Blinded by the light

[Dmdork]

If I'm blind, can I shoot an enemy with my bow that's 30feet away? What if that enemy is attacking an ally? How can I possibly tell one from the other without sight?

[Sigreid]

"Shoot them both, it's the only way to be sure!"

I believe RAW you can shoot to try to hit someone in the last square you saw them in at disadvantage. You might be able to hit them with disadvantage in their new square, if your DM rules that you heard them move or you have an ally help. "10 o'clock 30' out". If you have no idea where to shoot, you can randomly pick a spot to attack, you might get lucky.

[Dmdork]

I believe RAW you can shoot to try to hit someone in the last square you saw them in at disadvantage. where does it say that?

[Sigreid]

where does it say that?

AFB at the moment but if I remember right the penalty for attacking something with total concealment, which is what everyone has if your blind, is disadvantage on your attacks.

[R.Shackleford]

You don't have to have ever seen your enemy to target them.

If you can hear just fine you can target the enemy (assuming said enemy isn't hiding) without a check.

You have disadvantage on the attack roll and fail and Perception check that relies on sight. Targets also get to attack you with advantage.

That's all.

From SRD


"Blinded

A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.

Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage."

[pwykersotz]

If you can hear just fine you can target the enemy (assuming said enemy isn't hiding) without a check.

This is generally accurate, though it is important to note that it's the DM's call as to what needs a check or not. On a battlefield for example, where sounds blend together, I would expect a (probably very high) Perception check to be needed. But yeah, if they aren't trying to hide and there's no legitimate reason (distance, distracting noises) for a Perception roll, you attack with disadvantage.

[R.Shackleford]

This is generally accurate, though it is important to note that it's the DM's call as to what needs a check or not. On a battlefield for example, where sounds blend together, I would expect a (probably very high) Perception check to be needed. But yeah, if they aren't trying to hide and there's no legitimate reason (distance, distracting noises) for a Perception roll, you attack with disadvantage.

Except that the rules for unseen attackers/search are in the combat section and the say nothing about "sounds blending in", sounds don't blend in for D&D.

Going by RAW, and not hypothetical DM rulings, there is no such thing as sounds blending together. We can play the hypothetical DM rulings all day and get nowhere so that's not really a good way to go about this.

People can feel free to rule it however they want, but I don't like adding things into the game that will purposely hurt players even more that what the penalty already is.

[jas61292]

Per a strict reading of the rules, you should always be able to identify what square a creature is in, and thus target them, unless they take the hide action. However, the big difference between being blinded and, say, facing an invisible creature, is that you are having to use senses other than sight to detect every creature on the battlefield, not just your target. If you are blind and people are moving all over around you, you can potentially know the locations of the creatures around you. Technically not even that is guaranteed by the rules, as there is no rule on how far you can perceive with your senses, and unless believe this means they have infinite range, there will always be DM discretion involved. However, knowing where creatures are, even if you cannot see them is within the bounds of the rules.

That said, with humans (and I'm assuming demihumans) having sight as the sense the most rely on, with a lack of visuals there may not be enough to determine what a given creature is, even if you know where it is. The rules allow you to pinpoint a creature. They do not allow you to identify it. In the chaos of battle, it is entirely possible that if you are blind, you could mistakenly target an ally, thinking they are an enemy. Again, this is ultimately DM discretion, but it is well within reason.

[Eko]

I'm not certain that the "blinded" condition explicitly mans that you cannot see. Much like how hitpoints aren't exactly correlated to how many wounds you have. Imagine driving west during sunset... You have trouble seeing but you're not entirely blinded. This is what I think the rules are meant to portray. You can sort of, kind of, half tell where the target is, but you can't be certain, especially in the heat of battle.

[pwykersotz]

Except that the rules for unseen attackers/search are in the combat section and the say nothing about "sounds blending in", sounds don't blend in for D&D.

Going by RAW, and not hypothetical DM rulings, there is no such thing as sounds blending together. We can play the hypothetical DM rulings all day and get nowhere so that's not really a good way to go about this.

People can feel free to rule it however they want, but I don't like adding things into the game that will purposely hurt players even more that what the penalty already is.

I was trying to be more helpful than a strict RAW reading. RAW is seldom more useful for determining outcomes than a combination of RAW, RAI, and context. It's not about hurting players. It's about creating a believable scenario.

Also, Perception checks are clearly relevant. Under Perception it lists eavesdropping under an open window as a relevant check. Is there a reason to have that listed if all sounds can be heard automatically with no difficulty? It's definitely an extrapolation that there needs to be a relevant amount of noise coming from a position to target it, but I'm pretty comfortable that it's a common interpretation, as no table I've ever played with has ruled differently.

Still, to each their own, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the playstyle of everyone having perfect perception on the battlefield. I kind of like the boardgame-esque feel of it, it has a chess match sort of tactical vibe.

[BiPolar]

This is an excellent example where the rules have a very clear penalty for Blindness (as described above with the Blinded condition)

If a player wants to go beyond and penalize himself for the sake of roleplay, give that man inspiration!

[Dmdork]

In the chaos of battle, it is entirely possible that if you are blind, you could mistakenly target an ally, thinking they are an enemy. Again, this is ultimately DM discretion, but it is well within reason.
This hits on my original first question about two "creatures" close to each other, one an enemy, one an ally. If I'm blind, can I successfully shoot the enemy with my bow from 30feet? Looks like the answer I got was 'DM discretion. I was hoping for more, but I'll take it!

[BiPolar]

This hits on my original first question about two "creatures" close to each other, one an enemy, one an ally. If I'm blind, can I successfully shoot the enemy with my bow from 30feet? Looks like the answer I got was 'DM discretion. I was hoping for more, but I'll take it!

DM Discretion is what it boils down to, but the condition of Blindness (which is what you're asking about) does NOT state that. It only gives you disadvantage on attacks, advantage on attacks against you and you automatically fail an ability check that relies on sight only. RAW you just pick your spot and attack with disadvantage.

Moving to opinion/RAI: PCs are not normal humans (or other types of creatures.) Just because you're blind, doesn't mean you can't use your other senses to find your target. That may have been the intent on this. Blindness gives you penalties, but doesn't mean you can no longer interact with your world.

[Sigreid]

This hits on my original first question about two "creatures" close to each other, one an enemy, one an ally. If I'm blind, can I successfully shoot the enemy with my bow from 30feet? Looks like the answer I got was 'DM discretion. I was hoping for more, but I'll take it!

This edition is largely about GM discretion. In many places they rolled back to general advice and the GM makes his best judgement call. This works for some people, and doesn't for others.

[Plaguescarred]

The entire game is at the DM's discretion and he can run it however he likes.

But rule wise it's that simple; when you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.