I follow the text of the rules that have been discussed ad nauseam : blinded players generally know the location of creatures that aren't hidden and their disadvantage does not affect save spells..
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.
That would be relevant if the rules didn't say what to do... but they do.
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.
That would be relevant if the rules didn't say what to do... but they do.
I was thinking the same thing when I read that quote. The rules absolutely have something to say in the matter. It’s just the Maximus seems to not want to see it. Reality is not needed in its adjudication.
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.
That would be relevant if the rules didn't say what to do... but they do.
I was thinking the same thing when I read that quote. The rules absolutely have something to say in the matter. It’s just the Maximus seems to not want to see it. Reality is not needed in its adjudication.
I see it clear as day, if your blind how can one have disadvantage on an attack from a spell that only states: “ in a direction you choose”? Player metagaming the combat that their character would not have is not RAW.
Characters world just went gray, blinded. Middle of a battle. Yet by RAW that character now has the incredible ability to perceive the universe around them with no disability?
Sure, other abilities can circumvent the situation, non issue.
But actually using the condition has it is meant to be used, and it’s homebrew? Please, understand here:
RAW says DM imparts advantages and disadvantages depending on circumstance, and in the circumstance of a blinded caster firing a Lightning Bolt in an attempt to attack a creature, disadvantage can be imparted to the perception roll to determine direction of attack and success, DC DM discretion.
Success, on target move on.
Failure, where did that go, and what did I hit?
D8, quick random direction of beam on failure, exact location of target and direction to fire in on success.
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.
Nice try. But at no point have I made the claim that the rules state ... anything at all. I have made absolutely zero mention of the rules are.
And ... unless I miss my guess, you're not the forum police, and it's not up to you to decide whether or not I'm allowed to point out the absurdity of aiming anything while blind.
But hey, I'll grant you this: For answering the question, by RAW, in isolation, it's true - there are no relevant rules in the book regarding spells cast blindly.
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.
Its so simple, it isn't in the rules, it sounds stupid don’t it?
Yes, it does sound that way... Fixed the beginning for you though.
As a friendly reminder to a couple of posters in this thread, when you deviate from the presented rules like you are doing in this thread, it is fair that others point that out in the rules and mechanics forum. That is where we are after all, and people come here to know what the rules say, not how other DMs run their games.
If you do want to post your own inventions of rules in this sub form, it is only the MINIMUM of common courtesy to say that what you are presenting is not a rule, but rather how you run things. The problem isn't what you do at your table. The problem is that you are presenting what you do at your table as rules in the place where people come looking for answers. No, David42 or I aren't the forum police. But that doesn't make us any less right for pointing out your misrepresentations of rules without accompanying disclaimers.
The Forum rules allow anyone to post rules gibberish in this forum and as long as it isn't breaking the other rules the actual forum police probably won't get involved. But I think it does take a modicum of forum etiquette beyond the community guidelines to stick to interpreting presented rules, your opinions on them, and clearly labeled deviations from them in this sub-forum rather than whole-hog invention. There are other sub forums for rule inventions, after all.
And as a final reminder on the rules in question: blindness gives three effects: they can't see, disadvantage on attack rolls, and advantage on attacks against them. If a spell like lightning bolt doesn't require seeing your target, then it is totally unaffected by blindess. You still know where targets are when you can't see them (unless they hide) and the spell makes no attack rolls.
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.
That would be relevant if the rules didn't say what to do... but they do.
I was thinking the same thing when I read that quote. The rules absolutely have something to say in the matter. It’s just the Maximus seems to not want to see it. Reality is not needed in its adjudication.
I see it clear as day, if your blind how can one have disadvantage on an attack from a spell that only states: “ in a direction you choose”? Player metagaming the combat that their character would not have is not RAW.
Characters world just went gray, blinded. Middle of a battle. Yet by RAW that character now has the incredible ability to perceive the universe around them with no disability?
No, the character cannot see, that does not mean they have no senses at all with with to perceive the world. Humans and pretty much every creature have stereo hearing, which means they can triangulate the location of the source of a noise based on the difference in the arrival time of the sound between their two ears. You can prove this to yourself by simply standing on a sidewalk next to road and listening to cars passing you, it is not at all challenging to know where the cars are and when it is safe to cross (assuming it's not a super busy road) even with "suddenly" having no vision.
The only problem with the rules is that there is no definition or explanation of character / creature senses of hearing. Certain creatures definitely have better hearing than others - e.g. those with it specified in their Keen Senses - but there is no baseline range provided in any of the books. Quite obviously, creatures should not be able to hear someone simply shooting a bow 1 mile away but should definitely be able to hear a cannon go off 60 ft away. But most D&D combat is in between these two extremes so it's up to the DM discretion exactly how precisely a blind character can target stuff.
Is also where you'd go to express your dissatisfaction with the rules.
So no.
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.
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.
Nice try. But at no point have I made the claim that the rules state ... anything at all. I have made absolutely zero mention of the rules are.
And ... unless I miss my guess, you're not the forum police, and it's not up to you to decide whether or not I'm allowed to point out the absurdity of aiming anything while blind.
But hey, I'll grant you this: For answering the question, by RAW, in isolation, it's true - there are no relevant rules in the book regarding spells cast blindly.
Agreed :) ... I'm not the forum police. :) However, the problem is that there are almost an infinite number of ways to discuss how various individuals would like the rules to be, what each thinks might be more "realistic" rules, rules which might or might not handle a situation better in a particular DMs opinion. That type of discussion is really what the Homebrew forum was created for.
The OPs question was:
"If a character is blinded or under the blind condition, how does this affect them casting lightning bolt? How would you handle this? Does it auto hit still?"
This is a rules question and the situation is generally covered in the 5e rules set and which has been answered several times in the thread. There have also been a few answers from DMs regarding how they would homebrew it, which is also fine to be honest but these answers aren't how the situation would be handled based on the 5e rules, it is how those specific DMs might choose to play it. They aren't wrong but they also aren't RAW.
Is also where you'd go to express your dissatisfaction with the rules.
So no.
I mean I mention in my post that I think opinions on rules are fine here, if you've read it. And opinions on the rules are widely given here too. It's just courtesy to state that your opinion is such and to not treat your own inventions as fact.
So I don't see your point. Again, I'm not making fun of how you run your game or even what you post here. I'm saying anything that isn't what the books actually say on the subject is also not valuable as a discussion of RAW.
Its so simple, it isn't in the rules, it sounds stupid don’t it?
Yes, it does sound that way... Fixed the beginning for you though.
As a friendly reminder to a couple of posters in this thread, when you deviate from the presented rules like you are doing in this thread, it is fair that others point that out in the rules and mechanics forum. That is where we are after all, and people come here to know what the rules say, not how other DMs run their games.
If you do want to post your own inventions of rules in this sub form, it is only the MINIMUM of common courtesy to say that what you are presenting is not a rule, but rather how you run things. The problem isn't what you do at your table. The problem is that you are presenting what you do at your table as rules in the place where people come looking for answers. No, David42 or I aren't the forum police. But that doesn't make us any less right for pointing out your misrepresentations of rules without accompanying disclaimers.
The Forum rules allow anyone to post rules gibberish in this forum and as long as it isn't breaking the other rules the actual forum police probably won't get involved. But I think it does take a modicum of forum etiquette beyond the community guidelines to stick to interpreting presented rules, your opinions on them, and clearly labeled deviations from them in this sub-forum rather than whole-hog invention. There are other sub forums for rule inventions, after all.
And as a final reminder on the rules in question: blindness gives three effects: they can't see, disadvantage on attack rolls, and advantage on attacks against them. If a spell like lightning bolt doesn't require seeing your target, then it is totally unaffected by blindess. You still know where targets are when you can't see them (unless they hide) and the spell makes no attack rolls.
Then why is this topic still in the Rules and Mechanics forum?
Just because RAW does not explicitly state in verbatim the means to adjudicate every single instance of all possible scenarios that might occur in the game, and the infinite Rules as Interpreted and Intended as others might see them does nothing to help in that adjudication, than what?
Number one RAW is DM has final say.
Just because others don’t see the rules as others do, find those views as valid but inconsistent with what the actual totality of RAW is in pure context, and has offered a reasonable explanation of such well within the RAW, well people know the phrase:
”Rule as you wish, it’s just a game.”
( Common sense is if your blinded, you have a disadvantage in knowing what direction you might be facing. and while other senses may compensate for the temporary effect, they do not automatically wash that disadvantage away. Yet the mentality, being blinded when attempting to attack something you can’t see and using the excuse nothing in the rules deals with such, or misleading such rules as to meta knowledge the situation is disingenuous. My ruling is simple, that disadvantage is the ability to perceive if the direction one wishes to attack in is the correct one, plain and simple. People are free to disagree, you know the phrase. )
Please elaborate. What inventions of mine have I presented as fact?
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.
Please elaborate. What inventions of mine have I presented as fact?
Certainly the suggestion that the blind condition causes anything other than what the PHB says it does has been made by several people in this thread. Those suggestions are inventions by those people, not rules of the game.
Certainly the suggestion that the blind condition causes anything other than what the PHB says it does has been made by several people in this thread. Those suggestions are inventions by those people, not rules of the game.
So ... let me just get this straight. Hang on.
This is you:
I think opinions on rules are fine here
And this is also you:
Certainly the suggestion that the blind condition causes anything other than what the PHB says it does has been made by several people in this thread. Those suggestions are inventions by those people, not rules of the game.
So ... which is it? Is it ok to discuss the rules, disagree with them even?
Or ... is it an invention when someone does that?
Because it's ... gotta be one, or the other. No?
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.
Its so simple, it isn't in the rules, it sounds stupid don’t it?
Yes, it does sound that way... Fixed the beginning for you though.
As a friendly reminder to a couple of posters in this thread, when you deviate from the presented rules like you are doing in this thread, it is fair that others point that out in the rules and mechanics forum. That is where we are after all, and people come here to know what the rules say, not how other DMs run their games.
If you do want to post your own inventions of rules in this sub form, it is only the MINIMUM of common courtesy to say that what you are presenting is not a rule, but rather how you run things. The problem isn't what you do at your table. The problem is that you are presenting what you do at your table as rules in the place where people come looking for answers. No, David42 or I aren't the forum police. But that doesn't make us any less right for pointing out your misrepresentations of rules without accompanying disclaimers.
The Forum rules allow anyone to post rules gibberish in this forum and as long as it isn't breaking the other rules the actual forum police probably won't get involved. But I think it does take a modicum of forum etiquette beyond the community guidelines to stick to interpreting presented rules, your opinions on them, and clearly labeled deviations from them in this sub-forum rather than whole-hog invention. There are other sub forums for rule inventions, after all.
And as a final reminder on the rules in question: blindness gives three effects: they can't see, disadvantage on attack rolls, and advantage on attacks against them. If a spell like lightning bolt doesn't require seeing your target, then it is totally unaffected by blindess. You still know where targets are when you can't see them (unless they hide) and the spell makes no attack rolls.
Then why is this topic still in the Rules and Mechanics forum?
Because a user asked a question about a mechanic they didn't understand. That is exactly what the Rules and Mechanics forums purpose is: to have a place for people to ask about rules and mechanics, and for other users to give answers based on the rules written in the books. Go back to page 1 and re-read the question if you're unsure about what they asked.
And there is in fact a by the letter RAW rule for this specific scenario. It's been repeated a bunch of times on these three pages of answers: A blinded creature knows where creatures that aren't hidden are and suffers no penalty when casting a spell that makes no attack rolls. Common sense doesn't need to be involved when the rules already tell you what to do.
If anyone is suggesting that the blinded condition actually does anything other than it says it does, that is their invention. Saying a condition does some effect (or even asking why it doesn't do some effect) is different than saying a thing should cause some effect. Having an opinion is fine, but not clearly telling people that your view that differs significantly from the written rule is actually only your opinion makes it come off as if you don't understand rules - in my opinion.
But it seems like this is getting pretty far from the question, so I'm going to limit my responses beyond this.
Its so simple, it isn't in the rules, it sounds stupid don’t it?
Yes, it does sound that way... Fixed the beginning for you though.
As a friendly reminder to a couple of posters in this thread, when you deviate from the presented rules like you are doing in this thread, it is fair that others point that out in the rules and mechanics forum. That is where we are after all, and people come here to know what the rules say, not how other DMs run their games.
If you do want to post your own inventions of rules in this sub form, it is only the MINIMUM of common courtesy to say that what you are presenting is not a rule, but rather how you run things. The problem isn't what you do at your table. The problem is that you are presenting what you do at your table as rules in the place where people come looking for answers. No, David42 or I aren't the forum police. But that doesn't make us any less right for pointing out your misrepresentations of rules without accompanying disclaimers.
The Forum rules allow anyone to post rules gibberish in this forum and as long as it isn't breaking the other rules the actual forum police probably won't get involved. But I think it does take a modicum of forum etiquette beyond the community guidelines to stick to interpreting presented rules, your opinions on them, and clearly labeled deviations from them in this sub-forum rather than whole-hog invention. There are other sub forums for rule inventions, after all.
And as a final reminder on the rules in question: blindness gives three effects: they can't see, disadvantage on attack rolls, and advantage on attacks against them. If a spell like lightning bolt doesn't require seeing your target, then it is totally unaffected by blindess. You still know where targets are when you can't see them (unless they hide) and the spell makes no attack rolls.
Then why is this topic still in the Rules and Mechanics forum?
Because a user asked a question about a mechanic they didn't understand. That is exactly what the Rules and Mechanics forums purpose is: to have a place for people to ask about rules and mechanics, and for other users to give answers based on the rules written in the books. Go back to page 1 and re-read the question if you're unsure about what they asked.
And there is in fact a by the letter RAW rule for this specific scenario. It's been repeated a bunch of times on these three pages of answers: A blinded creature knows where creatures that aren't hidden are and suffers no penalty when casting a spell that makes no attack rolls. Common sense doesn't need to be involved when the rules already tell you what to do.
I know and understand well the very first post that sparked this debate, even quoted it.
Exact RAW of Blinded:
Blinded
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Attack Rolls are defined as what by Raw?
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated.
Attack Rolls
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
Modifiers to the Roll
When a character makes an attack roll, the two most common modifiers to the roll are an ability modifier and the character's proficiency bonus. When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the spellcasting ability of the spellcaster.
Proficiency Bonus. You add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll when you attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, as well as when you attack with a spell.
Rolling 1 or 20
Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this section.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
In all that the most relevant part is this: “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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.”
So in blind firing a Lightning Bolt, technically DM can simply state the attack missed, you wasted the spell, move on. That Is the straight RAW of that situation.
Yet when rules such as Attacks of Opportunity state:
Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
key part of that rule is: “You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.”, if your blinded how can you see where that hostile creature is for that attack if the previously stated rules say you can not see, and basically have to guess? Perception Check per chance to hear where the creature went?
first bullet of blinded states any ability check that requires sight automagically fails. Perception Check that implements the other senses isn’t affected by the rule, ok.
Does Linghting Bolt have an Attack Roll, no, does it require line-of-sight or the ability to see the target, no, does the spell auto-hit, by RAW DM can say nope, why because per description of Lightning Bolt:
A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
You can not see, and you have to choose a direction to cast the spell in, how do you determine the direction to fire in?
By RAW, doesn’t matter if you can hear them you have to guess and hope your right, and no player meta knowledge of view of battlefield is the same as your character in game world because your character can not see the world around them, unless some other rules make being blinded a moot point.
So as to answer the Original Post, no blind firing LB does not auto hit, it’s a gamble DM has final say and odds are not in your favor.
As A DM I see those rules and think, grab dice we about to play blind man’s choice, pick a spot and maybe win a prize, otherwise thanks for playing try again.
Now go back read this from the beginning and understand:
In all that the most relevant part is this: “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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
Okay, but riddle me this, Batman: why do they bother to specify two cases, to wit: "guessing the target's location" and "targeting a creature you can hear, but not see", if hearing does not give you the exact location of a creature? Surely if hearing did not give you the exact location of a creature, both these cases would be covered by "guessing the target's location"?
Certainly the suggestion that the blind condition causes anything other than what the PHB says it does has been made by several people in this thread. Those suggestions are inventions by those people, not rules of the game.
So ... let me just get this straight. Hang on.
This is you:
I think opinions on rules are fine here
And this is also you:
Certainly the suggestion that the blind condition causes anything other than what the PHB says it does has been made by several people in this thread. Those suggestions are inventions by those people, not rules of the game.
So ... which is it? Is it ok to discuss the rules, disagree with them even?
Or ... is it an invention when someone does that?
Because it's ... gotta be one, or the other. No?
It’s ok to discuss rules and disagree with them. And to suggest how a DM might handle them differently (homebrew).
Its different when the rules are quoted on how Blinded works and then to say something different, like rolling a d8 to determine direction of your lightning bolt, and stating it as if that is what the rule says it should be handled. That’s not RAW, it’s homebrew and completely fine to run that way.
Not saying you did this, but it has come across in this thread and what some of us are responding to.
In all that the most relevant part is this: “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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
Okay, but riddle me this, Batman: why do they bother to specify two cases, to wit: "guessing the target's location" and "targeting a creature you can hear, but not see", if hearing does not give you the exact location of a creature? Surely if hearing did not give you the exact location of a creature, both these cases would be covered by "guessing the target's location"?
Because in order to target a creature you can hear, but not see you need to know the direction of the specific sound you wish to target, how do you get that direction, if one is perceptive a quick check to be sure of direction is accurate ( check good: D8 used to turn character in right direction to fire at target by sound. Check bad: D8 serves to prevent meta gaming direction by setting random direction of fire by random guess. )
Normally the D8 is handled by the DM behind screen, but when a player shoots you a look why the D8 and the disadvantage perception check, and sees the DM watching the roll like a hawk, then it sets in it’s a chance to guess right.
DM’s favored rule, let the dice decide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I follow the text of the rules that have been discussed ad nauseam : blinded players generally know the location of creatures that aren't hidden and their disadvantage does not affect save spells..
That would be relevant if the rules didn't say what to do... but they do.
I was thinking the same thing when I read that quote. The rules absolutely have something to say in the matter. It’s just the Maximus seems to not want to see it. Reality is not needed in its adjudication.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I see it clear as day, if your blind how can one have disadvantage on an attack from a spell that only states: “ in a direction you choose”? Player metagaming the combat that their character would not have is not RAW.
Characters world just went gray, blinded. Middle of a battle. Yet by RAW that character now has the incredible ability to perceive the universe around them with no disability?
Sure, other abilities can circumvent the situation, non issue.
But actually using the condition has it is meant to be used, and it’s homebrew? Please, understand here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#AdvantageandDisadvantage
RAW says DM imparts advantages and disadvantages depending on circumstance, and in the circumstance of a blinded caster firing a Lightning Bolt in an attempt to attack a creature, disadvantage can be imparted to the perception roll to determine direction of attack and success, DC DM discretion.
Success, on target move on.
Failure, where did that go, and what did I hit?
D8, quick random direction of beam on failure, exact location of target and direction to fire in on success.
Its so simple, it sounds stupid don’t it?
Nice try. But at no point have I made the claim that the rules state ... anything at all. I have made absolutely zero mention of the rules are.
And ... unless I miss my guess, you're not the forum police, and it's not up to you to decide whether or not I'm allowed to point out the absurdity of aiming anything while blind.
But hey, I'll grant you this: For answering the question, by RAW, in isolation, it's true - there are no relevant rules in the book regarding spells cast blindly.
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.
Yes, it does sound that way... Fixed the beginning for you though.
As a friendly reminder to a couple of posters in this thread, when you deviate from the presented rules like you are doing in this thread, it is fair that others point that out in the rules and mechanics forum. That is where we are after all, and people come here to know what the rules say, not how other DMs run their games.
If you do want to post your own inventions of rules in this sub form, it is only the MINIMUM of common courtesy to say that what you are presenting is not a rule, but rather how you run things. The problem isn't what you do at your table. The problem is that you are presenting what you do at your table as rules in the place where people come looking for answers. No, David42 or I aren't the forum police. But that doesn't make us any less right for pointing out your misrepresentations of rules without accompanying disclaimers.
The Forum rules allow anyone to post rules gibberish in this forum and as long as it isn't breaking the other rules the actual forum police probably won't get involved. But I think it does take a modicum of forum etiquette beyond the community guidelines to stick to interpreting presented rules, your opinions on them, and clearly labeled deviations from them in this sub-forum rather than whole-hog invention. There are other sub forums for rule inventions, after all.
And as a final reminder on the rules in question: blindness gives three effects: they can't see, disadvantage on attack rolls, and advantage on attacks against them. If a spell like lightning bolt doesn't require seeing your target, then it is totally unaffected by blindess. You still know where targets are when you can't see them (unless they hide) and the spell makes no attack rolls.
No, the character cannot see, that does not mean they have no senses at all with with to perceive the world. Humans and pretty much every creature have stereo hearing, which means they can triangulate the location of the source of a noise based on the difference in the arrival time of the sound between their two ears. You can prove this to yourself by simply standing on a sidewalk next to road and listening to cars passing you, it is not at all challenging to know where the cars are and when it is safe to cross (assuming it's not a super busy road) even with "suddenly" having no vision.
The only problem with the rules is that there is no definition or explanation of character / creature senses of hearing. Certain creatures definitely have better hearing than others - e.g. those with it specified in their Keen Senses - but there is no baseline range provided in any of the books. Quite obviously, creatures should not be able to hear someone simply shooting a bow 1 mile away but should definitely be able to hear a cannon go off 60 ft away. But most D&D combat is in between these two extremes so it's up to the DM discretion exactly how precisely a blind character can target stuff.
Is also where you'd go to express your dissatisfaction with the rules.
So no.
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.
Agreed :) ... I'm not the forum police. :) However, the problem is that there are almost an infinite number of ways to discuss how various individuals would like the rules to be, what each thinks might be more "realistic" rules, rules which might or might not handle a situation better in a particular DMs opinion. That type of discussion is really what the Homebrew forum was created for.
The OPs question was:
"If a character is blinded or under the blind condition, how does this affect them casting lightning bolt? How would you handle this? Does it auto hit still?"
This is a rules question and the situation is generally covered in the 5e rules set and which has been answered several times in the thread. There have also been a few answers from DMs regarding how they would homebrew it, which is also fine to be honest but these answers aren't how the situation would be handled based on the 5e rules, it is how those specific DMs might choose to play it. They aren't wrong but they also aren't RAW.
I mean I mention in my post that I think opinions on rules are fine here, if you've read it. And opinions on the rules are widely given here too. It's just courtesy to state that your opinion is such and to not treat your own inventions as fact.
So I don't see your point. Again, I'm not making fun of how you run your game or even what you post here. I'm saying anything that isn't what the books actually say on the subject is also not valuable as a discussion of RAW.
Then why is this topic still in the Rules and Mechanics forum?
Just because RAW does not explicitly state in verbatim the means to adjudicate every single instance of all possible scenarios that might occur in the game, and the infinite Rules as Interpreted and Intended as others might see them does nothing to help in that adjudication, than what?
Number one RAW is DM has final say.
Just because others don’t see the rules as others do, find those views as valid but inconsistent with what the actual totality of RAW is in pure context, and has offered a reasonable explanation of such well within the RAW, well people know the phrase:
”Rule as you wish, it’s just a game.”
( Common sense is if your blinded, you have a disadvantage in knowing what direction you might be facing. and while other senses may compensate for the temporary effect, they do not automatically wash that disadvantage away. Yet the mentality, being blinded when attempting to attack something you can’t see and using the excuse nothing in the rules deals with such, or misleading such rules as to meta knowledge the situation is disingenuous.
My ruling is simple, that disadvantage is the ability to perceive if the direction one wishes to attack in is the correct one, plain and simple. People are free to disagree, you know the phrase. )
Please elaborate. What inventions of mine have I presented as fact?
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.
Certainly the suggestion that the blind condition causes anything other than what the PHB says it does has been made by several people in this thread. Those suggestions are inventions by those people, not rules of the game.
So ... let me just get this straight. Hang on.
This is you:
And this is also you:
So ... which is it? Is it ok to discuss the rules, disagree with them even?
Or ... is it an invention when someone does that?
Because it's ... gotta be one, or the other. No?
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.
Because a user asked a question about a mechanic they didn't understand. That is exactly what the Rules and Mechanics forums purpose is: to have a place for people to ask about rules and mechanics, and for other users to give answers based on the rules written in the books. Go back to page 1 and re-read the question if you're unsure about what they asked.
And there is in fact a by the letter RAW rule for this specific scenario. It's been repeated a bunch of times on these three pages of answers: A blinded creature knows where creatures that aren't hidden are and suffers no penalty when casting a spell that makes no attack rolls. Common sense doesn't need to be involved when the rules already tell you what to do.
If anyone is suggesting that the blinded condition actually does anything other than it says it does, that is their invention. Saying a condition does some effect (or even asking why it doesn't do some effect) is different than saying a thing should cause some effect. Having an opinion is fine, but not clearly telling people that your view that differs significantly from the written rule is actually only your opinion makes it come off as if you don't understand rules - in my opinion.
But it seems like this is getting pretty far from the question, so I'm going to limit my responses beyond this.
I know and understand well the very first post that sparked this debate, even quoted it.
Exact RAW of Blinded:
Blinded
Attack Rolls are defined as what by Raw?
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated.
Attack Rolls
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
Modifiers to the Roll
When a character makes an attack roll, the two most common modifiers to the roll are an ability modifier and the character's proficiency bonus. When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the spellcasting ability of the spellcaster.
Proficiency Bonus. You add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll when you attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, as well as when you attack with a spell.
Rolling 1 or 20
Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this section.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
In all that the most relevant part is this: “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. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.”
So in blind firing a Lightning Bolt, technically DM can simply state the attack missed, you wasted the spell, move on. That Is the straight RAW of that situation.
Yet when rules such as Attacks of Opportunity state:
Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
key part of that rule is: “You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.”, if your blinded how can you see where that hostile creature is for that attack if the previously stated rules say you can not see, and basically have to guess? Perception Check per chance to hear where the creature went?
first bullet of blinded states any ability check that requires sight automagically fails. Perception Check that implements the other senses isn’t affected by the rule, ok.
Does Linghting Bolt have an Attack Roll, no, does it require line-of-sight or the ability to see the target, no, does the spell auto-hit, by RAW DM can say nope, why because per description of Lightning Bolt:
A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
You can not see, and you have to choose a direction to cast the spell in, how do you determine the direction to fire in?
By RAW, doesn’t matter if you can hear them you have to guess and hope your right, and no player meta knowledge of view of battlefield is the same as your character in game world because your character can not see the world around them, unless some other rules make being blinded a moot point.
So as to answer the Original Post, no blind firing LB does not auto hit, it’s a gamble DM has final say and odds are not in your favor.
As A DM I see those rules and think, grab dice we about to play blind man’s choice, pick a spot and maybe win a prize, otherwise thanks for playing try again.
Now go back read this from the beginning and understand:
”Rule as you wish, it’s just a game”
RAW
Okay, but riddle me this, Batman: why do they bother to specify two cases, to wit: "guessing the target's location" and "targeting a creature you can hear, but not see", if hearing does not give you the exact location of a creature? Surely if hearing did not give you the exact location of a creature, both these cases would be covered by "guessing the target's location"?
It’s ok to discuss rules and disagree with them. And to suggest how a DM might handle them differently (homebrew).
Its different when the rules are quoted on how Blinded works and then to say something different, like rolling a d8 to determine direction of your lightning bolt, and stating it as if that is what the rule says it should be handled. That’s not RAW, it’s homebrew and completely fine to run that way.
Not saying you did this, but it has come across in this thread and what some of us are responding to.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Because in order to target a creature you can hear, but not see you need to know the direction of the specific sound you wish to target, how do you get that direction, if one is perceptive a quick check to be sure of direction is accurate ( check good: D8 used to turn character in right direction to fire at target by sound. Check bad: D8 serves to prevent meta gaming direction by setting random direction of fire by random guess. )
Normally the D8 is handled by the DM behind screen, but when a player shoots you a look why the D8 and the disadvantage perception check, and sees the DM watching the roll like a hawk, then it sets in it’s a chance to guess right.
DM’s favored rule, let the dice decide.