For some time, there's been an issue where what Blindsight "does" was a little RAW-questionable (though a lot of folks are quite insistent that it was RAI obvious):
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 lets you "perceive," but is perceiving the same as "seeing" for spells and effects that require a target you can "see"? Or rather, just enough to let you avoid having to guess what square they're in when targeting an attack?
Does it provide immunity to the Blinded condition (both bullets of it), at least within its radius?
Can an Invisible creature indeed "always try to hide" from a creature with Blindsight, or can they not Hide from a creature that can "see them clearly" within its blindsight radius, or even become automatically uncovered when entering that radius after hidden?
Folks have argued, back and forth on this, usually defending their sense of RAI because the RAW on Blindsight clearly doesn't say anything one way or the other on ANY of that.
But now, we have the Blindfighting fighting style from Tasha's.
Blind Fighting
You have 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.
With the Blind Fighting style, you clearly can "see" within your blindsight radius. Is that an additional benefit of the style , or something that Blindsight already could do that the style is belaboring?
The style seems to be pretty explicit that you can be Blinded with respect to things within your radius... and while it lets you see them (Blinded's first bullet point), still doesn't say that you ignore the condition's other effect(disadvantage on attacks, advantage on attacks against you).
The style is explicit that a creature, including an Invisible crature, can Hide from you within your Blindsight radius.
So, Tasha's isn't a core rulebook, this is an "optional" fighting style, and is being presented as a unique ability rather than a correction/clarification to Blindsight in general. Because of that, I think its quite arguable that the best way to read the detail of this fighting style is that it is providing unique additional benefits above and beyond whatever is baseline assumed about Blindsight by default, rather than reading it to be paraphrasing and restating things that are already true about Blindsight. That would mean:
Because the fighting style lets you "see", Blindsight itself does not.
This fighting style demonstrates that RAI, creatures with Blindsight are not immune to Blinded (specifically its second bullet), unless the creature is separately stated to be immune to that condition.
Invisible creatures, and indeed creatures in general, can Hide from creatures with Blindsight (if "circumstances are appropriate for hiding" of course, perhaps hiding by being quiet for a creature with hearing-based blindsight, or by being odorless for one with a scent-based blindsight, etc.).
I know you don’t hold the SAC in high regard, CC, but at least from the writers perspective, Blindsight qualifies as sight:
Can a blinded creature make an opportunity attack?
An opportunity attack is triggered by “a hostile creature you can see”. 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
It's just reminder text since blindsight isn't normally a feature players would have. The writers do occasionally do this, even for things as basic as advantage and disadvantage canceling out (see the Armorer's Dampening Field feature in this same book.)
This probably would've been better off in its own section like the FAQ at the start of Xanathar's Guide, but there's no reason to think this is anything but the writers making sure you understand the boundaries of your own class features. Everything it says is consistent with Crawford's previous tweets on how blindsight is intended to work.
I think I was pretty clear in the front of the post that RAW, Blindsight was a big question mark, but that I acknowledged that people felt there was an obvious RAI answer to those questions (which is provided by the SAC). "Ignoring the SAC, what do the core rules and later optional sourcebooks tells us?" is the context for my post, sorry I didn't state that more clearly. As is a surprise to exactly no one, I don't accept the SAC as a source of RAW, and I'm hardly alone on these forums in that respect; the SAC section quoted goes so far as to say " that ability lets those creatures “see” within a certain radius" and put "see" in quotes when that is literally not what Blindsight says. I'd like to hear more arguments that are based in published text (be that in a Core rulebook or a later sourcebook).
The Dampening Field feature is a good argument that features can and do restate existing rules. However, Dampening Field is worded quite differently from Blind Fighting, because it explicitly tells you that its just clarifying an existing rule:
Dampening Field. You have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks. If the armor normally imposes disadvantage on such checks, the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other, as normal.
The Blind Fighting description, on the other hand, gives you three sentences beyond "you've got Blindsight," and I'll maintain that it reads as though those are additional (new) benefits of the fighting style, not just a clarification of "as normal" existing Blindsight rules. Is there another example you can point to of a feature that can be seen to restate an existing rule in that level of detail?
Many creatures with blindsight are blinded, yet they still perceive things. I always assumed they qualified as effectively seeing within range and Sage Advice has clarified it was RAI so did the Dev on twitter
@JeremyECrawford Blindsight qualifies for anything in the D&D rules that requires you to see something, provided that thing is within your blindsight's radius. #DnD
I think I was pretty clear in the front of the post that RAW, Blindsight was a big question mark, but that I acknowledged that people felt there was an obvious RAI answer to those questions (which is provided by the SAC). "Ignoring the SAC, what do the core rules and later optional sourcebooks tells us?" is the context for my post, sorry I didn't state that more clearly.
The Dampening Field feature is a good argument that features can and do restate existing rules. However, Dampening Field is worded quite differently from Blind Fighting, because it explicitly tells you that its just clarifying an existing rule:
Dampening Field. You have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks. If the armor normally imposes disadvantage on such checks, the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other, as normal.
The Blind Fighting description, on the other hand, gives you three sentences beyond "you've got Blindsight," and I'll maintain that it reads as though those are additional (new) benefits of the fighting style, not just a clarification of "as normal" existing Blindsight rules. Is there another example you can point to of a feature that can be seen to restate an existing rule in that level of detail?
I started my response by reviewing the list of creatures to see if any have both the "blindsight x, (blind beyond this radius)" indicating they have no actual capacity for vision, and spellcasting or an ability that uses "see". If one existed, you could derive RAI from the fact they would be giving a creature abilities it couldn't use. I couldn't find any, so I reverted to other sources that could indicate RAI, which is what led me to the SAC. (Also, the position is RAI-obvious, because the position is clearly laid out there; it's not our "sense" of RAI, it is the RAI)
I agree with InquisitiveCoder that they are restating relevant rules text for players to describe a trait that isn't found in the PHB. I'd argue they do the same for darkvision; every version has the extra sentences describing the conditions in each type of light, and the lack of color vision, in a block of text about as long as the one for Blind Fighting
I think this is because the game assumes that you only have at most, Basic Rules and the book in use. Since the "extra" senses are all found in the MM introduction, any of those that occur in other books get this treatment.
For some time, there's been an issue where what Blindsight "does" was a little RAW-questionable (though a lot of folks are quite insistent that it was RAI obvious):
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.
Blind Fighting
You have 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.
Because the fighting style lets you "see", Blindsight itself does not.
This fighting style demonstrates that RAI, creatures with Blindsight are not immune to Blinded (specifically its second bullet), unless the creature is separately stated to be immune to that condition.
Invisible creatures, and indeed creatures in general, can Hide from creatures with Blindsight (if "circumstances are appropriate for hiding" of course, perhaps hiding by being quiet for a creature with hearing-based blindsight, or by being odorless for one with a scent-based blindsight, etc.).
You can't infer things like this from the rules - the rules on Fighter Blindsight don't imply anything about general blindsight, including the fact that Fighter Blindsight might well specify things it doesn't need to. Here's some additional RAW:
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. -- MM, pg 9
Now, in order:
You can no more conclude that Fighter Blindsight allowing you to see means general Blindsight does not for the same reason you can't conclude that the wording on Tremorsense, which is widely agreed upon to detect location without allowing the acuity of sight (i.e. a tremorsensed creature's location is pinpointed but an attack would still be at disadvantage without some other sense rendering the target visible), implies that Blindsight allows you to see: you can't assume the text of a rule implies that the text is necessary.
A Blinded creature can't see, but Blindsight explicitly states you don't rely on sight, so being unable to see would have no impact on it. The rules here are poorly written, to be sure, but the MM appears to imply that Blinded, the condition, only applies outside of a creature's working Blindsight radius. I can no more assert this is RAW than you can assert in the other direction, based on the Fighting Style text.
Being able to hide from a creature with Fighter Blindsight might be a function of the Fighting Style. You neglected to mention that Fighter Blindsight can't penetrate total cover. General blindsight has no such provision, and most DMs will let a bat echolocate through a silk curtain. All conclusions drawn about Blindfighting from the Fighting Style might very well only apply, in general, to blindsight which is blocked by total cover.
I'll remind folks, arguing (passionately or otherwise) about what is "widely agreed" or "described on Reddit" or "contained in a JC tweet" or "published in SAC" is.... not RAW, or even RAI in a way that can be derived from rule text. If you want me to concede that all of those other (non-RAW) explanations exist, fine, I readily agree that people love to read Blindsight as "seeing", and that JC agrees. That doesn't make it RAW.
Many creatures with blindsight are blinded, yet they still perceive things. I always assumed they qualified as effectively seeing within range and Sage Advice has clarified it was RAI so did the Dev on twitter
@JeremyECrawford Blindsight qualifies for anything in the D&D rules that requires you to see something, provided that thing is within your blindsight's radius. #DnD
Yes, that's an assumption, not supported by RAW or from-the-text-RAI. It certainly is not easier to write "perceive" than "see," if "see" is what was meant, so I don't agree that the sourcebooks provide a clear RAI indication there, without resorting to JC's extracurricular opinions.
I started my response by reviewing the list of creatures to see if any have both the "blindsight x, (blind beyond this radius)" indicating they have no actual capacity for vision, and spellcasting or an ability that uses "see". If one existed, you could derive RAI from the fact they would be giving a creature abilities it couldn't use.I couldn't find any, so I reverted to other sources that could indicate RAI, which is what led me to the SAC. (Also, the position is RAI-obvious, because the position is clearly laid out there; it's not our "sense" of RAI, it is the RAI)
I agree with InquisitiveCoder that they are restating relevant rules text for players to describe a trait that isn't found in the PHB. I'd argue they do the same for darkvision; every version has the extra sentences describing the conditions in each type of light, and the lack of color vision, in a block of text about as long as the one for Blind Fighting
I think this is because the game assumes that you only have at most, Basic Rules and the book in use. Since the "extra" senses are all found in the MM introduction, any of those that occur in other books get this treatment.
What I don't follow, is why that search for an ability requiring a target the monster can "see" not being found on any blindsight monsters didn't persuade you that blindsight monsters don't "see"? It looks like you investigated, found textual evidence that RAI supports my interpretation... and then threw it out in favor of a non-text source?
Blindsight is defined in the Basic Rules, so I don't agree that it's such an unknowable concept that it makes sense to assume that references to it will come with restatement. Darkvision is a good example of a sense that is often restated... but its restated to quote the same language from the sense entry, not to change its wording and add new unwritten abilities. That's a 100% different situation, and honestly I think further reinforces that Blind Fighting is doing something very differently than what copy-pasting Darkvision does.
You can't infer things like this from the rules - the rules on Fighter Blindsight don't imply anything about general blindsight, including the fact that Fighter Blindsight might well specify things it doesn't need to. Here's some additional RAW:
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. -- MM, pg 9
Now, in order:
You can no more conclude that Fighter Blindsight allowing you to see means general Blindsight does not for the same reason you can't conclude that the wording on Tremorsense, which is widely agreed upon to detect location without allowing the acuity of sight (i.e. a tremorsensed creature's location is pinpointed but an attack would still be at disadvantage without some other sense rendering the target visible), implies that Blindsight allows you to see: you can't assume the text of a rule implies that the text is necessary.
A Blinded creature can't see, but Blindsight explicitly states you don't rely on sight, so being unable to see would have no impact on it. The rules here are poorly written, to be sure, but the MM appears to imply that Blinded, the condition, only applies outside of a creature's working Blindsight radius. I can no more assert this is RAW than you can assert in the other direction, based on the Fighting Style text.
Being able to hide from a creature with Fighter Blindsight might be a function of the Fighting Style. You neglected to mention that Fighter Blindsight can't penetrate total cover. General blindsight has no such provision, and most DMs will let a bat echolocate through a silk curtain. All conclusions drawn about Blindfighting from the Fighting Style might very well only apply, in general, to blindsight which is blocked by total cover.
The SAC is not RAW, even if you endorse it. The MM quote again uses "perception" instead of "sight," further reinforcing that Blindsight is not "sight"/"seeing".
What, in the textual wording of Blindsight , provides that you can "see" any more than you can "see" with Tremorsense? Blindsight lets you "perceive." Tremorsense lets you "detect." Neither says "see."????
The Blinded condition provides two different bullet points: one is that you can't see (and fail checks that require you to see), and the other is that you have disadvantage. I do not follow how, even if you can see while Blinded, you should be assumed to ignore the second bullet if you somehow have the Blinded condition. RAW, where's the support that addressing one bullet point of a condition invalidates others?
Your third argument (that Blind Fighting blindsight is special and more limited than normal Blindsense) seems to be you arguing from an inconsistent position: if Blind Fighting blindsight s special, in that it can't penetrate cover, why is it not special, in that it allows you to "see"?
The Dampening Field feature is a good argument that features can and do restate existing rules. However, Dampening Field is worded quite differently from Blind Fighting, because it explicitly tells you that its just clarifying an existing rule...
That's true, but the game isn't always explicit about the fact it's giving you reminder text. Twilight Domain's Eyes of Night is also very clearly restating the general rule:
You can see through the deepest gloom. You have darkvision out to a range of 300 feet. In that radius, you can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light.
This one's directly analogous to Blind Fighting since it's also granting you an enhanced sense described in the very same section of the PH without quoting it verbatim (there's no mention of obscurement or color.) Sure, it's still not as wordy, but I chalk that up to darkvision being much simpler to summarize.
That's true, but the game isn't always explicit about the fact it's giving you reminder text. Twilight Domain's Eyes of Night is also very clearly restating the general rule:
You can see through the deepest gloom. You have darkvision out to a range of 300 feet. In that radius, you can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light.
This one's directly analogous to Blind Fighting since it's also granting you an enhanced sense described in the very same section of the PH without quoting it verbatim (there's no mention of obscurement or color.) Sure, it's still not as wordy, but I chalk that up to darkvision being much simpler to summarize.
See above. To the extent that Eyes of Night is not restating Darkvision verbatim, it is because it is leaving out some language, not that it is adding in new language. To the extent that Darkvision tells you that in general it doesn't see in color, another feature saying "you've got Darkvision" incorporates that by reference, unless it specifically tells you it provides an exception. That is not what Blind Fighting is doing, by adding in three sentences of new abilities that are not found within Blindsight itself.
The SAC is not RAW, even if you endorse it. The MM quote again uses "perception" instead of "sight," further reinforcing that Blindsight is not "sight"/"seeing".
The SAC is RAW to the exact same extent Tasha's is RAW. WOTC has a finite number of official, published rules documents. The SAC is one of them.
What, in the textual wording of Blindsight , provides that you can "see" any more than you can "see" with Tremorsense? Blindsight lets you "perceive." Tremorsense lets you "detect." Neither says "see."????
The word "sight" in "Blindsight" implies that it refers to a special kind of "sight". However, let's be clear: as I emphasized in my post, I am not contending that Blindsight is, RAW, a kind of sight. I am contending that your claim, that RAW it is not, is false. It suffices for me to show that the RAW does not address the issue.
The Blinded condition provides two different bullet points: one is that you can't see (and fail checks that require you to see), and the other is that you have disadvantage. I do not follow how, even if you can see while Blinded, you should be assumed to ignore the second bullet if you somehow have the Blinded condition. RAW, where's the support that addressing one bullet point of a condition invalidates others?
I said the rule is poorly worded. My personal interpretation of the rules is that the second bullet point of Blinded is WOTC messing the rules up, and what they meant was to clarify that if you're blinding, you can't see other creatures, and hence the rules for unseen attacker apply. Otherwise, an extensive number of creatures ranging from the bat or dolphin to monsters that don't even have eyes to begin with, like anything made by animate objects, is subject to being debuffed by the blinded condition. That strikes me as bizarre and unintended. Surely a bat is intended to have a mechanism allowing it to hunt in the dark, since that is how bats work.
Your third argument (that Blind Fighting blindsight is special and more limited than normal Blindsense) seems to be you arguing from an inconsistent position: if Blind Fighting blindsight s special, in that it can't penetrate cover, why is it not special, in that it allows you to "see"?
My point is that it could be special in both ways, only one, or neither, and we have no way of knowing.
See above. To the extent that Eyes of Night is not restating Darkvision verbatim, it is because it is leaving out some language, not that it is adding in new language.
It doesn't matter how or why it's paraphrasing the darkvision rules. It still demonstrates that Blind Fighting could be doing the same thing, and if they're going to paraphrase a rule they know has caused significant confusion why on Earth would they use the same confusing phrasing as before?
See above. To the extent that Eyes of Night is not restating Darkvision verbatim, it is because it is leaving out some language, not that it is adding in new language.
It doesn't matter how or why it's paraphrasing the darkvision rules. It still demonstrates that Blind Fighting could be doing the same thing, and if they're going to paraphrase a rule they know has caused significant confusion why on Earth would they use the same confusing phrasing as before?
Again, its doing the opposite of what Eyes of Night does (adding new language in, not taking language out), not the "same thing." Dampening Field said "as normal," demonstrating that the feature is paraphrasing/restating a rule rather than providing new rules. Blind Fighting could easily have said "...as normal," or "meaning..." or "in other words..." if that's what it was doing. Instead, it laid out three sentences of previously-unwritten abilities in precisely the same way that a feature which was in fact providing new abilities would be expected to do. Even if it was arguably intended to, structurally, Blind Fighting is not presented as a feature that is telling you what Blindsight already does. That should be easy enough to agree on?
The SAC is RAW to the exact same extent Tasha's is RAW. WOTC has a finite number of official, published rules documents. The SAC is one of them.
Tasha's is a published book. You can buy it. It has an ISBN. It costs money. It contains Rules.
The SAC is not a published book, it's a glorified article. You can't buy it. It has no ISBN. It is not for sale. It contains Rulings.
There are legitimate arguments to explore in this thread. "SAC is RAW" is not one of them, and if you want to have that discussion, please take it to a new thread. Again, to the extent that it scores you points for me to acknowledge that SAC exists and has something to say about Blindsight, I'll readily concede that it exists and says what it says. This thread is for exploring non-SAC textual language, not reddit, twitter, SAC, or any other non-published-source.
The word "sight" in "Blindsight" implies that it refers to a special kind of "sight". However, let's be clear: as I emphasized in my post, I am not contending that Blindsight is, RAW, a kind of sight. I am contending that your claim, that RAW it is not, is false. It suffices for me to show that the RAW does not address the issue.
I'm not sure I follow why, in the absence of language saying one way or the other whether Blindsight is "sight," why the default assumption should be that it IS rather than that it IS NOT? I mean, if the name "Blindsight" implies "sight," it also implies that the creature is " Blind(ed)", neither of which are very good arguments. Chill Touch doesn't do cold damage yada yada yada... we're looking at what features say, not what their names imply. I'll concede, the fact that it's called "Blindsight" rather than "Blindsense" (Tremorsense, etc.) could be a good arugment... but then again, "Darkvision" specifically allows you to "see" and it's not called "Darksight" or "Blindvision" so.... I dunno. I don't think the names are particularly helpful here. Truesightdoes let you see... but it's because the sense tells you that, not because "__sight" in its name has any special power.
I said the rule is poorly worded. My personal interpretation of the rules is that the second bullet point of Blinded is WOTC messing the rules up, and what they meant was to clarify that if you're blinding, you can't see other creatures, and hence the rules for unseen attacker apply. Otherwise, an extensive number of creatures ranging from the bat or dolphin to monsters that don't even have eyes to begin with, like anything made by animate objects, is subject to being debuffed by the blinded condition. That strikes me as bizarre and unintended. Surely a bat is intended to have a mechanism allowing it to hunt in the dark, since that is how bats work.
So this is where different folks may have different "canons of interpretation" that they might follow when they read things... for myself with my background, I disfavor reading rules text in a way that (1) renders any language unnecessary (e.g., reading the last three sentences of Blind Fighting to do nothing that the first sentence didn't do), or (2) renders any language meaningless/incorrect (e.g., reading the second bullet of Blinded to not really say what it says it says).
Bats aren't Blinded (in 5E or real life), so there's no need to be concerned about them having constant disadvantage on attacks despite their Blindsight. Grimlocksare described as being Blind beyond their Blindsight radius... but are also immune to Blinded, so no worries there either. I'm not seeing the example of the monster that provides an undesirable outcome, unless someone can come up with a Blinded-plus-Blindsight-plus-not-immune-to-Blinded monster with "target you can see" abilities.
My point is that it could be special in both ways, only one, or neither, and we have no way of knowing.
To the extent that your argument boils down to "we have no way of knowing," I'm not sure why you use that interpretation to decide I'm wrong?
I'll remind folks, arguing (passionately or otherwise) about what is "widely agreed" or "described on Reddit" or "contained in a JC tweet" or "published in SAC" is.... not RAW, or even RAI in a way that can be derived from rule text. If you want me to concede that all of those other (non-RAW) explanations exist, fine, I readily agree that people love to read Blindsight as "seeing", and that JC agrees. That doesn't make it RAW.
I started my response by reviewing the list of creatures to see if any have both the "blindsight x, (blind beyond this radius)" indicating they have no actual capacity for vision, and spellcasting or an ability that uses "see". If one existed, you could derive RAI from the fact they would be giving a creature abilities it couldn't use.I couldn't find any, so I reverted to other sources that could indicate RAI, which is what led me to the SAC. (Also, the position is RAI-obvious, because the position is clearly laid out there; it's not our "sense" of RAI, it is the RAI)
I agree with InquisitiveCoder that they are restating relevant rules text for players to describe a trait that isn't found in the PHB. I'd argue they do the same for darkvision; every version has the extra sentences describing the conditions in each type of light, and the lack of color vision, in a block of text about as long as the one for Blind Fighting
I think this is because the game assumes that you only have at most, Basic Rules and the book in use. Since the "extra" senses are all found in the MM introduction, any of those that occur in other books get this treatment.
What I don't follow, is why that search for an ability requiring a target the monster can "see" not being found on any blindsight monsters didn't persuade you that blindsight monsters don't "see"? It looks like you investigated, found textual evidence that RAI supports my interpretation... and then threw it out in favor of a non-text source?
To be clear, I found a lack of a specific kind of evidence, which is by definition not evidence. the lack of a specific kind of evidence is not conclusive proof of intent, which is why i expanded my search. There is nothing wrong with deriving intent from the writers of the game in the document that explicitly was made to communicate their intent where it was unclear.
Blindsight is defined in the Basic Rules, so I don't agree that it's such an unknowable concept that it makes sense to assume that references to it will come with restatement. Darkvision is a good example of a sense that is often restated... but its restated to quote the same language from the sense entry, not to change its wording and add new unwritten abilities. That's a 100% different situation, and honestly I think further reinforces that Blind Fighting is doing something very differently than what copy-pasting Darkvision does.
Blindsight is not defined in the PHB or in Tasha's. The Basic rules cobble together info from all 3 core books. I amend my statement to say that the game does not assume you have more than the book you are reading especially players who may only have access to that book, and only for short time (as in , they borrowed the DM's to make their character at the start of a session/campaign). Also, there are a lot of players that don't know the "Basic Rules" exists separately from the core books (I didn't until I joined this site, I assumed the PHB, MM, and DMG were it)
Blindsight is not defined in the PHB or in Tasha's. The Basic rules cobble together info from all 3 core books. I amend my statement to say that the game does not assume you have more than the book you are reading especially players who may only have access to that book, and only for short time (as in , they borrowed the DM's to make their character at the start of a session/campaign). Also, there are a lot of players that don't know the "Basic Rules" exists separately from the core books (I didn't until I joined this site, I assumed the PHB, MM, and DMG were it)
Insofar as Tasha's doesn't restate... I don't know, 99% of the rules and class features it builds on from the PHB? I don't think its very persuasive that this specific feature needs to be read as restating (and completely rephrasing) the Basic Rules, when things like "advantage" or "armor class" etc. aren't. I also just am not seeing any written source for your "the game does not assume you have [the core rulebooks, or at the very least, the Basic Rules]" reading, which doesn't sound very likely to me.
Blindsight is not defined in the PHB or in Tasha's. The Basic rules cobble together info from all 3 core books. I amend my statement to say that the game does not assume you have more than the book you are reading especially players who may only have access to that book, and only for short time (as in , they borrowed the DM's to make their character at the start of a session/campaign). Also, there are a lot of players that don't know the "Basic Rules" exists separately from the core books (I didn't until I joined this site, I assumed the PHB, MM, and DMG were it)
Insofar as Tasha's doesn't restate... I don't know, 99% of the rules and class features it builds on from the PHB? I don't think its very persuasive that this specific feature needs to be read as restating (and completely rephrasing) the Basic Rules, when things like "advantage" or "armor class" etc. aren't. I also just am not seeing any written source for your "the game does not assume you have [the core rulebooks, or at the very least, the Basic Rules]" reading, which doesn't sound very likely to me.
It's not a written rule, its good business practice. There is a thing in business called "barriers to entry". for video games, a barrier to entry might be owning the right console (or any console). The extreme popularity of game apps in the gaming market is at least in part because the barrier to entry (a phone) is lower than a game console, because phones have greater utility and more people are likely to have one for other reasons.
The same with D&D. If fully understanding how your character works required you to purchase 4 different books and spend time leafing through all of them, that is higher barrier to entry than buying one book (or two) and having the reference right there in one spont. A lower barrier to entry is better in the long run because if you can't get that potential customer over the hump, so to speak, they won't get invested enough to buy more or play more. That is entirely why D&D separated their core rules into 3 books that cost $50 each, rather than one book that cost $120-150, and why they print the extra 5-10 pages to reiterate rules from other sources is the same thing, lowering the barrier to entry for those who can't afford the cost, and for those who would get frustrated having to spend 4x the time to build a character at their first session.
A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons, have this sense.
If you consider a player character a "creature"
person, as fellow creatures on this planet, deserving of respect.
Which is normally what player characters would be considered, and you let them take Blindsight, they can perceive their surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.
It's not a written rule, its good business practice. There is a thing in business called "barriers to entry". for video games, a barrier to entry might be owning the right console (or any console). The extreme popularity of game apps in the gaming market is at least in part because the barrier to entry (a phone) is lower than a game console, because phones have greater utility and more people are likely to have one for other reasons.
The same with D&D. If fully understanding how your character works required you to purchase 4 different books and spend time leafing through all of them, that is higher barrier to entry than buying one book (or two) and having the reference right there in one spont. A lower barrier to entry is better in the long run because if you can't get that potential customer over the hump, so to speak, they won't get invested enough to buy more or play more. That is entirely why D&D separated their core rules into 3 books that cost $50 each, rather than one book that cost $120-150, and why they print the extra 5-10 pages to reiterate rules from other sources is the same thing, lowering the barrier to entry for those who can't afford the cost, and for those who would get frustrated having to spend 4x the time to build a character at their first session.
That all sounds reasonable enough, but again, I'm not sure that's a reason to think that Blind Fighting specifically is doing that, when Tasha's as a whole does not (in sidebars, introductions, appendixes, or other features) take the time to describe things like using Tools for the Artificer (it refers you to the PHB), Attunement for the Artificer (it refers you to the PHB), the rules for any conditions like Incapacitated when mentioned in class features, what the normal rules for jumping are in the Beast Barbarian's features, etc.... If Tasha's were endeavoring to be a "just this book" solution for new players (and for the record, it by its own Introduction is not trying to be that) I think it strains credulity that Blind Fighting is the one and only instance of that playing out.
Well, "one and only" isn't entirely fair, there was the Artificer thing that Coder mentioned as well. Still, given that the Artificer thing is worded explicitly as a clarification of what's normal, while Blind Fighting is worded very differently structurally, I'd like to see more examples of Tasha's going out of its way to expand on and restate core Basic Rules stuff with new phrasing a la Xanathar's before I will entertain that that's a serious goal of the book as a whole or Blind Fighting in particular.
For some time, there's been an issue where what Blindsight "does" was a little RAW-questionable (though a lot of folks are quite insistent that it was RAI obvious):
Folks have argued, back and forth on this, usually defending their sense of RAI because the RAW on Blindsight clearly doesn't say anything one way or the other on ANY of that.
But now, we have the Blindfighting fighting style from Tasha's.
So, Tasha's isn't a core rulebook, this is an "optional" fighting style, and is being presented as a unique ability rather than a correction/clarification to Blindsight in general. Because of that, I think its quite arguable that the best way to read the detail of this fighting style is that it is providing unique additional benefits above and beyond whatever is baseline assumed about Blindsight by default, rather than reading it to be paraphrasing and restating things that are already true about Blindsight. That would mean:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You want an answer? Tasha gave you an answer. Now all you have to do is appreciate it as an answer.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Lol, I'm not sure whether to take that as you agreeing with me or disagreeing :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I know you don’t hold the SAC in high regard, CC, but at least from the writers perspective, Blindsight qualifies as sight:
It's just reminder text since blindsight isn't normally a feature players would have. The writers do occasionally do this, even for things as basic as advantage and disadvantage canceling out (see the Armorer's Dampening Field feature in this same book.)
This probably would've been better off in its own section like the FAQ at the start of Xanathar's Guide, but there's no reason to think this is anything but the writers making sure you understand the boundaries of your own class features. Everything it says is consistent with Crawford's previous tweets on how blindsight is intended to work.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think I was pretty clear in the front of the post that RAW, Blindsight was a big question mark, but that I acknowledged that people felt there was an obvious RAI answer to those questions (which is provided by the SAC). "Ignoring the SAC, what do the core rules and later optional sourcebooks tells us?" is the context for my post, sorry I didn't state that more clearly. As is a surprise to exactly no one, I don't accept the SAC as a source of RAW, and I'm hardly alone on these forums in that respect; the SAC section quoted goes so far as to say " that ability lets those creatures “see” within a certain radius" and put "see" in quotes when that is literally not what Blindsight says. I'd like to hear more arguments that are based in published text (be that in a Core rulebook or a later sourcebook).
The Dampening Field feature is a good argument that features can and do restate existing rules. However, Dampening Field is worded quite differently from Blind Fighting, because it explicitly tells you that its just clarifying an existing rule:
The Blind Fighting description, on the other hand, gives you three sentences beyond "you've got Blindsight," and I'll maintain that it reads as though those are additional (new) benefits of the fighting style, not just a clarification of "as normal" existing Blindsight rules. Is there another example you can point to of a feature that can be seen to restate an existing rule in that level of detail?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Many creatures with blindsight are blinded, yet they still perceive things. I always assumed they qualified as effectively seeing within range and Sage Advice has clarified it was RAI so did the Dev on twitter
@JeremyECrawford Blindsight qualifies for anything in the D&D rules that requires you to see something, provided that thing is within your blindsight's radius. #DnD
There is a also a Blindsight FAQ on Reddit that regroupd various Sage Advice/ Tweets FAQ https://www.reddit.com/r/AdventurersLeague/comments/cnbdn8/blindsight_faqs/
I started my response by reviewing the list of creatures to see if any have both the "blindsight x, (blind beyond this radius)" indicating they have no actual capacity for vision, and spellcasting or an ability that uses "see". If one existed, you could derive RAI from the fact they would be giving a creature abilities it couldn't use. I couldn't find any, so I reverted to other sources that could indicate RAI, which is what led me to the SAC. (Also, the position is RAI-obvious, because the position is clearly laid out there; it's not our "sense" of RAI, it is the RAI)
I agree with InquisitiveCoder that they are restating relevant rules text for players to describe a trait that isn't found in the PHB. I'd argue they do the same for darkvision; every version has the extra sentences describing the conditions in each type of light, and the lack of color vision, in a block of text about as long as the one for Blind Fighting
I think this is because the game assumes that you only have at most, Basic Rules and the book in use. Since the "extra" senses are all found in the MM introduction, any of those that occur in other books get this treatment.
You can't infer things like this from the rules - the rules on Fighter Blindsight don't imply anything about general blindsight, including the fact that Fighter Blindsight might well specify things it doesn't need to. Here's some additional RAW:
Now, in order:
I'll remind folks, arguing (passionately or otherwise) about what is "widely agreed" or "described on Reddit" or "contained in a JC tweet" or "published in SAC" is.... not RAW, or even RAI in a way that can be derived from rule text. If you want me to concede that all of those other (non-RAW) explanations exist, fine, I readily agree that people love to read Blindsight as "seeing", and that JC agrees. That doesn't make it RAW.
Yes, that's an assumption, not supported by RAW or from-the-text-RAI. It certainly is not easier to write "perceive" than "see," if "see" is what was meant, so I don't agree that the sourcebooks provide a clear RAI indication there, without resorting to JC's extracurricular opinions.
What I don't follow, is why that search for an ability requiring a target the monster can "see" not being found on any blindsight monsters didn't persuade you that blindsight monsters don't "see"? It looks like you investigated, found textual evidence that RAI supports my interpretation... and then threw it out in favor of a non-text source?
Blindsight is defined in the Basic Rules, so I don't agree that it's such an unknowable concept that it makes sense to assume that references to it will come with restatement. Darkvision is a good example of a sense that is often restated... but its restated to quote the same language from the sense entry, not to change its wording and add new unwritten abilities. That's a 100% different situation, and honestly I think further reinforces that Blind Fighting is doing something very differently than what copy-pasting Darkvision does.
The SAC is not RAW, even if you endorse it. The MM quote again uses "perception" instead of "sight," further reinforcing that Blindsight is not "sight"/"seeing".
What, in the textual wording of Blindsight , provides that you can "see" any more than you can "see" with Tremorsense? Blindsight lets you "perceive." Tremorsense lets you "detect." Neither says "see."????
The Blinded condition provides two different bullet points: one is that you can't see (and fail checks that require you to see), and the other is that you have disadvantage. I do not follow how, even if you can see while Blinded, you should be assumed to ignore the second bullet if you somehow have the Blinded condition. RAW, where's the support that addressing one bullet point of a condition invalidates others?
Your third argument (that Blind Fighting blindsight is special and more limited than normal Blindsense) seems to be you arguing from an inconsistent position: if Blind Fighting blindsight s special, in that it can't penetrate cover, why is it not special, in that it allows you to "see"?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's true, but the game isn't always explicit about the fact it's giving you reminder text. Twilight Domain's Eyes of Night is also very clearly restating the general rule:
This one's directly analogous to Blind Fighting since it's also granting you an enhanced sense described in the very same section of the PH without quoting it verbatim (there's no mention of obscurement or color.) Sure, it's still not as wordy, but I chalk that up to darkvision being much simpler to summarize.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
See above. To the extent that Eyes of Night is not restating Darkvision verbatim, it is because it is leaving out some language, not that it is adding in new language. To the extent that Darkvision tells you that in general it doesn't see in color, another feature saying "you've got Darkvision" incorporates that by reference, unless it specifically tells you it provides an exception. That is not what Blind Fighting is doing, by adding in three sentences of new abilities that are not found within Blindsight itself.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The SAC is RAW to the exact same extent Tasha's is RAW. WOTC has a finite number of official, published rules documents. The SAC is one of them.
The word "sight" in "Blindsight" implies that it refers to a special kind of "sight". However, let's be clear: as I emphasized in my post, I am not contending that Blindsight is, RAW, a kind of sight. I am contending that your claim, that RAW it is not, is false. It suffices for me to show that the RAW does not address the issue.
I said the rule is poorly worded. My personal interpretation of the rules is that the second bullet point of Blinded is WOTC messing the rules up, and what they meant was to clarify that if you're blinding, you can't see other creatures, and hence the rules for unseen attacker apply. Otherwise, an extensive number of creatures ranging from the bat or dolphin to monsters that don't even have eyes to begin with, like anything made by animate objects, is subject to being debuffed by the blinded condition. That strikes me as bizarre and unintended. Surely a bat is intended to have a mechanism allowing it to hunt in the dark, since that is how bats work.
My point is that it could be special in both ways, only one, or neither, and we have no way of knowing.
It doesn't matter how or why it's paraphrasing the darkvision rules. It still demonstrates that Blind Fighting could be doing the same thing, and if they're going to paraphrase a rule they know has caused significant confusion why on Earth would they use the same confusing phrasing as before?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Again, its doing the opposite of what Eyes of Night does (adding new language in, not taking language out), not the "same thing." Dampening Field said "as normal," demonstrating that the feature is paraphrasing/restating a rule rather than providing new rules. Blind Fighting could easily have said "...as normal," or "meaning..." or "in other words..." if that's what it was doing. Instead, it laid out three sentences of previously-unwritten abilities in precisely the same way that a feature which was in fact providing new abilities would be expected to do. Even if it was arguably intended to, structurally, Blind Fighting is not presented as a feature that is telling you what Blindsight already does. That should be easy enough to agree on?
Tasha's is a published book. You can buy it. It has an ISBN. It costs money. It contains Rules.
The SAC is not a published book, it's a glorified article. You can't buy it. It has no ISBN. It is not for sale. It contains Rulings.
There are legitimate arguments to explore in this thread. "SAC is RAW" is not one of them, and if you want to have that discussion, please take it to a new thread. Again, to the extent that it scores you points for me to acknowledge that SAC exists and has something to say about Blindsight, I'll readily concede that it exists and says what it says. This thread is for exploring non-SAC textual language, not reddit, twitter, SAC, or any other non-published-source.
I'm not sure I follow why, in the absence of language saying one way or the other whether Blindsight is "sight," why the default assumption should be that it IS rather than that it IS NOT? I mean, if the name "Blindsight" implies "sight," it also implies that the creature is " Blind(ed)", neither of which are very good arguments. Chill Touch doesn't do cold damage yada yada yada... we're looking at what features say, not what their names imply. I'll concede, the fact that it's called "Blindsight" rather than "Blindsense" (Tremorsense, etc.) could be a good arugment... but then again, "Darkvision" specifically allows you to "see" and it's not called "Darksight" or "Blindvision" so.... I dunno. I don't think the names are particularly helpful here. Truesight does let you see... but it's because the sense tells you that, not because "__sight" in its name has any special power.
So this is where different folks may have different "canons of interpretation" that they might follow when they read things... for myself with my background, I disfavor reading rules text in a way that (1) renders any language unnecessary (e.g., reading the last three sentences of Blind Fighting to do nothing that the first sentence didn't do), or (2) renders any language meaningless/incorrect (e.g., reading the second bullet of Blinded to not really say what it says it says).
Bats aren't Blinded (in 5E or real life), so there's no need to be concerned about them having constant disadvantage on attacks despite their Blindsight. Grimlocks are described as being Blind beyond their Blindsight radius... but are also immune to Blinded, so no worries there either. I'm not seeing the example of the monster that provides an undesirable outcome, unless someone can come up with a Blinded-plus-Blindsight-plus-not-immune-to-Blinded monster with "target you can see" abilities.
To the extent that your argument boils down to "we have no way of knowing," I'm not sure why you use that interpretation to decide I'm wrong?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
To be clear, I found a lack of a specific kind of evidence, which is by definition not evidence. the lack of a specific kind of evidence is not conclusive proof of intent, which is why i expanded my search. There is nothing wrong with deriving intent from the writers of the game in the document that explicitly was made to communicate their intent where it was unclear.
Blindsight is not defined in the PHB or in Tasha's. The Basic rules cobble together info from all 3 core books. I amend my statement to say that the game does not assume you have more than the book you are reading especially players who may only have access to that book, and only for short time (as in , they borrowed the DM's to make their character at the start of a session/campaign). Also, there are a lot of players that don't know the "Basic Rules" exists separately from the core books (I didn't until I joined this site, I assumed the PHB, MM, and DMG were it)
Insofar as Tasha's doesn't restate... I don't know, 99% of the rules and class features it builds on from the PHB? I don't think its very persuasive that this specific feature needs to be read as restating (and completely rephrasing) the Basic Rules, when things like "advantage" or "armor class" etc. aren't. I also just am not seeing any written source for your "the game does not assume you have [the core rulebooks, or at the very least, the Basic Rules]" reading, which doesn't sound very likely to me.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's not a written rule, its good business practice. There is a thing in business called "barriers to entry". for video games, a barrier to entry might be owning the right console (or any console). The extreme popularity of game apps in the gaming market is at least in part because the barrier to entry (a phone) is lower than a game console, because phones have greater utility and more people are likely to have one for other reasons.
The same with D&D. If fully understanding how your character works required you to purchase 4 different books and spend time leafing through all of them, that is higher barrier to entry than buying one book (or two) and having the reference right there in one spont. A lower barrier to entry is better in the long run because if you can't get that potential customer over the hump, so to speak, they won't get invested enough to buy more or play more. That is entirely why D&D separated their core rules into 3 books that cost $50 each, rather than one book that cost $120-150, and why they print the extra 5-10 pages to reiterate rules from other sources is the same thing, lowering the barrier to entry for those who can't afford the cost, and for those who would get frustrated having to spend 4x the time to build a character at their first session.
Player's Handbook:
Blindsight
A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons, have this sense.
If you consider a player character a "creature"
Which is normally what player characters would be considered, and you let them take Blindsight, they can perceive their surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.
Who needs any other source?
<Insert clever signature here>
That all sounds reasonable enough, but again, I'm not sure that's a reason to think that Blind Fighting specifically is doing that, when Tasha's as a whole does not (in sidebars, introductions, appendixes, or other features) take the time to describe things like using Tools for the Artificer (it refers you to the PHB), Attunement for the Artificer (it refers you to the PHB), the rules for any conditions like Incapacitated when mentioned in class features, what the normal rules for jumping are in the Beast Barbarian's features, etc.... If Tasha's were endeavoring to be a "just this book" solution for new players (and for the record, it by its own Introduction is not trying to be that) I think it strains credulity that Blind Fighting is the one and only instance of that playing out.
Well, "one and only" isn't entirely fair, there was the Artificer thing that Coder mentioned as well. Still, given that the Artificer thing is worded explicitly as a clarification of what's normal, while Blind Fighting is worded very differently structurally, I'd like to see more examples of Tasha's going out of its way to expand on and restate core Basic Rules stuff with new phrasing a la Xanathar's before I will entertain that that's a serious goal of the book as a whole or Blind Fighting in particular.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.