Ok, the rules were copy pasted from 3.5 when spot and listen were completely separate skills.
Just figure that everyone is invisible to a blind person and you should be fine.
What is there to reconcile? If the person is blinded, he automatically fails any vision-based perception checks, but can still hear and smell, so he can try to find an invisible opponent. The invisible opponent has a +40 (or +20) to stealth checks, which has no effect on opposed perception checks, since the invisible opponent is not using perception, he is using stealth.
Developer
|
The invisible opponent has a +40 (or +20) to stealth checks, which has no effect on opposed perception checks, since the invisible opponent is not using perception, he is using stealth.
The problem is that perception is used to oppose stealth, so while the invisible character isn't using them, the blind character is.
The way I treat it is that only the spell (or similar effect) gives you the super sneaky boost to stealth score, while blindness the condition applies a penalty to the perception score. I figure that normally vision can help pinpoint the invisible creature, a shimmer in the air, footprints, dust kicked up, etc. Thus if you can't use any of those visual cues, the invisible character gets the +20(or 40) -and- you suffer -4. It's the only way to deal with both sight and hearing being combined in a single check.
You being blind does not make the other characters objectively invisible, only subjectively, and the +20 isn't given on opposed checks, it's just a flat bonus, so it only works on creatures that are objectively invisible... the spell or a special ability, basically. Otherwise someone could hide in plain sight and claim they were at +20 to the check to do so, or other ridiculousness.
Stealth is wonky, though, and the system honestly doesn't deal well with it.
These rules are a wonky carry over from 3.5. Even wierder is this. I am hiding on the other side of a brick wall with total concealment. Stealth vs perception. I cast invisibility, and I get +40 to my stealth even though my opponent has no line of side to me to begin with. I have rewritten this part of the rules so that it makes more sense.
The short form is.
Invisibility gives total concealment.
Blindness gives total concealment to everyone else.
Total concealment adds +20 to perception checks, +40 if you are standing still.
Spells like displacement have a disclaimer that their concealment does no effect perception rolls.
The problem is that perception is used to oppose stealth, so while the invisible character isn't using them, the blind character is.
The way I treat it is that only the spell (or similar effect) gives you the super sneaky boost to stealth score, while blindness the condition applies a penalty to the perception score. I figure that normally vision can help pinpoint the invisible creature, a shimmer in the air, footprints, dust kicked up, etc. Thus if you can't use any of those visual cues, the invisible character gets the +20(or 40) -and- you suffer -4. It's the only way to deal with both sight and hearing being combined in a single check.
You being blind does not make the other characters objectively invisible, only subjectively, and the +20 isn't given on opposed checks, it's just a flat bonus, so it only works on creatures that are objectively invisible... the spell or a special ability, basically. Otherwise someone could hide in plain sight and claim they were at +20 to the check to do so, or other ridiculousness.
Stealth is wonky, though, and the system honestly doesn't deal well with it.
That makes no sense.
There are three people in the room:B is blind
V is normally visible, but tries to move silently, so uses stealth
I is invisible, also uses stealth.
Now B is already blind, the "is visible" or "is invisible" part should not concern him at all. Why would character I get a +20 on not being heard?
No I think the best solution really is that in such cases a blind person treats everyone as invisible, because you know, they aren't visibile to B.
The problem is that perception is used to oppose stealth, so while the invisible character isn't using them, the blind character is.
The way I treat it is that only the spell (or similar effect) gives you the super sneaky boost to stealth score, while blindness the condition applies a penalty to the perception score. I figure that normally vision can help pinpoint the invisible creature, a shimmer in the air, footprints, dust kicked up, etc. Thus if you can't use any of those visual cues, the invisible character gets the +20(or 40) -and- you suffer -4. It's the only way to deal with both sight and hearing being combined in a single check.
You being blind does not make the other characters objectively invisible, only subjectively, and the +20 isn't given on opposed checks, it's just a flat bonus, so it only works on creatures that are objectively invisible... the spell or a special ability, basically. Otherwise someone could hide in plain sight and claim they were at +20 to the check to do so, or other ridiculousness.
Stealth is wonky, though, and the system honestly doesn't deal well with it.
That makes no sense.
There are three people in the room:
B is blind
V is normally visible, but tries to move silently, so uses stealth
I is invisible, also uses stealth.Now B is already blind, the "is visible" or "is invisible" part should not concern him at all. Why would character I get a +20 on not being heard?
No I think the best solution really is that in such cases a blind person treats everyone as invisible, because you know, they aren't visibile to B.
You are absolutely correct, it makes no sense, but that is how the RAW is written. For some inexplicible reason, invisibility specifically gets called out as giving a bonus against perception checks that all other forms of cover and concealment do not get.
And thats why you have GMs and not just an arbitrary computer that judges every action by RAW, but instead can make judgement calls when situations arise that don't make sense by RAW.
And thats why you have GMs and not just an arbitrary computer that judges every action by RAW, but instead can make judgement calls when situations arise that don't make sense by RAW.
When you have that authority, like in a home game, great, but this is the rules forum. There are times, like if you are running a PFS game, where your ability to change the rules is rather limited.