Need Clarification - Evil Eye during Combat

Arkobla Conn

Mongoose
Hi all

I have a frustrated player...let me explain

There was a nice sized melee during the newest adventure published via pdf.

During this melee, one of the players was engaged with two npc's in blade combat. The scholar moved behind the PC and tried to cast entrance on the npc's, but the DM decided that since they were engaged in combat, they were not looking at the scholar standing well behind the fight (about 10 feet). The scholar is frustrated, because he can't seem to use Hypnotism in combat (according to this ruling) and is second guessing this particular spell selection.

I was not the GM although I am the normal GM. I happen to agree mostly with the GM who did run the event, although I *might* have given a high DC chance of capturing their eye.

What are your thoughts??
 
Did he try to get their attention? Maybe make an Intimidate or Perform roll? A bit of showmanship on the scholar's part could go a long way.
 
I agree with your DM's decision. If the PC did nothing to catch his foe's attention, there's no reason why the NPC should look at him while engaged in a melee.

And anyway, your scholar would better use his Hypnotism BEFORE the combat begins whenever possible : the best way for a scholar to win a fight is to avoid them and convince their foes that they are actually friends :)
 
I disagree with the former posts. There should be no check to catch their attention. Creatures are assumed to have a full view of the combat in all directions, and the scholar should be able to use evil eye spells normally, unless he is concealed relative to them. If you don't want someone to look at the sorcerer, you should use the D&D rules for averting or closing your eyes.
 
Your GM was quite wrong. The combat round is six full seconds long and durring that time a combatant is assumed to paying attention to the entire field of combat. This is the exact reason why there is no facing in d20. If combatants wern't presumed to be looking in all directions then we would need rules for "backstabing" and penalties to spot checks for not looking in the right direction and even rules for how much of a move you have to use to turn around. Luckily for us the rules abstract this out and assume that a combatant is facing whatever direction he needs to be at the time.

So much for facing, on to Evil Eye spells.

Evil Eye spells are basically gaze attacks, if you've ever run your players against a medussa or the like they work much the same way. According to the Conan PRG page 197 the victim has two defenses, he can "avert his eyes" or "shut his eyes"

If the target has already specified he is averting his eyes ... target has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw ... the caster gains one half concealment (20% miss chance) against the target

A target, who has specified that he has shut his eyes ... does not need to make a saving throw. The caster gains total concealment against the target as if the caster were invisible.
So even if you rule that a target engaged in melee with an ally is "averting his eyes" (and personally I wouldn't) the sorcorer still has a 50% chance to meet the targets' eyes.

Note that in both cases the target has to specify that he is going to avert or shut his eyes before hand. If he has no reason to expect a spell from the sorcorer (or does not know how to avoid an Evil Eye spell) then there is no reason for him to do this. Also note that a target who has shut his eyes/wears a blindfold/etc is effectievly blind. This means that not only do you treat the caster as invisible, you treat everyone on the battlefield as invisible with regards to the target (the penalties of which may be lessened by Uncanny Dodge or Blindfight).

Hope that helps.
 
Argo,

Excellent response....would you allow some sort of modify for being engaged in a life or death battle, something that may demand a great deal of attention??
 
The thing to remember about combat in the d20 system is that it already assumes that characters are capable individuals who are consistently performing at peak capacity (at least to the extent that the luck of the dice let them). The most obvious example of this philosophy is the Hit Point mechanic, a character is just as effective at 1 HP as he is at 100 HP. In that same vein a character is assumed to be devoting exactly as much attention as is required to the "life or death battle" with the guy in front of him while still paying enough attention to the rest of the battlefield to take that AoO when a third opponent runs by. This philosophy is what gives us a combat system that offers a decent ammount of tactical complexity while still playing reasonably fast.

Generally speaking, mechanics which attempt to model "reduced effectivness" just generate more complexity than they return in "realism". This is espically true when you attempt to generate reduced effectivness with regards to one character but not another: imagine if your character wants to pay full attention to one opponent, a little bit of attention to another, keep an eye on the archer accross the way and totally ignore two other guys! That can get out of hand. :shock:

All that is my (excessevly verbose) way of saying that I wouldn't let a player do what you described. However, since you asked me for a suggestion what I would do in such a situation is this: a character who wants to "focus his attention" on a single opponent may gain a +1 to hit and DV against that opponent but is treated as though he were blind with regards to everything else except an Evil Eye spell in which case he is "averting his eyes". That is about as simple and quick as I can make it, but I still don't think it is worth it.

Hope that helps.
 
argo said:
Your GM was quite wrong. The combat round is six full seconds long and durring that time a combatant is assumed to paying attention to the entire field of combat. This is the exact reason why there is no facing in d20. If combatants wern't presumed to be looking in all directions then we would need rules for "backstabing" and penalties to spot checks for not looking in the right direction and even rules for how much of a move you have to use to turn around. Luckily for us the rules abstract this out and assume that a combatant is facing whatever direction he needs to be at the time.

So much for facing...
There is no facing but there is a flanking rule.
Moreover fights and movement are abstractly represented on a square grid with a character "encircled" by 9 squares (in opposite to usual hexagones).
Granted though, flanking happens only with 2 creatures are attacking someone.
 
Argo - Brilliant response. I'll be using it when bringing the players and GM up to speed. Everyone's responses has been very helpful and my scholar will be happier.

Thanks
 
[/quote] Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your GM was quite wrong. The combat round is six full seconds long and durring that time a combatant is assumed to paying attention to the entire field of combat. This is the exact reason why there is no facing in d20. If combatants wern't presumed to be looking in all directions then we would need rules for "backstabing" and penalties to spot checks for not looking in the right direction and even rules for how much of a move you have to use to turn around. Luckily for us the rules abstract this out and assume that a combatant is facing whatever direction he needs to be at the time.

I have to disagree, perhaps wrongly but here was my thought process(I was the GM)!

The situation was thus...3 apes were fighting the party of 6. At the time of the first Evil Eye attempt, The ape in question had one of the player characters, Raz, between his hands raised above its head, trying to crush his skull. The Scholar was about 30 ft away. There was an ape closer - perhaps 20 ft away, crushing the life out of Abaddon, another player character. The 3rd ape was only about 10 ft away fighting Hadrathus. I would have allowed an evil eye attack on either of the last 2, but not the one crushing Raz's skull.

This is why...to me, the evil eye and hypnotism spells must meet the following criteria. Eye contact must be made and have cognitive recognition behind it. Looking at someone's eye ball - which the Scholar was saying he was doing, does not in my opinion met the requirements. If the ape had looked at the scholar for even a second with cognitive thought then I would have accepted his attack. As it was, the ape was looking directly at Raz trying to turn his head into grape juice, I ruled that these requirements were not met. They were engaged in a battle of strength - Raz is very strong also so their concentration was on eachother. Either of the other apes as I said would have been given a % chance of catching the Scholars eye. The scholar's mistake was in choosing the wrong target. In fact Abaddon to his immediate front was in just as bad a condition at that time.

In the 2nd situation the same ape was fighting 2 opponents and the Scholar had moved to within 20 ft. My thinking again was that in mortal combat with 2 opponents, any lack of concentration to survey the field could be lethal. What good would it do to survey the field for other opponents when you have 2 in front of you trying to hack you into pieces?
So again I ruled against the scholar and will do so consistently in these situations. I was consistant as when the Scholar faced a wizard later who attempted Hypnotism I made sure they were looking and speaking directly to one another.

Earlier in the game I had allowed him to hypnotise a horse and a rider - Why? Because they were close to him and looking at him.
 
Screwed up the quote stuff! Sorry! I had no problem with the Scholar using the spell in a combat situation, it was in his execution of it...He chose the wrong target. I will not hand players easy outs. They must think out every action and its consequences.

Abaddon's ribs were getting cracked right in front of the Scholar but he never attempted to use the spell on that ape. Once he was told he could not hypnotise the ape on Raz, he shot an arrow at the same ape. Also he ignored the ape closest to him where if he had hypnotised it, that would have freed the only fighter not being crushed to help out the other players.
 
Abaddon's ribs are still aching over that encounter, but at least I didn't have blood coming out of the holes in my head...poor Raz.

It's true, our scholar player gets frustrated and doesn't really conceptionalize the combat well. The rub, of course, is that the system is so different from DnD, for which he has the Players Handbook and familiarity. (He likes playing wizards). He does not have the sourcebook for Conan due to the cost, and that has been a limiter despite my typing out his spells and critical spellcasting concepts/issues. We are looking forward to the pocket handbook, so he can buy and really learn the system and all of the potential options available to him.

His overall desire is to roll less 'to hit dice' as he believes he does not roll d20's well. In this system, however, with the Magic Attack Roll, it's really the same amount. He should play a fighter and be done with it.
 
Anonymous said:
I have to disagree, perhaps wrongly but here was my thought process(I was the GM)!


This is why...to me, the evil eye and hypnotism spells must meet the following criteria. Eye contact must be made and have cognitive recognition behind it. Looking at someone's eye ball - which the Scholar was saying he was doing, does not in my opinion met the requirements. If the ape had looked at the scholar for even a second with cognitive thought then I would have accepted his attack. As it was, the ape was looking directly at Raz trying to turn his head into grape juice, I ruled that these requirements were not met. They were engaged in a battle of strength - Raz is very strong also so their concentration was on eachother. Either of the other apes as I said would have been given a % chance of catching the Scholars eye. The scholar's mistake was in choosing the wrong target. In fact Abaddon to his immediate front was in just as bad a condition at that time.

Respectfully I must disagree. For starters the RAW are against you. The Evil Eye descriptor says nothing about meeting the target's gaze "with cognitive recognition" all it says is
Conan p 197 said:
The Evil Eye: Some spells require the caster to meet the target's eye. This can affect a target within 30 ft. The caster simply chooses a target within range, and the opponent must attempt a saving throw.
...
If the target is able to avoid meeting the caster's gaze during the round the spell is cast, the evil eye spell has no effect.
The rules also detail the two ways in which a target can avoid meeting the caster's gaze, both of which require an affirmative action on the target's part which I still argue that a target whith no reason to suspect an evil eye spell or no knolwedge of how to defend against one would have no reason to take such action.

Which brings us back to the discussion of weither or not a target engaged in melee is so distracted that he is incapable of making eye contact. Once again the RAW are against you. There are no rules for a combatant "concentrating" on an opponent to the exclusion of other targets. Quite the opposite. The no-facing system dictates that a combatant is capable of awarness in all directions at all times. And the AoO system practically demands that that awarness be excercised constantly.

None of which means that you as a GM can't house rule differently of course. But I still dont' think you have clearly thought through all the reprecussions of your ruling. For example, if I were your sorcerer player and you told me I couldn't meet the gaze of this ape I would simply stroll over and cast a touch spell on him with no fear of AoO. I mean, if he is so busy concentrating on the "life or death combat" he is engaged in there is no way he is going to notice his chance to take his Attack of Opportunity on me right? You say that in your game the sorcerer used his round to make an attack with his bow instead? I do hope that you remembered not to add the ape's Dex bonus to DV then and the sorcerer hit. After all, if the ape is looking only at the opponent he is fighting such that he can't even meet the sorcerer's eyes for a instant then there is no way the ape could be watching the sorcerer closely enough to deserve his Dex bonus to dodge an arrow. He should really be considered flat-footed. Hell, I've got some advice for your sorcerer player: give up on the scholar thing and start taking levels of thief. Use a bow and demand that whenever an enemy is engaged in melee with an ally you be allowed to apply your sneak attack damage. If the GM says no, the enemy is watching you closely enough to get his Dex bonus then cast hypnotisim instead.

You see my friend, awarness is a sword that cuts both ways. It is a combatant's awarness of the battelfield that lets him do things like make AoO's and defend himself effectievly against all attackers. The downside is that once in a while you subject yourself to a gaze attack. If you still wish to rule that some combatants may be so engaged with their opponent that they aren't subject to a gaze attack (your perogrative as GM) then the only correct intrepretation is to also rule that they are blind with regards to the rest of the battlefield (ie: treat all other combatants as invisible).

One more point to consider. From a purely gammist standpoint it is not a good thing to nerf player abilities on a whim. Scholars have a hard enough time contributing to a battle as it is, there is no reason to go taking away what few combat abilities he has at random. And no, ruling that one opponent is not subject to gaze attacks while two others have a % defence and another sorcerer in a different combat has no problem executing gaze attacks is not consistent. It is inconsistency and it means the player never has any idea weither or not his class abilites will be of any use to him until the moment his initative comes up in a combat. It is not up to you to decide which targets are the "right" targets and which are the "wrong" targets. If your player wants to help Raz instead of helping Abaddon that is his choice. If Abaddon dies then he can deal with the consequences but it is not up to you to indirectly tell the player which enemy to attack by deciding which is vulneurable to his attack.

Anyway, hope that helps.
 
For the record, the Apes ingaged in grappling us did lose their dex bonuses....

Argo, you've laid out an eloquent response. Let me discuss this with my GM (I usually GM, but I'm doing a silly 50+ page proposal paper for school) and we'll provide a consistent guideline for our Scholar friend....

Thanks
 
After that brilliant response, I must admit that I finally agree with you, Argo (although I still consider that the only *correct* answer to a rule question is that of the GM, not the rulebook - just because the rulebook doesn't sit around the table and tells the story :) )

As for evil eye, we could consider that even if the target doesn't directly look at the sorcerer, it "feels" the gaze of the sorcerer upon its back (an eery chill, a tickle in its nape...) and instinctively looks back toward the source of this feeling. After all, it is often the way Conan itself detects sorcery.
 
As for evil eye, we could consider that even if the target doesn't directly look at the sorcerer, it "feels" the gaze of the sorcerer upon its back (an eery chill, a tickle in its nape...) and instinctively looks back toward the source of this feeling. After all, it is often the way Conan itself detects sorcery.


This statement right here sums it all up. The evil eye itself demands the glance that the opponent wouldn't normally spare...the check required determines if the evil eye worked...
 
Although it is always the GM's finale say whether this is possible,
however, I believe as stated earlier by Arkobla Conn that a GM should have given the player a chance to allow the Evil Eye to work. You can not make everyone happy with your decisions, but you can be fair.
 
Back
Top