Gaze attacks vs. people with magic total (one way) concealment

[Igor von Uberwald]

Hi,

if a play a wizard character who has a spell active which does put him alone in a magic concealment, granting him total concealment, but he himself can look through the magic without distraction then how do I rule gaze attacks from monsters?
Basically this spell creates a one-way-mirror without the reflection part.

Somehow I feel that a gaze attack (as follows from the word attack) must be coming FROM the attacker and as his gaze has no way of locking onto the target, this is not working.

On the other side I see the two parts of gaze attacks: One part where you as the victim have to make saves on your own and the second part where the attacker forces additional saves on the victim by actively "gazing around".

The whole thing in my iew is a little messed up by the fact that the rules of this RPG do not really account for any character direction / facing. And staring at the neck of a medusa from behind in my view can never be an issue. So the argument that just watching a medusa from behind a mirror is lethal is a little weak. I'd assume that any character at any given time gazes out one of his four square sides thus leaving a max. 25% of someone in that direction looking him into the eyes.

Basically what I have difficulties with is that especially for a "gaze attack" the attacker needs no "line of sight", which sounds ridiculous.

So I would think that either gazes are not working at all or at least the "active" gaze attack would be stopped.

Any ideas?

[Karlgamer]

If you aren't averting your eyes or blind folded you roll a saving throw according the a strict reading of the rules.

[Maezer]

First gaze isn't really an attack. Its not called gaze attack. Its just gaze (su). There is no attack roll. No chance to miss. No action required.

Actively gazing requires the creature to designate a target. Gazing at a cube you suspect of hiding malcontents will not do anything to the potential target so I think your spell would render you immune to the active gaze. (Less it has some way to know exactly where you are blind sense, true sight, etc in which case it does have line of sight.

Staring at the neck is averting your gazing. Granting you a 50% chance to not see catch the gaze. And yes, if something with a gaze (su) is actively not trying to look at you or was thoroughly fascinated with something and unable to look away as a GM I'd probably have it effect nothing.

But the standard state of affairs is the creature is free to turn its head at will. And it probably wants to be aware of its surroundings. And the medusa per the example has all around vision so being behind it isn't going to do anything for you anyhow even with facing.

[TriOmegaZero]

Universal Monster Rules wrote:

Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents.

Since ethereal opponents are usually invisible, I would say yes, your concealed wizard would be affected by the gaze as well.

[Some call me Tim]

Igor von Uberwald wrote:

Basically what I have difficulties with is that especially for a "gaze attack" the attacker needs no "line of sight", which sounds ridiculous.

Quote:

Gaze (Su) A gaze special attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature’s eyes.

The attacker doesn't need line of sight just the opponent does; otherwise averting your eyes wouldn't work.

[StabbittyDoom]

I've always interpreted active gaze attacks as that moment when opponents lock eyes, only in this instance one side loses badly.
I would probably say that since the gaze creature cannot tell where the wizard's eyes are they would have the same 50% chance that the other would have if they attempted to avert their gaze. If both sides are confuzzled, then there's only a 25% chance of the gaze working.
A *passive* gaze on the other hand is entirely dependent on the creature doing the looking.