Chris Mortika wrote:
I would suggest the local GM's asking him each time he comments if he's saying that in character. If he is, then the NPC's react as the GM sees fit. Also, a '3 strikes rule', where if he seems to be commenting to an NPC but says he's only joking OOC'ly 3 times, then all further comments are to be considered IC for the rest of the session. Again, have NPC's react accordingly.
Also, apply the same thing to him casting spells OOC'ly. Once he starts burning through his prepared spells because he's being a jerk, hopefully he'll get the hint.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
As for detecting opponents while blinded, the rules for detecting an Invisible opponent are a good guideline and what I would use. So, according to those, a blind character can detect any being within a 30' radius by making a DC 20 Perception check. Opponents that are in combat or talking lessen the DC by 20. So, in a combat situation, the blind fighter would not know which squares nearby him were occupied only by rolling a natural 1.
Obstacles, of course, would be a problem since he couldn't see things like debris or fallen bodies. Still, with teamwork, this can be overcome by party members alerting him.
PFS GM's also have a responsibility to ensure ballanced play, and the RAI interpretation for the Blind Fight feat being talked about create a horrible mechanics imballance, IMO. There's literally no combat disadvantage to being blind aside from the 25% miss chance because of concealment. In return, you recieve immunity to a huge number of spells and gaze attacks. All for the cost of 1 Feat that can be taken at 1st Level with no prerequisites. While Malag wants this for a legitimate RP purpose, it's far too open to be abused by less scrupulous players. All the more so because PFS GM's can't alter the scenarios they run to take the blind swordsman into account. Spells like Color Spray, Daze, and Hypnotize that many lower level spelllcaster threats rely on to pose a challenge are now far less effective when the main tank and melee damage dealer won't find them a hinderance at all. Basilisks, Medusae, and other such challenging monsters loose their threat as well. Helck, for only a 25% miss chance that decreases at 10th Level and a penalty to a few skills that my teammates can compensate for in exchange for all those immunities, gouge my eyes out and call me Zaitochi. It's such a great deal, why don't more fighters do this?
Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with this in a regular Pathfinder campaign where the effects of my GMing decisions only affect my group. But there are larger concerns with PFS in that this character can be used at any PFS table in any game. All characters have to be treated equally, and if Malag's character is acceptable, what about Joe Schmo that's delibrately exploiting a loophole in the system? Similarly, is it fair to Malag to put time and effort into developing this character, only to not have consistency in being able to play outside his local group?
In the end, we've found an issue with the rules that was apparently not anticipated or planed for. Ultimately, Paizo will rule on this as they see fit. Until then, this issue is going to be in a limbo where it's a mater of the rules interpretations of individual GM's
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
No, you're not crazy. We just have a difference of opinion here with neither side being right or wrong. Until there's an 'official' ruling, GM's will interpret cases like this as they see fit and that's the way it should be.
Now, while Paizo may not have crafted every sentence or rule to have meaning, remember that the original 3.0/3.5 rules Pathfinder is based from were created by Wizards of the Coast, where virtually every word on every Magic: The Gathering card has weight and meaning. I'll have to pull out the old WoTC books, but I don't imagine the wording has changed too terribly between 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Most MMO's take years to develop, Morian. This isn't something that can just be rushed into and still have a quality product. At the earliest, I'd say it would take abut 3 years, if at all. Funding might be difficult to get from outside sources due to almost every MMO the past 2 years or so fading quickly. Star Wars: The Old Republic and Guild Wars 2 being the notable exceptions.
Aye, sir. My assignments for the Society have kept me mainly in our beloved Andoran so far, but I'll always keep a weather eye out for ways to spread the philosophy of liberty and further our goals as I travel further afield.
There's a lot of distance between a character who has some anti-social traits (quick temper, disrespects authority, ect.) and one that shows their behavior by attacking whatever sets them off. If you're irritable, you can always yell a bit at the source f irritation then storm off. If you disrespect authority, you can always find non-violent ways of showing that disrespect, like making funny faces behind the guard's back. There's plenty of ways to show that you're a jerk without randomly shiving NPC's.
Conversely, you can be Lawful Good without being obnoxious about it. A lot of times, I've had players and NPC's that take the LG alignment to as much an extreme as certain people playing CN. Paladins and Clerics lecturing on the morality of stealing can be just as disruptive, IMO, as the anti-social character picking fights. Sometimes, playing LG in a group means letting the party have free will to make their choice after you raise an objection or make a point. Don't belabor the point of 'doing the right thing', just let it go.
EXAMPLE AND SPOILER
I play a LG Sorcerer with a Silver Dragon bloodline in PFS. The first adventure for him was Tide of Morning. After I cast Sleep on the woodsman that was transformed into a fey in the initial Encounter, I argued not to coup de grace him; it wasn't his fault that he was transformed. The discussion in the party lasted maybe 2 or 3 minutes Real Time and they agreed with me, but I was prepared to let the matter drop and just turn my head away as the deed was done.
In the end 'Don't Be A Jerk' applies just as much to Lawful characters as it does to Chaotic characters.
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
That's not quite what I said; or, at least, meant. I was posting from my phone, so I can understand if the synopsis wasn't totally clear. So, here's a detailed look at the logic and the rules behind the logic.
First: a quick review of calculating AC bonuses, since it's relevant. There's 8 potential modifiers to AC: Dex bonus or penalty, Natural Armor, Armor, Shield, Dodge, Deflection, Size, and Miscellaneous (Dwarf bonus to AC when fighting Giants, for example). You can only have one modifier for each 'type'. So, the +4 AC bonus from Mage Armor doesn't stack with the +4 bonus from wearing a chain shirt armor; both are Armor bonuses. However, the +4 AC bonus from Shield Spell would stack with either since it's a Shield Bonus. Similarly, the AC bonus from a Shield of Faith spell stacks with both Armor and Shield, since it's a Deflection bonus. Therefore, you cannot recieve more than one Bonus in a single 'type' of AC bonus and you end up using whichever the greater bonus is. By correlation, penlties to AC do not stack if they are of the same 'type'.
Now, the heart of my argument is that Invisibility and Blindness are two separate things, even though they have some smiliar properties. But just like the Mage Armor spell doesn't stack with worn Armor, the AC and defnesive penalties of Invisibility don't stack with those of Blindness. Both Invisibility and Blindness share the following penalties:
Taking these one by one, you will only get a maximum of a -2 penalty to AC, since you don't stack penalties of the same type from difernet sources. You have already lost your Dex Bonus to AC, so you cannot loose it again by having the second effect occur. And, by having one of the conditions, you are already treating all opponents as if they are in Total Concelament, so that does not stack. The other, non-shared aspects of both Blindness and Invisibility are put into effect. The Perception DC to spot an Invisible character is a moot point to a Blinded character since the Blinded condition means that all visual Perception tests automatically fail. The only other effects added in would be the Movement restriction via Blindness: Moving greater than half speed requires and Acrobatics roll, and a -4 to Str and Dex based skill checks.
So, a character that is Blinded and attacked by an Invisible opponent would have the following penalties and effects applied.
Now, the Blind FIght feat gives the following bonuses:
That's all that it does, no more, no less.
So, if we take into account the Blind Fight feat, our Blinded character attacking an Invisible opponent has the following effects:
So, why is it set up like this? I can only guess, but I'd say that the reason is probably to make Blindness a more serious condition that is preferable to avoid. It limits the effectiveness of an exploit like 'I stay blinded then get a mage to Craft me a helmet that gives me bat-like echo-location that will eliminate all Concealment caused by visual impairment.'
You still have the -2 AC from the Blindness condition.
The Invisibility Stealth bonus is more of a fuzzy matter. Perception includes both sight (which doesn't apply) and hearing (which would). I would be more inclined to eliminate the Stealth Bonus, unless the Invisible creature is magically silenced.
Keep in mind these are only my opinions and how I would work 'house rules'. Your local GM might agree that Blind Fight eliminates the AC and Dex penalties from Blindness as well as Invisibility. YMMV.
Yes. They are two separate effects/conditions. The Blindness condition rules do not say 'treat all opponents as if they were invisible'. They list the effects without mentioning Invisibility at all. Similarly, the Blind Fight rules diferentiate between general Concealment effects, Invisibility, and the Blindness movement penalty. Similarly, Blind Fight doesn't negate the Perception penalties to see an Invisible character, they only eliminate the AC penalty and give you the Concealment reroll. Blind Fight lists exactly what it does, and the general AC and Dex penalties from Blindness aren't listed, while the Movement restriction is.
A further example: Obscuring Mist creates Concealment and eliminates visual targeting at ranges greater than 5 feet, but it does not impose the AC and Dex penalties like Invisibility does, even if the attacker has a way of overcoming the Mist.
Actually, the rules for the Blind condition on 285 of the Core Rules says that you loose any Dex bonus to AC in addition to all melee being in Total Concealment and the Acrobatics check to move faster than 1/2 speed. If you read the rules for Blind Fight, it only negates the movement restriction and gives you the concealment re-roll; the loss of the Dex bonus to AC remains for the Blinded condition. Invisible opponents impose a seperate set of penalties, which Blind Fight eliminates. The basic AC penalty from Blindness still remains even with Blind Fight.
But there is a mechanical benefit: immunity to gaze attacks, sight-based illusions, and several other spells. The tradeoff is spending 1 Feat at 1st Level (with no prerequisites), to lessen the miss chance (normally a 50% miss chance, you get to re-roll which makes it an effective 25% miss chance. Also with the Blind Fight feat, you eliminate *all* penalties that come from invisible attackers in melee.
So, at 1st level
So, the only real drawback at Level 1 would be minuses on some non-essential skills for a fighter and never using the Dex bonus for AC. Not quite an equitable trade-off for the massive benefits you get, IMO. You may miss 25% of the time, but you have the rest of your party to make up for that. Most problems the skill check penalty causes can be overcome by having someone go ahead first and secure ropes for walking a ledge or a system to pull the blind character up. That takes extra time in game, but not much else.
Now, let's say our blind swordsman gets to level 10. He's put 1 rank every level into perception. Now, he's eligible for Improved Blind Fight. It's a Combat Feat, so he'd get it as a fighter.
At 10th Level
So now, he gets his full AC on both ranged and Melee attacks
At a potential 15th Level, Greater Blind Fight can be taken. Now the miss chance is reduced from 50% to 20%, plus the reroll, which makes it an effective 16% miss chance. Even though regular PFS play only goes to 12, there are convention events and such that can take you to higher levels.
Now, this is not to rag on Malag at all. This is simply the analysis and though process that goes on for most GM's. Malag, if your local PFS GM is fine with it, awesome. Play the character and have fun. My opinion is that if I were the GM, I wouldn't allow the blindness if I were running PFS; for a regular campaign, I'll be completely fine with it. Because in a regular campaign, I can tailor the encounters as I see fit. PFS does not let GM's alter the encounters in scenarios.
This is a part of the downside of equibility for PFS. Things that are fine in a normal campaign are disallowed in PFS because they can be exploited with no recourse for GM's. It's why we can't do any crafting of magical items in PFS. There is enforced balance.
Again, Malag, this isn't to discourage you. This is to show you the thought processes that are leading many of us to say 'it's not a good idea' and why not every PFS GM you'll encounter will let you play that character.
No, I completely understand why you want to do it. I've been RPing for over 30 years now, and I've played many characters that have a disability such as blind, deaf, paralyzed, or mute. It's a fun RP challenge and they make wonderful characters with deep, enjoyable RP. There's the challenge of overcoming the obvious hindrance and showing that you're just as capable as everyone else; sometimes more so. And blind swordsmen are a staple of Japanese fantasy stories. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with playing such a character.
In practice, however, PFS is not your usual campaign.
1) You are not guaranteed to have the same players each session. Some may not want to adventure with a blind character for any number of reasons
2)GM's are far more restricted in running the games. They have a set scenario that every member of the PFS campaign worldwide can play through. They don't have the same freedom to alter details to match the party's capabilities that a regular GM does. Hence, encounters featuring gaze attacks will be less of a challenge than encounters with, say, sonic enchantments. In other words, the GM can't swap out a Medusa for an equivalent CR of Harpies to make the encounter an equal challenge to factor in your blindness and thus are immune to the main threat of the encounter.
3)You appear to want to do this to add depth and role-play to the character, which is perfectly fine. However, FPS games are not situated around such depth; you can't go off on an RP tangent and then continue the scenario next week after you run out of scheduled time like you can in a normal campaign. I have a Dragon-Blooded Sorcerer decended from a Silver Dragon. I have a whole backstory of the lineage and how the dragon was part of the fight to liberate Andoran. Is this going to *ever* be used in PFS games? Of course not, there's not enough time in sessions to deal with it and it's not fair to the other players for me to expect to have the focus if my character is more RP-oriented than others. Ultimately, in PFS, you will have both role-players and 'I just wanna kill stuff and get loot' players. The second kind of player will be far less inclined to want to deal with a 'handicapped' character.
Like I said, it's a fine character idea, but one that would be better served and more enjoyable to role-play in a normal campaign. Otherwise, it comes off as a min/maxing attempt: 'Yeah, I get immunity to all gaze attacks and I just have a small minus to some skill rolls where the penalty will be meaningless at higher levels. I miss a lot at first, but level advancement and magic weapons solve that.'
Please don't do this to your fellow people at the table. They're relying on you, and don't really have the option of doing what their characters would do, which would be to leave your character somewhere safe for their own good.
I agree with this. While the idea of playing a character with severe disadvantages is fine in a regular group, PFS is the kind of setting where you may not have the same players (or even characters) from session to session. Also, while certainly interesting in providing Role Playing, PFS isn't exactly encouraging to such in-depth RP; it's far more mission and scenario oriented.
It's an interesting character idea, just as a deaf or paralyzed character would be. But I would suggest saving this idea for a regular gaming group.