Balance Point[]
Why is this listed as unquantifiable? --IGTN 00:48, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely Wizard, changing it if no one speaks up --Ghostwheel 00:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- It's unquantifiable because of the must in once per round, you must -- its impossible-to-turn-off nature means it's practically impossible to gauge the effect on your game if it's used by a PC. Surgo 00:53, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Closing one's eyes? Putting on a blindfold of true darkness? (I think it's called) And more. One can easily get around it, especially by level 9. --Ghostwheel 00:54, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Surgo actually. Since, this feat could utterly prevent a character from participating in social activities with all NPC's, which could be crippling in certain games, whereas in pure hack-n-slash, it could be overwhelmingly powerful. Unqauntifiable all the way. → Rith (talk) 01:05, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Also something that came up in chat, putting on a blindfold or even a mask might not even prevent your gaze from happening (though that is a valid and good interpretation). Surgo 01:06, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Actually scratch that last part -- gaze attacks are defined in two separate places with two separate rulesets. Seriously. I completely agree with Rith, though. Surgo 01:09, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Where might one find these rulesets? --Be well 05:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
if we're arguing wording, it also means you have to target yourself if no one else is around. Even while sleeping you must target someoneNameViolation 01:42, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Would that be valid? If so, the creature could constantly target itself. Since it cannot actually meet its own gaze (unless eyes are on stalks, etc), all drawbacks would be removed. --Be well 05:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Just found this in the SRD: "A creature is immune to its own gaze attack." So if the creature can target itself, all drawbacks are removed. --Be well 05:19, October 22, 2009 (UTC)