|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 9:09PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2008
|
I'm interested in making a Cleric for a short campaign I'll be playing with my friends, and the idea of making him blind popped into my head. I had a quick read over the mechanics of it (applying a permanent 'blinded' effect essentially) and they are pretty harsh - possibly extremely harsh in fact.
Question is: what would you as a DM / fellow player allow me to take to offset the disadvantage? I'm not talking about anything that would give me an edge here; just things that would compensate - for example, would you allow a free feat to train Skill Training:perception? (offsetting the blindness - 10 perception penalty to -5 without me having to burn a feat). ST:P & SF: P (offsetting it to -2?). Blind-fight? (regardless of its epicness).
Even with all three, the character would be at a disadvantage, which is to some extent offset by his lack of reliance on light and immunity to a small number of things (Gaze attacks and being blinded). Im OK with being slightly Sub-par, but I don't want to be Huge burden to the party.
Some details if you're interested: Going to be a radiant cleric, 16/16 wis/cha with point buy, increasing to 18/16 after racial; the rest of the points will go into con and dex. Int/str will be at 10/8 respectively, possibly 11/8 if i got a spare point lying about (doubtful). Str is dumped for RP purposes. I'm going to stick to leather armour and no weapons, although might get a staff just for looks - its not like it would do anything. The general outlook would just be a rather harmless looking man, dressed in brown and beige, with a piece of cloth as a blindfold. Sight either lost at birth, or at very early age - in latter case might slap some scars coming down his face from under the blindfold. Still browsing thought he Gods atm, will pick one soon.
So yeah, as you can see a rather well thought out RP concept, would be happy if it could actually work out.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 9:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2008
|
Nothing. I applaud your devotion to your character, but blindness is blindness.
"Not only are you wrong, but I even created an Excel spreadsheet to show you how wrong you are." --James Wyatt, May 2006
Dilige, et quod vis fac
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 9:54PM
#3
|
|
|
I had a very similiar thought. A Blind monk but when I read over the rules for blindness and over feats and what not I reluctantly let go of the idea. I will keep an eye on this thread.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 9:58PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2008
|
It could be a great literary hook, but for a well developed character it just lies a bit flat. I'd have to say given the number of things a cleric can't do easily without needing to see a target you wouldnt be of much use past being a healer.
Still you might be able to make it work if you can avoid some of the Meta-game pitfalls that I'm sure would come up.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 10:27PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2008
|
A player in 3.5 came to me with this idea (blind human cleric, for the record). I mused over it and came up with some magic item that basically gave him normal sight (I said it let him use 'echolocation' or something like that).
Basically, the only way I think this can work is for the infirmity to be pure fluff. You're going to have to come up with some way to let him move, attack, and work freely. Come up with some flavor explaining why he can work normally (echolocation, clairvoyance, magic glass eyeball, something). Use that for RP, but don't apply this to combat.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 10:56PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2007
|
Question is: what would you as a DM / fellow player allow me to take to offset the disadvantage?
I dunno, white cane? Trained dog?
I'm not talking about anything that would give me an edge here; just things that would compensate
I've never understood why people try to do this. Why play a disabled character if you don't want them to be disabled? For that matter, why insist upon a mechanical impediment if you're only going to compensate it away with perks?
This is my perspective as a fellow player -- one who's been jaded by many a 'blind character' thread, at that -- not what I'd say as your DM. In the spirit of 4e, I'd look for a way to say 'yes' to this idea which has inspired you.
My suggestion would be not to use any mechanical effect at all. Be mechanically identical to a sighted character and simply roleplay your blindness. This should give you the slightly sub-par effectiveness you're looking for, since you'll still fail in the occasional situation that absolutely requires functional eyeballs.
This would be a bit stickier for the DM, since it'd require on-the-spot rulings about specific circumstances, but I think if you promise not to try to be exploitative about matters, the DM might be willing to go that extra mile. It's how I'd roll, anyway.
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.)
Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 20, 2008 - 12:33AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2008
|
Give him tremor sense. He'd be S.O.L. when it came to flying monsters and low hanging branches, but I could see it as being workable. He'd also be unable to read and identify anything, as well as the other crap that comes along with blindness but you at least wouldn't be completely helpless.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 20, 2008 - 8:51AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2008
|
It could be a great literary hook, but for a well developed character it just lies a bit flat
I didn't say that was ALL there was to him :p since I was asking a specific question I kept the details in the thread to a minimum.
I've never understood why people try to do this. Why play a disabled character if you don't want them to be disabled? For that matter, why insist upon a mechanical impediment if you're only going to compensate it away with perks?
The mechanics for a 'blinded' effect assume a temporary effect on someone who is accustomized to using and relying on sight; A person who has been blind from birth / long time would be able to cope with the condition much, much better.
The rules for some conditions, if not softened with some perk, often result in a character which is completely useless and a burden to the party, rather than just being at a disadvantage.
Thanks you for the opinion though - the aim of the thread was to see how people felt, and that is a pretty good representation of the 'you can cripple yourself as much as you want, but no way in hell are you getting anything in return' attitude, and im sure you're not the only person who feels this way.
He'd also be unable to read and identify anything
Merh, i'm not using any weapons, and I'd say he can 'feel' holy symbols due to being attuned to their power. For a short time I thought I'd have to kiss ritual casting goodbye, but in all fairness I doubt anyone would have anything against the character having the rituals memorized as a spell - the RBook is free anyway. Obviously won't be able to learn any new ones by reading them, but merh.
The general idea is to go with burst and blast spells, which won't require me to know the enemy's exact location, and since Cleric prayers have no friendly fire, this can work. It also fits with this walking around combat being slightly detached from eveything personality. I'll be able to throw down enough healing with HWord in the beginning to pull my weight, and with Divine Glow, Beacon of Hope and Sanctuary I can have some meaningful actions as well; can save the at-wills for when an enemy cocks up enough on their stealth test for me to actually know their location, so i actually get a chance to hit (even with the -5 penalty).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 20, 2008 - 9:12AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2006
|
As a DM, If you want to be blinded then that is your schtick but you should be penalized accordingly, I shouldn't coddle you just because you thought it was cool that you could't see and deserve compensation.
Unless you can give me a good reason why should I give you three free feats and others get jack squat (especially asking for a feat that others cannot legitimatley get until lvl 21) then I would say better leave this cleric in church asking for alms.
If you really wanted to be a blind cleric I'd say that you have some sort of divine sight grantedby your deity that is like normal sight only you can only see in shades of white and light grey (with darkness for the foul creatures) thus you could still be "blind" but you'll be more renowned in your faith and you'd be in an even playing field with everyone else.
This whole being blind and deserving compensation has been done before but all I see it is a form of min-maxing to get something out of it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 20, 2008 - 10:19AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2008
|
Enough with the min-max accusations already! A -10 penalty and a +8 bonus is STILL a -2 penalty and I definitely don't 'get something out of it'. I'm not really interested in making up ridiculous explanations of how im blind but the gods let me see or whatever. If I have to be a walking band-aid unitl I pack enough area attacks, so be it 
|
|
|
