Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5304370" data-attributes="member: 18280">Then, at that point, we are in such a serious disconnect, that we probably can't even discuss the SoD issue further.Tell me, please, in terms of the actual rules, where it specifies that a bodak's gaze attack works even if it is not looking at you, and you'll be on firm ground.  Otherwise, if someone wants to house rule that a bodak's gaze attack works like that, feel free, but I don't think it makes any sense -- and if the rules as written support it in any way, that would be yet another glaring problem that shows the 3e designers were not up to the task.But I don't believe that this is the case.  I don't think that the 3e rules suggest that monsters somehow attack creatures they are unaware of (although they may have special abilities that are not dependent upon their awareness of you).  I could be wrong, though, as I have been distancing myself from the fiasco that is 3e over the last year or so.And, I'm sorry, but the DM pointing to the book, and claiming that he is "running the rules correctly" may indeed be bad DMing, if the rules make no sense.  Pointing to the book has never, in any edition, been an excuse for bad DMing.In the case of 3e, "An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw.....An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold.  In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw.....If visibility is limited (by dim lighting, a fog, or the like) so that it results in concealment, there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won’t need to make a saving throw in a given round. This chance is not cumulative with the chance for averting your eyes, but is rolled separately."Your susceptibility to a gaze attack is not simply you looking at them.  It is you looking at their face, so it does indeed matter if they can see you or not.  You are completely immune to the gaze attack of a creature whose face you cannot see.  If the Medusa were invisible, or had her back turned, Perseus is immune, even if she is standing in front of him.  As you say, if Perseus meets its gaze, he turns to stone. Actually, 3rd Edition does work like that:  "An opponent can...turn his back on the creature...."  An opponent can turn his back on a creature -- there is facing, even if it is not generally used.  And it is not true that "you can only avoid it by looking away entirely or trying to avert your eyes" -- you can avoid it by not looking at the creature's face. Those are the rules.RC</blockquote>

Verification