New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Lightbulb Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    The 3e condition Dazzled is notable for being underwhelming.

    Here's what the SRD has to say:

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Dazzled

    The creature is unable to see well because of overstimulation of the eyes. A dazzled creature takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, Search checks, and Spot checks.
    ... yeah.

    Underwhelming.

    In contrast, here's what happens when you're blinded:
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Blinded

    The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

    One thing I note is that the penalties for being Blinded are very similar to the bonuses for being Invisible -- and that's no surprise, since they're opposite sides of the visibility spectrum, if you will.

    But that makes me wonder: if Blinded => total concealment (50% miss chance), then perhaps Dazzled => partial concealment (20% miss chance) -- basically, if you're Dazzled, then everyone else gets partial Concealment for the duration.

    Would that make the spells that apply Dazzled more viable?

    What house rules do you use for Dazzled?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    While it is a decent suggestion, and certainly does follow decent logic, it does make dazzled suddenly way stronger against rogues. The thing about dazzled is that it's really easy to apply and rarely has a save associated with it, instead typically being the lesser effect of a "save partial" spell or ability. While for other martials, concealment would just become a minor inconvenience, a rogue suddenly becomes useless in combat. Overall it's a pretty heavy nerf to a class that really doesn't need it.
    Last edited by Crake; 2017-09-12 at 02:58 AM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Vhaidara's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GMT -5
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    I think Dazzled is supposed to be a minor ribbon like penalty, not something strong. It's never meant to be the main draw of a spell.

    Also, it's far from the worst debuff. That honor goes to "being on fire". 1d6 damage a round. DC 15 save to stop being on fire.
    I follow a general rule: better to ask and be told no than not to ask at all.

    Shadeblight by KennyPyro

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    I'm in favor of making it a percentage miss instead of a tiny penalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    While it is a decent suggestion, and certainly does follow decent logic, it does make dazzled suddenly way stronger against rogues.
    Just call it "miss chance" instead of "concealment" and you won't disable precision damage, easy

    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    I think Dazzled is supposed to be a minor ribbon like penalty, not something strong. It's never meant to be the main draw of a spell.

    Also, it's far from the worst debuff. That honor goes to "being on fire". 1d6 damage a round. DC 15 save to stop being on fire.
    To be fair, being on fire can actually kill you by itself, especially early on. Dazzled at least requires something else around.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UNKNOWN

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    I like it. Call it a miss chance.
    Explicitly call out that it does not affect precision damage since rogues don't need the debuff.
    Explicitly call out that it does affect targeted spells (e.g. baleful polymorph) since casters need the debuff.
    I am rel.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    I'm in favor of making it a percentage miss instead of a tiny penalty.



    Just call it "miss chance" instead of "concealment" and you won't disable precision damage, easy
    Just calling it a "miss chance" instead of concealment doesn't really make much of a difference. I mean sure, if you explicitly say it doesn't affect precision damage, then fine, but the intent of the rules behind precision damage is quite clear:

    The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.
    If you're dazzled, a condition specifically affectiong sight, and you're getting a miss chance because of it, then it makes sense that you wouldn't be able see well enough to sneak attack. And again, dazzled is just one of those conditions that's really easy to apply, often not having a save to resist and it's balanced around that, so this isn't a minor upgrade, it's a huge upgrade.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    Anything you add to Dazzled should probably be fairly minor since the baseline rules assume it's a weak effect and thus it's associated with low-level spells and effects.

    You could simply double the penalties, although I think that would make it very similar to some existing conditions.

    You could make it stackable, as an exception to the general condition rules.

    The stacking could be similar to how fear effects work, so that at 3 or so stacks the condition worsens to Blinded.

    What about ranged attacks? Maybe Dazzled could double the attack roll penalty derived from range increments, so that it becomes -4 instead of -2.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    Quote Originally Posted by Uckleverry View Post
    Anything you add to Dazzled should probably be fairly minor since the baseline rules assume it's a weak effect and thus it's associated with low-level spells and effects.

    You could simply double the penalties, although I think that would make it very similar to some existing conditions.

    You could make it stackable, as an exception to the general condition rules.

    The stacking could be similar to how fear effects work, so that at 3 or so stacks the condition worsens to Blinded.

    What about ranged attacks? Maybe Dazzled could double the attack roll penalty derived from range increments, so that it becomes -4 instead of -2.
    Now these are some suggestions I could get on board with. Stacking to the point of being blinded seems like a more elegant solution.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    Have it apply a -10 penalty to Concentration checks. Or a -5 if you think that's too harsh, but concentration's a joke past low levels anyway.

    Really, in general I've grown annoyed at the condition options as a DM for how so many of them mess up martials but don't really affect casters. I'm in favor of expanding negative conditions for casters, dazzled seems as good a place to do that as any.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fixing Dazzled (Brainstorming)

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Just calling it a "miss chance" instead of concealment doesn't really make much of a difference. I mean sure, if you explicitly say it doesn't affect precision damage, then fine, but the intent of the rules behind precision damage is quite clear:



    If you're dazzled, a condition specifically affectiong sight, and you're getting a miss chance because of it, then it makes sense that you wouldn't be able see well enough to sneak attack. And again, dazzled is just one of those conditions that's really easy to apply, often not having a save to resist and it's balanced around that, so this isn't a minor upgrade, it's a huge upgrade.
    I don't interpret "see well enough" that broadly. By that definition, regular Dazzled (the current version) should disable sneak attack too, and it clearly does not.

    If you do, then fine, add the clause rel mentioned. Problem solved again.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •