D&D 5E Blindsight Discussion: What Crawford tweeted

[Celtavian]

You are assuming that blindsight is a single thing.

A shark, a bat, and a grell use different senses as their blindsight.

Smell, echolocation and sensitivity to electrical fields have different subtle advantages and drawbacks - blocking one does not necessarily block the others. They would all need their own separate rules, leading to immense rules bloat - or good judgement.

I find that much more realistic.

Blindsight is a single thing. Nothing in the description of the individual creatures changes what Blindsight is or does.

That is not to say you as a DM can't add your own rules if you feel you understand how the Blindsight works from a comparative creature standpoint, but the ability itself offers no further explanation as to how it functions than the base rule. That is to say by the rules it is "a single thing."

 

[Celtavian]

Exactly.

"Normal "Cover in D&D is visual

To hide within a bat's blindsight, you need auditory cover.
To hide within a grimlock's blindsight, you need auditory cover and olfactory cover.

To hide from a dragon or a high level ranger, you need auditory cover, olfactory cover, and visual cover.

This is you making stuff up from what you know and not what the rule does.

That's fine. Don't try to make it seem as though each creature with blindsight explains how it works. It does not. It also does not tell you what kind of cover or concealment work against it.

If you try to force this type of ruling on every DM arguing what type of "cover" such as "auditory" cover or "olfactory" cover works, you'll just end up in arguments around the table that shouldn't be occurring.

 

[Celtavian]

To hide from blindsight no matter who or what possesses it you just need cover and to make a stealth skill check. That was the point of the tweet that the OP pointed out. You don't need auditory or olfactory cover because such things don't exist as a game concept.

Rogue hides behind stone pillar, super smelling and hearing hunting dog sent from hell with blindsight must make a perception check to find him hiding behind that cover.

Exactly. The only thing that would change this is if each creature's Blindsight was explained. From what I've seen, that is not the case.

 

[Celtavian]

I like the ruling overall. Doesn't screw rogues allowing them to at least scout a bit and get a first attack on them (mostly ranged). Narratively, it's more interesting than automatic detection.

 

[Henrix]

This is you making stuff up from what you know and not what the rule does.

That's fine. Don't try to make it seem as though each creature with blindsight explains how it works.

You go by the odd notion that rules are what decides the descriptions, and not the reverse.

I know what a shark is, and a bat, and the description of the grell describes its senses.
The rules attempt to codify that.


We are creating a sort of fiction when we play RPGs. It's a very special kind of fiction, a genre on it's own, but we are telling a fantastic story together.
By letting the grell requiee something that disturbs the magnetic fields, a sheet of metal but not a bush, or approaching the shark downcurrent, we make the story better and reward players for inventive thinking.
More variety, and a more memorable story.

That is what 5e aims for.

 

[Hussar]

Exactly.

"Normal "Cover in D&D is visual

To hide within a bat's blindsight, you need auditory cover.
To hide within a grimlock's blindsight, you need auditory cover and olfactory cover.

To hide from a dragon or a high level ranger, you need auditory cover, olfactory cover, and visual cover.

That's not true. If I'm behind a tree, a bat can't "see" me. That's how echolocation works. Even with a grimlock's blindsight, if I'm behind cover, I can still hide. He might know that there's a human "somewhere" nearby, but, he can't pinpoint me.