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.
You may indeed be aware, but I feel like you're fishing for a different answer. When a creature is "Blinded" they a) cannot see, b) auto-fail checks that rely on sight, and c) suffer from disadvantage on attacks/advantage on attacks against them. Neither the Blindsight spell nor the Blindsight ability in any way contradict or replace any of those conditions. All Blindsight does is give a creature with Blindsight a way to "perceive" their surroundings. Whether or not "logic" dictates that perceiving ones surroundings by a means other than sight would compensate for the effects of being "Blinded," the rules as written do not provide for that to be the case. RAW, being Blinded and having Blindsight are not really that closely related, and Blindsight certainly doesn't provide any immunity from the Blinded condition.
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.
You may indeed be aware, but I feel like you're fishing for a different answer. When a creature is "Blinded" they a) cannot see, b) auto-fail checks that rely on sight, and c) suffer from disadvantage on attacks/advantage on attacks against them. Neither the Blindsight spell nor the Blindsight ability in any way contradict or replace any of those conditions. All Blindsight does is give a creature with Blindsight a way to "perceive" their surroundings. Whether or not "logic" dictates that perceiving ones surroundings by a means other than sight would compensate for the effects of being "Blinded," the rules as written do not provide for that to be the case. RAW, being Blinded and having Blindsight are not really that closely related, and Blindsight certainly doesn't provide any immunity from the Blinded condition.
Misty is fishing for a clearer answer because answers like this don't make much sense - even though you might be correct according to the easiest interpretation of the rules RAW. The description of blindsight includes "If a monster is naturally blind [...] the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception", along with explanation that the source of blindsight is senses other than sight. The implication there is that within the blindsight radius, blindness is almost irrelevant - in that you can perceive your surroundings and any creatures sufficient to target them and avoid advantage/disadvantage for not seeing them. Effectively you can still "see" within this range. The Blinded condition does two things: declares you can't see and fail checks requiring sight, and forces advantage/disadvantage against you in combat. Now, a bat that has the Blinded condition has not lost its blindsight (hearing), so one of its sources of "vision" is still perfectly active. It follows that because the Blinded condition has not actually left the bat unable to see, that it also does not impose advantage/disadvantage within that blindsight radius (but still does for attackers outside the radius) - rendering the bat's vision identical to an ooze that has only blindsight and is naturally blind beyond the radius. The only way to argue against that logic would be to insist that the Blinded condition imposes its advantage/disadvantage via some mechanism other than making the target unable to see. I argue that it doesn't and is not intended to. I can't find an official ruling either way, but I also don't need to because my interpretation makes consistent internal sense and I'm comfortable with it.
You can blind any creature that is not immune to blind, if they have heightened senses, like I said they are visually blind, but within their blindsight range they know their surroundings perfectly fine.
If we take a dragon, like how it was offered in that question, and you somehow manage to blind him, if you are within his 60ft of blindsight you DO NOT get advantage on your attack and he DOES NOT have disadvantage on his attacks. If you step outside of his 60ft blindsight though, you DO get advantage on your attacks and he, DOES have disadvantage on his attacks, and auto misses IF you moved from the last place he saw you step into. Though, his only real ranged attack is his breath and it'll probably hit you anyway. He would walk in your last know direction attempting to attack and would probably find your location as you entered his blindsight range again.
I think Misty has a good idea of where the straws lay on this one? He just doesn't want to accept it from someone other than a rule book or a rule writer for D&D.
There is no "implication" that within the radius of blindsight the advantage/disadvantage part of blindness becomes irrelevant or in any way contradicted; if that was the case, surely blindsight would say something to the effect of not suffering disadvantage on attacks against targets you cannot see, or about not being subject to advantage from attacks by invisible attackers. It doesn't, and no amount of selective logic and "implications" makes it otherwise. Neither are there any Sage Advice tweets that support this implication. We have a tweet from crawford saying that you perceive things without seeing them (and no rule or ruling that suggests that the disadvantage/advantage from the blindness condition is due to a lack of 'perceiving' the foe), and another tweet from Crawford that says that you can target things with spells/abilities that require "a target you can see" when you are perceiving them via blindsense (again, nothing about advantage/disadvantage rule of Blindness condition in any way suggest a relation to targeting rules).
I understand the "logic" of what y'all are arguing for, I'm not stupid. But we are not talking about real blindness, or real alternative sensory modes used by real critters, or logic or reasonable inferences. We're talking about a game system, and the rules of this game system provide that things with Blindsense will still suffer negative effects when "Blinded," even though they can still perceive/target critters around them by using their other senses, because there is no rule and no ruling that in the slightest suggests otherwise.
If your position comes down to "well I don't think that makes sense and its not how I would play it at my table," great, more power to you. Doesn't mean that's how Blindsight "works" in D&D RAW.
I'm not arguing for real life in any way, shape or form. Purely for D&D. With your logic about being blinded should cause creatures with blindsight to be at disadvantage when attacking comes my additional piece of logic that: creatures who are naturally blind w/ blindsight should also be at disadvantage when attacking and should be attacked at advantage because they are permanently affected with the blind condition. I however do not agree with this nor would anyone else (That I know of).
I understand your logic on something affected by blindness is considered to have disadvantage on attack rolls and has advantage against him, when relying on sight (because blindness is SIGHT based), but blindsight does not rely on sight, it relies on a completely different sense. Hence blindness (which blinds your sight) has no affect on it within the creatures blindsight radius outside of that blindsight radius, that creature is blind as hell.
I personally tweeted him just now -> Does a blinded creature, by spell or naturally with blindsight have disadvantage on attacks against creatures inside it's blindsight radius?
That seems to be the point you are arguing for and I against. hopefully he will respond tomorrow with an official answer for us.
Again, you're leaping to inferences. You are assuming that creatures that are naturally "blind" (don't have eyes) are afflicted with the Blinded condition. That is not stated in the rules of any creature I can think of, unless you can point to one? My position is not that Grimlocks suffer from disadvantage. It is that Grimlocks are immune to Blinded due to their stat block saying so, not merely because of the fact that they have Blindsight. Their immunity comes from their immunity, not from having the Blindsight trait alone.
The common sense use of the word "blind" is not the same thing as the Blinded condition, in the same way that the common sense use of the word "afraid" is not the same as the Frightened condition, etc.
Again, you're leaping to inferences. You are assuming that creatures that are naturally "blind" (don't have eyes) are afflicted with the Blinded condition. That is not stated in the rules of any creature I can think of, unless you can point to one? My position is not that Grimlocks suffer from disadvantage. It is that Grimlocks are immune to Blinded due to their stat block saying so, not merely because of the fact that they have Blindsight. Their immunity comes from their immunity, not from having the Blindsight trait alone.
The common sense use of the word "blind" is not the same thing as the Blinded condition, in the same way that the common sense use of the word "afraid" is not the same as the Frightened condition, etc.
But Grimlocks *do* suffer from disadvantage - against all targets outside their blindsight radius. Why? Because they are blind out there and cannot see those enemies. They do not suffer it against enemies within the radius because they have blindsight, which allows them to "see" perfectly well without eyes. They are immune to the Blinded condition not for some mystical reason, but because the condition would make no difference. A bat is not immune to being blinded, and the condition can be applied to them as normal. However, we are arguing, the Blinded condition does not override their other senses nor their blindsight. A bat which has been blinded now has the same vision situation as a Grimlock - blind/disadvantaged outside its radius, normal activity within the radius.
We understand that the rules as written could allow a bat to be struck with the Blinded condition and thus suffer disadvantage to all combat. We are arguing that all logic points to that not being the intention of the interaction between blindsight and the Blinded condition.
Chicken_Champ You could say that I am fishing for an official answer to the discussion in question. I think that logically it would make sense that a creature with Blindsight would not suffer from the Blinded condition, even after being subjected to the Blindness/Deafness spell, as the creature doesn't rely only on its vision to "see". However going by RAW it is nowhere stated that a creature with Blindsight is immune to the Blindness condition. I am glad to see that you understand the distinct nature of my inquiry. My question is one regarding RAW vs RAI.
RegentCorreon Yes. We seem to be on the same page most of the way. Logically it makes sense to assume that the Blinded condition refers to visual blindness. But I've been looking so much at RAW that I've begun to question ROI. It would have been easy for the designers to write "Creatures with Blindsight are immune to the Blinded condition within their Blindsight radius"if that was actually the intention.
Jusblazm I am merely a bit confused and curious about whether what I feel makes logical sense is actually the rules as intended, because it could have been easy to fix the rules as written to eliminate the doubt. But they haven't done so. Perhaps for a reason. Also, as Chicken_Champ mentioned, most (if not all) creatures that are naturally blind but has Blindsight are immune to the Blinded condition by RAW (because it says so explicitly on their stat block).
Much along the lines of what Chicken_Champ is arguing, if the intent was to grant a creature immunity to the Blinded condition within its radius, it would have been stated in the description of Blindsight right? So the question is if it would have been (RAW) or should have been (RAI).
Looking at the Blinded condition in detail we can see that it is split into two separate points. The first one, referring to sight, doesn't seem to affect a creature with Blindsight as the ability is another sense that mechanically works as sight, as explained by Jeremy Crawford. However the second point does not mention sight at all. It simply refers to the creature who is affected by the Blinded condition. And creatures with Blindsight are not immune to the Blinded condition within their Blindsight radius (by RAW).
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.
Overthinking things Regular sight and Blindsight are two separate senses. Much like our normal senses one wouldn't normally lose one sense (hearing, [Blindsight]) as a consequence of losing another sense (vision [regular sight]). Thinking about it this way I am more keen to think that creatures with Blindsight are immune to the Blindness condition within their Blindsight radius. However there is another way in which I do believe it would make sense for a creature with Blindsight to be susceptible to the Blinded condition within its Blindsight radius. This would be the case if by taking away one sense (vision [regular sight]) a creature would become disoriented as its other senses (e.g. hearing [Blindsight]) would have to adapt. It is commonly known (and research suggests) that losing one sense enhances the others, given time to adapt. However It is also known that, while one may not lose one sense as a consequence of losing another, sensory loss can negatively impact other senses. it would explain why the creature would still have disadvantage even though it still has its Blindsight. It might be somewhat of a stretch to suggest that the D&D designers have taken this into account when considering the Blinded/Blindsight debate, but I wanted to mention it anyways.
The common sense use of the word "blind" is not the same thing as the Blinded condition, in the same way that the common sense use of the word "afraid" is not the same as the Frightened condition, etc.
And yet DMG Chapter 8 says: "Various rules and features in the game are clear about when they apply a condition to a creature. You can also apply conditions on the fly. They’re meant to be intuitive for you to do so. For example, if a character is in a state, such as sleep, that lacks consciousness, you can say the character is unconscious."
So it's clear you're expected to apply common sense for conditions.
I understand that if you parse the rules like a stupid computer, you'd conclude the bullet points of the blinded condition apply unconditionally if you're been robbed of your sight. But that's a pointless thought experiment, since the rules are written in natural language by humans for other humans.
The blinded condition is obviously written for creatures with no additional senses and a human is expected to understand that when blindsight says you can perceive your environment without vision, that's an exception to the usual rules of being blinded which basically say that say you can't see. Just like I also know the second bullet point isn't really a property of the blinded condition but a reminder of the rules for attacking and being attacked by creatures you can't see, whether that's because you're blind or they're obscured. But it's handy to have that bullet point there anyways.
Coder, if your interpretation of the rules depends on assuming that the clear language contained within those rules is meaningless (the second bullet point of Blinded, that Blinded creatures have advantage/disadvantage), but that other language which doesn't appear anywhere in Blinded or any other portion of any monster's statblock or the DMG controls (that blindsight "overrides" Blinded on creatures which are not stated to be immune to the Blinded condition)… well, I just don't think that we have any common ground to stand on for this discussion. It is a basic tenant of textual interpretation that one should presume that no language unnecessary to the rule was included, nor any language essential to the rule excluded, so I reject your premise that the second bullet point is meaningless or somehow lying to us. If someone can drum up a tweet from Crawford indicating that that isn't the case, sure, then we can start to pick apart what the rule "should" have been or was "meant" to be.... but right now, it's pretty simple and straightforward: if something hands you the Blinded condition, and you aren't immune to it by virtue of your statblock or some other ability explicitly providing immunity, then you suffer the effects of Blinded, including the disadvantage/advantage condition specifically.
There is something I don’t understand regarding Blindsight (probably a lot more than I am aware of). I understand it to be an ability that lets you perceive your surroundings as if you had normal vision. This is supported by Jeremy Crawford. Yet Jeremy Crawford has also stated that you cannot hide from a creature within its Blindsight radius unless magically concealed. This statement implies that a creature with Blindsight does not need to make Perception checks to notice a creature within its Blindsight radius (otherwise it would have been possible to hide). This doesn’t make sense to me considering that it is stated on the stat block of a creature that is naturally blind, such as a Grimlock, that it has a Passive Perception score and advantage on certain Perception checks. Did Jeremy Crawford make a mistake when saying that you can’t hide from a creature within its Blindsight radius, or am I missing something?
Crawford doesn't seem to think some of these through very clearly, and often offers up unnecessary "clarifications" that only introduce unnecessary confusion. Stealth in 5e represents both visually hiding and moving silently, and I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea to suggest that staying still and quiet to hide from the thing that sees you with sound was an important or correct ruling to make in the public sphere. Some creatures, such as the Grimlock, actually have blindsight based on other senses like smell, so it makes a little more sense that you can't hide from them by just staying quiet... but I can still easily imagine Predator-type situations where a character might smear themselves in wet mud to hide their scent, which Crawford has needlessly closed off.
TLDR: Crawford very, very, very often makes mistakes when ruling on things that aren't clarifications of ambiguous rules, but rather him inventing new rules on the spot and pretending they have the force of authority.
Edit: Could also be that he got confused and mixed Blindsight (common monster ability that doesn't say anything about auto-defeating hidden) up with Blindsense (high-level class ability that explicitly says that auto-detects hidden within radius while you can hear)?
So common sense, as well as RAW, seem to indicate that a creature with Blindsight does rely on Perception checks in order to perceive something, yes?
There is another issue these quotes made me think of. If someone is within my Blindsight radius I am able to "see" that creature and therefore able to target it with spells. Does that mean that I can cast a spell, such as Power Word Kill, on a creature on the other side of a wall?
Somewhere, I am at work and unable to take the time to find it, is another tweet from Crawford answering the same question and he says you can hide from a creature with blindsight if you are behind full cover.
I think the "advantage on perception checks" regarding sound and smell that often comes along with blindsight refer generally to two things: hearing and smelling things outside your radius, like a dog smelling someone in the breeze, or listening to the birds of a forest for clues; and finding things within your radius that are invisible thus need other senses to locate. Each of those tasks would likely have a higher DC than any search that relies on sight, so only your heightened senses give you a decent chance. It could even involve listening at a door and using your hearing to pinpoint the exact location of a creature; you could target that creature now with some spells, but still not spells that require you to "see" the target as your echolocation or whatever is still too obscured by the total cover.
I really think of Daredevil when it comes to blindsight, yes his is really far though. but every time I read one of these blindsight threads I wanna make a blind Monk lol
Drow (PC): Sunlight Sensitivity. You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.
Drow (NPC): Sunlight Sensitivity. While in sunlight, the drow has disadvantage on attack rolls, as well as on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
Blingsight. A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight
RAW, a drow PC in a sunlight sensitivity situation would still have disadvantage on attacks even with eyes being closed and blindsight because of the phrase "whatever you are trying to perceive." While blindsight is not sight, you are still using it to perceive. RAI, I think you could argue that the rule is based around the idea that the drow's eyes are sensitive to the light so by closing them and relying in blindsight, they could mitigate the problem. The drow NPC, on the other hand... well that depends on how much importance you place on the lack of a comma after the word "checks." Grammatically, because of the lack of the comma, they get disadvantage on attack rolls. Additionally, they get disadvantage on perception checks that rely on sight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You may indeed be aware, but I feel like you're fishing for a different answer. When a creature is "Blinded" they a) cannot see, b) auto-fail checks that rely on sight, and c) suffer from disadvantage on attacks/advantage on attacks against them. Neither the Blindsight spell nor the Blindsight ability in any way contradict or replace any of those conditions. All Blindsight does is give a creature with Blindsight a way to "perceive" their surroundings. Whether or not "logic" dictates that perceiving ones surroundings by a means other than sight would compensate for the effects of being "Blinded," the rules as written do not provide for that to be the case. RAW, being Blinded and having Blindsight are not really that closely related, and Blindsight certainly doesn't provide any immunity from the Blinded condition.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Keep in mind that there are creatures (like the Gray Ooze) that demonstrate entities that are blind but have blindsight.
They seem to work as logic would suggest: "Blindsight X ft. (blind beyond this radius)".
Misty is fishing for a clearer answer because answers like this don't make much sense - even though you might be correct according to the easiest interpretation of the rules RAW. The description of blindsight includes "If a monster is naturally blind [...] the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception", along with explanation that the source of blindsight is senses other than sight. The implication there is that within the blindsight radius, blindness is almost irrelevant - in that you can perceive your surroundings and any creatures sufficient to target them and avoid advantage/disadvantage for not seeing them. Effectively you can still "see" within this range. The Blinded condition does two things: declares you can't see and fail checks requiring sight, and forces advantage/disadvantage against you in combat. Now, a bat that has the Blinded condition has not lost its blindsight (hearing), so one of its sources of "vision" is still perfectly active. It follows that because the Blinded condition has not actually left the bat unable to see, that it also does not impose advantage/disadvantage within that blindsight radius (but still does for attackers outside the radius) - rendering the bat's vision identical to an ooze that has only blindsight and is naturally blind beyond the radius. The only way to argue against that logic would be to insist that the Blinded condition imposes its advantage/disadvantage via some mechanism other than making the target unable to see. I argue that it doesn't and is not intended to. I can't find an official ruling either way, but I also don't need to because my interpretation makes consistent internal sense and I'm comfortable with it.
Here's as official of a ruling that you're going to get -> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/765604999955001344
You can blind any creature that is not immune to blind, if they have heightened senses, like I said they are visually blind, but within their blindsight range they know their surroundings perfectly fine.
If we take a dragon, like how it was offered in that question, and you somehow manage to blind him, if you are within his 60ft of blindsight you DO NOT get advantage on your attack and he DOES NOT have disadvantage on his attacks. If you step outside of his 60ft blindsight though, you DO get advantage on your attacks and he, DOES have disadvantage on his attacks, and auto misses IF you moved from the last place he saw you step into. Though, his only real ranged attack is his breath and it'll probably hit you anyway. He would walk in your last know direction attempting to attack and would probably find your location as you entered his blindsight range again.
I think Misty has a good idea of where the straws lay on this one? He just doesn't want to accept it from someone other than a rule book or a rule writer for D&D.
You still make noise unless you take the Hide action. The dragon can still track your position by sound until you successfully hide.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
There is no "implication" that within the radius of blindsight the advantage/disadvantage part of blindness becomes irrelevant or in any way contradicted; if that was the case, surely blindsight would say something to the effect of not suffering disadvantage on attacks against targets you cannot see, or about not being subject to advantage from attacks by invisible attackers. It doesn't, and no amount of selective logic and "implications" makes it otherwise. Neither are there any Sage Advice tweets that support this implication. We have a tweet from crawford saying that you perceive things without seeing them (and no rule or ruling that suggests that the disadvantage/advantage from the blindness condition is due to a lack of 'perceiving' the foe), and another tweet from Crawford that says that you can target things with spells/abilities that require "a target you can see" when you are perceiving them via blindsense (again, nothing about advantage/disadvantage rule of Blindness condition in any way suggest a relation to targeting rules).
I understand the "logic" of what y'all are arguing for, I'm not stupid. But we are not talking about real blindness, or real alternative sensory modes used by real critters, or logic or reasonable inferences. We're talking about a game system, and the rules of this game system provide that things with Blindsense will still suffer negative effects when "Blinded," even though they can still perceive/target critters around them by using their other senses, because there is no rule and no ruling that in the slightest suggests otherwise.
If your position comes down to "well I don't think that makes sense and its not how I would play it at my table," great, more power to you. Doesn't mean that's how Blindsight "works" in D&D RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not arguing for real life in any way, shape or form. Purely for D&D. With your logic about being blinded should cause creatures with blindsight to be at disadvantage when attacking comes my additional piece of logic that: creatures who are naturally blind w/ blindsight should also be at disadvantage when attacking and should be attacked at advantage because they are permanently affected with the blind condition. I however do not agree with this nor would anyone else (That I know of).
Here is another player discussion nothing from an official rule writer. Just someone asking a question and getting a response -> https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/91773/can-a-creature-with-blindsight-that-is-not-immune-to-the-blinded-condition-suffe
I understand your logic on something affected by blindness is considered to have disadvantage on attack rolls and has advantage against him, when relying on sight (because blindness is SIGHT based), but blindsight does not rely on sight, it relies on a completely different sense. Hence blindness (which blinds your sight) has no affect on it within the creatures blindsight radius outside of that blindsight radius, that creature is blind as hell.
He has again, confirmed my figures that when attacked outside of their blindsight limits while blinded provides advantage. -> https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/15/if-a-creature-is-blind-beyond-blindsight-radius-do-ranged-attacks-receive-advantage/
I personally tweeted him just now -> Does a blinded creature, by spell or naturally with blindsight have disadvantage on attacks against creatures inside it's blindsight radius?
That seems to be the point you are arguing for and I against. hopefully he will respond tomorrow with an official answer for us.
Again, you're leaping to inferences. You are assuming that creatures that are naturally "blind" (don't have eyes) are afflicted with the Blinded condition. That is not stated in the rules of any creature I can think of, unless you can point to one? My position is not that Grimlocks suffer from disadvantage. It is that Grimlocks are immune to Blinded due to their stat block saying so, not merely because of the fact that they have Blindsight. Their immunity comes from their immunity, not from having the Blindsight trait alone.
The common sense use of the word "blind" is not the same thing as the Blinded condition, in the same way that the common sense use of the word "afraid" is not the same as the Frightened condition, etc.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But Grimlocks *do* suffer from disadvantage - against all targets outside their blindsight radius. Why? Because they are blind out there and cannot see those enemies. They do not suffer it against enemies within the radius because they have blindsight, which allows them to "see" perfectly well without eyes. They are immune to the Blinded condition not for some mystical reason, but because the condition would make no difference. A bat is not immune to being blinded, and the condition can be applied to them as normal. However, we are arguing, the Blinded condition does not override their other senses nor their blindsight. A bat which has been blinded now has the same vision situation as a Grimlock - blind/disadvantaged outside its radius, normal activity within the radius.
We understand that the rules as written could allow a bat to be struck with the Blinded condition and thus suffer disadvantage to all combat. We are arguing that all logic points to that not being the intention of the interaction between blindsight and the Blinded condition.
Chicken_Champ You could say that I am fishing for an official answer to the discussion in question. I think that logically it would make sense that a creature with Blindsight would not suffer from the Blinded condition, even after being subjected to the Blindness/Deafness spell, as the creature doesn't rely only on its vision to "see". However going by RAW it is nowhere stated that a creature with Blindsight is immune to the Blindness condition. I am glad to see that you understand the distinct nature of my inquiry. My question is one regarding RAW vs RAI.
RegentCorreon Yes. We seem to be on the same page most of the way. Logically it makes sense to assume that the Blinded condition refers to visual blindness. But I've been looking so much at RAW that I've begun to question ROI. It would have been easy for the designers to write "Creatures with Blindsight are immune to the Blinded condition within their Blindsight radius" if that was actually the intention.
Jusblazm I am merely a bit confused and curious about whether what I feel makes logical sense is actually the rules as intended, because it could have been easy to fix the rules as written to eliminate the doubt. But they haven't done so. Perhaps for a reason. Also, as Chicken_Champ mentioned, most (if not all) creatures that are naturally blind but has Blindsight are immune to the Blinded condition by RAW (because it says so explicitly on their stat block).
Much along the lines of what Chicken_Champ is arguing, if the intent was to grant a creature immunity to the Blinded condition within its radius, it would have been stated in the description of Blindsight right? So the question is if it would have been (RAW) or should have been (RAI).
Looking at the Blinded condition in detail we can see that it is split into two separate points. The first one, referring to sight, doesn't seem to affect a creature with Blindsight as the ability is another sense that mechanically works as sight, as explained by Jeremy Crawford.
However the second point does not mention sight at all. It simply refers to the creature who is affected by the Blinded condition. And creatures with Blindsight are not immune to the Blinded condition within their Blindsight radius (by RAW).
Overthinking things
Regular sight and Blindsight are two separate senses. Much like our normal senses one wouldn't normally lose one sense (hearing, [Blindsight]) as a consequence of losing another sense (vision [regular sight]). Thinking about it this way I am more keen to think that creatures with Blindsight are immune to the Blindness condition within their Blindsight radius.
However there is another way in which I do believe it would make sense for a creature with Blindsight to be susceptible to the Blinded condition within its Blindsight radius. This would be the case if by taking away one sense (vision [regular sight]) a creature would become disoriented as its other senses (e.g. hearing [Blindsight]) would have to adapt. It is commonly known (and research suggests) that losing one sense enhances the others, given time to adapt. However It is also known that, while one may not lose one sense as a consequence of losing another, sensory loss can negatively impact other senses. it would explain why the creature would still have disadvantage even though it still has its Blindsight. It might be somewhat of a stretch to suggest that the D&D designers have taken this into account when considering the Blinded/Blindsight debate, but I wanted to mention it anyways.
And yet DMG Chapter 8 says: "Various rules and features in the game are clear about when they apply a condition to a creature. You can also apply conditions on the fly. They’re meant to be intuitive for you to do so. For example, if a character is in a state, such as sleep, that lacks consciousness, you can say the character is unconscious."
So it's clear you're expected to apply common sense for conditions.
I understand that if you parse the rules like a stupid computer, you'd conclude the bullet points of the blinded condition apply unconditionally if you're been robbed of your sight. But that's a pointless thought experiment, since the rules are written in natural language by humans for other humans.
The blinded condition is obviously written for creatures with no additional senses and a human is expected to understand that when blindsight says you can perceive your environment without vision, that's an exception to the usual rules of being blinded which basically say that say you can't see. Just like I also know the second bullet point isn't really a property of the blinded condition but a reminder of the rules for attacking and being attacked by creatures you can't see, whether that's because you're blind or they're obscured. But it's handy to have that bullet point there anyways.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Coder, if your interpretation of the rules depends on assuming that the clear language contained within those rules is meaningless (the second bullet point of Blinded, that Blinded creatures have advantage/disadvantage), but that other language which doesn't appear anywhere in Blinded or any other portion of any monster's statblock or the DMG controls (that blindsight "overrides" Blinded on creatures which are not stated to be immune to the Blinded condition)… well, I just don't think that we have any common ground to stand on for this discussion. It is a basic tenant of textual interpretation that one should presume that no language unnecessary to the rule was included, nor any language essential to the rule excluded, so I reject your premise that the second bullet point is meaningless or somehow lying to us. If someone can drum up a tweet from Crawford indicating that that isn't the case, sure, then we can start to pick apart what the rule "should" have been or was "meant" to be.... but right now, it's pretty simple and straightforward: if something hands you the Blinded condition, and you aren't immune to it by virtue of your statblock or some other ability explicitly providing immunity, then you suffer the effects of Blinded, including the disadvantage/advantage condition specifically.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There is something I don’t understand regarding Blindsight (probably a lot more than I am aware of).
I understand it to be an ability that lets you perceive your surroundings as if you had normal vision. This is supported by Jeremy Crawford. Yet Jeremy Crawford has also stated that you cannot hide from a creature within its Blindsight radius unless magically concealed. This statement implies that a creature with Blindsight does not need to make Perception checks to notice a creature within its Blindsight radius (otherwise it would have been possible to hide). This doesn’t make sense to me considering that it is stated on the stat block of a creature that is naturally blind, such as a Grimlock, that it has a Passive Perception score and advantage on certain Perception checks. Did Jeremy Crawford make a mistake when saying that you can’t hide from a creature within its Blindsight radius, or am I missing something?
Crawford doesn't seem to think some of these through very clearly, and often offers up unnecessary "clarifications" that only introduce unnecessary confusion. Stealth in 5e represents both visually hiding and moving silently, and I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea to suggest that staying still and quiet to hide from the thing that sees you with sound was an important or correct ruling to make in the public sphere. Some creatures, such as the Grimlock, actually have blindsight based on other senses like smell, so it makes a little more sense that you can't hide from them by just staying quiet... but I can still easily imagine Predator-type situations where a character might smear themselves in wet mud to hide their scent, which Crawford has needlessly closed off.
TLDR: Crawford very, very, very often makes mistakes when ruling on things that aren't clarifications of ambiguous rules, but rather him inventing new rules on the spot and pretending they have the force of authority.
Edit: Could also be that he got confused and mixed Blindsight (common monster ability that doesn't say anything about auto-defeating hidden) up with Blindsense (high-level class ability that explicitly says that auto-detects hidden within radius while you can hear)?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So common sense, as well as RAW, seem to indicate that a creature with Blindsight does rely on Perception checks in order to perceive something, yes?
There is another issue these quotes made me think of. If someone is within my Blindsight radius I am able to "see" that creature and therefore able to target it with spells. Does that mean that I can cast a spell, such as Power Word Kill, on a creature on the other side of a wall?
EDIT: Nevermind, I am overthinking this.
Somewhere, I am at work and unable to take the time to find it, is another tweet from Crawford answering the same question and he says you can hide from a creature with blindsight if you are behind full cover.
I think the "advantage on perception checks" regarding sound and smell that often comes along with blindsight refer generally to two things: hearing and smelling things outside your radius, like a dog smelling someone in the breeze, or listening to the birds of a forest for clues; and finding things within your radius that are invisible thus need other senses to locate. Each of those tasks would likely have a higher DC than any search that relies on sight, so only your heightened senses give you a decent chance. It could even involve listening at a door and using your hearing to pinpoint the exact location of a creature; you could target that creature now with some spells, but still not spells that require you to "see" the target as your echolocation or whatever is still too obscured by the total cover.
I really think of Daredevil when it comes to blindsight, yes his is really far though. but every time I read one of these blindsight threads I wanna make a blind Monk lol
So how does Blindsight effect Drow’s daylight problems?
RAW, a drow PC in a sunlight sensitivity situation would still have disadvantage on attacks even with eyes being closed and blindsight because of the phrase "whatever you are trying to perceive." While blindsight is not sight, you are still using it to perceive. RAI, I think you could argue that the rule is based around the idea that the drow's eyes are sensitive to the light so by closing them and relying in blindsight, they could mitigate the problem. The drow NPC, on the other hand... well that depends on how much importance you place on the lack of a comma after the word "checks." Grammatically, because of the lack of the comma, they get disadvantage on attack rolls. Additionally, they get disadvantage on perception checks that rely on sight.
"Not all those who wander are lost"