NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5310108" data-attributes="member: 61155">Interesting, but... not quite accurate.  The claim was made that because the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was thus unlikely to be looking in its direction. Some considered this to be a common sense situation where the rules should be overriden. You took it a step further, and said that by the very rules themselves, the DM was going against the rules in having the player make a save.  To argue that point, you didn't make the argument that he made a bad and arbitrary call - you made the claim that his call was against the rules, and that going by RAW, the Bodak's face couldn't be visible from his viewpoint. You later revised this claim to instead be that he couldn't meet gazes with the Bodak while hidden, and that if he could, he would no longer be hidden.  There's a couple claims in there I disagree with.  One, that whether the Bodak's face is visible is in any way connected with him being hidden. It isn't. The DM could decide the Bodak's positioning based on any number of factors, or use random chance to determine it. In this case, he was informed by the adventure of its position and that its responsibility was to watch the entrance for intruders - elements that, given the window the rogue was looking from, resulted in its features being clearly visible to him.  If you feel that was a bad and arbitrary ruling, fair enough. I simply find it strange, though, since after so many arguments in favor of a logically consistent setting, you would prefer a DM make a ruling solely on a metagame element and a desire to softball things for the player.   The rule say that "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes."  You, and others, have made the claim that the gaze attack only works if those involved actively meet each other's gaze. Some claiming that is the more mythic way for such an ability to work. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, though, it is not how the rules clearly state it works, which means your reading is absolutely a house rule.   Again, the original claim that I labelled a house rule was that because a rogue was hidden, this implied that the Bodak wasn't looking in his direction. This is a house rule. Putting the issue of gaze attacks entirely aside, you can hide from creature's looking in your direction as long as you have cover or concealment.  Every time I have raised this point, you've instead abruptly stopped responding to that portion of the argument, or called it an unrelated topic and tried to switch the focus of the discussion.  You were the one who claimed that it was "a house rule, at best" that a rogue looking in the window would be subject to a Bodak's gaze. There was no connection to that statement and any claim on my behalf that whether the rogue meets the Bodak's gaze was a house rule.  Note that by making that claim, you aren't just saying that it isn't likely for a creature to meet the Bodak's gaze - you are, again, saying that it is outright against the rules. That there is something in the rules such that it is not possible for a hidden character to meet a Bodak's gaze.  Despite not having, at any point, put forward any evidence for this - and having been presented with several pieces of evidence that directly contradict such a position.   Here is the actual rules quote, one more time: "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes."  It does not get clearer than that. You are trying to add additional restrictions to this by making the claim of context. The quotes you have provided? Are from a descriptive narrative giving examples of characters being affected by a creature's gaze attack. That flavor text helps show how the ability works, yes, but it does not override the actual rules themselves. Here are what seem to have been the core arguments that have been made, and here are my barebones objections to them: Claim: If you are hidden, it means the opponent is most likely looking in another objection.  Rebuttal: No, since if this was true, you could automatically spot a hidden figure by declaring that you are looking at the shadows in which they are hiding - which is not the case. Instead, even if you look at their hiding spot, you make a Spot check opposed by their Hide check, and if you fail, you do not see them unless you in some fashion remove or negate their concealment or cover.   Claim: A gaze attack requires actively meeting the gaze of the creature, not simply viewing its eyes.  Rebuttal: No, a gaze attack simply requires viewing its eyes, based on the opening line of the gaze attack entry in the monster manual, "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes."</blockquote>

Verification