# [A&E Guide] Blindfold of True Darkness



## Rugger (Mar 24, 2003)

In the Arms and Equipment Guide there is an item called the Blindfold of True Darkness.

It grants the wearer 60 ft Blindsight, but they are otherwise blind (and therefor immune to gaze attacks and other visual effects)

And it only costs 9000gp.

Thats a wee 1000gp or so more expensive than Goggles of Night (which grant 60 ft Darkvision)

Has anyone ripped into this things cost? It seems like it should be WAY more expensive....

-Rugger
"I Lurk!"


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 24, 2003)

Well, first I'd say that Goggles of Darkvision should probably be cheaper.  If Darkvision is something a starting character can have at 1st level, as a +0 ECL race, then it shouldn't be a 2nd level spell, IMO.

That said - I don't think anyone has actually reached a consensus as to how powerful an ability Blindsight is.  So the cost in A&E would suggest that the writer felt it to be a minor ability at best.

On the other hand, if you're in a campaign where Invisible creatures are crawling out of the woodwork, or you fight creatures with gaze attacks all the time, Blindsight becomes a whole lot more useful.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 24, 2003)

Well, _Darkness_ is a 2nd-level spell too, and the Tiefling (ECL +0) gets that, so there's precedent for it.

My thought is that the Blindfold is very, very underpriced.  Blindsight negates hiding and moving silently, invisibility, and I believe many illusions.  And functions as well as darkvision.

Bump that baby, says I!


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

Rugger said:
			
		

> *Has anyone ripped into this things cost? It seems like it should be WAY more expensive.... *




You can't see colors or details. You can't read, so no activating scrolls. You don't know who's standing in front of you, or anywhere, for that matter. A guy with a ranged weapon will tear into your butt from more than 60 feet away. 9,000 sounds about right to me.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> *...the Tiefling (ECL +0)... *




The tiefling has an ECL of +1.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 24, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You can't see colors or details. You can't read, so no activating scrolls. You don't know who's standing in front of you, or anywhere, for that matter. A guy with a ranged weapon will tear into your butt from more than 60 feet away. 9,000 sounds about right to me.  *




Now put it on a rogue instead of a spellcaster:  you can ignore just about any form of concealment, and you can sneak attack even in magical darkness. 

It's about right for a spellcaster, but it's way underpriced for a rogue character, or a strong melee character (especially one who also has expert tactician.)


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 24, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The tiefling has an ECL of +1. *




D'oh!  I knew that.


----------



## Orco42 (Mar 24, 2003)

Either they are using new 3.5 rules for pricing items in A&E or this is the worst WotC book to date.

I noticed a huge amount of errors in the pricing of items. I checked the prices of every Staff in the book (because they are very easy to price) and most were not even close to being correct (I think the average was about 40% of from the rules cost).

I understand that sometimes you will eyeball a price but if you look at the staffs from the DMG most of them are within 5% of the rules cost.

I checked a few other items and some of the prices were almost 3 times too expensive, and others 3 times to cheap (there was one rod that paralyzes on touch (DC 25) along with other powers that was insanely underpriced).


----------



## Murrdox (Mar 24, 2003)

Seeing as how having Blindsight won't really help a rogue all that much more than a Ring of Invisibility, and it requires your opponent to be blinded in order for you to sneak attack... I really don't get what the problem with this is.


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 24, 2003)

Murrdox said:
			
		

> *Seeing as how having Blindsight won't really help a rogue all that much more than a Ring of Invisibility, and it requires your opponent to be blinded in order for you to sneak attack... I really don't get what the problem with this is. *



The problem shows up as soon as the rogue finds an ally to cast _deeper darkness_.

Inside the darkness, the rogue gets 100% concealment, which gives all the same benefits as invisibility. Even better, this effect doesn't go away after he attacks. The blindsight lets him spot and attack invisible creatures without a miss chance. Enemies who try to flee must move at half speed while in the darkness, while the rogue is not slowed at all. The major drawback is that the large radius of the darkness may prevent the rogue's allies from helping, but that goes away if they have their own blindsight.

A ring of _invisibility_ costs 20k. This item gives all the same effects for less than half the price, plus one 3rd-level spell slot every week or two. (_Deeper darkness_ lasts a day per level, so it probably won't need to be recast very often.)


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

Take this, for example. You have this blindfold on, you're attacking me, and now its my turn. I make a x4 move outta there. I no longer exhist to you. Granted, you may be able to figure out if which direction I went with a Listen check, but what if I turn (there's a feat for that somewhere)? If there are two flights of stairs next to each other, one that goes up and one that goes down, I don't even need to turn. With me outside of your range of blindsight, you don't know which way I went. If I'm hasted, its even easier to get away from you.

Normally, you could just open your eyes and see which way I went, but with this blindfold, you can't see.

I don't think evading someone with this blindfold would be very difficult (depending on the circumstances, of course), so the price doesn't seem that low to me.


----------



## Forrester (Mar 24, 2003)

I agree. Blindsight is waaaay cheaty, and 9k is off by almost an order of magnitude. 

Blindsight negates Displacement, Blur, Invisibility, as well as all other illusions, and the way it works for Dragons and others, seems to negate all Hiding and Moving Silently within the radius as well (no Spot/Listen checks required!). Should a 9k item be able to counter that many spells? 

In other words, it's damn close to being nearly as good as a permanent True Seeing. A Gem of True Seeing costs 90k,  and you have to hold it in front of yer eye (I don't think you can just carry it around and get the bonus).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2003)

> *In other words, it's damn close to being nearly as good as a permanent True Seeing. A Gem of True Seeing costs 90k,  and you have to hold it in front of yer eye (I don't think you can just carry it around and get the bonus). *




Helm of Vision (DotF) is just over 90k, but it's a slotted item.

-Hyp.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *Blindsight negates Displacement, Blur, Invisibility, as well as all other illusions, and the way it works for Dragons and others, seems to negate all Hiding and Moving Silently within the radius as well (no Spot/Listen checks required!). *




The problem is that it is very rare for a blindsight to cover most of the senses, such as sound, scent, and vibrations (assassin vine, and as you mentioned, dragons), all into one package. Most creatures have a limited form of blindsight, such as the grimlock. This item should probably be limited in a similar fashion. Even the 3rd level wiz/sor spell Blindsight only works with vibration, so its easier to counter.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 24, 2003)

Hey - do we actually know if you can Sneak Attack while using Blindsight?  After all, if you can't "see" your target, you're not allowed to sneak him, right?

I know that most people will say that you can, I'm just wondering if anyone can support it.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 24, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Take this, for example. You have this blindfold on, you're attacking me, and now its my turn. I make a x4 move outta there. I no longer exhist to you.
> *




You can only move half speed in darkness (because you are effectively blind in darkness).  Most creatures have a speed of 30 or less, which means that even running at x4 you are limited to a 60 ft move, which leaves you within the blindsight radius. 

And you are assuming that you can move in a straight line at least 60' away.  In general, most fight take place in enclosed spaces (generally called "dungeons"), and you will be limited to 30' of movement because you have to turn a corner or hit a wall at some point. 

You are also assuming that your opponent has the option of just running away.  Many times that is not the case in dungeon settings (guardian creatures, etc.).

*



			Granted, you may be able to figure out if which direction I went with a Listen check, but what if I turn (there's a feat for that somewhere)?
		
Click to expand...


*
Wouldn't even need a listen check.  Even if you could somehow move more than 60 feet, I would know exactly the path you are following after you leave my darkvision range.    The feat you mention would help, but I've yet to see anyone actually take it, so I really don't think it can be considered a common balancing factor to this magic item. 

*



			If there are two flights of stairs next to each other, one that goes up and one that goes down, I don't even need to turn. With me outside of your range of blindsight, you don't know which way I went. If I'm hasted, its even easier to get away from you.
		
Click to expand...


*
Big IF there.  The number of combats that take place 65' or more away from a stair landing (in a straight line no less) are so small as to be insignificant.

*



			Normally, you could just open your eyes and see which way I went, but with this blindfold, you can't see.

I don't think evading someone with this blindfold would be very difficult (depending on the circumstances, of course), so the price doesn't seem that low to me.
		
Click to expand...


*
Under a few very contrived circumstances (such as the ones you mentioned: have a specific feat or having a conveniently placed set of double stairs), it would be possible to escape fairly easily.   

Under the circumstances that most fights take place in, it wouldn't be easy to escape (barring a magical escape such as teleport).    That's what makes the price too low. 

(Of course, the blindfold doesn't give you and advantage against a creature who also has blindsight, but even then it can put you on an even footing with the creature if it is invisible or within magical darkness, or concealing fog.)


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 24, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Take this, for example. You have this blindfold on, you're attacking me, and now its my turn. I make a x4 move outta there.*



If the rogue is toting a _deeper darkness_, you need to move at half speed-- 15' for a human. The Run action lets you move 4x that, or 60', which takes you just barely to the edge of the dark area. The rogue gets an AoO when you run, and then on his next turn he charges 60' and stabs you.

You're right that the blindfolded character would sometimes be easily evaded; if the opponents are able to see, and they have sufficient room to maneuver, they can get out of range of the blindsight. However, when the enemy can see, why bother with the blindfold at all? It has its greatest utility in magical darkness, when anyone without blindsight can't see at all. A smart rogue would have multiple _deeper darkness_ effects running on his person, so even an area dispel wouldn't bring the lights back on.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *You can only move half speed in darkness... *




My example didn't include darkness, thus no reduction in speed.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *And you are assuming that you can move in a straight line at least 60' away. *




Yup.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *In general, most fight take place in enclosed spaces (generally called "dungeons"), and you will be limited to 30' of movement because you have to turn a corner or hit a wall at some point. *




Generally, this is true, and I'd be the first to agree that the game was designed for that.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You are also assuming that your opponent has the option of just running away. *




No. I'm assuming that I'm the opponent, and that I want to run away. The example was quite clear in this.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Many times that is not the case in dungeon settings (guardian creatures, etc.). *




In my experience, the majority of dungeon creatures are only restricted to an area if the DM demands it. They generally aren't restricted in this way by default.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Wouldn't even need a listen check.  Even if you could somehow move more than 60 feet, I would know exactly the path you are following after you leave my darkvision range. *




But only up to the extent of your blindsight range. After that, without a good listen check, your guess is the best you have.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *The feat you mention would help, but I've yet to see anyone actually take it, so I really don't think it can be considered a common balancing factor to this magic item. *




And unless this magic item is made common by the DM, it balances out perfectly. Rarely picked feat and a rarely encountered magic item. I do, however, consent that such a countering situation would be quite rare.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Big IF there. *




True, but relevant.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Under a few very contrived circumstances (such as the ones you mentioned: have a specific feat or having a conveniently placed set of double stairs), it would be possible to escape fairly easily. *




Contrived? What's up with that? If you don't like my example, just say so (as you did), but you don't need to get ugly about it.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Under the circumstances that most fights take place in, it wouldn't be easy to escape... *




True, but there are still a lot of drawbacks.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *That's what makes the price too low.  *




I still somewhat disagree, given that it is far more difficult to counter than usual (sound, smell, vibration, and all that).



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *(Of course, the blindfold doesn't give you and advantage against a creature who also has blindsight, but even then it can put you on an even footing with the creature if it is invisible or within magical darkness, or concealing fog.) *




Very true.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *If the rogue is toting a deeper darkness, you need to move at half speed-- 15' for a human. *




Right, but darkness had nothing to do with my example.


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 24, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Right, but darkness had nothing to do with my example. *



If there's no darkness, who bothers to wear an item that grants blindsight?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 24, 2003)

For some reason, this thread reminds me of Nethack.

"You wrap the towel around your head."

-Hyp.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 24, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *If there's no darkness, who bothers to wear an item that grants blindsight? *




Someone that just got caught in the light? A dispelled deeper darkness?

Conversely, why do people insist on purchasing longbows for dungeon crawl?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 24, 2003)

Just a point kreynolds - the commonness of the item in question is going to be a function of it's power relative to it's cost.
Furthermore, saying that the item is going to be uncommon somehow balances out the rarity of the 'fleet of foot'(?) feat is just wrong. The chance of an individual with this item meeting someone with fleet of foot would be no more or less than that of an individual without the item.

Personally, I think the problem is that blindsight itself is a very badly defined sense. For instance, if it negates spot and listen checks, why does it give a bat a bonus to those exact skills? Why do hardly any of the creatures list what version of it they have (sight, listening, scent etc).

My suggestion would be to simply use the rules from d20 modern for hiding from an opponent (you must have a certain degree of cover or concealment from your opponent), and say that a creature with blindsight must still make spot and listen checks (although those checks may represent some other sense, they serve the same purpose). In addition, illusions should be clarified such that they apply against a range of abilities that is clearly defined.

However, the item is still too good for 9000. Fighting a creature (especially one with ranged attacks) in pitch darkness is near impossible. It's much, much worse than fighting an opponent who is merely invisible.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 24, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My example didn't include darkness, thus no reduction in speed.
> 
> *




Then it's not a very good example, because it doesn't adequately illustrate the problem.    And if you think that calling it contrived is "getting ugly", then you have issues.  I mean really.  

There are three primary situations where you would want to wear the blindfold:  You are facing an invisible enemy, you are facing a gaze attack,  or you are in a situation that is concealing everyone from sight (magical darkness, obscuring mist, etc.)

If your enemy is invisible, there are already numerous ways of countering that in 3E, the blindfold is just one more (and not the best method either).   

And in general, if you want to run away from me, more power to you.  

But remember, if you do a 4x movement, it has to be in a straight line (if the feat is rare and the magic item is rare, then it means it is even less likely to be used as a counter to the magic item, and is therefore irrelevent to the discussion).  I can easy follow that line without making any listen checks.

The situation where the blindfold is most powerful is when you are in an area of darkness.  That can easily be created by almost any spellcaster, just by casting it on your weapon.   Unsheathe the weapon, and instant darkness.

The main problem with the item is that they don't price it as a constant spell effect.   It should be priced off of the _Blindsight_ spell, as a use activated spell effect: spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp. 

If you use the _blindsight_ spell from Savage Species, which is 2nd level, it would cost 12,000 gp.

If you use the _blindsight_ spell from Magic of Faerun (which is 3rd level and only grants 30' blindsight),  it would be 30,000 gp. 

And on top of blindsight it makes you immune to gaze attacks.  It's much, much, better than darkvision.   Much more than 1,000 gp better than the goggles of darkvision.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Mar 25, 2003)

When I saw that blindfold, my Munchkin Alert went nuts.

Same thing with the Ghaele, the Half-Ogre, the Antropomorphic Crocodile, the "Roll-with-It" feat, and the Blindsight, Lion's Charge and Superior Resistance spells from SS.

Why, exactly, is 3.5e going to nerf Haste and Harm, while at the same time adding on such obvious offenders of future rules abuse? Seems kinda silly to me.
.
.
.
The 2nd level Blindsight in SS has a 30ft. range. The 60ft. range Improved Blindsight is a 4th level spell.


----------



## hong (Mar 25, 2003)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *
> Same thing with the Ghaele, the Half-Ogre, the Antropomorphic Crocodile, the "Roll-with-It" feat, and the Blindsight, Lion's Charge and Superior Resistance spells from SS.
> 
> Why, exactly, is 3.5e going to nerf Haste and Harm, while at the same time adding on such obvious offenders of future rules abuse? Seems kinda silly to me.*




While lion's charge is probably a bit out of whack, I don't see anything wrong with blindsight and superior resistance at all. Most players tend to prioritise offense over defense, so these spells are probably going to be less prevalent than, say, 3.0E haste or improved invis. And neither blindsight nor superior resistance stops a giant from clubbing you to death in the good old-fashioned way.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *Just a point kreynolds - the commonness of the item in question is going to be a function of it's power relative to it's cost. *




I agree.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *Furthermore, saying that the item is going to be uncommon somehow balances out the rarity of the 'fleet of foot'(?) feat is just wrong. *




I disagree. If you happen to have the fleet of foot feat, its very very easy to escape the blindfold user.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *Then it's not a very good example, because it doesn't adequately illustrate the problem. *




I wasn't illustrating the problem. I was illustrating a solution.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *And if you think that calling it contrived is "getting ugly", then you have issues. *




Nah. I don't have issues. I just expect you to be polite. If you can't be, then we have a problem.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I mean really.   *




That's not polite.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *It should be priced off of the Blindsight spell... *




Except the Blindsight spell (MaoF) only works off of vibration. The blindfold isn't limited like that, so technically, it would be even more expensive.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *If you use the blindsight spell from Savage Species, which is 2nd level, it would cost 12,000 gp. *




I don't have that with me. Do you happen to know if that one is limited to certain senses? Or is it all encompassing?


----------



## Caliban (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I wasn't illustrating the problem. I was illustrating a solution.
> *





To what problem then?  The few posts prior to yours (including mine) were talking about the problem of a rogue using the blindfold in deeper darkness.     

Apparently your post had nothing to do with that.  Get with the program!

*



			Nah. I don't have issues. I just expect you to be polite. If you can't be, then we have a problem.
		
Click to expand...


*
You are way to thin-skinned.  I expected better from a fellow Texan. Grow a pair.  

*



			That's not polite.
		
Click to expand...


*


*



			Except the Blindsight spell (MaoF) only works off of vibration. The blindfold isn't limited like that, so technically, it would be even more expensive.
		
Click to expand...


*
I'm glad you agree with me now.  Was that so hard? 


*



			I don't have that with me. Do you happen to know if that one is limited to certain senses? Or is it all encompassing?
		
Click to expand...


*
"This spell grants the subject the blindsight ability out to  a range of 30 feet."   No mention of any specific senses involved.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *To what problem then? *




The blindfold.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *The few posts prior to yours (including mine) were talking about the problem of a rogue using the blindfold in deeper darkness. *




Right. I wasn't talking about darkness. I was presenting a solution to the item itself.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Apparently your post had nothing to do with that. *




With darkness? No. It didn't. That much was very evident. I even stated so multiple times.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Get with the program! *




I could say the same thing, as my post was never about darkness, but the item itself. 



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You are way to thin-skinned. *




Nope. I simply expect you to treat me as well as I treat you.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I expected better from a fellow Texan. *




I expected better from a fellow poster.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Grow a pair.   *




Another!?! Dude! Do you have any idea how uncomfortable my pants would get!?!  



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I'm glad you agree with me now. *




I somewhat agreed about six posts up. Did you not see it? It was my reply to Forrester.


----------



## RigaMortus (Mar 25, 2003)

Isn't casting "Blindsight" on someone and having them close their eyes essentially the same thing?  And cheaper too =)


----------



## Caliban (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The blindfold.
> *





But in your post prior to that you said the blinfold wasn't a problem.   


*



			Right. I wasn't talking about darkness. I was presenting a solution to the item itself.
		
Click to expand...


*
You should have said so then.



> *
> With darkness? No. It didn't. That much was very evident. I even stated so multiple times.
> *





Could have fooled me.   I don't see where you state this even once.

*



			I could say the same thing, as my post was never about darkness, but the item itself. 

Click to expand...


*
Then you really need to explain yourself better in the future.  I would find it helpful.  Thanks. 

*



			Nope. I simply expect you to treat me as well as I treat you.
		
Click to expand...


*
You've never treated me very well, so I think I'm doing pretty good.  


*



			I expected better from a fellow poster.
		
Click to expand...


*
Ooh, catty.  Rowr.

*



			I somewhat agreed about six posts up. Did you not see it? It was my reply to Forrester.
		
Click to expand...


*
You just said the item should be limited somehow.  You didn't address the price at all, which is the point I was making.


----------



## RigaMortus (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I expected better from a fellow Texan.
> [/B]




When you have George Bush as president, your expectations of Texans are pretty much thrown out the window 

/em waits for thread to turn political...

Muhahahahaha


----------



## Caliban (Mar 25, 2003)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> When you have George Bush as president, your expectations of Texans are pretty much thrown out the window
> 
> ...




Nah, Bush does pretty much what I expect from a Texan (based on my experiences growing up there).  

Mangle the English language, and start brawls with smaller opponents (or opponents of just about any size) because you don't like something they said or did (or how they look, or the vehicle they drive).


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban[/i]
[b]To what problem then?[/b][/quote]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kreynolds said:
			
		

> *The blindfold.*




But *kreynolds*, you're posting "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist. In the situation you describe, where the area is lit and all combatants can see, the blindfold grants few or no useful abilities. It only becomes b0rken when combined with magical darkness, which is a cheap and common effect in the standard campaign.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *But in your post prior to that you said the blinfold wasn't a problem.  *




Where did I say that?



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You should have said so then. *




Not once did I mention darkness in my example.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Could have fooled me. *




You assumed. It happens. No big deal. Just don't blame me for your assumption.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I don't see where you state this even once. *




Afterwards, when it was evident that a couple of people made incorrect assumptions.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Then you really need to explain yourself better in the future. *




I explained myself just fine. You assumed.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I would find it helpful. *




It would be helpful if you didn't blame me for your own assumptions. You assumed darkness was part of my equation, even though it was never even mentioned. Now that you understand that, you are trying to blame me for your assumption.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You've never treated me very well, so I think I'm doing pretty good.   *




When did I mistreat you in this thread? In fact, when was the last time I mistreated you? I don't think you're behaving this way because of a grudge, and because of that, I don't know why you're behaving this way. I would hope that we could have a civil discussion, but if you don't want to do that, then perhaps this needs to be handled another way.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Ooh, catty.  Rowr. *




Catty? Nah. Just pointing out the obvious.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You just said the item should be limited somehow. *




Exactly.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You didn't address the price at all, which is the point I was making. *




Limiting the item would bring its power more inline with its price. So, I did address it, just the other way around, though I should have been more clear and inserted "limiting it to a single sense, such as sound or vibration, would brings its power down inline with its current price". Instead of bumping the price up, I suggested toning the item down.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *In the situation you describe, where the area is lit and all combatants can see, the blindfold grants few or no useful abilities. *




I agree, but darkness is pretty easy to counter, so the solution is still relevant. The blindfold is harder to directly counter, but the darkness isn't.



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *It only becomes b0rken when combined with magical darkness, which is a cheap and common effect in the standard campaign. *




And is also pretty easy to counter.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *"This spell grants the subject the blindsight ability out to  a range of 30 feet."   No mention of any specific senses involved. *




Ouch. That's odd. Are there any funky requirements?


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

Both blindsight spells out of Savage Species can be made permenent.  I didn't agree with MoF blindsight as a 3rd level spell, and Savage Species moved it to 2nd level and gave you option of making it permenent.

I can only guess 2 reasons for the spells and blindfold.  Either someone at WotC is smoking something strong or it is assumed that everyone will have easy access to blindsight.  No character, besides perhaps an archer, can really survive at high levels without the ability to fly.  Perhaps they are tring to make blindsight similar?  More likely, IMO, is that not enough thought was put into how this abilty can be abused, such as deeper darkness.

At least the item can be priced closer to formula.  Spell level x caster level x 2,000 = 4x7x2,000 = 56,000.  Ajust up for immunity to gaze/sight based attacks, adjust down for limited vision.

Blindsight/darkness can be defeated by a number of tatics.  That doesn't make it weak.  Imunity to gaze attacks is nothing to sneeze at, and never have to spot hiding rogues is very useful.  The blindfold also stops glitterdust daze and color spray.  At 9k, this is just too useful not to have.  Even if you only use it once in while, it will easily be worth it.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where did I say that?
> *




In your very first post. 


*



			Not once did I mention darkness in my example.
		
Click to expand...


*
But the the posts immediately before yours were discussing darkness.   Since you didn't specify what issue you were replying it, it appeared that you were discussing the one in the posts just prior to yours.  

As I said, you weren't clear. 

*



			You assumed. It happens. No big deal. Just don't blame me for your assumption.
		
Click to expand...


*
When you don't express yourself clearly, it's easy to make assumptions. 


*



			Afterwards, when it was evident that a couple of people made incorrect assumptions.
		
Click to expand...


*
Exactly.  Please make the effort to discuss things in a more clear fashion in the future.   <--- (See?  Polite request.)


*



			I explained myself just fine. You assumed.
		
Click to expand...


*
Not exactly. 

You didn't explain the visibility conditions in your example, leave the door open to assumption.   Since the item under discussion grants blindsight, it is to be expected that you are in a circumstance where you will actually need to use the blindfold, unless you state otherwise.    You did not state otherwise.  

Why should we have assumed that your example was one where there was no logical reason to have the blindfold on? 

*



			It would be helpful if you didn't blame me for your own assumptions. You assumed darkness was part of my equation, even though it was never even mentioned. Now that you understand that, you are trying to blame me for your assumption.
		
Click to expand...


*
LOL.   That's pretty darned funny.   Darkness was mentioned in several posts prior to yours.   If you were not continuing that discussion, you should have made this known. 


*



			When did I mistreat you in this thread? In fact, when was the last time I mistreated you?
		
Click to expand...


*
When did I say you mistreated me?   You are making a big assumption there.  

I said you haven't treated me well, not that you mistreated me.  

This thread is a perfect example.  

*



			I don't think you're behaving this way because of a grudge, and because of that, I don't know why you're behaving this way. I would hope that we could have a civil discussion, but if you don't want to do that, then perhaps this needs to be handled another way.
		
Click to expand...


*
You seem to have developed a rather narrow definition of "polite" and "civil" since your arrival here.   My definitions are a little broader.   If you can't handle it, that's your problem, not mine.  

I think you are just wasting a lot of time and bandwith by making a big deal over nothing, but I've seen you do this in just about every other debate where you lose ground so I'm not suprised. 

If you want to "handle it another way" feel free.  It's about what I expect from you by now.   I had hoped for better this time though. *sigh*


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *In your very first post. *




Quote it.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *But the the posts immediately before yours were discussing darkness.   Since you didn't specify what issue you were replying it, it appeared that you were discussing the one in the posts just prior to yours. *




It was quite clear. I stated "Take this, for example". I laid out the example. Darkness wasn't mentioned.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *As I said, you weren't clear.  *




I disagree.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *When you don't express yourself clearly, it's easy to make assumptions.  *




I clearly stated the example. Darkness was not mentioned.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Exactly.  Please make the effort to discuss things in a more clear fashion in the future. *




I don't mind that you made an assumption. I don't mind if you ask me for clarification of one of my posts. I do, however, mind when you blame me for your own assumption. You made that assumption all on your own, even when my example was clearly stated.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Since the item under discussion grants blindsight, it is to be expected that you are in a cirumstance where you will actually need to use the blindfold, unless you state otherwise.    You did not state otherwise. *




I defined the parameters of my example, and darkness was not part of it.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *LOL.   That's pretty funny.   Darkness was mentioned in several posts prior to yours.   If you were part of that discussion, you should have made this known. *




I didn't see any need. I still don't.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *When did I say you mistreated me? *




Here...



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You've never treated me very well... *




...did you mean something else by that statement?



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You are making a big assumption there.   *




Possibly. Would you mind clarifying that statement then?



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You seem to have a rather narrow definition of "polite" and "civil" . *




Possibly.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Mine is a little broader. *




I'm getting that.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> * If you can't handle it, that's your problem, not mine.   *




I don't expect you to pussyfoot around. I merely expect you to refrain from being rude. If you need an example of how I would like you to treat me, simply look at my replies to you. I'm not being rude, cruel, or anything like that. I am merely speaking matter of fact, which does not include rude behavior.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I think you are just wasting a lot of time and bandwith by making a big deal over nothing... *




You mean like the darkness thing? I didn't start it, and I've been trying to clear it up, but its obvious that you and I disagree. I'm willing to let it rest if you are.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *...but I've seen you do this in just about every other debate where you lose ground so I'm not suprised. *




Yeah, I'll admit, I remember doing that before as well. However, I'm not doing that now. I began to somewhat agree with the majority in this thread when I replied to Forrester. I'm not wasting time. I'm making progress.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *If you want to "handle it another way" feel free.  It's about what I expect from you by now. *




Its your option. I'm trying to maintain a civil conversation, but you're making that difficult.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I had hoped for better this time. *sigh* *




So had I. If you don't want to be civil, please, just say so.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

In reply to your changes.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *<--- (See?  Polite request.) *




That was indeed polite. Thank you.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Why should we have assumed that your example was one where there was no logical reason to have the blindfold on?  *




Besides the fact that darkness was never mention in what I think was a clearly laid out example? I honestly don't know.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I said you haven't treated me well, not that you mistreated me. *




Ah. Then can you further define that? Does "haven't treated me well" mean I have treated you badly or just somewhat less than good? I'm trying to understand your point of view.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *This thread is a perfect example. *




I haven't treated you well? How is that?


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> I agree, but darkness is pretty easy to counter[...]*



So what? _Invisibility_ is just as easy to counter; _see invisibility_ is 2nd level, the same as _daylight_. As I've pointed out, the blindfold is even better for combat than a ring of invisibility, though the ring costs more than twice as much.



> *[...]so the solution is still relevant.*



No. Even granting your previous assertion, your "solution" remains irrelevant, because the blindfold is not a permanent fixture. As soon as the lights come back on*, the user can just remove the item, and the minor disadvantages you've fixated on go away.

*(Even though the user can't directly see light while he wears the blindfold, his blindsight shows him that his opponents are suddenly no longer blundering around and disoriented.)


----------



## RigaMortus (Mar 25, 2003)

"I'm gonna cast a Friendship spell on the both of you!"


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *As I've pointed out, the blindfold is even better for combat than a ring of invisibility... [/size] *




I disagree. I think in the end, the ring of invisibility is far superior. With the blindfold, nobody is invisible to you within range. With the ring, you're invisible to everyone, no matter how close or far away they are. I think the ring has a lot more uses than the blindfold, such as stealing treasure, or anything else (no matter the lighting conditions), escape, evasion, and long range attacks, to name a few.



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> **(Even though the user can't directly see light while he wears the blindfold, his blindsight shows him that his opponents are suddenly no longer blundering around and disoriented.) *




It does?


----------



## Rugger (Mar 25, 2003)

Crikey!

I make a topic and 24 hours later, we are having a 2 men enter, 1 man leaves Rules Forum Deathmatch between Caliban and KReynolds... 

I'm getting the general feeling that yeah, this thing is too good...and i really appreciate all the input thats come out!

-Rugger
"I Lurk!"


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> I disagree. I think in the end, the ring of invisibility is far superior. With the blindfold, nobody is invisible to you within range. With the ring, you're invisible to everyone, no matter how close or far away they are.*



Once again yet another time repeating myself repetitively with repetitiousness: I'm talking about the use of the blindfold in magical darkness. For purposes of combat, it grants the same effect as invisibility, and then some.

I can't tell whether you're just taking the piss, or just badly failing to make a coherent argument. Either way, since you're not bothering to read my posts here, I won't trouble you with any more of them.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *I'm talking about the use of the blindfold in magical darkness. *




I realize that.



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *For purposes of combat, it grants the same effect as invisibility, and then some. *




I realize that as well, but my argument stems from my example where darkness was not a factor. If you prefer, think of the darkness as having already been negated.



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *I can't tell whether you're just taking the piss, or just badly failing to make a coherent argument. *




Well, my example was quite clear, where darkness was not a factor. I even previously mentioned that the blindfold should probably be restricted to one sense, such as sound, scent, or vibration, so I do agree that its powerful. I just don't think its as powerful as you do.



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *Either way, since you're not bothering to read my posts here, I won't trouble you with any more of them. *




I read your posts. I simply disagree with your opinion that the blindfold is far superior to a ring of invisibility.


----------



## Henry (Mar 25, 2003)

What I'm sorry to see is respected posters who can't debate a magic item cost without verbal insults.

It needs to be civil, or the thread doesn't need to continue.


----------



## Forrester (Mar 25, 2003)

I'm surprised that so much of the conversation has centered around whether someone facing the guy with the blindfold can successfully run away unnoticed. I mean, is this really the best test of game balance? 

The fact that the wearer can't see squat past 60' is not trivial. But I still say that the ability to foil ALL visual and audio illusions (Blur, Invis, Improved Invis, Displacement), combined with the ability to do some particularly nasty offense (Blindfold + Darkness spell), is pretty damn cheaty, and needs to cost a lot more than 9k.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I disagree. I think in the end, the ring of invisibility is far superior. With the blindfold, nobody is invisible to you within range. With the ring, you're invisible to everyone, no matter how close or far away they are. I think the ring has a lot more uses than the blindfold, such as stealing treasure, or anything else (no matter the lighting conditions), escape, evasion, and long range attacks, to name a few.
> *




Blindfold+deaper darkness= invisiblity that doesn't go down.

The blindfold stops anyone from sneaking up close to you.  It stops all gaze attacks and some spells.

I see the ring of invis being better for defense and the blindfold better for offense.  If you have a couple daylights, and 3-4 dispels, I can easily have that many deeper-darkness items in an extra-dimesional space (Helet's Handy Haversack works perfectly) so they are not dispelled.  If you daylight that coin, I can toss it and draw another.  If you daylight the ground, I can back up and still get my darkness.  You still can't see me, but I can see you.

One last reminder: blindsight goes through most illusions.  What kind of bonus is that?  Illusioned pit traps will never be a problem again, nor walls.  Trick me with any image spell - no.  All in all, I would opt for blindsight for far more characters than I would for the ring of invis, especially if blindsight only costs 9k.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Blindfold+deaper darkness= invisiblity that doesn't go down. *




Unless the darkness goes down, of course.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I see the ring of invis being better for defense and the blindfold better for offense. *




I'd have to agree with that, but that doesn't mean that the blindfold is vastly superior to the ring. In combat, it is. Outside of combat, it isn't.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *If you daylight that coin, I can toss it and draw another. *




Very true. Its potentially an infinitely repeating tactic.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *If you daylight the ground, I can back up and still get my darkness.  You still can't see me, but I can see you. *




That depends on how far you back up, which may have to be too far if you don't want me to be able to see you.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *One last reminder: blindsight goes through most illusions.  *




Yup.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *All in all, I would opt for blindsight for far more characters than I would for the ring of invis, especially if blindsight only costs 9k. *




I think most of my characters would rather have the ring, though I do have one heavy dungeon crawler that wouldn't mind the blindfold.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 25, 2003)

Rugger said:
			
		

> *Crikey!
> 
> I make a topic and 24 hours later, we are having a 2 men enter, 1 man leaves Rules Forum Deathmatch between Caliban and KReynolds...
> 
> ...




Nah, he does this everytime we have a disagreement. 

He picks some innocent comment of mine and pretends it's a verbal attack, and then acts all wounded and offended, trying to pretend I'm some bully so he can provoke me into a real transgression.  

It's childish, but I'm no longer surprised by it. 

I'm sorry everyone else had to be subjected to this display, you all have my sincere apologies for helping propagate it.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Unless the darkness goes down, of course. *



I can have more deeper darkness coins than you have daylight or dispell.  At days/level, a few a day keep my supply well in hand.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I'd have to agree with that, but that doesn't mean that the blindfold is vastly superior to the ring. In combat, it is. Outside of combat, it isn't. *



Rogues can not sneak up on me.  No illusion-based traps.  Seems pretty useful to me, unless you spend a lot of time stealing or sneaking.  Unless every party member has one, most likely only the rogue will really benifit.




			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Very true. Its potentially an infinitely repeating tactic. *



 You agree I can have nearly-infinte but still think this is shut down easily?  What about all those times (I would have to think a majority) when you are not fighting a spellcaster?



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *That depends on how far you back up, which may have to be too far if you don't want me to be able to see you. *



You daylight at your feet.  I can either step back 65 feet to maintain invisiblity or I can use any other means to obscure vision.  And my darkness-coin will work days after your daylight is out.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I think most of my characters would rather have the ring, though I do have one heavy dungeon crawler that wouldn't mind the blindfold. *



I tend to run the gambit of plots, both playing and running.  Because of this, I would call an ability like blindsight, which kills many a cheesy trick, more valuable that invis.  The exception is if the character I am playing at the moment is based on stealth.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 25, 2003)

> *I can have more deeper darkness coins than you have daylight or dispell.  At days/level, a few a day keep my supply well in hand.*




Actually, either they're all treated as being effects that are on your person (like, say, GMW on your sword), in which case a targetted dispel on you could get them all...

... or they're treated as separate objects, in which case an area dispel could get them all...

-Hyp.


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 25, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> Actually, either they're all treated as being effects that are on your person (like, say, GMW on your sword), in which case a targetted dispel on you could get them all...*



...except that the darkness prevents you from seeing me, which means you can't target me.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I can have more deeper darkness coins than you have daylight or dispell. *




You sure about the dispel?



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *At days/level, a few a day keep my supply well in hand. *




True, but a single dispel would wipe them out.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Rogues can not sneak up on me.  No illusion-based traps.  Seems pretty useful to me, unless you spend a lot of time stealing or sneaking. *




...in which case the ring of invisibility is far superior, which was what I was pointing out in the first place. The blindfold is greater for combat. The ring is greater for out of combat. Simply because a magic item is great out of combat does not mean its balance or usefulness should be ignored.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Unless every party member has one, most likely only the rogue will really benifit. *




They would benefit the most, I agree. Especially spellcasting rogues with ray spells. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> * You agree I can have nearly-infinte but still think this is shut down easily? *




One successful dispel is all it takes. The coin is in your possession, thus the coin is you, thus a targeted dispel could potentially take down every effect on you.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *What about all those times (I would have to think a majority) when you are not fighting a spellcaster? *




Generally, a balanced party will have a spellcaster of some type (wizard, sorcerer, or cleric).



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *You daylight at your feet.  I can either step back 65 feet... *




...and unless you're hasted, that would consume your entire round (if you're movement rate is 30 or less). That's a lot of precious time consumed.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *...or I can use any other means to obscure vision. *




Or I can use any other means to negate it, such as fly (get above it), true seeing (pierce it), wind wall (disperse a cloud of whatever or mist), dimension door (get around it), etc. We can discuss tactics all day, but I'm not sure how effecient that would be, unless that's what this topic has come down to to determine how powerful the item is (which is quite possible).



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *And my darkness-coin will work days after your daylight is out. *




I don't need days. I just need a few rounds, maybe a couple of minutes, to negate your darkness.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I tend to run the gambit of plots, both playing and running.  Because of this, I would call an ability like blindsight, which kills many a cheesy trick, more valuable that invis.  The exception is if the character I am playing at the moment is based on stealth. *




Well, it all comes down to combat or no combat. I just think that a ring of invisibility, as useful as it is outside of combat, is no less useful in comparison to a blindfold while in combat. Its just a matter of circumstances and the tools you utilize to adapt/handle those circumstances.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, either they're all treated as being effects that are on your person (like, say, GMW on your sword), in which case a targetted dispel on you could get them all...
> 
> ...




Do you have a source on that?  When I read dispell magic, a targeted dispell would only effect spells cast directly on you (like cat's grace) but wouldn't effect magiced items you carry, like a pile of GMW arrows.



> Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell. The character makes a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. A dispel check is 1d20 +1 per caster level (maximum +10) against a DC of 11 + the spell’s caster level.




If the GMW isn't on the character, how can a targetted dispel get rid of that effect.  

Further, how are items in an extra-dimentional space going to be effected at all.  Unless you dispell my HHH, I can always grab another coin.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 25, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you have a source on that?  When I read dispell magic, a targeted dispell would only effect spells cast directly on you (like cat's grace) but wouldn't effect magiced items you carry, like a pile of GMW arrows.
> *




I believe it 's in the FAQ. 

*



			If the GMW isn't on the character, how can a targetted dispel get rid of that effect.
		
Click to expand...


*
As attended items, they are considered part of you, and any spells on them are treated as spells that are on you. 

*



			Further, how are items in an extra-dimentional space going to be effected at all.  Unless you dispell my HHH, I can always grab another coin.
		
Click to expand...


*
This is true.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *...except that the darkness prevents you from seeing me, which means you can't target me. *




Except that the daylight coin lets me see you. This gets twisted, doesn't it?


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *You sure about the dispel?
> *



An extra-dimentional space protects the coins quite nicely, and you can only drop area dispells on me due to targeting.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *True, but a single dispel would wipe them out.
> *



see above



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *...in which case the ring of invisibility is far superior, which was what I was pointing out in the first place. The blindfold is greater for combat. The ring is greater for out of combat. Simply because a magic item is great out of combat does not mean its balance or usefulness should be ignored.
> *



I was never negating out-of-combat use.  You just keep calling all my uses "in combat".  I don't consider a trap, a magical disguise, a hidden passage, or a sneaking thief combat per se.  Each could turn into combat, but so could your use of the ring.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *They would benefit the most, I agree. Especially spellcasting rogues with ray spells.
> *



What is a non-sneak based class going to do with it, beside run from combat?  I think the anti-illusion properties of blindsight are more generally useful.  Heck, just buy one and give it to whomever is on guard duty at night.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *One successful dispel is all it takes. The coin is in your possession, thus the coin is you, thus a targeted dispel could potentially take down every effect on you.
> *



Except the ones in an extra-dimentional space, which are numerous and cheap.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Generally, a balanced party will have a spellcaster of some type (wizard, sorcerer, or cleric).
> *



Do the PCs always face a balanced party?



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *...and unless you're hasted, that would consume your entire round (if you're movement rate is 30 or less). That's a lot of precious time consumed.  *



Hey, I didn't say it was perfect.  But there are many creatures that see through invis as well, including characters with the Blindfold of True Darkness 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Or I can use any other means to negate it, such as fly (get above it), true seeing (pierce it), wind wall (disperse a cloud of whatever or mist), dimension door (get around it), etc. We can discuss tactics all day, but I'm not sure how effecient that would be, unless that's what this topic has come down to to determine how powerful the item is (which is quite possible).
> *



I don't know if we are just down to discussing tatics.  But note that all the tatics you are talking about work just as well against invisibility.  Most parties would carry anti-invis equipment rather than anti-darkness and anti-fog.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I don't need days. I just need a few rounds, maybe a couple of minutes, to negate your darkness. *



And after I win the combat, I can use the same coin again later 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Well, it all comes down to combat or no combat. I just think that a ring of invisibility, as useful as it is outside of combat, is no less useful in comparison to a blindfold while in combat. Its just a matter of circumstances and the tools you utilize to adapt/handle those circumstances. *



Hidden passages, magical disguises, hidden treasure, sneaking characters of any sort (outside of combat) and more depending on how you interpret "[creatures with blindsight] normally do not need to make spot or listen checks...."


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> I believe it 's in the FAQ.
> 
> As attended items, they are considered part of you, and any spells on them are treated as spells that are on you.
> *




Ok, that is good to know.  I should have looked that up long ago.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Except that the daylight coin lets me see you. This gets twisted, doesn't it?  *




You know, it occures to me, K, that every counter example you give to my abuse of this item is based on having a cleric/mage with the proper spells at hand.  I can build a rogue who wears the 9k blindfold, carries the 2k Handy Haversack, and paid for 10 deeper darkness coins from a 15th level caster at cost of 4500.  15,500 and I have a near improved-invis for 15 days.

Even if we bump the blindfold to 20k (like that ring you are fond of) I still get 36,500 for the same trick.  Unless you have blindsight or tremorsense, I get a huge advange.  Not many creatures have those abilities, unless they have the blindfold themselves.

My point: sure you can counter it, but only at a large cost of spells.  You said you didn't agree with the pricing for the ability without limits.  What you price it at?


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *An extra-dimentional space protects the coins quite nicely, and you can only drop area dispells on me due to targeting. *




Not true. My daylight will cancel out your darkness, thus I can see you, thus I can target you, thus with a successful dispel, you can't get into your haversack.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *see above *




See above. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I was never negating out-of-combat use. *




I know. I was just pointing it out before you did so. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *You just keep calling all my uses "in combat". *




A rogue sneaking up on you generally leads to an action that must be resolved in rounds, i.e. combat.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I don't consider a trap, a magical disguise, a hidden passage, or a sneaking thief combat per se. *




Except for the sneaking rogue in most situations, I agree. Like I said, I simply think that the ring has more use out of combat than a blindfold does out of combat.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Each could turn into combat, but so could your use of the ring. *




Right, but I wasn't disputing that.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *What is a non-sneak based class going to do with it, beside run from combat? *




Sneak around? 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I think the anti-illusion properties of blindsight are more generally useful. *




It depends upon what you're doing, and your environment as well. But, I'd have to disagree that its generally more useful. Just a difference of opinion.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Heck, just buy one and give it to whomever is on guard duty at night. *




Not a bad idea, actually. Anyone seeing the person wearing the blindfold will think they're blind or something. I like. 

However, you could also do the same thing with the ring. Just have them put it on and turn it on. The only people seen in the camp will be sleeping, but the alert dude on guard will be awake.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Except the ones in an extra-dimentional space... *




Unless the extra-dimensional space gets suppressed.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *...which are numerous and cheap. *




It doesn't matter how numerous they are. If they're on you, it only takes one dispel. If they're in the extra-dimensional space, it only takes one dispel.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Do the PCs always face a balanced party? *




No, but the PCs generally represent a balanced party. Sometimes what the PCs face can be weaker or tougher. Tactics work both ways.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Hey, I didn't say it was perfect. *




Oh, I know, and I'm not accusing you of it either. I was just countering.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *But there are many creatures that see through invis as well, including characters with the Blindfold of True Darkness  *




Very true. But a creature with blindsight going against a creature with blindsight...well, they cancel each other out anyway, so it might as well just be two humans that aren't trying to hide.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I don't know if we are just down to discussing tatics. *




Starting to look that way, but there's a little bit o' rules in the mix. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *But note that all the tatics you are talking about work just as well against invisibility. *




Very true. I didn't say it was perfect. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Most parties would carry anti-invis equipment rather than anti-darkness and anti-fog. *




I'm not so sure about that. A seasoned veteran would carry anti-darkness or anti-fog equipment, and they will most assuredly also carry anti-invis equipment as well. Some effect anti-invis equipment; ink, flower, oil, sand, dust, etc. That's some cheap stuff.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *And after I win the combat, I can use the same coin again later  *




Or, after I win, I can take your haversack full of coins, after its no longer suppressed, of course.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 25, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *You know, it occures to me, K, that every counter example you give to my abuse of this item is based on having a cleric/mage with the proper spells at hand. *




Or having a coin with permanent daylight on it (which would require DM approval, but that's fine), or an anti-magic rock. Rare item vs. rare item.  



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *My point: sure you can counter it, but only at a large cost of spells. *




If you're a spellcaster (you're making darkness coins), or if you have a spellcaster in the party (he's making darkness coins), why is it out of the question to assume that you might be going up against another spellcaster?

But most importantly, if you're using a bunch of magic items, why can't I?



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *You said you didn't agree with the pricing for the ability without limits. *




Yup. Drop it to vibration in the ground only, or sound, and I'm cool with the price.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *What you price it at? *




With all the senses? I don't know. I haven't thought about it. After Forrester's post, my gut instinct was to weaken it, as opposed to raising its price.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Not true. My daylight will cancel out your darkness, thus I can see you, thus I can target you, thus with a successful dispel, you can't get into your haversack.*



You get out a coin and cast daylight.  I move back, out of your sight, or deal with losing my huge advantage.  If I do move back, you aren't going to get me into the daylight and still be able to dispel me, unless you count haste.  If you are hasted, I still get my advange for part of my round.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I know. I was just pointing it out before you did so. *



You admit you aren't even counter my arguement. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *A rogue sneaking up on you generally leads to an action that must be resolved in rounds, i.e. combat.*



So does most any case of you sneaking with ring of invis.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Except for the sneaking rogue in most situations, I agree. Like I said, I simply think that the ring has more use out of combat than a blindfold does out of combat.*



But you just said sneaking IS combat.  Traps and disguises are not.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Right, but I wasn't disputing that.*



Actually, by your logic it is combat.  So the only use for ring of invis is combat.  Since you said the blindfold is better in combat, that means I win, right 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Sneak around? *



Spot DC 20.  Then out comes the see invis.  Doesn't seem very effective to me.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *It depends upon what you're doing, and your environment as well. But, I'd have to disagree that its generally more useful. Just a difference of opinion.*







			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Not a bad idea, actually. Anyone seeing the person wearing the blindfold will think they're blind or something. I like.
> 
> However, you could also do the same thing with the ring. Just have them put it on and turn it on. The only people seen in the camp will be sleeping, but the alert dude on guard will be awake.*



The blindfold negates the whole darkness at night problem.  Most of the standard races still have that problem, remember.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Unless the extra-dimensional space gets suppressed.*



So targeted dispell disables magical items as well?!  Wow, dispell keeps getting better the more I read these formems.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *It doesn't matter how numerous they are. If they're on you, it only takes one dispel. If they're in the extra-dimensional space, it only takes one dispel.*



I don't think so, unless you referencing the above comment.  I am not finding anything in the FAQ.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *No, but the PCs generally represent a balanced party. Sometimes what the PCs face can be weaker or tougher. Tactics work both ways.*



True, but doesn't mean a party will break one more than the other.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Very true. But a creature with blindsight going against a creature with blindsight...well, they cancel each other out anyway, so it might as well just be two humans that aren't trying to hide.*



Two invisible creatures that can't see each other is also an amusing idea.  How often will your oppent have blindsight?



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I'm not so sure about that. A seasoned veteran would carry anti-darkness or anti-fog equipment, and they will most assuredly also carry anti-invis equipment as well. Some effect anti-invis equipment; ink, flower, oil, sand, dust, etc. That's some cheap stuff.*



If you have a good idea where they are.  Daylight runs out long before deeper darkness.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Or, after I win, I can take your haversack full of coins, after its no longer suppressed, of course.  *



But I won, just like I said up there 

Honestly, if I can make an arguement that the blindfold is at least as useful as ring of invis, don't you think the price is quite off?


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Or having a coin with permanent daylight on it (which would require DM approval, but that's fine), or an anti-magic rock. Rare item vs. rare item.  *



Um, did you read my example?  A copper coin with a third level spell cast on it can hardly be called a rare item.




			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *If you're a spellcaster (you're making darkness coins), or if you have a spellcaster in the party (he's making darkness coins), why is it out of the question to assume that you might be going up against another spellcaster?*



Um, did you read my example?  I bought them, or rather the spells being cast, to make this tatic work for 15 days.  I can be far away from the caster but you must be a caster.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *But most importantly, if you're using a bunch of magic items, why can't I?*



Cost is the issue, not number.  Post an example for under that amount of money to counter it.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Yup. Drop it to vibration in the ground only, or sound, and I'm cool with the price.*



Ground vibration would be tremorsense, not blindsight.  Even if it was sound based, you only get a chance to stop me with silence, again being a spell-caster.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *With all the senses? I don't know. I haven't thought about it. After Forrester's post, my gut instinct was to weaken it, as opposed to raising its price. *



Blindsight is still blindsight.


----------



## magnas_veritas (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Yup. Drop it to vibration in the ground only, or sound, and I'm cool with the price.*




Just as an aside...

I'd really, really like blindsight better defined.  Sometimes it's sound-based, other times it's random non-sonic vibrations, and then other times it's just a sphere of awareness.  I hate that.

Here we have this uber-sense that cannot, under any circumstances, be defeated.  Vision and hearing?  Skill use, preparation, and thinking can defeat that.  Smell?  A bit harder, but there are items for that in MoF and A&EG, both magical and non...and, again, preparation can minimize or outright defeat it with minimal expense.  Then there's tremorsense, which is really hard to get past right up until you figure out that by flying, you can negate it completely; flying is comparatively easy, after all.

Then, we have blindsight.  I can detect anything at all within a certain radius with no chance of failure.  Sure, outside of that radius I can't detect them with that sense, but either I keep to closed spaces where I don't have to worry about that, or I fall back on my backup senses.  Currently, there are no existing items to defeat blindsight; one can use the Ring of the Darkhidden (MoF, wearer is invisible to darkvision only, 6700 gp) as a guide, but this defeats an entire multi-faceted sense, not just an enhancement to vision.

Sorry, bit of a low-key rant there.  Thoughts on defeating or fixing Blindsight...not including just moving outside its range?

Brad


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *You admit you aren't even counter my arguement.  *




I didn't say it was a counter.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *So does most any case of you sneaking with ring of invis. *




True, but you're not actually in combat. There's a difference. With a single attack, the ring deactivates, thus its far more useful outside of combat.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *But you just said sneaking IS combat. *




No. I said its resolved in rounds, i.e. combat. The point with the ring is to stay out of combat, as you only get one good round out of it, and if you do indeed stay out of combat, its a heck of a lot more useful.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Traps and disguises are not. *




True, but its worth pointing out that many traps don't care if you have blindsight or are invisible, so traps are irrelevant.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Actually, by your logic it is combat. *




Nope.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Since you said the blindfold is better in combat, that means I win, right  *




No. See previous answers.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Spot DC 20.  Then out comes the see invis. *




Wait a second. Now we have a magic item with see invisibility in the mix. Can I bring in some more magic items?  I'm just kidding. It struck me as funny because this discussion is rapidly descending into chaos.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Doesn't seem very effective to me. *




Nothing is effective if I throw an antimagic stone at you. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *The blindfold negates the whole darkness at night problem. *




To a severely limited range, yes. The ring doesn't interfere with that. With the ring, you could be standing right next to your campfire and the light will actually help you.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Most of the standard races still have that problem, remember. *




Five out of the seven core races have either low-light or darkvision. "Most" doesn't apply.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *So targeted dispell disables magical items as well?! *




It's been debated that to suppress your HHH, one would need to target either the haversack itself or you. Either way, yes.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Wow, dispell keeps getting better the more I read these formems. *




Happens a lot.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I don't think so, unless you referencing the above comment.  I am not finding anything in the FAQ. *




It was already mentioned by Hypersmurf.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *True, but doesn't mean a party will break one more than the other. *




It doesn't matter. In a game of random encounters, one where you can't predict what you'll run into next, random tactics apply.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Two invisible creatures that can't see each other is also an amusing idea. *




I've seen it happen. It's quite funny...and quite boring. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *How often will your oppent have blindsight? *




Is he a spellcaster with access to MaoF? A lot. 



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *If you have a good idea where they are. *




If all you have is a bag of flower, then by all means, use it. But, like you said, all it takes is a Spot DC 20, then comes see invisibility.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Daylight runs out long before deeper darkness. *




Again, all I need is a few rounds or a couple of minutes, at the most. If the coin has a permanent daylight on it, then the duration of darkness is irrelevant.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *But I won, just like I said up there  *




I don't see how.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Honestly, if I can make an arguement that the blindfold is at least as useful as ring of invis, don't you think the price is quite off? *




I already admitted that the price was off, early in the thread, in fact. However, I didn't suggest raising the price. I suggested toning down the effectiveness of the item by reducing the sense involved in the blindsight bestowed upon the wearer.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Um, did you read my example? *




Yes.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *A copper coin with a third level spell cast on it can hardly be called a rare item. *




I wasn't referring to the coin. I was referring to the blindfold.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Um, did you read my example? *




Yes.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I bought them, or rather the spells being cast, to make this tatic work for 15 days.  I can be far away from the caster but you must be a caster. *




Then I'm a caster. What's the problem with that? If I'm not the caster, and I'm in a balanced party, then I'll have one anyway.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Cost is the issue, not number. *




I already agreed, long ago, that the cost was off. See previous post.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Post an example for under that amount of money to counter it. *




Why?



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Ground vibration would be tremorsense, not blindsight. *




Good point. Make it standard vibration then, as the spell from MaoF.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Even if it was sound based, you only get a chance to stop me with silence, again being a spell-caster. *




So I'm can't use a spellcaster at all? How about a coin with silence on it then?



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Blindsight is still blindsight. *




I don't get your meaning. Blindsight is not merely blindsight. Check the monster manual. The ability is not always the same. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2003)

> *It was already mentioned by Hypersmurf.*




Credit to Caliban, actually.  I vaguely recalled the ruling - Caliban provided the FAQ cite.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds,

I respect you a lot, and have benefited from your discussions on these boards countless times, but I get the feeling that you're fighting a losing battle this time...

Something that I don't think has been mentioned is that blindsight actually allows a creature to see around solid objects and corners.  Basically the creature is aware of anything within range of the blindsight, regardless of obstructions in the way.  (A closed room wouldn't be known, but around a corner, or behind a pile of crates, or clinging to the ceiling, etc. would all be known by the creature with blindsight.)

This would make a scout wearing this blindfold practically infallible.  Nothing would escape his notice.  If you add _Invisibility_, _Silence_, and _Rary's Telepathic Bond_ to the scout, the party will _never_ be surprised again.  Heck, even without the spells, the scout could shout a warning before most foes could cover the 60ft. distance.

I'd also note that the feat that provides blindsight only gives it up to 5' and requires a 19+ wisdom.  To me that further illustrates the value of the ability, that it's so stingily granted (as it should be!)

Myself, I'd definitely say the item is too cheap.  It's useful in so many ways, synergetic with so many other abilities, counters so many spells, that it needs to cost more for me to even consider letting it into my game.

Of course, YMMV.

[edit] blind, not blight [/edit]


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

Ok, kreynolds, I can't keep up with (or make more) spam any more.  All I can say is that the formula puts this item at 56k, and I have already seen the item be abused.  I think I have made my point.  But any time you want to test this theory, I will stop by your gamming group with character in hand


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 26, 2003)

Enough, people. Sheesh.  Please treat each other with respect - or failing that, please don't squabble. You two are amongst the best rules gurus we have here. I'd just as soon not see you growling at each other.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *All I can say is that the formula puts this item at 56k, and I have already seen the item be abused. *




I have already agreed (my fourth post) that the price is too low as it functions right now. I don't know why you keep bringing this up when the price is no longer in contention.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I think I have made my point. *




Actually, no. Or at least, I haven't seen it. You don't have a point to make about the price, at least not to me. Why? See first answer. You may be making a point about how the blindfold is better overall than the ring of invisibility, but I don't see it, and I still disagree. No big deal.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> *I respect you a lot... *




Thanks. 



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> *...but I get the feeling that you're fighting a losing battle this time... *




See, that's exactly it though. It's not a losing battle. From where I stand, I'm on firm ground, which is why I've remained in this discussion and not just moved on to another thread. If I thought I wouldn't make it, I would have backed out long ago.


----------



## RigaMortus (Mar 26, 2003)

Who here saw Daredevil?

Anyone else getting the image of Blindsight acting like Daredevils "radar sense"?


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *Who here saw Daredevil? *




I did. Fun movie. Not great, but fun. 



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *Anyone else getting the image of Blindsight acting like Daredevils "radar sense"? *




Blindsight based on sound, like echolocation? Yeah, something like that. It's a really cool visual anyway.


----------



## Darklone (Mar 26, 2003)

Wow. I just had this weird visual of Piratecat holding kreynolds and caliban at their ears... 

But as some wise person above said... Blindfight should have been defined better.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *Wow. I just had this weird visual of Piratecat holding kreynolds and caliban at their ears... *




He can leave my ear alone. I haven't been anything but civil.


----------



## Mulkhoran (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> .......civil.  *





Well, I certainly hope you'll avoid that in the future.  The sparring has positively *brightened* my morning.

FLAME ON!


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Mulkhoran said:
			
		

> *Well, I certainly hope you'll avoid that in the future.  The sparring has positively *brightened* my morning.
> 
> FLAME ON! *




No, no, no. That kreynolds is dead. I killed him long ago. Good will always prevail, no matter how evil your twin.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

This item is good, but not unbalancing.  Let's take a good look, shall we:

Pros:

Negates illusions, etc. within 60'.
Negates darkness within 60'.

_Plus:
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner._

Cons:

Cannot see at all past 60'.
Takes a standard action to activate _*or to decativate it*_ (you've got to put it on or take it off - this means using your hands to tie it or untie it around your eyes - a standard action would be the minimum required - _possibly_ more because of having to stow and re-draw your weapon).
Can't read or do other similar tasks.
Can't recognize opponents (well, probabaly).

Deadly combinations are possible, as they are with many, many other not too expensive items.  In this case, close-quarters fighting plus deeper darkness is fairly deadly if it's not countered.

Of course, darkness is easily countered, and while close-quarters fighting is fairly common, fighting in a larger area is common as well.

Generally, using this item means:

-- not wearing it most of the time (so you can see past 60' and generally function normally) 

-- "wasting" an action in combat to put it on when needed

-- if your opponent manages to get far enough away from you, you need to "waste" another action to take it off, and the repeat the whole process as needed.

What keeps this item balanced is the lack of any other type of vision when using it.

Note that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> What keeps this item balanced is the lack of any other type of vision when using it.*



If you had any other vision-- if you were fighting in a lit area-- you wouldn't ever wear the blindfold in the first place!


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Actually, no. Or at least, I haven't seen it. You don't have a point to make about the price, at least not to me. Why? See first answer. You may be making a point about how the blindfold is better overall than the ring of invisibility, but I don't see it, and I still disagree. No big deal. *




I am not going to convince you, because you have already made up your mind, and nothing I say will make a difference.  I think I have made my point to every one else reading this thread.  The item's utility is just too great for the price, and not just in a minor way.  Change the blindsight to vibration is not a good solution because it changes the effectiveness very little.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He can leave my ear alone. I haven't been anything but civil.  *




You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> If you had any other vision-- if you were fighting in a lit area-- you wouldn't ever wear the blindfold in the first place! *




Right.  That's one of its balancing factors.  You only put it on when you need it - using up a combat action to do so.  And while you are doing that, your opponent counters rthe darkness, negating your advantage and you don't even know it because you can't tell if it's light or dark!!

Further, if you are using it to pierce illusions, everyone can see what you are doing.  It's not very hard to figure you you can "see" even though wearing a blindfold, again, making it easy to counter - say, arrows from 70' away - or spells launched from over 60' away.

It's balanced.  Sometimes it will be wayyyyy cool.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I am not going to convince you, because you have already made up your mind, and nothing I say will make a difference. *




You may very well have something to say that might change my mind. You just have yet to say it, is all.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *The item's utility is just too great for the price... *




Once again, I already agreed. Why do you keep bringing this up?



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Change the blindsight to vibration is not a good solution because it changes the effectiveness very little. *




Well, all you need is a _fly_ spell.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means. *




Of the many meanings, one of them is "not rude". I'm not being rude. I've been very "civil".


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Well, all you need is a fly spell [to counter vibration] *




What about vibrations in the air?  I guess you'd just have to be more specific noting that it only applies to vibrations caused by something that has a connection to you via solid or liquid.

Anyway, I already showed how it balances out.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *What about vibrations in the air? *




Yeah, that's a funky one, physics and all that.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

One more point.

How is this worse than, say, winged boots with an inproved invisbility spell? In fact I'd say that's a lot worse - of course, they are 12,000 instead of 9,000.  Just one example of a useful item that can be place in a deadly combination - though it can be countered.

In this case, by the way, one of the easiest counters is the blindsight spell - if fact, it's more than a counter because you have your normal as well.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of the many meanings, one of them is "not rude". I'm not being rude. I've been very "civil". *




And he says that with a straight face folks!


----------



## hong (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> How is this worse than, say, winged boots with an inproved invisbility spell? In fact I'd say that's a lot worse - of course, they are 12,000 instead of 9,000.  Just one example of a useful item that can be place in a deadly combination - though it can be countered.*




That's really an indication that improved invis is overpowered, more than anything else. Possibly fly as well, at least at 3rd level.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's really an indication that improved invis is overpowered, more than anything else. Possibly fly as well, at least at 3rd level. *




You could say that about any combination that is pretty deadly.  Pretty soon there would be no first through third level spells left.


----------



## hong (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You could say that about any combination that is pretty deadly.  *




But I don't, and to my knowledge, not many people do either. Certainly not to the same extent as with fly + improved invis, which is possibly the most notorious combo in the game.



> *Pretty soon there would be no first through third level spells left. *




The end of that wedge is so thin it's monomolecular.


Hong "do you know how hard it is to type monomolecular?" Ooi


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

Look, hong, my point is that many combinations are deadly - just take a look at various threads on them - including the "smackdown" threads.   

All those combinations have counters.  This item has many counters - move further away, dispel the darkness, cast your own darkvision spell, etc.  It also has its own disadvantges I listed above.

It's fairly well balanced.  If you can't counter it in any way, it's deadly.  Just like many, many other combinations, too numerous to list.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *And he says that with a straight face folks!  *




Where have I not been civil on this thread? I don't see where I haven't. Where have I been rude? I don't see where I have. How have I not treated you with respect? I'm trying to understand your point of view here, but as far as I can tell, I've been behaving quite appropriately, so a particular someone's grandmother should be proud.


----------



## hong (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Look, hong, my point is that many combinations are deadly - just take a look at various threads on them - including the "smackdown" threads.
> 
> All those combinations have counters.  This item has many counters - move further away, dispel the darkness, cast your own darkvision spell, etc.  It also has its own disadvantges I listed above.
> 
> It's fairly well balanced.  If you can't counter it in any way, it's deadly.  Just like many, many other combinations, too numerous to list. *




I notice that your argument fails to mention gp costs at all, which is quite curious, since the original question was about gp costs. By this logic, since fly + improved invis can be countered with dispel magic, I could make an item that provides fly + improved invis for 10 gp, and since all it takes is one targeted dispel to cancel it, it must be "balanced".


----------



## Chacal (Mar 26, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And he says that with a straight face folks!  *




Please, please don't quote dictionaries. This thread is hard enough to read for people interested in the original subject 

Chacal


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I notice that your argument fails to mention gp costs at all, which is quite curious, since the original question was about gp costs. By this logic, since fly + improved invis can be countered with dispel magic, I could make an item that provides fly + improved invis for 10 gp, and since all it takes is one targeted dispel to cancel it, it must be "balanced". *




Perhaps you overlooked this from above:



> How is this worse than, say, winged boots with an inproved invisbility spell? In fact I'd say that's a lot worse - of course, they are 12,000 instead of 9,000. Just one example of a useful item that can be place in a deadly combination - though it can be countered.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

The real point I am making is that an item is not unbalanced simply because it can be used in conjunction with some particular spell to make it deadly.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

Ok Artoomis, maybe I can convince you.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *This item is good, but not unbalancing.  Let's take a good look, shall we:
> 
> Pros:
> 
> ...




You forgot:
PROS:

immunity to gaze attacks
never miss a sneaking creature
sensing creatures around a corner

As for your CONS, last time I checked, adjusting a blindfold falls into the move eqivelant range.  All I need to do is uncover or cover one eye.

In any case where you are not in a lit area, such as at night or in a dungeon, normal vision will be nearly useless.  Even with a torch, a creature with low-light can only see out to 60 feet.  Which would you prefer: seeing to 60 feet and alerting other creatures to your presence or not needing to make spot checks?

The only time the limitations of the item come up is walking around during the day.  Even then, I'm not sure the limitations mentioned are that bad.  The limitations all but disappear at night/in unlit areas.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *As for your CONS, last time I checked, adjusting a blindfold falls into the move eqivelant range. *




The blindfold is a magic item. Unless otherwise stated, a magic item is activated/deactivated as a standard action (wondrous items are usually use activated or a command word).



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Even with a torch, a creature with low-light can only see out to 60 feet. *




Doesn't a torch only illuminate out to 20 feet? That would be a total of 40 feet of vision with low-light, wouldn't it?


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where have I not been civil on this thread? I don't see where I haven't. Where have I been rude? I don't see where I have. How have I not treated you with respect? I'm trying to understand your point of view here, but as far as I can tell, I've been behaving quite appropriately, so a particular someone's grandmother should be proud. *




You have been pulling this whole "you aren't polite enough to me" schtick ever since you promised to clean up your act or get banned from the boards.

I find your entire "wounded bird" act shameful.   You start this crap every time I disagree with you, and I'm pretty tired of it. 

I called some of your examples contrived.   That's not being rude, that's being honest.   You should try not to confuse the two.  

But instead of using a better example or explaining yourself better, you started in with the whole "you want things to get ugly, you be polite to me or I'm going to tell on you" routine.    You pull this everytime.    Quite frankly, I think it would qualify as harrassment, because you pull it everytime we disagree, and you try to make it about me instead of about what we were debating.    

I think it's childish, and a transparent attempt to provoke me.  Apparently you still hold a grudge from when you got slapped down back when you first joined the boards.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 26, 2003)

This may be the most polite flame war I've ever read - but it's still a flame war.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *The blindfold is a magic item. Unless otherwise stated, a magic item is activated/deactivated as a standard action (wondrous items are usually use activated or a command word).*




Use activated is not a standard action, it is part of the action of using it.  While wearing the blindfold, blindsight is a free action.  The only question is what kind of action it is to adjust a blindfold.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Doesn't a torch only illuminate out to 20 feet? That would be a total of 40 feet of vision with low-light, wouldn't it? *



Oh, so it is even better than I thought?  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *You have been pulling this whole "you aren't polite enough to me" schtick ever since you promised to clean up your act... *




It was expected of me to behave appropriately. If I do it, I expect you to do it. If you don't, I expect you to catch the same flak that I did. I give you the courtesy of being polite. I expect it in return. Simple as that.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *...or get banned from the boards. *




Getting banned from the boards had nothing to do with it. All I would need is a new ip, and that only takes one mouse click and about 4 seconds. Getting banned wasn't a motivator. Participating in discussion was.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I find your entire "wounded bird" act shameful. *




Its not like that. I'm being polite to you. I expect the same. That's the "act".



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You start this crap every time I disagree with you, and I'm pretty tired of it. *




I start pointing out your behavior when you disagree with me (sometimes, but not all of the time) for one very simple reason; Somtimes, when you disagree with me, you lack civility. You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no need to be inappropriate about it. 



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I called some of your examples contrived. *




I called you on "contrived", and you smacked me back with an attitude. If you had not intended on being rude, then you simply could have said so and let it go, but you didn't do that. You pulled an attitude. You did it. Not me.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *That's not being rude, that's being honest. *




Yet you elevated the situation. I interpreted what you said with a certain tone. If that tone was not your intention, you could have simply said so, but instead you snapped back with an attitude.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You should try not to confuse the two. *




Oh, I know you were being honest. I also thought you were being rude. However, instead of proving that you didn't intend to be rude by making that comment, you simply became rude.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *But instead of using a better example or explaining yourself better, you started in with the whole "you want things to get ugly, you be polite to me or I'm going to tell on you" routine. *




No, I merely expect you to treat me as well as I treat you, and I treat you pretty well (until you cop an attitude).



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *You pull this everytime. *




I'd like to see some proof of that. I sincerely doubt the validity of that statement.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Quite frankly, I think it would qualify as harrassment, because you pull it everytime we disagree, and you try to make it about me instead of about what we were debating.   *




I only make it about you when you cop an attitude when I didn't even provoke you.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *I think it's childish, and a transparent attempt to provoke me. *




Looks that way from over here as well, actually (except for the childish part). You're not childish, just rude at times, and when I call you on it, whether or not you were intentionally being rude, you snap back with even more attitude, shouting "thin-skin" or some such.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *Apparently you still hold a grudge from when you got slapped down back when you first joined the boards. *




No grudge. The weapons of speed thread saved my soul, but lets not open old 'wounds'.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Use activated is not a standard action, it is part of the action of using it. *




Not always. See page 176 of the DMG, specifically the example of a ring of invisibility.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *The only question is what kind of action it is to adjust a blindfold. *




Well, unless otherwise stated...



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Oh, so it is even better than I thought? *




Yup.



			
				LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Thanks for proving my point. *




No problem. Mostly, I just couldn't exactly remember if a torch was 20 or 30.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It was expected of me to behave appropriately. If I do it, I expect you to do it. If you don't, I expect you to catch the same flak that I did. I give you the courtesy of being polite. I expect it in return. Simple as that.
> 
> ...




*sigh*

And more of the same.   I don't know why I even try anymore.


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Not always. See page 176 of the DMG, specifically the example of a ring of invisibility.
> *




IIRC, Ring of invis is command word activated.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

Chacal said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Please, please don't quote dictionaries. This thread is hard enough to read for people interested in the original subject
> 
> Chacal *




err...  Who quoted a dictionary? 

I quoted "The Princess Bride" at one point, but that's about it.


----------



## kreynolds (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *IIRC, Ring of invis is command word activated. *




Heh! Now that's funny. OK. Nevermind. Ignore the ring then. Just read the rest of that entire passage. In short, use-activated does not always mean part of another action. This is stated quite clearly.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 26, 2003)

Personally, I've found Artoomis' arguments to be the most convincing, so far.  Most of the concern for this item appears to be over a combination involving a rogue and someone casting a spell or using an item to maximize the ability of blindsight.  Frankly, I'm not seeing it as that unbalanced.

In all of the cited 'deeper darkness' examples, the rogue (and let's be honest, this appears to be as much an argument about sneak attacking as about the item alone) appears to be existing in a vacuum.  Who's casting that spell?  The Rogue?  Then that's, at the least, a round wasted while activating said darkness effect from a scroll or item or what have you.  Never mind that if it's off a scroll, you can't have the item on.  If it's not, then someone else is spending a round to do it...assuming that it's their first priority, which it may not be.  Haste or Deeper Darkness?  

This all doesn't even mention the interaction of the party.  Does every other party member have the ability to see in the darkness?  Do they all have these blindfolds?  Is that reasonable to expect?  In tight situations, that darkness can be just as much of inconvience to friends as well as foes.  In wide-open areas, the opposite becomes true: now it's as much a liability as an asset.  Archers can strike with impunity against you, if distance is sufficient, and the only way to know where they are is to follow the trajectory home, and guess, since after 60' the world effectively ends for the wearer.

I can see a case for it being slightly under-valued in gp cost.  Caliban, what price do you see the item being worth, 12000?


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Personally, I've found Artoomis' arguments to be the most convincing, so far.  Most of the concern for this item appears to be over a combination involving a rogue and someone casting a spell or using an item to maximize the ability of blindsight.  Frankly, I'm not seeing it as that unbalanced.
> 
> In all of the cited 'deeper darkness' examples, the rogue (and let's be honest, this appears to be as much an argument about sneak attacking as about the item alone) appears to be existing in a vacuum.  Who's casting that spell?  The Rogue?  Then that's, at the least, a round wasted while activating said darkness effect from a scroll or item or what have you.  Never mind that if it's off a scroll, you can't have the item on.  If it's not, then someone else is spending a round to do it...assuming that it's their first priority, which it may not be.  Haste or Deeper Darkness?
> 
> ...




You can pull darkness coins as a free action with Handy Haversack.  Coins last days.

Ok, I know you didn't ask me, but even at 12k, a whole party of mid-level adventurers could have one each.  That is 6,000 gold and 480 xp from the party wizard if they don't just buy them outright.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Personally, I've found Artoomis' arguments to be the most convincing, so far.  Most of the concern for this item appears to be over a combination involving a rogue and someone casting a spell or using an item to maximize the ability of blindsight.  Frankly, I'm not seeing it as that unbalanced.
> 
> In all of the cited 'deeper darkness' examples, the rogue (and let's be honest, this appears to be as much an argument about sneak attacking as about the item alone) appears to be existing in a vacuum.  Who's casting that spell?  The Rogue?  Then that's, at the least, a round wasted while activating said darkness effect from a scroll or item or what have you.  Never mind that if it's off a scroll, you can't have the item on.  If it's not, then someone else is spending a round to do it...assuming that it's their first priority, which it may not be.  Haste or Deeper Darkness?
> *




Actually, since _deeper darkness_ lasts a day per caster level, this isn't an issue.  Just cast it on one of the rogues weapons, and sheath the weapon.   Unsheathe the weapon whenever you want to take advantage of the _deeper darkness_/Blindfold combo.     

Believe me, this is a killer combo.   I've seen it in action in the *Living Arcanis* campaign with a PC race called the "Dark-kin".  They have infernal blood and can see in magical darkness. 

And it isn't just rogues who make this a power combination.   I've also seen it done with barbarians (or just about any big melee damage dealer) who have taken *Expert Tactician*, so they can get the extra attack.   

I've personally got a Dark-kin Rogue with an 18 strength, a Greatsword, and Expert Tactician, who will be using the Darkness/Deeper Darkness combo.  (My long term goal is to convince the campaign administrators to either remove the ability from the dark-kins, or to make methods of dispelling magical darkness much more common.)

*



			This all doesn't even mention the interaction of the party.  Does every other party member have the ability to see in the darkness?  Do they all have these blindfolds?  Is that reasonable to expect?  In tight situations, that darkness can be just as much of inconvience to friends as well as foes.
		
Click to expand...


*
This is a real drawback to that particular combination, but in situations where none of your opponents can counter the  darkness, having most of the group withdraw while the guy who can see in the darkness goes in solo is a valid tactic.   The rest of the group mops up anyone who tries to run.  

This is also why I haven't introduced the blindsight spell to my home campaign yet. 

*



			In wide-open areas, the opposite becomes true: now it's as much a liability as an asset.  Archers can strike with impunity against you, if distance is sufficient, and the only way to know where they are is to follow the trajectory home, and guess, since after 60' the world effectively ends for the wearer.
		
Click to expand...


*
Archers see a big sphere of darkness.  They would have to guess at the center, and still deal with a 50% miss chance.   It does make you an easy target for area effect spells though. 

*



			I can see a case for it being slightly under-valued in gp cost.  Caliban, what price do you see the item being worth, 12000?
		
Click to expand...


*
I think it's on par with a ring of invisiblity, if not better.    There are more ways of countering _invisiblity_ than there are to counter the blindfold/darkness combot, and the _invisibility_ from the ring goes away after one attack.    The blindfold can effectively give you _improved invisibility_ (when used in conjunction with magical darkness), and counters any invisiblity or blinding spells your opponents might have.  On top of that it makes you immune to gaze attacks.    

In spite of it's limitations, it's easier to create a situation where it can be abused than it is for opponents to deal with that situation effectively.    I would personally put it at around 39,000 gp.  (Basing it on the price of the 4th level _Improved Blindsight_ from SS, but with a 30% discount due to it's limitations.)


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *I think it's on par with a ring of invisiblity, if not better.    There are more ways of countering invisiblity than there are to counter the blindfold/darkness combot, and the invisibility from the ring goes away after one attack.    The blindfold can effectively give you improved invisibility (when used in conjunction with magical darkness), and counters any invisiblity or blinding spells your opponents might have.  On top of that it makes you immune to gaze attacks.
> 
> In spite of it's limitations, it's easier to create a situation where it can be abused than it is for opponents to deal with that situation effectively.    I would personally put it at around 39,000 gp.  (Basing it on the price of the 4th level Improved Blindsight from SS, but with a 30% discount due to it's limitations.) *




I think I would call it an even 40k and redefine the blindsight to based on vibration through the air (and stoped by silence)


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 26, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *In spite of it's limitations, it's easier to create a situation where it can be abused than it is for opponents to deal with that situation effectively.    I would personally put it at around 39,000 gp.  (Basing it on the price of the 4th level Improved Blindsight from SS, but with a 30% discount due to it's limitations.) *




Really?  You think it's on a par with the following items?


Pale Green and Lavender Ioun Stone
Ring Gates
5x7 Flying Carpet
Any +6 Stat item
Scarab of Protection

I mean, that's pretty darn strong.  At that price, I don't see ANYONE making or buying such an item, but I may be missing something.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really?  You think it's on a par with the following items?
> 
> ...




Given it's potence in both combat and non-combat situations, yes I think it's definitely on par with those items, but only for a melee character.   (Just like a +6 Str item is more valuable to a melee character than it would be to a wizard.)

A spellcaster would rather have the +6 stat item for their spellcasting stat, because they can do more effective things with the extra spells and increased DC's.

I say this mainly because blinding your opponents is such an effective tactic in 3e, and the blindfold basically makes you immune to that.   It also allows you to use magical darkness to blind all your opponents while remaining unaffected.   That is very powerful.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think I would call it an even 40k and redefine the blindsight to based on vibration through the air (and stoped by silence) *




If you changed the blindsight to a type that is easily countered, then I think it would worth a lot less.    Maybe a little more than the Ring of Invisibility (20,000 gp to 25,000 gp).


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

Loki has caused me to update my list.

I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.

I would consider allowing "peeking" from under the blindfold as a move-equivalent action,  but keep it a standard action to place it back in place - it must be light-tight, after all.

I find Caliban's arguments to be terribly weak - which is unusual for him.  They are far to situation-specific to justify as high a value as he thinks this is worth.  This item is almost as good as the spell, but not quite since the spell keeps regular vision.  

It is better than the spell in the same ways that any item based o a spell is better than the spell.

Now, if you feel the spell is too powerful, then that argument applies to this item as well, naturally.

*This item is good, but not unbalancing. Let's take a good look, shall we:

Pros:

Negates illusions, etc. within 60'.
Negates darkness within 60'.
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner.

Cons:

Cannot see at all past 60'.
Takes a standard action to activate or to decativate it (you've got to put it on or take it off - this means using your hands to tie it or untie it around your eyes - a standard action would be the minimum required - possibly more because of having to stow and re-draw your weapon).
Can't read or do other similar tasks.
Can't recognize opponents (well, probabaly).

Deadly combinations are possible, as they are with many, many other not too expensive items. In this case, close-quarters fighting plus deeper darkness is fairly deadly if it's not countered.

Of course, darkness is easily countered, and while close-quarters fighting is fairly common, fighting in a larger area is common as well.

Generally, using this item means:

-- not wearing it most of the time (so you can see past 60' and generally function normally) 

-- "wasting" an action in combat to put it on when needed

-- if your opponent manages to get far enough away from you, you need to "waste" another action to take it off, and the repeat the whole process as needed.

What keeps this item balanced is the lack of any other type of vision when using it.

Note that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.*


----------



## AuraSeer (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.*



You mean the _blindsight_ spell, which has generated other multi-page threads about whether it's b0rken? Justifying the balance of the item by that of the spell is hardly convincing.

But since you bring up the spell, I'll point out that by the DMG guidelines, a use-activated item of a 3rd-level spell costs at least (3 x 5 x 2000) = 30,000 gp. The blindfold's "limitation" is hardly severe enough to justify a 70% discount from that.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis,

Your pros and cons lists are good.  But take a look at the cons for a moment.  Practically all of them are meaningless in the dungeon.

_Cannot see at all past 60'_
In the dungeon, most of the time nobody can see past 60'.  Rooms aren't that big, corridors aren't that long (before a bend).  So if you can't see past 60' anyway, it doesn't matter that your blindsight ends at that range.

_Takes a standard action to activate_
You put it on when you walk into the dungeon, and take it off afterward.  Problem solved.

_Can't read_
It's quite rare for it to be necessary to read during combat.  And if the party were to encounter writing that only the PC with the blindfold could read in a non-combat situation, he need merely take off the blindfold--translate the text--then put it back on again.

_Can't recognize opponents_
I don't actually think this is true, so I'll leave it be.

So the item has very few drawbacks in a situation (dungeon) that shows up often in most games.  In exchange for that, you get everything you mentioned: 







> Negates illusions, etc. within 60'.
> Negates darkness within 60'.
> Immunity to gaze attacks.
> Never miss a sneaking creature.
> Sensing creatures around a corner.




That's worth more than 9,000gp.  Personally, I'd put it at 20,000gp, the same as the oft-mentioned ring.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> You mean the blindsight spell, which has generated other multi-page threads about whether it's b0rken? Justifying the balance of the item by that of the spell is hardly convincing.
> 
> But since you bring up the spell, I'll point out that by the DMG guidelines, a use-activated item of a 3rd-level spell costs at least (3 x 5 x 2000) = 30,000 gp. The blindfold's "limitation" is hardly severe enough to justify a 70% discount from that. *




Right - I'm sute is was based on the blindsight spell from Savage Species, which is 2nd level, and so would cost 12,000 gp.

Perhpas 9,000 is a bit cheap, but, then again, it is worse than the spell.

Of course, if you are in the camp that the spell is way unbalanced to start with, then this item is too.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Loki has caused me to update my list.
> 
> I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.
> 
> ...




The point is that the situations are very easy to set up and take advantage of.    It's much more difficult to counter the situation effectively, as it basically requires foreknowledge on the part of your opponents. 

And the item is better than the spell because it frees up the spell slot for the spellcaster, so they only need to pre-cast the Darkness or _Deeper Darkness_ for you. 

I also think the _blindsight_ spell is rather powerful, especially the MoF version, which lasts 1 hour per level.   At least the SS versions only last 1 minute per level.


*



			It is better than the spell in the same ways that any item based o a spell is better than the spell.

Now, if you feel the spell is too powerful, then that argument applies to this item as well, naturally.

This item is good, but not unbalancing. Let's take a good look, shall we:

Pros:

Negates illusions, etc. within 60'.
Negates darkness within 60'.
Immunity to gaze attacks.
Never miss a sneaking creature.
Sensing creatures around a corner.

Cons:

Cannot see at all past 60'.
Takes a standard action to activate or to decativate it (you've got to put it on or take it off - this means using your hands to tie it or untie it around your eyes - a standard action would be the minimum required - possibly more because of having to stow and re-draw your weapon).


Click to expand...



I don't see why pushing the blindfold up on your forehead would require you to stow and redraw your weapon. 

I agree with it being a standard action, as that's the default for activating or deactivating any magic item. 





			Can't read or do other similar tasks.
Can't recognize opponents (well, probabaly).
		
Click to expand...



Why wouldn't you be able to recognize opponents?   I don't recall that being listed as a limitation on blindsight anywhere in the core rules.  





			Deadly combinations are possible, as they are with many, many other not too expensive items. In this case, close-quarters fighting plus deeper darkness is fairly deadly if it's not countered.

Of course, darkness is easily countered, and while close-quarters fighting is fairly common, fighting in a larger area is common as well.
		
Click to expand...



I don't really consider a 120' diameter globe of darkness as "close quarters", but maybe that's just me.  

It's easily countered if you are carrying the daylight spell.  Not every caster does, most do not in my experience.  Otherwise you have to hope your dispel magic works, and that's never a certain thing. 

With the errata, Continual Flame torches might counter it, but only if they are created by a cleric. 





			Generally, using this item means:

-- not wearing it most of the time (so you can see past 60' and generally function normally)
		
Click to expand...



Or wearing it continuously while you are in a dungeon or other indoor setting.   Rooms and corridors larger than 60' tend to be pretty uncommon, and rooms larger than 120' tend to be rarer still. And you have the rest of the party to spot things farther away than that. 





			-- "wasting" an action in combat to put it on when needed
		
Click to expand...



No more a waste than activating your flaming sword, or casting shield, or any number of other items or spells you might want to activate in the first round. 





			-- if your opponent manages to get far enough away from you, you need to "waste" another action to take it off, and the repeat the whole process as needed.
		
Click to expand...



They would have to get pretty far away, otherwise I just follow their last path until they are within 60' again.   Or listen to my party members when they tell me which direction to head in. 






			What keeps this item balanced is the lack of any other type of vision when using it.
		
Click to expand...



Outdoors I can see that being a legitimate drawback, but not in the typical dungeon setting, or in most urban settings.





			Note that this item is more limiting than the spell in that you give up all other forms of vision when using it.
		
Click to expand...



That is a real drawback, which is why I gave it the 30% discount, as suggested in the DMG.  

The price I used is based on the having a magic item duplicate a 4th level spell (Improved Blindsight from Savage Species), which is exactly what the blindfold does, with the limitation of no other form of sight and the added benefit of being immune to gaze attacks.*


----------



## LokiDR (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Loki has caused me to update my list.
> 
> I was not swayed by Loki's additonal points, either, as they are valid for the spell as much as for this item.*



Ya, I'm getting to him   Now if only those drugs I slipped into his coffee would kick in....



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *I would consider allowing "peeking" from under the blindfold as a move-equivalent action,  but keep it a standard action to place it back in place - it must be light-tight, after all. *



Where does it say it must be light tight?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *I find Caliban's arguments to be terribly weak - which is unusual for him.  They are far to situation-specific to justify as high a value as he thinks this is worth.  This item is almost as good as the spell, but not quite since the spell keeps regular vision.
> 
> It is better than the spell in the same ways that any item based o a spell is better than the spell.
> 
> Now, if you feel the spell is too powerful, then that argument applies to this item as well, naturally.*



What would you pay for continuous improved invisibility?




			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *This item is good, but not unbalancing. Let's take a good look, shall we:
> 
> Pros:
> 
> ...



I will maintain move equiv for adjusting.  Putting on or taking off a shield is move equivelent.

And you will be able to recognize creatures because you "see as well as a sighted creature"



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Deadly combinations are possible, as they are with many, many other not too expensive items. In this case, close-quarters fighting plus deeper darkness is fairly deadly if it's not countered.
> 
> Of course, darkness is easily countered, and while close-quarters fighting is fairly common, fighting in a larger area is common as well.
> 
> ...




As any creature that does not have darkvision, this is the item to have in any sort of night combat.  In any situation where there might be magical traps or sneaking characters, give it to the melee fighter.  He wouldn't spot it anyway, and the party stops those effects.

If you carry your own light, you would be better off with the blindfold.

I disagree with the spell as well, by the way.  I have seen the 3rd level blindsight spell from MoF be abused, and the improved blindsight spell has double the effect at one level higher.


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 26, 2003)

Well, I will say the range of the vision should be much shorter - 20 feet max, maybe even only 15 feet.

And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 26, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Well, I will say the range of the vision should be much shorter - 20 feet max, maybe even only 15 feet.
> 
> And I'll leave it at that. *




Heck, limit it to 30 feet and I would agree that it's exactly as useful as a ring of invisibility, and lower the price to 20,000 gp. 

It's the 60' range and the fact that there is no way to effectively counter the blindsight that makes it so powerful (in my opinion).


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 26, 2003)

(EDIT - The people who needed to see my original message have seen it.)

Thread closed.  If someone wishes to repoen the rules discussion in a different thread - a thread I don't expect to see any arguing in, I'll add - they may.


----------

