Color spray, spellcraft and closing your eyes, oh my!

[Crake]

So I just started playing a new level 1 wizard, and of course, color spray is right up there on my list of spells prepared right now. But I was thinking how devastating it would be if used against us. Then I considered that blind creatures are immune to it's effects, and any character can blind themselves by shutting their eyes. So, would you, as a DM, allow a player who successfully identifies a color spray spell being cast to close their eyes and be immune to the spell? How long would you rule the blindness lasts? (just for the flash of the spell, until the start of the player's next turn?) Obviously this could be used against the players via things like the False Theurgy skill trick, causing a creature to close their eyes, only to be flat footed against the orb of fire which is thrown at them instead, or enemies who ready attacks to hit the players when they shut their eyes, to get easier hits, or potentially even sneak attacks, but, as a DM would you allow that extra level of complexity into the game?

[Auron3991]

Yes, yes I would.

This is exactly the sort of thing I encourage in my players. It gives them more ability to affect the outcome of a situation without slowing the game down and doesn't need any 'creative' rule interpretations. I would personally rule that the blindness lasts until the end of the round due to everything in a round happening in the same six second interval (initiative is only to make gameplay function).

Remember that smart enemies will use this tactic as well though.

[Kraken]

I might offer them a reflex save rather than granting outright immunity. Maybe. Definitely not outright immunity, because closing your eyes would be insufficient to protect yourself from such a devastating light in my opinion. Eyelids are not opaque, if you close your eyes and I start randomly toggling the lights in the room, you're generally going to be able to tell me whether I have the lights on even if your eyes are shut. You could shield yourself with something opaque, such as your elbow, but you'd need to do it quickly and completely.

[Crake]

Remember that smart enemies will use this tactic as well though.

Or at least enemies with spellcraft :smalltongue:


I might offer them a reflex save rather than granting outright immunity. Maybe. Definitely not outright immunity, because closing your eyes would be insufficient to protect yourself from such a devastating light in my opinion. Eyelids are not opaque, if you close your eyes and I start randomly toggling the lights in the room, you're generally going to be able to tell me whether I have the lights on even if your eyes are shut. You could shield yourself with something opaque, such as your elbow, but you'd need to do it quickly and completely.

Considering the spell is mind affecting, I'd imagine there's more to it than just being really bright. The spell does say that blind creatures are immune, and it is within the rules to close your eyes to blind yourself. So sure you may see the flash of light, but you won't see whatever hypnotic or epileptic patterns that appear, causing you to become affected by the spell.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Color Spray does not affect "sightless creatures," which is importantly different from sighted creatures who have closed their eyes. This reading also conforms with how I believe the spell would work, since as Kraken pointed out the light should be intense enough to overcome eyelid protection. If not, I'd be more worried about Sundark Goggles. In a world, where everyone wears sunglasses...

There is the additional issue of normally not being able to react on an opponent's turn, even with a free action. (Speaking is a specific exception.)

Now, if someone happened to have their eyes closed (maybe there's a Medusa nearby) I may be inclined to give a +2 bonus to the save. But I wouldn't be inclined to give a reflex save to act out of turn just because they've identified the attack, just like I wouldn't give someone a reflex save to drop prone (also a free action) and get a bonus to AC versus a visible enemy throwing a javelin at them. But I'm no fun like that.

[Jeff the Green]

Color Spray does not affect "sightless creatures," which is importantly different from sighted creatures who have closed their eyes. This reading also conforms with how I believe the spell would work, since as Kraken pointed out the light should be intense enough to overcome eyelid protection. If not, I'd be more worried about Sundark Goggles. In a world, where everyone wears sunglasses...

There is the additional issue of normally not being able to react on an opponent's turn, even with a free action. (Speaking is a specific exception.)

Agreed. You aren't immune if you've already been blinded, if you're wearing a blindfold, or if you have a burlap sack over your head. Besides, the description of Illusion (pattern) spells says that they don't necessarily have to be seen to have an effect, just to be caught in one.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

To be fair to the burlap, if it's big enough to envelop you entirely you could argue it blocks LoE. But then you've stuck yourself in a sack to avoid a will save, so I think the caster still wins.

[Crake]

Color Spray does not affect "sightless creatures," which is importantly different from sighted creatures who have closed their eyes. This reading also conforms with how I believe the spell would work, since as Kraken pointed out the light should be intense enough to overcome eyelid protection. If not, I'd be more worried about Sundark Goggles. In a world, where everyone wears sunglasses...

There is the additional issue of normally not being able to react on an opponent's turn, even with a free action. (Speaking is a specific exception.)

Now, if someone happened to have their eyes closed (maybe there's a Medusa nearby) I may be inclined to give a +2 bonus to the save. But I wouldn't be inclined to give a reflex save to act out of turn just because they've identified the attack, just like I wouldn't give someone a reflex save to drop prone (also a free action) and get a bonus to AC versus a visible enemy throwing a javelin at them. But I'm no fun like that.

Well the DND definition of blind is "The character cannot see." How that is not the same as "sightless" is not very apparent to me. One who cannot see, has no sight, thus must be sightless, ergo, blind creatures are also sightless creatures.

Note that invisible creatures get +2 to attack vs sighted creatures, while blind creatures simply get -2 to AC. The implication here being that unless blinded characters are sightless, an invisible opponent would get +2 to attack vs a blinded creatures -2 AC, which I think we can all agree is redundant and would not be the case.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, I would allow closing your eyes to protect you. However, i would not allow you to do it reflexively. I would borrow the rules from Gaze attacks. Under these, closing your eyes doesn't take an action, but you can only decide whether to keep your eyes open of closed on the beginning of your turn, and the blindness lasts until you decide to open them,which can only occur at the start of your turn. Thus, you'd have to weigh immunity to patterns, intimidation and gaze attacks vs. everyone having total concealment from you (unless you have blindsense, in which case, you get to invoke a classic martial artist trope/archetype) for the turn.

[Kurald Galain]

I would argue that a successful save against Color Spray already means that the character closed or averted his eyes in time. That's what the saving throw is for.

Likewise, if an enemy casts Fireball, I don't give a bonus to a character if the player says he jumps out of the way quickly; the reflex save already represents jumping out of the way.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well the DND definition of blind is "The character cannot see." How that is not the same as "sightless" is not very apparent to me. One who cannot see, has no sight, thus must be sightless, ergo, blind creatures are also sightless creatures.

Note that invisible creatures get +2 to attack vs sighted creatures, while blind creatures simply get -2 to AC. The implication here being that unless blinded characters are sightless, an invisible opponent would get +2 to attack vs a blinded creatures -2 AC, which I think we can all agree is redundant and would not be the case.1. Show me where closing your eyes = blinded. All I can find is Mirror Image, which states "Closing your eyes carries the same penalties as being blinded," and an entry in Gaze attacks which is even less generous. Also note that "effectively blinded" is not the same thing as being blinded, as that term pops up sometimes.

2. Context is important. "Sighted" is describing a creature, meaning you should be looking at the creature's detection modes first and foremost, not the particular context of the situation. A creature can be sighted and not see anything at a particular moment.

3. The separation between invisible bonuses and blinded penalties isn't the first thing in 3.5 to not make sense.

[Ashtagon]

I would allow a character to close their eyes out of turn.

A successful Spellcraft check would mean they'd know this spell was one that relies on sight. Even if they failed the Spellcraft check, they might be sufficiently paranoid to do so anyway (and then find it was a fireball or a darkness or a cause blindnessspell if the DM is feeling lulzy).

They remain blinded until the end of their next turn if they do this. That will make them immune to any further sight-related spells until then. On this sight-related spell, however, it merely gives them a Reflex save (in addition to any save they may anyway; that might mean two saving throw rolls) to shut their eyes in time, since the spell was at least partly 'fired' by the time that Spellcraft check was done.

[Crake]

I would argue that a successful save against Color Spray already means that the character closed or averted his eyes in time. That's what the saving throw is for.

Likewise, if an enemy casts Fireball, I don't give a bonus to a character if the player says he jumps out of the way quickly; the reflex save already represents jumping out of the way.

Well, except the save is a will save vs color spray, implying that the character fought off the effects through sheer will, rather than closing their eyes in time


They remain blinded until the end of their next turn if they do this. That will make them immune to any further sight-related spells until then. On this sight-related spell, however, it merely gives them a Reflex save (in addition to any save they may anyway; that might mean two saving throw rolls) to shut their eyes in time, since the spell was at least partly 'fired' by the time that Spellcraft check was done.

I'd say that's fair, gives players that option, but results in them having lowered defenses for the rest of the round (unless the enemy spellcaster just happened to be right before them :smalltongue: but then, that's what delaying and readying is for)