D&D 5E Blind Characters in 5e

[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!!