Orrr... again, "see" was never defined anywhere in the rules that I could find.
Right. So we're back to a combination of the normal definition of that word plus the context in which it's used. And Merriam-Webster defines "see" as:
transitive verb
1a: to perceive by the eye
b: to perceive or detect as if by sight
Which is basically what blindsight says as well.
I'm not saying the rules are totally unambiguous here, just that it's possible to interpret the rules the way Jeremy's saying and that also happens to line up with how the monster stat blocks are written (which as a practical matter makes it the better interpretation of the two.)
It's always possible that you can "see" anything you can perceive, which would back us up to square 1 and let blind caster's target anything with see-spells that they spend a perception check to find with hearing or another sense.
Not necessarily. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight" is a pretty strong statement. A perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the creature has a good idea of what its surroundings look like. That's not the same as merely knowing that something is there, which is the only info a normal creature would get from attempting to use hearing or smell. After all, finding a hidden creature by hearing doesn't negate the disadvantage of being unable to see them.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Is the enemies stealth then a free action?
theres no balance to your scenario. Even leaving realism aside.
Stealth is the same sort of action it always is; all invisibility means is that you can use it when you are otherwise in plain sight. Yes, that means most of the time there won't be any issue targeting invisible foes, all it does is give disadvantage to attacks against them and advantage on their attacks. That's plenty for a spell of its level, or for the amount by which CR is generally adjusted for a monster capable of being invisible.
SO. you require an enemy. That can see you. to STEALTH, and uses its ACTION, against your BLINDED character, who then, gets a FREE ACTION PERCEPTION, instead of needing it to be the same action it always is, and you think this doesn't have an imbalance.... Do you hear yourself?
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Is the enemies stealth then a free action?
theres no balance to your scenario. Even leaving realism aside.
Stealth is the same sort of action it always is; all invisibility means is that you can use it when you are otherwise in plain sight. Yes, that means most of the time there won't be any issue targeting invisible foes, all it does is give disadvantage to attacks against them and advantage on their attacks. That's plenty for a spell of its level, or for the amount by which CR is generally adjusted for a monster capable of being invisible.
SO. you require an enemy. That can see you. to STEALTH, and uses its ACTION, against your BLINDED character, who then, gets a FREE ACTION PERCEPTION, instead of needing it to be the same action it always is, and you think this doesn't have an imbalance.... Do you hear yourself?
No-one is getting a free action perception. It's just a stealth check against passive perception, and if you succeed they don't know where you are until they make an active perception roll to find you.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Is the enemies stealth then a free action?
theres no balance to your scenario. Even leaving realism aside.
Stealth is the same sort of action it always is; all invisibility means is that you can use it when you are otherwise in plain sight. Yes, that means most of the time there won't be any issue targeting invisible foes, all it does is give disadvantage to attacks against them and advantage on their attacks. That's plenty for a spell of its level, or for the amount by which CR is generally adjusted for a monster capable of being invisible.
SO. you require an enemy. That can see you. to STEALTH, and uses its ACTION, against your BLINDED character, who then, gets a FREE ACTION PERCEPTION, instead of needing it to be the same action it always is, and you think this doesn't have an imbalance.... Do you hear yourself?
No-one is getting a free action perception. It's just a stealth check against passive perception, and if you succeed they don't know where you are until they make an active perception roll to find you.
So. you expect a passive perception of 11 for example. but we could use ANY number really. To isolate ONE SPECIFIC creature, in the middle of a battle, with literally 10s to 100s of other sounds and noises going on?
Let's use your example here, in a different setting so you can see what you're saying.
You're the DM. I walk into a Tavern. "I want to know what the halfling man and elf girl in the table to far right are saying" There are 3 tables between us, with people talking, and other tables, with noises and talking, plus the bar, and serving girls, and etc. SO. Those 2 would now need to make a stealth roll vs my passive, so they aren't talking so loud that I can hear them? Thats not how the mechanics work. but yet, thats what you are doing, with the creature, just so a blinded character ...... isn't put in a tight spot because they're blinded. That's horribly unbalanced.
Further.... Because it seems clear you are misunderstanding completely, or phrasing it horribly. Why does the thing need to find the BLINDED person, after their stealth roll succeeds...
Not necessarily. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight" is a pretty strong statement. A perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the creature has a good idea of what its surroundings look like. That's not the same as merely knowing that something is there, which is the only info a normal creature would get from attempting to use hearing or smell. After all, finding a hidden creature by hearing doesn't negate the disadvantage of being unable to see them.
It just seems harder to draw a line between Blindsight and a Perception check, then it did to draw one between Blindsight and "seeing".
If you're rolling a perception then you're using vision/hearing/smell to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." If you're using your Blindsight, you're using hearing/smell to "perceive its surroundings without relying on sight."
I guess it's possible that seeing = perceiving, perceiving > detecting the presence of something, and Perception only allows you to detect but not perceive (so it's just as mis-named as Blindsight is in that respect!).... but I feel like this is getting more hairsplitty going that direction than it was in the other direction. And going this direction, just be aware that you still have to draw a line between Blindsight and Tremorsense and give blind Tremorsense critters disadvantage on attacks, because otherwise I don't see any verbiage left to draw a line between Perception and full on vision.
Oh and one more thing on top of all this... don't forget that Rogues get "Blindsense," which is not Blindsight, because all it lets you do is "[be] aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you" which is probably far more limited than "perceiving your surroundings." It has much more in common with Tremorsense than Blindsight, so there's a third confusingly-named sense to add to the pile!
The simplest answer is that "the writers just weren't very careful with how they used and defined these terms." It isn't that there's a real RAI division between any of this, it's just that nobody really thought about where the boundaries are between seeing something, perceiving something with superhuman non-visual senses, and perceiving something with ordinary senses well enough to know where it is. But unfortunately, these are very common and very different situations with very important implications for spellcasters, so we're left having to either houserule a common sense solution, or enforce a rigid reading of RAW that seems overly technical. I have no problem with anyone jumping right to "this makes sense and is the easy way for me to run to my table," but it isn't a very strong hook to hang a position on when arguing about "this is how the baseline standard rules work as written."
I don't understand what you're arguing about. It's literally in the rules, albeit out of the way. Hide is an action in combat, to hide, you must make a stealth check against the creature(s)' passive perception. If you succeed, you gain unseen attacker and the creature doesn't know your location. If they rely on sight, they have disadvantage on perception to use the (not free) search option to re-find you and a -5 modifier to PP for the initial check.
I don't understand what you're arguing about. It's literally in the rules, albeit out of the way. Hide is an action in combat, to hide, you must make a stealth check against the creature(s)' passive perception. If you succeed, you gain unseen attacker and the creature doesn't know your location. If they rely on sight, they have disadvantage on perception to use the (not free) search option to re-find you and a -5 modifier to PP for the initial check.
Thank you.
this guy here. Is saying that if your character, is blind. That the enemy person/monster/creature. Needs to roll an action stealth. Vs a free action perception. And with no -5 to the passive. And is arguing that THAT is balanced.
What is the problem with using idiomatic English to resolve questions on idiomatic English? 5e is a fairly weakly codified game that relies on a DM. We aren’t still playing 3.5 or some other game where every word has a mechanical definition somewhere in the rulebooks. My ruling on this subject would be “seeing” counts as perceiving using any sense (listed in the rules) with vision or sight in the name.
It is a ruling, not a rule but it is simple, effective, obvious, and can be handled mid game in an instant.
I do wish there were more distinct rules about stealth, vision, etc. in 5e. It's a shame that there aren't.
Sorry if this is redundant; I read most but only skimmed a couple of the posts and some of this has been said but I may have missed more that was. But Pantagruel666 has it right.
The rules as they are, while a bit confusing, do a have a clear conclusion: Unless you take the Hide action, everyone (barring any - rare - specific creature features) knows where you are. They don't need to see you to know where you are, but you can't benefit from being hidden against them unless they can't see you. You can be invisible, in darkness, behind cover, against a blind enemy, whatever; they still know where you are unless you take the Hide action. Is this realistic? No, not really, but it's a game, not real life.
Being invisible only makes it so you're considered to be heavily obscured, which means creatures are blinded in regards to you; this doesn't stop them from knowing your location, only hiding does, but you can hide anywhere (unless they have special senses) since you can't be seen. If a DM wants to give you a free stealth check when you enter darkness or go invisible, then obviously they can do so, but that's not RAW.
Hide
When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this section.
HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try tohide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.
As for whether you can Hide against blind sight... well, in my opinion at least, no, you can't. Not while you're within the radius. Though this is another thing I wish they would errata and outright say, because they don't and that's annoying. Anyway, hiding can't be done against a creature that can "see you clearly," and blindsight allows one to "perceive its surroundings without relying on sight," so it really does seem to me that you can't Hide against that. You need to be unseen to Hide, but creatures with blindsight don't need to see to perceive their surroundings...
Furthermore, Blindsight says this: 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. Given that, would you say hiding behind something or going invisible prevents you from being "seen" by echolocation? I sure wouldn't. This is a messy rule though; the "hiding" rules I posted above should be updated with a clause explaining how hiding interacts with special senses. At the very least, the rules for hiding say you give your location away if you make noise, and echolocation detects you via bouncing noise off you... sloppy, I know.
Sorry, I know I'm just reiterating a lot of what's been said... I just like to rant ;)
It just seems harder to draw a line between Blindsight and a Perception check, then it did to draw one between Blindsight and "seeing".
If you're rolling a perception then you're using vision/hearing/smell to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." If you're using your Blindsight, you're using hearing/smell to "perceive its surroundings without relying on sight."
I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. A creature with blindsight can make a perception check to spot something with its blindsight the same way a creature with normal vision does. Hearing and smell is no different.
Furthermore, Blindsight says this: 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. Given that, would you say hiding behind something or going invisible prevents you from being "seen" by echolocation? I sure wouldn't.
I sure would. The sound waves from echolocation are going to bounce off of whatever you're hiding behind. Bats can't even tell the difference between fog and a solid wall. There's nothing in the rules for blindsight that suggests it'd let you "see" through obstacles.
Furthermore, Blindsight says this: 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. Given that, would you say hiding behind something or going invisible prevents you from being "seen" by echolocation? I sure wouldn't.
The sound bounces off fog, that's not surprising. But I'm not talking about something IN an object, I'm talking about behind it. Given a lack of fog, bats can easily find insects hidden among trees/plants/whatever, so...
There's nothing in the rules for blindsight that suggests it'd let you "see" through obstacles.
"A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius" I think this line disagrees with you. If the creature you're trying to perceive is within that "specific radius," they can be perceived whether they're behind something or not. I honestly don't know if I would rule this way or not; fortunately this hasn't come up for me, not in 5E at least. Certainly seems to step on the toes of Tremorsense, but also I can't read Blindsight any other way. These senses really need better clarification.
The main source we have for knowing whether areas (such as the area drawn by a radius) are generally interupted by solid objects is found in PHB Chapter 10: Spellcasting - Casting a Spell - Areas of Effect.If that section applies to all areas, and not just those created by spells with a central point of origin for their effect, then "If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
Chapter 9: Combat - Cover doesn't actually explain anything additionally about cover interrupting areas or effects, just attacks. Ironically, it suggests that an area of effect might be the best way to target someone behind cover, which is funny considering that areas of effect just said that the best way to stop them is with cover!
In Xanathar's Chapter 2: Dungeon Master Tools - Spellcasting - Areas of Effect on a Grid, we get a recap of the PHB Chapter 10 rule, but paraphrases to more generally ground itself in "the point of origin of an area of effect" instead of "Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts." Given the title of the section, arguable whether it's really trying to describe rules for areas in general, or still just for spell-created areas, but there you go.
So as far as whether an area drawn by a radius is generally interrupted by walls.... probably not, but maybe? As to whether Blindsight in particular extends through walls...
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.
... so maybe but not necessarily? Some Blindsight senses might make sense to extend through solid objects (smell, if the air spaces are connected?) while others might make sense to stop/reflect off of them (echolocation?). There's no clear mandate that blindsight always extends its full range through all obstacles, nor any indication that it never is interupted, so it comes down to a DM interpreting the situation I think.
That's a pretty good assessment. Bottom line, the sentence "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings ... within a specific radius" is pretty clear. No matter what definition you take, "perceive" means "to become aware of something." Given that, a creature with blindsight is aware of everything within its blindsight radius.
Nevertheless, I agree with Chicken_Champ that it should be up to the DM given the situation. If you're hiding inside a barrel or something, I would probably rule that a bat can't detect you, as its blindsight relies on echolocation. On the other hand, I would probably rule that something like a Slime or Ancient Dragon would be able to detect you, because their blindsight just relies on "special senses."
"A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius" I think this line disagrees with you.
It doesn't. That's just saying the creature knows what its surroundings look like.
If the creature you're trying to perceive is within that "specific radius," they can be perceived whether they're behind something or not.
If you commit to this ruling you're going to have to allow the creature to see through any and all walls, which is 1) totally bonkers, 2) perceiving beyond their surroundings, 3) not how echolocation works at all, and 4) not how it's supposed to work.
Seriously, it's not that complicated. We already know what the designers intended and all the alternatives to just treating it like vision are needless convoluted with no payoff.
Seriously, it's not that complicated. We already know what the designers intended and all the alternatives to just treating it like vision are needless convoluted with no payoff.
It's actually very complicated! Not every instance of Blindsight tells you why the creature has Blindsight. Applying either extreme (Blindsight can always see into the barrel; Blindsight can never see into the barrel) leads to an absurd result (bats can always see into the barrel; grimlocks can never smell into the barrel). Because Blindsight might be based on hearing, or smell, or a combination of all senses being superior, or magic, or just plain unexplained, the rules (or at least, a satisfying house rule) change from situation to situation based on context. There is no single "what the designers intended" for Blindsight, near as I can tell.
Agreed, Chicken_Champ. The rules, as they often can be, are vague. But DnD - 5th edition in particular - is structured by the imagination. I can't imagine a bat being able to "sense" someone who's in a barrel, on the other side of a wall, a floor below, etc., but I can absolutely imagine an ancient dragon or elder oblex doing so, and - in the moment - that is likely how I would rule it in my game.
I appreciate that Jeremy has tweeted on the matter, but I always take his tweets with a grain of salt. He's a brilliant man, and if he made an official errata to make the rules more clear I would happily go by them. But I also think he's just tweeting his current opinion on the matter. 5th edition was released almost 6 years ago. It's been a while, but I've designed games - both video and tabletop alike - and I know firsthand that your opinions and interpretations of your own rules, especially rules you designed with a group of people, can change with time.
I'd say that having blindsight doesn't negate hiding. It does, however, negate hiding in the traditional sense. If you're attempting to hide behind a bush, for example, any creature with blindsight would see you. You're in a "heavily obscured" area or behind full cover, either way, you'd be unseen if the searcher relied on sight. But they don't. That means that they can "see" you without relying on sight.
However, this doesn't mean you can't hide from a blindsight creature. There are other ways to hide. For instance, covering yourself in dung can allow you to hide from any creature that relies on smell. Hiding in a silenced area allows you to hide from those that rely on hearing. Pass without Trace can pretty much allow you to hide based on anything else. Covering yourself in dung doesn't impose disadvantage, though. It just lets you hide. Being in a silenced area doesn't either. It actually does one better since it applies the "deafened" condition and you automatically fail all checks relying on hearing.
It's actually very complicated! Not every instance of Blindsight tells you why the creature has Blindsight.
That's because it's irrelevant. If there's any special cases you need to be aware of they're covered in the creature's stat block. Otherwise, you don't need to know how or why it has blindsight.
As the DM you're within your rights to add whatever level of additional complexity or realism you want but don't pretend the blindsight rules require taking any of this stuff into account. They don't.
The great thing about the hiding rules is that they're totally up to the DM so if you can think of a good reason why a player wouldn't be able to hide inside a barrel the hiding rules already allow you to say no. That doesn't mean blindsight always grants x-ray vision out to its full radius.
A creature with Tremorsense can pinpoint the location of creatures and moving objects within a specific range, provided that the creature with Tremorsense and anything it’s detecting are both in contact with the same surface (such as the ground, a wall, or a ceiling) or the same liquid.
Tremorsense can’t detect creatures or objects in the air, and Tremorsense doesn’t count as a form of sight.
I'm gonna chalk this up as either (A) a confirmation that RAI other senses that grant "perception" etc. (tremorsense, blindsight, etc.) aren't "sight" like I argued, or (B) that at the very least, the design team has realized the error of their ways and they won't be forms of sight once new rules are published.
I'm gonna chalk this up as either (A) a confirmation that RAI other senses that grant "perception" etc. (tremorsense, blindsight, etc.) aren't "sight" like I argued, or (B) that at the very least, the design team has realized the error of their ways and they won't be forms of sight once new rules are published.
I'm going to bet this is "5e was unclear on tremorsense so we decided to resolve it". I would bet that blindsight will be considered a form of sight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right. So we're back to a combination of the normal definition of that word plus the context in which it's used. And Merriam-Webster defines "see" as:
Not necessarily. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight" is a pretty strong statement. A perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the creature has a good idea of what its surroundings look like. That's not the same as merely knowing that something is there, which is the only info a normal creature would get from attempting to use hearing or smell. After all, finding a hidden creature by hearing doesn't negate the disadvantage of being unable to see them.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
SO. you require an enemy. That can see you. to STEALTH, and uses its ACTION, against your BLINDED character, who then, gets a FREE ACTION PERCEPTION, instead of needing it to be the same action it always is, and you think this doesn't have an imbalance.... Do you hear yourself?
Blank
No-one is getting a free action perception. It's just a stealth check against passive perception, and if you succeed they don't know where you are until they make an active perception roll to find you.
So. you expect a passive perception of 11 for example. but we could use ANY number really. To isolate ONE SPECIFIC creature, in the middle of a battle, with literally 10s to 100s of other sounds and noises going on?
Let's use your example here, in a different setting so you can see what you're saying.
You're the DM. I walk into a Tavern. "I want to know what the halfling man and elf girl in the table to far right are saying" There are 3 tables between us, with people talking, and other tables, with noises and talking, plus the bar, and serving girls, and etc. SO. Those 2 would now need to make a stealth roll vs my passive, so they aren't talking so loud that I can hear them? Thats not how the mechanics work. but yet, thats what you are doing, with the creature, just so a blinded character ...... isn't put in a tight spot because they're blinded. That's horribly unbalanced.
Further.... Because it seems clear you are misunderstanding completely, or phrasing it horribly. Why does the thing need to find the BLINDED person, after their stealth roll succeeds...
Blank
It just seems harder to draw a line between Blindsight and a Perception check, then it did to draw one between Blindsight and "seeing".
If you're rolling a perception then you're using vision/hearing/smell to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." If you're using your Blindsight, you're using hearing/smell to "perceive its surroundings without relying on sight."
I guess it's possible that seeing = perceiving, perceiving > detecting the presence of something, and Perception only allows you to detect but not perceive (so it's just as mis-named as Blindsight is in that respect!).... but I feel like this is getting more hairsplitty going that direction than it was in the other direction. And going this direction, just be aware that you still have to draw a line between Blindsight and Tremorsense and give blind Tremorsense critters disadvantage on attacks, because otherwise I don't see any verbiage left to draw a line between Perception and full on vision.
Oh and one more thing on top of all this... don't forget that Rogues get "Blindsense," which is not Blindsight, because all it lets you do is "[be] aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you" which is probably far more limited than "perceiving your surroundings." It has much more in common with Tremorsense than Blindsight, so there's a third confusingly-named sense to add to the pile!
The simplest answer is that "the writers just weren't very careful with how they used and defined these terms." It isn't that there's a real RAI division between any of this, it's just that nobody really thought about where the boundaries are between seeing something, perceiving something with superhuman non-visual senses, and perceiving something with ordinary senses well enough to know where it is. But unfortunately, these are very common and very different situations with very important implications for spellcasters, so we're left having to either houserule a common sense solution, or enforce a rigid reading of RAW that seems overly technical. I have no problem with anyone jumping right to "this makes sense and is the easy way for me to run to my table," but it isn't a very strong hook to hang a position on when arguing about "this is how the baseline standard rules work as written."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't understand what you're arguing about. It's literally in the rules, albeit out of the way. Hide is an action in combat, to hide, you must make a stealth check against the creature(s)' passive perception. If you succeed, you gain unseen attacker and the creature doesn't know your location. If they rely on sight, they have disadvantage on perception to use the (not free) search option to re-find you and a -5 modifier to PP for the initial check.
Thank you.
this guy here. Is saying that if your character, is blind. That the enemy person/monster/creature. Needs to roll an action stealth. Vs a free action perception. And with no -5 to the passive. And is arguing that THAT is balanced.
Blank
What is the problem with using idiomatic English to resolve questions on idiomatic English? 5e is a fairly weakly codified game that relies on a DM. We aren’t still playing 3.5 or some other game where every word has a mechanical definition somewhere in the rulebooks. My ruling on this subject would be “seeing” counts as perceiving using any sense (listed in the rules) with vision or sight in the name.
It is a ruling, not a rule but it is simple, effective, obvious, and can be handled mid game in an instant.
I do wish there were more distinct rules about stealth, vision, etc. in 5e. It's a shame that there aren't.
Sorry if this is redundant; I read most but only skimmed a couple of the posts and some of this has been said but I may have missed more that was. But Pantagruel666 has it right.
The rules as they are, while a bit confusing, do a have a clear conclusion: Unless you take the Hide action, everyone (barring any - rare - specific creature features) knows where you are. They don't need to see you to know where you are, but you can't benefit from being hidden against them unless they can't see you. You can be invisible, in darkness, behind cover, against a blind enemy, whatever; they still know where you are unless you take the Hide action. Is this realistic? No, not really, but it's a game, not real life.
Being invisible only makes it so you're considered to be heavily obscured, which means creatures are blinded in regards to you; this doesn't stop them from knowing your location, only hiding does, but you can hide anywhere (unless they have special senses) since you can't be seen. If a DM wants to give you a free stealth check when you enter darkness or go invisible, then obviously they can do so, but that's not RAW.
As for whether you can Hide against blind sight... well, in my opinion at least, no, you can't. Not while you're within the radius. Though this is another thing I wish they would errata and outright say, because they don't and that's annoying. Anyway, hiding can't be done against a creature that can "see you clearly," and blindsight allows one to "perceive its surroundings without relying on sight," so it really does seem to me that you can't Hide against that. You need to be unseen to Hide, but creatures with blindsight don't need to see to perceive their surroundings...
Furthermore, Blindsight says this: 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. Given that, would you say hiding behind something or going invisible prevents you from being "seen" by echolocation? I sure wouldn't. This is a messy rule though; the "hiding" rules I posted above should be updated with a clause explaining how hiding interacts with special senses. At the very least, the rules for hiding say you give your location away if you make noise, and echolocation detects you via bouncing noise off you... sloppy, I know.
Sorry, I know I'm just reiterating a lot of what's been said... I just like to rant ;)
I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. A creature with blindsight can make a perception check to spot something with its blindsight the same way a creature with normal vision does. Hearing and smell is no different.
I sure would. The sound waves from echolocation are going to bounce off of whatever you're hiding behind. Bats can't even tell the difference between fog and a solid wall. There's nothing in the rules for blindsight that suggests it'd let you "see" through obstacles.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The sound bounces off fog, that's not surprising. But I'm not talking about something IN an object, I'm talking about behind it. Given a lack of fog, bats can easily find insects hidden among trees/plants/whatever, so...
"A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius" I think this line disagrees with you. If the creature you're trying to perceive is within that "specific radius," they can be perceived whether they're behind something or not. I honestly don't know if I would rule this way or not; fortunately this hasn't come up for me, not in 5E at least. Certainly seems to step on the toes of Tremorsense, but also I can't read Blindsight any other way. These senses really need better clarification.
The main source we have for knowing whether areas (such as the area drawn by a radius) are generally interupted by solid objects is found in PHB Chapter 10: Spellcasting - Casting a Spell - Areas of Effect. If that section applies to all areas, and not just those created by spells with a central point of origin for their effect, then "If no unblocked straight line extends from the point of origin to a location within the area of effect, that location isn't included in the spell's area. To block one of these imaginary lines, an obstruction must provide total cover, as explained in chapter 9."
Chapter 9: Combat - Cover doesn't actually explain anything additionally about cover interrupting areas or effects, just attacks. Ironically, it suggests that an area of effect might be the best way to target someone behind cover, which is funny considering that areas of effect just said that the best way to stop them is with cover!
In Xanathar's Chapter 2: Dungeon Master Tools - Spellcasting - Areas of Effect on a Grid, we get a recap of the PHB Chapter 10 rule, but paraphrases to more generally ground itself in "the point of origin of an area of effect" instead of "Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell's energy erupts." Given the title of the section, arguable whether it's really trying to describe rules for areas in general, or still just for spell-created areas, but there you go.
So as far as whether an area drawn by a radius is generally interrupted by walls.... probably not, but maybe? As to whether Blindsight in particular extends through walls...
... so maybe but not necessarily? Some Blindsight senses might make sense to extend through solid objects (smell, if the air spaces are connected?) while others might make sense to stop/reflect off of them (echolocation?). There's no clear mandate that blindsight always extends its full range through all obstacles, nor any indication that it never is interupted, so it comes down to a DM interpreting the situation I think.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's a pretty good assessment. Bottom line, the sentence "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings ... within a specific radius" is pretty clear. No matter what definition you take, "perceive" means "to become aware of something." Given that, a creature with blindsight is aware of everything within its blindsight radius.
Nevertheless, I agree with Chicken_Champ that it should be up to the DM given the situation. If you're hiding inside a barrel or something, I would probably rule that a bat can't detect you, as its blindsight relies on echolocation. On the other hand, I would probably rule that something like a Slime or Ancient Dragon would be able to detect you, because their blindsight just relies on "special senses."
It doesn't. That's just saying the creature knows what its surroundings look like.
If you commit to this ruling you're going to have to allow the creature to see through any and all walls, which is 1) totally bonkers, 2) perceiving beyond their surroundings, 3) not how echolocation works at all, and 4) not how it's supposed to work.
Seriously, it's not that complicated. We already know what the designers intended and all the alternatives to just treating it like vision are needless convoluted with no payoff.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It's actually very complicated! Not every instance of Blindsight tells you why the creature has Blindsight. Applying either extreme (Blindsight can always see into the barrel; Blindsight can never see into the barrel) leads to an absurd result (bats can always see into the barrel; grimlocks can never smell into the barrel). Because Blindsight might be based on hearing, or smell, or a combination of all senses being superior, or magic, or just plain unexplained, the rules (or at least, a satisfying house rule) change from situation to situation based on context. There is no single "what the designers intended" for Blindsight, near as I can tell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agreed, Chicken_Champ. The rules, as they often can be, are vague. But DnD - 5th edition in particular - is structured by the imagination. I can't imagine a bat being able to "sense" someone who's in a barrel, on the other side of a wall, a floor below, etc., but I can absolutely imagine an ancient dragon or elder oblex doing so, and - in the moment - that is likely how I would rule it in my game.
I appreciate that Jeremy has tweeted on the matter, but I always take his tweets with a grain of salt. He's a brilliant man, and if he made an official errata to make the rules more clear I would happily go by them. But I also think he's just tweeting his current opinion on the matter. 5th edition was released almost 6 years ago. It's been a while, but I've designed games - both video and tabletop alike - and I know firsthand that your opinions and interpretations of your own rules, especially rules you designed with a group of people, can change with time.
I'd say that having blindsight doesn't negate hiding. It does, however, negate hiding in the traditional sense. If you're attempting to hide behind a bush, for example, any creature with blindsight would see you. You're in a "heavily obscured" area or behind full cover, either way, you'd be unseen if the searcher relied on sight. But they don't. That means that they can "see" you without relying on sight.
However, this doesn't mean you can't hide from a blindsight creature. There are other ways to hide. For instance, covering yourself in dung can allow you to hide from any creature that relies on smell. Hiding in a silenced area allows you to hide from those that rely on hearing. Pass without Trace can pretty much allow you to hide based on anything else. Covering yourself in dung doesn't impose disadvantage, though. It just lets you hide. Being in a silenced area doesn't either. It actually does one better since it applies the "deafened" condition and you automatically fail all checks relying on hearing.
That's because it's irrelevant. If there's any special cases you need to be aware of they're covered in the creature's stat block. Otherwise, you don't need to know how or why it has blindsight.
As the DM you're within your rights to add whatever level of additional complexity or realism you want but don't pretend the blindsight rules require taking any of this stuff into account. They don't.
The great thing about the hiding rules is that they're totally up to the DM so if you can think of a good reason why a player wouldn't be able to hide inside a barrel the hiding rules already allow you to say no. That doesn't mean blindsight always grants x-ray vision out to its full radius.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Noticed something interesting in the playtest!
I'm gonna chalk this up as either (A) a confirmation that RAI other senses that grant "perception" etc. (tremorsense, blindsight, etc.) aren't "sight" like I argued, or (B) that at the very least, the design team has realized the error of their ways and they won't be forms of sight once new rules are published.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm going to bet this is "5e was unclear on tremorsense so we decided to resolve it". I would bet that blindsight will be considered a form of sight.