Dear people of the forums, I have come to you with a question.
Last session I stumbled upon an interesting interaction. One of my PC's were blinded, and was hit by an attack, and he used his Defensive Duelist reaction to cause the attack miss.
Reading the feat there is nothing there specifying you need to SEE the attack that hit you, only that if something hits you, you can as a reaction increase your armour class. In the moment I thought this to be strange, but not wanting to bog down the combat with new rules, I went with the ruling of the Feat. But now in hindsight I am questioning why the feat works the way it does, and how would you have handled it?
I think it is probably supposed to require sight similar to a monster's parry reaction.
You handled the situation well, going with RAW so as to avoid an argument and raised emotions.
If you fell like it is too weird, bring it up at the beginning of the next session that it will require sight from that session onward. I don't think it is unreasonable, and hopefully your players will feel the same.
I don't think I would read a sight requirement into defensive duelist. I mean, you generally need to move a shield to block an attack, and a shield's AC bonus isn't affected by blindness. But, it's not going to break the game either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dear people of the forums, I have come to you with a question.
Last session I stumbled upon an interesting interaction. One of my PC's were blinded, and was hit by an attack, and he used his Defensive Duelist reaction to cause the attack miss.
Reading the feat there is nothing there specifying you need to SEE the attack that hit you, only that if something hits you, you can as a reaction increase your armour class. In the moment I thought this to be strange, but not wanting to bog down the combat with new rules, I went with the ruling of the Feat. But now in hindsight I am questioning why the feat works the way it does, and how would you have handled it?
I think it is probably supposed to require sight similar to a monster's parry reaction.
You handled the situation well, going with RAW so as to avoid an argument and raised emotions.
If you fell like it is too weird, bring it up at the beginning of the next session that it will require sight from that session onward. I don't think it is unreasonable, and hopefully your players will feel the same.
I don't think I would read a sight requirement into defensive duelist. I mean, you generally need to move a shield to block an attack, and a shield's AC bonus isn't affected by blindness. But, it's not going to break the game either way.