"Thundering" Causing Blindness instead of Deafness [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Thundering" Causing Blindness instead of Deafness [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
cbolt_toak
12-01-04, 12:50 PM Is it balanced for me to change the "Thundering" magic weapon ability (DMG 225) to not deal sonic damage but instead cause the target to become blinded (by, say, a magical flash of light) since the spell it is associated with is blindness/deafness?

For specific example: I want to make Bolts of Thundering that blind opponents instead of deafen them, but I have no problem having the bolts not deal the normal sonic damage associated with them.

I do not want them to be able to be either, just blinding (unlike the spell).

A Magical ammunition ability at or under +1 bonus that does cause blindness (preferably permanent, like Thundering) from another WOTC accessory would be more useful, however, but I have no idea which of the many books to look in.
Shadowsouled
12-01-04, 12:58 PM I don't know of any weapon enchantment that does that but I do not think it would be balanced to make it a +1 like Thundering. Being deafened is a serious inconvenience but survivable.

Being blinded is much worse game mechanically. You take penalties to your movement and EVERYBODY gets to attack you as if they were invisible. I would say it should be must more costly to have a weapon that blinds people than a weapon that deafens people.
Seeker95
12-01-04, 01:11 PM Changing it? Only if you do it all the way. Blind is way more powerful than Deaf.
Such a change would be much higher than a +1 equivalent enhancement.
At least +2. I'd even say it is +3.
Ilium
12-01-04, 02:00 PM Changing it? Only if you do it all the way. Blind is way more powerful than Deaf.
Such a change would be much higher than a +1 equivalent enhancement.
At least +2. I'd even say it is +3.

If that's true why is a single spell used to create either effect when cast? It seems like the designers consider these conditions to be roughly equal in how much they mess you up. I don't necessarily agree, but that seems to be the implication.
Seeker95
12-01-04, 02:49 PM If that's true why is a single spell used to create either effect when cast? It seems like the designers consider these conditions to be roughly equal in how much they mess you up. I don't necessarily agree, but that seems to be the implication.Sometimes, if your initial conclusions don't seem to match common sense, it is a good idea to rexamine the conclusion.

It seems like the designers chose not to separate this into two spells. This, despite every other multiple effect spell being split into separate spells in the 3.0 to 3.5 overhaul. Not because they are equal in power, but because if the two were separate spells, nobody would ever take "deafen".

Another big difference is that the spell lets the caster choose which to use, and the spell is placed at second level based on the greater power. Blind is much more powerful than deafen in terms of game mechanics.
Lukeal
12-01-04, 02:56 PM The spell lists show that blindess/deafness are equivalent from a power perspective because 1 spell is listed as having the option of causing either. I don't think that implies parity. It pretty much defines it.

Sure in a power game blindness is usually worse.

However, I know that my GM usually makes us make listen checks long before we get spot checks. And being caught flatfooted with a surprise round because you can't hear is bad.
Ilium
12-01-04, 03:13 PM Sometimes, if your initial conclusions don't seem to match common sense, it is a good idea to rexamine the conclusion.

It seems like the designers chose not to separate this into two spells. This, despite every other multiple effect spell being split into separate spells in the 3.0 to 3.5 overhaul. Not because they are equal in power, but because if the two were separate spells, nobody would ever take "deafen".

Another big difference is that the spell lets the caster choose which to use, and the spell is placed at second level based on the greater power. Blind is much more powerful than deafen in terms of game mechanics.

Again, if that were the case why not split it into two different spells and let Deafen be 1st level?
Lukeal
12-01-04, 03:20 PM It is your opinion that blindness is more powerful and that 'no one would ever take deafen as a spell'. There are a couple spells that give you option A, B, C etc. Like, um say Monster summoning (or Summon Nature's Ally). While you can enter into debates that a celestial hawk is so obviously better than a dire badger in x situation and that obviously the designers included it because they needed a 'dire' option, that doesn't make it fact. It is much more likely that they felt the options were relatively balanced overall.

Common sense tells me that deafness is on par with blindness. But they handicap you in completely different ways. Blindness affects your ability to act/react. Deafness impacts your ability to react and communicate . Yes in games where the DM isn't going to enforce that... it's a relatively painless handicap. Otherwise, the reprecussions can get ugly.
Seeker95
12-01-04, 03:25 PM Again, if that were the case why not split it into two different spells and let Deafen be 1st level?No problem. End conclusion: blindness is more powerful than deafness.
Given all the other options for a 1st level spell, I'm still pretty sure that very few would ever take deafness.
Lukeal
12-01-04, 03:37 PM Um, no.

End conclusion:
If a given spell has multiple effect options, each option should logically be considered equal unless otherwise stated in the spell. While some options may seem more 'effective' in a given situation or due to a different game mechanic that does not make it canon that they are a more powerful option. That would be opinion.

Deafness can cause a bard to have failure chance on all their abilities and spells. Ouch. You pretty much can ONLY communicate in writing (hopefully no barbarians around). Making real-time/hurried communication with you impossible. If a DM can't get huge mileage out of that he should melt down his dice. Not every impact equates directly to a game mechanic.
Seeker95
12-01-04, 03:42 PM There are a couple spells that give you option A, B, C etc. Like, um say Monster summoning (or Summon Nature's Ally).You can make literally an endless number of different kinds of wishes, too. But this does nothing to assist in defining the relative power of each possible wish. That the summon monster spells give you choices for which monster does not change the nature of the spell.

Blindness and Deafness are very different effects.
Deafness: A deafened character cannot hear. She takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Listen checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components.

Blindness: The character cannot see. He takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a –4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character.

I am perfectly comfortable admitting that it is my opinion that blinded is more powerful than deafened. But I think it is an opinion that is supported by the mechanics of the two conditions.

Further, when added as a weapon ability, it is safe to assume that the most immediate effects of these enhancements will be combat related. Most combats are resolved with the death (and occasionally capture) of the opponent. Given the following set of penalties you can impose on your opponent in combat, which is more powerful:

-2 to Armor Class
loss of Dex bonus to AC
-4 to Search
-4 to Strength checks
-4 to Dexterity checks
All opponents have Total Concealment

OR

-4 to Initiative (you're in combat already)
Fail listen checks
20% chance of spell failure for V spells

Deafen has little combat impact.
Blind has immediate combat impact.
Deafen as a weapon enhancement is weak.
Blind as a weapon enhancement is strong.
Blind is more powerful than deafen.
Blind should cost more than deafen.
Seeker95
12-01-04, 03:51 PM End conclusion:
If a given spell has multiple effect options, each option should logically be considered equal unless otherwise stated in the spell. While some options may seem more 'effective' in a given situation or due to a different game mechanic that does not make it canon that they are a more powerful option. That would be opinion.We clearly have a difference of opinion.

Your opinion ignores game mechanics.
My opinion relies upon them.

Sure there are special circumstances in which deaf is going to have really significant impact. But those same circumstances would still have blind as more debilitating.

The mechanics of blindness have a heavier impact in more circumstances. than the mechanics of deafness. If you're the DM, go ahead and offer a +1 sword of bliness at the same price as a +1 sword of deafness. See which enhancement gets selected more often.
cbolt_toak
12-01-04, 07:27 PM Remember, I did say "forego sonic damage". Meaning all the bolt would do is the crossbow's damage and a flash of light and the Fortitude save, and you go blind.

So when you make the bolts, you either pick to do damage and deafen, or just blind. Yes, I understand that if you test every single encounter, blindness will be a more effective move than deafen, which is why I suggest the lack of extra damage as a balance.

Refering to the DMG alone (and when quoting other accessories, please use the magical abilities of ranged weapons) +2 bonus ranged weapon magic abilities are elemental or alignment-based damage. +3 is a haste-like ability, and the +4 is Brillant Energy, which I personally don't see much good in for a +4, just bypassing AC and lighting the way.

Note also that the weapon does come with a DC 14 Fortitude save, which makes it quite weak at high levels.

Either way, it's more of an idea of how difficult it would be to make the item than how effective it is for the purposes that I ask. Since we would be using the same spell as Thundering, it would be just as difficult to make.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cbolt_toak 12-01-04, 12:50 PM	Is it balanced for me to change the "Thundering" magic weapon ability (DMG 225) to not deal sonic damage but instead cause the target to become blinded (by, say, a magical flash of light) since the spell it is associated with is blindness/deafness? For specific example: I want to make Bolts of Thundering that blind opponents instead of deafen them, but I have no problem having the bolts not deal the normal sonic damage associated with them. I do not want them to be able to be either, just blinding (unlike the spell). A Magical ammunition ability at or under +1 bonus that does cause blindness (preferably permanent, like Thundering) from another WOTC accessory would be more useful, however, but I have no idea which of the many books to look in.
Shadowsouled 12-01-04, 12:58 PM	I don't know of any weapon enchantment that does that but I do not think it would be balanced to make it a +1 like Thundering. Being deafened is a serious inconvenience but survivable. Being blinded is much worse game mechanically. You take penalties to your movement and EVERYBODY gets to attack you as if they were invisible. I would say it should be must more costly to have a weapon that blinds people than a weapon that deafens people.
Seeker95 12-01-04, 01:11 PM	Changing it? Only if you do it all the way. Blind is way more powerful than Deaf. Such a change would be much higher than a +1 equivalent enhancement. At least +2. I'd even say it is +3.
Ilium 12-01-04, 02:00 PM	Changing it? Only if you do it all the way. Blind is way more powerful than Deaf. Such a change would be much higher than a +1 equivalent enhancement. At least +2. I'd even say it is +3. If that's true why is a single spell used to create either effect when cast? It seems like the designers consider these conditions to be roughly equal in how much they mess you up. I don't necessarily agree, but that seems to be the implication.
Seeker95 12-01-04, 02:49 PM	If that's true why is a single spell used to create either effect when cast? It seems like the designers consider these conditions to be roughly equal in how much they mess you up. I don't necessarily agree, but that seems to be the implication.Sometimes, if your initial conclusions don't seem to match common sense, it is a good idea to rexamine the conclusion. It seems like the designers chose not to separate this into two spells. This, despite every other multiple effect spell being split into separate spells in the 3.0 to 3.5 overhaul. Not because they are equal in power, but because if the two were separate spells, nobody would ever take "deafen". Another big difference is that the spell lets the caster choose which to use, and the spell is placed at second level based on the greater power. Blind is much more powerful than deafen in terms of game mechanics.
Lukeal 12-01-04, 02:56 PM	The spell lists show that blindess/deafness are equivalent from a power perspective because 1 spell is listed as having the option of causing either. I don't think that implies parity. It pretty much defines it. Sure in a power game blindness is usually worse. However, I know that my GM usually makes us make listen checks long before we get spot checks. And being caught flatfooted with a surprise round because you can't hear is bad.
Ilium 12-01-04, 03:13 PM	Sometimes, if your initial conclusions don't seem to match common sense, it is a good idea to rexamine the conclusion. It seems like the designers chose not to separate this into two spells. This, despite every other multiple effect spell being split into separate spells in the 3.0 to 3.5 overhaul. Not because they are equal in power, but because if the two were separate spells, nobody would ever take "deafen". Another big difference is that the spell lets the caster choose which to use, and the spell is placed at second level based on the greater power. Blind is much more powerful than deafen in terms of game mechanics. Again, if that were the case why not split it into two different spells and let Deafen be 1st level?
Lukeal 12-01-04, 03:20 PM	It is your opinion that blindness is more powerful and that 'no one would ever take deafen as a spell'. There are a couple spells that give you option A, B, C etc. Like, um say Monster summoning (or Summon Nature's Ally). While you can enter into debates that a celestial hawk is so obviously better than a dire badger in x situation and that obviously the designers included it because they needed a 'dire' option, that doesn't make it fact. It is much more likely that they felt the options were relatively balanced overall. Common sense tells me that deafness is on par with blindness. But they handicap you in completely different ways. Blindness affects your ability to act/react. Deafness impacts your ability to react and communicate . Yes in games where the DM isn't going to enforce that... it's a relatively painless handicap. Otherwise, the reprecussions can get ugly.
Seeker95 12-01-04, 03:25 PM	Again, if that were the case why not split it into two different spells and let Deafen be 1st level?No problem. End conclusion: blindness is more powerful than deafness. Given all the other options for a 1st level spell, I'm still pretty sure that very few would ever take deafness.
Lukeal 12-01-04, 03:37 PM	Um, no. End conclusion: If a given spell has multiple effect options, each option should logically be considered equal unless otherwise stated in the spell. While some options may seem more 'effective' in a given situation or due to a different game mechanic that does not make it canon that they are a more powerful option. That would be opinion. Deafness can cause a bard to have failure chance on all their abilities and spells. Ouch. You pretty much can ONLY communicate in writing (hopefully no barbarians around). Making real-time/hurried communication with you impossible. If a DM can't get huge mileage out of that he should melt down his dice. Not every impact equates directly to a game mechanic.
Seeker95 12-01-04, 03:42 PM	There are a couple spells that give you option A, B, C etc. Like, um say Monster summoning (or Summon Nature's Ally).You can make literally an endless number of different kinds of wishes, too. But this does nothing to assist in defining the relative power of each possible wish. That the summon monster spells give you choices for which monster does not change the nature of the spell. Blindness and Deafness are very different effects. Deafness: A deafened character cannot hear. She takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Listen checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components. Blindness: The character cannot see. He takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a –4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. I am perfectly comfortable admitting that it is my opinion that blinded is more powerful than deafened. But I think it is an opinion that is supported by the mechanics of the two conditions. Further, when added as a weapon ability, it is safe to assume that the most immediate effects of these enhancements will be combat related. Most combats are resolved with the death (and occasionally capture) of the opponent. Given the following set of penalties you can impose on your opponent in combat, which is more powerful: -2 to Armor Class loss of Dex bonus to AC -4 to Search -4 to Strength checks -4 to Dexterity checks All opponents have Total Concealment OR -4 to Initiative (you're in combat already) Fail listen checks 20% chance of spell failure for V spells Deafen has little combat impact. Blind has immediate combat impact. Deafen as a weapon enhancement is weak. Blind as a weapon enhancement is strong. Blind is more powerful than deafen. Blind should cost more than deafen.
Seeker95 12-01-04, 03:51 PM	End conclusion: If a given spell has multiple effect options, each option should logically be considered equal unless otherwise stated in the spell. While some options may seem more 'effective' in a given situation or due to a different game mechanic that does not make it canon that they are a more powerful option. That would be opinion.We clearly have a difference of opinion. Your opinion ignores game mechanics. My opinion relies upon them. Sure there are special circumstances in which deaf is going to have really significant impact. But those same circumstances would still have blind as more debilitating. The mechanics of blindness have a heavier impact in more circumstances. than the mechanics of deafness. If you're the DM, go ahead and offer a +1 sword of bliness at the same price as a +1 sword of deafness. See which enhancement gets selected more often.
cbolt_toak 12-01-04, 07:27 PM	Remember, I did say "forego sonic damage". Meaning all the bolt would do is the crossbow's damage and a flash of light and the Fortitude save, and you go blind. So when you make the bolts, you either pick to do damage and deafen, or just blind. Yes, I understand that if you test every single encounter, blindness will be a more effective move than deafen, which is why I suggest the lack of extra damage as a balance. Refering to the DMG alone (and when quoting other accessories, please use the magical abilities of ranged weapons) +2 bonus ranged weapon magic abilities are elemental or alignment-based damage. +3 is a haste-like ability, and the +4 is Brillant Energy, which I personally don't see much good in for a +4, just bypassing AC and lighting the way. Note also that the weapon does come with a DC 14 Fortitude save, which makes it quite weak at high levels. Either way, it's more of an idea of how difficult it would be to make the item than how effective it is for the purposes that I ask. Since we would be using the same spell as Thundering, it would be just as difficult to make.