Petrification Ray

[pukunui]

Hi all,

During this evening's game, one of the PCs was targeted by a beholder's petrification ray. The effect requires the target to make a Dex save or begin to turn to stone. The PC failed this save and became restrained. The effect then states that the target must "repeat the save". That is to say, a second Dex save, only this time with disadvantage due to being restrained. She failed this one as well (by one point) and became petrified.

The player complained that it was unfair that the second save should also be a Dex save. If it had been a Con save, which does make more sense, the PC would've made the second save and not become petrified. (The DC was 15. The player rolled a 15. The PC's Dex is 9, so he had a -1 on the roll. If it had been a Con save, he would've passed, as the PC's Con is 14.)

Both the medusa and the basilisk have petrifying gazes that require Con saves to resist.

I'm guessing this is an instance of the designers trying to keep things simple and not have one effect call for two different types of saves, but when you think about it, it makes as much sense as an unconscious target still getting to add their Dex bonus to their AC.

Having the initial save be a Dex save is fine. You're trying to physically avoid being hit by a ray. Cool.

But once you've been hit, and you're starting to turn to stone, you're not longer trying to physically avoid being hit by something. You're trying to physically resist an effect. So a Con save for the second save does make more sense.

Is this where "rulings not rules" kicks in? Should I have ruled that the second save was a Con save (in which case the PC would've made the save and not become petrified)? I feel like if I had done that (or were to do it retroactively), that I would then need to permanently houserule the beholder's petrification ray so that it always works that way (which is fine).


What do people think?

 

[Oofta]

I think it's your game and if makes sense that the second roll should be con, then so be it. You could also leave it as dexterity save and explain it as the eye beam maintaining focus kind of like a mystical goo gun slowly covering her in petrification. Of course that could have other side-effects like the beholder retreating or getting killed ending the effect.

In any case, I agree that it was probably just done that way for simplicity. The question is more how you decide to handle it. For me, if it's something i want to think through, I go with my initial ruling or my understanding of the rules if they're clear. I then let the player know we'll discuss after the game when I have time to think about it.

What I want to avoid is rules debates at the table. If I change my mind I'll let everyone know and we'll use that new rule (or house rule in this case) in the future.

 

[Dausuul]

Is this where "rulings not rules" kicks in? Should I have ruled that the second save was a Con save (in which case the PC would've made the save and not become petrified)? I feel like if I had done that (or were to do it retroactively), that I would then need to permanently houserule the beholder's petrification ray so that it always works that way (which is fine).

There would be nothing wrong with house-ruling it as a Con save, and I do see where your player is coming from. At the very least, I would rule that disadvantage from restrained shouldn't apply to a save against the restraining effect. That just feels spiteful.

However, it's also fine to say "I'm running this one by the book." And, in any case, you shouldn't feel like a mid-game ruling is binding precedent. It's perfectly okay to say, "Hmm. Well, we can rule it as a Con save for now, but I'm going to have to go think about it after the game and decide if it makes sense to keep it that way."

It's also a good idea in general not to be too quick to agree to player proposals like this. You don't want them fishing for rules changes every time they blow a saving throw or miss with an attack.

 

[jasper]

I would run it by the book. The player is whining because they chose to have a bad dex. But I am Grumpy Old Rotten Dm.

 

[MNblockhead]

Also, change the rule may have helped this player, as they have a higher CON bonus, but another player high in DEX may cry foul. Unless beholders come up a lot in your campaign, I don't think it is worth making home rule for this one specific (and hopefully for the players, rare) situation.

If I had to defend it, I would say that it is not a gaze. It is a ray. It is a ranged attack that you try to dodge. If you are hit, you have another chance to dodge but at disadvantage because you are already becoming stuck in place. You are not trying to resist the paralyzation effect. You are trying to get out of the ray's path.

 

[Satyrn]

Is this where "rulings not rules" kicks in? Should I have ruled that the second save was a Con save (in which case the PC would've made the save and not become petrified)? I feel like if I had done that (or were to do it retroactively), that I would then need to permanently houserule the beholder's petrification ray so that it always works that way (which is fine).

What do people think?

I wouldn't call this a "rulings, not rules" situation. It's just way too clear what the rule says and completely obvious how it ought to be applied.

I'd call this "not liking the rule, and changing it." Which is totally fine to do, too - but I'd prefer to do that during prep. So I'd leave that PC stoned, and the next beholder's ray would offer a Con save.

 

[pukunui]

Thanks all for the responses! I appreciate it.

I'm leaning towards going with dodging the ray is a Dex save then resisting the petrification effect is a Con save. That makes the most sense to me. But I've got time to think about it.

I shall ponder my options over the next few days (or weeks).

If I had to defend it, I would say that it is not a gaze. It is a ray. It is a ranged attack that you try to dodge. If you are hit, you have another chance to dodge but at disadvantage because you are already becoming stuck in place. You are not trying to resist the paralyzation effect. You are trying to get out of the ray's path.

Yeah, it's a ray, but the second save doesn't kick in until the target's next turn. I wouldn't think that the ray would still be around by that point, so saying you're still trying to dodge out of its way seems like a bit of a stretch. Especially since that opens the door to the other players trying to block the ray or move the targeted PC out of its path in the intervening time, which I don't think is meant to be possible ...

Although I suppose you could argue that either of those activities could be represented by a character taking the Help action, which would grant the target advantage on their next save (which, in this case, would negate the disadvantage for being restrained).

So you could say that maybe this particular eye ray lingers until the effect is shaken off or the character is completely turned to stone, and if anyone wants to try to block the ray or push the targeted PC out of its path, then they can take the Help action to do so. That could work.

On a slightly related note, even though a ray would (generally) be visually represented by a line, it does not count as a line in game mechanic terms. In other words, if you had a ray that lingered over time, someone else could walk through it and be entirely unaffected by it, since it can only affect one target at a time. Same with the "arc" of lightning created by the witch bolt spell. Kinda weird but whatever.

 

[Harzel]

To me, CON for the second save makes more sense. I'd have been more comfortable making the change if the player had complained before failing the second save. (Not sure from the OP in what order things happened.)

As for why RAW is the way it is, I guess simplicity is one possible explanation, although given that the saves are separated by a round, I'm not sure the argument that making one kind of save is "simpler" than making another kind of save really makes sense. Personally, I think it is just as likely the beholder text is cut-and-paste from somewhere else (e.g., basilisk), and nobody bothered to think about it very hard.

 

[pukunui]

To me, CON for the second save makes more sense. I'd have been more comfortable making the change if the player had complained before failing the second save. (Not sure from the OP in what order things happened.)

It was late, but I think it went something like,

ME: "OK, now you have to repeat the save."
PLAYER: *rolls* "Wait. Another Dex save? Shouldn't it be Con?"
ME: "Yeah. I know, Con would make more sense."
PLAYER: "Well, I got a 15. -1 for Dex means I fail."
ME: "You're now petrified."
PLAYER: "That doesn't seem fair."
ME: "I agree. I guess they just did it that way to keep it simple."

Personally, I think it is just as likely the beholder text is cut-and-paste from somewhere else (e.g., basilisk), and nobody bothered to think about it very hard.

Aside from the death tyrant (undead beholder), all the other creatures in the MM that can petrify you do so with Con saves (basilisk, cockatrice, gorgon, and medusa).

 

[Satyrn]

Aside from the death tyrant (undead beholder), all the other creatures in the MM that can petrify you do so with Con saves (basilisk, cockatrice, gorgon, and medusa).

Aye, but I believe what Harzel was suggesting was that the writer took the text from one of those monsters, but then when deciding to change the first save to Dexterity (because ray!), the writer swapped the followup save to Dex, too - and that's the point where Harzel is "accusing" the writer of not thinking too hard.


Also, add me to the list that thinks the followup save should be Con.