Can a blinded Fighter make an Attack of Opportunity?

[The Rot Grub]

I read the definitions for:
Blinded
Attack of Opportunity

Reading these rules, it appears to me that a blinded Fighter can make an attack of opportunity against a creature that moves out of a square that it threatens. The Blinded condition makes no mention of its effect on reactions. And the Attack of Opportunity language has no requirement that you can see the creature taking that action.

I've grown accustomed to relying on only the technical language of PF2 to figure out a rule, and not using my "common sense." Still I find this a little hard to swallow.

I'm running it so that the Fighter can make the AoO, but because they are blinded they have to make a DC 11 flat check before making the attack roll.

So what do others think:
Can a blinded Fighter make an Attack of Opportunity?
If yes, what if the creature used Sneak to walk away?

[Abyssalwyrm]

Strangely enough apparently you can. Though since everyone will be hidden from you (unless you have other ways to detect creatures, like tremorsense) - you would have to succeed on DC11 flat check to hit it.

On the other hand. Blinded fighter wouldn't even know who is who.
On practical application GM should take control of blinded fighter, unless he trust that player will not meta-game. In either cases, blinded fighter would have either chose to attack anyone he hear nearby, or decide to avoid fighting until his blindness is healed.

Sneaking is not necessary, as usual step is enough to avoid reaction-trigger.

[thenobledrake]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

On the other hand. Blinded fighter wouldn't even know who is who.

Being blinded doesn't make you forget who was where, or make your friends and foes sound the same.

You're basically going way overboard trying to prevent what you view as meta-gaming that you're actually forcing even more intense meta-game thought to be had - being able to pick your targets, even while blind, is just playing the game, not any more meta than every other necessary part of the process.

That's why the rules for the condition don't include all the extra stuff you've arbitrarily added to the condition to reach the 'do dumb stuff or not fight at all' conclusion you did.

[Abyssalwyrm]

thenobledrake wrote:

Being blinded doesn't make you forget who was where, or make your friends and foes sound the same.

For one round - maybe. But in rush of battle you quickly lose track who is who and moving where.

[thenobledrake]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

For one round - maybe. But in rush of battle you quickly lose truck who is who and moving where.

...not according to the rules, you don't.

[Abyssalwyrm]

If you willing to meta-game just to let yourself "win" - sure, rules are on your side.
There is a logic however. And logic dictates game immersion. GM in all his rights to alter game rules to make it immersive for everyone. Yes, even if that mean single character will be in dire disadvantage.

[thenobledrake]

It's not meta-game to use the rules as-is, nor does not adding more complications that the rules already include have anything to do with trying to "win"

It's also not actually logical to go adding a bunch of stuff to the rules that isn't there in the name of "immersion" because immersion is a choice in each player's mind that has nothing to do with UI or rules knowledge or thinking about the game as being a game you are playing instead of something "more" than that - especially not when the reasoning behind the changes to the rules (in this case, an attempt at more accurately portraying a 'real' scenario) is incompatible with the entire nature of the game itself (because why should being blind feel any more real than any of the other deliberately unreal things which make up the game?)

And again, I point out that the thought processes required to adjudicate this suped-up blind condition requires even more meta-thought than otherwise. A typical occurrence among people that claim to try and avoid meta-gaming, and also arriving at the usual result of not actually being concerned about whether a thought was in-character or out-of-character but only that all out-of-character thought becomes permissible as soon as you are using it to deliberately hinder your character - and if that weren't the case, the question of what the character can do would end at what the rules say the character can do.

[Captain Morgan]

The Rot Grub wrote:

I read the definitions for:

Blinded
Attack of Opportunity

Reading these rules, it appears to me that a blinded Fighter can make an attack of opportunity against a creature that moves out of a square that it threatens. The Blinded condition makes no mention of its effect on reactions. And the Attack of Opportunity language has no requirement that you can see the creature taking that action.

I've grown accustomed to relying on only the technical language of PF2 to figure out a rule, and not using my "common sense." Still I find this a little hard to swallow.

I'm running it so that the Fighter can make the AoO, but because they are blinded they have to make a DC 11 flat check before making the attack roll.

So what do others think:
Can a blinded Fighter make an Attack of Opportunity?
If yes, what if the creature used Sneak to walk away?

Ignoring Abyssal's attempts to rewrite how conditions work... So if you are invisble but not sneaking, then enemies remain aware of your position through out your movement. That is what the hidden condition means. You are moving loudly, or kicking up dirt, or doing something that gives your square away.

By extension, if the enemy is aware of you moving between squares, there's not much reason they can't blindly lash out for an AoO. The only realism argument I can think of is that you might have a hard time differenting a step and a stride, but frankly that's a level of mechanical abstraction the game just doesn't simulate.

Now, if you are invisible and you successfully sneak?

So yes, if an enemy strides away from a blinded fighter, the fighter can make an AoO and has to roll the normal DC 11 flat check to hit a hidden foe. This is straightforward and consistent with the rules. Now if an enemy successfully sneaks away? I personally wouldn't let the fighter AoO, because the whole point of Sneak is the enemy loses track of you. I'm less sure the rules support this by RAW, but I'd definitely run it this way.

[thenobledrake]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Now if an enemy successfully sneaks away? I personally wouldn't let the fighter AoO, because the whole point of Sneak is the enemy loses track of you. I'm less sure the rules support this by RAW, but I'd definitely run it this way.

The rules do support this, as a successful Sneak action results in being Undetected, and that condition explicitly says "...has no idea what space you occupy, and can't target you..." which would prevent the attack of opportunity both because they wouldn't know you triggered it and because they can't pick you as a target.

[Ched Greyfell]

I made a post months ago, complaining about blinded players beebopping around the map. Deciding that they were going to go 60 feet in a certain direction to pick up something they'd dropped, and then turn straight toward the door and leave the room. I thought this sounded strange, since, ya know, they're blind.
And I got jumped by every single person in the responses. They all told me I was being ridiculous. And that the ONLY thing that happens when you are blind is your movement is halved and you take a DC 11 to hit. And to assume otherwise is unfair to the players.
So, I would guess you can make an AoO.