Does Blindsight grant the same mechanical benefits as normal vision (besides being able to make out details such as color, writing etc.)?
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.
As I understand it, Blindsight does grant the same mechanical benefits as normal vision as it "can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight". While a creature without sight cannot see a target, a blind creature with Blindsight is able to perceive the target using a bunch of other senses. A creature with Blindsight might be able to hear movement, breath, heartbeat; smell creatures or items; feel vibrations or heat from creatures; or "see" using echolocation. With all of these heightened senses, a creature with Blindsight should be able to identify where a creature or item is, and what it is doing. Yet RAW seem to indicate that a creature with Blindsight, such as a Bat, that suffers from the Blinded condition, has disadvantage on attack rolls and is more vulnerable to attacks than creatures relying on sight alone:
Blinded
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.
Yet Bats don't seem to have disadvantage on attack rolls or be more receptive to normal attacks than a creature with sight, even though it is in a heavily obscured area and therefore subjected to the Blinded condition:
A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
This seems to suggest the fact that Blindsight grants the same mechanical benefits as normal sight, besides the small details mentioned earlier. And even if we for some reason argue that the creature did not specifically suffer from the Blinded effect because it is not explicitly stated in RAW, it is very clearly written in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section that "when you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll":
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
Taking this section into consideration, we have three RAW sections mentioning that a creature that cannot see (Blinded or otherwise) has disadvantage on attack rolls and is more receptive to enemy attack rolls. YET this does not seem to be true for creatures with Blindsight. It can therefore be concluded that creatures with Blindsight does mechanically have normal vision (not including details such as color, writing, reading creatures expressions etc.). If this is true, then it should also be true that a creature with Blindsight should successfully be able to cast spells relying on sight, even when suffering from the Blinded condition.
Firstly, bats are not blind. They have perfect eyes, they are used during the day, at night they use echolocation in order to see though. /That's real life. I know in dnd they use blindsight.
For the most part blindsight is going to be the same as normal sight, except you are literally limited to your range. If you have 20ft of blindsight anything beyond that 20ft is perfectly invisible to you. You can't see the hoard of orcs a mile down the horizon currently charging you, and they are so far away you can't hear them.
I'm curious what you're exactly arguing about with your DM, assuming you're not the DM to bring this up.
From my point of view, the main advantage of blindsight is that you cannot be fully blinded, and most effects that would normally obscure vision have limited effect on a creature with blindsight. The main disadvantages if blindsight is your only source of "seeing" is the very limited range, and that you can't read.
But yes, the key to the rules debate you were having with yourself up there is that the authors have been a bit loose with the definition of the word "see", meaning it to include all other non-visual methods of knowing the exact location and movement of something; blindsight/echolocation, tremorsense, many sorts of scrying, etc.
Firstly, bats are not blind. They have perfect eyes, they are used during the day, at night they use echolocation in order to see though. /That's real life. I know in dnd they use blindsight.
For the most part blindsight is going to be the same as normal sight, except you are literally limited to your range. If you have 20ft of blindsight anything beyond that 20ft is perfectly invisible to you. You can't see the hoard of orcs a mile down the horizon currently charging you, and they are so far away you can't hear them.
I'm curious what you're exactly arguing about with your DM, assuming you're not the DM to bring this up.
I never meant to insinuate that a bat is blind. On the contrary I meant that, by RAW, it can actually suffer from the Blind condition because it is not blind. Even though it has Blindsight.
There is no argument with any DM, merely me trying to figure out whether or not Blindsight is 'better' than Dark Vision (for character creation purposes). I have always thought it was, and I still do after getting my initial thoughts confirmed. The various online debates got me confused to the point of me making this post.
I don't know that I would say blindsight is better than darkvision. Sure you can't be blinded, but you could be deafened, which would sub as you being blind. But as a DM if you wanted to play a blind character and have blindsight I'm probably not going to let you have more than 20ft of blindsight. I think that's being generous as most DMs will probably say OK you're blind, everything you do will probably be at disadvantage. I've seen a thread floating around somewhere talking about this a bit. (Don't recall the name or anything) It talked about how the concept of playing a blind character would be fun but mechanic wise sucks.
The bat also wouldn't suffer from a blind condition but rather a deafened condition, I believe.
From my point of view, the main advantage of blindsight is that you cannot be fully blinded, and most effects that would normally obscure vision have limited effect on a creature with blindsight. The main disadvantages if blindsight is your only source of "seeing" is the very limited range, and that you can't read.
But yes, the key to the rules debate you were having with yourself up there is that the authors have been a bit loose with the definition of the word "see", meaning it to include all other non-visual methods of knowing the exact location and movement of something; blindsight/echolocation, tremorsense, many sorts of scrying, etc.
Would you argue that a creature with Blindsight can actually be affected by the Blinded condition?
How would you categorise the Rogue's Blindsense ability? As I see it, it is different from Blindsight in the way that you are only aware of the creature's location, but you can't actually perceive them accurately as with Blindsight, therefore still incurring disadvantage on attack rolls.
Blindsense
Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10feet of you.
On blindsense, it really stops them from being able to surprise the rogue. They can't get advantage on him or sneak attack, but still could on the rest of the party. Like you said imo the rogue would still be at disadvantage on attacking as the creature is still invisible.
I don't know that I would say blindsight is better than darkvision. Sure you can't be blinded, but you could be deafened, which would sub as you being blind. But as a DM if you wanted to play a blind character and have blindsight I'm probably not going to let you have more than 20ft of blindsight. I think that's being generous as most DMs will probably say OK you're blind, everything you do will probably be at disadvantage. I've seen a thread floating around somewhere talking about this a bit. (Don't recall the name or anything) It talked about how the concept of playing a blind character would be fun but mechanic wise sucks.
The bat also wouldn't suffer from a blind condition but rather a deafened condition, I believe.
Being Deafened would only count as being Blinded if I was relying on my hearing for my Blindsight ability and was otherwise Blind. As you mentioned yourself earlier, Bats are not blind and would therefore not suffer from the Blinded condition if they get Deafened. Unless they are in a heavily obscured area. Likewise I don't believe that if a Bat was subjected to the Blinded condition it would automatically change into the Deafened condition. However I agree that if a Bat was in a heavily obscured area and was Deafened, it would effectively become Blinded as most other creatures would.
RAW does not mention that you cannot be subjected to the Blinded condition as normal just because you have Blindsight. Though, personally, I believe it makes sense that a creature with both normal sight and Blindsight would not become Blinded by an effect such as the Blindness/Deafness spell.
I think I read the thread you are referring to as well. Lots of mixed opinions
On blindsense, it really stops them from being able to surprise the rogue. They can't get advantage on him or sneak attack, but still could on the rest of the party. Like you said imo the rogue would still be at disadvantage on attacking as the creature is still invisible.
Why wouldn't they get advantage on their attack roll and get their sneak attack? The Rogue's Blindsense only allow the Rogue to hear the hidden creature. RAW clearly states that if you cannot see the attacker, the attacker attacks with advantage:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
I do agree that the Rogue cannot be surprised by someone he/she has heard though
To my understanding the hearing and seeing are close to the same, the rogue knows something is there, he is prepared and not surprised, so no advantage. Because he is not surprised the enemy cannot use sneak attack unless the enemy is a swashbuckler and no ally is within 5ft? Of the rogue (ally to the swashbuckler not the rogue) or there is another enemy currently threatening the rogue.
As for the bat, since we have two different conversations going here lol. Bats have an echolocation trait that when deafened they cannot use blindsight. Per real world, bats are blind at night, their eyes only work during the day, they don't have any kind of night vision at night, which is why they rely on echolocation. I would say the same goes for here. You can blind a bat, and during the day he won't be able to see you, true, but then he can rely on echolocation to figure out where you are. At night, if you deafen a bat, he can't visibly see you nor can he use his echolocation to see you. At night he would technically already be blind.
I really hope that makes sense with the bat thing. I'm not 100% if it does, I feel like I'm more rambling on than anything!
/e also, copy/paste from that bottom paragraph of unseen attackers and targets -> If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard-- the rogue heard the target.
To my understanding the hearing and seeing are close to the same, the rogue knows something is there, he is prepared and not surprised, so no advantage. Because he is not surprised the enemy cannot use sneak attack unless the enemy is a swashbuckler and no ally is within 5ft? Of the rogue (ally to the swashbuckler not the rogue) or there is another enemy currently threatening the rogue.
As for the bat, since we have two different conversations going here lol. Bats have an echolocation trait that when deafened they cannot use blindsight. Per real world, bats are blind at night, their eyes only work during the day, they don't have any kind of night vision at night, which is why they rely on echolocation. I would say the same goes for here. You can blind a bat, and during the day he won't be able to see you, true, but then he can rely on echolocation to figure out where you are. At night, if you deafen a bat, he can't visibly see you nor can he use his echolocation to see you. At night he would technically already be blind.
I really hope that makes sense with the bat thing. I'm not 100% if it does, I feel like I'm more rambling on than anything!
/e also, copy/paste from that bottom paragraph of unseen attackers and targets -> If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard-- the rogue heard the target.
I am pretty sure we agree on the Bat part ^^
Regarding the use of Blindsense, I agree that the Rogue will not be surprised as he knows someone is there. However creatures still have advantage on attacks against a creature that cannot see it. And the Rogue cannot see creatures using his/her Blindsense. Also, regarding a Rogue's Sneak Attack, it doesn't require a surprised target. It requires that the attacker has advantage against the target:
Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
Also the bottom paragraph of the Unseen Attackers and Targets that you mentioned is referring to the fact that you give away your location when you make an attack while hidden.That doesn't mean that you are prepared for the attack when it does happen.
Now that I am at home and able to do some googling. According to a post on r/dndnext the rogue will know exactly where the target is while within his blindsense area so he can attack without fear of swinging wildly into the area. The rogue still has disadvantage and the invisible person still has advantage. You are right on that!
For the sneak attack, I said surprised just because sneak attack requires advantage, so surprise or a flank of some sort is the most common.
I am still in doubt about whether or not a creature with both normal sight and Blindsight can be affected by the Blinded condition from a spell such as Blindness/Deafness. Logically I don't think it makes sense, but by RAW I am not so sure...
I am still in doubt about whether or not a creature with both normal sight and Blindsight can be affected by the Blinded condition from a spell such as Blindness/Deafness. Logically I don't think it makes sense, but by RAW I am not so sure...
They'd lose their sight, and effectively be blinded beyond their blindsight radius. Not really sure why you think that doesn't make sense; they're separate senses.
Blinded creatures cannot see. That is not to say that creatures that cannot see are necessarily Blinded (for example, if they have blindsight). If A then B does not necessarily establish that if B then A.
I am still in doubt about whether or not a creature with both normal sight and Blindsight can be affected by the Blinded condition from a spell such as Blindness/Deafness. Logically I don't think it makes sense, but by RAW I am not so sure...
They'd lose their sight, and effectively be blinded beyond their blindsight radius. Not really sure why you think that doesn't make sense; they're separate senses.
I am not asking about the effect on their sight, I am asking about whether or not the creature will feel the other effects of the Blinded condition (such as the disadvantage on attack rolls). Logically it doesn't make sense as you can still "see" within your Blindsight radius. But if you get affected by a spell such as Blindness/Deafness, which just states that the target is now under the Blinded condition, what then? RAW say you are under the Blinded condition, meaning disadvantage on attack rolls among other things. Or is a creature with Blindsight immune to Blindness within their Blindsight radius?
Blinded creatures cannot see. That is not to say that creatures that cannot see are necessarily Blinded (for example, if they have blindsight). If A then B does not necessarily establish that if B then A.
I am aware. What I am asking is whether or not a Blinded (by spell) creature is Blinded, even though it has Blindsight. Or if the Blindsight renders the creature immune within it's radius.
If a creature has heightened senses (blindsight AND normal sight.) And is under the blind condition they are not at disadvantage as long as their target is within their blindsight radius.
Does Blindsight grant the same mechanical benefits as normal vision (besides being able to make out details such as color, writing etc.)?
As I understand it, Blindsight does grant the same mechanical benefits as normal vision as it "can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight". While a creature without sight cannot see a target, a blind creature with Blindsight is able to perceive the target using a bunch of other senses. A creature with Blindsight might be able to hear movement, breath, heartbeat; smell creatures or items; feel vibrations or heat from creatures; or "see" using echolocation. With all of these heightened senses, a creature with Blindsight should be able to identify where a creature or item is, and what it is doing. Yet RAW seem to indicate that a creature with Blindsight, such as a Bat, that suffers from the Blinded condition, has disadvantage on attack rolls and is more vulnerable to attacks than creatures relying on sight alone:
Yet Bats don't seem to have disadvantage on attack rolls or be more receptive to normal attacks than a creature with sight, even though it is in a heavily obscured area and therefore subjected to the Blinded condition:
This seems to suggest the fact that Blindsight grants the same mechanical benefits as normal sight, besides the small details mentioned earlier. And even if we for some reason argue that the creature did not specifically suffer from the Blinded effect because it is not explicitly stated in RAW, it is very clearly written in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section that "when you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll":
Taking this section into consideration, we have three RAW sections mentioning that a creature that cannot see (Blinded or otherwise) has disadvantage on attack rolls and is more receptive to enemy attack rolls. YET this does not seem to be true for creatures with Blindsight. It can therefore be concluded that creatures with Blindsight does mechanically have normal vision (not including details such as color, writing, reading creatures expressions etc.). If this is true, then it should also be true that a creature with Blindsight should successfully be able to cast spells relying on sight, even when suffering from the Blinded condition.
Thoughts?
The intent is that yes, using blindsight counts as seeing something even though you're not using regular vision.
"Blindsight qualifies for anything in the D&D rules that requires you to see something, provided that thing is within your blindsight's radius."
Firstly, bats are not blind. They have perfect eyes, they are used during the day, at night they use echolocation in order to see though. /That's real life. I know in dnd they use blindsight.
For the most part blindsight is going to be the same as normal sight, except you are literally limited to your range. If you have 20ft of blindsight anything beyond that 20ft is perfectly invisible to you. You can't see the hoard of orcs a mile down the horizon currently charging you, and they are so far away you can't hear them.
I'm curious what you're exactly arguing about with your DM, assuming you're not the DM to bring this up.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
Well that quote clears up the debate neatly. I had a very hard time finding good sources or solid arguments when searching for an answer online...
From my point of view, the main advantage of blindsight is that you cannot be fully blinded, and most effects that would normally obscure vision have limited effect on a creature with blindsight. The main disadvantages if blindsight is your only source of "seeing" is the very limited range, and that you can't read.
But yes, the key to the rules debate you were having with yourself up there is that the authors have been a bit loose with the definition of the word "see", meaning it to include all other non-visual methods of knowing the exact location and movement of something; blindsight/echolocation, tremorsense, many sorts of scrying, etc.
I never meant to insinuate that a bat is blind. On the contrary I meant that, by RAW, it can actually suffer from the Blind condition because it is not blind. Even though it has Blindsight.
There is no argument with any DM, merely me trying to figure out whether or not Blindsight is 'better' than Dark Vision (for character creation purposes). I have always thought it was, and I still do after getting my initial thoughts confirmed. The various online debates got me confused to the point of me making this post.
I don't know that I would say blindsight is better than darkvision. Sure you can't be blinded, but you could be deafened, which would sub as you being blind. But as a DM if you wanted to play a blind character and have blindsight I'm probably not going to let you have more than 20ft of blindsight. I think that's being generous as most DMs will probably say OK you're blind, everything you do will probably be at disadvantage. I've seen a thread floating around somewhere talking about this a bit. (Don't recall the name or anything) It talked about how the concept of playing a blind character would be fun but mechanic wise sucks.
The bat also wouldn't suffer from a blind condition but rather a deafened condition, I believe.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
On blindsense, it really stops them from being able to surprise the rogue. They can't get advantage on him or sneak attack, but still could on the rest of the party. Like you said imo the rogue would still be at disadvantage on attacking as the creature is still invisible.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
Being Deafened would only count as being Blinded if I was relying on my hearing for my Blindsight ability and was otherwise Blind. As you mentioned yourself earlier, Bats are not blind and would therefore not suffer from the Blinded condition if they get Deafened. Unless they are in a heavily obscured area. Likewise I don't believe that if a Bat was subjected to the Blinded condition it would automatically change into the Deafened condition. However I agree that if a Bat was in a heavily obscured area and was Deafened, it would effectively become Blinded as most other creatures would.
RAW does not mention that you cannot be subjected to the Blinded condition as normal just because you have Blindsight. Though, personally, I believe it makes sense that a creature with both normal sight and Blindsight would not become Blinded by an effect such as the Blindness/Deafness spell.
I think I read the thread you are referring to as well. Lots of mixed opinions
Why wouldn't they get advantage on their attack roll and get their sneak attack? The Rogue's Blindsense only allow the Rogue to hear the hidden creature. RAW clearly states that if you cannot see the attacker, the attacker attacks with advantage:
I do agree that the Rogue cannot be surprised by someone he/she has heard though
To my understanding the hearing and seeing are close to the same, the rogue knows something is there, he is prepared and not surprised, so no advantage. Because he is not surprised the enemy cannot use sneak attack unless the enemy is a swashbuckler and no ally is within 5ft? Of the rogue (ally to the swashbuckler not the rogue) or there is another enemy currently threatening the rogue.
As for the bat, since we have two different conversations going here lol. Bats have an echolocation trait that when deafened they cannot use blindsight. Per real world, bats are blind at night, their eyes only work during the day, they don't have any kind of night vision at night, which is why they rely on echolocation. I would say the same goes for here. You can blind a bat, and during the day he won't be able to see you, true, but then he can rely on echolocation to figure out where you are. At night, if you deafen a bat, he can't visibly see you nor can he use his echolocation to see you. At night he would technically already be blind.
I really hope that makes sense with the bat thing. I'm not 100% if it does, I feel like I'm more rambling on than anything!
/e also, copy/paste from that bottom paragraph of unseen attackers and targets -> If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard-- the rogue heard the target.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
I am pretty sure we agree on the Bat part ^^
Regarding the use of Blindsense, I agree that the Rogue will not be surprised as he knows someone is there. However creatures still have advantage on attacks against a creature that cannot see it. And the Rogue cannot see creatures using his/her Blindsense. Also, regarding a Rogue's Sneak Attack, it doesn't require a surprised target. It requires that the attacker has advantage against the target:
Also the bottom paragraph of the Unseen Attackers and Targets that you mentioned is referring to the fact that you give away your location when you make an attack while hidden.That doesn't mean that you are prepared for the attack when it does happen.
Now that I am at home and able to do some googling. According to a post on r/dndnext the rogue will know exactly where the target is while within his blindsense area so he can attack without fear of swinging wildly into the area. The rogue still has disadvantage and the invisible person still has advantage. You are right on that!
For the sneak attack, I said surprised just because sneak attack requires advantage, so surprise or a flank of some sort is the most common.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
I am still in doubt about whether or not a creature with both normal sight and Blindsight can be affected by the Blinded condition from a spell such as Blindness/Deafness. Logically I don't think it makes sense, but by RAW I am not so sure...
They'd lose their sight, and effectively be blinded beyond their blindsight radius. Not really sure why you think that doesn't make sense; they're separate senses.
Blinded creatures cannot see. That is not to say that creatures that cannot see are necessarily Blinded (for example, if they have blindsight). If A then B does not necessarily establish that if B then A.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not asking about the effect on their sight, I am asking about whether or not the creature will feel the other effects of the Blinded condition (such as the disadvantage on attack rolls). Logically it doesn't make sense as you can still "see" within your Blindsight radius. But if you get affected by a spell such as Blindness/Deafness, which just states that the target is now under the Blinded condition, what then? RAW say you are under the Blinded condition, meaning disadvantage on attack rolls among other things. Or is a creature with Blindsight immune to Blindness within their Blindsight radius?
I am aware. What I am asking is whether or not a Blinded (by spell) creature is Blinded, even though it has Blindsight. Or if the Blindsight renders the creature immune within it's radius.
If a creature has heightened senses (blindsight AND normal sight.) And is under the blind condition they are not at disadvantage as long as their target is within their blindsight radius.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
Do you have any source supporting this opinion? Besides common sense? Thinking about RAW or quotes from designers