Does the Blind fighting Fighting Style negate Sunlight Sensitivity?

[prototype00]

Just as said in the title, has it been hashed out if the Blind Fighting Fighting Style from Tasha’s does anything for races with Sunlight Sensitivity?

[Chad.e.clark]

Nothing keeping you from closing your eyes and inflicting the blind status on yourself, I suppose.

[prototype00]

That’s the general idea, you close your eyes and cut sight completely out of the equation. Does that negate the penalties you get from sunlight sensitivity?

[Kylar0990]

That’s the general idea, you close your eyes and cut sight completely out of the equation. Does that negate the penalties you get from sunlight sensitivity?

As long as you are within 10 feet of your attacker that should work. Beyond 10 feet you'd be blinded so any attacks made outside that range against you would be at advantage because you can't see it coming.

[prototype00]

The main issue is I’ve seen some people parsing sunlight sensitivity as some mystic allergy and that just standing in the sun (or if your target is standing in the sun) is enough to give you the disadvantage to attack rolls, blind fighting or no blind fighting.

It seems a bit of a stretch to me, which is why I thought I’d check in here afore I got too much further with any builds.

[Lycurgon]

RAW, Sunlight Sensitivity can be read as either applying to all attack rolls, as well as Wisdom perception checks that rely on sight, if the sunlight conditions are met; or as applying to attacks that rely on sight and wisdom perception checks that rely on sight, if the sunlight conditions are met. Both are valid interpretations based on the language used.

So you would really need to check with your DM which way they are going to rule it.

[greenstone]

The image of an underdark creature deliberately blindfolding itself to fight in sunlight sounds atmospheric. I think I'm going to include that in an upcoming scene.

[Dark.Revenant]

Sunlight Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

Grammar colored for emphasis. Rules As Written (RAW), you still have disadvantage in sunlight (on attack rolls, specifically), even if you pluck your own eyes out and take the Blind Fighting style. Sunlight Sensitivity is not a type of special sense that's listed in the "senses" section of a stat block; it's a drawback that affects all senses, even if it violates biomechanics.

Edit: see below

[kingcheesepants]

Sunlight Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

Grammar colored for emphasis. Rules As Written (RAW), you still have disadvantage in sunlight (on attack rolls, specifically), even if you pluck your own eyes out and take the Blind Fighting style. Sunlight Sensitivity is not a type of special sense that's listed in the "senses" section of a stat block; it's a drawback that affects all senses, even if it violates biomechanics.

Are you completely ignoring the "that rely on sight" part of the description? That clause modifies both attack rolls and wisdom (perception) checks. Attacks with Blind Fighting do not rely on sight. Therefore being in sunlight or not is irrelevant if you are blind.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sunlight Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

Grammar colored for emphasis. Rules As Written (RAW), you still have disadvantage in sunlight, even if you pluck your own eyes out and take the Blind Fighting style. Sunlight Sensitivity is not a type of special sense that's listed in the "senses" section of a stat block; it's a drawback that affects all senses, even if it violates biomechanics.

It's not a stretch to say that it could also mean disadvantage on attack rolls that rely on sight.


Are you completely ignoring the relies on sight part of the description, or is there something there that overrides that aspect of it? Attacks with Blind Fighting do not rely on sight. Therefore being in sunlight or not is irrelevant if you are blind.

They seem to be separating "attack rolls" from "wisdom (perception checks)" in regards to what is given disadvantage while relying on sight. It's not an incorrect way to read this, we can only assume which is the intended one.

[Dark.Revenant]

Are you completely ignoring the relies on sight part of the description, or is there something there that overrides that aspect of it? Attacks with Blind Fighting do not rely on sight. Therefore being in sunlight or not is irrelevant if you are blind.


It's not a stretch to say that it could also mean disadvantage on attack rolls that rely on sight.

I'll repeat since you replied before I edited:

If the designer had written "You have disadvantage on attack rolls and Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight", omitting the additional "or" and thus making the whole phrase just one prepositional phrase, then "that rely on sight" would indeed apply to the attack rolls as well, and Blind Fighting would work as you desire. But they didn't, and it doesn't.

[kingcheesepants]

I'll repeat since you replied before I edited:

If the designer had written "You have disadvantage on attack rolls and Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight", omitting the additional "or" and thus making the whole phrase just one prepositional phrase, then "that rely on sight" would indeed apply to the attack rolls as well, and Blind Fighting would work as you desire. But they didn't, and it doesn't.

What additional or, the one about the thing you're trying to perceive? I don't see how that's relevant. The description is literally
Sunlight Sensitivity. You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight. The "rely on sight" language is applying to both the attack rolls and perception checks. Therefore if either your attack roll or perception check is not relying on sight it is not modified by sunlight sensitivity.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'll repeat since you replied before I edited:

If the designer had written "You have disadvantage on attack rolls and Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight", omitting the additional "or" and thus making the whole phrase just one prepositional phrase, then "that rely on sight" would indeed apply to the attack rolls as well, and Blind Fighting would work as you desire. But they didn't, and it doesn't.

I don't really follow the logic here, these aren't mutually exclusive clauses, it's just a list of things that will trigger your disadvantage. You have A (disadvantage) when B (these conditions are met).

Could you write down exactly how you claim the phrase needs to be written here, because simply removing the "or" doesn't read well.

[Lavaeolus]

What additional or, the one about the thing you're trying to perceive? I don't see how that's relevant.

Think it was a typo for 'on': "disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks..."

Whether that makes a difference linguistically is something I'm neutral on. RAI to me it indicates that they're more likely to be separate clauses than had it not been there, but whether it actually makes a difference literally is something I'd have to think on.

[Dark.Revenant]

What additional or

Typo; sorry. Meant "on".

[ProsecutorGodot]

Think it was a typo for 'on': "disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks..."

Whether that makes a difference linguistically is something I'm neutral on. RAI to me it indicates that they're more likely to be separate clauses than had it not been there, but whether it actually makes a difference literally is something I'd have to think on.

Ah, that does seem to be the case. I don't see how it makes any difference here but that at least clears up the confusion.

[JNAProductions]

I'd also like to point out that 5E is not meant to be read like computer code. It's meant to be parsed naturally.

Speaking of which, as a DM, I'd be fine with you closing your eyes to negate the disadvantage, provided they're within Blindsight range.

[JonBeowulf]

Short and sweet... I've got no problem allowing that. You took something to help deal with a negative but not completely remove it.

[kingcheesepants]

Ah alright, well I can see your point now certainly with on in front of each part one can legitimately read it that way. However I still think the most natural reading is to see the relies on sight clause as applying to both the attack rolls and the perception checks. But it's definitely a gray area that a DM will have to rule on.

[Dark.Revenant]

I'd say it does make a difference because of precedent. Various 5e books like the Monster Manual use the phrases "Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight", Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing", and "Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing or sight" quite often, but I am having trouble coming up with any example that explicitly references attacks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'd say it does make a difference because of precedent. Various 5e books like the Monster Manual use the phrases "Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight", Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing", and "Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing or sight" quite often, but I am having trouble coming up with any example that explicitly references attacks.

I've been trying to find an example to compare it to, I think this might be one of the only (possible the only) ability that uses wording like this.

I don't think anything other than Frightened really references it, but the wording isn't directly comparable, it's much broader and only has a single qualifying condition.

EDIT: Just a fun fact I've noticed while poking around, Sunlight Sensitivity is another feature that follows different restrictions for PC and NPC. NPC with the feature are only penalized when they themselves are in sunlight, they can perceive and attack targets from outside it regularly even if the target is in sunlight.

[Yakmala]

Personally, as a DM I'd allow this to work, as long as whatever you were attacking or trying to perceive was within blindsight range. Kobolds have sensitive eyes due to being adapted as a species to underground environments. They're not vampires that burn when exposed to the sun. If the player wants to use one of their ASI's on this feat to overcome a situational racial disadvantage so be it.

[Luccan]

The main issue is I’ve seen some people parsing sunlight sensitivity as some mystic allergy and that just standing in the sun (or if your target is standing in the sun) is enough to give you the disadvantage to attack rolls, blind fighting or no blind fighting.

It seems a bit of a stretch to me, which is why I thought I’d check in here afore I got too much further with any builds.

Taking the sunlight line literally, it seems pretty mystical. You don't get the penalty in bright light, you get it in sunlight specifically. So that interpretation actually seems totally valid, even if I personally wouldn't use it.

[Greywander]

If this did work, there would be no need to blind yourself. Blind Fighting gives you blindsight out to 10 feet, whether or not you are blinded, so you could use your blindsight instead of your normal sight to make attacks, just like you can use your blindsight to detect invisible creatures. There are a few creatures that are blind beyond the range of their blindsight, such as most oozes, but most creatures with blindsight have normal vision in addition to blindsight.

That said, the Blind Fighting style would certainly be a lot more interesting if it required you to be blinded to work. Blindsight is very strong if you can create some kind of obscurement, as with a Fog Cloud. It would be quite thematic to blindfold yourself when you suspect an invisible creature is near, or when you plan to drop some obscurement. If you fight exclusively in melee and pick up the Alert feat, you don't really need to ever take off the blindfold, either (though deafening you would prevent you from knowing where anyone beyond 10 feet is).

That said, I fear Dark.Revenant is right: by strict RAW, you'd still have disadvantage on your attack rolls. Here's the problem, as noted by Dark.Revenant regarding the additional "on":

You have disadvantage on{ attack rolls } and on{ Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight } when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

The "on" acts like an opening bracket in coding, marking the beginning of an argument, and the "and" symbolizes that the argument has ended as is to be combined with a second argument. If the second "on" was dropped, then it would all be a single argument, like so:

You have disadvantage on{ attack rolls and Wisdom (Perception) checks } that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

So it seems that you'd always have disadvantage on your attacks in sunlight. That said, this doesn't feel like it's RAI to me, so I would allow blindsight or other non-visual senses to bypass Sunlight Sensitivity. It does feel like the intention was that it just makes it hard to see, which hurts both your perception and your attacks, but if you have a way to attack without needing to see then it should work.

[kingcheesepants]

The more I think about it the more I start to think that Sunlight Sensitivity really needs a full rewording. In addition to the ambiguity of whether it's disadvantage on attacks or disadvantage on attacks that rely on sight. There's the weirdness that bright light doesn't trigger the sensitivity only the sun and only when it's direct (which is a whole other can of worms). I think it's clear enough that it's supposed to show subterranean creatures as having particularly sensitive eyes but it doesn't really do that as is.

If I were to rework the trait I'd probably say something along the lines of
Light Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls that rely on sight and ability checks that rely on sight if you or the creature/object you are attempting to perceive is in bright light.

[Greywander]

That's a terrible idea because bright light is exceedingly common, while sunlight is bothersome but not too hard to avoid.

By "direct" it just means that things in the shade don't count, nor does a cloudy day affect you. If you or your target can't directly see the sun (assuming you're not blind or anything) then sunlight sensitivity has no effect.

How I would have done it is to have more brightness levels. For example, perhaps sunlight is Brilliant Light, which is fine for surface dwellers but not fine for cave dwellers. At one point, I was working on a homebrew that was supposed to expand the rules around stealth and senses, and I had seven different brightness levels. I'm not saying it should be that extreme, but a couple more would have allowed them to do more things with brightness.

[kingcheesepants]

That's a terrible idea because bright light is exceedingly common, while sunlight is bothersome but not too hard to avoid.

By "direct" it just means that things in the shade don't count, nor does a cloudy day affect you. If you or your target can't directly see the sun (assuming you're not blind or anything) then sunlight sensitivity has no effect.

How I would have done it is to have more brightness levels. For example, perhaps sunlight is Brilliant Light, which is fine for surface dwellers but not fine for cave dwellers. At one point, I was working on a homebrew that was supposed to expand the rules around stealth and senses, and I had seven different brightness levels. I'm not saying it should be that extreme, but a couple more would have allowed them to do more things with brightness.

You're right that bright light is more common than direct sunlight and that tying it to bright light rather than sunlight makes it much more debilitating, I'm just trying to make it a little more logical and consistent. Your idea of adding additional brightness levels is a good one and I think that really they have defacto done that here already. By making direct sunlight the only trigger for the trait they are effectively telling us that such light is brighter than bright light. If we spell that out explicitly by adding a Brilliant brightness level and then maybe have a couple other spells (sunburst and daylight for example) shed this level of light and maybe add a few other creatures or abilities that make use of this level of lighting. Well then we're well on our way to having a more consistent and logical world without doing too much overhauling of our base rules. So our lighting levels at that point would be brilliant-bright-dim-dark and the trait would be as I spelled out above but replacing bright with brilliant.

[Witty Username]

Sunlight Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when
Edit: see below

I will point out a lack of comma in that sentence, if it was
"You have disadvantage on attack rolls, and on Wisdom checks that rely on sight" you would be correct.
However, there is no comma so it is effectively
"You have disadvantage on attack rolls that rely on sight and on Wisdom checks that rely on sight"

[Elandel]

So. Many. Ideas.

Never thought about that! :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

If you chose to wear a blindfold and take the fighting style to counteract sunlight sensitivity I'd allow it as DM, that sounds fun and engaging.
You'd still have to contend with failing sight-related ability checks but I think that's part of the charm, no?

[PhantomSoul]

I will point out a lack of comma in that sentence, if it was
"You have disadvantage on attack rolls, and on Wisdom checks that rely on sight" you would be correct.
However, there is no comma so it is effectively
"You have disadvantage on attack rolls that rely on sight and on Wisdom checks that rely on sight"

Without a comma it's ambiguous; the alternative (i.e. with comma) being unambiguous doesn't change that.

[Kylar0990]

If you chose to wear a blindfold and take the fighting style to counteract sunlight sensitivity I'd allow it as DM, that sounds fun and engaging.
You'd still have to contend with failing sight-related ability checks but I think that's part of the charm, no?

I still think people are ignoring how big a disadvantage you'd be putting yourself to anything that can attack you from range. Beyond 10 feet you're blind so anyone who attacks you at distance does so with advantage.

[Kane0]

A problem, but not an insurmountable one. Fog Cloud and Warding Wind would be quite desirable.

[prototype00]

Amusingly, this makes Drizzt’s fighting style from the early books (where he would Darkness a group and then go in and slaughter everyone) eminently emulatable. (Before I always thought it was a disingenuous bending of the rules)

[Man_Over_Game]

Thinking about it, they could have just treated it as "You are considered Blinded for your attack rolls, or making Wisdom (Perception) checks, while in Bright Sunlight". Does the exact same rules, doesn't even apply in an oppressive way (like day-to-day stuff or for defense) since it only applies when you're doing those two things.

With that interpretation, I'd say Blindsight should work.

And, let's be real here. You're either playing in a scenario where it's not a problem when playing those races, or your DM gave you special goggles so it doesn't matter anyway. Giving the player the power to deal with their problems is how you let them keep them.

[Quietus]

Thinking about it, they could have just treated it as "You are considered Blinded for your attack rolls, or making Wisdom (Perception) checks, while in Bright Sunlight". Does the exact same rules, doesn't even apply in an oppressive way (like day-to-day stuff or for defense) since it only applies when you're doing those two things.

With that interpretation, I'd say Blindsight should work.

And, let's be real here. You're either playing in a scenario where it's not a problem when playing those races, or your DM gave you special goggles so it doesn't matter anyway. Giving the player the power to deal with their problems is how you let them keep them.

There are plenty of tables out there that wouldn't just hand out an item to negate that disadvantage. AL in its entirety doesn't offer any way to get past sunlight sensitivity, unless your DM interprets blindsight favorably as some people are arguing here.

[anthon]

if the target is only your eyes, then it works like this

the shock/pain of bright sunlight is not the same as not seeing. its the same as being irritated/allergies. So you would have to blindfold yourself to negate the pain/revulsion.

if the target is your whole body, like say, classical vampire burning skin sensitivity, or some kind of "shadow" creature, then a blindfold would be insufficient. Dark mummy like wrappings similar to Doom Patrol guy would be needed, covering at least 90% of the body, especially hands, feet, and head, like you would normally use to protect someone from the arctic cold.

Completely cover your body, and your whole body sunlight sensitivity could also be overcome.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are plenty of tables out there that wouldn't just hand out an item to negate that disadvantage.

Sure, but how many people are playing these races in those tables?

[Quietus]

Sure, but how many people are playing these races in those tables?

Kobolds are extremely common, from my limited experience. People love the little buggers, and they make incredibly effective sharpshooters. Can't say I've seen any drow, duergar, or svirfneblin.

Honestly, kind of makes me want to do a dex-based drow eldritch knight, with blindsight and fog cloud. Possibly with that Dark Elf Magic feat.