I don’t have much of desire to do so, I just created this because I have seen a lot of people ask about it and I wanted to see how well it could be done. I imagine people want to do it for roleplay purposes, to give themselves a challenge, or because they saw a character from a book or movie and they wanted to be like them.
In a world of great magic who would not seek out the best caster in the land to cure them? Parents would do anything to cure a child, anyone afflicted would first seek out a healer before spending years learning how to operate sightless. They would make any deal and go on any quest after they were healed.
Add in any demonic entity who would offer a cure for the chance to gain a fresh new follower to do their bidding.
In a world of great magic who would not seek out the best caster in the land to cure them? Parents would do anything to cure a child, anyone afflicted would first seek out a healer before spending years learning how to operate sightless. They would make any deal and go on any quest after they were healed.
Add in any demonic entity who would offer a cure for the chance to gain a fresh new follower to do their bidding.
Bold of you to assume the average peasant can afford to go haring off on a quest like that, that they'd actually be able to find a great caster, that said caster would even be inclined to give them the time of day, etc. The vast majority of the population in a typical D&D setting are never going to come into close contact with someone who has that level of casting power.
Even pact makers generally don't/can't make themselves so accessible that every person looking for a quick fix to their problem might stumble across them. Magic is pervasive in the D&D-verse, but the kind of power it takes to do more than just restore HP is something most people would only see at a distance, if at all.
If someone really wanted to play a blind character in one of my games, I would give them the Blindsight fighting style as a free feat and strongly urge them to play a Barbarian, since Barbs are already designed with enemies getting advantage on hitting them in mind because of Reckless.
I still say the best build for this is a phb beastmaster.(with ritual caster as a feature)The spell beast sense is one of the few sight links that works without an action.
A seeing eye pet is also thematic as a real world interaction transitioned into a fantasy narrative. Throw in blindfigting and it works at level 2.
It keeps the concept in line with the mechanics and seems practical so you don't hinder the game or become too gimmicky trying to undermine the concept.
Bold of you to assume the average peasant can afford to go haring off on a quest like that
Yet this blind peasant can afford to go off an learn to be an adventurer? With all the handicaps of being blind (for example, being unable to read!).
I get the feeling that posters in forums like this asking for how to build blind PCs are not actually looking for how to build blind PCs - they are looking for how to build superheroes like Daredevil.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
This is a good principle but it is possible to build one while not interfering gameplay. Stick to the mechanics if you earn a sense via class, spell or features great no problem.
If it's a bother that's a table issue and should be solved via that route. Assuming it's going to be a problem before investigating details is kind of a crap deal. Many of the complanits are situational anecdotes. Anecdotes shows possibility but not frequency or causality. Frequency of bind problems can be made negligible by teamwork and table manners. Causality of blind character problems often means saying flat out "no" isn't often best solution. The player expressed interest in that concept for a reason so they should be allowed to explore that reasonably.
Again the solution I found is a ranger at level 2 or higher. It won't cripple the gameplay value and requires very little "accommodation" from the dm or the team. Between blindfighting and beast sense (as a ritual via feats) it can be a functional adventurer build.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
This is a good principle but it is possible to build one while not interfering gameplay. Stick to the mechanics if you earn a sense via class, spell or features great no problem.
If it's a bother that's a table issue and should be solved via that route. Assuming it's going to be a problem before investigating details is kind of a crap deal. Many of the complanits are situational anecdotes. Anecdotes shows possibility but not frequency or causality. Frequency of bind problems can be made negligible by teamwork and table manners. Causality of blind character problems often means saying flat out "no" isn't often best solution. The player expressed interest in that concept for a reason so they should be allowed to explore that reasonably.
Again the solution I found is a ranger at level 2 or higher. It won't cripple the gameplay value and requires very little "accommodation" from the dm or the team. Between blindfighting and beast sense (as a ritual via feats) it can be a functional adventurer build.
Things like Beast Sense both use concentration and take an action to maintain, so it's really not a viable option for combat. Blind Fighting limits their field of vision to 10 ft, and is a player really going to be effective in combat if they limit their combat awareness to that radius? In practice, the fact that the player is blind will most likely either be a massive handicap on their ability to engage with the game, or will be ignored so often that it might as well not exist, which again returns to the idea that they're trying to play an out of context character rather than a D&D character. Pretty much no one actually wants to play a blind character in D&D; they want to say their character is blind for "depth" or something, and then find a way to avoid actually having to deal with any of the inconvenient aspects of it.
Beast sense is unlike most other senses in that it only takes the initial action.
As for the rest, there are alot of logic bridges crossed. Some are just opinions or need to be further analyzed But it runs the risk of going in circles.
I appreciate your opinion and I would never want my concept of fun to interfere with others. So I would never play a blind character at a table with a similar stance.
However, I also would never shut down the idea based on guesswork or perceived problems.
This thread was started about making it work. I tried to support that. Congrats you have expressed you don't believe it to be functional and I have expressed options. We are on different thought tracks. So I will stop two person engagement unless you're willing to explore it together and meet part way.
My bad about Beast Sense, but there's still the Concentration factor. You're tying up your Concentration slot just to be on roughly the same standing as the other players, and one bad roll ends it in the middle of combat, at which point it takes two turns just to get your sight up again. Also, there's the question of the beast itself. Find Familiar is out because the creature you summon with the spell doesn't have the Beast type, and outside of a Beastmaster any pet is a matter of DM approval, and is going to be an extremely obvious and soft target for enemies in combat.
Honestly, I don't absolutely hate the concept, but it's not something that the base game supports mechanically. You functionally are left with either hobbling a character to the point that- if the condition is enforced- it seems unlikely to be fun to play as, handing the player a bunch of buffs that have the net result of making a better build than a base player, or just handwaving it as "oh yes, they're blind but function just fine until you ask them to read text", at which point for all intents and purposes you don't have a blind character. There just seems like an element of bad faith in it because most people who are proposing the idea aren't looking to go for the first scenario, ergo they're either going to end up with a superior sense or the blindness is going to just be ribbon aspect that only gets mentioned occasionally, which defeats the point. There just doesn't seem to be a viable path forward for using the actual mechanics of D&D 5e to create this character without essentially just giving them enhanced senses. Either the condition is enforced with all penalties- in which case the player needs to compartment all knowledge of the field outside of 10 ft at best during combat unless they're relying on a rather dubious combo- or the condition is effectively ignored, at which point you are not actually playing a blind character, you just occasionally say that a normal character is blind.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
This is a good principle but it is possible to build one while not interfering gameplay. Stick to the mechanics if you earn a sense via class, spell or features great no problem.
If it's a bother that's a table issue and should be solved via that route. Assuming it's going to be a problem before investigating details is kind of a crap deal. Many of the complanits are situational anecdotes. Anecdotes shows possibility but not frequency or causality. Frequency of bind problems can be made negligible by teamwork and table manners. Causality of blind character problems often means saying flat out "no" isn't often best solution. The player expressed interest in that concept for a reason so they should be allowed to explore that reasonably.
Again the solution I found is a ranger at level 2 or higher. It won't cripple the gameplay value and requires very little "accommodation" from the dm or the team. Between blindfighting and beast sense (as a ritual via feats) it can be a functional adventurer build.
Things like Beast Sense both use concentration and take an action to maintain, so it's really not a viable option for combat. Blind Fighting limits their field of vision to 10 ft, and is a player really going to be effective in combat if they limit their combat awareness to that radius? In practice, the fact that the player is blind will most likely either be a massive handicap on their ability to engage with the game, or will be ignored so often that it might as well not exist, which again returns to the idea that they're trying to play an out of context character rather than a D&D character. Pretty much no one actually wants to play a blind character in D&D; they want to say their character is blind for "depth" or something, and then find a way to avoid actually having to deal with any of the inconvenient aspects of it.
10ft Blindsight IMO is actually quite decent and functional. Sure you can't make an archer or spell sniper, but combined with good hearing to get a general direction of people, Blindsight is quite viable. i.e IRL people can't see behind them but that doesn't mean they are totally unaware if there is a horse walking behind them.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
This is a good principle but it is possible to build one while not interfering gameplay. Stick to the mechanics if you earn a sense via class, spell or features great no problem.
If it's a bother that's a table issue and should be solved via that route. Assuming it's going to be a problem before investigating details is kind of a crap deal. Many of the complanits are situational anecdotes. Anecdotes shows possibility but not frequency or causality. Frequency of bind problems can be made negligible by teamwork and table manners. Causality of blind character problems often means saying flat out "no" isn't often best solution. The player expressed interest in that concept for a reason so they should be allowed to explore that reasonably.
Again the solution I found is a ranger at level 2 or higher. It won't cripple the gameplay value and requires very little "accommodation" from the dm or the team. Between blindfighting and beast sense (as a ritual via feats) it can be a functional adventurer build.
Things like Beast Sense both use concentration and take an action to maintain, so it's really not a viable option for combat. Blind Fighting limits their field of vision to 10 ft, and is a player really going to be effective in combat if they limit their combat awareness to that radius? In practice, the fact that the player is blind will most likely either be a massive handicap on their ability to engage with the game, or will be ignored so often that it might as well not exist, which again returns to the idea that they're trying to play an out of context character rather than a D&D character. Pretty much no one actually wants to play a blind character in D&D; they want to say their character is blind for "depth" or something, and then find a way to avoid actually having to deal with any of the inconvenient aspects of it.
10ft Blindsight IMO is actually quite decent and functional. Sure you can't make an archer or spell sniper, but combined with good hearing to get a general direction of people, Blindsight is quite viable. i.e IRL people can't see behind them but that doesn't mean they are totally unaware if there is a horse walking behind them.
Abstract awareness is one thing, but you're going to have a hard time knowing the horse's position better than "somewhere behind me". For the purposes of moving in combat, if you use the "they can hear really well" bit you would essentially be asserting that their awareness is sufficient to maneuver as if they could see, which again returns to the issue that their blindness is not an actual condition, it's a ribbon feature of the character. I'm nearsighted, and I can tell you right now that I cannot move with nearly the same confidence through an area without my glasses as I can with them on.
In 5e you are not in an unknown location unless you are both unseen and unheard. You must take the hide action to become unknown. Weather or not it's realistic dosen't matter because dnd is a hero narative within the mechanics.
Even invisibility does not obscure a character location.
Now many dms short hand that rule for reasons but that's usually because they have tools (time,planning, features ect) or the situation makes the subdivision of whether its hidden irrelevant.
Combat wise there are lots of beasmaster options. Even having your concentration tied up won't make as big of a hinderace because their spell damage is only a small portion of their best damage options depending on your pet/build choices(-5 for +10 feats, or poison, beast attacks ). They can instead focus on healing and instantaneous spells. There are even ways to keep up without beastsense its just a good backup.
Ranged a beasmaster with a bat could play a "ranged sniper" because of 120ft span of blindsight(60 ft radius) however flying snake or spiders might be better for other reasons which may make melee better.
Where sight may make a difference is in reading or skill checks but that's just part of being a team and little different from an illiterate character or a player self imposing a type of spells. Playing blind is just another form of role playing. Some people like the "overcoming a weakness" story. especially in a fantasy world with magic.
Now I actually played with a blind player in a game store (not a character a player). They had to make choices to reflect their disability (classes with abilities less map/location dependenant and special play materials) but they could still function. They did things like find which play rooms were being used, helped cleanup and more. Part of having a disability is learning what you can and can't do. This means learning work around and tricks. Thankfully as a "mechanical results first" system you figure out results then fill in the reasons. The reasons of how a blind adventure functions can be any form of narrative explanation as long as they follow the mechanics.
You can use find familiar (1st level spell) to see through a pet's eyes, hear through it's ears. A bat, owl, etc. could be useful. If it does, resummon it. There is also the 3rd level spell, clairvoyance. Or get a familiar with stealth bonuses, so it is less likely to get hit: spider, weasel, cat, etc. Quasdts, sprites, imps (warlock familiar) can turn inviisible and fly (Quasit does it through polymorph). There is also the 2nd level spell, flock of familiars (concentration; lasts on hour but get several).
That said, I don't see (LOL) the point of having a blind character. an NPC, sure. If I was the DM, I would give them some sort of advantage (other than immunity to gaze spells). Maybe a familiar related magic item (a ring? maybe a family heirloom) that let's them cast flock of familiars and find familiar even if they are not a wizard or warlock.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
This is a good principle but it is possible to build one while not interfering gameplay. Stick to the mechanics if you earn a sense via class, spell or features great no problem.
If it's a bother that's a table issue and should be solved via that route. Assuming it's going to be a problem before investigating details is kind of a crap deal. Many of the complanits are situational anecdotes. Anecdotes shows possibility but not frequency or causality. Frequency of bind problems can be made negligible by teamwork and table manners. Causality of blind character problems often means saying flat out "no" isn't often best solution. The player expressed interest in that concept for a reason so they should be allowed to explore that reasonably.
Again the solution I found is a ranger at level 2 or higher. It won't cripple the gameplay value and requires very little "accommodation" from the dm or the team. Between blindfighting and beast sense (as a ritual via feats) it can be a functional adventurer build.
Things like Beast Sense both use concentration and take an action to maintain, so it's really not a viable option for combat. Blind Fighting limits their field of vision to 10 ft, and is a player really going to be effective in combat if they limit their combat awareness to that radius? In practice, the fact that the player is blind will most likely either be a massive handicap on their ability to engage with the game, or will be ignored so often that it might as well not exist, which again returns to the idea that they're trying to play an out of context character rather than a D&D character. Pretty much no one actually wants to play a blind character in D&D; they want to say their character is blind for "depth" or something, and then find a way to avoid actually having to deal with any of the inconvenient aspects of it.
10ft Blindsight IMO is actually quite decent and functional. Sure you can't make an archer or spell sniper, but combined with good hearing to get a general direction of people, Blindsight is quite viable. i.e IRL people can't see behind them but that doesn't mean they are totally unaware if there is a horse walking behind them.
Abstract awareness is one thing, but you're going to have a hard time knowing the horse's position better than "somewhere behind me". For the purposes of moving in combat, if you use the "they can hear really well" bit you would essentially be asserting that their awareness is sufficient to maneuver as if they could see, which again returns to the issue that their blindness is not an actual condition, it's a ribbon feature of the character. I'm nearsighted, and I can tell you right now that I cannot move with nearly the same confidence through an area without my glasses as I can with them on.
I mean.. that is utterly untrue. You can prove it for yourself by just standing on a sidewalk of a busy road and closing your eyes, because we have two ears our brain actually triangulates the approximate distance and direction of anything we can hear from ourselves based on the difference in arrival time of the noise to each of our ears. It's the same reason if you hear a cellphone ring in a crowded space you can turn your head fast enough and accurately enough to see the person answer it almost every time. Or you can turn and immediately look at someone if they call your name.
Re: Nearsighted - True, I'm extremely nearsighted as well, but the trouble moving around is due to trip/slip risk because you cannot see hazards underfoot - 10ft Blindsight eliminates this risk. I've navigates around just fine without my glasses when they fog up when I come inside from -20 weather, the only time I pause and go slowly is when near the stairs.
I'm (clearly) new to the subject... And I had been thinking about building a blind Monk (Warrior of Shadow) using the 2024 ruleset. One question that I have not seen addressed is how to handle sonic damage. As a suggestion, I would submit that, because a blind character uses their ears, to "see" that sonic damage causes an additional die of damage in addition to being blinded (due to sensitive ears). I had originally considered auto crit, but it would be a bit broken to add crit damage to an auto crit.
Thoughts would be welcome, or even pointing out if this has been addressed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
why would you want to be blind?
I played a moon druid who was working for the emerald enclave.
she had the charlatan background and she used a white staff and a blindfold using a disguise kit to trick people into believing she was blind.
great fun.
I don’t have much of desire to do so, I just created this because I have seen a lot of people ask about it and I wanted to see how well it could be done.
I imagine people want to do it for roleplay purposes, to give themselves a challenge, or because they saw a character from a book or movie and they wanted to be like them.
In a world of great magic who would not seek out the best caster in the land to cure them?
Parents would do anything to cure a child, anyone afflicted would first seek out a healer before spending years learning how to operate sightless. They would make any deal and go on any quest after they were healed.
Add in any demonic entity who would offer a cure for the chance to gain a fresh new follower to do their bidding.
Bold of you to assume the average peasant can afford to go haring off on a quest like that, that they'd actually be able to find a great caster, that said caster would even be inclined to give them the time of day, etc. The vast majority of the population in a typical D&D setting are never going to come into close contact with someone who has that level of casting power.
Even pact makers generally don't/can't make themselves so accessible that every person looking for a quick fix to their problem might stumble across them. Magic is pervasive in the D&D-verse, but the kind of power it takes to do more than just restore HP is something most people would only see at a distance, if at all.
Its all about the same chance as a peasant finding someone to train him to fight blind and give him all the other blind hacks in order to adventure.
If someone really wanted to play a blind character in one of my games, I would give them the Blindsight fighting style as a free feat and strongly urge them to play a Barbarian, since Barbs are already designed with enemies getting advantage on hitting them in mind because of Reckless.
I still say the best build for this is a phb beastmaster.(with ritual caster as a feature)The spell beast sense is one of the few sight links that works without an action.
A seeing eye pet is also thematic as a real world interaction transitioned into a fantasy narrative. Throw in blindfigting and it works at level 2.
It keeps the concept in line with the mechanics and seems practical so you don't hinder the game or become too gimmicky trying to undermine the concept.
Yet this blind peasant can afford to go off an learn to be an adventurer? With all the handicaps of being blind (for example, being unable to read!).
I get the feeling that posters in forums like this asking for how to build blind PCs are not actually looking for how to build blind PCs - they are looking for how to build superheroes like Daredevil.
For the most part dnd is designed to tell hero naratives. I see little wrong with the thought experiment of exploring the idea.
There is a line that can cross from character concept to caricature concept. But that depends on group and dm tone choices.
The issue is the mechanical implications of that setup. Blindness is a severely handicapping condition in 5e, and as a corollary alternative senses that bypass vision such as blindsight or tremorsense are significant boosts. If a character is permanently blinded, they’re going to significantly underperform, potentially to the point that it becomes a headache for the DM and/or other players to work around. If they get an alternative sense to compensate, they’re getting a significant buff that could easily turn into a freebie if people forget to enforce the handicaps of blindness. 5e is not designed to support characters designed with hard mechanical flaws, as opposed to the soft background flaws. You can’t really make a Daredevil or Toph player character without essentially just giving one player a free buff.
This is a good principle but it is possible to build one while not interfering gameplay. Stick to the mechanics if you earn a sense via class, spell or features great no problem.
If it's a bother that's a table issue and should be solved via that route. Assuming it's going to be a problem before investigating details is kind of a crap deal. Many of the complanits are situational anecdotes. Anecdotes shows possibility but not frequency or causality. Frequency of bind problems can be made negligible by teamwork and table manners. Causality of blind character problems often means saying flat out "no" isn't often best solution. The player expressed interest in that concept for a reason so they should be allowed to explore that reasonably.
Again the solution I found is a ranger at level 2 or higher. It won't cripple the gameplay value and requires very little "accommodation" from the dm or the team. Between blindfighting and beast sense (as a ritual via feats) it can be a functional adventurer build.
Things like Beast Sense both use concentration and take an action to maintain, so it's really not a viable option for combat. Blind Fighting limits their field of vision to 10 ft, and is a player really going to be effective in combat if they limit their combat awareness to that radius? In practice, the fact that the player is blind will most likely either be a massive handicap on their ability to engage with the game, or will be ignored so often that it might as well not exist, which again returns to the idea that they're trying to play an out of context character rather than a D&D character. Pretty much no one actually wants to play a blind character in D&D; they want to say their character is blind for "depth" or something, and then find a way to avoid actually having to deal with any of the inconvenient aspects of it.
Beast sense is unlike most other senses in that it only takes the initial action.
As for the rest, there are alot of logic bridges crossed. Some are just opinions or need to be further analyzed But it runs the risk of going in circles.
I appreciate your opinion and I would never want my concept of fun to interfere with others. So I would never play a blind character at a table with a similar stance.
However, I also would never shut down the idea based on guesswork or perceived problems.
This thread was started about making it work. I tried to support that. Congrats you have expressed you don't believe it to be functional and I have expressed options. We are on different thought tracks. So I will stop two person engagement unless you're willing to explore it together and meet part way.
My bad about Beast Sense, but there's still the Concentration factor. You're tying up your Concentration slot just to be on roughly the same standing as the other players, and one bad roll ends it in the middle of combat, at which point it takes two turns just to get your sight up again. Also, there's the question of the beast itself. Find Familiar is out because the creature you summon with the spell doesn't have the Beast type, and outside of a Beastmaster any pet is a matter of DM approval, and is going to be an extremely obvious and soft target for enemies in combat.
Honestly, I don't absolutely hate the concept, but it's not something that the base game supports mechanically. You functionally are left with either hobbling a character to the point that- if the condition is enforced- it seems unlikely to be fun to play as, handing the player a bunch of buffs that have the net result of making a better build than a base player, or just handwaving it as "oh yes, they're blind but function just fine until you ask them to read text", at which point for all intents and purposes you don't have a blind character. There just seems like an element of bad faith in it because most people who are proposing the idea aren't looking to go for the first scenario, ergo they're either going to end up with a superior sense or the blindness is going to just be ribbon aspect that only gets mentioned occasionally, which defeats the point. There just doesn't seem to be a viable path forward for using the actual mechanics of D&D 5e to create this character without essentially just giving them enhanced senses. Either the condition is enforced with all penalties- in which case the player needs to compartment all knowledge of the field outside of 10 ft at best during combat unless they're relying on a rather dubious combo- or the condition is effectively ignored, at which point you are not actually playing a blind character, you just occasionally say that a normal character is blind.
10ft Blindsight IMO is actually quite decent and functional. Sure you can't make an archer or spell sniper, but combined with good hearing to get a general direction of people, Blindsight is quite viable. i.e IRL people can't see behind them but that doesn't mean they are totally unaware if there is a horse walking behind them.
Abstract awareness is one thing, but you're going to have a hard time knowing the horse's position better than "somewhere behind me". For the purposes of moving in combat, if you use the "they can hear really well" bit you would essentially be asserting that their awareness is sufficient to maneuver as if they could see, which again returns to the issue that their blindness is not an actual condition, it's a ribbon feature of the character. I'm nearsighted, and I can tell you right now that I cannot move with nearly the same confidence through an area without my glasses as I can with them on.
In 5e you are not in an unknown location unless you are both unseen and unheard. You must take the hide action to become unknown. Weather or not it's realistic dosen't matter because dnd is a hero narative within the mechanics.
Even invisibility does not obscure a character location.
Now many dms short hand that rule for reasons but that's usually because they have tools (time,planning, features ect) or the situation makes the subdivision of whether its hidden irrelevant.
Combat wise there are lots of beasmaster options. Even having your concentration tied up won't make as big of a hinderace because their spell damage is only a small portion of their best damage options depending on your pet/build choices(-5 for +10 feats, or poison, beast attacks ). They can instead focus on healing and instantaneous spells. There are even ways to keep up without beastsense its just a good backup.
Ranged a beasmaster with a bat could play a "ranged sniper" because of 120ft span of blindsight(60 ft radius) however flying snake or spiders might be better for other reasons which may make melee better.
Where sight may make a difference is in reading or skill checks but that's just part of being a team and little different from an illiterate character or a player self imposing a type of spells. Playing blind is just another form of role playing. Some people like the "overcoming a weakness" story. especially in a fantasy world with magic.
Now I actually played with a blind player in a game store (not a character a player). They had to make choices to reflect their disability (classes with abilities less map/location dependenant and special play materials) but they could still function. They did things like find which play rooms were being used, helped cleanup and more. Part of having a disability is learning what you can and can't do. This means learning work around and tricks. Thankfully as a "mechanical results first" system you figure out results then fill in the reasons. The reasons of how a blind adventure functions can be any form of narrative explanation as long as they follow the mechanics.
You can use find familiar (1st level spell) to see through a pet's eyes, hear through it's ears. A bat, owl, etc. could be useful. If it does, resummon it. There is also the 3rd level spell, clairvoyance. Or get a familiar with stealth bonuses, so it is less likely to get hit: spider, weasel, cat, etc. Quasdts, sprites, imps (warlock familiar) can turn inviisible and fly (Quasit does it through polymorph). There is also the 2nd level spell, flock of familiars (concentration; lasts on hour but get several).
That said, I don't see (LOL) the point of having a blind character. an NPC, sure. If I was the DM, I would give them some sort of advantage (other than immunity to gaze spells). Maybe a familiar related magic item (a ring? maybe a family heirloom) that let's them cast flock of familiars and find familiar even if they are not a wizard or warlock.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
I mean.. that is utterly untrue. You can prove it for yourself by just standing on a sidewalk of a busy road and closing your eyes, because we have two ears our brain actually triangulates the approximate distance and direction of anything we can hear from ourselves based on the difference in arrival time of the noise to each of our ears. It's the same reason if you hear a cellphone ring in a crowded space you can turn your head fast enough and accurately enough to see the person answer it almost every time. Or you can turn and immediately look at someone if they call your name.
Re: Nearsighted - True, I'm extremely nearsighted as well, but the trouble moving around is due to trip/slip risk because you cannot see hazards underfoot - 10ft Blindsight eliminates this risk. I've navigates around just fine without my glasses when they fog up when I come inside from -20 weather, the only time I pause and go slowly is when near the stairs.
I'm (clearly) new to the subject... And I had been thinking about building a blind Monk (Warrior of Shadow) using the 2024 ruleset. One question that I have not seen addressed is how to handle sonic damage. As a suggestion, I would submit that, because a blind character uses their ears, to "see" that sonic damage causes an additional die of damage in addition to being blinded (due to sensitive ears). I had originally considered auto crit, but it would be a bit broken to add crit damage to an auto crit.
Thoughts would be welcome, or even pointing out if this has been addressed.