That Adult Oblex is a good find, I'll take that as a good-enough RAI indication that Blindsight is meant to be treated as "sight" for spells etc. that require a "target you can see"! I mean, in truth, Oblex are complicated creatures which already seem like they don't work great with established rule systems... it isn't implausible that giving it an ability requiring sight was an error... but I'll assume that isn't true, and that the Oblex is the proof we've been looking for that Blindsight creatures "see."
That doesn't get us all the way towards whether (1) the bullet points of conditions are causally related, where immunity to/logical ineffectiveness of one bullet relives one from the others, or (2) how exactly the (already complicated) rules about Hiding work within the radius of a creature with Blindsight. Both of those, however, are full topics of discussion that could be more appropriately examined in their own threads instead of tacked on here.
Thanks for the discussion folks, it took a while to land somewhere productive, but good effort!
Technically, they gave it four such abilities. Three of it's spells in it's innate spellcasting are "sight" spells in addition to its Eat Memories action. But glad to see you recognize at least the potential that the RAI is what most think it is now.
The fact that folks generally assumed this was true, but couldn’t point to textual support for it being true/RAW/RAI, doesn’t make me lose any sleep. Blindsight provides sight, not because everyone assumed it, or JC tweeted it, and certainly not because the feature says it does (because it doesn’t)… but because close textual analysis has supported that conclusion by showing it must be true to avoid a specific error (the Oblex not being able to use its published abilities).
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “you’re welcome,” because now you all have something to point to to support your rightness on this issue in the future, instead of just hoping/assuming you’re right without proof :)
Now your next homework (in a new thread) is to find support for your beliefs about seeing with Blindsight protecting from Blindness disadvantage!
Yes, that's an assumption, not supported by RAW or from-the-text-RAI. It certainly is not easier to write "perceive" than "see," if "see" is what was meant, so I don't agree that the sourcebooks provide a clear RAI indication there, without resorting to JC's extracurricular opinions.
Its more than a fair assumption for perceive to mean see in a sense called Blindsight. Especialy if its blinded, indicating no other senses such has hearing is impaired. It's self evidence.
See Chill Touch not doing cold damage, Daylight not being sunlight, Invisible not concealing your location, Charmed not making a creature like you, Incapacitated lets you move, an Unconscious character still has a dex bonus to their AC, a Restrained creature still has free use of its hands, etc....
Plain English meanings of feature names, or what we might logically think that those names suggest in the real world, are largely irrelevant when we're talking about what they mechanically do in the 5E game system. It's always worth looking for textual meanings, rather than making knee-jerk assumptions.
I think the only way to justify "Blindsight protecting from Blindness disadvantage" is to make some assumptions. As far as I'm concerned, I'm actually not really sure how I'd rule on it, and have no strong feelings on it either way.
One such assumption might be that the second bullet point is a reminder about unseen targets and attackers rather than a specific special effect as part of blinded, and should not apply if the creature isn't relying on sight. But I don't know if there is any text that supports that assumption. I will point out that I'm not sure that bullets are always used consistently throughout the rules. I don't remember the exact context, but I remember conversation around some feat that (at least in D&DB) has bullets that actually refer to each other and text outside of the bulleted list all together.
Edit: I know I wrote an idea of what might happen before, but I may have changed my mind on it. For players, if they have the fighting style, it tells you exactly what happens. If you are talking about players trying to blind monsters, maybe it is ok to let the monster get blinded anyway.
The fact that folks generally assumed this was true, but couldn’t point to textual support for it being true/RAW/RAI, doesn’t make me lose any sleep. Blindsight provides sight, not because everyone assumed it, or JC tweeted it, and certainly not because the feature says it does (because it doesn’t)… but because close textual analysis has supported that conclusion by showing it must be true to avoid a specific error (the Oblex not being able to use its published abilities).
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “you’re welcome,” because now you all have something to point to to support your rightness on this issue in the future, instead of just hoping/assuming you’re right without proof :)
Now your next homework (in a new thread) is to find support for your beliefs about seeing with Blindsight protecting from Blindness disadvantage!
Turning in my homework:
The rules for conditions say: A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition. There are no rules* for countering single provisions of conditions based on that sentence, you counter the whole condition. So if blindsight counters naturally the first provision of blinded, it also counters the second, because it's all or nothing. *Note: other effects might remove advantage or disadvantage, but that is due to the general rules of advantage/disadvantage, not due to them countering the condition itself.
I think i disagree. If blindsight countered blinded, it would be more explicit about it somewhere. Notice that prone tells you how to counter it, and not all creatures that have blindsight are immune to blinded.
Also, you are arguing that some rule negates point 1 and therefore the entire condition, but some other rule negating point 2 wouldn't negate the entire condition.
The rules for conditions say: A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition. There are no rules* for countering single provisions of conditions based on that sentence, you counter the whole condition. So if blindsight counters naturally the first provision of blinded, it also counters the second, because it's all or nothing. *Note: other effects might remove advantage or disadvantage, but that is due to the general rules of advantage/disadvantage, not due to them countering the condition itself.
As I mentioned on #24, I thought I'd be more opposed to this right out the gate, but a lot of the conditions do feel like at least some of their bullets are causally related. If you can't be incapacitated, can you be unconscious, and suffer other bullets like falling prone, auto-crits, etc? Maybe that wouldn't make sense! But then, other bullets don't feel like they'd be as causally related... if you can't be prone, can you be unconscious and suffer other bullets like being incapacitated, auto-crits, etc? Yeah, that would still make a lot of sense!
So how do we split that hair? How do we say that bullet A control bullet B, but not vice versa, and bullet C is impacted by both, but bullet D is actually just a convenient restatement of another rule about unseen attackers and not really a consequence of the condition itself per se, and....
It gets very, very, very wishy washy. It's not impossible that there's some RAI supporting that in some conditions, but we're given exactly 0 RAW explanation of how that would work, or how to arbitrate it.
Between the two extremes of "all bullets are causally related, so a creature that can't become Prone can never becomes Unconscious" and "bullets are never causally related, so an Invisible creature still attacks with advantage even when it is (magically) seen".... I think that that second extreme is more comfortable and logical. And I don't see a way to fairly arbitrate a bright line that doesn't involve settling on one of those two extremes.
Just popping in to say I was greatly amused by a lot of the theories proposed. I stopped giving weight to a lot when the SaC was dismissed as unofficial. THAT was perhaps the best chuckle I had through the pages. The official spot for rule clarifications isn't official. It's the ONLY spot for answers to poorly worded rules, so if you dismiss it, you have only your own interpretation to use and any debate ends there.
The prone/unconscious debacle is snuffed by horses, that sleep standing up. Unconscious AND not prone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Just popping in to say I was greatly amused by a lot of the theories proposed. I stopped giving weight to a lot when the SaC was dismissed as unofficial. THAT was perhaps the best chuckle I had through the pages. The official spot for rule clarifications isn't official. It's the ONLY spot for answers to poorly worded rules, so if you dismiss it, you have only your own interpretation to use and any debate ends there.
The prone/unconscious debacle is snuffed by horses, that sleep standing up. Unconscious AND not prone.
Well, Horses aren't immune to Prone in 5E, or have any special abilities that describe remaining standing while Unconscious... but yes, actually, that's a great illustration of what I'm talking about.
We've heard argument in this thread that obviously, if a creature that is Blinded happens to have Blindsight, letting it "see" without using normal "sight" (the first bullet)... then that creature should ignore the second bullet as well, about attack rolls against it having advantage, and its attacks having disadvantage, even if that creature isn't actually immune to Blinded. In other words, because it can "counter" the first bullet explicitly, it should be understood to also counter the second bullet.
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Does that make sense? Lets take that logic over to your Horse example, that doesn't have immunity to Unconscious condition, but nevertheless has a special ability that says something like "The horse is able to remain standing and not drop what it's holding while asleep." Because it can "counter" the second bullet explicitly, should it also be understood to counter the first, third, fourth, and fifth bullets?
An unconscious creature is incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
The creature drops whatever it's holding andfalls prone.
The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
No, right? Like you said, its easy to see how a horse could be Unconscious and suffer all those other effects despite NOT falling Prone, even if being Prone is ordinarily part of being Unconscious.
That's exactly my argument: not being able to see is usually one part of being Blinded, with the other half being having disadvantage on your attacks, and advantage on attacks against you. Countering one part of the Blinded (by being able to "see" without using "sight"), should not be assumed to counter the other part of the Blinded.
What do you say @Falwith, can I persuade you to join my side on this?
That's exactly my argument: not being able to see is usually one part of being Blinded, with the other half being having disadvantage on your attacks, and advantage on attacks against you. Countering one part of the Blinded (by being able to "see" without using "sight"), should not be assumed to counter the other part of the Blinded.
What do you say @Falwith, can I persuade you to join my side on this?
Quoted for reference. Answer I think, is no. First point says you fail any checks require sight, which TELLS me, it is my sight that is gone. If I have an ability that means I don't NEED sight, thus negating point 1, point 2 is also negated, as it is there because I cannot SEE. That aspect is simple logic, based on if/then statements derived from the condition. Blinded doesn't give one disadvantage because a chain is holding their arm, or they are encompassed in molasses or some such, It's given disadvantage BECAUSE it can't see. If it "sees" in a way that Blindness doesn't cover, it doesn't apply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I think i disagree. If blindsight countered blinded, it would be more explicit about it somewhere. Notice that prone tells you how to counter it, and not all creatures that have blindsight are immune to blinded.
Prone is given as an example, thus the inclusion in parentheses and the words "for example". An example implies that other counters exist, and while yes, most counters specifically say what conditions they counter, and sometimes conditions say what counters them. But we are talking RAI (just as we were with the first part of the conversation), not strict RAW; being explicit was already off the table because it also wasn't explicit when we were talking about Blindsight and requirements to "see"
I'm saying the RAI of that phrase is that counters counter the whole condition, not just a part of one.
I think i disagree. If blindsight countered blinded, it would be more explicit about it somewhere. Notice that prone tells you how to counter it, and not all creatures that have blindsight are immune to blinded.
Prone is given as an example, thus the inclusion in parentheses and the words "for example". An example implies that other counters exist, and while yes, most counters specifically say what conditions they counter, and sometimes conditions say what counters them. But we are talking RAI (just as we were with the first part of the conversation), not strict RAW; being explicit was already off the table because it also wasn't explicit when we were talking about Blindsight and requirements to "see"
I'm saying the RAI of that phrase is that counters counter the whole condition, not just a part of one.
So turning it to you, Icon, a monster that had the "horse" ability in #51 above.... you'd let them avoid incapacitation, inability to move or speak, unawareness of surroundings, failings strength and dex saving throws, suffering attacks with advantage, and auto-crits, all because one part of the condition (falling Prone) is countered?
Or am I misunderstanding "counters counter the whole condition not just a part of one"?
That's exactly my argument: not being able to see is usually one part of being Blinded, with the other half being having disadvantage on your attacks, and advantage on attacks against you. Countering one part of the Blinded (by being able to "see" without using "sight"), should not be assumed to counter the other part of the Blinded.
What do you say @Falwith, can I persuade you to join my side on this?
Quoted for reference. Answer I think, is no. First point says you fail any checks require sight, which TELLS me, it is my sight that is gone. If I have an ability that means I don't NEED sight, thus negating point 1, point 2 is also negated, as it is there because I cannot SEE. That aspect is simple logic, based on if/then statements derived from the condition. Blinded doesn't give one disadvantage because a chain is holding their arm, or they are encompassed in molasses or some such, It's given disadvantage BECAUSE it can't see. If it "sees" in a way that Blindness doesn't cover, it doesn't apply.
Falwith, for the five bullets of Unconscious, how do you tell which of those bullets is "because" of the first bullet (and which part of the first bullet), and which of those bullets are maybe "because" of the prone bullet? Are all of the bullets just always "because" of the first one, and never any of the other ones, or do you have to just issue a case-by-case judgment call?
The rules for conditions say: A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition. There are no rules* for countering single provisions of conditions based on that sentence, you counter the whole condition. So if blindsight counters naturally the first provision of blinded, it also counters the second, because it's all or nothing. *Note: other effects might remove advantage or disadvantage, but that is due to the general rules of advantage/disadvantage, not due to them countering the condition itself.
As I mentioned on #24, I thought I'd be more opposed to this right out the gate, but a lot of the conditions do feel like at least some of their bullets are causally related. If you can't be incapacitated, can you be unconscious, and suffer other bullets like falling prone, auto-crits, etc? Maybe that wouldn't make sense! But then, other bullets don't feel like they'd be as causally related... if you can't be prone, can you be unconscious and suffer other bullets like being incapacitated, auto-crits, etc? Yeah, that would still make a lot of sense!
So how do we split that hair? How do we say that bullet A control bullet B, but not vice versa, and bullet C is impacted by both, but bullet D is actually just a convenient restatement of another rule about unseen attackers and not really a consequence of the condition itself per se, and....
It gets very, very, very wishy washy. It's not impossible that there's some RAI supporting that in some conditions, but we're given exactly 0 RAW explanation of how that would work, or how to arbitrate it.
Between the two extremes of "all bullets are causally related, so a creature that can't become Prone can never becomes Unconscious" and "bullets are never causally related, so an Invisible creature still attacks with advantage even when it is (magically) seen".... I think that that second extreme is more comfortable and logical. And I don't see a way to fairly arbitrate a bright line that doesn't involve settling on one of those two extremes.
My question is, do you think I am wrong about the meaning of the quoted passage (the italicized portion)? I don't think I am. There are certainly logical exceptions to it (unconscious condition and prone immunity being one), but overall i think it holds up. I'd add one other one conundrum in the opposite direction. A [monster]grimlock[monster] is blind beyond the radius of it's blindsight. It is also immune to the blinded condition. Does that mean that it suffers no disadvantage attacking a creature beyond its blindsight range?
Just as your position would infer that a blinded creature with blindsight has disadvantage even in range of it's blindsight, it would also infer the grimlock could attack without disadvantage outside of its blindsight range. Neither one is a logical outcome.
An unconscious creature is incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
The creature drops whatever it's holding andfalls prone.
The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
Back to the logic game, I guess. The only bullet there horsie ignores is falling prone, because he's immune (for the sake of this argument) He fails Str and Dex saves, because he's asleep. Hard to resist or dodge stuff when you're sleeping, eh? Same for advantage on attacks. Nice, big horsie, sleeping, pretty easy to hit, yes? Crits? Well, since I have unlimited time to line up the shot....one can assume I would aim at a critical part of my foe, correct.
Really, at this stage, the thread is mostly trolling. Nit-picking unconscious and how it may or may not tie to prone is silly. Was silly when first presented and the horse showed why. The blinded bit falls mostly under the same purview, of one considers what WE know as blind. The light reaching the eye cannot reach the brain to be translated to an image, If your "sight" operates differently to that, you're "immune" to being blinded by most methods, yet other things, likely that would NOT blind others, may blind you. We'd need to know how blindsight actually worked to determine that and there's no description of it, so we're pooched!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I mean, if you are saying light is actually shining on your brain when you see things, really, I doubt that YOU could claim that anyone else is trolling.
But to take your actual point further, we'd also need to know the nature of the blinding feature. blindness/deafness magically blinds you. What is to say it doesn't just prevent your brain from interpreting the signals from your optic nerves. How could you say that wouldn't affect the brain of a creature with blindsight in a similar way?
My question is, do you think I am wrong about the meaning of the quoted passage (the italicized portion)? I don't think I am. There are certainly logical exceptions to it (unconscious condition and prone immunity being one), but overall i think it holds up. I'd add one other one conundrum in the opposite direction. A [monster]grimlock[monster] is blind beyond the radius of it's blindsight. It is also immune to the blinded condition. Does that mean that it suffers no disadvantage attacking a creature beyond its blindsight range?
Just as your position would infer that a blinded creature with blindsight has disadvantage even in range of it's blindsight, it would also infer the grimlock could attack without disadvantage outside of its blindsight range. Neither one is a logical outcome.
Yes, I do think you are wrong. I think that just like you are subjected to unconscious condition when you are unconscious, when you wake up you have countered that condition. You don't counter the condition by countering its effects, you counter the condition by countering the condition: by standing up you are on longer prone; by waking up you are no longer unconscious. Otherwise, as I've said, you imply that countering the disadvantage would counter blinded.
Now whether this extends to blindsight countering blinded, I will leave that up to you. I would imagine that seeing is the counter to being blinded, not blindsight... but that's just an opinion. I'm not even sure if it is a good one.
Edit: just to address the other point: "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." Whether the creature has disadvantage or not beyond its range of blindsight is a question of no value.
Back to the logic game, I guess. The only bullet there horsie ignores is falling prone, because he's immune (for the sake of this argument) He fails Str and Dex saves, because he's asleep. Hard to resist or dodge stuff when you're sleeping, eh? Same for advantage on attacks. Nice, big horsie, sleeping, pretty easy to hit, yes? Crits? Well, since I have unlimited time to line up the shot....one can assume I would aim at a critical part of my foe, correct.
Really, at this stage, the thread is mostly trolling. Nit-picking unconscious and how it may or may not tie to prone is silly. Was silly when first presented and the horse showed why. The blinded bit falls mostly under the same purview, of one considers what WE know as blind. The light reaching the eye cannot reach the brain to be translated to an image, If your "sight" operates differently to that, you're "immune" to being blinded by most methods, yet other things, likely that would NOT blind others, may blind you. We'd need to know how blindsight actually worked to determine that and there's no description of it, so we're pooched!
Not all of the conditions really have logical analogues to what "we know".... Petrified is similar to Unconscious, except for not falling Prone, but additionally turning to stone and picking up some immunities. If a creature weren't able to turn to stone (maybe it's effected by a Gaseous Form?), would it ignore all of these bullets? If it was turning to stone, but was immune to being Incapacitated, would it ignore bullets 2, 3, and 4, but keep bullets 5, and 6?
It's not that these rulings are impossible for a DM to make logically. It's that these rulings are impossible to predict objectively, because for each condition, you end up having to think hard about which bullets are independent from others, logically follow from others, etc. And different DMs will inevitably come to different conclusions, absent a rule providing guidance. That's not how RAW stuff is supposed to work, "I dunno you decide" isn't a rule. In the absence of a rule being provided the default would be... "dont do this, conditions do what they say they do unless there's a specific exception to specific effects," just like the default rule for spells, features, and every other damn thing in 5E. This (partially)* unwritten rule about countering entire conditions when one part of them becomes compromised is straying into (logical, perhaps) houserule territory.
My question is, do you think I am wrong about the meaning of the quoted passage (the italicized portion)? I don't think I am. There are certainly logical exceptions to it (unconscious condition and prone immunity being one), but overall i think it holds up. I'd add one other one conundrum in the opposite direction. A [monster]grimlock[monster] is blind beyond the radius of it's blindsight. It is also immune to the blinded condition. Does that mean that it suffers no disadvantage attacking a creature beyond its blindsight range?
Just as your position would infer that a blinded creature with blindsight has disadvantage even in range of it's blindsight, it would also infer the grimlock could attack without disadvantage outside of its blindsight range. Neither one is a logical outcome.
To continue from above.... partially unwritten. Icon is absolutely right, the Conditions sections describes that conditions can be "countered." However, the sense that the PHB/Basic Rules uses "countered" is not the sense of the word that Icon is using it in.
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
If standing up is a way to "counter" being prone, that's being used as a synonym for "cure" or "end" or "rectify" the entire condition. You might "counter" Unconscious by waking up, "counter" Petrified by casting Stone to Flesh, "counter" being Exhausted by getting a nap in.
Instead, Icon has been using "counter" to mean "immunized against the effect of" or "counterbalance the effect of" or something like that. It leads to the argument that you can "counter" all of Blinded by being able to see without sight, or "counter" Unconscious by being able to sleep standing up with your eyes open...
That "counter" is not the (admittedly very limited) example that the rules provided us, and as the last page has been discussing in depth, I find it really really problematic. Plenty of conditions seem like they have multiple independent effects that should not all be "countered" at once, unless by curing the condition itselfrather than a single one of its several effects.
So, yes, I think that you're wrong about the meaning of "countered."
Turning to your Grimlock example, no, there is no absurd result. A Grimlock is "Blind" (a common English word that means "can't see") beyond its Blindsight radius, not Blinded (a term of art condition which confusingly uses a common English word). The Grimlock is always immune to Blinded. But that doesn't mean that it always can see other creatures, because there are ways to not see something without being Blinded. And not seeing another creature, whether its because you're Blinded, or because they're Invisible, or because they're on the other side of total cover, or because they're heavily obscured (this is treated as you being Blinded, not them having total cover), or because it's Hidden, etc., always subjects you to the Unseen Attackers & Targets section of PHB Chapter 9. And that section provides that you have disadvantage to attack it, and it has advantage to attack you.
Is that needlessly complicated and hair splitty? Yes, the vision rules of 5E totally suck, there's no reason to have separate overlapping-but-technically-unrelated systems for blindness, invisibility, cover, and hiding, but treat concealment as inverse blindness. It's whack as hell. But, it DOES avoid the absurd result you're worried about, of a Grimlock being able to see beyond its Blindsight range.
Technically, they gave it four such abilities. Three of it's spells in it's innate spellcasting are "sight" spells in addition to its Eat Memories action. But glad to see you recognize at least the potential that the RAI is what most think it is now.
The fact that folks generally assumed this was true, but couldn’t point to textual support for it being true/RAW/RAI, doesn’t make me lose any sleep. Blindsight provides sight, not because everyone assumed it, or JC tweeted it, and certainly not because the feature says it does (because it doesn’t)… but because close textual analysis has supported that conclusion by showing it must be true to avoid a specific error (the Oblex not being able to use its published abilities).
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “you’re welcome,” because now you all have something to point to to support your rightness on this issue in the future, instead of just hoping/assuming you’re right without proof :)
Now your next homework (in a new thread) is to find support for your beliefs about seeing with Blindsight protecting from Blindness disadvantage!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Its more than a fair assumption for perceive to mean see in a sense called Blindsight. Especialy if its blinded, indicating no other senses such has hearing is impaired. It's self evidence.
See Chill Touch not doing cold damage, Daylight not being sunlight, Invisible not concealing your location, Charmed not making a creature like you, Incapacitated lets you move, an Unconscious character still has a dex bonus to their AC, a Restrained creature still has free use of its hands, etc....
Plain English meanings of feature names, or what we might logically think that those names suggest in the real world, are largely irrelevant when we're talking about what they mechanically do in the 5E game system. It's always worth looking for textual meanings, rather than making knee-jerk assumptions.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think the only way to justify "Blindsight protecting from Blindness disadvantage" is to make some assumptions. As far as I'm concerned, I'm actually not really sure how I'd rule on it, and have no strong feelings on it either way.
One such assumption might be that the second bullet point is a reminder about unseen targets and attackers rather than a specific special effect as part of blinded, and should not apply if the creature isn't relying on sight. But I don't know if there is any text that supports that assumption. I will point out that I'm not sure that bullets are always used consistently throughout the rules. I don't remember the exact context, but I remember conversation around some feat that (at least in D&DB) has bullets that actually refer to each other and text outside of the bulleted list all together.
Edit: I know I wrote an idea of what might happen before, but I may have changed my mind on it. For players, if they have the fighting style, it tells you exactly what happens. If you are talking about players trying to blind monsters, maybe it is ok to let the monster get blinded anyway.
Turning in my homework:
I think i disagree. If blindsight countered blinded, it would be more explicit about it somewhere. Notice that prone tells you how to counter it, and not all creatures that have blindsight are immune to blinded.
Also, you are arguing that some rule negates point 1 and therefore the entire condition, but some other rule negating point 2 wouldn't negate the entire condition.
Blindsight doesn't mention in it's entry that a creature still considered as seeing or ignoring the blinded condition as far as RAW is concerned.
As I mentioned on #24, I thought I'd be more opposed to this right out the gate, but a lot of the conditions do feel like at least some of their bullets are causally related. If you can't be incapacitated, can you be unconscious, and suffer other bullets like falling prone, auto-crits, etc? Maybe that wouldn't make sense! But then, other bullets don't feel like they'd be as causally related... if you can't be prone, can you be unconscious and suffer other bullets like being incapacitated, auto-crits, etc? Yeah, that would still make a lot of sense!
So how do we split that hair? How do we say that bullet A control bullet B, but not vice versa, and bullet C is impacted by both, but bullet D is actually just a convenient restatement of another rule about unseen attackers and not really a consequence of the condition itself per se, and....
It gets very, very, very wishy washy. It's not impossible that there's some RAI supporting that in some conditions, but we're given exactly 0 RAW explanation of how that would work, or how to arbitrate it.
Between the two extremes of "all bullets are causally related, so a creature that can't become Prone can never becomes Unconscious" and "bullets are never causally related, so an Invisible creature still attacks with advantage even when it is (magically) seen".... I think that that second extreme is more comfortable and logical. And I don't see a way to fairly arbitrate a bright line that doesn't involve settling on one of those two extremes.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Just popping in to say I was greatly amused by a lot of the theories proposed. I stopped giving weight to a lot when the SaC was dismissed as unofficial. THAT was perhaps the best chuckle I had through the pages. The official spot for rule clarifications isn't official. It's the ONLY spot for answers to poorly worded rules, so if you dismiss it, you have only your own interpretation to use and any debate ends there.
The prone/unconscious debacle is snuffed by horses, that sleep standing up. Unconscious AND not prone.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Well, Horses aren't immune to Prone in 5E, or have any special abilities that describe remaining standing while Unconscious... but yes, actually, that's a great illustration of what I'm talking about.
We've heard argument in this thread that obviously, if a creature that is Blinded happens to have Blindsight, letting it "see" without using normal "sight" (the first bullet)... then that creature should ignore the second bullet as well, about attack rolls against it having advantage, and its attacks having disadvantage, even if that creature isn't actually immune to Blinded. In other words, because it can "counter" the first bullet explicitly, it should be understood to also counter the second bullet.
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.Does that make sense? Lets take that logic over to your Horse example, that doesn't have immunity to Unconscious condition, but nevertheless has a special ability that says something like "The horse is able to remain standing and not drop what it's holding while asleep." Because it can "counter" the second bullet explicitly, should it also be understood to counter the first, third, fourth, and fifth bullets?
An unconscious creature is incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.The creature drops whatever it's holdingandfalls prone.The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.No, right? Like you said, its easy to see how a horse could be Unconscious and suffer all those other effects despite NOT falling Prone, even if being Prone is ordinarily part of being Unconscious.
That's exactly my argument: not being able to see is usually one part of being Blinded, with the other half being having disadvantage on your attacks, and advantage on attacks against you. Countering one part of the Blinded (by being able to "see" without using "sight"), should not be assumed to counter the other part of the Blinded.
What do you say @Falwith, can I persuade you to join my side on this?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's exactly my argument: not being able to see is usually one part of being Blinded, with the other half being having disadvantage on your attacks, and advantage on attacks against you. Countering one part of the Blinded (by being able to "see" without using "sight"), should not be assumed to counter the other part of the Blinded.
What do you say @Falwith, can I persuade you to join my side on this?
Quoted for reference. Answer I think, is no. First point says you fail any checks require sight, which TELLS me, it is my sight that is gone. If I have an ability that means I don't NEED sight, thus negating point 1, point 2 is also negated, as it is there because I cannot SEE. That aspect is simple logic, based on if/then statements derived from the condition. Blinded doesn't give one disadvantage because a chain is holding their arm, or they are encompassed in molasses or some such, It's given disadvantage BECAUSE it can't see. If it "sees" in a way that Blindness doesn't cover, it doesn't apply.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Prone is given as an example, thus the inclusion in parentheses and the words "for example". An example implies that other counters exist, and while yes, most counters specifically say what conditions they counter, and sometimes conditions say what counters them. But we are talking RAI (just as we were with the first part of the conversation), not strict RAW; being explicit was already off the table because it also wasn't explicit when we were talking about Blindsight and requirements to "see"
I'm saying the RAI of that phrase is that counters counter the whole condition, not just a part of one.
So turning it to you, Icon, a monster that had the "horse" ability in #51 above.... you'd let them avoid incapacitation, inability to move or speak, unawareness of surroundings, failings strength and dex saving throws, suffering attacks with advantage, and auto-crits, all because one part of the condition (falling Prone) is countered?
Or am I misunderstanding "counters counter the whole condition not just a part of one"?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Falwith, for the five bullets of Unconscious, how do you tell which of those bullets is "because" of the first bullet (and which part of the first bullet), and which of those bullets are maybe "because" of the prone bullet? Are all of the bullets just always "because" of the first one, and never any of the other ones, or do you have to just issue a case-by-case judgment call?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My question is, do you think I am wrong about the meaning of the quoted passage (the italicized portion)? I don't think I am. There are certainly logical exceptions to it (unconscious condition and prone immunity being one), but overall i think it holds up. I'd add one other one conundrum in the opposite direction. A [monster]grimlock[monster] is blind beyond the radius of it's blindsight. It is also immune to the blinded condition. Does that mean that it suffers no disadvantage attacking a creature beyond its blindsight range?
Just as your position would infer that a blinded creature with blindsight has disadvantage even in range of it's blindsight, it would also infer the grimlock could attack without disadvantage outside of its blindsight range. Neither one is a logical outcome.
An unconscious creature is incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.The creature drops whatever it's holdingandfalls prone.The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.Back to the logic game, I guess. The only bullet there horsie ignores is falling prone, because he's immune (for the sake of this argument) He fails Str and Dex saves, because he's asleep. Hard to resist or dodge stuff when you're sleeping, eh? Same for advantage on attacks. Nice, big horsie, sleeping, pretty easy to hit, yes? Crits? Well, since I have unlimited time to line up the shot....one can assume I would aim at a critical part of my foe, correct.
Really, at this stage, the thread is mostly trolling. Nit-picking unconscious and how it may or may not tie to prone is silly. Was silly when first presented and the horse showed why. The blinded bit falls mostly under the same purview, of one considers what WE know as blind. The light reaching the eye cannot reach the brain to be translated to an image, If your "sight" operates differently to that, you're "immune" to being blinded by most methods, yet other things, likely that would NOT blind others, may blind you. We'd need to know how blindsight actually worked to determine that and there's no description of it, so we're pooched!
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I mean, if you are saying light is actually shining on your brain when you see things, really, I doubt that YOU could claim that anyone else is trolling.
But to take your actual point further, we'd also need to know the nature of the blinding feature. blindness/deafness magically blinds you. What is to say it doesn't just prevent your brain from interpreting the signals from your optic nerves. How could you say that wouldn't affect the brain of a creature with blindsight in a similar way?
Yes, I do think you are wrong. I think that just like you are subjected to unconscious condition when you are unconscious, when you wake up you have countered that condition. You don't counter the condition by countering its effects, you counter the condition by countering the condition: by standing up you are on longer prone; by waking up you are no longer unconscious. Otherwise, as I've said, you imply that countering the disadvantage would counter blinded.
Now whether this extends to blindsight countering blinded, I will leave that up to you. I would imagine that seeing is the counter to being blinded, not blindsight... but that's just an opinion. I'm not even sure if it is a good one.
Edit: just to address the other point: "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." Whether the creature has disadvantage or not beyond its range of blindsight is a question of no value.
Not all of the conditions really have logical analogues to what "we know".... Petrified is similar to Unconscious, except for not falling Prone, but additionally turning to stone and picking up some immunities. If a creature weren't able to turn to stone (maybe it's effected by a Gaseous Form?), would it ignore all of these bullets? If it was turning to stone, but was immune to being Incapacitated, would it ignore bullets 2, 3, and 4, but keep bullets 5, and 6?
It's not that these rulings are impossible for a DM to make logically. It's that these rulings are impossible to predict objectively, because for each condition, you end up having to think hard about which bullets are independent from others, logically follow from others, etc. And different DMs will inevitably come to different conclusions, absent a rule providing guidance. That's not how RAW stuff is supposed to work, "I dunno you decide" isn't a rule. In the absence of a rule being provided the default would be... "dont do this, conditions do what they say they do unless there's a specific exception to specific effects," just like the default rule for spells, features, and every other damn thing in 5E. This (partially)* unwritten rule about countering entire conditions when one part of them becomes compromised is straying into (logical, perhaps) houserule territory.
----
Quote from iconarising >>
To continue from above.... partially unwritten. Icon is absolutely right, the Conditions sections describes that conditions can be "countered." However, the sense that the PHB/Basic Rules uses "countered" is not the sense of the word that Icon is using it in.
If standing up is a way to "counter" being prone, that's being used as a synonym for "cure" or "end" or "rectify" the entire condition. You might "counter" Unconscious by waking up, "counter" Petrified by casting Stone to Flesh, "counter" being Exhausted by getting a nap in.
Instead, Icon has been using "counter" to mean "immunized against the effect of" or "counterbalance the effect of" or something like that. It leads to the argument that you can "counter" all of Blinded by being able to see without sight, or "counter" Unconscious by being able to sleep standing up with your eyes open...
That "counter" is not the (admittedly very limited) example that the rules provided us, and as the last page has been discussing in depth, I find it really really problematic. Plenty of conditions seem like they have multiple independent effects that should not all be "countered" at once, unless by curing the condition itself rather than a single one of its several effects.
So, yes, I think that you're wrong about the meaning of "countered."
Turning to your Grimlock example, no, there is no absurd result. A Grimlock is "Blind" (a common English word that means "can't see") beyond its Blindsight radius, not Blinded (a term of art condition which confusingly uses a common English word). The Grimlock is always immune to Blinded. But that doesn't mean that it always can see other creatures, because there are ways to not see something without being Blinded. And not seeing another creature, whether its because you're Blinded, or because they're Invisible, or because they're on the other side of total cover, or because they're heavily obscured (this is treated as you being Blinded, not them having total cover), or because it's Hidden, etc., always subjects you to the Unseen Attackers & Targets section of PHB Chapter 9. And that section provides that you have disadvantage to attack it, and it has advantage to attack you.
Is that needlessly complicated and hair splitty? Yes, the vision rules of 5E totally suck, there's no reason to have separate overlapping-but-technically-unrelated systems for blindness, invisibility, cover, and hiding, but treat concealment as inverse blindness. It's whack as hell. But, it DOES avoid the absurd result you're worried about, of a Grimlock being able to see beyond its Blindsight range.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.