If a caster is blinded, how would you handle spells that requires saving throws. Most would just say point to an area, but not that they need to see that area, but I feel that either have advantage on the saving throw or have the PC succeed on a DC check to see if they hit the target.
If the spell doesn't specify that you must be able to see the target, I wouldn't impose any kind of penalty. If target is something "that you can see," then obviously a blind caster can't cast the spell.
Personally, it would depend on what exactly was causing the Blindness. There's potential for rolling a scatter die, to either give a direction the character *thinks* is the correct direction, or it comes up a hit and the character is correct. But again, this would depend on what caused the Blindness, did it have any other potentially disorienting effects, would the character, in reaction to the effect, have turned or not (and is the character aware enough to correct for that, or overcorrect).
Generally I'd think it's not necessary, but it's a potential role play seed.
A wizard is magically blinded. He wants to cast the Lightning Bolt spell directly in front of him. I'd rule that's fine.
A wizard is magically blinded. After he is blinded, some ogres move around. He wants to cast Fireball at a spot that would hit them all. Fireball erupts at a declared distance, it's not a thrown spell, but really the wizard should not know where the ogres are. I'd ask them to roll a Perception check at Disadvantage, with a DC based on how far away the ogres are. If they fail the roll, I'll scatter it in a random direction by a measure of feet that correlates to how badly their Perception check failed.
However, the best result in the second scenario would be that when Blinded, that the player has to close their eyes or honestly not look at the battle map until the blindness ends.
"See" isn't a defined term in the 5E rules, but probably means either (A) "detect using vision specifically" or (B) "detect using one of the senses listed on your stat block," rather than a more permissive "perceive in general." So while Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores describes that you can use Perception to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something," and your Racial or Class Features may give you an edge when using non-vision senses to make Perception checks (like the "Keen Hearing and Smell" trait of a Wolf), you don't "see" your target unless you're using regular vision (option A), or one of the capital-S Senses listed in Chapter 12 of the Monster Manual (Darkvision, Blindsight, Tremorsense, or Truesight) or Chapter 8: Adventuring of the PHB (Darkvision, Blindsight, Truesight) (option B). Personally I think Option B is quite likely correct, but it's a grey area, because Blindsight in particular says that it lets you "perceive" creatures but doesn't grant "sight" (despite its name), and Tremorsense only lets you "detect" creatures. Only regular vision, Darkvision, and Truesight actually use "see" or "sight" in their description (maybe this short list is Option C?).
"Blinded" is defined in Appendix A: Conditions. Whatever "see" means, "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight." I take this literally to mean that you can stop a creature from "seeing" you by imposing the Blinded condition, even if they are already naturally 'blind' (not the condition) and use Blindsight based on hearing or smell or something... although that may not stop the creature from continuing to "perceive" or "detect" you. Again, very grey area, but we're not running a simulation here we're playing a game with abstract game terms.
"Invisible" might be a useful condition to bring in as well, since it describes some common interactions where you cannot "see" an invisible target but might nevertheless "detect" where they are. When correctly detecting an Invisible creature, "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage." No mention of invisible creatures getting save bonuses against spells that are able to target them or include them in their area.
Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores - Dexterity also has some info about fighting creatures you can't "see." That "Hiding" sidebar mostly only talks about "finding" or "noticing" you, but does mention that it might "see" you if you approach openly. Not really helpful.
Chapter 8: Adventuring - Vision and Light adds a little to the conversation. We learn that (1) "heavily obscured" conditions (such as darkness, fog, or dense foliage) operate by imposing the Blinded condition, and (2) Darkvision, Blindsight, and Truesight are all listed further on in this section suggesting that they are types of "vision." Does "vision" always = "sight"? Still unclear.
Finally, Chapter 9: Combat - Unseen Attackers has more info about combat with creatures you can't "see." Here we learn that (for attacks, at least), you can "guess" the correct square that a creature might be in, rolling with disadvantage to hit the unseen creature if you are correct or automatically missing if you are wrong (without the DM telling you which is which).
As described earlier, some spells require a target creature/point/area/etc that you can "see" (such as Sacred Flame), while others require only one which you "choose" (such as Fireball). Taking all of the misc. stuff above into consideration...
Spells that require you to "see" can't be cast if you are Blinded (which could be a result of an area being Heavily Obscured, or you being subjected to Blinded by a spell, ability, or disease), but maybe you could still cast them if you're only regular old no-eyes-blind and have another sense type listed on your character sheet from some sort of feature, depending on whether you accept option A, B, or C listed above?
Spells that require you to choose a space or a target but don't require sight can certainly be cast, but you may target the wrong square if you aren't perceiving or detecting them correctly. Personally, I would let the player make a free action Perception check while casting to correctly target their space or the area, and based on the result either give them the correct square or deviate distance or direction off of it based on how badly they failed. I would then let them roll attacks and damage/I would roll saves either way, to conceal from them whether they've correctly managed to target the creature's space.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
there are so many sounds and things going on, you wouldn’t be able to track and isolate the ogre versus your friends, if you were blind, unless the ogre is actively narrating what he’s doing for you to hear it.
the ground literally shakes with every move they make but not anyone else so you feel it.
they smell so bad you can smell them.
or they hold your hand the hole time
keep in mind... EVERYTHING that happens in a battle happens over the stretch of 6 seconds a round. Not 6 seconds per each persons thing.
are you a parent. Practice with your wife and kids. Play some variation of red light green light and hot potato, while the TV is on a war movie like “when we were soldiers” or “acing private ryan” and blindfold yourself for 6 seconds at a time. Red light green light style have them
do stuff. Then, while still blindfolded guess/accurately describe exactly what they did.
if you can do that. I’ll give you credit that the OGRE should be the one DISADVANTAGED against a blind person...
do you feel the need to stealth on blind people or deaf people to sneak up on them? Or do you find it happens fairly easily without you trying to sneak up on them?
Personally I think Option B is quite likely correct, but it's a grey area, because Blindsight in particular says that it lets you "perceive" creatures but doesn't grant "sight" (despite its name), and Tremorsense only lets you "detect" creatures. Only regular vision, Darkvision, and Truesight actually use "see" or "sight" in their description (maybe this short list is Option C?).
The intent is that Blindsight is an acceptable substitute for normal vision. Without that consideration monsters that rely purely on blindsight would be screwed since they'd be at permanent disadvantage for attacks. Speaking of which, those monsters give you a hint since their senses say "Blindsight X ft. (blind beyond this radius)" which implies they're not blind within that radius.
"Blinded" is defined in Appendix A: Conditions. Whatever "see" means, "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight." I take this literally to mean that you can stop a creature from "seeing" you by imposing the Blinded condition, even if they are already naturally 'blind' (not the condition) and use Blindsight based on hearing or smell or something... although that may not stop the creature from continuing to "perceive" or "detect" you. Again, very grey area, but we're not running a simulation here we're playing a game with abstract game terms.
In practice any creature that relies purely on blindsight is going to be immune to the blinded condition. On the flip side some creatures have both normal vision and blindsight and those rarely ever have immunity to being blinded. The intent is that blinding a creature only stops their normal vision, but they can use blindsight within their radius to circumvent their lack of normal vision in the same way they can use it to circumvent being effectively blind in darkness.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Blindsight does not say that it gives immunity to the Blinded condition, or that it allows a creature with Blindsight to see. Allowing a Blindsight creature to always perceive creatures and correctly determine their location in their radius (in other words, prevent other creatures from being "Hidden" versus them, correctly aim its attacks, and avoid being snuck up on and surprised) is already a benefit in itself, I don't see a RAW reason to give them the additional benefit of also always "seeing" everything in that radius. Even if you do allow it to "see" the things it perceives, it certainly doesn't provide that that Blindsight sense (whether it's based on hearing, smell, magic, or something else entirely) can't then be interrupted by an ability imposing Blinded. As usual JC is going too far in an attempt to oversimplify.
Blindsight does not say that it gives immunity to the Blinded condition
The blinded condition says you can't see, the blinded condition says you can perceive your surroundings without having to see. You're right, it doesn't grant immunity, but it effectively negates the effects of being blinded in almost every situation (unless you need to see colors or something.)
Allowing a Blindsight creature to always perceive creatures and correctly determine their location in their radius (in other words, prevent other creatures from being "Hidden" versus them, correctly aim its attacks, and avoid being snuck up on and ambushed) is already a benefit in itself
Blindsight doesn't completely negate hiding or ambushes. Cover is still going to block it, its radius isn't infinite, and it's not necessarily omnidirectional so there's still the possibility of a creature simply being too distracted and looking the wrong way.
As usual JC is going too far in an attempt to oversimplify.
You can think that if you want, but the circumstantial evidence (the correlation between lacking normal vision and being immune to the blinded condition and being described as "blind beyond [its blindsight] radius) is pretty damning.
Perceiving your surroundings is something you can do by listening and using the Perception skill. It is not the same thing as sight. As written, Blindsight tells you that you're very very good at [hearing/smelling/whatever] and automatically succeed at perceiving things in a radius even if you can't see them. That doesn't mean you have line of sight, any more than correctly perceiving that there is a goblin hidden in a bush lets a caster see that goblin. Some spells require seeing your target, some do not, but none to my knowledge require "perceiving" or "detecting" your target. What Blindsight lets you do isn't relevant towards spells that ask for a seen target (maybe it's intended that way, but it's not written that way).
Perceiving your surroundings is something you can do by listening and using the Perception skill. It is not the same thing as sight.
The question isn't whether they're the same thing, it's whether one can achieve the same things as the other.
What Blindsight lets you do isn't relevant towards spells that ask for a seen target (maybe it's intended that way, but it's not written that way).
If you're going to commit to the overly literal interpretation that a creature with blindsight isn't seeing its target you're going to have to commit to every blindsight-only creature attacking with disadvantage because they can't see their target. I think we both know that's silly, and you can't have it both ways either.
I'm okay with that commitment, and it fits with many classic fantasy, film, and literary scenes involving such creatures. In games I run, that is indeed what I do for blind (or Blinded) creatures with Blindsight or Tremorsense.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Is the enemies stealth then a free action?
theres no balance to your scenario. Even leaving realism aside.
I'm okay with that commitment, and it fits with many classic fantasy, film, and literary scenes involving such creatures. In games I run, that is indeed what I do for blind (or Blinded) creatures with Blindsight or Tremorsense.
It also throws off the CR of those creatures and turns many of them into non-threats since a +3 attack bonus is a joke when you have permanent disadvantage. Also, both the Adult Oblex from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Vertrand Shadowdusk from Dungeon of the Mad Mage have spells that require sight and neither creature has regular sight. So Jeremy's tweet is spot-on in terms of how the monster designers are using blindsight.
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Is the enemies stealth then a free action?
theres no balance to your scenario. Even leaving realism aside.
Stealth is the same sort of action it always is; all invisibility means is that you can use it when you are otherwise in plain sight. Yes, that means most of the time there won't be any issue targeting invisible foes, all it does is give disadvantage to attacks against them and advantage on their attacks. That's plenty for a spell of its level, or for the amount by which CR is generally adjusted for a monster capable of being invisible.
The Oblex point is pretty good! I'm willing to be persuaded that Blindsight is intended to allow you to see, though that means it needs an errata to say so. Or if it doesn't, Oblex probably needs an errata, to either change those spells or allow its extrusions to use the senses appropriate to their humanoid form (it sure makes more sense for the extrusions to cast Charm Person than the giant blob)! Either way, things shouldn't stand as written for the poor Oblex.
Orrr... again, "see" was never defined anywhere in the rules that I could find. It's always possible that you can "see" anything you can perceive, which would back us up to square 1 and let blind caster's target anything with see-spells that they spend a perception check to find with hearing or another sense. That sounds troublesome though, I'd rather get an errata than start operating under that assumption.
If a caster is blinded, how would you handle spells that requires saving throws. Most would just say point to an area, but not that they need to see that area, but I feel that either have advantage on the saving throw or have the PC succeed on a DC check to see if they hit the target.
Are there any official recommendations?
If the spell doesn't specify that you must be able to see the target, I wouldn't impose any kind of penalty. If target is something "that you can see," then obviously a blind caster can't cast the spell.
If the spell says "that you can see" then the caster can't cast that spell.
If the spell requires a melee spell attack or a ranged spell attack, then the player rolls at disadvantage.
Otherwise, the spell goes off without modification.
If you are blind, you can still call down a fireball, "30 feet in front of me!"
Personally, it would depend on what exactly was causing the Blindness. There's potential for rolling a scatter die, to either give a direction the character *thinks* is the correct direction, or it comes up a hit and the character is correct. But again, this would depend on what caused the Blindness, did it have any other potentially disorienting effects, would the character, in reaction to the effect, have turned or not (and is the character aware enough to correct for that, or overcorrect).
Generally I'd think it's not necessary, but it's a potential role play seed.
Ok, so different scenarios:
A wizard is magically blinded. He wants to cast the Lightning Bolt spell directly in front of him. I'd rule that's fine.
A wizard is magically blinded. After he is blinded, some ogres move around. He wants to cast Fireball at a spot that would hit them all. Fireball erupts at a declared distance, it's not a thrown spell, but really the wizard should not know where the ogres are. I'd ask them to roll a Perception check at Disadvantage, with a DC based on how far away the ogres are. If they fail the roll, I'll scatter it in a random direction by a measure of feet that correlates to how badly their Perception check failed.
However, the best result in the second scenario would be that when Blinded, that the player has to close their eyes or honestly not look at the battle map until the blindness ends.
"See" isn't a defined term in the 5E rules, but probably means either (A) "detect using vision specifically" or (B) "detect using one of the senses listed on your stat block," rather than a more permissive "perceive in general." So while Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores describes that you can use Perception to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something," and your Racial or Class Features may give you an edge when using non-vision senses to make Perception checks (like the "Keen Hearing and Smell" trait of a Wolf), you don't "see" your target unless you're using regular vision (option A), or one of the capital-S Senses listed in Chapter 12 of the Monster Manual (Darkvision, Blindsight, Tremorsense, or Truesight) or Chapter 8: Adventuring of the PHB (Darkvision, Blindsight, Truesight) (option B). Personally I think Option B is quite likely correct, but it's a grey area, because Blindsight in particular says that it lets you "perceive" creatures but doesn't grant "sight" (despite its name), and Tremorsense only lets you "detect" creatures. Only regular vision, Darkvision, and Truesight actually use "see" or "sight" in their description (maybe this short list is Option C?).
"Blinded" is defined in Appendix A: Conditions. Whatever "see" means, "A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight." I take this literally to mean that you can stop a creature from "seeing" you by imposing the Blinded condition, even if they are already naturally 'blind' (not the condition) and use Blindsight based on hearing or smell or something... although that may not stop the creature from continuing to "perceive" or "detect" you. Again, very grey area, but we're not running a simulation here we're playing a game with abstract game terms.
"Invisible" might be a useful condition to bring in as well, since it describes some common interactions where you cannot "see" an invisible target but might nevertheless "detect" where they are. When correctly detecting an Invisible creature, "Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage." No mention of invisible creatures getting save bonuses against spells that are able to target them or include them in their area.
Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores - Dexterity also has some info about fighting creatures you can't "see." That "Hiding" sidebar mostly only talks about "finding" or "noticing" you, but does mention that it might "see" you if you approach openly. Not really helpful.
Chapter 8: Adventuring - Vision and Light adds a little to the conversation. We learn that (1) "heavily obscured" conditions (such as darkness, fog, or dense foliage) operate by imposing the Blinded condition, and (2) Darkvision, Blindsight, and Truesight are all listed further on in this section suggesting that they are types of "vision." Does "vision" always = "sight"? Still unclear.
Finally, Chapter 9: Combat - Unseen Attackers has more info about combat with creatures you can't "see." Here we learn that (for attacks, at least), you can "guess" the correct square that a creature might be in, rolling with disadvantage to hit the unseen creature if you are correct or automatically missing if you are wrong (without the DM telling you which is which).
As described earlier, some spells require a target creature/point/area/etc that you can "see" (such as Sacred Flame), while others require only one which you "choose" (such as Fireball). Taking all of the misc. stuff above into consideration...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Why not?
I would tend to reverse it; position is known unless the creature makes a stealth check (with advantage against blinded opponents) against passive perception.
So.... real question no snark: have you ever been in a fight? With multiple people? Or a rave? Or a mob? Or a riot? Or a LARP sword fight? Etc.
there are so many sounds and things going on, you wouldn’t be able to track and isolate the ogre versus your friends, if you were blind, unless the ogre is actively narrating what he’s doing for you to hear it.
the ground literally shakes with every move they make but not anyone else so you feel it.
they smell so bad you can smell them.
or they hold your hand the hole time
keep in mind... EVERYTHING that happens in a battle happens over the stretch of 6 seconds a round. Not 6 seconds per each persons thing.
are you a parent. Practice with your wife and kids. Play some variation of red light green light and hot potato, while the TV is on a war movie like “when we were soldiers” or “acing private ryan” and blindfold yourself for 6 seconds at a time. Red light green light style have them
do stuff. Then, while still blindfolded guess/accurately describe exactly what they did.
if you can do that. I’ll give you credit that the OGRE should be the one DISADVANTAGED against a blind person...
do you feel the need to stealth on blind people or deaf people to sneak up on them? Or do you find it happens fairly easily without you trying to sneak up on them?
Blank
The intent is that Blindsight is an acceptable substitute for normal vision. Without that consideration monsters that rely purely on blindsight would be screwed since they'd be at permanent disadvantage for attacks. Speaking of which, those monsters give you a hint since their senses say "Blindsight X ft. (blind beyond this radius)" which implies they're not blind within that radius.
In practice any creature that relies purely on blindsight is going to be immune to the blinded condition. On the flip side some creatures have both normal vision and blindsight and those rarely ever have immunity to being blinded. The intent is that blinding a creature only stops their normal vision, but they can use blindsight within their radius to circumvent their lack of normal vision in the same way they can use it to circumvent being effectively blind in darkness.
My reason for that ruling has nothing to do with realism. I just consider it easier to deal with than a free action perception check and it becomes consistent with other uses of stealth.
Blindsight does not say that it gives immunity to the Blinded condition, or that it allows a creature with Blindsight to see. Allowing a Blindsight creature to always perceive creatures and correctly determine their location in their radius (in other words, prevent other creatures from being "Hidden" versus them, correctly aim its attacks, and avoid being snuck up on and surprised) is already a benefit in itself, I don't see a RAW reason to give them the additional benefit of also always "seeing" everything in that radius. Even if you do allow it to "see" the things it perceives, it certainly doesn't provide that that Blindsight sense (whether it's based on hearing, smell, magic, or something else entirely) can't then be interrupted by an ability imposing Blinded. As usual JC is going too far in an attempt to oversimplify.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The blinded condition says you can't see, the blinded condition says you can perceive your surroundings without having to see. You're right, it doesn't grant immunity, but it effectively negates the effects of being blinded in almost every situation (unless you need to see colors or something.)
Blindsight doesn't completely negate hiding or ambushes. Cover is still going to block it, its radius isn't infinite, and it's not necessarily omnidirectional so there's still the possibility of a creature simply being too distracted and looking the wrong way.
You can think that if you want, but the circumstantial evidence (the correlation between lacking normal vision and being immune to the blinded condition and being described as "blind beyond [its blindsight] radius) is pretty damning.
Perceiving your surroundings is something you can do by listening and using the Perception skill. It is not the same thing as sight. As written, Blindsight tells you that you're very very good at [hearing/smelling/whatever] and automatically succeed at perceiving things in a radius even if you can't see them. That doesn't mean you have line of sight, any more than correctly perceiving that there is a goblin hidden in a bush lets a caster see that goblin. Some spells require seeing your target, some do not, but none to my knowledge require "perceiving" or "detecting" your target. What Blindsight lets you do isn't relevant towards spells that ask for a seen target (maybe it's intended that way, but it's not written that way).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The question isn't whether they're the same thing, it's whether one can achieve the same things as the other.
If you're going to commit to the overly literal interpretation that a creature with blindsight isn't seeing its target you're going to have to commit to every blindsight-only creature attacking with disadvantage because they can't see their target. I think we both know that's silly, and you can't have it both ways either.
I'm okay with that commitment, and it fits with many classic fantasy, film, and literary scenes involving such creatures. In games I run, that is indeed what I do for blind (or Blinded) creatures with Blindsight or Tremorsense.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Is the enemies stealth then a free action?
theres no balance to your scenario. Even leaving realism aside.
Blank
It also throws off the CR of those creatures and turns many of them into non-threats since a +3 attack bonus is a joke when you have permanent disadvantage. Also, both the Adult Oblex from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Vertrand Shadowdusk from Dungeon of the Mad Mage have spells that require sight and neither creature has regular sight. So Jeremy's tweet is spot-on in terms of how the monster designers are using blindsight.
Stealth is the same sort of action it always is; all invisibility means is that you can use it when you are otherwise in plain sight. Yes, that means most of the time there won't be any issue targeting invisible foes, all it does is give disadvantage to attacks against them and advantage on their attacks. That's plenty for a spell of its level, or for the amount by which CR is generally adjusted for a monster capable of being invisible.
The Oblex point is pretty good! I'm willing to be persuaded that Blindsight is intended to allow you to see, though that means it needs an errata to say so. Or if it doesn't, Oblex probably needs an errata, to either change those spells or allow its extrusions to use the senses appropriate to their humanoid form (it sure makes more sense for the extrusions to cast Charm Person than the giant blob)! Either way, things shouldn't stand as written for the poor Oblex.
Orrr... again, "see" was never defined anywhere in the rules that I could find. It's always possible that you can "see" anything you can perceive, which would back us up to square 1 and let blind caster's target anything with see-spells that they spend a perception check to find with hearing or another sense. That sounds troublesome though, I'd rather get an errata than start operating under that assumption.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.