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

[Hussar]

Spells need line of effect in addition to line of line of sight. It is possible to have one and not the other.

I believe that there are no LOE rules in 5e. Most spells state right in the description that you need to see the target. How about Suggestion then? After all, the target should only need to hear you right?

Or, put it another way. There's a creature with Blindsight on one side of the door. He has never seen beyond that door. Does he know how big the room is beyond the door, presuming the door fits within his range of blindsight?

 

[aramis erak]

Nowhere does it say a creature automatically perceives everything around it and the only things stopping sight are specific rules like concealment and lack of light. What it says is that "most" creatures in combat are aware of everything around them, so if you come out of hiding it "usually" sees you. That wording is about as hedged as it gets.

Out of combat, none of that even applies. You can presumably prevent a creature from seeing you by coming up from behind it, something which has no basis in concealment, lighting, or cover rules.

The closest there is to RAW for stealth are some vague guidelines, everything else is fairly explicitly left up to the DM. I wish there was more clarity and guidance in the stealth rules, but there just isn't. There certainly isn't enough substance there to pin down a single clear and obvious way the stealth rules interact with blindsight.

There is a facing option in the DMG.

 

[occam]

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.

No one has claimed that invisibility works against blindsight. We can dispense with that strawman.

And plenty of people have given examples where they would impose a Perception check on a creature with blindsight.

 

[Cyberen]

I believe that there are no LOE rules in 5e. Most spells state right in the description that you need to see the target. How about Suggestion then? After all, the target should only need to hear you right?

Or, put it another way. There's a creature with Blindsight on one side of the door. He has never seen beyond that door. Does he know how big the room is beyond the door, presuming the door fits within his range of blindsight?

Do you think a grimlock enchanter can't cast Charm Person because he can't see his target ?
For the Blindsight and Door strawman, does it have to be the same answer in the cases of a bat or Acererak ?
I would say this is what a DM is for.
In disagreement with some posters, I think the rules of previous editions offer robust guidelines, if you are so inclined.
Celtavian wants Blindsight to work exactly like in 3e : more power to him ! If he uses the whole package of stealth and perception rules from 3.5 or Pathfinder, I don't think the game is going to break.
Besides, regarding Invisibility, a (4e style) case can be made that the PC spends a resource to get hidden, and the fiction somehow accomodate for it. It seems like another perfectly reasonable adjudication of the so-called "vague" Stealth rules. (I would call them "purposedly left open to interpretation")

 

[SirAntoine]

They still give character levels to monsters in the adventures?! That is sad.

 

[Hussar]

Do you think a grimlock enchanter can't cast Charm Person because he can't see his target ?
For the Blindsight and Door strawman, does it have to be the same answer in the cases of a bat or Acererak ?
I would say this is what a DM is for.
In disagreement with some posters, I think the rules of previous editions offer robust guidelines, if you are so inclined.
Celtavian wants Blindsight to work exactly like in 3e : more power to him ! If he uses the whole package of stealth and perception rules from 3.5 or Pathfinder, I don't think the game is going to break.
Besides, regarding Invisibility, a (4e style) case can be made that the PC spends a resource to get hidden, and the fiction somehow accomodate for it. It seems like another perfectly reasonable adjudication of the so-called "vague" Stealth rules. (I would call them "purposedly left open to interpretation")

It is hardly a straw man. it gets right to the heart of things. A gridlock enchanter with a target within the range of its blindsight, and that target does not have any cover, should be able to charm his target. His "sight" is just as good as anything with actual eyes. IOW, he'd be able to target an invisible target in a heavy fog with no problem whatsoever.

He could not, OTOH, target something behind a wall that has total cover. Again, IMO.

I'd say that yes, the answer should be the same, barring some pretty corner cases. Acerak being a unique and damn near divine being, I'd probably make allowances for. But, we're not talking about rare corner cases. We're talking about general ruling.

So, my question stands, is blindsight x-ray vision? Can someone with blindsight see inside a chest, for example. Why or why not?

 

[Joe Liker]

You have been adding exceptions throughout this discussion. There are none.

It's supposed to be like 3E Blindsight. You don't want to admit this until you are told by the designers what it is. Once they tell you, this all ends.

Is there a difference between 3e and 3.5 in this regard? Because 3.5 Blindsight requires line of effect, which means it is blocked by solid objects.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Blindsight_and_Blindsense

3.5 Blindsight is also full of exceptions based on the nature of the creature, so if you want to say it's like 3.5 Blindsight, be my guest, but that contradicts everything else you've been saying.

 

[Gimul]

I believe that there are no LOE rules in 5e. Most spells state right in the description that you need to see the target. How about Suggestion then? After all, the target should only need to hear you right?

Or, put it another way. There's a creature with Blindsight on one side of the door. He has never seen beyond that door. Does he know how big the room is beyond the door, presuming the door fits within his range of blindsight?

You have pre-defined in your situation that the creature has not seen beyond the door; which would imply a ruling on the matter has already been made.

As I stated I'm my previous post, my ruling would be made based on the underlying fluff of the creature’s blindsight and the physical characteristics of the wall and door (all of which remain undefined in your scenario).

 

[Gimul]

Really? Where are you getting that number?

I took that number from the 3 quarters concealment baseline requirement to hide.

3/4 = 75% (concealed ) -> 25% (visible)

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

To address what the OP talked about: That sounds awesome. Now, I have to get in a 5E game!