Anyone ever had a blind monk in their party?

[90sMusic]

I know a guy, you all know his type, some of you probably ARE his type, but he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long whenever he possibly can and he has a weird fixation with the concept of blind monks.

But of course he doesn't want to be JUST blind because that would be a crippling disability. He wants advantage on hearing perception checks in addition to blind sight and other crazy perks that make his condition more of a bonus instead of a penalty.

Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.

[Lombra]

Depending on the starting level these might be feasible boons, it would be cool if his sight became like the one of Toph from the last airbender (this would require from him to be a 4 elements monk focused on stone and earth theme) but not at level 1.

[Unoriginal]

I know a guy, you all know his type, some of you probably ARE his type, but he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long whenever he possibly can and he has a weird fixation with the concept of blind monks.

But of course he doesn't want to be JUST blind because that would be a crippling disability. He wants advantage on hearing perception checks in addition to blind sight and other crazy perks that make his condition more of a bonus instead of a penalty.

Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.

Shooting fire from your fingers or beating a gorilla in arm wrestling is also crazy, yet it still happens in D&D.

I'm not saying that you should allow him to have super hearing or blind sight for free, though.

If he wants to be blind, sure, why not, but it is a disability for a reason. He'd get all the disadvantages of not being able to see.

If then he wants to spend ressources (class features, feats, magic items...) to have Daredevil's superpower, that's another issue.

In my experience, that kind of players have PCs that hags and devils and other outsiders just love to meet because they're always ready to make bargains without realizing the consequences.

Would be fun if the guy who wanted a blind monk learns about the Grimlocks, though.

[qube]

he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long You do realise that it's a popular trope, no? Probbably most famous non-anime examples are Daredevil (Marvel), and Whills Chirrut (Star Wars: Rogue One) and as technically, the last airbender isn't anime, Toph as well ... And if all of those are too nerdy for you, Denzel Washington in Book of Eli.


Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.Not any crasier then that guy blowing someone up with his mind.

D&D 3.0 had an item called blindfold of true darkness (IIRC). It gave blindsight 60ft, but blindfolded you (no normal vision).

But in the end, it all depends on what you give it mechanically.

For balance; obvious caveats being invisibility won't do much against his character, nor (magic) darkness. ... but these can be countered with pretty low level abilities (fairy fire, devil sight).
So, if combined with penalities (for example, only extends 5ft - so has disadvantage on any ranged attack) you can balance it out.

[Quoxis]

I'd suggest taking two (or more) levels of warlock, which grants access to invocations, in this case: devil's sight. Fluff it as their superior senses, as it's pretty much the same as blindsight in most cases (except being actually blinded (fluff as "your superior senses are reduced by this magical force") or invisible creatures ("his invisibility is also making his movements silent")). As a weeb they'll probably like the idea of a blind dude selling their soul to a demon for demonic senses and powers, and warlock/(shadow) monk is mechanically a strong mc anyways, especially if you add hex into the equation.

[zeek0]

I'm into it. You just have to balance it right.

How about this:
Blindsight, 30 ft. radius. Fail any perception checks based soley on sight.
Advantage on perception checks related to hearing
Disadvantage onattacks made against creatures beyond 30 ft.
Attacks from beyond 30 ft. radius have advantage. (see: blinded condition)

A monk would be okay with this. Deflect missiles lets you avoid ranged attacks. No one will sneak up on you with a knife, but you'll have to watch out for a crossbowman/woman. Balances out, probably.

[polymphus]

Yeah I mean it could work but it's gotta be balanced properly. It sounds like he's trying to twist your arm so it's got no actual drawbacks. I'd give him a very short-range blindsense: maybe 15-25 feet.

Advantage on hearing-related checks is fine. It has a precedent: check the mastiff entry in the monster manual.

Just don't let him have his cake and eat it too.

[xroads]

I know a guy, you all know his type, some of you probably ARE his type, but he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long whenever he possibly can and he has a weird fixation with the concept of blind monks.

But of course he doesn't want to be JUST blind because that would be a crippling disability. He wants advantage on hearing perception checks in addition to blind sight and other crazy perks that make his condition more of a bonus instead of a penalty.

Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.

I'd probably let him fluff his vision however he wants, but with the caveat that mechanically it all works the same in the end.

For his part, I'd recommend he pick a race that has darkvision. Or pick human variant and choose either the Alert or Observant feat. He could refluff any of these as being benefits of his blind sight.

As for the notion of it being crazy, like has been mentioned previously, this D&D. The same game where bird men can cast lightning bolts at fire breathing dragons. As Vaarsuvius :vaarsuvius: has mentioned on several occasions, physics just sort of sits in a corner weeping to itself. :smallbiggrin:

[WaffleMage]

I know a guy, you all know his type, some of you probably ARE his type, but he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long whenever he possibly can and he has a weird fixation with the concept of blind monks.

But of course he doesn't want to be JUST blind because that would be a crippling disability. He wants advantage on hearing perception checks in addition to blind sight and other crazy perks that make his condition more of a bonus instead of a penalty.

Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.

Oh, actually i tried this fairly recently, i came up with this:
Set your background to folk hero's son, you get a magical item at the start, then just choose "The Blindfold of True Darkness" as the item.



Blindfold Of True Darkness
Price (Item Level): 9,000 gp (12th)
Body Slot: Face
Caster Level: 3rd
Aura: Faint; (DC 16) divination
Activation: —
Weight: —

This black, silky piece of cloth is completely opaque when held up to the light.

When you wear this blindfold, you gain the blindsight ability out to 30 feet. Because your eyes are protected, you are also immune to gaze attacks and spells or effects that rely on sight. You cannot use vision in any way while wearing the blindfold.




It'll look cool on a monk, and it grants you blind-sight for 30ft

[Honest Tiefling]

*sigh* Yes. Alongside the one-armed guy, the guy with one eye and the guy using a cane who somehow can all pull off kung-fu. Not to mention, the PC who is very clumsy...Until it comes to combat in which case she's a trained killer. Because that's how that works.

I handle it thusly: You don't get access to any ability that is not described in your class, race or feats. Your disability will be represented in both roleplay and in combat. It is up to you to figure out a way around this. If neither of those three options can compensate for your disability, that's not my fault.

I don't want to seem mean to any disabled folks who are getting along just fine, but these people don't want to play a blind person, they want to be Daredevil. Sorry, no free super powers for you. You get what everyone else gets and no more.

[MaxWilson]

I know a guy, you all know his type, some of you probably ARE his type, but he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long whenever he possibly can and he has a weird fixation with the concept of blind monks.

But of course he doesn't want to be JUST blind because that would be a crippling disability. He wants advantage on hearing perception checks in addition to blind sight and other crazy perks that make his condition more of a bonus instead of a penalty.

Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.

I had one about a year ago. She (the PC) was permanently blinded by the same enemy who killed her family, but she (the player) took Alert as her 0th level (human) feat, and I also gave her +2 to Dex as a consequence of learning to live with her blindness over several years. Her modus operandi in serious combat was to drop Darkness on herself (negates the disadvantage she would otherwise suffer from being unable to see them; gives enemies disadvantage to attack her) and go to town.

She was a fairly new player but she still had fun with the concept while the campaign lasted. (Real life issues.) She didn't last long enough to get a Greater Restoration to restore her sight, but that's what I had planned for her long-term, since 5E magic allows it.

There was a lot of sneaking around and lip reading in that campaign for some reason, which led to various amusing scenarios either because the monk missed some communication, or because the monk somehow DIDN'T miss out on something and it was funny to think about how she would have perceived it.

[90sMusic]

I had one about a year ago. She (the PC) was permanently blinded by the same enemy who killed her family, but she (the player) took Alert as her 0th level (human) feat, and I also gave her +2 to Dex as a consequence of learning to live with her blindness over several years. Her modus operandi in serious combat was to drop Darkness on herself (negates the disadvantage she would otherwise suffer from being unable to see them; gives enemies disadvantage to attack her) and go to town.

She was a fairly new player but she still had fun with the concept while the campaign lasted. (Real life issues.) She didn't last long enough to get a Greater Restoration to restore her sight, but that's what I had planned for her long-term, since 5E magic allows it.

There was a lot of sneaking around and lip reading in that campaign for some reason, which led to various amusing scenarios either because the monk missed some communication, or because the monk somehow DIDN'T miss out on something and it was funny to think about how she would have perceived it.

Now see, THIS I really like. Because that actually works without violating any rules. Casting darkness on yourself levels the playing field, at least at lower levels before everything that pops up has true sight, blind sight, and devil's sight.

Personally, I love players who give themselves penalties and real weaknesses. Usually people just want to min/max everything, so when someone plays a character that has actual flaws, I will reward them a lot more than the others.

[furby076]

I'm into it. You just have to balance it right.

How about this:
Blindsight, 30 ft. radius. Fail any perception checks based soley on sight.
Advantage on perception checks related to hearing
Disadvantage onattacks made against creatures beyond 30 ft.
Attacks from beyond 30 ft. radius have advantage. (see: blinded condition)

A monk would be okay with this. Deflect missiles lets you avoid ranged attacks. No one will sneak up on you with a knife, but you'll have to watch out for a crossbowman/woman. Balances out, probably.

Exactly. Having blindsight alone wont make you superior. You still cant see beyond it. I would go and improve the blindsight by 5' every 2 or 3 levels. At higher play, 30 feet can be death

[dejarnjc]

I'm into it. You just have to balance it right.

How about this:
Blindsight, 30 ft. radius. Fail any perception checks based soley on sight.
Advantage on perception checks related to hearing
Disadvantage onattacks made against creatures beyond 30 ft.
Attacks from beyond 30 ft. radius have advantage. (see: blinded condition)

A monk would be okay with this. Deflect missiles lets you avoid ranged attacks. No one will sneak up on you with a knife, but you'll have to watch out for a crossbowman/woman. Balances out, probably.

This would be my pick. Might be a little advantageous for a shadow monk in combat occasionally but if played straight up I see this being a disadvantage overall.

[furby076]

Now see, THIS I really like. Because that actually works without violating any rules. Casting darkness on yourself levels the playing field, at least at lower levels before everything that pops up has true sight, blind sight, and devil's sight.

Personally, I love players who give themselves penalties and real weaknesses. Usually people just want to min/max everything, so when someone plays a character that has actual flaws, I will reward them a lot more than the others.

Do you also love players who give themselves boosts? Im not a fan of "gimp yourself? Go for it. ..boost yourself? OMG POWER GAMING TROLL, DIAF"

[Spore]

The ideas in this thread are great but this feels still like the player wants to be "the most special snowflake ever". We had a player like that (which the DM booted after RL issues and replaced with me). Pathfinder had Monk vows that increased the Monk's Chi so naturally he took 5 of them. Cleanliness, Celibacy, Chains, Silence and Fasting, locking him out of basically any social interaction where he could get dirty, touch someone, have to talk to someone or eat something. He then tried to outclass everyone with his minmaxed monk.

I mean it's not as bad as his Summoner that takes the shape of a big 6 armed monster in all of his waking hours because he would be useless otherwise infight (summoning takes 1 minute) and largely ignoring any RP outside of combat, sitting in the corner for 3 hours crunching his combat numbers while we RP, but hey.

I for myself have played a pseudo-blind oracle in that system. Blind means clouded vision in that system, cutting your vision to 30 foot and adding darkvision. I refluffed that to her being actually blind and having some sort of life/heat sense (since she is basically a favored soul of a death/ice goddess).

So take my opinion with a grain of salt(yness). I would not offer the guy a Blindfold of True Darkness, at least not a permanent one. But I would not make him completely blind from a rules point either. Maybe have an entity cripple his vision permanently (a curse or divine mark does better because restoration will eventually be a thing that "takes away his unique trait"): A hag curses his mother. An evil cleric sacrifices his sight to his gods. He offers his sight to a greater evil to safe the love of his life. Have bandits not cut out his eyes but rub his teenage face into the ground like an ostrich because he cowered in fear while his monastery was slaughtered.

But most importantly talk about this openly. You can certainly allow his this one. Just don't start off on a giant rules exception that lays the foundation for him expecting to bend the rules to his whim any time.

[zeek0]

The ideas in this thread are great but this feels still like the player wants to be "the most special snowflake ever".

...

But most importantly talk about this openly. You can certainly allow his this one. Just don't start off on a giant rules exception that lays the foundation for him expecting to bend the rules to his whim any time.

I think that special snowflakes are alright. I mean, we are talking about heroes after all. They're cooler and/or better than you. I think your problems were with playstyle (min/maxing, number crunching, not fitting into the story), more than sheer uniqueness. After all, one can imagine any of your examples played well.

And I think that, as you say, clearly defined rules help with that. Then the snowflake is special in limited, interesting ways. The rules are agreed upon, and bounds are set.

The last thing you want is Superman style hearing. That'd be silly.

[Spore]

I think your problems were with playstyle (min/maxing, number crunching, not fitting into the story), more than sheer uniqueness.

Yes and no. He always took the classes, feats and skills that pushed his characters out of social interaction. He played a recluse alchemist that locked himself up in his tower between adventures. He played said monk. And he played his summoner with the distinct sentence that his eidolon cannot speak (rendering him unable to speak) and pushed his Intimidate score so high that he auto suceeds to keep everyone and anything at a distance. (And we are talking high magic pirate fleet were every ship has a 13+ level captain with the fleet's Captain being close to legendary level).

And he took himself willingly out of roleplaying while simultaneously complaining about the lack of combat. He expected a style of 1970's D&D with corridors and rooms filled with monsters. The rest of the group and the DM said they don't enjoy this. He should've switched groups right then and there.

[Findulidas]

I know a guy, you all know his type, some of you probably ARE his type, but he is the sort that basically sits in a dark room watching anime all day long whenever he possibly can and he has a weird fixation with the concept of blind monks.

But of course he doesn't want to be JUST blind because that would be a crippling disability. He wants advantage on hearing perception checks in addition to blind sight and other crazy perks that make his condition more of a bonus instead of a penalty.

Anyone else ever deal with this? I always say no to this because the whole notion is crazy.

In fiction its quite common to have people with disabilities be super good at martial arts or something. Like a blind weaponmaster, a superhero that has disabilities which supposedly makes him/her more powerful, or just plain badass anyway. Saying that someone has to be obsessed by anime or something along those lines in order to like these tropes is just not true. Granted it doesnt make sense but in a world fueled by rule of cool,rule of fun or justrule of awesome then quite frankly who cares. We arent here to do our taxes or walk the dog, were here to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

[Quoxis]

In fiction its quite common to have people with disabilities be super good at martial arts or something. Like a blind weaponmaster, a superhero that has disabilities which supposedly makes him/her more powerful, or just plain badass anyway. Saying that someone has to be obsessed by anime or something along those lines in order to like these tropes is just not true. Granted it doesnt make sense but in a world fueled by rule of cool,rule of fun or justrule of awesome then quite frankly who cares. We arent here to do our taxes or walk the dog, were here to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/37869249.jpg

OP didn't say the player wants a blind monk, therefore has to be a weeabo. Also they literally asked for help on that matter because they fear giving the player too much power, therefore lessening the fun of other characters, and the fact that they asked about it insteadof just ruling "NAH" shows they want to be peaceful and allowing at it.
Get over it, we're a bunch of geeks arguing about rules in a game where wizard orcs and barbarian gnomes battle each other, nobody here has the social status to tell you you're not cool for watching anime.

[RyumaruMG]

I'm into it. You just have to balance it right.

How about this:
Blindsight, 30 ft. radius. Fail any perception checks based soley on sight.
Advantage on perception checks related to hearing
Disadvantage onattacks made against creatures beyond 30 ft.
Attacks from beyond 30 ft. radius have advantage. (see: blinded condition)

A monk would be okay with this. Deflect missiles lets you avoid ranged attacks. No one will sneak up on you with a knife, but you'll have to watch out for a crossbowman/woman. Balances out, probably.

I'd do this, but with the caveat that being deafened also removes the blindsight. If it's based on his ability to hear, then deafening him would also remove his "sight."

[Jerrykhor]

In fiction its quite common to have people with disabilities be super good at martial arts or something. Like a blind weaponmaster, a superhero that has disabilities which supposedly makes him/her more powerful, or just plain badass anyway. Saying that someone has to be obsessed by anime or something along those lines in order to like these tropes is just not true. Granted it doesnt make sense but in a world fueled by rule of cool,rule of fun or justrule of awesome then quite frankly who cares. We arent here to do our taxes or walk the dog, were here to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

I happen to know the one word for that: DAREDEVIL

[Sir cryosin]

You do realise that it's a popular trope, no? Probbably most famous non-anime examples are Daredevil (Marvel), and Whills Chirrut (Star Wars: Rogue One) and as technically, the last airbender isn't anime, Toph as well ... And if all of those are too nerdy for you, Denzel Washington in Book of Eli.

Not any crasier then that guy blowing someone up with his mind.

D&D 3.0 had an item called blindfold of true darkness (IIRC). It gave blindsight 60ft, but blindfolded you (no normal vision).

But in the end, it all depends on what you give it mechanically.

For balance; obvious caveats being invisibility won't do much against his character, nor (magic) darkness. ... but these can be countered with pretty low level abilities (fairy fire, devil sight).
So, if combined with penalities (for example, only extends 5ft - so has disadvantage on any ranged attack) you can balance it out.

The moth monk in elder scrolls.

[strangebloke]

Custom feats and the like piss players that follow RAW off.

Custom magic items, on the other hand...

[ThurlRavenscrof]

You can make this work in the rules as many other people have pointed out. I don't think you need to create a custom feat or anything like that for the player. Especially since the player seems to have created this blind monk idea specifically because they want extra powers that aren't in the rules...

[qube]

How about this:
Blindsight, 30 ft. radius. Fail any perception checks based soley on sight.
Advantage on perception checks related to hearing
Disadvantage onattacks made against creatures beyond 30 ft.
Attacks from beyond 30 ft. radius have advantage. (see: blinded condition)30 ft iis a bit much, as blindsight negates things like invisibility. etc ... Hz could start to run around until the enemy 'hits' the 30ft range and pinpoint the enemy for the other PCs to see

while many melee characters suck at ranged combat anyways, so not seeing beyong 30ft probbably will not be a real downside.

[90sMusic]

Do you also love players who give themselves boosts? Im not a fan of "gimp yourself? Go for it. ..boost yourself? OMG POWER GAMING TROLL, DIAF"

You can play the game however you want. If you want to reward immature players who min/max everything to the highest degree possible because they think that "winning" the game, doing the most damage, being the most effective, and so on are the point of D&D then you go right ahead and do whatever you please.

Personally, I find D&D more enjoyable when you aren't playing with a bunch of teenagers who all want to be some anime hero. I have played in those games before as a player where everyone was some teen with "super powers", usually dressed in black, very anti-social and didn't like to talk at all and instead just wanted to do dramatic poses and tired tropes and cliches they watch in their unoriginal choice of tv programming. It makes for a horrific playing experience because all these anti-social people don't want to talk to NPCs or really interact with the world. They all want to be the badass loner that doesn't care about anything because caring about things isn't cool or edgy enough for them.

Over the years i've come to appreciate mature players who understand that character FLAWS and weaknesses and failures are what make the game more memorable and interesting. Mister God that never fails at anything is an insanely boring character concept. I mean, if your whole goal is living out some kind of wish fulfillment fantasy of being superman, I guess it works for you for a while, but even you would get tired of that character given enough time. In good stories, the ones that are the most memorable and interesting, the character has flaws. Real flaws, not something emo or edgy like they have two eyes of different colors and call that a "flaw".

One character's weakness gives an opportunity for another character's strength to shine through, reinforcing their need to stick together and work as a team. Failure is far more interesting in narrative than success is. I mean think about it, imagine if every plan the characters come up with worked 100% flawlessly with no consequences. It becomes absolutely predictable because you already know what will happen before it happens. Failure leads to interesting things happening and memorable moments.

It is a difference in the style people play the game. My groups and myself like approaching it from a narrative angle that values the quality of the story that is unfolding. Character development and plot are huge deals to us. People who only want to be the strongest person in town are incredibly cliche and boring and quite frankly none of us want to bother playing with them because they don't add anything interesting to the game. That loner who thinks it's cool to never talk to anyone is missing out on all the social interaction and party bonding with one another as well as being uninvolved with the whole story outside of combat.

Maybe he only likes the combat, and that's fine, but he's going to have to like it with another group because we only play with folks who like narrative. I will always reward players who play up their flaws, who intentionally give themselves weaknesses, and so on because it adds something interesting to the group dynamic. Hell, even the players handbook tells you that you should do this in the whole section that discusses character "flaws" because even the D&D game designers know it is true. Flaws are interesting. When players choose a flaw that never comes into play or isn't a real flaw or simply ignores it and never plays it out, it makes them boring players.

You can encourage min/maxing in your games till the cows come home, but I never will.

And how about a little racial diversity? People only choose races that have ability score bonuses that directly improve their character. You'd think ever military in the world of D&D would only have elves and halflings as rogues, dragonborn and half-orcs and goliaths as barbarians and fighters, gnome wizards, half-elf bards and paladins, etc. All of that is boring because it's what you always end up with when playing with those type of min/max players. A campaign without that is more interesting. Hell, I played an all gnome campaign with a full spread of classes that was a huge blast to play also.

D&D is a roleplaying game, roleplaying should always be the priority. If you only want to fight things, there are waaaaay better games you could be playing that have more interesting combat that encourage you to play that way.

[Quoxis]

Now see, THIS I really like. Because that actually works without violating any rules. Casting darkness on yourself levels the playing field, at least at lower levels before everything that pops up has true sight, blind sight, and devil's sight.

Personally, I love players who give themselves penalties and real weaknesses. Usually people just want to min/max everything, so when someone plays a character that has actual flaws, I will reward them a lot more than the others.

Not to take sides, but supporting this is neither by raw nor by rai ok.
1) playing a flawed character? Very well. My group has a barbarian who dumped int and just a few sessions ago was too ashamed he couldn't figure out the price for his drinks and bedding for the night combined, so he gave the innkeep 50gp and told him to keep the rest. Giving a character free bonuses for it? Unfair, especially if the bonus is a +2 for the classes main stat (monks live off of their dex, be it as attack stat, AC or saves...).
2) dropping darkness does indeed level it out - so at level 3(!) the literal disadvantage just lost almost all its meaning, at least in combat and assuming he casts darkness on his weapon or something instead of on the ground so he's still mobile.
Meanwhile, the player still has a +2 gift which is now even more unfair.

"I wanna play a guy who lost his tongue" - "he can't speak, but he can telepathically communicate now!"
"I wanna play a one armed dude who's a dual wielder!" - "Fine, he can hold both weapons in one hand, and you know what, that's such a feat of strength i'll give you a free +2 str too!"
"I wanna play a guy who can't cook." - "here, take +2 cha because he's constantly begging for food."

While others may powergame, you're encouraging bending the rules in a way that underpowers people who build their characters according to them. If your players are ok with that, fine, but i'd advise anyone trying to f*ck around with homebrew like that to ask their players in advance.

[busterswd]

Not to take sides, but supporting this is neither by raw nor by rai ok.
1) playing a flawed character? Very well. My group has a barbarian who dumped int and just a few sessions ago was too ashamed he couldn't figure out the price for his drinks and bedding for the night combined, so he gave the innkeep 50gp and told him to keep the rest. Giving a character free bonuses for it? Unfair, especially if the bonus is a +2 for the classes main stat (monks live off of their dex, be it as attack stat, AC or saves...).
2) dropping darkness does indeed level it out - so at level 3(!) the literal disadvantage just lost almost all its meaning, at least in combat and assuming he casts darkness on his weapon or something instead of on the ground so he's still mobile.
Meanwhile, the player still has a +2 gift which is now even more unfair.

"I wanna play a guy who lost his tongue" - "he can't speak, but he can telepathically communicate now!"
"I wanna play a one armed dude who's a dual wielder!" - "Fine, he can hold both weapons in one hand, and you know what, that's such a feat of strength i'll give you a free +2 str too!"
"I wanna play a guy who can't cook." - "here, take +2 cha because he's constantly begging for food."

While others may powergame, you're encouraging bending the rules in a way that underpowers people who build their characters according to them. If your players are ok with that, fine, but i'd advise anyone trying to f*ck around with homebrew like that to ask their players in advance.

You're glossing over a couple of things:

-Darkness is a level 2 spell. It's a significant resource at lower levels that requires concentration. Using it also screws any allies who aren't Warlocks with Devil's Sight that would like to hit the same target. Best case scenario, at level 3, you've got Darkness up for 20 minutes, most likely 2-4 instances of combat without having your concentration disrupted.

-Blindness actually has significant, fairly crippling mechanical disadvantages, that casting Darkness doesn't erase; you're just making sure everyone is blind. You can literally do the same thing just by casting Darkness without being blind. Your given examples 100% negate the disadvantage.

[Malifice]

It sounds like a cool concept.

I would give the PC blindsight 30' (but blind beyond this radius).

That makes him pretty much impossible to hide from within 30 feet, but gives him serious problems for creatures that are further out.

[90sMusic]

Not to take sides, but supporting this is neither by raw nor by rai ok.
1) playing a flawed character? Very well. My group has a barbarian who dumped int and just a few sessions ago was too ashamed he couldn't figure out the price for his drinks and bedding for the night combined, so he gave the innkeep 50gp and told him to keep the rest. Giving a character free bonuses for it? Unfair, especially if the bonus is a +2 for the classes main stat (monks live off of their dex, be it as attack stat, AC or saves...).
2) dropping darkness does indeed level it out - so at level 3(!) the literal disadvantage just lost almost all its meaning, at least in combat and assuming he casts darkness on his weapon or something instead of on the ground so he's still mobile.
Meanwhile, the player still has a +2 gift which is now even more unfair.

"I wanna play a guy who lost his tongue" - "he can't speak, but he can telepathically communicate now!"
"I wanna play a one armed dude who's a dual wielder!" - "Fine, he can hold both weapons in one hand, and you know what, that's such a feat of strength i'll give you a free +2 str too!"
"I wanna play a guy who can't cook." - "here, take +2 cha because he's constantly begging for food."

While others may powergame, you're encouraging bending the rules in a way that underpowers people who build their characters according to them. If your players are ok with that, fine, but i'd advise anyone trying to f*ck around with homebrew like that to ask their players in advance.

You... Apparently did not read this thread at all, you seem to be mixing up who said what because I NEVER said I give players extra ability scores, I never said I grant them powerful rule-bending bonuses, I never said any of that. You are reading that from posts other people have made and applying them to me for whatever reason. All I said was that I "reward" players who give themselves flaws. I guess you're misconstruing your own concept of what constitutes as a reward and applying it to me, but you should really stop doing that because you don't know what i'm talking about. :)

Every single complaint in your entire post is invalid because it is all 100% wrong. I suggest reading MY comments in this thread by themselves and not mixing up comments made by other people in your head.

In fact, my favorite idea in this entire thread was the idea of using darkness in that way specifically because it conforms to all the rules as written without changing anything. That is what made me enjoy it so much.

I reward my players for playing up their flaws by giving them inspiration, as it is written in the rules. I reward my players who have interesting characters by spending more time on their personal stories involving their backstories, their families, past acquaintances, their ultimate goals, and so on. Giving them boons that counter their weaknesses completely invalidates the entire purpose of having a weakness and turns them into a run of the mill shmuck like everyone else, thus killing what I liked about the character.

Reward doesn't mean combat upgrade. That is the entire mentality I dislike about some people who play D&D because that is all they seem to think about.

[TripleD]

In fiction its quite common to have people with disabilities be super good at martial arts or something. Like a blind weaponmaster, a superhero that has disabilities which supposedly makes him/her more powerful, or just plain badass anyway.

What I find funny is that, in all the years I've played D&D I've seen plenty of suggestions for blind monks, swordsmen, etc. but never Bards. Despite the fact that "musician/storyteller" was a near universal occupation available to blind people throughout history.

Heck, I'm 90% sure that the second bard pictured in the PHB is supposed to be blind (his eyes are covered and it looks like he's using his hand to read the inscription)

[djreynolds]

Just play him blind then. A real dude. Who has disadvantage on attacks.

Now if you wish to perhaps stylize him after the guy in RougeOne... cool.

So find something that would cancel out the disadvantage. Well a hooting owl seems cool. Some form of help, like a mastermind rogue who buddies up with and uses his BA for the help action

Check out the new mystic class, I have a player at my table who is a mystic/monk and this is what he/she will have to do.

[AttilatheYeon]

Yeah, he was cool except someone always had to read his dice for him!😂

[zeek0]

Whew, cool it up there. Players play how they wanna play. Have fun. Yeesh.

In the subject of mechanics, you could grant tremorsense instead (perhaps tremorsense 30 and blindsense 10). This is similar, but has a more Toph-style to it. You aren't guaranteed to sense an enemy (esp. if they are still), and flying/incoporeal creatures present a problem.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly I think Blindsight to 30ft is too much of a free benefit.

It'd probably should cost him a class feature. I mean, training to do that kind of thing is going to eat the time you could have spent training in your class.

[Quoxis]

You... Apparently did not read this thread at all, you seem to be mixing up who said what because I NEVER said I give players extra ability scores, I never said I grant them powerful rule-bending bonuses, I never said any of that. You are reading that from posts other people have made and applying them to me for whatever reason. All I said was that I "reward" players who give themselves flaws. I guess you're misconstruing your own concept of what constitutes as a reward and applying it to me, but you should really stop doing that because you don't know what i'm talking about. :)

Every single complaint in your entire post is invalid because it is all 100% wrong. I suggest reading MY comments in this thread by themselves and not mixing up comments made by other people in your head.

In fact, my favorite idea in this entire thread was the idea of using darkness in that way specifically because it conforms to all the rules as written without changing anything. That is what made me enjoy it so much.

I reward my players for playing up their flaws by giving them inspiration, as it is written in the rules. I reward my players who have interesting characters by spending more time on their personal stories involving their backstories, their families, past acquaintances, their ultimate goals, and so on. Giving them boons that counter their weaknesses completely invalidates the entire purpose of having a weakness and turns them into a run of the mill shmuck like everyone else, thus killing what I liked about the character.

Reward doesn't mean combat upgrade. That is the entire mentality I dislike about some people who play D&D because that is all they seem to think about.

You said you were a fan of the idea stated in the post you answered to in my quote.
The post said, and i am quoting, "and I also gave her +2 to Dex as a consequence of learning to live with her blindness over several years."
You didn't specify that you were opposed to this part of the idea and you can try to weasel yourself out of it as much as you like, but you can't blame me for not being able to read what you didn't write.

Lawyering aside: stick to the rules and you can "gimp" yourself as much as you like. If you can roleplay that well, good for everyone. I think we can agree on that. But imo, good roleplay isn't bound to stuff like that. You can have a powercreep player whose character is constantly trying to become a better combattant - that's roleplaying too.

[Garresh]

If you're starting at a higher level, you can actually build what he wants using entirely in game mechanics, without resorting to homebrew. What he's asking for is too powerful IMHO, unless you can attach some hefty drawbacks, so why not just help him build it using existing systems?

As another poster mentioned, Devils Sight is perfect for his build, and warlock could also grab Eldritch Sight for extra flavor. His extra senses are SO honed he can hear magic auras and tell exactly where they are. Now add a level of rogue for expertise in Perception checks and other other skill of his choice. Maybe stealth or insight? NOW pick up Observant as a feat. If he's human, this works even better. I'll use level 5 as a point of comparison because that's when his monk has enough levels to feel like a monk. If he's starting at 1, pick up Observant as a human, take 2 levels in monk, then 1 in rogue, then 2 in warlock. Basically he's starting blind and learning and honing his senses as he levels.

At level 5, his passive perception is a whopping *24*. He can see through darkness as good as light. And his natural attunement to sound and air currents gives him the ability to either stealth like a pro or read others intensions by aura alone.

Bam. Exactly what he wants without changing rules.

Edit: Also don't knock Otaku. They may be weird(I'm not big on anime either), but this is DnD. It's all about the heroic fantasy, so just because his take is different doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here.

[90sMusic]

You said you were a fan of the idea stated in the post you answered to in my quote.
The post said, and i am quoting, "and I also gave her +2 to Dex as a consequence of learning to live with her blindness over several years."
You didn't specify that you were opposed to this part of the idea and you can try to weasel yourself out of it as much as you like, but you can't blame me for not being able to read what you didn't write.

Lawyering aside: stick to the rules and you can "gimp" yourself as much as you like. If you can roleplay that well, good for everyone. I think we can agree on that. But imo, good roleplay isn't bound to stuff like that. You can have a powercreep player whose character is constantly trying to become a better combattant - that's roleplaying too.

I didn't explicitly specify I was opposed to the ability score aspect because I didn't realize i'd be put on internet trial by someone with too much free time later on. When I DID explicitly say, however, was only about the darkness part and I did say I enjoyed it because it didn't violate any rules which should've been a clue it wasn't in reference to the added ability scores because giving that kind of bonus requires homebrewing things.

In fact, the entire purpose of this thread was me complaining about players who wanted to do this exact thing, where they want to homebrew themselves into more power, trying to justify it was some kind of downside.

If you can't understand that or comprehend context clues, that's all on you.

But at the end of the day, what I do in my games doesn't affect you in one way or the other regardless. So I will continue to play with mature players who understand how to make good narrative and interesting character choices, you stomping around with your arms crossed making angry faces at me isn't going to change that. In fact, if you were even worth changing opinions for at all, i'd probably do the opposite of whatever you wanted just because I don't care much for your attitude. But feel free to continue to flail away at me and try to justify yourself, i'm just going to ignore it so you'll be wasting your time but I get the feeling you have way too much of that anyway.