Hi Guys,
Here's another question for you. In a recent game, my level 8 wizard fell victim to a blindness spell (2nd level). Yeah, not fun at all, but then I remembered something...
...I had memorized a spell that might actually help me! A darkvision (2nd level) spell!
However, my DM did not allow this. His reasoning was this, "a darkvision spell enhances ones sight, and when you are blind, there is nothing to enhance."
That sounds reasonable, except... there is nothing that hints that a darkvision spell enhances ones sight, in fact, the spell says, "the subject gains the ability to see 60 ft. ... even in total darkness!"
My thoughts are these, darkvision suppresses the blindness spell temporarily (duration: 1 hour/level) after which, the subject is once again blinded. There is nothing in the darkvision spell description that limits this spell to seeing creatures.
Any thoughts on this?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion would be the same as the GM's. While a literal reading of the spell might suggest that it grants vision to the blind, I would not run it that way in my games. I too would say that the spell does not grant vision to a blind creature, it only enhances ones existing vision to include the ability to see in darkness. A blind creature is not in darkness, even though effectively its the same to him.
Well, there it is, like you said, this spell (darkvision) gives the subject "the ability to see 60 ft." and then it adds, "even in total darkness".
And you are not right, if you are a human (or any other races without darkvision) and in darkness, then yes, you are blinded, the rules states this clearly on page 172.
But yes, we totally agree, the blindness spell permanently removes the ability to see, but like any other spell, this is only permanent until countered by another spell or power. In my oppinion, this could easily be the darkvision spell, which gives "the ability to see 60 ft. ... even in total darkness".
The darkvision entry (on page 562) does not offer any new insights into this conundrum.
Also, lets not forget that Blindness is only a 2nd level spell.
That's pretty clever. I'd probably give the character another save vs. blindness to have darkvision counter it (in which case darkvision would have no other effect), or I'd rule that the character has darkvision [u]only[/u].
I'd say darkvision doesn't negate blindness.
First, it's a type of vision-the name is a compound word with vision in it. Being blind means 'no vision'.
Secondly, you set up a case where dwarves and half-orcs can't be blinded. Why? They have darkvision. It's a questionable and slippery argument, but it's something someone could argue.
Third, 'total darkness' does not equal 'blindness'. Total darkness is the absolute lack of light; see light, continual flame, darkness, deeper darkness spells for example. Being blind could be due to a lack of light, a lack of light-sensitive organs, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player in my group that does this. He reads a spell and then translates it literally. He says this is because he has no way of knowing what the original designers "intentions" were so he prefers to go with whatever a "literal" reading would suggest. This often, somehow, allows him to use (or believe he can use) spells and other things in ingenious new ways. He often imagines himself a genius for discovering these new uses that no one else has ever thought of.
I however, while of course not being omniscient, nor knowing the developers of the game personally, try to glean intent when I make a ruling on how a spell or mechanic should function. Generally, if I have never seen nor heard of a spell or mechanic working in the way he describes I typically say to myself, "that's because it was not intended to work that way". I then do some more reading online and try to look up old Sage Advice columns or rules clarifications to see if an "official" errata had ever been released on the matter. In the end though, it usually comes down to me saying "no, it doesn't work like that, and even though you want to imagine it does, because the wording might let you conclude as much, my decision is no, and its final".
Just me though.
No, no, let's not confuse things. Okugi said "Blind does not mean that it is mearly dark" and I countered that yes, you can be blinded just because of darkness, the rules say so. I did not say that this is the only way to be blinded.
I would NEVER argue that half-orcs and dwarves couldn't be blinded, but in their case, the blindness spell negates their vision (which is darkvision, not normal vision).
Why doesn't darkvision negate blindness temporarily? This is the question. You have a spell that makes you blind and then you have a spell that (could) temporarily negate this ability, giving the subject darkvision.
Yes, when you are blind you have "no vision", until negated somewhow. I could mention a lot of other spells that could potentially negate this spell, my question is merely this, why not darkvision?
Here's another thought for you; what if the darkvision spell was called "gain vision" (which is pretty much what it does), would that negate a spell called "take vision"?
Also, I would love to read up on "total darkness", but I cant find it anywhere in the rules.
If you think I came up with this idea just to "test my DM and the rules", you are absolutely wrong. I told my DM that I had an idea and that he needed to make a ruling, not based on the rules, but based on his own thoughts on the matter, which is what he did.
My fellow players, however, thought it quite clever and a shame that I wasn't allowed to do it.
Also, I dont think this unbalances the system at all. And as a DM, I encourage my players to come up with some clever ideas that will take the rules in new and interesting ways.
Rules shouldn't kill the fun of the game, and rules are meant to be broken.
But no, I didn't complain when my DM made the ruling, I merely thought to dig deeper and test my idea.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This one is fairly easy, actually. Darkvision is defined as:
the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all...It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise
The blindness spell grants the Blinded condition, which states:
The creature cannot see.
Having darkvision thus does not help when one has the Binded condition. As noted earlier, the ability one needs to overcome the Blinded condition is Blindsight (or its lesser cousin Blindsense). To gain Blindsense, you'd need a spell like Beast Shape III.
Nice try. No prize.
Here's another thought for you; what if the darkvision spell was called "gain vision" (which is pretty much what it does), would that negate a spell called "take vision"?
Only if the spell description said so. Now, since neither spell exists, your point is moot.
Darkvision grants you the ability to use your eyes in a manner that they were not intended. It does not give you new eyes. If the eyes you have don't work (for whatever reason), gaining darkvision doesn't fix that.
Let's take a look at how true blindness actually occurs. Usually it is due to some neuromechanical disconnect between the retina and the brain. Presumably, the blindness spell disrupts that connection. This makes it very different than just being in complete darkness. When in complete darkness, your eye still functions. It just has nothing to function on, as there is not reflected light for it to translate to your brain. When you are blind, your eye still receives the light but it is not translated or transmitted to the brain.
So, assume you are blind and visual data is not able to be sent to your brain and then you put on a set of night vision goggles. Do you suddenly gain sight because you can now see through the "darkness" created by being blind? No. You are still blind. It's just that now your rather useless eyes get more or different wavelengths of light.
As another example, if a creature has no movement speed and gets haste cast on it, does it suddenly gain movement? No. Haste augments your already existing movement. If you have no movement, it can't be augmented. The same applies if the creature takes barbarian or monk levels. It doesn't spontaneously gain a movement when it does not have the ability to do so.
I say all that to say this: Morbo says, "Darkvision does not work that way!"
Some page numbers please, because I've been looking for hard evidence from the Core rules :)
Also, I wouldn't say that blindsense/blindsight counters blindness, as much as it gives a whole new way of "sensing" the surroundings. What would counter it would be a wish spell or dispel magic, which would actually negate the blindness effect... or darkvision, which also gives the caster a way of seeing.
If only the spell description of the Darkvision spell used the words "enhance", like you all do. It doesn't, it says that you gain a new vision, which is darkvision.
Oh well, this has (as I feared) turned into a matter of thoughts with no real evidence.
Like you, I'm talking about magical blindness, not natural darkness. Let's keep the tone civil.
Some page numbers please, because I've been looking for hard evidence from the Core rules :)
Also, I wouldn't say that blindsense/blindsight counters blindness, as much as it gives a whole new way of "sensing" the surroundings. What would counter it would be a wish spell or dispel magic, which would actually negate the blindness effect... or darkvision, which also gives the caster a way of seeing.
No page numbers--this is pulled from the online PRPG Glossary. You can do a page search for "blinded" as well as "darkvision" to see the relevant game mechanics.
The spell blindness/deafness is actually specifically countered by the spell remove blindness/deafness.
Darkivision is a specific, defined ability in PRPG, and it specifically relies on sight. Being blinded definitely removes the ability to see. Thus, darkvision does not counter/obviate the effects of blindness.
I'm all for creative use of spells, but this is not even something I'd consider.
The darkvision I am talking about is magical darkvision, cast after you've been blinded. Had the darkvision spell been cast before the blindness spell, yes, it would (in my oppinion) have been negated, meaning that the creature would be blind.
You'll probably also want to look up "Blindsight and Blindsense" which states:
Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures).
If the spell darkvision granted the ability to see while blinded, it would specifically reference one of these two abilities. Without any further evidence, my assumption is it functions as specified in the rules for darkvision. Basically, if it functioned in the way you are describing, it would say so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see, Brekkil, is that you aren't looking for an actual ruling. You are looking for someone to agree with your ruling and won't listen to the half dozen other people disagreeing with you. People have provided page numbers, references and actual logic to try to penetrate your stalwart defense of "Nuh-uh!" with no effect. If you want to rule that darkvision negates blindness, go ahead. It doesn't make you right and us wrong (or vice versa), it simply means that you want to rules things differently.
If you aren't running the game and are simply trying to find evidence in order to overturn your GM's ruling, good luck. You have been unable to convince five of us (but have convinced one).
He might have been referring to me since it might have sounded like I was calling him out for trying to weasel something out of a spell that it doesn't do. I really only meant to say that I have a player in my group that does that. Not that the OP was specifically intending to do that, though that did appear to be the case.
Around these parts we call that "weaseling" :)
And meant in the kindest possible sense.
As an additional note, a few spells have verbiage that specifically states something like "Haste counters and is countered by slow". No such wording here. Though those are obviously specific cases.
Thanks for participating everybody. Well, who wouldn't like someone to agree with them? However, I was trying to get some rules perspective that I couldn't see myself. And yes, I haven't been convinced that darkvision couldn't negate blindness, but I have been convinced that there are few here who wish to use the rules creatively when the rules aren't clear.
I guess it comes down to what type of DM you are. And as I said before, I obeyed the ruling of my DM without any complaints, because he called it as he saw it. We just see it differently and in this case... he was the DM in charge.
Thanks again, guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He makes a point. The spell specifically says "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet [...]" Yes, the rest of it is "even in total darkness" but the word 'even' here is used as an adverb and could mean a number of things, usually that the following phrase is only a tack-on and is actually NOT the guts of the sentence. Also note that the spell does not say that it gives you the Darkvision extraordinary ability.
Now, if the spell doesn't give you the ability to see 60', perhaps Paizo ought to reword it instead of taking it straight from Wizards. You know, something like "You gain Darkvision as the Extraordinary Ability."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, my RPG Superstar item was one that blinded the user, but gave them darkvision 120, light sensitivity, and blindsight for precious metals only.
Brekkil, I am all for creative use of spells, but everyone draws a line somewhere. I don't think this is a test of how creative people are, or how open they are to thinking outside the box. I feel the clear intention of spells like darkvision is to enhance existing sight, not grant sight to creatures that my not even have eyes. If you read the spell too literally, it should allow you to see 60' even if there is a wall in the way.
If I had my way, I probably would have made deafness a 1st level spell, and blindness a 3rd level spell.
PS - Having had many ferrets in the family over the years, weaseling, ferreting, and even ferretface are all positive terms.
I am in the "Congratulations, you can now see in the dark, but you are still blind" camp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 562, description of the Darkvision ability:
"Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no
light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature.
Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be
discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything
that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are
still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they
seem to be.
"It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise" - seems to be of relevance to the discussion at hand.
Not being able to see in the dark is only 1 instance of an effect that causes circumstantial blindness. There are others that are more encompassing, and the blindness spell causes the blinded condition (rather than a 'you are in the dark' type of blindness). The use of Darkvision to circumvent Blindness is certainly within the specific wording of the Darkvision spell verbiage, but there are other game effects which interact here beyond the language of just the Darkvision spell. To wit: the definitions of Darkvision and the Blinded condition are also in play in this circumstance.
"It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise" - seems to be of relevance to the discussion at hand.
Except it actually isn't. That is the text of the Darkvision extraordinary ability, NOT the text of the Darkvision spell.
The Darkvision spell grants the darkvision special ability. To think otherwise is being deliberately obtuse or willfully obstinate. I have a hard time imagining someone would honestly not believe that.
Of course the book/spells/everything is poorly worded. We already know that. The point is though that to imagine that the Darkvision spell grants something better than the Darkvision ability is again, either knowingly attempting to weasel, or... well I don't know.
To define the spell as 'magical' for the Darkvision doesnt make it any different from its (Ex) counterpart.
This as others have said is someone trying to 'literally read it as written', the spell doesnt give you the ability to see when blind, as others have said 'Blindsight/Blindsense' does.
You cannot SEE while Blind regardless of HOW its accomplished, end of story - theres no technical way to dance around it. If the blindness was removed your character could then see in Darkness with the 'Darkvision' spell assuming theres any duration of the spell left by then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the gist of the argument aside from the rules lawyering...
Player has regular sight
Player becomes blinded (due to level 2 spell)
Player gains darkvision (due to level 2 spell)
After darkvision spell expires, player becomes blind again
The argument relies on the sequence of application of spells as well as the belief that the darkvision spell can override the blindness spell if cast after it. It is an interesting argument to be sure.
If I were DM I would have to side with the majority of opinions presented here, but I like the creative idea (so long as it doesn't unduly slow down the game).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being "Blind" is permanent though until cured/removed, "Darkvision" is temporary. A creature cannot 'See' if it is blind and Darkvision simply allows a character to see in perfect Darkness - it doesnt replace or supercede "Blindness". Your eyes are physically afflicted by the powers of unlife (as in the "Blindness" description) - this isnt some temporary effect (if you dont get cured of the affliction it is PERMANENT as the spell says).
If a creature wanted to use 'Darkvision' even as a spell, and it was 'Blind' it would require to have the blindness lifted first to be able to see again.
The arguement makes as much sense as putting Night Vision Goggles on a Blind man. Come on people, can the Blind Man see?, no, enough said.(Though he could use 'Blindsense/Blindsight' if he somehow had access to that in the meantime)
The darkvision I am talking about is magical darkvision, cast after you've been blinded. Had the darkvision spell been cast before the blindness spell, yes, it would (in my oppinion) have been negated, meaning that the creature would be blind.
This was my point, if you reverse the applications of the spells, you end up with a blind creature with darkvision, ergo, a creature that cannot see even though he has an activie darkvision spell because he is blind.
My second point is that the order of the spells should not dictate the effect. If you have two spells simultaneously effecting a creature, the end result should be the same every time. If there is a darkvision and blindness effect in play on the creature, the creature should be blind, reguardless of the order of applications of the spells.
That's my take, it just complicates things if you try and do it another way.
If you REALLY want the darkvision active, I would rule the darkvision could only work in an area of total darkness, since only "darkvision" is being granted, not total vision. If there was bright or dim light around, you could still not see by the effect of blindness.
It seems like the entire crux of the argument for those in favor of Darkvision over-riding blindness depends on this sentence:
"The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness."
While those of us who believe it does not/should not grant vision to the blind do not need clarification, perhaps this debate would end if the sentence instead said:
"The subject gains the Darkvision special ability with a range of 60 feet."
That way people can't hang their entire argument on one sentence meant as a mix of flavor and crunch.
Being "Blind" is permanent though until cured/removed, "Darkvision" is temporary. A creature cannot 'See' if it is blind and Darkvision simply allows a character to see in perfect Darkness - it doesnt replace or supercede "Blindness". Your eyes are physically afflicted by the powers of unlife (as in the "Blindness" description) - this isnt some temporary effect (if you dont get cured of the affliction it is PERMANENT as the spell says).
If a creature wanted to use 'Darkvision' even as a spell, and it was 'Blind' it would require to have the blindness lifted first to be able to see again.
The arguement makes as much sense as putting Night Vision Goggles on a Blind man. Come on people, can the Blind Man see?, no, enough said.(Though he could use 'Blindsense/Blindsight' if he somehow had access to that in the meantime)
You are entirely missing the point and getting belligerent about it.
You are completely ignoring the argument from the opposing side that the magic spell specifically says it grants you the ability to see 60', with the bonus of being able to see in the dark.I have a better question at this point, why the hell can a second level spell make you permanently blind?
'Blindness' is permanent, 'Darkvision' as a spell is temporary. The 'Darkvision' spell doesnt superceede the blindness effect, much like casting 'Darkvision' on a blind person would not give them the ability to see just because the wording of the spell says it does - it requires a touch of common sense to say you cant make a blind man (or woman) see something they ordinarily could not since 'Darkvision' is a natural ability to some races.
Its like saying a Blind Dwarf could see, casting 'Darkvision' isnt going to restore his sight. Use Break Enchantment/Remove Blindness etc instead...makes more sense...
No player in my group has tried to 'literally' superceede the GM with literal wording of spells, so far the players whose characters HAVE been blinded for whatever reason go to get their blindness cured, not find loopholes where there is none....when they cast a spell like 'Darkvision' it sounds like and works like the natural ability of the same name, theres no sense jumping on the wording of it when you compare it to a natural ability other beings have who DONT get to see if theyre rendered Blind.
Why can a second level spell make you blind? (its 2nd Lv Wiz/Sor, 3rd Clr), because it worked that way since 3.0 I am pretty sure, and its simple enough to remove by several methods. You do get a saving throw against it, its an all or nothing shot with no partial effects. Just like 'See Invisibility' is the same level as 'Invisibility' (2nd), its for game balance. It'd be a waste to make it higher level unless the means to cure it was also higher level too.
'Blindness' is permanent, 'Darkvision' as a spell is temporary.
I presume you are trying to ignore me.
The 'Darkvision' spell doesnt superceede the blindness effect, much like casting 'Darkvision' on a blind person would not give them the ability to see just because the wording of the spell says it does - it requires a touch of common sense to say you cant make a blind man (or woman) see something they ordinarily could not since 'Darkvision' is a natural ability to some races.
Really, the argument now is "common sense?" Why, pray tell, is it common sense that a 2nd level spell could blind you permanently but the same level spell couldn't give you temporary vision out to 60'? Additionally, why does it make sense that you need a 3rd level or higher spell to counter a 2nd level spell?
Honestly, it makes MORE sense to say the spell Darkvision lets you see out to 60' for a few hours.
I humbly suggest that those in favor of Darkvision not over-riding blindness simply note their position and then let it go. There is no convincing this one.
'Blindness' is permanent, 'Darkvision' as a spell is temporary.I presume you are trying to ignore me.
The 'Darkvision' spell doesnt superceede the blindness effect, much like casting 'Darkvision' on a blind person would not give them the ability to see just because the wording of the spell says it does - it requires a touch of common sense to say you cant make a blind man (or woman) see something they ordinarily could not since 'Darkvision' is a natural ability to some races.Really, the argument now is "common sense?" Why, pray tell, is it common sense that a 2nd level spell could blind you permanently but the same level spell couldn't give you temporary vision out to 60'? Additionally, why does it make sense that you need a 3rd level or higher spell to counter a 2nd level spell?
Honestly, it makes MORE sense to say the spell Darkvision lets you see out to 60' for a few hours.
I'm not trying to annoy anyone here - but it seems this is more about letting someone get around an otherwise simple effect. Blindness/Deafness has the shortest entry of all the spells and it says and I state "The creatre cannot see, takes a -2 penalty to AC, loses its Dex bonus to AC (if any) and takes a -4 penalty to STR and DEX cased skill checks and opposed perception skill checks...", 'Darkvision' while it grants the ability to see you still carry the status affliction of being BLIND at the same time, nowhere does it say in Darkvision it supresses natural blindness or magical blindness, it grants a creature the ability to see 60 in darkness ASSUMING the creature can see.
Otherwise this spell will be exploited to give even naturally blind people (and creatures) the ability to see albeit for a while as you said.It is a problem with 'stacking' spell effects ontop of one another, you see normally, and someone strikes you blind - someone casts a spell that WOULD let you see in darkness but being blind isnt the same as being in darkness, your eyes are physically affected by negative energy and thusly became inert or useless, adding an 'effect' to a for all intensive purposes dead or cataracted eye isnt going to let you see. (The spell description for Blindness/Deafness says "You call upon the powers of unlife to render a subject blinded or deafened, as you choose"...this isnt some temporary thing)
The reason why a second level spell can make a creature blind is the same as why a second level spell can make a creature 'invisible' or why a second level spell lets you add a +4 temporary enhancement bonus to any stat...its because its easy to remove that its 2nd level, if it was more difficult to remove it'd be a higher level.
"Darkvision" says "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness.", being Blind isnt the same as being in darkness, how are people confusing this?, it says you can see EVEN in total darkness, it doesnt say you can see if your blind.
That the last I'll chime in on this one, Jreyst said, this is how Pathfinder intended it to work I am more than sure. And its how most GM's would rule in this case.
I'm not trying to annoy anyone here - but it seems this is more about letting someone get around an otherwise simple effect. Blindness/Deafness has the shortest entry of all the spells and it says and I state [i]"The creatre cannot see,
And the Darkvision spell states "The subject gains the ability to see."
You seem to be under the notion that people are arguing darkvision lets you see through blindness caused darkness. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. Not a single person, not a single time.
I'm not trying to annoy anyone here - but it seems this is more about letting someone get around an otherwise simple effect. Blindness/Deafness has the shortest entry of all the spells and it says and I state [i]"The creatre cannot see,And the Darkvision spell states "The subject gains the ability to see."
Ok, so by this logic, if someone was to gouge out someone's eyes and blinded them, since they can't see. All they would need to do is have darkvision cast on them, and by miracle of miracles they can. They have no eyes, but the first half of the first sentence of the spell description said "The subject gains the ability to see".
Darkvision can even be made permanent with a 5th level spell, totally making the need for that 7th level spell of regenerate pointless...
You seem to be under the notion that people are arguing darkvision lets you see through blindness caused darkness. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. Not a single person, not a single time.
An it's a shame that no one has said this. Darkvision actually would cure blinded condition that's simply caused by being in the dark...
Ok, so by this logic, if someone was to gouge out someone's eyes and blinded them, since they can't see. All they would need to do is have darkvision cast on them, and by miracle of miracles they can. They have no eyes, but the first half of the first sentence of the spell description said "The subject gains the ability to see".
I continue to wonder why that is assumed to be a valid argument.
Things other 2nd level spells do: turn you into an Orc, make you invisible, turn a rope into a portal into another dimension, levitate a person, walk on walls and ceilings, etc.Darkvision can even be made permanent with a 5th level spell, totally making the need for that 7th level spell of regenerate pointless...
Regenerate was already a "RP-heavy campaign only" spell. If you arn't in a campaign where you are likely to lose body parts, a 4th level Cure Critical will be a much better choice.
This is the entry of the spell as found in the 'Pathfinder Core Rulebook', Pg 264 - on the subject of 'literal translation' of what is written.
DARKVISION
School Transmutation Level Rgr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V,S,M (pich of dried carrot or an agate)
Range Touch
Target Creature Touched
Duration 1 Hour/Level
Saving Throw Will Negates (Harmless) SR Yes(Harmless)
The subject of the spell gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white but otherwise like normal sight
Darkvision can be made permanent with a Permenancy spell
It works like normal sight (in this case normal Darkvision just as the spell states) - you gain the ability to see in darkness nothing more, if it functions like normal sight then it doesnt work if your blind. You gain 60ft Darkvision if you didnt already have it but it specifically says works like normal sight, therefore it doesnt give you the ability to see if you ordinarily could not. This overrides the whole 'The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet' element of the spell.
Thats how it worked in 3.0/3.5 and thats how it works here. Taking whats been literally written of course - it doesnt bestow the ability to see on a blinded creature regardless if it was naturally able to see using Darkvision or not.
It works like normal sight - you gain the ability to see in darkness nothing more, if it functions like normal sight then it doesnt work if your blind.
Unless of course you cast a spell that lets you see.
It works like normal sight - you gain the ability to see in darkness nothing more, if it functions like normal sight then it doesnt work if your blind.Unless of course you cast a spell that lets you see.
It lets you see - assuming you can, it says it functions like normal sight, if you cant 'see' due to some kind of non-darkness related factor then your blinded still even if it IS a magical effect.
Thats like saying a character wearing a blindfold can see using Darkvision by following your arguement, because he 'cannot see naturally' just as the Blindness spell prevents one from seeing permanently until cured.
Princess: I recommend giving up. You won't get anywhere. The good thing is that the OP's GM made the right call so in all honesty there really is nothing to be gained by trying to convince those who seek to read these things literally.
Princess: I recommend giving up. You won't get anywhere. The good thing is that the OP's GM made the right call so in all honesty there really is nothing to be gained by trying to convince those who seek to read these things literally.
Your right...I should have stopped. But I couldnt resist since the spell implicity says it works like normal sight...ergo, your still blind. It'll be the last I say on the issue, I am sure most GM's dont allow it to bestow sight to the blinded.