Blind Grappling? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Blind Grappling? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TaisharMalkier
10-05-03, 05:22 AM Zug Zug.

Recently, a party member in a group im GMing was blind - and grappled someone. As far as I can tell, once you actually start a grapple, being blind has zero effect on grappling. This seems kind of stupid to me. I mean, you are in close contact with him - but you can't see what he's doing, etc.

Do you think that you should get negatives when grappling when blind?

Thanks

Cheers
Inigo Carmine
10-05-03, 11:11 AM Well, when you are blind, attackers get a +2 bonus to their attack rolls. Why not give the not-blind person a +2 bonus to their grapple checks.

I'm basing this off of the similar rule for changing subdual damage into lethal damage. normally (non-monks, w/o IUS), unarmed strikes do subdual damage, though you can take a -4 to make them lethal. You can also do this in a grapple by taking -4 to your grapple check.
exploding_brain
10-05-03, 11:28 AM Based on personal experience as a high school wrestler, and my high school's matches against the team from the New York school for the blind, I'd say blind characters should absolutely not have any penalty to their grapple checks.

Once you are in contact with your opponent, the sense of touch works just as well as sight, if not a little better. If grappling were actually meant to represent greco-roman wrestling, I'd vote for an armor check penalty to grapple checks, due to the difficulty of feeling your oppontnet through full plate.
primemover003
10-05-03, 10:18 PM I'll second that for Judo. Blind players are just as effective as sighted ones once you get on the mat. I don't think miss chances from any sort of natural concealment would apply, only spells.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TaisharMalkier 10-05-03, 05:22 AM	Zug Zug. Recently, a party member in a group im GMing was blind - and grappled someone. As far as I can tell, once you actually start a grapple, being blind has zero effect on grappling. This seems kind of stupid to me. I mean, you are in close contact with him - but you can't see what he's doing, etc. Do you think that you should get negatives when grappling when blind? Thanks Cheers
Inigo Carmine 10-05-03, 11:11 AM	Well, when you are blind, attackers get a +2 bonus to their attack rolls. Why not give the not-blind person a +2 bonus to their grapple checks. I'm basing this off of the similar rule for changing subdual damage into lethal damage. normally (non-monks, w/o IUS), unarmed strikes do subdual damage, though you can take a -4 to make them lethal. You can also do this in a grapple by taking -4 to your grapple check.
exploding_brain 10-05-03, 11:28 AM	Based on personal experience as a high school wrestler, and my high school's matches against the team from the New York school for the blind, I'd say blind characters should absolutely not have any penalty to their grapple checks. Once you are in contact with your opponent, the sense of touch works just as well as sight, if not a little better. If grappling were actually meant to represent greco-roman wrestling, I'd vote for an armor check penalty to grapple checks, due to the difficulty of feeling your oppontnet through full plate.
primemover003 10-05-03, 10:18 PM	I'll second that for Judo. Blind players are just as effective as sighted ones once you get on the mat. I don't think miss chances from any sort of natural concealment would apply, only spells.