How do you handle being blinded?

[Caliban]

Sorry, wasn't being very clear. When I wrote the -10, I meant the original text that required you to beat the stealth roll by 10 or more to determine the square of an opponent you could not see. This part was removed. If you are affected by the blind condition you still get a -10 but this doesn't come into play when considering invisibility as far as I can see

Well, as long as you can see, it doesn't come into play.

If are blind, it doesn't matter if the creature you are trying to locate is invisible or not.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I did to begin with but I don't like it now:

What I'd do is probably something like this:

cannot see enemies: You must make a perception check using a minor action to pinpoint the square your enemies occupy within close burst 15 . Enemies outside this area cannot be perceived. You roll one perception check, each enemy you cannot see rolls an opposing stealth check with a +5 bonus. Any enemies you perceive can be attacked with a -5 penalty to the attack.

This way Blindness is a bit more detrimental. Not much more complicated, and a lot more realistic.

How are you going to handle an attacking PC that is blind, but with other PCs able to point out which squares to attack? Are you still going to require perception checks just to attack the square?

Honestly, unless the PCs are outdoors, most fights occur in a room less than 10 squares wide. Perception is more than just vision. People aren't assumed to be standing still outside their turns unless they're actively using stealth, so will be making some noise, especially in a battle.

I see no problem going with the current rules because in the year and a half I've been playing 4e, the situation you describe has never come up. If it ever does, the DM can simply make an ad hoc ruling to cover it.

The errated core rules are just simpler than what you're proposing.

Honestly, the -5 to attack is already a very big deal mechanically. Is it based on reality? No. But neither is diagonal movement. Both rules are just abstractions that makes combat go quicker.

 

[Nytmare]

Honestly, unless the PCs are outdoors, most fights occur in a room less than 10 squares wide. Perception is more than just vision. People aren't assumed to be standing still outside their turns unless they're actively using stealth, so will be making some noise, especially in a battle.

Imagine, if you will, trying to play football blindfolded.

 

[Dr_Sage]

Blind is not necessary BLIND

Fellows,

I have a slightly different approach: usually "blinded" in-game is not actually deprived of vision.

Its usually more a temporary condition as a result of some attack, and in many cases last for seconds. Otherwise how would blinding barrage be able to blind ghosts? Or Blinding Smash be able to blind someone for mere seconds without leaving permanent damage on the target?

If we consider "blinded" no more a condition tham "imobilized" for example... its easier to imagin someone actually fighting on, even if he looses his sight for a couple of seconds.

Witch this in mind I have no issued as the whole "friends use free action/ minor action to help the blinded fellow.

As a side joke, have anyone seem this movie? "See No Evil, Hear No Evil"

See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989)

It has great sceenes of a deaf guy telling a blind guy where to punch. veryyy funny.

 

[Nytmare]

As a side joke, have anyone seem this movie? "See No Evil, Hear No Evil"

Oddly enough, this conversation led me to watch that movie earlier this morning.

 

[Jhaelen]

Thats just plain idiocy and everyone knows it.

I don't. I guess it must be blindingly obvious...

 

[Flipguarder]

You don't think its idiotic to have wizards (or anyone else who has a few burst/blast attacks) be completely immune to blind?

 

[Nichwee]

The wizard (or burst/blast player) isn't immune to blind - he simply doesn't have as much trouble as most hitting. He still gives Combat Advantage, has his options dropped to exclude Ranged or take -5, and still can't flank.

He targets the enemy in the exact same way as every other player - he just has a lot of "granande" options. Last time I checked a granade didn't need to see you to hit you (rather important as a grande has no eyes - or ears or any other sensory abilities).
If his friends can shout "Ten O Clock - 30 ft" or he hears the person's feet slapping the ground as they move he throws his "granade" in the right area more or less - and the explosion then doesn't give a damn if the person in its blast-radius is seeable or not they just get smacked in the face with a shockwave and are effected or not based on the strength of their AC/NAD.

Burst/blast users are impeded in targetting the same as any player - the blast or burst is not impeded in hitting if it was targetted well enough. This is why blast/burst are not effectted by invis/blind.

And if you then look at the logic of non-explosion Burst/Blast powers you can follow the same logic. A fighter hitting everyone around him just sweeps his sword in a circle and impacts on people or not (swinging high to avoid his allies as they go "Not me you idiot!" and he recognises their voice so swings wide, or they recoginse what he is about to do, having seen him do it before, and take evasive action), the ranger shooting everyone in a burst just loads and fires at every spot he can and if he hits something or not depends on the target.

Bursts/Blasts are effectted by targeting issues (where to put the area you intend to target) not by aiming issues against individual targets. Thus they don't get effectted by the concealment issues - makes pretty good sense to me.

As I see it your objection against Area abilities being uneffected is the same as your general objection. You don't like "Blindness" allowing you to find a person's square easily - if this was not true then targeting Area abilities would be just like knowing where to throw a granade and then letting the grande work out who it hit without issue. I understand that blindness in real life would be more damaging than it is in 4E, but then so would immobolised, or helpless or any other effect if you imposed it in the correct manner - 'Blind' is just a word used to impose some penalties not necessarily the exactly accurate IRL term for the exact in-game effect.

I am often 'blinded' by sunlight - I can still see, but I have blobs of colour in the middle of my vision and can't focus very well. I think you would have less trouble if you redifined 'Blind' as 'Vision Impared' and 'Invisable' as 'Well Camoflauged/Translusent'.

 

[Flipguarder]

I just think the blind condition is too weak and people are referring to me as both simulationist and as though I don't see the real world logic of a mechanic.

This has been a very frustrating thread for me.

Is it impossible for me to think that both

1. A level 1 with perception untrained and 100 feet away from a target should not be able to instantly pinpoint their location while blind.

2. Powers that are burst or blast should take a penalty to blind.

And as for your understanding of grenades and real world logic. Burst and Blast powers already have to be rolled, so why shouldnt they get a penalty when they are blind. What the heck does a bonus to hit on something that SHOULD by real world logic automatically hit do anyway.

 

[Flipguarder]

Bursts/Blasts are effectted by targeting issues (where to put the area you intend to target) not by aiming issues against individual targets. Thus they don't get effectted by the concealment issues - makes pretty good sense to me.

Why is there a distinction between these two? No text does so.

As I see it your objection against Area abilities being uneffected is the same as your general objection. You don't like "Blindness" allowing you to find a person's square easily - if this was not true then targeting Area abilities would be just like knowing where to throw a granade and then letting the grande work out who it hit without issue. I understand that blindness in real life would be more damaging than it is in 4E, but then so would immobolised, or helpless or any other effect if you imposed it in the correct manner - 'Blind' is just a word used to impose some penalties not necessarily the exactly accurate IRL term for the exact in-game effect.

I understand real world logic isn't going to apply everywhere, I just think blind is too weak.

I am often 'blinded' by sunlight - I can still see, but I have blobs of colour in the middle of my vision and can't focus very well. I think you would have less trouble if you redifined 'Blind' as 'Vision Impared' and 'Invisable' as 'Well Camoflauged/Translusent'.

That isn't going to work in situations in which its described in game as total darkness, or complete blindness.