Note: The purpose of this thread is to develop alternative rules for long-term or permanently blind PC's. Many people feel the "blindness" RAW are too harsh and/or too vague about which limitations can be overcome and how. If you agree, have at!
Greetings players and DMs! My name is Eureka ArrowLeaf, and I am the president and spokesperson of the Association for the Advancement of Blind Characters. These are my fellow Ass-ABC board members, Thoroden the Brave and Captain Angkower.
Thoroden: Greetings, noble gamers.
Angkower: Arr.
We at the Ass-ABC are deeply disturbed by the years of intolerant, sassy and altogether mean-spirited posts on these boards regarding blind Player Characters. It is our belief that all blind PCs, whether blind from birth, injury, unbreakable curse, or ritual eye-sacrifice deserve a fair shot at playing and are fully capable of matching visually-abled PCs blow for blow and XP for XP. Balanced blind PCs are in no way inferior to balanced light-gobblers.
Thus, we offer the following homebrewed material to facilitate players with blind PCs and the DMs who put up with them. We hope that people asking about blind PCs will be referred to this thread, which supports blind PCs, and not some other thread that mocks or misunderstands us.
On that note, Thoroden, why don't you show these four-ears what we've put together for them?
Thoroden: I am honoured to be of service, Sir Arrowleaf. We at the Ass-ABC have toiled for hours--literally hours--to assemble the following points of wisdom. In this thread may you discover:
[post=14099875]Freebies, Handouts, and the Honest Blind Man: How to talk to your DM[/post]
[post=14101847]The Blind PC Starting Package[/post]
[post=14103009]New Feat: Blind Traits[/post]
[post=14103009]New Language: Brail[/post]
[post=14103009]New Spell: Brailify[/post]
[post=14140365]New Spell: Jingle Jangle[/post]
[post=14149768]The Rod of Icuc[/post]
[post=14176102]Gloves of Read-all[/post]
The Blind PC Sound-Off!
[post=14272966]Requital Rod[/post]
...and many other gems, to be added at our whim.
Angkower: Aye, and stick yer accursed eyes to this bit, landlubbers: t'ain't no appendment of "P.E.A.C.H." to a one of 'em.
Thoroden: He speaks the truth, friends. Each of these sections has been created in wholeness and perfection of form by us, the Ass-ABC, the first time we touched pen to parchment. There will never be any need to adjust, critique, or edit a single word of it, for lo, it is the word of the blind.
Eureka: Right, so on to the first section...
Well, off the bat, there is one thing you always have to remember when asking your DM if you can play a blind PC: your DM is dumb. But not actually dumb, because that would mean he couldn't talk. That's just silly.
Thoroden: Indeed, I once met a player with a PC who couldn't talk. Rotten concept. The poor fellow was completely unplayable.
Eureka: What I mean is, your DM is stupid. And here's how I know he's stupid: if he wasn't, you wouldn't have to ask him if you can play a blind PC. Instead he just would've said, "Okay guys, roll up a bunch of first-level blind dudes. It's time to rock like Greyhawk." That's a smart DM.
Angkower: Aye.
Eureka: So you're going to have to finesse this. Be prepared to get some real pushback from your loser DM, who may bust out some or even all of these narrow-minded misconceptions:
a. There's no way to make a balanced blind PC. You're going to die.
b. You can only make a balanced blind PC with a bunch of free feats and other handouts. Not in my game.
c. What, have you been watching too much anime? (Correct response: no, I've been listening to too much anime, you sight-enabled freak of nature.)
d. Sure, but you'll have to be a caster.
e. Sure, but you'll have to take all/most of the Blindness/Deafness spell penalties.
f. Sure, but you'll have to treat all opponents as invisible at all times.
g. If your PC was blind it would've just been healed magically. This idea makes no sense.
Now, in the face of this kind of bigotry, there are two responses: vicious biting, and the art of persuasion. Most DMs taste like sweat and cigarettes, so we suggest you go for persuasion. There's a chance your DM is just not going to budge no matter what you say, in which case you should find a different DM.
Angkower: And don't mince no words about it, matey. Flee like the wind from a drunk man's bottom.
Eureka:
Thoroden: *choking* For shame, man! Have you no decency?
Angkower: If the sea were decent I'd be out of a job, ye daft monkey.
Eureka: AHEM! The reason you should find a different group is not just because the DM shot down your blind PC. It's because refusing to consider a blind PC is a sign of a much bigger problem. Some DM's are open to new ideas, others aren't. Some want to create roleplaying opportunities, others don't care. Some even enjoy seeing their players develop unusual and memorable characters. The point is to find the right kind of DM for you. And if you are the kind of player who willingly, even enthusiastically rolls up a blind character then you need a DM who supports your style of gaming. If your current DM doesn't, then hit the road.
Most DM's, however, will at least hear you out. When they object to your idea, remember, it probably isn't because they're out to get you. They are biased, which is unintentional, and they want to avoid having extra work on their hands or you not enjoying the game. Bear that in mind and address those issues. Some of the best points you can make:
*I'm not looking for free feats and I don't want to make extra work for you. There's already a Blind Character Starting Package online, and I printed it out for you to take a look at. It gives me a few small concessions that make sense for a character who has gotten used to being blind, and they seem pretty realistic and balanced. I'll still have a few problems the other PC's don't have but I think I can keep up.
*My character was blind a long time before his parents saved up the money to get him cured. By then he had gotten pretty good at getting around and decided he'd let the family use the money for something else. But if he becomes a burden on the party, I promise he will seek magical healing.
*There are some pretty sensible combat rules for blind characters that have been homebrewed and put online. I think it's going to be a lot of fun to give this a try.
*So-and-So's PC shares a backstory with my PC, and is willing to help me out when I need it.
Above all, remember that even in the real world blind people have accomplished some amazing things. Some are very athletic. Some have managed to do things better than sight-mongers can do. Plus, the archetype of the blind master is a lot bigger than anime. In a medieval Irish myth, the blind druid Mogh Ruith singlehandedly defeats all the other druids of Ireland (and a pretty large army to boot). In the novel World War Z a blind Japanese gardener is one of the only people to survive the zombie invasion. He waits patiently until he hears the approach of zombies and strikes them with his spade just as they come within reach. These are fantastic characters, exactly the sort that make good PCs. Remember, the Player's Handbook even specifies that PCs are not average people; they are above average. Would real-world blind people go adventuring? Some do. Would real-world blind people survive battle with orcs and dragons? Some might. But it doesn't matter, because we are not real-world blind people. We are blind Player Characters!
Thoroden: Huzzah!
If after all that your DM still doesn't agree with you, then you have one answer left: "I'm sorry, while you were talking I ordered trained rats to chew out your eyes and put them on a charm bracelet. I know it's mean, but it made just as much sense as what you were saying." Because we all know that a game with a blind DM is almost as good as a game with blind PC's.
Stay tuned for our Blind Character Starting Package!
**waits patiently for the promised Blind Character Starting Package (TM)**
Truth be told, I'd love to play a blind character, it looks like an interesting concept.
1. Build your character as you would any other character.
2. Cross "Spot" off your skill list. You can't make Spot checks at all, period.
3. Skill checks that rely partially on vision (such as Search) can be made at no penalty whenever you can use your sense of touch, hearing, or some other sense to help you. Otherwise you cannot use these skills.
4. You have a +4 competence bonus on Listen checks.
5. When moving you have three options:
a. Move at normal speed and make a Balance check (DC 10 plus any terrain modifiers) or fall prone.
b. Move at half speed.
c. Follow the exact route taken by another friendly character, within 1 round of that character's move. When doing this you can move at normal speed with no penalties. (Essentially you are following another character's footsteps).
6. You are always flatfooted against enemies you cannot hear. Once you have heard an opponent you regain your dexterity bonus to AC.
7. You are immune to Gaze attacks and Blindness effects.
8. You can still use any of your class abilities (sneak attack, favoured enemy bonuses, etc.) as normal. This bears repeating: you still get all your class abilities. Having been blind for years, you gained your class abilities as a blind person and you did not train to base their effectiveness on vision.
9. Do not apply any of the Blindness/Deafness penalties to your character; use only the above penalties.
10. Do not apply any of the Invisibility or Concealment bonuses to your enemies, except as noted in the Combat Guidelines below.
NOTE: If your character's blindness is cured, it's only fair that you lose all the bonuses from the Blind Character Starting Package. If you want to retain some of them, see the Blind Traits feat below.
Combat Guidelines
At the beginning of combat, you cannot attack any enemy until you have pinpointed its location. The best way to pinpoint is by using the Listen skill (see below). You can also try to pinpoint by making a touch attack into two adjacent 5' squares. The touch attack is against the touch AC of any creatures in the squares and has a 50% miss chance rolled by the DM; if it succeeds those creatures are pinpointed. These rules are core and are found under the Invisibility rules.
At the beginning of the first round (and every round thereafter), take a Listen check as a free action to find out what enemies you are aware of or have pinpointed (Once you are aware of an enemy you remain aware without further listen checks; a pinpointed enemy must be pinpointed again, however, each time it moves). If you are unhappy with the result you may use a move action to try again in the same round, or wait and retry it as a free action next round. This rule is core, from the Listen skill section of the PHB.
Any creature who has successfully hit you or whom you have successfully hit is pinpointed until that creature moves. This applies to melee hits with a 5' reach only.
Your allies are always pinpointed for you, unless they specify otherwise. This is a suggested new rule, not RAW.
Once you have pinpointed an enemy you can attack it with a 50% miss chance. (This is effectively reduced to 25% if you take the Blind Fight feat). We would suggest that if you successfully grapple an enemy, that enemy does not have any kind of concealment from you while grappled.
Once you have pinpointed an enemy you can use Line of Sight spells against that enemy. This is a suggested new rule, not RAW.
Without pinpointing anyone you can pick a square at random to attack. We recommend you roll a d8 to determine which square you attack in melee and don't bother randomly attacking at long range. This way your DM can't accuse you of using OOC knowledge to choose a square.
The Listen SKill
As you can tell, Listen is a pretty important skill for a blind PC. In case you wonder just how much you can do with it, and how hard those checks might be, here's a handy guide.
There are two things you need to do with listen: be aware of your enemies so you aren't flat-footed, and pinpoint them so you can commence the daggering. Although the rules do not provide a clear answer, we at the Ass-ABC suggest that you don't need to pinpoint an enemy to get your dex bonus to AC vs that enemy; you just need to hear them coming so you can put up your defences and start bobbing and weaving. That leads to two different levels of success on skill checks:
Full AC
To get your full AC against an enemy you just need to be aware the enemy is there. The listen check to be aware of an enemy automatically succeeds for enemies that are talking or fighting (the DC for the listen check is 0). This includes almost all enemies you'll face. If there are circumstantial penalties you might have to make the roll anyway but it will be easy to succeed.
If the enemies are trying to be sneaky, then use their Move Silently roll with any modifiers (armour check penalty, moving full speed, etc.) as the DC. Note that most enemies won't try to be sneaky in combat because they won't expect a blind guy to be part of the PC's party. Obviously, rogue and ninja-types are the exception.
Pinpointing
Pinpointing adds 20 to the DC of the the Listen check. So for talking/fighting enemies, the DC is 20. (0+20 = 20). For sneaky characters it is their Move Silently plus 20 plus/minus any circumstantial modifiers.
Defaults
Your DM probably doesn't want to make Move Silently checks for every monster every round, so we suggest your group just uses the default Listen DC modifiers. They boil down to:
+5 for armoured opponents moving at half speed (25 to pinpoint)
+10 for unarmoured opponents moving at half speed (30 to pinpoint)
+15 for low level rogues (35 to pinpoint) and more for higher level rogues.
Additionally, you are supposed to add 1 to the DC for every 10' of distance between you and the target. At close ranges this seems silly to the members and leadership of the Ass-ABC, but your DM may insist on it.
The Drawbacks
If you use the Starting Package and follow the Combat Guidelines, you suffer exactly one drawback that other characters don't suffer: a 50% miss rate on certain attacks. That is the only real drawback.
The other alleged drawbacks, of course, are not knowing where to attack and being flatfooted some of the time. But those drawbacks don't exist if you make successful listen checks, which you will. You get to make two listen checks the first round! A first level blind character with max Listen ranks, the starting package, and a +1 WIS bonus has a +9 Listen skill. +12 if you have Skill Focus (Listen). Essentially this means you will make your listen checks, which means you are only flatfooted when ambushed and you are only unaware of enemies that are great at sneaking. In other words, you are exactly the same as every other PC out there.
That said, that 50% miss rate is a big hurdle. On physical attacks you will only hit half as many times as a windowface of the same class does. Think carefully about whether this is going to be fun to play out.
Thoroden: In truth, every warrior has a weakness.
Eureka: Yeah, and some are a lot worse than being blind. Players routinely create, and DM's routinely allow, characters who are criminally insane. They're as big of a liability in social situations as blind PCs are in a knife-fight, but they do alright. Heck, the Captain here is blind and criminally insane, and even he was allowed for three sessions.
Angkower: Aye, 'twas s'posed to be a one-shot, arr.
Eureka: Point being, You get the bonuses of not caring when enemies go invisible, having great listen checks, and wading into gaze attacks like they're silly string. If you can handle a higher miss rate, welcome to the Ass-ABC.
Tips
+Take the Skill Focus (Listen) feat or the Blindfight feat. If anyone tells you this is against the whole concept of a blind character, punch them. It is exactly the kind of ability a blind character would spend time honing.
+Max out your ranks in Listen.
+Generally, don't waste your standard actions making touch attacks to pinpoint enemies. You might ask your DM if your character could make this touch attack as a move action instead of a standard action; offer to swap out a single class ability for this privelege.
+Remember you can still attack a square even when you are not sure an enemy is in that square.
+If you have decent hitpoints and AC your default tactic should be to rush headlong toward the sound of enemies. Remember, as soon as an enemy hits you that enemy is pinpointed.
+Area of Effect spells and splash attacks are great ways to bypass the 50% miss chance and hit more often.
+Animal Companions should be able to be trained to act as seeing-eye creatures; talk to your DM and see if this would be allowed. If so, we suggest the following homebrewed tricks for you to teach it:
GROWL: Animal indicates the location of a single enemy, halving the miss chance against that enemy until it moves.
LEAD: Animal leads the way for a blind character; character can move at normal speed with no penalties.
+Keep good track of your Listen bonuses. You can get racial bonuses, favored enemy bonuses, a bonus from the Skill Focus feat, etc., etc.
+If your DM allows the variant grapple rule in the Combat Guide above, it could be a lot of fun to make a grapple-specialised blind fighter. That will break some stereotypes for sure!
+Find out how your DM thinks Detect spells and abilities work. A blind Paladin who can pinpoint enemies with Detect Evil is another blind character who won't be forgotten.
Thank you!
Wow.. I Absolutely love this and I think the next NPC that the party meets will be a blind character.
Thank you!
Seconded! I love this!! I think I am gonna play a paladin/sorcerer gish and use detect evil to pinpoint enemies. Also, the spell listening lorecall, and the blindsight spell can somewhat compensate for my blindness. Not entirely though since it's only 30 feet (opponents can attack me from a way longer distance anyway).
But damn, I think I won't be using blindsight spells just for the heck of it!
This is great, I'd love to play one. The only problem is, I don't have listen as a class skill
A question Another poet: How exactly do I make decent listen checks if I don't have listen as a class skill? Not all characters can use blindsight and similar abilities and not all can use detect evil. How are they supposed to make decent listen checks, especially against rogues?
A question Another poet: How exactly do I make decent listen checks if I don't have listen as a class skill? Not all characters can use blindsight and similar abilities and not all can use detect evil. How are they supposed to make decent listen checks, especially against rogues?
Well, according to this note from Captain Angkower you can get a +12 circumstance bonus on listen checks by drinking spiced rum, but I'm not sure that's within the rules.
In my gaming group, we rotate between three different DMs and none of us use the cross-class skills rule. All skills should be class skills. But if your DM's a stickler, just buy it as a cross-class skill. After all, a Paladin/Sorcerer only needs Ride and Concentration anyway, so you should be able to afford Listen. If your PC is blind it is totally worth it.
Enemy rogues are, of course, the big problem for a blind PC. Even if you do max listen ranks you'll have a hard time pinpointing a sneaking rogue. But that's okay. If your PC were an orc, you'd have problems in bright light. If your PC were a rogue you'd have problems in open combat against tanks. Just like orcs raid at night and rogues have meat shield friends, your blind gish is going to have to adjust tactics.
Everyone in the party should know not to let the rogue get near you, just like they wouldn't let an ogre get near the party wizard. If you work as a team, everyone covers everyone else's butt. You, as a paladin/sorcerer, are such a multi-purpose blaster that you will definitely repay the favour.
By the way, thanks everyone for the kind words. The other things in the "table of contents" of the first post will definitely get posted too. Maybe even tonight!
ap
Becuse instead of honeing your listen and spot equally.. you focus almost your entire life on listening... so even if your class dosnt give you the time to hone it.. you will be anyways
As a DM i would house rule that into play.
Well, according to this note from Captain Angkower you can get a +12 circumstance bonus on listen checks by drinking spiced rum, but I'm not sure that's within the rules.
In my gaming group, we rotate between three different DMs and none of us use the cross-class skills rule. All skills should be class skills. But if your DM's a stickler, just buy it as a cross-class skill. After all, a Paladin/Sorcerer only needs Ride and Concentration anyway, so you should be able to afford Listen. If your PC is blind it is totally worth it.
Enemy rogues are, of course, the big problem for a blind PC. Even if you do max listen ranks you'll have a hard time pinpointing a sneaking rogue. But that's okay. If your PC were an orc, you'd have problems in bright light. If your PC were a rogue you'd have problems in open combat against tanks. Just like orcs raid at night and rogues have meat shield friends, your blind gish is going to have to adjust tactics.
Everyone in the party should know not to let the rogue get near you, just like they wouldn't let an ogre get near the party wizard. If you work as a team, everyone covers everyone else's butt. You, as a paladin/sorcerer, are such a multi-purpose blaster that you will definitely repay the favour.
By the way, thanks everyone for the kind words. The other things in the "table of contents" of the first post will definitely get posted too. Maybe even tonight!
ap
Very true. The thing is, my gaming group isn't really keen on group tactics, so this leaves at somewhat of a disadvantage. So I try to be as self sufficient as I possibly can. However, don't get me wrong - as a blind character I would see this a challenge that I should overcome!
As a sorcerer/paladin gish, I doubt I would have many problems. After all, a 2nd level spell provides me with blindsense/blingsight out to 30 feet, and plus I have detect evil to pinpoint enemies as well. As far as my gish goes, I am not concerned.
However, there are characters like fighters who do not have abilities such as blingsight and similar, and who do not have listen as a class skill. And my DM does not allow using all skills as class skills, it kinda defeats the purpose of some classes a bit.
However, here's my suggestion to make up for the loss of not being able to make spot checks. The suggestion would be that all blind characters have listen as a class skill. The reason for this is simply that, being blind from birth, you have learned to use your sense of hearing to it fullest potential, since you were deprived of your sight. Your hearing was one of the few things you had going for you, and you decided to hone it to its fullest. Therefor, a character who's been blind for a very long time, or from birth, should have listen as a class skill. After all, he did rely on it for his whole life, so it only makes sense for listen to be a class skill for such a character.
Perhaps you could incorporate that in the starting package?
Edit: I just noticed that kukamunga had the same idea as me lol ^^
Specifically:
- Do you retain the competence bonus to Listen checks?
- Do you regain the benefits of your blindness (able to follow others' footsteps, able to pinpoint allies unerringly, ignoring the usual blindness penalties, etc.) when engulfed in darkness, and or subject to a blindness effect?
- How long would it take you to teach your friends these benefits during the time between adventures, particularly if you have a 5th level cleric who can cast blindness and remove blindness to make the experience real?
- Do you get added benefits if you learn the Blind-Fighting Feat?
If the character is blind from a standard curse or an eye irritant/disease like conjunctivitis, Remove Blindness/Deafness should fix it. (If the eye is actually destroyed then you'll need something bigger.) 150 gp isn’t much for adventurers but it’s a lot for poor commoner families, which might explain why the blind PC wasn’t healed years before setting foot into a dungeon.
If a PC did this as a serious choice, I would let him keep some of the benefits of the Blind PC Starting Package, possibly with a -4 penalty on Spot checks and some kind of light sensitivity to make up for it. Both the benefits and penalties may go away after a while, leaving the PC with the same vision and hearing as any other character.
On the other hand if a PC did this right after character creation as a ploy to get some free abilities I would laugh and say mysteriously, “The cleric is baffled; your eyes haven’t cleared in the slightest.” Poor guy is out 150 gp but at least he has a plot hook to look into.
The idea of having the blind PC train the others is great. I’ll make it a feat (to be posted soon) but they still won't get the +4 to listen checks, since that on its own is more powerful than the Skill Focus feat.
To those who want blind characters to have Listen as a class skill:
Petition your DM! I totally agree with you... in fact, when I wrote the starting package... er, I mean, when the Ass-ABC PR Committee drafted the starting package, I, or they, wanted to include that as part of the package. But the players of blind PCs get enough accusations of looking for handouts as it is. I figure anyone can buy Listen ranks, even cross-class, so I didn't include it. But I would definitely ask my DM if it would be okay.
ap
Prerequisite: Wisdom 11
Benefit: When in areas that offer total concealment or when facing invisible foes, you have all the combat benefits of a blind character. You can follow the footsteps of another character to move at normal speed, cast line-of-sight spells on enemies you can hear but not see, use class abilities as normal and retain your DEX bonus to AC against any foes you can hear. You do not, however, get any bonus to your Listen skill.
Normal: Regular rules regarding concealment and invisibility apply. Many spells cannot be targeted properly and many class skills cannot be used against opponents that can’t be seen. Hearing an enemy does not necessarily let a character apply DEX bonus to AC.
New Language: Brail
Description:
Brail is actually more of a phonetic alphabet than a language. Characters who know Brail can read Brail documents in any language the character speaks. Thus, a character who speaks three languages needs to learn Brail only once to read all three languages.
Learning Brail:
Permanently blind characters of any race gain Brail as a bonus language, except barbarians. Blind barbarians and non-blind characters can purchase Brail with skill points. Blind barbarians who have become literate can also treat Brail as a bonus language.
Note that even blind, literate characters do not gain Brail as an automatic language. Like all bonus languages, learning Brail requires an Intelligence bonus. Otherwise, Brail must be purchased with skill points.
New Spell: Brailify
Conjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz0, Brd0, Clr0, Drd0, Pal0, Rgr0
Components: V, S
Range: Touch
Target: One text, up to 1 page/level
Duration: One hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
Brailify creates a set of solid, darkly-coloured brail characters that hover just off the surface of a page and perfectly transliterate any text the page contains. Because the characters are off the surface of the page, no amount of rippling or creasing interferes with their texture and the page is not damaged by reading the brail characters. If the page is part of a book or scroll, the characters do not interfere with closing it. If the page is impossible to read visually (due to stains, rips, or any other kind of damage) the brail characters are equally flawed and hard to read. Brailify does not in itself aid with any effort to decode or decipher a cryptic text.
If a target page is significantly larger than pages sized for the caster, it may count as more than one page for the purposes of the spell.
If Explosive Runes or any other text-affecting spell have been placed on the target page, the effect also applies to the brail and is triggered by touching the brail.
Although any caster of the appropriate level can use Brailify, only characters who can read Brail can make sense of the characters.
Petition your DM! I totally agree with you... in fact, when I wrote the starting package... er, I mean, when the Ass-ABC PR Committee drafted the starting package, I, or they, wanted to include that as part of the package. But the players of blind PCs get enough accusations of looking for handouts as it is. I figure anyone can buy Listen ranks, even cross-class, so I didn't include it. But I would definitely ask my DM if it would be okay.
Well, in essence, a blind character does lose spot as a skill completely, for obvious reasons. I think it would only be fair if listen was a class skill for all his classes. You win some, but you definitely lose some too. So I believe it is fair. However, if my DM had the impression that I made a blind character because I am looking for handouts, then I wouldn't play him. I'm not the kind of player that wants any kind of handouts, and I believe my DM knows this
Nice work on the spells and feat there!
I'm not the kind of player that wants any kind of handouts, and I believe my DM knows this
Arr, 'twas only to get all the glory and riches that come with being blind that I gouged me eyes out of me block that drunken evening so long ago.
Nice work on the spells and feat there!
Thanks! I have some ideas for some blind-themed magic items too. I'll post them if I get around to stat'ing them out. By the way, not mentioned in the package above but I would imagine blind orcs/drow etc. would no longer have Light Sensitivity issues.
ap
I gotta say there were a few times my DM threw a medusa at us, luckily I never got turned to stone. It would be so fun to play a blind character and mess his medusa up if I get the chance :D
I know it's high fantasy, not reality, but blind characters in fantasy who act on a par or superior to sighted characters almost always have a form of tremor/blindsense which makes them effectively sighted. Daredevil for example, can't be considered a blind character because effectively, he is able to see, better some would argue, than people with eyes. I've seen alternate systems that allowed feats to be taken to give such a sense to blinded players but honestly, there's a reason that blind PCs are never really used, they're not as good and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Please, if you have some in mind, point them out to me.
Let's begin with the obvious, and what I mentioned before. Also I m sure other people will have suggestion on this too. Here we go:
- Immunity to gaze attacks, for obvious reasons.
- Immunity to a lot of illusion magic, mirror image, displacement, and many many others. Basically, illusions can only fool characters who can see. Those spells rely on your opponent's sight to fool them. A blind character would not be affected by most illusion magic, since he does not see the illusions in the first place. One example is displacement - this spell relies on the fact that your opponent is able to see you in order to fool him. If your opponent is blind, then he does not see the various false images and figments this spell generates. Therefor, a blind character is effectively immune to the majority of illusion magic. Exceptions include magic that fools one's hearing of course. Mirror image is another example, same as displacement. By making a listen check you can discern the real caster. Since mirror images do not exist, they do not make sound, and therefor, do not affect a blind man. In essence, mirror image too relies on the opponent's sight to fool him.
- Immunity to feinting. Obviously, feinting relies on sight in order to fool a character. You can only fool your opponent with a false attack if he can see it. If he cannot see the feint, then he cannot be affected by it. I already love the image of a rogue in my head trying to feint against a blind man, thinking he's just gonna land a dagger in his kidney, just to be surprised to see that, regardless of his feint, the blind man's greatsword is about to chop his head off lol.
- Immunity to all other spells that affect one's sight, that are not of the enchantment school. This includes spells like color spray for example.
- Immunity to gaze attacks, for obvious reasons.
I already said, apart from gaze attacks in my post.
- Immunity to a lot of illusion magic, mirror image, displacement, and many many others. Basically, illusions can only fool characters who can see. Those spells rely on your opponent's sight to fool them. A blind character would not be affected by most illusion magic, since he does not see the illusions in the first place. One example is displacement - this spell relies on the fact that your opponent is able to see you in order to fool him. If your opponent is blind, then he does not see the various false images and figments this spell generates. Therefor, a blind character is effectively immune to the majority of illusion magic. Exceptions include magic that fools one's hearing of course. Mirror image is another example, same as displacement. By making a listen check you can discern the real caster. Since mirror images do not exist, they do not make sound, and therefor, do not affect a blind man. In essence, mirror image too relies on the opponent's sight to fool him.
All but the lowest level illusion spells produce sound, heat and smell. Even the level 2 minor image includes some sounds. Also, this works both ways, a blind character is going to be highly vulnerable to spells such as ghost sound and ventriloquism. Also, mirror image:
You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image.
Also, for mundane illusions a blind character will have a much harder time judging when something is an illusion and therefore disbelieving it. A sighted character will see his sword sweep through an illusion and know it for what it is. A blind character will simply assume that he's missed and thus will have no reason to doubt the realism of the sounds he hears.
- Immunity to feinting. Obviously, feinting relies on sight in order to fool a character. You can only fool your opponent with a false attack if he can see it. If he cannot see the feint, then he cannot be affected by it. I already love the image of a rogue in my head trying to feint against a blind man, thinking he's just gonna land a dagger in his kidney, just to be surprised to see that, regardless of his feint, the blind man's greatsword is about to chop his head off lol.
Um... no, totally the opposite in fact. A feint is a major body action used to hide a minor one, don't argue with me on this, I'm a member of the University fencing society. For example, I will step left in order to make you think I'm about to slice across but then suddenly dart in a lunge. The blind man will hear the step to the left but never see the set of the shoulders and stance of the arms that would tell of the rogue's true intent.
Plus any rogue with half a brain is going to think "Brilliant, this idiot thinks he'll actually hear me coming." Then he'll ranged sneak attack you from thirty foot away and then move silently to another square. You bumble towards where you think the shot came from. He sneak attacks again, moves again, etc, etc. Even with the rules suggested in this thread you're looking at an minimum DC of 35 to pinpoint him.
- Immunity to all other spells that affect one's sight, that are not of the enchantment school. This includes spells like color spray for example.
Ooh... immunity to a spell that's more or less irrelevant after 5th level. All the others that I've been able to find, flare, and the like similarly are only effective at very low level play when the pc's listen check is going to make them inneffective in combat anyway as they'll constantly be having trouble "pinpointing" the enemy. On the other hand there's things like symbol of warding/pain/death etc, prismatic wall and a whole host of other really rather nasty effects that a blind man will simply walk into where a sighted character will see them. Also, one simple spell, "Silence"
Next?
Um... no, totally the opposite in fact. A feint is a major body action used to hide a minor one, don't argue with me on this, I'm a member of the University fencing society. For example, I will step left in order to make you think I'm about to slice across but then suddenly dart in a lunge. The blind man will hear the step to the left but never see the set of the shoulders and stance of the arms that would tell of the rogue's true intent.
Alright, I do not have the time to write too much, but I guess I'll agree on you with most things. Except with the above.
I've trained martial arts for 13 years. Jabbing my opponent in the eyes will blind him. After that, I will not try feinting, because I know he can't see my movements. If you EXPLICITLY use sound to deceive him because he can't see your movements, that's another thing. But feinting is not about making sounds - you should know that a feint must be a fast move, otherwise if it's slow, your opponent will counter (you are too slow so he has no reason to try to defend himself when he can more easily injure you - he may not realize that it's a feint, but your slow movements are nevertheless an invitation to a counterattack). Only if your feint is fast, the opponent will see it as a threat (because your feint is supposed to represent a real attack, and a real attack is a fast one, that's what feinting is all about).
I do agree with you when you say you can use sound to deceive a blind opponent. However, this is NOT feinting. This is using sound to deceive your opponent, who is blind - feinting does not use sound, but fast false movements to lure your enemy into dropping his guard. Feinting uses your opponent's sight for your advantage, NOT his hearing. Using sound to deceive a blind man is the same as throwing a stone to his left to make him think you're there. This is a nicely thought out trick, but not feinting.
In other words, while I do agree with you on this, I disagree that using sound for deception is feinting. Just to get this straight. But that's the way I see feinting though. I never fought against a blind man so I never tried to use sound to my advantage, but I simply can't see using sound as feinting.
Also, I know I need to beat a DC of a min 35 to pinpoint him, and that's a worry I already expressed before. Now, before you assume stuff, I never said being blind comes with just advantages. It has obvious disadvantages, but also some advantages. However, it does have more disadvantages - but that's the whole point of playing a blind character. It's about the challenge.
but also some advantages.
...Name one apart from the gaze attack issue which frankly can be solved by sighted characters simply by closing their eyes. Okay, I get that it's a whole roleplay issue, you want play someone overcoming a disadvantage and everything but almost anything is easier to live with than being blind. You're deliberately playing a character that is a liability to the rest of the group and will likely prove frustrating and time-consuming to deal with in the game. What band of heros are going to voluntarily team up with a blind man? Any lawful good character I've ever played would go so far as to force the blind man to stay behind for both their sakes.
As for the feinting issue, I'll admit that the DnD system is a bit clumsy as it doesn't take into account the sheer volume of varience in fighting styles and weaponry. But consider: a feint while unarmed will be a bullet jab to the stomach to lower their guard before you hammer a right into their jaw, a feint while armed is a much more involved affair. Attacking with a weapon is aimed to do more than simply score a hit, you aim to kill and thus it's a much more commited and obvious movement that involves the whole body. I know of no system of armed combat that does not accompany a strike with a comensurate movement from the lower body. Though it is stylised, look at the way the fighters in the film Troy move. The way the Achillies character circles his opponents and shifts constantly from foot to foot is a perfect example of using feinting in armed combat to unbalance your opponent. A blind character will hear only shifting feet and circling steps and thus will have no notion of where the next attack is coming from.
...Interesting but based on a fundamentally flawed supposition, that being blind doesn't matter.
Eureka: It matters. It makes us awesome. Have you ever tried adventuring with non-blind PC's? It's like chaining yourself to a pack of lemmings in the middle of a carnival. They think they can do anything, run recklessly in every direction and just end up getting themselves killed.
Thoroden: Verily, when I crossed the blasted wastes of Aerion to the Temple of the East Wind, the only words that graced my ears for a fortnight were the whimpers and sobs of my sight-flaunting companions. "O, the Sun! O, the glare!" The memory blackens my mind.
Er, it does, there's a reason it's called a handicap.
Eureka: Handicap?
Thoroden: Handicap?!
Eureka: It isn't a handicap, it's an eye-cap. What the heck is wrong with you?
Thoroden: Though unable to see, we have fully functioning hands.
Eureka: I've actually got the Nimble Fingers feat. My hands are probably better than yours.
Angkower: And I have three hands.
Thoroden: That's a lie, you scoundrel!
Angkower: Nay, I have three hands to me name! The two the uncaring gods stuck on me at birth, and the third I won from a mate at poker!
Eureka:
Thoroden:
Angkower: What're ye ogling me fer, ye dogs? We gave 'im a shot of rum before applying the surgeon's saw!
Other than gaze attacks I can think of no situation, not one, where a blind character will be more or even as effective as a sighted one. Please, if you have some in mind, point them out to me. I'll even allow all your additional rules to apply...
Eureka: Making listen checks.
Angkower: Not throwing up on the king's ugly-as-dung daughter.
Thoroden: Convincing the enemy you are but a harmless cripple.
Eureka: Casting line-of-sight spells on invisible enemies.
Angkower: Pinpointin' the same.
Thoroden: Immunity to dazzling.
Eureka: Sleeping in the daytime before a night raid.
Angkower: Wormin' out of watch duty each night.
Thoroden: Chastity and calmness when faced with seductresses.
Eureka: And that's just how blind characters are better than you glass-faced normals. We can also do everything you can, with the occasional extra miss when swinging the sword.
... No, disallowing these rules would not make a DM a jerk or an idiot, it would make them sensible. Sight is the human bodys primary sense, it's what we, as a species are built around. Without it our every faculty ,with the exception of hearing, is reduced.
Eureka: Possibly. But you might want to point your tear-shooters at these sites:
A list of actual blind sports with five martial arts including fencing and archery.
A similar site for blind athletes, again including martial arts.
I know it's high fantasy, not reality, but blind characters in fantasy who act on a par or superior to sighted characters almost always have a form of tremor/blindsense which makes them effectively sighted.
Eureka: Exactly! That's why we are providing the starting package and the other material above. It's been done badly too many times. Now there's an organized, sensible way to do it. It's easy to use and doesn't give the blind PC a bunch of feats. It gives minor concessions that let you make a balanced, playable, but of course still challenged PC.
...there's a reason that blind PCs are never really used, they're not as good and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Thoroden: Precious gods above, why did I not see it earlier?
Eureka: What?
Thoroden: My regards to you, Master Dei. I did not realise!
Eureka: What?
Thoroden: Sir ArrowLeaf, do you not understand? Master Dei is actually blind!!
Eureka: What? Why do you think that?
Thoroden: For a certainty, if it were any other way, he would have read our starting package above!
Angkower: Avast! The dandymouth be right!
Eureka: Of course. Dei, you challenged us to prove something we've already proven above, because... because you're blind, didn't you? It's okay, friend. The days of blind PC's being fodder are over. You can be proud of who you are. Welcome to our Association!
[color=Navy]
Eureka: Making listen checks.
A sighted character can easily be just as good and better. A normal rogue or ranger will almost always be able to beat say a blind fighter, monk or more or less any other class check for check. Oh, and you know what else, he can see what's making the noise once he's heard it. Not just say "I hear something... I hope to god it's not something bad."
Angkower: Not throwing up on the king's ugly-as-dung daughter.
...that's so stupid I'm not even going to bother responding.
Thoroden: Convincing the enemy you are but a harmless cripple.
"I'm but a harmless cripple!"
"You've got a spellbook/plate armour/big freaking axe"
"Um... it's for decoration?"
Hmm, somehow I think they're gonna need a little more convincing.
Eureka: Casting line-of-sight spells on invisible enemies.
Again, you've got no real advantage over sighted characters. Unless you can make an average DC 30 listen check you're still going to be suffering total concealment and when you fail that your caster is going to end up blasting an ally.
Angkower: Pinpointin' the same.
Again, no real advantage over sighted characters.
Thoroden: Immunity to dazzling.
No, you're not immune, when you're blind you're worse than dazzled, you're blind!
Eureka: Sleeping in the daytime before a night raid.
They're called eyelids, sighted characters get them too. And if it's really bright out they can even wear *gasp* a blindfold to help them sleep.
Angkower: Wormin' out of watch duty each night.
You mean, being a burden to the party?
Thoroden: Chastity and calmness when faced with seductresses.
Except most of them that pose an actual threat have mind effecting abilities that your blind character is going to be just as susceptible too.
Eureka: Possibly. But you might want to point your tear-shooters at these sites:
A list of actual blind sports with five martial arts including fencing and archery.
A similar site for blind athletes, again including martial arts.
Oh, I never said that blind people couldn't do such sports/activities. I just said that they won't be as adept as sighted characters, and they're not. There's a reason these people don't compete side by side with sighted athletes, they're not able to match them.
Eureka: Exactly! That's why we are providing the starting package and the other material above. It's been done badly too many times. Now there's an organized, sensible way to do it. It's easy to use and doesn't give the blind PC a bunch of feats. It gives minor concessions that let you make a balanced, playable, but of course still challenged PC.
Playable, maybe, effective, no, and those minor concessions, they're not minor, they're major changes to the way the game works with little or no logic behind them other than that you think it'd be "cool". And even with those changes blind characters still suffer major setbacks when compared to sighted characters. I've nothing against blind people and if someone wants to play a blind character, sure, I wish them the best of luck. Just don't expect any of the other characters in the game to actually want to group up with you because guess what? They're too sensible to hamper their group with a blind person. If you insist on coming along, fine, but if we need to run and you can't see the way out, I know I'm not coming back for you.
As for your last comments AP, sarcasm is the recourse of the weak minded. The fact that you're trying to deflect attention away from the weakness of your arguements with it really doesn't do much to aid your cause.
...Name one apart from the gaze attack issue which frankly can be solved by sighted characters simply by closing their eyes. Okay, I get that it's a whole roleplay issue, you want play someone overcoming a disadvantage and everything but almost anything is easier to live with than being blind. You're deliberately playing a character that is a liability to the rest of the group and will likely prove frustrating and time-consuming to deal with in the game. What band of heros are going to voluntarily team up with a blind man? Any lawful good character I've ever played would go so far as to force the blind man to stay behind for both their sakes.
As for the feinting issue, I'll admit that the DnD system is a bit clumsy as it doesn't take into account the sheer volume of varience in fighting styles and weaponry. But consider: a feint while unarmed will be a bullet jab to the stomach to lower their guard before you hammer a right into their jaw, a feint while armed is a much more involved affair. Attacking with a weapon is aimed to do more than simply score a hit, you aim to kill and thus it's a much more commited and obvious movement that involves the whole body. I know of no system of armed combat that does not accompany a strike with a comensurate movement from the lower body. Though it is stylised, look at the way the fighters in the film Troy move. The way the Achillies character circles his opponents and shifts constantly from foot to foot is a perfect example of using feinting in armed combat to unbalance your opponent. A blind character will hear only shifting feet and circling steps and thus will have no notion of where the next attack is coming from.
Well, immunity to spells such as mirror image and displacement, for example. Don't get me wrong, I know just as well as you that a blind character has more disadvantages then advantages. But that's the whole concept here - a character who is blind and tries to overcome his weaknesses. It's a fun concept that may be hard to pull off, but that's the challenge. I never said being blind was a good thing. It is not good in any event.
As for feinting, yes that is true. I train tae kwon do, and in that sport feinting is one of the main tools to win. But it won't always come in the form of you described - sometimes it's aimed at the head to make them raise their guard, then punch them in the stomach (this is even done with kicks, although with kick it requires a good amount of control over your body, it's not very simple, but it is indeed doable). I agree on the armed combat thing, and yes, feinting in D&D is poorly expressed. But then again this is a game, we can try make it as realistic as possible, but a game will always have limitations.
Well, immunity to spells such as mirror image and displacement, for example.
Did you not read the spell description for mirror image? It specifically mentions that you can't use hearing to tell which is the real one and which is not as I quoted from the SRD in my last post. As for displacement, you're not immune, you're constantly suffering it's effects against all enemies not just those that actually cast this spell.
The reason I'm arguing so vehemently against it is that in any game where the DM actually makes things challenging for the players the characters in the party need to rely on eachother to survive. A blind character simply isn't as reliable as a sighted character and thus most characters will feel legitimately worried about bringing him along. Out of game this is because the players know that the DM will be raising the EL of what they face because of the extra character while that character is not effective enough to jsutify the raise.
In game it's because, who wants to have to constantly be worrying about the blind person when you're fighting for your life. There's a reason blind/injured/crippled soldiers are shipped away from the front line, so that their healthy colleagues don't have to worry about looking after them. It doesn't matter how much a blind soldier "wants to stay on the front and overcome his disadvantage" the officer's not going to want him around endangering the rest of his men with his inneffectiveness. A character in an adventuring party will have exactly the same mindset, moreso in fact. Unlike in an army, he chooses who to group with and will want to group with only those people he knows are as effective as possible so that they maximise his chance at survival like he maximises theirs. A blind character simply doesn't and thus puts the group as a whole in danger which I personally find pretty abhorrent. Why should my character face greater danger simply because you decided to play blind?
Did you not read the spell description for mirror image? It specifically mentions that you can't use hearing to tell which is the real one and which is not as I quoted from the SRD in my last post. As for displacement, you're not immune, you're constantly suffering it's effects against all enemies not just those that actually cast this spell.
The reason I'm arguing so vehemently against it is that in any game where the DM actually makes things challenging for the players the characters in the party need to rely on eachother to survive. A blind character simply isn't as reliable as a sighted character and thus most characters will feel legitimately worried about bringing him along. Out of game this is because the players know that the DM will be raising the EL of what they face because of the extra character while that character is not effective enough to jsutify the raise.
In game it's because, who wants to have to constantly be worrying about the blind person when you're fighting for your life. There's a reason blind/injured/crippled soldiers are shipped away from the front line, so that their healthy colleagues don't have to worry about looking after them. It doesn't matter how much a blind soldier "wants to stay on the front and overcome his disadvantage" the officer's not going to want him around endangering the rest of his men with his inneffectiveness. A character in an adventuring party will have exactly the same mindset, moreso in fact. Unlike in an army, he chooses who to group with and will want to group with only those people he knows are as effective as possible so that they maximise his chance at survival like he maximises theirs. A blind character simply doesn't and thus puts the group as a whole in danger which I personally find pretty abhorrent. Why should my character face greater danger simply because you decided to play blind?
I see, I guess I should read up on mirror image. So I guess you're right. But on the other hand, this is a game, you are allowed to try things right?
I guess I should ask the group whether they want a blind char along (the answer probably being no lol, but then again my group is open minded, maybe they are willing to give it a shot). I think you're taking this too seriously though, if my group really insisted that my char is being a major pain, I'd make a new, but it doesn't hurt to try I think. Though I would of course discuss it with the group and the DM.As for your last comments AP, sarcasm is the recourse of the weak minded. The fact that you're trying to deflect attention away from the weakness of your arguements with it really doesn't do much to aid your cause.
Hi Dei, I can see this is really bothering you so I'll be serious for a minute. The average listen DC to pinpoint an enemy in combat is 20. As mentioned above, a 1st level blind character is going to have a +9 to +12 listen check (depending on whether he took Skill Focus: Listen). He'll make the listen check most of the time. You are right that he still has a huge disadvantage--a 50% miss rate on most kinds of attacks even when he does make the listen check. As stated in the "Drawbacks" section of the Starting Package, the player really needs to think about whether that will be fun or not.
You've also said you don't like the concessions the Starting Package gives and that's fine. You think many DM's wouldn't allow it, and that's fine. As I said above, if a player really wants to play a sensible blind character and their DM flat-out refuses to consider it, that's a difference in play style. Obviously I shouldn't ask to roll up Cap'n Angkower in your group and you shouldn't come DM my group. But--but!--for groups that are up for the challenge (yes, I admit, it's a challenge) these rules can make it fun instead of agonising.
I don't think we're going to end up agreeing any better than that, so let's call it a truce, okay?
ap
Eureka: And that's just how blind characters are better than you glass-faced normals. We can also do everything you can, with the occasional extra miss when swinging the sword.
Amusing posts aside, methinks you are missing a great deal of the problems affecting the blind PC.
1) Environment. Shifting focus back from pure combat, merely getting around is going to be a huge issue. Let's give a hypothetical situation. A normal PC walks down a hallway, finds a pit blocking his progress. A series of columns within the pit provide a path that can be traversed via jump checks. A few hops later, he continues.
The blind PC will have to be moving slowly to learn about the surrounding environment, and will barely realize the pit is there before being right on top of it. Moreover, he can't detect the pillars, thus his progress is blocked.
Sure, just a single situation. But what about others? Listen won't tell you that there is a ladder above you, which you can barely reach if you leap. Nor will it tell you that the cavern wall is painted with Danger! Beware of Grue! From the color of the dragon's scales to the road signs, visual information can provide great detail. For that matter, how do you investigate a new area? You will have to either use echoes, which will provide vague information, or search by touch over the entire area, whereas a character with sight can take in the entire room almost instantaneously.
How will the blind character standing in the field know that to his left lies the Mountain of Fluffy Kitten Hugs, while to his right looms the Mountain of Sharp, Pointy Death? A normal character could see the rainbow aura of joy and the dark miasma of doom, but a blind character wouldn't even know the mountains were there. While were in the field, the two characters will have very different reactions to the circling flight of dragons, who have been following a few hundred feet up for the past mile.
2) "I cast Silence on my armor." These six words will destroy the blind character described. Suddenly, the enemy is a moving information void, completely disabling the method of sensory input upon which the character relies. And because of the complete lack of saving throw, if they cast it on themselves, any opponent with access to the spell can drastically turn the tide of battle.
3) Red vs Blue. Two armies stand on either side. The Hextorian guard move forward to subjugate the knights of Heironeous. You blind character, being good, is helping the latter. A few minutes of combat later, your wading through the masses. Before you are two figures locked in mortal combat. You can tell from listen checks that both are wielding maces, both are wearing full plate, and both have long hair in braids (It was a really, really good check). One problem. Who follows which god? A character with sight could perceive the holy symbols on each set of armor. The blind character will have no such information, and will have a very awkward moment if he hits the wrong one.
4) Two steps forward, two steps back. A lot of the advantages listed rely upon "A blind character cannot perceive the illusion/effect, and will therefore ignore it." This is absolutely true. But what about the illusions that the character in question CAN perceive?
If I use Ghost Sound on a normal character to give the impression that he is about to be run over by a moving boulder, he's going to be startled until he notices through vision that there is no giant rock rolling in his direction. The blind character's reliance on Listen checks protects him from sight-based powers, but it also means he has little in the way of backup senses to augment his perceptions of the world. Thus, I can send him fleeing using only auditory information. Sometimes, false information will beguile someone into making mistakes. More often, however, true information from that sense will aid them in making decisions.
....I totally need to make an encounter based upon an invisible boulder.
Does this all mean that blind characters are useless, that everything stated is false, and that no one should ever play a blind character? Not at all. But one should not think that a disadvantage does not make the character less effective overall simply because it can actually provide a benefit in a few select situations. Odds are, the minor benefits will be far outweighed by all the situations where blindness is a drawback.
Blindness will make the character less effective, overall. It will hinder you in common situations, it will cause problems in combat, and it will occasionally save you from situations where sight is a disadvantage. At nearly all times, it will affect your character in some way, for good or ill, usually the latter.
If you can overcome it, power to you. But never assume that it will be a cakewalk.
I don't think we're going to end up agreeing any better than that, so let's call it a truce, okay?
Fair enough. My problem was never with the idea of a blind character in and of itself, it was with a player deciding to play one independently of the group. Any character which differs from the norm so enormously should be a group decision involving all the other characters and the DM so that they can decide homogenously wether or not they want to go through the effort of bringing such a character into the game. In such a group where the agreement was made I could not and would not object to it as my primary concern has always been that such a character would inconvenience the other players.
Fair enough. My problem was never with the idea of a blind character in and of itself, it was with a player deciding to play one independently of the group. Any character which differs from the norm so enormously should be a group decision involving all the other characters and the DM so that they can decide homogenously wether or not they want to go through the effort of bringing such a character into the game. In such a group where the agreement was made I could not and would not object to it as my primary concern has always been that such a character would inconvenience the other players.
Dei, I think none of us would just play one without taking to their players and the DM. I for one, would definitely talk to the DM and the players beforehand, and I'd even have a backup char in case they decide I can't play the blind char.
I don't think you gotta worry about that
Any character which differs from the norm so enormously should be a group decision involving all the other characters and the DM so that they can decide homogenously wether or not they want to go through the effort of bringing such a character into the game.
Right on Dei, I agree with you there. Anytime a character isn't going to be "normal" (like, core PHB good- or neutral-aligned normal) then it needs approval first. Unless of course it is part of some player-and-DM secret plot thing that's planned in advance. But in general, yep, I'm with you.
ap
Obviously, you lose access to normal sight while wearing it, but for blind characters this isn't much of a problem.
I think that Braillify should also be on the bard list (maybe that was just an oversight that it's not)
Well, as the first post states, nothing needs to be changed for "lo, it is the word of the blind". Secretly however, I just went and changed it.
Thanks for pointing this out.ap
School: Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Wiz/Sorc1, Clr1, Brd1
Range: Medium
Area: 20 foot radius emanation centred on a creature, object, or point in space
Duration: 1 min/level
Saving throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
All creatures within the area of a Jingle Jangle spell are outlined in clear, constant tinkling noises, almost as if they are wearing hundreds of bells that won't stop ringing. Affected creatures are unable to make Move Silently checks and can be pinpointed by sound even if they are completely still.
The pitch of the bell noises around each creature is different, individuating one from another. The spell is usually used in an effort to track invisible or concealed creatures; a character attempting to pinpoint an affected creature has a +10 circumstance bonus to his Listen check. Any miss chance against affected creatures (from concealment, etc.) is halved.
Since Jingle Jangle does not damage or touch creatures, immunity to Sonic energy does not negate the effect. Animated objects count as creatures for the purposes of the spell.
Willing targets can forego the Will Save.
This heavy bronze rod is etched with a peacock feather motiff. The end is shaped like a bird's head, with one eye winking. It can be wielded as a +1 light mace.
Three times per day the Rod of Icuc can be activated as a free action to use one of the following two abilities:
Sight Exchange: By succeeding on a touch attack, the wielder of the rod and the (willing or unwilling) target exchange vision. This effect lasts 5 minutes but the wielder of the rod can end it early as a free action. Any spells or conditions affecting the eyesight of the target are transferred to the wielder and vice versa; thus, if the wielder is normally blind he or she can now see and the target is instead blind. The wielder and target literally see through each other's eyes; they cannot look through their own eyes while under the effect of the rod. Thus, the wielder can only see his or her surroundings if the target is in the same area (and vice versa). This means it is possible for the two creatures involved to enter separate rooms and no longer see their own room; face different directions and no longer see what is in front of them; or gain line of sight on a target that is nowhere near their own line of sight. Spells and abilities that affect either creature's vision (such as True Seeing or Darkvision) are traded as well; feats however (like Blind-Fight) are not traded. Senses other than sight (like Tremorsense) are unaffected.
There is no save against this effect. The effect works regardless of distance between the two creatures, but does not work if one creature enters a different plane than the other.
Reconnoiter: This works the same as Sight Exchange, except that it is a one-way trade. The wielder of the rod is able to see what the target sees, but the target's vision is unaffected. This allows the wielder to perform reconnaissance via the target, or to cast line-of-sight spells from a safe distance.
Faint divination; CL5th; Craft Rod, clairvoyance, blindness; price 19,000 gp.
They are not immune to gaze attacks unless their eyes are covered. Reason, to me in DnD a gaze attack goes to the soul. As the saying goes, "The eyes are the window to the soul", their eyes still may allow access to the character's soul. Therefore gaze attacks work even against them.
Spells affect them based on what it is. Obviously they are immune to figments, exterior shadow images. They are not immune to mental illusions like phantasms that attack the mind directly. They have no penalties against sound based attacks but they have no bonuses to hear either. Blind people I do not believe "hear better". Being blind they concentrate more on hearing than sighted people do.
For the "blind people can id sounds better" crowd, there is a simple solution. Sighted people spread points out in Search, Spot and Listen. A blind person has Listen. A sighted person who spends 6 points between all three skills has a 2 in each. A blind person who spends 6 points on Listen has a between chance. No bonuses needed.
The bottom line:
For 150gp taking a "blind character" and then getting them healed has the options for too many abuses.
You want to play a blind character in my world, go for it. It will be tough and if your character lives, you really would have accomplished something very difficult to do. You will not get any freebies for being blind.
- Sight-based Skills. You automatically fail all Skill Checks involving Decipher Script, Disguise, Forgery or Spot, as well as Spellcraft or Use Magic Device when used on scrolls, books or other items that rely on writing.
- Sight-related Skills. You suffer a -4 penalty to all Skill checks except Knowledge, Listen, Move Silently, Perform and any Craft or Profession that doesn't involve sight in any way.
- Didn't See It Coming. You are always denied Dex bonuses to AC and suffer a -2 penalty to AC above that.
- Movement. You move at half-speed, unless you are in a place you know intimately. With the Accelerated Movement rule for Balance, you can move at full speed if you roll a Balance check of DC 15, not inc'g the usual -4 penalty on Balance and not including surface or other modifiers. A failure by 4 or less means you can’t move for 1 round. A failure by 5 or more means you fall. You cannot take 10 on this roll.
- Inoffensive. You have a 50% miss chance whenever you attack a foe, assuming you can discern the square in which they are. All your foes always have total concealment with respect to your actions.
- Listen-Dependent. To discern the location of a foe, you must always (as in, every time you take an action with respect to that foe, even if that is multiple actions in the same round) roll a Listen check against the DC for hearing the person, at a -20 penalty (per the description of the invisibility ability).
- Illiterate. You cannot take any levels in a class that depends on writing, such as Wizard.
- Immunity. You are immune to gaze attacks and effects that rely entirely on light or vision as if you had total concealment, including Explosive Runes, but not Symbol.
- Guide Animal. An animal can be trained to serve as a guide animal. "Guide" is a trick under the Handle Animal Skill rules. This allows the blind person to use verbal commands to get the animal to guide the person. The DC to teach this trick is 15 (and blind people suffer the -4 penalty during training). The DC for getting the animal to guide is the standard DC 10, and the blind person does not suffer the standard -4 skill check penalty. Guided blind people do not suffer half movement, but they must share the same square as their animal at all times, whether mounted on the animal, or squeezed in the animal's space. The trained animal cannot not be more than one size category larger or smaller than the blind person.
- Braille. Braille may be taken as a bonus language. However, few people can read Braille, even blind people. It can be deciphered like any other language, and no known scrolls or spells are written in Braille. Commissioning a sighted person (or a blind person using spells like Clairvoyance) to make braille spellbooks, scrolls and books should incur an increased price as if commissioning any writing in a rare language.
- Magic Assistance for the Sight-Impaired. Some spells can ameliorate the effects of blindness, including clairvoyance. While such spells are active, all check penalties for blindness are halved, the character may use any Skill (even those relying on sight) and the character is no longer flatfooted due to blindness. The character, however, is subject to gaze attacks and attacks relying on light and vision.
Most blind characters will try to overcome these penalties with the Blind-Fighting Feat and by loading up on Listen. I would also allow the following customized feats (or, alternately, Skill Tricks):
Blind Combat: (Pre-Requisite Blind Fighting as Feat, or Balance and Tumble 5 ranks). If you roll a successful Listen check to discern the location of a foe, you are no longer denied Dexterity bonuses to AC or the additional -2 penalty as to attacks from that foe (until he moves and a subsequent Listen check fails). (Sighted characters gain this benefit against invisible foes, while in darkness and against characters who are concealed.)
Blind Skill: (Pre-Requisite Skill Focus as Feat or Sleight of Hand 5 ranks as Skill Trick). You no longer suffer the -4 penalty when performing this skill blind. If the blindness is cured, you gain no benefits and the Feat slot remains occupied (just in case you ever subsequently blinded). The Feat applies to a single skill in which the character has SKill Focus, and each time it is taken it applied, it must be assigned to a different Skill.
Echolocate: (Pre-requisite Skill Focus (Listen) as Feat, or Listen 8 ranks as Skill Trick). +10 bonus to Listen checks to discern the square in which target is located (effectively halving the penalty). Sighted people can also use this for finding invisible and concealed creatures.
Steady Shuffle: (no pre-requisite for Feat, Tumble and Jump 5 ranks as Skill Trick) You no longer suffer the -4 penalty to your Balance check when using the Accelerated Movement tactic. Sighted people gain the very same benefit for treacherous terrain.
I would also accept the Braillify and Jingle Jangle spells. I think the Rod of Icuc is too cheap. It should require telepathic bond in its creation and cost 54000 gp.
@ LCD2YOU: The reason that the Ass-ABC made blind characters immune to gaze attacks is because Darkness offers immunity to them. It seems to me that the point is no sight = no gaze vulnerability. You could argue that this is because Darkness is magical and that the gaze goes "straight to the soul" but that is not mentioned anywhere in the RAW. Remember too that most blind PCs are going to have either a powerful curse blinding them or they will be missing their eyes entirely (gouged out, etc.). This is because simply having cataracts or the Blindness spell is (comparatively) cheaply cured by magic. Under these conditions the gaze may once again not work.
You said,
Obviously [the blind] are immune to figments, exterior shadow images. They are not immune to mental illusions like phantasms that attack the mind directly.
Agreed. That's why there is no "immunity to illusion" in the starting package.
Regarding your comments about hearing, I have been around blind people who could hear me coming 100 feet away in a noisy city park. Now if you want to say that's them "concentrating more" on listening, that's fine. But they do it waaayyyy better than the sighted. The +4 in the starting package is a competence bonus, which is a pretty broad term in D&D. If you want to say this added competence is because of paying more attention/concentrating more, that works.
As for players abusing it, psshh. Please. Some players will abuse any rule and others wouldn't even abuse an infinite money machine. If you have a player who builds a blind character for the bonuses and then wants his blindness cured, there are numerous ways to balance out or take away his bonuses. Some have already been suggested in this thread. As DM you have infinite power; you'll manage.
@wrecan: First off I appreciate your feedback on the spells and rod. I was considering raising the price on the rod since it has no save. But if the wielder is blind he/she has a 50% miss rate on the touch attack to use the thing. If the wielder isn't blind, it's not a very combat-effective item. So I left it as is.
For your blind rules, your (2) seems heavy-handed but reasonable. Your (6) is redundant since pinpointing foes by sound is already covered in the RAW (and it carries a whopping -20, rather than the much easier -5 you've suggested). Your (3) is a major sticking point for me:
Blind people aren't defenceless. I don't know where people get this idea. Blind people hear others coming sooner and from farther away, are more used to figuring out what others are doing based only on sound, and compete in fencing and other martial arts in the real world. I do understand that blind people can't defend as skilfully as sighted people, but the "always flatfooted" thing is too much. Flatfooted means you are unable to dodge at all. Blind people don't fit that description. Either have a uniform penalty to AC (like -2 at all times) or else have a system where they are flatfooted only until they make certain listen checks (like what is proposed in the Starting Package).
Last, your rule that Braille items cost more doesn't seem... right. Scrolls written in Orcish don't cost more; it's just harder to find wizards who make them. If you are treating Braille as a bonus language, then finding Brail scrolls should have the same type of problem as finding scrolls in any other unusual language. I would make a higher Gather Info DC to find such items, but not increase cost. (Note too that the material cost for creating magic items is already inflated for game balance reasons; I don't think buying a textured ink to make the Braille scroll needs to impact the cost.)
I recognise and respect the sentiment that blind characters shouldn't get a bunch of bonuses, which is where I think you're both coming from. But don't go overboard. Remember, blind PC's are not blind real-world commoners. They are blind trained warriors/mages with above-average abilities who live in a world infused with magic. They will have drawbacks compared to other characters. But applying lists of rules like the ones you guys have posted isn't logical, it's just discouraging to creative players.
Hello Wrecan and LDC2YOU. It seems you both would enforce far harsher penalties on blind PCs than the starting package suggests.
Than your starting package? Yes. My "starting package" merely encapsulates all the rules on blindness into one easy-to-read packet.
If the wielder isn't blind, it's not a very combat-effective item.
I disagree. You can rob someone or tremorsense, blindsight or darkvision if you yourself don't possess those senses. In the right setting that's an encounter killer. Imagine touching a dragon with that and robbing the dragon of all of its marvelous senses for 50 rounds. Heck, I'd cast blindness on myself, cast true strike and pound that dragon!
your (2) seems heavy-handed but reasonable
It's the very same rule from the description of the blindness condition.
Your (6) is redundant since pinpointing foes by sound is already covered in the RAW (and it carries a whopping -20, rather than the much easier -5 you've suggested).
You're right. I should amend that to make it a -20 penalty.
Your (3) is a major sticking point for me
That's the rule based on the blindness condition. What I got rid of was the additional -2 penalty to AC. Actually, I realize now this prevents the blind from taking AoO, which I didn't mean. I'll amend that.
Blind people aren't defenceless. I don't know where people get this idea.
Blinded people in the game are effectively defenseless. -2 penalty to AC, no Dex bonus to AC, which means others can sneak attack at will. If it bugs you, I'll change it to "Didn't See It Coming".
Blind people hear others coming sooner and from farther away
Myth. They listen more carefully because they aren't using their eyes.
Last, your rule that Braille items cost more doesn't seem... right. Scrolls written in Orcish don't cost more; it's just harder to find wizards who make them. If you are treating Braille as a bonus language, then finding Brail scrolls should have the same type of problem as finding scrolls in any other unusual language.
I'm not treating it as a bonus language. I'm treating it as an ultra-rare bonus language. I would also impose a cost on books written in any rare language. I'll clarify that in the rules.
They are blind trained warriors/mages with above-average abilities who live in a world infused with magic.
Yes, but the time they spend training to fight blind is time sighted people are using to simply train. That's why I start by consolidating the blindness rules in a single place. Then I allow blind characters to compensate by spending skill points and feats to ameliorate their condition. (Heck, a guide horse is a pretty cheap way to offset the Move penalties, outdoors at least.)
What I don't do is give a blind character the equivalent of a Feat (or more) for free. That's also why I made the blindness feats (except one) valuable for sighted people as well. If the PC is cured, he still has useful skills from his specialized blindness training.
I might consider letting a character born from birth to take a bonus Feat in return for the Blindness Flaw. However, the Feat and Flaw are entwined. If the Blindness is removed, he loses both (and any skills or feats for which the Bonus Feat served as a prerequisite).
But applying lists of rules like the ones you guys have posted isn't logical, it's just discouraging to creative players.
I'm only applying the rules, which I think work just fine. The problem is in a world of magic, it's easy to spend a few gold at mid-levels and completely undo the drawbacks. A brooch of prying eyes (command word, 1/day 9 hrs/use) would cost 16,200 gp. That's good enough for most adventurers and would utterly erase the blindness, even if not removable by other means.
Heck, a sorcerer with a telepathic link to a familiar is effectively sighted.
D&D is too high-magic to warrant giving blind characters special treatment. Plus, I think the rules are sufficient. The blind character won't be as effective as everyone else. He's not a total doormat. He just needs to increase his listening as much as he possibly can.
Hello Wrecan and LDC2YOU. It seems you both would enforce far harsher penalties on blind PCs than the starting package suggests.
If you mean what you suggested, yes. If you mean by RAW, no.
Wrecan did it and put it together in one package. I have most if not all of the same rules, from RAW, just not so neatly put forward as wrecan has.
OBTW wrecan, I'm stealing what you wrote.
Obviously if you are the DM this is up to you, but there are some parts of your respective suggestions that seem like overkill to me.
That's fine but I don't agree.
@ LCD2YOU: The reason that the Ass-ABC made blind characters immune to gaze attacks is because Darkness offers immunity to them. It seems to me that the point is no sight = no gaze vulnerability. You could argue that this is because Darkness is magical and that the gaze goes "straight to the soul" but that is not mentioned anywhere in the RAW.
And I never said it was RAW. As for sighted people in magical darkness, if the being with the gaze attack can see them, only one being has and he was a high level bad guy (the players knew about this) and his gaze affected those in magical darkness if he could see them and lock onto their eyes. Not a nice guy.
For a Medusa who is also blinded by magical darkness, ala she can't see the party nor their eyes, she can't lock in on their souls. It's not RAW, but it's how I play it.
Remember too that most blind PCs are going to have either a powerful curse blinding them or they will be missing their eyes entirely (gouged out, etc.).
Why? That breaks a few of my rules of gaming.
This is because simply having cataracts or the Blindness spell is (comparatively) cheaply cured by magic. Under these conditions the gaze may once again not work.
Fluff. Eyes gouged out means unless they have have no eye lids so can't close them, it still works. Again, not RAW but it is how I play.
You said, Agreed. That's why there is no "immunity to illusion" in the starting package.
Great.
Regarding your comments about hearing, I have been around blind people who could hear me coming 100 feet away in a noisy city park.
And that's fine. I hear better with my eyes closed listening. See the more senses you have shutdown, the more you can concentrate on one of those senses.
Now if you want to say that's them "concentrating more" on listening, that's fine.
Also, as I also pointed out, blind people won't waste skill points in Search or Spot. Any and all points that would have gone into Listening.
So if they are a "5th level Expert" and relatively intelligent, they can have quite a few ranks into Listen where you, even if you were their same level and same Int, would have split up those points into three Skills, not one..
But they do it waaayyyy better than the sighted.
As wrecan pointed out, that is a myth. They may rely on it more, but they don't hear better. The reason a blind person may "hear" before a sighted person does is the sighted person relies on vision first and then listens.
In game terms, if the party has stopped to "check things out, the sighted characters look around while the blind one listens. It is not hard to see why the blind person would hear first, they are actively listening in while their companions are looking.
The +4 in the starting package is a competence bonus, which is a pretty broad term in D&D. If you want to say this added competence is because of paying more attention/concentrating more, that works.
Which is twice the "Skill Focus" bonus.
A 1st level character who is human, gets +2 on Intelligence, 4 skill points a level for a total of +7 or 28 starting points, if they don't put 4 ranks into listening they are not being all that bright.
Compare with the Sighted character who has 2 ranks into Spot and Search and no bonuses for Listen. There the Blind person already has +4 to hear over the sighted person.
As for players abusing it, psshh. Please. Some players will abuse any rule and others wouldn't even abuse an infinite money machine. If you have a player who builds a blind character for the bonuses and then wants his blindness cured, there are numerous ways to balance out or take away his bonuses. Some have already been suggested in this thread. As DM you have infinite power; you'll manage.
And sometimes it is better to nip it in the bud before it ever starts.
@wrecan:
Did a fine job at explaining his rules.
I recognise and respect the sentiment that blind characters shouldn't get a bunch of bonuses, which is where I think you're both coming from. But don't go overboard.
With all due respect, it is you who hae gone overboard. Being blind is not a picnic. It is not easy and giving away so much in the beginning is not going to solve anything.
If a person plays a blind guy whose bonuses meet or exceed the flaws, what have they really given up? They can't brag about it. At least in my world and wrecan's if you play a blind character and survive, you've really done something that is praise worthy.
Remember, blind PC's are not blind real-world commoners.
First off NPCs are the equal of PCs. The biggest difference is attitude. A PC will go out and try(and mostly die) while the NPC does 8 to 5 and goes home. A PC is no more special than a NPC at 1st level.
But it leads to the question, "Why would a master waste so much time and resources on a blind person when there are many others they can train much easier who'll be far more effective?"
Also, the Herculean feat of training a blind person to be a class is more than stretching the bounds of what is expected. this gives them way, way too much.
They are blind trained warriors/mages with above-average abilities who live in a world infused with magic.
As the world is infused with mgic, getting rid of blindness would be in many cases trivial.
Even a farmer who has a blind child would find a way to get the local cleric to cast "Cure blindness" on the child if the world is that magical.
They will have drawbacks compared to other characters. But applying lists of rules like the ones you guys have posted isn't logical, it's just discouraging to creative players.
It is very logical. wrecan pointed out all the drawbacks in RAW for blind characters with a few points of his own. I pointed out what a blind character would expect in my world.
As for "creative thinkers", I and I believe wrecan are not stopping them. They can be blind if they want. they will know the deck is stacked against them.
A player seeking a challenge and creativity will rise to the occasion.
A player who looks and says, "That' too hard" wasn't looking for a creative way in the first place. They were looking for goodies.
I love the idea, I'm the kind of player who loves to bring on challenges, especially in the name of doing something interesting for the personality of my character etc. and complexity of group dynamics. Our group is the kind that is normally fun enough to accept a little extra work for a fun and interesting story. Thanks in advance, I haven't had a chance to read all the way through all of it, good work on what I've seen so far, and I love the humor and positive attitude. Kudos on your responses to less than kind judgments!
I'm bookmarking this thread, by the way...
(snip)
Kudos on your responses to less than kind judgments!
(snip)
You mean the facts that were brought out?
I am constantly amazed when someone contradicts a thread with facts (please show me the relevant studies that point out blind people actually hear better - blind people "hear first before sighted people as sighted people rely on vision first so the blind just rely on hearing more) that another will call that "less than kind judgemnet", or worse.
You mean the facts that were brought out?
I am constantly amazed when someone contradicts a thread with facts (please show me the relevant studies that point out blind people actually hear better - blind people "hear first before sighted people as sighted people rely on vision first so the blind just rely on hearing more) that another will call that "less than kind judgemnet", or worse.
LCD2YOU, be nice. You haven't posted any studies proving your side, either.
You and Wrecan have both said that blind people hearing better is a "myth". That's fine! So are gorgons, dragons, charging your sword with magical energy, and being able to jump 30 feet. Yet all these myths exist in D&D, and I say why not give mythical blind people a mythical bonus to hearing.
The funny thing is, although I homebrewed the starting package (and was very clear about this in the earlier posts), it could actually be considered RAW. Wrecan's rules are not RAW. That's because the RAW give very specific conditions--which Wrecan flawlessly quotes--for normally sighted characters who have suddenly become blind and specifically states that "characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them". The mistake in Wrecan's rules and yours is to treat long-term blind characters the same as "blinded" characters even though this line of the rules for "blinded" specifically says not to.
Of course, this line of the rules is vague. Way vague. It doesn't say how long it takes to get accustomed, which drawbacks you overcome, how you do so, or anything else interesting. This vagueness is the reason we're debating at all. My solution is the blind character starting package which, as noted above, is specifically for permanently/long-term blinded people. It really only gives three substantial bonuses:
1) +4 to Listen checks. (You should lose this if your blindness is cured.)
2) Can use line-of-sound instead of line-of-sight. (You should lose this if your blindness is cured.)
3) Ability to be flatfooted less than blindness rules suggest (and without the extra AC penalty) if and only if you succeed on frequent listen checks. (This will automatically go away if you lose the blindness.)
Remember the drawbacks:
-Are still flatfooted way more often than other PC's
-50% miss chance on most attacks
-Reduced/hampered movement
-Cannot make some checks
Now I just don't see a lot of players looking at this and saying, ooh, what a sweet deal! I can hardly wait to sign up for that 50% miss chance to get that awesome +4 to hearing!! Your players should know they won't be sneaking the "I cured my blindness, but I get to keep that +4 right?" past you. I mean, I've interacted with you for all of three posts and I know not to try to sneak something past you. So where is this big sweet power boost your players are lusting after in the Blind PC Starting Package?
Wrecan actually sums it up very well:
I might consider letting a character born from birth to take a bonus Feat in return for the Blindness Flaw. However, the Feat and Flaw are entwined. If the Blindness is removed, he loses both (and any skills or feats for which the Bonus Feat served as a prerequisite).
That's exactly the premise on which the starting package is built.
---------
With the Rod of Icuc, wrecan, you can't steal tremorsense or most dragon senses. The rules for the Sight Exchange effect state:
Spells and spell-like abilities that affect either creatures' vision (such as True Seeing or Blindness) are traded as well; feats and innate abilities (like the Blind Traits feat, Blind Fight feat, or Blind PC Starting Package bonuses) are not traded. Senses other than sight are unaffected.
Tremorsense is more of a touch than sight thing, I would say. Likewise echolocation or read throughts wouldn't transfer. I forget what Darkvision is officially considered to be, but I don't think it is an SLA so it wouldn't transfer either. I'm sure there are creative/strategic ways to use the rod but other than being blind or casting Blindness on oneself (and either way suffering the 50% miss chance) they'll be few and far between.
ap
LCD2YOU, be nice. You haven't posted any studies proving your side, either.
American Action Fund for the Blind
[INDENT]Blind people can hear the same as sighted people. Some blind people have very poor hearing; some normal hearing. Blind people rely on information they hear more than sighted people do.[/INDENT]
The Montreal Association for the Blind:
[INDENT]3. Do people who are blind hear better than sighted people?
No, however instruction and practice can improve one's listening skills and fine-tune the ability to identify and interpret sounds.[/INDENT]
There is some evidence that those who go blind at birth or an early age can hear somewhat better than their sighter and late-blind counterparts.
Study
Blind people hear better merely because they use the part of the brain other people use to see to help them process sounds. This is best represented as Skill Focus (Listen).
This benefit, however, only inures if they are blind from a very young age while their brains can adapt. Cite.
I note the study doesn't state how much better the early-blind are at hearing than the sighted.
So there's the studies on both sides. As far as I can tell, those people who are born blind hear marginally better than their sighted counterparts, but only insofar as they have trained their brains to listen better. I don't see why this shouldn't be represented by maxed out Listen ranks.
You and Wrecan have both said that blind people hearing better is a "myth". That's fine! So are gorgons, dragons, charging your sword with magical energy, and being able to jump 30 feet. Yet all these myths exist in D&D, and I say why not give mythical blind people a mythical bonus to hearing.
All those creatures have racial hit dice and level adjustments. I explained why I don't think blind people should get extra benefits. The very existence of magic will allow them to retain the benefits without suffering the penalties at the middle levels. And since such magic exists, it becomes irrational for a blind mid-level adventurer not to take advantage of it. Which means to allow the blind PC you either have to strangely destroy all magic that could heal him or accommodate him, or require the blind person to purposely eschew a cure, even as he engages in life-threatening behavior for which he should want a cure. I submit that doesn't make much sense.
The funny thing is, although I homebrewed the starting package (and was very clear about this in the earlier posts), it could actually be considered RAW. Wrecan's rules are not RAW. That's because the RAW give very specific conditions--which Wrecan flawlessly quotes--for normally sighted characters who have suddenly become blind and specifically states that "characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them". The mistake in Wrecan's rules and yours is to treat long-term blind characters the same as "blinded" characters even though this line of the rules for "blinded" specifically says not to.
That is a flat-out falsehood. My rules specifically provide mechanisms consonant with the existing rules whereby blind people do in fact grow accustomed to the blinded condition. That is the use of SKill Tricks and Feats to ameliorate most but not all of of those flaws.
Your houserules go well beyond "growing accustomed" to blindness. By giving a +4 Listen bonus, by letting people move at regular speed by using echolocation to follow friends, by letting them fight concealed enemies without penalty, they are gaining additional powers. That's not "growing accustomed". That's growing mutant abilities.
My solution is the blind character starting package which, as noted above, is specifically for permanently/long-term blinded people.
And my solution is to use the tools already available in the rules to simulate the acclimatization of a blind person to his condition.
The rules contain lots of ways for a blind person to reduce the effects of his condition. And by making these abilities useful to both sighted and blind people, you don't have to worry about a character becoming unbalanced if cured.
Now I just don't see a lot of players looking at this and saying, ooh, what a sweet deal!
Look, there's nothing inherently wrong with your system. I don't think your system results in blind characters that are superpowered vis-a-vis mine. I do think that the mechanism by which you try to accomodate blindness creates an unnecessary new system of rules, when the current ruleset will accommodate the issues just fine. It also allows blind characters to customize their abilities. Blind spellcasters might not care about echolocation if they concentrate on area of effect spells, but will care about movement. Blind monks have abilities that help them with movement, but will want o pinpoint enemies better.
In your version, every blind person gets the same crutch.
With the Rod of Icuc, wrecan, you can't steal tremorsense or most dragon senses.
The this rod seems like a railroad to be used only for the blind, and I'm not crazy with something so narrowly tailored for a character concept that should appear at most once in a campaign. I suppose, however, that if blindsight isn't covered by the Rod, every Grimlock in the world should be using this rod as a standard weapon. They don't have a 50% miss chance, and they can keep their blindsight and strike their victims blind, and they get to see!
I forget what Darkvision is officially considered to be, but I don't think it is an SLA so it wouldn't transfer either.
Darkvision is an Extraordinary ability. If low-light vision gets transfered, so should darkvision.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040723093712.htm
It seems like the +4 to hearing is a huge issue here. An alternate would be no bonus to hearing, but Listen becomes a class skill regardless of class. As other posters have pointed out above, that seems like a fair tradeoff for not using Spot at all.
The other thing you mention is believability. Leave that to the player. If the player can't come up with a good reason why they are blind in a magic world, then maybe they shouldn't bother with a blind character. Then again, I think you'll see some pretty cool backstories and plot hooks come rolling in with blind characters.
Regarding the Rod, yeah, it's a specialised item. I don't see it being very useful unless you're either blind or have some other really unusual visual conditions. When I came up with the idea I was thinking to myself, "Hmm, if I was a blind adventurer what kind of magic items would I want? ...hmmm.... OH! :evillaugh"
Think of it this way: your blind PC can simply cast blindness (which has a save, but is permanent instead of 5 min duration) and then clairvoyance or blindsight (enemy can't save against the PC using those) and get the same effect in two rounds instead of one. Paying 19,000 for the privilege of doing it in one round seems cool, but raise the price or add a save if you like.
I never said Lowlight vision gets traded. I agree that Lowlight and Darkvision should both be handled the same way. I'll think about how to reword the text on the rod to clarify that. (I won't actually reword it, of couse, since it is the word of the blind and completely infallible. But I'll think about how it could theoretically be reworded. ;) )
ap
It seems like the +4 to hearing is a huge issue here.
Think of it this way. A +4 bonus is the same as two people using Aid Other for the blind person. A +2 Circumstance bonus would be okay, at most, imo, if you're going for realism.
An alternate would be no bonus to hearing, but Listen becomes a class skill regardless of class.
The only problem with that is you can't easily undo it if the person gets their sight back. An alternative rule might be that people blind from birth get a +1 competence bonus to Listen checks for each cross-class rank of Listen purchased. This competence bonus is lost whenever they can see (due to magical assistance or cure). That effectively makes Listen a Class Skill.
Leave that to the player. If the player can't come up with a good reason why they are blind in a magic world, then maybe they shouldn't bother with a blind character. Then again, I think you'll see some pretty cool backstories and plot hooks come rolling in with blind characters.
I prefer to leave game balance issues in the DMs hands first, with player input.
Think of it this way: your blind PC can simply cast blindness (which has a save, but is permanent instead of 5 min duration) and then clairvoyance or blindsight (enemy can't save against the PC using those) and get the same effect in two rounds instead of one.
Or he could cast prying eyes.
Paying 19,000 for the privilege of doing it in one round seems cool, but raise the price or add a save if you like.
I did. I set the price at 54,000 gp for that item. At that level, I'd let the wielder swap all senses with the target.
I never said Lowlight vision gets traded. I agree that Lowlight and Darkvision should both be handled the same way.
Well that seems odd. If a blind man taps the Rod on a dwarf, suddenly the blind man can see like a human, but the dwarf can still see in the dark?! Can the dwarf see in the light?
SKill Focus: Listen is a +3 bonus so I think at least that would be a fair bonus for the blind.
Backstory believability issues are not game balance issues. Balance belongs in the hands of the DM like you said; character backstory belongs (mostly) in the hands of the player.
I agree about your comments on the Rod. I'll tweak and update it, hopefuly today.
@ jrad777: I didn't want your comments to go unnoticed amidst the debate. Especially since that character concept is... well, in a word, awesome. I'm glad you fin the thread amusing and hope your DM will allow the Starting Package for you. Remember to tell him/her you'll be flexible and are open to changing things if it gets out of hand.
In fact, after reading about TheMonk's paladin gish and jradd777's seer, I am curious as to what other blind characters have been rolled up out there. So I am inviting all of them to join the
Blind PC Sound-Off! Blind PC Sound-Off! Blind PC Sound-Off!
Anyone and everyone with a blind character who has seen play or is about to see play is welcome to join in! Post your character with or without stats. Backstories definitely welcome!
A Blind person however would likely be listening constantly, not because he is worried about rogue's sneaking up on him, but because this is one of the few ways to be aware of his surroundings. The Orc may even have better hearing then the Blind person, even a higher listen skill, but just isn't applying it.
Some argue that what would happen if he gets cured, does he still get the listen bonus? Well when someone has been blind for that long, simply having functional eyes is not enough to completely cure him. Colors are still foriegn to him, reconizing people from their faces is bewildering, depth perception a mystery. Even gaining a cure, someone who is blind for so long, especially from birth would take considerable time to rehabilitate himself. Learn the significance of what they can see, Learn how to read letters, recognize faces, determine range and depth, distinguish between colours and shades etc.
Even cured from blindness, a former blind man should suffer penalties for sight dependeant rolls untill he has fully recooperated, by then he will have adjusted and likely lost his listen bonuses. For example, he might suffer a -4 to range attacks and Spot checks and related vision rolls. Have to spend skill points to relearn how to read. Any bonus that he may retain (like a listen bonus) is countered by his purchase of feats that are now redundant or less useful (blind fighting for example)
You mean the facts that were brought out?
I am constantly amazed when someone contradicts a thread with facts (please show me the relevant studies that point out blind people actually hear better - blind people "hear first before sighted people as sighted people rely on vision first so the blind just rely on hearing more) that another will call that "less than kind judgemnet", or worse.
I wasn't necessarily directing that comment at you for one and I wasn't referring to people who are talking about facts; I meant exactly what I said "less than kind comments." Secondly there are studies showing that blind people hear much better than sighted people I can think of one in particular which shows that blind people have significantly better perception of slight differences in pitch, which was featured in Science News within the last 10 years.
@ jrad777: I didn't want your comments to go unnoticed amidst the debate. Especially since that character concept is... well, in a word, awesome. I'm glad you fin the thread amusing and hope your DM will allow the Starting Package for you. Remember to tell him/her you'll be flexible and are open to changing things if it gets out of hand.
Have no worries, I know that the DM I mean to play this character under will love the concept, we have open-minded players who definitely don't mind a bit of a challenge if it means novel and fun gameplay and especially an interesting story. It's ironic actually because just about two weeks ago I told him about this concept and he said that he couldn't think of too many things in the rules that would allow for something like that etc. although, it sounded like a great character concept to him in a sort of "too bad it doesn't look like it would be easily playable" voice. He's excited for me that there looks like plenty of ways to work something out.
I can think of one in particular which shows that blind people have significantly better perception of slight differences in pitch, which was featured in Science News within the last 10 years.
That Science News report did not quantify how much better blind people can hear. For all I know it's only a marginal difference that wouldn't even merit a bonus to Listen checks. I have never seen any study that said people born blind have "significantly" better hearing. And the study did say that people who went blind later in life (after their toddler years) hear no better than sighted counterparts.
SKill Focus: Listen is a +3 bonus so I think at least that would be a fair bonus for the blind.
I wouldn't give them the Feat as a bonus only because if they are cured they lose the Feat and what if the player would have wanted to have kept the Feat in the first place? If you're going to give them a bonus do it in a way that is consistent with the rules and doesn't penalize them unnecessarily for being cured.
character backstory belongs (mostly) in the hands of the player.
True, but character backstory has to be given an avenue to flourish within the rules. I think it's a punt for the DM to decide that since he couldn't come up with a backstory that isn't a railroad, he'll just see if his players can come up with one. He should work for a set of rules that make it easy for his players to play a concept; not one that complicates things.
A bonus to Listen is realistic, also they should get listen checks when others wouldn't. For example, a Rogue uses move silently to sneak up on an unwary Orc, the orc isn't even listening as he walks down the tunnel, he has no reason to be susicious of a shuffling sound from behind him, it's probably rats, and even though he hears it, he ignores the sound and isn't even aware of it.
The orc should still get a listen check under the rules. One might rule that a Blind person is never distracted during a reactive Listen check because he is always listening, but I don't think that's right. If a Blind person is concentrating on something, they can be snuck up upon as easily as anybody else.
Some argue that what would happen if he gets cured, does he still get the listen bonus? Well when someone has been blind for that long, simply having functional eyes is not enough to completely cure him.
I would argue that with magical cures, there should be no adjustment time. Someone who gets a regenerate spell to grow back a leg can immediately walk and run, and doesn't need to learn how. The magic fills it in for him. A remove blindness or regenerate spell to restore sight should work exactly the same way.
That Science News report did not quantify how much better blind people can hear. For all I know it's only a marginal difference that wouldn't even merit a bonus to Listen checks. I have never seen any study that said people born blind have "significantly" better hearing. And the study did say that people who went blind later in life (after their toddler years) hear no better than sighted counterparts.
Listen, I'd have to look up the specific article or something to argue the quantified or not quantified point but any researcher can tell you that findings are reported based on significance. There is a significance measure (called an alpha level) set at the beginning of whatever the study is and if the findings don't exceed that limit, it's not even considered a supported hypothesis, ipso facto, the study wouldn't have been reported as supported if it wasn't a significant difference. I apologize, though, I expected you to understand that I meant significance from a statistical standpoint related to research methods.
Also, I specified that I was referring only to pitch with no other aspects of hearing involved. Now, however, I'm considering making it my own personal assignment to find all the evidence against your point that I can. Of course, I'm sure you won't be satisfied unless the results say that blind people hear at several full decibel levels better than sighted people, so I doubt if there's even a point in "arguing with a fencepost."
EDIT: I apologize, I blew up for no real reason and I'm sorry. I will repost later with some more appropriate commentary.
Listen, I'd have to look up the specific article or something to argue the quantified or not quantified point but any researcher can tell you that findings are reported based on significance.
I assumed significant would mean "significant for the point we're discussing -- D&D mechanics."
There is a significance measure (called an alpha level) set at the beginning of whatever the study is and if the findings don't exceed that limit, it's not even considered a supported hypothesis, ipso facto, the study wouldn't have been reported as supported if it wasn't a significant difference.
And all I'm saying is I have never seen anybody report what the study said with regard to the amount of improved hearing of those born blind vs. sighted people. We're discussing how the rules should go. And, moreover, I've already suggested a manner in which a DM could grant a bonus to Listen checks based on innate abilities of blind people to hear better (in the form of competent bonuses for Listen ranks bought cross-class). So for you to insinuate that I'm not paying attention tot he research is pretty silly, since I'm the one in the thread who first linked to articles reporting on that research. Sheesh.
I apologize, though, I expected you to understand that I meant significance from a statistical standpoint related to research methods.
Apology accepted. I don't know why you should assume that, though, when we're on a D&D board, and not a board about scientific analysis.
Now, however, I'm considering making it my own personal assignment to find all the evidence against your point that I can. Of course, I'm sure you won't be satisfied unless the results say that blind people hear at several full decibel levels better than sighted people, so I doubt if there's even a point in "arguing with a fencepost."
Since I've changed my proposed blindness rules several times in responses to comments made by others, your pre-emptive attempt to don a martyr's robe is pretty shallow.
The orc should still get a listen check under the rules. One might rule that a Blind person is never distracted during a reactive Listen check because he is always listening, but I don't think that's right. If a Blind person is concentrating on something, they can be snuck up upon as easily as anybody else.
I agree, but I was only giving an example. Rather I should say that normally people aren't really listening unless they expect to hear something. The blind person uses listening regularly to help guide himself, sounds are more significant to him. The Orc should get a listen check in this situation.
I should say rather that the Blind person should often get checks when others would normally not be listening unless they declared they were. For example, relaxing at the local inn a safe invironment. No need to eavesdrop unless the PC specifically declars to try and listen in on others. The Blind person on the other hand hears a myriad of sounds and listens to be aware of his invironment. He won't see the watress standing at the table so he is listening for her to ask for his order. Under these circumstances a Blind person is likely to notice sounds that would be ignored by others, unless they were paying attention (declaring listening checks)
generally the Skill Focus bonus would be sufficent. Blind people don't hear better, they listen more is my point.
I would argue that with magical cures, there should be no adjustment time. Someone who gets a regenerate spell to grow back a leg can immediately walk and run, and doesn't need to learn how. The magic fills it in for him. A remove blindness or regenerate spell to restore sight should work exactly the same way.
maybe so, but loosing an arm or leg does not remove the brain's nervous system, people who loose their arm or leg still feel the limbs there, the brain has it hardwired. Throw a ball at a person who lost an arm and they will still try and catch it, reflexes. magically restoring a lost limb would function emmediately. However using magic to give a person legs who was crippled from birth would require them to train in order to walk properly.
A person who is blind from birth would never have developed such abilities nor understanding, and would thus take more then simply making their eyes functional. Having your eyesight restored does not give you a bonus if you have a low spot skill, you could argue that having such low spot scores as being indicative of poor eyesight.
Besides which, Spot is a wisdom based skill, therefore mental understanding of what you see is implied, functional eyes does not give one knowledge or wisdom of what it is that they see. Cure Blindness does not cure any wisdom based issues. Mind you someone who simply lost their sight earlier (lets say a year ago) would likely not have this issue, i refer to someone blind from birth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040723093712.htm
As wrecan stated, those who were blind since birth or very early on, say before two years, can distinquish notes more precisely than their non-blind companions. Again, as wrecan stated, the issue is the art of their brain that controls hearing doesn't shrink as it does in sighted people.
Does that mean that they are to be given bonuses? NO!
At 1st level, the blind person, if they are human, say a blind bard, takes Skill Focus Hearing and Blind Fighting. So if you take 2 characters exactly the same but one is blind, here are the differences:
Sighted:
Spot 2 ranks
Search 2 ranks
Feats:
Dodge
Improved Init
Blind
Listen 4 ranks
Feats
Blind Fight
Skill Focus Listen
So now, the blind guy is +6 over his sighted counter part when it comes to listening.
If they have a DC of 20 issue and they are +0 and +6 respectively, the blind person will be 7 times more likely (they need a 14 to the other person's 20) to hear than the sighted person.
There is no need to give anything away. If the person becomes sighted, they have no special bonuses that a sighted person doesn't have.
Could a simple placement of ranks and a Skill Focus explain why blind people "hear better"? Yes.
No other changes are really needed. What you're doing is giving them freebies when they can do it without any additional help.
Being blind is a big disadvantage. Trying to mitigate it with special rules cheapens the idea of a blind character to the point of "who cares?"
Remember also that it really doesn't matter whether or how much blind people can hear better in real life; as JulesCARV and I have pointed out, the big question is whether blind people should have the bonus in D&D. Game balance, game mood/atmosphere, and enjoyability are all are considerations just like realism is.
Wrecan, many fine points. I had some of the same thoughts which is why I didn't give them Skill Focus as a bonus feat, instead giving a competence bonus to Listen. I will change this to a circumstance bonus, with the caveat that it disappears if the "circumstance" of being blind disappears.
Being blind is a big disadvantage. Trying to mitigate it with special rules cheapens the idea of a blind character to the point of "who cares?"
LCD, you are right. But not all disadvantages are created equal. Being blind doesn't hobble people, take away their strength, prevent them from dodging away from danger they hear, or prevent them from searching with their hands or jumping towards somewhere they can't see. Yet the RAW and some of the suggestions peopler ahve made above would enforce all those penalties, even for people who are used to being blind. The main purpose of this thread is to suggest fun and game-balanced ways of mitigating those rules and penalties without cheapening it.
Now, any blind characters out there who want to respond to the Sound-Off?
Rather I should say that normally people aren't really listening unless they expect to hear something. The blind person uses listening regularly to help guide himself, sounds are more significant to him.
I agree. I think that's going to be handled on an ad hoc basis by the DM though. Similarly, when describing things an animal companion might hear, I try to describe them in terms the animal might think important, rather than the human.
Disclaimer for thin-skinned folks -- not you, MrCustomer
I am not equating blind people to animals!! I'm just pointing out that the DM needs to translate the sensory impressions they receive for the personal point of view of the character
Since I've changed my proposed blindness rules several times in responses to comments made by others, your pre-emptive attempt to don a martyr's robe is pretty shallow.
This is more facetious than anything else. You're implying a lot about me with that statement which is founded on absolutely nothing and I find to be entirely uncalled for.
Whoever asked about science backing up the fact that people who are blind do have better hearing skills than sighted people. There are several out there, I did a quick check through some actual scientific routes. Here's two abstracts for actual scientific articles:
Spatial hearing in children
Central Auditory Skills in Blind and Sighted Subjects
I haven't gotten a chance to procure full studies yet.
This is more facetious than anything else. You're implying a lot about me with that statement which is founded on absolutely nothing and I find to be entirely uncalled for.
Whoever asked about science backing up the fact that people who are blind do have better hearing skills than sighted people. There are several out there, I did a quick check through some actual scientific routes. Here's two abstracts for actual scientific articles:
Spatial hearing in children
Central Auditory Skills in Blind and Sighted Subjects
I haven't gotten a chance to procure full studies yet.
And all of the findings from those studies can be simulated by a player putting their skill points into Listen and taking the Feat "Skill Focus Listen".
If one gives +4 off of the top then that afforementioned blind character can be +10 at 1st level to listen. They have a chance to do a (edit) DC 30 check by rolling a nat 20 (/edit), something a 10th level character may have a hard time equalling.
@ Another Poet. If someone wants to play a blind character they can. The rules are there and with the addition of what wrecan came up with, I think they are more than sufficient for anyone who wants a blind character.
As wrecan pointed out, too many players who want a blind character think DD.
What I wanted to do and what wrecan so eloquently pointed out is that if or when the character becomes sighted they don't have advantages or special feats that sighted people can't have.
I'll say it again, all of the supposed advantages that blind people have in the realm of hearing over sighted people can be easily recreated by the proper use of Skill Points and Feats.
Yeah, it may detract from other skills and aquiring other feats they may want to take, but that is called compensation.
This is more facetious than anything else. You're implying a lot about me with that statement which is founded on absolutely nothing and I find to be entirely uncalled for.
So even though I disagree with their reasoning, there's no reason to jump on them.
Can we all get a hug here or what???
ap
I just want to point out that jrad's article doesn't actually support the idea that blind people should get inherent Listen bonuses.
From the abstract on Spatial hearing in children:
[INDENT]The spatial hearing of the children with visual disabilities was comparable to or somewhat better than that of the sighted children and adults. This pattern held even when the group with visual disabilities was restricted to those children with congenital total blindness; in fact, some of those children had exceptionally good spatial hearing.[/INDENT]
This basically says that some blind people had "exceptionally good hearing", but also indicates that most have as good hearing as sighted people. And "exceptionally good" should be read in context. This study was looking at whether blind people's ability to discern from where a sound originates is impaired because they cannot see. The answer is that it is not, and in some cases is better than the average. Whether that is in different proportion to sighted people whose ability to locate sounds is better than the average is not examined in this study.
The second link jrad cited went back to the first article. I thinkhe meant to link here. This is a summary of the research that the Science News article referenced. I'd like to see that study to see how much better congenitally blind people perform.
This 2001 study, however, indicates that congenitally blind people may actually have more trouble locating objects by sound. (Thus, the research is somewhat conflicting.)
In this study, ten blind people were asked to locate objects by sound and compared to five control subjects. Half did better than the control. (No indication whether the other half did better or worse).
PubMed has many articles on the subject, but none of the abstracts have ever indicated they have tried to quantify how much better congenitally blind people can hear than sighted counterparts.
At any rate, as AnotherPoet has indicated, this has little all to do with creating a fantasy ruleset for blind PCs.
Amusing so far, but ultimately empty of true substance. You have my attention for the time being.
**waits patiently for the promised Blind Character Starting Package (TM)**
The Blind Character Starting Package is covered in the Core Rules:
"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
Which drawbacks did your character overcome and, mechanically, how?
That is one way.
Ordinarily, the prerequisites are wisdom 19, BAB +4, and blind-fight. Maybe blind characters could reduce that to BAB +3 and wisdom 17 or somesuch?
That's fine with me. I have nothing against jrad, and I'm not sure why he's made it his personal crusade to insult me and to prove to me that congenitally blind people hear measurably better than sighted people such that an inherent bonus would be suitable in D&D.
This was all due to an egregious misunderstanding on my part. Earlier in the post someone else made a comment to one of my posts who seemed to be snapping at me for no reason. I commented back to them and when you commented back to the comment directed at them, I thought you were that person, ergo, I got very angry because the way you worded what you said, if it had been an extension of what they said, it would have been extremely rude. Unfortunately, I was mistaken and simply read your post with the wrong tone attached. So, I apologize again, because I looked back and realized that because comments were partially carried over from the previous page, I confused you for someone else. Again, I got upset because the way your comment was worded it flowed with what the other person said logically and carried with it a much more venomous message, but that was obviously (now) not your intent. Please forgive me.
I just want to point out that jrad's article doesn't actually support the idea that blind people should get inherent Listen bonuses.
From the abstract on Spatial hearing in children:
[INDENT]The spatial hearing of the children with visual disabilities was comparable to or somewhat better than that of the sighted children and adults. This pattern held even when the group with visual disabilities was restricted to those children with congenital total blindness; in fact, some of those children had exceptionally good spatial hearing.[/INDENT]
This basically says that some blind people had "exceptionally good hearing", but also indicates that most have as good hearing as sighted people. And "exceptionally good" should be read in context. This study was looking at whether blind people's ability to discern from where a sound originates is impaired because they cannot see. The answer is that it is not, and in some cases is better than the average. Whether that is in different proportion to sighted people whose ability to locate sounds is better than the average is not examined in this study.
The second link jrad cited went back to the first article. I thinkhe meant to link here. This is a summary of the research that the Science News article referenced. I'd like to see that study to see how much better congenitally blind people perform.
This 2001 study, however, indicates that congenitally blind people may actually have more trouble locating objects by sound. (Thus, the research is somewhat conflicting.)
In this study, ten blind people were asked to locate objects by sound and compared to five control subjects. Half did better than the control. (No indication whether the other half did better or worse).
PubMed has many articles on the subject, but none of the abstracts have ever indicated they have tried to quantify how much better congenitally blind people can hear than sighted counterparts.
At any rate, as AnotherPoet has indicated, this has little all to do with creating a fantasy ruleset for blind PCs.
Concerning this is other stuff, I'd like to make some other comments. My links are not to articles, they are for abstracts. They don't have any of the quantitative data attached as they are only summaries of actual scientific studies. Both of my links indicated that non-congenitally blinded children showed better hearing skills than sighted children and adults (different kinds of hearing skills, etc). I meant to find some full studies with actual ages, quantitative measures, etc, to help support the inherent listen bonus, because I do think it is significant (in a D&D sense). Unfortunately, I don't have to time to devote to this because I'm now involved in conducting my own study for a psychology project.
The other thing is... research can easily look confusing but that's because of the nature of statistics. You have to know how to interpret alpha levels, sample size, effect size, standard deviation from the mean, etc, etc. None of the links that anyone has provided (even me) show these numbers so saying it's conflicting is comparing apples to oranges because there's no information to support that statement. As I have said, unfortunately I won't be able to follow through and provide the accurate scientific backup due to time constraints.
From the abstract on Spatial hearing in children:
[INDENT]The spatial hearing of the children with visual disabilities was comparable to or somewhat better than that of the sighted children and adults. This pattern held even when the group with visual disabilities was restricted to those children with congenital total blindness; in fact, some of those children had exceptionally good spatial hearing.[/INDENT]
This basically says that some blind people had "exceptionally good hearing", but also indicates that most have as good hearing as sighted people. And "exceptionally good" should be read in context. This study was looking at whether blind people's ability to discern from where a sound originates is impaired because they cannot see. The answer is that it is not, and in some cases is better than the average. Whether that is in different proportion to sighted people whose ability to locate sounds is better than the average is not examined in this study.
Here's an example of this that I didn't notice at first... See, because of the way samples are selected in scientific research it is accurate 95% of the time to assume that better than average sighted individuals were included in the sample in the same proportion as better than average blind individuals, in the measure that they studied, which therefore means that if I say that overall blind individuals are better at it than sighted I only have a 5% chance at being wrong, most likely. It has to do with the nature of scientific study that it seems most people commenting on the studies don't understand, which is why the articles aren't carrying the weight that they should be. No one is interpreting the information in the useful ways that are present in the information because they're basing their judgment of them on worst-case scenarios of uncertainty, which the study conductors have probably already controlled for. Further, every scientific study MUST be quantified or it can't be conducted, the abstracts are only summaries but you can rest assured that the differences are quantified because of the nature of scientific study... now the level of appropriateness may need to be looked into.
Here's something else to consider in favor of the inherent listen bonus, which I think shows at least a little reason also as to why the scientific info does matter in developing D&D rulesets: PC characters have higher than average ability scores in order to put them above average individuals in D&D. They have "heroic" ability scores. These real-life conditions in studies are attempting to illustrate average people, what is considered to be normal. So, my opinion is that NPC's (average people) should not receive inherent bonuses but that PC's probably should, to be in keeping with the idea that they are better than the average, inherently, as heroes.
There are many NPCs who are the equal, stat wise, of PCs.
@ jradd777, Another_Poet and others who think that blind characters should get bonuses: Can anyone show me where a blind character, through use of skill ranks and feats, can't be shown to have "better hearing" and such?
That's my whole point, a blind character will with experience get those things but their issue is it comes at a cost of other skills and feats.
That's my whole point, a blind character will with experience get those things but their issue is it comes at a cost of other skills and feats.
LCD2YOU, we get your point. You have made it many times, repeatedly, above.
Frankly I am uncomfortable with where this thread is going. The reason I started the thread was to offer an alternative to the blindness rules you adhere to (and to celebrate blind PC's). If you think alternate rules are unnecessary that's fine but you're in the wrong place. There are literally dozens of other threads where you can knock blind PCs getting bonuses (may I suggest this one for you); this thread is not the place.
You're welcome to make on-topic posts, but I would like to kindly ask you to leave off this line of argument. It isn't that your ideas are wrong or bad; they're fine. And you've made many posts I admire on these boards. But this thread is for developing alternative blind rules, not knocking them.
Please?
That's fine. However, I feel then that this belongs on the Homebrew rules thread. This thread is for RAW and such.
Your rules are fine for your game. Still, I think this is a better discussion for the "Unearthed Arcana and Houserules" forum.
When you get on the "What's a DM/Player to do" boards, I do believe they are mostly for RAW.
Another_Poet:
That's fine. However, I feel then that this belongs on the Homebrew rules thread. This thread is for RAW and such.
Your rules are fine for your game. Still, I think this is a better discussion for the "Unearthed Arcana and Houserules" forum.
When you get on the "What's a DM/Player to do" boards, I do believe they are mostly for RAW.
You might have a point there. I posted it here because this is usually where the "How do I make a blind PC?" questions come up, but maybe i should add a note to the first post explaining what the heck this thread is for.
edited to add: Done!
ap
Wrecan, I clarified the language on the Rod. Everything sight-related except feats gets traded. Darkvision, spells, supernatural--whatever. If it ain't a feat, it's gone!
ap
It still feels like a magic item made for one person in each campaign world (the one blind PC). One more question... where do blindsight and blindsense go? "Blindsight" is a bit of an oxymoron.
Question... what if someone cast contingent blindness on themself, to go off if they touched someone with the Rod?
It still feels like a magic item made for one person in each campaign world (the one blind PC). One more question... where do blindsight and blindsense go? "Blindsight" is a bit of an oxymoron.
Question... what if someone cast contingent blindness on themself, to go off if they touched someone with the Rod?
Yeah, it is an item made only for a very certain kind of character. You're totally right, there's no denying that. It's exactly the sort of item I would make if I was the only blind adventuring wizard in the entire world. :D
That said, even a non-blind caster could use the rod's Reconnoiter ability on a trained animal and do some serious ranged damage.
Blindsight does not affect vision; rather, it compensates for lack of vision. So it wouldn't trade.
Blindsense affects vision, so it would trade.
That's the way I would look at it.
edited to add: and about the guy who casts contingent blindness on himself, well, that's what I call strategery!
(and that's no typo... strategery is better than strategy!)
Please forgive me.
Don't sweat it, jrad! I was just confused.
My links are not to articles, they are for abstracts.
Point taken. I apologize for using the wrong term.
it is accurate 95% of the time to assume that better than average sighted individuals were included in the sample in the same proportion as better than average blind individuals, in the measure that they studied, which therefore means that if I say that overall blind individuals are better at it than sighted I only have a 5% chance at being wrong, most likely. It has to do with the nature of scientific study that it seems most people commenting on the studies don't understand, which is why the articles aren't carrying the weight that they should be.
I agree, although would it be accurate to assume the sighted people are also better at "hearing"? I doubt the researchers were looking at hearing levels beforehand, since it was the test itself that would determine hearing aptitude. At that point, given such a small sample, getting a proper distribution of hearing aptitudes would be entirely happenstance.
PC characters have higher than average ability scores in order to put them above average individuals in D&D.
Sure, but you're giving a blind PC a bonus that sighted PCs don't get. Even if you assume the blind PC is better than blind NPCs, why is he better than PCs, who would also be above-average folks?
In short, I think blind and sighted PCs should get the same benefit that their NPC counterparts (whether blind or sighted) don't get: better initial ability generation (whether its elite vs. nonelite array, 28 pt. buy vs. 23 pt. buy, 4d6 drop lowest vs. 3d6) and PC class levels (rather than NPC class levels).
Thanks for the clarification, A_P. The rod seems good to me now.
Sweet.
er ummm :embarrass
wait let's rephrase that:
I loves my magic!
Gloves of Read-all are dark leather gloves with arcane symbols tooled into the palms. The gloves are fingerless, but when worn allow the wearer to feel any legible text as if it is written in Brail. As with the Brailify spell, this does not allow the wearer to read corrupted or visually illegible text, decipher or decode cryptic text, nor comprehend lanuages the wearer does not speak. If the wearer does not know Brail, the sensations produced by the gloves are meangingless.
Both gloves must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Faint Conjuration; CL5th; Craft Wondrous Item, Brailify; price 3,000gp.*
*Price adjusted down from standad pricing guidelines; a non-combat 0th level spell does not seem worth 5,000gp.
No reason to make this spell and/or item useful only for blind casters, right?
A.
Don't sweat it, jrad! I was just confused.
Thanks for understanding.
At that point, given such a small sample, getting a proper distribution of hearing aptitudes would be entirely happenstance.
Right, I can see your point with the fact of the small sample size
[...]why is he better than PCs, who would also be above-average folks?
This is going with the ideas that the brain is like a muscle in that, the more you "work" certain parts of it, the better your abilities, with it, are, the less you use that part it might even atrophy diminishing its original potential. So a sighted PC would obviously not use his hearing abilities as much as or in the same ways as a blind PC, and the heightened usage (due to necessity) denotes more of a constant "workout."
Think of it the opposite direction... if a sighted character always wears a blindfold for thirty years and then tries his hand at archery beside a character that has been an archer for thirty years, beyond his lack of skill for archery his visual acuity will not be as good because that part of the brain may have even stopped functioning and at the very least will function less efficiently.
Also, with the hero thing, I meant to also imply the necessity of getting around the disability as being much stronger for a blind hero than a blind NPC (and further bolster that they would have to develop their hearing better than sighted PC's in order to keep up with them) because of the dangerous situations etc combined with normal everyday situations. I mean... wouldn't a blind PC get at least extra skill points (this isn't even asking to give them the XP that might actually be called for) for the simple fact that his ECL is higher for pretty much everything than a sighted PC.
wouldn't a blind PC get at least extra skill points (this isn't even asking to give them the XP that might actually be called for) for the simple fact that his ECL is higher for pretty much everything than a sighted PC.
ECL means "Effective Character Level". I think you mean this ECL would be lower than another PC of equal character level, meaning you think blindness should grant a negative level adjustment. Which would be fine, if blindness was an incurable condition, which it's not.
A character suffering negative levels doesn't get an XP boost. Neither should a blind person.
ECL means "Effective Character Level". I think you mean this ECL would be lower than another PC of equal character level, meaning you think blindness should grant a negative level adjustment. Which would be fine, if blindness was an incurable condition, which it's not.
A character suffering negative levels doesn't get an XP boost. Neither should a blind person.
Not exactly, you're right that I'm wrong to say ECL, I meant EL. I meant that their encounter levels would be higher for the same encounters (every single encounter) based on the fact that they are blind because it is almost always harder simply on that fact. Technically, when an encounter is harder based on some inherent attribute, like not have a party of four (party of three plus a PC who is blind might be very similar, yeah?) it raises the EL meaning more XP. So, rather than up the EL throughout the character's life for each situation etc (all that such a thinking would entail), I think it does make sense to give them some extra stuff inherently.
That's from my perspective as a DM too, though, if I had an encounter happen where the characters somehow find a way to beat the monsters in the dark where they couldn't see and the monster could, I would reward them accordingly with more XP etc (not to encourage taking the hard way but to reward the success, nonetheless).
Not exactly, you're right that I'm wrong to say ECL, I meant EL. I meant that their encounter levels would be higher for the same encounters (every single encounter) based on the fact that they are blind because it is almost always harder simply on that fact.
I odn't think you assign different ELs for an encounter for each member of the party who encounters it. A rust monster is not a higher EL for the party's fighter than for the party's druid.
I don't think it's fair to give people an XP boost because they choose to play a PC with a handicap. Can the fighter literally tie one arm behind his back so he can raise levels faster?
Jayne_Cobb, your character sounds great. I'm curious, how did your DM deal with the part of the core rules that reads:
Which drawbacks did your character overcome and, mechanically, how?
She didn't. This predated 3e by many years. She stayed blind forever, complete with all associated deficits. Still an awesome PC and campaign, though. (Don't read further if you don't care ;))
---
As part of her backstory the PC was raped and blinded by an NPC villain who wielded a powerful cursed blade: any wound caused by it could never be healed, thus her blindness could never be cured. The DM took that story kernel and grew it behind the scenes, turning that backstory flavour into a major campaign BBEG. The DM wove a great story around it in which are PC were pawns, manipulated by him into doing things that would aid him in a grand world-destroying event (standard D&D McGuffin, but well handled).
Eventually we discovered who was behind it and my PC was enraged, pledging her life to stop him before he could put his plan into action. To that end we allied ourselves with a church who sought to bring the BBEG down. Since the villain had decimated their order they could offer us aid, information and healing but not much in the way of martial support save for a single lone paladin of their order.
We set off, along with said paladin, for the final LotR-style epic do-or-die quest. Many plots and perils unfolded as we progressed towards our goal, and my PC grew very close to the paladin NPC, lots of great RPing. Eventually we faced down the BBEG and defeated him though not without many losses - including the aforementioned paladin NPC, struck down by the very same blade that took my PC's sight and so rendering him unable to be raised.
We returned to the church battered and broken, but victorious, and they offered us as reward the few artifacts they had left. To my PC they offered an ancient relic that could cure any ill, perform any healing, but which had just a single charge left. This was basically my PC's one and only chance to ever restore her sight - essentially a rules-bypassing gift from the DM to make my PC more viable - but she refused it. Instead, she used the power of the relic to counter the effect of the cursed blade and return the dead paladin to life. He committed himself to her forever, as both guardian and lover, and even though I loved that PC I retired her right then and there and the two of them went off together forever.
---
That was one of the best games I've ever been in, and one of the things that made it great, that made it work, that made it so epic is that I did no nerf the blindness effects. Virtually none of what went down in that game would have mattered, or even happened, if I'd buffed myself up with feats and special abilities.
The only bummer is that it happened so long ago I don't even remember the PC's and NPC's names. I'll have to see if I still have her sheet around somewhere…
I don't want to cheapen your character's beautiful sacrifice by trying to argue what bonuses you should or should not have gotten. So, I'll just say this: if you had been playing under 3.x edition rules, the rule about what blind PC's can do (i.e., can "grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them") is just as important as the other rules saying what you can't do. Using both parts of the blindness RAW shouldn't nerf blindness; it's up to the player and DM to come up with a way to do this intelligently.
Since you've actually played a blind PC with no special bonuses or compensation, I'd especially value your opinion of the Blind PC Starting Package given above. If you'd had the +4 to listen and the ability to target some spells with sound instead of sight, would your character have been less playable? Would the roleplaying have been killed? Would you feel like your blindness was pointless?
I totally agree with you that if your PC is going to be blind, she or he should be blind. Can I ask your PC's class? How did she play an effective role in combat?
Jayne_Cob, that is one of the coolest stories I have ever heard come out of D&D. Thank you for sharing it!
I don't want to cheapen your character's beautiful sacrifice by trying to argue what bonuses you should or should not have gotten. So, I'll just say this: if you had been playing under 3.x edition rules, the rule about what blind PC's can do (i.e., can "grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them") is just as important as the other rules saying what you can't do. Using both parts of the blindness RAW shouldn't nerf blindness; it's up to the player and DM to come up with a way to do this intelligently.
Since you've actually played a blind PC with no special bonuses or compensation, I'd especially value your opinion of the Blind PC Starting Package given above. If you'd had the +4 to listen and the ability to target some spells with sound instead of sight, would your character have been less playable? Would the roleplaying have been killed? Would you feel like your blindness was pointless?
I totally agree with you that if your PC is going to be blind, she or he should be blind. Can I ask your PC's class? How did she play an effective role in combat?
The PC was a Bard. She played an effective role cos it was based around support and staying out of the fight.
I have no issue with gradually gaining bonuses to Listen checks and targeting spells by sound, indeed both of those would have been perfect for this PC and totally in keeping with her class and role. When I spoke about buffing Blind PCs I was speaking more of ludicrous suggestions like all blind PC should get Blind Fight and Blindsense for free, rubbish like that.
My take on the line "grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them" is that, as the PC levels up they select feats to offset the deficits associated with blindness. I have no issue with people doing so, through hard-work and difficult choices turning their disability into a positive, but I do no agree with all blind PCs being able to mitigate their disability with no effort and at no cost.
All blind PCs start blind. Period. Not fictional Daredevil-style super-blind but actual blind. It is what you do and where you go from there that matters. Blindness can be offset through skills, feats, and items but it should not in and of itself innately carry such mitigating benefits.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that point of view. My system is just a bit different--I have in mind more of a flaw/bonus system. Like in Shadowrun, you can take an addiction as a negative quality that you have to deal with on a daily basis, but then you have extra points to improve your character's shooting or magic or something else important. Similarly, the Blind PC Starting Package gives a few cool things, while at the same time imposing most of the usual blindness penalties.
I odn't think you assign different ELs for an encounter for each member of the party who encounters it. A rust monster is not a higher EL for the party's fighter than for the party's druid.
I don't think it's fair to give people an XP boost because they choose to play a PC with a handicap. Can the fighter literally tie one arm behind his back so he can raise levels faster?
I didn't mean for each character. The reason the rust monster isn't higher EL for a fighter compared to druid though, is that there is an assumption that all classes are equal, whether they are or not. Blindness has nothing to do with balance between classes; that example is apples and oranges with what I'm talking about.
What I mean is, if there is a reason that the encounter is significantly or markedly harder than it normally would be for a set of characters, as I said the normal one is having a party of 3 instead of 4 (or too easy, 5 characters instead of 4), the DM is technically supposed to adjust XP accordingly. I see a situation, such as disability, as one of those situations that most EL's are not set to account for, originally, and therefore would merit EL adjustment. Now, instead of doing that, I like Another_poet's idea of just giving a blind character a skill boost etc inherently to even out that difference.
I wasn't even talking about an actual XP boost anyway. I was saying that functionally that's what would happen with EL adjustments, if you're the kind of DM that takes that into account as the DMG suggests for harder than normal encounters. That's also one of my reasons for supporting this method because to me, this method accounts for that aspect from the beginning so such things wouldn't be necessary. Although, if someone doesn't normally make those recommended adjustments, I can see how it would be superfluous to do it this way.
PS - With the fighter tying a hand behind his back, you're mixing concepts again. You're talking about a character making a handicap choice, but playing a blind character is the player choosing a disability for the character for the fun of the game and the story and the RP. When a character makes that choice to tie an arm back for more XP, that's meta-gaming anyway; a fighter doesn't know what "XP" is or that he "recieves" it etc.
Fair enough. So the specifics of the Blidn PC Starting Package seem fair to you, except you think they should be gained as feats rather than granted at 1st level. Is that about right?
I don't think there's anything wrong with that point of view. My system is just a bit different--I have in mind more of a flaw/bonus system. Like in Shadowrun, you can take an addiction as a negative quality that you have to deal with on a daily basis, but then you have extra points to improve your character's shooting or magic or something else important. Similarly, the Blind PC Starting Package gives a few cool things, while at the same time imposing most of the usual blindness penalties.
I agree, there's lots of ways to do it and again, I just agree that yours is a great way to go.
I am with Jayne_Cobb completely. If you have a blind character, they are blind. The rules, as wrecan so carefully put together, apply to the character. They can overcome it, to a point, but in a world where 150gp can cure 99% of all blindness, they would get little if any special training.
At 1st level, a blind character can max out Listen at the expense of other skills, like Search and especially Spot and take Blind Fight. There shouldn't be many if any skills, feats or bonuses that a sighted person can't get and still be sighted.
I am with Jayne_Cobb completely.
Duly noted.
I didn't mean for each character. The reason the rust monster isn't higher EL for a fighter compared to druid though, is that there is an assumption that all classes are equal, whether they are or not.
No, I think the assumption is that all characters have the potential to be equal. If a character chooses to be unequal, he doesn't get a benefit in XP under the rules.
if there is a reason that the encounter is significantly or markedly harder than it normally would be for a set of characters, as I said the normal one is having a party of 3 instead of 4 (or too easy, 5 characters instead of 4), the DM is technically supposed to adjust XP accordingly. I see a situation, such as disability, as one of those situations that most EL's are not set to account for, originally, and therefore would merit EL adjustment.
Two problems: Blindness is a liability in almost every situation not involving magical darkness. So the EL adjustment would apply to every encounter.
Which leads to the second problem: You originally asked "I mean... wouldn't a blind PC get at least extra skill points (this isn't even asking to give them the XP that might actually be called for) for the simple fact that his EL is higher for pretty much everything than a sighted PC."
Since the EL is higher for everyone who has a blind person in the party, how would the blind person alone get extra skill points? All it means is that party as a whole will be facing weaker monsters than they would if the blind PC were sighted.
In short, changing ELs is not a benefit that inures specifically to the blind PC.
I like Another_poet's idea of just giving a blind character a skill boost etc inherently to even out that difference.
My only problem with that is that you are creating an entire rules set exception when the rules already have ways to accommodate blind PCs through skill tricks and feats.
With the fighter tying a hand behind his back, you're mixing concepts again. You're talking about a character making a handicap choice, but playing a blind character is the player choosing a disability for the character for the fun of the game and the story and the RP.
Actually, it 's the player deciding the fighter PC enjoys sticking his hand behind his back. Either way it's the player's choice to play a handicapped character. The only difference is the ease with which the handicap can be removed.
How about a character who, from the birth was kept blindfolded by his monastery and trained rigorously in the art of fighting blind. Shouldn't this kid get all the "inherent skill bonuses" of blindness, and yet still be able to see?
When a character makes that choice to tie an arm back for more XP, that's meta-gaming anyway; a fighter doesn't know what "XP" is or that he "recieves" it etc.
No, but he does know that adversity is the fount of knowledge. By making life more difficult and challenging, he learns how to overcome challenges.
While I agree that extra XP is a bad idea, I disagree that the Starting Package creates excessive new rules.
The Starting Package and accompanying Combat Guidelines do not require any new mechanics, and in fact are easier to play out than the core blindness rules. Core blindness has numrous penalties to remember, including nonsensical ones like a negative to all strength checks. Right, 'cuz someone who just went blind suddenly can't benchbpress as many pounds of weight.
Plus the core rule has both a negative to AC and a blind=flatfooted policy, and a dex penalty. Not only are at least two out of three of these penalties redundant and excessive, but I am picturing a lot of protracted arguments over whether to apply the dex penalty to the flatfooted character's AC.
The Blind PC Starting Package does away with this by having one (not three) AC penalties, clear cut rules about when they apply, and streamlined numeric penalties to keep track of.
It also gives clear answers to questions that will inevitably come up ("So, I've pinpointed this guy by sound. Does that mean I can cast magic missile on him?") and groups all the default listen DC's in one place.
The Blind PC Starting Package is simpler and mechanically superior to the core blindness rules.
ap
While I agree that extra XP is a bad idea, I disagree that the Starting Package creates excessive new rules.
I referred specifically to the skill point boost and nothing else. I think the consolidation of blindness rules in one place is a grand useful idea. No problem with that. It was the attempt to compensate the PC for the blindness with "inherent" skill points that I wasn't crazy about. I'd rather let the PC accommodate the blindness through skill tricks and feats.
I referred specifically to the skill point boost and nothing else. I think the consolidation of blindness rules in one place is a grand useful idea. No problem with that. It was the attempt to compensate the PC for the blindness with "inherent" skill points that I wasn't crazy about. I'd rather let the PC accommodate the blindness through skill tricks and feats.
Fair enough.
Requital Rod
This dark metal rod has two serpentine dragons wrapped around it, each one savagely biting the other's neck. It can be wielded as a +1 light mace.
Two times per day the Revenge Rod can deliver its Requite ability with a successful touch attack
Requite: The wielder of the rod gives his disability to the (willing or unwilling) target. The target may may make a Fort save (DC 10+ECL of the wielder) to avoid this affect.
For the purposes of this ability, any penalty or status inflicted on the wielder involuntarily counts as a disability. This includes penalties that are with the wielder since birth, as long as those penalties are abormal for the wielder's race. Most commonly this means ability damage or drain, poison, disease, blindness or deafness, or penalties imposed by spells and spell-like abilities. The target receives the disability and the wielder is cured of it.
Hit point damage never counts as a disability on its own, although Con damage or drain does.
The rod can only inflict one disability per use. If the wielder has multiple disabilities he may choose which one to inflict. If the wielder has no disabilities or if the target is incapable of receiving the disability (such as inflicting blindness on a target that has no eyes), nothing happens.
This effect lasts 5 minutes or until the original duration of the disability ends (whichever is sooner). If the disability is still active after 5 minutes it passes back to the wielder.
Faint necromancy; CL5th; Craft Rod, Blindness/Deafness, price 18,000 gp.
Quick question... if a human touches a six-armed marilith witht he rod, is the marilith afflicted with the "curse" of being two-armed (and the human gets six arms)?
What if a grimlock (who is naturally blind) uses the rod on a sighted person?
I'm assuming in both cases the rod does not transfer the "disability". The disability is compared to the base quality of the individual... Hmmm... maybe disability should be described as any penalty that could be removed by use of a Heal, Remove Curse or Regenerate spell (other than hit point damage).
Now that's a cool item!
Quick question... if a human touches a six-armed marilith witht he rod, is the marilith afflicted with the "curse" of being two-armed (and the human gets six arms)?
What if a grimlock (who is naturally blind) uses the rod on a sighted person?
I'm assuming in both cases the rod does not transfer the "disability". The disability is compared to the base quality of the individual... Hmmm... maybe disability should be described as any penalty that could be removed by use of a Heal, Remove Curse or Regenerate spell (other than hit point damage).
Right, it would not transfer in either case. Having the same ability (# of arms, # of senses) as any healthy member of your own race does not make you disabled.
It's been a while since I've visited this thread. I forgot that I was going to look for an appropriate Necromancy school spell to use for the Requital Rod. Blindness/Deafness seems appropriate but not broad enough. Any suggestions?
ap
I haven't played any blind characters, but I think one way to make a viable one would be to have the Synesthete power (at least if I'm reading it right). Sure, it leaves you only a couple classes to start with, but from what I understand (have I mentioned I've never played a psionic character?) the psychic warrior is a pretty good class.
Hmm, I've never played a psionic character either, so I hadn't heard of that power. That definitely sounds like one that would help out a blind character.
Thanks for posting this!
ap
As far as I can understand, people who want to play a blind character mostly fall into two categories: those who want the big difficulty because it offers a great roleplaying challenge, something difficult that they can roleplay to great effect (such as the bard Jayne Cobb mentioned, that was good); and those who are impressed with ideas like Daredevil or blind swordmasters from asian movies, who want to play someone who's blind yet uses natural or supernatural means to become even more awesome than normal, and thus want something to compensate.
Either way should be perfectly acceptable. If one of my players said she wants to play a blind chara and really experience what it's like without any compensating abilities, I'd allow it, and not give her any bonuses to cheapen the concept.
ap
One thing I didn't see (I might have missed it), was the Blindsight, 5 ft radius feat.. Not a bad feat for a blind character.
Also, for your approval.
Yoshim Ryuu-ken
Fighter 4
STR: 16 +3
DEX: 16 +3
CON: 15 +2
INT: 11 +0
WIS: 19 +4
CHA: 14 +2
AC: 18 -2 ACP
Touch 13
Flatfooted 15
BAB +4
Longsword +8 1d8+3 19-20/x2
Fort +6
Ref +4
Will +5
Feats:
Blindfight
Imp Unarmed Strike
Deflect Arrows
Quick Draw (Longsword)
Blindsight, 5 ft Radius (d20srd.org)
Skills:
Intimidate +9
Listen +9
Equipment
Mithril Breastplate
Mwk Longsword
For a game I'm in. We rolled stats and have slightly above standard wealth. I have listen as a class skill.
ap
I haven't played any blind characters, but I think one way to make a viable one would be to have the Synesthete power (at least if I'm reading it right). Sure, it leaves you only a couple classes to start with, but from what I understand (have I mentioned I've never played a psionic character?) the psychic warrior is a pretty good class.
It's also a level 1 power, so everyone could get it twice daily with the Hidden Talent feat. Take Psionic Talent once or twice, you could use it 4, or 7, times every day. 40-70 minutes a day of quasi-sight? Not bad at all.
I wrote this single scene a few years back and was thinking of putting it into the Prestige Classes board to see if anyone could come up with a Prestige Class for it but I never did.
I found this thread by accident and decided to put it here instead. I hope you like it.
The man and the blind man had been fighting for almost an hour. Every strike was met with a counter strike, every counter strike became a strike.
For the moment there was a respite as each man attempted to regain their breath.
The blind man understood that his opponent was better than him and that he would soon lose the battle if things remained on their current course. He was, however, still confident of victory.
"I see that you still expect to win," he heard his opponent say.
"As it stands, I will lose to you but I hope you like surprises," he said as he threw the mask that had been a blindfold to the ground, "because things just got interesting."
The once-blind man now faced his opponent with every sense unhindered.
He was a little taken aback when the man facing him laughed.
"I'm assuming you're now thinking that being able to see will guarantee your victory but I have a surprise for you as well," his foe said mockingly as he bound a cloth about his own eyes, "As you said, things just got interesting."
A rogue.
Ok so he wasn't much use in a fight, but he was a miracle with traps, and excellent at poison detection.
At level 12 he forked out the money and the time and the effort, (along with two other PCs) to enchant a pair of pearls with the ability to see and to replace his none functioning eyes with them. (Unpleasent situation). After that his combat abilities became much better, though for a few months he kept going crosseye'd.