D&D 5E Eldritch Strike rules question

ezo

Hero
You have it backwars. It is specific overiding general. Invisibility comes with the specific mechanism that causes disadvantage/advantage regardless of being seen or unseen. It overrides the general rule for unseen/seen attackers (or makes it moot).

If it did not override the general rule that bullet would not be in there and only the first one would or it would be worded differently, to reference the unseen/seen section. RAW the second bullet means the advantage/disadvantage applies whether or not the attacker is unseen.

Look at it this way - The wording in the invisible condition is similar to the wording in the restrained condition. Restrained causes advantage/disadvantage whether or not you can see the target. Same with the invisible condition.
Not really.

What most people fail to realize is several of the conditions have a defining part which, if untrue, means the condition is removed. Invisibility is one of these, just like Blinded (you cannot see), Deafened (you cannot hear), Prone (you can only crawl), and so on. For Invisibility, it is you are impossible to see (without magical means, etc.). The difference being the defining parts of all the other conditions are negative, as where for Invisibility is it (generally) positive.

Unfortunately for Invisibility, it is the only beneficial condition in the game (despite that the PHB says there are "a few"). It is also the only condition which is dependent upon the interaction between the two (invisible creature and possible viewer).

The second bullet is simply there for completeness, not as an independent benefit. Consider every other condition, every point is either true, or the entire condition is negated. A blinded creature that can now "see" (negating the first bullet), does not continue to have the second bullet affecting them.

Another way to realize this is to ask yourself why are the later bullet points included? Because they are the results of the first, of the condition being valid, otherwise they would not affect the creature with the condition.

And features such as Truesight, are even more specific in overriding a feature like Invisibility.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ezo

Hero
FWIW, by this "logical" RAW interpretation, a creature with the Blinded condition, but who uses Blind Fighting or gains Blindsight somehow would always have disadvantage on attacks and others advantage on attacks made against them--because that just happens to be the second bullet point for the Blinded condition.

Obviously, the bulleted points for all the conditions are all or nothing, not independent.
 

FarBeyondC

Explorer
FWIW, by this "logical" RAW interpretation, a creature with the Blinded condition, but who uses Blind Fighting or gains Blindsight somehow would always have disadvantage on attacks and others advantage on attacks made against them--because that just happens to be the second bullet point for the Blinded condition.

Yes, that's exactly how that would work - as illogical as that may seem to quite a few people.
 


Clint_L

Hero
Yes, that's exactly how that would work - as illogical as that may seem to quite a few people.
Absolutely not. For example, here's the description of blindsight from the rules (blind fighting just gives blindsight to a range of 10'):
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.
In other words, the effects of the blinded condition only kick in outside of the range of blindsight. Which is...obvious. Otherwise, what's the point of blindsight? It's for when Daredevil turns out all the lights and dispatches the bad guys as they stumble around in the dark. Unlike them, he can't be blinded because...he's already blind.

Edit: and here's the blinded condition:
  • A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
  • Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
So, let's say you cast it on an ooze. There's no effect. It already couldn't see, so it can't be blinded. It doesn't suddenly have disadvantage on attacks for losing an ability it never had.
 
Last edited:

ECMO3

Hero
So, let's say you cast it on an ooze. There's no effect. It already couldn't see, so it can't be blinded. It doesn't suddenly have disadvantage on attacks for losing an ability it never had.

This is a different point. It is because an ooze is immune to blinded condition. according to its stat block. An ooze can't be blinded, just like someone with Faerie Fire can't be invisible or a ghost can't be grappled.

If an ooze was not immune to being blinded in its statblock then the blinded condition could apply.
 
Last edited:

Clint_L

Hero
This is a different point. It is because an ooze is immune to blinded condition. according to its stat block. An ooze can't be blinded, just like someone with Faerie Fire can't be invisible or a ghost can't be grappled.

If an ooze was not immune to being blinded in its statblock then the blinded condition could apply.
Would you rule that a giant bat could have the blinded condition, within its blindsight range of 60'? To me, that would be absurd.
 

ezo

Hero
Would you rule that a giant bat could have the blinded condition, within its blindsight range of 60'? To me, that would be absurd.
The problem of absurdity isn't the issue, really. I (hopefully) think people understand that.

The problem is when people interpret RAW that the points for each condition are independent from each other. They aren't. Each point has to be true, or the condition isn't satisfied, and the others are no longer in effect.
 

Clint_L

Hero
For me, absurdity is the crux of the issue. If RAW produces a result that doesn't make sense in the logic of the story, I chuck RAW.
 

ezo

Hero
For me, absurdity is the crux of the issue. If RAW produces a result that doesn't make sense in the logic of the story, I chuck RAW.
The point is absurdity isn't what strict RAW discussions are about. I agree, reading that a creature with Truesight would still have disadvantage attacking an invisible creature, etc. is silly, but that is the strict RAW interpretations for some. Hopefully the people who read it that way also "chuck RAW".

Or, they can simply understand a strict RAW of conditions means each point of the condition must be implemented/true.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top