WildCalm's page

Nope. I was just wondering if the BotG's were left out of the set I purchased accidentally or if it was intentinal and we're supposed to use the BotG's from Runelords. Which I do have, so I can make do for now.

Also, if they were supposed to be in there, how do I go about getting the missing cards?

I just purchased a copy of the base set today and got all the cards organized. When I got to the blessings, there were no Blessings of the Gods in the set; only specific God blessings (Blessing of Abadar, Blessing of Cayden Cailen, etc.). Is the set intentionally missing BoG's or did I get a faulty packing?

I had an IM conversation with another GM about this very issue tonight. We have a local player who enjoys causing a commotion, insulting NPCs and wrecking the party's mission. He finds it fun. Maybe he thinks it's a challenge to the GM, to see how we'll keep the adventure from going off the tracks. Maybe he's just not taking thins seriously; when the NPCs react badly, he tries to assert he was just kidding, that his character wouldn't have said such a thing or cast such a spell.

So, what do we do when he shows up for a local game day? So far, the answer is: sitting him at a table of veteran players who don't mind if he gets the party killed, and letting the chips fall where they may.

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.

runescryer wrote:

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.

You've thought a lot more about the rules implications of this that I have. How does he find his opponents to enter combat? When he is moving around the battlefield, he still runs the risk of provoking AoOs from enemies that he moves past due to not having perceived them, doesn't he?

Even though he can move at full speed without needing an Acrobatics check, he is still going to need one if he moves through an obstacle.

Personally, I think that the combat disadvantages are so major that the character would be impotent without a full-time manservant calling out the state of the battlefield to him.

I concede your point about keeping the rules robust against unscrupulous players though, and hope that it doesn't come at the cost of allowing PFS to be inclusive.

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.

brock,

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

runescryer wrote:

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.'

I see that you've put a lot of thought in to this, but I still think you're wrong. This is RAI vs RAW. If the Paizo team had crafted every single sentence with the precision of a ninja turned lawyer, we wouldn't need a category called RAI. But they're human, and there's a lot of sentences; they did a great job but there's always going to be some interpretation issues. Which is where we bring in common sense. My common sense pretty clearly dictates that "Blind-Fight" is useful while under the condition called "Blindness." Call me crazy.

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.

*walks into the tavern*

New recruit Aurelos Mercol, reporting in.

*orders a tankard of stout*

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

In the end 'Don't Be A Jerk' applies just as much to Lawful characters as it does to Chaotic characters.

runescryer wrote:

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.

I don't even know where to begin.

You're arguing that if someone has the Blind-Fight feat, and they fail their save against a Blindness spell, they don't get the AC benefit of Blind-Fight ... but they would if, while blinded, they were fighting an enemy who was also invisible.

Really?

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:
-A -2 to defender's AC
-Loss of Dex bonus to AC
-Treat opponent as if they were in total concealment. The differnce here is that Blindness causes all opponents to be treated as if they were in Total Concealment, Invisibility alone only causes the Invisible opponent to be treated as if he was in Total COncealment.

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.
-A -2 to AC, since the penalties don't stack
-Loss of Dex Bonus to AC, since you can only loose the Dex bonus once
-Treat all Opponents as if they were in Total Concealment; the greater penalty from Blindness superceeds the single opponent effect of Invisibility.
-All visual-based Perception checks automatically fail
-Movement greater than 1/2 speed requires an Acrobatics check.
-A -4 penalty to most Str and Dex based skill checks

Now, the Blind FIght feat gives the following bonuses:
-Allows a reroll on failed chances to overcome Concealment of any kind. COncealment is the active word, meaning that the reroll comes irregardless of what is providing the Concealment, be it Darkness, Blindness, Invisibility, Obscuring MIst, ect.
-Negates the -2 AC and loss of Dex Bonus caused by an Invisible opponent. It specifically states the Invisible effect here, not Blindness or any other visual condition that would caue a loss of AC and loss of Dex bonus.
-Eliminates the need for an Acrobatics Roll to move faster than half speed if blinded.

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:
-A -2 to AC, since the penalty from the Blindness condition still applies.
-Loss of Dex Bonus to AC from the Blindness condition
-Treat all opponents as if they were in Total Concealment, but reroll any failed checks to overcome Concealment.
-All Visual-based Perception checks automatically fail.
-Movement greater than 1/2 speed no longer requires an Acrobatics check.
-A -4 penalty to most Str and Dex based skill checks.

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.'

Hm, if that's the case, I might reconsider 1 level dip in Oracle for the sight curse.

But in case it's true what you say, Blind creature doesn't treat others as Invisible then. Meaning that others don't get Stealth bonus and +2 bonus to him in melee.

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.

@Runescryer

Actually, small correction only

Blind-Fight lets you keep your DEX bonus to AC from Invisible attackers, it says so in feat description and you need 10 ranks in Perception for Improved Blind Fight.

So even if I am blind, I retain Dex bonus, at least on melee attacks. Uncanny dodge further would help me to keep it forever up to AC.

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.

To run contrary to most of the people replying here, I would say, "Sure!"

If you came up to my table with a blind character, who was simply blind from birth or due to an accident or whatever, and the character had the appropriate penalties worked in, I would think you had a really neat concept and deserve credit for actually trying to create a unique character and give yourself an interesting role-playing hook.

So what if it's not officially in the rules? There's a reason for that: the heroes are usually not going to run around blinding themselves deliberately! And most people would think having a blind PC is no fun. But as long as there isn't a mechanical benefit (and in this case, there is the *opposite*) I don't see it as a problem.

Bottom line: expect table variation. Some GMs (sadly, it seems like most of the people posting above fall into this category) will have a problem with the concept. Others won't. Bring a back-up character to play just in case someone can't handle your concept, or if being "the blind guy" would totally cripple your party. If they are OK with it, then have fun!

Happy gaming!

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
Benefits:
-Immunity to all gaze attacks, sight-based illusions, and multiple spells (daze, color spray, ect)
-Negate all advantages of an invisible melee attacker (+2 to hit for being invisible)
-Reroll all misses caused by Concealment (50% chance normally, reroll makes it an effective 25% chance)
-Move at full speed without making an Acrobatics check

Penalties:
-No bonus to AC from Dex (not usually a bit deal for Fighters. Does hurt Touch AC, but Fighters tend to have lower Dex)
-4 On most Strength & Dexterity based Skill checks
-Acrobatics (Not used much and can be worked around with teamwork)
-Climb (Again, can be worked around with teamwork)
-Disable Device (Moot Point for a Fighter)
-Escape Artist (Not very necessary, can wait for the Rouge to help)
-Fly (Moot Point)
-Ride (No check needed for basic riding, only for chases & stunts. Also can be overcome with certain saddles)
-Slight of Hand (Moot point)
-Stealth (Fighters rarely use stealth due to armor)
-Swim (Only large disadvantage since it's potentially life threatening and stacks with the Armor Penalty)

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
Benefits:
-Eliminates advantages of Ranged Invisible opponents once a Perception check locates them

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.

To everyone who wonders why?

I love playing challenging characters in pen and paper, video games, everywhere so I figured that playing blind warrior would be nice challenge for a change. I have seen people doing much much worse character builds from mine and I am quite a optimizier if needed. Beside that, Blind Fight feat solves most of negative sides and only leaves -4 on skill checks which hurt but not to bad, so far everything is in positive numbers. Statisticly I have 25% chance to miss on every attack, and around 35% chance to hit. It's not that bad really, not to mention that it grants sight immunity on everything related to sight.

While most people cant understand this remember that you don't need to understand. So far most of responses go as "don't do it". To make this even more adaptable consider this: If I have Blindness cast from a spell, I can always remove it if things don't work out as they are supposed to. Simple as that.

People will be warned about my character up in front and I won't let anyone die on my watch.

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.