D&D 5E Staff of Swarming Insects

[Zene]

A DM could choose rule otherwise based on the senses a particular form of blindsight uses, but by default the the answer is "it only blocks vision".
[...]

The DM "should" do whatever they feel makes theense for the situation in their game.

Blindsight is a type of vision. There is no logical reason for it to magically see through things that would otherwise be opaque; and there is no rules text that points to it being able to do so. It is not x-ray vision --that is a separate thing that does exist in the DnD ruleset (see ring of x-ray vision in the dmg) and can see through opaque objects like bugs.

So yes a DM could houserule otherwise, but by default blindsight does not work on SoSI's swarm, or otherwise see through any type of heavy obscurement; other than heavy obscurement caused by lack of light.

 

[Caliban]

Blindsight is a type of vision. There is no logical reason for it to magically see through things that would otherwise be opaque; and there is no rules text that points to it being able to do so. It is not x-ray vision --that is a separate thing that does exist in the DnD ruleset (see ring of x-ray vision in the dmg) and can see through opaque objects like bugs.

So yes a DM could houserule otherwise, but by default blindsight does not work on SoSI's swarm, or otherwise see through any type of heavy obscurement; other than heavy obscurement caused by lack of light.

Play it however it makes sense to you.

But I'll return the favor and decree that your version is the house rule, not mine. [emoji14]

Now I'll assume that we repeat variations on "is not!" and "is so!" until we are sick of the subject, since this is such a vital issue to the future of the game.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

 

[Zene]

Play it however it makes sense to you.

But I'll return the favor favor and decree that your version is the house rule, not mine. [emoji14]

Now I'll assume that we repeat variations on "is not!" and "is so!" until we are sick of the subject, since this is such a vital issue to the future of the game.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

Lol fair enough

 

[nswanson27]

Well, technically with blindsight you'd sense both the swarm and the non-bugs within the swarm. The staff only states it applies Heavy Obscurement, which is visual only.

A DM could choose rule otherwise based on the senses a particular form of blindsight uses, but by default the the answer is "it only blocks vision".

But for a custom NPC/monster that is surrounded by a magical swarm of insects the DM could define it as blocking any number of senses, not just sight. Which could block most forms of blindsight.

The DM "should" do whatever they feel makes the most sense for the situation in their game.

I agree with your last sentence. However,

From PHB:
Heavily obscured. This is darkness or heavy fog, or dense foliage. It imposes the affects of the blinded condition, which are auto failure of any check requiring sight, and advantage to attack you and disadvantage on your attacks.

You're taking for granted that "sight" only applies to sight with your eyes, but there isn't anything here in the rules to actually assume that. If that definition of "sight" was what's intended, then no enemy caster that had blindsight (and no eye vision) could ever cast spells that required a "target that you can see" either by the same logic.

 

[Caliban]

I agree with your last sentence. However,

From PHB:
Heavily obscured. This is darkness or heavy fog, or dense foliage. It imposes the affects of the blinded condition, which are auto failure of any check requiring sight, and advantage to attack you and disadvantage on your attacks.

You're taking for granted that "sight" only applies to sight with your eyes, but there isn't anything here in the rules to actually assume that. If that definition of "sight" was what's intended, then no enemy caster that had blindsight (and no eye vision) could ever cast spells that required a "target that you can see" either by the same logic.

If you want to start redefining "sight" to include non-visual methods of sensing your environment, that's your call.

I would say instead that the "Blindsight" ability is a specific exception - it's entire purpose is to allow you to make use of options that require "sight" when your normal vision is unavailable (due to obscurement or blindness or what have you).

It is not actually "sight", but another sense (or combination of senses) that can substitute for it as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

 

[nswanson27]

If you want to start redefining "sight" to include non-visual methods of sensing your environment, that's your call.

Go ahead and imply that I'm the outsider here with the rules, but until you provide reasoning for that's objectively verifiable from the text, you're not going to be convincing.
I just showed that rules require a broad definition of its uses of sight/seeing to be logically consistent. Do you having anything of like kind in response to support your side?

 

[Caliban]

Go ahead and imply that I'm the outsider here with the rules, but until you provide reasoning for that's objectively verifiable from the text, you're not going to be convincing.
I just showed that rules require a broad definition of its uses of sight/seeing to be logically consistent. Do you having anything of like kind in response to support your side?

*sigh* You showed nothing of the sort.

I provided a logical counter argument, supported by the rules. i.e. specific overides the general.

Blindsight is a specific exception to the general sight rules.

 

[nswanson27]

If you want to start redefining "sight" to include non-visual methods of sensing your environment, that's your call.

I would say instead that the "Blindsight" ability is a specific exception - it's entire purpose is to allow you to make use of options that require "sight" when your normal vision is unavailable (due to obscurement or blindness or what have you).

It is not actually "sight", but another sense (or combination of senses) that can substitute for it as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

So I didn't see your edit until after I posted a response. More substance now than what you had before, and I understand better where you're coming from now.

 

[nswanson27]

If you want to start redefining "sight" to include non-visual methods of sensing your environment, that's your call.

I would say instead that the "Blindsight" ability is a specific exception - it's entire purpose is to allow you to make use of options that require "sight" when your normal vision is unavailable (due to obscurement or blindness or what have you).

It is not actually "sight", but another sense (or combination of senses) that can substitute for it as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

Blindsight
A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.

Blindsight is a substitute for perceiving things for sight requirements - agreed, but it is not a way to throw away sight requirements in the rules. It does not say that it can.
So, when you re-evaluate rules with blightsight as a substitution for sight requirement, you have to be consistent for all rules, including heavy obscurement. Now unfortunately heavy obscurement makes no sense like that as-is, because then darkness would somehow block blindsight, and RAW gives no guidance as to what heavy obscurement should be changed to (although it seems obvious if you know what senses a creature is using to get blindsight). But neither can you just set aside heavy obscurement penalties (thus, making it x-ray-ish) merely because you're dealing with another perception other than eye-sight as a substitute eye-sight.

 

[Caliban]

Blindsight
A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.

Blindsight is a substitute for perceiving things for sight requirements - agreed, but it is not a way to throw away sight requirements in the rules. It does not say that it can.
So, when you re-evaluate rules with blightsight as a substitution for sight requirement, you have to be consistent for all rules, including heavy obscurement. Now unfortunately heavy obscurement makes no sense like that as-is, because then darkness would somehow block blindsight, and RAW gives no guidance as to what heavy obscurement should be changed to (although it seems obvious if you know what senses a creature is using to get blindsight). But neither can you just set aside heavy obscurement penalties (thus, making it x-ray-ish) merely because you're dealing with another perception other than eye-sight as a substitute eye-sight.

...Whatever makes sense to you. To me, what you just said sounds like complete nonsense. But if it makes sense to you, go for it.