I was reading the blind fight feat and I am not exactly sure about one thing: It is said in the feat description that your opponent doesn't get the standard +2 bonus to attack you (pag. 195). On the blinded condition, tho, it is written that you get a -2 bonus to AC. Are they supposed to be the same thing or they're two distinct modifiers?
I am being blinded by glitterdust while my opponent attacks me, I have the blind fight feat that allows me to retain my dex bonus and suppress my enemy's +2 bonus, but do I still get the -2 bonus to AC?
The way we read it at the gaming table, considering the two modifiers as different allows you to distinguish a fight where *everybody* is in pure darkness, to one where only one opponent is blinded. Right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At first sight it seems that they're different modifiers and the -2AC from blindness should apply even if you have blind-fighting. Like some sort of spatial disorientation penalty due to blindness, but I think that is covered by the penalty to Perception and STR or DEX checks.
If we assume things to work this way, a strange situation comes up when you're blind and attacked by an invisible opponent and you don't have blind-fighting. Then, strangely, you would have the AC penalty and your opponent a bonus. Would these stack or overlap?
Common sense says that the bonus and the penalty come from the same source, the target not perceiving the attacker.
They're the same and should not stack, thus blind-fighting should get rid of both. That's my opinion.
Here's the relevant text...
You are skilled at attacking opponents that you cannot clearly perceive.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
Normal: Regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. The speed reduction for darkness and poor visibility also applies.
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
That's the same conclusion I came up with.
Considering a fight between two "blinded" characters (i.e. two humans engaging in combat in a pitch dark room), one of which (A) has Blind Fight and the other doesn't (B):
Opponent A is invisible to B, so he hits B (and only him) with +2 bonus BUT still suffers a -2 to his AC vs. EVERYBODY. He however, retains his Dex bonus against attacks from everybody in the room, except for ranged attacks. If he hits, he gets to roll twice the miss percentile dice.
Opponent B is invisible to B, but doesn't get any bonuses to hit A, cannot benefit from his Dex bonus to AC, and suffers an additional -2 penalty to his AC. And, has a 50% chance to miss everybody.
Let's add Oppnent C to the fight, this guy has infr...er darkvision, so he can see both A and B in the room.
Opponent C has a +2 bonus to attack target B. That's the only bonus he gets. He suffers no penalties.
Besides:
"An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues)."
can you use Stealth to avoid being hit in combat if your opponent is blinded? For instance a drow fighting in the dark against an opponent without darkvision... he normally would have to make PER rolls to pinpoint the square the enemy is in, otherwise just swinging casually his weapon hoping he hits the right square... but what if the drow is trying to fight making as little noise as possible, thrusting the opponent with his slim rapier with attacks that seem to come from everyhwere... makes some sense.
Besides:
"An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues)."
can you use Stealth to avoid being hit in combat if your opponent is blinded? For instance a drow fighting in the dark against an opponent without darkvision... he normally would have to make PER rolls to pinpoint the square the enemy is in, otherwise just swinging casually his weapon hoping he hits the right square... but what if the drow is trying to fight making as little noise as possible, thrusting the opponent with his slim rapier with attacks that seem to come from everyhwere... makes some sense.
No. Check the skill description. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Anyway, in the situation with the drow, it has enough an advantage by being "invisible" that it doesn't matter. The drow will be pinpointed when he attacks but he's a move action away from hiding again.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Check the skill description. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Anyway, in the situation with the drow, it has enough an advantage by being "invisible" that it doesn't matter. The drow will be pinpointed when he attacks but he's a move action away from hiding again.
Hmmm, I am not sure that's how it works.
If you opponent is blinded, you have total concealment.
Core p. 197, total concealment: "You can’t attack an opponent that
has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."
So the opponent has to figure out where you are, no matter if you have used an action to stealth or not.
"Ignoring concealment" goes on to clarify: "Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40
bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues)."
But a blinded opponent is not a sighted opponent, he at least has no other visual clues.
So say I battle an opponent, blind him with e.g. Dirty Trick or Blindness, then make a 5-foot step either to the left, right or back.
My understanding is that the opponent does not know where I went, he can only attack a square he guesses I'm in. If he has scent and is adjacent, he pinpoints me automatically, likewise with tremorsense, blindsense or blindsight. Otherwise, he can probably make a perception check vs. my stealth+20, but that is a bit muddy rules-wise, as I am not invisible, he is blinded. Perhaps he has to choose a field to attack and hope I'm there.
I found the rules I was looking for, check out "Darkness" in the core rulebook p. 442. I know the rules speak of being "blinded by darkness", but I see no reason why that should work differently when you are blinded from other reasons.
- When you are blinded, you have to pinpoint an opponent or attack a random spare, hoping he is there.
- To pinpoint an opponent if you do not have Scent, Blindsense or Blindsight is quite difficult:
a) you can make a free perception check, but you get -4 for being blind and have to beat the opponents stealth check by 20 to pinpoint him, otherwise you only know he is there somewhere, but are not sure where.
b) you can grope about in the dark. That is a standard action, you make touch attacks into two adjacent squares. If there is a creature, you have to beat the 50% miss chance to touch it, dealing no damage. But you have pinpointed it, until it moves and you are back to square one.
c) When an adjacent opponents attacks you in melee, you automatically pinpoint him. If he has reach or makes a ranged attack, you only get the direction. If he moves (and I think a 5-ft-step is moving), you lost him again.
Note that there is nothing about the attacker having to hide. As soon as he moves, you no longer pinpoint him!
Also, Blind-Fight is not mentioned as helping at all in this case. You do not lose your Dex and probably do not get -2 to AC, and can reroll the miss chance, but it does not help with pinpointing.
That is tough stuff! A fight in darkness where the attacker attacks and then takes a 5-foot step is really mean.
So better have some way of avoiding this fate. Personal recommendations:
- Getting Scent or Blindsense somehow.
- Move away from the attacker. If he has to follow you to attack, he cannot move away after the attack (barring spring attack), so you have pinpointed him and he will still be there on your turn.
- Grapple the opponent you have pinpointed! As the grappled description says, in a grapple, all invisibility gives you is +2 to escape grab CMD, but nothing else: No miss chance, no moving away to lose pinpointing. Same should count for blindness.
can you use Stealth to avoid being hit in combat if your opponent is blinded?
OK, I researched the question about fighting against blinded enemies or while invisible a bit further. It's complicated, because the rules are spread out through the Core Rulebook: The stealth skill description on p. 106, fighting while blind on p. 442 and fighting invisible on p. 563. Those rules aren't really identical (e.g. stealth seems more to be written with someone hiding behind cover in mind, not someone invisible), which makes it confusing. Here is what I could distill. To avoid confusion, when I say "being unseen" below, I mean someone is either invisible or the opponent is blinded. I use that to avoid unnecessary complicated sentences, as I mostly talk about both.
-> If you are fighting an unseen enemy, you need to pinpoint his location. An enemy is automatically pinpointed if he attacks adjacent in melee, but only until he moves again. So if you face an unseen enemy who has either not attacked yet or has moved since his last attack, you can use perception to pinpoint him.
Doing so is a Perception check (at -4 if blinded!), which is a free action 1x/round (p. 443 top) and can be done again as a move action (perception skill action p. 102). Important to understand here is that there are two different results to detecting something unseen: Knowing it is there somewhere and knowing where it is exactly/pinpointing it. This is described on page 563 lower left, the Difference in DC is 20!
-> So if the unseen attacker attacks in melee and them moves (as move or 5 ft step), what happens? As the stealth description says, if he is fighting or charging or running, he cannot use stealth. So the Perception DC for his opponent according to p. 563 is thus: DC 20 +20 (pinpointing) -20 (fighting) = DC 20 to pinpoint the unseen opponent (DC 0 to just know there is someone unseen about).
So if you make a melee attack against a blinded opponent or while being invisible and then either move away with a move action or a 5 ft step, this would be the DC the opponent has to beat (but remember the -4 if he is blinded). Too bad that unlike heroes, almost every single monster except for oozes and constructs seems to have maxed out perception, so that may not help for long...
-> When it comes to ranged attacks, you have it easier: You can make one attack and immediately make a stealth check again as part of moving about, so stealth IS allowed (see sniping, in the stealth skill description). The check is at -20, but add +20 for being invisible but moving and +20 for pinpointing, and you still have your stealth check+20 to hide. So being an invisible ranged attacker that shoots and moves works great. Also, even if you do not move, ranged attacks do not automatically pinpoint you, they just give the opponent the direction to you.
For the unseen spellcasters among us, speaking does not prevent stealth per the stealth description, it only gives -20 from the table on p. 563, like attacking (which should probably be the same -20 as sniping). So casting a spell while invisible (even a ranged attack spell) and then moving away has the same Perception DC to pinpoint as sniping: Stealth check+20.
-> If you are not fighting/speaking/running/charging, it seems best to ignore the table on p. 563, as the results will differ from what the stealth description says (e.g. stealth gives a -5 for moving more that half your speed, the table gives a -5 for moving up to half your speed and a -10 for moving more than half your speed). If you are not fighting/speaking/charging/running, you will be using stealth as opposed roll instead of a fixed DC, as stealth is not even an action. You get stealth check+40 if you are standing still, +20 if you move up to half your speed, and +15 if you move up to your speed (+20 -5). But remember that you cannot attack in melee, speak, run or charge in the same round.
Also interesting: Pinpointing someone unseen is 20 harder than noticing someone. If you are invisible and sneak past some guards (max half your speed), they make perception checks against your Stealth DC+20. But if they beat your DC, they only know you are there. They only pinpoint you if they beat you by another 20! So even if you are noticed, the enemy is a long way from attacking you.
-> If the opponent blows his perception rolls, he can try to find you using groping about, as described on p. 443 and 563. He has to choose 2 squares and makes touch attacks into them, including miss chance for total concealment. So being pinpointed that way is not likely.
-> If an opponent that has not pinpointed you just moves about and passes through your square by coincidence (illegal, but he does not know that...), I would treat that as an overrun. Meaning you can let him pass without revealing yourself, or you can take the AoO and stop him (which isn't what you want, but the temptation...). Thus, finding an enemy by just moving about usually only works for creatures with scent, as then they automatically pinpoint someone as soon as they are adjacent.
-> When fighting an opponent that is invisible (not when you are blinded), you can use flour etc to find them: See "powder" on p. 70 of Complete Equiment or p. 48 of the Pathfinder Society Field Guide for a more complete description.
As I said, the stealth description and the invisibility detection table on p. 563 diverge, and it is hard to tell which version or combination of both applies. A problem I see is that stealth seems to be designed around hiding somewhere out of sight, which is the norm for it's use. Invisibility is sort of a different case. So the flat "It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging" from the stealth description might not apply to invisibility/being blinded.
An example. If I as a DM had a character who hides in a bush, lets a guard walk past and then shoots a sneaky arrow at the guard, staying hidden in the bush, that's totally believable. Difficult, which is why sniping is at -20, but entirely realistic.
If the same character wants to jump out of the bush, stab the guard without killing him, then run back into the bush (e.g. spring attack) and expect the guard not to know where he went, I would find the idea preposterous. That's why it makes sense to say Using Stealth while attacking is impossible.
But if you are invisible, that's entirely normal. If you stab someone and then walk away a few meters, they WILL not know where you went unless you leave tracks/disturb dust etc. And the latter should be a question of how good you are at hiding.
So to me it makes sense to say a character that is invisible or fighting someone blinded can attack in melee and then take a move action to move away, using stealth. Pinpointing him afterwards would be DC Stealth Check +20 for invisibility moving +20 for pinpointing -20 for fighting, so Stealth Check+20. It may be that "It’s impossible
to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." from the stealth skill description doesn't apply. That may be why the table has a DC modifier for attacking (-20) instead of outruling it, like stealth.
But unless there is some official answer to this, the contradiction between the stealth description and the table makes finding a definitive answer impossible.
Blind-Fight does not allow you to retain your Dex bonus to AC when blinded. You do retain your Dex bonus to AC when attacked by an invisible attacker. However, if the attacker uses Stealth, you'll probably just lose that Dex bonus again.
Blind-Fight does not allow you to retain your Dex bonus to AC when blinded. You do retain your Dex bonus to AC when attacked by an invisible attacker. However, if the attacker uses Stealth, you'll probably just lose that Dex bonus again.
Although the Blind-Fight feat text doesn't specificaly says it also works while in the blinded condition, the feat itself IS called BLIND-fight, and whenever you're blinded foes are literally invisible to you, so it's reasonable to assume that it does work, since the combat rules to fight while blinded and against invisible foes are the basicaly the same.
Also, I think the +2 attack bonus to invisible characters and the -2 to AC while blinded are not the same thing, and do stack. The rules aren't clear on this, so it could be interpreted either way. I think fighting while blinded should be harder then fighting against invisible foes and that's why I think they don't stack.
The +2 attack bonus while invisible is there because you don't know where the attack is coming from. Even if you manage to retain your Dex bonus to AC with Uncanny Dodge, you still don't know where the attack is coming from.
The -2 on AC while blinded is there because you can't see, you don't know where you're stepping, you may have lost your reference so you don't know which side you're facing, you don't know where to go.
I think this interpretation, which is inside the rules since they never said these -2/+2 are the same thing, this interpretaion is better, more realistic. It takes in account the fact that it's harder to fight while blinded, where you can't see anything, then to fight invisible foes, where you can't see them, but you can still see everything else, specially where you're walking.
This way, if you are attacked by invisible foes, they'll have +2 to their attack (or -2 to your AC). If you're blinded, you have -2 penalty to AC AND everybody is considered invisible to you, so they also have their +2 bonus to attack agains you (or -4 to your AC in total). If you have Blind-Fight, you negate both these penalties.
In conclusion, don't get blinded. And if you do, don't fall prone, or you might as well coup-de-grace yourself.
An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents,
Doh! Alright, but that makes NO sense. This way, if you're fighting invisible creatures, if you close your eyes you'll be fighting them almost the same way.
I liked the interpretation that fighting blinded is worse then fighting invisible foes.
Where does it say that being blind makes you treat creatures that attack you as if they were invisible? Being invisible is not the same as being undetected.
Are you saying creatures, and everything else, are not invisible to you when you're blind?
It doesn't say it anywhere, but it doesn't have to, it's a simple conclusion.
While blinded, everything is invisible, but it doesn't mean it can't be detected by other means.
|
An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents,Doh! Alright, but that makes NO sense. This way, if you're fighting invisible creatures, if you close your eyes you'll be fighting them almost the same way.
I liked the interpretation that fighting blinded is worse then fighting invisible foes.
Unless you are speaking of blinking being blinded is worse than fighting a invisible opponent. All GM that I know if you purposely close your eyes to avoid some effect will apply the penalty till the next round, they will not allow you to close your eyes, take a swing with your weapon and then open then again.
When blinded you suffer the AC penalty against all opponents, not only those that are invisible, you must make a acrobatic check to move a full speed, you don't see the surrounding terrain and so on.
Not a good situation.
|
|
Both should definitely stack.
Fighting an invisible opponent, you can't seem them, but you can see the environment in which you are fighting: so no penalties for you, but a bonus to your opponent because of their ability to maneuver around your guard unseen.
Fighting blind, you can't see the opponent(s) OR the environment.
Having said, I can see that the "sighted" qualifier means they probably don't, in which case the penalty for being blind should probably be -4 to AC imho.
Why?
The RAI seem straightforward. People attacking someone that can't se them get a +2 bonus when trying to hit him.As it is easier to remember a modifier when it is applied to only 1 character, if only the attacker get the bonus (i.e. only the attacker is invisible) you give him a +2.
If the defender is unable to see all of his opponents instead of giving each one of them a +2 to hit it become easier to apply a -2 modifier to the blind character AC.
Nowhere it say that it is meant to be a -4 to the blind character AC.