Avert gaze


Rules Discussion


You need an action.

Every round.

To NOT look in front of you.

Not sure how i feel about that...


Well it does give +2 circumstance bonus to saves against visual abilities. If something gives an number increase or some type of advantage spenting an action for that sounds fair.


Kyrone wrote:
Well it does give +2 circumstance bonus to saves against visual abilities. If something gives an number increase or some type of advantage spenting an action for that sounds fair.

only vs those that actually require you to LOOK at something, not all visual abilities.

I mean, i would expect that if you don't look at something, and you spent an action to not look at something, then it's abilities that work only when you look at it would actually flat out miss.

actually:

"visual (trait) A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it."

so, the +2 is a bit redundant, if you don't see a Visual effect, it doesn't affect you.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

In the middle of a combat situation you're having to try to keep from looking directly at something which very well might be moving to get into your field of vision.

I think it's fair.


Cydeth wrote:

In the middle of a combat situation you're having to try to keep from looking directly at something which very well might be moving to get into your field of vision.

I think it's fair.

shouldn't then work the opposite way?

like an action taken by the one trying to actively come into your field of view that you're trying to avert the gaze from?

I mean, it could simply be a glyph on the wall, i don't see how you will have to keep spending actions each and every round to not look towards the wall.

If it was something actively trying to get into your field of view, then it should be IT'S actions spent trying to do so, not something that happens automatically regardless of you "looking at your feet" (as an example)


Characters in Pathfinder are assumed to be constantly looking in all directions to avoid flanking by a single character and avoid dealing with facing issues. The avert action makes sense in that context.


Xenocrat wrote:
Characters in Pathfinder are assumed to be constantly looking in all directions to avoid flanking by a single character and avoid dealing with facing issues. The avert action makes sense in that context.

well, i agree that it seems normal to require an action (or a reaction) to "avert", it's just that i think that asking for it to be done each and every round is a bit too much.


shroudb wrote:


shouldn't then work the opposite way?

like an action taken by the one trying to actively come into your field of view that you're trying to avert the gaze from?

I mean, it could simply be a glyph on the wall, i don't see how you will have to keep spending actions each and every round to not look towards the wall.

If it was something actively trying to get into your field of view, then it should be IT'S actions spent trying to do so, not something that happens automatically regardless of you "looking at your feet" (as an example)

In Pathfinder, D&D and virtually every other tabletop RPG that uses a grid based map for combat; Monsters, PC's and NPC's are all assumed to be looking in every direction at the same time. So it kinda makes sense that's it's your action to say you're not going to look at something.

It sounds kinda dumb but it's easier to deal with then the alternative of having the GM monitor the facing direction of all Monsters and PCs. Not to mention opening the door on sorts of shenanigans (possibly backstabbing or something like it) that would likely have to have a whole chapter in the CRB devoted to specifically ruling out.


Katapesh Fried Chicken wrote:
shroudb wrote:


shouldn't then work the opposite way?

like an action taken by the one trying to actively come into your field of view that you're trying to avert the gaze from?

I mean, it could simply be a glyph on the wall, i don't see how you will have to keep spending actions each and every round to not look towards the wall.

If it was something actively trying to get into your field of view, then it should be IT'S actions spent trying to do so, not something that happens automatically regardless of you "looking at your feet" (as an example)

In Pathfinder, D&D and virtually every other tabletop RPG that uses a grid based map for combat; Monsters, PC's and NPC's are all assumed to be looking in every direction at the same time. So it kinda makes sense that's it's your action to say you're not going to look at something.

It sounds kinda dumb but it's easier to deal with then the alternative of having the GM monitor the facing direction of all Monsters and PCs. Not to mention opening the door on sorts of shenanigans (possibly backstabbing or something like it) that would likely have to have a whole chapter in the CRB devoted to specifically ruling out.

oh, i fully agree with that.

you enter a room/encounter/whatver, you look EVERYWHERE. IT makes sense and it's much easier to rule.

I'm just of the opinion, that when you STOP looking everywhere (you spend the action to do so), then you don't just start again, automatically, the next round.

Hence why i kinda cringe at the "every round you again start looking towards where you specifically stopped looking 1 round ago"


Consider that there are no other downsides to Avert Gaze. This means you’re doing your best to keep aware of your surroundings while keeping the threat only in your peripheral vision or at the edge of your vision. If you want more protection, you could probably spend one action or perhaps a free action to close your eyes to blind yourself. (one action to reopen your eyes and reorient yourself.)


Watching the medusa fights in both Clash of the Titans movies (the main reason to watch the remake) and the Percy Jackson movie, it doesn't seem like she just sits there hoping someone just happens to catch her gaze. She is doing stuff to draw attention. Admittedly that should take one of her actions, but it does make me think most gaze attack types aren't passive about it (except in the white room, where they are standing still with their eyes closed).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As Tiene said, the point of Avert Gaze is that you try not to look directly at harmful things while still keeping up your usefulness in combat. The bolded part is what makes it difficult, and it's reasonable for that to require a conscious effort each and every round, keeping threats just at the edge of sight, moving your gaze if they move around, and so on - hence the action each round. If you just do not want to get caught in visual effects, you can always just close your eyes (which I would rule a free action, but I doubt it is clarified anywhere in the rules), but then you have to deal with the downsides of that as well.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Avert gaze All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.