I'm interested in playing a blind character. Not your stereotypical anima character who wears a blindfold, but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition. And I don't have a class or build in mind yet, so I'm looking for ideas and suggestions!
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party, and would like to still have the character pull her weigh in the party. Some ideas including building a character who relies more of auras or other more passive abilities. Spells that don't require sight may be a way to go as well, but a lot of spells would not be usable by RAW. Or perhaps a mounted character to help get around. The blind fighting fighting-style seems like it could be a no-brainer as well. Alternately, maybe the character can 'see' through other means, such as a familiar, or 'arcane eye' spell.
What other ideas can you think of? And how might you build a blind character? Any help would be welcome.
A cleric focused on support might work. Throw around bless and other buffs. Though healing word is out. A peace cleric could be pretty cool for that.
Maybe a dwarf for the tremorsense?
Or a Druid who can see when they wildshape, maybe? Or use a companion. A scribes wizard who can see through their manifest mind (or any wizard with a familiar). Though these maybe aren’t quite in the spirit of what you’re going for.
I'd say the blindsight fighting style is about the best way to go but one issue with magical worlds, It also requires consideration as to why the condition can't magically be fixed with something such as Greater Restoration or Lay on Hand. Another way might be a solution from Star Trek, I'm thinking Geordi la Forge, Where you start with a magic item that gives the character sight while wearing it but would be completely blind without it, something like that could be worked out with the DM. Maybe the magic item has a time limit, so it can only be activated once a day and lasts 8 hours, so it does not entirely mitigate the blindness by being around. There are many ways to go around it within the rules or by homebrew but I think you have to homebrew the condition as to why it can't be cured normally via spells/features that remove the blinded or cursed conditions.
I'm interested in playing a blind character. Not your stereotypical anima character who wears a blindfold, but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition. And I don't have a class or build in mind yet, so I'm looking for ideas and suggestions!
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party, and would like to still have the character pull her weigh in the party. Some ideas including building a character who relies more of auras or other more passive abilities. Spells that don't require sight may be a way to go as well, but a lot of spells would not be usable by RAW. Or perhaps a mounted character to help get around. The blind fighting fighting-style seems like it could be a no-brainer as well. Alternately, maybe the character can 'see' through other means, such as a familiar, or 'arcane eye' spell.
What other ideas can you think of? And how might you build a blind character? Any help would be welcome.
I am confused. You say "but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition". If the PC can see/sense everything, then it does not have the blind condition. How, precisely do you see this PC interacting in the game? The penalties from the Blinded Condition are severe. These are the specifics of that condition:
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls made against the creature have advantage, and the creatures attack rolls have disadvantage.
I'm interested in playing a blind character. Not your stereotypical anima character who wears a blindfold, but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition. And I don't have a class or build in mind yet, so I'm looking for ideas and suggestions!
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party, and would like to still have the character pull her weigh in the party. Some ideas including building a character who relies more of auras or other more passive abilities. Spells that don't require sight may be a way to go as well, but a lot of spells would not be usable by RAW. Or perhaps a mounted character to help get around. The blind fighting fighting-style seems like it could be a no-brainer as well. Alternately, maybe the character can 'see' through other means, such as a familiar, or 'arcane eye' spell.
What other ideas can you think of? And how might you build a blind character? Any help would be welcome.
I am confused. You say "but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition". If the PC can see/sense everything, then it does not have the blind condition. How, precisely do you see this PC interacting in the game? The penalties from the Blinded Condition are severe. These are the specifics of that condition:
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls made against the creature have advantage, and the creatures attack rolls have disadvantage.
You apparently didn't read their comment fully, they said "Not your stereotypical anima character who wears a blindfold, but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition."
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
That depends. Blindsight would mostly work for sight. Perception still applies unless sight is required, but the DM can still rule the PC knows where people are via perception, just like you know where an invisible character is even though they are invisible.
The drawbacks is going to be in other situations outside of combat where it isn't likely going to be a huge deal.
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
That depends. Blindsight would mostly work for sight. Perception still applies unless sight is required, but the DM can still rule the PC knows where people are via perception, just like you know where an invisible character is even though they are invisible.
The drawbacks is going to be in other situations outside of combat where it isn't likely going to be a huge deal.
The thing is that blindsight is objectively better than sight in more contexts relevant contexts than not, so this "handicap" turns into an upgrade.
Really, while it's not outright impossible, D&D 5e is not built to integrate player characters who come to the table with major handicaps, at least not in a way that makes those handicaps mechanically significant. The usual solutions you see for them that are actually within the RAW scope of the game and practical on an ongoing basis essentially amount to "say the handicap exists and then essentially pretend it's not there from that point on", which arguable verges on tokenism and thus is probably part of the reason why they haven't tried to touch the subject with official material. If a character is blind, then a significant portion of spells are simply off the table, their attacks are all at disadvantage, and anything coming at them is at advantage. That's a lot to deal with on an ongoing basis, and while it's not objectively impossible to play through, you'd need the right DM and right fellow players to run with it. And that's just for the hard mechanical stuff. It also adds a layer of complexity to the roleplay to keep the PC engaged outside of combat when their ability to effectively interact with their environment is so thoroughly curtailed.
To address some of the points on the original post:
"Detecting auras" is basically the same as "anime character who is nominally blind but still functions normally", so by your own criteria I'd say that's out
I'm not sure how a mount is supposed to really change things, and regardless a lot of common dungeon design would make riding a mount around all the time impractical at best
Blindfighting has a radius of 10ft, so that still leaves you significantly hobbled in your ability to perceive. Plus the new rules for Fighting Style feats would significantly impact your class pool or at least force you to dip for Fighting Styles
Arcane Eye is a 4th level non-ritual spell that only Wizards and Artificers get natively and only has a 30 ft radius
The "seeing-eye Familiar" actually becomes slightly more viable under the new rules since it only takes a bonus action to borrow its senses- though that would burn up your Bonus Action ever turn- but pretty much any AoE damage effect will wipe it out and leave you stuck until you've got a spare hour, and require you to have a steady supply of the components for the spell on hand as a corollary.
Really, if you want to make this concept work, you need to sit down with your DM and hammer it all out, and barring something amounting to a handwave that makes the character nominally blind but functionally the same as a regular PC there's simply no way your character can consistently "carry their weight" the way a regular PC will.
Side note on the point about why Greater Restoration isn't used to fix everything- the spell consumes 100 gp of diamond dust per cast. Not only does that raise the issue of costs, but diamond dust is used as a consumed component in several spells, so on a macro level supply would be a significant constraint as well.
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party,
If you don't want to be a handicap for the party, then don't make a blind character. If you are blind in real life and want to adventure, then YES! go for it!
If you just want to play a blind character, don't. No matter what you do you will be nerfing your party. The majority of spells and abilities in the game require a target you can see. 90% of the attacks against you will be at advantage. You will almost always fight at disadvantage. Cures and buffs mostly need a target you can see.
Blind Fighting only goes to 10 feet.
I'm not bashing the idea just to bash the idea, I'm speaking from a lot of experience. Please don't make it harder for your party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
There are blind individuals in the real world capable of things of which you are not. From mountain climbing to fencing to giving piano recitals with the proficiency of maestros. Any delusions about how a blind character is only going to "hold back" a party arise from reducing the game to a poor imitation of what it once was with the focus now being fights and the expectation that every character regardless of class has to be as capable as others in the party when it comes to fighting and biases about what the blind in the real world can and can't do.
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
There are blind individuals in the real world capable of things of which you are not. From mountain climbing to fencing to giving piano recitals with the proficiency of maestros. Any delusions about how a blind character is only going to "hold back" a party arise from reducing the game to a poor imitation of what it once was with the focus now being fights and the expectation that every character regardless of class has to be as capable as others in the party when it comes to fighting and biases about what the blind in the real world can and can't do.
Can you provide some sources for fencing and mountain climbing? Yes, it's not as though a blind person is completely helpless in the face of the world, but there's a reason just having really bad vision (20/40 with correction or 20/400 before correction according to the quickie Google results) disqualifies one from serving as a combatant in the modern armed forces. As has been noted, handwaving the blindness so that functionally the character is identical to one with standard vision is an option, but if you actually want the mechanical disadvantages to be in play, then it is objectively a massive handicap.
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party,
If you don't want to be a handicap for the party, then don't make a blind character. If you are blind in real life and want to adventure, then YES! go for it!
If you just want to play a blind character, don't. No matter what you do you will be nerfing your party. The majority of spells and abilities in the game require a target you can see. 90% of the attacks against you will be at advantage. You will almost always fight at disadvantage. Cures and buffs mostly need a target you can see.
Blind Fighting only goes to 10 feet.
I'm not bashing the idea just to bash the idea, I'm speaking from a lot of experience. Please don't make it harder for your party.
Would you tell a blind individual to not join you and others were you going hiking or kayaking or something because the individual will just "nerf" the group?
It's extraordinary how those who constantly invoke rhetoric about the need for inclusiveness in the game are the first to show how senseless and insensitive they can be. This is what their reducing the game to little more than a fight simulator has done. (As if there aren't blind people who do martial arts.)
If you're worried about how they will perform in combat why must they engage in combat? Why must every single character engage in combat? Must every single character in a party have a propensity for violence? This is what has happened ever since the rules made it possible for wizards and other casters to just spam damage round after round and for rogues to deliver just as much as damage as a fighter. It has become a game with which people just slake their thirst for violence as they use it to facilitate their power fantasies as they kill one thing after another. It's ironic given the stigmas attached to us older gamers.
For years people have been saying the game is increasingly becoming more and more about just combat. Ever since 3rd. Edition in fact. And how many players these days get bored if a session goes without it.
Is it any wonder why the game is experiencing a DM shortage when combat is one of the most boring elements of the game for whoever is sitting at the head of the table?
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
There are blind individuals in the real world capable of things of which you are not. From mountain climbing to fencing to giving piano recitals with the proficiency of maestros. Any delusions about how a blind character is only going to "hold back" a party arise from reducing the game to a poor imitation of what it once was with the focus now being fights and the expectation that every character regardless of class has to be as capable as others in the party when it comes to fighting and biases about what the blind in the real world can and can't do.
Can you provide some sources for fencing and mountain climbing? Yes, it's not as though a blind person is completely helpless in the face of the world, but there's a reason just having really bad vision (20/40 with correction or 20/400 before correction according to the quickie Google results) disqualifies one from serving as a combatant in the modern armed forces. As has been noted, handwaving the blindness so that functionally the character is identical to one with standard vision is an option, but if you actually want the mechanical disadvantages to be in play, then it is objectively a massive handicap.
You yourself can go and spend less than a minute Googling the subject and you will discover there are blind fencers. And have been for years.
Blind individuals have climbed Everest.
It is predictable you go straight to the military. Because you see D&D as little more than a game in which to fight. In which everyone must fight. That attitude has dumbed down what the game is. Combat-less sessions are among the most fun and interesting for those who don't see the game as little more than a facilitator of their own power fantasies.
And it's funny. Because it is how jocks viewed those of us who played years ago. Saw us as "nerds" who had to play at fighting to feel better about ourselves. When more than half the time our characters weren't even thinking about combat but were doing other things from solving riddles to investigating plots to kill the regent.
Well, there's the minor detail of how it's one of the pillars of the game, and in particular the one that allows the most participation from all party members at once. That minor detail is probably worth some consideration.
And where exactly are we hiking/kayaking? Because yes, if we're heading out into the wilderness or some other place where help cannot readily reach us if something goes wrong, I would have some significant concerns about bringing a blind person, particularly if they're going to attempt to operate independently. I've been out canoeing on rivers and the Great Lakes, and we had a few near misses or bad moments, including someone (who may or may not have been me) running into a branch, making the canoe flip 90 degrees for a moment, and getting the people in it tossed out into the river. Yes, in controlled circumstances with additional help and safety measures the obstacles can be worked around, but oddly enough neither "controlled circumstances" nor "safety" appear prominently in any of the published adventures I'm familiar with.
Honestly, if we're getting into the point where all this rhetoric is being trotted out, it might be time to just stop. Otherwise we're just going to go through the same old dance of people tossing increasingly hostile posts back and forth until the threads get locked. Within the RAW of the game, having the Blinded condition permanently active on one PC is objectively a significant handicap to most if not all pillars of the game- while attempts can be made to compensate for it, it is an objective fact that being unable to observe one's surroundings severely hampers their abilities in both exploration and combat, and not being able to see expressions and body language are impediments to social interactions as well. It is not absolutely impossible to tackle this in D&D, but you need a DM and other players who are all willing to work with the handicaps and additional complexities this presents, and it is in fact perfectly acceptable for this to not be something a group wants to deal with.
If someone wants to play Blinkin' from Men in Tights, take Monk, and be all "I heared that comin' from a mile away" when they use their reaction to catch an arrow flying at them, then I just hope everyone at the table is having fun. But there is no practical RAW way to both make permanent Blindness a mechanically active and relevant characteristic and then work around most or all of its effects, short of using Ersatz Eye to outright remove the condition.
Well, there's the minor detail of how it's one of the pillars of the game, and in particular the one that allows the most participation from all party members at once. That minor detail is probably worth some consideration.
And where exactly are we hiking/kayaking? Because yes, if we're heading out into the wilderness or some other place where help cannot readily reach us if something goes wrong, I would have some significant concerns about bringing a blind person, particularly if they're going to attempt to operate independently. I've been out canoeing on rivers and the Great Lakes, and we had a few near misses or bad moments, including someone (who may or may not have been me) running into a branch, making the canoe flip 90 degrees for a moment, and getting the people in it tossed out into the river. Yes, in controlled circumstances with additional help and safety measures the obstacles can be worked around, but oddly enough neither "controlled circumstances" nor "safety" appear prominently in any of the published adventures I'm familiar with.
Honestly, if we're getting into the point where all this rhetoric is being trotted out, it might be time to just stop. Otherwise we're just going to go through the same old dance of people tossing increasingly hostile posts back and forth until the threads get locked. Within the RAW of the game, having the Blinded condition permanently active on one PC is objectively a significant handicap to most if not all pillars of the game- while attempts can be made to compensate for it, it is an objective fact that being unable to observe one's surroundings severely hampers their abilities in both exploration and combat, and not being able to see expressions and body language are impediments to social interactions as well. It is not absolutely impossible to tackle this in D&D, but you need a DM and other players who are all willing to work with the handicaps and additional complexities this presents, and it is in fact perfectly acceptable for this to not be something a group wants to deal with.
If someone wants to play Blinkin' from Men in Tights, take Monk, and be all "I heared that comin' from a mile away" when they use their reaction to catch an arrow flying at them, then I just hope everyone at the table is having fun. But there is no practical RAW way to both make permanent Blindness a mechanically active and relevant characteristic and then work around most or all of its effects, short of using Ersatz Eye to outright remove the condition.
I played a blind character in a campaign in the mid-nineties and this caused no problems but for the occasional need to remind the DM in the first few sessions that my character did not see something when he would say "Your characters sees ..."
D&D is a broad church. What you call a "pillar" of the game is what many consider one of the most dull and repetitive parts of the game. Many have been the games played in which not every character would play an active role in combat. Many have been the games in which fights have taken a back seat to other themes the campaign explored. Just because people with power fantasies would get stroppy if it was the martial classes' moment to shine and their character didn't belong to one and Wizards complied and the game has increasingly grown to look like one of parties consisting of fighters just wearing different costumes and you love it doesn't mean everyone must. Combat can be fun. But it can also be one of the worst parts of a session. Taking up most of it. Dragging as it so often does. And its being little more than roll after roll with very little real roleplaying. It's an approach to the game that prioritizes gaining XP and in turn gaining levels over any serious character development.
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party,
If you don't want to be a handicap for the party, then don't make a blind character. If you are blind in real life and want to adventure, then YES! go for it!
If you just want to play a blind character, don't. No matter what you do you will be nerfing your party. The majority of spells and abilities in the game require a target you can see. 90% of the attacks against you will be at advantage. You will almost always fight at disadvantage. Cures and buffs mostly need a target you can see.
Blind Fighting only goes to 10 feet.
I'm not bashing the idea just to bash the idea, I'm speaking from a lot of experience. Please don't make it harder for your party.
Would you tell a blind individual to not join you and others were you going hiking or kayaking or something because the individual will just "nerf" the group?
It's extraordinary how those who constantly invoke rhetoric about the need for inclusiveness in the game are the first to show how senseless and insensitive they can be.
You are trying to throw a real life example out when we are talking about game relevance? In real life I would try to help my blind friend as much as I can.
That is not the same thing as a character in D&D.
There are blind people doing all kinds of things in real life. They are pretty awesome. But they also get a LOT of assistance and often perform under controlled conditions.
That is not the same thing as being a character in D&D. You conveniently ignore the points already made regarding needing to see to cast many spells or the penalties involved in fighting. True, you don't have to have a fight, but if you do, the blind character is far less effective than everybody else. Honestly, if you want to play a campaign with little or no combat, then D&D is not the best suited for such a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party,
If you don't want to be a handicap for the party, then don't make a blind character. If you are blind in real life and want to adventure, then YES! go for it!
If you just want to play a blind character, don't. No matter what you do you will be nerfing your party. The majority of spells and abilities in the game require a target you can see. 90% of the attacks against you will be at advantage. You will almost always fight at disadvantage. Cures and buffs mostly need a target you can see.
Blind Fighting only goes to 10 feet.
I'm not bashing the idea just to bash the idea, I'm speaking from a lot of experience. Please don't make it harder for your party.
Would you tell a blind individual to not join you and others were you going hiking or kayaking or something because the individual will just "nerf" the group?
It's extraordinary how those who constantly invoke rhetoric about the need for inclusiveness in the game are the first to show how senseless and insensitive they can be.
You are trying to throw a real life example out when we are talking about game relevance? In real life I would try to help my blind friend as much as I can.
That is not the same thing as a character in D&D.
There are blind people doing all kinds of things in real life. They are pretty awesome. But they also get a LOT of assistance and often perform under controlled conditions.
That is not the same thing as being a character in D&D. You conveniently ignore the points already made regarding needing to see to cast many spells or the penalties involved in fighting. True, you don't have to have a fight, but if you do, the blind character is far less effective than everybody else. Honestly, if you want to play a campaign with little or no combat, then D&D is not the best suited for such a thing.
What do you do when characters sustain serious injuries? Leave them for dead? Or does no one sustain serious injuries in your games? You spend an hour or so resolving combat in which people are hit with all manner of weapons but no one gets hurt unless they are reduced to 0 HP? Why bother turning D&D into little more than a combat simulator when it doesn't even feel like combat? When it's not so much a character in a medieval/fantasy world in which violence is common but more like being an avatar in a video game for small children in which no one really gets hurt?
I have been playing D&D for over forty years. I have played in long form campaigns in which combat was secondary to other aspects of the game. And not every character would engage in it. So don't act as if you speak for the game.
We all play D&D in some form or another. There is no need for the gatekeeper-y attitude.
Would you tell someone coming to D&D with a history of trauma who would like to try the game but who rather there be little to no violence in it to go away and play something else? What would that make you?
EDIT: The new PHB has a picture of someone who is wheelchair bound. Should that character "stay home" so as not to "nerf" the party?
Thanks all for the amazing ideas so far. Clearly this topic has also turned into quite the discussion point. So let me share part of my interest in wanting to play a blind character, and my two cents on some the issues brought up so far.
I am a self-confessed optimizer, who some might also label as a power gamer. But I also really enjoy role-play and character development. A DM once challenged me, saying that if I really wanted to develop my role playing skills, to try playing a character with a real handicap (not one that can just be hand-waved away). And I don’t even think he meant just a physical handicap, just a character who isn’t optimal.
Over the years, this concept has stuck in my head, especially as someone who doesn’t face any real disability in real life. It fascinates me how people can and do adapt. And how it forces me to take a different perspective on the world. I find that fantasy role playing is one way to explore those different perspectives, like knights in wheelchairs.
I also should acknowledge that I personally think the D&D system generally has a strong emphasis on combat, as do many of the setting specific campaigns written for it. HOWEVER, every game is different and there is no “right” way to play. So when I posted this question, I wanted to explore how someone blind might adapt, both in a high fantasy setting, but also within the rules of the games.
I also should say that I very much agree with those who posted about making sure the other players in the group are okay with it as well. I guess I consider myself fortunate to be part of a more role playing oriented group. But I should definitely get their buy-in first, because playing a blind character would change the dynamics of the game. but our past games haven’t just been about ‘winning’ or completing adventures.
So, back to the question. Playing a blind character is sub-optimal, and objectively a mechanical disadvantage in D&D — yes. But assuming there is no ‘right’ way to play, and that the players and DM are bought in, how might one be able to make it work?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm interested in playing a blind character. Not your stereotypical anima character who wears a blindfold, but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition. And I don't have a class or build in mind yet, so I'm looking for ideas and suggestions!
Obviously I don't want to be a liability for the party, and would like to still have the character pull her weigh in the party. Some ideas including building a character who relies more of auras or other more passive abilities. Spells that don't require sight may be a way to go as well, but a lot of spells would not be usable by RAW. Or perhaps a mounted character to help get around. The blind fighting fighting-style seems like it could be a no-brainer as well. Alternately, maybe the character can 'see' through other means, such as a familiar, or 'arcane eye' spell.
What other ideas can you think of? And how might you build a blind character? Any help would be welcome.
A cleric focused on support might work. Throw around bless and other buffs. Though healing word is out. A peace cleric could be pretty cool for that.
Maybe a dwarf for the tremorsense?
Or a Druid who can see when they wildshape, maybe? Or use a companion. A scribes wizard who can see through their manifest mind (or any wizard with a familiar). Though these maybe aren’t quite in the spirit of what you’re going for.
I'd say the blindsight fighting style is about the best way to go but one issue with magical worlds, It also requires consideration as to why the condition can't magically be fixed with something such as Greater Restoration or Lay on Hand. Another way might be a solution from Star Trek, I'm thinking Geordi la Forge, Where you start with a magic item that gives the character sight while wearing it but would be completely blind without it, something like that could be worked out with the DM. Maybe the magic item has a time limit, so it can only be activated once a day and lasts 8 hours, so it does not entirely mitigate the blindness by being around. There are many ways to go around it within the rules or by homebrew but I think you have to homebrew the condition as to why it can't be cured normally via spells/features that remove the blinded or cursed conditions.
This si the build I did for a blind character: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/story-lore/109909-rob76s-unused-character-idea-5-ichii-kachikoshi
TLDR is a Monk/Way of Drunken Master
If you haven't, have a read here, it may give you some ideas and or answer a few questions.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I am confused. You say "but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition". If the PC can see/sense everything, then it does not have the blind condition. How, precisely do you see this PC interacting in the game? The penalties from the Blinded Condition are severe. These are the specifics of that condition:
You apparently didn't read their comment fully, they said "Not your stereotypical anima character who wears a blindfold, but can see/sense everything anyway. But with the actual in-game handicap of having the 'blind' condition."
Blunt answer - Your character will not pull their weight and will be a liability. In a world without pedestrian crossings and smooth pavements and braille, blind is a staggeringly debilitating handicap.
What do the other players think of the idea? You need to ask them now if you haven't already, to avoid stress at the table when someone says "Look, Humble Giant, your character's a liability. You need to retire them and make a new one."
That depends. Blindsight would mostly work for sight. Perception still applies unless sight is required, but the DM can still rule the PC knows where people are via perception, just like you know where an invisible character is even though they are invisible.
The drawbacks is going to be in other situations outside of combat where it isn't likely going to be a huge deal.
The thing is that blindsight is objectively better than sight in more contexts relevant contexts than not, so this "handicap" turns into an upgrade.
Really, while it's not outright impossible, D&D 5e is not built to integrate player characters who come to the table with major handicaps, at least not in a way that makes those handicaps mechanically significant. The usual solutions you see for them that are actually within the RAW scope of the game and practical on an ongoing basis essentially amount to "say the handicap exists and then essentially pretend it's not there from that point on", which arguable verges on tokenism and thus is probably part of the reason why they haven't tried to touch the subject with official material. If a character is blind, then a significant portion of spells are simply off the table, their attacks are all at disadvantage, and anything coming at them is at advantage. That's a lot to deal with on an ongoing basis, and while it's not objectively impossible to play through, you'd need the right DM and right fellow players to run with it. And that's just for the hard mechanical stuff. It also adds a layer of complexity to the roleplay to keep the PC engaged outside of combat when their ability to effectively interact with their environment is so thoroughly curtailed.
To address some of the points on the original post:
Really, if you want to make this concept work, you need to sit down with your DM and hammer it all out, and barring something amounting to a handwave that makes the character nominally blind but functionally the same as a regular PC there's simply no way your character can consistently "carry their weight" the way a regular PC will.
Side note on the point about why Greater Restoration isn't used to fix everything- the spell consumes 100 gp of diamond dust per cast. Not only does that raise the issue of costs, but diamond dust is used as a consumed component in several spells, so on a macro level supply would be a significant constraint as well.
If you don't want to be a handicap for the party, then don't make a blind character. If you are blind in real life and want to adventure, then YES! go for it!
If you just want to play a blind character, don't. No matter what you do you will be nerfing your party. The majority of spells and abilities in the game require a target you can see. 90% of the attacks against you will be at advantage. You will almost always fight at disadvantage. Cures and buffs mostly need a target you can see.
Blind Fighting only goes to 10 feet.
I'm not bashing the idea just to bash the idea, I'm speaking from a lot of experience. Please don't make it harder for your party.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
There are blind individuals in the real world capable of things of which you are not. From mountain climbing to fencing to giving piano recitals with the proficiency of maestros. Any delusions about how a blind character is only going to "hold back" a party arise from reducing the game to a poor imitation of what it once was with the focus now being fights and the expectation that every character regardless of class has to be as capable as others in the party when it comes to fighting and biases about what the blind in the real world can and can't do.
Can you provide some sources for fencing and mountain climbing? Yes, it's not as though a blind person is completely helpless in the face of the world, but there's a reason just having really bad vision (20/40 with correction or 20/400 before correction according to the quickie Google results) disqualifies one from serving as a combatant in the modern armed forces. As has been noted, handwaving the blindness so that functionally the character is identical to one with standard vision is an option, but if you actually want the mechanical disadvantages to be in play, then it is objectively a massive handicap.
Would you tell a blind individual to not join you and others were you going hiking or kayaking or something because the individual will just "nerf" the group?
It's extraordinary how those who constantly invoke rhetoric about the need for inclusiveness in the game are the first to show how senseless and insensitive they can be. This is what their reducing the game to little more than a fight simulator has done. (As if there aren't blind people who do martial arts.)
If you're worried about how they will perform in combat why must they engage in combat? Why must every single character engage in combat? Must every single character in a party have a propensity for violence? This is what has happened ever since the rules made it possible for wizards and other casters to just spam damage round after round and for rogues to deliver just as much as damage as a fighter. It has become a game with which people just slake their thirst for violence as they use it to facilitate their power fantasies as they kill one thing after another. It's ironic given the stigmas attached to us older gamers.
For years people have been saying the game is increasingly becoming more and more about just combat. Ever since 3rd. Edition in fact. And how many players these days get bored if a session goes without it.
Is it any wonder why the game is experiencing a DM shortage when combat is one of the most boring elements of the game for whoever is sitting at the head of the table?
You yourself can go and spend less than a minute Googling the subject and you will discover there are blind fencers. And have been for years.
Blind individuals have climbed Everest.
It is predictable you go straight to the military. Because you see D&D as little more than a game in which to fight. In which everyone must fight. That attitude has dumbed down what the game is. Combat-less sessions are among the most fun and interesting for those who don't see the game as little more than a facilitator of their own power fantasies.
And it's funny. Because it is how jocks viewed those of us who played years ago. Saw us as "nerds" who had to play at fighting to feel better about ourselves. When more than half the time our characters weren't even thinking about combat but were doing other things from solving riddles to investigating plots to kill the regent.
"Why must every character engage in combat?"
Well, there's the minor detail of how it's one of the pillars of the game, and in particular the one that allows the most participation from all party members at once. That minor detail is probably worth some consideration.
And where exactly are we hiking/kayaking? Because yes, if we're heading out into the wilderness or some other place where help cannot readily reach us if something goes wrong, I would have some significant concerns about bringing a blind person, particularly if they're going to attempt to operate independently. I've been out canoeing on rivers and the Great Lakes, and we had a few near misses or bad moments, including someone (who may or may not have been me) running into a branch, making the canoe flip 90 degrees for a moment, and getting the people in it tossed out into the river. Yes, in controlled circumstances with additional help and safety measures the obstacles can be worked around, but oddly enough neither "controlled circumstances" nor "safety" appear prominently in any of the published adventures I'm familiar with.
Honestly, if we're getting into the point where all this rhetoric is being trotted out, it might be time to just stop. Otherwise we're just going to go through the same old dance of people tossing increasingly hostile posts back and forth until the threads get locked. Within the RAW of the game, having the Blinded condition permanently active on one PC is objectively a significant handicap to most if not all pillars of the game- while attempts can be made to compensate for it, it is an objective fact that being unable to observe one's surroundings severely hampers their abilities in both exploration and combat, and not being able to see expressions and body language are impediments to social interactions as well. It is not absolutely impossible to tackle this in D&D, but you need a DM and other players who are all willing to work with the handicaps and additional complexities this presents, and it is in fact perfectly acceptable for this to not be something a group wants to deal with.
If someone wants to play Blinkin' from Men in Tights, take Monk, and be all "I heared that comin' from a mile away" when they use their reaction to catch an arrow flying at them, then I just hope everyone at the table is having fun. But there is no practical RAW way to both make permanent Blindness a mechanically active and relevant characteristic and then work around most or all of its effects, short of using Ersatz Eye to outright remove the condition.
I played a blind character in a campaign in the mid-nineties and this caused no problems but for the occasional need to remind the DM in the first few sessions that my character did not see something when he would say "Your characters sees ..."
D&D is a broad church. What you call a "pillar" of the game is what many consider one of the most dull and repetitive parts of the game. Many have been the games played in which not every character would play an active role in combat. Many have been the games in which fights have taken a back seat to other themes the campaign explored. Just because people with power fantasies would get stroppy if it was the martial classes' moment to shine and their character didn't belong to one and Wizards complied and the game has increasingly grown to look like one of parties consisting of fighters just wearing different costumes and you love it doesn't mean everyone must. Combat can be fun. But it can also be one of the worst parts of a session. Taking up most of it. Dragging as it so often does. And its being little more than roll after roll with very little real roleplaying. It's an approach to the game that prioritizes gaining XP and in turn gaining levels over any serious character development.
You are trying to throw a real life example out when we are talking about game relevance? In real life I would try to help my blind friend as much as I can.
That is not the same thing as a character in D&D.
There are blind people doing all kinds of things in real life. They are pretty awesome. But they also get a LOT of assistance and often perform under controlled conditions.
That is not the same thing as being a character in D&D. You conveniently ignore the points already made regarding needing to see to cast many spells or the penalties involved in fighting. True, you don't have to have a fight, but if you do, the blind character is far less effective than everybody else. Honestly, if you want to play a campaign with little or no combat, then D&D is not the best suited for such a thing.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What do you do when characters sustain serious injuries? Leave them for dead? Or does no one sustain serious injuries in your games? You spend an hour or so resolving combat in which people are hit with all manner of weapons but no one gets hurt unless they are reduced to 0 HP? Why bother turning D&D into little more than a combat simulator when it doesn't even feel like combat? When it's not so much a character in a medieval/fantasy world in which violence is common but more like being an avatar in a video game for small children in which no one really gets hurt?
I have been playing D&D for over forty years. I have played in long form campaigns in which combat was secondary to other aspects of the game. And not every character would engage in it. So don't act as if you speak for the game.
We all play D&D in some form or another. There is no need for the gatekeeper-y attitude.
Would you tell someone coming to D&D with a history of trauma who would like to try the game but who rather there be little to no violence in it to go away and play something else? What would that make you?
EDIT: The new PHB has a picture of someone who is wheelchair bound. Should that character "stay home" so as not to "nerf" the party?
Thanks all for the amazing ideas so far. Clearly this topic has also turned into quite the discussion point. So let me share part of my interest in wanting to play a blind character, and my two cents on some the issues brought up so far.
I am a self-confessed optimizer, who some might also label as a power gamer. But I also really enjoy role-play and character development. A DM once challenged me, saying that if I really wanted to develop my role playing skills, to try playing a character with a real handicap (not one that can just be hand-waved away). And I don’t even think he meant just a physical handicap, just a character who isn’t optimal.
Over the years, this concept has stuck in my head, especially as someone who doesn’t face any real disability in real life. It fascinates me how people can and do adapt. And how it forces me to take a different perspective on the world. I find that fantasy role playing is one way to explore those different perspectives, like knights in wheelchairs.
I also should acknowledge that I personally think the D&D system generally has a strong emphasis on combat, as do many of the setting specific campaigns written for it. HOWEVER, every game is different and there is no “right” way to play. So when I posted this question, I wanted to explore how someone blind might adapt, both in a high fantasy setting, but also within the rules of the games.
I also should say that I very much agree with those who posted about making sure the other players in the group are okay with it as well. I guess I consider myself fortunate to be part of a more role playing oriented group. But I should definitely get their buy-in first, because playing a blind character would change the dynamics of the game. but our past games haven’t just been about ‘winning’ or completing adventures.
So, back to the question. Playing a blind character is sub-optimal, and objectively a mechanical disadvantage in D&D — yes. But assuming there is no ‘right’ way to play, and that the players and DM are bought in, how might one be able to make it work?