Infiniti2000 said: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.