D&D 3.x Blinded condition in 3.5

hong · Sep 21, 2003

Hypersmurf said:
... and yet they added the line that a creature who is balancing is treated as flat-footed?

-Hyp.

"Balancing" is not a condition. It doesn't have an entry in the back of the DMG like flat-footed, panicked, stunned, etc.

Hypersmurf · Sep 21, 2003

hong said:
"Balancing" is not a condition. It doesn't have an entry in the back of the DMG like flat-footed, panicked, stunned, etc.

Fair point.

I'd have thought it would make sense to increase a hierarchical nature to conditions, so that you can say, for example that... oh, Uncanny Dodge works against invisible opponents... and have it noted in the rules that if you're blind, all opponents are effectively invisible.

-Hyp.

Eldorian · Sep 21, 2003

I liked it better when being Blind meant that everyone was considered invisable. I think this is just a case of forgetting to add the ability to retain dex bonus while blind to both uncanny dodge and blind fight. In fact, the wording of uncanny dodge, " At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized." seems to imply that only 3 conditions make you lose your dex bonus. Errata, anyone?

In the PHB, the flavor text for Uncanny Dodge seems to imply that it would definatly work in darkness, namely, ".. a barbarian gains the abilitie to react to danger before his senses would normally allow him to do so." In darkness, his senses would normally allow him to react to danger only after he had been attacked =)

I'm putting my vote on errata, seeing as how I think this was an unintended change.

Eldorian Antar

Darklone · Sep 21, 2003

Hmm, nice. A barbarian in a dark alley is attacked by hidden guys. He's flatfooted but they can't sneak attack him... UD... but since it's dark they can.

But he couldn't be sneak attacked by an invisible person during daylight?

Teaming, I quit. Got an appointment with the houserules.

Archer · Sep 21, 2003

It seems pretty clear that UD lets you retain your dex bonus unless you are immobilized.

A barbarian [always] retains his Dexterity bonus to AC ... However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

It doesn't say "or blinded" after immobilized.

Darklone · Sep 21, 2003

Archer, may I ask you politely to check our good old discussions about Uncanny Dodge vs. Feint...

?

Archer · Sep 21, 2003

Feint has been ruled to trump Uncanny Dodge for a single melee attack. I don't know of any such ruling that blindness trumps Uncanny Dodge.

frankthedm · Sep 22, 2003

Archer said:
It seems pretty clear that UD lets you retain your dex bonus unless you are immobilized.

A barbarian [always] retains his Dexterity bonus to AC ... However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

It doesn't say "or blinded" after immobilized.

No, what it DOES clearly say is you keep your dex bonus against invisable foes and and when your flat footed. You still lose your dex bonus when your climbing and running.

Saeviomagy · Sep 22, 2003

frankthedm said:
No, what it DOES clearly say is you keep your dex bonus against invisable foes and and when your flat footed. You still lose your dex bonus when your climbing and running.

Not really - mentions of climbing and running are simply not present in the ability. By a purely logical reading, the barbarian always retains his dex bonus, except in the case where he is immobilised. He would keep it regardless of any effect which stated that he lost it.

An alternate reading would say that the barbarian only gets to retain the dex bonus when flat-footed or fighting invisible attackers and he is not immobilised. Which means he doesn't retain it while blinded.

Interestingly, the rules on vision and light say that someone standing in the dark is blinded unless they have darkvision, even if their opponent is standing in the light. Bummer eh? The best bit is that this makes the rules regarding the range of darkvision totally worthless - if you have it, you're not blinded by standing in the dark, so it doesn't matter that your opponent is out of range of it!

Personally I think that the rules on vision and light are to blame - they should probably state that anyone standing in a dark area is effectively invisible to anyone without darkvision that extends to them, rather than anyone standing in a dark area is blind unless they have darkvision...

Bearfs · Sep 22, 2003

But I think facing an invisible enemy are far more better than being blinded.......

For example
Stand by one foot for more than 1 minute with closed eyes.eh?