Can a pinned medusa use it's petrifying gaze?

[DamionW]

Immobile doesn't necessarily make her lose the gaze attack.

Nothing about the grappling state prevents her from directing her gaze at you. You're stating a conclusion that supports your stance without providing support for the conclusion. The fact is that the gaze attack does not even require an action on her part. You'd need something that specifically, and explicitly nullifies a gaze attack. Since something like 'covering her eyes with your hand' or 'turning her head to face down' or whatever is not explicitly covered in the rules, you'll have to deal with the DM on that issue, but per the RAW, she/he is free to rule that you can't stop the gaze. Artoomis's ruling on it would be fine, and strangely enough, similarly supported (or unsupported if you wish to label it that way) in the rules.

Nothing about being 'pinned' means that she is facing away from you, or even that she is prone and facing the floor. I think you're applying conditions that are not necessarily given de facto by merely being pinned. The medusa is not helpless, remember.

Actually, by RAW, while grappled you cannot take actions besides those explicitly listed.

My bigger question then is what is "immobile" which IS quoted in the SRD as a function of pinning, but not defined. Also, the PHB states the opponent is "at your mercy" in a pin. Granted this is not the same condition as helpless, but without rules clarifications, the intent would say that if I can move the grapple to another square at my choosing, if I can prevent them from moving (the most common English definition of immobile) at my choosing, and prevent them from speaking at my choosing, that they should not be able to position their body in a way that is advantageous to them because that is their choosing. I have the upper hand and the medusa is "at my mercy." Why would I be merciful enough to allow her to gaze me without her even having to make an opposed grapple check to try? This seems contrary to the intent and theme of a pin, to me.

 

[BigTom]

I had a grappling-oriented fighter PC one game. He was a crazy thug that just liked brawling, wrestling, and bashing things with his 2x4 of frost. Our party ran into a medusa and her minions. Disregarding the fact it was crazy and stupid, my PC went right up, passed his Fort Save and proceeded to grapple and Pin the medusa (all occording to the RAW). My DM still gave the medusa opportunities to use her gaze on me after that. I disagreed, but he said they were practiced in techniques to make people look. My question is, if pinning results in immobility and lack of speech at the attackers option, could she still use her gaze attack? Thoughts?

I don't see any problem with your DMs ruling. I think you are mis interpreting what a grapple does. A grapple immobilizes your opponent. It doesn't immobilize them face down on the ground.

The gaze attack quite specifically states anyone in range has to make the save each round unless they take action to avoid the gaze, either by averting eyes or blindfold. You did neither. An argument could be made that you should be allowed to cover her eyes to stop the gaze attack as part of the grapple, but you would have to explicitly state you were doing it and it still would be subject to DM interpretation.

What the medusa cannot do while grappled is use the gaze attack actively to force you to make a second save in the round.

 

[DamionW]

The gaze attack quite specifically states anyone in range has to make the save each round unless they take action to avoid the gaze, either by averting eyes or blindfold. You did neither. An argument could be made that you should be allowed to cover her eyes to stop the gaze attack as part of the grapple, but you would have to explicitly state you were doing it and it still would be subject to DM interpretation.

Alright, let's modify the argument a bit, just for discussions sake. If I closed my eyes, the medusa has the SRD condition of total concealment. I can no longer attack without a 50% miss chance according to total concealment, can I make an opposed grapple check to damage the medusa without the 50% miss? The rules don't explicitly define it, but common sense says I have her in my arms and don't need to see her. IMO, common sense would say if I used a pin action to immobilize her, I would immobilize her in a way she couldn't move to gaze.

Also, if we agree that an opponent pinning someone else has the upper hand, why would I need to make an opposed grapple check to damage her, but without even an opposed grapple check she can maneuver her eyes to make contact me? Where did the advantage go? I just think more DMs need to look at the theme of rules rather than being handcuffed by them.

 

[greyhawkrr]

The letter of the law has been discussed ad nauseum. I think it's within the spirit of the rules to allow a gaze attack while grappling, but not when the gaze user is pinned (however other, purely mental actions, like psionics, would be possible). But I think the whole discussion is moot if you just close your eyes while grappling. If you make an attack (usually a silly option while grappling what with the -4 penalty) you suffer the 50% miss chance as usual because even though you know the general area to jab/stab (like pinpointing an invisible creature in a 5-foot square) you don't know exactly where. Such a strike requires removing a hand from the target to lurch back and take a swing. A grapple check however is not an attack, so it wouldn't suffer the miss chance. You are essentially trying to twist their arm, break their neck, etc. from the position you are currently holding them in. You don't attempt to remove your appendages with a grapple check, you use the appendages that are already attatched to contort your opponent's body in a harmful manner.

 

[rbingham2000]

If you try to pin the medusa from behind so that she's face-down on the floor, chances are, she won't be able to use her gaze-attack on you if you hold her head down "like so," but those snakes she has for hair will be able to attack you if you do so.

If you try to pin her from the front so that she's on her back, she will definitely be able to use that dreaded gaze attack to try to turn you to stone unless you take steps to look away while you pin her.

Sometime's it's best to go with your gut and what works visually, instead of relying on rules which vary according to designer and can make you crazy if you obsess about them too much.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Even when you have pinned someone, they're still struggling about and making your life difficult. Hence why you can't CDG them.

So, gaze saves all round, but she can't take a standard action to direct them.

Quit whining and close your eyes.

 

[nameless]

It's not explicitly covered by the rules, but if you can silence a spellcaster while he is pinned (i.e. covering his mouth), what about covering a medusa's eyes? None of this "pin to the floor face down" mumbo jumbo, just putting your hands over her eyes. It's obviously not easy to do something like that to a creature that is fighting for its life, but it's not easy to cover someone's mouth in the same situation, either.

That's my rationale for a no to the OP's question, anyway.

 

[frankthedm]

I'd go with the "cover the eyes" instead of "cover the mouth" option and give the hair snakes +4 to hit.

Of course for my games, most poison is slower acting, but a LOT worse if you get poisoned, so it is a fair trade off.

 

[IanB]

On the subject of closing your eyes while grappling:

Blinded
The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

I would probably apply the -4 strength check penalty on grapple checks made with your eyes closed - although it does specify skill checks, thus this would be more of a judgement call than a RAW ruling.

In addition, those snake attacks (which should be usable in a grapple, being natural weapons) would definitely be happening with the -2 penalty + no dex bonus to AC there, although they take a -4 to hit for being used in a grapple.

I would not apply the miss chance, however, as a grapple check is only like a melee attack according to the rules, it isn't actually a melee attack.

On the subject of gazing while pinned, there is nothing explicit in the rules that would stop the medusa from using it passively. You might argue that since averting your eyes only gives you a 50% chance to avoid having to make a save, the same might apply to trying to avert the medusa's eyes through pinning. Maybe 25% for both averting your eyes and having the medusa pinned.