Blind vs Daze? Which is "worse"? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Blind vs Daze? Which is "worse"?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Cohen95
Jul 30, 2008 15:55:38 For reference:

PHB, p. 277 wrote:
#2
tyrandor
Jul 30, 2008 16:17:52 Entirely depend against what you're fighting and what your party is made of to be honest.

Against enemies that depend on their mobility, Dazed is crippling. It's also pretty bad against enemies that need to use a Minor action to sustain an effect (Black Dragon's dark shroud thingie come to mind) as they'll have to pick between doing something or keeping their power up.

In the Black Dragon example, I'd definitly would rather Daze then blind :P.

That being said, against many Brute/Soldier... all they do is get in close combat with your melee and duke it out. Being daze doesn't change all that much there... Blind's a lot better. The -5 to hit is also pretty brutal on brutes, who usually have a poor +hit to start with.
#3
voran
Jul 31, 2008 15:41:36 I agree it depends on the foe. Generally, I like the idea of staggering the enemy so that for at least a turn, they can only do 1 thing. Some creatures might be immune to being blind, but is that true with daze?
#4
kletian999
Jul 31, 2008 17:29:06 If you have any kind of reach or ranged weapon and the target doesn't- dazed is king. Stab + step away= monster wastes entire turn just catching up to you.
#5
Saric
Jul 31, 2008 17:36:45
If you have any kind of reach or ranged weapon and the target doesn't- dazed is king. Stab + step away= monster wastes entire turn just catching up to you.

The monster can still charge you. Thus, nothing was gained other than combat advantage and not provoking an opportunity attack when moving away. However, if the target has a ranged attack/power then you didn't accomplish much unless you dived behind 10 barrels of ale.

Blinded is clearly superior since you can't even see your target and must guess where he is. Who knows, you might get lucky on an area attack.
#6
nightwyrm
Jul 31, 2008 22:34:17 You have to move at least 2 squares to charge. If there's only one square between you and the enemy, he can't charge you.
#7
Saric
Aug 01, 2008 0:09:01
You have to move at least 2 squares to charge. If there's only one square between you and the enemy, he can't charge you.

Aye, but since he didn't define how many steps or a shift it was open to interpretation. However, I don't think it will always be a 1v1 fight. Considering that the average party has 5 members, the monster will most likely be able to charge at least 1 pc unless there is a large assortment of obstacles or all the pc's happen to be 1 square away.

This is why I still believe that the blind condition > daze.
#8
Ishamaelus
Aug 01, 2008 6:47:35 Having been involved in an encounter where the NPCs had Daze as their special ability I'd honestly have to say that it extremely harsh, especially in encounters where high mobility/movement is preferable or needed. The loss of the additional two actions makes things very difficult to effectively break the ongoing affect of daze, especially if the NPC is able to reapply the affect.

Having not fully experienced blind yet in an encounter I'd find it difficult to judge how bad it really is, but the total concealment, while a big negative modifier can be overcome by a good roll, and given the other disadvantages are the same as daze provides leads me to believe that Daze is worse that Blind, especially when the effect is being used against you.

I'd also say Daze is extremely effective for helping to tie down a specific NPC as an additional form of crowd control if required.

All this makes me feel that Daze is more powerful that Blind, especially in encounters with multiple NPCs.
#9
MrCustomer
Aug 01, 2008 14:58:09 Blinded is -5 to hit, but that depends of course on knowing which square the enemy is in, which in turn requires a perception check (unless the enemy is right smack in front of you) and with multiple foes and allies about things could go bad with a blind man waving a sword about. A blind creature can't see the rogue move in for the attack, etc.

On the other hand Daze is likely more effective then Blind in other situations, especially when hindering the enemies actions is more effective. IN all I think Daze is more effective in close combat.

I would blind ranged opponents, such as archers, but going tow to toe with a ferocious monster I would likely prefer Daze.
#10
frostythepyro
Aug 01, 2008 15:01:47 When you are blinded you have to use the rules for targeting what you cannot see pg 281. and sense the only way to have any idea where the target is is by perception check, yeah the -10 perception matters alot. Total concelment is MORE than just -5 to hit, it -5 to hit and you have to GUESS where the target is. So unless you can rock the area/burst attacks, or your just trying to run away, blind is signifigantly worse.

Edit
I got post ninjaed however
(unless the enemy is right smack in front of you)

Concelment works at melee, even if the enemy is right smack in front of you, you still need a perception check and you still have to guess which of the 8 adjacent squares he is in, assuming he hasnt moved FROM being right smack in front of you.
#11
voran
Aug 01, 2008 16:07:43 I'd think Daze also works well when in tandem with something like a Controller's battlefield mods. Like when they're stuck in a cloud 'o dooooom and now they're dazed and have to choose whether to move, or attack, remaining stuck in the area of effect for another turn.
#12
guntherfuzz8
Aug 01, 2008 23:08:01 When used against me... Dazed. It sucks, but being Blind takes a lot more effort to get rid of.

When used against opponents... Dazed is great when used on creatures that need to move around a lot or deal a lot of damage. Your Defender/Striker can make their attack and move away forcing the opponent to use it's single action to follow trying to get in attack range again. Blind is better against ranged attackers and Controllers, although they can still use bursts and blasts to try and target you.
#13
eldiran
Aug 02, 2008 1:51:51 It's definitely very situational. Blind is very effective when you have a rogue, and/or the creature lacks close or area effects. Dazed can be extremely useful against Solos, who typically have multiple standard actions. This really drags them down. Dazed is also very good against foes without ranged attacks; at least, when you yourself keep out of range.

I would say that either can be better, depending. Overall, though, I think blind is a more potent affliction.
#14
pokol
Aug 02, 2008 13:21:43 As many other people mentioned, it depends on the monster. If you can do ranged and they can't- definitely Blind. On the other hand, you should go with Daze instead if the monster has an area attack. Therefore, effectiveness actually depends on level- at low levels, most monsters are just snipers or brawlers-so go with Blind. However, Daze is better at high levels when you start facing monsters who don't need to see you to be able to hit you.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cohen95 Jul 30, 2008 15:55:38	For reference: PHB, p. 277 wrote:
#2 tyrandor Jul 30, 2008 16:17:52	Entirely depend against what you're fighting and what your party is made of to be honest. Against enemies that depend on their mobility, Dazed is crippling. It's also pretty bad against enemies that need to use a Minor action to sustain an effect (Black Dragon's dark shroud thingie come to mind) as they'll have to pick between doing something or keeping their power up. In the Black Dragon example, I'd definitly would rather Daze then blind :P. That being said, against many Brute/Soldier... all they do is get in close combat with your melee and duke it out. Being daze doesn't change all that much there... Blind's a lot better. The -5 to hit is also pretty brutal on brutes, who usually have a poor +hit to start with.
#3 voran Jul 31, 2008 15:41:36	I agree it depends on the foe. Generally, I like the idea of staggering the enemy so that for at least a turn, they can only do 1 thing. Some creatures might be immune to being blind, but is that true with daze?
#4 kletian999 Jul 31, 2008 17:29:06	If you have any kind of reach or ranged weapon and the target doesn't- dazed is king. Stab + step away= monster wastes entire turn just catching up to you.
#5 Saric Jul 31, 2008 17:36:45	If you have any kind of reach or ranged weapon and the target doesn't- dazed is king. Stab + step away= monster wastes entire turn just catching up to you. The monster can still charge you. Thus, nothing was gained other than combat advantage and not provoking an opportunity attack when moving away. However, if the target has a ranged attack/power then you didn't accomplish much unless you dived behind 10 barrels of ale. Blinded is clearly superior since you can't even see your target and must guess where he is. Who knows, you might get lucky on an area attack.
#6 nightwyrm Jul 31, 2008 22:34:17	You have to move at least 2 squares to charge. If there's only one square between you and the enemy, he can't charge you.
#7 Saric Aug 01, 2008 0:09:01	You have to move at least 2 squares to charge. If there's only one square between you and the enemy, he can't charge you. Aye, but since he didn't define how many steps or a shift it was open to interpretation. However, I don't think it will always be a 1v1 fight. Considering that the average party has 5 members, the monster will most likely be able to charge at least 1 pc unless there is a large assortment of obstacles or all the pc's happen to be 1 square away. This is why I still believe that the blind condition > daze.
#8 Ishamaelus Aug 01, 2008 6:47:35	Having been involved in an encounter where the NPCs had Daze as their special ability I'd honestly have to say that it extremely harsh, especially in encounters where high mobility/movement is preferable or needed. The loss of the additional two actions makes things very difficult to effectively break the ongoing affect of daze, especially if the NPC is able to reapply the affect. Having not fully experienced blind yet in an encounter I'd find it difficult to judge how bad it really is, but the total concealment, while a big negative modifier can be overcome by a good roll, and given the other disadvantages are the same as daze provides leads me to believe that Daze is worse that Blind, especially when the effect is being used against you. I'd also say Daze is extremely effective for helping to tie down a specific NPC as an additional form of crowd control if required. All this makes me feel that Daze is more powerful that Blind, especially in encounters with multiple NPCs.
#9 MrCustomer Aug 01, 2008 14:58:09	Blinded is -5 to hit, but that depends of course on knowing which square the enemy is in, which in turn requires a perception check (unless the enemy is right smack in front of you) and with multiple foes and allies about things could go bad with a blind man waving a sword about. A blind creature can't see the rogue move in for the attack, etc. On the other hand Daze is likely more effective then Blind in other situations, especially when hindering the enemies actions is more effective. IN all I think Daze is more effective in close combat. I would blind ranged opponents, such as archers, but going tow to toe with a ferocious monster I would likely prefer Daze.
#10 frostythepyro Aug 01, 2008 15:01:47	When you are blinded you have to use the rules for targeting what you cannot see pg 281. and sense the only way to have any idea where the target is is by perception check, yeah the -10 perception matters alot. Total concelment is MORE than just -5 to hit, it -5 to hit and you have to GUESS where the target is. So unless you can rock the area/burst attacks, or your just trying to run away, blind is signifigantly worse. Edit I got post ninjaed however (unless the enemy is right smack in front of you) Concelment works at melee, even if the enemy is right smack in front of you, you still need a perception check and you still have to guess which of the 8 adjacent squares he is in, assuming he hasnt moved FROM being right smack in front of you.
#11 voran Aug 01, 2008 16:07:43	I'd think Daze also works well when in tandem with something like a Controller's battlefield mods. Like when they're stuck in a cloud 'o dooooom and now they're dazed and have to choose whether to move, or attack, remaining stuck in the area of effect for another turn.
#12 guntherfuzz8 Aug 01, 2008 23:08:01	When used against me... Dazed. It sucks, but being Blind takes a lot more effort to get rid of. When used against opponents... Dazed is great when used on creatures that need to move around a lot or deal a lot of damage. Your Defender/Striker can make their attack and move away forcing the opponent to use it's single action to follow trying to get in attack range again. Blind is better against ranged attackers and Controllers, although they can still use bursts and blasts to try and target you.
#13 eldiran Aug 02, 2008 1:51:51	It's definitely very situational. Blind is very effective when you have a rogue, and/or the creature lacks close or area effects. Dazed can be extremely useful against Solos, who typically have multiple standard actions. This really drags them down. Dazed is also very good against foes without ranged attacks; at least, when you yourself keep out of range. I would say that either can be better, depending. Overall, though, I think blind is a more potent affliction.
#14 pokol Aug 02, 2008 13:21:43	As many other people mentioned, it depends on the monster. If you can do ranged and they can't- definitely Blind. On the other hand, you should go with Daze instead if the monster has an area attack. Therefore, effectiveness actually depends on level- at low levels, most monsters are just snipers or brawlers-so go with Blind. However, Daze is better at high levels when you start facing monsters who don't need to see you to be able to hit you.