How do you handle being blinded?

[Nichwee]

I treat the Area effect having to be rolled as a way of deciding how the luck goes relative to the effect/explosion rushing over the persons head as they crouch down (for vs Reflex) or thumping into them but being shrugged off (for vs Fort) or assaulting the mind but being disbelieved or overcome (for vs Will) or lastly a spray of arrows or a sword swing smacking into their armour but not necessarily finding a opening (for vs AC).

In all 4 cases I don't think of each roll as a directted attack (or how could a trap do one as it has no mind with which to direct its attacks) but as a way of seeing how well the person effectted reacts to the onslaught.

As I said - I'm not saying whether Blind (the condition) is too weak or not but just why Area powers shoudln't imo be effectted by the penalty to hit.

However, imo Blind is just a condition in game and I see no reason to make it's effects any harsher, as then you have to say "But should an attack that simply throws some flashing lights at you completely remove all vison?", or something similar, for every power that imposes that condition. WotC made the condition and the powers that cause it with a balance in mind for the effect. Alter the strength of the effect you shift the balance of every power that uses it.
So I still say "Don't let the name of the condition dictate its effects too much, or the rules start getting very wobbly."

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Make up a new condition and call it blind... covert all powers currently in the game to Vision impaired.And a -5 is not pin pointed by most peoples definitions.

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

Having fewer impairing conditions can be seen as one way of making something more reliable... for instance a laser that doesn't take range penalties, versus a laser with +2 on to hit.

 

[Garthanos]

I treat the Area effect having to be rolled as a way of deciding how the luck goes relative to the effect/explosion rushing over the persons head as they crouch down (for vs Reflex) or thumping into them but being shrugged off (for vs Fort) or assaulting the mind but being disbelieved or overcome (for vs Will) or lastly a spray of arrows or a sword swing smacking into their armour but not necessarily finding a opening (for vs AC).

In all 4 cases I don't think of each roll as a directted attack (or how could a trap do one as it has no mind with which to direct its attacks) but as a way of seeing how well the person effectted reacts to the onslaught.

One problem is the term hit and miss are ambiguous in the game versus there real world meanings...
All attacks which do not wound/induce ongoing effect... would be treated as misses in a real life situation, in the game some of those are hits.. and cause hit point loss... and some are misses and do not.. (some are even misses and do cause hitpoint loss and reduced effects)

 

[Nichwee]

Hit and Miss are game terms - like every keyword in 4E.

Hit means "had full effect".
Miss means "did not have full effect".

An area ability that did damage on a miss could be seen as "jumping wide of a fireball but still getting singed but not incinerated" or "not being fooled by the illusion but stopping to consider it a second (dazed on Miss versus stunned on Hit say)".

Most abilities that exist have a way of understanding how they may do partial damage or effect if you think about it, simply based on how well the target responds to the ability rather than how well the ability is targetted. As they did away with 3.5 Saving Throws in favour of NAD's the attack rolls often represent the response of the target now imo. Especially for Area abilities where effects just eminate from a point - a classic example = Fireball. The original 'magic grande' imo.

This fact is further supported, imo, by the idea that cover and line of effect are taken from the origin square not the caster. Once the effect has begun it is not restricted by what the caster knows, sees or can reach. Thus Fireball can target those round a corner that the caster has no line of effect to and may not even have known existed. The effect gets its 'To Hit' from the caster by the amount of magical oomph he/she had to put into the explosion but whether that effects anyone is the result of the targets' resiliance/agility/willpower and a bit of luck, not how well the caster targets the effect.

 

[Jhaelen]

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

They aren't. It just doesn't affect their ability to target a fixed spot.

This makes sense to me (up to a certain point). Now if the spot is very far from my own location it's starting to get a bit odd. But I don't see a problem hitting a 5' square within range 5 or maybe even 10 without a chance of missing.

And detecting creatures that don't try to be stealthy while being blinded? Well, that _should_ be relatively easy! There are many more senses than just sight.

I actually like that invisibility no longer makes someone immune to being targeted. Invisibility has been way too good in earlier editions of D&D (at least in my game group). Other systems have a lot more limitations regarding invisibility, e.g. in Ars Magica it won't affect your shadow.

 

[Flipguarder]

Id imagine that most times a wizard is blind they are just going to use an area attack and most likely sustain another ability. They can move perfectly fine while blind, they can target whoever they want. It doesn't affect a "normal" turn at all, in any way.