D&D 5E Can you see when you're Blinded?

[SkidAce]

Have the blinded character turn their back on the table and describe what they do and where they move.

Other "characters" can of course shout directions.

"Okay, Bob, run 20 feet forward, no no, thats 25, move back a step. Now head NE for 10 feet but..."

"AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...thump"

...no farther than that cause there's a cliff. Bob?"

 

[Jester David]

This is why RAW just doesn't work as a philosophy.


Although, my response as a DM would be "Okay. Make a DC -5 Dexterity check to move across the room. Oh, that relies on sight so you automatically fail. Now make a DC -100 Dexterity save to avoid falling on your sword. Wait, that involves sight as well. Better make a new character."

 

[dd.stevenson]

Well, that's the thing, we don't know the other side. The OP may have misunderstood or misrepresented what the rest of the group was saying. (snip)

As it's always been with these "war story" threads, it pays to remember the above before competing who can make the best joke at the other party's expense.

That said, I'd take a serious look at my life choices if I wound up continuing to play with such a group as the OP described.

 

[Grazzt]

Mock them. Mock them with enthusiasm and great joy. Then, if you're the DM, rule against it; or if you're a player, bring in a blind monk and proceed to kick all kinds of ass.

Too easy. How about a horde/flock/dragoon of blind dragons? Better yet, blind monks riding blind dragons. But I definitely agree with ya, PC. Mock them. Mock them all the way.

 

[Zustiur]

Too easy. How about a horde/flock/dragoon of blind dragons? Better yet, blind monks riding blind dragons. But I definitely agree with ya, PC. Mock them. Mock them all the way.

Blind archers.

 

[Hussar]

Although the rules lawyering about the sneak attack is the worst kind possible - trying to use the rules without actually knowing what the rules are - the movement thing isn't really going to be a huge deal is it?

If the PC is already in melee and wants to move, he's going to take AOO's (Presuming he wants to move away) unless he takes the disengage action, which means he loses all his attacks anyway. If he's not already engaged and wants to move, fair enough, I'm not going to get too fussed about it, unless the battlefield is complicated or there's a bunch of funky terrain. Maybe a Dex save (and I'd tell the player this) if he goes within 5 feet of a hazard - the positioning on the map isn't exact after all.

I suppose, if you really wanted to get technical, you could have the PC make an acrobatics check, difficulty depending on where he wants to move, and then just use a simple scatter die to find out where he actually ends up if he fails the check.

But the sneak attack thing? Yeah, that's a no go.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Its funny because during the D&D Next Playtest on WoTC forum/internal channels i did provided feedback for the blinded/deafened condition to specifically mention that you couldn't see/hear so that this sort of claims don't see the light of day!

And then they added that you can't see/hear.... But it look like its not enought for some people....

 

[Uchawi]

Welcome to the abstract nature of 5E rules. The same issues come up when a caster is blind and casting spells. I believe they are written that way to allow the widest interpretation possible by the table. But that will place an additional burden on the DM to handle more undefined areas of the game. All I can advise is think of the big picture when making a ruling and how it affects class ability, spells, skills, etc.

 

[Mercule]

So, the argument boils down to, "Well, I'm blind, but that doesn't mean I can't see"?

That's insane. I get that there's probably another side to this that makes sense to them, but the OP would have to be seriously twisting the events for that side to actually make sense to a reasonable human being. Even if you want to account for blind including conditions that aren't total blackout, it's significant enough to impair -- otherwise you wouldn't apply the condition. If nothing else, the character isn't accustomed to the new "everything a blurry/hazy" and hasn't adapted to the point of functioning; again, that's why it's a condition. The game doesn't need a "kinda blind" and a "really blind" condition.

And, with that, I've realized any further input from me will only serve to make me dumber.

Find a new group. From experience, not having a game is better than having a lousy group.

 

[WayneLigon]

One time I played with a group that somehow managed to interpret that the phrasing in the 3.0 or 3.5 book regarding low strength and bows actually meant that you increased damage with a bow when you had a negative strength modifier. That was cleared up, as I recall, with a short discussion about the rules of the English language and punctuation.