 
> So you believe in encounter balance and anything that upsets the apple cart like a _Rust Monster_ is a no-no? What if the _Rust Monster_ is not a random monster - but designed within adventure? Also its not always necessary to kill every beast a party sees. They could go around it; trick it; bar it from them; use fire to force it away; any other wonderful and creative methods to 'defeat' it, but to simply say no _Rust Monster_ because I want my fighter to not lose his sword, well then it seems you place greater value on the equipment than character/team roleplay and problem solving.



???
my fighter? I'm the DM. And your last sentence is a bit insulting to quite a big portion of players, judging by the fact that the recent D&D variants (Pathfinder & 4e) both reduced the instant item destruction and were not selling all bad.
And yes, rustmonsters potentially destroy the pace of an adventure with one bad roll. You cannot plan before how much and what equipment is destroyed. Saw a dwarf paladin (3e) pummeled to death after insisting to continue exploration after loosing his plate.

No save or suck = not valuing roleplay and problem solving is a strange equation.

You know what the most common wonderful solutions I saw in actual play against rustmonster? Wizards blocking the way raining down spells, monk hand chops and beating it to death with a club after a strip. Not very creative...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 28, 2012)

So every mechanic should have a "save" mechanism (as in save the game, revert to previous save point, not saving throw) rather than being irreversible?  Why not just rule out death and risk entirely?  Monsters can just hand over their treasure as soon as the characters kick in the door, instead.

I'm not saying make save or die, level loss, equipment destruction, turning to stone, etc the norm.  But I see nothing wrong with those mechanics for isolated cases.  There should be challenges which cause both players and characters alike to wet themselves.  Particularly since death in D&D isn't particularly final; something should be.  Might as well be a rust monster using the paladin's _holy avenger_ as an afternoon snack.

Well, except for falling in lava.  You do that and you die, no save.

Good popcorn, by the way.  Want some?


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> So every mechanic should have a "save" mechanism (as in save the game, revert to previous save point, not saving throw) rather than being irreversible?  Why not just rule out death and risk entirely?  Monsters can just hand over their treasure as soon as the characters kick in the door, instead.



Actually, cheap death is a D&D trope I dislike. Raise dead is the the "ultimate death" save. I really like things like action/hero oints that allows heroes to avoid the fate instead of having a mechanic to resurrect them.



> I'm not saying make save or die, level loss, equipment destruction, turning to stone, etc the norm.  But I see nothing wrong with those mechanics for isolated cases.



Save or die makes HP less important, which is bad for both sides (characters and monsters), level loss is a mess, if you like groups of equivalent powerful characters (which helps giving everyone the same time in the spotlight), equipment destruction is most often a needless speedbump.



> There should be challenges which cause both players and characters alike to wet themselves.  Particularly since death in D&D isn't particularly final; something should be.  Might as well be a rust monster using the paladin's _holy avenger_ as an afternoon snack.



Then start to make death final and the holy avengers quest items a player has worked months to find instead random treasure to be lost and found. Imagine the Arthurian legend with a rustmonster eating Excalibur in the middle.



> Well, except for falling in lava.  You do that and you die, no save.
> 
> Good popcorn, by the way.  Want some?



No save to avoid falling? you are becoming harsh


----------



## Sadras (May 28, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> ??? my fighter? I'm the DM.



Speaking figuratively, "your fighter" being your fighter character within the group, whether you're DM or not.



> And your last sentence is a bit insulting to quite a big portion of players, judging by the fact that the recent D&D variants (Pathfinder & 4e) both reduced the instant item destruction and were not selling all bad.



You are actually using sales to support your argument? So what about the D&DN playtest Medusa, how does that support your argument when SoD systems return? Or are you saying that removal of instant item destruction was the reason for 4E & Pathfinder's good sales?




> And yes, rustmonsters potentially destroy the pace of an adventure with one bad roll.



More so than a crit on a character which kills him?



> You cannot plan before how much and what equipment is destroyed.



You are not supposed to plan that much in advance anyways. And since _Rust Monsters_ are usually found in dungeons with other critters who do carry weapons the solution would be for PCs to go back and use the poor quality weapons against it, to protect their heirlooms and masterwork weapons and armour.



> Saw a dwarf paladin (3e) pummeled to death after insisting to continue exploration after loosing his plate.



Yes and what am I supposed to say about that. I'm so sorry the foolish, foolish Paladin.  No dwarvern wisdom there.



> You know what the most common wonderful solutions I saw in actual play against rustmonster? Wizards blocking the way raining down spells, monk hand chops and beating it to death with a club after a strip. Not very creative...



Sad. Next time, allow them intelligence checks to give them hints. Seriously they couldnt throw a couple of scrap equipment/rusty daggers at the monster one way, to distract it, and then rush past it as it moves away?

I'll give you an example of PC creativity from our campaign: I was DMing a group whose players were playing teenagers (no feats, no max abilities, no real equipment - nothing). They came across a bear in the woods, not fully grown, but still dangerous given their characters experience and powers. They only had a short sword between the 4 of them. So they formed a pyramid, climbed on each others backs (like cheerleaders), and pretended they were a creature who was greater in stature than the bear - they growled and howled and made threatening noises, and even threw stones/pebbles at it. They made a series of nature/intimidate checks and succeeded to ward off the bear.

I put that encounter in without any thought of how they were going to 'defeat' the bear. It felt realistic to throw the bear in the woods as an encounter and they came up with something great and on top of that they were pressed for time (they came up with that idea within seconds). 
I cant see the big deal of using the _Rust Monster_. It's a state of mind. If the players are rigid in their thinking and unimaginative, sometimes they need that int check for that DM hint, but to blame a _Rust Monster_ for poor roleplaying, thats just sad.

I might as well, what flavour you got?


----------



## Walking Dad (May 28, 2012)

Sadras said:


> ...
> 
> 
> You are actually using sales to support your argument? So what about the D&DN playtest Medusa, how does that support your argument when SoD systems return? Or are you saying that removal of instant item destruction was the reason for 4E & Pathfinder's good sales?...



Only that the reduction of the rustmonster's power was after the Pathfinder playtest. And yes, I think products sale better if they have what the potential buyers want.



> So they formed a pyramid, climbed on each others backs (like cheerleaders), and pretended they were a creature who was greater in stature than the bear - they growled and howled and made threatening noises, and even threw stones/pebbles at it. They made a series of intimidate checks and succeeded to ward off the bear.



I'm not sure this is the way I would have handled this idea...


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... what about sandbox campaigns? You're assuming everyone uses and enjoys the same playstyle (pre-planned story) as you... you really shouldn't.




Even in a sandbox adventure, the DM is still placing encounters.  Unless, of course, you're running randomly generated adventures.  

So, even in a sandbox campaign, the DM is still setting pace and determining when and where certain creatures are encountered.

This is not a "tailored" vs "sandbox" issue.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> And others shouldn't assume that everyone does sandbox style.
> 
> And yes, I dislike PCs dying by a random die roll. I play mostly PbP, which means the player is out of the game for a month at least, even if a new character is reintroduced at the earliest opportunity.
> I also like to fit my games to the players backgrounds. With enough players gone, the story isn't going to work.
> I always roll open and never fudge rolls, so I look for rules that also support my preferred style of play.




There's a difference in broad and inclusive support implications, though. If you don't like save or die effects or gear destroying abilities like the rust monster's... then you can always elect to not use the monsters that have them. Those of us who don't mind a few save or dies or seeing the cleric's armor reduced to rust can use the medusas and rust monsters you don't like to use because their powers don't fit your style of game.

I am pretty certain there will be lots of monsters without save or die mechanics or gear destroying abilities capable of supporting your style of game. Can we get any agreement that those of us who like those powers should have ones available to support our style of game?


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Could you post the relevant sections from the DMG?  Because the MM doesn't say what you think it says.
> 
> And again, what do you think Save vs Petrification actually means?  Because it doesn't mean, "I look away in time" because the same save is used against a cockatrice.
> 
> Hey, I realize that people like this house rule, but, it's not what the rules say and claiming that 4e suddenly made big changes is not true.



You know I think you've convinced me. The cockatrice entry really put it home that petrification is part of aura and not an attack, a gaze aura for the medusae and a very close aura only only occurring when touched for the cockatrice. The save allows the petrification effect to be thrown off like a paralysis effect might be or a charm.

I must say I still see eye aversion as willful blindness with a particular set of consequences and that 5e is doing well with it in its own way. I don't think they are treating the play test's medusa as the one above. Somehow the one in the MMs gaze attack is a constant aura and it says nothing about opponents needing to even be sighted to be effected. It'd probably be more applicable as a Fort Save or perhaps Con Save against an area of effect in 3rd-5th .  Whether it requires round by round saves isn't mentioned.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, that gets to my point about having a different rule for everything.  Why do we need a "jump check"?  Something that I think 5e is really pushing for is much broader apply-able (if that's a word - Firefox spellchecker seems to think so) simpler rules.  Instead of having a "jump" check and a "climb" check and a "swim" check, you simply have a "strength" check that covers everything strength related.






Hussar said:


> What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5  different tables.  Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one  says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check".




You do recognize that you're contradicting yourself, right?


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> You do recognize that you're contradicting yourself, right?




How so?

With a single, broadly applicable rule, you have every table making roughly the same ruling.  If you want to jump, it gets lumped in with anything that resembles a test of strength - thus a strength check.  You don't need fifteen different skills, each one covering a small subset or, worse yet, no rules at all, thus leaving it to DM fiat to determine success.


----------



## Rogue Agent (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> With a single, broadly applicable rule, you have every table making roughly the same ruling.  If you want to jump, it gets lumped in with anything that resembles a test of strength - thus a strength check.  You don't need fifteen different skills, each one covering a small subset or, worse yet, no rules at all, thus leaving it to DM fiat to determine success.




In your original post you stated that one DM could call for a Strength check while another might call for a Dexterity check. Now you're claiming that both DMs would just naturally call for a Strength check because, obviously, a Strength check is what you'd call for in this situation.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

Sadras said:


> since _Rust Monsters_ are usually found in dungeons with other critters who do carry weapons the solution would be for PCs to go back and use the poor quality weapons against it, to protect their heirlooms and masterwork weapons and armour.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I can't speak for WalkingDad, but personally I have close to zero interest in running the encounters you describe here. If the PCs have to strip themselves of their heirlooms to tackle a challenge, it will be cause the challenge is something epic and destructive - maybe they're about to dive into a whirlpool of acid on the Elemental Chaos - and not because there's a 5HD monster that they're having trouble handling.

I'm also not a big fan of intelligence checks for GM hints. If you want to give them hints, give them hints. If you don't, don't. What does interposing a die roll add to the game?


----------



## Walking Dad (May 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> ... Can we get any agreement that those of us who like those powers should have ones available to support our style of game?



Sure, but can I get (additional) "watered down" version of iconic monsters, too? I still want to use a medusa or a beholder as deadly as in 4e. Ok?


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> I drift towards DM judgment on this. Yes, the player now knows how far they can jump, but if there are conditions that make that particular jump more difficult or less of a given then I need a way to present a chance of failure.
> 
> Jumping across a 10' gap on a sunny, breezeless day is much different than making the same jump in a heavy thunderstorm at night.



Maybe in D&Dnext you're meant to treat the chance of failing an auto jump in the thunderstorm at night the same way you treat the possibility of getting struck by lightning in a thunderstorm while wearing full plate. I'm not sure exactly what the mechanic is, mind you - maybe a saving throw of some sort?

Or should the jump be a check, as you suggest - like a check to open a door - and the lightning be a save - like a save to dodge a trap? I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in the check vs save distinction.


----------



## Sadras (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I can't speak for WalkingDad, but personally I have close to zero interest in running the encounters you describe here.



Its A _Rust Monster_ in one adventure over an entire campaign, I didnt say characters are too face _Rust Monster_ race as part of the campaign hook. But as JamesCourage says 'play what you like'.



> If the PCs have to strip themselves of their heirlooms to tackle a challenge, it will be cause the challenge is something epic and destructive - maybe they're about to dive into a whirlpool of acid on the Elemental Chaos - and not because there's a 5HD monster that they're having trouble handling.



Anyways I dont see it that way, I see it as problem solving. I find PCs these days place too much value on their equipment/items and far less on actual roleplay, which might also be an indication of todays DMing style. Its this eternal safety net - like they are hiding behind their mother's skirts. Item breakage and PC death are the big 'forbidden'.

My PCs have no trouble stripping down to their jocks armed only with a dagger and swimming within the city sewers to get to an underwater door lever. There is nothing epic or destructive about that. They just dont want their clothing getting dirty or their armour wet and cannot imagine themselves swimming underwater with armour and all their equipment.

So if I did throw in a _Rust Monster_ (which I havent as yet, probably because I have forgotten about it, since its not in my 4E MM) I'd imagine theyd become creative enough to defeat it. 
The mage in the party might be interested in the creatures corrosive capabilities and attempt to utilise them in an interesting way in future adventures, if at all possible (I have actually forgotten most details about this creature since we havent come across it since our 2E days).

And with new players, imagine the shock/horror of facing this beast that seems drawn to the fighters/clerics and suddenly begins eating away at their armour/weapons. Its rare to surprise PCs these days, especially the experienced ones. Throwing in the odd beast to mix things up a little adds that little sense of wonder. I'm not saying a _Rust Monster_ is the only way to do it - but Id welcome it as a nice change, especially since its been over 15 years since we've seen one. They hopefully might not even recognise it at first.



> I'm also not a big fan of intelligence checks for GM hints. If you want to give them hints, give them hints. If you don't, don't. What does interposing a die roll add to the game?




True, the roll adds nothing. I feel the same way about Monster Lore, I usually drop the DCs and use their Passive Score. If a player invested enough resources into the knoweldge, or specified as such during downtime - then I generally provide them the information I am comfortable the PCs might have learned.


----------



## LostSoul (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Or should the jump be a check, as you suggest - like a check to open a door - and the lightning be a save - like a save to dodge a trap? I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in the check vs save distinction.




What I'm going with is that a Saving Throw is a special type of Contest: where one party - the one making the save - is completely reactive.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I noticed something in the How to Play pdf that is relevant to your recurring conversation about staring contests with medusae: in the discussion of stats, it says that CON can be used as a save to withstand the petrifying gaze of a medusa.

So apparently D&Dnext medusae are like those of earlier editions of D&D: you can lock eyes with them and not be petrified.


----------



## IronWolf (May 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Maybe in D&Dnext you're meant to treat the chance of failing an auto jump in the thunderstorm at night the same way you treat the possibility of getting struck by lightning in a thunderstorm while wearing full plate. I'm not sure exactly what the mechanic is, mind you - maybe a saving throw of some sort?
> 
> Or should the jump be a check, as you suggest - like a check to open a door - and the lightning be a save - like a save to dodge a trap? I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in the check vs save distinction.




Yeah, for the situation I described I would simply call for a Strength check most likely to make the jump. As the DM I would have no issue making the decision to handle it that way and the rules as they are now provide me a consistent framework to resolve that situation.


----------



## Imaro (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Even in a sandbox adventure, the DM is still placing encounters. Unless, of course, you're running randomly generated adventures.
> 
> So, even in a sandbox campaign, the DM is still setting pace and determining when and where certain creatures are encountered.
> 
> This is not a "tailored" vs "sandbox" issue.




This isn't true. The DM may set the creature in a specific place, or on a specific wandering monster table at the creation of the sandbox... but the when (and even the where) are determined by random chance and the actions of the players. The DM doesn't set the pace in a sandbox as most people recognize it... the players, and chance do.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2012)

Imaro said:


> This isn't true. The DM may set the creature in a specific place, or on a specific wandering monster table at the creation of the sandbox... but the when (and even the where) are determined by random chance and the actions of the players. The DM doesn't set the pace in a sandbox as most people recognize it... the players, and chance do.




Meh, if you're running adventures and all you use is a random encounter table, well, more power to you.  Not something I think that occurs all that often though.  Randomly generated adventures might be fun for a one shot, but, hey, I could be wrong.

It's certainly not a prerequisite of a sandbox adventure to do so.  I mean, The Caves of Chaos are often touted as a sandbox adventure, yet every single room is keyed and, while there are random encounters, the overwhelming majority of encounters will be pre-placed.

The DM always sets the pace.  How often does he roll random encounters, even in an entirely randomly determined adventure?  He sets that encounter rate (1 in X per Y time), creates the random encounter table (or chooses which one to use) and then runs each encounter.

Sure, in a sandbox, the players have greater control over pacing, but, then again, not so much as you seem to be claiming.  After all, the players have no idea what's behind door number one or two.  Most of the time, they're flying blind - exploring the setting as it were.  So, no, the players are not setting the pace - random chance is.


----------



## Imaro (May 29, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> And others shouldn't assume that everyone does sandbox style.
> 
> And yes, I dislike PCs dying by a random die roll. I play mostly PbP, which means the player is out of the game for a month at least, even if a new character is reintroduced at the earliest opportunity.
> I also like to fit my games to the players backgrounds. With enough players gone, the story isn't going to work.
> I always roll open and never fudge rolls, so I look for rules that also support my preferred style of play.




I'm not assuming anything.  If I don't want a random roll to have the opportunity of bringing about death to a character (even though IMO it's often little more than a speed bump in D&D)  I don't use SoD monsters.  What I don't get is the sentiment that they shouldn't be there for others because I don't like them and for some reason can't choose not to use them.


----------



## Imaro (May 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Meh, if you're running adventures and all you use is a random encounter table, well, more power to you. Not something I think that occurs all that often though. Randomly generated adventures might be fun for a one shot, but, hey, I could be wrong.




Never said this, but using extremes to try and make your point is always effective...



Hussar said:


> It's certainly not a prerequisite of a sandbox adventure to do so. I mean, The Caves of Chaos are often touted as a sandbox adventure, yet every single room is keyed and, while there are random encounters, the overwhelming majority of encounters will be pre-placed.




Weren't there random monster tables for the wilderness around the Keep on the Borderlands which is the actual "sandbox adventure"... or are you equating a sandbox adventure with a single dungeon that's only a piece of it?  But ok, just looking at the single dungeon... every room is keyed and yet there is no guarantee that the PC's will face a particular monster in a particular room or at a particular time (where and when).



Hussar said:


> The DM always sets the pace. How often does he roll random encounters, even in an entirely randomly determined adventure? He sets that encounter rate (1 in X per Y time), creates the random encounter table (or chooses which one to use) and then runs each encounter.




How often he rolls on the random encounters still doesn't guarantee a specific pace, so he's not setting anything... If anything he can influence when and how often encounters occur but they will still be subject to randomness.  If he's tailoring encounters however, yes then he is setting the pace.



Hussar said:


> Sure, in a sandbox, the players have greater control over pacing, but, then again, not so much as you seem to be claiming. After all, the players have no idea what's behind door number one or two. Most of the time, they're flying blind - exploring the setting as it were. So, no, the players are not setting the pace - random chance is.




I think the characters have as much or as little control over pacing as the actions they choose allows.  You're assuming that most of the time PC's are flying blind... when in fact this is again a function of the PC's chosen course of action.  Exploring the setting =/= flying blind... not sure what sandboxes you've played in but that's just false.  Research, information gathering, etc. are part of that exploration if PC's choose to make it so.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2012)

Walking Dad said:


> Sure, but can I get (additional) "watered down" version of iconic monsters, too? I still want to use a medusa or a beholder as deadly as in 4e. Ok?




You'll get no objection from me on that. I could even use the lower power ones as "young" or similarly weakened versions too.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (May 29, 2012)

Traken said:


> Here's the real test for the Medusa:
> 
> Take any person who hasn't played D&D yet is at least familiar with some Greek mythology (hell, _Percy and the Lightning Theif_ counts).  Tell them they are standing in front of a Medusa.
> 
> ...




Exactly that's why it's scary.

It's gotta be like "Oh sh-" rather than "Oh no, I am slowy being paralyzed and being turned to stone."

That aside, it immune to it's own gaze, right??


----------



## Sorrowdusk (May 29, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I'm not assuming anything.  If I don't want a random roll to have the opportunity of bringing about death to a character (even though IMO it's often little more than a speed bump in D&D)  I don't use SoD monsters.  What I don't get is the sentiment that they shouldn't be there for others because I don't like them and for some reason can't choose not to use them.




Well on the one hand

#1 If you dont like the way the game plays, play something else or houserule it BUT....

#2 The motto/tag line is "Play The Game You Want To Play" which would support having at least 2 versions....albeit you cant literally have a game that can do everything with zero houseruling of RAW.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Never said this, but using extremes to try and make your point is always effective...




Then I'm not really understanding your point.  Because you did say that the DM does not control the pacing.



> Weren't there random monster tables for the wilderness around the Keep on the Borderlands which is the actual "sandbox adventure"... or are you equating a sandbox adventure with a single dungeon that's only a piece of it?  But ok, just looking at the single dungeon... every room is keyed and yet there is no guarantee that the PC's will face a particular monster in a particular room or at a particular time (where and when).




I've never heard anyone distinguish parts of KotB as being sandbox and other parts not.  I have heard it described as a sandbox adventure.  And, while, yes, I believe there are random encounter tables for outside the Caves (and inside as well), there are ALSO a number of keyed encounters around - the mad hermit, the lizardmen, The Cave of the Unknown.



> How often he rolls on the random encounters still doesn't guarantee a specific pace, so he's not setting anything... If anything he can influence when and how often encounters occur but they will still be subject to randomness.  If he's tailoring encounters however, yes then he is setting the pace.




Specific pace =/= setting a pace.  If I roll 1 check every 8 hours, I will get a VERY different pace than if I roll 1 check every 10 minutes.  Yes, it's random, but, the DM is STILL setting the pace.



> I think the characters have as much or as little control over pacing as the actions they choose allows.  You're assuming that most of the time PC's are flying blind... when in fact this is again a function of the PC's chosen course of action.  Exploring the setting =/= flying blind... not sure what sandboxes you've played in but that's just false.  Research, information gathering, etc. are part of that exploration if PC's choose to make it so.



[/quote]

Most of the time you are flying blind in a dungeon.  After all, other than, "There are orcs in that there cave", you're unlikely to have a whole lot more information.  When faced with a T intersection, left is usually as good as right.  Granted, there are ways to make this not true, but, broadly, the players have little specific information to go on.

And, if encounters are all randomly generated, what information could they possibly be working with?  After all, there's nothing to tell them when or where they might meet something, other than, I suppose, there's bad things in that forest - you might know roughly what to expect.  But, you have very little control over when.

Thus, very little control over pacing.

Isn't it funny though.  When people talk about the 15 minute adventuring day, it's up to the DM to make sure that they cannot rest whenever they want to.  But, in a sandbox campaign, players have total control over pacing.  Which is it?  If I have total control over pacing as a player, then I should be able to rest whenever I want to.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Then I'm not really understanding your point. Because you did say that the DM does not control the pacing.




How does... "not control pacing" equate to every encounter being randomly determined? Again a DM can place an encounter wherever he wants in a sandbox but when and where it is encountered is determined by either randomness or character action. Does that clarify my point better?





Hussar said:


> I've never heard anyone distinguish parts of KotB as being sandbox and other parts not. I have heard it described as a sandbox adventure. And, while, yes, I believe there are random encounter tables for outside the Caves (and inside as well), there are ALSO a number of keyed encounters around - the mad hermit, the lizardmen, The Cave of the Unknown.




My issue was with you specifically referencing the dungeon but not the rest of the adventure... like the town where rumors and information can be gathered. Keyed encounter doesn not equate to eternally static encounters. Thus PC's can determine the pace... randomness can determine the pace... unless the DM forgoes both of these in his "sandbox" he won't determine it.





Hussar said:


> Specific pace =/= setting a pace. If I roll 1 check every 8 hours, I will get a VERY different pace than if I roll 1 check every 10 minutes. Yes, it's random, but, the DM is STILL setting the pace.




The DM is not setting the pace. As an example, there is a (very small but still possible) probability that over a particualr period of time those random rolls can produce the same number of encounters. 

You are claiming the DM is somehow setting the pace... even though he can't know what it is because it's random...Huh??




Hussar said:


> Most of the time you are flying blind in a dungeon. After all, other than, "There are orcs in that there cave", you're unlikely to have a whole lot more information. When faced with a T intersection, left is usually as good as right. Granted, there are ways to make this not true, but, broadly, the players have little specific information to go on.




Not if you have your rogue scout ahead at the T intersection and report back... which I'm sorry is something, IME, that is done regularly by players. You're admitting there are ways for the players to make your assumptions untrue... yet you're arguing it can't be done... I'm confused, which is it?




Hussar said:


> And, if encounters are all randomly generated, what information could they possibly be working with? After all, there's nothing to tell them when or where they might meet something, other than, I suppose, there's bad things in that forest - you might know roughly what to expect. But, you have very little control over when.
> 
> Thus, very little control over pacing.




First, no one is claiming to make all encounters random... but keep the hyperbole going...

Second, did you forget or are you just ignoring the part where I included randomness (along with character choices) as one of the factors setting up pacing in a sandbox? what you don't get in random encounters is the DM having control over pacing.



Hussar said:


> Isn't it funny though. When people talk about the 15 minute adventuring day, it's up to the DM to make sure that they cannot rest whenever they want to. But, in a sandbox campaign, players have total control over pacing. Which is it? If I have total control over pacing as a player, then I should be able to rest whenever I want to.




No, what's funny is that one of the major solutions to this problem is to add randomness (wandering monsters) into the mix (which again you keep acting like I didn't mention randomness as a factor in my previous post.) and minimize static encounters (you know by having monsters react to character actions and choices)...


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Imaro said:
			
		

> The DM is not setting the pace. As an example, there is a (very small but still possible) probability that over a particualr period of time those random rolls can produce the same number of encounters.
> 
> You are claiming the DM is somehow setting the pace... even though he can't know what it is because it's random...Huh??




Yes, I am certainly claiming this.  If random encounters are checked once ever X time period, then random encounters will not happen any faster than that.  And, over the long term, it will balance out to a fairly predictable pace.  You might have dry periods and bunches, sure, but, that's still controlled by the DM - after all, he's the one who sets the check periods.



> No, what's funny is that one of the major solutions to this problem is to add randomness (wandering monsters) into the mix (which again you keep acting like I didn't mention randomness as a factor in my previous post.) and minimize static encounters (you know by having monsters react to character actions and choices)...




Yup, it's fixed by the DM setting the pace.  HE'S having the monsters react in a specific way to take pacing control away from the players.  HE'S setting the wandering monster check rate to take pacing control away from the players.

Or, to put it another way, how can players control the rate of wandering monsters?  If pacing is controlled by the players, shouldn't they be the ones determining when monsters are encountered?


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Yes, I am certainly claiming this. If random encounters are checked once ever X time period, then random encounters will not happen any faster than that. And, over the long term, it will balance out to a fairly predictable pace. You might have dry periods and bunches, sure, but, that's still controlled by the DM - after all, he's the one who sets the check periods.




We must have very different definitions of control then.  In your example above, the DM isn't controlling anything.  He's certainly influencing it, but in rolling randomly (again one of the factors I cited in my original post that determined pacing in a sandbox) he's given up control of the pacing and is relying on randomness. You can argue it as pendantically as you want, but unless the DM can steadily and reliably predict the rate at which PC's will have an encounter he isn't controlling anything. This is akin to saying a player can control the pacing of a battle because they get a +2 to the roll of a 20 sided die to hit... that doesn't make any sense, they are influencing their chances of attaining a hit but... it's a randomizer for a reason. Those bunches and dry periods you are disregarding are exactly the reason the DM isn't controlling pace.





Hussar said:


> Yup, it's fixed by the DM setting the pace. HE'S having the monsters react in a specific way to take pacing control away from the players. HE'S setting the wandering monster check rate to take pacing control away from the players.




No, the monsters are reacting to *the actions of the players*, it is the players and their characters that are setting the pace by being the catalyst that forces the DM to change the when and where. 

If I lure a monster into another room where we have an overwhelming advantage how are the PC's not creating the pacing for encounters? If we scout ahead, see a monster that is too powerful for us in our current state... so we find a place to rest and recover before facing it... again we have set the pace... What it sounds like you're describing is a railroad... where a DM intentionally has monsters act in a particular way to make sure encounters are had at a specific time and place irregardless of player choices and character actions. IMO, that's not a sandbox... it's an adventure path, or in an extreme case a railroad.



Hussar said:


> Or, to put it another way, how can players control the rate of wandering monsters? If pacing is controlled by the players, shouldn't they be the ones determining when monsters are encountered?




Dude, randomness... I've stated it since the first post. The PC's choices and/or randomness is the formula... you keep purposefully ignoring the randomness part of the sandbox equation. So no, PC's shouldn't always be determining when and where monsters are encountered (that would definitely lead to a 15 minute adventure day)... but neither is the DM determining it either.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2012)

Sorrowdusk said:


> Well on the one hand
> 
> #1 If you dont like the way the game plays, play something else or houserule it BUT....
> 
> #2 The motto/tag line is "Play The Game You Want To Play" which would support having at least 2 versions....albeit you cant literally have a game that can do everything with zero houseruling of RAW.




I stated earlier I had no problem with there being multiple versions of SoD monsters.  What I do have a problem with is those that want original SoD totally removed from the game because they don't like it... even if they don't have to use the particular monsters.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Ok, Imaro, answer me this then.

When the DM determines the rate at which random encounters are checked for AND the odds of them occuring, how is he not determining the pace of the game?  

If I say that I will check for random encounters 1/hour at a 1 in 8 chance, there is a very good chance that the group will be able to rest pretty much whenever it wants.  OTOH, if I set the chances at 1/10 minutes with a 1 in 6 chance, then the party will be getting interupted all the time.

So, how is that not controlling pacing?  Ok, yup, you're right, he doesn't control it minute by minute, but, he sure as heck has a great deal of control over the pacing. 

Additionally, since the DM is setting up static encounters, he can also set the pacing of the adventure.  Placing more monsters will result in more encounters.  That's pretty self evident.  Placing less monsters means that the group will go through larger areas between requiring rests.

Again, the DM, while it's true he can't micromanage pacing, he is most certainly controlling the pace of that game to a degree that the players cannot possibly match.  The players simply do not have enough control to be able to set the pacing to the degree that the DM does.

And, if you'll remember, you claimed it was the players who set the pacing.  Even if you refuse to accept the DM is setting it, and stay with the idea that pacing is set by random checks - the players are *STILL* not in control of pacing.  Either way, it's never the players who control pacing.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ok, Imaro, answer me this then.
> 
> When the DM determines the rate at which random encounters are checked for AND the odds of them occuring, how is he not determining the pace of the game?




Unless the rate at which randome encounters is the exact same, everywhere at every time... then he isn't. He's setting up choices for the PC's to make to determine their own pace. If the chance of encountering dangerous monsters is the same in a fortified town during daytime as it is in the Bone Hills at night... that's a poorly constructed sandbox.



Hussar said:


> If I say that I will check for random encounters 1/hour at a 1 in 8 chance, there is a very good chance that the group will be able to rest pretty much whenever it wants. OTOH, if I set the chances at 1/10 minutes with a 1 in 6 chance, then the party will be getting interupted all the time.




Right, and again if every area at every time has the exact same encounter chances and monsters... then yes you are controlling the pace... but then you aren't playing in a sandbox. You've created an environment where choice is meaningless and that is definitely antithesis to the ideals of a sandbox. A better question is why the Flowered Meadows during the daytime have the exact same chance of encounters and the exact same monsters (because otherwise difficulty is also a factor of choice) as the Dreaded Marsh of the Hag Queen? If they don't then right there the PC's have a choice in the pacing of encounters.




Hussar said:


> So, how is that not controlling pacing? Ok, yup, you're right, he doesn't control it minute by minute, but, he sure as heck has a great deal of control over the pacing.




Oh it is controlling pacing... it's just not controlling it in a (well constructed) sandbox.



Hussar said:


> Additionally, since the DM is setting up static encounters, he can also set the pacing of the adventure. Placing more monsters will result in more encounters. That's pretty self evident. Placing less monsters means that the group will go through larger areas between requiring rests.




No, placing more monsters does not guarantee more encounters. The PC's can find ways to avoid the encounters, they can go in a different direction, start fires to force the monsters back out of the area, hell they can hire some henchmen and hirelings to go clear some of that area out for them. You're assuming that there's only one answer to the situation... and my players are much more creative than walk in a straight line from encounter to encounter and fight.



Hussar said:


> Again, the DM, while it's true he can't micromanage pacing, he is most certainly controlling the pace of that game to a degree that the players cannot possibly match. The players simply do not have enough control to be able to set the pacing to the degree that the DM does.




He's influencing it, which I said awhile back... but it's the PC's and chance that are actually controlling it. The DM can make this harder or easier but without going to extremes (and basically stopping the sandbox from being a sandbox) he doesn't control it.



Hussar said:


> And, if you'll remember, you claimed it was the players who set the pacing. Even if you refuse to accept the DM is setting it, and stay with the idea that pacing is set by random checks - the players are *STILL* not in control of pacing. Either way, it's never the players who control pacing.




I said players and randomness set it, you keep trying to ignore the fact that I acknowledged randomness as a factor along with the PC's and I think I've pretty well demonstrated how the PC's control the pacing in a real sandbox through their choices. Again unless the DM goes to extremes, in which case he's not running a sandbox the PC's and randomness dictate pacing in a sandbox. You have yet to give a concrete example of how the DM controls (not influences) pacing in a sandbox environment.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2012)

Wait, what?

Who said anything about setting a single rate of random encounters for all locations?  The DM sets the rate of random encounters based on whatever pace he wants to set.  If he wants more random encounters, thus a different pace, or if he wants less, it's still up to the DM in the sandbox to do that.

I'm really losing track of what you're trying to claim here.  

So, the DM, apparently now has to set one and only one rate of random encounters?    What kind of game do you play?

And, I'm really, REALLY not in the mood for this level of pedantry trying to distinguish between "influence" and "control".  Yeah, because THAT'S the key issue here.  

Meh, I get the feeling you're just taking the piss now and deliberately pulling my leg.  There's just no way you're actually saying what you seem to be saying.  I'll be bowing out now, because my "taking the piss" tolerance is FAR too low at the moment.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> Who said anything about setting a single rate of random encounters for all locations? The DM sets the rate of random encounters based on whatever pace he wants to set. If he wants more random encounters, thus a different pace, or if he wants less, it's still up to the DM in the sandbox to do that.




And after the DM sets these different encounters for the locations... how is it determined which if any of them will set the pace for the actual game during gameplay?? THE PLAYERS by choosing what area to explore...



Hussar said:


> I'm really losing track of what you're trying to claim here.




It's really not that hard to keep up with. But I think it's moreso that you're seeing the holes in your assumptions. 



Hussar said:


> So, the DM, apparently now has to set one and only one rate of random encounters?




If he is supposedly controlling the pacing like you claim... then yes, otherwise as I stated above the PC's choices will determine the pacing... and even this doesn't preclude a certain amount of randomness in the rolls for encounters... So again... PC's + randomness



Hussar said:


> What kind of game do you play?




One where the PC's and randomness determine pacing.



Hussar said:


> And, I'm really, REALLY not in the mood for this level of pedantry trying to distinguish between "influence" and "control". Yeah, because THAT'S the key issue here.




As an example... I can influence what another player does with his character through the actions of my own character, what I can't do is (barring magic or some other special rule) control another players character. See the BIG difference there...It's not pedantry it's the gaping whole in your argument.



Hussar said:


> Meh, I get the feeling you're just taking the piss now and deliberately pulling my leg. There's just no way you're actually saying what you seem to be saying. I'll be bowing out now, because my "taking the piss" tolerance is FAR too low at the moment.




Wow, really?? It would have been much simpler to admit you were wrong than to try to paint my argument in a negative light... Here's a quick and dirty summary...

The only way the DM controls pacing in a sandbox game is if he keeps the encounter rate the same in every area at every time, otherwise both the PC's( with their choices) and the randomness of the encounter tables will determine pacing. It's not pedantry, it's simple logic and I think you know that, but instead of just admitting that and moving on now my argument is too confusing... whatever man.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2012)

Imaro said:


> You're assuming that most of the time PC's are flying blind... when in fact this is again a function of the PC's chosen course of action.  Exploring the setting =/= flying blind



At least as far as the playtest is concerned, the rules for exploration are pretty thin.

There's a lot of detail on how to kill an orc. Not so much on how to interrogate one. Or how to meet up with and get rumour from previous orc hunters.

There's not even an augury/omen/portent-type spell.



Sorrowdusk said:


> Exactly that's why it's scary.



According to the How to Play document, a character who meets the medusa's gaze won't turn to stone if a CON save is made. So if meeting the gaze of the medusa of myth turns you to stone full stop end of story, then the D&Dnext medusa is _not_ the medusa of myth.


----------



## Imaro (May 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> At least as far as the playtest is concerned, the rules for exploration are pretty thin.
> 
> There's a lot of detail on how to kill an orc. Not so much on how to interrogate one. Or how to meet up with and get rumour from previous orc hunters.
> 
> There's not even an augury/omen/portent-type spell.




But we weren't speaking specifically to the playtest adventure.


----------

