Affliction and Damage Observations

[gamemaster72]

Ok, so this is an affliction related question:

Visual Dazzle:

First degree is -2 to Visual Perception Checks
Second degree is -5 to Visual Perception Checks
Third Degree makes you completely blind (which means EVERYTHING has total concealment): -5 to all attacks.

It seems like a bit of a jump from second degree to third degree, and it seems like the first and second degree should also give *some penalty to attack, being that it's now harder to see! I'm thinking about also adding a -2 to attack penalty for first & second degree. Thoughts?

[Sojobo]

In my games, we've interpreted Visual Impairment and Visual Disabled as not just affecting Perception checks, but also all checks that are dependent on that sense: so attack checks, certain acrobatic and athletics checks, etc.

[Taliesin]

The penalty to Perception checks can lead to others having concealment against that character and the Perception Impaired/Disabled character suffering the associated penalties, such as to attack checks--it's just automatic with the Unaware condition.

[gamemaster72]

In my games, we've interpreted Visual Impairment and Visual Disabled as not just affecting Perception checks, but also all checks that are dependent on that sense: so attack checks, certain acrobatic and athletics checks, etc.

That's how I've been playing too, until I took a closer look. But there are 3 conditions.. The first is -2, the second -5... If they automatically applied to attack checks, then there'd be no point to the third condtion "Visually Unaware", which is a -5 penalty to attack checks.

The penalty to Perception checks can lead to others having concealment against that character and the Perception Impaired/Disabled character suffering the associated penalties, such as to attack checks--it's just automatic with the Unaware condition.

Ah.. so how do you run that? When someone is visually impaired or visually disabled, do they have to make a DC:10 Perception check to see their target, with the appropriate penalty to the check? And then if they fail the check they have a -5 to the attack?

[Flying Cobra]

That's how I've been playing too, until I took a closer look. But there are 3 conditions.. The first is -2, the second -5... If they automatically applied to attack checks, then there'd be no point to the third condtion "Visually Unaware", which is a -5 penalty to attack checks.

Ah.. so how do you run that? When someone is visually impaired or visually disabled, do they have to make a DC:10 Perception check to see their target, with the appropriate penalty to the check? And then if they fail the check they have a -5 to the attack?

I basically apply the penalties directly to attack rolls. Visually unaware adds a further complication of having to guess where the target might be in the first place, and only if you are guessing correctly do you even bother with the attack penalty.

[Black Mamba]

I basically apply the penalties directly to attack rolls. Visually unaware adds a further complication of having to guess where the target might be in the first place, and only if you are guessing correctly do you even bother with the attack penalty.

Yes. That is how I treat it as well. Being Visually Unaware is like everyone else around you having Concealment to all Vision. Only if you shoot or punch in the correct direction do you have even the -5 chance of hitting. If you punch right and the target is left you simply miss: no attack roll at all.

[gamemaster72]

Well I think that's an interesting take too. I like it! I play in open though, so that might not work for me, since the minis are always in plain view.

I'm curious, Tal. Was my description above of how you might run it accurate?

[Black Mamba]

Well I think that's an interesting take too. I like it! I play in open though, so that might not work for me, since the minis are always in plain view.

So how do you handle invisible characters then? If you are using miniatures - which I generally do myself - it would seem you have the same dilemma: the player or villain knows what general direction to attack because of the miniature placement.

There are clearly points in all games where character knowledge and player knowledge diverge.

[Paragon]

Actually what I've found with my original gripe about Affliction is that it is really caused by the reroll mechanics for hero points. In some sense I think my problem is just that the re-roll option is too good.

I've thought so since 2e; Improve Roll is just too good. And its not just against Afflictions, that just happens to be the place where the problem is most obvious.

[Paragon]

In my games, we've interpreted Visual Impairment and Visual Disabled as not just affecting Perception checks, but also all checks that are dependent on that sense: so attack checks, certain acrobatic and athletics checks, etc.

That's how I've been playing too, until I took a closer look. But there are 3 conditions.. The first is -2, the second -5... If they automatically applied to attack checks, then there'd be no point to the third condtion "Visually Unaware", which is a -5 penalty to attack checks.

Yes there is. You still can tell approximately where the target is with the first two, and you don't take a defense penalty, both of which you do with the third.

[Foreshadow]

Well I think that's an interesting take too. I like it! I play in open though, so that might not work for me, since the minis are always in plain view.

So how do you handle invisible characters then? If you are using miniatures - which I generally do myself - it would seem you have the same dilemma: the player or villain knows what general direction to attack because of the miniature placement.

There are clearly points in all games where character knowledge and player knowledge diverge.

If its a player character I use little key rings I place around the miniature to indicate they are invisible, and on top of a little flat slightly bigger than their base bottlecap to indicate they are flying.

If the npc is invisible I simply don't put down a model. They are invisible and the player needs to indicate the direction they are doing the effect and where it it is going. Before they do that though I determine mentally where I place my bad guy. I am honest and if they guess right or say they do it so that my villain falls within the 50 feet blast radius of their Ice Blast then I simply describe the effect. If that means it gives them an indication they effected/hit the person then I reveal that information, if they hit but it would not indicate where the invisible person is, I merely say 'ok you do that' and they can only guess if they guessed right.

If there is a true issue that they don't trust me, then I'd write it down before hand on a piece of paper to prove that is where I placed it as the GM thus I am not being a devious GM. Yet, as the GM I don't think you should need to do that, but if it makes the players feel better and trust me sure I'll entertain that.

[gamemaster72]

In my games, we've interpreted Visual Impairment and Visual Disabled as not just affecting Perception checks, but also all checks that are dependent on that sense: so attack checks, certain acrobatic and athletics checks, etc.

That's how I've been playing too, until I took a closer look. But there are 3 conditions.. The first is -2, the second -5... If they automatically applied to attack checks, then there'd be no point to the third condtion "Visually Unaware", which is a -5 penalty to attack checks.

Yes there is. You still can tell approximately where the target is with the first two, and you don't take a defense penalty, both of which you do with the third.

That was already explained by Flying Cobra, 5 posts before your own. Which I responded to. (See below)

EDIT: Ok, the part about the defense penalty was not mentioned in the post that I referenced. However.. I don't think that's correct. The description for Unaware says that in addition to the Perception penalties, subjects have full concealment from a character's unaware sense. The rules for concealment (page 173) only apply a penalty toward attack checks. It says nothing about a defense penalty.

Well I think that's an interesting take too. I like it! I play in open though, so that might not work for me, since the minis are always in plain view.

So how do you handle invisible characters then? If you are using miniatures - which I generally do myself - it would seem you have the same dilemma: the player or villain knows what general direction to attack because of the miniature placement.

There are clearly points in all games where character knowledge and player knowledge diverge.

By "open", I meant Open RPG. On open, if one character is invisible, I can make that character's peice invisible on the screen. That's not the same as making one character unable to see everything around them. Also, as I said earlier, I would have handled actual combat just using the straight penalties to attack checks(until I realized that's not the way it's done). So I never thought about positioning.

That's why I'm still leaning toward Tal's interpretation, if I've got a correct understanding of it.

[rstehwien]

So how do you handle invisible characters then? If you are using miniatures - which I generally do myself - it would seem you have the same dilemma: the player or villain knows what general direction to attack because of the miniature placement.

There are clearly points in all games where character knowledge and player knowledge diverge.

I use Maptools projected on a screen at my house games. Not only does it enhance the character perspective in combat by tracking visibility but it clears off the table. Also I don't have to have all those minis... which I still have in boxes.

[Paragon]

EDIT: Ok, the part about the defense penalty was not mentioned in the post that I referenced. However.. I don't think that's correct. The description for Unaware says that in addition to the Perception penalties, subjects have full concealment from a character's unaware sense. The rules for concealment (page 173) only apply a penalty toward attack checks. It says nothing about a defense penalty.

You are, by definition, concealed by attacking a blinded target, and when you can't see an attack coming its a surprise attack. The net effect of that is you have a reduced Defense.

(Assuming, of course, you don't have an appropriate super sense or Uncanny Dodge).

[gamemaster72]

Yea but I didn't say that your interepretation has no basis in logic. I'm just saying that it's not supported in RAW. Theres nothing in the Concealment rules that imply any penalties to defense, as far as what I've seen.