Fixing the blindness rules

[clash]

So prompted by a few other threads currently in the works, I wanted to see if we could brainstorm a fix to the blindness rules.

Problem: A blind man attacking a blind man(for example when they are both in fog cloud) has both advantage and disadvantage canceling out and making it just normal attacks.

Extended problem: A character with multiple source of disadvantage in fog cloud suddenly can make attacks as normal. Great for prone archers or attacking at long range or any bypassing any number of disadvantage circumstances in a way that makes little to no sense and is open for exploitation.

Question: How can this be changed so that 1) it makes more sense, and 2) cant be used to game the system?

[tieren]

I think disadvantage to ranged attacks based on range or the target being prone should instead be treated like partial cover (an AC adjustment) and therefore won't be cancelled out by vision issues (two blind archers at long range having better chances of hitting each other than 2 sighted archers at long range).

[Rebonack]

Specify that you only get advantage on attacks against Blinded targets if you can see them.

POW!

Done.

[DivisibleByZero]

The fix is easy.
Make an exception to the normal Adv/DisAdv rules. If you can't see your target, you attack at Disadvantage. Full stop. Advantage will not counter this, nor cancel it out.

[Lombra]

There's nothing to fix. The outcome of a fight between two blind men who know where their opponent is is likely the same outcome of two men fighting normally.

Attacking blindly would be very ineffective versus someone who can see what you are doing, but against someone that can't see what he has to defend against? Not so much.

Y'all need to work on your abstractions.

What would improve giving both participants disadvantage to their attack rolls? It only slows down combat, which would already be slowed by guessong where your opponent is.

[clash]

Specify that you only get advantage on attacks against Blinded targets if you can see them.


Well this would have to be in the unseen attackers rules rather than blindness but that's not a bad fix.

change:

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

to

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it if you can see it.

[clash]

There's nothing to fix. The outcome of a fight between two blind men who know where their opponent is is likely the same outcome of two men fighting normally.

Attacking blindly would be very ineffective versus someone who can see what you are doing, but against someone that can't see what he has to defend against? Not so much.

Y'all need to work on your abstractions.

Ya but the problem is that 2 blind archers fighting have higher accuracy against each other at long range while prone than 2 archers that can see do at long range.

[tieren]

There's nothing to fix. The outcome of a fight between two blind men who know where their opponent is is likely the same outcome of two men fighting normally.

Y'all need to work on your abstractions.

What would improve giving both participants disadvantage to their attack rolls? It only slows down combat, which would already be slowed by guessong where your opponent is.

But now put them 200 feet apart and give them longbows. The two blind opponents under the current rules suddenly become better at attacking one another than two sighted opponents with the same weapons at the same range.

[Lombra]

Ya but the problem is that 2 blind archers fighting have higher accuracy against each other at long range while prone than 2 archers that can see do at long range.

I don't see an issue. They can't see the arrow coming if they're blind, making it harder to avoid it. This assumes that the archers know and can hit the target's spot.

[Lombra]

But now put them 200 feet apart and give them longbows. The two blind opponents under the current rules suddenly become better at attacking one another than two sighted opponents with the same weapons at the same range.

Attack rolls are a abstraction. They don't become better archers, it becomes easier to get hurt if both are handicapped because now they have less ways to defend themselves.

[Tanarii]

1 house rules and one added ruling that I find help:

House rule: If you can't see someone, they have advantage to attack you, unless they also cannot see you.

Ruling: You have to guess the location of some targets you cannot see. This is implied in the hitting things you cannot see rules, but never made explicit. Nor details given on how to handle it if you do require it. I use perception checks to pinpoint any creature that's far-ish away, creatures generally don't need to guess in melee.

[tieren]

Attack rolls are a abstraction. They don't become better archers, it becomes easier to get hurt if both are handicapped because now they have less ways to defend themselves.

Fair enough, how about this one, blind archer shooting at enemy 200 feet away, has greater invisibility cast on himself and now doubles his accuracy.

[Lombra]

Fair enough, how about this one, blind archer shooting at enemy 200 feet away, has greater invisibility cast on himself and now doubles his accuracy.

Same issue, the opponent can't see the attacker, it's harder for him to defend himself.

[Lombra]

1 house rules and one added ruling that I find help:

House rule: If you can't see someone, they have advantage to attack you, unless they also cannot see you.

Ruling: You have to guess the location of some targets you cannot see. This is implied in the hitting things you cannot see rules, but never made explicit. Nor details given on how to handle it if you do require it. I use perception checks to pinpoint any creature that's far-ish away, creatures generally don't need to guess in melee.

Your ruling is what I use too, all the discussions I make for this topic are assuming that the partecipants know each other's position, otherwise it would require some kind of check/luck/player's insight to hit the opponent in the first place.

[Tanarii]

Your ruling is what I use too, all the discussions I make for this topic are assuming that the partecipants know each other's position, otherwise it would require some kind of check/luck/player's insight to hit the opponent in the first place.
Fair enough. It certainly helps address the blind archer issue, or one unable to see a target 300 ft away in a Fog Cloud, in terms of the abstraction making some sense.

Edit: Off the top of my head, I think I set the DC for a perception check to detect a creature making no effort to be quiet at DC 10 at 30ft. -5 for each ten ft less or halving, +5 for each doubling or +5/60ft. I'd have to check my crib notes to be sure though, it's been a while since I had to use it and I keep fine tuning my hearing stuff rules a bit.

[Armored Walrus]

Ya but the problem is that 2 blind archers fighting have higher accuracy against each other at long range while prone than 2 archers that can see do at long range.

No they don't, they have disadvantage. A second instance of disadvantage doesn't cancel disadvantage... Never mind, unseen attacker grants advantage...

[DivisibleByZero]

Ya but the problem is that 2 blind archers fighting have higher accuracy against each other at long range while prone than 2 archers that can see do at long range.
No they don't, they have disadvantage. A second instance of disadvantage doesn't cancel disadvantage...

2 archers at long range = disadvantage.

2 blind, prone archers at long range:
prone = disadvantage
long range = disadvantage
blind = disadvantage
opponent also blind = can't see you = advantage
result = attack as normal

Two archers at long range attack each other at disadvantage.
Two blind, prone archers at long range attack each other normally.

[Armored Walrus]

2 archers at long range = disadvantage.

2 blind, prone archers at long range:
prone = disadvantage
long range = disadvantage
blind = disadvantage
opponent also blind = can't see you = advantage
result = attack as normal

Two archers at long range attack each other at disadvantage.
Two blind, prone archers at long range attack each other normally.

Yep, post redacted.

Although I'll say this. This is only a problem if your games are rife with blind archers. :P

[DivisibleByZero]

Yep, post redacted.

Although I'll say this. This is only a problem if your games are rife with blind archers. :P

It's a problem for many games, due to the Darkness spell, which is why I use the house rule outlined above. If you can't see your target, you attack at disadvantage, with no exceptions and no canceling out from advantage.

[Lombra]

It's a problem for many games, due to the Darkness spell, which is why I use the house rule outlined above. If you can't see your target, you attack at disadvantage, with no exceptions and no canceling out from advantage.

Out of curiosity: what does this improve in your games? Why would it be worse if the rolls were made normally?

[DivisibleByZero]

Out of curiosity: what does this improve in your games? Why would it be worse if the rolls were made normally?

It improves and creates some semblance of realism, particularly where ranged attacks are concerned.
It's less of a problem in melee, because there it at least makes a tiny bit of sense.

For ranged attacks, it makes zero sense.
If I'm shooting at a prone enemy, how does my casting Darkness and losing the ability to see him at all suddenly make me better at shooting him? That's the most backwards thing you could propose.

[Lombra]

I think that the reason why many can't wrap their head around it is that they see the attack roll itself as in a 1:1 comparison with swinging the sword, while actually, it's just the numbers rolled and how they interact with each ither that determine the outcome of the attack, hence, advantage and disadvantage do not mean anything in-game, it's just a different way to compute the roll, which by itself means nothing.

I don't feel like I expressed myself clearly enaugh, but my limits have been reached, so please try your hardest to understand my reasoning.

[Lombra]

It improves and creates some semblance of realism, particularly where ranged attacks are concerned.
It's less of a problem in melee, because there it at least makes a tiny bit of sense.

For ranged attacks, it makes zero sense.
If I'm shooting at a prone enemy, how does my casting Darkness and losing the ability to see him at all suddenly make me better at shooting him? That's the most backwards thing you could propose.

Why is the number of dice you roll influencung realism? I can't get that, prabably because your vision is much more pragmatic than mine? I don't know.

Your example does sound absurd, but actually it's not that bad, if you can't see the attack, it's harder for you to defend yourself... the archer here does not get it for free tho, as you said, he no longer sees his target, and there should be some kind of check to determinate if the archer can hit the desired location. I can understand that it feels like a huge leap, I don't kow, it's so abstract that it's hard for me to explain how I can justify it.

[MaxWilson]

So prompted by a few other threads currently in the works, I wanted to see if we could brainstorm a fix to the blindness rules.

Problem: A blind man attacking a blind man(for example when they are both in fog cloud) has both advantage and disadvantage canceling out and making it just normal attacks.

Extended problem: A character with multiple source of disadvantage in fog cloud suddenly can make attacks as normal. Great for prone archers or attacking at long range or any bypassing any number of disadvantage circumstances in a way that makes little to no sense and is open for exploitation.

Question: How can this be changed so that 1) it makes more sense, and 2) cant be used to game the system?

Melee attacks are easier against a target who can't see you presumably because those attacks cannot be parried; ranged attacks typically cannot be parried anyway (assuming here that an arrow or Fire Bolt is faster than a thrown Dodgeball) so there shouldn't be as much relative advantage from being unseen.

So the rule I like to use is that being unseen by your target grants advantage on melee attacks, but not on ranged attacks, while being unable to see your target grants disadvantage on either. Thus, blind men can fight blind men without any particular problem (this is partly due to player feedback--my players don't WANT to be ineffective in blind-on-blind melee combat) except not getting opportunity attacks and it being easier to Hide from them; but blind men can't shoot each other at a hundred paces without problems, nor can they drop fog clouds to counter ranged penalties or prone targets.

Fortunately 5E has a built-in "melee"/"ranged" tag on every attack so you can still distinguish a melee attack at 15' (Bugbear with a polearm) from a ranged attack at 5' (Net attack at short range). Conceptually one difference is that a melee attack can be redirected in-flight and come in from an unexpected angle, but a ranged attack is fire-and-forget.

[Armored Walrus]

For what it's worth, DivisiblebyZero, whether someone agrees that the fix is needed or not, your fix is everything a mechanic should be. Simple, balanced, and easy to apply. It's a very elegant solution, so I'll stop quibbling with it. ;)

I've figured out why your avatar is bald and his beard is fully white, though. Trying to impose verisimilitude on D&D mechanics is an exercise in frustration.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why is the number of dice you roll influencung realism? I can't get that, prabably because your vision is much more pragmatic than mine? I don't know.

Your example does sound absurd, but actually it's not that bad, if you can't see the attack, it's harder for you to defend yourself... the archer here does not get it for free tho, as you said, he no longer sees his target, and there should be some kind of check to determinate if the archer can hit the desired location. I can understand that it feels like a huge leap, I don't kow, it's so abstract that it's hard for me to explain how I can justify it.

You don't have to explain it.
I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, and why you feel that way. I get it. I can see it.
I just disagree.

[tieren]

I think that the reason why many can't wrap their head around it is that they see the attack roll itself as in a 1:1 comparison with swinging the sword, while actually, it's just the numbers rolled and how they interact with each ither that determine the outcome of the attack, hence, advantage and disadvantage do not mean anything in-game, it's just a different way to compute the roll, which by itself means nothing.

I don't feel like I expressed myself clearly enaugh, but my limits have been reached, so please try your hardest to understand my reasoning.

I get what you are saying, and I can visualize the abstraction. However I think the issue is the probabilities of success, to hit an AC 10 target there is a certain probability to hit on my roll given my modifiers, doesn't matter if it is with a sword or bow (assuming same modifiers).

[Matticusrex]

blindness rules are absolutely fine, any changes will just disbalance the system as shown in this thread. Greater invisibility would eat these house rules up.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why is the number of dice you roll influencung realism? I can't get that, prabably because your vision is much more pragmatic than mine? I don't know.

Your example does sound absurd, but actually it's not that bad, if you can't see the attack, it's harder for you to defend yourself... the archer here does not get it for free tho, as you said, he no longer sees his target, and there should be some kind of check to determinate if the archer can hit the desired location. I can understand that it feels like a huge leap, I don't kow, it's so abstract that it's hard for me to explain how I can justify it.
You don't have to explain it.
I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, and why you feel that way. I get it. I can see it.
I just disagree.

What he was trying to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Adv and DisAdv are meant to stand in for changing circumstances where one party or the other has an actual Advantage over the other. The term is quite apt.
In this case, where Adv and DisAdv cancel each other out to create no advantage for either party makes sense.
The idea is that, because you cannot see your attacker, you cannot adequately defend yourself (block/parry/roll/dodge/dip/duck/dive/dodge) from his or her attacks. You are at a disadvantage because you don't know where or when to do those things to protect yourself.
But your attacker cannot see you, so his aim may stray.
He is at a disadvantage.
Those two balance out, so no one has an actual advantage over the other. Even ground.
We can both hear and potentially feel the other moving next to us. Neither of us can see each other. Neither of us can properly defend ourselves. It's an even playing field.
I get it.

And as I said, in melee that kind of makes sense. I get it. It even makes sense for ranged attacks....
....if it didn't create a situation where my enemy could have an advantage over me, and my tactical response is to create another disadvantage for myself (and him, yes, also for him), and the result of my compounding multiple disadvantages for myself is that now my probability to hit him has increased.
"Bad situation? I know what I'll do! I'll make it even harder on myself! That'll fix it!"
I can't hear or potentially feel where he is. I'm literally shooting blindly at a target that I found difficult to hit a moment ago when I could actually see him.
I just can't deal with that "logic," no matter how much I might agree that it makes sense in melee.

[Lombra]

What he was trying to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Adv and DisAdv are meant to stand in for changing circumstances where one party or the other has an actual Advantage over the other. The term is quite apt.
In this case, where Adv and DisAdv cancel each other out to create no advantage for either party makes sense.
The idea is that, because you cannot see your attacker, you cannot adequately defend yourself (block/parry/roll/dodge/dip/duck/dive/dodge) from his or her attacks. You are at a disadvantage because you don't know where or when to do those things to protect yourself.
But your attacker cannot see you, so his aim may stray.
He is at a disadvantage.
Those two balance out, so no one has an actual advantage over the other. Even ground.
I get it.

And as I said, in melee that kind of makes sense. I get it. It even makes sense for ranged attacks....
....if it didn't create a situation where my enemy could have an advantage over me, and my tactical response is to create another disadvantage for myself (and him, yes, also for him), and the result of my compounding multiple disadvantages for myself is that now my probability to hit him has increased.
Bad situation? I know what I'll do! I'll make it even harder on myself! That'll fix it!
I just can't deal with that "logic," no matter how much I might agree that it makes sense in melee.

Gotcha. I'm happy that I managed to bring my point across, as you understood it perfectly, I just seem to be able to justify your last bit, appearently we just can't agree on this one :biggrin:

[DivisibleByZero]

Gotcha. I'm happy that I managed to bring my point across, as you understood it perfectly, I just seem to be able to justify your last bit, appearently we just can't agree on this one :biggrin:

Right. It's as I said, I knew where you were coming from right out of the gate. Not because you got the point across, per se, but because I could already see that side of the fence from where I was.
I just disagree with it.

[clash]

I wonder if this issue is more a matter of instances of advantage/disadvantage not stacking at all. Not in the way that you should get 3 dice and take the best, but rather if you have 3 things causing disadvantage and only one causing advantage, should it be net disadvantage?

[Lombra]

I wonder if this issue is more a matter of instances of advantage/disadvantage not stacking at all. Not in the way that you should get 3 dice and take the best, but rather if you have 3 things causing disadvantage and only one causing advantage, should it be net disadvantage?

Idk, getting helped by someone to stab a blind enemy while surrounded by magical darkness doesn't feel like I have a decisive upper hand? The disadvantage source does interfere with all of my advantage sources...

[Unoriginal]

As per the 5e rules:

If you can't see your opponent nor have any clues of where they are, you have to guess and select a space to target, hitting whoever stand there on a successful roll, and if you aim at an empty space you hit nothing.

There is no fix needed. Two blind archers would have to be extremely lucky to hit the one they want.

[DivisibleByZero]

I wonder if this issue is more a matter of instances of advantage/disadvantage not stacking at all. Not in the way that you should get 3 dice and take the best, but rather if you have 3 things causing disadvantage and only one causing advantage, should it be net disadvantage?
Idk, getting helped by someone to stab a blind enemy while surrounded by magical darkness doesn't feel like I have a decisive upper hand? The disadvantage source does interfere with all of my advantage sources...

They were trying to get away from stacking things like this in 5e, and went for a more simplistic approach. No more +2/+4/+2/-2/-6/+1 keep track of it all and add it all up every single roll. No Adv/DisAdv/Adv/Adv/DisAdv, keep track of it all and cancel out individually. Now it's just all or nothing. And I like that, in a general sense.
I just think they ignored something that should have obviously been an exception, and so in my games I make that exception.

[greenstone]

Problem: A blind man attacking a blind man(for example when they are both in fog cloud) has both advantage and disadvantage canceling out and making it just normal attacks.

Why is that a problem? What issues has it caused at your table?

[Malifice]

Problem: A blind man attacking a blind man(for example when they are both in fog cloud) has both advantage and disadvantage canceling out and making it just normal attacks.

One cant see his opponent to hit him properly. His target cant see the punches coming so cant dodge them properly.

Sounds about right really.

Intrestingly either party could walk away safely seeing as you can only make an attack of opportunity against a 'target you can see'.

Neither party could cast many spells on each other (magic missile, charm person, hex, dominate person and even power word kill require 'a target you can see'). Ditto with many special abilities.

So its fair to say that both parties are hampered.

Also note that either combatant could (instead of flailiing around at his target) simply Hide from the other person.

[Zalabim]

Melee attacks are easier against a target who can't see you presumably because those attacks cannot be parried; ranged attacks typically cannot be parried anyway (assuming here that an arrow or Fire Bolt is faster than a thrown Dodgeball) so there shouldn't be as much relative advantage from being unseen.
I have this idea that the short/long ranged distance categories are the line where it takes long enough for the projectile to travel to the target that a normal human could react to the projectile being in the air, effectively giving a free dodge because the projectile flies for so long. This would inform then that being unseen should give advantage at close range, but only if the target is blinded or the projectile is invisible would a long distance attack get that benefit. In other words, shooting at a target in fog it would apply, but shooting at a target from fog it may not apply.

So the rule I like to use is that being unseen by your target grants advantage on melee attacks, but not on ranged attacks, while being unable to see your target grants disadvantage on either. Thus, blind men can fight blind men without any particular problem (this is partly due to player feedback--my players don't WANT to be ineffective in blind-on-blind melee combat) except not getting opportunity attacks and it being easier to Hide from them; but blind men can't shoot each other at a hundred paces without problems, nor can they drop fog clouds to counter ranged penalties or prone targets.

Fortunately 5E has a built-in "melee"/"ranged" tag on every attack so you can still distinguish a melee attack at 15' (Bugbear with a polearm) from a ranged attack at 5' (Net attack at short range). Conceptually one difference is that a melee attack can be redirected in-flight and come in from an unexpected angle, but a ranged attack is fire-and-forget.
Interestingly (to me anyway), giving the attack Disadvantage is more lenient and may be quicker than making the attacker identify, or else guess at, the target's location.

[Malifice]

As per the 5e rules:

If you can't see your opponent nor have any clues of where they are, you have to guess and select a space to target, hitting whoever stand there on a successful roll, and if you aim at an empty space you hit nothing.

There is no fix needed. Two blind archers would have to be extremely lucky to hit the one they want.

Only if they're hidden. Otherwise the game presumes you can target them normally with bows (at disadvantage to hit of course).

You can't target them at all with attacks of opportunity, many special abilities and many spells.

If they hide in that darkness (and successfully roll higher then your passive perception on their stealth skill check) then they are successfully being quiet while unseen. From that point onwards you need to guess their Square in order to attack them.

[Eric Diaz]

Ruling: You have to guess the location of some targets you cannot see. This is implied in the hitting things you cannot see rules, but never made explicit. Nor details given on how to handle it if you do require it. I use perception checks to pinpoint any creature that's far-ish away, creatures generally don't need to guess in melee.

Came here to say this. Ranged is very good as it is; making it harder to attack a far away target that you cannot see makes sense to me.

[MaxWilson]

I have this idea that the short/long ranged distance categories are the line where it takes long enough for the projectile to travel to the target that a normal human could react to the projectile being in the air, effectively giving a free dodge because the projectile flies for so long. This would inform then that being unseen should give advantage at close range, but only if the target is blinded or the projectile is invisible would a long distance attack get that benefit. In other words, shooting at a target in fog it would apply, but shooting at a target from fog it may not apply.

Cool idea.


Interestingly (to me anyway), giving the attack Disadvantage is more lenient and may be quicker than making the attacker identify, or else guess at, the target's location.

I agree, it is more lenient and quicker.