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

[Kaychsea]

Not even sure why this is a discussion myself. Blindsight in 5E is the same as 3E.

No it isn't. The description of Blindsight in 3E is quite long, detailed and works as you describe it, but this is far more like the description of Truesight in 5E. See my previous post for details. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vels-and-a-dragon-fight&p=6477226#post6477226

 

[pemerton]

I agree that Defy Danger with Dex only fits a very small subset of stealth rolls in DW.

However, this is where custom moves are your friend. Contrary to some claims, you don't need them pre-prepared (in fact, I think this runs contrary to the 'play to find out what happens' principle) and the game explicitly tells you to 'take your time'.

When you try to sneak across the courtyard roll +sharp...
When you attempt to blend in with Dremmer's guards roll +cool...

The 10+ is easy (you succeed)
the 6- is often easy (MC gets to make a move)
So usually it's only the 7-9 where you really have to think hard about the specific game state, the fiction which matters to that player, and come up with some stakes which interest both you and them.

I'm not sure how this differe from Defy Danger + DEX (move silently)/CHA (blend in), etc that I described above, with the danger being the threat of detection.

 

[Zak S]

EDIT:

I read the thread and my question was answered.

 

[Celtavian]

No it isn't. The description of Blindsight in 3E is quite long, detailed and works as you describe it, but this is far more like the description of Truesight in 5E. See my previous post for details. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vels-and-a-dragon-fight&p=6477226#post6477226

Yes, it is. It does the same thing. How it is written is more par for the course of simpler language saying the same thing.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't think there is a definitive answer because blindsight comes from different sources for different creatures.

It seems fair to say a bat could not see through a pane of glass with blindsight: from a basic understanding of echolocation it would detect a flat surface. But what about a dragon? A grell? An ooze? More difficult to say because the source senses vary, if they are indicated at all. For example, the grell descriptive text mentions that it senses electric fields (among other things), so it might be able to detect certain things through glass or some other materials.

Because it's trying to lump a few different things under one mechanic it's something that's going to be down to interpretation. I'm okay with that, although it does put an onus on the DM to be consistent, even if only with rulings for particular creatures; it may have been better for them to make the ability a little more concrete.

This is true. They lumped a bunch of different abilities under the same mechanic and gave no specific exceptions on a per creature basis. Thus the ability does exactly what it says it does: allows perception of anything within range without requiring sight. That means anything that obstructs sight doesn't work against it. Absent specific details of what works against the ability, you can't enter the radius of Blindsight without being perceived.

If individual DMs with a particular knowledge of a creature feel like allowing players to avoid detection using a means of doing so that might work in the real world, they can have at it. It doesn't change how the rule works though. It means the DM is using rule 0 as is a DM's purview to override the rule.

 

[Celtavian]

Bizarre.

Having sight allows me to "perceive my surroundings." That does not infer "perceive everything". That is your interpolation.

A non-vague rule would be for it to say "stealth does not work against blindsight", but that is not stated.

I can't read the rule is saying anything other than "you are not disadvantaged by a lack of vision." I don't see anything about a "sense absolutely everything in all ways within range."

Explain how abilities that work against visibility work against a creature that perceives without sight? Don't give me the move silently unless you can show me written text in a creature's description that states quiet movement disrupts their blindsight.

It is not a vague rule. It is quite clear save to those that don't want to accept what "perceives without sight" means. That's a very clear statement that is easy to understand. Others that choose to ignore the meaning are making it seem vague, yet they are unable to explain how other than adding in rules text to individual creatures that is not present.

 

[B9anders]

The weird part here is not so much your reading of the, but rather your insistence on the certainty of the text and your assumption of near unanimous agreement on this, when the text has no explicit mentions of your assertions and the majority of posters here and in other threads actually disagree with you. Or at any rate, do not share any of your certainty on it.

It really does border on trolling.

 

[Cyberen]

I think the way a DM decides this (insignificant) conundrum has a lot to do with his agenda.
If you make a blanket statement about Stealth and Blindsight, either you make it public to the player, and you are in the realm of "WotC D&D tournament" which looks a lot like MtG, or you keep it on your side of the screen, and you are in the realm of "Gygaxian skilled play", where knowledge has to be earned through trial and error.
If you intend (as I am feeling inclined to at this particular time) to resolve the conundrum at the table, you are closer to Dungeon World agenda, where you play to know how the Dragon reacts to the thief crouching behind the boulder. The decision should involve dice rolling, the Stealth and Detection scores, blabla... I believe this is the (not hidden) intent of the designers, and given the conceit and actual numbers involved in bounded accuracy, without the DM taking sides with ad/disad, the odds of rolling high or low are not that far from DW's.
I would take the comparison further : the Legendary framework enables the DM to mitigate successes and failures. Instead of denying the Rogue one of its favorite tactics, or making dragons flying bags of XP by sacrificing them on the altar of Ambushing, it becomes easy to counter the Rogues attempt at stealth without shutting them down. For instance, maybe the Dragon knows the Rogue is somewhere, and spends a LA to Detect it (maybe with Advantage). The rogue won't sneak attack, but the party avoids a tail slap or wing buffet. Or maybe the dragon focus on the boulder/the rogue, buying some time for the party. Or, maybe, the Dragon is so focused on destroying the remainder of the PCs that it forgets about the rogue and let her sneak attack the next round... Note that if you want to promote this gameplay without demoting the others, offering vague rules is a clever plan.

 

[Authweight]

Explain how abilities that work against visibility work against a creature that perceives without sight? Don't give me the move silently unless you can show me written text in a creature's description that states quiet movement disrupts their blindsight.

It is not a vague rule. It is quite clear save to those that don't want to accept what "perceives without sight" means. That's a very clear statement that is easy to understand. Others that choose to ignore the meaning are making it seem vague, yet they are unable to explain how other than adding in rules text to individual creatures that is not present.

By default, you can use stealth to hide based on the DM's discretion. There is a special callout that if a creature sees you, then you can't hide. Blindsight is not seeing, so that has no relevance. The idea that stealth can't work against a creature with blindsight is the stance that is reading something not there. The written rule is that the DM can decide. That's not just a rule 0 invocation, there is no other preferred approach even presented.

Edit to add: you can rule it however you want. I always try and rule by RAW unless I have told my players specifically otherwise, and I do believe in the importance and precedence of RAW over RAI or rule 0. But I truly think the text here is so thin and ambiguous there is no RAW. Without the use of clearly defined terms, it's unclear what "perceive," "surrounding," and "see" mean in strict game terms. So all that's left is a naturalistic rulings-oriented approach. Saying that people who disagree with you are "choosing to ignore" the text is plainly wrong.

 

[Thyrwyn]

My two cents: Given that (a) Blindsight (p. 183, PHB) is listed under the heading Vision and Light, and that (b) the subject of Vision and Light is entirely limited to Obscurement, and that (c) the only rule in Blindsight is "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.", then (d) the only thing that Blindsight has any effect on is Obscurement.

Given that under the rules for Stealth and Hiding (p.177, PHB) the rules use phrases like (a) "...slip away without being noticed...", (b) "...there's a chance someone will notice you...", and (c) "To determine whether such a creature notices you, ...", and, importantly, (d) "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.", therefore (e) it is possible to hide/"not be noticed" from/by something that can perceive you.