[A&E Guide] Blindfold of True Darkness

[Artoomis]

I notice that your argument fails to mention gp costs at all, which is quite curious, since the original question was about gp costs. By this logic, since fly + improved invis can be countered with dispel magic, I could make an item that provides fly + improved invis for 10 gp, and since all it takes is one targeted dispel to cancel it, it must be "balanced".

Perhaps you overlooked this from above:

How is this worse than, say, winged boots with an inproved invisbility spell? In fact I'd say that's a lot worse - of course, they are 12,000 instead of 9,000. Just one example of a useful item that can be place in a deadly combination - though it can be countered.

 

[Artoomis]

The real point I am making is that an item is not unbalanced simply because it can be used in conjunction with some particular spell to make it deadly.

 

[LokiDR]

Ok Artoomis, maybe I can convince you.

This item is good, but not unbalancing. Let's take a good look, shall we:

Pros:

Negates illusions, etc. within 60'.
Negates darkness within 60'.

Cons:

Cannot see at all past 60'.
Takes a standard action to activate or to decativate it (you've got to put it on or take it off - this means using your hands to tie it or untie it around your eyes - a standard action would be the minimum required - possibly more because of having to stow and re-draw your weapon).
Can't read or do other similar tasks.
Can't recognize opponents (well, probabaly).

Deadly combinations are possible, as they are with many, many other not too expensive items. In this case, close-quarters fighting plus deeper darkness is fairly deadly if it's not countered.

Of course, darkness is easily countered, and while close-quarters fighting is fairly common, fighting in a larger area is common as well.

Generally, using this item means:

-- not wearing it most of the time (so you can see past 60' and generally function normally)

-- "wasting" an action in combat to put it on when needed

-- if your opponent manages to get far enough away from you, you need to "waste" another action to take it off, and the repeat the whole process as needed.

What keeps this item balanced is the lack of any other type of vision when using it.

Not that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.

You forgot:
PROS:

immunity to gaze attacks
never miss a sneaking creature
sensing creatures around a corner

As for your CONS, last time I checked, adjusting a blindfold falls into the move eqivelant range. All I need to do is uncover or cover one eye.

In any case where you are not in a lit area, such as at night or in a dungeon, normal vision will be nearly useless. Even with a torch, a creature with low-light can only see out to 60 feet. Which would you prefer: seeing to 60 feet and alerting other creatures to your presence or not needing to make spot checks?

The only time the limitations of the item come up is walking around during the day. Even then, I'm not sure the limitations mentioned are that bad. The limitations all but disappear at night/in unlit areas.

 

[kreynolds]

As for your CONS, last time I checked, adjusting a blindfold falls into the move eqivelant range.

The blindfold is a magic item. Unless otherwise stated, a magic item is activated/deactivated as a standard action (wondrous items are usually use activated or a command word).

Even with a torch, a creature with low-light can only see out to 60 feet.

Doesn't a torch only illuminate out to 20 feet? That would be a total of 40 feet of vision with low-light, wouldn't it?

 

[Caliban]

Where have I not been civil on this thread? I don't see where I haven't. Where have I been rude? I don't see where I have. How have I not treated you with respect? I'm trying to understand your point of view here, but as far as I can tell, I've been behaving quite appropriately, so a particular someone's grandmother should be proud.

You have been pulling this whole "you aren't polite enough to me" schtick ever since you promised to clean up your act or get banned from the boards.

I find your entire "wounded bird" act shameful. You start this crap every time I disagree with you, and I'm pretty tired of it.

I called some of your examples contrived. That's not being rude, that's being honest. You should try not to confuse the two.

But instead of using a better example or explaining yourself better, you started in with the whole "you want things to get ugly, you be polite to me or I'm going to tell on you" routine. You pull this everytime. Quite frankly, I think it would qualify as harrassment, because you pull it everytime we disagree, and you try to make it about me instead of about what we were debating.

I think it's childish, and a transparent attempt to provoke me. Apparently you still hold a grudge from when you got slapped down back when you first joined the boards.

 

[Savage Wombat]

This may be the most polite flame war I've ever read - but it's still a flame war.

 

[LokiDR]

The blindfold is a magic item. Unless otherwise stated, a magic item is activated/deactivated as a standard action (wondrous items are usually use activated or a command word).

Use activated is not a standard action, it is part of the action of using it. While wearing the blindfold, blindsight is a free action. The only question is what kind of action it is to adjust a blindfold.

Doesn't a torch only illuminate out to 20 feet? That would be a total of 40 feet of vision with low-light, wouldn't it?

Oh, so it is even better than I thought? Thanks for proving my point.

 

[kreynolds]

You have been pulling this whole "you aren't polite enough to me" schtick ever since you promised to clean up your act...

It was expected of me to behave appropriately. If I do it, I expect you to do it. If you don't, I expect you to catch the same flak that I did. I give you the courtesy of being polite. I expect it in return. Simple as that.

...or get banned from the boards.

Getting banned from the boards had nothing to do with it. All I would need is a new ip, and that only takes one mouse click and about 4 seconds. Getting banned wasn't a motivator. Participating in discussion was.

I find your entire "wounded bird" act shameful.

Its not like that. I'm being polite to you. I expect the same. That's the "act".

You start this crap every time I disagree with you, and I'm pretty tired of it.

I start pointing out your behavior when you disagree with me (sometimes, but not all of the time) for one very simple reason; Somtimes, when you disagree with me, you lack civility. You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no need to be inappropriate about it.

I called some of your examples contrived.

I called you on "contrived", and you smacked me back with an attitude. If you had not intended on being rude, then you simply could have said so and let it go, but you didn't do that. You pulled an attitude. You did it. Not me.

That's not being rude, that's being honest.

Yet you elevated the situation. I interpreted what you said with a certain tone. If that tone was not your intention, you could have simply said so, but instead you snapped back with an attitude.

You should try not to confuse the two.

Oh, I know you were being honest. I also thought you were being rude. However, instead of proving that you didn't intend to be rude by making that comment, you simply became rude.

But instead of using a better example or explaining yourself better, you started in with the whole "you want things to get ugly, you be polite to me or I'm going to tell on you" routine.

No, I merely expect you to treat me as well as I treat you, and I treat you pretty well (until you cop an attitude).

You pull this everytime.

I'd like to see some proof of that. I sincerely doubt the validity of that statement.

Quite frankly, I think it would qualify as harrassment, because you pull it everytime we disagree, and you try to make it about me instead of about what we were debating.

I only make it about you when you cop an attitude when I didn't even provoke you.

I think it's childish, and a transparent attempt to provoke me.

Looks that way from over here as well, actually (except for the childish part). You're not childish, just rude at times, and when I call you on it, whether or not you were intentionally being rude, you snap back with even more attitude, shouting "thin-skin" or some such.

Apparently you still hold a grudge from when you got slapped down back when you first joined the boards.

No grudge. The weapons of speed thread saved my soul, but lets not open old 'wounds'.

 

[kreynolds]

Use activated is not a standard action, it is part of the action of using it.

Not always. See page 176 of the DMG, specifically the example of a ring of invisibility.

The only question is what kind of action it is to adjust a blindfold.

Well, unless otherwise stated...

Oh, so it is even better than I thought?

Yup.

Thanks for proving my point.

No problem. Mostly, I just couldn't exactly remember if a torch was 20 or 30.

 

[Caliban]

It was expected of me to behave appropriately. If I do it, I expect you to do it. If you don't, I expect you to catch the same flak that I did. I give you the courtesy of being polite. I expect it in return. Simple as that.



Getting banned from the boards had nothing to do with it. All I would need is a new ip, and that only takes one mouse click and about 4 seconds. Getting banned wasn't a motivator. Participating in discussion was.



Its not like that. I'm being polite to you. I expect the same. That's the "act".



I start pointing out your behavior when you disagree with me (sometimes, but not all of the time) for one very simple reason; Somtimes, when you disagree with me, you lack civility. You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no need to be inappropriate about it.



I called you on "contrived", and you smacked me back with an attitude. If you had not intended on being rude, then you simply could have said so and let it go, but you didn't do that. You pulled an attitude. You did it. Not me.



Yet you elevated the situation. I interpreted what you said with a certain tone. If that tone was not your intention, you could have simply said so, but instead you snapped back with an attitude.



Oh, I know you were being honest. I also thought you were being rude. However, instead of proving that you didn't intend to be rude by making that comment, you simply became rude.



No, I merely expect you to treat me as well as I treat you, and I treat you pretty well (until you cop an attitude).



I'd like to see some proof of that. I sincerely doubt the validity of that statement.



I only make it about you when you cop an attitude when I didn't even provoke you.



Looks that way from over here as well, actually (except for the childish part). You're not childish, just rude at times, and when I call you on it, whether or not you were intentionally being rude, you snap back with even more attitude, shouting "thin-skin" or some such.



No grudge. The weapons of speed thread saved my soul, but lets not open old 'wounds'.

*sigh*

And more of the same. I don't know why I even try anymore.