|2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.|
Since you must spell out what you use to deliver the dirty trick, could happen that your trick could be not enough to blind, but enough to dazzle, so is there as an option.
The DM could say "the sunbeam reflected on the mirror could blind the drow, but just daze the fire giant".
Same for dust vs an elf, or a desert dweller. Just silly examples to illustrate my guess.
I chalk it up to bad rule writing. Dazzle should be an option...that last longer then blind. And if it's dazed, why blind when you can daze? Daze is WAY better then blind...before other things that can work off daze is considered...and really dazed option gets kinda ugly fast as they wont have any actions to clear the dirty trick. Blind and entangle really do blow the other conditions out of the water however.
Daze is WAY better then blind
Not in all situations. Not even in most situations, perhaps. Dazed doesn't affect the target's ability to defend itself, while Blinded is fairly crippling to the vast majority of things. Blinded also neuters anything with a gaze attack, while Dazed doesn't, and it activates sneak attacks and other denied-Dex-to-AC triggers.
Why is dazzle even an option, when blind is as easily accomplished, mechanics-wise? Is dazzle just an option for players with stingy DMs who might actively make an effort to deprive their characters of any means in their surroundings with which to blind their enemies?
Why shouldn't dazzled be an option? It is a condition that is realistically possible using a dirty trick, and is included as such. The player's choice to blind instead of dazzle makes sense, since a blinded opponent is less ominous than a dazzled one, but that doesn't mean that the condition should be omitted entirely.
I don't think the designers included the option for any reason other than because they had no reason not to.