Stealth, Perception and blindness

[gnfnrf]

I know this has been done and done and done, and I swear I thought I had it figured out, but things got confusing in my game this afternoon.

What does a blind creature need to to to locate the square of an enemy? What can that enemy do to avoid being found?

A blind creature "can't see any targets (targets have total concealment)", in the Compendium glossary, but just "All creatures have total concealment" in the Rules Compendium.

You know the location of a target with total concealment, though, unless it is hiding from you, right? I thought this was a rule, but right now, I can only find it for the specific total concealment granted by invisibility.

Great, now I'm even more confused. Let me just lay out the situation.

There is a blind creature. The ranger moves from somewhere to somewhere within a few squares of it, and shoots someone else. The ranger is not thinking about being stealthy at the time.

What must the blind creature do to know the square the ranger occupies?
Possibility 1: Nothing. The ranger made an attack, so is not hidden.
Possibility 2: The blind creature must make a Perception check. What DC?
2A: The DC is set by the ranger's Stealth check. The ranger didn't make one, so the check succeeds. The ranger now makes a Stealth check after every move for the rest of the campaign, (since there is no penalty for doing so), annoying everyone.
2B: The DC is set by a retroactive Stealth check for the ranger, in the normal opposed Stealth-Perception system (with the -10 penalty for being blind). The fact that the ranger attacked is ignored.
2C: The DC is set differently, since the creature is trying to pinpoint and not merely detect the ranger.
Possibility 3: The blind creature cannot see the creature, and no amount of Perception can help him find it.

None of these actually make sense to me, and I can't seem to find the rules that would cover it. What happens with creatures that have improved concealment but are not invisible? How do you and don't you know if they are there?

Furthermore, in a general sense, is it true that blinded people can still see walls, read, and so forth? The listing of is very specific that you cannot see targets, but doesn't actually mention your vision being impaired in any other way. Is blinded not blind in the traditional sense of the word, or is it assumed that all of the other bits are there, just aren't mentioned in the description?

Please help me sort out this muddle.

--
gnfnrf

 

[I'm A Banana]

You know the location of a target with total concealment, though, unless it is hiding from you, right? I thought this was a rule, but right now, I can only find it for the specific total concealment granted by invisibility.

Yup. The logic goes that you can still hear them and smell them and feel them and your friends can shout them out to you and you can generally tell where they are (which square they're in) automatically. Being blind means you probably can't hit them, but you don't loose track of them entirely.

I think part of the confusion is that this little note is mainly inferred from reading the Stealth skill, not explicitly stated with the Blind condition.

There is a blind creature. The ranger moves from somewhere to somewhere within a few squares of it, and shoots someone else. The ranger is not thinking about being stealthy at the time.

What must the blind creature do to know the square the ranger occupies?

The blind creature knows. The sound of the ranger, the twang of the bow, the feel of a breeze as the ranger runs by, the shout of the thing the ranger was shooting at -- the blind creature can try and hit the ranger. He'll probably miss, with that penalty to attack rolls, but if he's using a power that doesn't require a melee or ranged attack (like a fireball or a dragon breath or a magic missile), he can hit the dude just fine.

What happens with creatures that have improved concealment but are not invisible? How do you and don't you know if they are there?

Furthermore, in a general sense, is it true that blinded people can still see walls, read, and so forth? The listing of is very specific that you cannot see targets, but doesn't actually mention your vision being impaired in any other way. Is blinded not blind in the traditional sense of the word, or is it assumed that all of the other bits are there, just aren't mentioned in the description?

Invisible is not the same thing as "stealthed." Only a character using stealth (or the equivalent) can avoid having their square pinpointed. Even invisible characters: everyone knows perfectly where they are, due to footprints and noise and the like, unless they successfully stealth.

The other stuff from blind is kind of up to DM adjudication, but I'd rule that, mechanically, the character is aware of what is happening around them still. They can't see walls, but if a wizard throws up a wall of stone, they probably hear it go up. They can't read, but they can still use class abilities and the like. They won't necessarily know a wall is there, but if they're next to it, or if they had seen the wall before going blind, they'd probably know it was there.

But for blind/invisible/stealth, it goes like this:

Invisibility means that you have total concealment. Your enemies take a penalty on certain attack rolls against you. They still know where you are.

Blindness means that all of your targets have total concealment. You take a penalty on certain attack rolls against everything else. You still know where they are.

Stealth means that your square cannot be pinpointed, so you cannot be targeted. In order to stealth, you usually need concealment of some type to begin with. Meaning, if you are invisible, you can stealth (from everybody) and if your enemy is blind, you can stealth (from that enemy).

Stealth gets fuzzy because it's dependent on any creature you may not have total concealment against, which can vary between combatants on the battlefield.

But Stealth is the only thing that lets you avoid being targeted (and so can enable you to avoid magic missiles and the like...though if dragon breath fills your square, you're hit anyway).

 

[surfarcher]

By RAW Blinded means...

• All targets have total concealment, thus...
  • The target cannot be seen by the creature and is effecitvely invisible
  • The creature takes a -5 penalty to ranged and melee attack rolls (as long as they are not area or close powers)
• The creature takes a -10 to Perception checks
• The creature grants combat advantage
• The creature cannot flank

Apply the "targeting what you cant see" rules here. In this case without the stealth flourish:

• If the target is stealthed, make a minor-action opposed Perception check (-10 penalty) to figure out which square they are in.
• If the target isn't stealthed they know what square the target is in.
• Pick a square and attack it (-5 penalty)

Not exactly intuitive

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's possibility 1: the last thing the ranger did was make an attack, which removes stealth.

If the ranger had attacked and then moved, then it would be 2A: he could have chosen to make a stealth roll with his move. If the DM really thinks that this will slow things down, the DM can feel free to institute a retroactive-stealth-when-it-matters rule.

Incidentally, the creature cops a -10 to it's perception check for being blind.

 

[gnfnrf]

OK, so it seems that folks think that the regular Stealth rules apply in this case, and that an opposed Stealth-Perception check is used as normal (w/penalty due to blindness) and any attack anywhere immediately pinpoints the target, as would a success on the opposed check. I think that's odd, but I want to move on for a moment to some other implications of this new understanding of the rules.

Now lets consider an adventurer is blind, but has fled the battle to wait for the blindness to wear off. A bandit is sneaking up on him, with total concealment due to the blindness. (If I understand it, the identical situation could occur at night without special vision, or with an invisible creature, or in dense fog, or any other situation with total concealment.)

The bandit makes a Stealth check to sneak. The adventurer makes a Perception check. If I understand it, if the bandit wins, the adventurer does not know that a bandit is present. If the adventurer wins, he knows the square the bandit occupies. There is no way for the adventurer to hear that there IS a bandit nearby but not know precisely where the bandit is, which I claim SHOULD be the most likely outcome. Or am I wrong again?


--
gnfnrf

 

[OnlineDM]

All of the answers above are correct. I'd also point out a good thread on the Wizards forums about "Hidden Club." Just because you can't see something (you're blind, it's invisible) doesn't mean you don't know where it is. The only way you're unsure of its location is if it's Hidden - and it's only hidden if it makes a Stealth check that beats your passive Perception (or your active Perception if you spend an action to try to locate it with your hearing - a -10 penalty to the Perception check when blinded).

 

[OnlineDM]

Now lets consider an adventurer is blind, but has fled the battle to wait for the blindness to wear off. A bandit is sneaking up on him, with total concealment due to the blindness. (If I understand it, the identical situation could occur at night without special vision, or with an invisible creature, or in dense fog, or any other situation with total concealment.)

The bandit makes a Stealth check to sneak. The adventurer makes a Perception check. If I understand it, if the bandit wins, the adventurer does not know that a bandit is present. If the adventurer wins, he knows the square the bandit occupies. There is no way for the adventurer to hear that there IS a bandit nearby but not know precisely where the bandit is, which I claim SHOULD be the most likely outcome. Or am I wrong again?

First, the bandit makes a Stealth check against the blinded character's PASSIVE Perception with the -10 penalty for blindness; the blinded character doesn't make an active Perception check unless they decide to spend an action to do so.

The rest of your statement is correct. If the bandit beats the passive Perception (pretty easy with the penalty) then the blinded character has no idea that a bandit is nearby. If the bandit yells out "I'M BEING STEALTHY!" and fails the Stealth check, then the blinded character knows exactly where the bandit is.

There's nothing in the rules that states, "You can hear that there's something bad out there, but you don't know where it is." Characters are assumed to have fantastic triangulation ability with their hearing. Hey, they're heroes, so why not?

Feel free to house-rule differently if you like. You could rule that if the bandit's Stealth beats the blinded passive Perception by 5 or less that the character hears something out there somewhere but doesn't know where. The bandit would still have combat advantage from being Hidden, but you could decide that the bandit wouldn't get a surprise round if you like. That's a house rule that seems reasonable to me.

 

[malraux]

The bandit makes a Stealth check to sneak. The adventurer makes a Perception check. If I understand it, if the bandit wins, the adventurer does not know that a bandit is present. If the adventurer wins, he knows the square the bandit occupies. There is no way for the adventurer to hear that there IS a bandit nearby but not know precisely where the bandit is, which I claim SHOULD be the most likely outcome. Or am I wrong again?

By the rules, yes. (unless I've missed something) That kind of thing is typically binary. That said, if the player comes close but doesn't succeed on the perception check, which would mean that he missed because of his blindness, then you might at your discretion let him make an insight check to figure out that something is creeping toward him.

As an aside, here's how I think about blindness and invisibility in 4e. Blindness is like being hit by a boomer's puke. Seeing in detail is still really hard, but the screen isn't completely black. You can make out obvious things like the horde descending upon you, but you'll miss a lot more. Alternatively, its like when I take off my glasses, and am right at the point of being legally blind. I can tell the difference between tree and person, but that's about it.

Invisibility works like a Predator's cloaking ability. When you see a Predator activate the cloak, you can still tell where it is and if he makes no attempt to hide, you can follow him. But it makes it a lot easier to disappear. It's not like Frodo and the ring.

 

[I'm A Banana]

OK, so it seems that folks think that the regular Stealth rules apply in this case, and that an opposed Stealth-Perception check is used as normal (w/penalty due to blindness) and any attack anywhere immediately pinpoints the target, as would a success on the opposed check. I think that's odd, but I want to move on for a moment to some other implications of this new understanding of the rules.

Stealth rules don't apply unless the Ranger was using Stealth to become hidden.

If the ranger was not using stealth, the blind creature knows which square he's in, without having to make any sort of check or anything. He just takes a penalty on his attack rolls.

There is no way for the adventurer to hear that there IS a bandit nearby but not know precisely where the bandit is, which I claim SHOULD be the most likely outcome. Or am I wrong again?

Not really. If the adventurer detects the bandit, they detect the bandit enough to attack their square. If the adventure does not detect the bandit, the adventurer is unaware of the square its in.

If you want to achieve this effect (which is cool), you might want to let the adventurer hear the bandit (and know what square he's in), and THEN have the bandit become hidden. That way, the adventurer knew there was a bandit -- but they're not sure where it went. You can then have the bandit (or a different bandit) un-stealth, let the adventurers know, and then re-stealth.

You could also rule that if the adventurer's passive perception beats the Stealth roll, they're aware of something out there, but only an active Perception roll (taking an action) can pinpoint the square. It's a house rule, but I think it's a fairly good one.

 

[DracoSuave]

You could also rule that if the adventurer's passive perception beats the Stealth roll, they're aware of something out there, but only an active Perception roll (taking an action) can pinpoint the square. It's a house rule, but I think it's a fairly good one.

Remember that using Stealth is free. It costs the stealth-user nothing, so, in this situation, one of three things have occured:

1) The ranger isn't trying. He hasn't used stealth, or is in a position where there's no point. It is not a difficult task for a hero in the 4e style to find someone else that isn't bothering to be hidden, with friends pointing out where that guy is. In this instance, why is the ranger getting any benefit of stealth (being unfound) when he isn't trying to?

2) The ranger did something to break stealth. Again, he's pretty much announced his position, so in the same vien, it should not be problematic for his position to be called out using the bare minimum of teamwork. For a hero, that is. The ranger's purposefully broke stealth. He's chosen to have no benefit from it.

3) The ranger failed his stealth check against someone with a -10 modifier. In this instance, really... throw the perciever a bone. Don't make him roll a second time... -10 is already a damn bad penalty.