Turning someone to stone just by looking at 'em is a rare gift indeed. So rare that, prior to the advent of Dungeons & Dragons, I know of only one creature in mythology or folklore that had petrification as a natural ability: the three gorgon sisters, of which Medusa was one.
No, basilisks do not turn people to stone, unless you mean in the Old English sense of "dead as stones." The cockatrice doesn't either, despite its Wikipedia entry (it cites page 186 of a poorly reviewed eBook fantasy novel as its "source" for this ability). The "gorgon" bull-creature was derived from a misnamed account of the catoblepas, and given its stoning power by Gygax (as actual folkloric depictions of the the catoblepas simply has a "death gaze" like basilisks).
 |
| "I'm practically a demigod!" |
There are depictions in fantasy and folklore of magicians turning folks to stone, and I'll be happy to address that in the spell section of this series (coming up!). But monsters turning people to stone is something that doesn't need to be modeled...and thus no saving throw is necessary.
Now, if you really, really, REALLY must have gorgons (like Medusa) in your fantasy game, I understand it. But you still don't need the saving throw. What would such a save represent? The hero saying, "Must...not...turn...to...stone!" And they get so much better at it as they go up in level?
That's how D&D 3.5 (and presumably Pathfinder) represented it...as a Fortitude save. "My 7th level fighter is resisting her petrifying visage?" What? How? "By being extra tough...he has control over the very molecular structure of his body and he's saying, 'Don't calcify, cells!'" Certainly Perseus (a high level fighter and Zeus's son) could have stared her down if such was the case.
No, clearly this is one of those examples of: if you're going to bother to put it in the game, then let it work. The PLAYERS are going to need to come up with ideas/alternatives for beating such a creature...as did Perseus...something besides, "well, I'll just tough it out with a saving throw." You're going to have to fight blindfolded, or use a mirror...either with a substantial penalty to your attack roll. Or else, try to sneak up on the thing when its sleeping (hoping that it's back is turned to you). Depending on the tactic used, the penalty might be more or less (though possibly with a percentage chance of accidentally catching a peek of the creature when embroiled in melee).
Creatures that have these types of auto-kill attack...because that's what they essentially are (you need a 6th level spell to bring 'em 'back to life,' as opposed to the 5th level raise dead, but even so)...should only enter into a campaign setting with some pretty substantial clues to tip off characters' cleverness. How was a basilisk's "death gaze" defeated in mythology? By carefully placing mirrors about the creature's lair while it was sleeping. But its body is deadly poison as well...best handle it only with thick gauntlets.
If the banshee's wail causes death, best stuff your ears with cotton (or strips ripped from your tunic).
These are the kinds of tricks players routinely come up with. Good DMs don't let the rules get in the way of a good player idea...but then not every DM is "good," and not every player is inclined towards thinking "outside the box." Don't give 'em an excuse not to: get rid of this saving throw and let the chips fall where they may.
*CHOP*
[oh, just a quick side note: I see at least one reader thinks these posts are "shite," based on the box he/she checked. However, I don't really see any negative views expressed in the comments section. Not trying to call you out, pal, but I would certainly welcome your dissenting opinion...just an FYI. Being told I'm wrong and why doesn't bother me all that much. Sometimes it even changes my mind]
Not sure how, but I've never noticed those aforementioned boxes before
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of petrification saves being based on toughness or willpower. I've certainly enjoyed stories that feature such instances, but for D&D I prefer to imagine it like a low-budget TV show, where instead of special effects they just switch the camera angle. You see a guy, then something else, and then back to a statue of the guy. It's fairly quick process. If there is a saving throw (and I've been debating that, though I don't have a problem with saving throws in general), it should represent closing your eyes or averting your gaze at the last second, something you should've been doing from the start, and that's probably better modeled by surprise
Might have to agree with you on this one. There doesn't seem to be much need for a petrification save
@ Prof Oats;
DeleteHmmm...I'm not sure I have so much a problem with saving throws as I feel they're unnecessary. At least in early editions of the game, it feels like the design process could be tightened by removing them (it's hard to call the early authors "lazy" because RPG design was still being developed).
In later editions, saves often seem needlessly complex even with the attempts to streamline them.
In some cases I'd agree they're unnecessary, either because a save would be inappropriate or because we could recycle another mechanic like surprise, but I think the overall concept works (so long as you aren't playing "wrong")
DeleteDefinitely wouldn't call them lazy. I think a lot of their problems stemmed from one of their biggest strengths: they designed organically through play, and favored continuity over retconning. As much as I love that approach, it can sometimes lead you into corners
@ Prof:
DeleteI'm all for having game evolve organically in play and testing, but when you go back and write down rules for publication you need to take a harder look at some o these things.
Completely agreed with you on that. Some instances in D&D's case, though, occurred after publication, as the game evolved. This is where that "continuity over retconning" idea comes in, though that's a little inaccurate. It's still retconning, but they try to reconcile it with previous rules in some way. Like, if they want to make the modifiers go higher, they'd keep the +1 at 15 like before and just bunch the others up at the end. Had they wanted it to go to +3 or +4 from the beginning, the modifiers might've been spread out more like in B/X or 3e. Or if they wanted to make level limits less strict, instead of just changing them, they'd say they're the same unless you have some really high score
Deletei always assumed save was a chance to not look at her so more a dex or perception thing
ReplyDeletei think adnd ruined plenty of monster
like salamander - bx version better
id call adnd salamander something else
@ konsum:
DeleteThe AD&D salamander was published before the BX version in Cook. I actually like both (for different reasons).
Yeah, I cleaned out those extraneous Wikipedia references and claims. That was just silliness. Dr. McNinja? Nethack? Who gives a shit? Plus, if you reference those, you have to reference all of the other games and webcomics that include offhanded references to the creatures or monster manual entries.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much...really that kind of stuff drives me nuts.
DeleteOK, I'll fess up, it was I that marked the “Shite” box. Not because I thought your opinion was 'shite' but rather I disagreed with it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree partially due to personal feelings on the matter (emotional, knee-jerk reaction on my part. Yes, I'm a flawed human being) and partially due to other (better) reasons.
I didn't post because I didn't want you to think I was just trolling you or your blog (I highly respect both you and your blog).
All that being said if you wish me to post on the topics I'll be happy to do so (respectfully).
Do you wish me to post all on the latest blog post or under each specific topic?
@ Justin:
DeleteThanks for the kind words. I never assume negative comments indicate "trolling" (though maybe that's the internet definition of trolling? I'm not always the most up-to-date on this lingo). If I didn't want to hear folks' opinions, I wouldn't leave my blog open to comments (or would moderate them or something).
Please feel free to leave your dissenting view wherever you like...if your emotional juices have been boiling over the last few posts, you can leave it on the most recent one. If there's something specific you want to address in an earlier post you can do it there, too.
But really, it's safe to "go off"...I'm usually pretty courteous in my responses to commentators (as opposed to my posts themselves, where my stream-o-consciousness writing sometimes lends itself to inflammatory remarks).
; )
One can be negative or disagree without trolling. Trolling's when you go out of your way to upset someone. You don't even have to believe what you're saying, the point is just to get a rise out of someone, like when children copy your every word
DeleteI did eliminate the petrifying gaze from my campaign in favor of a hypnotic gaze which paralyzes the victim, because as you point out, it really isn't a commonplace thing in the legends or the fiction. Also, I aim more for a pulpy, Howardian fantasy rather than the mythic/fairy tale bland that core D&D seems to deliver.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, this still means that there are monsters with a dangerous gaze. I took the "Medusa" entry from B/X and ran with it. The PCs have three options: avoid looking at the monster entirely (-4 to attack, +2 to be attacked), look only into a mirror (which I present as a -2 to attack), or look toward the monster by try to avoid its gaze. That last option is of course the riskiest, so I use the saving throw to model the chance of accidental eye contact. I think it makes sense that more experienced delvers will be a bit more canny about it, and won't be as reliant on looking straight into the opponent's face to follow their movements. It certainly makes more sense than that Fortitude save!
The idea of dropping the save entirely is intriguing, but I feel like there should be an option for more daring/reckless players to take their chances. That's pretty much what I use saves for. (Probably worth noting that I adopted S&W's single save number, since the five-category system does seem needlessly baroque.)
@ Odrook:
DeleteWell, you could always add a "luck" resource or something to work as the occasional Get Out O Jail Free card.
True, but I don't like resource management for something as theoretically unpredictable as luck. That would establish a flavor of predictable luck that eventually runs out, which isn't what I would want for my game. It would work for a game that is more interested in reproducing narrative beats. It would also work well for a more epic/heroic/high fantasy (such as your FHB seems to be), perhaps where the luck-as-resource is an actual recognize supernatural force manipulable by sufficiently epic characters.
DeleteI would totally do that if I was going to, say, recreate Exalted with a modified B/X engine and oh my god I think I'm going to do that now...
@ Od:
DeleteHow about making the "luck" resource random? Roll D6 at the beginning of the game session to determine how lucky you're feeling?
(punk)
; )
I was skeptical about axing saving throws initially, but the more I read, and think about it, the more this approach seems to mesh with the idea of player skill over character skill. No, you can't just rely on your saving throw, bolstered by spells and rings of protection. Tell me what you're doing to avoid the gaze, and I'll tell you what sorts of penalties it imposes on your attacks or actions, and if you have some chance on 1d6 each round to accidentally meet the gaze. You meet it, you're petrified (or dead, or hypnotized, or whatever the particular gaze is supposed to do.) Full stop. Monsters with special abilities should be challenging because you can't just go at them, dice blazing, and trust that your stats will see you through; you have to use your skills as a player to outmaneuver them and nullify their powers. It's much more satisfying to defeat a monster because of good strategy and preparedness than because you rolled a 13 or better on d20.
ReplyDelete@ Eric:
DeleteThat's my thought (pretty much) exactly.
: )
the group of players I was dming for ran into a Medusa and sure enough two or three of the PCs were turned to stone before it was defeated (after lights wee extinguished). Players moaned an groaned and one player wondered about the poison from the snake hair and if it could be used to make an antidote and return the stoned victims to a fleshy state... well darn it that was a good idea and I figured why the heck not. A way around being turned to stone that wasn't just a saving throw or gimme spell was just too useful for the game (and a reason to hunt Medusa/gorgons in the future).
ReplyDeleteSee? That's awesome.
Delete: )
Good stuff!
ReplyDelete@ Mason:
DeleteThanks!