Would Blindfighting work to offset the disadvantage of Sunlight Sensitivity? I mean, you just close your eyes for most of the fight, and as long as they are within 10 feet it should be good right?
RAW, no. Sunlight sensitivity attack disadvantage kicks in when you or the target are standing in sunlight and doesn't require that anyone involved even has eyes.
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.
But if you blindfold yourself, you are no longer making checks that rely on sight.
It's the perception checks that can rely on sight (there are also smell or sound perception checks). If you are blind you auto-fail such checks. Attack rolls never rely on sight. You can attack blind. Attack rolls are often modified by sight and vision, but do not rely.
If a drow takes a perception check to hear an approaching invisible enemy while standing in sunlight they do not suffer disadvantage on that. They suffer disadvantage on all attack rolls while standing in sunlight.
RAW, no. Sunlight sensitivity attack disadvantage kicks in when you or the target are standing in sunlight and doesn't require that anyone involved even has eyes.
Quote:
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.
But if you blindfold yourself, you are no longer making checks that rely on sight.
My initial response was that you keep the disadvantage on attacks. That said it can be read either way depending on how you parse the "and" Shown with [ ] below. You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
Or
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you,
So I would say its well within a DM's call if the That rely on sight is a modifier for just the perception checks, or for both.
My gut says that RAI was probably just modifying the perception check, but frankly for the investment of a class feature or a feat to get the class feature I would probably allow blindfight to override sunlight sensitivity at my table
the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" does not exist anywhere else, while "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight" or more generally "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on X" for some sense X, exist in multiple other abilities, so i think its fair to assume its:
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you
and not
You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
id say blindfighting would not help, the disadvantage on attacks from sunlight sensitivity mechanicaly has nothing to do with sight.
it would obviously make sense if that were the case, but it isnt. (would probably allow it as a DM tho)
the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" does not exist anywhere else, while "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight" or more generally "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on X" for some sense X, exist in multiple other abilities, so i think its fair to assume its:
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you
and not
You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
id say blindfighting would not help, the disadvantage on attacks from sunlight sensitivity mechanicaly has nothing to do with sight.
it would obviously make sense if that were the case, but it isnt. (would probably allow it as a DM tho)
It does not matter if the phrase appears anywhere else. The phrase 'that rely on sight' clearly indicates that this is related to sight. Why would it be only perception checks affected?
I'll preface this by saying that I agree with your stance that Blindfighting would negate the disadvantage imposed by sunlight sensitivity.
The reason that the "that rely on sight" is written in is that there are multiple perception checks, and it is possible to have one that doesn't rely on sight at all. But I would argue that all attacks rely on some form of sight (normal, blindsight, truesight, etc) so the distinction is not needed for attack rolls. Any detriment to sight includes a penalty to attack rolls (either disadvantage or a bonus to the targets AC, such as in cover rules).
My approach to interpreting rules is that the rules "assume the default" that is, a rule only addresses the baseline assumptions for how it is applied. Additional rules and options may grant exceptions to that default that change it (specific overrides general...). The default for Drow (and other creatures with sunlight sensitivity) is that they don't have blindsight or truesight or other alternate forms of vision, so the penalty from sunlight sensitivity by default applies to their normal vision. Adding a trait that adds blindsight might change that condition, or it might not (without some form of clarification in the rules, It would be up to the DM), but my stance would be that adding an additional form of sight that wouldn't depend on light levels would create an exception to the sunlight sensitivity rules, and that attacks and perception checks within the range of the new vision type (in this case 10 feet) would not be affected by sunlight sensitivity.
My question for those that believe otherwise: How do you logic that sunlight affects attacks when the attacker can't see (or doesn't need to see) light from the sun?
Because "perception checks that rely on sight" vs. "perception checks that rely on hearing" vs. "perception checks that rely on scent" are common re-used phrases in several different source books and features. "Attack rolls... that rely on sight" aren't a phrase used anywhere else, and don't make much sense, because there's no such thing as an Attack roll that DOESN'T rely on sight. Yes, you may have a feature that negates the penalty you would normally have for not having sight (blindsight, tremorsense, etc.), but that does not mean you are now making "Attack rolls that don't rely on sight."
The rule certainly would have benefited from a comma. "You have disadvantage on attack rolls, and on Perception checks that rely on sight..." Poor editing for clarity.
the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" does not exist anywhere else, while "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight" or more generally "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on X" for some sense X, exist in multiple other abilities, so i think its fair to assume its:
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you
and not
You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
id say blindfighting would not help, the disadvantage on attacks from sunlight sensitivity mechanicaly has nothing to do with sight.
it would obviously make sense if that were the case, but it isnt. (would probably allow it as a DM tho)
It does not matter if the phrase appears anywhere else. The phrase 'that rely on sight' clearly indicates that this is related to sight. Why would it be only perception checks affected?
This from one of the guys that was just arguing druids retain str/dex/con ASIs when wild shaping. Obviously a troll.
A blindfold won't help with either. A blindfold will make you automatically fail perception checks based on sight, and won't enable you to use other senses (you can already use them). There is no language that says you won't be affected by Sunlight Sensitivity if you're blinded.
the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" does not exist anywhere else, while "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight" or more generally "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on X" for some sense X, exist in multiple other abilities, so i think its fair to assume its:
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you
and not
You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
id say blindfighting would not help, the disadvantage on attacks from sunlight sensitivity mechanicaly has nothing to do with sight.
it would obviously make sense if that were the case, but it isnt. (would probably allow it as a DM tho)
It does not matter if the phrase appears anywhere else. The phrase 'that rely on sight' clearly indicates that this is related to sight. Why would it be only perception checks affected?
This from one of the guys that was just arguing druids retain str/dex/con ASIs when wild shaping. Obviously a troll.
A blindfold won't help with either. A blindfold will make you automatically fail perception checks based on sight, and won't enable you to use other senses (you can already use them). There is no language that says you won't be affected by Sunlight Sensitivity if you're blinded.
The question was blindfold + blindfighting class ability which grants blindsight to 10 feet, not a blindfold by itself.
and Sunlight sensitivity is absolutely written as being a sight based penalty, so losing the form of sight affected by it is a logical step to saying that the penalty no longer applies
My question for those that believe otherwise: How do you logic that sunlight affects attacks when the attacker can't see (or doesn't need to see) light from the sun?
Not that I like this answer but, In response to this, it could be a magical curse for example (Crawford mentions in this tweet "A sensitivity to sunlight is a trope in fantasy, associated with creatures of darkness. It's usually more metaphysical than biological. #DnD" https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/805827268790480896?lang=en )
My initial response was that you keep the disadvantage on attacks. That said it can be read either way depending on how you parse the "and" Shown with [ ] below. You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
Or
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you,
So I would say its well within a DM's call if the That rely on sight is a modifier for just the perception checks, or for both.
My gut says that RAI was probably just modifying the perception check, but frankly for the investment of a class feature or a feat to get the class feature I would probably allow blindfight to override sunlight sensitivity at my table
Why would the target being in the sun affect an attack against them if the attacker themselves never has to enter the sun (due to weapon length)? I could accept the argument if the attacker had to enter the sun themselves, but the penalty is not worded that way. In fact, I am only ignoring ranged attacks in this because Blind Fighting style only gives 10' blindsight, but the penalty applies even if the target (and direct sunlight) is 300' away.
At best you are arguing RAW and not RAI.
To be fair, i was saying there are two ways to read the rule in plain English and then i clarified which I believed they were intending (Don't really care if you consider that RAW or RAI). I also noted that I would personally rule at my table differently than I interpreted the strictly RAW phrase.
As far as why the target being in sun would affect the attacker it would be the same reason taking picture of a sunny day outside from a dark room only gives you detail either for the dark room with the outside overexposed, or detail for the outside with the dark room underexposed.
Sunlight Sensitivity is a quality that makes sunlight anathema to you, like any number of literary examples of creatures that are resigned to the shadows. It's not just "my eyes are real sensitive, but if I close them it's okay," because it's right there in the mechanics: when you're in sunlight, you have disadvantage on attacks. If your target is in sunlight, you have disadvantage on attacks. You're a creature of the darkness in a fantasy world, it isn't about real-world examples of contrast or overexposure or whathaveyou.
I personally think sunlight sensitivity gives disadvantage to "attacks" and "perception checks that rely on sight," because that is what it usually means; but because the rules are written in common, nonspecific language, it is a little open to interpretation. Which is why I said "maybe."
That said, I think most DMs will agree that this sounds like it should work and allow it anyway.
Sunlight Sensitivity is a quality that makes sunlight anathema to you, like any number of literary examples of creatures that are resigned to the shadows. It's not just "my eyes are real sensitive, but if I close them it's okay," because it's right there in the mechanics: when you're in sunlight, you have disadvantage on attacks. If your target is in sunlight, you have disadvantage on attacks. You're a creature of the darkness in a fantasy world, it isn't about real-world examples of contrast or overexposure or whathaveyou.
yeah, my issue with this is that they limit the penalty based on "relies on sight". The penalty of this trait (sight impaired by bright light) can be easily explained as a biological phenomenon in the real world, so if they wanted to be clear that this is a metaphysical/magical trait, they should really say so to avoid this confusion. Not everyone has the same understanding of fantasy tropes (the only one that I can think of, in Tolkien's orcs, is not explicitly described as only affecting sight but as a general "weakening").
Without this clarity in the ruleset (and not just in a tweet), I think it is perfectly logical to assume that sunlight sensitivity is a biological trait of a race that has primarily lived in darkness, and can be overcome by the introduction of an ability that allows one to override that biology (through training, magic, etc).
Which are these literary examples, other than vampires who literally turn to dust in sunlight (FAR more sensitive to light that mere disadvantage)? Even Tolkien's Orcs, who were sun sensitive, were not described as having trouble against foes in sunlight, just that they themselves had trouble fighting in sunlight.
I am Legend, Lord of the Rings, Plague Tale, Pitch Black, The Time Machine, etc. etc. etc....
I don't like quoting JC for rule mechanic interpretations, in part because hearing his interviews he strikes me more as the "idea guy" of the creative team and less like the guy that actually understood the nuts and bolts of each rule and how they fit together and interacted. But his tweet on Sunlight Sensitivity as it relates to Wild Shape I think is persuasive here, for what it tells you about what Sunlight Sensitivity "is" in the D&D World as a concept.
Q: So beast retains eye biology of Drow after wildshaping. Dwarf resistance & Lizard AC too? Bears CAN have scales (Atavism).
A: A sensitivity to sunlight is a trope in fantasy, associated with creatures of darkness. It's usually more metaphysical than biological. #DnD
I may have missed it, but has anyone pointed out that there are several different applications of Sunlight Sensitivity to help inform this?
The monster version is written very clearly to include attacks separately from perception checks, while the PC version is more nuanced, and seems to over-emphasize the visual element.
Given that, I'm inclined to assume that the RAW and RAI for Drow (Race) is that Blindfighting would overcome Sunlight Sensitivity. The wording implies that they would have disadvantage on ranged attacks, which means that this has nothing to do with exposure to sunlight, and everything to do with perception of sunlight.
This should be further taken in the context of monsters like Myconid Adult, which suffer purely from exposure to, as opposed to the perception of, Sunlight.
As if often the case, races are mellowed out for the sake of playability.
Drow (Monster)
Sunlight Sensitivity.While in sunlight, the drow has disadvantage on attack rolls, as well as on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
Note: Comma is present.
Drow (Race)
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.
Note: Emphasizes sunlight as an issue for perception, not exposure.
Myconid Adult (Monster)
Sun Sickness.While in sunlight, the myconid has disadvantage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. The myconid dies if it spends more than 1 hour in direct sunlight.
Looking at the Drow Race vs. the Drow Monster, I certainly don't get the impression that the Race is less punitive than the monster. If anything, the opposite: monsters just get penalties while in sunlight, while the race gets the penalties when they or what they're looking at is in sunlight.
Looking at the Drow Race vs. the Drow Monster, I certainly don't get the impression that the Race is less punitive than the monster. If anything, the opposite: monsters just get penalties while in sunlight, while the race gets the penalties when they or what they're looking at is in sunlight.
It's true, and that is uncharacteristic for the designers.
They clearly changed the wording for Sunlight Sensitivity between the playable and non-playable version of the race. It seems unlikely to me that the designers are giving the playable race two overlapping issues (exposure and perception), so Occam's Razor would suggest that they simply exchanged one for the other.
Ergo, it is more believable that Blindfighting would counteract Sunlight Sensitivity for PCs, than that the designers deliberately and unnecessarily doubled up on sunlight related penalty justifications when making the race playable.
Would Blindfighting work to offset the disadvantage of Sunlight Sensitivity? I mean, you just close your eyes for most of the fight, and as long as they are within 10 feet it should be good right?
I see the argument against it, but I'd allow it. Just keep in mind that everyone outside of your blindsight range has advantage to hit you because you're blinded.
It's the perception checks that can rely on sight (there are also smell or sound perception checks). If you are blind you auto-fail such checks. Attack rolls never rely on sight. You can attack blind. Attack rolls are often modified by sight and vision, but do not rely.
If a drow takes a perception check to hear an approaching invisible enemy while standing in sunlight they do not suffer disadvantage on that. They suffer disadvantage on all attack rolls while standing in sunlight.
Pardon? If you cannot see your target, you are at disadvantage because you cannot see your target. Hearing them does not equal having blindsight. Hearing is not anywhere near as precise as sight (in reality or in the rules).
Attack rolls do not "rely on sight". That is just a thing that is never true. The definition of "a roll that relies on X" is that you cannot make or will automatically fail such a roll if you do not have X. You can always make an attack regardless of vision - you just choose a location where you believe an enemy is located and roll the dice (almost certainly with disadvantage). Attack rolls rely on knowing where the enemy is located, and will fail automatically if you target an empty square. Attack rolls are modified by sight and blindness but do not rely on it. A rule giving advantage or disadvantage on "attack rolls that rely on sight" is meaningless.
There are, however, many rules relating to perception rolls that rely on sight, hearing or smell. You will fail those rolls automatically if you do not have at least one of the senses required to make it.
We can debate the metaphysical reasons behind sunlight sensitivity and the RAI or rule-of-cool of blindness bypassing it, but first I'd like to establish that the RAW is not ambiguous regarding when sunlight causes disadvantage.
Would Blindfighting work to offset the disadvantage of Sunlight Sensitivity? I mean, you just close your eyes for most of the fight, and as long as they are within 10 feet it should be good right?
Hmm... Raw, maybe. It kind of depends on how your read sunlight sensitivity.
It definitely shouldn't be hard to convince a DM to allow it. I would.
RAW, no. Sunlight sensitivity attack disadvantage kicks in when you or the target are standing in sunlight and doesn't require that anyone involved even has eyes.
It's the perception checks that can rely on sight (there are also smell or sound perception checks). If you are blind you auto-fail such checks. Attack rolls never rely on sight. You can attack blind. Attack rolls are often modified by sight and vision, but do not rely.
If a drow takes a perception check to hear an approaching invisible enemy while standing in sunlight they do not suffer disadvantage on that. They suffer disadvantage on all attack rolls while standing in sunlight.
My initial response was that you keep the disadvantage on attacks. That said it can be read either way depending on how you parse the "and" Shown with [ ] below.
You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
Or
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you,
So I would say its well within a DM's call if the That rely on sight is a modifier for just the perception checks, or for both.
My gut says that RAI was probably just modifying the perception check, but frankly for the investment of a class feature or a feat to get the class feature I would probably allow blindfight to override sunlight sensitivity at my table
the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" does not exist anywhere else, while "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight" or more generally "wisdom (perception) checks that rely on X" for some sense X, exist in multiple other abilities, so i think its fair to assume its:
You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on [Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight ] when you
and not
You have disadvantage on [attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks ] that rely on sight when you,
id say blindfighting would not help, the disadvantage on attacks from sunlight sensitivity mechanicaly has nothing to do with sight.
it would obviously make sense if that were the case, but it isnt. (would probably allow it as a DM tho)
I'll preface this by saying that I agree with your stance that Blindfighting would negate the disadvantage imposed by sunlight sensitivity.
The reason that the "that rely on sight" is written in is that there are multiple perception checks, and it is possible to have one that doesn't rely on sight at all. But I would argue that all attacks rely on some form of sight (normal, blindsight, truesight, etc) so the distinction is not needed for attack rolls. Any detriment to sight includes a penalty to attack rolls (either disadvantage or a bonus to the targets AC, such as in cover rules).
My approach to interpreting rules is that the rules "assume the default" that is, a rule only addresses the baseline assumptions for how it is applied. Additional rules and options may grant exceptions to that default that change it (specific overrides general...). The default for Drow (and other creatures with sunlight sensitivity) is that they don't have blindsight or truesight or other alternate forms of vision, so the penalty from sunlight sensitivity by default applies to their normal vision. Adding a trait that adds blindsight might change that condition, or it might not (without some form of clarification in the rules, It would be up to the DM), but my stance would be that adding an additional form of sight that wouldn't depend on light levels would create an exception to the sunlight sensitivity rules, and that attacks and perception checks within the range of the new vision type (in this case 10 feet) would not be affected by sunlight sensitivity.
My question for those that believe otherwise: How do you logic that sunlight affects attacks when the attacker can't see (or doesn't need to see) light from the sun?
Because "perception checks that rely on sight" vs. "perception checks that rely on hearing" vs. "perception checks that rely on scent" are common re-used phrases in several different source books and features. "Attack rolls... that rely on sight" aren't a phrase used anywhere else, and don't make much sense, because there's no such thing as an Attack roll that DOESN'T rely on sight. Yes, you may have a feature that negates the penalty you would normally have for not having sight (blindsight, tremorsense, etc.), but that does not mean you are now making "Attack rolls that don't rely on sight."
The rule certainly would have benefited from a comma. "You have disadvantage on attack rolls, and on Perception checks that rely on sight..." Poor editing for clarity.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This from one of the guys that was just arguing druids retain str/dex/con ASIs when wild shaping. Obviously a troll.
Sunlight Sensitivity affects two things:
A blindfold won't help with either. A blindfold will make you automatically fail perception checks based on sight, and won't enable you to use other senses (you can already use them). There is no language that says you won't be affected by Sunlight Sensitivity if you're blinded.
The question was blindfold + blindfighting class ability which grants blindsight to 10 feet, not a blindfold by itself.
and Sunlight sensitivity is absolutely written as being a sight based penalty, so losing the form of sight affected by it is a logical step to saying that the penalty no longer applies
Not that I like this answer but, In response to this, it could be a magical curse for example (Crawford mentions in this tweet "A sensitivity to sunlight is a trope in fantasy, associated with creatures of darkness. It's usually more metaphysical than biological. #DnD" https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/805827268790480896?lang=en )
To be fair, i was saying there are two ways to read the rule in plain English and then i clarified which I believed they were intending (Don't really care if you consider that RAW or RAI). I also noted that I would personally rule at my table differently than I interpreted the strictly RAW phrase.
As far as why the target being in sun would affect the attacker it would be the same reason taking picture of a sunny day outside from a dark room only gives you detail either for the dark room with the outside overexposed, or detail for the outside with the dark room underexposed.
Sunlight Sensitivity is a quality that makes sunlight anathema to you, like any number of literary examples of creatures that are resigned to the shadows. It's not just "my eyes are real sensitive, but if I close them it's okay," because it's right there in the mechanics: when you're in sunlight, you have disadvantage on attacks. If your target is in sunlight, you have disadvantage on attacks. You're a creature of the darkness in a fantasy world, it isn't about real-world examples of contrast or overexposure or whathaveyou.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I personally think sunlight sensitivity gives disadvantage to "attacks" and "perception checks that rely on sight," because that is what it usually means; but because the rules are written in common, nonspecific language, it is a little open to interpretation. Which is why I said "maybe."
That said, I think most DMs will agree that this sounds like it should work and allow it anyway.
yeah, my issue with this is that they limit the penalty based on "relies on sight". The penalty of this trait (sight impaired by bright light) can be easily explained as a biological phenomenon in the real world, so if they wanted to be clear that this is a metaphysical/magical trait, they should really say so to avoid this confusion. Not everyone has the same understanding of fantasy tropes (the only one that I can think of, in Tolkien's orcs, is not explicitly described as only affecting sight but as a general "weakening").
Without this clarity in the ruleset (and not just in a tweet), I think it is perfectly logical to assume that sunlight sensitivity is a biological trait of a race that has primarily lived in darkness, and can be overcome by the introduction of an ability that allows one to override that biology (through training, magic, etc).
I am Legend, Lord of the Rings, Plague Tale, Pitch Black, The Time Machine, etc. etc. etc....
I don't like quoting JC for rule mechanic interpretations, in part because hearing his interviews he strikes me more as the "idea guy" of the creative team and less like the guy that actually understood the nuts and bolts of each rule and how they fit together and interacted. But his tweet on Sunlight Sensitivity as it relates to Wild Shape I think is persuasive here, for what it tells you about what Sunlight Sensitivity "is" in the D&D World as a concept.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I may have missed it, but has anyone pointed out that there are several different applications of Sunlight Sensitivity to help inform this?
The monster version is written very clearly to include attacks separately from perception checks, while the PC version is more nuanced, and seems to over-emphasize the visual element.
Given that, I'm inclined to assume that the RAW and RAI for Drow (Race) is that Blindfighting would overcome Sunlight Sensitivity. The wording implies that they would have disadvantage on ranged attacks, which means that this has nothing to do with exposure to sunlight, and everything to do with perception of sunlight.
This should be further taken in the context of monsters like Myconid Adult, which suffer purely from exposure to, as opposed to the perception of, Sunlight.
As if often the case, races are mellowed out for the sake of playability.
Looking at the Drow Race vs. the Drow Monster, I certainly don't get the impression that the Race is less punitive than the monster. If anything, the opposite: monsters just get penalties while in sunlight, while the race gets the penalties when they or what they're looking at is in sunlight.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's true, and that is uncharacteristic for the designers.
They clearly changed the wording for Sunlight Sensitivity between the playable and non-playable version of the race. It seems unlikely to me that the designers are giving the playable race two overlapping issues (exposure and perception), so Occam's Razor would suggest that they simply exchanged one for the other.
Ergo, it is more believable that Blindfighting would counteract Sunlight Sensitivity for PCs, than that the designers deliberately and unnecessarily doubled up on sunlight related penalty justifications when making the race playable.
I see the argument against it, but I'd allow it. Just keep in mind that everyone outside of your blindsight range has advantage to hit you because you're blinded.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Attack rolls do not "rely on sight". That is just a thing that is never true. The definition of "a roll that relies on X" is that you cannot make or will automatically fail such a roll if you do not have X. You can always make an attack regardless of vision - you just choose a location where you believe an enemy is located and roll the dice (almost certainly with disadvantage). Attack rolls rely on knowing where the enemy is located, and will fail automatically if you target an empty square. Attack rolls are modified by sight and blindness but do not rely on it. A rule giving advantage or disadvantage on "attack rolls that rely on sight" is meaningless.
There are, however, many rules relating to perception rolls that rely on sight, hearing or smell. You will fail those rolls automatically if you do not have at least one of the senses required to make it.
We can debate the metaphysical reasons behind sunlight sensitivity and the RAI or rule-of-cool of blindness bypassing it, but first I'd like to establish that the RAW is not ambiguous regarding when sunlight causes disadvantage.