I'm referring to passive gaze attacks (in my case a nabbasu, but it's the same idea as a medusa) - if a creature is blinded (as per the spell) is its gaze attack still active?
This old thread asks about beholder gaze attacks, but those are active ones. Does the same idea apply here?
Thanks,
Greg
I'm referring to passive gaze attacks (in my case a nabbasu, but it's the same idea as a medusa) - if a creature is blinded (as per the spell) is its gaze attack still active?
In my game, no.
I feel strongly enough on this that I'd reject any official answers to the contrary (which I doubt will surface).
In my game, no.
I feel strongly enough on this that I'd reject any official answers to the contrary (which I doubt will surface).
Ok, now I'm curious. What's your reasoning? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious as to why you feel so strongly about it.
Thanks,
Greg
|
I agree with Tatterdemalion. The eyes (or eye analog) are the mechanism for most creatures to deliver the attacks... If you remove a cobra's fangs, you don't remove the capacity to poison, just the delivery system.
I think that there might be some notable exceptions (like Bodak's, fer instance) with thier death gaze, but for most critters (basilisks, beholders medusea, blindhiems, catoplebas, etc, with actual, functional eyes... gouge 'em out and you've removed the threat.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I agree with Tatterdemalion. The eyes (or eye analog) are the mechanism for most creatures to deliver the attacks... If you remove a cobra's fangs, you don't remove the capacity to poison, just the delivery system.
I think that there might be some notable exceptions (like Bodak's, fer instance) with thier death gaze, but for most critters (basilisks, beholders medusea, blindhiems, catoplebas, etc, with actual, functional eyes... gouge 'em out and you've removed the threat.
If you gouge them out, yes, I can see that arguement. What about something like blindness/deafness though? The eyes are still THERE, they just can't be used to see. In my opinion, passive gaze attacks (like the basilisk's) would still work, but "active" gaze attacks (like the vampire spawn's Domination ability) would not, since without being able to see, the creature is unable to make direct eye contact to deliver the ability.
No. If you destroy the rubies on a ring of three wishes, by any means, the ring cannot be used. The same, in my opinion, rules true for gaze attacks.
If you gouge them out, yes, I can see that arguement. What about something like blindness/deafness though? The eyes are still THERE, they just can't be used to see. In my opinion, passive gaze attacks (like the basilisk's) would still work, but "active" gaze attacks (like the vampire spawn's Domination ability) would not, since without being able to see, the creature is unable to make direct eye contact to deliver the ability.I agree with Tatterdemalion. The eyes (or eye analog) are the mechanism for most creatures to deliver the attacks... If you remove a cobra's fangs, you don't remove the capacity to poison, just the delivery system.
I think that there might be some notable exceptions (like Bodak's, fer instance) with thier death gaze, but for most critters (basilisks, beholders medusea, blindhiems, catoplebas, etc, with actual, functional eyes... gouge 'em out and you've removed the threat.
I agree. The blinded beholder can still use its gaze attacks (though it cannot aim very well), but the beholder without a central eye cannot dispel magic. And the medusa petrifies because of her ugliness, so eyes or no eyes she would still be able to turn her foes to stone.
I agree. The blinded beholder can still use its gaze attacks (though it cannot aim very well), but the beholder without a central eye cannot dispel magic.
(Fails Will save vs Confusino)
Ok, now does that mean my nabassu (who has been blinded by the spell) still has his gaze attack?
And the medusa petrifies because of her ugliness, so eyes or no eyes she would still be able to turn her foes to stone.
That may be the flavour in your game, but as per the wording, it's a Gaze attack which allows, among other things, for the medusa to actively target someone as a standard action. I can't see this in your description, but I do if it comes from her eyes. (And the SRD says nothing about it coming from her appearance.)
Greg
I agree. The blinded beholder can still use its gaze attacks (though it cannot aim very well), but the beholder without a central eye cannot dispel magic.(Fails Will save vs Confusino)
Ok, now does that mean my nabassu (who has been blinded by the spell) still has his gaze attack?
And the medusa petrifies because of her ugliness, so eyes or no eyes she would still be able to turn her foes to stone.That may be the flavour in your game, but as per the wording, it's a Gaze attack which allows, among other things, for the medusa to actively target someone as a standard action. I can't see this in your description, but I do if it comes from her eyes. (And the SRD says nothing about it coming from her appearance.)
Greg
Actually, I say that because that was the original mythology behind the Medusa's power.
It really depends on whose “gaze” is relevant.
I tend to “overwrite” the D&D rules with the source material. In my game, they are called “Hobbits,” as “halfling" is offensive. There are no Kuo Toa, but there are Deep Ones, and “Mind Flayers” are “Children of Cthulhu.”
For this reason, when I run the game, first, they are not called “Medusas,” they are gorgons. And, it is not the creature’s gaze that turns one to stone, it is gazing upon her.
“She became a cruel monster of so frightful an aspect that no living thing could behold her without being turned into stone.” -Bulfinch Mythology Age of Fable; Stories of Gods & Heroes by Thomas Bulfinch
Indeed, Perseus used the Medusa’s severed head as a weapon, which means the ability was involuntary on the gorgon’s part and did not require sight.
However, that’s just me. The game rules are pretty specific regarding area of effect and targeting. It clearly implies, if not state outright, that vision is required. In other words, it is the gaze of the creature, not the victim.
Ultimately, you must decide for yourself how things work in your game world, but if you are going pure WotC d20 D&D rules, vision is required. In fact, now that I think of it, MUTUAL vision is required. The creature and victim must make eye contact. Both must be able to see.
Two options are suggested at the end of this post ...
No problem, I can wait... :)
I'm referring to passive gaze attacks (in my case a nabbasu, but it's the same idea as a medusa) - if a creature is blinded (as per the spell) is its gaze attack still active?
This raises some really interesting questions:
1) Creatures see because light energy enters their eyes;
2) Creatures with active gaze attacks affect targets because some form of energy (probably supernatural, or spell-like or whatever) exits their eyes upon specific command and concentration;
3) Creatures with passive gaze attacks affect targets because some energy exits their eyes continually and without concentration (though they might be able to concentrate on "shutting it off").
So the question really is, if the reception ability is turned off, is the transmission ability also disabled?
I think this is an individual judgement. But consider this, it is possible for a two-way radio or telephone or whatever to be capable of transmitting but not receiving.
Absolutely. I work in the satellite business and transmitters and receivers are always different components. The problem with gaze attacks and D&D is that the rules use the same component, but don't specify if there are different sub-systems within that component for the two jobs (sight and attack).
How about this? People who are deaf still have balance, even though are inner-ear functions? Clearly one part of the organ or system can be disabled but another function.
This is the best rationale for blindness not affecting gaze attacks. Thanks.
I see no inherent reason why a blinded creature with active gaze attacks necessarily has them disabled. It only loses its ability to target. Under such conditions, passive gaze attacks would be entirely unaffected.
I'm coming around to this mode of thinking now. Blindness prevents the eye from receiving, not emitting.
Ultimately, you must decide for yourself how things work in your game world, but if you are going pure WotC d20 D&D rules, vision is required. In fact, now that I think of it, MUTUAL vision is required. The creature and victim must make eye contact. Both must be able to see.
Well, that's the problem. Nowhere that I can find does it say what you say. If you look under Gaze Attacks" inthe SRD or in the Rules Compendium, nowhere does it say sight by the attacker is required. It does say that blidness helps defend against gaze attacks (hence the avert eyes/close eyes defence). But nowhere does it say that sight is required by the creature with the gaze attack.
Hence my original question.
Greg
No. If you destroy the rubies on a ring of three wishes, by any means, the ring cannot be used. The same, in my opinion, rules true for gaze attacks.
~snarls~ So THATis what happened to my ring, you little lizard rat! I will get you for that!!!
No. If you destroy the rubies on a ring of three wishes, by any means, the ring cannot be used. The same, in my opinion, rules true for gaze attacks.~snarls~ So THATis what happened to my ring, you little lizard rat! I will get you for that!!!
Bring it, I'm not afraid of a puny little white dragin!
|
so I guess what everyone is saying is that... it depends on the situation and your opinion of the situation.
No eyes or wounded eyes (ie. stabbed) = no gaze attack
has eyes but cannot see = gaze attack but no aiming, which means any potential target has complete concealment
About the medusa/gorgon, I always considered that it was the snakes that she has for hair that petrified people, not her own eyes IMO.
|
Bring it, I'm not afraid of a puny little white dragin!No. If you destroy the rubies on a ring of three wishes, by any means, the ring cannot be used. The same, in my opinion, rules true for gaze attacks.~snarls~ So THATis what happened to my ring, you little lizard rat! I will get you for that!!!
no no no KC its a oxidized dragon...
In my game, no... I feel strongly enough on this that I'd reject any official answers to the contrary (which I doubt will surface).
Ok, now I'm curious. What's your reasoning? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious as to why you feel so strongly about it.
I'm going to embarrass myself a bit :/
To respond to your question, I did a bit of research, revealing this bit of information:
Characters using darkvision in complete darkness are affected by a gaze attack normally.
It seems you fall victim to the attack by looking at the monster, not by being looked at (though that is still a means of attack). I thought the opposite was true.
So now I say a blinded nabassu/medusa/whatever can still use its gaze attack. More accurately, other creatures are vulnerable to it -- I'd say the monster can't actively use it as an attack option.
Sorry of digging my heels in when I'm wrong (at least I think I'm wrong).