Blindsight and Sneak Attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Blindsight and Sneak Attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Will Brandiman
03-07-06, 03:59 AM Hi, this is probably a really silly question but is it possible to sneak attack someone whilst using blindsight? A quote or page ref from the core rules would be really helpful.

Thanks!
strumbleduck
03-07-06, 04:41 AM Here are some relevent quotes.

From the description of sneak attack:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
And from the description of blindsight:
Some creatures have blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination of such senses) to operate effectively without vision. . . This ability makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature. . . Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures using blindsight.
Based on these descriptions, it seems clear that someone with blindsight can "see" well enough to pick out a vital spot on a target, which is all that is required for a sneak attack.
allenchan
03-07-06, 04:43 AM Of course. There's no reason blindsight would limit SA, and its not explicitly listed, so therefore SA would work in situations that it would normally work.
Why would you even wonder if it didn't work?
Will Brandiman
03-07-06, 04:57 AM Of course. There's no reason blindsight would limit SA, and its not explicitly listed, so therefore SA would work in situations that it would normally work.
Why would you even wonder if it didn't work? My own feeling was that it would work, for the same reason quoted above (Blindsight negates concealment). The DM however didn't feel that blindsight would give a 'sharp' enough picture to allow a rogue to identify a vital location. We agreed to go with the DM ruling for that game and then ask on the boards for advice to use in later sessions.
BaelinWhale
03-07-06, 05:08 AM Your DM's concerns are legitimate enough and something that has been brought up before. But if bats can 'hear' well enough to hunt tiny insects in the blackest night, there's really no reason to imagine how Blindsight doesn't allow you to sense a foe sufficiently.

In any case, the game rules fully support the idea that Blindsight fully compensates for normal visual senses so go ahead with it.
strumbleduck
03-07-06, 05:24 AM A rogue can sneak attack perfectly well when dazzled, and that condition actually confers a penalty on attack rolls. As far as I know, nothing short of concealment can prevent a rogue from sneak attacking.
Egres
03-07-06, 05:59 AM From the RotG article on SA:

Also, a creature with blindsight can ignore any concealment a foe has when making a sneak attack of its own.
Will Brandiman
03-07-06, 06:01 AM From the RotG article on SA:

Also, a creature with blindsight can ignore any concealment a foe has when making a sneak attack of its own. Ah! That's what I'm looking for. I'll look up the article. Thanks!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Will Brandiman 03-07-06, 03:59 AM	Hi, this is probably a really silly question but is it possible to sneak attack someone whilst using blindsight? A quote or page ref from the core rules would be really helpful. Thanks!
strumbleduck 03-07-06, 04:41 AM	Here are some relevent quotes. From the description of sneak attack: The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. And from the description of blindsight: Some creatures have blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination of such senses) to operate effectively without vision. . . This ability makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature. . . Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures using blindsight. Based on these descriptions, it seems clear that someone with blindsight can "see" well enough to pick out a vital spot on a target, which is all that is required for a sneak attack.
allenchan 03-07-06, 04:43 AM	Of course. There's no reason blindsight would limit SA, and its not explicitly listed, so therefore SA would work in situations that it would normally work. Why would you even wonder if it didn't work?
Will Brandiman 03-07-06, 04:57 AM	Of course. There's no reason blindsight would limit SA, and its not explicitly listed, so therefore SA would work in situations that it would normally work. Why would you even wonder if it didn't work? My own feeling was that it would work, for the same reason quoted above (Blindsight negates concealment). The DM however didn't feel that blindsight would give a 'sharp' enough picture to allow a rogue to identify a vital location. We agreed to go with the DM ruling for that game and then ask on the boards for advice to use in later sessions.
BaelinWhale 03-07-06, 05:08 AM	Your DM's concerns are legitimate enough and something that has been brought up before. But if bats can 'hear' well enough to hunt tiny insects in the blackest night, there's really no reason to imagine how Blindsight doesn't allow you to sense a foe sufficiently. In any case, the game rules fully support the idea that Blindsight fully compensates for normal visual senses so go ahead with it.
strumbleduck 03-07-06, 05:24 AM	A rogue can sneak attack perfectly well when dazzled, and that condition actually confers a penalty on attack rolls. As far as I know, nothing short of concealment can prevent a rogue from sneak attacking.
Egres 03-07-06, 05:59 AM	From the RotG article on SA: Also, a creature with blindsight can ignore any concealment a foe has when making a sneak attack of its own.
Will Brandiman 03-07-06, 06:01 AM	From the RotG article on SA: Also, a creature with blindsight can ignore any concealment a foe has when making a sneak attack of its own. Ah! That's what I'm looking for. I'll look up the article. Thanks!