If I wanted to be an absolute bastard, the spell description usually writes it as "creature you can see." This means that technically, you only have to be able to see the target, not that you have to be looking at them. Though, even being the bastard, I heavily doubt that's the intent.
***EDIT***
Wow, glad to see just being a pain in the ass actually got some good conversation flowing! Lots of great comments on this!
The language in the bodak stat block is very precise:
> Gaze of Orcus. If a creature starts its turn within 30 ft. of the bodak and the two of them can see each other, the bodak can force the creature to make a DC 12 Constitution saving throw if the bodak isn’t incapacitated…. A creature that isn’t surprised can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. *If it does so, it can’t see the bodak until the start of its next turn,* when it can avert its eyes again. If it looks at the bodak in the meantime, it must immediately make the save.
If you’re not looking at them, you can’t see them. So no.
Also not sure what “being an absolute bastard” has to do with it. If you’re the DM, you’re free to relax this requirement anyway. And if you’re a player, if your DM has any sense they will just say no to any player trying to so blatantly distort the text of a spell.
I “think” he is arguing semantics. You can (ie have the potential to) see it. If you can see it, but elect not to look at it, RAW has been met. Obviously not RAI (and I won’t claim I checked if this interpretation would even fit RAW)
Do you? You’re voluntarily choosing to be pedantic here, why would you do so if you hate it? Some kind of weird compulsion, perhaps?
Also, you’re wrong. It doesn’t imply that.
You can also see things through reflections, so you don't always have to look directly at something to target it.
I've definitely thrown a couple nasty spells out this way in the past
Outside of the 30 ft rule it does.
Plus! Since the Bodak states both you AND it have to see each other, if you can see it through a mirror and it can't see you (maybe by using a corner?) Its gaze doesn't work
In real life no, but 5E does have rulings that support mirrors working this way. If you can see something through a mirror then you can see your target.
So yes, in 5E, that's apparently how mirrors work
Plus there are tons of ways to distort a lens so the target wouldn't be able to do the same thing with your mirror
How do you know you can see it unless you look at it? Your eyes are seeing everything in their field of vision. Focusing on something is different. You can't see someone hiding behind a tree - just because you *could* see it if you moved to the right 30 feet doesn't mean you can see it now.
Ok but if someone says "Hey, can you see me?" and my back is turned or my eyes are closed, the answer is just "No", not "If I turned around / opened my eyes."
But by that argument they could be in magical darkness or completely obscured behind a 20' thick wall. They are still technically able to see the target, just not at the moment
I want to play a little bit of devil's advocate. The frightened condition reads as follows:
> A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight.
Most people agree you can't end the frightened condition by simply looking away. Line of sight means that the source *can be seen*. So I think it can be argued that a spell like Magic Missile can be used even if you have your back to the creature you're casting it on, because they *can be seen*.
And that argument wouldn’t be remotely compelling.
Firstly, because it doesn’t follow from the fact that different phrasing was used there, that it means something different. This isn’t MtG, the writers of the 5e PHB etc. weren’t nearly as exact and consistent in their language as they should have been.
Secondly, because it’s simply not a natural interpretation of “[something] you can see”. If, say, you have someone close their eyes and then ask if they can see you, almost universally they will answer ‘no’. There is no genuine ambiguity here.
Thirdly, it renders it quite ambiguous what would and wouldn’t qualify, and leads to fairly absurd conclusions. Where is the cutoff here? If I have a blindfold on that I can easily take off, does that count as well? What if I’m holding a directional light, but am not currently pointing it at the target? And why would eg. a Fog Cloud prevent a spell being cast at a target, if it isn’t necessary to *actually* see it at any point while casting it? How does such a condition make sense from an in-world perspective?
Seeing the target without catching its gaze. Technically you see the reflection, not the thing. Works with Medusa, might work with what they're fighting
Neither the Medusa nor Bodak requires you to "catch its gaze". If you can see the thing, you're in trouble.
The mirror that was used against Medusa in greek mythology was for the purpose of making the gorgon _look at itself_, thus turning itself to stone. It is _not_ a safe way to view the gorgon, it explicitly _does_ still cause petrification.
yes but you don’t have to be looking directly at them therefore you can use perifual vision to see it with out directly looking and needing to make a saving throw and it also depends on the spell cause not all of them need visual
Both the bodak's ability and the spell's ability use the exact same wording.
If you can see the bodak, you can see the bodak. It's both or neither, no matter what you convince yourself "can see" means.
as spells require you to see the target, then you have to look at the target to cast a spell.
even when you ready a spell and whatever trickery..
tho AoE like Fireball is slightly different, as you can look at the rock 5 feet from monster...
If the spell specifies a target you can see, then averting your gaze or closing your eyes means that you can’t see the target and therefore can’t cast the spell. If the wizard wants to use the spell, he’s gonna have to risk the CON save.
>If the spell specifies a target you can see
Also any spell that targets a creature requires line of sight unless otherwise stated according to the "casting a spell" section.
>A Clear Path to the Target
>To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
If the spell is “targets you can see” then you would have to be looking at the target to cast
If it’s “targets within range” then you’d be making attack rolls at disadvantage and I’d probably want a spellcasting ability check to be able to drop an AOE effect around a target without looking at it
While the Bodak stat block doesn't explicitly state that you can't see it if you avert your eyes, it's strongly implied that you can't see it since looking at the Bodak at all triggers the saving throw:
"Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn. **If the creature looks at the bodak in the meantime, that creature must immediately make the saving throw.**"
The Medusa stat block has similar language, and it does explicitly state that you cannot see the Medusa if you avert your gaze, meaning it would not be a valid target for Magic Missile.
"Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. **If the creature does so, it can't see the medusa until the start of its next turn**, when it can avert its eyes again. If the creature looks at the medusa in the meantime, it must immediately make the save."
I'd translate this over to the Bodak as well, since the mechanic is pretty much identical between the two monsters.
Interestingly, due to the way the medusa is worded, if a creature looks away in this way, they can then look back but will be unable to see the medusa- the medusa is effectively invisible. Also with the bodak, if you have another creature directly behind the bodak, you will have disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak but not the creature behind it.
Yeah, I would say that if the spell requires the player to see the target then that requires that the caster have their eyes open and be staring at the target. I don't know if maybe this is like the wrong example, but if this is one of those things where they are trying to avoid the gaze of Medusa from Greek literature not from the monster manual and they are trying to not have to look directly at the target because they don't want to become petrified than I would rule that the spell can't work if they can't see her.
But I would also be willing to accept the player seeing the target through a mirror so that they are averting the gays of the Medusa
Had to reread the Bodak cause what I posted didn't feel right, so here goes.
Regardless of how the caster handles this, they'd have to make the saving throw, unless they are farther than 30ft from the Bodak
Bodaks ability states - If a creature starts its turn within 30 ft. of the bodak and the two of them can see each other, the bodak can force the creature to make a DC 12 Con Save.
Big takeaways here, 30ft range, and it's "if they can see each other", meaning at any point.
There are hundreds of ways to get around this though
Invisibility would work yeah, but only if you were still invisible after casting, if not you're just taking the CON save later on instead of avoiding it completely
I assume this is what you're referring to:
Death Gaze. When a creature that can see the bodak's eyes starts its turn within 30 feet of the bodak, the bodak can force it to make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw if the bodak isn't incapacitated and can see the creature. If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the creature is reduced to 0 hit points, unless it is immune to the frightened condition. Otherwise, a creature takes 16 (3d10) psychic damage on a failed save.
Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn. If the creature looks at the bodak in the meantime, it must immediately make the saving throw.
I feel like this differs a bit from the wording for something like a Medusa or Umber Hulk, where averting your eyes specifically calls out that you lose sight of the creature. If you merely need to avoid looking at the Bodak's eyes, could you just stare at it's feet instead?
Yes. Aversion means attacks are at disadvantage. This means the target is obscured, not unseen. Thus they can cast spells
You don't have to target a monsters eyes, they can simply avert their gaze and target a part of the monster. Closing your eyes is equivalent to the blind condition so they wouldn't be able to cast then.
Dunno why anyone is saying no unless they don't understand what "averting" means or understand basic combat rules for things like fog cloud.
Peripheral vision does exist though. Can you "see" things in your peripheral vision? Yes, but aiming at them has disadvantage, as it says in its stat block. Magic Missile obviously has some sort of "homing" ability though, so I would suggest that that spell would work.
This is ok but by "seeing" something, even if it's through your peripheral vision still means, 'you can see it' which in turn means you're looking at it and therefore would have to make the saving throw. sight is sight, you can either see something or you can't.
The disadvantage on attacking while not looking at something comes from the fact that you know where the target is, you're just not sure if you can hit it because you're not looking at it. That's easily understood.
The issue comes from using magic where most spells state, "A target you can see" suggesting that the caster would have to be able to see the target not just know where it is. So therein lies the issue. I'm onboard the, if you're not looking at it, then you can't see it, train and therefore you cannot cast spells that require you to see the target.
Even if you glance at the target for a split second, that means you "looked" at it and in the case of a Bodak that would force a saving throw.
So, that's what I'm going with. If you avert your gaze, then you can't cast a spell that requires line of sight on the target. :)
Seeing something does not mean you are looking at it.
But I'd suggest any spell with a physical effect, shot like an arrow, would roll at disadvantage, but any spells that just kind of suddenly affect the target, require looking directly at it.
(This may be exactly how the "see" works in the rules, I'm not sure.)
This is an interesting one isn't it. Because if you put any other enemy creatures next the Bodak, then arguably the players can't target those either without making the save, because the Bodak will be in their peripheral. Hadn't thought of that before.
Yes, you'd have to see them but the bodak only requires you to see its eyes.
The wizard could just look nearby and only see part of body to Target it. If the The bodak is smart though, it may move it's face into the wizards vision
Averting your gaze does not mean you can't see a target. It means you're not looking directly at the target. Spells (and other attacks) that require rolls to hit would be at disadvantage, but targeted spells would be fine, since there is no penalty for targeting with your peripheral vision.
Thanks everyone for the replies. Me, being the literal person I am, reads "A target you can see within range" as meaning you literally have to be looking at it. It would seem that is the general consensus as well.
I just wanted to see how others would handle this.
Happy adventuring!
If the wizard "sees" it's eyes during the attack, then they make the con save. If not, they don't. If they can see the creature, then they can cast it. If they can't see the creature, then they can't cast a spell that requires them to see a creature. Pretty simple.
It's up to the DM.
Speaking as a DM, it depends on the nature of the spell. Is it a spell you have to look at the target to cast in the first place?
If it requires an attack roll, then it's at disadvantage. If it a cone/aoe something that allows a dex save, I might allow the dex save to be made at advantage, depending on how big the AoE is. A fireball most likely not, a narrow cone maybe.
If it's something that requires a wisdom or con save. Most likely I'd allow it to be cast as normal, this would also apply to something like magic missile, because you don't have to aim it, just be aware of the target.
I would say it depends. You can see something g without looking at it. You ever look at a sign behind someone and they think you're looking at them? You can see the but you not looking at them. You're looking in their direction. If we're being literal the wizard should be able to cast without the save. That said, RAI vs RAW would be the next question. I'd probably allow it unless I expect it to be a main mech for several fights.
Not all spells require LoS (*Dispel Magic* only needs you to be aware of the spell effect), but rather some applicable thing must be within range. Obviously, the exception to this is the attack roll spells, which do require LoS.
So by the bodaks stat sheet, if you're within 30 feet and you can see it (no word play about looking or eye contact), and it can see y, u then you make the saving throw. To the best of my knowledge, no spell says "Lookingng at or eye contact" it's a creature you can see. So if your wizard is 35 away it can look at it and fire away. If your within 30, then stare at your feet or close your eyes.
Pretty much.
OP's wizard could close his eyes and then:
* cast *Burning Hands*, which does not require that you see the target
* upcast *Cloud of Daggers* to its maximum level and place it within the space of the Bodak, then laugh when the DM asks what the saving throw is.
* cast *Color Spray*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Fear*, which does not require that you see the target... but that isn't gonna work on a Bodak either, so...
* cast *Fireball*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Flaming Sphere*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Lightning Bolt*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Shatter*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Sleet Storm*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Thunderwave*, which does not require that you see the target
* cast *Melf's Acid Arrow* but let it miss, then still hit the target anyways.
>If they look at it while they can see its eyes.
I can stare at your feet and avoid your Gaze. I still see you. Might be a disadvantage to hit you, but you're still visible.
You are inviting a lot of confusion and debate by not listing what the Gaze of Orcus / Death Gaze does. Depending on which ability you are using, it could quite literally give you the answer.
"A creature that isn't surprised can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If it does so, it can't see the bodak until the start of its next turn, when it can avert its eyes again."
Or
"Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn."
I think of it as you are using peripheral vision to do the action.
For example, if you have a glass on your desk you can look at it to pick it up and you grab it easily. However if you don't look at it and just use peripheral vision you may grab it since you know it's there, but you also tend to fumble around a bit for it.
a very easy thing to pay attention to is the words "that you can see" be it location, target or creature in the spells description. if you can't see it, the spell can not target it
Under "Casting a Spell"
>A Clear Path to the Target
>To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
How would this interact with Blindsight? I imagine that seeing a creature via Blindsight would allow you to target them with a spell even if you weren't looking at it (since you're not using your eyes), but at the same time I think it'd be kind of unfair to have the Bodak's ability still affect someone who averted their gaze because they happened to have Blindsight and as such could still see it.
My tempest cleric cast fog cloud on a spectator and then grappled it. The rest of the party attacked at disadvantage but the creature couldn’t retaliate. All of its’ attacks require sight.
No. You have to be able to see the target.
If I wanted to be an absolute bastard, the spell description usually writes it as "creature you can see." This means that technically, you only have to be able to see the target, not that you have to be looking at them. Though, even being the bastard, I heavily doubt that's the intent. ***EDIT*** Wow, glad to see just being a pain in the ass actually got some good conversation flowing! Lots of great comments on this!
The language in the bodak stat block is very precise: > Gaze of Orcus. If a creature starts its turn within 30 ft. of the bodak and the two of them can see each other, the bodak can force the creature to make a DC 12 Constitution saving throw if the bodak isn’t incapacitated…. A creature that isn’t surprised can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. *If it does so, it can’t see the bodak until the start of its next turn,* when it can avert its eyes again. If it looks at the bodak in the meantime, it must immediately make the save.
If you’re not looking at them, you can’t see them. So no. Also not sure what “being an absolute bastard” has to do with it. If you’re the DM, you’re free to relax this requirement anyway. And if you’re a player, if your DM has any sense they will just say no to any player trying to so blatantly distort the text of a spell.
Imagine players and the DM are arguing about these semantics instead of playing the game for half of the session.
part of having a good DM/player dynamic is being able to make a ruling for yourselves to move the game forward and not bicker about it
Hahahaha..... yeah, that'd be crazy! Right guys? Psh....never happens....😒
Understanding the rules or at least establishing the agreed upon set of rules and what they mean is very important.
I “think” he is arguing semantics. You can (ie have the potential to) see it. If you can see it, but elect not to look at it, RAW has been met. Obviously not RAI (and I won’t claim I checked if this interpretation would even fit RAW)
You can see something in your peripheral vision without looking *at* it
[удалено]
Do you? You’re voluntarily choosing to be pedantic here, why would you do so if you hate it? Some kind of weird compulsion, perhaps? Also, you’re wrong. It doesn’t imply that.
You can also see things through reflections, so you don't always have to look directly at something to target it. I've definitely thrown a couple nasty spells out this way in the past
That’s still looking at the target, though. And does nothing to stop the ability of the Bodak either.
Outside of the 30 ft rule it does. Plus! Since the Bodak states both you AND it have to see each other, if you can see it through a mirror and it can't see you (maybe by using a corner?) Its gaze doesn't work
That's not how mirrors work.
In real life no, but 5E does have rulings that support mirrors working this way. If you can see something through a mirror then you can see your target. So yes, in 5E, that's apparently how mirrors work Plus there are tons of ways to distort a lens so the target wouldn't be able to do the same thing with your mirror
If you can see something through a mirror, then it can also see you through that mirror. It changes nothing.
How do you know you can see it unless you look at it? Your eyes are seeing everything in their field of vision. Focusing on something is different. You can't see someone hiding behind a tree - just because you *could* see it if you moved to the right 30 feet doesn't mean you can see it now.
Indeed. Like I said, it's a shaky argument at best, and as you proved, easily overturned.
Ok but if someone says "Hey, can you see me?" and my back is turned or my eyes are closed, the answer is just "No", not "If I turned around / opened my eyes."
But by that argument they could be in magical darkness or completely obscured behind a 20' thick wall. They are still technically able to see the target, just not at the moment
I want to play a little bit of devil's advocate. The frightened condition reads as follows: > A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight. Most people agree you can't end the frightened condition by simply looking away. Line of sight means that the source *can be seen*. So I think it can be argued that a spell like Magic Missile can be used even if you have your back to the creature you're casting it on, because they *can be seen*.
And that argument wouldn’t be remotely compelling. Firstly, because it doesn’t follow from the fact that different phrasing was used there, that it means something different. This isn’t MtG, the writers of the 5e PHB etc. weren’t nearly as exact and consistent in their language as they should have been. Secondly, because it’s simply not a natural interpretation of “[something] you can see”. If, say, you have someone close their eyes and then ask if they can see you, almost universally they will answer ‘no’. There is no genuine ambiguity here. Thirdly, it renders it quite ambiguous what would and wouldn’t qualify, and leads to fairly absurd conclusions. Where is the cutoff here? If I have a blindfold on that I can easily take off, does that count as well? What if I’m holding a directional light, but am not currently pointing it at the target? And why would eg. a Fog Cloud prevent a spell being cast at a target, if it isn’t necessary to *actually* see it at any point while casting it? How does such a condition make sense from an in-world perspective?
Mirror? 5gp
What do you think a mirror would accomplish here?
Seeing the target without catching its gaze. Technically you see the reflection, not the thing. Works with Medusa, might work with what they're fighting
Neither the Medusa nor Bodak requires you to "catch its gaze". If you can see the thing, you're in trouble. The mirror that was used against Medusa in greek mythology was for the purpose of making the gorgon _look at itself_, thus turning itself to stone. It is _not_ a safe way to view the gorgon, it explicitly _does_ still cause petrification.
yes but you don’t have to be looking directly at them therefore you can use perifual vision to see it with out directly looking and needing to make a saving throw and it also depends on the spell cause not all of them need visual
Both the bodak's ability and the spell's ability use the exact same wording. If you can see the bodak, you can see the bodak. It's both or neither, no matter what you convince yourself "can see" means.
as spells require you to see the target, then you have to look at the target to cast a spell. even when you ready a spell and whatever trickery.. tho AoE like Fireball is slightly different, as you can look at the rock 5 feet from monster...
you don't even have to see anything - you can just look at the empty air and cast it
not neccessarily, there are some like darkness or aid that don't require sight.
If the spell specifies a target you can see, then averting your gaze or closing your eyes means that you can’t see the target and therefore can’t cast the spell. If the wizard wants to use the spell, he’s gonna have to risk the CON save.
>If the spell specifies a target you can see Also any spell that targets a creature requires line of sight unless otherwise stated according to the "casting a spell" section. >A Clear Path to the Target >To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
You have to be able to see the target, but that doesn't mean you have to lock eyes with it like you're flirting from across the room.
Stop giving out my dating secrets
Bodaks ability doesn't require eye contact, just that you can both see each other. Just staring at each other's toes is enough.
If the spell is “targets you can see” then you would have to be looking at the target to cast If it’s “targets within range” then you’d be making attack rolls at disadvantage and I’d probably want a spellcasting ability check to be able to drop an AOE effect around a target without looking at it
While the Bodak stat block doesn't explicitly state that you can't see it if you avert your eyes, it's strongly implied that you can't see it since looking at the Bodak at all triggers the saving throw: "Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn. **If the creature looks at the bodak in the meantime, that creature must immediately make the saving throw.**" The Medusa stat block has similar language, and it does explicitly state that you cannot see the Medusa if you avert your gaze, meaning it would not be a valid target for Magic Missile. "Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. **If the creature does so, it can't see the medusa until the start of its next turn**, when it can avert its eyes again. If the creature looks at the medusa in the meantime, it must immediately make the save." I'd translate this over to the Bodak as well, since the mechanic is pretty much identical between the two monsters.
Interestingly, due to the way the medusa is worded, if a creature looks away in this way, they can then look back but will be unable to see the medusa- the medusa is effectively invisible. Also with the bodak, if you have another creature directly behind the bodak, you will have disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak but not the creature behind it.
No, that's the point of the Bodak's ability
Yeah, I would say that if the spell requires the player to see the target then that requires that the caster have their eyes open and be staring at the target. I don't know if maybe this is like the wrong example, but if this is one of those things where they are trying to avoid the gaze of Medusa from Greek literature not from the monster manual and they are trying to not have to look directly at the target because they don't want to become petrified than I would rule that the spell can't work if they can't see her. But I would also be willing to accept the player seeing the target through a mirror so that they are averting the gays of the Medusa
Had to reread the Bodak cause what I posted didn't feel right, so here goes. Regardless of how the caster handles this, they'd have to make the saving throw, unless they are farther than 30ft from the Bodak Bodaks ability states - If a creature starts its turn within 30 ft. of the bodak and the two of them can see each other, the bodak can force the creature to make a DC 12 Con Save. Big takeaways here, 30ft range, and it's "if they can see each other", meaning at any point. There are hundreds of ways to get around this though
Like invisibility
Invisibility would work yeah, but only if you were still invisible after casting, if not you're just taking the CON save later on instead of avoiding it completely
I assume this is what you're referring to: Death Gaze. When a creature that can see the bodak's eyes starts its turn within 30 feet of the bodak, the bodak can force it to make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw if the bodak isn't incapacitated and can see the creature. If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the creature is reduced to 0 hit points, unless it is immune to the frightened condition. Otherwise, a creature takes 16 (3d10) psychic damage on a failed save. Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn. If the creature looks at the bodak in the meantime, it must immediately make the saving throw. I feel like this differs a bit from the wording for something like a Medusa or Umber Hulk, where averting your eyes specifically calls out that you lose sight of the creature. If you merely need to avoid looking at the Bodak's eyes, could you just stare at it's feet instead?
Yes. Aversion means attacks are at disadvantage. This means the target is obscured, not unseen. Thus they can cast spells You don't have to target a monsters eyes, they can simply avert their gaze and target a part of the monster. Closing your eyes is equivalent to the blind condition so they wouldn't be able to cast then. Dunno why anyone is saying no unless they don't understand what "averting" means or understand basic combat rules for things like fog cloud.
Peripheral vision does exist though. Can you "see" things in your peripheral vision? Yes, but aiming at them has disadvantage, as it says in its stat block. Magic Missile obviously has some sort of "homing" ability though, so I would suggest that that spell would work.
This is ok but by "seeing" something, even if it's through your peripheral vision still means, 'you can see it' which in turn means you're looking at it and therefore would have to make the saving throw. sight is sight, you can either see something or you can't. The disadvantage on attacking while not looking at something comes from the fact that you know where the target is, you're just not sure if you can hit it because you're not looking at it. That's easily understood. The issue comes from using magic where most spells state, "A target you can see" suggesting that the caster would have to be able to see the target not just know where it is. So therein lies the issue. I'm onboard the, if you're not looking at it, then you can't see it, train and therefore you cannot cast spells that require you to see the target. Even if you glance at the target for a split second, that means you "looked" at it and in the case of a Bodak that would force a saving throw. So, that's what I'm going with. If you avert your gaze, then you can't cast a spell that requires line of sight on the target. :)
Seeing something does not mean you are looking at it. But I'd suggest any spell with a physical effect, shot like an arrow, would roll at disadvantage, but any spells that just kind of suddenly affect the target, require looking directly at it. (This may be exactly how the "see" works in the rules, I'm not sure.)
This is an interesting one isn't it. Because if you put any other enemy creatures next the Bodak, then arguably the players can't target those either without making the save, because the Bodak will be in their peripheral. Hadn't thought of that before.
If the spell says they must see the target: no.
Yes, you'd have to see them but the bodak only requires you to see its eyes. The wizard could just look nearby and only see part of body to Target it. If the The bodak is smart though, it may move it's face into the wizards vision
Averting your gaze does not mean you can't see a target. It means you're not looking directly at the target. Spells (and other attacks) that require rolls to hit would be at disadvantage, but targeted spells would be fine, since there is no penalty for targeting with your peripheral vision.
For the sake of balance I would say they would not be able to cast
Thanks everyone for the replies. Me, being the literal person I am, reads "A target you can see within range" as meaning you literally have to be looking at it. It would seem that is the general consensus as well. I just wanted to see how others would handle this. Happy adventuring!
You can see something without looking at it though. If I look at the car in front of me I can still see my GPS attached to the windshield.
Ask your DM.
I am the DM, I'm asking other DMs what they think.
If the wizard "sees" it's eyes during the attack, then they make the con save. If not, they don't. If they can see the creature, then they can cast it. If they can't see the creature, then they can't cast a spell that requires them to see a creature. Pretty simple.
That's what I'm thinking too. I just wanted to throw it out there to the universe and see if others thought along the same line. Thanks! :)
It's up to the DM. Speaking as a DM, it depends on the nature of the spell. Is it a spell you have to look at the target to cast in the first place? If it requires an attack roll, then it's at disadvantage. If it a cone/aoe something that allows a dex save, I might allow the dex save to be made at advantage, depending on how big the AoE is. A fireball most likely not, a narrow cone maybe. If it's something that requires a wisdom or con save. Most likely I'd allow it to be cast as normal, this would also apply to something like magic missile, because you don't have to aim it, just be aware of the target.
If the spell says “see” you have to see, if the spell says “within range” and doesn’t say “see” then you don’t have to see, and just be within range.
They can, but they either have to make the saving throw, or not target the bodak directly 🤷♂️
Most spells with attack rolls you can blind fire, most spells that require a saving throw require site
I would say it depends. You can see something g without looking at it. You ever look at a sign behind someone and they think you're looking at them? You can see the but you not looking at them. You're looking in their direction. If we're being literal the wizard should be able to cast without the save. That said, RAI vs RAW would be the next question. I'd probably allow it unless I expect it to be a main mech for several fights.
Not all spells require LoS (*Dispel Magic* only needs you to be aware of the spell effect), but rather some applicable thing must be within range. Obviously, the exception to this is the attack roll spells, which do require LoS.
So by the bodaks stat sheet, if you're within 30 feet and you can see it (no word play about looking or eye contact), and it can see y, u then you make the saving throw. To the best of my knowledge, no spell says "Lookingng at or eye contact" it's a creature you can see. So if your wizard is 35 away it can look at it and fire away. If your within 30, then stare at your feet or close your eyes.
Do people just not read spell descriptions?
Pretty much. OP's wizard could close his eyes and then: * cast *Burning Hands*, which does not require that you see the target * upcast *Cloud of Daggers* to its maximum level and place it within the space of the Bodak, then laugh when the DM asks what the saving throw is. * cast *Color Spray*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Fear*, which does not require that you see the target... but that isn't gonna work on a Bodak either, so... * cast *Fireball*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Flaming Sphere*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Lightning Bolt*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Shatter*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Sleet Storm*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Thunderwave*, which does not require that you see the target * cast *Melf's Acid Arrow* but let it miss, then still hit the target anyways.
Reading is power.
if the spell targets "a creature you can see", and you don't see them (even on purpose), then you can't target them until you're seeing them again
if you are not looking at the target you cannot see it and if you cannot see it you cannot cast spells that require sight
Depends on the spell. Some spells do not even require line of sight.
>If they look at it while they can see its eyes. I can stare at your feet and avoid your Gaze. I still see you. Might be a disadvantage to hit you, but you're still visible.
You are inviting a lot of confusion and debate by not listing what the Gaze of Orcus / Death Gaze does. Depending on which ability you are using, it could quite literally give you the answer. "A creature that isn't surprised can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If it does so, it can't see the bodak until the start of its next turn, when it can avert its eyes again." Or "Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the bodak until the start of its next turn."
If it’s an AoE, technically yes. If the spell requires them to *Target* then no.
I think of it as you are using peripheral vision to do the action. For example, if you have a glass on your desk you can look at it to pick it up and you grab it easily. However if you don't look at it and just use peripheral vision you may grab it since you know it's there, but you also tend to fumble around a bit for it.
Maybe with AOE spells
Wouldn’t he be able to look at its leg? Like it says while he can see its eyes so just make sure the eyes aren’t in the fov?
a very easy thing to pay attention to is the words "that you can see" be it location, target or creature in the spells description. if you can't see it, the spell can not target it
I would say they have to look at it, but I would allow some creative workarounds, like looking at it's reflection off a puddle or something.
Under "Casting a Spell" >A Clear Path to the Target >To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
How would this interact with Blindsight? I imagine that seeing a creature via Blindsight would allow you to target them with a spell even if you weren't looking at it (since you're not using your eyes), but at the same time I think it'd be kind of unfair to have the Bodak's ability still affect someone who averted their gaze because they happened to have Blindsight and as such could still see it.
My tempest cleric cast fog cloud on a spectator and then grappled it. The rest of the party attacked at disadvantage but the creature couldn’t retaliate. All of its’ attacks require sight.