Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

[Nifft]

The 3e condition Dazzled is notable for being underwhelming.

Here's what the SRD has to say:



Dazzled

The creature is unable to see well because of overstimulation of the eyes. A dazzled creature takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, Search checks, and Spot checks.
... yeah.

Underwhelming.

In contrast, here's what happens when you're blinded:


Blinded

The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.



One thing I note is that the penalties for being Blinded are very similar to the bonuses for being Invisible -- and that's no surprise, since they're opposite sides of the visibility spectrum, if you will.

But that makes me wonder: if Blinded => total concealment (50% miss chance), then perhaps Dazzled => partial concealment (20% miss chance) -- basically, if you're Dazzled, then everyone else gets partial Concealment for the duration.

Would that make the spells that apply Dazzled more viable?

What house rules do you use for Dazzled?

[Crake]

While it is a decent suggestion, and certainly does follow decent logic, it does make dazzled suddenly way stronger against rogues. The thing about dazzled is that it's really easy to apply and rarely has a save associated with it, instead typically being the lesser effect of a "save partial" spell or ability. While for other martials, concealment would just become a minor inconvenience, a rogue suddenly becomes useless in combat. Overall it's a pretty heavy nerf to a class that really doesn't need it.

[Vhaidara]

I think Dazzled is supposed to be a minor ribbon like penalty, not something strong. It's never meant to be the main draw of a spell.

Also, it's far from the worst debuff. That honor goes to "being on fire". 1d6 damage a round. DC 15 save to stop being on fire.

[Psyren]

I'm in favor of making it a percentage miss instead of a tiny penalty.


While it is a decent suggestion, and certainly does follow decent logic, it does make dazzled suddenly way stronger against rogues.

Just call it "miss chance" instead of "concealment" and you won't disable precision damage, easy :smallsmile:


I think Dazzled is supposed to be a minor ribbon like penalty, not something strong. It's never meant to be the main draw of a spell.

Also, it's far from the worst debuff. That honor goes to "being on fire". 1d6 damage a round. DC 15 save to stop being on fire.

To be fair, being on fire can actually kill you by itself, especially early on. Dazzled at least requires something else around.

[rel]

I like it. Call it a miss chance.
Explicitly call out that it does not affect precision damage since rogues don't need the debuff.
Explicitly call out that it does affect targeted spells (e.g. baleful polymorph) since casters need the debuff.

[Crake]

I'm in favor of making it a percentage miss instead of a tiny penalty.



Just call it "miss chance" instead of "concealment" and you won't disable precision damage, easy :smallsmile:

Just calling it a "miss chance" instead of concealment doesn't really make much of a difference. I mean sure, if you explicitly say it doesn't affect precision damage, then fine, but the intent of the rules behind precision damage is quite clear:


The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.

If you're dazzled, a condition specifically affectiong sight, and you're getting a miss chance because of it, then it makes sense that you wouldn't be able see well enough to sneak attack. And again, dazzled is just one of those conditions that's really easy to apply, often not having a save to resist and it's balanced around that, so this isn't a minor upgrade, it's a huge upgrade.

[Uckleverry]

Anything you add to Dazzled should probably be fairly minor since the baseline rules assume it's a weak effect and thus it's associated with low-level spells and effects.

You could simply double the penalties, although I think that would make it very similar to some existing conditions.

You could make it stackable, as an exception to the general condition rules.

The stacking could be similar to how fear effects work, so that at 3 or so stacks the condition worsens to Blinded.

What about ranged attacks? Maybe Dazzled could double the attack roll penalty derived from range increments, so that it becomes -4 instead of -2.

[Crake]

Anything you add to Dazzled should probably be fairly minor since the baseline rules assume it's a weak effect and thus it's associated with low-level spells and effects.

You could simply double the penalties, although I think that would make it very similar to some existing conditions.

You could make it stackable, as an exception to the general condition rules.

The stacking could be similar to how fear effects work, so that at 3 or so stacks the condition worsens to Blinded.

What about ranged attacks? Maybe Dazzled could double the attack roll penalty derived from range increments, so that it becomes -4 instead of -2.

Now these are some suggestions I could get on board with. Stacking to the point of being blinded seems like a more elegant solution.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Have it apply a -10 penalty to Concentration checks. Or a -5 if you think that's too harsh, but concentration's a joke past low levels anyway.

Really, in general I've grown annoyed at the condition options as a DM for how so many of them mess up martials but don't really affect casters. I'm in favor of expanding negative conditions for casters, dazzled seems as good a place to do that as any.

[Psyren]

Just calling it a "miss chance" instead of concealment doesn't really make much of a difference. I mean sure, if you explicitly say it doesn't affect precision damage, then fine, but the intent of the rules behind precision damage is quite clear:



If you're dazzled, a condition specifically affectiong sight, and you're getting a miss chance because of it, then it makes sense that you wouldn't be able see well enough to sneak attack. And again, dazzled is just one of those conditions that's really easy to apply, often not having a save to resist and it's balanced around that, so this isn't a minor upgrade, it's a huge upgrade.

I don't interpret "see well enough" that broadly. By that definition, regular Dazzled (the current version) should disable sneak attack too, and it clearly does not.

If you do, then fine, add the clause rel mentioned. Problem solved again.