Blindsight plus darkness -- unsalvageably broken?

[Pielorinho]

Okay, let's forget it. I'm getting cranky, and that does no one good.

I was not looking for tactical suggestions for how NPCs should deal with this strategy, as I've stated about half a dozen times in this thread. I was looking for suggestions to make this spell combination not be superior to improved invisibility and true seeing combined.

Some folks got the idea; thanks for the input. Other folks are either uninterested in helping a poor DM out, or are convinced that proselytizing to me about how I should just accept power combos is better than seeking rules-based balance. Those who are convinced of this are wrong.

Anyway, thanks again for those of you who got the idea. For now, I'm yanking the spell from my campaign; I'm guessing that my player who used it will agree (note that Spider was among those who discussed the issue as I requested -- and he even pointed out additional ways that the spell was overpowered. Thanks, Spider!).

Daniel

 

[The_lone_gunman]

Not to be a jerk or anything, but lets take a look at your orignal post, starting with the title:

" Blindsight plus darkness -- unsalvageably broken? "


This to me looks like someone who wants to debate whether or not the combo is broken, not a question asking for nerfs...

"Is this analysis correct? If so, how should it be fixed?"

Many people are disagreeing with your analysis, hence on the posts on how to use NPC's to get around your players creative use of the spells......

"At this point, I'm leaning heavily toward removing blindsight from the spell list. Since it's been used once, however, I'd rather just find a way to nerf it. "

Here is a point where you discuss nerfing, but many folks on these boards frown on changes of the rules like this whenever possible, and think that to nerf this spell would be a bad thing. The main reason for this is that it simply isnt that great of a combo, it is something that NPC's can work against, which you have been given many many ways to beat. A lot of the experienced DMs here know that there is many more powerful "spell combo's" out there, and if you start nerfing with these, what are you going to do later in the campaign? No one is trying to tell you how to run your campaign, they are just trying to give you helpful guidance. It is your world, do what you want.......

"What do you guys think? These restrictions might make blindsight no better than darkvision, a second-level spell. "

The key part of this last sentence is the "what do you guys think", which I took to interpret NOT as "what is the best nerf for this", but as, "what are your opinions of my analysis and such....".

Not that I am one to poke at cranky folks.....but to say that folks are not answering your question, that seems a bit incorrect. Seems like they are answering it, just not giving you the answer you want to hear .

Good luck with your nerf .

TLG

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Suggested Nerf

I'd suggest two things:

1. Make it sound dependant. In that case, a Silence Spell, Deafness spell, or the deafness effect of a Shout spell would negate it.

2. Don't allow anyone using the spell to see through solid objects. This may not be explicitly prohibited by the spell but I would suggest that since it isn't explicitly allowed, it's a reasonable interpretation. After all, it's blindsight not x-ray vision.

I think that the second is not actually a nerf but rather using the spell as it was intended. The first is a relatively minor nerf but you may find it to give villains a more easily accessible way to negate the tactic. (However, my preferred method would be: darkness at six o'clock, unleash the fireballs!)

 

[Nish]

Okay, let's forget it. I'm getting cranky, and that does no one good.

I was not looking for tactical suggestions for how NPCs should deal with this strategy, as I've stated about half a dozen times in this thread. I was looking for suggestions to make this spell combination not be superior to improved invisibility and true seeing combined.

You posted in the wrong forum then. The house rules forum would be a better place to solicit ideas for changes to the rules.

 

[Pielorinho]

"Is this analysis correct? If so, how should it be fixed?"

Many people are disagreeing with your analysis, hence on the posts on how to use NPC's to get around your players creative use of the spells......
TLG

Well, that's true, and I've considered changing the title of this post. For me, the key word in the title is "unsalvageably" - I was looking for ways to salvage the spell.

As for the analysis, few people have disagreed with the key point of the analysis: namely, that this combination is roughly equivalent with improved invisibility and true seeing, which should be much more powerful spells, according to their level. True, there are ways to deal with this tactic -- but there are also ways to deal with true seeing and improved invisibility. And the latter two require higher spell levels, don't provide X-ray vision, don't see past mundane hiding techniques, and don't last nearly as long.

The fact that this combination limits "sight" range to 30 feet is not, I believe, a truly balancing factor: enemies at a range greater than 30 feet can also not see the spell's subject, the spell's subject can dampen the darkness field at any time to regain normal vision, and the caster can charge into battle with relative impunity.

Given this analysis, my primary post, and following posts, explicitly (and repeatedly) asked for advice on lowering the power level of the combination. Posts that criticized me for not being able to deal with powerful tactics are insulting and irrelevant to what I'm asking. I've been DMing for two decades now; I'm well aware that there are powerful tactics out there. This one is too powerful for the levels of spells it requires.

Similarly, posts telling me that I'm posting in the wrong forum are absurd. I was asking if my analysis of the spells' effects were correct; this is clearly a rules-question. The second part of my post, in which I ask for rules-changes to the spells, may be houseruling -- but it's linked to the rules-analysis request.

Finally, I allow spells from splatbooks only after I look at them and I reserve the right to yank them from my game at any point. Given this setup, it'd be completely fair for me to nerf or pull completely the spell.

I do appreciate suggestions to make blindsight sonic-based. However, I'm not sure that addresses the core problem of the combination: it mimics the effects of two higher-level spells, with superior durations and superior detection abilities. Changing blindsight to a sonic-based power would neither remove its true seeing effect (as near as I can tell), nor would it remove the improved-invisibility effect (again, as near as I can tell). Am I reading this correctly?

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Blindsight plus darkness -- unsalvageably broken?

Perhaps you're playing with a different PHB than I am. My PHB indicates that True Seeing also finds magically hidden secret doors and sees the true forms of polymorphed objects/creatures. It can also see into the Ethereal plane. Additionally, for clerics (which you seem to be worried about) it provides instantaneous alignment of creatures seen. Sounds pretty useful.

Sure, blindsight is useful but let's not get carried away. And you must really hate the blindsight feat in MotW then, eh?

UofMDude

Sorry, didn't notice this before. This is a valid point: true seeing does have some important capabilities that blindsight doesn't. In fact, true seeing plus darkness would be significantly better than blindsight plus darkness.

For one minute/level. For the other 59 minutes/level, the fifth-level spell is worse than the fourth-level spell.

As for the blindsight feat in MotW, you better believe that after seeing blindsight in action I won't allow it. Running a game means evaluating all source material and deciding what to accept or reject.

Daniel

 

[The_lone_gunman]

Ok lets compare (I don't have my players handbook with me at work so please correct where needed).


Blindsight

Duration: Hours/LVL
Range: 30 ft
LvL: 4th

Darkness

Duration: 10min/ Lvl
Range: 20ft radius?
Lvl: 2nd

Weakness to these two spells:

1) The darkness makes you a big target to others
2) You can only see 30 ft. Beyond this you are blind

*these others are what I would "nerf" about the spell, although it really isnt a nerf, it would be my interpretation of how the spell works:

3) Doesnt allow you to sneak attack
4) Doesnt allow you to range touch attack.
5) No AOE spell cast by the cleric that is farther than 30 ft away (you can't see there).

Strengths:

1) Long duration
2) Low level spells


Now lets look at the other combo you are comparing it to:

Truesight

Duration: min/lvl
Range: Unlimited basically (your sight)? or whatever 60ft maybe?
LvL: 5th

Imp Inv

Duration: min/lvl?
Range: N/A
Lvl: 3rd

Weaknesses of these spells:

1) Short duration is the only real weakness I see

Strengths:

1) True sight allows you to see out to your vision distance (or whatever the range is, it is farther than 30 ft though im sure.
2) People will not see you coming (no big ball of blackness coming)
3) it is a lot harder to cast AOE on you (no black ball of darkness again)
4) You can escape easily (black ball again)
5) you can see polymorphed things, etc in their true form (all the stuff that UofMdude posted)


To me, the strengths of the higher lvl spells well outway the benefits of the lower lvl combos. I really think that my "nerf" suggestions above (under the weaknesses column of the top listing) would more than take care of any concerns you could have. Although I understand your concerns, I really think nerfing the spell as you suggest is the wrong way to go. However, as I have said before, it is your game , this is just my advice.

TLG

 

[Valorian]

In my campaign, I've used option #4. I reduced the duration to 1 minute per level...the darkness was an issue, but also blindsight eliminates any need for spot checks (since opponents are automatically detected)...this alone seemed too powerful at 1 hour/level.

I just envisioned high level PC, all with blindsight, who constantly walk through my dungeons with Darkness spells...shudder

Okay. The spell Blindsight (from Magic of Faerun) grants blindsight to a cleric for one hour/level, at a cost of a 4th-level slot. This spell grants benefits roughly equivalent to those granted by True Seeing, a fifth-level spell, if the spell's subject closes her eyes. There are two major differences:
1) Blindsight only works within a 30' radius
2) Blindsight works on nonmagically concealed features.

And, of course, blindsight lasts 60 times longer than True Seeing.

Darkness last 10 minutes/level and is a second level spell; it essentially grants improved invisibility to everyone within the spell's radius. Of course, a PC with blindsight on can "see" through the darkness. And this improved invisibility lasts ten times as long.

So, for a second-level spell and a fourth-level spell, a PC gains benefits equivalent to those granted by a fourth-level spell and a fifth-level spell, with both spells increased drastically in duration.

Is this analysis correct? If so, how should it be fixed?

At this point, I'm leaning heavily toward removing blindsight from the spell list. Since it's been used once, however, I'd rather just find a way to nerf it. Ideas:

1) Blindsight is fooled by illusion magic
2) The vision granted by Blindsight is blocked by magical darkness.
3) The vision granted by blindsight is blocked by opaque objects.
4) Blindsight's duration is reduced to 1 minute/level.

What do you guys think? These restrictions might make blindsight no better than darkvision, a second-level spell. Maybe if I remove #2 it'd be okay? In this case, it still (when combined with darkness) grants improved invisibility to the spell's subject, but it grants it for a similar duration and at a higher spell cost, and doesn't provide all the additional benefits.

Feedback would be great!
Daniel

 

[Malin Genie]

Perhaps the best solution is to be careful with allowing your casters access to splatbook spells.

If you are 'carefully sifting' through Masters of the Wild, deciding what to allow in your campaign, and what not to, why not do the same with Magic of Faerun?

It has been suggested (here, Monte Cook's, possibly somewhere in the core rulebooks?) that if you allow a cleric access to a new spell from 'outside' the PHB, that it should only be placed on her spell list as a swap for another spell. Otherwise, as a cleric can access any of the spells of a given level (unlike a wizard, who has to find them) they become more and more powerful each time a new spell is added.

Perhaps Blindsight (the spell) is only accessible to clerics of deities of caverns, or darkness, or bats, in your campaign world. Or the version of the prayer known to your player's deities works differently (shorter duration, sound-based, whatever.) You do not have to allow access to the spell as written just because it is in one of the m*nc$%in-promoting FRCS sourcebooks!

 

[Pielorinho]

It has been suggested (here, Monte Cook's, possibly somewhere in the core rulebooks?) that if you allow a cleric access to a new spell from 'outside' the PHB, that it should only be placed on her spell list as a swap for another spell. Otherwise, as a cleric can access any of the spells of a given level (unlike a wizard, who has to find them) they become more and more powerful each time a new spell is added.
[/i]

My solution to this problem is that a cleric can choose two spells from splatbooks to add to her repertoire each time she levels up, just as wizards can add two spells to their spellbook each time they level up. It gives clerics a little bit of fun with the splatbooks, but not much.

I also introduce any new spell or feat on a trial basis. Most spells pass their trial basis with no problem and become perfectly acceptable. Blindsight would as well, I thought.

I was wrong. Thus this thread.
Daniel