| 22 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat Blind Fight only explicitly states that it allows:
1. rerolls vs concealment
2. invisible attackers get no advantages related to hitting you in melee (you don't lose dex to AC, nor grant them +2 to hit)
Since it explicitly states 'invisible' and not 'you cannot see them for whatever reason', a RAW reading can then assume that the feat does not deny those bonuses (but still rerolls concealment) if you are blinded, or fighting in darkness ('effectively blinded').
A quick reading of the rules will automatically assume that inability to see someone equals invisibility to you, but the RAI and RAW are at odds.
Does the feat negate the advantages due to being unable to be seen, or only if the attacker is specifically under the effects of invisibility?
Relevant Rules:
Blind Fight
Darkness (spell)
Vision and Light
Blinded (Condition)
Invisible (Condition)
Invisibility (Special Ability)
If you think this is an ambiguous rule, where RAI and RAW are contradictory, or at least misleading: please click that little old FAQ button at the top of this post :)
This argument has been ongoing for some time across quite a few threads. It would be nice to see an official clarification.
If you can't see someone they get the l of the feat. Is this really hard to understand or do you just want the wording changed because it's not specific enough?
The first paragraph deals with concealment, the second deals only with invisibility, the third deals with blindness. RAW reading, while blind, the first two paragraphs are not relevant.
I agree with you in your RAI interpretation Wraithstrike 100%, but its cropped up in other threads repeatedly that RAW it does not apply, hence the post :)
The first paragraph deals with concealment, the second deals only with invisibility, the third deals with blindness. RAW reading, while blind, the first two paragraphs are not relevant.
I agree with you in your RAI interpretation Wraithstrike 100%, but its cropped up in other threads repeatedly that RAW it does not apply, hence the post :)
I understand that. I just wanted to know if you were really confused or just wanted better wording. Sometimes posters understand intent, but pretend they don't.
Ah, my mistake.
Was simply trying to keep the OP as non-side-taking as possible :P
|
I'll jump in and state that I'm on the other side of this interpretation. Blindfight appears to be designed to only offset the penalties from concealment and invisibility and not have anything to do with actual blindness. If the feat had a different name this wouldn't (probably) be in question.
Heck even the rules for concealment specifically call out the need for sight to bypass the bonuses from invisibility.
Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character.
Here's the basis of the argument that blindfight doesn't help when in darkness, The feat has 3 separate paragraphs on what it does and since they separated them so completely they have to be examined that way.
A). In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
Exactly as written when you miss because of the concealment rule roll again once and check if that roll succeeds. No arguments on how this works.
B). An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
The feat specifically calls out the invisible condition and since that is a defined game term it only pertains when the target is under the effects of the invisibility condition. The invisibility condition itself references the blindfight feat and reinforces that it only affects invisible creatures.
It doesn't say UNSEEN opponents it specifies INVISIBLE opponents only.Next the Darkness definition reinforces the assumption that blindfight doesn't help here.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded.In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment)
It states that the player suffers the blinded condition, it doesn't say treat all opponents as invisible or even unseen just apply the blinded condition to the sufferer. The Blindfight feat specifies it overcomes the invisible condition not the blinded condition.
C). You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
This is the only reference the feat has to the blinded condition which it calls out as a separate condition from invisible. This is the only thing the feat does when the character is considered blind. This shows that the writers were aware of the Blinded condition and only chose this single affect from that condition to be overcome by this feat. They could have easily said that Blindfight negates all or even just the combat penalties from the blinded condition but they didn't, they chose to only specify this one part of it. what this means is not only doesn't blindfight prevent you from losing your dex bonus in the dark you ALSO suffer all the other penalties that go along with the blinded condition.
Is it a case of bad writing and naming for this feat? Probably but we've had to deal with that before (Prone Shooter I'm looking at you), but in simple RAW terms this feat does NOTHING against the actual Blinded condition.
The Blinded condition also calls out that any attacks made by the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance due to concealment. Which is negated by the first paragraph.
The blinded condition grants Total Concealment to everyone. Concealment and Total Concealment are different things. The Blind-fighting feat states that it helps against misses from concealment. The fact that it doesn't call out Total Concealment is probably a large factor in this argument.
A few other interesting items to considere:
1. The BF feat also calls out that it specifically doesn't work against Blink. Blink states this is because you are ethereal and not just invisible. Which somewhat indicates that in other situations where you can't see someone but they are in fact physically there, on the same plane, the feat should work.
2. Someone who successfully uses Stealth is treated as having Total Concealment. I think it would be absurdly hilarious if the Blind-fighting feat allowed you to negate bonuses for invisible attackers but not for an attack from normal Stealth. (Note: The total concealment wording in Stealth is a recent PF addition to clarify the Stealth skill. In 3.5 WotC just FAQ'd the Hide skill saying you treat it as invisibility...)
3. Lastly, consider the wording of Improved Blind-fighting:
Improved Blind-Fight (Combat)
Your keen senses guide your hand against hidden foes.
Prerequisites: Perception 10 ranks, Blind-Fight.
Benefit: Your melee attacks ignore the miss chance for less than total concealment. You may STILL reroll your miss chance percentile roll for total concealment.
If you successfully pinpoint an invisible or hidden attacker within 30 feet, that attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you with ranged attacks. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible.
Special: The Improved Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
The presence of the word "still" indicates that one already had this ability with the prerequisite feat. If that wasn't the intent, the writer should have left the word "still" out of the sentence, or replaced it with "now."
...
I'm not necessarily trying to argue either side, just wanted to throw this stuff out there for consideration.