question about character born blind

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
ok, so heres a deva avenger who is blind. in his past life, he dishonored his deity, and was thus made blind in his next life. What kind of penalties/bonuses would he attain with this?

In the PH it has the blinded condition, but that would be something that is more temporary and sudden, not something you lived with your whole life. So i would figure it wouldnt be that bad since he would learn how to cope with it.

And he is 10 years older than adulthood which i think is 0 totaling 10 lol
oh, he also has skill focus perception
I would just talk to your DM, and ask him if your character can have a sort of "Daredevil" thing going for him; you know, sort of like sonar. It would be just like having sight mechanically, but, fluff-wise, he's blind.
Birdies!
...i am the DM and hes wanting to be blind, but im dont think that really follows the same rules.
I played a 3.5 monk who was blind from birth. My DM ruled I had blindsense (or was it blindsight? I don't remember. It was the better of the two) out to 30 feet. I'm sure that could work in 4e (if it isn't already in it). After that he made me a prestige class (which is essentially paragon path) I could take that turned my guy into a Daredevil-like character. Read some of the comics or if you're willing to submit yourself to 1 1/2 hour of torture watch the "movie" and get some inspiration from those. Then ask your DM to help make a PP tailored to your blindness.
ok, so heres a deva avenger who is blind. in his past life, he dishonored his deity, and was thus made blind in his next life. What kind of penalties/bonuses would he attain with this?

In the PH it has the blinded condition, but that would be something that is more temporary and sudden, not something you lived with your whole life. So i would figure it wouldnt be that bad since he would learn how to cope with it.

And he is 10 years older than adulthood which i think is 0 totaling 10 lol

He would suffer from the Blind condition. He would learn to cope with it by taking feats that offset the penalties, like Skill focus: Perception and Blind-fighting.

I would be of the opinion that such a character would not be viable in a typical D&D game and try to dissuade him from doing it, as he will simply be unable to pull his own weight.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
He would suffer from the Blind condition. He would learn to cope with it by taking feats that offset the penalties, like Skill focus: Perception and Blind-fighting.

On a positive note, enemies who attempted to inflict the Blind condition on him would be severely disappointed.
Time for another episode of 'Statin it Out' with Mcnancy

The answer to you problem is the Robe of Eyes the robe is in the Adventurer's Vault pg 50, it make you immune to being blind and gives you bonus to perception, the robe is very cheap.

With this item, sight will not matter to you so you might as well say that the character is blind.

when you hit paragon you can take point-blank shot if you plan on doing any ranged attacks, an once you hit epic you can take Blind-Fighting.
He should have blindsight of at least his level +10. As well, he should get an untyped +5 to perception (because blind people have crazy good senses) and can't be flanked because he can hear too well to be caught off guard and cause, I mean, it's not like they will be able to get him in a blindspot, right? He should be able to read words by moving his hand over the ink on a page, because his sense of touch improved, remember? Finally, he should be able to read minds at will because blind people become psychics.

Remember, blind characters are absolutely great at everything, and have no disadvantages at all, because of their super heightened senses.

With that out of the way, character blindness is very tricky. First question is why. Is it so the player can get a bonus, like blindsight? I'd totally perfer blindsight to normal sight, in terms of mechanics. It has so many advantages to normal sight, at least at lower ranges. It seems that most of the people on the boards that want to play a blind character do it because they want blindsight and a million perception bonuses or whatever.

If it is purely for character development, then simply sticking with the blind condition forever might work. Of course, that is a large drawback, but balancing out something to make up for it is hard. Blindsight is usually outrageously benificial, but if it is too close ranged, you will get murdered. It is a balancing act.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
This should be a [i] bad[/i] thing. Be careful that you don't end up turning blind into an advantage over being sighted.

Perhaps the easiest, most balanced approach would be for the DM to give [i]all[/i] PCs in thr group a magic item from some sort of sponsor for their group, all of similar power (level 2). The blind person's would , of course, be the robe of eyes or something along those lines.

It starts out as a level 2 item and can be improved over time, giving both initially +1 AC (Cloth armor) plus "cannot be blinded" and a perception bonus.

They may be other choices, as this one certainly could be rather limiting in terms of armor choices, but the DM should be able to deal with that in one way or another.
All enemies will be invisible, ranged combat is not possible and in melee, a minor action with perception to be aware of anyone not directly in front of you and anyone you are not aware of has combat advantage against you.

Yes blind people do have heightened other senses but try walking through a a mass street brawl with your eyes shut

Here it is.

Deva avenger, who has half-blindsight in combat only. In character, he cannot see anything. Out of character, he can see the battlefield and be able to select an oath of enmity, and possibly only for the oath.

When he declares an oath of enmity, it is burned in his mind. The target cannot hide, cannot disappear, because he will be seen in his mind. He cannot see any enemies which stand in the way of his oath of enmity target, but he does not care. He will be a censure of retribution avenger, and if he provokes attacks, they fuel his anger.

Sound like a good place to start?
Sound like a good place to start?

The thing about just saying it's divine sight or something like that is how do you explain them becoming blind by someone throwing sand in their eyes?

Just make the character perma blind and give him the robe(say it gives him daredevil powers), you will no longer be blind and people could throw sand in your eyes all day and it wouldn't affect you.
The thing about just saying it's divine sight or something like that is how do you explain them becoming blind by someone throwing sand in their eyes?

Just make the character perma blind and give him the robe(say it gives him daredevil powers), you will no longer be blind and people could throw sand in your eyes all day and it wouldn't affect you.

You obviously don't understand.

The player who the DM is describing obviously wants to be blind. He wants to have a unique character defect and have to work around it. I would bet you every DND book I own (several editions worth) that the character would not be happy with just "You can really see, but lets pretend you don't" which is what you are asking him to do. That is not what the player wants. He wants to have the experience of playing someone who is blind, who always has to work with his disability and find ways to solve problems with his other senses.

If the DM actually wants to encourage this idea, he should let him have some sort of limited sight while in combat only, and since he is an avenger, it seems thematic that his god grants him visions of his true enemy. I don't know what you are talking about with sand, because I am pretty sure divine sight wouldn't be stopped by sand or blind effects, and I said specifically that he ALWAYS will see his foe.

If the DM doesn't want to encourage this idea, he can make it very clear and tell them no.

That being said, what I offered was a suggestion that no one else had made, which is something you haven't done. If you don't like my suggestion, give him one that hasn't been said 4 times now.
I am pretty sure divine sight wouldn't be stopped by sand or blind effects, and I said specifically that he ALWAYS will see his foe

So he would be immune to blinding effects? what about concealment and cover or total concealment or total cover? do the other players get this benefit or something else to compensate and how will you measure these powers' worth?

So your idea is to make him blind except when it matters and also give him immunity to being blinded for free, my idea is to make him blind and have him buy something that is actually in the rules and does not unbalance the party to make it so being blind doe not effect him mechanically. My suggestion is within the rules, so how is my suggestion more pretend than yours?

All I'm saying is that the robe can allow a character who is blind to function asthough he was not, he would still be blind but just not hindered by it (which I think is what he was going for).
Two ways to do this that wont end poorly.

1- The character is always under the blind condition. This applies all penalties as normal. No benefits. At your discretion this could be healed through some sort of remove curse/disease ritual.

2- The character is treated as normal for all situations outside of roleplaying. He is not treated as blind in combat, but can still be blinded by foes.

Thats about it. Otherwise you end up saying "OK you have tremorsense" and the blindness is actually a benefit on occasion, or you have to have long rules debates on things like "Well im immune to the basilisk right?" "Well Im immune to medusas" "Do I get some sort of perception check to notice the guy sneaking up on me? Is it at a -__ penalty, or normal?"

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Thats about it. Otherwise you end up saying "OK you have tremorsense" and the blindness is actually a benefit on occasion, or you have to have long rules debates on things like "Well im immune to the basilisk right?" "Well Im immune to medusas" "Do I get some sort of perception check to notice the guy sneaking up on me? Is it at a -__ penalty, or normal?"

Please explain to me how my suggestion would cause these problems, or did you not read the thread?

What I'm suggesting makes more sense than your two options and it involves no house rules.
Please explain to me how my suggestion would cause these problems, or did you not read the thread?

What I'm suggesting makes more sense than your two options and it involves no house rules.

I wasn't actually talking in reference to your post at all. I was attempting to offer the suggestions to the OP, which you are not.

If you really feel the need though, I will explain why I disagree with your idea.

1- Essentially, you are giving a magic item to a player regardless of WBL.
2- You are forcing a player to have reliance on a magic item, I try my best to steer my games away from this idea, but its not wrong, just different.

Could you please somehow explain how giving a player a free magic item makes more sense than either of my suggestions. (If I were to DM a blind character, I would ask them to use my second option, not the first)

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Okay, so lets go over this again.

He would be blind. This would effect everything he does, -10 perception, obviously gimped with most movement, failure at skill challenges.

In combat, noticeable penalties include:

- permanent combat advantage to enemies, including relevant +2 to hit him
- permanent -5 to hit every enemy
- easy to hide from and use stealth to avoid notice (which is done for free at the end of a movement, IIRC)
- cannot "technically" see difficult terrain, pits, traps, enemies.
- line of sight is blocked permanently

What I am offering is middle-ground. When he declares his oath of enmity, he loses all those penalties on one character only. One. Since he is technically blind already, he cannot suffer from the blind condition, which again only effects the oath of enmity, because it doesn't stack. He still grants combat advantage to other enemies. Any burst and blast attacks would be abysmal to all but one enemy. Total cover will effect him, total concealment will not.

It is the option for people who don't want all the penalties of blindness but actually want to suffer a little. There is no way you can call that broken. It's not blindsight, it's not wearing some stupid robe. If he wanted the robe that lets him see as normal, why would he play a character who was blind? You're no longer blind with the robe! Why wouldn't he just play a character with sight? If I wanted to play a normal character with one less magic item slot than everyone else, I wouldn't leap through a hoop to get it, I would just never wear a neck item. It's about his character. It's why I someone might play Mayael the Anima from Magic the Gathering. It's about overcoming blindness, overcoming disability. It's not an issue that can be addressed purely mechanically. As we all know by now, it's messy no matter how you do it. It's more a matter of flavor. It's why you pick avenger instead of a rogue who worships a god. It's why you make a character blind.

This means that it is the third option.
And an option is an option, you are not the decider.
The DM is.
And no matter how much you tear the idea to pieces, if he likes it, he will use it. That's why I'm here. I'm not here to say blindness is fun, or contest the relevance of blind-sight in his game, but to provide an alternative to the "all-or-nothing" responses that you have all given him.

Also, to be fair, this belongs in "What's a DM to Do?" more than development, because the DM has the question about the player.
... If he wanted the robe that lets him see as normal, why would he play a character who was blind? You're no longer blind with the robe! Why wouldn't he just play a character with sight?...

A fair point. On the other hand, what you suggest is darn near unplayable.

The robe solution is what every permanently blind character would more than likely end up doing. Think about it - if you could see like everyone else, why would you NOT do that??? You still, though, are handicapped by having only cloth armor and, of course, are blind whenever not wearing it (sleeping at an inn, for example).

Any other solution, it seems to me, either leaves the character at a disadvantage or puts him at an advantage over sighted characters.
Okay, so lets go over this again.

He would be blind. This would effect everything he does, -10 perception, obviously gimped with most movement, failure at skill challenges.

In combat, noticeable penalties include:

- permanent combat advantage to enemies, including relevant +2 to hit him
- permanent -5 to hit every enemy
- easy to hide from and use stealth to avoid notice (which is done for free at the end of a movement, IIRC)
- cannot "technically" see difficult terrain, pits, traps, enemies.
- line of sight is blocked permanently

What I am offering is middle-ground. When he declares his oath of enmity, he loses all those penalties on one character only.

To give this option a little more, play it like the fight scene in Matrix Revalutions where Neo is blind and fighting Bane/Agent Smith in the belly of the Logos.
He would be blind. This would effect everything he does, -10 perception, obviously gimped with most movement, failure at skill challenges.

In combat, noticeable penalties include:

- permanent combat advantage to enemies, including relevant +2 to hit him
- permanent -5 to hit every enemy
- easy to hide from and use stealth to avoid notice (which is done for free at the end of a movement, IIRC)
- cannot "technically" see difficult terrain, pits, traps, enemies.
- line of sight is blocked permanently

What I am offering is middle-ground. When he declares his oath of enmity, he loses all those penalties on one character only. One. Since he is technically blind already, he cannot suffer from the blind condition, which again only effects the oath of enmity, because it doesn't stack. He still grants combat advantage to other enemies. Any burst and blast attacks would be abysmal to all but one enemy. Total cover will effect him, total concealment will not.

That would be a great way to handle it, also you could house-rule and say that because he has lived his whole life without sight he would not have all the penalties of blind.

Only give him a -5 to perception.
He does not give combat advantage to enemies.

Adjusting these and some of the other debilitating effects of Blind (his minus 5 or so to attack to enemies he hasn't marked) might end up making him too good because he would still be immune to blind effects and anything that requires him to see.

To make it fair I would take away most of the effects of being blind, take away ALL of the effects to his mark, BUT make him take the feats that allow him to blind fight and such (yeah you'd be giving him an epic feat but all it is really doing is taking up one of his slots because he's being house-ruled anyways).

Fair?
It's messy no matter how you do it. All we're doing is taking something unplayable and making it playable, and still fun for the character.

I mean, I don't honestly expect to perfect anything.

I do think dropping the penalties would be a good idea, but not by a lot. A -5 to perception and a -2 to attack would be a nice place to start. That's entirely playable, even with the reduced AC.
Could you please somehow explain how giving a player a free magic item makes more sense than either of my suggestions.

DMs give players free magic items all the time; it's called treasure. I doubt the other players are going to complain about someone getting a lvl 2 item considering the player is making himself permablind, it's something a lvl 1 party would just find lying around anyways, so what if the blind guy gets one a little early, he won't be calling dibs on any armor for awhile if it makes you feel better.

The character will have no sight, and he will still be able to kick a**

If you ask me, this is more fair to the player; your not punishing him for wanting to roleplay by giving any penalties (at least not while he's wearing the robe) and your not depowering his choice by saying "yeah ok your blind, but not really, unless someone throws sand in what you claim to be your useless eyes"
DMs give players free magic items all the time; it's called treasure.

I'm Sorry, I had to respond to this one....

Yes, DMs dole out treasure all the time. This is expected. Treasure is given to every player, however. Having one player essentially become useless without the usage of a particular magic item is unfair in a few aspects.

1. That player has to use that item to function. He no longer has the options of wearing other armor types, benefiting from armor spec feats, or other magical abilities gained from varying sets. If he chooses to use another armor type to gain a benefit available to another player, he is gimping himself once again because he is not using his 'required' armor.

2. Because that player needs this armor, his treasure parcels will have to include this item. This means, while other players are getting new gadgets and swords, this player gets a necessary item to allow him to function. Imagine if your DM gave out class features as treasure--you are essentially doing the same to this one player so they can be on equal footing to the rest of the party. Unless this player gets "bonus" treasure, it is unfair to him. If he does get this 'bonus', then its unfair to the rest of the party, and should be avoided.



Your suggestions don't seem to hold any water. What Collycauseschaos has suggested seems to be one of the most fair ways to do things. In his scenario, the player gains advantages against one creature at a time, while becoming extra vulnerable to every other creature at the same time. Seems the most fair, and still allows the character the option to choose to use his portion of the treasure to further enhance his abilities through magic items of his choosing, just like any other player.

Just my two copper...purposufuly handicaping characters usually doesn't work out, either because you become too weak compared to your party, and become dead weight, or you become too overpowered due to excessive house ruling. Just don't do it honestly...but to each his own.
...Only give him a -5 to perception.
He does not give combat advantage to enemies.
...air?

No. This does not even really make sense, plus this way he can [i]never[/i] be the subject of a sneak attack, giving him a considerable advantage form being blind, which is exactly what I strongly suggest is the wrong thing to do.

I have not yet seen a better solution than making sure he gets the armor (cloth) Robe of Eyes (but not as a bonus item). While this does make him dependent upon equipment, well, what do you expect? He's [i]blind![/i]

[i]A new idea:[/i]

As an alternative, he could take a familiar feat and give him a special familiar - a sort of "seeing eye dog" (in whatever form seems most appropriate). This will take more thought and work to make it come out just right, but it has the right feel to me. Perhaps it could even be a bonus feat in exchange for the loss of some class or racial feature.

edit: The more I think about it, the more I like this last option more than anything else suggested here, including my own previous suggestion..
People who are upset about a blind person being dependant on equipment, have you ever seen a blind person in the modern world? There is Text to Voice programs for Computers, the is echolocation tech being researched, “Seeing eye” Animals, and the basic white cane. All people who are missing one of the 5 senses has to use some sort of equipment to function in today’s society why would it be any different in the Fantasy world of Dungeons and Dragons.

Something I have yet to see is the use of the Ritual Skull Watch (found in the sblock below) You could slightly tweak it so that it uses a little better perception, then again it might be fine to play it as is. You might want to house rule a longer duration, and or a shorter cast time.

You could enchant the skull then wear it as a mask or helm.

Skull Watch

Skull Watch
As you complete the halting words of power, a light shines
from the grim skull’s sockets before fading again into
blackness.


Level: 4
Category: Warding
Time: 10 minutes
Duration: 4 hours
Component Cost: 80 gp
Market Price: 175 gp
Key Skill: Arcana (no check

You enchant a skull to watch over an area and alert you
when something intrudes. The skull uses your Perception
modifier with a +5 bonus. It cannot hear or smell, and
it never considers you an intruder. In addition, you can
designate any number of other individuals as nonintruders.
When you perform the ritual, you can also designate
one or more categories of creatures that the skull will
ignore. You can define these categories by obvious physical
characteristics (such as height, weight, or body shape),
creature type (such as humanoid), creature race (such as
hill giant), or obvious equipment (such as a creature carrying
a shield with a flame emblazoned upon it).
When the skull detects an intrusion, it mentally alerts
you if you are within 1 mile. At any time during the ritual’s
duration, you can choose to look through the skull’s eyes
as a standard action. While you look through the skull’s
eyes, you cannot see through your own and are considered
blind. You can end this effect as a free action.
The skull can be moved from its original position
during the ritual’s duration without disturbing the effect.
Destroying the skull ends the effect, and you are not
magically made aware of the skull’s destruction (though
you might already be alerted about intruders).
[i]A new idea:[/i]

As an alternative, he could take a familiar feat and give him a special familiar - a sort of "seeing eye dog" (in whatever form seems most appropriate). This will take more thought and work to make it come out just right, but it has the right feel to me. Perhaps it could even be a bonus feat in exchange for the loss of some class or racial feature.

edit: The more I think about it, the more I like this last option more than anything else suggested here, including my own previous suggestion..

Yes.

I am also in favor of this idea, but only if they start at level 2+, or gets a multiclass for free. He would only have sight when the familiar is in "active mode" and lose it while it is in "passive mode" and the familiar can be attacked and destroyed while active. In fact, I think there is an "eye" familar which gives bonuses to perception and scrying, and you can use a spell once per encounter through the eye's Line of Sight.

If I had to choose a second idea, this would be it.
However, it costs multiple feats and is hard to get at level 1 for anything but a human or arcane caster (which the OP's player is neither of).
Yes.

I am also in favor of this idea, but only if they start at level 2+, or gets a multiclass for free. He would only have sight when the familiar is in "active mode" and lose it while it is in "passive mode" and the familiar can be attacked and destroyed while active. In fact, I think there is an "eye" familar which gives bonuses to perception and scrying, and you can use a spell once per encounter through the eye's Line of Sight.

If I had to choose a second idea, this would be it.
However, it costs multiple feats and is hard to get at level 1 for anything but a human or arcane caster (which the OP's player is neither of).

Well, as I said, he should get it as a bonus feat in exchange for some class or race feature. Further, he should get it as qualifying simply by being blind; call it "Seeing-Eye Familiar" if you like, but allow all other Familiar feats to work with this familiar anyway.

It could be a lot of fun.
I am also in favor of this idea, but only if they start at level 2+, or gets a multiclass for free. He would only have sight when the familiar is in "active mode" and lose it while it is in "passive mode" and the familiar can be attacked and destroyed while active. In fact, I think there is an "eye" familar which gives bonuses to perception and scrying, and you can use a spell once per encounter through the eye's Line of Sight.

As a DM, running this house rule would be my nightmare.

In my experience, house ruling of this magnitude comes back to bite you hard and you quickly regret doing it.

He's blind!

It's not just that, the player wants to be blind!

Just my two copper...purposufuly handicaping characters usually doesn't work out, either because you become too weak compared to your party, and become dead weight, or you become too overpowered due to excessive house ruling. Just don't do it honestly...but to each his own.

I would never handicap a player for the sake of flavor, I totally agree with you on this.

But in the case of it being the player's goal to be handicaped, It's better to make him dependant on an item than to actually make him blind. If it's the player's request to be blind, then they should expect it to suck, because being blind sucks.
No. This does nto even really make sense, plus this way he can [i]never[/i] be the subject of a sneak attack, giving him a considerbale advantage form being blind, which is exactly what I strongly suggest is the wrong thing to do.

Yes, thank you for calling me on that.

I meant he would not give combat advantage because of being blind any flanking or special abilities/effects would still grant CA.

You could always see what the other players have to say. Show them what you plan on giving him for items/bonuses to make up for him being blind. They can your own version of this forum.
Two ways to do this that wont end poorly.

1- The character is always under the blind condition. This applies all penalties as normal. No benefits. At your discretion this could be healed through some sort of remove curse/disease ritual.

2- The character is treated as normal for all situations outside of roleplaying. He is not treated as blind in combat, but can still be blinded by foes.

Thats about it. Otherwise you end up saying "OK you have tremorsense" and the blindness is actually a benefit on occasion, or you have to have long rules debates on things like "Well im immune to the basilisk right?" "Well Im immune to medusas" "Do I get some sort of perception check to notice the guy sneaking up on me? Is it at a -__ penalty, or normal?"

I have to disagree with your suggestions. One, a PC who's wanting to be blind is still being a heroic character, meant to be a step above the common man. So having all the blind minuses is too much, not that I don't think there should be some minuses.

And to treat the character as only being blind out of combat, is pointless. It defeats the purpose of him being blind.
Honestly, I'm one who goes for the idea of having tremorsense if you're playing a blind hero character. But limit it to like 10 squares or something. I mean if you're playing a blind PC then you're basically kinda like Daredevil though not as badass or powerful.

The way I look at it IS like Daredevil to a lesser degree. Have tremorsense for 10 squares. Otherwise they grant combat advantage to any attacks outside that range. This does yes include flying enemies. But enemies within the ten squares, you can tell where they are, that they're attacking, so it's business as usual combat-wise.

Think Toph from Avatar. Except not limited to just earth, though that COULD be a possibility. But you'd basically be sensing the person and their general movements enough to know they're attacking. A blind person should be immune to being blind, because obviously they already are. Yeah, tremorsense can give them a slight advantage but it's not that big a deal, really a DM can easily work to make it not super powerful.

Now, ranged combat is a problem since a blind person couldn't sense and thus have "line of sight" to any enemies past say, 10 squares. But hey, blindness is meant to have hinderances. The point of playing a blind character is to have limitations but also have a unique and interesting character.

Definitely think they should have a minus to perception. Basically they'd be using smell and sound as perception, but would take a minus. A blind person wouldn't be able to tell where objects are unless he's in a place he knows very well and that doesn't change. Basically all the tremorsense would allow is them being able to sense that people are there within the area of their senses, but otherwise gives them no other real bonus. Maybe what I'm thinking of is more like 3.5 blindsense or something, but I've only seen tremorsense in 4.0 so I use that as reference.

A blind character could be interesting, you'd still have limitations with far range, or flying attacks/enemies which is fine. Just because you have some kind of penalty doesn't mean you're going to really kill the team and be dead weight. And I honestly don't think being blind but being able to sense people technically using your other senses, within a range, is that overpowered.
You know, I might not see this working for a melee fighter without some real tinkering.

But how about a wizard (or any controller with alot of area powers). That could be a real hoot. Just allow them to make Perception checks as a free action and rule that they don't get penalties to area attacks (after all, they're area attacks) for blindness. There you go. You still can't see anything, but you can react with big explosions.

Also, have the Leader in the part yell things out to the old blind dude.
Resident Shakespeare
I have to disagree with your suggestions. One, a PC who's wanting to be blind is still being a heroic character, meant to be a step above the common man. So having all the blind minuses is too much, not that I don't think there should be some minuses.

And to treat the character as only being blind out of combat, is pointless. It defeats the purpose of him being blind.

I would much rather do the second of those two options, but some players insist on mechanical representations of things like this. For those players, I present my first option.

You don't treat him blind, only out of combat, you simply don't apply any penalties whatsoever for his voluntary blindness to the character. The purpose of being blind is to roleplay an interesting character. One can do this very well, and need no rules to represent it. Consider the blind samurai Zatoichi (in any of his 4 thousand movies). He fights just as good as anyone else (ignore that he isn't really blind in some movies) but clearly fights without using his sight. Describe your caracters actions similarly. "I hear him 'sneak' up behind me, and atempt to catch him off gaurd with my power that grants CA for it regardless of normal situations." "I hear his blade whistle overhead, and duck below" "As he shuffels to the side/moves, he drags his feet, and I take my fighters challenge OA to give him a whack"

No need for a "Oh, my tremor sense is __feet, so I know that he is moving, here is my attack"

Or consider a blind archer. The only one coming to mind right now are the Archers who live in the tower in Samurai Jack, don't remember their name. They are the best archers in the world, and totally blind. Giving tremor sense totally doesn't work for this idea. Neither does any of the "I am blind but can magically see in __radius" ideas. Instead let them simply play as though they were not mechanically. Call it super hearing (like in Samurai Jack), sonar whatever.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Here's my input:

For reference:
BLINDED
✦ You grant combat advantage.
✦ You can’t see any target (your targets have total concealment).
✦ You take a –10 penalty to Perception checks.
✦ You can’t flank an enemy.
Tremorsense: The monster can perceive creatures and objects within range and in contact with the ground or another shared surface (such as a web or water) as if it has line of sight, without needing to make a Perception check.
Blindsight: A monster with blindsight can perceive creatures and objects within the stated number of squares, making Perception checks as normal. The creature automatically fails Perception checks to notice things outside of the range of its blindsight.
A monster with blindsight suffers no ill effects while blinded.

Player has permanent blind condition (now to soften the blow some)
New feat (or maybe a background?)
Born Blind:
Tremorsense: Level/2 + 5 - (1 for every creature in area after first one).
At 11th level, the character gains Blindsight (Level/2 - (1/creature after first)).
At 21st level, the penalty for nearby creatures is halved.
Being deafened negates this feat for the duration of the effect.
(perhaps have creatures larger than medium count for more? like +1 per size category over medium?)

Now for a new Avenger only feat (this will probably need balancing, suggestions welcome):
Oath Sight:
You have line of sight with your Oath of Enmity target, up to a range of 20.

This seems like a way to make him playable without making him stronger that a normal sighted player.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I would much rather do the second of those two options, but some players insist on mechanical representations of things like this. For those players, I present my first option.

You don't treat him blind, only out of combat, you simply don't apply any penalties whatsoever for his voluntary blindness to the character. The purpose of being blind is to roleplay an interesting character. One can do this very well, and need no rules to represent it. Consider the blind samurai Zatoichi (in any of his 4 thousand movies). He fights just as good as anyone else (ignore that he isn't really blind in some movies) but clearly fights without using his sight. Describe your caracters actions similarly. "I hear him 'sneak' up behind me, and atempt to catch him off gaurd with my power that grants CA for it regardless of normal situations." "I hear his blade whistle overhead, and duck below" "As he shuffels to the side/moves, he drags his feet, and I take my fighters challenge OA to give him a whack"

No need for a "Oh, my tremor sense is __feet, so I know that he is moving, here is my attack"

Or consider a blind archer. The only one coming to mind right now are the Archers who live in the tower in Samurai Jack, don't remember their name. They are the best archers in the world, and totally blind. Giving tremor sense totally doesn't work for this idea. Neither does any of the "I am blind but can magically see in __radius" ideas. Instead let them simply play as though they were not mechanically. Call it super hearing (like in Samurai Jack), sonar whatever.

True, with the archers in Samurai Jack. I said tremorsense but like I also mentioned I didn't notice anything else related to allowing sight of creatures that didn't include one's eyes. So maybe I'll take a look through the books to see if they have a blindsight or sense. The way I was looking at it wasn't so much literally tremorsense but yes, more of an area that your other senses allow you to sense and tell the movements of creatures. Like using your hearing and smell ya know.

But now I understand more where you're coming from with the treating him blind only out of combat, your description makes honestly more sense than just your initial post no offense. But I see, yeah I'm with you on that. He hears and reacts and other than not technically seeing the enemy he can tell where they are. Makes sense.
Umm, why dont you just say he's blind but his other senses make up for it in an almost supernatural way?

Mechanically everything functions the exact same. Creatures you cannot normally see through sight cannot be seen by you becuase he cannot detect them from the other senses he uses. Cover / concealment still works becuase its blocking your sense in some way.

If your inflicted with blind the exact same conditions happen becuase it blocks your sense of smell or something.
\
But now I understand more where you're coming from with the treating him blind only out of combat, your description makes honestly more sense than just your initial post no offense. But I see, yeah I'm with you on that. He hears and reacts and other than not technically seeing the enemy he can tell where they are. Makes sense.

Glad I could clear up my original post.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

I'd say go with Tremorsense up to a far distance away Level +20, but only give him blindsight within the first two squares or so.
I live and work in Japan, near Mt. Fuji, teaching English to High Schoolers. In my spare time I also happen to be a husband, a father, and an Otaku. I run a biweekly DnD game on Sundays and blog about it every other day of the week at http://thedumpstat.blogspot.com

15.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

Okay I just had to say something here because I have a friend that is blind (he can kind of see movement and some things depending on the light and such, or if there is really good light and it's right up in his face, but he is most definitely blind).

Both of us participate in a medieval reenactment group called the Society for Creative Anachronism. For those not familiar with the SCA, one of the activities that some do is a full speed, full contact, nonstaged fighting with rattan weapons (solid bamboo stuff, wood that doesn't splinter) and actual armor. Both of us fight, and I can personally attest that a blind person can be a melee fighter. There's been many times I've fought next to him in the shield wall and things go well as long as he knows the plan. Sometimes he'll ask me to tell him when we'll be like 5 paces from the opposing line so he can time the charge correctly. In midbattle I'll shout out warnings like "two guys coming up to your right" or "watch it we've got a spear in front of us" or "Quick slide left!" I feel safer receiving a charge from the other line with him next to me than I do a lot of other people.

I've also heard about a knight (a high rank that is received by, among other things, being really good at the heavy combat) that is completely blind, and as soon as he knows where you are in relation to him, either by a distance gauging shot or just by hearing you move or say something, he pretty much goes to town on you.

So with that in mind, I think that someone should be able to create a blind melee character of some sort. Probably lessen/remove select penalties from Blinded, and being immune to being blinded or other effects requiring sight. Having to waste actions to sometimes locate enemies (or allies) properly and not being able to see enemy actions and what they are doing is a safe enough trade off IMO. Then have some feat options related to being able to better while blind.

The avenger oath idea is really cool too btw.
Sign In to post comments