So I'm in a campaign with a DM who is new to 5e, he used to play 3.5e. I'm pretty familiar with 5e and have been in a few campaigns, and I wouldn't call myself a novice by any means. That being said I know I have a lot to learn... that being said...
I won't give too much backstory that would bias any opinions, but a character in our party killed a half dragon on a crit and the DM said that in the fight the party member got hit in the eye and lost vision in that eye, and that every thing that party member did that required sight would be disadvantaged. When another party member tried casting a restoration spell (noting that blindness was specifically listed in lesser restoration) the DM said that only regeneration would work because the eye was damaged. We were at the end of our session, and we're all friends, so none of us wanted to push it too hard other than to note the specific language of the spell and the differences between the two.
Is this typical for regeneration to be used to cure eye wounds? How should our party approach this situation? Thanks all
From what I can understand, your DM considered the eye completely, physically lost. Therefore, the blindness was a consequence of the lost eye, not a condition imposed by a spell or similar feature. Restoring the sight wouldn't work, since you can't restore a physical part of the body with Lesser Restoration. Only Regenerate can restore lost parts of the body.
That is my interpretation of the decision made by your DM.
Cure Wounds and similar healing can close or seal up wounds - perhaps leaving a scar or perhaps not, but cannot restore function, replace organs or limbs, etc.
Restoration can remove "the Blinded condition" - but it technically does not actually restore lost function or limbs etc. Damage to one of your two functioning eyes means that eye is not functioning anymore but you are not, technically "Blinded". You may be "blinded in that one eye" but you do not have the condition Blinded. You can still see. So, your DM should, at worst, disadvantage perception checks relying on sight or anything requiring aiming at a distance (ranged attacks), but everything else should be fine. You shouldn't be disadvantage swinging a sword, for instance, or reading a book. You only need one functioning eye for those. The only problem with being one eyed is distance - depth perception, anything close to you is fine. This is the only reason why we have 2 eyes. For everything else we get can get by just fine with 1.
So, I understand why the DM rules that it would need Regeneration to repair the eye and return lost function - because it can do that. Personally I would base this on how the eye was damaged - a scratch to the front of the eye may be enough to blind the eye but some magical healing to close the wound and restoration should be enough. If the damage was deep enough to damage the optic nerve or remove the eye then Regen would be needed. However, I can understand a DM wanting to simplify.
I would not agree with the DM punishing the character on "everything related to sight" because of losing sight in 1 of 2 functioning eyes. Most of our eyesight needs only 1 eye, only specific things at range require 2. Your DM is basically applying the full blinded condition when the character isn't blind and preventing use of the option to remove that condition from a spell specifically designed to do so.
As a person that is blind in one eye I can tell you that judging distance is difficult and with reduced peripheral vision I don't perceive things on my left side very well either. I could easily justify disadvantage in that regard but with time it gets easier so maybe not permanent disadvantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I'm in a campaign with a DM who is new to 5e, he used to play 3.5e. I'm pretty familiar with 5e and have been in a few campaigns, and I wouldn't call myself a novice by any means. That being said I know I have a lot to learn... that being said...
I won't give too much backstory that would bias any opinions, but a character in our party killed a half dragon on a crit and the DM said that in the fight the party member got hit in the eye and lost vision in that eye, and that every thing that party member did that required sight would be disadvantaged. When another party member tried casting a restoration spell (noting that blindness was specifically listed in lesser restoration) the DM said that only regeneration would work because the eye was damaged. We were at the end of our session, and we're all friends, so none of us wanted to push it too hard other than to note the specific language of the spell and the differences between the two.
Is this typical for regeneration to be used to cure eye wounds? How should our party approach this situation? Thanks all
From what I can understand, your DM considered the eye completely, physically lost. Therefore, the blindness was a consequence of the lost eye, not a condition imposed by a spell or similar feature. Restoring the sight wouldn't work, since you can't restore a physical part of the body with Lesser Restoration. Only Regenerate can restore lost parts of the body.
That is my interpretation of the decision made by your DM.
Cure Wounds and similar healing can close or seal up wounds - perhaps leaving a scar or perhaps not, but cannot restore function, replace organs or limbs, etc.
Restoration can remove "the Blinded condition" - but it technically does not actually restore lost function or limbs etc. Damage to one of your two functioning eyes means that eye is not functioning anymore but you are not, technically "Blinded". You may be "blinded in that one eye" but you do not have the condition Blinded. You can still see. So, your DM should, at worst, disadvantage perception checks relying on sight or anything requiring aiming at a distance (ranged attacks), but everything else should be fine. You shouldn't be disadvantage swinging a sword, for instance, or reading a book. You only need one functioning eye for those. The only problem with being one eyed is distance - depth perception, anything close to you is fine. This is the only reason why we have 2 eyes. For everything else we get can get by just fine with 1.
So, I understand why the DM rules that it would need Regeneration to repair the eye and return lost function - because it can do that. Personally I would base this on how the eye was damaged - a scratch to the front of the eye may be enough to blind the eye but some magical healing to close the wound and restoration should be enough. If the damage was deep enough to damage the optic nerve or remove the eye then Regen would be needed. However, I can understand a DM wanting to simplify.
I would not agree with the DM punishing the character on "everything related to sight" because of losing sight in 1 of 2 functioning eyes. Most of our eyesight needs only 1 eye, only specific things at range require 2. Your DM is basically applying the full blinded condition when the character isn't blind and preventing use of the option to remove that condition from a spell specifically designed to do so.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
As a person that is blind in one eye I can tell you that judging distance is difficult and with reduced peripheral vision I don't perceive things on my left side very well either. I could easily justify disadvantage in that regard but with time it gets easier so maybe not permanent disadvantage.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master