It's technically whatever the DM and player decide, but it's very bad form for a DM to unilaterally decide to make the use of spells harder or otherwise impose penalties like you're describing, particularly if the group has not agreed to a more "real" campaign ahead of time. The RAW of the Blinded condition is not that you are unable to locate all other creatures on the grid, it's that you have disadvantage making attack rolls against them and they have advantage on rolls against you.
So, by that rationale, you'd allow a blinded character to ride a horse down a crowded street at full speed - so long as there's no attack rolls involved? Would you let them read a book, cook a meal or pick a lock? That's absurd. A lightning bolt has one thing in common with a rifle: You can fire it blind. Hitting is another matter entirely. Although, admittedly, slightly less impossible with a 'missile' 5 feet wide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Riding a mount has some weird rules and, outside of initiative, RAW doesn't really address the example you gave. But that's also not what this thread is about.
Since lightning bolt is a saving throw spell rather than an attack spell, and it does not require you to see your casting target, having the blinded condition provides no downside to your ability to accurately cast it in the direction of a target within range, unless other factors are at play.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
It's technically whatever the DM and player decide, but it's very bad form for a DM to unilaterally decide to make the use of spells harder or otherwise impose penalties like you're describing, particularly if the group has not agreed to a more "real" campaign ahead of time. The RAW of the Blinded condition is not that you are unable to locate all other creatures on the grid, it's that you have disadvantage making attack rolls against them and they have advantage on rolls against you.
So, by that rationale, you'd allow a blinded character to ride a horse down a crowded street at full speed - so long as there's no attack rolls involved? Would you let them read a book, cook a meal or pick a lock? That's absurd. A lightning bolt has one thing in common with a rifle: You can fire it blind. Hitting is another matter entirely. Although, admittedly, slightly less impossible with a 'missile' 5 feet wide.
The horse would be using its own sight and movement in the crowd and the rules in question are for combat, which your other examples are not. And RAW there would be no issue using LB while blinded. If you or a DM want to rule otherwise that’s fine but homebrew.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
It's technically whatever the DM and player decide, but it's very bad form for a DM to unilaterally decide to make the use of spells harder or otherwise impose penalties like you're describing, particularly if the group has not agreed to a more "real" campaign ahead of time. The RAW of the Blinded condition is not that you are unable to locate all other creatures on the grid, it's that you have disadvantage making attack rolls against them and they have advantage on rolls against you.
So, by that rationale, you'd allow a blinded character to ride a horse down a crowded street at full speed - so long as there's no attack rolls involved? Would you let them read a book, cook a meal or pick a lock? That's absurd. A lightning bolt has one thing in common with a rifle: You can fire it blind. Hitting is another matter entirely. Although, admittedly, slightly less impossible with a 'missile' 5 feet wide.
Really, only one of your examples is truly out of the question for a blind person; lockpicking is at least as much tactile as visual, and it's within the realm of possibility for a blind person to be able to cook, particularly in a setting that allows one to lean into some fictional conventions (I've heard a lot about other senses growing sharper to compensate for the loss of one, but I don't know enough to declare it to be a real thing).
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
You don't. Blindness has no effect on spells that require neither seeing the target nor an attack roll.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
That's attempting the hide action. Assuming your action economy permits it, entirely legitimate to do both.
The core problem you have is that you're trying to apply reality to D&D. Previous editions did have complicated rolls for figuring out where unseen enemies were, and it was obnoxious and unfun to use, difficult to resolve in play, and made spells like invisibility and blindness/deafness far more powerful than their spell level justified. So, 5e solved the problem by just getting rid of those mechanics and saying everyone knows where everyone is.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
In that case, what’s the point in blinding the caster if it makes no difference, or becoming invisible to avoid the attack when one can simply ignore the rules for those conditions and use a spell that clearly indicates you can fire it in any direction and anything in the way has to ether successfully dodge for half or fail an get a possible nasty shock, and the direction you choose is always the correct direction?
that is just as much homebrew, as nothing in the rules resolves the issue, short of DM interaction.
I feel like fretting about the accuracy of a magical lightning bolt that shocks everything in a five-foot wide corridor is, perhaps, not the best use of anyone's time
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
In that case, what’s the point in blinding the caster if it makes no difference, or becoming invisible to avoid the attack when one can simply ignore the rules for those conditions and use a spell that clearly indicates you can fire it in any direction and anything in the way has to ether successfully dodge for half or fail an get a possible nasty shock, and the direction you choose is always the correct direction?
that is just as much homebrew, as nothing in the rules resolves the issue, short of DM interaction.
Because there are numerous spells which will be affected, by design, just as the spells that aren't affected by the condition are unaffected by design.
Really, only one of your examples is truly out of the question for a blind person; lockpicking is at least as much tactile as visual, and it's within the realm of possibility for a blind person to be able to cook, particularly in a setting that allows one to lean into some fictional conventions (I've heard a lot about other senses growing sharper to compensate for the loss of one, but I don't know enough to declare it to be a real thing).
Um, well - if you believe that to be true, then ... who am I to tell you any different =D
I mean, sure, blind people can both cook and pick locks, but I hope you realise the convenience of not having to identify each ingredient, or lockpick, by feel, but simply by looking at it and knowing instantly. Blind people can also ride horses - but not safely. And blind people can throw lightning bolts (well, provided they're 5th level arcane casters at least), but they can't see where. And that's the whole point.
Your claim seems to be that only where an attack roll is involved, should there be any disadvantage to being blind. That, quite simply, isn't reasonable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Really, only one of your examples is truly out of the question for a blind person; lockpicking is at least as much tactile as visual, and it's within the realm of possibility for a blind person to be able to cook, particularly in a setting that allows one to lean into some fictional conventions (I've heard a lot about other senses growing sharper to compensate for the loss of one, but I don't know enough to declare it to be a real thing).
Um, well - if you believe that to be true, then ... who am I to tell you any different =D
I mean, sure, blind people can both cook and pick locks, but I hope you realise the convenience of not having to identify each ingredient, or lockpick, by feel, but simply by looking at it and knowing instantly. Blind people can also ride horses - but not safely. And blind people can throw lightning bolts (well, provided they're 5th level arcane casters at least), but they can't see where. And that's the whole point.
Your claim seems to be that only where an attack roll is involved, should there be any disadvantage to being blind. That, quite simply, isn't reasonable.
No, my point is that these are not things they are categorically incapable of doing, particularly in a fictional setting. There's this handy thing called "disadvantage" a DM can apply to rolls at their discretion, you may have heard of it. These instances would be a reasonable case for it, but they wouldn't auto-fail.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
In that case, what’s the point in blinding the caster if it makes no difference, or becoming invisible to avoid the attack when one can simply ignore the rules for those conditions and use a spell that clearly indicates you can fire it in any direction and anything in the way has to ether successfully dodge for half or fail an get a possible nasty shock, and the direction you choose is always the correct direction?
that is just as much homebrew, as nothing in the rules resolves the issue, short of DM interaction.
Because there are numerous spells which will be affected, by design, just as the spells that aren't affected by the condition are unaffected by design.
But in the case of Lighting Bolt, not knowing what direction to fire that 5 foot wide lightning beam when you have no idea where the target is affects the spell, for if you are blinded, how in the hell can you tell if your even directing the spell in the right direction?
Oh you can hear the opponent smirking, or passing a silent but deadly wind, and instantly know precisely where they are, and where to aim?
nope sorry, blinded you are just shooting in the dark unless you have means to circumvent the blindness and get a better fix on target, otherwise if you still want to blind fire that lightning beam then it’s possibly danger close for all involved.
Giving both sides a 50/50 chance of success is better than what’s good for the goose isn’t good enough for the gander.
You don't have to be precise. It's a lightning bolt
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
In that case, what’s the point in blinding the caster if it makes no difference, or becoming invisible to avoid the attack when one can simply ignore the rules for those conditions and use a spell that clearly indicates you can fire it in any direction and anything in the way has to ether successfully dodge for half or fail an get a possible nasty shock, and the direction you choose is always the correct direction?
that is just as much homebrew, as nothing in the rules resolves the issue, short of DM interaction.
Because there are numerous spells which will be affected, by design, just as the spells that aren't affected by the condition are unaffected by design.
But in the case of Lighting Bolt, not knowing what direction to fire that 5 foot wide lightning beam when you have no idea where the target is affects the spell, for if you are blinded, how in the hell can you tell if your even directing the spell in the right direction?
Oh you can hear the opponent smirking, or passing a silent but deadly wind, and instantly know precisely where they are, and where to aim?
nope sorry, blinded you are just shooting in the dark unless you have means to circumvent the blindness and get a better fix on target, otherwise if you still want to blind fire that lightning beam then it’s possibly danger close for all involved.
Giving both sides a 50/50 chance of success is better than what’s good for the goose isn’t good enough for the gander.
To the bolded: that’s exactly how RAW it works. Unless they are both hidden and unseen you know exactly what square on the grid they are at all times. Just like you see 360 degrees at all times in combat.
If you don’t like how that works you are fine to change it, but then it’s homebrew. 5E streamlined things like this for ease of use. And a lot of spells require you to see the target, and spells like Faerie Fire are designed so you can specifically affect an invisible target.
No, my point is that these are not things they are categorically incapable of doing, particularly in a fictional setting. There's this handy thing called "disadvantage" a DM can apply to rolls at their discretion, you may have heard of it. These instances would be a reasonable case for it, but they wouldn't auto-fail.
I don't think I said auto-fail? Please don't do that, I emphatically did not say it would automatically fail. I haven't even mentioned that. Respond to things I say - or not at all. Please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Using a d8 is still wrong. That's simply not how it works in 5e. Either they don't know the location (likely because the invisible enemy isn't using a Stealth check) or they do (because they can hear signs of movement, which can be heard even if footsteps make no sound due to clothes shuffling, possible heavy breathing, etc).
Your in the middle of a battle blinded and can only hear what’s going on, things are going off in several directions, and in the confusion get turned around.
if the check is high enough, D8 lets DM advise you to which direction you want to face to hit your targets, check is low or bad, D8 serves to random fire in a direction that may good or bad.
work smarter, not harder. Nothing like possible friendly fire to make things interesting.
You're welcome to homebrew it however you like but since this is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, the RAW answer is that being blinded has no effect on the ability to cast or aim lightning bolt assuming that the location of the targets are known via sound or other senses.
Really, only one of your examples is truly out of the question for a blind person; lockpicking is at least as much tactile as visual, and it's within the realm of possibility for a blind person to be able to cook, particularly in a setting that allows one to lean into some fictional conventions (I've heard a lot about other senses growing sharper to compensate for the loss of one, but I don't know enough to declare it to be a real thing).
Um, well - if you believe that to be true, then ... who am I to tell you any different =D
I mean, sure, blind people can both cook and pick locks, but I hope you realise the convenience of not having to identify each ingredient, or lockpick, by feel, but simply by looking at it and knowing instantly. Blind people can also ride horses - but not safely. And blind people can throw lightning bolts (well, provided they're 5th level arcane casters at least), but they can't see where. And that's the whole point.
Your claim seems to be that only where an attack roll is involved, should there be any disadvantage to being blind. That, quite simply, isn't reasonable.
The question addressed in this forum is "What are the rules for casting a lightning bolt while blinded in 5e D&D" ... several folks have stated what those rules are.
We aren't discussing whether they are "reasonable" or not because that is a different argument that doesn't necessarily have a clear answer.
It is possible that a trained spell caster in a D&D world can keep track of the locations of a room full of people with their eyes closed in the midst of a combat. Perhaps the characters have trained for this specific circumstance, can gauge how much noise the opponents in chain mail, plate or leather will make as they move. Hear the many sets of footsteps, the cries of pain, shouts from their allies, and have a pretty good idea (within 5') of where these folks are when they can't see. It requires one or more of those opponents to actively try to be quiet (stealth check) in order for the blinded character to lose track of them. In this scenario, since lightning bolt does not require seeing the target, it is quite reasonable for the character to be able to target lightning bolt in a manner similar to not being blinded.
Or ... it could be that the combat is occurring in a cave at the mouth of a waterfall where it is impossible to hear or sense other creatures. In such a situation, a DM could rule that all creatures are automatically hidden if unseen since hidden is defined in the rules as "unseen and unheard". In this circumstance, the blinded caster would be able to cast a lightning bolt based on where they remember the opponents being before being blinded but there is no guarantee that they are still there after they have had their turn.
Or ... a DM could decide that being blinded imposes additional penalties not covered in the rules. The DM is free to house rule in this situation but can't expect anyone else to agree with their position. Some might, some might not but the nature of house rules is that the DM makes them up to cover something they feel isn't adequately covered by the rules ... and other DMs may well disagree and consider the house rules superfluous.
Personally, I don't have any issues with how 5e treats blindness in combat .. it is a bit generous in my opinion but in the interests of simplicity I just run it RAW.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see.
This phrase means that if you can hear the target, you know where it is. In addition
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
means that you know the location of anyone who has made an attack, and that's all you generally need to target an area attack.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
In that case, what’s the point in blinding the caster if it makes no difference, or becoming invisible to avoid the attack when one can simply ignore the rules for those conditions and use a spell that clearly indicates you can fire it in any direction and anything in the way has to ether successfully dodge for half or fail an get a possible nasty shock, and the direction you choose is always the correct direction?
that is just as much homebrew, as nothing in the rules resolves the issue, short of DM interaction.
Because there are numerous spells which will be affected, by design, just as the spells that aren't affected by the condition are unaffected by design.
But in the case of Lighting Bolt, not knowing what direction to fire that 5 foot wide lightning beam when you have no idea where the target is affects the spell, for if you are blinded, how in the hell can you tell if your even directing the spell in the right direction?
Oh you can hear the opponent smirking, or passing a silent but deadly wind, and instantly know precisely where they are, and where to aim?
nope sorry, blinded you are just shooting in the dark unless you have means to circumvent the blindness and get a better fix on target, otherwise if you still want to blind fire that lightning beam then it’s possibly danger close for all involved.
Giving both sides a 50/50 chance of success is better than what’s good for the goose isn’t good enough for the gander.
While you may choose to homebrew in your games, as David42 reminds us, the point of the question and the answers specifically in the rules and mechanics forum are about what the printed rules are regarding this and how do they work.
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
You don't. Blindness has no effect on spells that require neither seeing the target nor an attack roll.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
That's attempting the hide action. Assuming your action economy permits it, entirely legitimate to do both.
The core problem you have is that you're trying to apply reality to D&D. Previous editions did have complicated rolls for figuring out where unseen enemies were, and it was obnoxious and unfun to use, difficult to resolve in play, and made spells like invisibility and blindness/deafness far more powerful than their spell level justified. So, 5e solved the problem by just getting rid of those mechanics and saying everyone knows where everyone is.
Part of D&D is that in situations that the rules have little or no say in the matter, reality is the only real experience that can be applied within the rules as written as to how the matter is resolved.
person is blinded, first instinct to to blind man’s hand search. How often does it occur that people blinded remain facing the same direction as when they were blinded?
So, by that rationale, you'd allow a blinded character to ride a horse down a crowded street at full speed - so long as there's no attack rolls involved? Would you let them read a book, cook a meal or pick a lock? That's absurd. A lightning bolt has one thing in common with a rifle: You can fire it blind. Hitting is another matter entirely. Although, admittedly, slightly less impossible with a 'missile' 5 feet wide.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Riding a mount has some weird rules and, outside of initiative, RAW doesn't really address the example you gave. But that's also not what this thread is about.
Since lightning bolt is a saving throw spell rather than an attack spell, and it does not require you to see your casting target, having the blinded condition provides no downside to your ability to accurately cast it in the direction of a target within range, unless other factors are at play.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
How do you impose disadvantage with a spell that has no attack roll feature, simply states pick a direction and fire away, and the opponent has used means to make the ability to precisely target them difficult?
just cause a noise might give the opponent away, doesn’t mean it washes that disadvantage away, still have to figure where the sound came from if your blind or opponent is invisible or hidden from plain sight.
imagine a opponent that turns invisible, quickly and quietly walks to your left 30 odd feet off, and tosses a rock to your right 20 odd feet to distract you that you didn’t possibly notice, and the mentally is it didn’t matter the opponent did all that and it was for naught, because the slightest sound from them was enough to pinpoint exactly where they are?
And as for a quick perception check to assess the current situation in combat, it’s usually a given a creature can see what’s going on no check required, but if they are suddenly unable to rely on previous visual information in a constantly changing situation, then how is one to effectively evaluate the situation if by not taking a hot second to use whatever means they have to reassess.
As for the D8, ever spun a blindfolded person in circles and watched them try and strike something? They should have little idea which direction they are now facing, and as the one spinning the other person, how often do you line them up perfectly and they still miss? And as the blindfolded person, can you confidently say that your still in the same direction as before, or facing a new random direction?
The horse would be using its own sight and movement in the crowd and the rules in question are for combat, which your other examples are not. And RAW there would be no issue using LB while blinded. If you or a DM want to rule otherwise that’s fine but homebrew.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This is homebrew.
The question "How do you apply disadvantage to a spell with no attack roll feature?" is answered in the rules: you don't. Dissadvantage to attack rolls does nothing to spells that don't require an attack roll.
Really, only one of your examples is truly out of the question for a blind person; lockpicking is at least as much tactile as visual, and it's within the realm of possibility for a blind person to be able to cook, particularly in a setting that allows one to lean into some fictional conventions (I've heard a lot about other senses growing sharper to compensate for the loss of one, but I don't know enough to declare it to be a real thing).
You don't. Blindness has no effect on spells that require neither seeing the target nor an attack roll.
That's attempting the hide action. Assuming your action economy permits it, entirely legitimate to do both.
The core problem you have is that you're trying to apply reality to D&D. Previous editions did have complicated rolls for figuring out where unseen enemies were, and it was obnoxious and unfun to use, difficult to resolve in play, and made spells like invisibility and blindness/deafness far more powerful than their spell level justified. So, 5e solved the problem by just getting rid of those mechanics and saying everyone knows where everyone is.
In that case, what’s the point in blinding the caster if it makes no difference, or becoming invisible to avoid the attack when one can simply ignore the rules for those conditions and use a spell that clearly indicates you can fire it in any direction and anything in the way has to ether successfully dodge for half or fail an get a possible nasty shock, and the direction you choose is always the correct direction?
that is just as much homebrew, as nothing in the rules resolves the issue, short of DM interaction.
I feel like fretting about the accuracy of a magical lightning bolt that shocks everything in a five-foot wide corridor is, perhaps, not the best use of anyone's time
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Because there are numerous spells which will be affected, by design, just as the spells that aren't affected by the condition are unaffected by design.
Um, well - if you believe that to be true, then ... who am I to tell you any different =D
I mean, sure, blind people can both cook and pick locks, but I hope you realise the convenience of not having to identify each ingredient, or lockpick, by feel, but simply by looking at it and knowing instantly. Blind people can also ride horses - but not safely. And blind people can throw lightning bolts (well, provided they're 5th level arcane casters at least), but they can't see where. And that's the whole point.
Your claim seems to be that only where an attack roll is involved, should there be any disadvantage to being blind. That, quite simply, isn't reasonable.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
No, my point is that these are not things they are categorically incapable of doing, particularly in a fictional setting. There's this handy thing called "disadvantage" a DM can apply to rolls at their discretion, you may have heard of it. These instances would be a reasonable case for it, but they wouldn't auto-fail.
But in the case of Lighting Bolt, not knowing what direction to fire that 5 foot wide lightning beam when you have no idea where the target is affects the spell, for if you are blinded, how in the hell can you tell if your even directing the spell in the right direction?
Oh you can hear the opponent smirking, or passing a silent but deadly wind, and instantly know precisely where they are, and where to aim?
nope sorry, blinded you are just shooting in the dark unless you have means to circumvent the blindness and get a better fix on target, otherwise if you still want to blind fire that lightning beam then it’s possibly danger close for all involved.
Giving both sides a 50/50 chance of success is better than what’s good for the goose isn’t good enough for the gander.
You don't have to be precise. It's a lightning bolt
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To the bolded: that’s exactly how RAW it works. Unless they are both hidden and unseen you know exactly what square on the grid they are at all times. Just like you see 360 degrees at all times in combat.
If you don’t like how that works you are fine to change it, but then it’s homebrew. 5E streamlined things like this for ease of use. And a lot of spells require you to see the target, and spells like Faerie Fire are designed so you can specifically affect an invisible target.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don't think I said auto-fail? Please don't do that, I emphatically did not say it would automatically fail. I haven't even mentioned that. Respond to things I say - or not at all. Please.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You're welcome to homebrew it however you like but since this is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, the RAW answer is that being blinded has no effect on the ability to cast or aim lightning bolt assuming that the location of the targets are known via sound or other senses.
The question addressed in this forum is "What are the rules for casting a lightning bolt while blinded in 5e D&D" ... several folks have stated what those rules are.
We aren't discussing whether they are "reasonable" or not because that is a different argument that doesn't necessarily have a clear answer.
It is possible that a trained spell caster in a D&D world can keep track of the locations of a room full of people with their eyes closed in the midst of a combat. Perhaps the characters have trained for this specific circumstance, can gauge how much noise the opponents in chain mail, plate or leather will make as they move. Hear the many sets of footsteps, the cries of pain, shouts from their allies, and have a pretty good idea (within 5') of where these folks are when they can't see. It requires one or more of those opponents to actively try to be quiet (stealth check) in order for the blinded character to lose track of them. In this scenario, since lightning bolt does not require seeing the target, it is quite reasonable for the character to be able to target lightning bolt in a manner similar to not being blinded.
Or ... it could be that the combat is occurring in a cave at the mouth of a waterfall where it is impossible to hear or sense other creatures. In such a situation, a DM could rule that all creatures are automatically hidden if unseen since hidden is defined in the rules as "unseen and unheard". In this circumstance, the blinded caster would be able to cast a lightning bolt based on where they remember the opponents being before being blinded but there is no guarantee that they are still there after they have had their turn.
Or ... a DM could decide that being blinded imposes additional penalties not covered in the rules. The DM is free to house rule in this situation but can't expect anyone else to agree with their position. Some might, some might not but the nature of house rules is that the DM makes them up to cover something they feel isn't adequately covered by the rules ... and other DMs may well disagree and consider the house rules superfluous.
Personally, I don't have any issues with how 5e treats blindness in combat .. it is a bit generous in my opinion but in the interests of simplicity I just run it RAW.
While you may choose to homebrew in your games, as David42 reminds us, the point of the question and the answers specifically in the rules and mechanics forum are about what the printed rules are regarding this and how do they work.
Part of D&D is that in situations that the rules have little or no say in the matter, reality is the only real experience that can be applied within the rules as written as to how the matter is resolved.
person is blinded, first instinct to to blind man’s hand search. How often does it occur that people blinded remain facing the same direction as when they were blinded?
Trained player, quick perception check remain clam, listen closely.
everyone else, what the f@<# where am I and what’s going on?
wanna fire a Lightning Bolt that’s 5ft wide god knows where, be my guest be my guest and you know the rest.
Do you let them auto-hit cause of RoC or you make them think unless they are sure they know what they are doing, there’s a gamble?