Blindsight plus darkness -- unsalvageably broken?

[Malin Genie]

I guess what I was trying to suggest was that, rather than 'nerfing' the spell, you simply say "NIMC!"

If your characters wanted to research a spell that allowed them to see in magical darkness, let them research it - you then have control over its level of power, duration, etc

 

[AuraSeer]

Pielorinho, I think your solution should be not to change the spells themselves, but to enforce the limitations that already exist.

I don't know where you got the idea that Blindsight grants X-ray vision; I don't recall seeing that in the spell description. That's #3 on your "nerf" list, but it seems clear to me that the spell wasn't intended to grant that ability in the first place.

You say that Darkness effectively makes everyone in the globe invisible, but that's not the whole truth. It also makes everyone OUTSIDE the globe invisible to those inside! In effect, they become invisible but blind. The cleric with Blindsight can see, but anyone else in the globe is completely SOL.

Also, the darkened cleric will be unable to see more than 30' away. If I just move 30' away from the cleric and then 30' in a random direction, he has no idea where the hell I am. If he tries to follow me, he'll need to guess which way to go; a wrong guess will just send him even further away.

In addition, the centerpoint of the globe is apparent, so enemies needn't guess where to aim. Ranged weapons will only suffer the 50% miss chance from concealment, and area attacks won't miss at all.

This all has been pointed out before, but it bears repeating. If you're not enforcing the limitations that already exist, why bother adding more? If you allow a 20th-level wizard to throw Fireballs for 20d6 damage, that's obviously unbalanced. But don't nerf Fireball to 1d3 per level; just enforce the 10d6 limit that it already has!

 

[Nareau]

Heh, people seem to really want to convince you that it's not too powerful...

I find that amusing. One would think I would be the one making arguments as to why my character should be able to keep it like it is (since I'm the one who would benefit in such a scenario).

At any rate, the "shoot the center of the darkness" tactic doesn't always work. For one, you can't target the center of the darkness with a spell (since you generally can't target things you can't see). So you've got to target your fireball 20' away from me at best--not always a good option. Secondly, what if I'm in a corridor/room that's 5'-20' in diameter? You can't see the side edges of the darkness, so you have no idea where I am. Not to mention that a simple Spider Climb/Fly/Levitate could put me at any particular elevation in those squares (we do a little 3D combat, so you can't shoot at the ground and expect to hit someone flying in that square).

The idea that you can see through walls comes from Monte Cook. He responded to a thread on his messageboards.
http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm13.showMessage?topicID=1438.topic

Honestly, I'm ok with the spell being taken out of the campaign. Or the duration being reduced to 1 min/level. I certainly wouldn't take it all the time, but it would be cool to have in some situations.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

No, they just responded to your request to debate the issue of whether the spell combination was unsalvageably broken. When you post something with a question mark, like you did, it usually means you are asking a question. It isn't their fault that you can't write well enough to convey your meaning.

Plus, many of them probably think, as I do, that your analysis is flawed, and you are wrong on the base issue to begin with. In other words, they probably think you aren't very smart.

 

[Petrosian]

OK last time i checked, weren't darkness spells countered by higher level light spells and werent same level spells negating each other?

By the time you start tossing around blindsight spells with relish aren't items of continual light no longer totally unheard of?

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Continual Flame costs 50gp, lasts forever, and cancels out Darkness (it has been errated to be a [light] spell). Seems like these would be very common light sources for wealthy (or caster) bad guys. If the whole dungeon isn't lit with everburning torches, at least have the NPCs carry a locket or something with a continual flame inside (especially once word of this tactic gets out).

 

[maddman75]

What's good for the goose

Pielorinho, this tactic is good and solid. And I'd like to thank you for bringing it up, since it made me realize something for an upcoming battle my group is having with a black dragon.

- Black dragons of that age can cast darkness 3x per day
- All dragons have blindsight of I think 30' per age category
- My party is screwed.

Think about it, dragon hidden under the water casts darkness on the center character. Even if they make thier save, the group is still in darkness.

Dragon moves out of water, sprays acid. Throws another darkness of a spellcaster if they get to be troublesome. Flyby attacks until they scream

Bwahahaha

MIght work that up into an article

 

[AuraSeer]

If your party has enough levels to be facing a dragon, and they're using nonmagical lights instead of multiple Continual Flame spells, they deserve to get killed in the dark.

However, be aware that Darkness is a touch spell. The dragon can't target the spell on a party member without closing to melee range.

 

[maddman75]

hmmm - good point. Guess I'll have to open with an invisible dragon doing a flyby attack to deliver his touch spell. But on the other hand there isn't a save, now is there.

And no, they don't have continual flame. Even if they did, as I read the spells it takes a Daylight or equivelent to overcome darkness. Continual Flame is just a torch (that doesn't catch stuff on fire or burn out)

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Darkness:

Higher-level light spells (such as the 3rd-level cleric spell daylight) are not affected by darkness.

Darkness is level 2.
Continual Flame is level 3.
Continue Flame is a spell of type Evocation [light]

Therefore, Continual Flame is not affected by darkness.