There are two very different ways to read Petrifying Gaze, and it's not entirely clear which one is correct.
Petrifying Gaze (Recharge 5–6).Constitution Saving Throw: DC 13, each creature in a 30-foot Cone. If the medusa sees its reflection in the Cone, the medusa must make this save. First Failure: The target has the Restrained condition and repeats the save at the end of its next turn if it is still Restrained, ending the effect on itself on a success. Second Failure: The target has the Petrified condition instead of the Restrained condition.
Let's say the medusa uses PG first round; Alfonse succeeds, and Bethrynna and Creegga fail and are Restrained. Alfonse is obviously totally out of the woods.
On Bethrynna's turn, she succeeds. Restrained condition over; she's out of the woods.
Creegga fails a second time. What happens to her?
One reading: This is Creegga's Second Failure, so she's Petrified.
Another reading: Creegga failed her first saving throw against Petrifying Gaze, repeated it at the end of her turn and failed again, so she doesn't end the Restrained condition on herself. But this is not the Second Failure against a use of Petrifying Gaze—it's a repeat of the failed saving throw against the first use—so she's not Petrified, either. She remains Restrained. To change her condition from Restrained to Petrified, the medusa will have to use this bonus action on Creegga a second time, after it recharges.
Generally speaking, simpler is better. But is simpler correct? Is it RAI? Both readings, arguably, are RAW.
Second Failure: The target has the Petrified condition instead of the Restrained condition.
If reading it one way is simple and straightforward and reading it the other way requires detailed analysis, go with the straightforward reading. Fail twice and you're petrified.
Second Failure: The target has the Petrified condition instead of the Restrained condition.
If reading it one way is simple and straightforward and reading it the other way requires detailed analysis, go with the straightforward reading. Fail twice and you're petrified.
As a corollary to this, it's often helpful to ask yourself: if this interpretation is the one the writer(s) intended, is this the way they would have written it?
In this specific example, is it at all plausible that if the "second failure" language referred only to a failure against a whole other use of the ability, they wouldn't have called that out explicitly?
The designers put a lot of time and effort into making sure the simplest reading of a rule is the most accurate. Occasionally, they fail, and an errata is issued. I doubt they put very much effort into making sure that someone who prefers not to use the simplest reading has no possible other way to look at a rule under any circumstances.
EDIT: In this case, it might be beneficial to think of the petrifying gaze like a venom, where it's in your system, and it's going to run its course regardless of what happens to the snake after it bites you.
EDIT: In this case, it might be beneficial to think of the petrifying gaze like a venom, where it's in your system, and it's going to run its course regardless of what happens to the snake after it bites you.
I think this goes along with how it's often portrayed in TV and movies as a somewhat gradual process rather than an instantaneous effect.
The Monster Manual instruct to follow the explanation of what happens on a failed save.
So Creegga is now Petrified.
Saving Throw Effect Notation
If an effect forces a saving throw, the effect identifies the kind of save required and then provides the save’s DC, a description of which creatures make the save, and an explanation of what happens on a failed or successful save.
Another reading: Creegga failed her first saving throw against Petrifying Gaze, repeated it at the end of her turn and failed again, so she doesn't end the Restrained condition on herself. But this is not the Second Failure against a use of Petrifying Gaze
Yes, it is. If something calls for multiple saves, whether instantaneously or over multiple turns, all of them are saves against the original ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are two very different ways to read Petrifying Gaze, and it's not entirely clear which one is correct.
Let's say the medusa uses PG first round; Alfonse succeeds, and Bethrynna and Creegga fail and are Restrained. Alfonse is obviously totally out of the woods.
On Bethrynna's turn, she succeeds. Restrained condition over; she's out of the woods.
Creegga fails a second time. What happens to her?
One reading: This is Creegga's Second Failure, so she's Petrified.
Another reading: Creegga failed her first saving throw against Petrifying Gaze, repeated it at the end of her turn and failed again, so she doesn't end the Restrained condition on herself. But this is not the Second Failure against a use of Petrifying Gaze—it's a repeat of the failed saving throw against the first use—so she's not Petrified, either. She remains Restrained. To change her condition from Restrained to Petrified, the medusa will have to use this bonus action on Creegga a second time, after it recharges.
Generally speaking, simpler is better. But is simpler correct? Is it RAI? Both readings, arguably, are RAW.
Author of The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters, MOAR! Monsters Know What They're Doing, Live to Tell the Tale: Combat Tactics for Players and How to Defend Your Lair (Saga Press).
Second Failure: The target has the Petrified condition instead of the Restrained condition.
If reading it one way is simple and straightforward and reading it the other way requires detailed analysis, go with the straightforward reading. Fail twice and you're petrified.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's the "one reading" way, yes.
Also, there's already a recent thread about this: Petrifying Gaze in 2024 - Rules & Game Mechanics
As a corollary to this, it's often helpful to ask yourself: if this interpretation is the one the writer(s) intended, is this the way they would have written it?
In this specific example, is it at all plausible that if the "second failure" language referred only to a failure against a whole other use of the ability, they wouldn't have called that out explicitly?
pronouns: he/she/they
Thanks. I searched for a recent post containing the word "medusa" and didn't find one; didn't think to search on the name of the ability.
Author of The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters, MOAR! Monsters Know What They're Doing, Live to Tell the Tale: Combat Tactics for Players and How to Defend Your Lair (Saga Press).
The designers put a lot of time and effort into making sure the simplest reading of a rule is the most accurate. Occasionally, they fail, and an errata is issued. I doubt they put very much effort into making sure that someone who prefers not to use the simplest reading has no possible other way to look at a rule under any circumstances.
EDIT: In this case, it might be beneficial to think of the petrifying gaze like a venom, where it's in your system, and it's going to run its course regardless of what happens to the snake after it bites you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, no, don't worry at all! I just mentioned that thread in case it was interesting for you! :) Because it has other questions, too.
I think this goes along with how it's often portrayed in TV and movies as a somewhat gradual process rather than an instantaneous effect.
pronouns: he/she/they
The Monster Manual instruct to follow the explanation of what happens on a failed save.
So Creegga is now Petrified.
Yes, it is. If something calls for multiple saves, whether instantaneously or over multiple turns, all of them are saves against the original ability.