I welcome the medusa back with open arms and eyes closed I think 4e suffered from not having these kinds of monsters.
I agree with this. Great to have this sort of thing back in the game. A good DM isn't going to pummel the players with this sort of thing constantly, but having monsters and other features in the game that are this dangerous brings back the excitement I like, as well as the feeling of trepidation that should come with certain monsters. It makes defeating them that much more meaningful.
I've played all version of D&D since its creation. The save or die system has it pros and cons and it really falls on the DM at that point. The DM can always sway the roll, no matter what. That's what a DM is for. To cause the players to enjoy the time. If the players were overwhelmed by dominations, controls, or pertification, it is the MDs fault, NOT the D&D material.
Now, speaking specifically on the Medusa. I was suprised to see it in a level 1-3 module, but ok. Is the save or die system right or wrong here. Well lets look a the myth of the medusa. Greek myth states that even a glance and your done, stone. Over, no save no thing. Even the kraken was turned.
Now lets also look at the fact that the module provides a method to "unpetrify" the PCs by providing a magical potion. 6 uses as a matter of fact. I think that definately should be taken in as a factor.
Now back to the SoD system. I think it actually adds more realism to the game. Even though DnD is a fantastic game, a dash of realism adds something. And the fact that "only casters" are able to throw SoDs, that is only partially true, but has merit. Casters in the beginning have to depend on others to defend them while they cast and can't take a hit. By the time they are casting spells of the SoD type, everyone has an awesome ability to resist, have magic of their own (items, rings, potions, etc...) to resist.
So, after all that, I like SoDs. Its up to the DM to control them, limit them and let them be used like they should - only when appropriate. And if the worst happens, a player is "disintergrated" and it could potentionally screw up a campaign? Step[ in as the DM and provide a solution. INstead of, "Hey Bill sorry about that. You'll have to make a new char." It should be a plot device to further the experience "Hey Bill, let me talk to you alone. Yeah your body is destroyed, but your spirit is still here. 1) a diety talks to you and transfers your spirit to X 2) the diety, fed up wiht the Mage's audacity and power, resurrects you at the "worst" time, to thwart the evil or even 3) Your spirit posses a fellow PC, sharing the body, providing for some real fun..eventually, taken to a temple where, in gratitude, you r a reincarnated/resurrected." Use your imagination.
Just my two cents.
I agree with everything said here. If you are playing with a DM too lazy/tired/busy/inexperienced to modify, or unwilling to work with the pc's; Maybe, he/she is probably not the person that should be DMing.
and as scary as it is- Medusa's gaze in my game is a save or die. My players like this. I have asked them if they want it out. Every time I run a game I ask this question. I have never had anyone say yeah its too crazy. I hate it/ it stops me from having fun. because they trust me. I dont ambush character's with them, they are a boss type creature-with prep time and planning involved for the pc's. (I also usually include- just like in this module a way to fix them- a Maedar Medusa (Male medusas they have innate stone to flesh abilities, and provide an unique roleplaying challenge- getting them to aid the party against his mate's wishes for example) or potions or scrolls. I also Allow the Medusa to use her ability only every few rounds if the pc's are getting getting overwhelmed. If it makes sense for the story. If it will lead to fun- for all of the players.
with all of that said, the myth they are based on, and fantasy stories say: Medusa can instantly turn you to stone with her gaze.
"...Medusa being one of the three Gorgons, these beasts became known as the Gorgons and were so horrid to behold that whosoever looked at them would instantly turn to stone. "
-notice the myth doesn't say "If you meet Medusa's gaze eventually you get slow, then maybe you get better- but perhaps- it overtakes you eventually and sometime later you may or may not be turned to stone. Maybe."
In my game save or die- save= you didn't meet her gaze, fail= you did.
Not to worry though, it will lead to some storytelling. Perhaps this is the epic death your character desired. Perhaps you get saved.
But to flat out say save or die has no place is once more missing the point of DDN. You will have rules you can use to run your version of the game, and I will have rules to run mine. Neither is wrong. We have to agree that none of us is more right.
and for the people saying the game has evolved- evolution is built from the things that came before it. Taking the best (hopefully) from its predecessors and leaving the rest. I hope this edition includes rules for save or die. AND a non-save or die mechanic. I look forward to seeing new and old combined.
Houseruling is unacceptable. In fact, if a group has to do any houseruling at all, D&D Next will pretty much be a failure. The whole point of this system is to play D&D how you want to play it (within the core guidelines or with its modules).
I think 5th edition's modularity is basically about having many popular optional houserules printed within the books. I think 5th ed is intended to be houseruled to fit each group. Many people feel like it's not legitimate unless it's in the rulebooks, so they are going ahead and saying a lot of the popular ones people will want to do anyway within their books, while making sure people know it's optional. you just can't have the exact game you want without houseruling, in most cases. Therefore I think 5th ed is being created with the intention being easily customizable and houseruled to each group. It's not the sign of a failed system, it's just the intention to let everybody play the game they want to play.
A question for all you pro save-or-die people. Are you ok with my wizard striking down your BBEG in the first round of combat with finger of death?
If not, why is it ok to smite my PC in this fashion?
If my BBEG is dumb enough to fight the PC's without preparing for the fact that they have a high level wizard who can finger of death at him then yes, yes I will let you one shot him, same as if your party is dumb enough to walk into a medusa's lair without preparing for the fact that it can stone gaze at you for a one shot kill I will let it one shot you. To be fair, I will never throw a SoD at a party when they have no way of preparing (my first D&D experience was getting shot through the eye while I was looking through a keyhole by an orcish crossbow, I hate random PC death with no escape) but if you have had time to prepare and you still get caught by something then you deserve it.
The ONLY issue I have with SoD's is that bad DM's or DM's with the "I want to kill the party" mentality can abuse them to take out an entire party far too easily. That being said, a DM like that can do that with anything. Level 1 party vs 500 kobolds is a TPK, just because something can be used to create an unfair situation doesn't mean that it should be used that way and if you have a DM who loves ambusing you with SoD's or other unfair situations it is a problem with the player, not the system (I garuntee that I can create an unescaipable TPK in any system you care to name that I can get the rules for, doesn't mean that every system ever made is broken) I suggest finding a new DM
I'd like to see you do it in 4E RAW...
Really, you don't think it is possible to garuntee a tpk in 4e RAW? As soon as I find my books I'll post a definite example but for the moment I'll just say... Is there anything stopping me having an Adult Red Dragon swoop onto a 1st level party and breath on them for more damage than they have HP? Or a dozen Stone Giants poping up from the mountains and hurling rocks at the players? (assuming a party of 4 I need to roll at least 9 1's on 12d20 to avoid hitting each player at least once and thus killing them outright)? Ican't remember if the monsters for the "room of death" are still around but if they are I can do that. Hell, I can say that they walk into a room and the door magically locks behind them and needs a DC 30 arcana check to work out what has happened then a DC 40 Disable Device (or whatever 4e has for that) to open it, meanwhile acid is pouring ito the room attacking everyone's Fort for +20 to hit for 4d8+12 damage per round. Would I ever do any of those? Also, keep in mind that all editions of D&D (I don't think 4e is an exception but correct me if I'm wrong) have a clause in their core books that says that the DM can modify any of these rules as he sees fit so technically anything I do is RAW (DM says a lightning bolt hits you for 500 damage, it says I can do that in the book YAY tpk) No, because I'm not that much of a jerk and if I ever did, it would be an issue with my DMing not the system
I just can't support D&D Next if it doesn't include core switches for reducing the swinginess of these powers.
Houseruling is unacceptable. In fact, if a group has to do any houseruling at all, D&D Next will pretty much be a failure. The whole point of this system is to play D&D how you want to play it (within the core guidelines or with its modules).
Removing creatures, traps, items, spells, and so on that employ these effects is unacceptable. If I'm running a game based on Greek myths I don't want to be tied into the one save vs. petrification mechanic to be able to include a medusa or two. The problem, as has been mentioned many times before, is not that the medusa's gaze turns someone to stone, it's that the resolution is based around a single, very swingy, roll.
Having a bestiary including creatures with save or die mechanics buried in their text is unacceptable. Such abilities should be clearly marked so new and hurried players know to be careful in their implementation. I would suggest, at the very least, the asterisks of BECMI to monster headings that utilize particular dangerous abilities and some sort of notation in their ability section. Petrifying Gaze (Dangerous!), for example. Also, any DM guide will need a section advising on the potential uses and consequences of these mechanics.
I can't believe you typed the phrase "houseruling is unacceptable" or that oyu think that if any group has to houserule ever that it is a failure. Just like every other game that has houserules is a failure? Like Monopoly which has houserules like "taxes go in the middle and landing on 'free parking' gives you the cash in the middle" and "you have to pass 'go' once before you can buy property"? Or like every other RPG that has ever been made?
That being said, I agree that Save or Die monsters need to be pointed out very clearly to avoid any mistakes
I can't believe you typed the phrase "houseruling is unacceptable" or that oyu think that if any group has to houserule ever that it is a failure. Just like every other game that has houserules is a failure? Like Monopoly which has houserules like "taxes go in the middle and landing on 'free parking' gives you the cash in the middle" and "you have to pass 'go' once before you can buy property"? Or like every other RPG that has ever been made?
That being said, I agree that Save or Die monsters need to be pointed out very clearly to avoid any mistakes
One of the primary goals of D&D Next is to aid players in playing the D&D they want to play. If any of the major playstyles is left out or not given proper emphasis it will alienate a segment of players forcing them to play another system or houserule D&D Next to their satisfaction. Therefore, D&D Next will have failed at one of its design goals. Can D&D Next be all things to all people? I don't know, but that is certainly the lofty goal that WotC has set for itself. I certainly don't want to be the one that has to make old-school beer and pretzel dungeon crawlers, epic immersive storytellers, strict simulationists, and casual gamers happy at the same time. Poor Mike Mearls.
D&D Next, whatever its final incarnation, will be houseruled. We gamers tend to be a fiddly, opinionated lot that likes things "just so". But there is a big difference between players making minor tweaks and experimenting with different rules and requiring houserules in order for players to emulate a particular playstyle. Detesting the swinginess that save or dies represent IS a common complaint that the full D&D Next guidelines must address.
This creature represents everything about old-school D&D that game design has passed by and no longer desires.
If I ambushed a party with a Medusa, there's a very high chance at least one of them is going to die without warning. This is by design, and it is not fun for anyone at the table.
I stop you right there. It's not fun for anyone around YOUR game table maybe.
I know that I very much enjoy the challenge of facing a creature that has a real chance of taking me out if I look at it in the eye. I am encouraged to play with guile and intelligence, use mirrors like Perseus, drop some water on the floor and freeze it so I can see its reflection, whatever the case may be. It encourages me to be creative and be a hero if I dare. The alternative, where save or die does not exist and any particular effect is at best a short term annoyance, makes me feel like I'm playing the wrong game. I do not have fun with the training wheels on.
So it's okay if you don't like SoD really. But I shouldn't have to play without them, or without any strategic concerns in the game at all to instead favor short term tactical annoyances exclusively just because you're not comfortable with them yourself. This is not just your game. It's my game too.
I welcome the medusa back with open arms and eyes closed I think 4e suffered from not having these kinds of monsters.
I agree with this. Great to have this sort of thing back in the game. A good DM isn't going to pummel the players with this sort of thing constantly, but having monsters and other features in the game that are this dangerous brings back the excitement I like, as well as the feeling of trepidation that should come with certain monsters. It makes defeating them that much more meaningful.
Yeah, I was going to read your post but then I saw "A good DM isn't going to..." and that just turned me off. The world isn't populated by good DMs. Its populated by some good DMs, medicore DMs, DMs that aren't super intelligent, DMs that are horrible at house ruling, and DMs that are new and have no clue what impacts game balance or fun. Any rule justifacation that starts with "A good DM isn't going to..." is a cop out...
This creature represents everything about old-school D&D that game design has passed by and no longer desires.
If I ambushed a party with a Medusa, there's a very high chance at least one of them is going to die without warning. This is by design, and it is not fun for anyone at the table. If my players do not wish to roll a die every turn to see if they're allowed to continue playing or not, they suffer a massive penalty that can more than halve their accuracy, while they're hit twice as often.
Previous posts by Wizards staff suggested that any save-or-die mechanics, if introduced, would be qualified by health percentages or be on the player's side of the arena. This example, in the very first playtest, is neither.
+150505050505
Please consider that a character death have to be a storytelling element decide by DM not a bad roll. Therefore please notice that: if the only way for u to give preasure and stress to the player is killing their character (and frustrate them or make them do some disposable characters), that mean you MUST STOP DMing.
More: this system with save rolls in general is a bad idea: fixed defense are equivalent statictilly and make the fight lighter: less rolls, less computing... more fun.
I've played all version of D&D since its creation. The save or die system has it pros and cons and it really falls on the DM at that point. The DM can always sway the roll, no matter what. That's what a DM is for. To cause the players to enjoy the time. If the players were overwhelmed by dominations, controls, or pertification, it is the MDs fault, NOT the D&D material.
Now, speaking specifically on the Medusa. I was suprised to see it in a level 1-3 module, but ok. Is the save or die system right or wrong here. Well lets look a the myth of the medusa. Greek myth states that even a glance and your done, stone. Over, no save no thing. Even the kraken was turned.
Now lets also look at the fact that the module provides a method to "unpetrify" the PCs by providing a magical potion. 6 uses as a matter of fact. I think that definately should be taken in as a factor.
Now back to the SoD system. I think it actually adds more realism to the game. Even though DnD is a fantastic game, a dash of realism adds something. And the fact that "only casters" are able to throw SoDs, that is only partially true, but has merit. Casters in the beginning have to depend on others to defend them while they cast and can't take a hit. By the time they are casting spells of the SoD type, everyone has an awesome ability to resist, have magic of their own (items, rings, potions, etc...) to resist.
So, after all that, I like SoDs. Its up to the DM to control them, limit them and let them be used like they should - only when appropriate. And if the worst happens, a player is "disintergrated" and it could potentionally screw up a campaign? Step[ in as the DM and provide a solution. INstead of, "Hey Bill sorry about that. You'll have to make a new char." It should be a plot device to further the experience "Hey Bill, let me talk to you alone. Yeah your body is destroyed, but your spirit is still here. 1) a diety talks to you and transfers your spirit to X 2) the diety, fed up wiht the Mage's audacity and power, resurrects you at the "worst" time, to thwart the evil or even 3) Your spirit posses a fellow PC, sharing the body, providing for some real fun..eventually, taken to a temple where, in gratitude, you r a reincarnated/resurrected." Use your imagination.
Just my two cents.
I agree with everything said here. If you are playing with a DM too lazy/tired/busy/inexperienced to modify, or unwilling to work with the pc's; Maybe, he/she is probably not the person that should be DMing.
and as scary as it is- Medusa's gaze in my game is a save or die. My players like this. I have asked them if they want it out. Every time I run a game I ask this question. I have never had anyone say yeah its too crazy. I hate it/ it stops me from having fun. because they trust me. I dont ambush character's with them, they are a boss type creature-with prep time and planning involved for the pc's. (I also usually include- just like in this module a way to fix them- a Maedar Medusa (Male medusas they have innate stone to flesh abilities, and provide an unique roleplaying challenge- getting them to aid the party against his mate's wishes for example) or potions or scrolls. I also Allow the Medusa to use her ability only every few rounds if the pc's are getting getting overwhelmed. If it makes sense for the story. If it will lead to fun- for all of the players.
with all of that said, the myth they are based on, and fantasy stories say: Medusa can instantly turn you to stone with her gaze.
"...Medusa being one of the three Gorgons, these beasts became known as the Gorgons and were so horrid to behold that whosoever looked at them would instantly turn to stone. "
-notice the myth doesn't say "If you meet Medusa's gaze eventually you get slow, then maybe you get better- but perhaps- it overtakes you eventually and sometime later you may or may not be turned to stone. Maybe."
In my game save or die- save= you didn't meet her gaze, fail= you did.
Not to worry though, it will lead to some storytelling. Perhaps this is the epic death your character desired. Perhaps you get saved.
But to flat out say save or die has no place is once more missing the point of DDN. You will have rules you can use to run your version of the game, and I will have rules to run mine. Neither is wrong. We have to agree that none of us is more right.
and for the people saying the game has evolved- evolution is built from the things that came before it. Taking the best (hopefully) from its predecessors and leaving the rest. I hope this edition includes rules for save or die. AND a non-save or die mechanic. I look forward to seeing new and old combined.
Go read this about Medusa. No where does it say instantaneous. Also look at all the myths about the blood of the medusa. If you really want to keep it 'realistic' why not have a pegasus and a sword wielding giant spring out of the dead body? I'm just saying that maybe some other method should be used than a single die roll that kills your character instantly...
I think 4e suffered from not having these kinds of monsters.
