As a result, I am now permanently blinded until I repent, which will be in "a few levels" according to the DM (assuming I do all I can to repent, which my character is unlikely to do).
I know it's a LITTLE (read: entirely) unfair, but I'd like to live with it, knowing the guy's a good DM and puts story over mechanics (like now, for instance).
Therefore I need a solution whereby my character remains functional in battle even with blindness. My current thinking is that he would take exclusively area attacks, and have allies direct the attacks.
My character is a level 4 Human Psion (who worships Pelor) who was recently alone, extracting some information from a little halfling assasin via torture. Just as I came to the eye gouging, the DM stopped me, and gave a short cutscene whereby Pelor told me I had violated his teachings, and must suffer.
As a result, I am now permanently blinded until I repent, which will be in "a few levels" according to the DM (assuming I do all I can to repent, which my character is unlikely to do).
I know it's a LITTLE (read: entirely) unfair, but I'd like to live with it, knowing the guy's a good DM and puts story over mechanics (like now, for instance).
Therefore I need a solution whereby my character remains functional in battle even with blindness. My current thinking is that he would take exclusively area attacks, and have allies direct the attacks.
Jump off a cliff and roll a new character.
Otherwise, you are going to be -5 to all of your attacks until your atonement is complete.
What the DM is telling you is that he is uncomfortable with a game that includes torture, especially for a character that professes to worship a Good deity.
He should stopped the action before it got to that point, and addressed the issue out of game, rather than penalizing you in game for an out of game issue.
(or try and convince the dm that being a psion you should get to roll arcana or something to read his mind)
Well, actually, keep in mind that as a Psion, my area attacks do not fall under the category of attacks which take a -5 penalty, because concealment doesn't apply to them.
Not all Psion attacks are Blast / Burst (and you didn't tell us that you were specialized as such), and if you don't feel you are actually being penalized, what is the issue?
I was wondering if anyone had tips to share for fighting blinded. Area attacks was all that I could really think of... are there PPs or feats that offer blindsight?
The main thrust of my post was that you should be having a conversation with your DM. If the reason you got penalized was that he is uncomfortable with a worshipper of a Good deity resorting to torture (or is uncomfortable with PCs engaging in torture in general), then you are going to be running into this problem, or similar ones, as long as you play your character in this manner (which seems likely, since you wrote that you are unlikely to have your character atone).
Without this conversation, next time you will be struck lame, or be stripped of your powers, or be unable to comprehend speech, until the DM finally gives up and kills your character or until you feel sufficiently chastened.
A frank conversation with your DM about the kind of game you want to play and the kind of game he is comfortable running will nip this problem in the bud and make this kind of punishment unlikely to happen in the future.
..perhaps you could ask the DM if you could roll another character and RP that the character will help your blind character carry the burden of your penance.. ..and that your blind psion will work around the church while your newly rolled pc quests.. ..and whatnot..
(..or maybe you could ask the DM why a god.. ..say it with me A GOD would be so interested with the lowly dealings of a non clerical character.. ..i mean, no pun intended, but you don't see every last person worshiping Pelor getting smitten for doing something against his way..)
..good luck wit'cha though..
The main thrust of my post was that you should be having a conversation with your DM. If the reason you got penalized was that he is uncomfortable with a worshipper of a Good deity resorting to torture (or is uncomfortable with PCs engaging in torture in general), then you are going to be running into this problem, or similar ones, as long as you play your character in this manner (which seems likely, since you wrote that you are unlikely to have your character atone).
Without this conversation, next time you will be struck lame, or be stripped of your powers, or be unable to comprehend speech, until the DM finally gives up and kills your character or until you feel sufficiently chastened.
A frank conversation with your DM about the kind of game you want to play and the kind of game he is comfortable running will nip this problem in the bud and make this kind of punishment unlikely to happen in the future.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
What edition are you playing?
Everyone seems so intent on solving a problem you don't want solved.
What edition are you playing?
4.0, Thank you for realizing what I'm asking here!
To everyone else posting, I don't want help getting rid of it, I want help DEALING with it.
Multiclass Arcane and get a Familiar that lets you share senses with it, like an Owl. It won't help you at all in combat, but at least it'll help you read signs and make sure you don't bump into anything outside of combat.
Mostly, expect to suck majorly in combat. As there is no permanent blindness in 4e, there also is no cure (duh) so there's not much you can do about it.
Then, it would be absolutely brilliant if your DM threw the party into a situation where your blindness was advantageous.
Yeah, you are pretty well hosed by RAW. So, I would talk to your DM and see if you can work out feats that you can take to help mitigate the effects, something like a blind-fighting feat (not the epic one in the PHB) that reduces your enemies to partial concealment instead of total. Plus, depending on how your DM goes about it, you may have to boost your perception to even know what square an enemy is in.
Then, it would be absolutely brilliant if your DM threw the party into a situation where your blindness was advantageous.
Really? You really think that a DM who'd blind a character would go for something that would mitigate the effects of the punishment?
Especially if the player isn't going to have his character repent??
Note; I'm 100% on the DMs side. Player chooses to have their character do evil/stupid/etc things? Then that character suffers consequences (and playing the character effectively gets harder)....
Really? You really think that a DM who'd blind a character would go for something that would mitigate the effects of the punishment?
Especially if the player isn't going to have his character repent??
As the OP claims that he does have a good DM, and as the OP is willing to cooperate with said DM in this instance, I'd say there's a good chance.
Besides, it would cost the character feats that could go to other things, as opposed to making him slightly less pathetic in combat. So he wouldn't be getting off with a slap on the wrist here.
Everyone seems so intent on solving a problem you don't want solved.
What edition are you playing?
4.0, Thank you for realizing what I'm asking here!
To everyone else posting, I don't want help getting rid of it, I want help DEALING with it.
I don't think your DM is going to allow you to "deal with it." He has hit you with a huge penalty, and suggested you repent. You have no intention of repenting. As soon as you find a way around his punishment so that you are no longer penalized, and you continue to act the way you are acting, he will find a different way to penalize you.
There is an out of game problem here that needs to be resolved out of game or it is only going to escalate. By finding a way to "deal with it" and minimize your penalty rather than repenting, you are challenging your DM to hit you with something worse. He may be an otherwise great DM, but he is trying to solve an out of game problem by penalizing your character. The penalties are going to keep stacking up if you don't change your ways (which it sounds like you have no intention of doing). If you don't want a meteor to eventually drop on your character, killing him instantly, I suggest talking to your DM.
On the other hand, if you enjoy pulling your DMs nose by making your character do things that make him uncomfortable, it sounds like you are doing a fantastic job. Maybe you should "kick it up a notch" and do increasingly vile things in Pelor's name in order to bring Pelor down to smite you personally.
On the other hand, if you enjoy pulling your DMs nose by making your character do things that make him uncomfortable, it sounds like you are doing a fantastic job. Maybe you should "kick it up a notch" and do increasingly vile things in Pelor's name in order to bring Pelor down to smite you personally.
I don't know why people don't get this... The DM is alright with it, but story reasons (in a very divine-influenced world) blinded me. The DM did a good job about it, and in the situation I support him. I am not looking to hose him, and I have discussed with him the details of the penalty.
He has stated OOC that I will not get more severe punishments unless I "step it up a notch" as you put it. However, I have no intent to step it up a notch, only to make do as a blinded character who is too stubborn to admit he was wrong.
Two feats to help with attacks are Mindlink (prevents any concealment on your send thoughts target - assuming that you're a telepathic psion or are able to/are willing to retrain as one) and Passage of Mael Arn'dreygh (reduces total concealment to partial for enemies within 2 squares.
I'm curious to hear how you think this is going to play out. Will your character forsake Pelor and find a more suitable deity? Will he eventually 'see' the error of his ways and repent. Or is he going to stay stubbornly as is for the rest of the campaign?
Check out the blindfighting warrior and blindfighting sentinel feats from heroes of the forgotten kingdoms.
Sorry, hadn't seen this before I posted. BF Sentinel - most definitely. BF Warrior - possibly not as it only applies to melee attacks.
Picking up Blindfighting Sentinel (feat - Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms) seems like the most important first step as it prevents all of your enemies automatically having combat advantage against and turns the -10 perception penalty into a +2 bonus.
Two feats to help with attacks are Mindlink (prevents any concealment on your send thoughts target - assuming that you're a telepathic psion or are able to/are willing to retrain as one) and Passage of Mael Arn'dreygh (reduces total concealment to partial for enemies within 2 squares.
I'm curious to hear how you think this is going to play out. Will your character forsake Pelor and find a more suitable deity? Will he eventually 'see' the error of his ways and repent. Or is he going to stay stubbornly as is for the rest of the campaign?
Thanks, The feats are good starting points to keep him save from melee enemies and opportunity attacks! As for his destination in the game - I think maybe trying to appease an evil god (Vecna?) for a return of sight is good. My character is neutral, but I still plan to play him as a champion of law and order. Boy do I miss the days where Lawful Neutral was an alignment.
" I know it's a LITTLE (read: entirely) unfair..." Rommeltastic
but then..
" The DM did a good job about it, and in the situation I support him."
- Rommeltastic
..ok, you did get me.. ..I am guilty of waiting for my turn to talk instead of listening to exactly what you had posted, I would see if I could get the psionic items or learn the ability that lets you see sound.. ..that would be number one recommendation, nice-n-easy - no feats, no multi-classing, just the addition of one power.. ..maybe you could get a psion to use that pyschic surgeury on you to gain access to it..
..in short my good sir, I do not get it because the story as I see it put forth before me is a contradiction..
..I just can not wrap my head around the series of events that lead to this punishment.. ..and I agree with an earlier post that there is not much consistancy between punishing someone and then letting them mitigate the consequences.. ..your character is blinded for a few levels, but its ok if you cheat and manipulate to get around a gods punishment.. ..you recieved a punishment for accosting someones eyes but yet I am going to assume that the NPC you had been torturing was not exactly above his boy scout merit badges for the week..
..I can not understand why a god would blind your character, or why a DM would punish you, your character and the other PC's and their characters by crippling your character.. ..something just does not sound right to me..
..this post is NOT an attempt to attack or negatively critique you or your DM, or an attack on how you choose to play your character..
..I myself have done some things out of RP purposes that did not make sense to anyone.. ..I once had a mid level gnome illusionist that had died and when he was ressurected, I thought it would be cool if the proccess left his mental state disturbed, and as such threw his spell book into the ocean and started playing under the belief he was a mid level fighter..
Good luck to you, good sir!
..I just can not wrap my head around the series of events that lead to this punishment.. ..and I agree with an earlier post that there is not much consistancy between punishing someone and then letting them mitigate the consequences.. ..your character is blinded for a few levels, but its ok if you cheat and manipulate to get around a gods punishment.. ..you recieved a punishment for accosting someones eyes but yet I am going to assume that the NPC you had been torturing was not exactly above his boy scout merit badges for the week..
..I can not understand why a god would blind your character, or why a DM would punish you, your character and the other PC's and their characters by crippling your character.. ..something just does not sound right to me..
Firstly, I don't think that training feats to mitigate the punishment is cheating; it makes perfect sense from a narrative perspective for a blinded character to focus on training themselves to still be effective despite their disability. He'll miss out on using those feat slots for something else, and will take a few levels for all the necessary retraining (also realistic as you don't adapt to something like that overnight).
Secondly, why wouldn't Pelor blind his character? Gouging out a prisoner's eyes is an evil act, and 'an eye for an eye' seems a rather fitting punishment. Good campaigns have consequences for actions, and when both player and DM are able to deal with this type of situation purely as a plot development (as appears to be the case here) and not something personal , it can create the sort of memorable playing experiences that you talk about for years to come.
Good campaigns have consequences for actions
Those consequences should be narrative, not an arbitrary mechanical screwjob.
Good campaigns have consequences for actions
Those consequences should be narrative, not an arbitrary mechanical screwjob.
I don't think that the DM's decision here was either arbitrary or a screwjob. Purely narrative consequences aren't really consequences at all. The character in question has any number of interesting ways to react to this situation. If the player was only concerned mechanics, he could simply repent and be back in business. Instead, he's decided to roleplay his character in a way that will likely lead to some entertaining future developments.
Granted, some groups aren't going to enjoy playing this way, but both DM and player seem okay with this. Where's the problem?
Good campaigns have consequences for actions
Those consequences should be narrative, not an arbitrary mechanical screwjob.
I'd be more cool with it if it were a Divine character - but in a "gods are heavily interactive" world, a supposedly good-aligned character who's in regular communication with his patron god of good and mercy, who is actively doing Chaotic Evil things in the name of his patron?
I don't see that as particularly different from "the King orders your arrest and two dozen of his elite guards jump you" or "the villagers burn down your castle" or "the archmage curses you" or "a party of adventurers arrives to save the world from you, since you're the villain".
The PC was acting like a villain, and the DM gave him a chance to stop being evil before he started being an NPC. The fact that it was a deity delivering the message? Not significantly different than any number of other appropriate responses the universe has to evil people doing evil things.
The only problem here is the GM using in-game solutions to solve out of game problems, rather than simply dealing with the problem player correctly, outside the game.
I don't think that the DM's decision here was either arbitrary or a screwjob.
If it weren't arbitrary, it would be something the player can count on. The players would be able to reasonably say "I know X will happen if I do this, but I am doing it anywhere". I'd be pretty stunned if I was playing a game where my non-religious PC was blinded by a direct intervention from the diety as punishment.
A non-arbitrary solution would be to have other PCs and NPCs who found out about the decision to disagree, disassociate, or attack the PC. Note this is also a purely narrative consiquense that affects the character, vs a mechanical one. DND is about telling a shared story, narrative consiquences are the only ones that matter.
I don't think that the DM's decision here was either arbitrary or a screwjob.If it weren't arbitrary, it would be something the player can count on. The players would be able to reasonably say "I know X will happen if I do this, but I am doing it anywhere". I'd be pretty stunned if I was playing a game where my non-religious PC was blinded by a direct intervention from the diety as punishment.
A non-arbitrary solution would be to have other PCs and NPCs who found out about the decision to disagree, disassociate, or attack the PC. Note this is also a purely narrative consiquense that affects the character, vs a mechanical one. DND is about telling a shared story, narrative consiquences are the only ones that matter.
I think that at the point where you're arguing semantics over a topic that the OP has specifically said that he's fine with, it's probably time to stop ;)
I don't think that the DM's decision here was either arbitrary or a screwjob.If it weren't arbitrary, it would be something the player can count on. The players would be able to reasonably say "I know X will happen if I do this, but I am doing it anywhere". I'd be pretty stunned if I was playing a game where my non-religious PC was blinded by a direct intervention from the diety as punishment.
A non-arbitrary solution would be to have other PCs and NPCs who found out about the decision to disagree, disassociate, or attack the PC. Note this is also a purely narrative consiquense that affects the character, vs a mechanical one. DND is about telling a shared story, narrative consiquences are the only ones that matter.
I think that at the point where you're arguing semantics over a topic that the OP has specifically said that he's fine with, it's probably time to stop ;)
Litmis, It's more of an issue of that weither or not he's okay with it, more of a "this is the rime of a bad DM and a very permissive player that will only get worse because he thinks this is okay, but under no circumstances is this." In any system or game ever.
quick edit - let me be more explicit. Things like this shouldn't happen because it throws off the numbers. actual mechanic consequences have their place, but this has no such because despite best ways to counter it, this is just not supported at all. It's like the issue of the concept of level 0 PCs - it's something you handle thematically, but not with actual mechanics ever tied to it.
I don't think that the DM's decision here was either arbitrary or a screwjob.If it weren't arbitrary, it would be something the player can count on. The players would be able to reasonably say "I know X will happen if I do this, but I am doing it anywhere". I'd be pretty stunned if I was playing a game where my non-religious PC was blinded by a direct intervention from the diety as punishment.
A non-arbitrary solution would be to have other PCs and NPCs who found out about the decision to disagree, disassociate, or attack the PC. Note this is also a purely narrative consiquense that affects the character, vs a mechanical one. DND is about telling a shared story, narrative consiquences are the only ones that matter.
I think that at the point where you're arguing semantics over a topic that the OP has specifically said that he's fine with, it's probably time to stop ;)
Litmis, It's more of an issue of that weither or not he's okay with it, more of a "this is the rime of a bad DM and a very permissive player that will only get worse because he thinks this is okay, but under no circumstances is this." In any system or game ever.
quick edit - let me be more explicit. Things like this shouldn't happen because it throws off the numbers. actual mechanic consequences have their place, but this has no such because despite best ways to counter it, this is just not supported at all. It's like the issue of the concept of level 0 PCs - it's something you handle thematically, but not with actual mechanics ever tied to it.
Take a big deep breath, and repeat after me "there's no 'one right way' to play D&D". You sound like you enjoy playing D&D in more of a wargame/boardgame style, where character balance and optimisation is very important. Good for you - if you're having fun then that's all that matters. But for the love of Pelor, don't try and tell other people how they should be having fun.
Incidentally, there are actual mechanics™ for 0-level characters in Dragon 403 if that's something that's been bothering you.
I think that at the point where you're arguing semantics over a topic that the OP has specifically said that he's fine with, it's probably time to stop
....? You begain arguing semantics. I informed you you were incorrect.
I know it's a LITTLE (read: entirely) unfair, but I'd like to live with it, knowing the guy's a good DM and puts story over mechanics (like now, for instance).
Therefore I need a solution whereby my character remains functional in battle even with blindness. My current thinking is that he would take exclusively area attacks, and have allies direct the attacks.
Try to convince your DM to give you Blind Sight, after a few encounters. That way you will be able to see any creature, thats touching the ground.
Blindsight has a cut off point at which to "see", about 10 squrs. Also talk to him about this outside of game. Tell him how you feel, its unfair, but you still want to roll with it. That way you'll at least get some of this tension between you two away.
Firstly, I don't think that training feats to mitigate the punishment is cheating; it makes perfect sense from a narrative perspective for a blinded character to focus on training themselves to still be effective despite their disability.
Secondly, why wouldn't Pelor blind his character? Gouging out a prisoner's eyes is an evil act, and 'an eye for an eye' seems a rather fitting punishment.
..all I can say is word, and double word..
..I got to thinking, it is absolutely ok for a blind person to start learning new ways to percieve his world, I.E.. ..learning brail and using that walking stick thingy and blind dogs and all that jazz..
..and I do totally agree with eye for an eye (and btw I digs the pun), I kept thinking about the quote that I emphasized, about him agreeing with the punishment and thought maybe he was talking about the balance in it.. ..BUT..
..this isnt a random happenstance that happened to his character it is a punishment, with emphasis on punish.. ..here let me use a "from the hip" analogy..
..a man (the psion) is arrested for murdering his wife - and after the judge (Pelor as portrayed by the DM) has set the bail amount, the defendant (the psion) asks if the judge(Pelor as portrayed by the DM) can make it ok if the now widowed husband (the psion) uses the wife's life insurance money to pay for the bail, and lawyers.. ..and the judge says yes.. .. ...what?
It seems like you've already gotten some good suggestions for dealing (area, blasts, feat training). I just wanted to encourage you to definately roleplay these as efforts in game as your character makes changes. Roleplay dealing with the blindness and trying to repent, etc. I don't know your DM, but as a DM myself I'm there to have fun too and if my players can do something to entertain or intrigue me then I am sure to reward them for it. If I had an agreement with a player to play out something like this and they rolled with it then the post-repentance would be followed up with some divine boons from me for being an awesome roleplayer.
The flavor can be weaved around any situation, and have no relevance nor are they owed to line up, that's what makes 4th edition so good - Dis-associated mechanics, where you can play a paladin who has the ranger class as a striker build and still call yourself a paladin, be treated like one, and have interesting interactions with such thematics despite having the Ranger-striker chassis underneath.
I'm not saying he's being a foolish player or the DM is bad for having a blinded PC. I'm saying that giving actual penalties and treating it as anything but a theme attached to the character they're expected to live up to in a system that numbers matter, the name does not, can be bad and not what they were expecting one bit.
Just to point something out - the OP claimed his DM is one to put story over mechanics as he said. There's no mechanic for permanent blindness for PCs other than "you're blinded" which is not the same as the Condition Blinded. The DM and the OP is just being intellectually dishonest to fail to understand explicitly that's how its supposed work, for the better of both the mechanics AND story.
Chaotic good does not exist in 4e. Here is the subquote right under the definition of chaotic evil in PHB 1. "I don’t care what I have to do to get what I want." Seems exactly this situation.
Also alignment arguements are dumb, anyone can justify any action as any alignment.
Litmus, what I was trying to say was the complete opposite. BLINDED the status condition is something thats handed out as a penalty relating to combat. It just was not ever intended to interact in the system in that way. Look at all the hoops 4e Dark Sun has to jump through to tie thematics into desperation and survival in an apocalypitc desert envirornment. generally, the numbers should only be changed because the rules and mechanics are not balanced in some shape or form.
The flavor can be weaved around any situation, and have no relevance nor are they owed to line up, that's what makes 4th edition so good - Dis-associated mechanics, where you can play a paladin who has the ranger class as a striker build and still call yourself a paladin, be treated like one, and have interesting interactions with such thematics despite having the Ranger-striker chassis underneath.
I'm not saying he's being a foolish player or the DM is bad for having a blinded PC. I'm saying that giving actual penalties and treating it as anything but a theme attached to the character they're expected to live up to in a system that numbers matter, the name does not, can be bad and not what they were expecting one bit.
Just to point something out - the OP claimed his DM is one to put story over mechanics as he said. There's no mechanic for permanent blindness for PCs other than "you're blinded" which is not the same as the Condition Blinded. The DM and the OP is just being intellectually dishonest to fail to understand explicitly that's how its supposed work, for the better of both the mechanics AND story.
Here's a quote from Chris Perkins to have a think about:
I'm sure every DM who reads this article can empathize with my primal need to torment my players, and I'm fairly certain I'm not the only DM in the D&D multiverse whose campaign has a sadomasochistic undercurrent. Nothing wrong with giving the campaign an occasional jolt. My players relish the adversity that they and their characters are forced to overcome week after week. The scars they earn along the way will pay off at the end of the campaign, when the surviving PCs gaze at the smoldering ashes of their enemies and realize they've been through hell and withstood the horrors of death, loss, and mutilation. As long as everyone knows it's all in good fun, there's no love lost.
If I had to choose between granting a surge to keep a non-disabled character up or him, where 3 failed death saves solves the problem both thematically and mechanically, I'd be healing everyone else first who was contributing a lot better than a human psion with "no morals" and a problem that if we win in a battle where we survive yet he perishes just fixes everything.
I'm all for scars where it's the price of failure because we all failed, but not when it causes things to fall apart because one DM has no understanding of whats appropriate anymore, and one's stupid antagonistic behavior on shortsighteness they can't take back, especially on a subject matter that just shouldn't fly in any game, let alone be dealt with in character. When it's all of us, the encounters get adjusted accordingly thanks to a good DM.
That's more or less what I've been trying to point out here - having the numbers line up matters to everyone, not just that one character. and it is his responsibility with the DM to figure out a way to keep things on track if he actually wants to keep his character and be able to play it accordingly. Otherwise i fully encourage him to stock up on healing potions because if i were that leader, death and a new character being brought in is going to end up the solution.
Edit - I get what he's asking and what you're trying to say litmus, it's just - there's not much you can do to help them in the way they actually want given it's not really supported in the system very well, which either they're aware of and this is not a problem or reason to post exactly, or they're not aware of and this is a really big problem. Or they know and don't care, and then this is a problem with everyone else in the group to address.
Once again, you don't have to play like that if you prefer a different style, but you need to stop trying to tell other people that their way is wrong.
I'm really not trying to tell him what he wants to do is wrong, just that the amount of difference they think will exist is way further off than what would be expected.
If that's the case, then perhaps you could specify the amount of difference this will make to his combat ability. Assume that all of his attacks are area burst (because he said as much) and he has trained Blindfighting Sentinel.
The blinded condition is for a situation where a creature has been temporarily blinded (the rules say as much). As such, most of the effects represent the immediate disorientation and physical trauma associated with the act of being blinded ("aargh, my eyes!"). The rules for blindness explicitly say that the 'can't see' component simply grants the creature's enemies total concealment, which is consistent with the rules for vision in general.
The PC in question has been made blind, and the effect of this is that he has lost his vision/can't see. As a result all squares are totally obscured, which grants all his enemies total concealment (which in turn means they are invisible to him, but he knows what square they are in).
So his area burst attacks are largely unaffected. Even if an enemy manages to take advantage of their total concealment to hide, an ally can simply use a free action to tell him which square to target. With Blindfighting Sentinel he avoids automatically granting combat advantage to his invisible enemies, even if they manage to hide.
Net effect?
1. He has to spend a feat to mitigate the worst penalties (but gains +2 to perception in the process)
2. He loses the ability to make opportunity attacks
3. He might lose some offensive capabilities if he is alone and in combat
Not really enough to cause a noticable reduction in the party's overall effectiveness.
4. He has no clue what the encounter map looks like, where he can move and where the walls are, which squares suddenly drop 25' down, which square contains the door, etc.
This part of blindness is usually not simulated because blindness is a temporary condition and thus characters should have a basic idea of what the area looks like. But if you're really blind? This is why it's so crippling. You can hear other people, you can learn to fight without seeing, but you will never be able to hear a wall. Technically, you won't even be able to aim a burst, because you don't know how high the roof is and whether or not people are behind cover. You could very easily hit a waist-heigh wall and miss everyone with an area effect, or the ceiling, or worse, the wall 10' in front of you because you're hearing the bad guys through a window.
Then again, that one's usually not simulated precisely because "this kind of thing should be narrative, not mechanics"
