dealing with blindness and invisibility

[tmatk]

I'm wondering how people deal with "targeting what you can't see" in their games. I understand that you are supposed to "pick a square". That seems to only work if the creature is able to stealth and beats the passive perception of the entire party. Otherwise, the mini stays on the table, and its not too hard to guess the right square!

 

[keterys]

If the creature doesn't stealth (use the skill), the RAW is that you automatically know its square. Don't even need to guess. So... problem solved?

 

[Nightson]

What the OP is saying.

Player A and player B get into a fight with monster X.

Monster X blinds player A but player B can still see it so the mini remains on the map. On player A's turn he targets the square that monster X is in because he can still see the mini on the map, even though the player has no way of knowing what square the monster is in (assuming the monster beat the stealth check).


My suggestion, blindfold the player too.

 

[Oompa]

The player at the table knows it all, but does its character know something? If player A is adjacent to the enemy and he is blinded and he decides not to retreat it is in my book totally normal to attack the square where the last known enemy was..

But if the enemy moved away it becomes a whole other ballgame..

 

[Eldorian]

If the creature doesn't stealth (use the skill), the RAW is that you automatically know its square. Don't even need to guess. So... problem solved?

This is true, but unsettling perhaps. A good house rule may be that if you're not adjacent to a target you cannot see, you can use a minor action to make a perception check against his passive stealth -5 to find what square he is in, even if he didn't use the stealth skill to become hidden. Otherwise, you do not know his square.

I know I'm not entirely happy with knowing where everything in the room is when blinded. Also not happy that you can move at full speed anywhere on the map when blinded.

Although, thinking about it, if I just read blind as not total blindness, but only partial, then it makes a lot more sense to only have the penalties it gives you by RAW.

 

[keterys]

If some people can see the creature, they can tell the rest where it is. This applies for monsters just as much as PCs.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Yeah, the -5 penalty already takes into account the miss factor when attacking something you cannot see. Remember, Perception is more than just vision. It's hearing, scent, etc.

Please don't house rule something more difficult than what the rules already state. It just makes everything frustrating and bogs down play.

If the monsters don't make a stealth check during their turn, then everyone, even those that are blinded, knows exactly what square they're in.

Blinding PCs just means that the monster has an easier chance to make stealth checks against blinded foes.

Locating a creature that has made a succesful stealth check is a minor action on the PC's part to make an active perception roll.

 

[tmatk]

Thanks for the input, I guess most of the time invisiblity and blindness lead to -5 to attack rolls. Maybe that's bad enough!

One followup question: Stealth checks when invisible or against blinded foes, are those vs passive perception-10?

 

[corncob]

Thanks for the input, I guess most of the time invisiblity and blindness lead to -5 to attack rolls. Maybe that's bad enough!

A -5 penalty to hit is comparable to rolling twice and taking the lower amount against same-level enemies.

One followup question: Stealth checks when invisible or against blinded foes, are those vs passive perception-10?

Yes.