Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gnomey3785 11-10-06, 06:02 AM	I want to make a blind character that starts blind, but how would you make it a balance and playable character?
Artector 11-10-06, 06:57 AM	Give you a +2 listen. Good luck. Seriously, blind isn't something that give advantages.
Lord_Tirian 11-10-06, 07:12 AM	I want to make a blind character that starts blind, but how would you make it a balance and playable character? If you're blind, you've got drawbacks... but being blind gives no super-powers. So, if you're character is truly blind, he has to live with it. If you just want the "cool blind" char, then ask your DM to allow you that your character is blind, but has still no drawbacks (i.e. makes attacks as normal, due to experiences/good listening/daredevil radar/whatever) = you get the same RP-experience (all other daily weaknesses can be role-played), but don't slow down combat with the percentile rolls.
kelvinaw273 11-10-06, 08:14 AM	Being blind can make a character unviable unless they have some compensating ability. Blindsense of some kind is a good start. We did this once with a character that could see, but only on the ethereal plane. We treated them as having Blindsight for living creatures within thirty feet, plus they had to take the Blindfight feat in order to fight effectively. What they could not see were inanimate, non-emotively charged objects, which could be a problem some times. The plus-side was that they could 'see' invisible creatures and ethereal ones easily. Edit: Possibly you could make a viable psionic or sorcerer blind character, by using powers to replace sight.
Sereno 11-10-06, 08:31 AM	It really depends on what role you want to play in the party. If you want to be blind because it's 'kewl' -- and, you're picturing Daredevil who's "blind" but really not, then just say that "I'm blind, but I still function just like everyone else." It's just flavor at that point.... There are, however, quite a few roles for a blind PC that don't involve negating all of the drawbacks of blindness with free feats; a bard/cleric who buffs and heals the party, a diviner/loremaster who discovers important information for the party, a grappling monk who is guided into combat and grapples anyone who attacks him, a spellcaster who takes direction from another party member ("30' directly ahead, blast 'em Sallen!").... Yes, you will be at a disadvantage in many situations ... but, there could be a good reason why you are included in a party of adventurers; you're someone's sibling, someone's husband/wife, the wealthy one who's paying the other's expenses....
Bellator_33 11-10-06, 08:39 AM	theres a level 3 or 4 stance that grants blindsense. its diamond mind i think and is obviously designed for that whole daredevil blind thang
The_Ditto 11-10-06, 08:54 AM	Keep in mind blindness isn't all disadvantages ... it does have some pros as well ... (maybe less so at lower level, but ...) Medusa anyone? Yep, sign me up .. I wanna be blind too!! :cool: Overall though, I do not disagree, it's probably more cons than pros ... just saying, don't ignore the subtle pros of the condition ...
Reinforcements 11-10-06, 11:03 AM	As others have said, if you just want to be the Daredevil, "blind, but not" guy... go for it. It's just flavor. If you want to be ACTUALLY blind, take Blind-Fight as a bonus feat (which is more than reasonable, since being blind is MUCH worse than any flaw). Where you go from there depends on what kind of character you want to play.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 11:46 AM	Okay, what the hell? Has there been a Zatoichi marathon on TV somewhere? Why is this damned topic is popping up every frakking week? You can mitigate blindness somewhat by taking blind fight and other feats and abilities to offset some of the penalites, but you most certainly should not get any of them for free. If your PC is blind then it is not a balanced or playable character. Deal with it.
runestar 11-10-06, 11:51 AM	Try the gray sage prc from dragon297. It's essentially a blind spellcaster dedicated to fighting drow.:)
lunchbox1584 11-10-06, 12:24 PM	A player in a game i did wanted to play a blind character. I told him about the blind ranger from one of the FGR books i read where he had a hawk animal companion that would fly over the enemy a screech so the ranger new where to shoot. he made the character I gave him a +2 listen, +2 search also a -2 on ref, -8 spot when inside(-4 outside) the pc work out great in the wilderness but when it came time to enter a cave or dungeon he kinda fell. After getting the blind fighting feat this helped but he was really only good out doors.
lunchbox1584 11-10-06, 12:29 PM	Also when the blind pc had the money he asked if he could have magic eyes made that made it so he could see. I allowed them to be made but they could only be worn for a set time per day before they had to recharge. (I think it was 5 min.) this helped out. If the "eyes" were worn longer then 5 min the pc had to make a save or start to get dizzy.
Garble Willowwits 11-10-06, 02:55 PM	Well, since I'm on a school computer, I can't get to the right site, but there's a link to a video of a news report about a blind kid who's pretty amazing. He can skate, pillowfight, even play video games. If someone can do that sort of thing at his age in REALITY, I don't think there should be any problems with a blind character in FANTASY. If you want to play a blind character who can somehow sense his surroundings and whatnot, that should be fine. There will be SOME drawbacks, but don't make it like "You're blind and therefore unplayable." Because that just ruins chracter concepts which can otherwise be fun to play.
Leo 11-10-06, 03:03 PM	Get the blind combat feat, take out spot skill, and add +X to listen, detect motive, and any other skills you can argue are sound based. A blind sorceror or bard could be kind of cool. You could get extra points in sociability skills because people would be more condescendent in a blind guy
wonlee76 11-10-06, 04:58 PM	Okay, what the hell? Has there been a Zatoichi marathon on TV somewhere? Why is this damned topic is popping up every frakking week? You can mitigate blindness somewhat by taking blind fight and other feats and abilities to offset some of the penalites, but you most certainly should not get any of them for free. If your PC is blind then it is not a balanced or playable character. Deal with it. Heh, I would've just said pay for a cure blindness. If its believeable that a "blind PC" could gain supernatural senses to compensate the blindness in a "fantasy" world, it is equally likely that no one is permanently blinded in that same "fantasy" world because of a relatively low level cleric spell. As for the OP: If you want to be a blind PC, pick up feats to help deal with the blindness. There's Blind Fight. I think there's a Blind Sense feat in CW or maybe Sword & Fist that extends out to 5 feet. Look in Complete Adventurer for a feat that I believe gives you a chance to use your listen check to locate the square people might be occupying (Also Skill Focus Listen and a high Wisdom modifier would be helpful here). Combine all of them together and you might make a passable playable character with quite a few restrictions and a huge feat investment in the process to be playable.
blackjackg 11-10-06, 05:30 PM	If your PC is blind then it is not a balanced or playable character. Deal with it. You, sir, lack vision. Pun intended. No character is unplayable, particularly if player and DM are willing to work together to make it balanced. But I say if a player is willing to unbalance his character for the sake of roleplaying, I say best of luck to him. This is an ability for blind PCs I came up with a while back that has been generally well-received. If it helps, great. Blindness The character is blind. He may be blind from birth, or he may have become blind in life. The blindness must be permanent. Benefits: Bonus feat: Blind-fighting +2 expertise bonus to Listen checks Immune to Gaze attacks and spells that require sight (Explosive Runes or Hypnotic Pattern, for example). Preternatural Luck (Ex): The character is blessed with exceptional luck. Once per day, after the player has rolled a die, before the DM announces whether the roll was a success or a failure, he can reroll the die. This ability does not stack with any other benefit that grants the same ability (eg. the Luck domain ability). Penalties: All enemies are considered to have 100% concealment at all times. This is mitigated by the Blind-fighting feat. All Spot checks automatically fail. The character can not gain any ranks in the Spot ability. -4 on all checks for the following abilities: Appraise**, Balance*, Climb*, Decipher Script**, Disable Device, Disguise, Hide, Move Silently*, Open Lock*, Search**, Sense Motive*, Sleight of Hand*, Spellcraft, Tumble*, Use Magic Device. These abilities are always considered cross-class. * Monks and Characters with Wisdom 16 or greater ignore these penalties. ** The character must be able to feel the items with his hands. Any attempt at visual inspection fails automatically (obviously!). If the character ever regains sight (with a Regeneration spell, for instance), he automatically loses all benefits of the Template (except the Blind-fight feat), and can gain skill ranks normally. Obviously this affects the game in other ways than mechanics. A blind Wizard is S.O.o.L. But that's between you and your DM.
DreamerInsane 11-10-06, 05:38 PM	Masters of the wild, page 21 hearing-based 120ft blindsight if you can wildshape into a dire bat.
Neofish 11-11-06, 03:26 AM	Play a Blind Favoured Soul, and only take healing, buffing spells. Play a Summoner (wizard who specs in Conjuration) and just summon monsters to fight for you. Play a Diviner (wizard who specs in Divination) and buff your party and use Divination to tell the future. Be cool if you took the Fatespinner class with this one Play a Bard, and just sing and heal, talk, listen, use your bardic knowledge when your friend's don't know the answer to squat. If your going for the whole "Blind Samurai" things, well... Have fun with the Blindfight feat, also, I don't remember where I saw it, but there is a magic item out there that grants blindsight out to a 60ft. radius, go figure, it's a black headband you wrap around your eyes. Also, one more. Play an Undead creature with the Lifesense feat, you will be able to see anyhting within 60ft of a living creature. Anywho, those are just some ideas off the top of my head, good luck...
Gnomey3785 11-11-06, 02:59 PM	Thank you all for the input, helps alot.
Aegeu 11-11-06, 03:21 PM	This has got to be the 5th blindness thread I have seen in a week. I need to put some complaint about this in my sig.
CryoSilver 11-11-06, 03:24 PM	Item that allows you to use Synesthete (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/synesthete.htm) constantly. Done.
Felyndaer 11-11-06, 04:08 PM	Buy yourself a "Blindfold of True Darkness". 9000 gp, gives you blindsight in a 60' radius. It's in the A&E guide.
Neofish 11-11-06, 04:43 PM	Buy yourself a "Blindfold of True Darkness". 9000 gp, gives you blindsight in a 60' radius. It's in the A&E guide. HA!!! I knew I had seen this magic item somewhere.
unusualsuspect 11-12-06, 12:24 AM	A few abilities that can mitigate, generally only partially, the flaw of blindness: 1. Scout: At 10th level, you get Blindsense 30 ft. At 20th level, you get Blindsight 30 ft. 2. Dragon Disciple: At 5th level of the progression, you gain Blindsense 30 ft. at 10th, it extends to 60 ft. 3. Horizon Walker: The Hills Terrain mastery gives you +4 competence bonus to listen checks. At 6th level, you could chose the Cavernous Terrain and gain Tremorsense 30 ft. 4. Animal Lord: At 2nd level of wolflord, you can gain Scent. 5. Master of Many Forms: At 7th level, you can gain the extraordinary special qualities of the forms you wildshape into... including Scent, Blindsense, Tremorsense, Blindsight, and a few others. 6. Master Transmogrifist: At 2nd level, you get something called Manifest senses, and at 8th, you get Manifest qualities. I don't know what they do (too lazy to look it up again) but I have no doubt its similar to the MoMF ability. 7. Sacred Fist: At 6th level, you get Blindsense 10 ft. 8. Disciple of the Eye: At 6th level, you gain Blindsense 30 ft. That's the list of PrCs I found last time i did some research. As for Feats... 1. Alertness: +2 listen. 2. Blind-fight: Goes without saying. 3. Skill Focus: +3 listen 4. Hear the Unseen: As a move action, you can make a DC 25 listen check to pinpoint the location of all foes within 30 ft... basically, a move-action activated blindsense 30 ft. 5. Blindsight, 5 ft Radius: Blindsight with a 5 ft radius (gasp!) Yeah, i know, 3.0 and all... but it hasn't officially been updated or replaced, so according to WotC, its still kosher. 6. Blindsense (CAd version): Blindsense 30 ft for limited duration by expending druid wildshape uses. 7. Scent (CAd version): Scent for limited duration. And I didn't even get into the choices available in ToB, including the stance already mentioned granting Blindsense 30 ft and the lower level Tiger Claw stance "Hunter's Sense" which grants Scent if you use a free action every round. I also didn't touch items, which include but are not limited to the Blindfold already mentioned, the dragon graft that grants blindsense, and probably a few others as well. Also, if you have telepathy, there's always Mindsight. Blindsense up to your telepathy range, usable only on creatures with minds. Prey you don't encounter undead... :D
Tyler Do'Urden 11-12-06, 03:12 AM	I want to make a blind character that starts blind, but how would you make it a balance and playable character? Sorry, you can't play a blind character. D&D 3.5 introduced "renegade healers," clerics armed to the teeth that travel the world forcibly curing professional adventurers of various afflictions with their divine powers. Any blind PC would surely encounter one of these vicious benefactors and have his blindness removed or possibly even have missing eyes regenerated. They have a spell that exterminates all STDs in a 20-ft. radius burst.
KurenaiYami 11-12-06, 03:33 AM	Okay, what the hell? Has there been a Zatoichi marathon on TV somewhere? It's been on Sci-Fi channel pretty often, actually.
Save-vs-DM 11-12-06, 05:06 AM	From the Tome of Battle: Hunter's Sense (1st level Tiger Claw Stance): Gain scent. Hearing the Air (5th level Diamond Mind Stance): Gain blindsense out to 30 ft., +5 to Listen checks. Personally, I'd go straight swordsage, take Blind-Fight and Hear the Unseen and be done with it. Cheers, Save vs DM
unusualsuspect 11-12-06, 02:26 PM	Other options available: Anthropomorphic cetaceans. These critters (with 2 HD and 2 LA, or 3 HD and 0, 1, or 2 LA) have blindsight 60 ft out of water. They also have stat modifiers that make your eyes bugger out. If you really, really want a playable blind character, I'd recommend one of two things: 1. Be "blind", but not really blind... basically, call it a flavor and stick with normal abilities, with perhaps Hear the Unseen, Blindfight, and Blindsight, 5 ft Radius feats. 2. Be a blind anthropomorphic porpoise, and describe yourself as basically human-looking. Assuming the ability scores are balanced, who gives a rat's ass what you describe your character as looking like?
LCD2YOU 11-12-06, 03:52 PM	You, sir, lack vision. Pun intended.No, Sulaco's in the right here. It seems when someone wants to make a blind PC what they are talking about is what feats, for free, they can get to become not hindered by their blindness.No character is unplayable, particularly if player and DM are willing to work together to make it balanced.But then the character is no longer "blind" are they? They have other abilities that compensate for "being blind".But I say if a player is willing to unbalance his character for the sake of roleplaying, I say best of luck to him.And more importantly, best of luck to the rest of the party as well. If I were in that game and there's some blind guy, he'd be my best chum. He'd be left bleeding and helpless while I made my escape. Sorry, but blind characters at 1st level are a huge disavantage. I'd like to know a story where there is a blind guy who's been blind from birth and is an awesome fighter. Most of them were awesome fighters before they got blind and learned to deal with it later, not start off that way.This is an ability for blind PCs I came up with a while back that has been generally well-received. If it helps, great.Blindness The character is blind. He may be blind from birth, or he may have become blind in life. The blindness must be permanent. Benefits: * Bonus feat: Blind-fighting * +2 expertise bonus to Listen checks * Immune to Gaze attacks and spells that require sight (Explosive Runes or Hypnotic Pattern, for example). * Preternatural Luck (Ex): The character is blessed with exceptional luck. Once per day, after the player has rolled a die, before the DM announces whether the roll was a success or a failure, he can reroll the die. This ability does not stack with any other benefit that grants the same ability (eg. the Luck domain ability). Penalties: * All enemies are considered to have 100% concealment at all times. This is mitigated by the Blind-fighting feat. * All Spot checks automatically fail. The character can not gain any ranks in the Spot ability. * -4 on all checks for the following abilities: Appraise**, Balance*, Climb*, Decipher Script**, Disable Device, Disguise, Hide, Move Silently*, Open Lock*, Search**, Sense Motive*, Sleight of Hand*, Spellcraft, Tumble*, Use Magic Device. These abilities are always considered cross-class. * Monks and Characters with Wisdom 16 or greater ignore these penalties. ** The character must be able to feel the items with his hands. Any attempt at visual inspection fails automatically (obviously!). If the character ever regains sight (with a Regeneration spell, for instance), he automatically loses all benefits of the Template (except the Blind-fight feat), and can gain skill ranks normally.And it's all freebies that take away the being blind part. Why do they get Blindfight for free? It seems that a blind character is more than a match for the typical Commoner. It is not balanced and gives way too much, IMO, for free to what the loss of arguably the most important sense.Obviously this affects the game in other ways than mechanics. A blind Wizard is S.O.o.L. But that's between you and your DM.I had a player who wanted his character to be blind. I said fine. He asked what he got for it and I sad +2 to listen checks. He wanted more and I said he gets the standard package as everyone else, but he is immune to gaze attacks. He didn't take it because he said, "You don't take into factors into account and balance it all out". I said bing blind is a serious hinderance and not a way to balance anything. So for all PCs blind at birth, this is what I think you should get for free: +2 to Listen Checks. In other words you are free to have a blind character but be prepared to roll up another soon.
Neofish 11-12-06, 06:09 PM	Doesn't the Blindsight 5ft. radius feat require a 19+ wisdom? Good luck getting that first level...
trapspringer 11-12-06, 06:23 PM	No, Sulaco's in the right here. It seems when someone wants to make a blind PC what they are talking about is what feats, for free, they can get to become not hindered by their blindness. They aren't looking for free feats. They are looking for compensatory abilites which they want to be in balance with the price of their sight. I'm not sayin' I agree or disagree, but the "no bonus" side is really coloring the nature of the request with choice wording.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-12-06, 06:46 PM	What exactly is the appeal of playing a character with a huge disability if you make it such that he isn't really disabled? What's the point?
unusualsuspect 11-12-06, 07:04 PM	Blindsight, 5 ft Radius also has a BAB +4 requirement, if memory serves.
blackjackg 11-13-06, 02:35 AM	What exactly is the appeal of playing a character with a huge disability if you make it such that he isn't really disabled? What's the point? It's about role-playing. Some people like the challenge of role-playing a character in a difficult situation. If that player can work out with the DM how to do it without being totally useless, more power to them both. Let's face it, blindness in a fantasy setting is cool (and no, I've never seen Zatoichi). When a character can overcome a disability, or even turn it into an advantage, it just makes for good storytelling. If you (not just TDo'U, but all nay-sayers) don't like to play that way, that's your business. But if you post in this thread just to say "It can't be done, and you're stupid for trying," you aren't really being helpful. Yes, it's challenging, and yes, it's a weakness... but I'm pretty sure that's the point.
LCD2YOU 11-13-06, 07:49 AM	It's about role-playing. Some people like the challenge of role-playing a character in a difficult situation. If that player can work out with the DM how to do it without being totally useless, more power to them both. Let's face it, blindness in a fantasy setting is cool (and no, I've never seen Zatoichi). When a character can overcome a disability, or even turn it into an advantage, it just makes for good storytelling. If you (not just TDo'U, but all nay-sayers) don't like to play that way, that's your business. But if you post in this thread just to say "It can't be done, and you're stupid for trying," you aren't really being helpful. Yes, it's challenging, and yes, it's a weakness... but I'm pretty sure that's the point.The problem is these really turn into a collection of, "I want my character to be <insert disability here> but I don't want to have penalties and I want to get freebies out to mitagate the issue". That's not role-playing. I think it's just a form of "Munchausen by Proxy" where the player gets kudos for playing "Such a hard character. Just how do you do it?', without really having the difficulties. Then if the DM does something like say, Yellow Mold where the character is searching obviously the DM is picking on the player. It's bunk. Ok, so the best a blind person gets at 1st level is +2 to Listen checks. They lose the ability to Search from a distance (they can still search but it's hands on and it takes twice as long). They can Spot, even humans have a crude form of echo location, but it is close range only. Then they determine their PC's species and class. So it's a whatever? Great. They get at least 1 Feat. I strongly suggest they take this: Blindfighting Any other Feats are only there because of the class or species. As they survive and gain levels, they gain feats. They best choose feats that assist them and they should never get anything special. If they do, then they are not really blind. There's role-playing and then there's psuedo gimped characters. Blind characters are generally of the latter catagory.
Reinforcements 11-13-06, 09:19 AM	What exactly is the appeal of playing a character with a huge disability if you make it such that he isn't really disabled? What's the point? While I agree that the "blind guy" is cliched, overdone and stupid, this whole idea of, "You just want free feats!" is also stupid. Being blind is a HUGE disability, way beyond a flaw. I don't agree that a blind character should get all sorts of unique abilities to negate his blindness for free, but come on, it's not like Blind-Fight totally eliminates all blindness-related penalties. There's no point in being snarky and going, "Sure you can be blind and NO YOU CAN'T HAVE BLIND-FIGHT RAWR!" If you put me on the spot, that would be my answer as a DM. You can have Blind-Fight for free, and probably should try to get your hands on that blindsense blindfold thingy as soon as possible.
LCD2YOU 11-13-06, 11:23 AM	While I agree that the "blind guy" is cliched, overdone and stupid, this whole idea of, "You just want free feats!" is also stupid. Being blind is a HUGE disability, way beyond a flaw. I don't agree that a blind character should get all sorts of unique abilities to negate his blindness for free, but come on, it's not like Blind-Fight totally eliminates all blindness-related penalties. There's no point in being snarky and going, "Sure you can be blind and NO YOU CAN'T HAVE BLIND-FIGHT RAWR!"I think what I, Tyler and others are saying is that you can't have a feat for free. As in my post, I said the first thing a blind character should take is Blindfight. But unless they get extra feats fro species or character class, that is the only one they start out with, just like everyone else.If you put me on the spot, that would be my answer as a DM. You can have Blind-Fight for free, and probably should try to get your hands on that blindsense blindfold thingy as soon as possible.Well if they are actually getting something, where is the sacrifice? No. A player who wants a blind character gets to play one without getting anything in return. After all, if you're going to dilute it by giving them something, can I get extra HP for declaring my character obese? Also, the DM better not put any "really narrow passage ways" in because he's has it out for me if he does.
trapspringer 11-13-06, 11:25 AM	The very concept of a flaw is that you get a feat. It isn't free, you paid for it with the flaw.
LCD2YOU 11-13-06, 11:28 AM	The very concept of a flaw is that you get a feat. It isn't free, you paid for it with the flaw.Sorry. That don't fly. Is it in the RAW somewhere? If it is, then one can do it unless the DM changes it and I will not argue against RAW. I will say that a player in my game who has a flaw like that best really wnat it for the "challenge" as I will invoke Rule 0 and change it. If it is not RAW, then any player that wants to be blind can be but all that they get is a +2 Listen check. It ain't fair, but gimping one's character to role-play and then expecting something in return is total bunk. If you want to gimp your character, do so. Don't expect anything in return. If you're doing it for role-playing purposes, enjoy it as that is going to be your reward.
Reinforcements 11-13-06, 11:42 AM	Sorry. That don't fly. Is it in the RAW somewhere? If it is, then one can do it unless the DM changes it and I will not argue against RAW. I will say that a player in my game who has a flaw like that best really wnat it for the "challenge" as I will invoke Rule 0 and change it. If it is not RAW, then any player that wants to be blind can be but all that they get is a +2 Listen check. It ain't fair, but gimping one's character to role-play and then expecting something in return is total bunk. If you want to gimp your character, do so. Don't expect anything in return. If you're doing it for role-playing purposes, enjoy it as that is going to be your reward. Flaws are in Unearthed Arcana, and a couple other places too, I think. The idea is you take a flaw, and get a free feat in return. The flaws are generally things that affect any class (no "lose caster levels" flaws) and are always worse than feat counterparts (there might be a flaw that gives you -2 AC, as opposed to Dodge's +1). Giving Blind-Fight for free to a blind character is perfectly reasonable because 1. Being blind is MUCH WORSE than any flaw. 2. "Where's the sacrifice?" How about the fact that Blind-Fight doesn't begin to eliminate the penalties for blindness? While I don't especially feel like looking up exactly what it does, Blind-Fight sure as hell doesn't say, "You take no penalties for not being able to see." 3. I agree that actually eliminating all penalties for blindness would be stupid. Earlier I said you could just be "blind, but not" (for flavor reasons), but I take that back. You wanna be blind, take Blind-Fight for free. Maybe try to get blindsense or blindsight somehow, because unless you do, you're pretty gimped.
LCD2YOU 11-13-06, 11:54 AM	Flaws are in Unearthed ArcanaYou lost me on it right there. Unearthed Errata is not allowed at my table. I don't own it and never will. It sucks. It ranks up there with 1st Edition Psionics as far as being broken and not needed. Why they brought it back, save to make $$$$ is beyond reason. It is madness.and a couple other places too, I think.Then it is RAW of a sort, but not SRD. Doesn't matter. UA is not something I place any stock in.The idea is you take a flaw, and get a free feat in return. The flaws are generally things that affect any class (no "lose caster levels" flaws) and are always worse than feat counterparts (there might be a flaw that gives you -2 AC, as opposed to Dodge's +1).I understand the concept. Call me a purist or whatever but it has been my experience that "flaw/reward" based systems bring out the "rewards" and forget about the "flaw" far too often. So, it is RAW in UA. It is still not SRD (I must seperate the two as the stuff in BoED and BoVD - or is it BoSTD? - is also RAW but total crap on many things) and you want to be blind? In my game you still can be. Here's your +2 Bonus to listen and I suggest strongly that for one of your feats, that is if you have more than one feat from class or species bonus, be Blindfight. There. Now the player can really play their character's disability and have something really to crow about.
Deathstalker 11-13-06, 01:19 PM	Well, if you absolutely have to play a blind character, the only thing I can really recommend is that you start with 18 wisdom, then either play an aasimar or make your character older for the wisdom bonus so that you start with a minimum 19, then take blindsight 5' radius. I'd recommend making your character older anyway and then justifying the feat with an in game roleplaying explanation that you've had time to adjust to your condition with age. This will penalize you in that: 1)You're still blind, so you can't read, you can't make spot checks, you probably either can't or have great difficulty writing, you have no idea of color, you can't "see" things beyond 5', so it can be hard to gauge direction, landmarks, etc. 2)You have to spend a feat to overcome your disability even though it's only to a smaller degree. If you really want to do this, I highly recommend you speak to your gm about it first, and please, for the love of god, if you'd like to do this, do it for a roleplaying reason and treat this solution as a compromise that will make for an interesting game. Enough people have pointed out that it's kind of dumb and very childish if you want to take the stance of "Man I want to be blind because it's so cool to not see anything, but I don't want to be penalized for it, I just want to be able to be like 'kazow! I just cut you in half and it's more pwnage 'cuz I'm blind, yo!' cuz that'll be so awesome! Right? Right?" Right. So, please don't do this to be a stupid cliche.
trapspringer 11-13-06, 02:15 PM	.... Then you are approaching the situation with a closed mind. That's hardly productive. Edit: And you should have announced your closed-minded paradigm at the very start of this; although it admittedly weakens your agrument it is kinda' extremely important to understanding your argument (or lack there of).
Reinforcements 11-13-06, 02:26 PM	You lost me on it right there. Unearthed Errata is not allowed at my table. I don't own it and never will. It sucks. Sorry? I happen to like UA (understanding that some stuff in it is unbalanced). Call me a purist or whatever but it has been my experience that "flaw/reward" based systems bring out the "rewards" and forget about the "flaw" far too often. That is the general complaint raised against the flaw system, yes. It has some merit - it is certainly possible to find a less-than-well-designed flaw that doesn't affect your character significantly and use it to get a feat extra early. However, in this particular case, that is not what's going on. A permanently blind character with a bonus Blind-Fight feat is still massively gimped, so there really isn't any reason to disallow it. That's the point - he's still blind. Just to clarify, I wouldn't let someone choose any feat for being blind (probably), and if they ever had the blindness removed they would lose the feat as well. As I said, I think most blind characters are stupid and I wouldn't be happy if a player wanted to be Mr. Zatoichi in my game, but there is absolutely no reason to object to a free Blind-Fight from a balance perspective.
LCD2YOU 11-13-06, 02:30 PM	Then you are approaching the situation with a closed mind. That's hardly productive.No. I am approaching it with a very different conclusion that yours for very good reasons based on personal experience. If "Closed mind" = "Doesn't agree with trapspringer", than I am guilty. But I am no more guilty that you with a closed mind to my position.Edit: And you should have announced your closed-minded paradigm at the very start of this; although it admittedly weakens your agrument it is kinda' extremely important to understanding your argument (or lack there of).No I announce my reasons why giving them something to offset a disability makes it a "Gimme". My arguemtent is sound, unlike yours where you seem to want an open mind to where your brain falls out. Are you going to continue with insults? I will if you want.
trapspringer 11-13-06, 02:34 PM	Yea, I will. Your argument so far has been "I don't want to give them something for free." When anyone says "but it isn't free, they are blind. That sucks." You say "Being blind sucks, and you shouldn't get anything for free." That isn't logic, it isn't reason, and it is five cents shy of retarded when you follow it with, "I give blind people +2 to listen for free."
LCD2YOU 11-13-06, 02:39 PM	Withdrawn
Reinforcements 11-13-06, 02:46 PM	You know, LCD, I was about to tacitly agree with you that Trapspringer was being a jerk, until I read your whole last post and realized you ignored everything I just said and repeated yourself, again. Also, I don't really care whether or not you like UA, but I do think it's silly to be all, "Unearthed Arcana? SMASH!!!"
trapspringer 11-13-06, 02:51 PM	I was about to tacitly agree with you that Trapspringer was being a jerk, until I read your whole last post and realized you ignored everything I just said and repeated yourself, again That was the source of my fustration (and the basis of my insults), too, and admittedly I was a little curt.
Cifer 11-13-06, 03:11 PM	So, it is RAW in UA. It is still not SRD (I must seperate the two as the stuff in BoED and BoVD - or is it BoSTD? - is also RAW but total crap on many things) The funny part, of course, is that it is contained in the SRD... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm All in all, I'd be treating it as a regular flaw and giving out blindfight in return. As said, wise old blind swordmasters are awesome - young blind ones just suck in their field of expertise.
Sereno 11-13-06, 03:20 PM	My biggest complaint about ANY flaw/reward system is that, to my way of thinking, they simply make no sense. Why should having a flaw grant you a reward? Most feats are either combat oriented or skill oriented ... why should taking some flaw (especially an esoteric "social" flaw) make you a better fighter or skill-monkey? Why does having an obnoxious body odor let me learn Cleave sooner? Why should having one hand make me better at Spot and Listen?
Tyler Do'Urden 11-13-06, 03:26 PM	Flaws are open content and thus are featured in at least one SRD site. However, blindness shouldn't be treated as a flaw simply because it is so much worse than the other flaws. In a world where spells like regeneration and remove blindness are available, I don't see the point of carrying around a curable disability.
trapspringer 11-13-06, 03:32 PM	Flaws are open content and thus are featured in at least one SRD site. However, blindness shouldn't be treated as a flaw simply because it is so much worse than the other flaws. In a world where spells like regeneration and remove blindness are available, I don't see the point of carrying around a curable disability. I agree. This is why you have to incorperate some kind of wierd curse or evil magic or even some kind of bizarre vow. A good player can explain anything away.
Reinforcements 11-13-06, 03:33 PM	Flaws are open content and thus are featured in at least one SRD site. However, blindness shouldn't be treated as a flaw simply because it is so much worse than the other flaws. In a world where spells like regeneration and remove blindness are available, I don't see the point of carrying around a curable disability. Which is one of the reasons why a blind character in D&D is stupid. That said, if a player insists on being permanently, incurably blind, I still say it's reasonable to give them Blind-Fight for free. After trying to convince them why it was a stupid idea, of course. :D
Cifer 11-13-06, 03:56 PM	Why should having a flaw grant you a reward? Because putting no points in INT and leaving the stat at 8 enables you to put more into STR. Because a wizard balances it's spellcasting abilities with D4 hit dice. A balance of weaknesses and strengths is the base of most systems, save for rolling, if we exclude that even there putting your strong rolls somewhere means they will not be available at other points.
Sulaco 11-13-06, 05:17 PM	Why should having a flaw grant you a reward? Cos it's a game, not real life. That is still no reason why being blind should net you Blind Fight for free. If the DM rules that it is a flaw then you get a bonus feat feat. If you are smart you will make that feat Blind Fight, but it isn't a given - or a gimmee. Not every blind character is a kick-ass fighter (I wish they were, though, cos then it would no longer be "kewl" and people would stop making threads like this).
High Octane 11-13-06, 06:46 PM	I want to make a blind character that starts blind, In the immortal words of George Carlin..... WHY???
Guroth the Forsaken 11-13-06, 07:55 PM	I want to make a blind character that starts blind, but how would you make it a balance and playable character? We gave our guy blind sense. He was a fighter and kicked major ass, but needed some guidance to get into the area of the fight. He wore his helmet backwards just to throw off the opponents. :D
nightwing 11-15-06, 03:36 PM	I'd give a blind character +10 ranks in listen, and perhaps replace the "spot" skill with a similar "smell" skill when it comes to detecting nearby creatures. Other than that, they'd have to figure out how to deal with an adventuring career themselves. Things like dipolmacy and sense motive would balance out because better hearing would be offset by less seeing (which is important for interpreting body language, etc). It might make sense to give the character a penalty on wisdom because wisdom is, among other things, the character's awareness of the environment around him, which is severely inhibited without sight. I think it could be fun to try. Think about a wizard who is blind but has cast permanent detect magic, detect evil, see invisibilty, tongues, etc, on himself which give him an eerie feeling that makes people wonder, "How did he know that?" and proves himself handy, yet wierd and cumbersome. He can't see the pothole in front of him and therefore needs a constant guide, but he can "see" the magical auras around him in the dungeon and help the party avoid magical traps, creatures, etc. It kind of translates to a wierd sort of 6th sense.
Harem_Trained 11-15-06, 11:00 PM	I had a blind monk cohort once. He always stayed next to my sorcerer and fought anyone who came adjacent to us. Although it was cliché and he totally sucked, it was funny as hell. one time the party was getting clobbered so the monk decided to use his crossbow. My wizard tried to direct him as best as possible. Needless to say the only thing he hit was another PC who ended up unconscious because of it. Although I would not give free anything to a blind character That’s just me. If your DM gives you Blind Fighting or something like that who cares. Just don't go overboard. We all have different styles of play. Besides its only a game.
Kobold_Avenger 11-15-06, 11:59 PM	My biggest complaint about ANY flaw/reward system is that, to my way of thinking, they simply make no sense. Why should having a flaw grant you a reward? Most feats are either combat oriented or skill oriented ... why should taking some flaw (especially an esoteric "social" flaw) make you a better fighter or skill-monkey? Why does having an obnoxious body odor let me learn Cleave sooner? Why should having one hand make me better at Spot and Listen? I'm a minotaur, I have +8 to strength and other goodies. Why do I need a LA? I mean really how should i suffer penalities for being strong?:evillaugh
Vashwood 11-16-06, 12:16 AM	Might wanna check out the Shadow Sun Ninja from Tome of Battle. Has an ability where you sacrifice all of your normal senses to gain the ability to "see" other blinded people. Also, you get a bonus on fighting them ... kinda cool, really.
Sereno 11-16-06, 08:54 AM	I'm a minotaur, I have +8 to strength and other goodies. Why do I need a LA? I mean really how should i suffer penalities for being strong?:evillaugh LA isn't a penalty ... it's just a game mechanic that allows you to gauge your strength against other Core PCs. It also make SENSE. You're (supposedly) as powerful as an 8th level PC, you should be earning XP as an 8th level PC.... Smelling bad, or stuttering, or a fear of the dark doesn't equal learning an extra combat technique over your non-smelly, non-stuttering friend.... Yeah, I realize that they're both *game mechanics* ... but one makes sense and the other doesn't.
trapspringer 11-16-06, 11:31 AM	Sereno, your posts are generally pretty on the mark. I don't always agree with, but your arguments are generally pretty solid and thought out. This time, though, I call B.S. It doesn't make any sense for someone who is bigger and stronger to have a harder time learning to fight. The LA mechanic is an arbitrary balancing system with no basis in logic beyong a metagame level, just like the flaw system. 'Course one of these systems is vital to the game while the other is not, but still....
Sulaco 11-16-06, 12:20 PM	LA isn't a penalty ... it's just a game mechanic that allows you to gauge your strength against other Core PCs. It also make SENSE. You're (supposedly) as powerful as an 8th level PC, you should be earning XP as an 8th level PC.... Smelling bad, or stuttering, or a fear of the dark doesn't equal learning an extra combat technique over your non-smelly, non-stuttering friend.... Yeah, I realize that they're both *game mechanics* ... but one makes sense and the other doesn't. No, both of them make sense as game mechanics. The only thing that doesn't make any sense is trying to apply real-world logic to is and using obviously hyperbolic and extreme examples to make your point.
Sereno 11-16-06, 12:20 PM	Sereno, your posts are generally pretty on the mark. I don't always agree with, but your arguments are generally pretty solid and thought out. Thanks! This time, though, I call B.S. It doesn't make any sense for someone who is bigger and stronger to have a harder time learning to fight. The LA mechanic is an arbitrary balancing system with no basis in logic beyong a metagame level, just like the flaw system. 'Course one of these systems is vital to the game while the other is not, but still.... Actually, it does. Think about it this way ... why is it harder for someone who's already GOOD at fighting to get better? Why is it harder to get from 9th to 10th than from 1st to 2nd? You'd think that high-level PCs would gain skills FASTER than low-level PCs because they are already better and have a bigger foundation to build on. But, even in reality, that's not the case. Take fencing. You can learn to fence in a couple of months (I did, in college P.E.). In those couple of months you go from not knowing how to hold a sword to actually being able to block and "poke people with the correct end" ... but, it can take years and years of dedicated training to reach a competitive level, and more years to reach Olympic level. The whole concept of "minutes to learn, lifetime to master" is what I'm getting at. If you think about it in DnD and "experience" terms, you come up with something like this: A good-and-experienced fighter is going to defeat many more foes than a good-but-inexperienced fighter. He's going to be using the same techniques that he knows already work, over and over. He's not "experiencing" anything new ... he's not expanding his knowledge or reaching for something different/better. It's the same reason why you can't reach high level fighting the same kobolds all your life. It's only when the fighter gets into combats in which he must extend himself (fighting a tougher foe or one with different skills than he's used to), that he is actually learning something new. Essentially, having LA just means that you've come into the game with a certain set of skills (equivalent to a PC of your level). Take the minotaur fighter. He's much stronger and has several skills (Charge? Bull Rush?) that he's really good at (because he's a minotaur) ... when dealing with lesser foes he doesn't really need to learn anything new/more he can just charge in and smash them with his axe (or whatever). However, when he starts meeting tougher foes, he's got to extend himself and learn better fighting techniques. Creatures are hitting harder, or finding the chinks in his armor more often, so he needs to learn better combat techniques to fell his foes more quickly. It's roughly the same. It's harder to learn new skills because he doesn't really *need* the new skills, his old ones are working (most of the time) just fine.
trapspringer 11-16-06, 12:56 PM	Take fencing. You can learn to fence in a couple of months (I did, in college P.E.). In those couple of months you go from not knowing how to hold a sword to actually being able to block and "poke people with the correct end" ... but, it can take years and years of dedicated training to reach a competitive level, and more years to reach Olympic level. The whole concept of "minutes to learn, lifetime to master" is what I'm getting at. What you describe is something akin to a linear scale. Initially you have one "unit" of skill. Next you learn another "unit", thus doubling you proficiency. When you learn a second "unit," you have only increased your skill by half. While I agree that one doesn't grow as quickly later in his or her career as he or she does initially, I don't necessarily believe it is because they aren't learning as much. That's really neither here nor there. I'm just presenting an alternative to your theory. (btw, I've got two years of period fencing under my belt, so I know where you're coming from.) Essentially, having LA just means that you've come into the game with a certain set of skills (equivalent to a PC of your level). Take the minotaur fighter. He's much stronger and has several skills (Charge? Bull Rush?) that he's really good at (because he's a minotaur) ... when dealing with lesser foes he doesn't really need to learn anything new/more he can just charge in and smash them with his axe (or whatever). However, when he starts meeting tougher foes, he's got to extend himself and learn better fighting techniques. Creatures are hitting harder, or finding the chinks in his armor more often, so he needs to learn better combat techniques to fell his foes more quickly. It's roughly the same. It's harder to learn new skills because he doesn't really *need* the new skills, his old ones are working (most of the time) just fine. I disagree with your thesis, though. I wrestled varsity in highschool and am now starting in on Judo. My experience as a wrestler is not hindering my study of judo, but rather is facilitating my understanding of the concepts we are being taught. Am I using things I learned from wrestling? Yes. But twice as often I am using the new techniques I am learning, inculding chokes, arm bars, and a variety of new pins. I'm also learning these things more quickly than those new students with more limited grappling backgrounds precisely because of my larger base of experience and an understanding of the theory behind the practice. That said, I think your side of this argument is also valid, and seeing as how this kind of topic is mostly a trade off of anecdotal evidence and qualitative data, it's gunna' be a tough one. I think that given the possibility of an explanation justifying either side, the question comes down to "what will make my players happiest?" If your campaign would be hindered by the addition of flaws, don't use them, but I don't think "it doesn't make any sense" is a good reason to dissapoint players in a world of dragons and faeries. This is especially true givin that the inverse of your argument can be used to justify the benefits of a flaw.
Sereno 11-16-06, 01:30 PM	I disagree with your thesis, though. I wrestled varsity in highschool and am now starting in on Judo. My experience as a wrestler is not hindering my study of judo, but rather is facilitating my understanding of the concepts we are being taught. Am I using things I learned from wrestling? Yes. But twice as often I am using the new techniques I am learning, inculding chokes, arm bars, and a variety of new pins. I'm also learning these things more quickly than those new students with more limited grappling backgrounds precisely because of my larger base of experience and an understanding of the theory behind the practice. That's certainly true ... but, it also (somewhat) supports my general arguement about "level progression" ... learning the skills is easier at the beginning. The skills themselves are easier at the beginning (a front-kick is much easier than a jump-spinning-roundhouse-kick) which also facilitates this. That said, I think your side of this argument is also valid, and seeing as how this kind of topic is mostly a trade off of anecdotal evidence and qualitative data, it's gunna' be a tough one. I think that given the possibility of an explanation justifying either side, the question comes down to "what will make my players happiest?" I think we're going down a difficult road by even equating leveling (or LA) with the Flaw system as presented in the SRD. When it comes right down to it, LA is *really* just there so that a player of a non-standard PC (1st level minotaur fighter, for example) doesn't completely overshadow his human and elven companions at NO cost.... If your campaign would be hindered by the addition of flaws, don't use them, but I don't think "it doesn't make any sense" is a good reason to dissapoint players in a world of dragons and faeries. This is especially true givin that the inverse of your argument can be used to justify the benefits of a flaw. For me, verisimiltude is very important. I can accept dragons and pixies and magical spells. Traits I have no problem with as they incorporate both a plus and a minus that are (at least) related. I just can't accept that being Inattentive, Murky-Eyed or having a Meager Fortitude (to pick just a couple of SRD Flaws) should net you a Cleave or a Great Cleave.... It certainly *can* work if the player is going for a certain type of PC, but most examples I've ever seen were not true to any recognizable theme....
High Octane 11-16-06, 02:40 PM	I think Serano is trying to make the point that if someone doesnt NEED to learn to fight better, he wont learn how to fight better. Same reason some kids are advanced grades when they already have extraordinary ability. Think about it. If you can beat small enemies with one easy blow, wouldnt you learn less about fighting than some guy who has to duck, dodge, spin parry, thrust? That is the theory anyway.
Sereno 11-16-06, 03:31 PM	I think Sereno is trying to make the point that if someone doesnt NEED to learn to fight better, he wont learn how to fight better. Same reason some kids are advanced grades when they already have extraordinary ability. Think about it. If you can beat small enemies with one easy blow, wouldnt you learn less about fighting than some guy who has to duck, dodge, spin parry, thrust? That is the theory anyway. That is *exactly* what I'm saying ... and, I believe, the LA and XP mechanic does bear this out (at least in a limited fashion).
trapspringer 11-16-06, 05:21 PM	...and like I said, I get where he is coming from but from my experience that is not so fundamental a truth as he professes. But, like I said, most of the evidence that can be offered up will be anecdotal and as such both view points likely have some validity. For me, verisimiltude is very important. I can accept dragons and pixies and magical spells. Traits I have no problem with as they incorporate both a plus and a minus that are (at least) related. I just can't accept that being Inattentive, Murky-Eyed or having a Meager Fortitude (to pick just a couple of SRD Flaws) should net you a Cleave or a Great Cleave.... See, your argument can be used to explain that precise combination. Dude can't hit as often, so he makes up for it by hitting really hard and just keeps right on going. You couldn't actually get great cleave with flaws becuase you have to take them at first level and there is a BaB requirement IIRC, but you could further explain that the character has had to learn to dispatch enemies quickly because he can't take a hit as well as the next guy thanks to his meager fortitude. I think a player should be able to take a flaw just because it fits the character. Further, I don't mind hookin' 'em up with a feat in exchange for a mechanical representation of a character's weakness, even if it doesn't flow logically and intuitively from that weakness. Let's face it, the most obvious and intuitive feat one would derive from weak-willed is iron will, and that basically defeats the purpose.
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-16-06, 06:32 PM	Play one of them sentient bat races.
Sir_Wolfgar 11-16-06, 08:03 PM	I think the hardest part about playing a blind charecter is not being able to READ. True, if you have some helpful party members, it could be overcome, but look at what you give up. No skill books, no road signs, no battle co-ordinating flares to spot, no drow sign language, and no libraries to research in. There's no way you could play a classic wizard, or use a scroll, or (IMO) play a cleric (I like to use prayer books). YOu would pretty much have to play a melee fighter, as even bards need to read music. Unless (however unlikely it is) your DM allows brail.
Neofish 11-16-06, 08:16 PM	Flaws are fine, they make sense. A person who cannot swing a sword to save his life (non-combatant) would logically focus on another area of expertise (archery, spellcasting, picking locks). Taking power attack or cleave is fine if your unattentive, it just means that your character never paid any attention to anyone during training, and instead poured everything he had in hacking and slashing when others may have been learning proper defense. Taking spell focus (enchantment) is fine when you take the weak-willed flaw, just means that you were so convinced that enchantment was the greatest school of the nine (due to your horrid ability to resist its effects yourself) that you have become somewhat driven to study all that you can about it. Flaw are fine as you put some minimal thought into it. (BTW, there are no "afraid of the dark" or "scared of spiders" flaws last time I checked, so when people make thier arguement based around something non-existant it doesn't really help to strengthen their case).
Harem_Trained 11-17-06, 12:46 AM	Sir_Wolfgar, being blind should not restrict a characters class choice. Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are blind bards, Omar Abdel-Rahman is a blind cleric (and a terrorist leader), Frances Browne was a blind poet and novelist A wizard's spell book could be something other that a printed book; runes carved on a staff, a string of beads, runes scared into his flesh, arcane writing stiched into cloth, ect. Being blind just makes a character suck alot at ranged attacks and suck a little at everything else.
Harem_Trained 11-17-06, 01:02 AM	the pinball wizard was blind (and deaf) as well... :D
trapspringer 11-17-06, 01:20 AM	But he didn't do jack-**** until he got his sight and hearing back.
High Octane 11-17-06, 01:28 AM	But he didn't do jack-**** until he got his sight and hearing back. He sure played a mean pinball.
trapspringer 11-17-06, 01:29 AM	Touche.
Kargush 11-17-06, 03:20 AM	I once made a blind NPC for an oriental campaign. A monk/ninja of the crecent moon. He had 60ft(or was it 30...?) blindsight from levels as a ninja. Was immensely cool when he plucked a coin a PC threw to him(he was playing at a local tavern) out of the air... Oh, the look on the player's face... :D
PHGraves 11-17-06, 08:45 AM	I think the hardest part about playing a blind charecter is not being able to READ. True, if you have some helpful party members, it could be overcome, but look at what you give up. No skill books, no road signs, no battle co-ordinating flares to spot, no drow sign language, and no libraries to research in. There's no way you could play a classic wizard, or use a scroll, or (IMO) play a cleric (I like to use prayer books). YOu would pretty much have to play a melee fighter, as even bards need to read music.Because,of course, your way is the only way to play. If the DM allows it, and the player understands the negatives, there is no issue here. There are already rules for alternate scrolls/potions, etc. Go the Blind-Fighting route (don't forget Hear the Unseen feat from CAdv). Play a Sorceror/Warlock/Spellcaster that does not need to learn their spells from books. If the DM is willing, there are many more ideas that can be done.
Sereno 11-17-06, 10:14 AM	even bards need to read music. Most of the best musicians I know learn new tunes "by ear" and cannot read music at all....