D&D 5E (2014) Observations and opinions after 8 levels and a dragon fight

[Ratskinner]

Beware being over-reliant on particular word use. This isn't an edition for that. Think spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. You should worry more about whether the interpretation *makes sense* than obeys the letter of the wording, IMHO.

I tend to agree with this. I'm beginning to think that this edition is more like Dungeon World than its own last two incarnations. That is, a lot of the rules/rulings confusion and whatnot disappear if you think more fiction-first rather than mechanics-first. (I mean, DW doesn't even have stealth rules at all.)

...not that I'm utterly confident that that's what's happening, or that that's equally acceptable for everyone.

 

[Celtavian]

The point people are trying to make is that you are not treating it as "good as sight." You are making it better than sight if you say it functions through solid objects. There's nothing in the description that hints that it can do that.

So, kills invisibility and stealth? Absolutely, assuming there's no physical object blocking line of "sight."

It's odd that someone would claim a "natural language" or RAI interpretation, but then completely ignore the natural language of the definition that mentions echolocation -- an example that gives a very clear indication of the intention.

It is better than sight. It does function around physical objects. Does echolocation function around physical objects? Smell? Hearing? So yes, it is better than sight because it functions without any of the limitations of sight. Absent further explanation, it operates better than any single sense. It is an enhanced sense that allows you to perceive far beyond common senses.

So yes, you are correct. I'm saying it is much, much better than sight. That's what makes it so hard to defeat.

Echolocation as an example does not somehow change how it works. That is only on example. The Blindsight rule is very general. Unless the description in the creature provides ways to stealth around their version of Blindsight, not sure why it matters. Can you explain why it matters? I'm not in anyway saying a DM can't allow Stealth if he feels a particular form of it can work against echolocation or other vibration in the air detection. I'm saying the rule itself is general and allows sight of unseen things including stealthing creatures within range. It does absent further explanation.

It's plain what it does. You are attempting to interpret it as allowing things it doesn't. Nowhere does it say you can Stealth against Blindsight. Yet Truesight explains it does not work against mundane means of hiding such as Stealth. Why wouldn't Blindsight take the time to explain the same thing if you could Stealth against it?

 

[Celtavian]

Monks are actually surprisingly good with ranged weapons. High dexterity, high mobility, doesn't rely on shields for AC, can bonus dodge if necessary, wins archery duels by catching enemy arrows that hit. And a very common Monk race (Wild Elf) even has a bonus proficiency in longbows, so you get higher damage and longer range than shortbows. (This is about the only time when elven weapon proficiency seems to be any good at all.)

Monks are still inferior to a genuine Sharpshooter fighter with Archery style, but they are good enough at the ranged game that every monk should absolutely pack a bow. (Even the monks without proficiency in bows.)

So, for your specific party, I would say that the Monk, the Paladin, and the Barbarian should pack bows, and the cleric should cast Bless. (Cleric and wizard should pack crossbows.) That way you can engage from beyond his breath weapon range, which forces him to either escalate to closer-ranged attacks (breath weapon range or melee range) or to abandon the combat. In breath weapon range, your STR-based guys can switch to javelins and your wizard can throw spells like Web/Everard's Black Tentacles which target Dex. Alternately, your wizard can cast a Phantasmal Force illusion of, say, sticky webbing that brings the dragon crashing to the ground until he takes an action to disbelieve. I'm not sure what your cleric should be doing but then I don't really grok clerics beyond using them for Bless and Death Ward (which are actually better on a Bard).

The party should pack bows if their dexes are good enough. A bow does Dex for damage now. Low dex, low damage and low to hit.

Thrown weapons are better for Strength-based characters.

 

[Joe Liker]

it is better than sight because it functions without any of the limitations of sight.

It does not say that it is better than sight, only that it is a substitute for sight.

Absent further explanation, it operates better than any single sense.

What you've just written is the logical equivalent of "Absent further explanation, my longsword can lay eggs." After all, the rules don't say it cannot, right?

It is an enhanced sense that allows you to perceive far beyond common senses.

It does not say that. It only says that it lets you perceive your surroundings without the sense of sight. There is no "beyond." There is only "without," i.e., "instead of."

 

[pemerton]

a book or a movie is completely at the whim of the writer. A D&D session has a lot of random elements. I.e, regardless of what the DM or players want, the actual result can be much different

A D&D session is completely at the whim of the writers ie the GM and players.

If the writer of a movie script wants to roll a die to find out what happens next, rather than making it up him-/herself, s/he is free to do so. If the players and GM want to make a choice rather than roll the dice, they are free to also.

Leaving things to be determined by randomness is a choice. Knowing when to make decisions by random determination, and when not to, and how those decisions are related to the particlar style of game you are trying to run, is one of the most important GM skills.

 

[pemerton]

I'm beginning to think that this edition is more like Dungeon World than its own last two incarnations. That is, a lot of the rules/rulings confusion and whatnot disappear if you think more fiction-first rather than mechanics-first.

I'm not sure of this. For instance, there are quasi-simulationist DC rules, very finicky elements to the Stealth rules (eg Wood Elves are clearly meant to have an advantage in respect of Stealth over other characters, which means "fiction first" has to be shoehorned into boxes of "partial concealment" and "total concealment"), very detailed action economy and character benefits based around the details of that, such as multiple attacks, extra actions, etc (whereas DW doesn't have an action economy), etc.

Of the rules I've looked at Stealth is the worst offender. As written, it is a complete shambles spread over multiple sections of the rulebook and with no attempt to state what the key points for adjudication are. I've had people on these boards argue that under the Stealth rules a character gets harder to detect when the wall between the PC and an enemy wizard is disintegrated in foggy conditions, because the rules for disadvantage due to concealment then kick in - and claim that that ruling follows from a "common sense" reading of the text. I've seen more plausible arguments that it's meant to work much like 4e - total concealment to become hidden, then partical concealment to maintain that status - but those arguments depend upon giving a technical rules meaning to a seemingly throwaway line in the rules for wilderness exploration!

The surprise rules are also somewhat poorly written as well, because they interact with the action economy pretty sharply but the precise nature of that interaction is not spelled out at all clearly, when it could have been.

Dungeon World doesn't have any of these issues.

 

[Celtavian]

It does not say that it is better than sight, only that it is a substitute for sight.


What you've just written is the logical equivalent of "Absent further explanation, my longsword can lay eggs." After all, the rules don't say it cannot, right?


It does not say that. It only says that it lets you perceive your surroundings without the sense of sight. There is no "beyond." There is only "without," i.e., "instead of."

It does says all that I wrote quite clearly. There is no other way to interpret it. If you feel like allowing Stealth rolls within range of Blindsight, have at it. If you believe your viewpoint is the way the rule works, I'd love to bet you money you're wrong. I'll allow The Sage to settle the bet.

Blindsight effectively negates Stealth within its range. Negates invisibility. Due to defeating both, it is better than sight. Continue to argue until The Sage settles it for players like yourself that are what....allowing Stealth checks within Blindsight range? Don't be surprised if most DMs don't allow it.

You are the one using the logical equivalent of "longswords laying eggs" because you are adding elements to Blindsight that don't exist. Basically, you are claiming that each stealthling can work against blindsight depending on how the creature's blindsight works. Yet individual entries for Blindsight on a per creature basis do not exist. It is a general ability given to a variety of creatures with no exceptions noted that I know of. So you adding exceptions is "longsword laying eggs" logic. Meaning you're adding elements that are not there while I'm saying "a longsword does 1d8 slashing damage" and it doesn't matter if it is cutting an orc with a tough hide or a thin skinned salamander, it still does 1d8 slashing damage.

To put it simply, Blindsight picks up on anything within its range regardless of whether that thing is hidden behind a rock, masked by an invsibility spell, moving silently with elven shoes, or clouded in a mist. Unless the ability says it functions against Blindsight, it doesn't stop Blindsight from detecting you within its range. As in it does exactly what it says it does. What it says it does is better than sight because spells and special abilities that work against sight don't work against Blindsight.

You choose to add exceptions that do not exist. And with that I'm done with this particular discussion as there appears to be no amount of logical discussion that will cause you concede that you are wrong. I imagine only an official ruling will do that. I doubt such a ruling will be made as it is unnecessary for 99% of the community that clearly understands how it works.

 

[EroGaki]

It does says all that I wrote quite clearly. There is no other way to interpret it. If you feel like allowing Stealth rolls within range of Blindsight, have at it. If you believe your viewpoint is the way the rule works, I'd love to bet you money you're wrong. I'll allow The Sage to settle the bet.

Blindsight effectively negates Stealth within its range. Negates invisibility. Due to defeating both, it is better than sight. Continue to argue until The Sage settles it for players like yourself that are what....allowing Stealth checks within Blindsight range? Don't be surprised if most DMs don't allow it.

You are the one using the logical equivalent of "longswords laying eggs" because you are adding elements to Blindsight that don't exist. Basically, you are claiming that each stealthling can work against blindsight depending on how the creature's blindsight works. Yet individual entries for Blindsight on a per creature basis do not exist. It is a general ability given to a variety of creatures with no exceptions noted that I know of. So you adding exceptions is "longsword laying eggs" logic. Meaning you're adding elements that are not there while I'm saying "a longsword does 1d8 slashing damage" and it doesn't matter if it is cutting an orc with a tough hide or a thin skinned salamander, it still does 1d8 slashing damage.

To put it simply, Blindsight picks up on anything within its range regardless of whether that thing is hidden behind a rock, masked by an invsibility spell, moving silently with elven shoes, or clouded in a mist. Unless the ability says it functions against Blindsight, it doesn't stop Blindsight from detecting you within its range. As in it does exactly what it says it does. What it says it does is better than sight because spells and special abilities that work against sight don't work against Blindsight.

You choose to add exceptions that do not exist. And with that I'm done with this particular discussion as there appears to be no amount of logical discussion that will cause you concede that you are wrong. I imagine only an official ruling will do that. I doubt such a ruling will be made as it is unnecessary for 99% of the community that clearly understands how it works.

Wait, don't go yet! My popcorn is almost ready!

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and while we're at it, we probably need to start using the terms correctly. Yes, it's a pet peeve of mine, probably because I'm a veteran.

Cover is a physical object that is capable of protecting your from physical attack.
Concealment is an object or area that simply provides stealth.

Therefore, you can have concealment for many types of detection (like hiding in the shadows for sight, or behind a bush for echolocation (blindsight).

While I agree with you, these terms have pretty specific game definitions which aren't necessarily the same as plain English ones. You cannot shoot through a bush, for example, at least not easily, thus in D&D terms, it's considered cover - there is a physical barrier blocking line of effect and line of sight between you an the target. Concealment only blocks line of sight. Fog is concealment, since it blocks line of sight, as is darkness. Invisibility is concealment as well. Any physical barrier though? That's considered cover.

Which makes sense to a degree. Trying to swing a sword at someone behind a bush is more difficult than if the bush is not there. It's not more difficult to swing a sword at someone with concealment, just harder to find them in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

It is better than sight. It does function around physical objects. Does echolocation function around physical objects? Smell? Hearing? So yes, it is better than sight because it functions without any of the limitations of sight. Absent further explanation, it operates better than any single sense. It is an enhanced sense that allows you to perceive far beyond common senses.

So yes, you are correct. I'm saying it is much, much better than sight. That's what makes it so hard to defeat.

Echolocation as an example does not somehow change how it works. That is only on example. The Blindsight rule is very general. Unless the description in the creature provides ways to stealth around their version of Blindsight, not sure why it matters. Can you explain why it matters? I'm not in anyway saying a DM can't allow Stealth if he feels a particular form of it can work against echolocation or other vibration in the air detection. I'm saying the rule itself is general and allows sight of unseen things including stealthing creatures within range. It does absent further explanation.

It's plain what it does. You are attempting to interpret it as allowing things it doesn't. Nowhere does it say you can Stealth against Blindsight. Yet Truesight explains it does not work against mundane means of hiding such as Stealth. Why wouldn't Blindsight take the time to explain the same thing if you could Stealth against it?

Wait, that's not right. If something blocks LOS, then it blocks LOS, regardless of how the "sight" is being generated. Blindsight is not tremor sense. If I'm hiding around the corner and you have blindsight, you don't have LOS to me. You cannot target me with LOS magical attacks, for example. Thus a dragon with blindsight could not cast Charm Person at a human thief behind a tree. He can't "see" him. Cover still provides cover, and thus, you can gain advantage on your attacks through stealth and becoming hidden.

Since you can move, fire, move, and maintain stealth throughout the action, given a high enough level thief, you could use cover to gain sneak attacks vs a blindsight opponent within range.

Now, if there's no cover, then fair enough, the thief is screwed and can't hide. But, there's nothing in Blindsight that says it negates cover, merely concealment.

Or am I mistaken there?