how would you rule a basilisk eating a PC it just turned too stone? Looking at the petrified condition it states :
A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone). Its weight increases by a factor of ten, and it ceases aging.
The creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
i am aware of that, but how would i rule a basilisk wanting to eat a petfrified party member should it decide it may want a snack, should others fail to distract it?
The victim is incapacitated but not at 0 hp, so the basilisk would eat him 4d6+6 hp at a time (this includes the critical damage from the incapacitation).
Damage should be 4d6+3, correct? Yes, the basilisk automatically gets a critical hit on the character due to being incapacitated from being petrified, but a critical hit only doubles the dice being rolled. The +3 modifier remains unchanged, unless I am overlooking something. Only a 3-point difference, but just mentioning from a rules clarification aspect.
Similarly, while the basilisk would be dealing critical hits, the character would still be taking half of the damage being rolled due to the damage resistance granted from being petrified. Character won't last very long if basilisk spends each of its turns chomping down on the petrified person, but the resistance may give them an extra round (or two) for other characters to intervene before they're gravel in the basilisk's belly.
Given that there's mention of "Unfortunately for such a victim, any parts lost in stone form remain absent if the creature revives." I would probably treat damage specially once the victim hits 0 hp -- while it's not specified, I would say a petrified victim doesn't actually die until key parts are un-petrified (the basilisk's gullet un-petrifies, so if it eats the victim's head that's fatal).
You're right, I agree, it's all the trick about describing wounds, whether in flesh or in stone that match the fact that hit points are not only physical. Vital parts should still be eaten until the victim has failed his three death saves, although honestly, with every attack being a critical and inflicting 2 failed death saves, it will not last long...
Well, I'd special case it so that doesn't actually kill. I don't have any real problem ruling that petrified creatures cannot die until they are first unpetrified.
Basilisk is a beastly predator. Even while starving it would not eat the foe it already incapacitated if there are others threatening it. Goblins and gnolls may finish off the wounded out of malice or tactical awareness of enemy healers, but beasts and low-int monsters would not.
i am aware of that, but how would i rule a basilisk wanting to eat a petfrified party member should it decide it may want a snack, should others fail to distract it?
Firstly, I think I would rule that it only starts eating bits once the PC hits 0HP. Before then, it is trying to break bits off to munch on. This is no different, really, to a dragon wanting to eat a character: You wouldn't have it bite the legs off a PC who was awake (leaving that PC stuck prone for the forseeable), you would have it attack and reduce the HP.
However, with respect to how you should rule if it wanted to nom on your PC: You are the DM. You decide what the basilisk does, using interactions with the environment and your view of its behavioural patterns/"personality" to guide you. For me, most animals would only start eating once any other danger was passed, so if there's still combat occurring, it would be more likely to deal with threats than have a snack. Personally, I would just make it focus on the other characters instead of the petrified one, because that is more realistic IMHO for an animal.
I think the point is that the OP is worried they may "insta kill them if im not careful".
As the DM, it is their choice as to the behaviour of the basilisk. It would not be abnormal behaviour for it to attack other party members, considering them enough of a threat to make feeding too dangerous. It is even within the DM's remit to decide how hungry the basilisk is: If he's not that hungry, even territorial instincts or "playing" could be more important to it at that point than eating a meal. Heck, if not hungry, it could even wander off from boredom or run away if the fight got too intense.
Basically, if he is worried about killing the player, it is in his power to make sure he doesn't, and there are ways to do so which would not be out-of-character for the basilisk.
I think the point is that the OP is worried they may "insta kill them if im not careful".
Lone basilisks are actually very easy to hunt even for low-level players. They are slow, have no bonuses to awareness, no stealth and live in the swamps which are open terrain. Once you track them down you lay few layers of traps and mirrors in their way, hide and pelt them from distance with longbows. It would take the beast a few turns to even pass the active perception test to realize where are the attackers and by if yopu play it right they woule never reach pertrifying gaze range.
"Slay a bassilisk and bring us it's expensive eggs" is like the staple low-level quest tot test players ability to gather interl on teh quarrty, analyze it and prepare so tehy can take down someting way above they projected CR.
It's the domesticated bassilisks that are the real pain in the ass. When it's a pet of hobgoblin warlord or evil necromancer fighting side by side with its intelligent master and listening to commands, not a stupid solitary predator, it can bring down PCs way above it's CR. Also a good callback on why selling bassilisk eggs on black market is a stupid ******* idea that would bit you in the ass in a long run.
They are slow, have no bonuses to awareness, no stealth and live in the swamps which are open terrain.
If you think swamps are open terrain, you really should look at more swamps. Sure, *some* are relatively flat and open, but there are plenty of tree-choked swamps even in the US, let alone out in South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I agree that if the players are standing around and watching their ally get eaten, that ally should probably die. Whether the ally is petrified or not doesn't really change anything.
And if they're actively attacking, the incapacitated ally is left alone. You see this in nature videos of lions or any other creature around a kill. They don't sit there and eat if something is threatening them or trying to take the kill, they posture and fight until they feel safe.
Lions are mammals and social animals. I very much doubt basilisks are. they seem more on par with Komodo Lizards for example.
Was just invoking a common image in nature programs to illustrate the default natural behavior of pretty much any carnivore. Social behavior has nothing to do with it because it's basic survival - the food won't nourish you if you're dead, and even minor injuries can pose a threat to life due to the need to stay highly functional to hunt successfully. Some may try to drag the food away to a safer place, but they're not just going to sit there and chow down. If you know of an example of behavior in the natural world that contradicts this I'd love to hear about it!
if he is being ignored, he light just take a bite or two when really hungry
I could see that happening in very specific circumstances. However, for me, doing this would require the petrified creature to be at 0hp. This is to match up with how this would be treated in other circumstances. For example, even if a character was paralysed/restrained etc, I (as DM) wouldn't let a dragon bite a hand or arm off a character who still had hit points. HP is how damage is tracked in D&D. So, even if the Basilisk wanted to "take a bite or two", they would need to first attack until HP is zero, overcoming resistance offered by petrified (to me, this would represent that, no matter how strong the Basilisk's jaws are, they are still trying to break stone, so reducing the HP to zero is damaging the stone to the point where pieces start to break off).
Even after taking that into account, I would still be reluctant to have it start eating a PC. Unless I had already made it canon that the Basilisk was starving, I have control over how hungry it is. I also have control over how much of a threat it sees the party. As such, I would almost always say that, as long as the party is actively trying to attack or threaten the basilisk (or they are nearby and have been a threat recently), it will see the party as too much of threat to stop for a snack.
They are slow, have no bonuses to awareness, no stealth and live in the swamps which are open terrain.
If you think swamps are open terrain, you really should look at more swamps.
I literally live in the swampland.
Some swamps are open terrain. Other swamps are thickets. Or more likely, a mixture. Also, basilisks aren't swamp dwellers anyway, MM claims mountain dwellers (though lines of sight can be pretty long in the mountains). They should probably have a climb speed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
how would you rule a basilisk eating a PC it just turned too stone? Looking at the petrified condition it states :
Im am a little worried due to the fact i could insta kill them if im not careful.
i am aware of that, but how would i rule a basilisk wanting to eat a petfrified party member should it decide it may want a snack, should others fail to distract it?
Damage should be 4d6+3, correct? Yes, the basilisk automatically gets a critical hit on the character due to being incapacitated from being petrified, but a critical hit only doubles the dice being rolled. The +3 modifier remains unchanged, unless I am overlooking something. Only a 3-point difference, but just mentioning from a rules clarification aspect.
Similarly, while the basilisk would be dealing critical hits, the character would still be taking half of the damage being rolled due to the damage resistance granted from being petrified. Character won't last very long if basilisk spends each of its turns chomping down on the petrified person, but the resistance may give them an extra round (or two) for other characters to intervene before they're gravel in the basilisk's belly.
Given that there's mention of "Unfortunately for such a victim, any parts lost in stone form remain absent if the creature revives." I would probably treat damage specially once the victim hits 0 hp -- while it's not specified, I would say a petrified victim doesn't actually die until key parts are un-petrified (the basilisk's gullet un-petrifies, so if it eats the victim's head that's fatal).
Well, I'd special case it so that doesn't actually kill. I don't have any real problem ruling that petrified creatures cannot die until they are first unpetrified.
Yeah, well, as long as it's a non-vital bit, no biggie.
Basilisk is a beastly predator. Even while starving it would not eat the foe it already incapacitated if there are others threatening it. Goblins and gnolls may finish off the wounded out of malice or tactical awareness of enemy healers, but beasts and low-int monsters would not.
Firstly, I think I would rule that it only starts eating bits once the PC hits 0HP. Before then, it is trying to break bits off to munch on. This is no different, really, to a dragon wanting to eat a character: You wouldn't have it bite the legs off a PC who was awake (leaving that PC stuck prone for the forseeable), you would have it attack and reduce the HP.
However, with respect to how you should rule if it wanted to nom on your PC: You are the DM. You decide what the basilisk does, using interactions with the environment and your view of its behavioural patterns/"personality" to guide you. For me, most animals would only start eating once any other danger was passed, so if there's still combat occurring, it would be more likely to deal with threats than have a snack. Personally, I would just make it focus on the other characters instead of the petrified one, because that is more realistic IMHO for an animal.
I think the point is that the OP is worried they may "insta kill them if im not careful".
As the DM, it is their choice as to the behaviour of the basilisk. It would not be abnormal behaviour for it to attack other party members, considering them enough of a threat to make feeding too dangerous. It is even within the DM's remit to decide how hungry the basilisk is: If he's not that hungry, even territorial instincts or "playing" could be more important to it at that point than eating a meal. Heck, if not hungry, it could even wander off from boredom or run away if the fight got too intense.
Basically, if he is worried about killing the player, it is in his power to make sure he doesn't, and there are ways to do so which would not be out-of-character for the basilisk.
Lone basilisks are actually very easy to hunt even for low-level players. They are slow, have no bonuses to awareness, no stealth and live in the swamps which are open terrain. Once you track them down you lay few layers of traps and mirrors in their way, hide and pelt them from distance with longbows. It would take the beast a few turns to even pass the active perception test to realize where are the attackers and by if yopu play it right they woule never reach pertrifying gaze range.
"Slay a bassilisk and bring us it's expensive eggs" is like the staple low-level quest tot test players ability to gather interl on teh quarrty, analyze it and prepare so tehy can take down someting way above they projected CR.
It's the domesticated bassilisks that are the real pain in the ass. When it's a pet of hobgoblin warlord or evil necromancer fighting side by side with its intelligent master and listening to commands, not a stupid solitary predator, it can bring down PCs way above it's CR. Also a good callback on why selling bassilisk eggs on black market is a stupid ******* idea that would bit you in the ass in a long run.
If you think swamps are open terrain, you really should look at more swamps. Sure, *some* are relatively flat and open, but there are plenty of tree-choked swamps even in the US, let alone out in South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I agree that if the players are standing around and watching their ally get eaten, that ally should probably die. Whether the ally is petrified or not doesn't really change anything.
And if they're actively attacking, the incapacitated ally is left alone. You see this in nature videos of lions or any other creature around a kill. They don't sit there and eat if something is threatening them or trying to take the kill, they posture and fight until they feel safe.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't know of any animal, social or otherwise, which would ignore a threat and sit down to dinner.
Except maybe humans 😂
Was just invoking a common image in nature programs to illustrate the default natural behavior of pretty much any carnivore. Social behavior has nothing to do with it because it's basic survival - the food won't nourish you if you're dead, and even minor injuries can pose a threat to life due to the need to stay highly functional to hunt successfully. Some may try to drag the food away to a safer place, but they're not just going to sit there and chow down. If you know of an example of behavior in the natural world that contradicts this I'd love to hear about it!
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I literally live in the swampland.
I could see that happening in very specific circumstances. However, for me, doing this would require the petrified creature to be at 0hp. This is to match up with how this would be treated in other circumstances. For example, even if a character was paralysed/restrained etc, I (as DM) wouldn't let a dragon bite a hand or arm off a character who still had hit points. HP is how damage is tracked in D&D. So, even if the Basilisk wanted to "take a bite or two", they would need to first attack until HP is zero, overcoming resistance offered by petrified (to me, this would represent that, no matter how strong the Basilisk's jaws are, they are still trying to break stone, so reducing the HP to zero is damaging the stone to the point where pieces start to break off).
Even after taking that into account, I would still be reluctant to have it start eating a PC. Unless I had already made it canon that the Basilisk was starving, I have control over how hungry it is. I also have control over how much of a threat it sees the party. As such, I would almost always say that, as long as the party is actively trying to attack or threaten the basilisk (or they are nearby and have been a threat recently), it will see the party as too much of threat to stop for a snack.
Some swamps are open terrain. Other swamps are thickets. Or more likely, a mixture. Also, basilisks aren't swamp dwellers anyway, MM claims mountain dwellers (though lines of sight can be pretty long in the mountains). They should probably have a climb speed.