I've come to a conclusion about 5e: I hate to love it.

Let me tell you, my fellow bagpiping, hairy-legged skirt-wearing men/women, authoritatively why. And this will sound like a contradiction to a lot of my previous posts about game-balance (this where I play my crackling recording of me saying Game Balance is Bunk... now gtfo my lawn)... But after a lengthy discussion with myself as witnessed by a lone witness, 5e has reminded me that our D&D-loving tribe, splintered and torn after the bloody edition-wars of yore, are still feeling the pain.

5e solves a *lot* of problems that were introduced to the game in 3.x/4e. Nothing annoyed the shit out of me more than LFQM (well that's what I'm going with right now to justify my point. I'm sure other things annoyed me just as much). Now I want you all to hear me out on this...

Whilst I claim that "Balance" is not necessary. I mean to say that in terms of the game, everyone shouldn't be the best at everything all the time and the system can balance things on its own conceits free of class options etc. For example if you play Talislanta, sure you can be an Ahazu warrior which is a combat-monster-killing-machine, but you're likely to be an illiterate slave in terms of anything else. So creating a one-trick pony in that game is balanced by all the other stuff you'll be excluded out of. But hey... how about those four-arms!

So in 3x - in particular, the idea of non-casters getting these Feats as expressions of how your PC does their "thing" - seemed good on the surface, but the real issue is that they're locked into these internal trees that in terms of bang-for-the-leveling buck, go nowhere. They're literally dismantling abilities that you could do in 1e/2e and piecemealing it back to you in breadcrumbs as some kind of reward, and/or hiding the real beneficial shit behind Feats that were mechanically worthless (Feat tax).

Meanwhile casters could get spells that pound-for-pound were *far* more powerful than any Feat... since by their very nature they scaled. And it cost them nothing to accrue more.

This also fueled this irritating trend in creating character-builds free of context by players that causes my eyes to itch. St. Gygax never intended for the gamecurve to exceed 10th. That's why you got name level at 9th (depends on your class) right? RIGHT. This 20-level non-sense was just that. The math behind the game didn't support it.

A curious thing happened to me, during this time I was writing a lot for Dragon and running my own long-term 3.x game... I discovered 7th's Sea's d20 game "Swashbuckling Adventures" - and those PrC's in there were exactly what I wanted. Now before everyone starts screaming "that shit was totally OP!!!" I submit... my simple question... Compared to WHAT?

Fighters/Rogues/Non-casters in general now had these cool PrC's that frontloaded a *shitload* of feats and special abilities to mostly non-casters benefit. They deviated from the "standard" Save progressions in the PHB as well. But they made my hesitant players realize their characters concepts with gusto. My casters were terrified, but then realized that it didn't impact their characters at all. Why should it?

I tried sneaking some of these ideas into a lot of my articles for Dragon, and some of the books I did. But I *always* got this pushback from, surprisingly the same people that complained about the same shit I did, that it was *TOO* powerful.

So to this, again, I submit, compared to WHAT? A wizard/druid/cleric?

When I discovered Fantasy Craft - I realized this was what I wanted. The layout of the book sucked, but the system was insanely sturdy, I could take-or leave what I wanted by design (so I didn't have to use the narrative-stuff) and the gap between classes was reduced down to nearly nothing - and no one felt like they got jipped. I never looked back.

Enter 5e
So 5e lands, and they give us the skeleton of the system, which for me is fine. They put the reins firmly in the hands of the DM, give general guidance on how to use their new/old mechanics. However, obvious nods to 3.x/4e still get in the way of things. There is still the stink of casters being comparatively more useful than non-casters, which isn't the sole problem, it's that I can't easily use 5e as given to create the things my players want to play and feel mechanically and thematically on par.

Too many things tied to level progression in an odd way. Too little consideration to the non-caster classes in terms of what purpose they serve other than to be cardboard-cut outs kneeling in homage to Sacred Cows (looking at you Ranger).

Yet I feel perfectly fine fixing things by doing my own thing. But even when talking about tweaking the newly beefed up Feats just a notch, I've heard the cries of "POWERCREEP!!!" come barreling at me.

Spoiler

Let me give you an example -

Tavern Brawler
Tavern Brawler Accustomed to rough-and-tumble fighting using whatever weapons happen to be at hand, you gain the following benefits:

• Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes
• Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage.
• When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.

Here is a Feat I created meant for my gladiatorial arenas. I don't let PC's just take these kinds of feats "just because" - there needs to be a rationale in your background for starting PC's or it has to be earned in-game.

Pankration
Trained in the ancient art of physical unarmed combat emphasizing striking and grappling, you have honed your body through a rigorous training regimen into a both a weapon of strength and physical beauty.

• Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You are proficient with grappling and unarmed strikes.
• Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage.
• When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target. You double your Proficiency bonus to Grapple attacks or to Escape a grapple
• You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.

So some have asked - why would you ever take Tavern Brawler over Pankration then? My response is - do you think a professional Pankrationist is a probably a better fighter than say... an accomplished Tavern Brawler? Now I know for some people that sounds like "fluff-rhetoric" - but I'm being serious. You *could* argue that these things are reflective of "level" as a show of skill. I would disagree. The differences are there. Small but significant.

I say that some skills (or in this case Feats) are representative of *more* than just character-levels. But yes, I agree my Pankration Feat is representative of a collection of abilities that is assumed to require more training than being a "Tavern Brawler" and therefore a bit more heft - and I tried to reflect that.

But let's assume you even buy this line of reasoning (or don't) - the real question to me remains: if this is OP, I still submit the original question - compared to what? The crazy miracles that casters can do? Not really.

So I went a bit further... take this assumption - I like fighting styles. So I started porting over fighting styles from 7th sea and making them into Feats.

Three Circles Fencing
A school of fencing thought to come from Eshpurta in Amn, teaches supreme control and awareness of ones immediate surroundings. Masters of the Three Circles are feared on the streets of Amn's dueling circles as they are said to be impossible to take unawares and avoid blows with preternatural ease while delivering deadly strikes in return. The Three Circles school is primarily light, one handed weapons by tradition, but can be used with any proficient melee weapon.

• The First Circle - With a Ready action you cannot be taken by surprise nor can opponents gain Advantage on you by attacking from cover or by outflanking you. If an opponent misses an attack action directed at you, you may take a Reaction to attack that opponent.
• The Second Circle - If an opponent moves within 5-feet, you may use a Bonus action to make an attack on them even if they use the Disengage action.
• The Third Circle - Spending a Movement action, you may flurry your blade to ward off incoming attacks and gain a +2 bonus to your AC.

Now keep in mind the caveat - you can't just choose these Feats because they exist. I enforce getting these either through Faction rewards, or as part of character generation which assumes a lot of background stuff you'll have to own in the game.

And now... I think I feel more comfortable using 5e. It doesn't feel so anemic for non-casters. I've been messing around with 5e since it came out, and I always felt like it was this palace of potential coolness but the columns were like an inch-short.

Am I alone in this?

My inner pedant cries, but for the most part I see where you are coming from.

(Pedantry in the form of:
- Improvised weapon proficiency? paradox in rule terms.
- Grappling proficiency? doesn't exist. it's a contested attribute(skill) check, and the attribute(skills) open up in contest defender's case.
- Ready action consumes one's action and reaction to allow triggered response outside one's turn, until start of one's next turn. Thus there's no reaction left to use "in response." Also being outside one's turn also precludes usage of one's movement, so that cannot attach to Ready as well.
etc...)

But ignoring that, yes, you're looking for room within the structure to power up or down the framework to suit the needs of your table's campaigns.

And it seems like you found it in Feats! Congrats.

I myself found it in reintroducing old rules from previous editions that power things down. Casting interruption beyond concentration, Fog of War initiative, spell school opposition, tighter control on free spells per level, replacement of Sneak Attack feature with original Backstab, etc.

I found feats a poor kludge from the beginning — after my first few forays into 3e disabused me of my enthusiasm. So I leave them off. I find Backgrounds far more useful and manageable a tool for my thematic tailoring. If the class needs more thematic widgets beyond that, I feel the archetype templates work way better in getting my idea into fruition.

But it's good to see you happy!

Quote from: Opaopajr;882671My inner pedant cries, but for the most part I see where you are coming from.

(Pedantry in the form of:
- Improvised weapon proficiency? paradox in rule terms.
- Grappling proficiency? doesn't exist. it's a contested attribute(skill) check, and the attribute(skills) open up in contest defender's case.
- Ready action consumes one's action and reaction to allow triggered response outside one's turn, until start of one's next turn. Thus there's no reaction left to use "in response." Also being outside one's turn also precludes usage of one's movement, so that cannot attach to Ready as well.
etc...)

But ignoring that, yes, you're looking for room within the structure to power up or down the framework to suit the needs of your table's campaigns.

And it seems like you found it in Feats! Congrats.

I myself found it in reintroducing old rules from previous editions that power things down. Casting interruption beyond concentration, Fog of War initiative, spell school opposition, tighter control on free spells per level, replacement of Sneak Attack feature with original Backstab, etc.

I found feats a poor kludge from the beginning — after my first few forays into 3e disabused me of my enthusiasm. So I leave them off. I find Backgrounds far more useful and manageable a tool for my thematic tailoring. If the class needs more thematic widgets beyond that, I feel the archetype templates work way better in getting my idea into fruition.

But it's good to see you happy!

ACTUALLY... I do a lot of that stuff you mentioned too. The irony here is all of these "oldschool" rules are mostly on casters, and it still doesn't really impact their play or power as much as make them more attentive to how they go about doing those things.

And that's a good thing.

A little more about Feats...

I'm totally with you on the Kluge-factor. The problem with 3.x/PF Feats and their implementation is that they were too anemic from the get-go. If you consider the idea that they should be the non-caster version of spells, albeit metaphorically, then they should theoretically be radically meatier.

There has been this conditioning that's happened to the playerbase that started with 3.x that has continued until now in the design of 5e that system-mastery is a real thing. It's less emphasized in 5e, but it's still there if only as a nod. I feel like with the current edition, it's like they're trying to ween people off of 3.x/4e but yet they left enough in there to keep the addiction alive.

TL/DR - 5e is the Methadone of 3.x/4e-Heroin

Quote from: tenbones;882651And now... I think I feel more comfortable using 5e. It doesn't feel so anemic for non-casters.

I've played from 1 to 13 in 5e so far, and only in the last few levels (11+, 9+ at a pinch) do the casters seem equal to the non-casters. At levels 1-4 the casters seem distinctly weaker; at 5-8 the casters can match the non-casters if there are only 1-2 encounters that day and the casters pull out their big guns. I expect by 17th level the caster(s) may be noticeably superior. Overall balance is good, but if I actually ran 6-8 encounters per day I think the casters would still seem underpowered even at high level.

It's very unlike 3e/Pathfinder, where casters dominated from 5th level, and totally dominated from 11th.

Quote from: tenbones;882676ACTUALLY... I do a lot of that stuff you mentioned too. The irony here is all of these "oldschool" rules are mostly on casters, and it still doesn't really impact their play or power as much as make them more attentive to how they go about doing those things.

And that's a good thing.

A little more about Feats...

I'm totally with you on the Kluge-factor. The problem with 3.x/PF Feats and their implementation is that they were too anemic from the get-go. If you consider the idea that they should be the non-caster version of spells, albeit metaphorically, then they should theoretically be radically meatier.

There has been this conditioning that's happened to the playerbase that started with 3.x that has continued until now in the design of 5e that system-mastery is a real thing. It's less emphasized in 5e, but it's still there if only as a nod. I feel like with the current edition, it's like they're trying to ween people off of 3.x/4e but yet they left enough in there to keep the addiction alive.

TL/DR - 5e is the Methadone of 3.x/4e-Heroin

:rotfl: Love the methadone comparison.

Anyway, I love me some attentive players. So it's good to hear our experiences from returned old-skool caster rules had similar effect. Not scientific by any stretch, but ancdotal reference that certain rule designs have repeatable effects.

I totally agree with you on the issue: Feats don't pack enough punch vs. Whole New Spell Lists.

However, though they are not great spell replacements, I also think they pack too much expectation in a single swing to really be design manageable. It's "wait X levels to hope Y feat replaces the equivalent of Z level spells available." It's a losing proposition in my opinion.

That leads to the Wuxia Magic Weapon issue, where to keep a modular repertoir like spells you dance the line where the martial classes "fly" and "shoot lightning." You can tie it to weapon or level progression, but that still gets into redesigning other people's settings with more "magic widgets" than they wanted to bother with.

The next problem is you don't want to make everything Class Feature based because then you create questions whether anyone can attempt to do something, even if poorly.

So even though Fighter Expertise and Battlemaster tactics are beautiful templates to fill with your own "mini-feats" and "spells," you get the recurring Thief Skills-like questions (can I climb walls? can I move silently? can I feint? can I parry?).

At that point just know you can never make everyone happy except yourself — and most players at your table likely don't care, they think you deliver a good game anyway.

If I was to expand things I might do what I just saw on Doom & Destiny video game, where every class gets Power Points as slots to equip passive buff and spell/skill widgets. At any point of downtime they can shift out and in newly purchased Powers, as long as they don't exceed their Power Points. Then instead of Fighters having to stay locked with, let's say... Fighter Expertise!, they could switch out during downtime in preparation for a new area.

But that brings its own problems.

My biggest advice would be for people to expand the generic Equipment, Skill, and Combat uses. Instead of WotC putting out more spells, perhaps a few more creative uses for Medicine skill or Vehicle tool usage, Rogue-worthy exploration equipment (and how Rogues are just better with them), and Fighter-worthy combat tactics (and how Fighters are just better with them).

If they included things like Advanced Combat Tactics under the Combat chapter, with things like Shield Wall, or Wolf Pack, or Polearm Formations — and suggestions for their numerical/status value — you could see some really interesting things. Basically 5e could use a Complete Handbook Fighter, and likely CH:Thief, to bring on more equipment, skill, and combat widgets into the fold.

But that's unlikely, so it's DIY. :idunno:

I'm enjoying 5e, even up to the beginning of the third tier. I think the concentration mechanic alone brings casters down quite a bit, although there are specific issues still (e.g., Guidance mostly, but cantrips in general). It's not so tightly wound that you can't change things you don't like. (I do notice that the columns are often not 100 feet tall when I want to cast Call Lightning. )

Quote from: Opaopajr;882729:rotfl: Love the methadone comparison.

Anyway, I love me some attentive players. So it's good to hear our experiences from returned old-skool caster rules had similar effect. Not scientific by any stretch, but ancdotal reference that certain rule designs have repeatable effects.

I totally agree with you on the issue: Feats don't pack enough punch vs. Whole New Spell Lists.

However, though they are not great spell replacements, I also think they pack too much expectation in a single swing to really be design manageable. It's "wait X levels to hope Y feat replaces the equivalent of Z level spells available." It's a losing proposition in my opinion.

That leads to the Wuxia Magic Weapon issue, where to keep a modular repertoir like spells you dance the line where the martial classes "fly" and "shoot lightning." You can tie it to weapon or level progression, but that still gets into redesigning other people's settings with more "magic widgets" than they wanted to bother with.

The next problem is you don't want to make everything Class Feature based because then you create questions whether anyone can attempt to do something, even if poorly.

So even though Fighter Expertise and Battlemaster tactics are beautiful templates to fill with your own "mini-feats" and "spells," you get the recurring Thief Skills-like questions (can I climb walls? can I move silently? can I feint? can I parry?).

At that point just know you can never make everyone happy except yourself — and most players at your table likely don't care, they think you deliver a good game anyway.

If I was to expand things I might do what I just saw on Doom & Destiny video game, where every class gets Power Points as slots to equip passive buff and spell/skill widgets. At any point of downtime they can shift out and in newly purchased Powers, as long as they don't exceed their Power Points. Then instead of Fighters having to stay locked with, let's say... Fighter Expertise!, they could switch out during downtime in preparation for a new area.

But that brings its own problems.

My biggest advice would be for people to expand the generic Equipment, Skill, and Combat uses. Instead of WotC putting out more spells, perhaps a few more creative uses for Medicine skill or Vehicle tool usage, Rogue-worthy exploration equipment (and how Rogues are just better with them), and Fighter-worthy combat tactics (and how Fighters are just better with them).

If they included things like Advanced Combat Tactics under the Combat chapter, with things like Shield Wall, or Wolf Pack, or Polearm Formations — and suggestions for their numerical/status value — you could see some really interesting things. Basically 5e could use a Complete Handbook Fighter, and likely CH:Thief, to bring on more equipment, skill, and combat widgets into the fold.

But that's unlikely, so it's DIY. :idunno:

We're on the exact same wavelength. I'm not 100% satisfied with using Feats alone. I'm eyeballing the heft that Fantasy Craft uses - like giving its weapons features (which 5e does too, though not as expansively). I do think 5e needs those Complete Splat Books too. I'm not one of those guys that complains about "bloat" as long as I have what I need to run the games I want. Having too little... that's a larger problem.

Small note.

According to the errata and revised PHBs. The entry in the weapons table for unarmed strikes is removed. And unarmed Strikes entry page 195.

QuoteMelee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed
strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or
similar forceful blow (none of which count
as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike
deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 +
your Strength modifier. You are proficient
with your unarmed strikes."

Quote from: tenbones;883054We're on the exact same wavelength. I'm not 100% satisfied with using Feats alone. I'm eyeballing the heft that Fantasy Craft uses - like giving its weapons features (which 5e does too, though not as expansively). I do think 5e needs those Complete Splat Books too. I'm not one of those guys that complains about "bloat" as long as I have what I need to run the games I want. Having too little... that's a larger problem.

Well this could be a good place to spin off the conversation!

DIY Advanced Combat & Exploration Tactics

Design Goals
- Expand Generic Actions through new Equipment, Equipment & Skill/Tool finesse, and Combat Cooperation.
- These are usually not restricted access to any class.
- These usually provide benefits for classes familiar with mundane (not-magical) solutions.
- They may partially step on toes of some less wondrous spell effects.


Anything else you'd add? Otherwise I'm ready to brainstorm some ideas!

Glitter Bomb
1 gp
Finely ground, colorful, shimmering powder in a bag. As an action, the contents may be thrown as a 15' cone blast of sparkly dust, clinging to things and creating a Heavily Obscured Area for one round. Creatures within the blast may be Blinded for one round — affecting 6d10 HP worth of creatures, starting with lowest HP creature — even if they later leave the Heavily Obscured Area.

This also reveals in following rounds any illusions disrupted by physical contact in the blast, including invisible things (or creatures), as the dust either goes through and doesn't coat them or exposes their silhouette. It takes three [Use an Object] actions to thoroughly brush off enough glittering dust so as to not reveal yourself, affecting Stealth rolls with Disadvantage in Light Obscurement. (Some GMs may want to use the glittery floor coating for further tracks, Survival (WIS) checks.)

Rogues are supremely adept in this equipment and may attempt two alternate uses:
a) Whips accurately the glitter towards the known eyes of targets within the blast. Succumbing targets receive Blind condition for two round instead of one. Creature has to have known and accessible eyes for this to work.

b) Snaps the glittery dust in a fine spray, catching enough air to linger before settling to earth. Heavy Obscured Area lasts for two rounds instead of one. Moderate and greater breezes in the area (15+ mph) can disperse this faster as GM determines.

I like that.

Let's not forget a lot of obvious weaponry that exists that could benefit from the use of classic ideas. I miss "Weapons of Quality". I'm toying with the idea that a "Weapon of Quality" can be forged to include some specific thing like:

Finesse, Reach, Thrown, Versatile etc.

Whips that can grapple?

That opens the door to all the asian-weapons which would have interesting qualities. Kusarigama, Lajatangs etc.

You'll have to refresh me on "weapons of quality" values; is this a 3e thing? Is that like fine or exquisite workmanship from 2e, almost being like a +1 sword? (Fine is +1 on either atk or dmg, exquisite is on both; due to non-magical status they need to be maintained.)

If it means expanding traits on weapons, I'm sorta all for that. However there are explicit conceits in the current Equipment Chapter that should be heeded, like Light Weapons not exceeding 1d6 dmg and the like. Also, I think it's ok to walk away from known traits into "Special," like lance and net — because we shouldn't rely on trait keywords due to concern of unintended cascading effects.

For example, I think Whips should grapple. But I think it should say Special under trait. And then explain why the rule is specific to the whip, such as "they should roll at Disadv after the first Grapple contested check to maintain the grapple." Thus it's not a regular grapple, which may matter for other things.

In this way changes are localized. Discrete rules and integrated rules have differing advantages. In this DIY case, it is easier to study effects in isolation better than fashion whole new global traits.

So what did you have in mind for the next creation? Shield Wall? Something where Protection Fighter Style shines?

Quote from: Opaopajr;883253Glitter Bomb
1 gp
Finely ground, colorful, shimmering powder in a bag. As an action, the contents may be thrown as a 15' cone blast of sparkly dust, clinging to things and creating a Heavily Obscured Area for one round. Creatures within the blast may be Blinded for one round — affecting 6d10 HP worth of creatures, starting with lowest HP creature — even if they later leave the Heavily Obscured Area.

I like the Glitter Bomb and the general idea of non-casters having special uses for equipment, but the blinding effect is odd; I can protect myself from being blinded by having allies with fewer HPs standing behind me in the area of effect? How do they suck up the glitter that would otherwise go in my eyes?

Quote from: rawma;883437I like the Glitter Bomb and the general idea of non-casters having special uses for equipment, but the blinding effect is odd; I can protect myself from being blinded by having allies with fewer HPs standing behind me in the area of effect? How do they suck up the glitter that would otherwise go in my eyes?

Well, that's a carry-over of two conceits:

1) Increasing Hit Dice being a shorthand for how capable an opponent is. And it works roughly parallel with both monsters and demi/human PCs and NPCs. This was before the days of CR and still works comparably well.

2) Spells rarely being wholly outclassed by mundane means — and (the hosed 5e version of) Color Spray only does 6d10+2d10 per spell level, and Blinds for one round. Also the spell does no Heavy Concealment which can be great or inconvenient depending on tactics.
-----

Now, I did toy with the idea of just making it an automatic blinded success within area effect, due to Heavy Concealment. And I also chewed on whether to make it a save. But in the end it is easier to work with those two above conceits and the already useful spell template from Sleep, Color Spray, et al.

Reasoning:

The spell template is great for circumventing attributes outright; any additional lessening of modifier reliance is a great thing. Yes, it penalizes more backrow squishy than frontrow martial classes due to HP targeting. This, too, is a good design thing, as it is coherent in mechanics' relation to setting.

Further, automatic blinding of any target within area of effect is just gross. That's stuff for taking out dragons and demigods through sheer numbers and glitter tonnage. However, tying blindness to *only* remaining within the same spot seems contextually nearsighted — that shit gets everywhere, so why not in the eyes?, especially when thrown at you. Thus there should be a lasting (even if minor) condition result possible regardless whether you move out of the area later.

Looking at the other options for decision making which targets succumb, using the Hit Die one covered several bases on avoiding specific targets who should avoid succumbing to the tactic. It allowed highly experienced (HP) targets, large and tough monsters, and mid-level frontrow martial classes (higher base Hit Die), a chance to avoid, or ignore outright.

High HP from high leveled makes sense because it means they likely would recognize such an attack, and the instinctual defense, from finally enough experience.
High HP from martial class Hit Die makes sense from assumed early exposure of the tactic up-close...
High HP from large size or tougher monster makes sense because the creature is likely larger, or more armored (nictating membranes?), or resilient that makes it such a ordeal to encounter...

That's my logic behind the design. I am open to other solutions, however. I am curious which avenue I have yet to exhaust.

Quote from: Opaopajr;883487The spell template is great for circumventing attributes outright; any additional lessening of modifier reliance is a great thing. Yes, it penalizes more backrow squishy than frontrow martial classes due to HP targeting. This, too, is a good design thing, as it is coherent in mechanics' relation to setting.

My complaint is that it penalizes "frontrow martial classes" who are alone, not having had the foresight to bring along minions of the same class with fewer hit points. Consider a 20 HP character: walking alone, affected 97%+ of the time; walking 10 feet in front of four 15 HP characters, never affected because the maximum roll has already been exhausted by blinding them. How does that work?

It works for spells like Sleep because one can imagine the magic rising like water level, and thus overrunning the weaker characters first (no matter where they are in the area of effect), who then drain off some of the magic before it can affect others. For the physical effect of throwing a glitter bomb, it should affect the closest targets first, not in order of HP totals.