Rules Compendium anti magic field example

[Plane Sailing]

Another strange little rule twist from the October Preview that I've just noticed.

In the information about Invisibility

Invisible creatures can't use gaze attacks.

Why can't invisible creatures use gaze attacks against people that can see invisible? What is the point of making a blanket statement that is likely to cause additional cognitive confusion for people?

Classically, gaze attacks work when you see the monsters eyes. If it is invisible and you have see invisible or true seeing up... you see it's eyes.

Now some people will want to rationalise reasons for why invisible creatures can't use gaze attacks, all because of an incautiously written sentence in the rules compendium...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why can't invisible creatures use gaze attacks against people that can see invisible?

That's nothing to do with Rules Compendium - the same line appears in the DMG under the description of both Gaze Attacks and Invisibility.

Additionally, invisible creatures gain a +2 on attack rolls and deny targets their Dex bonus to AC; attacks against him suffer a 50% miss chance even if the attacker has pinpointed his location; and so on.

If you don't consider the creature to be not-invisible for purposes of interacting with creatures who can see invisible, then you have a whole lot more issues than just gaze attacks to deal with.

-Hyp.

 

[fanboy2000]

Why can't invisible creatures use gaze attacks against people that can see invisible?

I would imagine that you can. The section you quoted from is the attack section and it's written with the assumption that the invisible attacker can't be seen by it's attacker. Re-read the first paragraph of the section:

An invisible attacker gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against opponents that can't see it. Opponents are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against an invisible attacker's attacks.

Classically, gaze attacks work when you see the monsters eyes. If it is invisible and you have see invisible or true seeing up... you see it's eyes.

Technically, when you cast the See Invisibility spell "such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes..." So it would be possible that translucent eyes don't allow you to make gaze attacks. True Seeing says that invisible creatures appear normal, so gaze attacks are possible.

Now some people will want to rationalise reasons for why invisible creatures can't use gaze attacks, all because of an incautiously written sentence in the rules compendium...

I think part of the reason it's written that way is because of the way the core books are structured: conditions are generally handled under entries for that condition and assume that no exceptions apply. Exceptions are handled under their individual exception entries. This is particularly true of spells and feats. Notice that the section in the previews mentions (briefly) about senses like scent, blidfight, and blindsense. It makes no mention of True Seeing or See Invisibility. What those spells do is under the spell descriptions of those spells, not under the rules for invisibility.

I think this is the major problem with 3.5. The rules and the exceptions are divorced from each other. This can make it difficult to find what your looking when planing a game or understand fully how something works.

 

[frankthedm]

They don't tackle any of the thorny questions ... magic arrows fired from a magic bow into an antimagic field) .

Uhm, they DID adress that

A magic weapon used to attack from inside an anti magic
area, or one used to attack a creature inside an antimagic
area, gains none of the benefi ts of its magic properties. Those
properties are suppressed because of the weapon’s interaction
with the antimagic area. If neither the attacker nor the
target is inside the antimagic area, the attack resolves normally
with reference to the weapon’s
magic properties.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Uhm, they DID adress that

I don't consider that to be addressing the question. It sounds like they are talking about magic weapons which are striking into an antimagic field.

Magic bows sound like they are more accurate and more powerful... now if their entire ability comes from imbueing magic into the arrow they fire then the para you quote would hold true... but if the intend to disambiguate, they ought to do the job properly.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That's nothing to do with Rules Compendium - the same line appears in the DMG under the description of both Gaze Attacks and Invisibility.

I can't blame them for that then (although I will still blame the original rules for verbiage!)

 

[mvincent]

Technically, when you cast the See Invisibility spell "such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes..." So it would be possible that translucent eyes don't allow you to make gaze attacks. True Seeing says that invisible creatures appear normal, so gaze attacks are possible.

From the RotG (fwiw, if desired):
"The rules don't mention it, but you reasonably can assume that a creature looking into the Ethereal Plane with a divination spell (such as true seeing or see invisibility) would be susceptible to a gaze attack from an ethereal creature."

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the RotG (fwiw, if desired):
"The rules don't mention it, but you reasonably can assume that a creature looking into the Ethereal Plane with a divination spell (such as true seeing or see invisibility) would be susceptible to a gaze attack from an ethereal creature."

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all:

A force effect originating on the Material Plane extends onto the Ethereal Plane, so that a wall of force blocks an ethereal creature, and a magic missile can strike one (provided the spellcaster can see the ethereal target). Gaze effects and abjurations also extend from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. None of these effects extend from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane.

A Magic Missile from the Material Plane can hit an ethereal creature. A Magic Missile from the Ethereal Plane can't hit a material creature, even if he can see invisible.

A Dispel Magic from the Material Plane can affect an ethereal creature. A Dispel Magic from the Ethereal Plane can't affect a material creature, even if he can see invisible.

I'm not sure why Skip would consider it a reasonable assumption that an Ethereal gaze attack can affect a material creature, when the text for Ethereality states "None of these effects extend from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane"...

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all

Yup. Since the rules say, "An ethereal creature can’t affect the Material Plane, not even magically" I would have to agree.

But for our purposes, it seems to imply what sort of ruling Skip would likely make on the invisible+gaze+see invisible issue (which does seem subject to some interpretation).

 

[Elemmakil]

I don't consider that to be addressing the question. It sounds like they are talking about magic weapons which are striking into an antimagic field.

Magic bows sound like they are more accurate and more powerful... now if their entire ability comes from imbueing magic into the arrow they fire then the para you quote would hold true... but if the intend to disambiguate, they ought to do the job properly.

Flavor text is not rules text. All magic weapons, melee or otherwise, striking into an antimagic field don't gain any benefit.

-Elemmakil