Character loses an eye


Rules Questions


If a character has one of their eyes permanently damaged/destroyed what penalties are involved? Is it the same has having a permanent Blind condition? Or are those penalties halved? Also the PRD states that “Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.” At what point would the character no longer suffer these penalties?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Thanks to the Critical Hit deck, this recently happened to one of my players. We're using the rules right off the card; -4 Perception and Ranged Attacks. That's it. If there's an official rule out there, I ain't seen it. The deck rule seems pretty simple and he can heal his eye with curative magic if he decides to get it fixed. So far, he's content to wear a patch and take the modest penalties.


Sebacore wrote:
If a character has one of their eyes permanently damaged/destroyed what penalties are involved? Is it the same has having a permanent Blind condition? Or are those penalties halved? Also the PRD states that “Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.” At what point would the character no longer suffer these penalties?

How exactly did a PC lose an eye? Are you using a critical hit deck or something? The core rules don't have anything in them about specific wounds, they only have hit points and their loss. Thus having a PC lose an eye would have to come under GM fiat, in which case what happens after that would also be under the realm of GM fiat.


MendedWall12 wrote:


How exactly did a PC lose an eye? Are you using a critical hit deck or something? The core rules don't have anything in them about specific wounds, they only have hit points and their loss. Thus having a PC lose an eye would have to come under GM fiat, in which case what happens after that would also be under the realm of GM fiat.

This actually hasn't happened yet. It is something that popped into my head earlier today. I thought it would be interesting to see how the rules would handle something like it. Thanks for the response.


Velcro Zipper wrote:
Thanks to the Critical Hit deck, this recently happened to one of my players. We're using the rules right off the card; -4 Perception and Ranged Attacks. That's it. If there's an official rule out there, I ain't seen it. The deck rule seems pretty simple and he can heal his eye with curative magic if he decides to get it fixed. So far, he's content to wear a patch and take the modest penalties.

This is how I did it.

One of my Runelords PCs had his eye put out by a red hot poker.

I required a regeneration spell to fix it, although the player was actually happy with having one eye and so he never sought out the high-level caster.


At first I would be more inclined to go with "half-blinded", with the penalties on the card as the "adjusted to the loss" stats. Since the eye itself has been removed, the character needs regenerate to get it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Velcro Zipper wrote:
Thanks to the Critical Hit deck, this recently happened to one of my players. We're using the rules right off the card; -4 Perception and Ranged Attacks. That's it. If there's an official rule out there, I ain't seen it. The deck rule seems pretty simple and he can heal his eye with curative magic if he decides to get it fixed. So far, he's content to wear a patch and take the modest penalties.

-4 to ranged attacks because of a missing eye? I find that a bit humorous, as a hobby archer myself, I always close one eye when I'm sighting my shot. I suppose the -4 could come into play if it was the character's dominant eye that got damaged, thus they have to adjust to using their non-dominant eye to shoot. If anything I would say a damaged eye would affect melee combat before ranged, since you lose the ability to see past your nose on one side or the other, and you lose a bit of depth perception from not having a bi-ocular image for your brain to process.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I'm of the opinion that a lost eye should penalize melee attacks and AC, rather than ranged attacks (maybe ranged attacks in close range).

I know, it seems a little counter-intuitive, but think about it. What do archers or gunmen do when lining up a distant shot? They close one eye.

And it's backed up by science too. You only use binocular vision to determine distance out to about 20 ft. After that, your brain relies on visual cues, which means losing an eye would have no effect. What a monocular person would find difficult is dealing with objects very close, moving very fast (like an axe swinging at your head, for instance).

There's a great article by a guy who actually lost an eye on depth perception and what he found difficult to do Here

EDIT: Okay, semi-ninja'd, but I have a nice link :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MendedWall12 wrote:
I find that a bit humorous, as a hobby archer myself, I always close one eye when I'm sighting my shot.

As an experiment try blindfolding one eye and go to a range that you've never been before, not opening the blindfold until after you've had your first trial volleys. I'd be interested in the results.


LazarX wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
I find that a bit humorous, as a hobby archer myself, I always close one eye when I'm sighting my shot.
As an experiment try blindfolding one eye and go to a range that you've never been before, not opening the blindfold until after you've had your first trial volleys. I'd be interested in the results.

Suuuuuuurrre... You just want me to go out in public looking like an idiot pirate with an eye-patch on. I see what you're doing and it won't work.

In all seriousness though, I see your point. At first I'm sure adjusting from two eyes to one is difficult, and could potentially throw off your ranged attacks, but I'm thinking that once you've adjusted to only having one eye that would eventually disappear completely. Which makes me think perhaps there should be some kind of length of time/dissipation of effect mechanic.


If it's a non-ranged based character it's not a huge problem. If somehow my archer got his eye put out and the GM told me I now had a -4 penalty to ranged attacks I'd be pretty angry (especially if it was some GM triggered thing that resulted in me losing the eye).

I don't see a problem with penalties, but try to tailor them to the PC so it's not an overwhelming kick in the junk.

If you run a combat heavy game, I'd even just go with something like -4 perception but a +4 to intimidate. You could end up with a character even enjoying (weird) losing their eye in that sense.


MendedWall12 wrote:
In all seriousness though, I see your point. At first I'm sure adjusting from two eyes to one is difficult, and could potentially throw off your ranged attacks, but I'm thinking that once you've adjusted to only having one eye that would eventually disappear completely.

The important point is that depth perception is dependant on having two eyes that provide contrasting information tha the brain can process to triangulate to a target. Permanently losing an eye removes that ability, permanently.

While you can eventually learn to compensate to a certain degree and straight non moving shots are pretty easy, beaing able to hit moving targets or anything more than a straight line at a static point becomes nearly impossible. Hence the penalties to hit at range in combat.

I beleive certain states also can permnently revoke drivers licenses if you lose an eye since depth perception is what stops you from rear ending the car in front of you, for one example.


Right, right. Losing an eye sucks in real life. It's a fantasy RPG. Jarlaxle would tell you that going with only one eye isn't too bad. We're talking about characters that can Fly and stop time. If I wanted to start bringing real life penalties into the game it would get ridiculous. Make the loss of an eye into something COOL, however it works in your game. People will remember it fondly, instead of remembering how their character was made to suck for a playsession or more.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Gilfalas wrote:


The important point is that depth perception is dependant on having two eyes that provide contrasting information tha the brain can process to triangulate to a target. Permanently losing an eye removes that ability, permanently.

But after about 20 ft., the image from each eye is no longer different enough to provide sufficient contrast, meaning you lose the benefit of binocular vision anyway.

Go read the page I posted where the one-eyed man talks about losing an eye. It's interesting stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a lost eye should penalize melee attacks and AC, rather than ranged attacks (maybe ranged attacks in close range).

I know, it seems a little counter-intuitive, but think about it. What do archers or gunmen do when lining up a distant shot? They close one eye.

And it's backed up by science too. You only use binocular vision to determine distance out to about 20 ft. After that, your brain relies on visual cues, which means losing an eye would have no effect. What a monocular person would find difficult is dealing with objects very close, moving very fast (like an axe swinging at your head, for instance).

There's a great article by a guy who actually lost an eye on depth perception and what he found difficult to do Here

EDIT: Okay, semi-ninja'd, but I have a nice link :D

Reading that article, I would say give them a -4 to perception (because of the blind spot) and a penalty on actions out to a distance of 20ft that rely on sight (attacks, acrobatics, disable device, craft). -1 to actions at a range of 20ft, -2 at 15ft, -3 at 10ft, and -4 at 5ft or closer. Also apply this penalty to dexterity bonus to AC. Give the character a +2 to intimidate because someone with an eye patch could be a little intimidating.

After 3 months of living with it, halve the penalties. After 6 months of living with it, eliminate all penalties except a -2 to perception.
So after 6 months of living with one eye, the character now has +2 to intimidate and -2 to perception. He/she would have gotten used to only having one eye and adapted to it.

Silver Crusade

Sylvanite wrote:


I don't see a problem with penalties, but try to tailor them to the PC so it's not an overwhelming kick in the junk.

This. Some people would like to play a one-eyed character just for the image, like a wizard in a pointy hat. Nothing wrong with that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MendedWall12 wrote:

]

Suuuuuuurrre... You just want me to go out in public looking like an idiot pirate with an eye-patch on. I see what you're doing and it won't work.

Given that the third Pirates movie is coming out, it's perfect timing. :)

When I used to work in Manhattan I'd sometimes see this fairly colorful character walking out on the street. He had a parrot on his shoulder with a 10 foot tether attached to it. Don't remember if he had an eyepatch, but he had the rest of the scruffy look down pat.


DrDew wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a lost eye should penalize melee attacks and AC, rather than ranged attacks (maybe ranged attacks in close range).

I know, it seems a little counter-intuitive, but think about it. What do archers or gunmen do when lining up a distant shot? They close one eye.

And it's backed up by science too. You only use binocular vision to determine distance out to about 20 ft. After that, your brain relies on visual cues, which means losing an eye would have no effect. What a monocular person would find difficult is dealing with objects very close, moving very fast (like an axe swinging at your head, for instance).

There's a great article by a guy who actually lost an eye on depth perception and what he found difficult to do Here

EDIT: Okay, semi-ninja'd, but I have a nice link :D

Reading that article, I would say give them a -4 to perception (because of the blind spot) and a penalty on actions out to a distance of 20ft that rely on sight (attacks, acrobatics, disable device, craft). -1 to actions at a range of 20ft, -2 at 15ft, -3 at 10ft, and -4 at 5ft or closer. Also apply this penalty to dexterity bonus to AC. Give the character a +2 to intimidate because someone with an eye patch could be a little intimidating.

After 3 months of living with it, halve the penalties. After 6 months of living with it, eliminate all penalties except a -2 to perception.
So after 6 months of living with one eye, the character now has +2 to intimidate and -2 to perception. He/she would have gotten used to only having one eye and adapted to it.

Well thought out mechanic. I like all of it. Especially that after six months of living with one eye you've balanced the PC's -2 to perception with a +2 to intimidate. One question, when you halve the penalties are you rounding down?

+1 to this.


MendedWall12 wrote:
DrDew wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a lost eye should penalize melee attacks and AC, rather than ranged attacks (maybe ranged attacks in close range).

I know, it seems a little counter-intuitive, but think about it. What do archers or gunmen do when lining up a distant shot? They close one eye.

And it's backed up by science too. You only use binocular vision to determine distance out to about 20 ft. After that, your brain relies on visual cues, which means losing an eye would have no effect. What a monocular person would find difficult is dealing with objects very close, moving very fast (like an axe swinging at your head, for instance).

There's a great article by a guy who actually lost an eye on depth perception and what he found difficult to do Here

EDIT: Okay, semi-ninja'd, but I have a nice link :D

Reading that article, I would say give them a -4 to perception (because of the blind spot) and a penalty on actions out to a distance of 20ft that rely on sight (attacks, acrobatics, disable device, craft). -1 to actions at a range of 20ft, -2 at 15ft, -3 at 10ft, and -4 at 5ft or closer. Also apply this penalty to dexterity bonus to AC. Give the character a +2 to intimidate because someone with an eye patch could be a little intimidating.

After 3 months of living with it, halve the penalties. After 6 months of living with it, eliminate all penalties except a -2 to perception.
So after 6 months of living with one eye, the character now has +2 to intimidate and -2 to perception. He/she would have gotten used to only having one eye and adapted to it.

Well thought out mechanic. I like all of it. Especially that after six months of living with one eye you've balanced the PC's -2 to perception with a +2 to intimidate. One question, when you halve the penalties are you rounding down?

+1 to this.

Rounding down seems a good idea to me. That means that after 3 months there's no penalty at 20ft anymore.


Sylvanite wrote:
Right, right. Losing an eye sucks in real life. It's a fantasy RPG. Jarlaxle would tell you that going with only one eye isn't too bad. We're talking about characters that can Fly and stop time. If I wanted to start bringing real life penalties into the game it would get ridiculous. Make the loss of an eye into something COOL, however it works in your game. People will remember it fondly, instead of remembering how their character was made to suck for a playsession or more.

This.

First thing I thought of was, 'This is a FANTASY game...' Real world stuff is over-rated here... ;)

When i play pirate game... I'm going to have an eye patch... a hook... AND a peg leg!!!

>.>

<.<

So will my PARROT!!! ^_^

the thing to remember is that things like this can either be really cool... or really pointless.

If you shackle the player with a bunch of penalties every time he loses and eye, or an ear... then he'll go get it regenerated or healed back. it's really JUST that easy in these worlds. if the players wants to do soemthing a bit fun... Don't penalize him to the point that he will immediately get it fixed and go back to status quo.

it'll be less fun for everyone.

Besides, stats are fluid enough to represent a lot of thing... A dex of 10 could mean a peg leg... or just not athletic...

Considering the way you can assign points wherever you want them... If my Perception isn't completly maxed out... that's from the eyepatch. if I had two eyes I'd be AWESOMER ;) If my perception IS maxed out... but my Wisdom bonus sucks... I'll blame THAT on the eyepatch...


phantom1592 wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:
Right, right. Losing an eye sucks in real life. It's a fantasy RPG. Jarlaxle would tell you that going with only one eye isn't too bad. We're talking about characters that can Fly and stop time. If I wanted to start bringing real life penalties into the game it would get ridiculous. Make the loss of an eye into something COOL, however it works in your game. People will remember it fondly, instead of remembering how their character was made to suck for a playsession or more.

This.

First thing I thought of was, 'This is a FANTASY game...' Real world stuff is over-rated here... ;)

When i play pirate game... I'm going to have an eye patch... a hook... AND a peg leg!!!

>.>

<.<

So will my PARROT!!! ^_^

the thing to remember is that things like this can either be really cool... or really pointless.

If you shackle the player with a bunch of penalties every time he loses and eye, or an ear... then he'll go get it regenerated or healed back. it's really JUST that easy in these worlds. if the players wants to do soemthing a bit fun... Don't penalize him to the point that he will immediately get it fixed and go back to status quo.

it'll be less fun for everyone.

Besides, stats are fluid enough to represent a lot of thing... A dex of 10 could mean a peg leg... or just not athletic...

Considering the way you can assign points wherever you want them... If my Perception isn't completly maxed out... that's from the eyepatch. if I had two eyes I'd be AWESOMER ;) If my perception IS maxed out... but my Wisdom bonus sucks... I'll blame THAT on the eyepatch...

So how do you do a character with an 8th level cleric with 18 Wis and a maxed Perception who loses his eye then? Nothing happens? When his eye gets regenerated he gets more bonuses?

We're not talking about characters starting with one eye. We're talking about characters who started with 2 eyes and lost one of them during play.


He relies on many different senses (as perception ALREADY does). Easy. Clean. It's a fantasy RPG.


I'd probably go with the -4 to perception... and call it good. I wouldn't mess with attack rolls or range or anything like that.

or I'd go with nothing.

This kind of system isn't really DESIGNED to nitpick critical hits... We don't really have penalties for strained muscles or concussions or broken bones...

However, all the characters HAVE them...

Everytime they get hit with a sword and have to heal naturally... They should have scars... We don't penalize charisma or anything...

Anyone with an Arrow in them should be hit with movement penalties... PROBABLY should take extra damage everytime one is removed.. (not sure if that's in THIS game or not... if it is, we don't use that rule...)

If I was the Dm, I'd turn all the penalties about it into Role-playing things... people would be unsettled talking to him.. He wouldn't notice the shadow moving to his left or something...

If I was the player, I'd specifically NOT put a couple of levels into Perception and spend them elsewhere... But that's my call. I don't want the DM to penalize me... (I'm actually BETTER at screwing my characters over then the DM is ;) )

Perception is MORE than just sight. It's also hearing, and touch, and sometimes just instinct. When one sense gets diminished, the others can compinsate enough not to mess with the character too much.

Realism can be fun to add to games... but I don't like TOO MUCH realism! I prefer cinematic heroes then documentaries. I want characters who can take 3 or 4 arrows and keep fighting. Some people look for more 'Saving Private ryan' than 'lord of the rings' and that's fine...

but I'm not one of them :)


phantom1592 wrote:

If you shackle the player with a bunch of penalties every time he loses and eye, or an ear... then he'll go get it regenerated or healed back. it's really JUST that easy in these worlds. if the players wants to do soemthing a bit fun... Don't penalize him to the point that he will immediately get it fixed and go back to status quo.

it'll be less fun for everyone.

This runs counter to my personal experience, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's correct for some groups, GMs, and players.

I think it is wise for the GM to make the call based on the game and the player (rather than merely their own preference). Some players will actually sign up to take penalties like the ones upthread.


phantom1592 wrote:

I'd probably go with the -4 to perception... and call it good. I wouldn't mess with attack rolls or range or anything like that.

or I'd go with nothing.

This kind of system isn't really DESIGNED to nitpick critical hits... We don't really have penalties for strained muscles or concussions or broken bones...

However, all the characters HAVE them...

Everytime they get hit with a sword and have to heal naturally... They should have scars... We don't penalize charisma or anything...

Actually I had a player who took a grievous wound (more than half his HP in one hit), to the face no less (although that's really fluff, but that's how I described it at the table), and after he healed wanted there to be some type of noticeable scar, and we negotiated a permanent drop in his charisma, but a permanent bonus to his intimidate. Sometimes things like that can help make a character just that much more fun to play, and realistic. YMMV of course.


Sylvanite wrote:
Right, right. Losing an eye sucks in real life. It's a fantasy RPG. Jarlaxle would tell you that going with only one eye isn't too bad. We're talking about characters that can Fly and stop time.

EVERYTHING in an RPG needs some sort of basis to be derived from . Simply saying that an RPG has 'magic and a heroic theme' and therefore means real world facts are useless devolves any discussion to an arguement of 'cuz I said so'. I mean why do we all accept that armor helps protect you in the game? Because in real life, armor helped protect you! Why do we all accept that you cannot do anything when your dead in game? Because in real life you can't do anything when your dead too.

Just because the game has magic does not mean we cannot discuss what happens in reality to try to make an interesting and appropriate counterpart to that situation in game and I will confess that the very argument annoys me to no end. It is saying 'well the game has magic so we shouldn't even think'.

Sorry but it is a pet peave of mine when people cite 'magic' as a reason to invalidate, out of hand, reasonable discussion.

As for Jarlaxle, he was a character in a book and the author of that book made it clear in numerous interviews, he wrote books and did not care anything for the D&D game system when he did, other than as the most general of guidlelines and backdrops for the setting of the world. So Jarlaxle was great even with one eye for no more inmportant reason than Mr. Salvatore thought that was good fiction. Game rules on what that lost eye did to Jarlaxle were never a factor in any way.


Gilfalas wrote:
As for Jarlaxle, he was a character in a book and the author of that book made it clear in numerous interviews, he wrote books and did not care anything for the D&D game system when he did, other than as the most general of guidlelines and backdrops for the setting of the world. So Jarlaxle was great even with one eye for no more inmportant reason than Mr. Salvatore thought that was good fiction. Game rules on what that lost eye did to Jarlaxle were never a factor in any way.

Very true... his characters are not bound by D&D rules. But then again, D&D has no rules for losing an eye.. or other specific damage. So that's kind of moot.

In Jarlaxle's defense... I don't know if the eyepatch actually HAMPERED him at all.. He never really LOST an eye... he just wore the eyepatch ANYway... and since it was magical, I'm not sure if he could actually 'see' through it or not.

But even if he COULDN'T... The books were good fiction... and that's exactly what these games are too.. Fiction. Heroic heroes doing heroic things... and MANY characters have eyepatches and still kick butt like nobodies business...

You never see Nick Fury or Snake waving his hand in front of him to grab a rail, or walking into door frames...The patch is just 'cool'

Though... Now I have an image of Sam jackson as Fury walking into a wall.. then scowling at anyone to DARE make a comment... While everyone goes back to what they were doing and claiming to have 'not seen a thing'...

^_^

It's a good image....


Gilfalas wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:
Right, right. Losing an eye sucks in real life. It's a fantasy RPG. Jarlaxle would tell you that going with only one eye isn't too bad. We're talking about characters that can Fly and stop time.

EVERYTHING in an RPG needs some sort of basis to be derived from . Simply saying that an RPG has 'magic and a heroic theme' and therefore means real world facts are useless devolves any discussion to an arguement of 'cuz I said so'. I mean why do we all accept that armor helps protect you in the game? Because in real life, armor helped protect you! Why do we all accept that you cannot do anything when your dead in game? Because in real life you can't do anything when your dead too.

Just because the game has magic does not mean we cannot discuss what happens in reality to try to make an interesting and appropriate counterpart to that situation in game and I will confess that the very argument annoys me to no end. It is saying 'well the game has magic so we shouldn't even think'.

Sorry but it is a pet peave of mine when people cite 'magic' as a reason to invalidate, out of hand, reasonable discussion.

As for Jarlaxle, he was a character in a book and the author of that book made it clear in numerous interviews, he wrote books and did not care anything for the D&D game system when he did, other than as the most general of guidlelines and backdrops for the setting of the world. So Jarlaxle was great even with one eye for no more inmportant reason than Mr. Salvatore thought that was good fiction. Game rules on what that lost eye did to Jarlaxle were never a factor in any way.

Your point isn't convincing. What Salvatore did is exactly what ANY GM would have to do in terms of a character losing an eye. As Phantom mentioned, there are no rules for it. So if you're going to start going around and making things up for the sake of a good story (which is what you're doing, even with penalties), just make something up that makes the story better for everyone. If your group wants to play in a more reality bound world where a PC losing an eye has a huge impact, then fine if that makes the story better for everyone. However, if it's going to make things less enjoyable for the player(s) then why penalize them? Figure it out so it's fun. Bounding yourself with real-world guidelines in a fantasy game just "because it needs to be like real life" is just terrible reasoning behind making up new rules (unless, as I mentioned, that's what makes it fun for the people involved).

I guess my main point is that people should work to a conclusion that fits the story being told...hence why earlier in the thread I suggested some minor penalties, but ultimately nothing that will ruin how the player is trying to play the character. Games work better when the Rule of Cool is invoked when determining situations that are already outside the normal rules.


Tangent

Spoiler:
Jarlaxle had two functioning eyes. The eyepatch often changed eyes. I would go so far as to say the eyepatch might have been only an illusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am actually blind in one eye so I can maybe help here.

I used to have 20/20 vision, but when I was 13 (and just learning D&D at the time ironically), I got walloped by a tennis ball during a game. The eye was badly damaged, but healed itself to about 100% effectiveness. However that eye's ability to see has gradually diminished over time. Then around 5 years ago it so, it went completely blind. So I know what it is like to see out both and then, only see out of 1.

You don't lose distance in your vision and you don't lose ability to see small details in things either.

There are three things that effect you most:

Peripheral Vision. It is significantly reduced. So much so, that I bump into things I don't see on my right constantly and I must take a lane change to my right, very, very cautiously and must specifically turn my head to complete the lane change.

Depth perception. This isn't nearly as bad as the loss in peripheral vision. In fact you adapt and although your depth perception is diminished, you do maintain a fairly decent degree of this. I struggle to catch a baseball much more than before, especially if it is thrown fast and comes at me from the right side.

Seeing in the dark. You only have one operating iris, so the amount of light you let in when it is dark is severely limited. So in light that many people only consider "kinda dark", I have a very hard time seeing anything. Also if there is a light shining in from my left side, I can really struggle to see, because the right eye can't compensate or adjust.

It isn't as bad as you would think. I play soccer for example. And playing soccer is just fine (this is an activity similar to combat in some ways in that you must move and strike and must watch a large field to figure out where to position yourself). My only real drawback here is my vision of the field (especially to my right) is diminished. I usually play the wing, where my good eye can stay focused on the field of play. I tend to play much better in natural light than artificial light, because many soccer fields aren't lit that well and like I said, seeing in dimmer light is a strain for me.

I'd house the following rules, as a suggestion:

Perception -4. I think this is fine. I think I'd apply it most, if lighting was low (torch light) or if peripheral vision was required to see the object.

I'd add a penalty to being flanked. If someone is flanking you on both sides (and you can't turn your head to compensate for your lack of peripheral), you're going to have a very bad time defending yourself. I'd increase the penalty to being flanked this way.

You should still be able to fight just fine, and read just fine and even do things like pick locks or find traps. Detail work isn't hard, I can paint miniatures just as well with one eye as I did with two.

And if you ever meet me in a bar and want to take me down, feign with your left, then roundhouse me with your right, from as far an arc from my right eye as possible. I won't see it coming until you are mere inches from my face. :)

Sovereign Court

Ironicdisaster

Spoiler:
No, it is real and very magical, allowing him to see through invisibility and other magical disguises


Hama wrote:

Ironicdisaster

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, it's definitely a real thing... and he'd switch it back and forth as he saw fit. I thought it let him detect magic... As such, i wasn't sure if it actually BLOCKED his sight... or if the enchantment is working ON that eye...

but I couldn't remember.

Though the fact that Salvatore himself couldn't remember what all magic gear he decked that guy out in makes me not feel too bad ;)


Back on topic, I would rule penalties, but only until he played a whole level with it. After that, he would be used to it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Character loses an eye All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.