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

[Celtavian]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], I have to agree with this. The level of disagreement with you in this thread certainly puts the lie to the notion that there is a clear and unambiguous answer that any sensible person can see; and the fact that most of the people in this thread disagree with you makes me doubt very much whether most DMs agree with your interpretation. Continuing to insist that you are right, period end, is just shouting your opinion and hoping to drown out the sea of voices that don't think you are. You've made your argument clear, and many of us have made clear that we disagree with your reasoning. Can't you at least do us the courtesy of accepting that maybe everyone else isn't unambiguously wrong and that your interpretation of how blindsight works is just that- one interpretation?

By the way, any argument that requires looking at the rules from a previous edition for support is, IMHO, extremely flawed. How does such an approach help groups that are new to D&D? It doesn't, and it isn't supported anywhere in the 5e rules that I'm aware of.

No. I have to wait until a game designer either agrees or disagrees with my interpretation.

The rule is clear. What isn't clear is the usual group of people that want to add exceptions to a rule without the exceptions existing. This happens on the Internet all the time.

If it isn't clear, explain a scenario where you get to make Stealth check against a creature with Blindsight within its range? Are you going to allow general stealth checks? Are you going to allow invisibility to work? Are you going to argue that a moving individual isn't a part of the surroundings? Surroundings is a word that means everything around it. It's not ambiguous.

This discussion is the usual thing you get on the Internet. A bunch of people wanting to add things that aren't in a rule because it isn't written out for them in the way they want.

All the people that disagree have been stating is "I don't agree". Not what works within range of Blindsight or if a Stealth check is allowed. Or invisibility. Or how any of that works against Blindsight.

So why don't some of these people claiming it doesn't detect everything within range, explain exactly what they allow in their games and why. I'll come at it from that angle. Explain why they think invisibility and stealth work.

Why does Blindsight a separate entry and a range if it does not detect everything within range? Why not list it as Blindsight and give it no range allowing stealth and the like to work? Why does a dragon with very good senses to begin with need Blindsight if it doesn't detect everything within its range including invisible and stealthing creatures? Might as well leave it with only the usual senses if Blindsight isn't superior. Seriously, why would you give a dragon Blindsight given all its other senses work just fine?

Are the people claiming a dragon's blindsight doesn't detect everything allowing Stealth rolls against it based on what...hearing....smell...touch? What Does a dragon's blindsight go off. It already has hearing, touch, and smell.

If Blindsight doesn't defeat Stealth and invisibility, what does it do for a creature like a dragon? Nothing since these folks disagreeing with me are basically saying it must make a regular Perception check that it would have had to make with its regular senses.

Because there are a number of people disagreeing does not make them anymore correct than at any time in the past such as when the Flat World Theory was the norm. So that part of your argument is weak. I'd rather see you explain why the designers would bother to give blindsight to a creature with all of its regular senses and extraordinary Perception score. What would be the point?

While the disagreeable contemplate the above questions around their tables when they come up, I'm going to wait until the Sage provides an answer to continue the debate as I believe that will be the only way to settle this one way or the other.

 

[pemerton]

Then explain why you would need a perception check and how? Give me a scenario where a creature with Blindsight would need to make a Perception check within its range?

If the creature is blind (eg an ooze) and a character is sneaking up on it silently, say behind a line of boulders.

 

[Authweight]

No. I have to wait until a game designer either agrees or disagrees with my interpretation.

The rule is clear. What isn't clear is the usual group of people that want to add exceptions to a rule without the exceptions existing. This happens on the Internet all the time.

If it isn't clear, explain a scenario where you get to make Stealth check against a creature with Blindsight within its range? Are you going to allow general stealth checks? Are you going to allow invisibility to work? Are you going to argue that a moving individual isn't a part of the surroundings? Surroundings is a word that means everything around it. It's not ambiguous.

This discussion is the usual thing you get on the Internet. A bunch of people wanting to add things that aren't in a rule because it isn't written out for them in the way they want.

All the people that disagree have been stating is "I don't agree". Not what works within range of Blindsight or if a Stealth check is allowed. Or invisibility. Or how any of that works against Blindsight.

So why don't some of these people claiming it doesn't detect everything within range, explain exactly what they allow in their games and why. I'll come at it from that angle. Explain why they think invisibility and stealth work.

Why does Blindsight a separate entry and a range if it does not detect everything within range? Why not list it as Blindsight and give it no range allowing stealth and the like to work? Why does a dragon with very good senses to begin with need Blindsight if it doesn't detect everything within its range including invisible and stealthing creatures? Might as well leave it with only the usual senses if Blindsight isn't superior. Seriously, why would you give a dragon Blindsight given all its other senses work just fine?

Are the people claiming a dragon's blindsight doesn't detect everything allowing Stealth rolls against it based on what...hearing....smell...touch? What Does a dragon's blindsight go off. It already has hearing, touch, and smell.

If Blindsight doesn't defeat Stealth and invisibility, what does it do for a creature like a dragon? Nothing since these folks disagreeing with me are basically saying it must make a regular Perception check that it would have had to make with its regular senses.

Because there are a number of people disagreeing does not make them anymore correct than at any time in the past such as when the Flat World Theory was the norm. So that part of your argument is weak. I'd rather see you explain why the designers would bother to give blindsight to a creature with all of its regular senses and extraordinary Perception score. What would be the point?

While the disagreeable contemplate the above questions around their tables when they come up, I'm going to wait until the Sage provides an answer to continue the debate as I believe that will be the only way to settle this one way or the other.

You're the one reading rules that aren't there. At no point does it say, "you cannot make stealth checks to hide from a creature within its blindsight range." The rules regarding stealth in 5e are already extremely fuzzy and open to interpretation. Without a clear declaration, there is no ironclad argument that blindsight negates stealth.

Also, it doesn't matter what the sage says. You can follow it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the actual written text is vague and open to interpretation.

 

[Hussar]

I have full cover from a creature with blindsight. I then snipe from behind cover.

Do I get advantage or not?

 

[Gimul]

You're the one reading rules that aren't there. At no point does it say, "you cannot make stealth checks to hide from a creature within its blindsight range." The rules regarding stealth in 5e are already extremely fuzzy and open to interpretation. Without a clear declaration, there is no ironclad argument that blindsight negates stealth.

Also, it doesn't matter what the sage says. You can follow it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the actual written text is vague and open to interpretation.

The rules clearly state that you cannot hide from a creature that can see you. I think it's clear that blindsight allows a creature to ignore concealment, lighting requirements, invisibility and even line of sight within range. It follows, fairly straight-forwardly, that hiding from a blindsight capable creature, within range, is disallowed both RAW and RAI.

That being said; the fluff for blindsight, at least in certain instances, credits the keen use of other senses. As a DM, in such instances, I might allow a stealth check (most likely with disadvantage) if the player made a credible argument (supported by roleplay). For example: using a masking agent to cover his scent or a halfling using the cover from a larger ally (making the two PC's seem to be the same creature), etc.

 

[Gimul]

I have full cover from a creature with blindsight. I then snipe from behind cover.

Do I get advantage or not?

I would rule no (as a general rule; I might make exceptions, the justifications for both are in my previous post).

 

[Authweight]

The rules clearly state that you cannot hide from a creature that can see you. I think it's clear that blindsight allows a creature to ignore concealment, lighting requirements, invisibility and even line of sight within range. It follows, fairly straight-forwardly, that hiding from a blindsight capable creature, within range, is disallowed both RAW and RAI.

That being said; the fluff for blindsight, at least in certain instances, credits the keen use of other senses. As a DM, in such instances, I might allow a stealth check (most likely with disadvantage) if the player made a credible argument (supported by roleplay). For example: using a masking agent to cover his scent or a halfling using the cover from a larger ally (making the two PC's seem to be the same creature), etc.

First off, I don't think it's clear that blindsight allows you to "see" anything at all. Second, if you look at the language in the hiding section, you do not automatically see everything in your line of sight. During combat you are generally assumed to be aware in all directions, although here it gives the DM explicit discretion. It follows that you do not necessarily automatically know everything in your blindsight radius, just as you don't automatically know everything in your regular line of sight. Just because you are able to perceive something doesn't mean you are automatically consciously aware of its position and identity.

Here's the thing though: the RAW is ambiguous. Without better defined terms, there are many reasonable interpretations of what is written in the books. Your interpretation is one of several that, IMO, are equally well-supported by the text. I have no idea what RAI is. To me it seems very clear, however, that there is simply not enough in the text to support one interpretation over another. So your interpretation is fine, but it is no closer to RAW than any of the others in this thread.

 

[Authweight]

I do think, however, that the case becomes strongest for blindsight as auto-detect once combat begins. Outside of combat though, I think it's very questionable that blindsight is an auto-detect. And either way, if RAI was that it disallowed all stealth, it seems to me like they would have specifically said that, instead of leaving it vague and unclear.

 

[Gimul]

First off, I don't think it's clear that blindsight allows you to "see" anything at all. Second, if you look at the language in the hiding section, you do not automatically see everything in your line of sight. During combat you are generally assumed to be aware in all directions, although here it gives the DM explicit discretion. It follows that you do not necessarily automatically know everything in your blindsight radius, just as you don't automatically know everything in your regular line of sight. Just because you are able to perceive something doesn't mean you are automatically consciously aware of its position and identity.

Here's the thing though: the RAW is ambiguous. Without better defined terms, there are many reasonable interpretations of what is written in the books. Your interpretation is one of several that, IMO, are equally well-supported by the text. I have no idea what RAI is. To me it seems very clear, however, that there is simply not enough in the text to support one interpretation over another. So your interpretation is fine, but it is no closer to RAW than any of the others in this thread.

It's absolutely clear that blindsight allows you to "see"; as it cancels all the various mitigating factors that would prevent you from doing so (lack of light, lack of eyes, concealment, invisibility, etc).

It is explicitly stated that you cannot hide from something that can see more than 25% of you (subject to the exceptions of specific powers granted by race, class, etc).

There are only "many interpretations" if you suspend (either willfully or through ignorance) either the commonly accepted rules of logic or the commonly accepted definitions of basic vocabulary.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The rules clearly state that you cannot hide from a creature that can see you. I think it's clear that blindsight allows a creature to ignore concealment, lighting requirements, invisibility and even line of sight within range. It follows, fairly straight-forwardly, that hiding from a blindsight capable creature, within range, is disallowed both RAW and RAI.

That being said; the fluff for blindsight, at least in certain instances, credits the keen use of other senses. As a DM, in such instances, I might allow a stealth check (most likely with disadvantage) if the player made a credible argument (supported by roleplay). For example: using a masking agent to cover his scent or a halfling using the cover from a larger ally (making the two PC's seem to be the same creature), etc.

It's absolutely clear that blindsight allows you to "see"; as it cancels all the various mitigating factors that would prevent you from doing so (lack of light, lack of eyes, concealment, invisibility, etc).

It is explicitly stated that you cannot hide from something that can see more than 25% of you (subject to the exceptions of specific powers granted by race, class, etc).

There are only "many interpretations" if you suspend (either willfully or through ignorance) either the commonly accepted rules of logic or the commonly accepted definitions of basic vocabulary.

NO no nonono nonononononono no no.

I'm sorry, but this is a big pet peeve of mine. I thought I was pretty clear earlier, but I guess I need to repeat.

Concealment is not limited to visual queues. Concealment is ANYTHING that will help conceal your presence. Hunters use scent concealment from deer, for example. A creature with blindsight does not get automatic detection against all other forms of concealment; only that visual queues are not relevant. Therefore, concealment can still be accomplished via other means.

Extra irony for you for accusing others of suspeding "commonly accepted definitions of basic vocabulary" when that's exactly what you're doing above.