Could a Inquisitive Rogue who is a human variant with starting feat (Fighting Initiate:Blind Fighting) use their Insightful Fighting ability if placed in (non magical) Darkness or suffering the Blinded condition?
As a DM, I want to say yes.. but welcome other points of view.
Are you concerned about the part of the requirement that says you use it on "a creature you can see"? If so, then yes you can use the ability against any target you can "see" using your Blindsight. Blindsight trumps the Blinded condition and any sort of Darkness.
That is why I was leaning towards “yes.” The ability says you have to see your target, and the description in Blind fighting basically states that the character with the ability can ‘see’ up to ten feet, and would even allow the character to ‘see’ invisible opponents that were not hidden.
It was a question posed to me before character generation began at our next session, I initially responded with ‘let me consider that further and get back to you.’
I was mostly curious to see if there were arguments against it.. It seems to pass both RAW and RAI to me.
Oh there are definitely arguments against it. Many people sit in the "blindsight isn't sight" camp, but RAW is not definitive on the topic and I believe it has been confirmed by Sage Advice tweets that RAI is both Blindsight and Tremorsense count as "seeing" for all intents and purposes (like targeting of spells requiring sight).
Actually his tweets are not meaningful. They are just his opinion. Wizards have specifically said that his tweets are not rules and don’t have any more weight for understanding rules than any other random person. He regularly gets things wrong in his tweets.
Actually his tweets are not meaningful. They are just his opinion. Wizards have specifically said that his tweets are not rules and don’t have any more weight for understanding rules than any other random person. He regularly gets things wrong in his tweets.
Do you think he is wrong in this instance? because i don't. "Blindsight counts as seeing inside its radius" is a very logical and simple interpretation of the RAW.
Its fine to point out that tweets are not the final word on a rules interpretation, but doing it only adds confusion if you aren't also following up on the question actually being asked.
In this instance, the way Jeremy Crawford suggests to run it is the way I personally also run it. Blindsight counts as vision for all purposes within the blindsight radius. To the OP, I think that is a fine way to run it since using a feat to acquire 10' of blindsight is a significant investment.
------
To the person pointing out that Jeremy Crawford's comments aren't significant, I agree. The reason I run blindsight counting as vision has nothing to do with Jeremy Crawford's opinion on the matter. There are a number of Jeremy Crawford statements on the rules that I would disagree with (e.g. An invisible creature still benefits from the invisible condition even from a creature that can see it - makes absolutely no sense as far as I am concerned) - so citing him as an authoritative source has little or no weight in these discussions.
In this case, since "seeing" isn't defined in the rules .. it is a DM call whether blindsight counts as seeing in their game. (Note that at least some of the One D&D playtest rules clarified that Blindsight does count as vision but those are UA).
Actually his tweets are not meaningful. They are just his opinion. Wizards have specifically said that his tweets are not rules and don’t have any more weight for understanding rules than any other random person. He regularly gets things wrong in his tweets.
Do you think he is wrong in this instance? because i don't. "Blindsight counts as seeing inside its radius" is a very logical and simple interpretation of the RAW.
Its fine to point out that tweets are not the final word on a rules interpretation, but doing it only adds confusion if you aren't also following up on the question actually being asked.
It doesn’t matter if I think JC is right or not in this specific situation. I was specifically replying to the person before me that stated JC’s tweets are the only thing that matters.
Do I think he is wrong in this case? No, I think its the right answer. But that’s actually irrelevant to the statement I was responding to.
FWIW there is a Sage Advice Compendium entry that parrallelly address this;
Can a blinded creature make an opportunity attack? An opportunity attack is triggered by “a hostile creature you can see” (PH, 195). If you can’t see an enemy, you can’t make an opportunity attack against it. Creatures with blindsight are an exception to this rule, because that ability lets those creatures “see” within a certain radius
Could a Inquisitive Rogue who is a human variant with starting feat (Fighting Initiate:Blind Fighting) use their Insightful Fighting ability if placed in (non magical) Darkness or suffering the Blinded condition?
As a DM, I want to say yes.. but welcome other points of view.
Are you concerned about the part of the requirement that says you use it on "a creature you can see"? If so, then yes you can use the ability against any target you can "see" using your Blindsight. Blindsight trumps the Blinded condition and any sort of Darkness.
That is why I was leaning towards “yes.” The ability says you have to see your target, and the description in Blind fighting basically states that the character with the ability can ‘see’ up to ten feet, and would even allow the character to ‘see’ invisible opponents that were not hidden.
It was a question posed to me before character generation began at our next session, I initially responded with ‘let me consider that further and get back to you.’
I was mostly curious to see if there were arguments against it.. It seems to pass both RAW and RAI to me.
Oh there are definitely arguments against it. Many people sit in the "blindsight isn't sight" camp, but RAW is not definitive on the topic and I believe it has been confirmed by Sage Advice tweets that RAI is both Blindsight and Tremorsense count as "seeing" for all intents and purposes (like targeting of spells requiring sight).
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/972239019642781697?s=19
To quote Jeremy Crawford (the only person whose tweets are meaningful to D&D rulings outside of Sage Advice):
"Blindsight qualifies for anything in the D&D rules that requires you to see something, provided that thing is within your blindsight's radius."
Actually his tweets are not meaningful. They are just his opinion. Wizards have specifically said that his tweets are not rules and don’t have any more weight for understanding rules than any other random person. He regularly gets things wrong in his tweets.
Do you think he is wrong in this instance? because i don't. "Blindsight counts as seeing inside its radius" is a very logical and simple interpretation of the RAW.
Its fine to point out that tweets are not the final word on a rules interpretation, but doing it only adds confusion if you aren't also following up on the question actually being asked.
In this instance, the way Jeremy Crawford suggests to run it is the way I personally also run it. Blindsight counts as vision for all purposes within the blindsight radius. To the OP, I think that is a fine way to run it since using a feat to acquire 10' of blindsight is a significant investment.
------
To the person pointing out that Jeremy Crawford's comments aren't significant, I agree. The reason I run blindsight counting as vision has nothing to do with Jeremy Crawford's opinion on the matter. There are a number of Jeremy Crawford statements on the rules that I would disagree with (e.g. An invisible creature still benefits from the invisible condition even from a creature that can see it - makes absolutely no sense as far as I am concerned) - so citing him as an authoritative source has little or no weight in these discussions.
In this case, since "seeing" isn't defined in the rules .. it is a DM call whether blindsight counts as seeing in their game. (Note that at least some of the One D&D playtest rules clarified that Blindsight does count as vision but those are UA).
It doesn’t matter if I think JC is right or not in this specific situation. I was specifically replying to the person before me that stated JC’s tweets are the only thing that matters.
Do I think he is wrong in this case? No, I think its the right answer. But that’s actually irrelevant to the statement I was responding to.
FWIW there is a Sage Advice Compendium entry that parrallelly address this;
Good catch! I think that adequately handles blindsight as a form of sight in function, if not in name.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Stay at range and kill the blind guy easy. He can not see farther than 10 feet.
This is the weakest form of seeing in the dark.
True, but it is still a lot stronger than not seeing at all.
Its cheaper and easier to get a light source.
Plus almost any light you can get would give you a longer vision than Blind Sight.
Light sources have a lot of advantages, but just as many disadvantages.