D&D 5E Blind Characters in 5e

[Jaeger]

"When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."

"...can hear.." being the operative words here. What a PC can hear and distinguish in combat is something more than only disadvantage.

You can attack creatures outside your blindsight radius just fine (at disadvantage) unless that creature takes the Hide action and is successful.

Not "just fine" at all.

You have to either guess their location, or "hear" a target to have a location to shoot at.

5e does not define what it means to "hear" a target. Certainly not what it means to "hear" an individual target in all the noise and chaos of combat.

So common sense must rule the day.

the game defaults to you knowing (roughly) the location of all nearby creatures.

The rules say nothing that explicit. That is an assumption.

You could certainly hear them around you. (To your left, right, in front, etc...) But why would you assume the PC's can pick individuals out of a group without a perception check?

Why would you assume a free form of echolocation for all PC's races and classes?

Because that is the fundamental assumption being made.

I agree that a PC can use their hearing to try and identify an individual target - as opposed to just guessing.

But in combat you are looking at the PC using one of their actions to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to locate an individual target first.

There has to be a check made to hear/locate a target if the player does not want to guess. Especially in the noise and confusion of combat. Otherwise you just handed all your players a form of echolocation.

Assuming a form of echolocation beyond the blindsight radius is outrageously silly.

Is that really how people have been ruling things?


.

 

[Flamestrike]

"...can hear.." being the operative words here. What a PC can hear and distinguish in combat is something more than only disadvantage.




Not "just fine" at all.

You have to either guess their location, or "hear" a target to have a location to shoot at.

5e does not define what it means to "hear" a target. Certainly not what it means to "hear" an individual target in all the noise and chaos of combat.

So common sense must rule the day.




The rules say nothing that explicit. That is an assumption.

You could certainly hear them around you. (To your left, right, in front, etc...) But why would you assume the PC's can pick individuals out of a group without a perception check?

Why would you assume a free form of echolocation for all PC's races and classes?

Because that is the fundamental assumption being made.

I agree that a PC can use their hearing to try and identify an individual target - as opposed to just guessing.

But in combat you are looking at the PC using one of their actions to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to locate an individual target first.

There has to be a check made to hear/locate a target if the player does not want to guess. Especially in the noise and confusion of combat. Otherwise you just handed all your players a form of echolocation.

Assuming a form of echolocation beyond the blindsight radius is outrageously silly.

Is that really how people have been ruling things?


.

No, none of what you have posted is true by RAW or RAI.

James Haeck on D&D Writing | Dungeons & Dragons

Follow the link, listen to the podcast and come back and discuss when you've done so. It's an interview with JC where he discusses the rules.

To summarize, an unseen creature (invisible, in darkness, you're blind etc) can be attacked normally by any nearby creature (at disadvantage) unless they are also hidden.

In order to be hidden while unseen, they have to take the Hide action, and succeed in a Stealth check vs your passive perception.

If successful, you cant attack them at all, unless a lucky guess, or they reveal themselves (by making an attack, loud noise etc).

Google it. Then come back once you understand the rules.

 

[auburn2]

I've been thinking Blind Drow Swordsman.

Despite being blind I would keep the sunlight sensitivity for this race as well as Duergar. There is no reason that would not be the case just because he is blind.

If I was DM I would let a player get rid of sunlight sensitivty only for a Drow only if they used the custom lineage.

 

[auburn2]

But being Blind can be a Flaw. When your Flaw causes you a problem your DM should give you Inspiration. Next round you spend that Inspiration to cancel your Disadvantage. Your Flaw is still causing you a problem because if you were not blind you would now have Advantage. Your DM should grant you Inspiration again. Repeat....

Thus it's only going to be a net problem in Round 1 of the fight.

I have been playing 5E for 5 years and I have seen inspiration given about 5 times at my table. You are suggesting inspiration every turn?

 

[auburn2]

5e does not define what it means to "hear" a target. Certainly not what it means to "hear" an individual target in all the noise and chaos of combat.

Absolutely it does. RAW, hidden means [an individual target] is unseen and unheard. If an individual target is not "hidden" it is not unseen and unheard. If it is unseen because of invisibility or blindness or other complete obscuration then it is still heard unless it takes an action to hide.

As such RAW, a blinded character will know the location of all individual combatants who are not hidden in combat. Barring the hide action, the only way he wouldn't is if someone cast silence or deafened the character as well. In that case all combatants would be both unseen (blinded) and unheard (deafened) and would be "hidden", even if they did not take the hide action.

 

[Jaeger]

As such RAW, a blinded character will know the location of all individual combatants who are not hidden in combat.

That is an extremely generous interpretation of a blinded person "hearing" an opponent in combat.

You are not only giving them the general area (which would be fine) but an exact targetable location!

Free echolocation for all!

Follow the link, listen to the podcast and come back and discuss when you've done so. It's an interview with JC where he discusses the rules.
... James Haeck on D&D Writing | Dungeons & Dragons
Google it. Then come back once you understand the rules.

No need to google. Listened.

He said: 29:31 "We assume that, it is also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that unless a person hides people generally know where a person is in combat."

Perkins should have put those assumptions in the rules. Because that is a pretty big deal!

He didn't. No such exact phrasing exists.

So I made my own interpretation based on the written text as-is.

I now therefore declare the following:

"Hear ye, hear ye!

Being unaware of writers assumptions that they did not put in the rules, and going only by the written text; I made my own ruling, based on personal experience of having run games for many years.

Being confident in my own ruling, I therefore felt no need, or even thought of "googling" online for further clarification on the issue."

Just assuming free echolocation for all never occurred to me.

Because that would be stupid.

However, I readily concede: that people in general will default to what a designer of the game says he meant. And consider his pronouncements RAW.

So despite what I think of Perkins assumptions. As a designer his words carry weight, and no one will care what I think.


Otherwise, I will say that listening to that podcast was rather enlightening. I personally find it rather interesting that so many had issues making a common sense ruling on their own.

 

[Flamestrike]

Perkins should have put those assumptions in the rules. Because that is a pretty big deal!

He didn't. No such exact phrasing exists.

No where is the opposite stated (people can be hidden without hiding).

In fact, seeing as there is expressly an action required to Hide, which requires you to be unseen to even attemptit, that invisibility expressly only ALLOWS hiding (it doesnt make you hidden by default) one can assume that the game is pretty clear that creatures are not hidden, unless they Hide (via the action).

Otherwise, I will say that listening to that podcast was rather enlightening. I personally find it rather interesting that so many had issues making a common sense ruling on their own.

Note that your target being unseen totally shuts down a ton of spells (no magic missile, hex, hunters mark, counterspell, charm person exclusion from spirit guardians etc etc etc), special abilities, opportunity attacks, the Dodge action and more.

It does all that, AND allows your target to attempt to Hide at will (as the action), AND imposes disadvantage on your wild swings/ shots in their general direction AND grants them advantage on attacks v you.

 

[Jaeger]

My views are irrelevant to what people view as RAW, as Perkins has spoken.

But why I interpreted it the way I did:

No where is the opposite stated (people can be hidden without hiding).

You are correct. It is my interpretation and ruling.

I can do that at my table.

Note that your target being unseen totally shuts down a ton of spells (no magic missile, hex, hunters mark, counterspell, charm person exclusion from spirit guardians etc etc etc), special abilities, opportunity attacks, the Dodge action and more.

Yes, because the PC is Blind.

Being Blind sucks. Feature, not bug.

Want to locate a target through "hearing" ?

Perception check. No free echolocation.

Like I noted in a previous post, giving them the general area someone is in with just "hearing" would be fine. But unless they have an ability that gives them some form of echolocation out to where the enemy is; perception check.

But how I rule things in my game is irrelevant to your game.

 

[Flamestrike]

But how I rule things in my game is irrelevant to your game.

And irrelevant to how the rules are supposed to work.

 

[auburn2]

That is an extremely generous interpretation of a blinded person "hearing" an opponent in combat.

You are not only giving them the general area (which would be fine) but an exact targetable location!

Free echolocation for all!

The targetable location is a 5x5 area, which is pretty general and that does not eliminate disadvantage.

Echolocation is essentially blindsight, which means there would be no disadvantage.

Further there are two conditions to consider as these would explicitly apply to this situation:
1. Invisible - an invisible opponent can not be seen, yet nothing in the description of invisible states an invisible creature can not be targeted in combat.

2. blinded - a blinded creature can't see, but nothing in the description states that a blinded creature can't target enemies.

 

[auburn2]

Yes, because the PC is Blind.Yes, because the PC is Blind.

No it has nothing at all to do with the PC being blind, it is because the description of the spell says "a target you can see" or the action reaction says an enemy that you can see. That applies regardless of the reason you can not be seen and it is specifically seperate from the blinded condition. You could be behind a wall and you can't use it, someone can step between you and the target and hold up a sheet, and you know exactly where he is but you can't "see" him and therefore you can't use the spell that requires you to see the target.

Finally this illustrates that being blinded is not intended to eliminate being targeted BECAUSE many spells, including many spells that require an attack roll do NOT say anything about the enemy needing to be seen, while others, including many that do not require an attack roll state that the enemy must be seen to use the spell. Regardless of whether or not you do a perception check you can not use the latter spell against someone invisible (or if your blinded). It is being unseen, not being hidden, or not not knowing where the person is that renders the latter null and void. This strongly implies that spells that do not have that wording do not require the target to be seen otherwise the wording would be redundant and inconsistent.

But how I rule things in my game is irrelevant to your game.

Rule in your game how you want, but don't try to pretend it is RAW.

 

[Flamestrike]

Echolocation is essentially blindsight, which means there would be no disadvantage.

It would also mean that you could target them normally with spells and many special abilities, make opportunity attacks vs them, and take the dodge action against them etc.

Here are the PHB spells (alone) that require you to be able to see your target:

Level	Spell
0	Acid Splash
1	Animal Friendhship
1	Animal Messenger
8	Animal Shapes
6	Arcane Gate
1	Bane
4	Banishment
5	Bigby's Hand
4	Blight
2	Blindness/Deafness
3	Call Lightning
6	Chain Lightning
1	Charm Person
1	Chromatic Orb
1	Command
1	Compelled Duel
4	Compulsion
4	Conjure Animals
7	Conjure Celestial
6	Conjure Fey
4	Conjure Minor Elementals
4	Conjure Woodland Beings
3	Counterspell
2	Crown of Madness
8	Demiplane
6	Disintegrate
7	Divine Word
4	Dominate Beast
8	Dominate Monster
2	Dominate Person
8	Earthquake
2	Enlarge/Reduce
2	Enthrall
4	Evard's Black Tentacles
6	Eyebite*
4	Fabricate
8	Feeblemind
7	Finger of Death
6	Flesh to Stone
9	Gate
5	Geas

Level	Spell
4	Grasping Vine
4	Guardian of Faith
6	Harm
3	Haste
6	Heal
1	Healing Word
2	Heat Metal
1	Hellish Rebuke
1	Hex
5	Hold Monster
5	Hold Person
1	Hunter's Mark
9	Imprisonment
2	Knock
2	Levitate
3	Magic Circle
1	Magic Missile
2	Magic Mouth
3	Major Image
9	Mass Heal
3	Mass Healing Word
6	Mass Suggestion
8	Maze
9	Meteor Swarm
2	Misty Step
5	Modify Memory
4	Mordenkainen's Faithtful Hound
6	Otto's Irresistible Dance
5	Passwall
2	Phantasmal Force
4	Phantasmal Killer
0	Poison Spray
4	Polymorph
9	Power Word Kill
8	Power Word Stun
2	Prayer of Healing
9	Prismatic Wall
0	Sacred Flame
5	Seeming
9	Storm of Vengeance
2	Suggestion

Level	Spell
1	Tasha's Hideous Laughter
5	Telekinesis*
1	Tenser's Floating Disc
9	True Polymorph
0	Vicious Mockery
3	Water Breathing
3	Water Walk
6	Wind Walk

If you cant see, you cant cast those spells on anyone else.

People just dont understand how crippling it is when you cant see your enemy. It shuts down the majority of spells and special abilities, in addition to the advantage/ disadvantage on attacks, and the ability of your opponent to Hide at will.

There is already a mechanic for utilizing 'being unseen' to attempt to Hide (the Hide action), and a mechanic for utilizing Perception to locate hidden creatures (the Search action).

Layering some weird 'auto hidden' and 'free perception checks to locate' mechanic over the top devalues abilities that let you Search or Hide as bonus actions (Investigator Rogue, Cunning Action, Rangers) and overpowers spells like invisibility and darkness that are already really good.

 

[Dausuul]

I think I would rule that a PC can choose to be permanently blind (cannot be removed), and in exchange not grant advantage when attacked by an unseen foe.

That would allow a "blind fighter" to be at least tolerably effective in combat. It would still be a net disadvantage--you'd be almost wholly restricted to melee--but at least you would no longer grant advantage to every joker with a bow.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think I would rule that a PC can choose to be permanently blind (cannot be removed), and in exchange not grant advantage when attacked by an unseen foe.

That would allow a "blind fighter" to be at least tolerably effective in combat. It would still be a net disadvantage--you'd be almost wholly restricted to melee--but at least you would no longer grant advantage to every joker with a bow.

I'd just give them blindsight 30'.

They're effectively better inside 30' (being all but impossible to Hide from in that radius due to always being able to 'see' you) and worse outside it.

Maybe with a caveat that silence renders the blindsight moot.

 

[Jaeger]

And irrelevant to how the rules are supposed to work.

If you are referring to Perkin's explanation of his underlying assumptions, then yes. I am most certainly guilty of deciding differently for my own table.

Perkins, a designer for D&D has spoken in the podcast you posted. My underlying assumptions of what the rules should do were obviously different from the underlying assumptions Perkins had when he wrote them.

Even after listening to his reasoning, I feel no need to change to the official "RAW" ruling at my table. Because I fundamentally disagree with his underlying assumptions.

I can change the rules to fit my table as I see fit. The only people I have to please are me and my players.

Rule in your game how you want, but don't try to pretend it is RAW.

Perhaps you missed my very first line from the post you quoted:

My views are irrelevant to what people view as RAW, as Perkins has spoken.

And in my post before that:

However, I readily concede: that people in general will default to what a designer of the game says he meant. And consider his pronouncements RAW.

So despite what I think of Perkins assumptions. As a designer his words carry weight, and no one will care what I think.

Do I need to rephrase perhaps?

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

I have been playing 5E for 5 years and I have seen inspiration given about 5 times at my table. You are suggesting inspiration every turn?

Ye, of course, if the flaw is as bad as Blindness. Every round every player should always be asking themselves how they can gain Inspiration this round or how thy can spend or give away the Inspiration they already have. Five times a session per party is a low number. Five times in five years is an absurdly low number. Five times per character per session seems a bit high, except when characters have huge Flaws, like blindness.

 

[The Annihilargh]

If you cant see, you cant cast those spells on anyone else.

I know this is a bit past the "reply-by" date and what I'm about to say is a bit off topic. But I was wondering if you and those who read this would "allow" your table's spellcaster to cast any of the spells Flamestrike listed when they can't see or otherwise locate their target?
I know RAW this would be off the table, but what would the loss be? All that would happen is a spell slot (or at least part of your turn) gets used, and then it's a chance of whether something interesting does or doesn't happen.

 

[Flamestrike]

I was wondering if you and those who read this would "allow" your table's spellcaster to cast any of the spells Flamestrike listed when they can't see or otherwise locate their target?

There is no eligible target. Other than wasting a slot to allow them to cast it, I dont see why you would allow it.

It's why invisibility is such a potent buff. It basically renders you immune to half the spells the game (plus its other benefits).

 

[The Annihilargh]

Other than wasting a slot to allow them to cast it, I dont see why you would allow it.

Well, first I was just thinking how with the Unseen Attackers and Targets section in the PHB allows for characters to make weapon attacks as they guess the target's location, and I thought that spellcasters should be given the same kind of flexibility(?) in combat. Then—at least with the spells that "requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic" and require you to make an attack roll—the only real drawback is the very good chance that any non-cantrip spell you cast might get wasted.
Then with AoE spells, there's a spot on page 204 that—to me, at least—makes the implication that you don't have to see the point to place an AoE on it. Though a really mean DM might say that the thing obstructing the line of sight is where the point of origin is placed (i.e. your eyelids). So I with AoE's I thought "why not?"

 

[Necrozius]

Nice, at last I could make a character based on Zatoichi!!