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: 5311264" data-attributes="member: 61155">Well, no, but the response seemed to have been that there was no acceptable scenario in which the rogue could look into the room and meet the Bodak's gaze while hidden. And the claim was, specifically, that because the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was likely looking away from it.  Some relevant quotes: My argument has been that it is entirely possible to have a scenario in which the hidden rogue can view the eyes of a Bodak, which is what the rules require for him to have to make a save against the Gaze attack.  Could there be other scenarios in which the Bodak is looking away? Absolutely. But that wasn't what people were saying. They were saying that my scenario - one in which a rogue could see the Bodak - was wrong. Was either bad DMing for ignoring common sense, or was outright incorrect by the rules.  And those positions seemed to be based, primarily, on two seperate things: 1) That creatures are automatically assumed to be looking away from anyone who is hiding; and2) That you can safely look at the eyes of a Bodak without any ill effect as long as you aren't 'actively meeting its gaze'.  Both of which, I feel, I have provided successful rebuttals to above.   I think I mentioned it was set to guard the place relatively early on (when asked if it would be more reasonable for its gaze to be turned off.) I think I set forward all of those elements in more precise terms when we were discussing how a DM might decide where a creature could be in the room.  I'm not sure how much it changes things, though. The message people seemed to be saying was that a DM was at fault for any scenario in which a hidden rogue could meet the Bodak's gaze, regardless of how appropriate it might be or not. If I misread that from some people, and was applying RC's viewpoints to other less extreme ones, then my apologies for doing so.</blockquote>

Verification