Drow are at Disadvantage "on attack rolls and on Perception checks that rely on sight when you, your target, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight."
Blind Fighting grants "blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you."
All this being said, if the enemy has already been seen, would it be correct that I can move up to them to within 10', close my eyes, and then attack without the Disadvantage even if one or both of us is in direct sunlight?
I wouldn't play it that way, espeically because sunlight sensitivity says "perceive" instead of "see" implying that how you perceive it doesn't matter.
I wouldn't play it that way, espeically because sunlight sensitivity says "perceive" instead of "see" implying that how you perceive it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I'm trying to determine if I can find a way to not suffer from Disadvantage while fighting in daylight.
And I would play that you cannot avoid sunlight sensitivity if you or your target are in daylight, even if you close your eyes. Because sunlight sensitivity doesn't depend on how you perceive things.
Couldn't find it in a quick search, but I'm pretty sure Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls described Sunlight Sensitivity as being a bit like vampirism or an allergy; so wearing a big pair of sunglasses wouldn't help if you're standing in sunlight because simply being there is what's affecting you.
You could maybe argue blindsight would work if only your target is in sunlight, i.e- you're in shadow but they're not, but in strict rules terms this doesn't work. The only current way I know of to bypass sunlight sensitivity in RAW is to obtain a knave's eye patch, everything else is a house-rule or homebrew.
Also keep in mind that sunlight sensitivity on a race is intended to balance out a strong set of bonuses; Volo's Guide Kobolds for example have Pack Tactics which is very strong, Drow have better spellcasting than other elves (who only get one cantrip) and so-on, so sunlight sensitivity is not intended to be bypassed too easily.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Having your eyes closed isn't being blinded, although it does mean you can't see. But the rules on blindsight are a mess anyway. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius." However, "When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." That's not changed by having blindsight!
So, RAW, an eyeless monster with blindsight, like an ooze, has disadvantage on all attacks, and all attacks against it have advantage, even though it doesn't need to see.
Anyway, I'd probably allow this. It's a weak fighting style and it doesn't help you with ranged fighting which is where the "trade-off features" of pack tactics and spells really shine. Seems safe.
Drow are at Disadvantage "on attack rolls and on Perception checks that rely on sight when you, your target, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight."
Blind Fighting grants "blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you."
All this being said, if the enemy has already been seen, would it be correct that I can move up to them to within 10', close my eyes, and then attack without the Disadvantage even if one or both of us is in direct sunlight?
There's no RAW answer for you because WOTC tends to use ambiguous grammar and only sometimes clarifies said grammar for us. Your DM will need to homebrew the answer, so here are the critical questions:
Mandatory: Does "on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight" mean "on attack rolls that rely on sight and Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight" or "on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight and on attack rolls"? In the former case, being blinded shuts down Drow sunlight sensitivity, as your attack rolls don't rely on sight. In the latter case, continue.
In the general case, English grammar rules combine lists by abbreviating out common clauses. For example, "red, blue, and green rocks" means "red rocks, blue rocks, and green rocks". Likewise, "red rocks, cars, and boats" means "red rocks, red cars, and red boats".
The 2-item list presented says "on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight" rather than "on attack rolls and Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight". The two sentences are grammatically identical (see item 1.1) and in general mean that both the attack rolls and the Wisdom (Perception) checks have to rely on sight, so general English grammar means that the answer is the former case.
However, in practice, someone interpreting English grammar has to employ context clues to guess what the speaker actually intended. For example, "red rocks and boats" usually means "red rocks and red boats" but "red rocks and classical music" does not usually mean "red rocks and red classical music". As a result, the latter case is absolutely possible and only your DM can interpret ambiguous grammar for you.
Optional: RAW if you've gotten here a Drow shutting its eyes can't turn off Sunlight Sensitivity but can always determine when at least one of it or its target is in direct sunlight, provided it has the Blind Fighting style, by shutting its eyes and attempting the attack, to determine if it has Disadvantage or not. If your DM is interpreting Blind Fighting in a way that precludes letting you sense direct sunlight (e.g. if it's based on a combination of very keen non-visual senses), they may want to homebrew Sunlight Sensitivity back to only mattering when vision does, even if their grammatical answer to 1 went a different direction.
I'm quite certain "on X and on Y" is different than "on X and Y." Example: I put a blanket on my cat and on my dog. That's two blankets. I put a blanket on my cat and dog. One blanket.
More specifically: You should swordfight with a man who insulted your honor, and with children if you use fake swords.
Of course, this would be crystal clear if they had simply flipped the order: You have disadvantage on sight, and on attacks. But y'know. We can't have clarity. Lol
Having your eyes closed isn't being blinded, although it does mean you can't see. But the rules on blindsight are a mess anyway. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius." However, "When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." That's not changed by having blindsight!
So, RAW, an eyeless monster with blindsight, like an ooze, has disadvantage on all attacks, and all attacks against it have advantage, even though it doesn't need to see.
Anyway, I'd probably allow this. It's a weak fighting style and it doesn't help you with ranged fighting which is where the "trade-off features" of pack tactics and spells really shine. Seems safe.
Again, I said this in another thread, but I treat all of those special senses as "sight" because they're all described as if they replace sight. A creature you perceive with blindsight seems like it should be treated as if you "see" it, again, from the wording of all of those special senses.
Having your eyes closed isn't being blinded, although it does mean you can't see. But the rules on blindsight are a mess anyway. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius." However, "When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." That's not changed by having blindsight!
So, RAW, an eyeless monster with blindsight, like an ooze, has disadvantage on all attacks, and all attacks against it have advantage, even though it doesn't need to see.
Anyway, I'd probably allow this. It's a weak fighting style and it doesn't help you with ranged fighting which is where the "trade-off features" of pack tactics and spells really shine. Seems safe.
Again, I said this in another thread, but I treat all of those special senses as "sight" because they're all described as if they replace sight. A creature you perceive with blindsight seems like it should be treated as if you "see" it, again, from the wording of all of those special senses.
That makes sense most of the time. In the case of Blind Fighting specifically, it calls out that it's blocked by full cover. Is this meant to indicate that otherwise it wouldn't be? Who knows! If it's treated like sight, you don't need to have that text there, because sight is already blocked by full cover. Then again, extraneous rules exist all over the place in this game.
Well, besides for balance (just have the fighter scout the room from outside by seeing through all the walls), I guess it is giving you maybe an indication as to how it works? Maybe echolocation?
Anyway, I assume that it is possible that monster blindsight may or may not be blocked by total cover, but still allow you to "see" whatever you perceive in that radius. They want to make it clear exactly how it works for PCs: you can't see through walls.
Drow are at Disadvantage "on attack rolls and on Perception checks that rely on sight when you, your target, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight."
Blind Fighting grants "blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you."
All this being said, if the enemy has already been seen, would it be correct that I can move up to them to within 10', close my eyes, and then attack without the Disadvantage even if one or both of us is in direct sunlight?
I wouldn't play it that way, espeically because sunlight sensitivity says "perceive" instead of "see" implying that how you perceive it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I'm trying to determine if I can find a way to not suffer from Disadvantage while fighting in daylight.
And I would play that you cannot avoid sunlight sensitivity if you or your target are in daylight, even if you close your eyes. Because sunlight sensitivity doesn't depend on how you perceive things.
Exactly like I said.
Couldn't find it in a quick search, but I'm pretty sure Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls described Sunlight Sensitivity as being a bit like vampirism or an allergy; so wearing a big pair of sunglasses wouldn't help if you're standing in sunlight because simply being there is what's affecting you.
You could maybe argue blindsight would work if only your target is in sunlight, i.e- you're in shadow but they're not, but in strict rules terms this doesn't work. The only current way I know of to bypass sunlight sensitivity in RAW is to obtain a knave's eye patch, everything else is a house-rule or homebrew.
Also keep in mind that sunlight sensitivity on a race is intended to balance out a strong set of bonuses; Volo's Guide Kobolds for example have Pack Tactics which is very strong, Drow have better spellcasting than other elves (who only get one cantrip) and so-on, so sunlight sensitivity is not intended to be bypassed too easily.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Having your eyes closed isn't being blinded, although it does mean you can't see. But the rules on blindsight are a mess anyway. "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius." However, "When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." That's not changed by having blindsight!
So, RAW, an eyeless monster with blindsight, like an ooze, has disadvantage on all attacks, and all attacks against it have advantage, even though it doesn't need to see.
Anyway, I'd probably allow this. It's a weak fighting style and it doesn't help you with ranged fighting which is where the "trade-off features" of pack tactics and spells really shine. Seems safe.
Ever close your eye and face a strong light? It goes through your eye lids.
I would let you do this if you had some kind of Helmet with a visor.
There's no RAW answer for you because WOTC tends to use ambiguous grammar and only sometimes clarifies said grammar for us. Your DM will need to homebrew the answer, so here are the critical questions:
I'm quite certain "on X and on Y" is different than "on X and Y." Example: I put a blanket on my cat and on my dog. That's two blankets. I put a blanket on my cat and dog. One blanket.
More specifically: You should swordfight with a man who insulted your honor, and with children if you use fake swords.
Of course, this would be crystal clear if they had simply flipped the order: You have disadvantage on sight, and on attacks. But y'know. We can't have clarity. Lol
Again, I said this in another thread, but I treat all of those special senses as "sight" because they're all described as if they replace sight. A creature you perceive with blindsight seems like it should be treated as if you "see" it, again, from the wording of all of those special senses.
That makes sense most of the time. In the case of Blind Fighting specifically, it calls out that it's blocked by full cover. Is this meant to indicate that otherwise it wouldn't be? Who knows! If it's treated like sight, you don't need to have that text there, because sight is already blocked by full cover. Then again, extraneous rules exist all over the place in this game.
Well, besides for balance (just have the fighter scout the room from outside by seeing through all the walls), I guess it is giving you maybe an indication as to how it works? Maybe echolocation?
Anyway, I assume that it is possible that monster blindsight may or may not be blocked by total cover, but still allow you to "see" whatever you perceive in that radius. They want to make it clear exactly how it works for PCs: you can't see through walls.