Goblin Hexer - Errata? Or just OP?

[Aegeri]

I thought you took an attack penalty for being blind. But perhaps more importantly, you don't just need to guess where the enemy is, you need to guess where your allies are too.

Blind does not mean you have a -5 penalty to hit. It means enemies have total concealment. This is a massive difference in the rules, because powers and similar that ignore total concealment are unaffected by blind. This is a crucial distinction in the rules and one I've had to explain many times now lol.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

..

yep! it's important to know the difference

the artificer daily Punishing Eye negates the penalty for concealment (total or otherwise) and thus completely changed the outcome of an encounter for us recently, where not only was the party blind, but there was magical darkness as well...

good times

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the more subtle answer in terms of what blind represents is that it does indeed model being unable to see. The thing is there's just no real way to feasibly run a game where you try to do more than give the character a penalty to at least some attacks. You could make a rule that says the character doesn't know where anything is, but it simply doesn't work in play. The player is sitting at the table, they can see what's going on. Try as they might they're still going to act with that information in mind. The designers of 4e simply concluded, wisely IMHO, that it would be better if the rules were in harmony with the actual situation so that the player isn't inevitably 'cheating'.

Another consideration is just that realistic kind of blindness would be so debilitating as to be effectively equivalent to just knocking the character unconscious. An effect like that would simply be too nasty to use. So we get a rather anemic version of blindness, but one that can actually be interesting in the game.

 

[Dausuul]

Another consideration is just that realistic kind of blindness would be so debilitating as to be effectively equivalent to just knocking the character unconscious. An effect like that would simply be too nasty to use. So we get a rather anemic version of blindness, but one that can actually be interesting in the game.

Well, we have unconscious and stun effects, so I don't think a "realistic blindness" effect is too nasty to have in the game (although obviously the power level of a "blinded (save ends)" effect would have to be re-evaluated).

The only problem I see is the difficulty of implementation. The obvious way to do it would be with some kind of randomization, where your attacks have a chance to go wild and aim the wrong direction... but I can't see how you'd implement that without stupidly complex mechanics. Maybe when D&D goes online-only and we're all using the virtual tabletop.

A less realistic but more workable method would be to apply the -5 penalty to all attacks, including close and area, on the theory that you will sometimes aim them in the wrong direction. (Admittedly this gets a little wonky with close bursts, since there is no aim involved with those.)

 

[pemerton]

In Monster Vault, the Hexer has been renamed the Hex Hurler and has been errata-ed:

*Melee attack goes from +7 vs AC for 1d6+1 to +8 vs AC for 1d6+7 and slide 1 square;

*Blinding hex drops from +7 to +6 vs Fort and is not SE, but rather blind until end of hexer's next turn;

*Stinging hex drops from +7 to +6 vs Will;

*Vexing cloud no longer gives concealment to the hexer and allies;

*Incite bravery has been dropped completely.

On balance this is probably a very modest powering down - the blinding being until EoNT is probably a bit of a wash with save ends, depending how many ways the PCs have to generate additional saves, but dropping the to-hit bonus on the ranged controller effects is clearly a reduction in strength.

 

[the Jester]

On balance this is probably a very modest powering down - the blinding being until EoNT is probably a bit of a wash with save ends, depending how many ways the PCs have to generate additional saves...

In all fairness, at low levels there are far fewer ways to do this than at higher levels.

There are still quite a few, though, including some that you get to use every round, but there's an opportunity cost to having to use a power that grants a save vs. one that, for instance, pushes the bad guy into a pit or gives an ally combat advantage or something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, we have unconscious and stun effects, so I don't think a "realistic blindness" effect is too nasty to have in the game (although obviously the power level of a "blinded (save ends)" effect would have to be re-evaluated).

Right, I guess what I meant is that you'd have to use Blinded so sparingly that it would hardly ever appear. Granted it is already a pretty rare condition, but at least it is a bit different from stun or unconscious where you're basically totally out of the action. So maybe the objection would be more that there are already totally debilitating effects. Also with blinded it is likely to be something that can happen when say light doesn't exist in an area etc.

The only problem I see is the difficulty of implementation. The obvious way to do it would be with some kind of randomization, where your attacks have a chance to go wild and aim the wrong direction... but I can't see how you'd implement that without stupidly complex mechanics. Maybe when D&D goes online-only and we're all using the virtual tabletop.

A less realistic but more workable method would be to apply the -5 penalty to all attacks, including close and area, on the theory that you will sometimes aim them in the wrong direction. (Admittedly this gets a little wonky with close bursts, since there is no aim involved with those.)

Well, yes, you could implement it with random dice rolls. OTOH randomly flinging around damaging bursts and blasts is pretty much tantamount to "you can't attack" as the results are likely to be pretty horrendous. If the player instead only uses them in situations where they won't produce bad effects if they are mis-targeted then again it is meta-gaming since the character couldn't really know that, being blind.

You could apply -5 to all attacks. Of course -5 is often pretty much tantamount to "don't bother", so aside the very gamy effect of applying it to area attacks it seems pretty close to too harsh. Admittedly some PCs won't have any burst/blast effects to start with, so it might work OK.

In any case it is a thorny problem. There's just no good way to implement blindness in a typical TTRPG in a way that is at all realistic and preserves the players ability to participate without meta-gaming. In a computer based game where the player can be given only realistic information it would work better of course. You can do it now in Maptool with the right settings, almost.

 

[Nullzone]

I tend to rule blind a bit dynamically. Anyone who is blinded has to make an average DC perception to identify a particular target amongst the chaotic noise of battle; success means they can pick out their target, failure by less than 4 means they can still direct an attack but they run the risk of hitting an adjacent ally instead if the attack misses, while 5 or greater means they can pick a direction and fire but get no say in what their target ends up being, it gets determined by an (open) die roll amongst all targets in a given direction.

If they are blinded AND deafened, and don't have any sort of extra sense (like the telepathic link that Shardmind gets), they can only direct an attack against a target that hits them personally or are subject to the open die roll in a random direction clause.

Area attacks are not subject to any of this, as usual, since you're aiming "geographically" instead of targeting a creature.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

I disagree

if all your senses are muted, you're deaf and dumb, basically helpless.

That's how I'd rule it. 4e's "blind but not blind" is just too dumb for me to handle. I'd rather the condition weren't even there to be honest. It can target your square (where it knew you were last) but can't shift either, and if it tries to move more than 2 squares will run right into a wall. Ever watch a blind person cross the street? Now imagine hitting him. Or a gang taunting him and poking at him. Not a nice picture, granted, but let's drop this silliness already. If you're blind you should grant a LOT more than combat advantage and take a lot more than -2/-5 to hit.

I'm sorry, 25% harder to hit someone you're figthing when you're blindfolded and they're not? Did the game designers even think this through, at all?

 

[malraux]

if all your senses are muted, you're deaf and dumb, basically helpless.

That's how I'd rule it. 4e's "blind but not blind" is just too dumb for me to handle. I'd rather the condition weren't even there to be honest. It can target your square (where it knew you were last) but can't shift either, and if it tries to move more than 2 squares will run right into a wall. Ever watch a blind person cross the street? Now imagine hitting him. Or a gang taunting him and poking at him. Not a nice picture, granted, but let's drop this silliness already. If you're blind you should grant a LOT more than combat advantage and take a lot more than -2/-5 to hit.

I'm sorry, 25% harder to hit someone you're figthing when you're blindfolded and they're not? Did the game designers even think this through, at all?

Are we talking no light perception at all blind or 20/200 vision blind? Those are both valid definitions of blind.