I'm a bit confused about the intention of the Crystal Golem ability "Light Intensity". Here's the quote:
Light Intensity. Any creature that starts its turn within 10 feet of the illuminated golem and can see the golem must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw or be blinded until the start of the creature’s next turn.
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 golem until the start of its next turn, when it can avert its eyes again. If the creature looks at the golem in the meantime, it must immediately make the save.
So averting your eyes means that you can't see it, therefore you have disadvantage on attacks against it. Fair enough. But this also essentially renders you blinded, though specifically to that creature or anything near it. And if you're blinded, it should not only have advantage against you, but it also means averting your eyes gives you no benefit because you're "blinded" either way.
So, the dilemma is: Do you count "averting one's eyes" to be essentially blindness, therefore rendering this option useless, OR, do you not equate the two and confer at least the benefit of the creature not having advantage against you, but have it make less sense?
Another way to put the question (because option 1 is silly) - what's a good rationale for averting your eyes away from a creature not being the same thing as blindness?
I consider "can't see the golem" to be absolutely the same thing as blindness, but only blindness as regards interaction with the golem. While averting eyes you would get disadvantage to attack the golem, not get an attack of Opportunity against the golem, be unable to cast a spell that needs you to see the golem, and the golem would have advantage on attacks against you.
However, averting your eyes lets you attack any other enemy without disadvantage, and only the golem will have advantage attacking you (because you cannot see it). If you take the chance and fail the save then you have disadvantage on attacks against everything, and all attacks have advantage against you. If you pass the save you are fine against all enemies.
The choice becomes more significant when there are other enemies present, or if you want to do something with your turn that does not involve targeting the golem but does require your sight (like a spell targeting an ally you can see).
The tempting thing is if you have a decent Wisdom save, then maybe you gamble on looking at it directly. Either that or back away far enough and just use ranged attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As long as you are not blind, you know where the golem is (the direction of the light) and only the golem is unseen by you. That is pretty different than being blinded.
I'm a bit confused about the intention of the Crystal Golem ability "Light Intensity". Here's the quote:
Light Intensity. Any creature that starts its turn within 10 feet of the illuminated golem and can see the golem must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw or be blinded until the start of the creature’s next turn.
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 golem until the start of its next turn, when it can avert its eyes again. If the creature looks at the golem in the meantime, it must immediately make the save.
So averting your eyes means that you can't see it, therefore you have disadvantage on attacks against it. Fair enough. But this also essentially renders you blinded, though specifically to that creature or anything near it. And if you're blinded, it should not only have advantage against you, but it also means averting your eyes gives you no benefit because you're "blinded" either way.
So, the dilemma is: Do you count "averting one's eyes" to be essentially blindness, therefore rendering this option useless, OR, do you not equate the two and confer at least the benefit of the creature not having advantage against you, but have it make less sense?
Another way to put the question (because option 1 is silly) - what's a good rationale for averting your eyes away from a creature not being the same thing as blindness?
Option 1. Blinds you. Option 2. Is like fighting Medusa. You can still see shadows and such to know when an attack is coming.
and trust me. A golem radiating light, will create shadows.
I'm a bit confused about the intention of the Crystal Golem ability "Light Intensity". Here's the quote:
So averting your eyes means that you can't see it, therefore you have disadvantage on attacks against it. Fair enough. But this also essentially renders you blinded, though specifically to that creature or anything near it. And if you're blinded, it should not only have advantage against you, but it also means averting your eyes gives you no benefit because you're "blinded" either way.
So, the dilemma is: Do you count "averting one's eyes" to be essentially blindness, therefore rendering this option useless, OR, do you not equate the two and confer at least the benefit of the creature not having advantage against you, but have it make less sense?
Another way to put the question (because option 1 is silly) - what's a good rationale for averting your eyes away from a creature not being the same thing as blindness?
I consider "can't see the golem" to be absolutely the same thing as blindness, but only blindness as regards interaction with the golem. While averting eyes you would get disadvantage to attack the golem, not get an attack of Opportunity against the golem, be unable to cast a spell that needs you to see the golem, and the golem would have advantage on attacks against you.
However, averting your eyes lets you attack any other enemy without disadvantage, and only the golem will have advantage attacking you (because you cannot see it). If you take the chance and fail the save then you have disadvantage on attacks against everything, and all attacks have advantage against you. If you pass the save you are fine against all enemies.
The choice becomes more significant when there are other enemies present, or if you want to do something with your turn that does not involve targeting the golem but does require your sight (like a spell targeting an ally you can see).
Ah this makes sense. Thanks!
The tempting thing is if you have a decent Wisdom save, then maybe you gamble on looking at it directly. Either that or back away far enough and just use ranged attacks.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As long as you are not blind, you know where the golem is (the direction of the light) and only the golem is unseen by you. That is pretty different than being blinded.
Option 1. Blinds you. Option 2. Is like fighting Medusa. You can still see shadows and such to know when an attack is coming.
and trust me. A golem radiating light, will create shadows.
Blank