Effectively, yes. That is to say, yes but no. You have the effect of the condition, but don't have the condition. This is important for condition immunities or curing conditions.
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.
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.
So lesser restoration can cure blindness (the condition), but can't make you able to see in darkness (if you can't already).
Ok. I'm asking because of the wording of "effectively suffers" used with the wording of "provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened".
Ok. I'm asking because of the wording of "effectively suffers" used with the wording of "provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened".
Can you provide some context? Where are you seeing those two phrases used together?
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened.
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened.
I don't know what the official ruling is, but I would say that being "effectively blinded" would prevent you from knowing the location of invisible creatures within 30' of you with this ability. The caveat that it doesn't work if you're blinded or deafened suggests that your natural vision & hearing are so good that you can pick out where an invisible creature is as long as you have normal use of your eyes and ears. "Effectively suffering" the blinded condition suggests you wouldn't have the necessary vision for Feral Senses to work.
In general, combatants are already aware of the location of invisible creatures as long as those creatures aren’t hidden.
That said, regarding how I would interpret the rules, I would agree with DxJxC, and following from that, no, it would not prevent you from making use of Feral Senses.
Being “effectively blinded” means you suffer the penalties listed in the blinded condition, but you do not actually suffer from the condition itself. That means you can’t be cured of the blindness, and it also means features that require you not be blinded still work.
I don’t think you can have it both ways, and if you come down on the side of “actually suffer the condition for purposes of anything that interacts with the condition,” then the word “effectively” doesn’t actually do anything. I prefer to let words mean what they mean.
If Feral Senses said “provided you can see and hear,” it’d maybe be different.
Let the words mean what they mean. The ranger isn’t blinded. The ranger can’t see in darkness or the fog cloud spell. But the ranger can see. It’s semantics, but it doesn’t say “if you suffer from the blinded condition”. It says “if you aren’t blinded”.
Is "effectively suffering from the blinded condition" the same as being "blinded"?
Effectively, yes. That is to say, yes but no. You have the effect of the condition, but don't have the condition. This is important for condition immunities or curing conditions.
Interesting. Could you give an example? Something like the lesser restoration spell?
Sure. So for example with:
So lesser restoration can cure blindness (the condition), but can't make you able to see in darkness (if you can't already).
Ok. I'm asking because of the wording of "effectively suffers" used with the wording of "provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened".
Can you provide some context? Where are you seeing those two phrases used together?
Sorry. Here is the information...
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/classes#FeralSenses
Feral Senses
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened.
[Oops, Ninja'd]
This seems to be in the context of the Ranger's Feral Senses.
"Effectively suffers the blinded condition" would negate the ability to locate invisible creatures, as your senses are dampened.
I don't know what the official ruling is, but I would say that being "effectively blinded" would prevent you from knowing the location of invisible creatures within 30' of you with this ability. The caveat that it doesn't work if you're blinded or deafened suggests that your natural vision & hearing are so good that you can pick out where an invisible creature is as long as you have normal use of your eyes and ears. "Effectively suffering" the blinded condition suggests you wouldn't have the necessary vision for Feral Senses to work.
In general, combatants are already aware of the location of invisible creatures as long as those creatures aren’t hidden.
That said, regarding how I would interpret the rules, I would agree with DxJxC, and following from that, no, it would not prevent you from making use of Feral Senses.
Being “effectively blinded” means you suffer the penalties listed in the blinded condition, but you do not actually suffer from the condition itself. That means you can’t be cured of the blindness, and it also means features that require you not be blinded still work.
I don’t think you can have it both ways, and if you come down on the side of “actually suffer the condition for purposes of anything that interacts with the condition,” then the word “effectively” doesn’t actually do anything. I prefer to let words mean what they mean.
If Feral Senses said “provided you can see and hear,” it’d maybe be different.
Let the words mean what they mean. The ranger isn’t blinded. The ranger can’t see in darkness or the fog cloud spell. But the ranger can see. It’s semantics, but it doesn’t say “if you suffer from the blinded condition”. It says “if you aren’t blinded”.
This is one of those "just go with what DM says" situations.
I guess I'd rule in favor of feature working just for rule of fun, but I don't know what RAI is.