with spell like Ice knife, burning hand, thunderclap, fireball etc... all those AoE that deal damage to all creature within range (including friends). when I play with my friend I often tell the barbarian to run in, gather all the ennemy on himself, then I'll cast fireball on him (while he rage, with advantage on dex save he take 25% damage) and my fireball affect all the ennemies and my friend agree to the strategy and this is perfectly fine since the barbarian agree with that strategy.
But recently we got one of those "RP" player, who created a blind wizard using only AoE spell. He pin point the location of monster with his hearing then cast a AoE in that region. Last week, our sorcerer got somehow stuck in melee combat with the enemy, and our blind wizard cast Ice knife to the ennemy hoping to at least deal damage with the splash attack. The sorcerer did not wanted to be hit by the ice knife (being a sorcerer he was already in trouble stuck in melee and he couldn't really afford getting hit by the ice knife).
If the sorcerer player say no I don't want to be attacked, does the wizard can still cast his ice knife (or any other AoE spell) in a manner that will including the sorcerer within the splash radius? The wizard usually determine where the AoE land by rolling a D8 determining where around target the AoE will land.
-If the wizard have the possibility to affect the ennemy without affecting the sorcerer
-If by including hte sorcerer he can hit 3 creatures, but if he avoid the sorcerer he afefct only 1 creature?
-If there is no way to affect teh creature without affecting the sorcerer?
I think a blind wizard who has nothing but AoE spells is the very definition of passive-aggressive disruptive play. As a player I wouldn't be at the same table as that person because I like to play for the challenge and comraderie of D&D, not randomly blasting other people because I get off on being a PITA.
Primarchx wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
In the case of the blind wizard, I wouldn't call it PvP because the wizard doesn't even know that the sorcerer is in the AoE. If the sorcerer's player tries to stop the wizards' player, that is metagaming and is a more serious problem IMO.
CahPahkah wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
The argument that it is not PVP is nonsense. The character may not know where the sorcerer is, the PLAYER certainly does so it is a textbook case of a player damaging another player. Player versus Player..
The question simply is wether the in character excuse the "blind" wizards player is using is one you find acceptable..or more importantly wether your table/DM find it acceptable.. if the answer is no, its disruptive and we have rules for that 
imaginaryfriend wrote:
One thing that has not yet been stated in this thread, but which is an important detail to mention:
The Blind Wizard knows where their fellow combatants are without needing to make a check
- Except in the case of anyone who is benefiting from the Hide action.
- The only penalties suffered by a blind character, are those listed in the blind condition - disadvantage on attacks, auto-fail perception checks relying on sight, and grant advantage to attackers.
Characters make noise. Unless the blinded character is also deafened, they know where their fellow party members are. As such, blindness is an invalid excuse for hitting their fellow PCs in an AoE - as the player knew full well where their fellow PCs are.
In addition, were I playing a blind PC - I would make certain to take the alert and/or observant feats ASAP. Roleplaying is no excuse for screwing the party, or being a liability (always granting advantage on attack rolls -vs a wizard? Yeah - nope. That will put undue strain on party healing resources).
Kalani wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Kalani makes a good point that I've incorporated into the entry in the Recommended Rulings on this issue -- if a blind character claims to be able to identify the location of enemies by using Perception checks, any allies that are not expressly trying to avoid being detected should also be detectable by that same check (one might argue that allies would be easier to identify, as their sounds would be more familiar to the blind character).
If pointing this out does not change the player's behavior, and especially if the player appears to ignore this information, the DM should consider that the player is intentionally griefing his party and thus being disruptive and warn the player accordingly.
--
Pauper
(Edit: a larger issue might be, 'can a player create a blind character' -- a blind character is mechanically different from a sighted character, after all, and we've already established that, while players can modify non-mechanical 'fluff' as desired, mechanical 'crunch' is beyond their power to change.)
Is a 'blind' character any different from a character who wears a blindfold all the time, though? That's certainly permissible, given that you can purchase any sort of clothing or fabric. Maybe they have a religious reason for doing so. I can't think of any specific deity for FR that is blind off the top of my head, but there's almost certainly got to be one (almost every detailed mytho-fantasy pantheon has one).
Pauper wrote:
My question is not about if you agree with the scenario, the player RP choice, blind player capacity/legality etc....
My question is more about where does the line is drawn?
the wizard casting fireball on the barbarian who agree to it is fine?
the wizard who cast fireball in order to catch a maximum among of ennemies (the most effective placement), but catch a party member who do not agree to be caught in the blast is consider disruptive?
the wizard who cast a fireball in order to catch the ennemy but cannot not catch the unwilling player is he consider disruptive (casting fireball in a 20ft radius room)?
the wizard who cast fireball in order to catch the ennemies could avoid the unwilling player, but refuse for "RP" reason?
what if the unwilling player was warn that the wizard would cast his fireball at that location so he shoudn't move there, but he want there anyway? is it the unwilling player being disruptive in this case?
Where do you draw the line determining if this is simply colateral damage, friendly fire, PvP and if this is diruptive play, and how do you determine who is at fault? or is that up to the DM interpretation since the ALPG only specified disruptive action, without defining the word disruptive? (only giving some obvious example, like acting violently in real life.
The team is suppose to work as a team, but a wizard casting fireball to kill 20 kobolts in a single action, but would caught a unwilling player. The alternative would be to get only 5 kobold with the fireball without hitting the unwilling player. Who is disruptive? the wizard affecting the unwilling player? or the unwilling player refusing to sacrifice in order to kill 20 kobold quickly avoiding a long fight where the fighter can only 2 per turn (since he only have 2 attacks)
So as many many MANY people have already indicated: there is no such line. You, i.e. the DM + table draw that line. If you are looking for other people to farm the responsibility of drawing that line off on. No such luck. You all get to decide and shoulder the responsibility.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Unless the wizard is desperate, or callous - they would never willingly harm their PC, or include them in the area of a harmful effect....
While something like hypnotic pattern is justifiable (depending on circumstance), including unwilling PCs in the AoE of a fireball should only occur under extreme circumstances - and by that I mean, the choice between hitting an ally with fireball and hoping to kill the enemy - or a TPK before the parties next turn.
Including willing PCs in an AoE however is a grey area. By rights the PC should still try to avoid hitting willing PCs with a negative spell effect - but should be more willing to do so if the circumstances warrant.
Including a willing tiefling rogue with evasion in the AoE of a fireball?
- Not that big a deal. if they say yes, and are willing to take the risk - go for it. There is a good chance of them taking no damage, and even if they do - it will be greatly reduced (by 3/4).
Including a willing, raging Bear Barbarian in the AoE?
- I would be more cautious of doing so - as they will take some damage from the attack (between 25% and 50%).
My biggest concern is the fact that the character only chose AoE spells.
- Novice/First Time Wizard? I would be more forgiving, and would encourage them to diversify their spell selection, informing them that variety helps the character to overcome more challenges. Then again, if they were a novice (or had never played a wizard previously), I would strongly discourage them from playing a blind character in the first place, as it will be hard enough to get the feel for their characters abilities as is.
- Experienced Player? That speaks to intent. Their choice of spells was deliberate, and when we include the fact the character is also blind - this shows clear motives toward disruptive jerk-behavior. I would issue a warning immediately, as soon as such a player tried to use their blindness as an excuse for hitting the PC (without consent).
- Now, if there was consent to hit the PC - I would allow a little roleplaying - "Sorry I hit you with that fireball. I thought you were further away from the [mook] than you were". That is just good roleplaying.... But there is a difference between roleplaying, and using something as an excuse to be a jerk.
Kalani wrote:
Like I said.. if all players are fine with it, no problems.. As soon as one person is not fine with it, something that needs to be worked out at the table. Me personally, my characters have voluntarity taken so much friendly fire I lost count. But not everyone is cool with it and the intent is for everyone to enjoy themselves. No matter what concept people want to play, I feel that it should not be stepping on other people.
But yeah, it does sound like a good session. Just something they need to work out for future reference though
Stormborn20 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Play is disruptive if it is causing anyone to have less fun than they should be having (excluding the 'The Dice Are Trying To Kill Me' option, obviously).
Reasonable people should ask before roasting another player's character. But I played a lot of LFR.
How I would draw the line at my tables:
the wizard casting fireball on the barbarian who agree to it is fine?
Of course.
the wizard who cast fireball in order to catch a maximum among of ennemies (the most effective placement), but catch a party member who do not agree to be caught in the blast is consider disruptive?
Yes. I would tell them that they cannot cast the spell. If they insist, the spell would fail and waste their turn, and still cost them the slot.
the wizard who cast a fireball in order to catch the ennemy but cannot not catch the unwilling player is he consider disruptive (casting fireball in a 20ft radius room)?
I'm not sure how this question is different from the previous one.
the wizard who cast fireball in order to catch the ennemies could avoid the unwilling player, but refuse for "RP" reason?
This would likely depend on the RP reason, but I can't imagine a very good RP reason for doing so. Also, I would still want the 'unwilling' player to agree with the RP reason. Otherwise, no go for the wizard.
what if the unwilling player was warn that the wizard would cast his fireball at that location so he shoudn't move there, but he want there anyway? is it the unwilling player being disruptive in this case?
This would depend on the table. If the unwilling player specifically went into the area, knowing I would likely not let the wizard cast the spell because that's how I call things as a DM, in violation of the express wishes of the rest of the players because of an out of character disagreement on a plan, I would rule that disruptive. My punishment for that would likely just be letting the wizard cast the spell.
On the other hand, if you just have a fireball happy wizard, who goes "Oooh, looky, fireball formation! I'm gonna nuke 'em on my turn." and the unwilling player has initiative over the wizard and runs in and starts stabbing, because that's what their character does, and then gets mobbed and reduced to low HP before the wizard's turn, and the wizard still wants to cast fireball, and the person goes 'no, I don't agree', then I would expect the wizard to stand down their fireball and do something else.
Just because fireball is the most efficient spell for dealing with a combat doesn't always mean that it is the right answer. A high DEX wizard with Alert who always nukes the combat before anyone else gets to play is disruptive, if the other players are bothered by it, IMO.
Kalani wrote:
Unseen Attackers and Targets (p194)Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Blind or not, if a character believed it was necessary to cast an area of effect spell that harmed fellow players because he reasoned the harm to the others was necessary to succeed over all and failing to do so is worse, I woudn't have a problem with it as a player or DM. If a player did it just to inflict harm on his fellows for the giggles. His character's alignment better NOT be good, and if there was no just cause, that character could very well face retribution. Not knowing the player, I don't know the intention of the character's actions. Is the player, regardless of character concept, generally doing things to hinder his fellow players? Well, then, its not a "roleplaying" issue, it's a player issue. If the player is generally a cooperative player and just went with a more challenging concept, I could accept that it work with it as a player and DM.
I personally play with friends and family, so, we don't encounter problems like this. Most often, we've a table of characters of good alignments who before we play, establish character bonds in their backgrounds, common motivations and story links. I doubt we'd ever face a situation where somebody at the table is masking causing trouble behind the aegis of roleplaying.
Stormborn20 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
LefferDP wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
LefferDP wrote:
I prepped that adventure (but did not end up running it). I recall no such entry. I do however recall something about their stealth checks beating passive perception (which is common in many adventures) I am away from my PC atm so I will double check when I get home.
It is possible it was a typo. I will also check the unofficial errata document that the campaign staff is maintaining.
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
LefferDP wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I am pretty sure all checks can be made passively - see passive investigate in the observant feat (not mentioned elsewhere) - it's just that perception is the most common passive check.
I use passive insight on a regular basis and passive intelligence/wisdom to give players clues (esp about obvious details they aren't considering or whether their character realizes how stupid their idea is)
All passive checks are 10+modifier
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
LefferDP wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Detection of creatures can be done by multiple senses as per the rules. Sight, smell, hearing etc..
That's why just because you can't see a creature doesn't mean that they are automatically hidden or that you don't know where they are in a dark room. You can hear them breathe, smell their body odor, etc.. Some of you are so focused on just sight itself that you're completely forgetting about the other senses that can allow a creature to know you're there. Which is why rolling stealth to become hidden allows you to not be detected and gain the benefit "creatures don't know where you are while you're hidden".
Regarding "completely dark rooms"
You can always hide from something that cannot see you (see hiding and invisible). As such, a creature in a "completely dark room" can make stealth checks to become hidden, even if they are standing in the middle of the room - assuming the party lacks darkvision.
The reason for this is simple - we rely heavily on sight to the point where our other senses are much less developed (1/4 of our brain is devoted exclusively to vision). Nonhuman races are "mostly" human in this regard, and typically have superior vision. As such, it is relatively easy to hide from us when we are deprived from sight, and forced to rely on our other senses. When forced to rely on our sense of hearing, smell and touch, we lose most of our spatial discernment and are forced to rely on senses which have far less "processing power" devoted to them. As such, we tend to miss things we otherwise wouldn't.
Regarding Blind People
In respect to blind people - it is a well documented fact that chronically blind people can develop heightened smell, hearing, and touch. The leading theory for this involves rewiring part (or all) of the visual cortext to the other senses, granting them increased processing power. It's not that their hearing or smell becomes more sensitive, as it is that their brain begins processing more of the information already being received along those channels, in the absence of the brains favored sense (sight).
Blind people have also been known to use a limited form of human echolocation as part of their sensory data collection. I first learned of human echolocation via the story of Ben Underwood, a long distance athlete who taught himself click-echolocation at the age of 5 after going blind from retinal cancer.
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
You are also bringing up issues no one is debating against.....
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
In case you can't find them on your own:
From Kalani:
The Blind Wizard knows where their fellow combatants are without needing to make a check
no check is required as a rule. Characters automatically know the location of all creatures (in combat) which are not specifically hiding,
As a followup question: - Why was it necessary for the wizard to pinpoint the enemies location with a perception check?
- Unless they were hidden, this was 100% unnecessary - they already knew the location (square) of all combatants.
From Noctaem:
The only time creatures in combat do NOT know where you are is if you take the hide action and become hidden. This is because the hidden condition is the only thing in the entire game that states "creatures don't know where you are". If you are not hidden, creatures know where you are within the effect range of their senses.
The assertion is that you will always, automatically, 'just sense' *exactly* where every single combatant is. No rolls, not comparisons, no checks..... you will just know....
There is no room for uncertainty... and apparently if you can hear them at all... that is enough to know exactly where they are, no uncertainty.....
I would assume that performing a quiet activity (such as reading) would qualify as a passive stealth check. You aren't making a lot of noise, but are not going out of your way to be unheard. Likewise I would assume undead standing motionless in the room to be making use of passive stealth checks, even if the room was well lit (they would simply auto-fail such checks if the party could see them). While I doubt you would hear motionless undead - you would most likely smell them (hense the passive check unless they were trying to remain undetected - in which case they would try to remain upwind).
The game simply assumes that most creatures are making noise as a rule
- Moaning, breathing, shuffling their feet, walking, tapping objects against a hard surface, etc.
- They also leave other tell-tale indications of their presence (some of which require vision to detect) - such as footprints, body odor, air displacement, water displacement, etc.
Rather than trying to calculate all the variables that go into whether a creature is detected (or not) - the game simply handwaves it to state that any creature not actively (or passively) hiding, is automatically detected. The game also states that under normal circumstances - if you are seen (have less than total cover/concealment), you are automatically detected (regardless of stealth check) - although it does make allowances for if a creature is distracted / not expecting company.
I fail to see what your problem is
If you think someone should be undetected in a dark room - make them roll Stealth checks (to become hidden), or use their passive Stealth (if they weren't trying to hide). The character(s) automatically detects any creature whose (passive) Stealth check is less than their passive Perception.
The rules already cover this. You are making a big deal out of nothing.
Passive Checks (p175)
A passive check is a special kind o f ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
Here’s how to determine a character’s total for a passive check:
- 10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14.
The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules in chapter 8.
All of that is completely consistent with what I'm saying, and what the rules say; I'm not sure why you're going so off the rails here.
Kalani and Noctaem are explicitly talking about creatures that are not Hidden (both of the quotes you selected state this assumption directly).
You're talking about creatures that you want to be Hidden, but are refusing to treat them as if they have made Stealth checks (for some reason).
The only problem here that I can see is that you're refusing to align the game mechanics with the narrative examples you're talking about; they work just fine together. You're inventing a problem that isn't a problem.
I'll say I agree more with CahPahkah than with Coredump on this one -- if a DM wants to make use of the various rules for passive Stealth versus passive Perception when characters walk into a dark room, she can. If instead, a DM wants to just roll for initiative and get to the action, he can do that, too.
The only thing I really disagree with is Kalani's comment about blind people developing heightened senses of hearing, smell, and touch -- plenty of experiments have confirmed that blind people learn to get more information out of their other senses than sighted people do, but that's a very different thing from saying they have 'heightened' senses. It's not at all clear that blind peoples' senses are any more acute than sighted people' senses, and sighted people, if they were motivated to do so, could learn echolocation or other similar skills demonstrated by blind people. It's a very persistent myth, much like the 'we only use 10% of our brain' myth.
--
Pauper
I was not talking about myth. I was talking about corroborated facts, and the hypothesis' surrounding those facts. A hypothesis is not a fact in and of itself.
It is a known fact that nerves can be rewired (although the exact mechanism is poorly understood).
The hypothesis is that, without the benefit of sight - the brains of blind people sometimes rewire to grant additional neural connectivity to their other senses, thereby heightening the brains ability to interpret the data it is receiving. It is believed that areas of the brain devoted to vision are sometimes rewired to interpret data from the other senses.
This can be corroborated via CAT and MRI, showing increased brain activity in nonvisual areas of the brain (and sometimes in the visual cortex itself).
With that being said - Human Echolocation is a documented, and scientifically tested fact. Why some blind people develop these skills however, is poorly understood. The fact that such people exist however, is undisputed and backed up by changes in MRI brain activity.
Notable cases of human echolocation include:
- Daniel Kish
- Ben Underwood (known as the most proficient human echolocator ever recorded)
- Tom De Witte
- Dr Lawrence Scadden
- Lucas Murray
- Kevin Warwick
- Juan Ruiz
I am sure there are other cases, but I do not wish to spend hours searching for them.
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
So where did this thread go? 'This isn't an issue because you can detect the precise square of your (not trying to hide) enemies at all times'?
Either I'm not playing by the rules (or intent of the rules), or somebody else isn't.
Noon wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
lol - Daredevil takes the concept of echolocation to a supernatural extreme.
Noctaem wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Noon wrote:
Implicit rules sound like the rock that keeps dragons away - well, do you see any dragons? Then it must be so!
It's not an implicit rule - you have a choice as a GM. Just because as GM you'd decide every PC can know the location of every enemy doesn't mean every other GM has to choose the same way as yourself.
Find GM's who want to be told to do things your way, if you want.
Noon wrote:
Whereas I'd say you are the one making the house rule, insisting the DM has no choice on the matter and all PC's know all enemy locations.
You're basically saying "Even though it doesn't actually say all PC's know all enemy locations, I know they mean that be the case because despite them not actually saying it, I know that's what they meant"
If we were to talk just about what they've actually said in the text, they have not said all PC's know all enemy locations no matter what.
But you're saying "But I know them so well I don't need them to say it to know that's what they mean"
For anyone else reading this, someone can say they know someone else really well and know what they mean without them saying something...and still be wrong!
If someone hasn't said X, even if you read a million things as implying X, it still doesn't mean they've said X or mean X.
Noon wrote:
When you're hidden no one knows where you are. It's a simple logical conclusion that if you're not hidden, people know where you are within the range of their senses.
In order to be X, you must have Y. If you don't have Y, you can't be X.
Its not that logical a conclusion. One could claim it is an ascociation fallacy. Or circular reasoning / defining.
Its a suportable interpretation, even one I can get behind, but please leave logic out of it.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
It's not the only way to benefit from them; however, it is the standard outlined in the PHB. Keep in mind that these rules apply to creatures in a combat scenario. The PHB "implicitly" states that a creature that performs an attack "gives away their position" and making noise also gives away their position. The definition or level noise is left to the DM, which I still don't understand how stating that constitutes ""the DM has no choice". It also defines hiding as an action in combat. As a general rule, a creature should have a good idea about what is around him or her. The DM can make exceptions based on the amount of lattitude given by the rules; however, those exceptions are to the implicitly stated rules. Technically, a DM could give an exception to everything on the map; however, that is goes against the "spirit", quoting a term commonly used by "Kalani", of the ALPG guidelines. But, it would be technically be legal at an AL table in my opinion.
One should also keep in mind that this is just in relation to the AL where some semblence of continuity in the rules between different tables is a desirable. That means promoting the same set of rules with minor variations between tables when possible. Having said that, it's not to say identical rules, just consistently similar rules. My opinion on houserules, in regards to the ALPG, is simple. If you have a general houserule or a standard type of play that deviates from a standard AL table, the DM needs to disclose that rule before the start of play. Why? It gives players the chance to say, I don't want to chance my character on an uncertain, or a houserule that will certainly affect me, rule and walk away from the table. If the DM has to take four hours to disclose his or her houserules, then they are probably going way to overboard on houserules and need to scale it back. If a player has a specific build that might be affected by a DM ruling or houserule, the player needs to disclose it before the session. Why? The DM might have a ruling or small houserule that doesn't impact general gameplay but can affect the player's gameplay. That should be resolved before the start of the session.
Noctaem wrote:
As a DM I try to inform my players of the most relevant interpretations I (would like to) use. And always start a session with the question "are there any mechanics that you think I might rule different on than you would like?". Getting it out in the open asap so it can be settled is always wise. And settling should always include the possibility that you as a DM go the players way..
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
shivafang wrote: