[A&E Guide] Blindfold of True Darkness

[Artoomis]

Loki has caused me to update my list.

I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.

I would consider allowing "peeking" from under the blindfold as a move-equivalent action, but keep it a standard action to place it back in place - it must be light-tight, after all.

I find Caliban's arguments to be terribly weak - which is unusual for him. They are far to situation-specific to justify as high a value as he thinks this is worth. This item is almost as good as the spell, but not quite since the spell keeps regular vision.

It is better than the spell in the same ways that any item based o a spell is better than the spell.

Now, if you feel the spell is too powerful, then that argument applies to this item as well, naturally.

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'.
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner.

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.

Note that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.

 

[AuraSeer]

I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.

You mean the blindsight spell, which has generated other multi-page threads about whether it's b0rken? Justifying the balance of the item by that of the spell is hardly convincing.

But since you bring up the spell, I'll point out that by the DMG guidelines, a use-activated item of a 3rd-level spell costs at least (3 x 5 x 2000) = 30,000 gp. The blindfold's "limitation" is hardly severe enough to justify a 70% discount from that.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Artoomis,

Your pros and cons lists are good. But take a look at the cons for a moment. Practically all of them are meaningless in the dungeon.

Cannot see at all past 60'
In the dungeon, most of the time nobody can see past 60'. Rooms aren't that big, corridors aren't that long (before a bend). So if you can't see past 60' anyway, it doesn't matter that your blindsight ends at that range.

Takes a standard action to activate
You put it on when you walk into the dungeon, and take it off afterward. Problem solved.

Can't read
It's quite rare for it to be necessary to read during combat. And if the party were to encounter writing that only the PC with the blindfold could read in a non-combat situation, he need merely take off the blindfold--translate the text--then put it back on again.

Can't recognize opponents
I don't actually think this is true, so I'll leave it be.

So the item has very few drawbacks in a situation (dungeon) that shows up often in most games. In exchange for that, you get everything you mentioned:

Negates illusions, etc. within 60'.
Negates darkness within 60'.
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner.

That's worth more than 9,000gp. Personally, I'd put it at 20,000gp, the same as the oft-mentioned ring.

 

[Artoomis]

You mean the blindsight spell, which has generated other multi-page threads about whether it's b0rken? Justifying the balance of the item by that of the spell is hardly convincing.

But since you bring up the spell, I'll point out that by the DMG guidelines, a use-activated item of a 3rd-level spell costs at least (3 x 5 x 2000) = 30,000 gp. The blindfold's "limitation" is hardly severe enough to justify a 70% discount from that.

Right - I'm sute is was based on the blindsight spell from Savage Species, which is 2nd level, and so would cost 12,000 gp.

Perhpas 9,000 is a bit cheap, but, then again, it is worse than the spell.

Of course, if you are in the camp that the spell is way unbalanced to start with, then this item is too.

 

[Caliban]

Loki has caused me to update my list.

I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.

I would consider allowing "peeking" from under the blindfold as a move-equivalent action, but keep it a standard action to place it back in place - it must be light-tight, after all.

I find Caliban's arguments to be terribly weak - which is unusual for him. They are far to situation-specific to justify as high a value as he thinks this is worth. This item is almost as good as the spell, but not quite since the spell keeps regular vision.

The point is that the situations are very easy to set up and take advantage of. It's much more difficult to counter the situation effectively, as it basically requires foreknowledge on the part of your opponents.

And the item is better than the spell because it frees up the spell slot for the spellcaster, so they only need to pre-cast the Darkness or Deeper Darkness for you.

I also think the blindsight spell is rather powerful, especially the MoF version, which lasts 1 hour per level. At least the SS versions only last 1 minute per level.

It is better than the spell in the same ways that any item based o a spell is better than the spell.

Now, if you feel the spell is too powerful, then that argument applies to this item as well, naturally.

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'.
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner.

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).

I don't see why pushing the blindfold up on your forehead would require you to stow and redraw your weapon.

I agree with it being a standard action, as that's the default for activating or deactivating any magic item.

Can't read or do other similar tasks.
Can't recognize opponents (well, probabaly).

Why wouldn't you be able to recognize opponents? I don't recall that being listed as a limitation on blindsight anywhere in the core rules.

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.

I don't really consider a 120' diameter globe of darkness as "close quarters", but maybe that's just me.

It's easily countered if you are carrying the daylight spell. Not every caster does, most do not in my experience. Otherwise you have to hope your dispel magic works, and that's never a certain thing.

With the errata, Continual Flame torches might counter it, but only if they are created by a cleric.

Generally, using this item means:

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

Or wearing it continuously while you are in a dungeon or other indoor setting. Rooms and corridors larger than 60' tend to be pretty uncommon, and rooms larger than 120' tend to be rarer still. And you have the rest of the party to spot things farther away than that.

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

No more a waste than activating your flaming sword, or casting shield, or any number of other items or spells you might want to activate in the first round.

-- 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.

They would have to get pretty far away, otherwise I just follow their last path until they are within 60' again. Or listen to my party members when they tell me which direction to head in.

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

Outdoors I can see that being a legitimate drawback, but not in the typical dungeon setting, or in most urban settings.

Note that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.

That is a real drawback, which is why I gave it the 30% discount, as suggested in the DMG.

The price I used is based on the having a magic item duplicate a 4th level spell (Improved Blindsight from Savage Species), which is exactly what the blindfold does, with the limitation of no other form of sight and the added benefit of being immune to gaze attacks.

 

[LokiDR]

Loki has caused me to update my list.

I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.

Ya, I'm getting to him Now if only those drugs I slipped into his coffee would kick in....

I would consider allowing "peeking" from under the blindfold as a move-equivalent action, but keep it a standard action to place it back in place - it must be light-tight, after all.

Where does it say it must be light tight?

I find Caliban's arguments to be terribly weak - which is unusual for him. They are far to situation-specific to justify as high a value as he thinks this is worth. This item is almost as good as the spell, but not quite since the spell keeps regular vision.

It is better than the spell in the same ways that any item based o a spell is better than the spell.

Now, if you feel the spell is too powerful, then that argument applies to this item as well, naturally.

What would you pay for continuous improved invisibility?

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'.
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner.

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).

I will maintain move equiv for adjusting. Putting on or taking off a shield is move equivelent.

And you will be able to recognize creatures because you "see as well as a sighted creature"

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.

Note that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.

As any creature that does not have darkvision, this is the item to have in any sort of night combat. In any situation where there might be magical traps or sneaking characters, give it to the melee fighter. He wouldn't spot it anyway, and the party stops those effects.

If you carry your own light, you would be better off with the blindfold.

I disagree with the spell as well, by the way. I have seen the 3rd level blindsight spell from MoF be abused, and the improved blindsight spell has double the effect at one level higher.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, I will say the range of the vision should be much shorter - 20 feet max, maybe even only 15 feet.

And I'll leave it at that.

 

[Caliban]

Well, I will say the range of the vision should be much shorter - 20 feet max, maybe even only 15 feet.

And I'll leave it at that.

Heck, limit it to 30 feet and I would agree that it's exactly as useful as a ring of invisibility, and lower the price to 20,000 gp.

It's the 60' range and the fact that there is no way to effectively counter the blindsight that makes it so powerful (in my opinion).

 

[Piratecat]

(EDIT - The people who needed to see my original message have seen it.)

Thread closed. If someone wishes to repoen the rules discussion in a different thread - a thread I don't expect to see any arguing in, I'll add - they may.