Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[MrMyth]

"Proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting" in no way precludes "exploring their personal stories."

The difference is that the adventurers' "personal stories" are a result of what happens in actual play rather than a meta-duscussion. Develop-in-play accomplishes the same thing that develop-at-start does out out-of-game, but I prefer DIP because for me it's more organic and - dare I say it? I dare, I dare! - real because it comes out of shared events passed through the mechanics of the game and experienced first-hand by the players and their characters.

Sure, that's a fair preference. I'm not saying there aren't other styles of play that people can prefer. But for myself, and I suspect for the other poster that the point originated with, having a level of personal connection to the plot makes it a lot easier to build upon that character's own story.

That said, I don't think there is anything that makes it a more 'real' sort of development. Either way, the story will be as organic and shared as much as the party makes it.

In any case, in my experience, having elements of the plot tied to characters makes it a lot easier for players to become invested in the game and want to indulge in the sort of development and roleplaying of those elements. That doesn't mean you can't do so without such connections! But in the games I've played in and games I've run, I think the most memorable parties and adventures have been ones where the characters themselves have more central ties to the narrative.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, just to confirm - if a creature with a gaze attacks glances into a corner in which an invisible or ethereal PC stands, you accept that there is a chance that he can meet their gaze without being aware of their presence... however, if he instead glances into a corner shrouded with shadows in which a PC is simply hidden, you do not believe it is possible for him to meet their gaze without being aware of their presence?

Thankfully, that's not the situation being discussed here at all. Nor is it the "by the book" rules interpretation in the example posted.

In the example posted, the DM rules that the rogue is subject to the bodak's gaze attack simply because he looked in the window. If you agree that, by the book, the bodak's gaze attack is triggered by "gazing upon a creature's eyes" then the ruling being objected to (gazing upon the creature = gazing upon the creature's eyes) is, by your admission, not RAW.

It is a houserule, at best.

But, there are yet two more factors. One is that the gaze attack is not, by the book, "always on". The creature must be using the gaze attack.

The other is that, by the description in the book, the trigger is not "gazing upon a creature's eyes" but rather "meeting the creature's gaze". These are not the same thing. Although one must gaze upon a creature's eyes to meet its gaze, meeting its gaze also requires that the creature is looking in the same direction as you -- IOW it is also looking toward your eyes.

So, sure, a hidden character standing in the shadows is capable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes. But assuming a 100% of doing so while they are also looking at you seems a bit far-fetched to me.

And, if the character is not completely concealed (or invisible), that would seem to me to end his hiding IMHO as well.


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Thankfully, that's not the situation being discussed here at all. Nor is it the "by the book" rules interpretation in the example posted.

In what way do you find it isn't a "by the book" rules interpretation?

In the example posted, the DM rules that the rogue is subject to the bodak's gaze attack simply because he looked in the window. If you agree that, by the book, the bodak's gaze attack is triggered by "gazing upon a creature's eyes" then the ruling being objected to (gazing upon the creature = gazing upon the creature's eyes) is, by your admission, not RAW.

It is a houserule, at best.

A houserule? There are parts of this discussion that might veer into houserule territory, but this certainly isn't one of them.

We're talking about the DM deciding that someone looking in a window at a creature inside is able to see that creature's face. You truly believe that deciding what position a creature might be facing is houseruling? Isn't that, rather, a basic part of DMing? Deciding where creatures stand in relation to the environment around them?

There are various ways a DM could handle it, sure. Some DMs might have it all elaborately mapped out in advance. Some DMs might assign a chance to it and roll. Other DMs might make a decision based on common sense - I suspect that is what happened here. The Bodak was in the back of the room watching the doorway. It had no reason to be hiding its face or turned away. The rogue looked into through a window on the side of the room, and thus had a clear view of the Bodak and its features.

And you feel that decision was a houserule?

You feel that a ruling that gazing upon the front of creature involves gazing upon its eyes is not RAW?

Keep in mind that avoiding a creature's gaze is, by the RAW, not an easy task. Someone actively trying to look away still has a 50% chance of it. So where does it 'by my admission, go against RAW' to rule that someone who is not attempting to avoid doing so, and is in a position to look upon the creature, is likely to see its face?

One is that the gaze attack is not, by the book, "always on". The creature must be using the gaze attack.

I'm not quite sure why this keeps getting brought up. Yes, some creatures can turn their gaze off. A malevolent undead with a hatred of all living things, specifically created and bound to guard the location from intruders, isn't likely to do so. Could there be reasons why it would? Maybe, but there are also plenty of reasons why it wouldn't, and that seems likely to be the case here.

The other is that, by the description in the book, the trigger is not "gazing upon a creature's eyes" but rather "meeting the creature's gaze". These are not the same thing. Although one must gaze upon a creature's eyes to meet its gaze, meeting its gaze also requires that the creature is looking in the same direction as you -- IOW it is also looking toward your eyes.

So, sure, a hidden character standing in the shadows is capable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes. But assuming a 100% of doing so while they are also looking at you seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Dude, it was many, many, many pages ago when I specifically said that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction. What I objected to was the argument that a person successfully hiding influenced what direction he was looking in at all.

Just to confirm, it does sound like you are now retracting your former arguments? You now are willing to accept that a character can be hidden and still view the features of the creatures they are hidden from?

And, if the character is not completely concealed (or invisible), that would seem to me to end his hiding IMHO as well.

Isn't that what a Spot check is for? If a rogue is successfully hidden in the shadows, and someone glances in their direction, if that person's Spot check doesn't beat the rogue's Hide check, I'm pretty sure that means the rogue is still successfully concealed. Deciding otherwise is, again, getting into houserule territory.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't that what a Spot check is for? If a rogue is successfully hidden in the shadows, and someone glances in their direction, if that person's Spot check doesn't beat the rogue's Hide check, I'm pretty sure that means the rogue is still successfully concealed. Deciding otherwise is, again, getting into houserule territory.

Part of the problem here may be a bit of semantics. The difference between not being seen and not being noticed.

Modern camouflage is a great example here - the point of camo is not to keep light from your body from reflecting off you and hitting the viewer's eyes. The point is to make it so that when that light does hit the viewer's eyes, they don't catch on to what they're really seeing.

You can see the soldier, but you might not notice him. You can imagine that soldier's face, covered in paint, as hard to notice as his body. His eyes might be open, but you don't notice them...

Can you "meet his gaze" or not?

As often as not, and argument over whether something is a houserule or not misses the point. If the rules are not explicit on a matter, then everybody need to houserule - and the question of what to do is a reasonable thing to discuss amongst us.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I don't think anyone has been arguing this:

 

[Raven Crowking]

Upfront, yes, there has been a modification of my original position. Absolutely. Any rational person, faced by evidence that a current position is wrong, is going to modify it.

A houserule? There are parts of this discussion that might veer into houserule territory, but this certainly isn't one of them.

You may have specifically said many pages ago when "that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction", but you referred to that as a "houserule" and said that the DM shouldn't be blamed for following the RAW.

The RAW does not say that a rogue looking into a room will have a clear view of a bodak's features, and that the bodak will be gazing at him. Nor does the rogue have 100% concealment when hidden (or he would need no Hide check), so the caveat that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.

Yes, I acknowledge that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation. No, I did not consider that before it was brought up (although, I will point out, I don't consider it particularly relevant now). Yes, that is an alteration of my earlier stated position. No, that alteration is not relevant to this situation.

Whatever method the DM uses to "deciding what position a creature might be facing" is houseruling unless there is something in the RAW to make that determination. Houseruling is a rather basic part of DMing.

Houseruling poorly (making arbitrary decisions that screw the players) is bad DMing, as in the example case. Houseruling poorly on a consistent basis would certainly make me regard one as a bad DM.

Part of the problem here may be a bit of semantics. The difference between not being seen and not being noticed.

If one takes your example of modern camouflage, you will note that the gentleman is specifically not looking at the camera.

Having spent my time in the military, I can tell you that we are prone to notice certain shapes and patterns. The actual the point of camo is to break up the apparent shape of the object or person, so that it "blends into" background shapes that you might not notice.

Eyes are something that we tend to notice. If you are looking into a pair of eyes, and that pair of eyes is looking at you, there is an overwhelming chance that you will become instantly aware of the other person, if you were not already aware. A large part of successfully hiding is to avert the face and avoid the desire to look directly at the potential observers.

(This effect can be noticed with images, but it is far more effective with an actual hider and observer....Even in the dark, in Basic Training, when camo was being demonstrated, I was able to notice a soldier in camo who had successfully hidden when he looked toward me. In the dark. In the forest. And his face was covered in camo paint as well. It literally felt like a "snap" of awareness that he was there.)

If the rules are not explicit on a matter, then everybody need to houserule - and the question of what to do is a reasonable thing to discuss amongst us.

Yup.



RC

 

[Scribble]

I agree, but you didn't say anything at all about skills; you said if your character has a high attribute like Intelligence it should make it easier to solve puzzles.

And it does, but not as directly as you seem to imply. The use of character skills is still dependent on player skill.

For me, at least, that's a good thing.

Yes I agree with that, I wasn't trying to imply what you think I was. Guess I implied incorrectly.

My comment was more directed at people who've expressed an attitude of skills replace "player skill."

Like, instead of a disarm skill, the player should come up with a "smart way" to disable a trap.

Or instead of diplomacy, the player should role play the exchange (without any skill support.)

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

You can see the soldier, but you might not notice him. You can imagine that soldier's face, covered in paint, as hard to notice as his body. His eyes might be open, but you don't notice them...

Can you "meet his gaze" or not?

Or the old fashioned take a painting and cut holes where the eyes are, and look out.

So, sure, a hidden character standing in the shadows is capable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes. But assuming a 100% of doing so while they are also looking at you seems a bit far-fetched to me.

You mean a 100% of remaining hidden? Since if they are looking then the chance of seeing their eyes would increase.

You could approach it as "You made your hide check, so the bodak doesn't happen to glance in your direction. Yet. You don't have to make a save this round." That's a consistent interpretation of what is going on in the gameworld. I'll just say that I don't think it is consistent with the rules. If being hidden reduced the likelihood of needing to make a saving throw against a gaze attack, that is sufficiently important that it would have been included in the rules, and is inconguous with the fact that other ways to reduce the likelihood of making a saving thow are described. IMO, YMMV, etc.

You could also approach it as "You made your hide check. The bodak glances through the window but doesn't notice you. But since you didn't turn your eyes away, you get a good look into its eyes. Make a saving throw." This is consistent with the example, with the rules text, and with the game world. IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My mileage varies quite a bit, thank you.

I don't see how "You made your hide check, so the bodak doesn't happen to glance in your direction. Yet. You don't have to make a save this round." is in any way inconsistent with the rules.

I suppose, though, that they could have described Gaze Attacks better. I mean, after all, the most rules-y version of D&D to date (unless 4e has passed it now?) could have been even more rules-y, I suppose.

If nothing else, this discussion is reminding me why I no longer play 3e.


RC

 

[MrMyth]

You may have specifically said many pages ago when "that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction", but you referred to that as a "houserule" and said that the DM shouldn't be blamed for following the RAW.

Yes. If an adventure involves a Bodak sitting and staring at a door, and someone peers in through a window with a clear view of the Bodak's face, saying, "There is a 30% chance the Bodak is looking away at that moment" is a houserule - it is a new rule invented by the DM. It is not something found in the books themselves.

The RAW does not say that a rogue looking into a room will have a clear view of a bodak's features, and that the bodak will be gazing at him. Nor does the rogue have 100% concealment when hidden (or he would need no Hide check), so the caveat that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.

Whatever method the DM uses to "deciding what position a creature might be facing" is houseruling unless there is something in the RAW to make that determination. Houseruling is a rather basic part of DMing.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

A DM who designs an encounter, and decides what positions creatures will be in when the encounter starts (or are likely to be on, based on whatever variables desired) isn't houseruling. He is creating an encounter. He is running the game. This is, yes, a basic part of DMing.

It is also completely different from houseruling, which I've always understood to mean coming up with a new rule or changing some default rule of the game to better fit the group or the DM's style of play.

Houseruling poorly (making arbitrary decisions that screw the players) is bad DMing, as in the example case. Houseruling poorly on a consistent basis would certainly make me regard one as a bad DM.

So, designing an encounter that is consistent with the creature's place in the game is an arbitrary decision to screw the players?

The Bodak was created and bound by an evil wizard to guard his stuff. It was in the back of the room, watching the doorway. A rogue looks in the window that has a clear view of its position, and thus (if it is facing forward) of its face.

At what point was a houserule made?

The DM is making decisions informed by the rules and the logical consistency of the scenario before him. Where is the bad DMing?

Yes, I acknowledge that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation. No, I did not consider that before it was brought up (although, I will point out, I don't consider it particularly relevant now). Yes, that is an alteration of my earlier stated position. No, that alteration is not relevant to this situation.

Again, just trying to summarize your overall position here, since it has shifted a bit.

You feel that if a Bodak happened to glance in the position of someone hiding in the shadows, such that the Bodak's eyes were visible to the person in the shadows, this means that unless that person was in full concealment, the Bodak would now automatically notice them?

Is this a correct summation of your viewpoint? If not, would you be able to try and clarify what part of it is inaccurate, just so I've got a better sense of where we have common ground and where our views are differing?