Post/Author/DateTime	Post
raidzuo 10-12-06, 11:24 AM	I have a player who wants to play a blind Monk/Psionicist. What can I do to make him on par with the rest of the players? I thought of giving him +4 on his listen check or something. Any suggestions?
Escef 10-12-06, 12:51 PM	Give him Blind Fight as a bonus feat. I can't recall if there are non-epic feats that will effectively give the character blind sight, but if you can't find any, make one up and present that as a further option for the player.
KurenaiYami 10-12-06, 12:53 PM	There are those feats from Sandstorm and Races of Stone that give limited tremorsense.
Epicweaver 10-12-06, 01:00 PM	There's also a nifty blindfold in Arms and Equipment that grants continous 60' blindsight... think it runs about 10K.
orionm42 10-12-06, 01:03 PM	I have a player who wants to play a blind Monk/Psionicist. What can I do to make him on par with the rest of the players? I thought of giving him +4 on his listen check or something. Any suggestions? Don't give him anything. If he wants to play a blind character, let him deal with the consequences of being blind.
Shriven 10-12-06, 01:05 PM	Consider the following- 1) The power Synthesthete (sp) from the XPH. Specifically, the feel light function. Effectively negates blindness, whilst keeping the flavour. 2) There are feats in PHBII and CV that expand the Listen skill quite nicely. I don't have either book to hand, but I believe one such feat was called Keen Eared Scout.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 01:14 PM	I have a player who wants to play a blind Monk/Psionicist. What can I do to make him on par with the rest of the players? Nothing. In my experience players want a blind PC cos it is "kewl" but they don't actually want any of those pesky penalties associate with it. If he wants to play a blind PC then he plays a blind PC. Giving him free bonuses - especially blindfight or blindsight - to offset blindness is a disservice to the other players. If he wants to get feats and abilities to compensate for his blindness then let him spend feats on it, give him nothing for free. OOC, why does this topic pop up like once a month? Anyone know? :confused:
ruff0126 10-12-06, 01:16 PM	they probably just saw ninja scroll or something like it with an extremely capable blind character
Escef 10-12-06, 01:20 PM	Giving him free bonuses - especially blindfight or blindsight - to offset blindness is a disservice to the other players. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole concept behind the flaws system from Unearthed Arcana? Just open up the flaw system to the other players and all should be well enough.
Comus 10-12-06, 01:30 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole concept behind the flaws system from Unearthed Arcana? Just open up the flaw system to the other players and all should be well enough. That's true, and an important point - if one player wants to have a character flaw like being blind, then the other players should also be given the option. Fair is fair. That said, it's important to make sure that the blindness can never be removed. Heal, remove curse, none of that should do anything. Otherwise, he might end up just curing himself and getting a bonus for nothing.
Epicweaver 10-12-06, 01:37 PM	That's true, and an important point - if one player wants to have a character flaw like being blind, then the other players should also be given the option. Fair is fair. I like the flaws deal, but being blind is much more crippling then any of the other listed flaws... Worth a bit more in my book... Murky Vision is the closest one... and even then it's not nearly as bad as being blind. I'd say blindsense/tremorsense at a short range would be a good start plus Blind-Fighting. That said, it's important to make sure that the blindness can never be removed. Heal, remove curse, none of that should do anything. Otherwise, he might end up just curing himself and getting a bonus for nothing. Or you could just have the feats specifically tied to his being blind, he somehow becomes healed? Bam, his bonus feats are gone... hope he didn't use them to qualify for any prestige classes.
Comus 10-12-06, 01:48 PM	I like the flaws deal, but being blind is much more crippling then any of the other listed flaws... Worth a bit more in my book... Murky Vision is the closest one... and even then it's not nearly as bad as being blind. I'd say blindsense/tremorsense at a short range would be a good start plus Blind-Fighting. Certainly being blind is worse - but it's what the player chose. Some flaws are worse than others, just as some feats are better. Monkey Grip is terrible, but some people take it anyway. A blind person doesn't get superhuman senses (except for Daredevil, but that's different). Or you could just have the feats specifically tied to his being blind, he somehow becomes healed? Bam, his bonus feats are gone... hope he didn't use them to qualify for any prestige classes. The important thing is that he shouldn't just be able to choose to see again. If he wants a blind character, then the character should never be able to see. Maybe it's a God-Curse, or he gave his sight to some Elder Being in exchange for power, or the part of his mind that used to handle sight now channels psionic power. Whatever works is cool.
RobbyPants 10-12-06, 01:58 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole concept behind the flaws system from Unearthed Arcana? Just open up the flaw system to the other players and all should be well enough. I've thought about doing this, but even with some uber cool feats, they would still have to be behind the other PCs... ...even if you gave them blindsight of 5ft, scent, and some cool improved listen, they would be at a disadvantage with anything stationary (such as terrain!). They would never be able to run without penalty. I did think about making an improved Listen type feat to give them a solid bonus on Listen checks, with the prerequs of Skill Focus (Listen), blind, and a high Wis (15 or 17+). I was thinking this could be nice, because I remember reading somewhere that you can pin-point an invisible creature's square with a Listen check, at a -20 penalty. Again, though, with all the cool feats and abilities you could make, this will always be a disadvantage to the player, and the rules should reflect that. All they can do is try and minimize the disadvantage.
lears_fool 10-12-06, 02:07 PM	There's also the option of (depending on the power level of the game) creating an item that grants the touchsight psionic power continually. It's only a 3rd level power, and as the DM you could modify the ability slightly That way he doesn't suffer any of the nasty penalties and there's some interesting RP potential (for example he could see invisible people, but would have no idea they were invisible)
orionm42 10-12-06, 02:16 PM	Nothing. In my experience players want a blind PC cos it is "kewl" but they don't actually want any of those pesky penalties associate with it. If he wants to play a blind PC then he plays a blind PC. Giving him free bonuses - especially blindfight or blindsight - to offset blindness is a disservice to the other players. If he wants to get feats and abilities to compensate for his blindness then let him spend feats on it, give him nothing for free. OOC, why does this topic pop up like once a month? Anyone know? :confused: Amen brother!!! Drives me nuts every time I see it. My grandfather and uncle were blind. Blindness isn't a joke...it isn't kewl...and, in game terms, it isn't practical. Blind folks don't choose adventuring as their line of work. It's as simple as that. Giving a character a whole bunch of stuff to negate his "blindness" is ridiculous. All it does is give him a huge advantage over certain monsters (and the other players for that matter). If your player wants to be blind, the only thing I would give him is a copy of the following excerpt from the SRD... Blinded: 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. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them. ...then I'd wish him good luck. …right before I killed his character in our first combat session.
lears_fool 10-12-06, 02:37 PM	Amen brother!!! ...then I'd wish him good luck. …right before I killed his character in our first combat session. That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? I mean, the whole 'blind warrior' concept has been a fantasy staple for ages, I can think of a dozen examples without even batting an eye. And while it's not realistic, it IS a fantasy game. .. isn't it?
orionm42 10-12-06, 02:50 PM	That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? I mean, the whole 'blind warrior' concept has been a fantasy staple for ages, I can think of a dozen examples without even batting an eye. And while it's not realistic, it IS a fantasy game. .. isn't it? Cliché or not, I don't believe it was harsh. Quite frankly, like Sulaco (and you most likely), I have seen this thread many times. And every time, I see the same advice...give him blindsight, blindsense, bonus to listen checks, etc., etc. Basically, the player will be unhappy unless his chosen handicap is offset by gifts from the DM. And once those gifts are given, all that is accomplished is the character becomes immune to the attacks of monsters which rely on stealth in darkness, invisibility, gaze attacks, etc. as their primary tactics. This gives the player a huge advantage. It is a simple fact that blindness in game terms is debilitating. There is no way to make an effective blind character without negating the blindness using other means. And once he overcomes the blindness with those other means, he no longer has a handicap. He has a valuable strength.
albinomonkeyking 10-12-06, 02:59 PM	So harsh! I don't think wanting something for concept is bad whatsoever, it helps for role-playing it often helps to have fun so I don't see what the big deal is. If he doesn't want to be a blind race, like grimlock, you could just look into ways of giving him the abilities they get so you wouldn't end up with him under or over powered. I think the idea of traits or flaws work pretty good.
bobberry109 10-12-06, 03:00 PM	That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? Maybe it is harsh but it's irritating. I wouldn't like to be in a campaign where someone says I want my char to be blind, but I want him to "see" in some other way which technically gives me better sight than the eagle eyed elf within 30/60ft and outside that people are going to tell me about anything important. Yes you can come up with some great and wonderful ideas of being cursed by Gods or blinded by the nemesis of the party and it being incurable and bla bla bla, but most of the time people want to be blind because they think they can get some cheesy super power out of it, which more than compensates for the drawbacks. I guarantee you everyone whos thought about playing a blind char has mentioned to the DM how "great a roleplaying experience" it would be, but they just dont want to be that hampered by the rules. If its that great and that much fun play it by the rules it wont stop the enjoyment of the game. Or better yet play a rogue and pretend to be blind when you're not actively adventuring (or even when you are), this has a lot more RP potential as you can see when people are short changing you, and taking advantage of your disability. This also makes it so you can create an air of mysticism about your blindness, as you can really see whats happening around you.
lears_fool 10-12-06, 03:05 PM	Cliché or not, I don't believe it was harsh. Quite frankly, like Sulaco (and you most likely), I have seen this thread many times. And every time, I see the same advice...give him blindsight, blindsense, bonus to listen checks, etc., etc. Yes, I've seen them as well, as well as the advice. Basically, the player will be unhappy unless his chosen handicap is offset by gifts from the DM. And once those gifts are given, all that is accomplished is the character becomes immune to the attacks of monsters which rely on stealth in darkness, invisibility, gaze attacks, etc. as their primary tactics. This gives the player a huge advantage. So the real impetus should be. . to give the character his theme without any real notable advantage/disadvantage, right? To allow for the theme and not the power gaming? It is a simple fact that blindness in game terms is debilitating. There is no way to make an effective blind character without negating the blindness using other means. And once he overcomes the blindness with those other means, he no longer has a handicap. He has a valuable strength. Yes, which means that you really just want to . . as a DM. . pay attention and make sure that the advantages given don't offset the disadvantages. It's the sort of thing that's not TOO hard to handle as a DM. .just so you have some control over it. I mentioned the magic item bit myself because if one goes that route then the player is giving up other magic items to get the ability. There likely are other ways as well, I've only had it come up once in a campaign and it was easily handled. I know in reality it's a very severe thing, but so's getting hit on the head with a mace or geting bit by a dragon
albinomonkeyking 10-12-06, 03:09 PM	It has been done before, but the idea of relying on a sense other than your eyesight is appealing. As I said, look at what Grimlocks get, it wouldn't be overpowered if the DM just takes the fact that it is a flaw into consideration. I wouldn't give him an exp boost raidzuo, but that is just me. Find a way to give him blindsense/sight, whatever you like but make sure he is going to have some drawbacks, this is only because mechanically the blind abilities can be stronger than actual sight. I personally have no problem with the concept, but you want to make sure no other players feel like you are rewarding a player for making a blind character. Perhaps give him limited sense/sight in the beginning and allow it to get stronger as he levels, or work out something using his listen to negate or lower his minus's for being blind. Remember, being weak at low levels isn't a problem. If his blind abilities are weak in the low levels he will improve in the higher, having a character grow can be fun. Sorry if you didn't find all the help you needed but don't turn a cold shoulder to the boards either, good luck.
lears_fool 10-12-06, 03:13 PM	Yeah, I think that's the problem. . a lot of people are getting worked up because they can't separate 'Mechanics' and 'Theme'. If the mechanics don't allow a theme don't jump like mad on the theme. . figure out a way to make the mechanics work. We're DMs, we can do that, we're encouraged to ;)
orionm42 10-12-06, 03:47 PM	If the mechanics don't allow a theme don't jump like mad on the theme. . figure out a way to make the mechanics work. Here are some of the suggestions given so far to “make the mechanics work”… Give him Blind Fight as a bonus feat. …give limited tremorsense. …blindfold in Arms and Equipment that grants continous 60' blindsight Specifically, the feel light function. …expand the Listen skill I'd say blindsense/tremorsense at a short range would be a good start plus Blind-Fighting. creating an item that grants the touchsight psionic power continually. As I noted above, what all these things have in common is they give the player a considerable advantage over the other PCs in dealing with creatures which use darkness, invisibility, etc. At the same time, when used in different combinations, there are no disadvantages when the player goes up against other opponents. This isn’t a handicap…it’s something that should result in a +1 or more LA. Note that the grimlock is a +2. And this will likely sound harsh, but please consider my feelings on this issue are jaded by the fact that I have two blind relatives. Stuff like this… effectively negates blindness, whilst keeping the flavour …irks me. What exactly is the “flavor” of being blind? And how does one retain that “flavor” when the PC can effectively “see” as well as any other character. When all is said and done, people will continue to play blind characters because they think it’s cool. I simply don’t think it is.
lears_fool 10-12-06, 03:58 PM	As I noted above, what all these things have in common is they give the player a considerable advantage over the other PCs in dealing with creatures which use darkness, invisibility, etc. At the same time, when used in different combinations, there are no disadvantages when the player goes up against other opponents. This isn’t a handicap…it’s something that should result in a +1 or more LA. Note that the grimlock is a +2. And this will likely sound harsh, but please consider my feelings on this issue are jaded by the fact that I have two blind relatives. Stuff like this… And I had a blind ex. . SHE wouldn't have gotten all worked up about this. . would your relatives? Besides, the point is that WE, as DMs have a duty to figure out how to maintain the flavor WITHOUT messing with balance. Instead of assisting with that you just kinda derailed things for personal reasons. …irks me. What exactly is the “flavor” of being blind? And how does one retain that “flavor” when the PC can effectively “see” as well as any other character. There are plenty of ways to work with this, just balancing strengths and weaknesses. some sort of short-range sense would be good for a short range but it's easy to also say that it ONLY works at said short range (do you merely see 30'?). . which depending on how the game's played could be very balancing. There's also aspects like reading and the like. The problem is. . THAT discussion hasn't happened yet. .and that's the most useful one to have. When all is said and done, people will continue to play blind characters because they think it’s cool. I simply don’t think it is. And I generally am not a fan of Evil campaigns (and certainly Evil's got more 'in real life it sucks' issues than blindness!) but I don't go derailing the threads with them in it.
trapspringer 10-12-06, 04:08 PM	OK, here is a trait for you. Blind: You are incapable of processing visual sensory input. Either you were cursed at birth, divinely gifted, or marred by dark magic. Fortunately, you have found ways to compensate. Prerequisite: Occular Vision A character with this trait is blind and effects that restore or simulate sight in any way have no effect. In exchange the character gains tremorsense with a range of five feet. The character also gains an innate sense of direction which enables him or her to operate with relative independance without running into walls or stumbling about lost, even in unfamiliar areas. This does not enable the character to move at full speed. If the character regains his or her sight for any reason, he or she loses the benefits of this trait.
Escef 10-12-06, 04:15 PM	A blind character with blindsight is dogmeat inside an area of magical silence, doubly so if a caster. A blind character with tremorsense is equally likely to be slaughtered by flying creatures. Or archers who are still inside of their first range increment. Isn't part of the fun of playing a disabled character is that the character has a neat roleplaying hook, a character at a seeming disadvantage who has worked hard to be at least close to equal with everyone else? And, yes, the bit has been used plenty enough times in various forms of fantasy. The blind priest Rezzo in The Slayers, the blind member of The Eight Devils of Kimon in Ninja Scroll, the main character in the movie Blind Fury. Heck, what about Helen Keller, in real life? Or Braille? No, they weren't adventurer types, but the point is they are people who society expected to lead marginalized lives, yet they managed to achieve lasting fame. Do I think a blind PC should be able to negate his disadvantage? Yes, partially. And with the aid of magic he could come up with a near permanant work around. And that's ok. How long will it take a BBEG to figure out what's going on and neutralize his work around? It won't (and shouldn't) happen in every encounter, but it can be a great source of tension. Just as his work around for his handicap can turn him into the hero in an encounter that would otherwise slaughter the group. It's a good character concept. By no means a new one, or an easy one, but still good.
trapspringer 10-12-06, 04:19 PM	I don't think you would want to negate the blindness. I'm working from a Zatochi archetype, here. Zatochi would get his tail kicked by a wizard. I'm pretty sure he's done some crazy **** with a bow and arrow, but I can't remember any instance where he pwned up on anyone employing one (although I am sure he has...).
Sildatorak 10-12-06, 04:23 PM	As I noted above, what all these things have in common is they give the player a considerable advantage over the other PCs in dealing with creatures which use darkness, invisibility, etc. And a huge disadvantage for dealing with enemies that use ranged attacks. Whether being blind actually sucks or not is irrelevant to the discussion of a fantasy game. The question that matters is "Is there a place in fantasy for the blind warrior?" If the answer is yes, and you care to allow such a character in your campaign, you probably should make some accomodations to keep the player in the general neighborhood of power as the other PC's. I think blindsight is too much. If you give that you've completely negated the blindness at close range. Something on par with blind-fight and scent would be closer to the right general neighborhood, and perhaps something to negate the significant speed penalties. When all is said and done, people will continue to play blind characters because they think it’s cool. I simply don’t think it is. Those who make clones get mocked by my players. They all have preferred roles (caster, archer, etc.), but if they make carbon copies or copy a schtick too closely the other players will take care of it.
KurenaiYami 10-12-06, 04:28 PM	I don't think you would want to negate the blindness. I'm working from a Zatoichi archetype, here. Zatoichi would get his tail kicked by a wizard. I'm pretty sure he's done some crazy **** with a bow and arrow, but I can't remember any instance where he pwned up on anyone employing one (although I am sure he has...). Fixed.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 04:48 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole concept behind the flaws system from Unearthed Arcana? Just open up the flaw system to the other players and all should be well enough. Precisely, and a good point. If he wants to play a blind PC then let him do so within the rules, but do not give him anythign for free and certainly don't restrict this option to only his PC.
orionm42 10-12-06, 04:48 PM	And I had a blind ex. . SHE wouldn't have gotten all worked up about this. . would your relatives? I apologize for bringing my personal bias on this issue into the thread. I’ll try to avoid that in the future. Besides, the point is that WE, as DMs have a duty to figure out how to maintain the flavor WITHOUT messing with balance. Instead of assisting with that you just kinda derailed things for personal reasons. In my first post, I said don’t give him anything. In my second and third posts, I expressed some frustration and then I highlighted why such characters usually end up with advantages over others. In my fourth post, I noted that any benefits given by the DM to help the player overcome his blindness should result in a positive level adjustment. These concerns were expressed by others as well, although admittedly not in the same tone. Nevertheless, I believe expressing such concerns contributes to the thread. The problem is. . THAT discussion hasn't happened yet. .and that's the most useful one to have. I believe it has. Many suggestions have been made throughout this thread. I believe most of them result in advantages to the player and warrant a level adjustment, which I said in my post above. And I generally am not a fan of Evil campaigns (and certainly Evil's got more 'in real life it sucks' issues than blindness!) but I don't go derailing the threads with them in it. Again, I believe I have contributed to the thread. Albeit in a tone you and others may not have appreciated for which, I apologize. To close in a manner as on topic as possible, if the DM chooses to give the player extra feats or equipment which allow him to negate all or a portion of his blindness, I would recommend a level adjustment. If you go with incremental special qualities which improve over time (5 or 10ft. blindsight, tremorsense, etc.), the player will likely not survive to later levels because he will suffer greatly against ranged attacks in combat (as Sildatorak noted above). Additionally, unless you make the range on such abilities at least 30 feet, the PC will likely be the target of many-a-rogue sneak attacking with ranged weapons. And a huge disadvantage for dealing with enemies that use ranged attacks. As was noted above, the Grimlock essentially has no special advantages other than those related to overcoming his lack of vision. That race has a +2LA. This would lead you to conclude the game’s designers believe such qualities are an advantage in the long run and not a disadvantage, despite the problems the character faces against ranged attacks.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 04:51 PM	I like the flaws deal, but being blind is much more crippling then any of the other listed flaws... Worth a bit more in my book... Murky Vision is the closest one... and even then it's not nearly as bad as being blind. I'd say blindsense/tremorsense at a short range would be a good start plus Blind-Fighting. That is what I was tlaking about in terms of compensating for the blindness. By giving him blindsense/tremorsense and blindfighting, as well as whatever he gets from the extra feat, you are essentially giving him Immunity to all gaze effects for free. Instead of a disability his blindness becomes a bonus. If he wants blindfighting then let him spend his new extra feat on it.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 04:53 PM	I mean, the whole 'blind warrior' concept has been a fantasy staple for ages, I can think of a dozen examples without even batting an eye. Yes, but it is a lot easier to succeed when you have an author on your side.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 04:55 PM	Most of you are just pricks huh? I'm just going to give him an XP bonus. Thanks. Man, what is with all the damned insults today? Every third thread I read has someone calling somone else names. This is getting way out of hand. And why would you give him and XP bonus for playing a blind PC? What is the rationale for rewarding him and punishing the other players?
Sulaco 10-12-06, 04:58 PM	So harsh! I don't think wanting something for concept is bad whatsoever, it helps for role-playing it often helps to have fun so I don't see what the big deal is. If he doesn't want to be a blind race, like grimlock, you could just look into ways of giving him the abilities they get so you wouldn't end up with him under or over powered. I think the idea of traits or flaws work pretty good. Yes, but these abilties should not simply be given by the DM. If the player wishes to play a blind PC who overcomes his disability to be a hero he should be required to do so through spending feats and skills in accomplishing this goal. I might open up blindsense or tremosrsense as a possible feat he can take at a higher level, but I would certianly not give it to him for free.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 05:05 PM	I guarantee you everyone whos thought about playing a blind char has mentioned to the DM how "great a roleplaying experience" it would be, but they just dont want to be that hampered by the rules. If its that great and that much fun play it by the rules it wont stop the enjoyment of the game. Not quite everyone. I played a blind PC once and yes, I took all the penalties for being blind. The PC's name was, coincidentally, Lidda, though this game predated 3e by many, many years. Her village was raided when she was young and she had her eyes slashed out by the leader of the attackers when she refused to service him. She became a bard and specialized in info gathering and other highly social skills. Her goal was to use these skills to track down and kill the man who had blinded her and killed her people. It was a far more rewarding and interesting experience playing an actually blind PC than than playing one who was only technically blind.
orionm42 10-12-06, 05:07 PM	It was a far more rewarding and interesting experience playing an actually blind PC than than playing one who was only technically blind. I assume it was a low combat campaign. If not, how did she fare in combat.
Sulaco 10-12-06, 05:10 PM	Yeah, I think that's the problem. . a lot of people are getting worked up because they can't separate 'Mechanics' and 'Theme'. If the mechanics don't allow a theme don't jump like mad on the theme. . figure out a way to make the mechanics work. We're DMs, we can do that, we're encouraged to ;) No, the real problem is that once you compensate for the blindness with other traits for free you are actually giving the so-called blind PC an advatage over the other PCs, and that really isn't fair to the other players. All PC should be treated fairly and equally. We're DMs, we can do that, we're encouraged to.
albinomonkeyking 10-12-06, 05:18 PM	I agree completely with you Sulaco, it shouldn't just be given for free. I simply meant making it available, as you said, through feats (which he could get a free feat from the flaw blind). I don't believe there is really a problem here, just don't give the character advantages for being blind, and keep in mind that they shouldn't be any stronger, (perhaps weaker in one case, maybe stronger against invisible opponents if they get blindsense) than your other players. I think the suggestions here are good, to reiterate Sulaco, I would not give the exp bonus, it just doesn't really make sense. P.S. Yeah, there is a lot of insults and such going on, can't we all just get along?
Feroz 10-12-06, 05:20 PM	No, the real problem is that once you compensate for the blindness with other traits for free you are actually giving the so-called blind PC an advatage over the other PCs, and that really isn't fair to the other players. All PC should be treated fairly and equally. We're DMs, we can do that, we're encouraged to. I just started a campaign with a charachter playing a blind Psion, and for it, I essentially turned it into a trait/flaw combination: He loses sight, gains the Synthesate feel light power as a permanant supernatural ability, which does the exact same thing his eyes do, so there's essentially no change in what he can see, gains a feat, and loses 12 PP permenantly. I think it's working out fine.
orionm42 10-12-06, 05:22 PM	He loses sight, gains the Synthesate feel light power as a permanant supernatural ability, which does the exact same thing his eyes do, so there's essentially no change in what he can see... So what is the point of saying the character is blind? I just don't see the roleplaying or "flavor" element here. Edit: Quite a crappy pun if I do say so myself! :)
Sulaco 10-12-06, 05:27 PM	I assume it was a low combat campaign. If not, how did she fare in combat. Not a low combat game, she was just a low-combat character. For that reason she stayed back and used her spells, just like a wizard. Over the course of the game she and the group worked out a vocabulary of shouts and whistles that allowed her to target her spells far more efficiently, but this happened over time and required work and RPing on our part, it was not simply some instant DM freebie. She also formed a close bond with the fighter in the party and they fell in love. During the battle with the BBEG of the campaign - who wouldn't you know it was also the villain who blinded Lidda ;) - the fighter gave his life defending her. After the battle she was given as a reward a powerful single-use healing artifact that could restore her lost vision (having been caused by a cursed blade no other magic could do it) but she chose instead to use it's power to resurrect her dead love. Having completed her quest for justice she no longer had any reason to adventure and the fighter - having experienced both the joy of love and the sting of death - laid aside the blade and went with her. The more I think of it the more I miss that PC...and that game. :(
orionm42 10-12-06, 05:29 PM	Not a low combat game, she was just a low-combat character. For that reason she stayed back and used her spells, just like a wizard. Over the course of the game she and the group worked out a vocabulary of shouts and whistles that allowed her to target her spells far more efficiently, but this happened over time and required work and RPing on our part, it was not simply some instant DM freebie. She also formed a close bond with the fighter in the party and they fell in love. During the battle with the BBEG of the campaign - who wouldn't you know it was also the villain who blinded Lidda ;) - the fighter gave his life defending her. After the battle she was given as a reward a powerful single-use healing artifact that could restore her lost vision (having been caused by a cursed blade no other magic could do it) but she chose instead to use it's power to resurrect her dead love. Having completed her quest for justice she no longer had any reason to adventure and the fighter - having experienced both the joy of love and the sting of death - laid aside the blade and went with her. The more I think of it the more I miss that PC...and that game. :( Now THAT is nice flavor! :tiphat:
LordHawkeye 10-12-06, 05:30 PM	Point him towards the Henshin Mystic prestige class. It gets blindsight as well as a few other goodies.
LCD2YOU 10-12-06, 06:42 PM	I've never figured out how if one takes a blind character for "role-playing purposes" means they should get special feats and such to "compensate them". Just like the idea of making any stat a dump stat and then trying to lift the Ogre over your head even though your PC has an 8 strength.
orionm42 10-12-06, 07:26 PM	One point of clarification. Earlier, when I said…. right before I killed his character in our first combat session. …I did not mean I would kill the PC intentionally because I don’t like the character concept. I would likely kill his character because of how I run combat sessions. More specifically, if a creature detects a weak foe, that is the foe they are likely to target. Similarly, if a blind character enters combat without compensating equipment or special qualities, the character would be targeted more often by intelligent and even non-intelligent foes (e.g. animals). This is no different from when I am a player. If, as a player, my companion wizard manages to blind an opponent, I would likely try to kill that opponent first and as quickly as possible. So, as a question to other DMs who support the idea of allowing blind characters who suffer from the drawbacks associated with blindness, are you lenient on those players when it comes to combat? And is it fair to the other players to have to protect the blind PC and absorb the attacks the blind character would otherwise face? Perhaps the other players don’t mind or, in the case of the fighter in Sulaco’s party, they might even treat it as a role playing opportunity. But what if they do mind? Is it fair to call on them to protect the other PC? Or is it fair to give the blind PC free feats, qualities, and equipment to negate the blindness and gain advantages the other PCs do not enjoy? Notice I said “free.” I have no problem with the player spending his skill points, feats, and wealth on compensating measures. He can also take some special qualities with an associated level adjustment. But I won’t coddle the player by giving him extra treasure, more skill points, bonus feats, etc. to keep him on par with the other players.
Sulaco 10-13-06, 09:38 AM	And is it fair to the other players to have to protect the blind PC and absorb the attacks the blind character would otherwise face? ... But what if they do mind? Is it fair to call on them to protect the other PC? No. This is one of the reasons I require players in my games to make up their PCs together as a group, none of this "collection of loners" stuff. No one PC concept should override the enjoyment of the group as a whole. Or is it fair to give the blind PC free feats, qualities, and equipment to negate the blindness and gain advantages the other PCs do not enjoy? No.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 10:15 AM	Honestly, I've always thought that this sort of thing was fairly easy to deal with. I think D20's one of the only systems that doesn't really handle it well. First you look at all those 'blind hero' movies. . Zatochi, Blind Fury, all the rest. You generally have someone who's blind but who can fight pretty much like anyone else in melee. So work it in. They've been training like this for years. . whatever. Make certain that at a base it has a negligable impact on combat. So let's say, at a start, they can fight largely normally vs. things within 30' during the first few levels. . but really can't sense much past that. Now, the big question that everyone asks 'what about invisible things? If they can see them they have an 'unfair advantage', and if they can't that doesn't make sense. What about gaze attacks? What about archers? Umm, so what? Who's sending invisible things after your party in the first 3 levels? Or Medusas? You might run into one fight in the first five where it actually has an impact (someone would logically try to blind them or something). . that's a hook And archers? Toss in an encounter with an enemy that everyone realizes is there but them, that's a good hook too. By the time you hit the levels where they'd be encountering things where the blindness might grant an advantage (depending on what you grant them ability wise. . perhaps you do grant them something like a blindsense or something) you can have had them burn a couple of feats and/or given them a magic item that helps (thereby taking away from their overall loot) And then you just balance accordingly as a DM. I mean, all these conversations about how 'overpowered' granting them some sort of blindsense would be have the potential to get silly. Would they have an advantage against invisible things and a disadvantage against archers? Of course! What kind of crazy DM's going to let a blind person in the party and then put them against a disproportionate amount of invisible creatures?? And meanwhile, have fun with all the other hooks. . social interaction, inability to read, the list goes on and on. You can find all these scary things on paper, but if you actually play the game . . then any DM worth his salt simply doesn't create the imaginary situations in question
orionm42 10-13-06, 11:05 AM	Who's sending invisible things after your party in the first 3 levels? :confused: Opponents which are hidden have many of the same dice roll advantages in combat as an opponent which is invisible. And while I agree you should not be sending creatures with invisibility or improved invisibility after your party in the first 3 levels because they may have difficulty dispelling it, I use darkness and concealment all the time at lower levels to enable creatures to hide. In fact, many of the lower CR creatures (especially small ones) rely on their ability to hide in darkness. Without that ability, you have taken away a very valid and commonly used tactic (i.e. a surprise round). And if you grant blindsense or blindsight to the PC, the PC does not need to make spot or listen checks to notice hidden creatures. This essentially eliminates the "surprise round" tactic. You can find all these scary things on paper, but if you actually play the game . . then any DM worth his salt simply doesn't create the imaginary situations in question Really? So any DM worth his salt won't use creatures which try to gain an advantage in a surprise round; creatures which use concealment to hide; opposing rogues with sneak attack abilities; creatures with gaze attacks; creatures who use invisibility or improved invisibility; creatures with more acute blindsight, tremorsense, or scent; creatures with darkvision or creatures such as devils which can see in any darkness; creatures with longer reach and / or reach weapons; etc., etc., etc.? Good DMs don’t use these and other tactics to gain a tactical advantage? My players appreciate combat heavy games. I use these tactics because that is what my players enjoy. I don’t think that makes me a bad DM. In fact, I think they would say I am “worth my salt.” Again, I am not saying you should not allow blind characters. I am saying 1) from a player's perspective, I don't see the point in saying you have a blind character if the character can effectively "see" using other means; 2) if you give a player special qualities, skills, equipment, etc. to effectively negate his blindness, the player should take a level adjustment; 3) if the player does not take compensating measures and chooses to play with the negative consequences of permanent blindness, the other party members will likely have to protect him in combat. That is not fair to the other players (unless, of course, they are willing and happy to protect the other player); and 4) as a DM, I would not coddle a player who chose to handicap himself. As a result, he would likely not survive until later levels because of how I run combat in my combat heavy games.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 11:38 AM	:confused: Opponents which are hidden have many of the same dice roll advantages in combat as an opponent which is invisible. And while I agree you should not be sending creatures with invisibility or improved invisibility after your party in the first 3 levels because they may have difficulty dispelling it, I use darkness and concealment all the time at lower levels to enable creatures to hide. In fact, many of the lower CR creatures (especially small ones) rely on their ability to hide in darkness. Without that ability, you have taken away a very valid and commonly used tactic (i.e. a surprise round). And if you grant blindsense or blindsight to the PC, the PC does not need to make spot or listen checks to notice hidden creatures. This essentially eliminates the "surprise round" tactic. Correct, but in early levels let's be realistic about this. If you're granting an ability as a short range one. . then what risks do you take? If you're treating his ability as a native ability where he can see 30' via 'other' senses (i.e. in a zatochi sort of way) then he'd have an advantage against something hiding in darkness within 30' and nothing else really. At low levels why give him an advantage against disguised/hiding targets at all? And against those guys hiding in darkness globes within 30', does he even know they're hiding? ;) They may look nonthreatening or even like non-combatants if they're standing in the open making no overtly aggressive movements to him. Really? So any DM worth his salt won't use creatures which try to gain an advantage in a surprise round; creatures which use concealment to hide; opposing rogues with sneak attack abilities;. . . creatures with gaze attacks; creatures who use invisibility or improved invisibility; creatures with more acute blindsight, tremorsense, or scent; creatures with darkvision or creatures such as devils which can see in any darkness; creatures with longer reach and / or reach weapons; etc., etc., etc.? Good DMs don’t use these and other tactics to gain a tactical advantage? Umm, let's go down the list then. . . Creatures with concealment - he's still just as likely not to spot early on, and if he gains a blindsense type advantage later he's wasted feats/magic on them Rogues with Sneak Attack - and he can't 'see' past 30' in the short run. . and in the long run may gain no advantages against these. Creatures with Gaze attacks - Unlikely to be wasted on an obviously 'blind' character, and not something you're likely to run into until he's wasted appropriate feats/magic Creatures who use invisibility/improved invisibility - Are unlikely to depend on said abilities against obviously blind target - by the time you're encountering them he's again wasted feats/magic to 'see' them Creatures with blindsight, tremorsense, or scent - generally behave like normal creatures. .they don't get a big CR boost for such things for a reason Creatures that use darkness as a tactic - deserve to be surprised occasionally, and as long as the benefits match the level. .no biggie Creatures with longer reach - err. . so? What advantage does this guy have again? I mean, at the end it looks like you're kind of reaching. YES. . intelligent creatures use tactics. . but it's a breeze to 1) manage an ability like this so it's not unbalanced and 2) make it interesting I just can't see how. . as long as you don't grant abilities at an inappropriate time and you require the character to 'pay' for the abilities when they become useful. . you can have trouble handling this. It's SO not a gamebreaker. My players appreciate combat heavy games. I use these tactics because that is what my players enjoy. I don’t think that makes me a bad DM. In fact, I think they would say I am “worth my salt.” Yes, and one would hope you'd not have a problem managing such a thing. . let's recap, shall we? Levels 1-4 - blind character has mild disadvantage, no real advantage. .can only 'detect' to 30' . . very few encounters likely to make sensory advantage useful. DM can easily adjucate it. Levels 5-15 - blind character has advantage, but has spent feats/magic on advantage. . perhaps now he has a short range sensory ability that's appropriate to his expenditure. The DM should have required at this point the expenditure of at least two feats early on to compensate for the ability to detct invisible creatures, gaze resistance, and obliviousness to darkness. . perhaps more depending on what you guys determine the sensory effects are. I mean, this is a breeze. And meanwhile, make sure his blindness is obvious (probably not hard at all for RP purposes) and let creatures act intelligently. If you see someone who is obviously blind you realize that he's not depending on sight so you stop taking such advantage. Make sure you've thought about lots of the 'fuzzier' effects (illusion for example doesn't specify 'sight only' and may say they have auditory and other effects, so he should be just as suceptible to those. .but think ahead in case the player brings it up) Again, I am not saying you should not allow blind characters. I am saying 1) from a player's perspective, I don't see the point in saying you have a blind character if the character can effectively "see" using other means; That's your call, but lots do! Admittedly 'see' is a fuzzy term at this point. . the point depends on how they sense. 2) if you give a player special qualities, skills, equipment, etc. to effectively negate his blindness, the player should take a level adjustment; You give level adjustments for EQUIPMENT? What about *gasp* making him take feats or giving him eventual access to a convenient magic item to assist by the time these abilities become a factor? 3) if the player does not take compensating measures and chooses to play with the negative consequences of permanent blindness, the other party members will likely have to protect him in combat. That is not fair to the other players (unless, of course, they are willing and happy to protect the other player); and Umm, but if you put his 'blindness' somewhere in the middle is it a big deal then? Again, back to the 'generally functional within 30'' approach 4) as a DM, I would not coddle a player who chose to handicap himself. As a result, he would likely not survive until later levels because of how I run combat in my combat heavy games. Unless you allow for some thematic middle ground, as discussed. The whole 'theme' of the blind warrior is that they've lived/trained this way all their lives and are somewhat 'supernatural' in their ability to sense, it's easy to give them a minor advantage/disadvantage offset and work with it from there. Again, a breeze, not a gamebreaker, potentially fun RP. You just need to think a bit outside the box.
orionm42 10-13-06, 01:51 PM	If you're treating his ability as a native ability where he can see 30' via 'other' senses (i.e. in a zatochi sort of way) then he'd have an advantage against something hiding in darkness within 30' and nothing else really. Are you joking here? Take a look at most of the lower level creatures in the MM1. In fact, take a look at essentially any creature with the animal or vermin type. While I have not reviewed all of them myself, I don’t think there are many of them (if any) with a ranged attack. They all rely on natural melee weapons. Again, you are giving the PC and advantage against these creatures. Can you or I or any DM balance this advantage. Of course…with a level adjustment. Simple. But that was point number 2 from my post above. And against those guys hiding in darkness globes within 30', does he even know they're hiding? They may look nonthreatening or even like non-combatants if they're standing in the open making no overtly aggressive movements to him. Doesn’t matter if he knows they are actively trying to hide or if he thinks they are just sitting there. The point is, he is going to proclaim their presence to the rest of the party. That defeats the surprise round. 1. Creatures with concealment - he's still just as likely not to spot early on, and if he gains a blindsense type advantage later he's wasted feats/magic on them 2. Rogues with Sneak Attack - and he can't 'see' past 30' in the short run. . and in the long run may gain no advantages against these. 3. Creatures with Gaze attacks - Unlikely to be wasted on an obviously 'blind' character, and not something you're likely to run into until he's wasted appropriate feats/magic 4. Creatures who use invisibility/improved invisibility - Are unlikely to depend on said abilities against obviously blind target - by the time you're encountering them he's again wasted feats/magic to 'see' them 5. Creatures with blindsight, tremorsense, or scent - generally behave like normal creatures. .they don't get a big CR boost for such things for a reason 6. Creatures that use darkness as a tactic - deserve to be surprised occasionally, and as long as the benefits match the level. .no biggie 7. Creatures with longer reach - err. . so? What advantage does this guy have again? You have missed my point entirely (in addition to getting a few technical things wrong). My point was simply to refute your assertions that the scenarios are “imaginary” (to use your terminology). These scenarios are not imaginary. They are used frequently by both skilled and poor DMs. But for the sake of discussion, I will try to address your counter arguments. 1) An ordinary PC is not just as likely to spot creatures hiding within 30 feet as a PC with blindsight or blindsense. A PC with those special qualities automatically spots hiding creatures. If you honestly believe your assertion is correct, why do all those monsters in the manuals have hide and move silently modifiers? Hell, ordinary PCs are going to spot them anyway, right? 2) A rogue can only sneak attack with a ranged weapon when he is within 30 feet. If the range of the PCs blindsight is “limited” to 30 feet, the PC with blindsight automatically sees the sneaking rogue and the surprise round sneak attack opportunity is automatically defeated. That is an advantage for the blind PC with blindsight. 3) A technical miss on your part. Take a look at the Medusa for example. The range of her gaze attack is 30 feet and all creatures within range of a gaze attack must make a save attempt at the beginning of every round. While she can “aim” her gaze at a particular foe, that is an attack which requires a second save. A blind PC does not need to make those saves and has an advantage over sighted PCs. 4) Are you trying to reinforce my arguments or refute them? You are saying an invisible creature won’t waste their invisibility attacking a blind target. That is exactly my point! A blind character with blindsight defeats their invisibility and an attacker is forced to attack another party member to maintain his advantage. Again, score one for the blind PC. 5) Such creatures use surprise tactics. They rely on darkness, concealment, underground movement, etc. to hide and attack in a surprise round. That is what their CR is based on (in part). Blind PCs who can “see” have an easier time against such creatures because they can detect them before the creature can attack in a surprise round. 6) Not sure what your point is. My point was devils and similar creatures love to operate in darkness because it gives them an advantage over sighted opponents. Again, being blind with compensating factors helps here. 7) Another technical issue… If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location A sighted PC does not know the location of an invisible creature which strikes him with reach. A blind PC with blindsight out to an appropriate range does. I just can't see how. . as long as you don't grant abilities at an inappropriate time and you require the character to 'pay' for the abilities when they become useful. . you can have trouble handling this. It's SO not a gamebreaker. Who said it was a game breaker. I said it was worth a level adjustment if he gets access to those abilities for free. I also said I don’t have a problem if he spends his feats, etc. on compensating factors. But he won’t get extra goodies out of me to make up for the fact he had to burn feats or funds to be on par with the rest of the party. Levels 1-4 - blind character has mild disadvantage, no real advantage. .can only 'detect' to 30' . . very few encounters likely to make sensory advantage useful. DM can easily adjucate it. Only 30 feet, eh? This assertion is simply false. As I noted above, most lower level creatures rely on melee attacks. The blind PC has an advantage against any such creature that tries to surprise him. Levels 5-15 – blind character has advantage, but has spent feats/magic on advantage. . I mean, this is a breeze. Again, I did not say it was impossible to manage as a DM. A point I have been trying to make all along is the player is not weaker, he is stronger, which you yourself acknowledge with the bolded portion above. You give level adjustments for EQUIPMENT? If you give a 1st level PC a +3 flaming sword and +3 plate…is he a fighting as a first level PC? Umm, but if you put his 'blindness' somewhere in the middle is it a big deal then? Again, back to the 'generally functional within 30'' approach. I have yet to see a “somewhere in the middle” suggestion that I believe is not worth a level adjustment. Unless you allow for some thematic middle ground, as discussed. Again, my PCs enjoy combat. That is the theme of my campaign! :) The whole 'theme' of the blind warrior is that they've lived/trained this way all their lives and are somewhat 'supernatural' in their ability to sense… Hence, the common “munchkin” argument to receive blindsight, blindsense, bonus to listen, etc. for free. “Well, I’ve spent my whole life blind. So I should have supernatural abilities which compensate for the blindness.” Not true, as you and I (since we both know people who are blind) understand.
trapspringer 10-13-06, 02:15 PM	I think thirty feet blind sense is far to potent. I really think this would balance if you restrict it to a significantly shorter range, though. And yes, I do think that if a player wants to run a blind character they should be mechanically compensated. The goal is to wind up with a distinct character who can function properly, after all.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 03:04 PM	Wow, I didn't realize this could get so dramatic! Okay, let's draw up an imaginary scenario, shall we? At 1st level, blind character is blind. However, due to being a well trained heroish sort (just like everyone else) he can react normally in combat with the following restrictions 1) He can only tactically locate targets within 30' with accuracy (issues with ranged weapons, obliviousness often to things outside that radius 2) He is unable to pinpoint anything outside 5' (no reach weapons without miss chance) 3) He is able to tactically locate targets that are otherwise invisible or concealed but still physical and detectable. . this ability however is based on hearing and certain creatures, if not moving, may not be detectable (Determined by the DM) 4) He is required to use up his 1st level feat and his 3rd level feat for this ability. In addition, we have the obvious not-in-combat issue, reading's impossible, etc, etc. That's without putting a lot of thought into it. . I'd love to hear other helpful, intelligent proactive ideas. It's pretty much what I'd been implying before, but now with some detail. . now let's continue! Are you joking here? Take a look at most of the lower level creatures in the MM1. In fact, take a look at essentially any creature with the animal or vermin type. While I have not reviewed all of them myself, I don’t think there are many of them (if any) with a ranged attack. They all rely on natural melee weapons. Again, you are giving the PC and advantage against these creatures. Can you or I or any DM balance this advantage. Of course…with a level adjustment. WHAT advantage? Because, I don't see one . He has an advantage against invisible vermin and a disadvantage against archers (which I do include in my campaigns. . don't you?) So, low levels. . no balance issue. I mean, I for one have a lot more archers at levels 1-4 than creatures using magical darkness who can also see through them (and I only include magical darkness, because other races can see in regular darkness) Doesn’t matter if he knows they are actively trying to hide or if he thinks they are just sitting there. The point is, he is going to proclaim their presence to the rest of the party. That defeats the surprise round. Again, we're talking the first say. .five levels here. I THINK the rest of the party will be noticing the globe of darkness first. . even by torchlight you'd generally notice that way before you hit 30'. But for the sake of discussion, I will try to address your counter arguments. 1) An ordinary PC is not just as likely to spot creatures hiding within 30 feet as a PC with blindsight or blindsense. A PC with those special qualities automatically spots hiding creatures. If you honestly believe your assertion is correct, why do all those monsters in the manuals have hide and move silently modifiers? Hell, ordinary PCs are going to spot them anyway, right? Whoa, dude, did you read the 'think outside the box' bit? I did NOT say 'blindsense' to start off with. .is that why you're getting all worked up? I described contradictory scenarios deliberately, because I'm trying to think of solutions. . and NOT make a mountain out of molehill. Relax. So, in answer to this question. . . the only case in which this character would have an advantage is if there is something not-visible within 30'. If he's given some hearing skill boost (and obvious spot penalty of course ;) ) then perhaps he'd hear something a bit earlier than normal too. He'd however be less likely to spot an ambush under most circumstances one would think. Next. . 2) A rogue can only sneak attack with a ranged weapon when he is within 30 feet. If the range of the PCs blindsight is “limited” to 30 feet, the PC with blindsight automatically sees the sneaking rogue and the surprise round sneak attack opportunity is automatically defeated. That is an advantage for the blind PC with blindsight. Wow, you got stuck in a rut with this blindsight thing, didn't you? Note this bit from my last post (that you are apparently responding to?) Creatures with concealment - he's still just as likely not to spot early on, and if he gains a blindsense type advantage later he's wasted feats/magic on them Note the GAINS A BLINDSENSE TYPE ADVANTAGE LATER bit ;) As in 'perhaps later the DM can work out a way to actually grant the character real blindsense or something as an upgrade. . if the player spends for it of course' why are you just assuming the worst here? And again providing no reasonable alternatives? 3) A technical miss on your part. Take a look at the Medusa for example. The range of her gaze attack is 30 feet and all creatures within range of a gaze attack must make a save attempt at the beginning of every round. While she can “aim” her gaze at a particular foe, that is an attack which requires a second save. A blind PC does not need to make those saves and has an advantage over sighted PCs. Wow, because we sure have a lot of gaze attacks in most campaigns. Yes, this character would have an advantage against a Medusa. . and by the time this point was hit at least two feats were spent. That tripmaster spent two feats too and he's gaining benefits in far more combats. Maybe I should've been more clear, but I'm pretty sure I said by the time a Medusa was hit the character should've paid for it. *reads further* Okay, I'm SO not going to continue here. . you've been assuming perfect 360' blindsight, and I have been thinking about creating/tuning something that's NOT risking being unbalanced. Wasn't that the point? Not to yell 'it can't be done!' but rather to figure out how it CAN? While balancing out the advantages/disadvantages and WITHOUT creating chaos. So the players can have fun and perhaps create memorable characters (a bit cliche', but there's always a few. . and cliche' still can be fun) without being too strong or too weak. . right?
Sereno 10-13-06, 03:17 PM	So, as a question to other DMs who support the idea of allowing blind characters who suffer from the drawbacks associated with blindness, are you lenient on those players when it comes to combat? And is it fair to the other players to have to protect the blind PC and absorb the attacks the blind character would otherwise face? Perhaps the other players don’t mind or, in the case of the fighter in Sulaco’s party, they might even treat it as a role playing opportunity. But what if they do mind? Is it fair to call on them to protect the other PC? As a DM, I'd never compensate in combat for a PCs weaknesses. Monsters attack at or about the level of intelligence they're supposed to have. Animals attack by instinct, usually looking for the weakest, intelligent foes fight to minimize their own chance of getting killed and generally try to neutralize what they perceive as the "most dangerous" first.... If the party is willing to welcome the blind PC, so be it. I can think of a lot of uses for a blind PC; a bard/cleric who buffs and heals the party, a diviner who figures things out, a mage who casts spells with the aid of a sighted PC, "Blast 'em, thirty feet right in front of you!" Sure, someone will have to watch out that no one is sneaking up on the blind PC, and cover them carefully during retreats ... but that's true of just about any party. And, for the record, I'm completely on Sulaco and orion42's side on this arguement. Being blind should get you nothing "bonus" ... sorry, being handicapped just doesn't work that way. I also hate the flaw system, too many times I've seen it used exactly like the "dump stat" on the other thread ... take a flaw and then just RP around it while reaping the free feat benefits somewhere else.... If you want to be a flawed character, by all means, do so ... it adds depth and color. I just don't see why having an "unpleasant smell" should also get you Cleave....
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 03:23 PM	Sereno's correct. Want a different character who weaknesses to be really remembered, even if short lived? Great, go for it. Want Brownie Points for being able to play a blind, dumb, deaf, hermaphrodite, hemophiliac with a cleft palate and a club foot and actually making it to 2nd level? Fantastic! Want "special compensation" for your "special needs" PC? No. If your character gets special compensations for being X, then why be X at all? My personal opinion? People who play PCs like that and expect freebies are not interested in playing a said character. They want to say they did without any real disads. I'd call that person a poor role-player.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 03:24 PM	a diviner who figures things out That lends to some great mental images there! And, for the record, I'm completely on Sulaco and orion42's side on this arguement. Being blind should get you nothing "bonus" ... sorry, being handicapped just doesn't work that way. Actually, despite disagreing with Orion42 on the approach (i.e. the only solution being to grant blindsight and a LA) I do agree that nothing should really be a 'bonus'. If my PCs want thematics I'll figure out how to make them work, but they will end up paying somewhat for them. I also hate the flaw system, too many times I've seen it used exactly like the "dump stat" on the other thread ... take a flaw and then just RP around it while reaping the free feat benefits somewhere else.... If you want to be a flawed character, by all means, do so ... it adds depth and color. I just don't see why having an "unpleasant smell" should also get you Cleave.... Word. . beautifully said. If you've got a theme then it fits, but its' funny how flaws get used by the min-maxers instead.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 03:27 PM	Sereno's correct. Want a different character who weaknesses to be really remembered, even if short lived? Great, go for it. Want Brownie Points for being able to play a blind, dumb, deaf, hermaphrodite, hemophiliac with a cleft palate and a club foot and actually making it to 2nd level? Fantastic! Want "special compensation" for your "special needs" PC? No. my GOD people! Are we here to be helpful DMs or are we just going to be indignant and grumpy and generally unpleasant We seem to have a subset of people that see only one scenario . . that the 'blind' PC hook must be either crippling OR overpowered. Whatever happened to just 'looking at the theme, and seeing if you can make it work well without being under OR overbalancing'.
trapspringer 10-13-06, 03:28 PM	Actually, despite disagreing with Orion42 on the approach (i.e. the only solution being to grant blindsight and a LA) I do agree that nothing should really be a 'bonus'. If my PCs want thematics I'll figure out how to make them work, but they will end up paying somewhat for them. I don't think anyone is advocating they be in any way superior to a sighted PC, but they should be mechanically functional and decidedly distinct. I also think the flaw system is fine. Added degrees of customization in characters is always good.
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 03:37 PM	my GOD people! Are we here to be helpful DMs or are we just going to be indignant and grumpy and generally unpleasantSometimes, the best course of action is the use of a 2x4 between the eyes. I use it less and less, but damn, some of these ideas need a doctor with a flashlight to see where they were pulled from. Have you been reading the "dump stat" = ignore threads? I think it's called "compassion fatigue" when you keep seeing so many inane arguements on a theme.
Arganis 10-13-06, 03:41 PM	The "benefit" received in compensation for the "penalty" of being blind should, at a maximum, counter-act the penalties of being blind. Anything more, by definition, requires a level adjustment. In exchange for being incurably Blind, the player should receive Blindfighting and have the penalties removed from Strength and Dexterity skills, Movement, and AC. Then the trade-off becomes: >= %25 miss chance to strike any opponent Automatically fail Spot checks vs. Immunity to gaze attacks I don't think that's out of sorts. Tremorsense or other abilities that improve the character's ability beyond those with sight should be taken normally.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 03:41 PM	Sometimes, the best course of action is the use of a 2x4 between the eyes. I use it less and less, but damn, some of these ideas need a doctor with a flashlight to see where they were pulled from. Have you been reading the "dump stat" = ignore threads? I think it's called "compassion fatigue" when you keep seeing so many inane arguements on a theme. Yes, but the concept of a 'blind swordsman' or 'blind monk' PC is. .umm. . not a 'dumb' idea, it's just the rules don't support it well. I mean, it's unrealistic. .but so are all the other classes and most player concepts, that's the point of the fantasy game. I think the problem is people are getting wiggy and nobody's actually trying to think things through. If someone wants 'more uber than everyone else', then 2x4 away, but if someone just wants to make a concept work and it's not totally batty, than what's the big deal? Remember the first post? I have a player who wants to play a blind Monk/Psionicist. What can I do to make him on par with the rest of the players? I thought of giving him +4 on his listen check or something. Any suggestions? What sort is that?
aotrscommander 10-13-06, 03:44 PM	Are we here to be helpful DMs or are we just going to be indignant and grumpy and generally unpleasant That was a rhetorical question, right?
Sereno 10-13-06, 03:52 PM	Yes, but the concept of a 'blind swordsman' or 'blind monk' PC is. .umm. . not a 'dumb' idea, it's just the rules don't support it well. I'll buy your "blind monk" ... especially a grappling expert; just point him at the enemy and let him grab on and go to work. Just like I'd buy a blind cleric/bard/wizard.... But, IMO, a blind swordsman IS a dumb idea. I took fencing in college for PE, and I've practiced "generic" Japanese sword fighting (with a shi'nai bamboo sword") in karate classes for many years. I believe it would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to sword fight if you can't see your opponent at all. Just knowing where he's standing is no where NEAR enough info. You need to see not only where the blade IS, but where it's GOING and where it's LIKELY to be going, and THEN you've got to read his body language (very subtle cues that take years to learn) to know if he's trying to fake you out. Someone who was already highly-skilled and suddenly struck blind might ... MIGHT ... have a chance against a completely unskilled beginner ... but against an equally skilled foe they'd be toast. Likewise, I can't see any way they'd survive if created at 1st level....
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 03:56 PM	Yes, but the concept of a 'blind swordsman' or 'blind monk' PC is. .umm. . not a 'dumb' idea, it's just the rules don't support it well.All well and good. But in the novels or where ever they are pulled from, the "hero" spends years, if not decades training or was already highly trained and then lost their eyesight. So starting off with any bonus is not what I'd do. Want to play a blind, deaf, etc., PC? Fantastic. Knock yourself out. You don't get anything special for it.I mean, it's unrealistic. .but so are all the other classes and most player concepts, that's the point of the fantasy game.For me, and in my opinion, it crosses the line being fantasy and absurd.I think the problem is people are getting wiggy and nobody's actually trying to think things through. If someone wants 'more uber than everyone else', then 2x4 away, but if someone just wants to make a concept work and it's not totally batty, than what's the big deal?Nothing. They just get squat to compensate mechanincally for it. They do it because they want the challenge, not for freebies.Remember the first post? What sort is that?A freebie.
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 04:01 PM	I'll buy your "blind monk" ... especially a grappling expert; just point him at the enemy and let him grab on and go to work. Just like I'd buy a blind cleric/bard/wizard.... But, IMO, a blind swordsman IS a dumb idea. I took fencing in college for PE, and I've practiced "generic" Japanese sword fighting (with a shi'nai bamboo sword") in karate classes for many years. I believe it would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to sword fight if you can't see your opponent at all. Just knowing where he's standing is no where NEAR enough info. You need to see not only where the blade IS, but where it's GOING and where it's LIKELY to be going, and THEN you've got to read his body language (very subtle cues that take years to learn) to know if he's trying to fake you out. Someone who was already highly-skilled and suddenly struck blind might ... MIGHT ... have a chance against a completely unskilled beginner ... but against an equally skilled foe they'd be toast. Likewise, I can't see any way they'd survive if created at 1st level....What Sereno said. Learning from a master in the art takes time. You watch their every move and try to match it. As most training starts as visual copying, how does one start at 1st level and become a master swordsman when they are blind? Yes, this is fantasy but there is fantasy and absurd.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:02 PM	I'll buy your "blind monk" ... especially a grappling expert; just point him at the enemy and let him grab on and go to work. Just like I'd buy a blind cleric/bard/wizard.... But, IMO, a blind swordsman IS a dumb idea. I took fencing in college for PE, and I've practiced "generic" Japanese sword fighting (with a shi'nai bamboo sword") in karate classes for many years. Dude, I agree in the real world. But since I've yet to be able to cast any magic spells, or get people I'm fighting with to pause between actions so we can take turns. . and since I've yet to run into an elf (I do know a grumpy dwarf). . and since I've never seen a giant or a displacer beast or an invisible stalker. . . . okay. .scratch that last one. You can suspend disbelief for one, but not for one that's appeared in more movies and literature than most DND creations? Plus, keep in mind what you generally see in some of the more typical asian heroes. . in movies like Hero and most anything by K and the like. . and their mythology as well . .there's a general concept that transcendent skill leads one towards a degree of supernatural power. Which, oddly, I have a hard time complaining about when our American alternative requires that bad guys have spectacularly bad aim, making the hero look good ;) It's unrealistic. .yes, but no more unrealistic than most everything else in D&D.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:03 PM	What Sereno said. Learning from a master in the art takes time. You watch their every move and try to match it. As most training starts as visual copying, how does one start at 1st level and become a master swordsman when they are blind? Yes, this is fantasy but there is fantasy and absurd. Wow. . just .. wow. Because, in reality, pretty much nobody stands a chance against three archers . . and shooting a crossbow wouldn't trigger an AOO. D&D IS absurdity! It's generally fun absurdity. One must be consistent with their suspension of disbelief
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:08 PM	Are we here to be helpful DMs or are we just going to be indignant and grumpy and generally unpleasant Reply With QuoteThat was a rhetorical question, right? Before this thread I'd have giggled at the rhetorical question! ;)
Sulaco 10-13-06, 04:13 PM	First you look at all those 'blind hero' movies. . Zatochi, Blind Fury, all the rest. You generally have someone who's blind but who can fight pretty much like anyone else in melee. So work it in. They've been training like this for years. . whatever. Make certain that at a base it has a negligable impact on combat. Yes, and that is precisely the point: they've been training like this for years. They aren't straight off the farm. In D&D those years of training are represented by being higher level and by the skills and feats they choose over that level progression to compensate for their blindness. That these guys are accomplished warriors is an achievement made through much hard-work and traiing, not as a bonus that somes with being blind. To give those same skills and feats for free undermines the point of these characters and takes away the very thing that makes them special: it is not that they are blind but can fight it is that they overcame blindness to fight.
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 04:14 PM	Wow. . just .. wow. Because, in reality, pretty much nobody stands a chance against three archers . . and shooting a crossbow wouldn't trigger an AOO. D&D IS absurdity! It's generally fun absurdity. One must be consistent with their suspension of disbeliefHeh. Well Tex, it's like this: I think it's a stupid idea giving any bonus off the top for someone's idea of a cool "handicap". Yeah, there is no magic or monsters (that I'm aware of) IRL, but even in DnD there are rules for said magic and monsters. The rules are fairly, but not always, consistant and they try to be fair. Saying that by something having "absurd" elements in it means that any absurd element should be let in is not a good thing either. So, should humans be able to slaughter gods at 1st level? Yeah, it's absurd but are you saying there are absurdities you won't cross? What is that then? Tell me what I consider absurd is a no go but there are absurdities you will not allow is what again? So everyone has their comfort level. Mine is a lot lower than yours. Fact is most of the "monsters" in my game look somewhat like the PCs, walk on two legs, some ride horses, etc. As for bows, yes, I lowered their crit to 18-20, raised damage to d12 for a Long bow but made them hard to find (you can't only the elves can make them and they don't sell them) and more. So unless you allow anything and everything that is absurd in your campaign, sit back and realize that your word is only as good as others think it is. I gave my opinion, you don't like it, hey great. Guess what I think of your opinion and high handedness? Like Sulaco said:Yes, and that is precisely the point: they've been training like this for years. They aren't straight off the farm.Now, I have never said that a blind fighter or monk can't work have I? All I've said is getting freebies at 1st level because "it's cool" is total BS.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:23 PM	Heh. Well Tex, it's like this: I think it's a stupid idea giving any bonus off the top for someone's idea of a cool "handicap". Yeah, there is no magic or monsters (that I'm aware of) IRL, but even in DnD there are rules for said magic and monsters. The rules are fairly, but not always, consistant and they try to be fair. Nah, they just do the best they can Saying that by something having "absurd" elements in it means that any absurd element should be let in is not a good thing either. . . So everyone has their comfort level. Mine is a lot lower than yours. Fact is most of the "monsters" in my game look somewhat like the PCs, walk on two legs, some ride horses, etc. Actually, this isn't about MY comfort level at all. This is about the original post. Someone asked how to incorporate a 'blind monk/psion' into their campaign while still having that person be comparable to the other players. -I- set out to figure out how to do just that, because I recognized it as a common element in fantasy literature and one that the DM in question (and many others) clearly accepted. I also noted that the blindness rules range from crippling to very powerful with little space in between. . an understandable gap and one that is easily worked out. And despite some 'ohmigod! It can't be done! In my game a monk can stand naked while attacked by a dozen 1st level archers and kick their butts! And halberds aren't reach weapons but spiked chains are! And magic armor doesn't have to be custom-fitted!' panic I figured it was worth addressing (and fighting the naysayers who somehow forgot the original post's request) As for bows, yes, I lowered their crit to 18-20, raised damage to d12 for a Long bow but made them hard to find (you can't only the elves can make them and they don't sell them) and more. More realistic. .not as realistic as 'almost definitely dead' but I like it a lot better! But again. . back to the point. . I'm not dissing what people allow in their campaigns (and tend to run low magic more often than not) . . and I figure a lot of this 'omg, it can't be done! It's illogical' stuff is kind of silly.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:24 PM	All I've said is getting freebies at 1st level because "it's cool" is total BS. Oh, I missed that bit! Sorry there. TOTALLY agree. I think the OP agreed, and I don't think any of the last two pages have involved anyone saying that blindness should be an advantage.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:27 PM	Yes, and that is precisely the point: they've been training like this for years. They aren't straight off the farm. In D&D those years of training are represented by being higher level and by the skills and feats they choose over that level progression to compensate for their blindness. Well, first and foremost, many characters HAVE trained for years before becoming an adventurer. But more importantly, if you read my posts, you'd realize that I was focused on precisely that. . identifying ways to make the THEME work (and advance through a progression) . . and not to let a character start off overpowered or unbalanced. That these guys are accomplished warriors is an achievement made through much hard-work and traiing, not as a bonus that somes with being blind. To give those same skills and feats for free undermines the point of these characters and takes away the very thing that makes them special: it is not that they are blind but can fight it is that they overcame blindness to fight. Psst. . they're not real ;) And agreed. . nothing's for free, but it should be doable by the intelligent DM. .right? I see plenty of fun disadvantages and quirks to take advantage of and room for RP flavor too. It's just a matter of balancing it, as in the Original request.
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 04:34 PM	Otay: Is the consesus then that while a blind character can work and be a decent character, the idea of starting them out blind at 1st level a difficult pill to swallow and that they should hardly get much, if anything, for being blind?
lears_fool 10-13-06, 04:36 PM	Otay: Is the consesus then that while a blind character can work and be a decent character, the idea of starting them out blind at 1st level a difficult pill to swallow and that they should hardly get much, if anything, for being blind? Yup. My only arguments is that there were intelligent middle grounds between 'useless' and 'blindsense' (or 'suck' and 'uber' as it were) And that it was no more difficult a pill to swallow than the 15th level monk being able to take out a dozen 1st level archers or the barbarian being guaranteed to live if he falls from the stratosphere ;)
LCD2YOU 10-13-06, 04:52 PM	Yup. My only arguments is that there were intelligent middle grounds between 'useless' and 'blindsense' (or 'suck' and 'uber' as it were) And that it was no more difficult a pill to swallow than the 15th level monk being able to take out a dozen 1st level archers or the barbarian being guaranteed to live if he falls from the stratosphere ;)Which is why I homebrewed my rules and the damage one takes from a fall is proportional to the velocity they hit at. Crits are most likely in falls that take little time (the proverbial "fall off oof a 2' ladder and break your neck") or again proportional to the velocity one hits the ground. Broken ground is even more fun to fall on. KE = 1/2Mv2 is a harsh mistress.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 05:00 PM	Which is why I homebrewed my rules and the damage one takes from a fall is proportional to the velocity they hit at. Crits are most likely in falls that take little time (the proverbial "fall off oof a 2' ladder and break your neck") or again proportional to the velocity one hits the ground. Broken ground is even more fun to fall on. KE = 1/2Mv2 is a harsh mistress. Yeah, I tend to homebrew heavily when I go for my 'grit' campaigns. Another fun one is to greatly reduce the amount of hit points characters have and the like. I mean, the system's not BAD, it's just that it's generally tunable. And it's about as realistic as the teletubbies :)
Sulaco 10-13-06, 05:11 PM	Whatever happened to just 'looking at the theme, and seeing if you can make it work well without being under OR overbalancing'. Nothing. However, this is a pretty big thing to pass off as "theme." The DM should not simply "make it work." Rather, he should work with the player to see how it can be made to work over the course of the game, such as feats to select nad opening up options like tremosense or blindsight as possible feats.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 05:17 PM	Nothing. However, this is a pretty big thing to pass off as "theme." The DM should not simply "make it work." Rather, he should work with the player to see how it can be made to work over the course of the game, such as feats to select nad opening up options like tremosense or blindsight as possible feats. Which how many people did? :P ;) The only caveat I have with the 'tremorsense' 'blindsense' thing is it's kind of illogical to go from 'useless' to 'really impressive' in one level. If something's truly a character theme rather than a perk, such things should be more iterative and gradual and less instantaneous
Sulaco 10-13-06, 05:34 PM	Yup. My only arguments is that there were intelligent middle grounds between 'useless' and 'blindsense' (or 'suck' and 'uber' as it were) And that it was no more difficult a pill to swallow than the 15th level monk being able to take out a dozen 1st level archers or the barbarian being guaranteed to live if he falls from the stratosphere ;) A good DM should always strive for the intllegent middle ground. My only argument is that the blind PC should not simply be compensated for choosing a major deficit. He choose the disability and so he must choose to either take the consequences or to work to overcome it, not have it overcome for him for free.
Sulaco 10-13-06, 05:37 PM	The only caveat I have with the 'tremorsense' 'blindsense' thing is it's kind of illogical to go from 'useless' to 'really impressive' in one level. If something's truly a character theme rather than a perk, such things should be more iterative and gradual and less instantaneous Which is exactly my point. I would allow the PC to take one of those as a feat, but I would also require him to train beforehand for a period of time to acquire it. One of the problems here is that we are dealing with something that is pretty much outside the normal scope of rules. Blindeness is not meant to be something that a PC has, it is meant to be something that happens to them and which they try to get rid of.
lears_fool 10-13-06, 05:43 PM	One of the problems here is that we are dealing with something that is pretty much outside the normal scope of rules. Blindeness is not meant to be something that a PC has, it is meant to be something that happens to them and which they try to get rid of. Exactly. We're almost talking about two different sorts of blindness. The game version is the effect. . perfect for when someone who's used to having vision suddenly doesn't. There aren't any mechanics that incorporiate a more [insert one of the zillions of examples here] sort of blindness . .i.e. the fantasy character that can function quite a bit like a sighted person with the obvious quirks. And the game's solutions (nothing to blindfighting to blindsense/tremorsense) really aren't much of a logical progression and don't necessarily fit well. I THINK the scenario I came up with earlier made a pretty good balanced progression (and required sacrifice). But either way, it's likely doable by someone who puts even more thought into it
Sereno 10-13-06, 07:06 PM	Dude, I agree in the real world. But since I've yet to be able to cast any magic spells, or get people I'm fighting with to pause between actions so we can take turns. . and since I've yet to run into an elf (I do know a grumpy dwarf). . and since I've never seen a giant or a displacer beast or an invisible stalker. . . . okay. .scratch that last one. You can suspend disbelief for one, but not for one that's appeared in more movies and literature than most DND creations? Sure ... I can and do suspend disbelief for things which I know to be "complete fantasy" ... I accept that wizards cast spells and dragons fly and (in some campaigns) gods walk the earth. I DO have a hard time swallowing major departures between reality and "game rules." I can accept combat rounds and the abstraction of hit points because I know it's a game, but it really batters my sense of verisimilitude to try to imagine being in a sword fight while completely blind. With magical assistance, sure ... anything's possible with magic. But, just a "normal" human, blind from birth, learning to swordfight effectively (well enough to join up with even a standard 1st level party) just stretches the suspension of disbelief too far for me to ignore. The only way I could see it working is if the character had dedicated their life to the training, but never had to leave the monastery to face creatures that could kill him ... how does that jive with a first-level PC? Like I said before, there's plenty of roles for a blind character and many are quite viable ... I just do not believe that this is one of them....
lears_fool 10-13-06, 07:10 PM	Like I said before, there's plenty of roles for a blind character and many are quite viable ... I just do not believe that this is one of them.... Personally, I don't have a problem with it just due to the existing absurdity of the hit point system (one or two arrows should equal death) and the bulk of the combat system. Trying to equate it to 'realism' is already stretching logic to the point of breaking. But your or my opinions on that should always have been largely irrelavent. the OP simply asked how to make it viable, not whether we liked it or not.
orionm42 10-13-06, 07:52 PM	the OP simply asked how to make it viable, not whether we liked it or not. And so your final solution for making it viable and balanced is...what again? I seem to have lost it in all the devil's advocate stuff! :D
Vengeblade 10-13-06, 08:09 PM	The absurdity of the HP and combat system was made for balance so that PCs wouldn't die every session. This is, however, no excuse to make it even more absurd that it allready is. I agree with Sulaco on how to allow a blind character into a campaign. He doesn't get anything for free and has to work for it like any other character. Game rules and character concpets aside, this sounds like a maturity issue or a psychological issue. Many "younger" gamers want cooler characters without any repercussions. This is a problem. Giving in to these concepts all the time tells younger players that the DM is required to bend to any idea you throw at him. Before anyone tells me how would I know, I made such mistakes with former gamers when I started DMing. For older and much more experienced gamers, it's generally either a one time cool idea he's always wanted to run (which is fine), or it's a type of inferiority problem. They want to make a charcter that stands out to the world without actually doing anything. Some people do it due to low self-esteem as a way to feel noticed and important (while useful to help build self-confidence, it can lead to severe escapism.); Others feel like something is owed to them, they've been having a rough time and they want some sort reward for their endurance of this pain (Used to be how I played, and how one of my current players is. He's geting better.). Some people who feel picked on or bothered by others use this as a way to vent out or exact a revenge in their mind to feel better. Or they're just bored, it happens. All in all, I agree that it could be done, but the PC needs to work for it. The DMs job is to make sure that a player didn't choose for because it was disruptive or because the player has an axe to grind. Players should choose characters based on character's (not player's) personality, available game mechanics (blind characters count, as does anything else properly discussed with your DM.), and a some degree of party cohesiveness.
Darth Sephiroth 10-13-06, 08:55 PM	I've posted my houserules for Blindness in characters HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10352056). I started with it as a Trait and a skill (Think Control Shape type thing) and built from there. Mine came from designing an NPC who was blind
lears_fool 10-14-06, 12:11 PM	And so your final solution for making it viable and balanced is...what again? I seem to have lost it in all the devil's advocate stuff! :D No kidding! Let's see.. going WAY up to post 53 At 1st level, blind character is blind. However, due to being a well trained heroish sort (just like everyone else) he can react normally in combat with the following restrictions 1) He can only tactically locate targets within 30' with accuracy (issues with ranged weapons, obliviousness often to things outside that radius 2) He is unable to pinpoint anything outside 5' (no reach weapons without miss chance) 3) He is able to tactically locate targets that are otherwise invisible or concealed but still physical and detectable. . this ability however is based on hearing and certain creatures, if not moving, may not be detectable (Determined by the DM) 4) He is required to use up his 1st level feat and his 3rd level feat for this ability. I'd probably add some bonus to listen checks and automatically failing spot checks mechanically. I was simply thinking a way for you to play the combats without forcing TOO much OOC stuff (since the 30' bit basically lets him see the battlemap) and I don't see why he should have 'radar sense' and detect anything that's invisible. . but as a counter for two feats I'm fine giving a minor advantage (determined by the DM) in finding closeby-hidden-targets-that-can-be-heard-better-than-seen (tm) And maybe eventually one could spend a feat or something to get more complete blind-vision-of-some-sort. . but by then we're getting truly supernatural. And yes, immunity to gaze attacks. Given most of my parties might run into actual gaze attacks once in 12 levels (fear auras and such would still work fine) I don't really see it as a huge advantage. I also give my players immunity to cybernetic death hamsters. . which are only slightly less common ;) And again, still half-thinking-it-through. . but it seems close to being workable, in the 'zatcohi' flavor, and having RP potential. And that last is a key, I've seen a lot of people going on about how it's an obviously immature thing (a half ogre spiked chain weilding tripmonkey or an angsty dual-weilding ranger arent??). I haven't seen that, the one blind PC I gamed with (as a fellow PC) was heavy on the RP and very mature. Really though, the maturity thing's a backwards argument. Obviously mature OR immature gamers could come up with such a concept, given how common it is in literary and movie history over the past few decades. Just make it not a 'munchkin friendly' thing and make your decisions based on the maturity of the individual gamer, not based on some half baked notion that some things are 'mature' and some 'aren't' while grown men are huddled around the gaming table rolling dice ;)
LCD2YOU 10-14-06, 01:00 PM	Here's the thing Tex, with all of that additional "training" and feats, there's an easier way to get them that and make it more believable: The character is no longer first level. In other words they get nothing, zip, nada, squat for being blind. They are only a character who hapens to be blind. So, any player who wants to start out blind AND 1st level, I hope they put all of their skill points into Hearing and take the Blind Fight. As Sulaco said and I agree, the player can take, at their (mostly) descretion, the feats they think they need. My players can take any feat listed in the Core and Complete XYZ Books in my game and even from a few others that I have had time to read and I agreed that they fit my world's concept. They have to be wise and really think what they are taking. For, "What do they get in return for being blind?" Answer, "They're immune to most standard gaze attacks, unless the special ability of the gaze attack is not affected by the other character not seeing them".
Another_Poet 10-14-06, 01:03 PM	...Blind folks don't choose adventuring as their line of work. It's as simple as that. Giving a character a whole bunch of stuff to negate his "blindness" is ridiculous. All it does is give him a huge advantage over certain monsters (and the other players for that matter).... Whoa, I partly agree that blind characters shouldn't get huge bonuses, but if their character is blind from birth (not just from the temporary effect of some spell) then they will probably have heightened senses in other areas. I'd modify the blindness entry from PHB to the following: Naturally blind: The character cannot see. If and only if he cannot hear his opponent (opponent is non-corporeal or succeeds on a move silently check opposed by the character) he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). He moves at half speed unless he is following the exact path of a friendly character whom he can hear (even while running). He takes a –4 penalty on Search checks if he cannot use his hands to search. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. Opponents he cannot hear are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. He gains a +2 bonus to grapple, excape artist, and prestidigitation checks. He can pinpoint an opponent's location with a listen check at a -10 penalty (rather than the usual -20). Spells and spell-like abilities that affect vision or light do not affect him, nor does he have a hard time dealing with dark or low-light surroundings, as he navigates by sound and touch.
orionm42 10-14-06, 01:12 PM	At 1st level, blind character is blind. However, due to being a well trained heroish sort (just like everyone else) he can react normally in combat with the following restrictions 1) He can only tactically locate targets within 30' with accuracy (issues with ranged weapons, obliviousness often to things outside that radius 2) He is unable to pinpoint anything outside 5' (no reach weapons without miss chance) 3) He is able to tactically locate targets that are otherwise invisible or concealed but still physical and detectable. . this ability however is based on hearing and certain creatures, if not moving, may not be detectable (Determined by the DM) 4) He is required to use up his 1st level feat and his 3rd level feat for this ability. Yeah. When I first read this, I had no idea what you were describing. You are saying the character is blind, yet can tactically locate targets within 30 feet with accuracy. I am not sure how he would be able to do this in game terms. For example, if a creature is invisible (which it is to this character because the character is blind), the rules state... It's practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature (using listen). A listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature's location. So does he need to use listen checks, or is he doing it using some other means? Also, you appear to be making a distinction between "tactically locate" and "pinpoint", which you use in your second bullet. However, I am not sure what the distinction actually is. I am also not sure what you are suggesting in game terms as far as pinpointing a creature within 5 feet. Does the PC need to make the listen check to pinpoint creatures, or must he follow the rules for groping to find an invisible creature... A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action... With respect to number 3, again, I am not sure what "tactically locate" means. But, you indicate he must use listen to locate them. So I am assuming the player would be required to use a listen check and beat the DC by 20 in order to do so. Perhaps I am just being a_nal here by trying to use the existing game mechanics for dealing with blind characters (or maybe that is just me thinking inside that little box again). However, the game mechanics are in place and I think they are reasonable. But if you prefer to develop a whole new "house rule" mechanic for dealing with this handicap, that is fine by me.
orionm42 10-14-06, 01:26 PM	Naturally blind: The character cannot see. If and only if he cannot hear his opponent (opponent is non-corporeal or succeeds on a move silently check opposed by the character) he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This makes no sense to me. You have people fighting all around you. By rule, the listen DC to hear a battle is -10. I would say you would need to apply a modifer of at least -10 in order to move silently during a battle. So, in other words, of course the blind character will be able to hear where other creatures are during combat.
Toptomcat 10-14-06, 01:32 PM	All this complaining aside, I believe there is a canon feat that will make this concept playable, if not powerful. It grants blindsight within a 5ft radius: the pre-reqs are Blind-Fight and Wisdom 17. I cannot recall its name at the moment. To me, at least, it seems to strike an acceptable balance between character concept and realism.
lears_fool 10-14-06, 03:05 PM	Perhaps I am just being a_nal here by trying to use the existing game mechanics for dealing with blind characters (or maybe that is just me thinking inside that little box again). However, the game mechanics are in place and I think they are reasonable. But if you prefer to develop a whole new "house rule" mechanic for dealing with this handicap, that is fine by me. By 'tactically locate' I meant 'can identify where they are tactically on the map' As in 'you don't have to worry about over-metagaming and you can play combat generally like you would now without worrying too much about OOC knowledge' The reason I mention it all is just so you don't have to roll a bunch of dice if someone just wants to move around on the battlemap, and for two feats it seemed fair enough. No real DM hassle there, functions in a Zatochi-like-way, yet the disadvantages certainly overwhelm the benefits. The mechanics exist in game, to 'locate things' with listen checks, but they'd be annoying as heck! And I"m not going to encourage annoying DMs ;) The end result. . 2 feats spent. . and the character gains the ability to adhere to his theme and a minor immunity (gaze attacks) and a very limited sort of darkvision. He also gains the ability to generally move around like another character in a fight (again, this was initially described as a monk character) Meanwhile, we don't have to worry about any rolls for the character UNLESS we're in a situation where something's hiding and they could be detected with a listen check. There's room for circumstance bonuses due to the fact that a blind character wouldn't take 'it's not there, I can't see it' as much as a sighted character. . for two feats that's probably a good idea. And the disadvantages are an inability to read, very limited past-30'-detection-ability, an inability to use ranged weapons. By the time one's actually fighting invisible things though, I was kind of assuming by that point SOME sort of magic item or a third feat would come into play. As I said, it was a quick hack job, but the whole point was to come up with something that's balanced, DOES require payment on the side of the character, and isn't overtly crippling purely from a combat standpoint and that 'resembles' what you see in the movies. (again, the theme. . I don't want to get going on the 'blindness sucks in real life' trip again. . . and that also shouldn't stop our ability to enjoy movies like the Zatochi and Blind fury type ones)
Another_Poet 10-15-06, 09:08 PM	This makes no sense to me. You have people fighting all around you. By rule, the listen DC to hear a battle is -10. I would say you would need to apply a modifer of at least -10 in order to move silently during a battle. So, in other words, of course the blind character will be able to hear where other creatures are during combat. Exactly. I have known a few blind people and they are almost always able to tell where I am from the sound I make; I believe most of them could punch me in the face without missing, if they really wanted to. So I don't think a blind character (who is used to being blind) would be at such a huge disadvantage in melee combat.
trapspringer 10-15-06, 11:21 PM	A lot of people are saying "they should have to work to overcome their weakness." I'm calling bull **** on that. I think they should be immediately recompensed for their blindness so the character will be mechanically functional from its beginning. Their recompensation should not be the same as sight, but it should be on par with it. The trick is finding something equal and opposite. Of course this does not apply to someone who is blinded, just a character whos gimmick is "I'm a blind swordsman."
Milandros 10-15-06, 11:30 PM	This topic keeps comng up, and it's often caused by someone wanting a cool effect that actually gives them advantages for free. Not always - but often. Anyway, I do have the solution. It's simple, elegant and requires no house rules. Don't make rules for it or give feats. don't apply penalties. The player - assuming he's doing it for genuine roleplaying reasons as stated and not for munkin reasons - can just roleplay being blind. Yes, he's trained his senses so well that in combat he can fight as well as any sighted person! His super keen abilities let him react to an incoming arrow! In fact, just the same as if he was a regular sighted person! Of course, he won't be able to read, or see colours, or patterns, or spot concealed foes, or even invisible ones for that matter - the invisibility effect is also masking the tiny air movements he uses to detect them. In other words, treat him exactly like a regular character and let him roleplay the blindness. He'll get a lot of problems with non-combat scenarios, and a lot of "Whoa! Cool!" from bystanders who see him in action. I'd insist he put maximum ranks into listen and probably insist he take blindfighting as a feat, though. Of course, this wouldn't work with a munchkin character, but we've already assumed this is for genuine "interesting character concept" reasons, right? Such a player should have no problem co-operating with the DM to make this work.
trapspringer 10-15-06, 11:34 PM	That's actually pretty brilliant.
ssvegeta555 10-16-06, 04:18 AM	I made a blind NPC figher/monk that uses feats that punish foes who attack him and miss. He has Defensive throw, Karmic Strike, and Defensive Strike (all from CW). Defensive throw allows him to trip any foe that attacks and misses him (the foes must be the target of the dodge feat). Karmic Strike allows you to make an AoO against a foe that hits you. And Defensive Strike allows you to get a +4 bonus on your next attack on any foe that misses you while you use the full-defense action. You activate Karmic Strike (-4 to AC as a free action) and then use the total defence manuaver (effectivly making your AC stay the same). Choose an opponent for dodge (best to do with a listen check, the NPC also had Keen Eared Scout from PHBII). With this any foe that misses will get let you smack them easier the next round, and if that foes happens to be the dodge target you get to trip him as well. If the foe hits, Karmic Strike will smack them. The NPC was cool and somewhat useful in combat.
Sulaco 10-16-06, 02:45 PM	Whoa, I partly agree that blind characters shouldn't get huge bonuses, but if their character is blind from birth (not just from the temporary effect of some spell) then they will probably have heightened senses in other areas. Why? There is no evidence of this being true in real-life, so why in a game? The "their other sense become keen to compensate" myth seems to be something that able-bodied people came up with to make themselves feel better about not feeling worse about someone else's blindness.
trapspringer 10-16-06, 03:09 PM	It has been suggested that blind people just pay more attention to their other senses and so those senses appear to be sharper. I would argue, however, that if a person is more likely to pick up on a sound then they have better hearing. Why they are better at hearing things is irrelevant. Besides, real world logic doesn't apply here. We are trying to make a mechanically balanced character which retains the mechanical flavor of a blind warrior.
orionm42 10-16-06, 03:37 PM	Exactly. I have known a few blind people and they are almost always able to tell where I am from the sound I make; I believe most of them could punch me in the face without missing, if they really wanted to. So I don't think a blind character (who is used to being blind) would be at such a huge disadvantage in melee combat. When I say he would hear the combatants, I simply mean he would be aware of their presence. I do not mean he can automatically pinpoint the location of invisible creatures in violation of the rules I quoted above. And I don't believe your blind acquaintances could punch you in the face if you were constantly moving, as PCs are assumed to be doing during combat (hence, the "no facing" tenet in DnD). Your friends would most likely hit nothing but air if they took a swing at you while you were bobbing and weaving.
lears_fool 10-16-06, 03:39 PM	Why? There is no evidence of this being true in real-life, so why in a game? The "their other sense become keen to compensate" myth seems to be something that able-bodied people came up with to make themselves feel better about not feeling worse about someone else's blindness. Oh, I can say quite enthusiastically that I experienced this. I was temporarily blinded back in my mid twenties. .lasted about two months, but there was a fear it'd have been permanent. During that timeframe I ended up with an equally blind girlfriend. I can say with some confidence that my ability to figure out what was going on via. other senses improved tremendously between day one and day 60. .and never I was a fraction as competent as she was. Real life isn't D&D of course, but the real life variance exists. Meanwhile, the 'blinded' rules are meant to cover situations where a person becomes abruptly blinded while expecting to find sight useful as a game mechanic . . it's arguable that that mechanic (even in a non-fantasy way) would be different if a person spent their life not depending on sight.
trapspringer 10-16-06, 04:05 PM	"I was blind for a couple of months and met this blind chick, and we hit it off..." sounds like the start to a really great joke.
lears_fool 10-16-06, 04:07 PM	"I was blind for a couple of months and met this blind chick, and we hit it off..." sounds like the start to a really great joke. No, then it'd be we 'ran into each other' ;) Serious lifesaver she was though! Nothing keeps you from completely freaking out about the fact that you MAY be blind for life than someone who actually is. And yes, quite the experience. . . I probably had more bruises on me in a month due to my own lack of grace than I ever had in my life up to that point.
BobSutan 10-16-06, 05:07 PM	I have a player who wants to play a blind Monk/Psionicist. What can I do to make him on par with the rest of the players? I thought of giving him +4 on his listen check or something. Any suggestions? Treat it as a severe form of a flaw from UA and give him 2 bonus feats to make up for it. Maybe toss in a +4 to listen checks as well.
Sulaco 10-16-06, 05:12 PM	It has been suggested that blind people just pay more attention to their other senses and so those senses appear to be sharper. Precisely. Out of necessity they may become better at mentally filtering and utlizing aural information but their hearing doesn't actually improve in any way.
lears_fool 10-16-06, 05:40 PM	Precisely. Out of necessity they may become better at mentally filtering and utlizing aural information but their hearing doesn't actually improve in any way. Yeah, pretty much the only way to improve your hearing is to raise a toddler ;)
KurenaiYami 10-16-06, 05:49 PM	No, then it'd be we 'ran into each other' ;) :rimshot:
LCD2YOU 10-16-06, 05:55 PM	Treat it as a severe form of a flaw from UA and give him 2 bonus feats to make up for it. Maybe toss in a +4 to listen checks as well.But why? Kinda makes the whole, "My PC is blind", kind of meaningless doesn't it? One of the reasons I DO NOT allow Unearthed Errata any where near my game.
Xeviat-DM 10-16-06, 06:38 PM	Alright, there are two ways of looking at this. First off, Blindness is a 2nd level debuff spell, so one could potentially argue that a character who has acclimated to their blindness could gain the benefit of a 2nd level buff spell; scent is a 2nd level spell, and so is synesthete (and synesthete can be used to "feel light", giving you back your sight). The second way is the flaw arguement. A flaw seems to grant a -6 penalty to a skill; double that of skill focus. Blindness is at least twice a flaw. With one's two feats, they could purchase Blind-Fight and Blindsense 5 ft. Radius; and now they're decent in melee. Other feats which can help: Keen-Eared Scout (PHB2, can be taken as of 3rd level), and the two listen feats out of Complete Adventurer (one lets you make a listen and spot check each round as a free action, and another lets you make a listen check to locate everything within 30 feet). We're talking about the development of superhuman hearing and a sense of touch. Bats can echolocate, and I've seen a documentary on a blind man who seems to be able to. Heck, bats can tell the difference between a jelly bean and a meal worm at a range of 20 feet! It's a reasonable archetype, and it can sort of be done in the current rules.