D&D 5E Feedback on a Feat for Blind PCs -- Sightless Warrior

[Charlaquin]

I love the idea of simplifying the feat, and Expertise with Perception is a better idea than Advantage! Thanks for that.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to DM a character at level 1 that could "see" invisible creatures or hidden creatures. That feels like too much of a bonus, when compared to the other characters in the party.

Then why would you give them blindsight?

 

[overgeeked]

Personally, and I know others will feel differently, but making a disability strictly a roleplaying choice with no mechanical impact comes across to me as a kind of erasure. Like, is it really representation of a disability if it isn’t, well, disabling?

Not to shame anyone who does want to play a disabled character without it affecting that character mechanically. It just wouldn’t be my choice.

I think it’s about representation over physics. Like with paralyzed PCs and combat wheelchairs, which are also in Daggerheart. I don’t care about physics or emulating disability “accurately” in an RPG. I think we should be at a point where mechanizing that stuff, just like mechanizing mental illness in Call of Cthulhu, is seen in a rather negative light. I’d rather have more disabled PCs in games. The more mechanical barriers we put in the way of that, the fewer disabled PCs we have in games. To then further penalize that choice with a feat tax seems perfectly in line with preventing rather than encouraging representation.

 

[overgeeked]

I wasn't planning on picking up Daggerheart, but I'd love to read their take on that.

It’s pretty great. It might be in the SRD. It’s up on their site.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it’s about representation over physics. Like with paralyzed PCs and combat wheelchairs, which are also in Daggerheart. I don’t care about physics or emulating disability “accurately” in an RPG.

Physics doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m saying. I don’t care about “emulating disability accurately,” I care about acknowledging that disabilities are disabling. There’s often a tendency to “represent” disabilities in a way that diminishes the ways those disabilities actually hinder people who have them, in part because it makes able-bodied people uncomfortable to think about the actual impact those disabilities have.

I think we should be at a point where mechanizing that stuff, just like mechanizing mental illness in Call of Cthulhu, is seen in a rather negative light. I’d rather have more disabled PCs in games. The more mechanical barriers we put in the way of that, the fewer disabled PCs we have in games.

Which is also a valid perspective. Like I said, I recognize that not everyone will feel as I do about the matter, and it’s not my intention to shame people who feel differently than I do about it. Just expressing my own reasons for preferring character disabilities to be meaningfully disabling.

To then further penalize that choice with a feat tax seems perfectly in line with preventing rather than encouraging representation.

Well, I wouldn’t make it a feat tax, personally. But the OP was asking for feedback on a custom feat, so I took that premise on its own terms. What I do in my own games when a player wants their character to have a disability (which is almost always, because my partner is disabled and prefers their characters to be as well), is I discuss with that player how they want that to be reflected in the game - do they want it to carry mechanical penalties, how severe do they want them to be, and do they want their character to have any kind of custom magical or mechanical assistive tools or other in-world accommodations, how might those ease any impacts of the disability, and what mechanics if any would be appropriate to reflect that.

Granted, that’s a pretty involved way to handle it, which might not work as well in a different context. In something like Adventurer’s League, or convention play, or online pickup groups, that might be more trouble than it’s worth. But for me with more regular, long-term players, it works well.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Then why would you give them blindsight?

That's a great freakin' point. I guess they can see invisible creatures!

But -- they can only see invisible corporeal creatures within 30' at level 1, and also they can't "see" incorporeal creatures, which the sighted party members can. So that kind of makes sense and seems fair to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Reaching out to the Brain Trust for feedback --

One of the players in my home game created a blind monk character, (we're playing 2024 5e), and though I liked some of the ideas out there on how to do it, they didn't quite hit the mark, so I created this Origin Feat for them. We're a few sessions into the campaign, and it seems to be working, (I'm on the fence about the Advantage on Perception checks), but I'd love to see what other folks think. The goal was to make something that would start simple, and scale as the PC levels up. Too overpowered? Too complicated? Have I created any problems down the line?

Thanks in advance for your brutal honsesty!

Sightless Warrior
Origin Feat

Prerequisite: Blind



You have the Blinded condition, and have honed your senses to a supernatural level, allowing you to navigate your environment and detect creatures and objects by using all of your senses except sight.

If you are not paralyzed or petrified, you gain the following benefits:
• You gain blindsight with a range of 30 feet. You can not use this blindsight while deafened. 

• You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing, smell, and touch, and gain +5 to your Passive Perception for hearing, smell, and touch. 

• You may take the Search action as a bonus action. When you do so, you may only make a Wisdom (Perception) check that relies on hearing, smell, and touch. 


At lvl 1, this feat works as long as you are in contact with the ground or any other surface, but it only gives you information about corporeal creatures and objects also on the same surface to a range of 30’. (A wall and a floor are considered the same surface, since they’re connected. A floor and a floating platform above the floor are considered different surfaces, since they’re not connected.)



At lvl 5, your abilities are honed to where you can also sense corporeal creatures and objects in the air, or in contact with different surfaces, when you are in contact with any surface, to a range of 60’.



At lvl 10, you can sense corporeal creatures and objects while you are flying or levitating, to a range of 120’.



At lvl 15, you can all sense all corporeal and incorporeal creatures and objects to a range of 240’.

At all levels, a creature who is not moving and has Total Cover from you, or is actively hiding from you using Stealth, has the Invisible condition for you as long as the creature’s Stealth or Hide check is higher than your Passive Perception, Active Perception roll or Search check.

The scaling is too much, but before that point I like it.

Also the scaling is odd. Why do they need to be touching the same surface, if they are using hearing to perceive their surroundings?

 

[MrGrenadine]

I think it’s about representation over physics. Like with paralyzed PCs and combat wheelchairs, which are also in Daggerheart. I don’t care about physics or emulating disability “accurately” in an RPG. I think we should be at a point where mechanizing that stuff, just like mechanizing mental illness in Call of Cthulhu, is seen in a rather negative light. I’d rather have more disabled PCs in games. The more mechanical barriers we put in the way of that, the fewer disabled PCs we have in games. To then further penalize that choice with a feat tax seems perfectly in line with preventing rather than encouraging representation.

I agree that it would be amazing to see more disabled PCs in games, and encourage it in my games, but I honestly struggle with the game-balance of it all.

I think its fair to acknowledge the deficit of a disability honestly -- in this case, the PC can't read text, read expressions, see colors, or really "see" anything off in the distance -- but I wanted to add something back to put them on an equal power level with, and have an equal amount of agency to affect the world and the story as, all the other PCs.

That's the intent anyway. But, I'm no expert on representation. All I want is to create a welcoming environment for all ideas, and for everyone to have fun at the table!

 

[MrGrenadine]

The scaling is too much, but before that point I like it.

Also the scaling is odd. Why do they need to be touching the same surface, if they are using hearing to perceive their surroundings?

I was trying to do a "getting vibrational feedback from the environment" thing. Its clumsy but it helped me set things up so the character could start with a little deficit and then scale to be more bad-ass, which felt fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was trying to do a "getting vibrational feedback from the environment" thing. Its clumsy but it helped me set things up so the character could start with a little deficit and then scale to be more bad-ass, which felt fun.

Fair, but not being able to see anything or perceive as if seeing past 30ft is already a huge restriction. No reason they wouldn’t know where a bee is within their heightened hearing and smell range.

 

[Horwath]

Blind sight 5ft and that is about it.
anything more can be gained by taking later feats/fighting styles.
maybe Advantage on non-sight perception checks as your brain compensates.