It's possible that D&D should not have dropped the distinction between "Line of Sight" and "Line of Effect".
You can obviously see through spectacles, but how would you have a clear path to the eyes through them? Unless gaze attacks swerve around barriers en route to their target -- which would make them more like AoE attacks.
There's no reason (beside DM ruling) to say that gaze attacks need a clear path to your eyes. You can say they need a clear path to your body like any other effect, plus the ability to see the source. That lines up better with how many spells work.
No, my suggestion would still allow you to avoid a gaze attack by closing your eyes. (As the rules indicate.) But it would be because you can't see the monster, not because you are gaining any sort of cover.This would make sense if closing one's eyes did NOT protect one from gaze attacks. Is this the case?
I would say they still have that distinction, they just don't give "line of sight" special rules. I don't think they need them, a DM can usually decide easily enough what you can see.It's possible that D&D should not have dropped the distinction between "Line of Sight" and "Line of Effect".
This 'clear window blocks effects'-thing has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen in D&D. Magic can move mountains but can't penetrate an 1/8" of glass?
Actually it is up to you as DM to decide whether 1/8" of glass blocks magic, or whether the magic is powerful enough to break the glass. Just like an arrow shot.This 'clear window blocks effects'-thing has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen in D&D. Magic can move mountains but can't penetrate an 1/8" of glass?