This discussion pertains to features that aren't blind sight primarily the 14th rogue feature blind sense and the 18th ranger feature feral senses as more of a side note. I'm not sure on the intention of the blind sense feature or not despite reading it plainly.
"Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you." If you can hear you are aware of the location of a hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you. Even if they make no sound. No check. However... that isn't the same as seeing. Many people would attribute this as worse blindsight, but automatically spotting things within 10 feet of you with no check is an interesting feature. Unless I'm reading into it wrong? This also seems to ignore full cover?
Then there is Feral senses "When you attack a creature you can't see, your inability to see it doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it. You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't blinded or deafened." You don't automatically spot the creature within 30 feet if it is hidden. This seems almost like a 30 foot blindsense, but... it's only for creatures. Not illusions. The same for the rogue feature. Could these be construed for working against illusions as well like an illusionary wall?
"Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you." If you can hear you are aware of the location of a hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you. Even if they make no sound. No check. However... that isn't the same as seeing. Many people would attribute this as worse blindsight, but automatically spotting things within 10 feet of you with no check is an interesting feature. Unless I'm reading into it wrong? This also seems to ignore full cover?
Rules As Written I think you're probably right; the way this rule is worded only the ability to hear at all is relevant, it doesn't matter how silent the creature is, whether the sound can carry to your position (through cover), if there's a loud storm raging around you etc. However the fact that it mentions sound seems to me like the intention is that the ability is based on sound so your DM is probably supposed to account for that when deciding if you are aware of the creature or not.
What I will say is that being aware of a creature's location is not the same as being able to see it, so while you know roughly where a creature is, and can't be surprised by it or such (seemingly even while unconscious) you would still have disadvantage to attack it as per the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. But at least you know where the enemy is so you know that you can hit them, unlike others who may be guessing whether there's an enemy in a space (and will miss automatically if they're wrong).
There's no mention of illusions or objects, the fact that it only mentions creatures seems to match the idea that the feature is intended to be based on something moving and making sound, but it'd be up to your DM whether an illusion or object would count (most don't make sound by default). If you go by RAW though then it works on neither and that's that.
Probably worth noting that blindsight has no special behaviour for illusions either, except that a visual only illusion would not be perceived by a creature relying on sound/smell/whatever instead. In that sense blindsense is no different as you're not able to perceive the illusion using it; you could probably argue that if the illusion is of a creature, and your blindsense is not aware of said creature, you might know that the "creature" you see isn't real. However we have no guidance on whether we can compare senses in that way, and illusions already have checks for whether you can see through them, so I wouldn't personally allow this.
Then there is Feral senses "When you attack a creature you can't see, your inability to see it doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it. You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't blinded or deafened." You don't automatically spot the creature within 30 feet if it is hidden. This seems almost like a 30 foot blindsense, but... it's only for creatures. Not illusions. The same for the rogue feature. Could these be construed for working against illusions as well like an illusionary wall?
Feral Senses is a little tricky. Firstly, against non-invisible targets while you ignore disadvantage for being unable to see them, you don't automatically know where they are, so you could still end up attacking a space that's empty and missing automatically, however if you do attack the correct location, you'll do so normally (no disadvantage).
Against invisible enemies you do know where they are, and being unable to see doesn't impose disadvantage, however the invisible condition itself also imposes disadvantage so I'm pretty sure you'd still have disadvantage to attack them. This is technically true even of truesight in Rules as Written, which is something that I hate (IMO the invisible condition shouldn't also impose disadvantage, it should just make you unseen and that's it, so much simpler).
In this way it's actually slightly different from blindsense as you don't know the location of hidden creatures within the radius, but it does have the added benefit of eliminating the unseen target penalty on hidden (but not invisible) enemies. It has no special treatment for illusions, and unlike blindsense above I don't think you'd be able to argue it (unless the illusion is somehow trying to give the impression of an invisible creature that isn't there 🤔).
If I were DMing I'd just treat them both as blindsight against hidden/unseen/invisible creatures only within the radius to keep things simple, and treat blindsight as enabling you to effectively see (this is actually ambiguous in the wording but I'm pretty sure that's the intent). But I'd also drop the extra disadvantage/advantage from invisible as well, at which point we're getting well away from Rules As Written.
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.
In the end this is one of those cases where I basically throw out RAW and try to figure out RAI. Blindsight and true sight are both magical abilities and spells, to me they are clearly attempting to cancel both the blinded condition and invisibility and as a DM I allow them to do both within their ranges. Blind sense and feral sense are non magical class abilities with the same intent. Because they are non magical their wording can’t be the same as the spells/magical abilities and that makes it harder to generate a satisfactory wording. That said their intent is, again, to counter blindness and invisibility ( otherwise why bother?) and so as a DM I would rule that they do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This discussion pertains to features that aren't blind sight primarily the 14th rogue feature blind sense and the 18th ranger feature feral senses as more of a side note.
I'm not sure on the intention of the blind sense feature or not despite reading it plainly.
"Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you."
If you can hear you are aware of the location of a hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you. Even if they make no sound. No check. However... that isn't the same as seeing. Many people would attribute this as worse blindsight, but automatically spotting things within 10 feet of you with no check is an interesting feature. Unless I'm reading into it wrong? This also seems to ignore full cover?
Then there is Feral senses "When you attack a creature you can't see, your inability to see it doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it. You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't blinded or deafened."
You don't automatically spot the creature within 30 feet if it is hidden. This seems almost like a 30 foot blindsense, but... it's only for creatures. Not illusions. The same for the rogue feature. Could these be construed for working against illusions as well like an illusionary wall?
Senses are poorly explained in the rules, so there is a lot of YMMV to go around.
Blind sense seems to ignore cover.
No, they don't mention working on illusions or objects.
Rules As Written I think you're probably right; the way this rule is worded only the ability to hear at all is relevant, it doesn't matter how silent the creature is, whether the sound can carry to your position (through cover), if there's a loud storm raging around you etc. However the fact that it mentions sound seems to me like the intention is that the ability is based on sound so your DM is probably supposed to account for that when deciding if you are aware of the creature or not.
What I will say is that being aware of a creature's location is not the same as being able to see it, so while you know roughly where a creature is, and can't be surprised by it or such (seemingly even while unconscious) you would still have disadvantage to attack it as per the Unseen Attackers and Targets rules. But at least you know where the enemy is so you know that you can hit them, unlike others who may be guessing whether there's an enemy in a space (and will miss automatically if they're wrong).
There's no mention of illusions or objects, the fact that it only mentions creatures seems to match the idea that the feature is intended to be based on something moving and making sound, but it'd be up to your DM whether an illusion or object would count (most don't make sound by default). If you go by RAW though then it works on neither and that's that.
Probably worth noting that blindsight has no special behaviour for illusions either, except that a visual only illusion would not be perceived by a creature relying on sound/smell/whatever instead. In that sense blindsense is no different as you're not able to perceive the illusion using it; you could probably argue that if the illusion is of a creature, and your blindsense is not aware of said creature, you might know that the "creature" you see isn't real. However we have no guidance on whether we can compare senses in that way, and illusions already have checks for whether you can see through them, so I wouldn't personally allow this.
Feral Senses is a little tricky. Firstly, against non-invisible targets while you ignore disadvantage for being unable to see them, you don't automatically know where they are, so you could still end up attacking a space that's empty and missing automatically, however if you do attack the correct location, you'll do so normally (no disadvantage).
Against invisible enemies you do know where they are, and being unable to see doesn't impose disadvantage, however the invisible condition itself also imposes disadvantage so I'm pretty sure you'd still have disadvantage to attack them. This is technically true even of truesight in Rules as Written, which is something that I hate (IMO the invisible condition shouldn't also impose disadvantage, it should just make you unseen and that's it, so much simpler).
In this way it's actually slightly different from blindsense as you don't know the location of hidden creatures within the radius, but it does have the added benefit of eliminating the unseen target penalty on hidden (but not invisible) enemies. It has no special treatment for illusions, and unlike blindsense above I don't think you'd be able to argue it (unless the illusion is somehow trying to give the impression of an invisible creature that isn't there 🤔).
If I were DMing I'd just treat them both as blindsight against hidden/unseen/invisible creatures only within the radius to keep things simple, and treat blindsight as enabling you to effectively see (this is actually ambiguous in the wording but I'm pretty sure that's the intent). But I'd also drop the extra disadvantage/advantage from invisible as well, at which point we're getting well away from Rules As Written.
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.
In the end this is one of those cases where I basically throw out RAW and try to figure out RAI. Blindsight and true sight are both magical abilities and spells, to me they are clearly attempting to cancel both the blinded condition and invisibility and as a DM I allow them to do both within their ranges. Blind sense and feral sense are non magical class abilities with the same intent. Because they are non magical their wording can’t be the same as the spells/magical abilities and that makes it harder to generate a satisfactory wording. That said their intent is, again, to counter blindness and invisibility ( otherwise why bother?) and so as a DM I would rule that they do so.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.