Blind Character

[Cilvyn]

Hello ppl,

I have a guy in my group who wants to play a Blind Eladrin Ranger (fucussed on two weapon fighting ofc. -_- ).
I as DM ofcors encourage such nice rolplay thingies. But theres one disadvantage. if you're are blind you suck, So we had in mind he has been blind whole his life.

Now i want to make a system that makes him less sucky then the normal condition 'Blind' would do. In 3.5 it was called blindsense or somthing. Do you guys have an idea how i can make a bit balanced rule to let him play a blind ranger without being totally useless in combat?

Cil
Edit: He has perception 19, maybe that matters.

[Tadanori Oyama]

19 perception minus 10 for being blind.

When your blind everyone around you is considered to have Total Concellement against your attacks so you always take a -5 to attack rolls. Oh, and you grant combat advantage. And can't flank. And the -10 to perception. It's a very bad condition to get into.

Anyway, the status effect "Blinded" (see above) is built around temporary conditions so this is something different. If you want to make a feat to counter act this penality that would certainly be acceptable. You consider just saying he's blind and play the game like normal, deal with it as a story element and not let it effect combat.

Why does he want to be blind? Especailly an Eladrin? I mean, you need Line of Sight to use Fey Step.

[The Fat Kid]

I would recommend giving him the blind keyword from the monster manual and blindsense 3 or so.

It would remove the hefty penalties imposed by his blindness but keep the flavor of being blind with some mechanical effect

[CASTLEMIKE]

Replying with 3.5 mechanics. He should probably receive Blindness as a Double Flaw with the Blind Fighting feat as one of his bonus feats with another of his choice. Use the Draconic Blindsense. (He could be like DareDevil with his own radar (Perhaps a feat for a Draconic Aura Blind Sense to 30' or 60' or using the dragon age categories and ranges), (IMO Hidden Talent Sense Link would be pretty cool with an Animal Companion or Familiar)

The L1 Psionic Power Sense Link would work really nice with an animal or companion for seeing through their eyes.

There is a variant that allows the Sorcerer and Wizard to switch out their animal companion for an Animal Companion of a Druid of half their level. Let him do the opposite.

Perhaps he has greater empathy with his familiar and can see through it's eyes or if he spends 1PP on Sense Link with a Familiar or Animal Companion it is extended and last 24 Hours.

[Name_Here]

Well since being blind in 3.5 makes you suck severely I would just make it fluff that the charecter is blind. Make him autofail things that you can only see but the DM should allow him to make a listen check at a penalty if it's appropriate. Beyond that make him take nightfight and a couple more blindfight options when he is able. And outside of combat he needs to say which character he's holding hands with if he wants to stay close to the rest of the group.

But he shouldn't recieve the massive massive penalties from blindfight but I also think that he shouldn't recieve any big bonuses from it either. By tweeking the normal system you can get the coolness of a blind fighter without the brutality of every enemy having full concealment, and him being flat-footed with everybody.

[drengnikrafe]

I found some rules for being blind in 3.5, and They don't seem all that bad.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Dude, put "4E" in the thread title, eh?

No rules effect, all fluff effect. So he can't read and crap, but enemies aren't concealed and so on. I really doubt your player is looking for an authentic and difficult RP experience, they just want to be Zatoichi.

[BobVosh]

2 ways to do this, tell him to play a class with aoes and give him a blind sense or something similiar.

Make it all fluff with no mechanics.

There is a reason blind warriors aren't common. Or healthy. Just doesn't make sense.

[Behold_the_Void]

I'm with the "fluff not mechanics" side.

"I wanna be blind!"

"Cool, you're blind."

Make him unable to do things that would absolutely require sight (reading or spotting specific details or whatever) and maybe beef up his perception for things that require listen or the like, but beyond that don't do a thing.

[DeathQuaker]

Ya know, I got two gamer friends who're blind IRL. Neither has never wanted to play a blind character. Because they know it would suck. Though not quite as much as dealing with what they have to IRL (not that they complain about it, mind, but they're in a position to know it's not exactly "cool" or a neat "schtick" for a character to have).

IMO, if the player wants to play a blind character, make him suck it up. For god's sake don't reward him for it--he wants to take the disability because he thinks it would be so cool, then he gets to endure the disability. At best, if 4E has anything equivalent to "blind fight" let him take that as one of his feats in character creation (or house rule it in)--it does make sense that the char has trained to adapt to his situation--but don't let him make sight based perception checks, and everything DOES have total concealment (or whatever 4E's equivalent is), period.

He might be allowed to go on a quest for a magic item to grant him blindsense (which is otherwise something a normal blind humanoid is not going to develop; blindsense is stuff like sonar), or at high levels purchase one. But it shouldn't be something that solves all difficulties. If it's not a handicap, there's no point in claiming you have one.

[Mando Knight]

There is a blind-fighting feat, but it's Epic tier, requires 13 Wis (not much for Epic) and training in Perception. A blind guy would need to survive 20 or so levels of giving combat advantage to everyone before he can finally reliably hit them or make opportunity attacks against them. If you want to do the mechanics for being blind, the character is unplayable. If the player still wants to play a blind Eladrin Ranger (Why Eladrin? He can't use Fey Step if he's blind!), then you may have to make it a fluff-only blindness.

[Human Paragon 3]

Here's how I did it for my friend's Blind Human Paladin.

I let her take the blind fight feat at level 1 (instead of 21).

Then i gave her an encounter ability that lets her extend her blind fight radius out to 10 squares. It's a standard to activate it and a minor to sustain it. The flavor is, she enters a sort of super-sense trance where her other senses take over and let her "see" her enemies. Also, she can always see somebody she's challenged.

I would make it so your ranger can always see burst 1 around their quarry. I'd also house rule their teleport so they can do it w/o line of site.

[namo]

Another vote for "make it fluff only !".

[MammonAzrael]

I agree with Death Quaker. If he wants his character to be blind, then he should take the penalties for it, and not whine that his character isn't that great. There's a reason most adventurers are blind. It sucks.

The ONLY things I would grant him would be a -5 to perception checks instead of -10 (since he's gone his whole life assuming he was born with it blind), and allow him to take Blind-Fighting at Paragon tier instead of Epic.

That's it. He'll still grant combat advantage, won't be able to flank, won't be able to use ANYTHING that requires Line of Sight and all the other "fun" stuff that comes from being blind. Like not being able to look both way before crossing the street.

EDIT: And I think making it fluff only is absurd, since that basically gives him all the role-playing benefits of blindness with virtually NONE of the penalties (since all the mechanical penalties revolve around combat). If he wants to be blind, then he SHOULD BE BLIND.

[Human Paragon 3]

I agree with Death Quaker. If he wants his character to be blind, then he should take the penalties for it, and not whine that his character isn't that great. There's a reason most adventurers are blind. It sucks.

The ONLY things I would grant him would be a -5 to perception checks instead of -10 (since he's gone his whole life assuming he was born with it blind), and allow him to take Blind-Fighting at Paragon tier instead of Epic.

That's it. He'll still grant combat advantage, won't be able to flank, won't be able to use ANYTHING that requires Line of Sight and all the other "fun" stuff that comes from being blind. Like not being able to look both way before crossing the street.

EDIT: And I think making it fluff only is absurd, since that basically gives him all the role-playing benefits of blindness with virtually NONE of the penalties (since all the mechanical penalties revolve around combat). If he wants to be blind, then he SHOULD BE BLIND.

Wow, that's awful harsh. The blind swordsman is a pretty common archetype- a guy who is so aware of his surroundings/has honed his other senses to well that he posess an uncanny level of baddass skill. I don't think it's very good DMing to say "No, you can't do that, I won't allow it, I simply won't!" instead of trying to work with your player.

Blindess should impose penalties, otherwise why have it? But the idea is that the blind swordsman makes up for it in other ways. The abilities I described above are a good balance I think. They allow you to still be effective in combat, and in some cases (i.e. vs. invisible foes or in total darkness) give you a slight edge. On the other hand, you must waste actions to do it, which is a genuine hinderance in a game where action efficiency is king.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I agree with Death Quaker. If he wants his character to be blind, then he should take the penalties for it, and not whine that his character isn't that great. There's a reason most adventurers are blind. It sucks.

I agree the PC should take the penalties for being Blind which is a huge Flaw in game easily a Double Flaw possibly equivalent to a Triple Flaw mechanically using other in game mechanics to compensate for being Blind. Pretty cool to be Dare Devil but his Blindness still causes him problems with his Blind Sense ability and heightened senses. Trying crossing a busy street without being able to see and they are not actively trying to kill anyone in combat. A previous edition had a psionic power allowing a PC to see through his skin.

[Shazzbaa]

Ya know, I got two gamer friends who're blind IRL. Neither has never wanted to play a blind character. Because they know it would suck. Though not quite as much as dealing with what they have to IRL (not that they complain about it, mind, but they're in a position to know it's not exactly "cool" or a neat "schtick" for a character to have).

IMO, if the player wants to play a blind character, make him suck it up. For god's sake don't reward him for it--he wants to take the disability because he thinks it would be so cool, then he gets to endure the disability.

Of course blind players don't want to play a blind character! Guh, I don't play a bumbling, reserved, overly-diplomatic artist; I have to be that every day. Rather, I play a snarling werewolf barbarian who's losing his mind. This isn't because I think lycanthropy and paranoia would be so cool!, it's because I think it would be fun to play. There's a difference.

I'm kinda with Gaurd Juris on this; role-playing isn't reality. For some it's even escapism. I know very well that in real life blindness and mental illness and all these other problems I want to give my characters aren't fun. But I definitely think it would be awesome to be someone who had a crippling disadvantage and yet excelled in spite of it. There's something really cool and badass and appealing about being that character -- who didn't think Toph was beyond awesome when we first saw her in Avatar?

The "don't reward him" sentiment sounds almost like he's committed a social offence and must be taught that blindness isn't cool, but in D&D I don't see a need for that. He may, for all we know, be well aware that blindness is no fun, but just have a cool character concept. Or he may just want to play out that sort of awesome that the "blind swordsman" archetype creates, matter how inaccurate or impossible it is.

HOWEVER

Talk to the player, 'cause he might WANT the disability. A lot of people have exasperatedly proclaimed "Why a blind eladrin? He can't use fey step!" Does he realise this? If I were to play a character like that, I wouldn't want to be ineffective and useless, but I WOULD want to be disadvantaged. Does he want to be able to fight just the same as everyone else, or does he want an extra miss chance? Does he want to be able to use fey step, or would he be having a great time when his character admits that he can't do that reliably?

I think it would be silly to give him no disadvantage at all, but I say, only impose a disadvantage that's worthy of a flaw (yeah, that's 3.5 variant, I know, but that basic idea), mechanically, and then let him have whatever disadvantages he wants beyond that. Don't make him ineffective, that's the worst thing a character can be. Let him be awesome. But do make him sacrifice something to be awesome; he's blind, after all.

[MammonAzrael]

Wow, that's awful harsh. The blind swordsman is a pretty common archetype- a guy who is so aware of his surroundings/has honed his other senses to well that he posess an uncanny level of baddass skill. I don't think it's very good DMing to say "No, you can't do that, I won't allow it, I simply won't!" instead of trying to work with your player.

Blindess should impose penalties, otherwise why have it? But the idea is that the blind swordsman makes up for it in other ways. The abilities I described above are a good balance I think. They allow you to still be effective in combat, and in some cases (i.e. vs. invisible foes or in total darkness) give you a slight edge. On the other hand, you must waste actions to do it, which is a genuine hinderance in a game where action efficiency is king.

Yes, the blind swordsman is a common archetype. But do you really think any of those blind badasses are low level? Part of the reason they're badass is because they were able to survive and level despite such a major handicap. Imagine how deadly they could have been if they could see! IMO you don't start out being blind and badass, you've got to work for it. A lot. That level of amazing skill they acquire is thanks to their training (aka leveling), and not some inherent trait of blindness. They could have gotten just a good, if not better, had they been able to see as well.

And personally, I don't think it really feels like you're playing a blind character unless you live with all the penalties for it (but of course, that's just personal preference).

Overall, yeah, it was probably a bit harsh, but Blindness is one of the most dangerous disabilities someone constantly involved in fighting for his life could have, and should be reflected as such. If you make two dozen blind characters in D&Donly one or two (if any!) should make it more than a couple levels. You don't see many blind adventurers for a reason. The ones that DO survive are either very lucky or prime examples of their race (aka great stats), probably both.

EDIT: @ Shazzbaa - Well said. I think part of the problem is we're all operating on different interpretations of what this player wanted the blindness for in the first place.

[Another_Poet]

Here is my favourite thread out of any thread I have ever posted.

It has a Blind PC starting package, blind feats & spells, etc.

It is 3.5, adjust as needed for 4e.

The Blind PCs' Association

ap

[Human Paragon 3]

A good point, and a fair interpretation. As a DM i would er' on the side of fun and allow the blind bad ass at level 1. In 4e, we are all Super Heroes after all. But you both are right, and this is something I left out of my original post: you should check with the player and see how disadvantaged he wants to be. A big part of my player's blind paladin was her dissavdantage, and we worked it out together so she would still have to overcome obstacles on her way.

[DeathQuaker]

*calming down slightly*

. But I definitely think it would be awesome to be someone who had a crippling disadvantage and yet excelled in spite of it.

I agree with this. What spawned my response (ill-written, as most of my posts are) were the suggestions that the "disability" be fluff, i.e., have no actual effect on the character. If he wants it, he should understand what it is and have to play it out.

Doesn't mean he can't find ways to kick butt. But I don't agree with saying, "Well, I'm going to make the character blind, except effectively, he's really not." I don't see the point to that.

Where I've seen disabilities and the like handled well was in the old World of Darkness, with Merits and Flaws. You could, say, take the 6 point flaw Blind. You received auto-failure on sight related Awareness Rolls, and had some other issues.

You could take those 6 points and then say buy yourself more skills, or attributes, or a Merit like, I dunno, Ambidexterity or Twin Soul. This would make your character powerful in a different way--maybe you bought a higher Dexterity, reflecting how you've become more reflexive to make up for problems in navigating without sight, etc.--but you still had to suffer the effects of the Flaw, 'cause, well, that's what it was.

Maybe the DM could do something like this; not sure how the system would accommodate it.

who didn't think Toph was beyond awesome when we first saw her in Avatar?

Who what now???

[Behold_the_Void]

*calming down slightly*
I agree with this. What spawned my response (ill-written, as most of my posts are) were the suggestions that the "disability" be fluff, i.e., have no actual effect on the character. If he wants it, he should understand what it is and have to play it out.

I think the issue here is you're taking some offense to the idea of "just make it fluff" because you seem to feel if they want to play a blind character, the game should in some way be a vessel to "teach them how much it sucks".

I disagree.

It's a game, meant for fun, and meant for playability. You can make most of the stuff fluff-based penalties and keep it from interfering with the core mechanic where your ability to perform matters (i.e. combat). As a general rule I never want to punish a player for their concept (unless they start trying to pull, say, a Naruto clone on me at which point I drop a mountain on them and move on, but I digress). As was said, it's all a game and escapism. I most certainly do not condone using D&D, of all things, to "teach people a lesson about disability."

A person can and should of course be sensitive to disabilities, but I don't think wanting to play the blind badass archetype is all that insensitive, honestly. In fact, wouldn't disallowing it be in a way insensitive? Saying that "because you want to play a blind guy you can never, ever be anywhere near as good as those around you"? I've met several blind people that abhor this mentality, so take that as you will.

[DeathQuaker]

I think the issue here is you're taking some offense to the idea of "just make it fluff" because you seem to feel if they want to play a blind character, the game should in some way be a vessel to "teach them how much it sucks".

No. I just think if someone wants to take a "flaw" (to use common game terminology) it should actually be one.

As I posted, a mechanic to balance the flaw with adding power to the character in another area may be desirable.

[Lyndworm]

This thread is pretty much made of win. You've inspired me to make Blindy O'legless, a blind adventurer with one arm and no legs. Affectionately known as Limps by his friends, he travels the globe in an attempt to prove that the handicapped are handicapable...and doing a rather poor job of it.

Witty, dark, and apparently able to survive anything, Limps spends most of his time brooding or hitting things with the flail attached to the reminder of his left arm.

Thank you all. Thank you all very much.


Zack


P.S.
I hope I offended you into laughing. If I didn't... Well we'll work on that later.

[DeathQuaker]

Don't forget Blindy's catchphrase: "I can make it on my own...."

[/strongbad reference]

[Lyndworm]

Ha. So totaly happening.

Zack

[Dhavaer]

Ya know, I got two gamer friends who're blind IRL.

Out of curiosity, are they many/any RPG books in braille or similar?

[Kiren]

Im trying a 3.5 blind char right now and btw Blind sense and blind sight are advantages even with blindness

Needless to say I felt that taking either one ruined the role playing experience and my dm keeps making my char hit into trees if he walks full speed.

heres the good part, my chars a druid, He hits into trees and cannot cast ranged spells and was robbed of all his possessions including 9k worth of potions, another good part right here, that was the second session.

[Knaight]

Out of curiosity, are they many/any RPG books in braille or similar?

A book on CD would probably be easier in many cases.

[DeathQuaker]

Out of curiosity, are they many/any RPG books in braille or similar?

There aren't, sadly. Normally, my friends purchase .pdfs (at places like DriveThru RPG) or scan books they purchase, so their screenreading software can read them out loud to them.

Unfortunately, many gaming companies have started putting watermarks into their pages that makes them unscannable/un-OCR-text-able. It's meant to discourage piracy, but somehow I have a feeling that the pirates find a way around it, while people with accessibility problems get screwed over. This issue is why my one friend runs Exalted 1st Edition... 2nd Edition has the watermark, so he can't read the books (he owns the 2nd edition rulebook, but it's useless to him. One of us could record ourselves reading the book aloud, but a recording is hard to reference--no "search"--not easy when you want to check on rules).

In one rare instance, they actually managed to get digital text versions from the publisher when they showed proof of purchase---Games Workshop actually. A mutual friend had some connections at the local regional office who could arrange for that, as long as my friend showed proof of purchase, but they've stopped doing that for him now.