Can you make opportunity attacks if you're blind?


4th Edition


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

This came up recently and we werent really able to settle the question. It seemed silly in one sense (the grimlocks smashed the party's light source then ran away - how would the fighter meaningfully force them to stop and fight in the sudden total darkness?) but at the same time seemed to be consistent with the rules (with the appropriate penalty to the attack, of course). Is it spelt out anywhere?

Can you make opportunity attacks if you're blind?

If the enemy leaving the square adjacent to you has total concealment?

If they are invisible?


Steve Geddes wrote:
It seemed silly in one sense (the grimlocks smashed the party's light source then ran away - how would the fighter meaningfully force them to stop and fight in the sudden total darkness?)

I'm not sure why it seems silly.

Frankly, it makes a lot of sense to me. A blinded opponent often makes desperate attacks, and individuals who can't see in the dark are certainly at a steep disadvantage, but they don't become suddenly "deaf" "insensible" and "incompetent" when the lights go out.

Not being able to see one's opponent does not mean you have no way of pinpointing where they are, just that you're less likely to do so in a meaningful fashion.

An invisible opponent does not suddenly become intangible and inaudible, or unable to give off any other cues which give away their position, nor is a trained combatant likely to say "oh, the enemy standing in front of me when the lights went out is surely no longer there because I cannot see him." It works great for very small children (peek-a-boo) but not well for competent adventurers.

Quote:
but at the same time seemed to be consistent with the rules (with the appropriate penalty to the attack, of course). Is it spelt out anywhere?

It is consistent with the rules, and any sense of realism not based on adults sharing the cognitive/perceptual faculties of an 8 month old. :)

For more details on how and why the system works this way, the sections on stealth and "hidden" in the Rules Compendium are great places to look, and for how it works in real life, you can check here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

This came up recently and we werent really able to settle the question. It seemed silly in one sense (the grimlocks smashed the party's light source then ran away - how would the fighter meaningfully force them to stop and fight in the sudden total darkness?) but at the same time seemed to be consistent with the rules (with the appropriate penalty to the attack, of course). Is it spelt out anywhere?

Can you make opportunity attacks if you're blind?

If the enemy leaving the square adjacent to you has total concealment?

If they are invisible?

In this case, you're simply missing the relevant rule:

D&D Compendium wrote:
Able to Attack: You can’t make an opportunity attack unless you are able to make a melee basic attack and you can see your enemy.

Cheers!


I stand 100% corrected. :)

This actually makes me a bit sad, but them's the rules and them's the breaks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:

In this case, you're simply missing the relevant rule:

D&D Compendium wrote:
Able to Attack: You can’t make an opportunity attack unless you are able to make a melee basic attack and you can see your enemy.
Cheers!

Thanks for this, I appreciate it. We spent a little time flipping through books and consulting the compendium - not quite sure how we missed something so clear.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
RedJack wrote:

I stand 100% corrected. :)

This actually makes me a bit sad, but them's the rules and them's the breaks.

FWIW, I'm relatively unfazed by internet comments, but this:

"It is consistent with the rules, and any sense of realism not based on adults sharing the cognitive/perceptual faculties of an 8 month old. :)"

made me feel stupid, smiley face notwithstanding.

Perhaps I didnt spell it out very clearly, but my main break with realism was with the fighter's ability to stop the movement of those he successfully hits with an opportunity attack. Whilst I could accomodate a blinded combatant making a last, desperate swing as the monster fled into the darkness - it just makes no sense to me that the monster will then be reluctant to continue fleeing the guy who pretty obviously just got a lucky shot in.


Steve Geddes wrote:

FWIW, I'm relatively unfazed by internet comments, but this:

"It is consistent with the rules, and any sense of realism not based on adults sharing the cognitive/perceptual faculties of an 8 month old. :)"

made me feel stupid, smiley face notwithstanding.

Well that wasn't the aim, and I'm very genuinely sorry that you took offense, but I do stand by the message--if not the intent you took away.

Trained combatants don't "forget" where an opponent is just because the lights go out, just as they don't assume a combatant vanished into thin air just because they step behind a 5' diameter pillar. Scrambling desperately away from a trained combatant certainly isn't a quiet process, and while I agree with a strong penalty to the attack, I don't agree with the idea that an uncareful withdraw would result in any combatant just letting them scramble away.

Of course, the designers apparently disagreed with me, so, there's that. ^_^

Quote:
Perhaps I didnt spell it out very clearly, but my main break with realism was with the fighter's ability to stop the movement of those he successfully hits with an opportunity attack. Whilst I could accomodate a blinded combatant making a last, desperate swing as the monster fled into the darkness - it just makes no sense to me that the monster will then be reluctant to continue fleeing the guy who pretty obviously just got a lucky shot in.

Then I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.

Do you think the fighter's attack normally "convinces" them to not move away? In the case of Combat Agility, it knocks them prone--whether a trip or a forceful downward smash or some other appropriate description, there's no exchange of thoughts and ideas there to "change the mind" of the critter. They got knocked down, and that's that. They probably still very much want to get the heck away, they're prevented from it by the fact that they're om-nom-noming on the pavement.

In the case of Combat Superiority, there's actually a handy addendum about the critter being able to move away with any further actions available on their turn, to help dispell this. Again, they're stopped by being knocked off balance, momentarily staggered, finding a shield or burly arm, or blade in their path, or some other appropriate description. They're not "convinced" not to move, they're physically prevented in some way.

Whether being knocked down or stopped otherwise, it matters little if it was a "lucky shot in the dark" from a narrative standpoint. They got hit, and something about the way in which that hit was accomplished prevented them from moving further normally with that part of their turn, rather than some mystical mind-bending effect or instantaneous debate on whether the critter should keep moving or not that the fighter won. Although, I guess you could describe it as such if you like, that's on you.

Come to think of it, that actually seems kinda fun. Rename "Combat Challenge" to "OBJECTION!" ;)


RedJack wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

FWIW, I'm relatively unfazed by internet comments, but this:

"It is consistent with the rules, and any sense of realism not based on adults sharing the cognitive/perceptual faculties of an 8 month old. :)"

made me feel stupid, smiley face notwithstanding.

Well that wasn't the aim, and I'm very genuinely sorry that you took offense, but I do stand by the message--if not the intent you took away.

Yeah well you might want to be more careful in your posting then because this is not an isolated example. You clearly have some idea when your getting up to this due to the habit of posting a smiley and I'll concede that your really rather inventive in the manner in which you dis people but I suggest you drop it altogether - its insulting under all circumstances but especially egregious when you turn out to be wrong.


RedJack wrote:


"It is consistent with the rules, and any sense of realism not based on adults sharing the cognitive/perceptual faculties of an 8 month old. :)"

There are many, many different arguments for what constitutes 'realism' in a game. So much of D&D is abstracted - including the entire concept of 'turn-based combat' - that there is really no call for remarks like this.

If you feel it doesn't match your own image of how the game should work? That's fair. But saying that anyone who disagrees with you has the mental faculties of an infant? Seriously, dude, that's way out of line.

The entire concept of opportunity attacks is that they represent leaving yourself open to an enemy's attack. It isn't just about being next to the enemy - of course the enemy can still hear your presence while you are nearby (assuming you aren't trying to move quietly). But just because they know you are there doesn't mean they are equally able to take advantage of your distraction when you move past them.

As the rules reflect, as shown by being unable to take such attacks while unable to see the enemy, while dazed or afflicted by similar effects, etc.


Dumb question of the Day: Since Grimlocks are blind (I assume they still are in 4e), are they able to make Opportunity Attacks?

I'm guessing that they have blind-sight or something and this allows them to act normally as if they can see...

EDIT: changed bling-sight to blind-sight...


Yep, they have blindsight.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Yeah well you might want to be more careful in your posting then because this is not an isolated example. You clearly have some idea when your getting up to this due to the habit of posting a smiley and I'll concede that your really rather inventive in the manner in which you dis people but I suggest you drop it altogether - its insulting under all circumstances but especially egregious when you turn out to be wrong.

Really. How nice of you to point out I was wrong after I said I was wrong and once again point out the fact that somone took offense to what I said after I had apologized. How very quick of you. And clever. And nice.

I'm thrilled beyond measure that you, of all the quick, clever and polite people (who is most certainly always correct and exceptionally well-mannered) was here to let me know that I was incorrect well after the fact and point out that you took offense as a non-involved third party. I'm even more absolutely honored by the fact that you could take time out of your day, which must be so very packed with being so very correct about everything and completely inoffensive to everyone, to address lowly, terrible me. God bless you, good sir.

Hey look, a smiley face. :)

For further clarification, since the OP and you seem to have misconstrued my post (possibly due to some selective reading?) I was referencing a point I had made earlier in the post about small children being unable to comprehend that things they cannot see still exist, and how adults (outside of individuals with neurological problems) generally are capable of processing this. I was not calling him a baby or saying he had that sort of cognitive capacity, but referencing a previous point about adults (certainly capable combatants) being able to understand and react to things not immediately visible, but in evidence due to previous sensory input, or input from senses other than vision.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
RedJack wrote:
For further clarification, since the OP and you seem to have misconstrued my post (possibly due to some selective reading?)

I understood your point (although the smiley face initially made me think it was directed at me) - I just thought you'd like to know that my immediate reaction was embarassment that I'd said something dumb on a public forum. It was feedback for you to do with what you wanted, nothing more.

If I was actually hurt or offended I wouldnt have said anything, I'd have just flagged the post.


Steve Geddes wrote:
my immediate reaction was embarassment

Damn, all the best powers are immediate reactions.


Scott Betts wrote:
Damn, all the best powers are immediate reactions.

It should come as little surprise that rude people like myself endorse immediate interrupts. :D


RedJack wrote:
Really. How nice of you to point out I was wrong after I said I was wrong and once again point out the fact that somone took offense to what I said after I had apologized.

Just as a note, I think folks would have backed off had your apology been a bit more... well, sincere. "I'm sorry you took offense" is a pretty classic non-apology.

Following it up with what seems to be continually higher levels of sarcasm... isn't exactly helping.

Look, I don't think you intended any harm. But you definitely came off a bit too strong in your initial presentation of your opinion, and trying to appeal to 'real life' - along with the link to child development - probably wasn't the smoothest way to present your point, and did come off as somewhat mocking.

Anyway, the rule at hand has been settled, either way. Feel free to ignore your advice - as long as you aren't violating any board policies, that is certainly your right, and you can respond in whatever fashion you choose.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Just as a note, I think folks would have backed off had your apology been a bit more... well, sincere. "I'm sorry you took offense" is a pretty classic non-apology.

First off, i'm genuinely sorry he got offended. On the other hand, there is nothing about my post that is offensive, and I see no reason to apologize for getting my point across.

Apparently there was some lack of reading comprehension on the part of some folks which led to offense, and then they respond with comments like:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
But saying that anyone who disagrees with you has the mental faculties of an infant? Seriously, dude, that's way out of line.

Despite the fact that I had not at all said anything of the sort. I do not see a need to apologize to people because they chose not to read, and then got upset at what they thought they read even though they did not.

Mr. Geddes may have felt I was belittling him, but that wasn't my intent. Choosing to take offense is entirely his own choice, and (without filling every post I make with constant disclaimers, and requiring everyone else to do the same) it's a bit silly to just immediately take offense at every possible thing that could be a slight. Life and socialization with other individuals works much better when you assume other people are not out to hurt, offend, and defame you at every turn. For instance, I assume the following quote from you:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
But saying that anyone who disagrees with you has the mental faculties of an infant? Seriously, dude, that's way out of line.

was made out of a genuine, honest mistake created from a lack of reading comprehension, rather than some intentional, vicious smear campaign designed to systematically misrepresent what I actually said.

Quote:
Look, I don't think you intended any harm. But you definitely came off a bit too strong in your initial presentation of your opinion, and trying to appeal to 'real life' - along with the link to child development - probably wasn't the smoothest way to present your point, and did come off as somewhat mocking.

Mr. Geddes referred to the idea as "silly" in his original post, which I took to mean as "nonsensical" and "unrealistic." I explained exactly why and how it made sense and was well within keeping with the bounds of realism. Again, no offense was intended, and most people seem to be upset with me for one of two reasons:

1. I presented an opposing viewpoint. (WTH, really?)
2. They read something entirely different into what was said than what is actually reflected in the actual text of the response.

Again, I can see why one would be upset about seeing an individual 'abuse' another valued member of a community, but in cases where no actual abuse was intended or even genuinely took place, I find it highly amusing that the lot of you who seem to be saying what an anti-social jackass I am, and how badly I've handled the situation have yet to say so much as a "whoops, I guess you didn't say at all what I just said you said and was mad at you for."

Quote:
Feel free to ignore your advice - as long as you aren't violating any board policies, that is certainly your right, and you can respond in whatever fashion you choose.

I don't recall giving any advice. Could you direct me to it? Was it good advice?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

As a related question, how do you generally run creatures/PCs who are blinded? The inadequacy of our rules-searching ability has been amply demonstrated by the OP, nonetheless we couldnt find anything to stop someone from running across a room when blinded (for instance) - the way it actually came up was when one PC wanted to charge the monster that had just blinded him (another jolt to our 'realism meter' even with the appropriate to hit penalty).

It seemed to me that moving substantially whilst blinded, even if you know the layout of the room well, should result in a chance to fall/bump into something/get disoriented or something but we couldn't find any mechanical guidelines. Any suggestions and/or references?


A quick search shows nothing against it, however I do not have access to all my books at the moment--they're about 300 miles away.

As critters in a room with no light, they fit squarely under having Total Concealment[1] (unless in an adjacent square, then it's only Concealment[2])[3] The rules I see on charges don't seem to require line of sight, but they do require you to "choose a target."

Looking to a sidebar in my handy Rules Compendium (page 221 "Targeting What You Can't See") it says first that they target a square, rather than an enemy--realistically they shouldn't have known where the grimlocks were if the Grimlocks had a chance to move after the lights went out unless the players made a Perception check (minor action) to try to determine a square they wound up in. If they choose the wrong square, the attack misses, quite obviously. If they choose the right one, then they make an attack as normal with the -5 penalty for total concealment. Close and Area atttacks don't suffer this penalty as long as they include the square in their effected area--a grenade won't hurt less because you're in the dark. :)

I hope that helps.

As for moving while in total darkness. It may count as difficult terrain, even if not normally so, but I am a bit worn out at the moment and don't have tome to check. If someone else hasn't found an answer for this for you tomorrow, I'll be happy to take another look for you.

[1] Under Totally Obscured: "A measure of visibility. A creature has Total Concealment when it is in a totally obscured square. Example: Total darkness. Contrast with heavily obscured and lightly obscured"
[2] Under Concealment: "Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you. Total Concealment (-5 Penalty to Attack Rolls): You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you."
[3] By the way, this means that as the grimlocks were not totally concealed from him (although technically "not visible," in this case it extends to the use of other senses, as I'd mentioned before) and I interpret this to mean that they would have indeed provoked an Opportunity Action as normal, although certainly at a penalty.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
RedJack wrote:

A quick search shows nothing against it, however I do not have access to all my books at the moment--they're about 300 miles away.

As critters in a room with no light, they fit squarely under having Total Concealment[1] (unless in an adjacent square, then it's only Concealment[2])[3] The rules I see on charges don't seem to require line of sight, but they do require you to "choose a target."

Looking to a sidebar in my handy Rules Compendium (page 221 "Targeting What You Can't See") it says first that they target a square, rather than an enemy--realistically they shouldn't have known where the grimlocks were if the Grimlocks had a chance to move after the lights went out unless the players made a Perception check (minor action) to try to determine a square they wound up in. If they choose the wrong square, the attack misses, quite obviously. If they choose the right one, then they make an attack as normal with the -5 penalty for total concealment. Close and Area atttacks don't suffer this penalty as long as they include the square in their effected area--a grenade won't hurt less because you're in the dark. :)

I hope that helps.

As for moving while in total darkness. It may count as difficult terrain, even if not normally so, but I am a bit worn out at the moment and don't have tome to check. If someone else hasn't found an answer for this for you tomorrow, I'll be happy to take another look for you.

[1] Under Totally Obscured: "A measure of visibility. A creature has Total Concealment when it is in a totally obscured square. Example: Total darkness. Contrast with heavily obscured and lightly obscured"
[2] Under Concealment: "Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you. Total Concealment (-5 Penalty to Attack Rolls): You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you."
[3] By the way,...

Thanks for that - that was how we've been playing it, it just seems a bit light on when someone gets blinded and uses their turn to close with where the guy used to be with basically no chance of wandering off course. I couldnt travel thirty feet straight (or even worse run eighty feet) if the lights suddenly went out.

WRT the adjacent foes in pitch darkness - wouldnt the grimlocks have been totally obscured (being pitch black) and therefore under the effects of total concealment even though adjacent?


Steve Geddes wrote:

As a related question, how do you generally run creatures/PCs who are blinded? The inadequacy of our rules-searching ability has been amply demonstrated by the OP, nonetheless we couldnt find anything to stop someone from running across a room when blinded (for instance) - the way it actually came up was when one PC wanted to charge the monster that had just blinded him (another jolt to our 'realism meter' even with the appropriate to hit penalty).

It seemed to me that moving substantially whilst blinded, even if you know the layout of the room well, should result in a chance to fall/bump into something/get disoriented or something but we couldn't find any mechanical guidelines. Any suggestions and/or references?

Blind is already a big enough penalty without tacking all sorts of weird you-can't-move-very-well rules on top of it. Adding rules to account for walking crookedly is just going to jam your game up and frustrate your players, in all likelihood.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

As a related question, how do you generally run creatures/PCs who are blinded? The inadequacy of our rules-searching ability has been amply demonstrated by the OP, nonetheless we couldnt find anything to stop someone from running across a room when blinded (for instance) - the way it actually came up was when one PC wanted to charge the monster that had just blinded him (another jolt to our 'realism meter' even with the appropriate to hit penalty).

It seemed to me that moving substantially whilst blinded, even if you know the layout of the room well, should result in a chance to fall/bump into something/get disoriented or something but we couldn't find any mechanical guidelines. Any suggestions and/or references?

Blind is already a big enough penalty without tacking all sorts of weird you-can't-move-very-well rules on top of it. Adding rules to account for walking crookedly is just going to jam your game up and frustrate your players, in all likelihood.

Yeah - we came to pretty much the same conclusion. Nonetheless, when the blinded guy runs around the pillar to cut off the BBEG's escape... It requires a bit of charitable visualisation (one suggestion we had was it was more akin to being dazzled by a bright light - although you can't make out details, you can still see 'big stuff' like walls, chasms, steps and so forth. That kinda works).


Steve Geddes wrote:
WRT the adjacent foes in pitch darkness - wouldnt the grimlocks have been totally obscured (being pitch black) and therefore under the effects of total concealment even though adjacent?

By rules, no. Being in an adjacent square means it's just "Concealment" and not "Total Concealment."

Imagining everything that's led up to this point: you've got foes that have been running around, dodging, dashing, swinging heavy things at each other. There's the heavy, labored breaths, the shift of gravel underfoot, and any other actual vocalizations to hear. The smell of sweat and stink to follow, and (possibly) the other person blocking air flow you can feel. With an opponent farther away, all these things dull greatly, but with the adrenaline pounding and your foe still right up in your face, you're likely to be on edge and hyper-sensitive. That's how it works in my head, anyhow.


Steve Geddes wrote:

As a related question, how do you generally run creatures/PCs who are blinded? The inadequacy of our rules-searching ability has been amply demonstrated by the OP, nonetheless we couldnt find anything to stop someone from running across a room when blinded (for instance) - the way it actually came up was when one PC wanted to charge the monster that had just blinded him (another jolt to our 'realism meter' even with the appropriate to hit penalty).

It seemed to me that moving substantially whilst blinded, even if you know the layout of the room well, should result in a chance to fall/bump into something/get disoriented or something but we couldn't find any mechanical guidelines. Any suggestions and/or references?

For our group, it generally depends on two things - have you seen the room before you went blind? Do you have allies able to give you directions?

If you don't have any of that, charging an enemy is a tricky thing - the player basically has to operate by the honor code, rather than using visual information on the board to help their decisions. So if they don't know where the enemy is, they need to choose squares to target and better be able to come up with a good reason for targeting those squares.

Similarly, if they don't know where obstacles are, they need to choose which squares they are moving through - and if they try to move into one that is occupied, then they run into it.

On the other hand, if they just saw the room a moment before, and where the enemy was standing, we find it within PC capabilities to retain that long enough to charge and swing. (Especially since, being blind, they aren't likely to be too effective anyway).

Similarly, if the enemy has moved, but other PCs can call out where he has moved to, that is generally acceptable as well. In really complicated situations we might require them to actually give accurate directions, but if it is simply a matter of "charge to your left!", then we usually handwave the PC's ability to figure it out.


RedJack wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WRT the adjacent foes in pitch darkness - wouldnt the grimlocks have been totally obscured (being pitch black) and therefore under the effects of total concealment even though adjacent?
By rules, no. Being in an adjacent square means it's just "Concealment" and not "Total Concealment."

I don't believe this is correct. If you are adjacent to a foe in a Heavily Obscured space, they count as concealed, yes. But a space in pitch darkness isn't Heavily Obscured, it is Totally Obscured, which grants all creatures within it Total Concealment.

Here's the examples of different types of obscurement, as drawn from the Compendium.

Light Obscurement: "Examples: Dim light, foliage, fog, smoke, and heavy rain or falling snow."
Heavy Obscurement: "Examples: Heavy fog, smoke, or foliage."
Total Obscurement: "Example: Total darkness."


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
I don't believe this is correct.

I quoted the exact passage from the relevant rules within my post as to why it is correct.

Repeated rules from several posts up, in case you missed reading them before.:
Totally Obscured: "A measure of visibility. A creature has Total Concealment when it is in a totally obscured square. Example: Total darkness. Contrast with heavily obscured and lightly obscured"

Concealment:
"Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you.
Total Concealment (-5 Penalty to Attack Rolls): You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you."

If you'll look up a few posts, you'll find this exact information put in previously. This would also be from the current online Rules Compendium.


RedJack wrote:

Repeated rules from several posts up, in case you missed reading them before.:

Totally Obscured: "A measure of visibility. A creature has Total Concealment when it is in a totally obscured square. Example: Total darkness. Contrast with heavily obscured and lightly obscured"

Concealment:
"Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you.
Total Concealment (-5 Penalty to Attack Rolls): You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you."

Umm.. you're confusing heavily obscured with totally obscured. In complete darkness something is totally obscured (as you posted), but nothing in your post says that changes to heavily obscured while adjacent.


ghettowedge wrote:
RedJack wrote:

Repeated rules from several posts up, in case you missed reading them before.:

Totally Obscured: "A measure of visibility. A creature has Total Concealment when it is in a totally obscured square. Example: Total darkness. Contrast with heavily obscured and lightly obscured"

Concealment:
"Concealment (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you.
Total Concealment (-5 Penalty to Attack Rolls): You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you."

Umm.. you're confusing heavily obscured with totally obscured. In complete darkness something is totally obscured (as you posted), but nothing in your post says that changes to heavily obscured while adjacent.

This.


That indeed. Bah.

I have failed at reading comprehension, and am mightily shamed. :(


RedJack wrote:

That indeed. Bah.

I have failed at reading comprehension, and am mightily shamed. :(

I'm sorry you took offense.[/non-apology];)


ghettowedge wrote:
RedJack wrote:

That indeed. Bah.

I have failed at reading comprehension, and am mightily shamed. :(

I'm sorry you took offense.[/non-apology];)

Saying anyone who disagrees with you is Totally Obtuse? Man, that is just out of line.


RedJack wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:
RedJack wrote:

That indeed. Bah.

I have failed at reading comprehension, and am mightily shamed. :(

I'm sorry you took offense.[/non-apology];)
Saying anyone who disagrees with you is Totally Obtuse? Man, that is just out of line.

Without a current edition war thread we have been reduced to fighting amongst ourselves.


ghettowedge wrote:
Without a current edition war thread we have been reduced to fighting amongst ourselves.

If you call angry self-gratification "fighting," then I "fight amongst myself" at least twice a day.

I'd be doing it right now... you know, if I had my box of stuff with me.

Also, I am allowed to make opportunity attacks against myself despite total darkness.


RedJack wrote:

If you call angry self-gratification "fighting," then I "fight amongst myself" at least twice a day.

I'd be doing it right now... you know, if I had my box of stuff with me.

Also, I am allowed to make opportunity attacks against myself despite total darkness.

If you have a box of stuff you must be using 1st edition rules. Welcome to the digital age.


ghettowedge wrote:
If you have a box of stuff you must be using 1st edition rules. Welcome to the digital age.

Nothing wrong with a little old-school now and then.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Can you make opportunity attacks if you're blind? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition