tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48 
|
Post by tom on Nov 10, 2023 11:46:16 GMT -6
Would really love some of your thoughts on handling an encounter with a Medusae.
The description of this monster in Monsters & Treasure is "A human-type monster with the lower body of a snake, a human torso and head, with tresses which are asps. It is able to turn those who look at its eyes to stone, while the bite of the snakes which cover its head is deadly (poison). As it is intelligent it will cleverly attempt to beguile victims into looking at it. It also is subject to the effects of its reflected glance."
I'm wondering if anyone has ever come across any examples across D&D published material regarding some specific mechanics for handling Medusae. My main hang up is how to actively handle the avoidance of the Medusae's gaze? I was thinking of something like a 2 in 6 chance each round that a random character within 30' must make a Saving Throw or be turned to stone.
Thinking about the classic battle in Clash of the Titans for inspiration too. Maybe characters without a shield could suffer a -2 Penalty to their AC because they can't use their shield to black the monsters gaze and attack rolls against the monster suffer a -2 penalty because the character has to focus on avoiding the monsters gaze. If using a shield that casts a reflection this penalty is reduced to -1.
But the real conundrum is how to handle a character trying to trick the monster into looking at its own reflection? I can imagine mirrors work, well polished shields, but the light would need to be sufficient. I'd love to hear how other people have handled this and if there is any official material out there for the Medusae that would also be amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 10, 2023 15:11:56 GMT -6
Hey, Tom -- I love the fact that you came armed with ideas on what to do, since that's sort of the heart of what makes "old school" D&D better (in my opinion) than newer flavors. Whatever you do is the "right way" by definition!  A 2 in 6 chance of being forced to make a saving throw seems pretty nasty, but if that's the way you run your campaigns I'd say "go for it." I think I'd maybe lean towards 1 in 6 (17%) just because being turned to stone is pretty hard to recover from, but of course that's just the chance for making a saving throw so the actual chance of character death is smaller. As to tricking the Medusae, I would think about some sort of INT check. But I would make the player give a short speech or something to indicate how he or she is trying to convince the Medusae to look in the direction of the mirror or other shiny surface. Make them ham it up a little rather than just rolling a die. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 10, 2023 17:15:56 GMT -6
I'm wondering if anyone has ever come across any examples across D&D published material regarding some specific mechanics for handling Medusae. My main hang up is how to actively handle the avoidance of the Medusae's gaze? I was thinking of something like a 2 in 6 chance each round that a random character within 30' must make a Saving Throw or be turned to stone. The AD&D MM (sometimes considered the final OD&D publication) has this: Reading it literally, the medusa's gaze appears to be an "always on" 30ft radius effect, with the saving throw accounting for all the variations on whether or not the creature's gaze is met. Personally, I would consider limiting this to the forward direction the creature is paying attention to. Perhaps a 270 degree arc if it is scanning around, searching. Or at least not directly to its rear. Reflecting the monster's gaze is a key element---and possibly one reason why steel mirrors are in the basic equipment list. If the players carry and present mirrors, then the monster might also have to save vs petrification each turn that mirrors are within 3". So it cuts both ways. Darkness is an interesting option that might advantage the players. I.e., if they can't see in the dark but if the monster can see in the dark... then perhaps there's a situation where the players can't be petrified but the monster can! Regarding tricking a medusa, I would never reduce this to an ability check. For me, the detail of whatever scheme the player imagines or invents to deceive the monster is the essence of D&D. It's up to the player to outwit the monster. That's D&D. If required, the random reaction of an intelligent monster to whatever they players might present can be determined with the monster reaction table (UWA p12), surely one of the most useful ref tools in the game! The ref can adjust the reaction throw based on how convincing the players' scheme is. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 10, 2023 17:32:00 GMT -6
From Gary Gygax's description of the dracolisk in the AD&D Monster Manual II, page 55:
Though the dracolisk was not published until 1982's S4: The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, I do not for a moment suppose that these rules for meeting a creature's gaze were made-up on the spot by Gary in 1982. I suspect that he'd been using those rules (or something very similar to them) way back in the mid-1970s, and it wasn't until 1982 that he noticed that these rules had never made their way into print.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 10, 2023 19:28:56 GMT -6
The "something very similar" would have to omit the distinction between surprised and completely surprised, and would have to use a six-sided die  |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 11, 2023 5:54:27 GMT -6
I only remember one fight with a medusa (We played AD&D 2E at that time.) and we came prepared, because we knew there would be one. Our characters had made special glasses with small mirrors instead of glass lenses, which were big enough to block our sight at anything beyond close up, and if something would be close, we'd "aim" our face in the medusa's face, while our eyes were free to move and see the snake body if it was close enough. The small mirrors were small enough to be not instantly recognizable, which would allow us to get closer.
The DM ruled that the medusa was quite surprised by our special glasses but realized it in time, but now it had to try to avoid our "gaze", which was ruled almost impossible because of the 6 attackers, so it had to make a Save vs Petrification each round.
And that it failed after a couple of rounds, and turned to stone.
|
|
tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48
|
Post by tom on Nov 11, 2023 7:58:23 GMT -6
The "something very similar" would have to omit the distinction between surprised and completely surprised, and would have to use a six-sided die Why a d6? I think Holmes liked to boil a lot down to a d6 roll but OD&D has plenty of variations on how dice were used. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Nov 11, 2023 12:16:17 GMT -6
The "something very similar" would have to omit the distinction between surprised and completely surprised, and would have to use a six-sided die While I have no idea whether Gary used something from the Dracolisk chart in the 1970s, the concept of "surprise" (roll of 1 for surprise) versus "complete surprise" (roll of 2 for surprise) does show up in Eldritch Wizardry in April 1976. The term "complete surprise" is also mentioned in the entry for the catoblepas in the Strategic Review #7 in the same month, and then is repeated in the Monster Manual entry in 1977 but with an explanation ("2 on a 6-sided die"). "Complete surprise" barely appears in AD&D (in the Phantasmal Killer spell in the PHB, and in the Crossbow of Speed in the DMG) and isn't explained there, so it is interesting it appears in the MMII, and could conceivably be a holdover from the OD&D era. In addition to the Dracolisk, the term also appears in the MMII in the entry for the Boalisk ("Complete surprise (1-2 on 1d6) indicates someone has met the gaze and gets no saving throw"). |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 11, 2023 21:12:07 GMT -6
Why a d6? I think Holmes liked to boil a lot down to a d6 roll but OD&D has plenty of variations on how dice were used. Haha! I knew that would be "controversial" the moment I wrote it  It's not important, other than for a sense of what the pre-funky dice era may have been like. IMHO it's fun to recall that not everyone had funky dice in the early days (e.g., the Dalluhn ms talks about drawing cards from a deck to generate 1-10 or % numbers). Arguably, the 3LBBs describe a largely a 2d6-based game with a flurry of funky dice elements thrown in at the end. Even with boat loads of funky dice, I still like d6s. They encapsulate just the right granularity of chances for the type of play I like. More die faces tends toward more, finer-grained outcomes with more modifiers which, IMHO, doesn't add much. the concept of "surprise" (roll of 1 for surprise) versus "complete surprise" (roll of 2 for surprise) does show up in Eldritch Wizardry in April 1976. The term "complete surprise" is also mentioned in the entry for the catoblepas in the Strategic Review #7 in the same month, and then is repeated in the Monster Manual entry in 1977 but with an explanation ("2 on a 6-sided die"). "Complete surprise" barely appears in AD&D (in the Phantasmal Killer spell in the PHB, and in the Crossbow of Speed in the DMG) and isn't explained there, so it is interesting it appears in the MMII, and could conceivably be a holdover from the OD&D era. Thanks Zenopus. I had assumed "complete surprise" was synonymous with the AD&D concept of having more than one surprise segment but, as you rightly point out, AD&D doesn't call it "complete surprise" (I just went and looked). Both the PHB and the DMG do describe how AD&D surprise comprises a number of 6-second segments of surprise (with each segment allowing equivalent of a full round of melee attacks, or other actions). The number of segments of surprise is (I think?) equal to the difference between the two parties' d6 surprise dice. The DMG examples are... convoluted... but I think it's technically possible to get 6-1=5 segments of surprise! It seems (to me) likely that "complete surprise" was a new term in EW (1976) because it appears under the "Alternate Combat System (Addition)" heading, and describes surprise in terms of the newly introduced segments (of a melee round) concept. " If surprised lose the 1st segment on a die roll of 1 and the 1st and 2nd segments on a die roll of 2" seems straight forward, but it's less obvious what the impact of missing these segments is, given this implies missing only the first one-sixth or one-third portion of the round (but not the entire round). In any event, it seems (to me) the EW version is saying when actions will fall within a round and that a surprised party will miss only the first segment(s)/portion of the round. Whereas the AD&D version is saying that actions take (6-second) segments of time, and that a surprised party will miss one or more whole segment(s)/opportunities to act. the term also appears in the MMII in the entry for the Boalisk ("Complete surprise (1-2 on 1d6) indicates someone has met the gaze and gets no saving throw"). Back on topic, the Boalisk description has a bit more which addresses the original question. It says: An interesting side-track here is that it calls 1-2 on a d6 complete surprise, whereas EW suggests only a 2 is complete surprise. But the main point is the next sentence: " Otherwise," (i.e., without complete surprise) " any creature meeting its gaze (indicated by failing a saving throw vs. petrification) becomes...". So it's saying the saving throw determines whether its gaze was met. It also says that the gaze attack is in addition to its regular melee attack(s), and that it gazes at one individual each round (usually its melee opponent). Seems like pretty comprehensive coverage, albeit from MM2. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Nov 18, 2023 7:24:15 GMT -6
I've had a couple situations over the years, not using the LBBs but Moldvay/Cook and OSR games. I don't recall in the early OD&D days having any MEedusa encounters (after CotT came out though...they were EVERYWHERE in people's games).
Generally I used the Moldvay rule, i.e. if you are trying not to look, you suffer a big penalty when attacking and the medusa gets a bonus to hit with the snakes, and I handled the "meeting it's gaze" through the narrative. I didn't make it a random chance every turn. Something had to happen to trigger the save- PC stupidity or bad die rolls/luck.
About 10 years ago or so I used one in a 13th Age game- very much like this take best, it was one of the most fun combats I ever ran.
Essentially-
1) If the medusa hits with snakes and rolls high enough on the die (18+) gets an automatic petrify attack. In 13th Age its always attacks vs. defenses (AC, physical defense, or mental defense). In this case you could simply say the the PC has to make a save in O/TSR D&D.
2) If the Medusa is slinging arrows, she gets a free petrify attack on a natural 20. I think this matches up great with both movies. And this actually happened in the game to great effect (for me as DM) I rolled a crit on the bow shot, then again on the Petrify attack! PC had to start making last gasp saves* as he started to turn to stone. Narratively, I described the bow shot hitting him in the back, then PC in surprise spun his head around to see where the shot came from and met it's gaze- that PC didn't make it- blew all 3 last gasp saves.
3) Whenever a nearby (within melee range) attacker whiffs an attack (rolls a 1 or 2), Medusa gets to make a petrifying gaze attack against that attacker.
4)There is also another trigger for the petrifying gaze in 13th Age, but it is based on a special mechanic inherent to that system- the escalation die.
** in 13th Age, turning to stone is a series of last gasp saves- which means you have to roll a 16+, no modifiers, to shake off an effect or you progress to the next stage of the effect. It's pretty d**n deadly, not at all like 5E's easy death saves.
At any rate, if I ever run a Medusa again in an O/TSR like game, I would incorporate those bits from 13th Age.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Nov 19, 2023 19:00:41 GMT -6
I'd let a character fight blindfolded or with their eyes closed to avoid the gaze.
All foes will have advantage (or +4) to hit the blind character.
The blind character will have disadvantage (or -4) to hit anyone else.
Any fast movement especially if there is difficult terrain might require a petrification save to avoid falling prone.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 21, 2023 14:12:13 GMT -6
To defeat the Medusa, we must first understand the Medusa.
|
|
