[3.5] Opalescent Glare - PERMANENT gaze attack?

[Yorae]

I came across this spell and was a bit confused...

Opalescent Glare (Spell Compendium, pg 150) grants the caster a gaze attack. It doesn't ask (or allow) you to make a gaze attack as part of the spell, you "gain a gaze attack usable against creatures ... etc".

However, the duration of the spell is "Instantaneous". This seems to imply that the gaze attack you gain does not go away (Just like the undead created by Animate Dead don't ever cease to be animated, since that spell is instantaneous).

However, this seems very odd. Am I missing something here?

[Yukitsu]

As far as I know, that's how it is as read, but as played, generally spells and particularly psionics of that sort end up played as used when cast.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I came across this spell and was a bit confused...

Opalescent Glare (Spell Compendium, pg 150) grants the caster a gaze attack. It doesn't ask (or allow) you to make a gaze attack as part of the spell, you "gain a gaze attack usable against creatures ... etc".

However, the duration of the spell is "Instantaneous". This seems to imply that the gaze attack you gain does not go away (Just like the undead created by Animate Dead don't ever cease to be animated, since that spell is instantaneous).

However, this seems very odd. Am I missing something here?

Most blast spells also have a duration of "Instantaneous"--it's simply the descriptor used for spells that disappear immediately after having been cast (meaning they don't have a persistent effect at all).

That said, I'd interpret the wording of that spell as "gain a gaze attack usable against creatures who are looking at you as the spell is cast..." Meaning, a round from then, you won't have access to the gaze attack. It exists only within the standard action in which you cast the spell.

If it was intended to have a duration of "permanent", it would have "Duration: Permanent" listed in it.

[Yorae]

If it was intended to have a duration of "permanent", it would have "Duration: Permanent" listed in it.

Animate Dead has a duration of instantaneous.

So does Awaken.

But the undead don't instantly turn back into corpses and the awakened creature doesn't instantly lose their sentience. "Duration: Permanent" would imply that a Dispel Magic targeted on, say, an awakened creature, would destroy their sentience, but it doesn't. The effect becomes a permanent, non-magical part of the animated/awakened creature.

An example of "Duration: Permanent" would be "Baleful Polymorph", which can be dispelled.

If it worked the way Lonely Tylenol described, shouldn't it have "Duration: 1 round"? I'm beginning to think that the given duration here is an oversight. =\

[Lonely Tylenol]

Animate dead also has the specific clause of "They remain animated until they are destroyed."

I can't explain Awaken.

[Jude_H]

I'm beginning to think that the given duration here is an oversight. =\
In D&D?

D:

[Yorae]

I think my DM is planning on houseruling a new duration for the spell to make it make sense, though we're not sure what kind of duration it should have.

What do you guys think? My best guess is hours/ lvl.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's a free action attack which causes death and/or fear. Ignoring Planar Binding, it would be insane for a 6th level spell if it lasted hours/level. Either make the gaze attack a standard action or stick to a small number of rounds. Maybe 1d4.

[Taelas]

Most blast spells also have a duration of "Instantaneous"--it's simply the descriptor used for spells that disappear immediately after having been cast (meaning they don't have a persistent effect at all).

That said, I'd interpret the wording of that spell as "gain a gaze attack usable against creatures who are looking at you as the spell is cast..." Meaning, a round from then, you won't have access to the gaze attack. It exists only within the standard action in which you cast the spell.

If it was intended to have a duration of "permanent", it would have "Duration: Permanent" listed in it.

Quite simply put, no.

Instantaneous duration are spells which have an effect which, after the spell has been cast, are no longer magical. (For instance, flesh to stone is an instantaneous transmutation effect. The magic consists in turning the flesh to stone; the results, however, are not magical.)

By a strict reading of that spell, you gain a permanent gaze attack, which cannot be intended. I would house rule a duration in rounds/level.

[Yorae]

Quite simply put, no.

Instantaneous duration are spells which have an effect which, after the spell has been cast, are no longer magical. (For instance, flesh to stone is an instantaneous transmutation effect. The magic consists in turning the flesh to stone; the results, however, are not magical.)

By a strict reading of that spell, you gain a permanent gaze attack, which cannot be intended. I would house rule a duration in rounds/level.

That sounds fairly reasonable. For some reason I had it in my head that using a gaze attack wasn't a free action.

[HalfDragonCube]

Quite simply put, no.

Instantaneous duration are spells which have an effect which, after the spell has been cast, are no longer magical. (For instance, flesh to stone is an instantaneous transmutation effect. The magic consists in turning the flesh to stone; the results, however, are not magical.)

By a strict reading of that spell, you gain a permanent gaze attack, which cannot be intended. I would house rule a duration in rounds/level.

Another example: the charred remains of your foes are not magical in themselves.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Quite simply put, no.

Instantaneous duration are spells which have an effect which, after the spell has been cast, are no longer magical. (For instance, flesh to stone is an instantaneous transmutation effect. The magic consists in turning the flesh to stone; the results, however, are not magical.)

Either my explanation or my understanding is poor... But I imagine "instantaneous" as having no magical after-effects; once the spell is cast, it is done. I thought a good analogy would be blast and cure spells; after all, once you're struck by lightning, you're... Struck by lightning. The fact that the lightning goes away doesn't change that.

Then again... The gaze attack seems like a magical after-effect to me... As does Awaken...

So obviously there is a problem with my understanding.

Just an afterword: I did some searching on this note, and it looks like the spell is permanent, and has remained so in spite of errata elsewhere. Perhaps the game designers just decided that, by the time you're able to cast this spell on your own (level 11 Wizard, level 12 Sorcerer), being able to kill 5HD Evil creatures with a dirty look is pretty much assumed anyway. Perhaps it's faulty wording. It's never really made clear, though people have called for an errata on it.

With that in mind, you can house-rule it to be a timed effect or play with it as a persistent ability (but maybe change the spell level as a balancing factor). Up to you.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, it's a gaze attack which just keeps going. However, it does nothing to creatures with 6+ HD, only temporarily affects non-Evil creatures, and you're not likely to get the spell until level 11.

[CTrees]

MWAHAHAHAHA, FEAR ME! LOOK UPON ME AND DIE, FIRST LEVEL GOBLIN VILLAGE OF PETTY MAYHEM! You may have plagued us back when we started our careers, but now... NOW! I SHALL HAVE MY REVENGE! :smallfurious:

You know what, I like this spell.

[gibbo88]

Maybe one of the designers had a particularly bad run-in with Tucker's Kobolds?

[Taelas]

Either my explanation or my understanding is poor... But I imagine "instantaneous" as having no magical after-effects; once the spell is cast, it is done. I thought a good analogy would be blast and cure spells; after all, once you're struck by lightning, you're... Struck by lightning. The fact that the lightning goes away doesn't change that.
That is completely accurate.


Then again... The gaze attack seems like a magical after-effect to me... As does Awaken...
By RAW, they are not. Think of Awaken as transmuting the animal's brain to be capable of human-like intellect. The gaze attack makes less sense -- it should be a supernatural ability at the very least -- but that is likely because of an oversight.


So obviously there is a problem with my understanding.

Just an afterword: I did some searching on this note, and it looks like the spell is permanent, and has remained so in spite of errata elsewhere. Perhaps the game designers just decided that, by the time you're able to cast this spell on your own (level 11 Wizard, level 12 Sorcerer), being able to kill 5HD Evil creatures with a dirty look is pretty much assumed anyway. Perhaps it's faulty wording. It's never really made clear, though people have called for an errata on it.

With that in mind, you can house-rule it to be a timed effect or play with it as a persistent ability (but maybe change the spell level as a balancing factor). Up to you.
I believe it is an error -- the design intent behind permanent magical changes seem very clear: Any time they occur, they involve an XP-cost.


Curmudgeon, Evil creatures with more than 5 HD, as well as non-Evil creatures (both with less and with more than 5 HD), still risk suffering from the Fear effect if they do not make their Will saves.

[Yorae]

Curmudgeon, Evil creatures with more than 5 HD, as well as non-Evil creatures (both with less and with more than 5 HD), still risk suffering from the Fear effect if they do not make their Will saves.

I think the net effect of the spell is basically:

Creatures who look at you must make a will save or be panicked for 2d10 rounds. Creatures who subsequently realize that this effect is in place may accept a 20% miss chance against you to avoid making the save.

(With the rest being pretty much flavor.)

Is that about right? PCs don't often get gaze attacks, so I'm not terribly familiar with using them. As I understand it I can use an action to force a creature to save, or something like that?

[Taelas]

Gaze attacks are explained in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#gazeAttacks) and in the Monster Manual. You can attempt to avert your eyes (which is represented as the opponent gaining concealment, which as you note is 20% miss chance, as well as a 50% chance of you having to make the saving throw) or close your eyes (in which case any enemy gains total concealment against you, which is 50% instead of 20% and you must guess his location). If you do not do this, you must make a saving throw in the beginning of your turn.

The creature can also use the gaze attack as an attack action, forcing you to make an additional saving throw (unless you have closed your eyes or you avert them and make the 50% roll).

Thus, you could end up having to roll your saving throw against a gaze attack twice in a single round (once on your turn, and once on your opponent's).

[Yorae]

Gaze attacks are explained in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#gazeAttacks) and in the Monster Manual. You can attempt to avert your eyes (which is represented as the opponent gaining concealment, which as you note is 20% miss chance, as well as a 50% chance of you having to make the saving throw) or close your eyes (in which case any enemy gains total concealment against you, which is 50% instead of 20% and you must guess his location). If you do not do this, you must make a saving throw in the beginning of your turn.

The creature can also use the gaze attack as an attack action, forcing you to make an additional saving throw (unless you have closed your eyes or you avert them and make the 50% roll).

Thus, you could end up having to roll your saving throw against a gaze attack twice in a single round (once on your turn, and once on your opponent's).

Thanks! The only thing that isn't clear for me is what type of action it is to actively using the gaze attack on your turn to attempt to force a save.

[Taelas]

An attack action is just a specific standard action.

[Kaomaru]

Though it be long, here's my first post:


Opalescent Glare

*descrip deleted over OGL concerns*

Basically the line in question is "gains a gaze attack"

Now, on to the definition of Gaze Attacks:


Gaze Attacks
While the medusa’s gaze is well known, gaze attacks can also charm, curse, or even kill. Gaze attacks not produced by a spell are supernatural.

Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn.

This alone would break this spell. 60' from the caster, so that would make it a radius of 60'... So each and every character in range, including allies, would have to make a save or suffer the spells effects, regardless of HD. Those who are evil and fail with 5 or less HD are slain, while all others not immune to fear who fail would run away regardless of HD or alignment.


An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains concealment relative to the opponent. An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent.

More breakage - now we have a caster with concealment or total concealment who is not invisible.


A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action. The creature simply chooses a target within range, and that opponent must attempt a saving throw. If the target has chosen to defend against the gaze as discussed above, the opponent gets a chance to avoid the saving throw (either 50% chance for averting eyes or 100% chance for shutting eyes). It is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before its own action and once during the creature’s action.

To reiterate, everyone saves, and then they act, then the creature w/ the gaze attack can target whomever is left on its turn... so now we are of earthquake level breakage giving this ability multiple times per round both passively and aggressively targeting foes...


Looking at the creature’s image (such as in a mirror or as part of an illusion) does not subject the viewer to a gaze attack.

A creature is immune to its own gaze attack.

If visibility is limited (by dim lighting, a fog, or the like) so that it results in concealment, there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won’t need to make a saving throw in a given round. This chance is not cumulative with the chance for averting your eyes, but is rolled separately.

Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks. Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents.

Characters using darkvision in complete darkness are affected by a gaze attack normally.

Nothing special there...


Unless specified otherwise, a creature with a gaze attack can control its gaze attack and “turn it off ” when so desired.

Of course, this would end the spell for those of you who believe it works this way...


Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature’s allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round.

See above, where I state that all characters in range must save or poof...

That said...

Anyone who may question how a 6th level spell could intentionally grant such breakage and imbalance in their game should review the gaze attack special ability.

In doing so, I think they would come to understand that there is no feasible way to interpret the spell as granting the "gaze attack special ability" as described above.

Instead, I propose that:

The only issue in that spell description lies in the wording of "a gaze attack."

I suggest that it does not refer to the "gaze attack special ability," but instead to the idea of "A" (read: single) gaze attack, much like other blast-type instantaneous duration spells do. Cast (magic is discharged), look/target (free action), Foe makes save or dies/runs in fear, and that is all. As usual, wizards english not on par with its math.

Likewise, this spell exists in the Planar Handbook in which it states clearly that it is a single target spell, and was a 5th level spell, and so precedent is set for understanding why the spell does not grant the ability, but a single use of it. Spell Compendium simply bumped the spell level and flubbed the english of it a bit. Sometimes, when rulemakers have a comprehensive understanding of what they mean, they forget how to say it.

It's been my experience that if a spell sounds ridiculously broken, make sure you understand the mechanics of how it seems broken.

Long-winded I know but not so hard as it sounds!

Ka

[Taelas]

Gaining a gaze attack is not the same as gaining one use of a gaze attack.

[Kaomaru]

You could be correct. Gaining a (read: single) gaze attack is also not the same as 'gaining the gaze attack special ability,' if we are trying to clarify what they mean by 'gaining a gaze attack'

It's obvious that the interpretation can be taken either way. And, so:

When english use is in question, look at how the two (or more, depending upon the scenario) interpretations pan out:

A) You gain a single gaze attack - kind of weak for a 6th level spell, but it does give you a save or die/fear for anything in 60'. Other save or die spells of the death descriptor are higher level, are they not? Finger of Death, Power Word, etc. are above 6th. Circle of Death (6th) can kill 1d4 HD of creatures per caster level in its area of effect, but this gaze is coupling death with fear to an uncapped amount of HD for 2d10 rounds. That's on average longer than most encounters...

So while not necessarily powerful to anything but a 5HD minion (who could still kill an 11th level wizard - think grapple), it is a weak spell (not the only weak 6th level spell) that is most likely situation specific.

B)See the breakdown above, which if taken in light of this would render this spell broken beyond considering.

Answer: Pick A!

[Yorae]

Thanks for the help, guys!

You might want to edit out the explicit quote of the spell block, btw - pretty sure it's not kosher to include non-OGL material in a post here.

[Taelas]

You could be correct. Gaining a (read: single) gaze attack is also not the same as 'gaining the gaze attack special ability,' if we are trying to clarify what they mean by 'gaining a gaze attack'
No. You misunderstand. You cannot HAVE "a gaze attack" mean "a single use of a gaze attack". It does not parse. If you get an attack, you do not get a single use of it; you've gained an attack. It would need to specify that it was a single use to make sense.

[Kaomaru]

If you seriously believe that is what it is saying and that this 6th level spell should grant a permanent ability, in this case 60' radius of fear or death depending on hit dice and save results, then you picking at the english of it really doesn't make a difference.

Here is where common sense should be applied.

You should gain a single use of the gaze attack, meaning that immediately all in 60' must save unless they somehow avert their gaze (by closing their eyes), or avert their eyes and are successful on the 50% no save chance. After those saves are resolved, the gaze attacker may then target an individual and pop them with the attack, thereby discharging the spell's effect.

Turning the duration to '1 round' if you need to house rule that solves the problem.

*edits previous for OGL concerns*

[erikun]

Claws of the Beast (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/clawsoftheBeast.htm) grants you two natural attacks.
The Half-Dragon template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm) gives two claw attacks and a bite attack.
The Half-Fiend template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfFiend.htm) also gives two claw attacks and a bite attack.
I'm sure I could find more spells, powers, or templates that grant a bite attack, a slam attack, or a natural weapon.

It would be quite odd to imply that a power with a duration of hours/level was only designed to have two uses. It would be insane to say that a Half-Dragon has only a single use of its bite throughout its entire life. In every other case, something granting "a ____ attack" allows the attack to be used multiple times throughout the duration, rather than granting the ability to use the attack only once.

Also, since we are nitpicking, there is nothing labeled as "the gaze attack special ability". A gaze attack is a special ability, true, but this does not mean that having a gaze attack is somehow different from having "the gaze attack special ability", much as being invisible (say, from the spell) is not different from having "the invisibility special ability".


I'm not going to comment on the Opalescent Glare spell though, as I'm not familiar with the exact text or what it does. Perhaps the designers did think that Wizards should kill goblins with a glance at that level? I will say that if the only ability granted is to kill 5HD or less evil creatures, then hours/level would probably be fair.

[Kaomaru]

I wasn't implying any of those things. I was implying that as defined, the spell is overpowered, and that the logical explanation was that the author of that spell's phrasing of 'a gaze attack' was most likely meant to say 'single use of the gaze attack special ability' or 'single use of a gaze attack.'

I agree that the english is broken. It would seem to infer that it would grant the gaze attack special ability.

When one looks at what that means, it would take a 6th level spell and give a permanent 60' fear or death based on save results or hit dice with no cap on the amount of creatures it affects or their hit dice aside from what can fit into their respective squares within a 60' radius. Other buffs can turn this ability up even more. Popping off sudden empower would be the braindead choice and grant you 90' radius... more brokenness if left permanent.

That is overpowered for a 6th level spell. I broke down what exactly a gaze attack does to show how overpowered, and that the language, even if called into question, was busted. To translate it as would seem proper would break the spell, to realize they probably only meant to give you 1 gaze attack or that ability for 1 standard action (time it takes to cast the spell and attack with it) was what I called applying common sense.

That is all. :)

[Taelas]

Rules as intended -- RAI -- is not particularly relevant when discussing the rules as written -- RAW. We cannot know designer intent for absolute certain. The null assumption is RAW.

[Fiery Diamond]

Rules as intended -- RAI -- is not particularly relevant when discussing the rules as written -- RAW. We cannot know designer intent for absolute certain. The null assumption is RAW.

FALSEFALSEFALSEFALSEFALSEFALSEFALSE!

*gasp gasp gasp*

*takes deep breath*

RAI is always relevant in any discussion other than TO or an explicitly stated RAW only. RAW is the default assumption, yes, but when common sense tells us that something is amiss (this situation, monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes, etc.) then we must immediately attempt to determine RAI.

[Taelas]

I said they are not relevant when discussing RAW. The question stated in the original post was whether or not the gaze attack was permanent, which, by RAW, it is. Kaomaru argued that due to RAI, it was not, which is simply wrong.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting a house rule to fix it, but it does not change the RAW. RAI is relevant when discussing the house rule, but you cannot claim RAI supersedes RAW.

[Taelas]

Excuse the double post; circumventing the page-switching bug.

[Quietus]

I'd also like to note, for the benefit of those claiming that this spell would only grant a single use of a gaze attack : If that were true, it would, in fact, not do anything at all. See, with a duration of Instantaneous, as soon as the casting of the spell is complete, the magic is gone. A reading that gives you the ability to use a gaze attack - which it clearly does not say you get to do as part of the process of casting the spell - would require you to somehow gain an attack action in the nonexisting time between the spell taking effect and the spell ending. Since that isn't possible (and doesn't make sense anyway), and the spell doesn't include the action required to use the gaze attack, you'd cast your spell and then .. not be able to actually gaze at anything. And because the magic is already long gone, your opponents wouldn't have to worry on their turns, either. You'd have cast a sixth level spell for absolutely zero effect.

[Yorae]

I'd also like to note, for the benefit of those claiming that this spell would only grant a single use of a gaze attack : If that were true, it would, in fact, not do anything at all. See, with a duration of Instantaneous, as soon as the casting of the spell is complete, the magic is gone. A reading that gives you the ability to use a gaze attack - which it clearly does not say you get to do as part of the process of casting the spell - would require you to somehow gain an attack action in the nonexisting time between the spell taking effect and the spell ending. Since that isn't possible (and doesn't make sense anyway), and the spell doesn't include the action required to use the gaze attack, you'd cast your spell and then .. not be able to actually gaze at anything. And because the magic is already long gone, your opponents wouldn't have to worry on their turns, either. You'd have cast a sixth level spell for absolutely zero effect.

This is exactly why I got this houserule'd.

If it should have been instantaneous, why include the "gaze attack" part in there at all and just say that all enemies within a certain radius or that could currently see you receive the effect? More confusingly, the first printing of the spell in the Planar Handbook is a level lower, is not a gaze attack, and explicitly hits a single target - It has a stated range and a target of "one living creature", as opposed to the revised, now level 6, spell which grants a gaze attack and has range of "personal" a target of "You."

The simplest solution in my mind is that in rewriting the spell they forgot to change the Duration from the old "Instantaneous", making the spell not make any sense. In my game we just houseruled in a duration of 1 round / level. (Get Occam's Razor'd)

Also, this is the first time I've noticed how awesome/true Quietus' sig is.

[Rejakor]

Yeah, RAW, it gives you a death-gaze. To be honest i'd be tempted to let it do that, and then have the wizard be wandering up after having killed a bunch of critters with it in a dungeon and murder half a town with it by accident.

Then he'd need to wear a blindfold (i'd be a **** and say the blindfold of true darkness wouldn't be good enough since he could still 'see') and basically be blind any time his team isn't in a dungeon. And then, everyone would have to stay carefully behind him.

Some writer didn't know what 'instantaneous' duration meant. The errata didn't fix it, by the way. Otherwise, just do what it says it does, and it's a ****ty death-glare at everyone in the room. Mass Finger of Death or whatnot.

[Taelas]

Considering that the only people who die are Evil, I'm not so sure it'd be that big a drawback.

[Rejakor]

5% of people are evil. I don't think the townsfolk would be super believing of your explanation unless you were all Exalted and crap. Even then, you're supposed to be redeeming evil humons, not killing them.

[Fiery Diamond]

I said they are not relevant when discussing RAW. The question stated in the original post was whether or not the gaze attack was permanent, which, by RAW, it is. Kaomaru argued that due to RAI, it was not, which is simply wrong.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting a house rule to fix it, but it does not change the RAW. RAI is relevant when discussing the house rule, but you cannot claim RAI supersedes RAW.

Except that he didn't mention RAW in the opening post. Note my comment about explicitly stated. If a question is not phrased to emphasize RAW only, then yes, RAI supercedes RAW. As I said, the default situation for discussion is not "RAW-only" but "RAW-primary." First you deal with RAW. Sometimes this brings up problems of brokenness or non-functionality. If it does, you look to determine if RAI was, in all likelihood, different from RAW (sometimes it isn't, and the people making it just didn't understand the concept of balance or the intricacies of the rules, in which case you move on to saying "This is what RAW is, and it is borked, maybe house-ruling would be a good idea. Would you like some suggestions? Here."). If it appears that RAI is different than RAW, the next step is to say, as Kaomaru did, "A direct reading of RAW leads to the following problems. Therefore, based on other factors [in this specific case the precedent for the spell and the spell level of similar spells], here is what I suspect RAI is."

I'm saying that regardless of whether Kaomaru is correct about what the RAI is (and I strongly suspect Kaomaru IS correct), Kaomaru's approach is the correct and reasonable approach to take in answering the question, and that Kaomaru is not wrong - you are.

[erikun]

I wasn't implying any of those things. I was implying that as defined, the spell is overpowered, and that the logical explanation was that the author of that spell's phrasing of 'a gaze attack' was most likely meant to say 'single use of the gaze attack special ability' or 'single use of a gaze attack.'
Ah, then I'm sorry if I came off as overly harsh.

For what it's worth, given the history of 3.0/3.5 authors, I think that granting a permanent Draconic Fear-like ability was their intention. Remember that these are the people who thought binding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBinding.htm) creatures who grant wishes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/genie.htm#efreeti) to be roughly of equal power, and that transforming into a dragon with full cleric/sorcerer spellcasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) was weaker than making a fourth attack with your off-hand weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#perfectTwoWeaponFighting).

I agree with you, though. It would be far better for casting the spell to be using the gaze attack itself, making it similar to Power Word and spells similar.

(And as a side note: A spell with a range of Touch or Personal, granting an attack with a range of 60', wouldn't be affected by Empower Spell. Empower only affects variables of the spell; a set range of 60' would not change.)

[Quietus]

This is exactly why I got this houserule'd.

If it should have been instantaneous, why include the "gaze attack" part in there at all and just say that all enemies within a certain radius or that could currently see you receive the effect? More confusingly, the first printing of the spell in the Planar Handbook is a level lower, is not a gaze attack, and explicitly hits a single target - It has a stated range and a target of "one living creature", as opposed to the revised, now level 6, spell which grants a gaze attack and has range of "personal" a target of "You."

Well, a fifth level spell to cast Fear (bard3/sor4, con of will-vs-panic) against a single target is pretty useless, too. But hey, instakill against something four levels lower than you if it's evil, yay?


The simplest solution in my mind is that in rewriting the spell they forgot to change the Duration from the old "Instantaneous", making the spell not make any sense. In my game we just houseruled in a duration of 1 round / level. (Get Occam's Razor'd)

Well, yeah. As above, even the old "Instantaneous" was pretty ridiculous, given the limitations. Being that they increased its level, I would think they also intended to increase its power - or perhaps the other way around, they realized its power and increased its level accordingly. At a limited duration - a round or a minute per level - it'd be a decent situational spell; At instantaneous, it's something you've really got no reason not to get at least a scroll of it. In fact, the fact that it immediately takes targets that aren't 5 HD or less evil creatures straight to Panicked would make it quite powerful. RAW, sure, you gain a permanent gaze attack that can't be dispelled, but I agree that this particular gaze attack is too strong for its spell level.


Also, this is the first time I've noticed how awesome/true Quietus' sig is.

Hah, thanks - I grabbed the RAW < Other stuff from someone, who in turn had grabbed it from someone else, so there was no one to credit. But it's how I approach things anyway, so I have no regrets. Though the rules of cool and funny can swap places depending on the game being played, of course.

[Forged Fury]

Sweet...

So the next time I play in a game that starts at 3rd level, I'm playing a Wizard with an Int of 16, the Arcane Mastery feat, and blowing my WBL on a scroll of this spell. I guess I could potentially do it at 2nd level if I can sell my spellbook during character creation.

Would I need Spell Focus (Necromancy) or Ability Focus (Gaze Attack) to boost the DC?

[Quietus]

Sweet...

So the next time I play in a game that starts at 3rd level, I'm playing a Wizard with an Int of 16, the Arcane Mastery feat, and blowing my WBL on a scroll of this spell. I guess I could potentially do it at 2nd level if I can sell my spellbook during character creation.

Would I need Spell Focus (Necromancy) or Ability Focus (Gaze Attack) to boost the DC?

Neither would work, as you're casting it from a scroll. The DC would be 19.

[Forged Fury]

Neither would work, as you're casting it from a scroll. The DC would be 19.
That covers Spell Focus (Necromancy). But if it gives a permanent apparently non-magical gaze attack, shouldn't that enter the realm of a Special Ability?

Sure there's probably no RAW on this, but I can't think of another spell that grants a permanent non-dispellable ability like this. Are there any others?

Would the ability be Spell-Like, Supernatural, or Extraordinary? All I can find is:
Gaze attacks not produced by a spell are supernatural.

[Kaomaru]

Considering that the only people who die are Evil, I'm not so sure it'd be that big a drawback.

Everything else would run in fear on a failed save. Everything. No hit dice cap, no creature limit except that which can fit in the radius of the spell.

RAW goes out the window when RAW is broke. RAW also goes out the window when the english used is also broke. Sometimes people make grammar mistakes. To interpret this as RAW giving a gaze attack is an example of the poor english used in its description. Part of understanding what is written is understanding that if it doesn't make sense, either your understanding of the language is off or the written word is wrong. RAW is something people enjoy touting when discussing rules in this game, but it has been set by several broken precedents (later made into errata) that sometimes they get the english wrong.

/apply common sense.

Or what Fiery Diamond said...

[Forged Fury]

Considering that the only people who die are Evil, I'm not so sure it'd be that big a drawback.
Honestly, I think I would allow this spell just for the comic value of a Wizard and Paladin traveling together.

Paladin uses Detect Evil
Paladin: The mayor of this town carries a blackness in his heart!

Wizard looks at Mayor, Mayor falls down dead
Wizard: Hey! Look at that, you were right.

After which, the wizard constantly pokes fun at the Paladin's comparatively weak weapon against evil (granted, the Paladin should probably try to redeem the evil people first).

[Taelas]

Except that he didn't mention RAW in the opening post. Note my comment about explicitly stated. If a question is not phrased to emphasize RAW only, then yes, RAI supercedes RAW.
No, it does not. Perhaps you do not understand the situation, here. Intent is a supposition, often rather vague, regarding what the rules were "supposed" to accomplish. The rules are as they are written, unless you implement house rules. RAI never supersedes RAW; in fact, the only thing that can supersede RAW is errata -- which is itself RAW.

RAI is not relevant in a discussion on what rules do -- only in what they should do -- and any such is a house rule. Are there completely stupid rules as written? Obviously. Should they be changed? Probably. But doing so is a house rule, and thus not relevant in a discussion the rules. We cannot assume that people run by whatever house rules you personally feel are obviously the correct way to run the game. We have the books, and their errata, and we can compile information in places that are obviously designed to circumvent problems within the rules -- but we cannot change what is actually written in the rules merely because you feel it is the logical course of action. RAW is the null assumption, always.

[Yorae]

Yeah, RAW, it gives you a death-gaze. To be honest i'd be tempted to let it do that, and then have the wizard be wandering up after having killed a bunch of critters with it in a dungeon and murder half a town with it by accident.

Then he'd need to wear a blindfold (i'd be a **** and say the blindfold of true darkness wouldn't be good enough since he could still 'see') and basically be blind any time his team isn't in a dungeon. And then, everyone would have to stay carefully behind him.

Some writer didn't know what 'instantaneous' duration meant. The errata didn't fix it, by the way. Otherwise, just do what it says it does, and it's a ****ty death-glare at everyone in the room. Mass Finger of Death or whatnot.

As hilarious as that would be, the rules for gaze attacks say that the creature with the gaze attack can turn it off at will, unless otherwise specified.

[Quietus]

Everything else would run in fear on a failed save. Everything. No hit dice cap, no creature limit except that which can fit in the radius of the spell.

And everything else would be shaken. Any time you had your gaze attack active, everything around you would be in one of three states (four, if you include "Immune") : Dead (5 or less HD Evil creature), Panicked (Failed save), or Shaken (Passed save).

Fury : You're right, Ability Focus would raise its DC. Also, I'd say that this gaze attack would be supernatural.

[Yorae]

Hopefully this isn't too terrible of an occurrence of thread necromancy, but I happened upon this today by chance today and instantly thought of this --

Read "Righteous Glare", BoED pg. 105-106.
It's exactly the same spell, right down to the fluff, except it has been changed to have a duration that makes sense (1 round/lvl) and its one level higher. Oddly enough, Spell Compendium was written AFTER the BoED. I thought that might finally clear things up.

Edit: Or make them more confusing. Its interesting, anyway.

[Taelas]

That is interesting, but it implies the change was deliberate. Make of that what you will.

[shadow_archmagi]

Then he'd need to wear a blindfold (i'd be a **** and say the blindfold of true darkness wouldn't be good enough since he could still 'see')

So Daredevil can make Gaze attacks?

[HalfDragonCube]

That is interesting, but it implies the change was deliberate. Make of that what you will.

Isn't there a part near the front saying the names of old spells and then new names for them? Some spells got new names and slight changes, IIRC. I don't have the book to hand, so can someone check there to see if the spell got changed?

[Yorae]

Isn't there a part near the front saying the names of old spells and then new names for them? Some spells got new names and slight changes, IIRC. I don't have the book to hand, so can someone check there to see if the spell got changed?

Just checked -- no mention of Righteous Glare in the changed names section. Interesting.



So Daredevil can make Gaze attacks?

Much like our favorite Judge, Matt Murdock is not an ordinary man.


http://www.the-isb.com/images/FNF-Fist03Big.jpg

[HalfDragonCube]

Just checked -- no mention of Righteous Glare in the changed names section. Interesting.

It probably was supposed to be, but since this is something by WotC we're talking about, we may never know... :smallcreepymusic:


Much like our favorite Judge, Matt Murdock is not an ordinary man.


http://www.the-isb.com/images/FNF-Fist03Big.jpg

Lemmehearyasay 'SQUISH!'

[Flame of Anor]

By a strict reading of that spell, you gain a permanent gaze attack, which cannot be intended. I would house rule a duration in rounds/level.

Definitely this.

[faceroll]

Check out Psionic Lion's Pounce; also instantaneous duration. Which means you manifest it once, and gain pounce forever!