question about nymph's special attacks

[evilbob]

Short version: Does a nymph's stunning glance work against a blinded opponent?


Long version: Blinding beauty specifically says it can work against anything within 30', and stunning glance is a standard action against a creature within 30'. However, the point of a nymph seems to be beauty; it affects things that see her. On one hand it doesn't make sense that the stunning glance would work against something that was already blinded (or didn't know the nymph was there, or whatever) since it's a "glance," which is similar to a "gaze" and those type of things typically don't work if you're not looking at the thing doing it; it's also a pretty vicious combo (blind + stun with one standard action). On the other hand, nothing in the description limits this ability this way.

 

[darthkilmor]

Short version: Does a nymph's stunning glance work against a blinded opponent?

I don't think the stunning thing should be affected by sight. It doesn't say gaze attack, and it doesn't say anything about being blind and unaffected. But I could certainly see both sides of the argument.

 

[Shape D.]

Stunning Glance (Su)

As a standard action, a wrathful nymph can stun a creature within 30 feet WITH A LOOK. The target creature must succeed on a DC 17 Fortitude save or be stunned for 2d4 rounds. The save DC is Charisma-based.

I'd say they'd be immune to it. I doesn't flat out say gaze attack, but it seems to infer it in the description.

 

[skelso]

Is Stunning Glance a Gaze attack? I'd vote yes.

No, it doesn't describe it as such in the description, but the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze is not described as a Gaze attack either...except that Gaze is in the title. Glance and gaze are synonymous.

That being said, I couldn't find a rule in either the PHB, the DMG or the MM that says blinded creatures are not affected by Gaze attacks. It does say that if you are blindfolded you are immune to them, but nothing about actually being blind.

Of course, in the games I run, being blind certainly protects you from gaze attacks, but I don't think I could make a call on RAW.

 

[evilbob]

No, it doesn't describe it as such in the description, but the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze is not described as a Gaze attack either...except that Gaze is in the title. Glance and gaze are synonymous.

That seems like a very good analogy.

That being said, I couldn't find a rule in either the PHB, the DMG or the MM that says blinded creatures are not affected by Gaze attacks. It does say that if you are blindfolded you are immune to them, but nothing about actually being blind.

I'd say that was certainly close enough to be justified; anytime you can't see, you can't be effected by gaze attacks.

I think some monsters are naturally blind and mention being uneffected by gazes.

 

[mvincent]

Is Stunning Glance a Gaze attack? I'd vote yes.

No, it doesn't describe it as such in the description, but the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze is not described as a Gaze attack either...except that Gaze is in the title. Glance and gaze are synonymous.

Actually, gaze attacks are specifically defined in D&D. If an effect does not use the term 'gaze', using the gaze rules would not be warranted.

Also, gazes can be used passively (i.e. do not require an action), whereas the nymph's stunning glance ability does require an action on her part.

 

[evilbob]

Also true.

But it is a "glance," which works with a "look." So would it still work on a creature that was blind?

 

[skelso]

Actually, gaze attacks are specifically defined in D&D. If an effect does not use the term 'gaze', using the gaze rules would not be warranted.

I read that in the back of the MM, but I don't see where it says a Gaze Attacks must include the word "Gaze" in the title. It just seems like a lot of explanation of when Gaze Attacks apply or don't and how they are supposed to work.

Would you mind pointing me to the part you are referring?

 

[mvincent]

I read that in the back of the MM, but I don't see where it says a Gaze Attacks must include the word "Gaze" in the title.

The implication of using specific terminology is that the term "gaze" must be present somewhere for it to be a gaze attack (if not in the title, then in the description). It's a basic concept of rules-lawyering.

The fact that stunning glance requires a standard action to use reaffirms that it is not a gaze attack.

 

[evilbob]

The fact that stunning glance requires a standard action to use reaffirms that it is not a gaze attack.

I agree that this seems to be the case, but again the attack is a "glance." It involves the nymph looking at something - should not the thing in question also be able to see her as well? Or can the nymph stun someone who is not even aware of her presence?