A wood elf is fighting a creature with blindsight in a field of moderate foliage.
You may already have guessed my question, can the elf effectively hide from the creature or is it impossible?
Please explain your opinion on the matter based on the 5th edition rules. Thank you.
Blindsight is defined by the 5e rules as being able to perceive your surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius.
In no way is blindsight described as defeating any normally applicable method of hiding or functioning any differently in regards to hiding than normal vision does, and thus it is not handled differently at all.
The hypothetical elf can, so long as the foliage is sufficient cover, attempt to hide.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SpiderQueen wrote:
SpiderQueen wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
That is a very confusing interpretation for blindsight.
In that interrpretation, can the creature with blindsight not perceive the foliage? If it can perceive the foliage, why is there no chance that it perceive "nothing there but some foliage" if the elf is successfully hidden behind said foliage?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Since blindsight REMOVES the requirement to see a target/enemy (within range), than any method of hiding that relies soley on VISION (invis, concealment etc) I would say is ineffective. But I see nowhere that states it let's you see thought solid objects or anything, so I would say you can hide behind 100% cover etc.
In the case above (wood elf, foliage etc), I would say if the elf can can shoot THROUGH the folliage, than the creature with blindsight CAN also see them - i.e. it is not 100% cover or it would also block the shot.
I guess I just don't see how perceiving without relying on sight becomes equateable not to normally sighted creatures in function, but to infallibly sighted creatures - especially considering that blindsight doesn't specify any ability to completely ignore obscurement, though I do see how blindight mentioning the perception doesn't "rely on sight" bypasses the disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight in a lightly obscured area, and how it bypasses the blinded condition caused by a heavily obscured area.
The blindsight creature not being penalized by being given disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) in lightly obscuring foliage does not, however, actually negate the ability granted to a wood elf to hide in that foliage - it just changes the chances from Elf rolls stealth against Wisdom (Perception) with disadvantage to Elf rolls stealth against Wisdom (Perception).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SpiderQueen wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Its worth noting, that some people approach the game as if it is a computer program, and the authors were trying to write Code. They base their 'analysis' on 'keywords' and an exact parsing of each sentence. If this is how you enjoy the game.... coolness for you. But it skips over the history of RPGs and DnD.... and the oft-repeated tenents of the design team. The game is *meant* to be interpreted and adjudicated by the DM. The 'wonder' of an RPG is how open-ended it is, and you *can't* write a computer program that encompasses anything and everything possible.... and thus the designers didn't even try. Not every creature with Blindsight is going to operate the same way, not every attempt at hiding is going to have equal success at it, and not every environmental variable is going to be the same each time. It is up to the DM to determine these variables, and adjudicate how they operate together.
That is why the game is designed with a DM, and why (for the most part) the rules form a framework for the DM to plug in those variables.
Coredump00 wrote:
Nexus6 wrote:
The history of blindsight goes back to 'The Hobbit' with Smaug being able to sense Bilbo even though he was invisible, so that's how I've always run it. If someone can see you even if you are invisible, they can see you hiding behind a bush. I don't see anything in the current rules that contradicts that, although as with most things I would expect table variation.
I think one type of blindsight could be powerful thermal imaging which could definitely detect someone behind a bush. You could also say that a creature with blindsight hears your heartbeat or feels you walking.
To put it another way, could blindsight detect someone hiding in fog? I would say yes, otherwise blindsight becomes kind of pointless. Rather than saying that blindsight ignores droplets of water suspended in the air but not a few leaves, I'll just keep it simple. To hide from someone with blindsight you need to be behind a solid object.
OoftaMeg wrote:
I don't agree that blindsight negating the effect on the creature possessing it that obscurement would have (disadvantage on perception or the blinded condition) states specifically, or even implies, the racial ability of wood elf to hide in foliage is negated.
The thing you are hiding from having disadvantage on perception checks to notice you is not a requirement of hiding, so negating that disadvantage - which is all that blindsight actually states it does when it says "without relying on sight" - doesn't change whether you can try to hide or not.
I believe that foliage is mentioned as obscurement because it can be physically attacked through without much impediment, even if the leaves and small branches are actually forming what would be perceived as a solid wall, not because creatures with blindsight either A) cannot perceive any part of a plant other than a tree trunk since those are specified under cover, or B) can perceive foliage but only in a way that is functionally indentical to how the human eye might perceive plant shapes made of clear cling-wrap so as to never even possibly have their perception fooled into thinking "that was just a plant," if a wood elf tries to hide.
Perhaps someone should tweet this question to Jeremy Crawford for some input on the actual intent? (by which I mean someone already possessing a twitter account, because I'm not making one just to ask D&D questions and wouldn't suggest anyone do something that I am unwilling to do.)
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
If you treat blindsight as echolocation/sonar/thermographics/sixth sense, then there is some reasoning to being able to detect people around/through obscurement. The blindsighter can *see* shapes moving, and while their surroundings may also be moving, there will be a definite shape in the air/sound.
I'm thinking along the lines of Daredevil/The Dark Knight, where you could get a ping that created 3-D maps of your surroundings.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I am going to amend, and hopefully clarify, my position on this matter: Blindsight says it allows for perception without relying on sight. This means the creature cannot see, but is not considered to be blind, and thus doesn't automatically fail perception checks that would normally be sight-based.
I see nothing in the text that actually indicates that this not automatically failing perception checks that would normally be sight-based is automatically succeeding perception checks that would normally be sight-based.
I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, I'm just saying what I read - and I am saying that I believe blindsight and mask of the wild are not actually at odds with eachother because they do not directly interact with each other.
After all, a wood elf can attempt to hide while lightly obscured even though a normally sighted creature can still see them - you could be standing only a few feet away from a wood elf in an open dirt field, and if it is raining heavily that wood elf can be hidden from you. What blindsight changes is that it reduces the wood elf's chances relative to a normally sighted individual, as I mentioned earlier: the creature with blindsight doesn't get disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the wood elf attemtping to hide while a creature with sight normally would.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I hadn't read the blindsight rules closely until this thread started, and I think there's going to be a lot of variation from table to table or even monster to monster.
Based on the fact that wood elf's ability only works in natural environment, I see it akin to supernatural camoflauge. It's a visual/sight thing and therefore negated by blindsight. Elves in your world may work differently, and it isn't clearly stated in the rules. I interpret it the way that makes the most sense to me because they can't hide any time they were lightly obscured, only under certain circumstances.
In previous editions blindsight saw everything, this version is a lot more up to DM's discretion.
You could, if you wanted, even break it down by cover. A bat's echolocation probably wouldn't be hindered by darkness or fog, it may or may not be hindered by light foliage.
But that's where it comes back to keeping the rules simple. If a bat can detect your exact location in complete darkness or fog, does it add unnecessary complexity to say a bush stops their echolocation? If a bush stops their echolocation for purposes of a wood elf, would that mean that any race could could hide from a bat behind a bush? After all if the bush stops the echolocation for one creature it probably stops it for all creatures.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
The text for blindsight states that you don't rely on sight to see. I'm not going to get into the semantics of what "see" means in that text. That seems like a waste of time to be honest. Since this is an exception based system and since the text doesn't detail any changes to vision other than to say that it allows you to see regardless of sight well then that's all you do. You see without sight. So again darkness, invisibility, light obscurement. Blindsight cares not about these things.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
In the film Tremors, the main characters were able to hide from a creature with blindsense by standing perfectly still. Conventional methods of hiding from the creature, such as by getting out of sight, were to no avail.
Blindsight does defeat obscurement and darkness. It does not defeat line of effect.
Hiding is much more then just sight though. When hiding you are trying to keep silent, not effect things around you. Like rustling bushes. I might give disadvantage or maybe advantage to a creature with blindsight when making perception checks. It also depends on what the creature with blindsight is. this is another example of a table to table case.
Noctaem wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Ok, but not in the sense that he's using it. He's using the word "perceive" to equal perception checks to find hidden creatures. And is then using that to severely diminish one of the special senses in the game to only grant you no disadvantage when making said checks. That's a very far leap from the text especially when the text goes on to say in the same sentence "without relying on sight". So perceiving things without the need of sight. Invisible creature? You can see it. Hidden creature in darkness, you can see it since you don't rely on sight and therefor aren't affected by darkness/light. An elf hiding in light obscurement does not suddenly stop Blindsight from seeing you. Again you would need the feature to specifically say that you circumvent blindsight.
If a power says you can move 20 feet, but you're prone, you can use the power all you want you're not going anywhere.
On the other hand if you have the same power that says you can move 20 feet even if you're prone, you can absolutely move.
That's how an exception based system like DnD 5e works. Darkness countered by darkvision. Stealth rules countered by the elven racial feature. Elven racial feature countered by Blindsight. Everything countered by True Sight. And so on.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem, I'm not twisting anything - I'm reading the exact words in the book and taking them at their standard definitions.
I'm also applying the truth of an exception-based rule system: if something isn't specified, then it doesn't happen.
Blindsight doesn't specify anything that contradicts me.
Edit to add: I just noticed that you've been saying that features need to specify that they defeat blindsight in order to defeat blindshight... the opposite is true, since the general rules regarding senses are that no one has blindsight. Blindisght is the exception, thus it is the rule element that must specify how it changes the other rules, not the other way around.
Doesn't the Blindsight rule already explain how it trumps other rules by saying it allows one to perceive without the use of sight?
Perceive (the word in the english language) https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=perceive%20definition
vs
Perception checks (the game element)
are two completely different things. You're bridging them to suit your argument and twisting what the text says. In my opinion at least. Blindsight doesn't need to specify anything, it just allows you to see regardless of sight and things that could affect normal sight. For a game element to not be affected by Blindsight, IT would have to specifically say so. Blindsight is the general rule in this case. Mask of the Wild is the specific when compared to the stealth rules. But in this case you have it upside down from what I can tell.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
...so does anyone want to see what Mr. Crawford has to say on the matter, or are we all just going to call it good enough at this point and stick to our own wildly different ideas as to what is a general rule and what is a specific rule?
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Mischiefincdm wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I'm with coreDump and Cowleyman stop treating this like a computer game. The advantage of RPG over that other type of game is the human brain which can interpret context. This includes in world context and out of character table context. This is a case by case DM ruling that can will and should vary from table to table. A lifeforce sensing undead and a bat are very different. A cinematic setting based on celt myth played for fun and a seroius table playing a gritty deep narrative in Ravenloft are very different.
Based on the entry for Blindsight, there are different ways a creature can have Blindsight.
If they have echolocation, they have blindsight
If they have extremely heightened senses, they have blindsight
There are other ways not listed.... which may or may not include:
Vibrations through the floor
Sensing life forces
Using inherrent magic
The Force
etc.
There is nothing listed about how *well* these allow one to perceive their surroundings, perhaps in very great detail, perhaps only by shapes, perhaps dependent on materials.... it may or may not depend on what methods is used *and/or* which creature has it *and/or* what the surroundings are.
Standing on the other side of a glass wall, will mean the bat can't percieve you, making it pretty darn easy to hide.
Standing in/behind foilage, will make it harder for bats to perceive you, making it easier to hide.
Standing in the rain may make it harder for bats to perceive you, possibly making it easier to hide. (research is inconclusive so far)
Being invisible would not help, standing in shadow will not help.
We know that a Black Pudding has Blindsight, but not sure in what way. We also know it is "drawn to movement and warmth", and has no perception benefits based on keen senses. So it seems reasonable (not required, but reasonable) that the Black Pudding has some sort of Tremorsense (to detect movement) and some sort of very acute infrared detection; but not echolocation nor heightened senses.
So, it could be that standing still, or floating; will make it easier to hide from it. And/or doing something to mask your heat signature.
But being invisible will not help
Standing in a shadow will not help.
Being behind light foilage will not help. (unless the foilage can mask your heat somehow....)
Being in a heavy rain may work, since it may help mask both the movement vibrations and your heat.
The point is... the creatures don't need sight to perceive their environment, but they need *SOMETHING* to perceive their surroundings.... and if you can 'obscure' whatever they are using.... you can hide.
And *sometimes* the same things that obscure eyesight, can (coincidently) obscure blindsight.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
All I'm going to say to the last several posts is *big sigh* and stick to waiting for Jeremy's response.
Sent to @JeremyECrawford: Does Blindsight allow you to automatically see creatures using obscurement to hide in order to cause them to lose hidden?
Had to remove bracketed to get character length down.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lets take it to the next step. If you are on the other side of a 40 foot thick castle wall (1000' tall and 1000' to each side) can a bat 'see' you from the other side? What about a black pudding?
Coredump00 wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
This thread is difficult to follow.
What is the fundamental disagreement here?
Noctaem wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
There have been a lot of tweets from Jeremy Crawford but he has been on holidays and tweeted that he would answer all the rules questions when he returns. Not sure when.
I get it.
What Aaron is doing is arguing that Blindsight is essentially sight without sight. In other words, he's arguing that Blindsight merely allows you to see in the same way as normal sighted creatures (range aside) even though you would ordinarily be blind. This is what leads him to conclude that all Blindsight does is undo the Blind condition.
I feel this interpretation is flawed because it falls for the trap of assuming Blindsight works identically to sight. Sight works, in brief summary, because optic rays bounce off of our target and into our eyes. This explains why it is hard to see someone ducking behind a hedge but it is easy to see someone ducking in front of a hedge. Blindsight, on the other hand, does not necessarily work in the same way as regular sight. In other words, techniques that make you less visible to sighted creatures are not necessarily a hindrance to a creature with Blindsight. Hiding behind a hedge makes you more difficult to see, but it does not necessarily make it more difficult for you to be perceived by someone with Blindsight.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I don't personally think all blindsight is the same. For some creatures it could be echolocation where it's stopped by a glass wall (or deafness) others it could be thermal sense like the Predator movies that would be able to see right through light foliage. But that's just my take on it because the rules are pretty vague.
I'm curious about AaronOfBarbaria's stance because I'm not sure I understand it 100%.
But I'm ok with some disagreement on the topic, that's part of 5E.
Coredump00 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
That would make it a very powerful form of x-ray vision/perception. I would go with what the PHB p.183 says about heavily obscured - (walls, doors, anything solid) "blocks vision entirely".
El_Condoro wrote:
No, but I'm not sure of the play consequences of creatures being able to see/perceive through walls, either. Even the paladin's Divine Sense is thwarted by "total cover".
El_Condoro wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
I have no clue. I'd love to see some old school Ecology Of The... articles that delve into Blindsight a little.
Ganymede425 wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I don't understand why this thread is still going.
The wild elf can use Mask of the Wild to try to hide using light obscurement (caused by natural phenomena).
Blindsight lets you ignore light obscurement.
The wild elf cannot use Mask of the Wild try to hide from or remain hidden to a creature with blindsight. End of story.
5th Edition is supposed to be all about not being overly complicated. This thread is making this discussion overly complicated.
Mechanics (blindsight ignores light obscurement) trumps fluff (I'm gaining light oscurement from that bat by hiding in a bush.)
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
I agree with Noctaem although I think we get to the same conclusion from different angles.
Blindsight gives you examples including echolocation. Since they gave that as an example and echolocation is not defined in the book, we can ask "would light fog hinder echolocation in the real world." The answer is no. Fog hinders sight because it scatters visible light but does not have any significant effect on soundwaves.
A bat can perceive it's surroundings just as well in light fog as it can in pitch black darkness. Just because we don't have a shorthand word for "perceive it's surroundings" equivalent to "see" that doesn't imply relying on light doesn't mean that blindsight has no effect on how creature perceives the world. Obviously creatures with blindsight perceive the world differently or they wouldn't need the term.
So while blindsight does not specifically mention modifying obscurement it is logical to assume that obscurement dependent on affecting light will work differently.
[EDIT]
This doesn't necessarily cover all types of blindsight and for simplicity I would probably just treat blindsight like the old definition that Noctaem linked to. But I could see adding cool flavor to monsters with different types of blindsight if it makes sense for you as a DM in your campaign.
Undrhil wrote:
Sticking only by what the rules say, a light/heavy obscurement should be bypassed by blindsight since it either reduce your sight, or outright block it, while a monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight. In other words, a monster with blindsight can perceive lightly or heavily obscured creatures, which thus can't hide from it. PHB pg. 177 resumes it well;
What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.
Personally, I think the vagueness of it really opens doors for creative roleplaying.
Creature A has blindsight... it relies on smell. A player can attempt to hide from it by dispersing pepper/pollen/allergens into the air. Or maybe by smearing something onto themselves to mask their natural odor.
Creature B has blindsight... it relies on sensing vibrations through the ground. A player can cast fly to go undetected.
Creature C has blindsight... it relies on hearing. The player can set up some sort of noise making distraction or cast deafness on the creature, or cast silence on the area.
Creature D has blindsight... it supernaturally perceives life force. Nystul's Magic Aura maybe? Admittedly the spell doesn't specifically cover this, but it's the DM's world... I just live in it.
Treating all blindsight as the same is certainly an option. But applying some thought is also an option... The DM can consider things like this when they're creating the adventure. I would hope the DM considers stuff like this before the players do, but sometimes DMs can't think of everything.
I guess the variance in the topic is, as a DM, do you assume that all forms of "light obscurement" or "heavy obscurement" have to be visual obscurements? If a dog is tracking a character with its sense of smell, "hiding from sight" doesn't do much good. "hiding your scent" on the other hand, would actually be hiding from the dog.
For simplifications sake, you could argue that when a character attempts to hide, they're taking into consideration how the creature senses its surroundings and is consciously hiding in a way that would hide from that particular creature.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
I've come to the realization that some interpretations of blindsight seen in this thread would make it so that a creature under an invisibility spell would be perceived by a creature with blindsight, but one under the effects of gaseous form wouldn't.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
So if we're strictly discussing light or heavy [visual] obscurement, that's one thing... but not all obscurement needs to be visual obscurement. Blindsight allows a creature to perceive its surroundings by means other than sight. Such a creature, if dependent on hearing, would find a creature hiding in a area of a silence spell to be heavily [audible] obscured. A creature, if dependent on sense of touch, maybe tremorsense, would find a creature hiding by flying above the ground to be heavily [tactile] obscured.
A wood elf hiding from a blindsighted creature that relies on its sense of smell might successfully hide by obscuring their scent with the nearby plants. Not all natural phenomena are visual. Pollens and pheromones are natural and are detected by scent. Natural phenomena like thunder, waterfalls, or crashing waves could allow a wood elf to hide from a blindsighted creature reliant on hearing. As long as the natural phenomena provides light obscurement, the wood elf can attempt to hide.
I know that hunters typically disguise their own scent by using animal pheromones or will purposely position themselves downwind, or will bait an area with pheromones of the female of the species they are hunting. Seems in line with the game mechanics too.
Ganymede425 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I'm liking the way this thread is making people think creatively.
lawrencehoy wrote:
@JeremyECrawford Does Blindsight allow you to automatically see creatures using obscurement to hide in order to cause them to lose hidden?
@el_condoro An undistracted creature with blindsight does typically notice creatures who aren't behind cover.
El_Condoro wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
What I was saying was that, based on his comment, we have no information on how cover impacts a blindsighted creature.
Ganymede425 wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The intention of the question was whether obscurement as distinct from cover prevented blindsight. For example, an elf hiding in obscuring conditions would be seen by a creature with blindsight according to Crawford's response. I read the 'undistracted' aspect as being a creature that is looking in the direction of the obscured creature. Cover on the other hand blocks blindsight.
The wording wasn't mine as I was using someone's wording who doesn't use Twitter. Nocteaum? I actually think it's from another thread but couldn't find it.
El_Condoro wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Well it's good to know that we got the correct answer from Jeremy. Hope that answers it for everyone when it comes to blindsight and any form of obscurement/invisibility/stealth/hiding that does not involve cover. Of course it makes sense that blindsight doesn't let you see through a wall or other forms of things like that.
Noctaem wrote:
Am I nitpicky jerk for my dismay at the tweet discussing cover when we were interested in obscurement? HA!
No, because he basically supported what I have been saying... that something may have two different qualities.
If the *only* characteristic is visual obscurement (shadows) then of course blindsight will work. But some things that provide visual obscurement, also have other characteritics.... like 'foilage', it can provide visual obscurement, and it can provide cover.
Coredump00 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
When saying cover i'd expect its total cover no less i imagine, i hardly see a grimlock not able to pick your sent or a bat not able to echolocate you because you are behind an ally, tree trunk or porticullis for exemple as those sources of cover (half and three-quarter cover) do not cover you completly right?
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Simple, it gives you not only the answer to your question but also tels you what you CAN use to hide from blindsight should that be your goal: cover. And I find your example question about the rectangle pretty self serving 
As for people still having questions, I would venture to guess that no matter what answer he gave people would still have questions. Especially those like Ganymede who had a 3rd view of the game element being discussed. That it can be used even against cover.
And if something has worked a specific way for the last decade and it's now in question, it is relevant to point out that Blindsight has not bypassed cover at any point since it's creation IIRC. Especially after a game dev stated that you can use cover to hide from a blindsight using creature. But whatever
Former edition rules have no bearing on what the current edition rules actually say - even if they were clear and consistent about a particular element throughout.
It might help a DM make their own ruling on the matter, but that is a different thing than having any bearing whatsoever on what the actual rules text currently says.
Also, I find it to be a bit poor etiquette to imply that folks having questions as to why one type of physical obstactle to senses, cover, is effective against blindsight but other types of physical obstacle to senses, obscurement because of foliage for example, are being said are ineffective against blindsight wouldn't accept any answer.
I'd accept any answer that seemed to actually be consistent according to some logic - which I think is being prevented entirely by the fact that "there isn't any light in here" and "there are objects between my sensory organs and the thing I am trying to sense, but the objects happen to not be an actual wall" are being treated as the same sort of impediment, rather than treating all objects that might be blocking a creature's senses as the same type of thing and lack of the phenomena your senses operate by (light to see, air for soundwaves to travel through so you can hear, and so on) as a different thing.
At my table I would do the same Aaron, where the rulings of the individual DM matter in the determination of how things work. However here, saying that leaves provide cover (basically are able to stop attacks like a wall or a boulder) is simply not what the text says. Folliage, rain and the like are said to be light obscurement. And rain wouldn't stop a sword from stabbing you, but it might stop someone from effectively being able to see you, hence obscurement and not cover. Same for folliage, a leaf can't stop a sword, but it might give penalties to the person making the attack against you since they can't clearly see you.
I agree that there is a distinction between things which can't stop an attack but do hinder vision (or other senses as the case may be) and things which can stop an attack and also hinder vision (or, again, other senses).
My issue is that while 1 leaf hanging on a twiggy little stem can't stop an attack, an array of leaves not quite as dense as a hedge can.
And the amount of leaves necessary for providing obscurement to a medium, or even small, sized creature is likewise greater than 1 but less than an entire hedge.
Where my issue with blindsight perfectly piercing obscurement of all types, rather than just being better at doing so than normal senses, lies is in the idea that no creature with blindsight would notice a bunch of leaves and in doing so become less likely to notice the elf beyond them. Instead I am being told either A) blindsight never fails to perfectly discern "some plants" from "some plants and an elf" or B) blindsight can't actually perceive the parts of plants which are less densely arranged than hedges and tree trunks, and I am unsatisfied with either answer.
Of course, at this point I am simply saying that if the official stance is truly meant to be that blindsight perfectly trumps all forms of obscurement short of cover then I am going to deviate from the official stance on this matter, and will provide any encouragement to do likewise that other DMs come seeking should they share my opinion on this topic.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
It will be interesting to see if we get a column (not just tweets) that cover some of these issues. There seems to be a relatively small handful of issues that are not spelled out very clearly.
I don't have a problem with that, and personally I would rule that different types of blindsight handle cover and obscurement differently, but it could be a bit overwhelming for new DMs. Especially if they come to this forum looking for advice only to get: 
Noctaem wrote:
leaves and thin branches do a pretty good job of stopping some attacks. Definitely make it harder to hit someone....
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote: