I'm certainly not trying to make blind fighting useless and have nothing to gain from fighting cool. I'm pointing out it isn't nearly as useful as people think. Anyone is free to homebrew it to be more effective.
Like I said, I'm mostly okay with walking to your first target. But once you have changed position, and then you add on enemies changing position. That is too much. Blind Fighting doesn't turn you into that terrible scene in Daredevil ( well every scene was terrible lol) where he could see Elektra in the rain. Finding your targets absolutely should take perception checks at the very least.
And I'm sorry but walking around to where you remember people being hoping to run into them is just so goofy and antithetical to the skill and expertise of a shadow monk. Same with someone else having to help the monk find their targets. If you want to talk about the rule of cool let's talk about how these tactics have none of that. It's just cheese hoping to get one feat to work like another that the monk doesn't qualify for.
Blind fighting has always been a super niche ability that can be very good when the time comes. That's nothing new to 5e.
First off. For a shadow monk feat. I'm going to recommend magic initiate cleric or druid, a few decent options there, personally however I'd much rather have the ASI.
"Blindsight
A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.
Creatures without eyes, such as grimlocks and gray oozes, typically have this special sense, as do creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons.
If a monster is naturally blind, it has a parenthetical note to this effect, indicating that the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception."
I would argue that it strait up says RAW, see bolded section, as the rest of this just imposes limitations or contextual reasons as to the whys or how. Italics covering the different types. Grimlocks say if they can't smell or hear that they no longer gain Blindsight so its a type of enhanced sense of smell and hearing. Oozes however still have this and yet don't have limiting factors despite literally being a block of acid... which also somehow lacks tremorsense for terrestrial creatures...
What I'm trying to put into this is while no you're not "seeing" anything, the fighting style in my interpretation is clearly meant as not just an extension of the basic senses but an additional one unto itself since the fighting style doesn't have any additional text attached to it outside of the typical vaguery of 5E.
Comparing them to things like the Bat / Crab / etc: get you a better example of how that works. Bat's have the distinction that it is based on hearing. Crab boom, just blindsight, no further explanation given in game. (Though I'm ignorant of real life crab biology so... i might be missing something there.)
Anyway my 2 cents, If i'm wrong please correct me, this is something I contend with on a regular basis with my own group to no end due to one of our DM's loving Invisible creatures on the ceiling.
"I once knew this fella, Aasimar raised in the Underdark. Was like a brother to me. When he escaped we couldn't take much with us. Poor, emaciated husks of the living we were. 'ts okay though. We survived and made our ways. I'll never forget the way the people from my home looked at us when we walked in the archway. Though, I'm frighteningly certain the feelings they would have, had they but the opportunity ta see us leave." --Manolovo the Traitor, Memoirs of a Scoundrel
Honestly I think this needs a sage advice to solve. I think what you're saying makes sense but I also don't think not being able to see an enemy necessarily means you don't know it's location. The invisible condition, for example, let's you know an invisible creature's location based on sound. Unless the invisible creature also took the hide action, you wouldn't need a perception check to find their location. It's all super grey though likely to leave room for DM interpretation. However, now that blindsight is easily accessible it means this type of thing will come up a lot more often and probably needs to be officially clarified.
Mobile is fine although I generally think it's largely redundant on any monk. Shadow is already the most mobile monk with shadow step so I think it's generally it's opportunity cost is too high. If your party has a tank and you generally are free to shadow step around I think you'd be better served with +2 to dex, wis, con, or blind sight. Or some other feat.
Shadow Step certainly has its tactical utility, however I can't help but notice using Shadow Step, instead of the Mobile feat's features, is comparatively notably worse action economy. Specifically, A WoS Monk forgoes between 1-2 attacks (33% - 50% of potential attacks on their turn, assuming the Monk have Extra Attack) when committing their bonus action to Shadow Step, instead of making an additional attack as per the Martial Arts feature or the two additional attacks associated with the Ki feature's Flurry of Blows. Shadow Step granting advantage on the Monk's next attack is certainly welcome, but for reasons similar as to why the True Strike cantrip is considered redundant, simply making more attacks is generally considered the better option here.
Perhaps there is a different feat to be taken in place of Mobile that offsets said (potential) reduction of action economy in combat?
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Being able to detect the location is not the same as knowing exactly where the subject is. It CAN be located by sound. Doesn't mean it automatically is when you hear it. But I'll admit this is my RAI. I don't think there is RAW supporting either position, so I agree a Sage Advice is in order. That being said, I've never had a DM let me locate an invisible creature I've partially detected in some way without a skill check or another ability. That seems like a very generous ruling.
Here's my thing about sensing the location of other creatures in combat when you're shrouded in darkness. It's not just you walking your speed to a target. That's only a function of DnD not being able to handle real time. The system has to break actions down into turn orders. But a round is 6 seconds, which means everyone's actions are happening in that time frame. That is a lot of battlefield commotion to be able to focus and pinpoint the location of creatures you can hear. This is my sensibilities informing RAI, but I maintain that nothing in the rules for blind fighting or finding invisible creatures turns you into some Zatoichi style warrior that can pinpoint locate creatures by hearing them without the use of any skill checks or abilities.
Honestly I think this needs a sage advice to solve. I think what you're saying makes sense but I also don't think not being able to see an enemy necessarily means you don't know it's location. The invisible condition, for example, let's you know an invisible creature's location based on sound. Unless the invisible creature also took the hide action, you wouldn't need a perception check to find their location. It's all super grey though likely to leave room for DM interpretation. However, now that blindsight is easily accessible it means this type of thing will come up a lot more often and probably needs to be officially clarified.
I'd say that you and others have already built a strong and convincing case that rules mechanics are adequate and relatively straight forward in determining whether a creature is able to know the location of other creatures that it cannot see, particularly references to existing mechanics for invisible creatures.
Something for all of us to think about here more generally is that there's a difference between Blindsight and Blind Fighting – the Blind Fighting fighting style includes the Blindsight feature, but also lays out further specific criteria, most notably that a character with the Blind Fighting fighting style "can effectively see anything that isn't behind total cover". This is important because it specifies that a character with the Blind Fighting fighting style treats a qualifying creature (or literally "anything", to be specific) as if it can see that creature normally for the purpose of combat mechanics.
Blind Fighting You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you.
Mobile is fine although I generally think it's largely redundant on any monk. Shadow is already the most mobile monk with shadow step so I think it's generally it's opportunity cost is too high. If your party has a tank and you generally are free to shadow step around I think you'd be better served with +2 to dex, wis, con, or blind sight. Or some other feat.
Shadow Step certainly has its tactical utility, however I can't help but notice using Shadow Step, instead of the Mobile feat's features, is comparatively notably worse action economy. Specifically, A WoS Monk forgoes between 1-2 attacks (33% - 50% of potential attacks on their turn, assuming the Monk have Extra Attack) when committing their bonus action to Shadow Step, instead of making an additional attack as per the Martial Arts feature or the two additional attacks associated with the Ki feature's Flurry of Blows. Shadow Step granting advantage on the Monk's next attack is certainly welcome, but for reasons similar as to why the True Strike cantrip is considered redundant, simply making more attacks is generally considered the better option here.
Perhaps there is a different feat to be taken in place of Mobile that offsets said (potential) reduction of action economy in combat?
I'm not saying that mobile is bad. I'm saying you can already do everything that it provides very well. You'll be able to do those things a bit better, but I don't think it's the best thing possible. I think there are more interesting feats or uses for an ASI.
For sure, the WoS's mobility is unparalleled with Shadow Step, so the Mobile feat seems much less necessary in that regard. My gut feels the same way – that there surely are more interesting feats/ASI to take for a WoS monk – yet when I consider how popularly held the belief is that the Monk class is best suited to skirmish fighting (multiple attacks, potentially split among targets; stunning strikes for battlefield control; disengaging against attacks & opportunities to account for a comparatively low d8 hit die) to keep up with other martial classes (higher damage per attack; sometimes higher AC; larger hit die; CON proficiency; hardier frontline abilities, like Action Surge, Smite, Rage, Spirit Guardians spell etc), foregoing Mobile's positive impact on the monk's action economy (and Ki point reserves, for that matter) seems like a very heavy opportunity cost to swallow indeed.
Again it's a very crude statistical assessment, but it seems like a melee Monk without the Mobile Feat is 50% less effective in skirmishing combat than a Monk with said feat! I personally like the idea of taking Mage Slayer (a feat with highly niche application) feat and using a WoS's inherent skirmishing mobility & control abilities to isolate and nullify enemy casters, bringing a different tactical edge to play. What feats/ASI did you specifically have in mind as an alternative to Mobile?
I am currently using Mage Slayer. I picked it in part for RP reasons. I also really liked the idea of the skirmish fighter that can get behind the front line to an important caster target and basically destroy it. Monks already do well vs fairly well with casters due to their ability to close gaps. A shadow Monk with mage slayer makes for a monk that can straight up destroy an enemy caster. I also really like the idea of taking sentinel. Casting silence on a caster then just standing next to them so they can't leave the area seems good. Maybe a combination of the two.
For sure, the WoS's mobility is unparalleled with Shadow Step, so the Mobile feat seems much less necessary in that regard. My gut feels the same way – that there surely are more interesting feats/ASI to take for a WoS monk – yet when I consider how popularly held the belief is that the Monk class is best suited to skirmish fighting (multiple attacks, potentially split among targets; stunning strikes for battlefield control; disengaging against attacks & opportunities to account for a comparatively low d8 hit die) to keep up with other martial classes (higher damage per attack; sometimes higher AC; larger hit die; CON proficiency; hardier frontline abilities, like Action Surge, Smite, Rage, Spirit Guardians spell etc), foregoing Mobile's positive impact on the monk's action economy (and Ki point reserves, for that matter) seems like a very heavy opportunity cost to swallow indeed.
Again it's a very crude statistical assessment, but it seems like a melee Monk without the Mobile Feat is 50% less effective in skirmishing combat than a Monk with said feat! I personally like the idea of taking Mage Slayer (a feat with highly niche application) feat and using a WoS's inherent skirmishing mobility & control abilities to isolate and nullify enemy casters, bringing a different tactical edge to play. What feats/ASI did you specifically have in mind as an alternative to Mobile?
This is a bit of an oversimplified analysis. Consider times where you would use Shadow Step as compared to where you might use mobility. Mobility is heavily covered in the monk features anyway. The 10ft is nice at starting level but you quickly build up a lot more than that. So it's value depends on when you are getting it to some extent. Going from 60' to 70' movement a turn for example does a lot less for you in many interactions than going from 30' to 40' does. Part of this is actually because of the ability to dash. Which the monk when spending a Ki can do. Going from 60' to 80' on that dash can be really nice but it is going to use up that same bonus action. While going from 120' to 140' in almost all circumstances is going to be overkill in almost all circumstances because there is little that can match you. But there is more to it than that. Since Shadow Monk picks up shadow Step at level 6 and a base monk is going to have a speed of 45' and for that bonus action at any time they choose they can get as much as 60' extra with the advantage that they can't be targeted during this version of the dash action just built into the class and the distance may well be likely enough to get past any difficult terrain as well. They are going to have the variations of the same benefits and potential movement basically of having Mobility at their fingertips and by the time that their movement fully outpaces shadow step when Dashing. Mobility is going to hit that point where if those extreme running distances are necessary it might be time to ask yourself if it's even worth it and what all the dangers might be of outrunning the rest your group by that much of a distance since at a monk's max level your only going to be moving a greater distance by that same 10' to 20' overall and to get the larger amount of that your still going to have to spend at least your bonus action and possibly ki to make it happen to cover the times that mobility would cover them where their own abilities will not.
An invisible or otherwise fully concealed creature ( like Darkness) are Unseen and NOT hidden
This means that without the creature doing a Hide action a creature knows the location of an Unseen enemy but they still attack at Disadvantage for attacking an Unseen enemy.
To what distance this works is up to the GM but the rules are pretty clear. In order to hide you have to:
1. Break Line of Sight
2. Perform a Hide action and successfully best the passive perception of the enemy.
You are not iniately hidden by being unseen.
Blindsight effectively removes the ability of invisible creatures to be Unseen vs. the creature.
I am currently using Mage Slayer. I picked it in part for RP reasons. I also really liked the idea of the skirmish fighter that can get behind the front line to an important caster target and basically destroy it. Monks already do well vs fairly well with casters due to their ability to close gaps. A shadow Monk with mage slayer makes for a monk that can straight up destroy an enemy caster. I also really like the idea of taking sentinel. Casting silence on a caster then just standing next to them so they can't leave the area seems good. Maybe a combination of the two.
Agreed, Mage Slayer offers both attractive roleplay and combat abilities, doubling down nicely on a skirmisher's strength in pinning down soft, high-value targets! I hesitate to take Sentinel much the same way I do taking Mobile, as it's an especially obvious choice.
For sure, the WoS's mobility is unparalleled with Shadow Step, so the Mobile feat seems much less necessary in that regard. My gut feels the same way – that there surely are more interesting feats/ASI to take for a WoS monk – yet when I consider how popularly held the belief is that the Monk class is best suited to skirmish fighting (multiple attacks, potentially split among targets; stunning strikes for battlefield control; disengaging against attacks & opportunities to account for a comparatively low d8 hit die) to keep up with other martial classes (higher damage per attack; sometimes higher AC; larger hit die; CON proficiency; hardier frontline abilities, like Action Surge, Smite, Rage, Spirit Guardians spell etc), foregoing Mobile's positive impact on the monk's action economy (and Ki point reserves, for that matter) seems like a very heavy opportunity cost to swallow indeed.
Again it's a very crude statistical assessment, but it seems like a melee Monk without the Mobile Feat is 50% less effective in skirmishing combat than a Monk with said feat! I personally like the idea of taking Mage Slayer (a feat with highly niche application) feat and using a WoS's inherent skirmishing mobility & control abilities to isolate and nullify enemy casters, bringing a different tactical edge to play. What feats/ASI did you specifically have in mind as an alternative to Mobile?
This is a bit of an oversimplified analysis. Consider times where you would use Shadow Step as compared to where you might use mobility. Mobility is heavily covered in the monk features anyway. The 10ft is nice at starting level but you quickly build up a lot more than that. So it's value depends on when you are getting it to some extent. Going from 60' to 70' movement a turn for example does a lot less for you in many interactions than going from 30' to 40' does. Part of this is actually because of the ability to dash. Which the monk when spending a Ki can do. Going from 60' to 80' on that dash can be really nice but it is going to use up that same bonus action. While going from 120' to 140' in almost all circumstances is going to be overkill in almost all circumstances because there is little that can match you. But there is more to it than that. Since Shadow Monk picks up shadow Step at level 6 and a base monk is going to have a speed of 45' and for that bonus action at any time they choose they can get as much as 60' extra with the advantage that they can't be targeted during this version of the dash action just built into the class and the distance may well be likely enough to get past any difficult terrain as well. They are going to have the variations of the same benefits and potential movement basically of having Mobility at their fingertips and by the time that their movement fully outpaces shadow step when Dashing. Mobility is going to hit that point where if those extreme running distances are necessary it might be time to ask yourself if it's even worth it and what all the dangers might be of outrunning the rest your group by that much of a distance since at a monk's max level your only going to be moving a greater distance by that same 10' to 20' overall and to get the larger amount of that your still going to have to spend at least your bonus action and possibly ki to make it happen to cover the times that mobility would cover them where their own abilities will not.
I feel like you've over-emphasised the additional 10 speed and I'd argue that it is possibly the least significant aspect of the feat.
A popular consensus is that Ki should be conserved as much as possible so that it can be dedicated to Stunning Strike attacks and Flurry of Blows, as making use of the Monk's other abilities (e.g. casting Darkness) is already costly.
A significant benefit of Shadow Step is that teleportation allows you to change location without using movement (and thus not provoking attacks of opportunity). A significant downside of using Shadow Step is that Monks also rely on their bonus action to maximise the number of attacks they can make in a round (which is arguably very necessary when average Monk damage output is compared to that of other martial classes). In contrast, the Mobile feat encourages Monks to make use of all of their potential attacks via their bonus action, as the act of simply making an attack against an enemy (note that hitting the enemy is not required here) nullifies any attacks of opportunity said enemy might make.
For sure, the WoS's mobility is unparalleled with Shadow Step, so the Mobile feat seems much less necessary in that regard. My gut feels the same way – that there surely are more interesting feats/ASI to take for a WoS monk – yet when I consider how popularly held the belief is that the Monk class is best suited to skirmish fighting (multiple attacks, potentially split among targets; stunning strikes for battlefield control; disengaging against attacks & opportunities to account for a comparatively low d8 hit die) to keep up with other martial classes (higher damage per attack; sometimes higher AC; larger hit die; CON proficiency; hardier frontline abilities, like Action Surge, Smite, Rage, Spirit Guardians spell etc), foregoing Mobile's positive impact on the monk's action economy (and Ki point reserves, for that matter) seems like a very heavy opportunity cost to swallow indeed.
Again it's a very crude statistical assessment, but it seems like a melee Monk without the Mobile Feat is 50% less effective in skirmishing combat than a Monk with said feat! I personally like the idea of taking Mage Slayer (a feat with highly niche application) feat and using a WoS's inherent skirmishing mobility & control abilities to isolate and nullify enemy casters, bringing a different tactical edge to play. What feats/ASI did you specifically have in mind as an alternative to Mobile?
This is a bit of an oversimplified analysis. Consider times where you would use Shadow Step as compared to where you might use mobility. Mobility is heavily covered in the monk features anyway. The 10ft is nice at starting level but you quickly build up a lot more than that. So it's value depends on when you are getting it to some extent. Going from 60' to 70' movement a turn for example does a lot less for you in many interactions than going from 30' to 40' does. Part of this is actually because of the ability to dash. Which the monk when spending a Ki can do. Going from 60' to 80' on that dash can be really nice but it is going to use up that same bonus action. While going from 120' to 140' in almost all circumstances is going to be overkill in almost all circumstances because there is little that can match you. But there is more to it than that. Since Shadow Monk picks up shadow Step at level 6 and a base monk is going to have a speed of 45' and for that bonus action at any time they choose they can get as much as 60' extra with the advantage that they can't be targeted during this version of the dash action just built into the class and the distance may well be likely enough to get past any difficult terrain as well. They are going to have the variations of the same benefits and potential movement basically of having Mobility at their fingertips and by the time that their movement fully outpaces shadow step when Dashing. Mobility is going to hit that point where if those extreme running distances are necessary it might be time to ask yourself if it's even worth it and what all the dangers might be of outrunning the rest your group by that much of a distance since at a monk's max level your only going to be moving a greater distance by that same 10' to 20' overall and to get the larger amount of that your still going to have to spend at least your bonus action and possibly ki to make it happen to cover the times that mobility would cover them where their own abilities will not.
I feel like you've over-emphasised the additional 10 speed and I'd argue that it is possibly the least significant aspect of the feat.
A popular consensus is that Ki should be conserved as much as possible so that it can be dedicated to Stunning Strike attacks and Flurry of Blows, as making use of the Monk's other abilities (e.g. casting Darkness) is already costly.
A significant benefit of Shadow Step is that teleportation allows you to change location without using movement (and thus not provoking attacks of opportunity). A significant downside of using Shadow Step is that Monks also rely on their bonus action to maximise the number of attacks they can make in a round (which is arguably very necessary when average Monk damage output is compared to that of other martial classes). In contrast, the Mobile feat encourages Monks to make use of all of their potential attacks via their bonus action, as the act of simply making an attack against an enemy (note that hitting the enemy is not required here) nullifies any attacks of opportunity said enemy might make.
I actually pointed out how Shadow Step actually approximates other abilities that mobile has as well. And Ki conservation to some extent is important but it's actually less important on the shadow monk because the shadow monk actually is actually one of the most forgiving forms of monk when it comes to Ki mismanagement. Considering that Shadow Step doesn't actually cost a ki it's a favorable way to actually skip a ki expenditure to move the same distance roughly as you would to spend a Ki point and make a dash bonus action as you would have to do if you need the additional distance with Mobile. Which would still use up your bonus action. This makes the 10' more important both for increasing your speed and for attempting as much as possible to not use the dash bonus action whether it spends a ki point or not. This is why I bring it up. Because ability to move about the battle field is highly prized in general with most styles of play used for the monk. Which People tend to lean on Mobile not only for it's extra abilities, Some of which are only active during a dash, but also that increased movement speed in general to try and move around that battlefield alot.
As for getting punches in. Yes it's important when you are focused mostly on the damage side of things. But if you go a bit more wisdom based and make sure more that your dex mostly keeps up so that you primarily hit reliably and are more focused towards your stuns being effective or other abilities landing. You can actually forgo some of that punching ability in some turns and actually still be very effective on the battlefield. Meaning that even in situations where you have fewer hits you can find value in those fewer hits.
I am currently using Mage Slayer. I picked it in part for RP reasons. I also really liked the idea of the skirmish fighter that can get behind the front line to an important caster target and basically destroy it. Monks already do well vs fairly well with casters due to their ability to close gaps. A shadow Monk with mage slayer makes for a monk that can straight up destroy an enemy caster. I also really like the idea of taking sentinel. Casting silence on a caster then just standing next to them so they can't leave the area seems good. Maybe a combination of the two.
Agreed, Mage Slayer offers both attractive roleplay and combat abilities, doubling down nicely on a skirmisher's strength in pinning down soft, high-value targets! I hesitate to take Sentinel much the same way I do taking Mobile, as it's an especially obvious choice.
I used to leave Mage Slayer to those that made bigger hits so they had more difficult DC's to try and break people's concentration with. Since Monks have so much to focus on anyway. But I'm finding Mage Slayer more and more useful in all kinds of builds not only from seeing or playing with new ways it might be valuable on occasion but just plain the increasing number of ways that various casters are finding to gain advantage on their concentration checks which Mage Slayer is one of only a limited and one of the easier accessed ways for a martial character to actually deal with that advantage on the roll.
I don't feel quite the same when it comes to Sentinel and Mobile just in general for just any and every build despite the way they are looked at in general.
It's okay! Shadow Monks get spellcasting (they just use Ki instead of spell slots)
They can cast spells. That is different from the spell casting feature that is required in a couple of the newer feats like the one to pick up Eldritch Invocations.
An invisible or otherwise fully concealed creature ( like Darkness) are Unseen and NOT hidden
This means that without the creature doing a Hide action a creature knows the location of an Unseen enemy but they still attack at Disadvantage for attacking an Unseen enemy.
To what distance this works is up to the GM but the rules are pretty clear. In order to hide you have to:
1. Break Line of Sight
2. Perform a Hide action and successfully best the passive perception of the enemy.
You are not iniately hidden by being unseen.
Blindsight effectively removes the ability of invisible creatures to be Unseen vs. the creature.
They can still hide behind cover.
I never saw that you posted this Optimus. I hope you'll indulge me picking at it over a month later 😜
The issue was never about Blindsight allowing you to see those that would normally be hidden to you.
Blindfighting's 10 foot distance doesn't clear the 15 foot radius of darkness, so the Shadown Monk is walking around in a moat of darkness it can't see through.
This was about the Shadow Monk using its other senses to determine where its enemies are so that it can run up to them and wail on them in the radius of darkness they can see in. My only contention to all of that at the time was that doing as such should require a perception check and not be some free ability.
An invisible or otherwise fully concealed creature ( like Darkness) are Unseen and NOT hidden
This means that without the creature doing a Hide action a creature knows the location of an Unseen enemy but they still attack at Disadvantage for attacking an Unseen enemy.
To what distance this works is up to the GM but the rules are pretty clear. In order to hide you have to:
1. Break Line of Sight
2. Perform a Hide action and successfully best the passive perception of the enemy.
You are not iniately hidden by being unseen.
Blindsight effectively removes the ability of invisible creatures to be Unseen vs. the creature.
They can still hide behind cover.
I never saw that you posted this Optimus. I hope you'll indulge me picking at it over a month later 😜
The issue was never about Blindsight allowing you to see those that would normally be hidden to you.
Blindfighting's 10 foot distance doesn't clear the 15 foot radius of darkness, so the Shadown Monk is walking around in a moat of darkness it can't see through.
This was about the Shadow Monk using its other senses to determine where its enemies are so that it can run up to them and wail on them in the radius of darkness they can see in. My only contention to all of that at the time was that doing as such should require a perception check and not be some free ability.
I think the intent is that you know where something is but it is still unseen to you. JC does describe how something invisible (or in this case darkness) would still need to do the hide action to be hidden from you completly. So you can hear footsteps, smell their aftershave, what have you but you still can't see them so its still DIS to hit them.
With blind fighting style you can see them regardless of the dark once you get into range (10ft) but you know their location already anyway.
To the best of my ability to discern his discussion it appears he is saying that you do know where someone is in the dark even if you can't see them.
Its up to the DM on how far that works but I would guess that 30 ft would suffice maybe? I am not sure. Environment features would also have an impact (loud noises, heavy smell from chemicals, etc...)
Ultimately its up to the DM to talk with the player about the interaction and how they want it to go. For me I would allow them to cast it and run in as they are a monk who is used to working in the shadows and has extra training in fighting blind so it makes sense I would forgo a perception check. Other DMs might want to handle it differently but thats up to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm certainly not trying to make blind fighting useless and have nothing to gain from fighting cool. I'm pointing out it isn't nearly as useful as people think. Anyone is free to homebrew it to be more effective.
Like I said, I'm mostly okay with walking to your first target. But once you have changed position, and then you add on enemies changing position. That is too much. Blind Fighting doesn't turn you into that terrible scene in Daredevil ( well every scene was terrible lol) where he could see Elektra in the rain. Finding your targets absolutely should take perception checks at the very least.
And I'm sorry but walking around to where you remember people being hoping to run into them is just so goofy and antithetical to the skill and expertise of a shadow monk. Same with someone else having to help the monk find their targets. If you want to talk about the rule of cool let's talk about how these tactics have none of that. It's just cheese hoping to get one feat to work like another that the monk doesn't qualify for.
Blind fighting has always been a super niche ability that can be very good when the time comes. That's nothing new to 5e.
First off. For a shadow monk feat. I'm going to recommend magic initiate cleric or druid, a few decent options there, personally however I'd much rather have the ASI.
I would argue that it strait up says RAW, see bolded section, as the rest of this just imposes limitations or contextual reasons as to the whys or how. Italics covering the different types. Grimlocks say if they can't smell or hear that they no longer gain Blindsight so its a type of enhanced sense of smell and hearing. Oozes however still have this and yet don't have limiting factors despite literally being a block of acid... which also somehow lacks tremorsense for terrestrial creatures...
What I'm trying to put into this is while no you're not "seeing" anything, the fighting style in my interpretation is clearly meant as not just an extension of the basic senses but an additional one unto itself since the fighting style doesn't have any additional text attached to it outside of the typical vaguery of 5E.
Comparing them to things like the Bat / Crab / etc: get you a better example of how that works. Bat's have the distinction that it is based on hearing. Crab boom, just blindsight, no further explanation given in game. (Though I'm ignorant of real life crab biology so... i might be missing something there.)
Anyway my 2 cents, If i'm wrong please correct me, this is something I contend with on a regular basis with my own group to no end due to one of our DM's loving Invisible creatures on the ceiling.
"I once knew this fella, Aasimar raised in the Underdark. Was like a brother to me. When he escaped we couldn't take much with us. Poor, emaciated husks of the living we were. 'ts okay though. We survived and made our ways. I'll never forget the way the people from my home looked at us when we walked in the archway. Though, I'm frighteningly certain the feelings they would have, had they but the opportunity ta see us leave." --Manolovo the Traitor, Memoirs of a Scoundrel
Honestly I think this needs a sage advice to solve. I think what you're saying makes sense but I also don't think not being able to see an enemy necessarily means you don't know it's location. The invisible condition, for example, let's you know an invisible creature's location based on sound. Unless the invisible creature also took the hide action, you wouldn't need a perception check to find their location. It's all super grey though likely to leave room for DM interpretation. However, now that blindsight is easily accessible it means this type of thing will come up a lot more often and probably needs to be officially clarified.
Shadow Step certainly has its tactical utility, however I can't help but notice using Shadow Step, instead of the Mobile feat's features, is comparatively notably worse action economy. Specifically, A WoS Monk forgoes between 1-2 attacks (33% - 50% of potential attacks on their turn, assuming the Monk have Extra Attack) when committing their bonus action to Shadow Step, instead of making an additional attack as per the Martial Arts feature or the two additional attacks associated with the Ki feature's Flurry of Blows. Shadow Step granting advantage on the Monk's next attack is certainly welcome, but for reasons similar as to why the True Strike cantrip is considered redundant, simply making more attacks is generally considered the better option here.
Perhaps there is a different feat to be taken in place of Mobile that offsets said (potential) reduction of action economy in combat?
From Invisibility in the PHB
Being able to detect the location is not the same as knowing exactly where the subject is. It CAN be located by sound. Doesn't mean it automatically is when you hear it. But I'll admit this is my RAI. I don't think there is RAW supporting either position, so I agree a Sage Advice is in order. That being said, I've never had a DM let me locate an invisible creature I've partially detected in some way without a skill check or another ability. That seems like a very generous ruling.
Here's my thing about sensing the location of other creatures in combat when you're shrouded in darkness. It's not just you walking your speed to a target. That's only a function of DnD not being able to handle real time. The system has to break actions down into turn orders. But a round is 6 seconds, which means everyone's actions are happening in that time frame. That is a lot of battlefield commotion to be able to focus and pinpoint the location of creatures you can hear. This is my sensibilities informing RAI, but I maintain that nothing in the rules for blind fighting or finding invisible creatures turns you into some Zatoichi style warrior that can pinpoint locate creatures by hearing them without the use of any skill checks or abilities.
I'd say that you and others have already built a strong and convincing case that rules mechanics are adequate and relatively straight forward in determining whether a creature is able to know the location of other creatures that it cannot see, particularly references to existing mechanics for invisible creatures.
Something for all of us to think about here more generally is that there's a difference between Blindsight and Blind Fighting – the Blind Fighting fighting style includes the Blindsight feature, but also lays out further specific criteria, most notably that a character with the Blind Fighting fighting style "can effectively see anything that isn't behind total cover". This is important because it specifies that a character with the Blind Fighting fighting style treats a qualifying creature (or literally "anything", to be specific) as if it can see that creature normally for the purpose of combat mechanics.
I'm not saying that mobile is bad. I'm saying you can already do everything that it provides very well. You'll be able to do those things a bit better, but I don't think it's the best thing possible. I think there are more interesting feats or uses for an ASI.
For sure, the WoS's mobility is unparalleled with Shadow Step, so the Mobile feat seems much less necessary in that regard. My gut feels the same way – that there surely are more interesting feats/ASI to take for a WoS monk – yet when I consider how popularly held the belief is that the Monk class is best suited to skirmish fighting (multiple attacks, potentially split among targets; stunning strikes for battlefield control; disengaging against attacks & opportunities to account for a comparatively low d8 hit die) to keep up with other martial classes (higher damage per attack; sometimes higher AC; larger hit die; CON proficiency; hardier frontline abilities, like Action Surge, Smite, Rage, Spirit Guardians spell etc), foregoing Mobile's positive impact on the monk's action economy (and Ki point reserves, for that matter) seems like a very heavy opportunity cost to swallow indeed.
Again it's a very crude statistical assessment, but it seems like a melee Monk without the Mobile Feat is 50% less effective in skirmishing combat than a Monk with said feat! I personally like the idea of taking Mage Slayer (a feat with highly niche application) feat and using a WoS's inherent skirmishing mobility & control abilities to isolate and nullify enemy casters, bringing a different tactical edge to play. What feats/ASI did you specifically have in mind as an alternative to Mobile?
I am currently using Mage Slayer. I picked it in part for RP reasons. I also really liked the idea of the skirmish fighter that can get behind the front line to an important caster target and basically destroy it. Monks already do well vs fairly well with casters due to their ability to close gaps. A shadow Monk with mage slayer makes for a monk that can straight up destroy an enemy caster. I also really like the idea of taking sentinel. Casting silence on a caster then just standing next to them so they can't leave the area seems good. Maybe a combination of the two.
This is a bit of an oversimplified analysis. Consider times where you would use Shadow Step as compared to where you might use mobility. Mobility is heavily covered in the monk features anyway. The 10ft is nice at starting level but you quickly build up a lot more than that. So it's value depends on when you are getting it to some extent. Going from 60' to 70' movement a turn for example does a lot less for you in many interactions than going from 30' to 40' does. Part of this is actually because of the ability to dash. Which the monk when spending a Ki can do. Going from 60' to 80' on that dash can be really nice but it is going to use up that same bonus action. While going from 120' to 140' in almost all circumstances is going to be overkill in almost all circumstances because there is little that can match you. But there is more to it than that. Since Shadow Monk picks up shadow Step at level 6 and a base monk is going to have a speed of 45' and for that bonus action at any time they choose they can get as much as 60' extra with the advantage that they can't be targeted during this version of the dash action just built into the class and the distance may well be likely enough to get past any difficult terrain as well. They are going to have the variations of the same benefits and potential movement basically of having Mobility at their fingertips and by the time that their movement fully outpaces shadow step when Dashing. Mobility is going to hit that point where if those extreme running distances are necessary it might be time to ask yourself if it's even worth it and what all the dangers might be of outrunning the rest your group by that much of a distance since at a monk's max level your only going to be moving a greater distance by that same 10' to 20' overall and to get the larger amount of that your still going to have to spend at least your bonus action and possibly ki to make it happen to cover the times that mobility would cover them where their own abilities will not.
The invisible thing has been covered:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
JC confirms it works as such:
An invisible or otherwise fully concealed creature ( like Darkness) are Unseen and NOT hidden
This means that without the creature doing a Hide action a creature knows the location of an Unseen enemy but they still attack at Disadvantage for attacking an Unseen enemy.
To what distance this works is up to the GM but the rules are pretty clear. In order to hide you have to:
1. Break Line of Sight
2. Perform a Hide action and successfully best the passive perception of the enemy.
You are not iniately hidden by being unseen.
Blindsight effectively removes the ability of invisible creatures to be Unseen vs. the creature.
They can still hide behind cover.
That's what I thought. Thanks for pointing us to an official response.
Agreed, Mage Slayer offers both attractive roleplay and combat abilities, doubling down nicely on a skirmisher's strength in pinning down soft, high-value targets! I hesitate to take Sentinel much the same way I do taking Mobile, as it's an especially obvious choice.
I feel like you've over-emphasised the additional 10 speed and I'd argue that it is possibly the least significant aspect of the feat.
A popular consensus is that Ki should be conserved as much as possible so that it can be dedicated to Stunning Strike attacks and Flurry of Blows, as making use of the Monk's other abilities (e.g. casting Darkness) is already costly.
A significant benefit of Shadow Step is that teleportation allows you to change location without using movement (and thus not provoking attacks of opportunity). A significant downside of using Shadow Step is that Monks also rely on their bonus action to maximise the number of attacks they can make in a round (which is arguably very necessary when average Monk damage output is compared to that of other martial classes). In contrast, the Mobile feat encourages Monks to make use of all of their potential attacks via their bonus action, as the act of simply making an attack against an enemy (note that hitting the enemy is not required here) nullifies any attacks of opportunity said enemy might make.
I actually pointed out how Shadow Step actually approximates other abilities that mobile has as well. And Ki conservation to some extent is important but it's actually less important on the shadow monk because the shadow monk actually is actually one of the most forgiving forms of monk when it comes to Ki mismanagement. Considering that Shadow Step doesn't actually cost a ki it's a favorable way to actually skip a ki expenditure to move the same distance roughly as you would to spend a Ki point and make a dash bonus action as you would have to do if you need the additional distance with Mobile. Which would still use up your bonus action. This makes the 10' more important both for increasing your speed and for attempting as much as possible to not use the dash bonus action whether it spends a ki point or not. This is why I bring it up. Because ability to move about the battle field is highly prized in general with most styles of play used for the monk. Which People tend to lean on Mobile not only for it's extra abilities, Some of which are only active during a dash, but also that increased movement speed in general to try and move around that battlefield alot.
As for getting punches in. Yes it's important when you are focused mostly on the damage side of things. But if you go a bit more wisdom based and make sure more that your dex mostly keeps up so that you primarily hit reliably and are more focused towards your stuns being effective or other abilities landing. You can actually forgo some of that punching ability in some turns and actually still be very effective on the battlefield. Meaning that even in situations where you have fewer hits you can find value in those fewer hits.
I used to leave Mage Slayer to those that made bigger hits so they had more difficult DC's to try and break people's concentration with. Since Monks have so much to focus on anyway. But I'm finding Mage Slayer more and more useful in all kinds of builds not only from seeing or playing with new ways it might be valuable on occasion but just plain the increasing number of ways that various casters are finding to gain advantage on their concentration checks which Mage Slayer is one of only a limited and one of the easier accessed ways for a martial character to actually deal with that advantage on the roll.
I don't feel quite the same when it comes to Sentinel and Mobile just in general for just any and every build despite the way they are looked at in general.
It's okay! Shadow Monks get spellcasting (they just use Ki instead of spell slots)
They can cast spells. That is different from the spell casting feature that is required in a couple of the newer feats like the one to pick up Eldritch Invocations.
I never saw that you posted this Optimus. I hope you'll indulge me picking at it over a month later 😜
The issue was never about Blindsight allowing you to see those that would normally be hidden to you.
Blindfighting's 10 foot distance doesn't clear the 15 foot radius of darkness, so the Shadown Monk is walking around in a moat of darkness it can't see through.
This was about the Shadow Monk using its other senses to determine where its enemies are so that it can run up to them and wail on them in the radius of darkness they can see in. My only contention to all of that at the time was that doing as such should require a perception check and not be some free ability.
I think the intent is that you know where something is but it is still unseen to you. JC does describe how something invisible (or in this case darkness) would still need to do the hide action to be hidden from you completly. So you can hear footsteps, smell their aftershave, what have you but you still can't see them so its still DIS to hit them.
With blind fighting style you can see them regardless of the dark once you get into range (10ft) but you know their location already anyway.
To the best of my ability to discern his discussion it appears he is saying that you do know where someone is in the dark even if you can't see them.
Its up to the DM on how far that works but I would guess that 30 ft would suffice maybe? I am not sure. Environment features would also have an impact (loud noises, heavy smell from chemicals, etc...)
Ultimately its up to the DM to talk with the player about the interaction and how they want it to go. For me I would allow them to cast it and run in as they are a monk who is used to working in the shadows and has extra training in fighting blind so it makes sense I would forgo a perception check. Other DMs might want to handle it differently but thats up to them.