So.... blind fighting and blind sense are useless then, since there is no link between sight and attack rolls?
Pardon?
You are relying on too precise a definition of 'rely.'
You just used the same definition of rely right there. I am relying on X. Without X my argument automatically fails.
There is a link between sight and attack rolls, but there is not reliance. If X relies on Y then you cannot X without Y. That is the relationship between sight-based perception checks and sight. That is not the relationship between attack rolls and sight. There is no such thing as an attack roll that relies on sight.
"Off in the distance you see... well, roll a Perception check."
"I rolled a 25, but actually I'm Blind, remember? Haven't had a chance to get that Restoration yet to grow my eyes back after the last session... do you want me to roll with Disadvantage?"
"Oh right. Okay, then you can't make the Perception at all, sorry. This check relies on sight."
That's what a perception check that "relies on sight" is. With sight, you can make it. Without sight, you cannot.
"Okay, you didn't see anything, but suddenly there's something up in your face roaring, and you feel a bite on your shoulder. It bites you savagely for 10 damage... your turn!"
"Okay, I can't see it, but can I tell where it is, or attack the direction I got bit from?"
"You can't see it, but it isn't Hiding, you know it's still in the square just north of you, where it bit you from. You can go ahead and roll an attack with Disadvantage, because you're Blind."
That's what having an attack roll penalized by lack of sight looks like, but clearly the attack does not rely on sight, because you can still make it without sight.
"Well, I don't want disadvantage... I know, I'll cast Sacred Flame on it instead, that just makes the enemy make a save, no way for me to suffer disadvantage!"
"I'm sorry, Sacred Flame requires an enemy you can see , you're Blind and can't see the monster, so you can't cast that spell on it. Do you have another spell prepared, that doesn’t rely on sight?”
And that's what a spell that relies on sight would look like. Without sight, you can't cast the spell, not just get penalized in your casting.
"Rely" can have a meaning beyond "you can or you can't"...it can be variable, and usually requires some sort of context in order to find out how much you rely on it. Obviously Attack rolls rely on sight to provide the best chance of hitting, because attacking without it grants a penalty in all cases. That is a different (but entirely valid) interpretation that is in the common language.
But again, the feature should be read in the context of understanding that there should be a comma after attack, so we’re not talking about attacks relying on sight in the first place. There’s no such thing as an attack relying on sight, the feature doesn’t describe attacks relying on sight, and really this is just a lot of analysis based on a faulty reading.
Attack rolls do not "rely on sight". That is just a thing that is never true.
Attack rolls have a specific restriction that you have disadvantage if you cannot see your target. That is relying on sight, unless you have another ability such as blindsight that replaces it.
Attack rolls do not "rely on sight". That is just a thing that is never true.
Attack rolls have a specific restriction that you have disadvantage if you cannot see your target. That is relying on sight, unless you have another ability such as blindsight that replaces it.
Depending on your definition of rely, either no attack rolls rely on sight or *all* attack rolls rely on sight. You can attack without seeing thus attacks don't rely on sight, or seeing/not seeing can apply advantage/disadvantage to any attack thus all attacks rely on sight. Either way, the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" has no meaning.
Blindsight doesn't replace sight, it *is* sight. It doesn't make not being able to see something not matter, it makes you be able to see the thing that you otherwise couldn't. The rules for attack advantage are not changed by Blindsight. If you have Blindsight and can see your target with it, but they can't see you, then the vision situation here grants you advantage on the attack. The same amount of reliance on sight exists for that attack as for any other attack.
Depending on your definition of rely, either no attack rolls rely on sight or *all* attack rolls rely on sight. You can attack without seeing thus attacks don't rely on sight, or seeing/not seeing can apply advantage/disadvantage to any attack thus all attacks rely on sight. Either way, the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" has no meaning.
Blindsight doesn't replace sight, it *is* sight. It doesn't make not being able to see something not matter, it makes you be able to see the thing that you otherwise couldn't. The rules for attack advantage are not changed by Blindsight. If you have Blindsight and can see your target with it, but they can't see you, then the vision situation here grants you advantage on the attack. The same amount of reliance on sight exists for that attack as for any other attack.
But not this.
I don't want to derail this thread with Blindsight argument, but Blindsight is not sight, and does not "see" creatures and objects, it merely "perceives" them without relying on sight. What that precisely does in combat is debatable, since Blindsight doesn't spell it out, nor do the creatures' stat blocks that possess it. Arguably, a creature with Blindsight can still suffer from Blinded (unless it also has immunity from that condition, which some but not all Blindsight monsters do), still has problems targeting Sacred Flame, still might not be allowed to attempt certain checks that "rely on sight" in specific ways, etc. etc. But luckily, since only monsters/NPCs have Blindsight, those are answers the DM can come up with, rather than something Players get bent out of shape trying to work into a build.
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.
Blindsight doesn't replace sight, it *is* sight. It doesn't make not being able to see something not matter, it makes you be able to see the thing that you otherwise couldn't. The rules for attack advantage are not changed by Blindsight. If you have Blindsight and can see your target with it, but they can't see you, then the vision situation here grants you advantage on the attack. The same amount of reliance on sight exists for that attack as for any other attack.
But not this.
I don't want to derail this thread with Blindsight argument, but Blindsight is not sight, and does not "see" creatures and objects, it merely "perceives" them without relying on sight. What that precisely does in combat is debatable, since Blindsight doesn't spell it out, nor do the creatures' stat blocks that possess it. Arguably, a creature with Blindsight can still suffer from Blinded (unless it also has immunity from that condition, which some but not all Blindsight monsters do), still has problems targeting Sacred Flame, still might not be allowed to attempt certain checks that "rely on sight" in specific ways, etc. etc. But luckily, since only monsters/NPCs have Blindsight, those are answers the DM can come up with, rather than something Players get bent out of shape trying to work into a build.
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.
I honestly have so many disagreements on your statement that I'm not sure where to start. Creatures (and PC's who manage to pick up the ability from say the Blind Fighting Class ability, etc) are effectively immune to the blinded condition (within range of their blindsight, beyond that they are actually blinded, and any ability or effect that requires a creature to see a target will work with Blindsight (inside the range of that Blindsight), including spells. It may not be explicit RAW, but i'm sure it's RAI and it certainly is RAF, and any DM who would rule otherwise is a DM i wouldn't want to play with again.
And this whole discussion started because it is now possible by RAW for a PC to have blindsight, so its not just monsters and NPCs anymore. I stand by my ruling that a blindfold + Blind Fighting style (and its attendant 10' of blindsight) overrides the Sunlight Sensitivity of the Drow subrace within the blindsight radius
The way 5e handles perception is a bit of a trainwreck in the case of exotic senses, because there are many effects that require you to 'see' a target, and abilities such as a bat's sonar (implemented as blindsight) are clearly not vision, but should perform the same function of allowing targeting.
If you want to talk about RAI and RAF, fine. I mean, there are literary tropes where the "Blindsight" type creature is still blinded, such as by loud noises, removing it from the environment it has special senses in, breaking a perfume bottle, damaging its sensory organ, etc. etc.. The Blinded condition has two different bullet points: one of them is that you can't "see", and automatically fail any checks that require sight. Blindsight might essentially negate the "requires sight" part of that by letting you make those checks despite not being able to see, but it doesn't tell you it lets you "see", and also nothing in Blindsight tells you that you are immune or counteract the entirety of the second bullet of Blinded, "attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage."
But I understand your point, it's intuitive, and possibly RAI. Just please be aware that RAW, Blindsight does not let you "see", or prevent you from being Blinded, unless you also separately have immunity from that condition.
But I understand your point, it's intuitive, and possibly RAI. Just please be aware that RAW, Blindsight does not let you "see", or prevent you from being Blinded, unless you also separately have immunity from that condition.
It's pretty clear that it's supposed to, as there are critters such as the twig blight with things like "blindsight 60' (blind beyond that radius)", but yes, as written it doesn't. I'm less certain whether tremorsense is supposed to work that way, and also how cover (rather than concealment) applies to either one (I'm guessing tremorsense is meant to penetrate cover, blindsight is not, but...)
Those are all excellent questions. Like you said, 5E perception/invisibility/hiding/concealment/blinded/blindsight is a hopeless mess. There's like 6 different related systems, none of which 100% share terms or function, so you're left always kind of feeling like they don't quite line up. Its certainly fixable with some robust houserules, but there's very little hope of navigating a RAW interpretation of all those systems that provides consistent and intuitive results for players.
Blindsight doesn't replace sight, it *is* sight. It doesn't make not being able to see something not matter, it makes you be able to see the thing that you otherwise couldn't. The rules for attack advantage are not changed by Blindsight. If you have Blindsight and can see your target with it, but they can't see you, then the vision situation here grants you advantage on the attack. The same amount of reliance on sight exists for that attack as for any other attack.
But not this.
I don't want to derail this thread with Blindsight argument, but Blindsight is not sight, and does not "see" creatures and objects, it merely "perceives" them without relying on sight. What that precisely does in combat is debatable, since Blindsight doesn't spell it out, nor do the creatures' stat blocks that possess it. Arguably, a creature with Blindsight can still suffer from Blinded (unless it also has immunity from that condition, which some but not all Blindsight monsters do), still has problems targeting Sacred Flame, still might not be allowed to attempt certain checks that "rely on sight" in specific ways, etc. etc. But luckily, since only monsters/NPCs have Blindsight, those are answers the DM can come up with, rather than something Players get bent out of shape trying to work into a build.
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.
It may not be well communicated in the books, but any target that can be "perceived" via blindsight or tremorsense counts in all cases as being "seen" by the creature. They can be targeted by spells that require sight, they count as seen (not unseen) for attack advantage, and they can be detected by a perception check that might normally rely on sight.
Those senses might not be eyesight, but they are a special kind of seeing.
Perceived implying seen, again, may well be good RAI, but it isn’t written down that way. Also, that’s a Mearls tweet, who pretty much always answers from the RAF perspective, and acknowledges he’s not an authority on RAW. The language of Blindness itself makes explicit that it is NOT seeing, so... whatever, like I said, these systems needed better play testing/editing to be what they probably were intended to be.
Now you really are going off the rails. So you are now insisting that they mean that one can determine light intensity and colour with blindsight or tremorsense? Please.....
I'm implying no such thing. I'm implying that all rules or conditions that require seeing are met by perceiving with blindsight or tremorsense. There are many situations when you can see something but don't know what colour it is. Darkvision for example. We are here to talk about rules, not the physics of illumination.
But it is not interaction with light. Therefore how can sunlight sensitivity apply?
RAW is that sunlight sensitivity applies when the creature or its target is standing in sunlight. It applies to all attacks under those circumstances, regardless of which method if any is used to see. That has been my whole point this whole time.
You can use whatever real or other reason to override RAW with whatever ruling for how you want sunlight sensitivity to interact with blindsight or blind fighting, but RAW it does not.
Now you really are going off the rails. So you are now insisting that they mean that one can determine light intensity and colour with blindsight or tremorsense? Please.....
I'm implying no such thing. I'm implying that all rules or conditions that require seeing are met by perceiving with blindsight or tremorsense. There are many situations when you can see something but don't know what colour it is. Darkvision for example. We are here to talk about rules, not the physics of illumination.
But it is not interaction with light. Therefore how can sunlight sensitivity apply?
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 it's still No, houserules can be made in any way people want since it's houserules.
And consider this, in a really sunny summer day, close your eyes and look up at the sun. Is it still very bright? YES. And you don't have super sensitive eyes of a drow. So for them it would be even worse. Closing your eyes wouldn't be enough.
Edit: not even a blindfold or sunglasses would be enough, since you wouldn't want to look straight up at the sun even with that if it's strong enough and we still don't have those super sensitive eyes. So... consider that.
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 it's still No, houserules can be made in any way people want since it's houserules.
And consider this, in a really sunny summer day, close your eyes and look up at the sun. Is it still very bright? YES. And you don't have super sensitive eyes of a drow. So for them it would be even worse. Closing your eyes wouldn't be enough.
Edit: not even a blindfold or sunglasses would be enough, since you wouldn't want to look straight up at the sun even with that if it's strong enough and we still don't have those super sensitive eyes. So... consider that.
Depends on how good the blindfold. And we are talking about reflected light. If you can look directly into the sun, the sunlight is hitting your eyes directly.
Furthermore, the sunlight sensitivity talks about viewer or target being in direct sunlight. If you and they are each shaded by a tree or other shelter, the sun off the ground between the two bodies of shade does not affect the viewing or attack.
Well, the point was that sunlight goes through some things even though they block the sun. But you're right, it was bad examples.
Consider instead the reflected light on for instance snow, a sunny winters day will keep you blinded no matter where you look more or less. Sure you can put on sunshades and squint your eyes but it can still be straining for the eyes.
Anyways, It's a weakness, a racial weakness. It's supposed to be a big thing. Since they see twice as far as a normal human in dim light it's reasonable to presume they have at least twice the ability of a human to make use of the actual light in an area. This is without even counting their ability to see in regular darkness. It's reasonable to assume that because of this, the things I brought up would be a big thing for a drow. If taking blindfighting and closing your eyes was enough, it wouldn't be much of a flaw.
The reason I brought it up wasn't to be an a-hole, just that it shouldn't be EASY. And if you're trying to go around the rules of one of the few races with any actual weakness, you should at least need to do it properly :p and just closing your eyes shouldn't be enough.
It's kinda a "both having the cake and eating it" situation.
And in addition, if you use the "close your eyes and use blind fighting" to see in melee, any ranged attacks (including spells) should have advantage against you, since you are "blind" and can't see them targeting and attacking you. Well, ranged attacks from 15' and more of course, since you can effectively see within 10'.
Now, it might sound like I'm against this whole idea or something but that's not the case. I think it's kinda cool, even closing your eyes and fighting would be kinda cool and if you don't abuse this by only closing your eyes while attacking then opening them to prevent advantage against you, I'd probably allow it even though I don't think that's how it would really work or that it's written that way. But by then it's pretty much a house rule anyways.
It's a flaw, it's supposed to be a flaw and if you play it like it's still a flaw, just in another way (ie not trying to claim you only close your eyes when you're attacking but have them open vs ranged attacks) I don't see the problem. If you also take some monk levels (3) and get deflect missiles it would be even cooler.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You just used the same definition of rely right there. I am relying on X. Without X my argument automatically fails.
There is a link between sight and attack rolls, but there is not reliance. If X relies on Y then you cannot X without Y. That is the relationship between sight-based perception checks and sight. That is not the relationship between attack rolls and sight. There is no such thing as an attack roll that relies on sight.
That's what a perception check that "relies on sight" is. With sight, you can make it. Without sight, you cannot.
That's what having an attack roll penalized by lack of sight looks like, but clearly the attack does not rely on sight, because you can still make it without sight.
And that's what a spell that relies on sight would look like. Without sight, you can't cast the spell, not just get penalized in your casting.
Does that make sense?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Rely" can have a meaning beyond "you can or you can't"...it can be variable, and usually requires some sort of context in order to find out how much you rely on it. Obviously Attack rolls rely on sight to provide the best chance of hitting, because attacking without it grants a penalty in all cases. That is a different (but entirely valid) interpretation that is in the common language.
But again, the feature should be read in the context of understanding that there should be a comma after attack, so we’re not talking about attacks relying on sight in the first place. There’s no such thing as an attack relying on sight, the feature doesn’t describe attacks relying on sight, and really this is just a lot of analysis based on a faulty reading.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Attack rolls have a specific restriction that you have disadvantage if you cannot see your target. That is relying on sight, unless you have another ability such as blindsight that replaces it.
Depending on your definition of rely, either no attack rolls rely on sight or *all* attack rolls rely on sight. You can attack without seeing thus attacks don't rely on sight, or seeing/not seeing can apply advantage/disadvantage to any attack thus all attacks rely on sight. Either way, the phrase "attack rolls that rely on sight" has no meaning.
Blindsight doesn't replace sight, it *is* sight. It doesn't make not being able to see something not matter, it makes you be able to see the thing that you otherwise couldn't. The rules for attack advantage are not changed by Blindsight. If you have Blindsight and can see your target with it, but they can't see you, then the vision situation here grants you advantage on the attack. The same amount of reliance on sight exists for that attack as for any other attack.
This.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But not this.
I don't want to derail this thread with Blindsight argument, but Blindsight is not sight, and does not "see" creatures and objects, it merely "perceives" them without relying on sight. What that precisely does in combat is debatable, since Blindsight doesn't spell it out, nor do the creatures' stat blocks that possess it. Arguably, a creature with Blindsight can still suffer from Blinded (unless it also has immunity from that condition, which some but not all Blindsight monsters do), still has problems targeting Sacred Flame, still might not be allowed to attempt certain checks that "rely on sight" in specific ways, etc. etc. But luckily, since only monsters/NPCs have Blindsight, those are answers the DM can come up with, rather than something Players get bent out of shape trying to work into a build.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I honestly have so many disagreements on your statement that I'm not sure where to start. Creatures (and PC's who manage to pick up the ability from say the Blind Fighting Class ability, etc) are effectively immune to the blinded condition (within range of their blindsight, beyond that they are actually blinded, and any ability or effect that requires a creature to see a target will work with Blindsight (inside the range of that Blindsight), including spells. It may not be explicit RAW, but i'm sure it's RAI and it certainly is RAF, and any DM who would rule otherwise is a DM i wouldn't want to play with again.
And this whole discussion started because it is now possible by RAW for a PC to have blindsight, so its not just monsters and NPCs anymore. I stand by my ruling that a blindfold + Blind Fighting style (and its attendant 10' of blindsight) overrides the Sunlight Sensitivity of the Drow subrace within the blindsight radius
The way 5e handles perception is a bit of a trainwreck in the case of exotic senses, because there are many effects that require you to 'see' a target, and abilities such as a bat's sonar (implemented as blindsight) are clearly not vision, but should perform the same function of allowing targeting.
If you want to talk about RAI and RAF, fine. I mean, there are literary tropes where the "Blindsight" type creature is still blinded, such as by loud noises, removing it from the environment it has special senses in, breaking a perfume bottle, damaging its sensory organ, etc. etc.. The Blinded condition has two different bullet points: one of them is that you can't "see", and automatically fail any checks that require sight. Blindsight might essentially negate the "requires sight" part of that by letting you make those checks despite not being able to see, but it doesn't tell you it lets you "see", and also nothing in Blindsight tells you that you are immune or counteract the entirety of the second bullet of Blinded, "attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage."
But I understand your point, it's intuitive, and possibly RAI. Just please be aware that RAW, Blindsight does not let you "see", or prevent you from being Blinded, unless you also separately have immunity from that condition.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's pretty clear that it's supposed to, as there are critters such as the twig blight with things like "blindsight 60' (blind beyond that radius)", but yes, as written it doesn't. I'm less certain whether tremorsense is supposed to work that way, and also how cover (rather than concealment) applies to either one (I'm guessing tremorsense is meant to penetrate cover, blindsight is not, but...)
Those are all excellent questions. Like you said, 5E perception/invisibility/hiding/concealment/blinded/blindsight is a hopeless mess. There's like 6 different related systems, none of which 100% share terms or function, so you're left always kind of feeling like they don't quite line up. Its certainly fixable with some robust houserules, but there's very little hope of navigating a RAW interpretation of all those systems that provides consistent and intuitive results for players.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sage advice disagrees with you:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/24/can-i-see-the-target-with-blindsighttremorsense/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjxtM_Fu_LuAhWG7HMBHa5AB6wQFjABegQIExAC&usg=AOvVaw0MZwcOUw0_SGPx_0ioPwoD&ampcf=1&cshid=1613618077745
It may not be well communicated in the books, but any target that can be "perceived" via blindsight or tremorsense counts in all cases as being "seen" by the creature. They can be targeted by spells that require sight, they count as seen (not unseen) for attack advantage, and they can be detected by a perception check that might normally rely on sight.
Those senses might not be eyesight, but they are a special kind of seeing.
Perceived implying seen, again, may well be good RAI, but it isn’t written down that way. Also, that’s a Mearls tweet, who pretty much always answers from the RAF perspective, and acknowledges he’s not an authority on RAW. The language of Blindness itself makes explicit that it is NOT seeing, so... whatever, like I said, these systems needed better play testing/editing to be what they probably were intended to be.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm implying no such thing. I'm implying that all rules or conditions that require seeing are met by perceiving with blindsight or tremorsense. There are many situations when you can see something but don't know what colour it is. Darkvision for example. We are here to talk about rules, not the physics of illumination.
RAW is that sunlight sensitivity applies when the creature or its target is standing in sunlight. It applies to all attacks under those circumstances, regardless of which method if any is used to see. That has been my whole point this whole time.
You can use whatever real or other reason to override RAW with whatever ruling for how you want sunlight sensitivity to interact with blindsight or blind fighting, but RAW it does not.
Can a blind person get a sunburn?
RAW it's still No, houserules can be made in any way people want since it's houserules.
And consider this, in a really sunny summer day, close your eyes and look up at the sun. Is it still very bright? YES. And you don't have super sensitive eyes of a drow. So for them it would be even worse. Closing your eyes wouldn't be enough.
Edit: not even a blindfold or sunglasses would be enough, since you wouldn't want to look straight up at the sun even with that if it's strong enough and we still don't have those super sensitive eyes. So... consider that.
Well, the point was that sunlight goes through some things even though they block the sun. But you're right, it was bad examples.
Consider instead the reflected light on for instance snow, a sunny winters day will keep you blinded no matter where you look more or less. Sure you can put on sunshades and squint your eyes but it can still be straining for the eyes.
Anyways, It's a weakness, a racial weakness. It's supposed to be a big thing. Since they see twice as far as a normal human in dim light it's reasonable to presume they have at least twice the ability of a human to make use of the actual light in an area. This is without even counting their ability to see in regular darkness. It's reasonable to assume that because of this, the things I brought up would be a big thing for a drow. If taking blindfighting and closing your eyes was enough, it wouldn't be much of a flaw.
The reason I brought it up wasn't to be an a-hole, just that it shouldn't be EASY. And if you're trying to go around the rules of one of the few races with any actual weakness, you should at least need to do it properly :p and just closing your eyes shouldn't be enough.
It's kinda a "both having the cake and eating it" situation.
And in addition, if you use the "close your eyes and use blind fighting" to see in melee, any ranged attacks (including spells) should have advantage against you, since you are "blind" and can't see them targeting and attacking you. Well, ranged attacks from 15' and more of course, since you can effectively see within 10'.
Now, it might sound like I'm against this whole idea or something but that's not the case. I think it's kinda cool, even closing your eyes and fighting would be kinda cool and if you don't abuse this by only closing your eyes while attacking then opening them to prevent advantage against you, I'd probably allow it even though I don't think that's how it would really work or that it's written that way. But by then it's pretty much a house rule anyways.
It's a flaw, it's supposed to be a flaw and if you play it like it's still a flaw, just in another way (ie not trying to claim you only close your eyes when you're attacking but have them open vs ranged attacks) I don't see the problem. If you also take some monk levels (3) and get deflect missiles it would be even cooler.