Targetting what you can't see

[Caliber]

I hope this question receives an easy answer, but I'm not so sure ...

Since the Stealth errata my group has generally had a bit of a rough spot whenever the Blind condition turned up. Based on the interpretation we've been using, being Blind gave all enemies Total Concealment from you. That is a -5 to all Attack Rolls, unless they were a Burst or Blast power.

The problem comes in, though, when we tried to figure out how well you could determine those enemies locations from you. Our understanding is that unless an enemy makes a Stealth check (which can be combined with another Move action) that the Blind character is completely aware of where they are.

Is that correct?

Super thanks for your answers!

 

[DracoSuave]

Is that correct?

That is correct. Blindness doesn't make them silent. You can still hear their footsteps and while it's really hard to hit them (-5 concealment is more than appropriate) and they still have combat advantage against you, they need to do a bit more to be unfound by you, by being quiet and generally not giving away their position by the sounds of roarious combat.

 

[mach1.9pants]

yeah invisible in 4E is less powerful than previous editions, but still pretty good.

 

[Flipguarder]

An enemy 100 feet away is completely targettable by a deaf blind wizard with a -50 to all perception checks.

I disagree with this design decision. The way to fix invisibility is to make it harder to obtain, not to make it suck.

 

[Nichwee]

An enemy 100 feet away is completely targettable by a deaf blind wizard with a -50 to all perception checks.

I disagree with this design decision. The way to fix invisibility is to make it harder to obtain, not to make it suck.

Unless you make a Stealth check - which shouldn't have a hard time beating his passive perception, especially as he shouldn't be allowed a Perception check unless he is using a sense other than sight and hearing.

 

[Flipguarder]

You shouldn't have to make a stealth check, he can't see or hear you, and he has no other ways of detecting you.

 

[Ryujin]

Unless you make a Stealth check - which shouldn't have a hard time beating his passive perception, especially as he shouldn't be allowed a Perception check unless he is using a sense other than sight and hearing.

SO when you move you make a stealth check, whether skilled or not, move your normal movement, and take the -5 to your roll. At least you force a perception roll and you never know, the opposition might just roll a 1.

 

[Vengeful]

You shouldn't have to make a stealth check, he can't see or hear you, and he has no other ways of detecting you.

That's what DMs are for.

Rules != Game

The reason you need to make a Stealth Check against a Blind/Deaf enemy is because they'll probably know which direction an attack came from (especially if you're adjacent). And the stealth check is just representing you him losing track of you after you attack.

 

[Nichwee]

You shouldn't have to make a stealth check, he can't see or hear you, and he has no other ways of detecting you.

True. So I would assume a Passive Stealth Check vs his Passive Perception (which you gave a -50 to, though I'd love the power the extra -30 came from available to me) and only then if he had a sense other than sight and hearing as he auto-fails any perception based on those senses (as covered by "You can't see" and "You can't hear" being in addition to Perception penalties taken).

So a person gets a 99.99% chance of being unfindable to the blind deaf person, and the rules allow the non-deaf blind man to still find people by ear (like they do in real life).

 

[DracoSuave]

You shouldn't have to make a stealth check, he can't see or hear you, and he has no other ways of detecting you.

Why -wouldn't- you make a Stealth check? What does it cost you? Nothing.

'I shouldn't have to do things that cost nothing' arguments make no sense. You have total concealment. You don't want to be detected, make the darn roll. It's -free-.