8
\$\begingroup\$

Blind Fighting, as phrased in Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything, contains additional wording beyond the description of mere Blindsight. The entry for Blind Fighting reads:

You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you.

Using the optional Class Features for the Fighter class which are presented in TCoE, this Blind Fighting fighting style offers not only 10ft of Blindsight, but the wording above, which by my reading at least heavily implies that you should be able to cast spells which target a space, object, or creature "you can see", within the 10ft range of this ability.

You can explicitly "see an invisible creature", but does "you can effectively see anything that isn't behind total cover" mean that you can cast sighted spells on targets within that 10ft range?

\$\endgroup\$
19
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, if the target is within the range of your blindsight

Blindsight functions the same regardless of how you have access to it. The rules given in Tasha do not give any restriction on how you can use it so can use it to target creatures using abilities that require you to be able to see the target. As long as the stated restrictions don't apply in order to prevent you from seeing it, you can target a creature with a sight requiring spell.

As to whether blindsight lets you "See" your target. Firstly, there is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford stating as much here:

Blindsight qualifies for anything in the D&D rules that requires you to see something, provided that thing is within your blindsight's radius.

However, his tweets are not official rules. So let us look at what the rules actually state. First, the rule on attacking something you can't see:

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

Now the rule on blindsight:

A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons, have this sense.

Note that the blindsight rule doesn't say anything about removing the disadvantage part of the attack roll. Does that mean blindsight doesn't remove the disadvantage from attacks? Of course not, otherwise it would be no different than blindsense.

As such, it must provide the ability to see the target within range.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Blindsight itself doesn't explicitly say that you can see targets though? Many of the answers regarding casting with Blindsight say that it doesn't explicitly grant "sight", while many spells explicitly say "that you can see", not 'that you can perceive'. Many GMs seem to rule that Blindsight does NOT grant the ability to cast sighted spells. Blind Fighting on the other hand, goes further, reading "you can effectively see". My question here is, does "effectively see" fulfill the requirements for "targets you can see"? \$\endgroup\$ – ProphetZarquon Jan 17 at 0:04
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @ProphetZarquon Blind sight. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Jan 17 at 2:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ProphetZarquon Be wary that the sense "blindsight" (which creatures with this feat and some monsters have) is different to the Rogue feature "Blindsense". Are those GMs ruling for blindsight or Blindsense? If the former, and if you believe that this feat grants features beyond the MM entry for blindsight, then a question for just blindsight might be worth a question of its own. \$\endgroup\$ – BBeast Jan 17 at 3:14
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ I would add argument by example that blindsight must be equivalent to being able to see. There are examples of otherwise blind creatures - such as the Adult Oblex - that have natural spellcasting and even unique abilities with targeting that depends on being able to "see" other creatures. If blindsight didn't count as being able to see for these targeting purposes, such abilities would be mostly useless. \$\endgroup\$ – Carcer Jan 17 at 8:55
-1
\$\begingroup\$

Blindsense is a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but **`

without the precision

`** of blindsight, using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing.

Blindsight, is better than normal sight in that you can even see invisible creatures that with normal sight can not, also it is precise, as per the reference in blind sense. There for casting a spell or attacking a creature with in the area is never at a disadvantage.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.