5
\$\begingroup\$

The Sea Hag has a special action called Death Glare:

Death Glare. The hag targets one frightened creature she can see within 30 ft. of her. If the target can see the hag, it must succeed on a DC 11 Wisdom saving throw against this magic or drop to 0 hit points.

Does this work on a target that is averting its eyes?

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

Averting your eyes means you cannot see the sea hag.

Unfortunately, it is not spelled out explicitly on the sea hag’s statblock. Fortunately, there are other monsters with similar abilities that do spell this out for us. For example, in the description of the Medusa’s ability Petrifying Gaze, we see (pun intended):

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.

This DnDBeyond search reveals quite the handful of monsters that reflect this understanding of averting your eyes.

Further, this more detailed description of averting one’s eyes is a completely natural understanding of the English language - averting your eyes by definition means you cannot see whatever you are averting your eyes from. So in some sense, it is spelled out explicitly in the sea hag’s statblock; averting your eyes means exactly that you can’t see the sea hag.

Given the plethora of other creature abilities that explicitly state that averting your eyes means you cannot see the creature, it seems quite clear that this is also the case for the sea hag.

This ruling seems consistent with the personal opinion (not official ruling) of rules designer Jeremy Crawford in this tweet about averting your eyes from a basilisk.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's even simpler than that! The ability requires the creature to see the hag. If they're not looking, they're not seeing! \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Aug 9 '20 at 13:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Yeah, that’s what I was getting at with the second part. But I wanted to also shore it up with some citations. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 9 '20 at 17:59
4
\$\begingroup\$

Although Tweets are hardly Rules as Written. They do offer insight into the developers intentions about scenarios. Jeremy Crawford has answered twice about "averting your eyes"

Regarding Basilisks and Regarding Medusa

Both times he insinuated that averting your eyes prevents you from seeing the target, thereby preventing you from using spells which require sight. So in this case it should protect you from its Death Glare as well.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Just want to note that Crawford's tweets are not official. And while they do provide some insight into intention, that insight is to their intention at the time of tweeting and nothing really more. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Aug 9 '20 at 13:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer could be improved by citing actual rules. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 18 '20 at 12:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.