Spells with "target that you can see" in Heavy Obscured area with Blindsight

[Deen]

This question rised for me on last session so I want to ask forum about it.

We have enemy caster, who has 60 feet Blindsight. Blindsight description says "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"

Now we surround that enemy caster with Fog Cloud or Darkness. He wants to cast Disintegrate which has the following requirement "target that you can see"

Question is: Does he SEE? - Becasue Blindsight is using OTHER senses than sight to locate enemy. You can thanks to that attack with advantage vs enemies that can't see through heavy obscure/magical darkness but you really don't use your eyes/sight. So you don't really SEE them, you are still blind, it just doesn't impact you becasue you can use other senses, you perceive them through other senses. But you don't "see".

So with RAW: can he target anyone with Disintegrate while being inside Fog Cloud?

[Kane0]

No idea about RAW, but if I were DM i'd say yes. The PCs could pull the same trick using say for example an Eldritch Knight with the Blindsight fighting style.

Edit: My reasoning being that spells that specify 'you can see' is meant along the lines of 'you can accurately perceive' but is worded that way because the spells were written with PCs in mind, and PCs have eyes that are their primary means of perceiving things. Blindsight is specifically all about perceiving things by means other than sight.
For another example, say for example a grimlock tribe has a shaman. Grimlocks don't have eyes and cannot see, but I would argue the shaman should still be able to cast those spells just fine as long as they could accurately pick out the target within their 'vision'.

[da newt]

By strict RAW - no. The caster can sense where the target is, but cannot SEE them which the spell requires.

The same would hold true for targeting an invisible creature - even if you know exactly where it is (smell, hear, see foot prints, whatever) you cannot target it with a spell that requires you to SEE the target.

But I'd think a ruling that you can target what you can sense with blindsight / tremor sense etc with spells that require "a target you can see" would be very reasonable as long as it was applied universally.

[MaxWilson]

No idea about RAW, but if I were DM i'd say yes. The PCs could pull the same trick using say for example an Eldritch Knight with the Blindsight fighting style.

Personally I go even further and prefer to treat "target you can see" as "target in a known location to whom you have line of sight." If you're grappling an invisible man, can you Magic Missile him? Max Wilson as DM says yes.

[Deen]

No idea about RAW, but if I were DM i'd say yes. The PCs could pull the same trick using say for example an Eldritch Knight with the Blindsight fighting style.


Personally I go even further and prefer to treat "target you can see" as "target in a known location to whom you have line of sight." If you're grappling an invisible man, can you Magic Missile him? Max Wilson as DM says yes.



I think that's not the case becasue that's what Devil's Sight does when you use it with Darkness. See description of Devil's Sight: "You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical"

You can see. It says in Devil's Sight.

So if you do Darkness + Devil's Sight you can SEE target and use "can see" spells.

But Blindsight says nothing that you can see, just that you can perceive enemies without using sight. So it works with attacks like melee and range but spells have specific requirements which is "see".

[ff7hero]

Personally I go even further and prefer to treat "target you can see" as "target in a known location to whom you have line of sight." If you're grappling an invisible man, can you Magic Missile him? Max Wilson as DM says yes.

Would you allow someone to cast Magic Missile on a Mind Spike'd target in the middle of a Fog Cloud? Curious as to whether you mean line of sight or line of effect (not 5e terms AFAIK, but I feel the difference is clear enough).

[Dark.Revenant]

There are sightless creatures that can only use blindsight, are explicitly blinded beyond their blindsight range, and that have abilities and spells that explicitly require being able to 'see' things. Therefore I think it's hard to argue that blindsight isn't mechanically equivalent to seeing things normally.

[ff7hero]

There are sightless creatures that can only use blindsight, are explicitly blinded beyond their blindsight range, and that have abilities and spells that explicitly require being able to 'see' things. Therefore I think it's hard to argue that blindsight isn't mechanically equivalent to seeing things normally.

Save me flipping randomly through the MM with an example?

[Kane0]

Would you allow someone to cast Magic Missile on a Mind Spike'd target in the middle of a Fog Cloud? Curious as to whether you mean line of sight or line of effect (not 5e terms AFAIK, but I feel the difference is clear enough).

I'm not Maxwilson but I would. You need to see/perceive the target to tag them with Mind Spike in the first place, and knowing their location is specifically the effect of the spell.
I'd let that work by my own reasoning above for spell targeting as long as line of effect is maintained.


Save me flipping randomly through the MM with an example?
Grimlocks, though I don't know if any have spellcasting in their default statblocks.
Edit again: Wait, elder brains are eyeless and can cast spells like Detect Thoughts and Dominate Monster

[MaxWilson]

Would you allow someone to cast Magic Missile on a Mind Spike'd target in the middle of a Fog Cloud? Curious as to whether you mean line of sight or line of effect (not 5e terms AFAIK, but I feel the difference is clear enough).

Sure. I'd even let you cast at a target in a location you were only guessing at, but if you're wrong, the spell is wasted.

[Gignere]

Intellect devourers their abilities said creatures they can see but they only have blindsight.

So I think RAW blindsight is equivalent to seeing.

[Deen]

Intellect devourers their abilities said creatures they can see but they only have blindsight.

So I think RAW blindsight is equivalent to seeing.

This is first example that somehow gets us close to RAW but on the other hand you have RAW description of Blindsight and there is nothing there about seeing. It can be as well another mistake by designers, but you still get a point becasue it's something! :)

[Addaran]

Not sure about RAW, but i'd like something like that work for sure.

I also find "target that you can see" really stupid in cases like disintegrate where it's a ray. Those should be guessable spell where you just spray and pray. Something more like heat metal where you concentrate on the object to heat it, i'd say you can't guess. Auto-hit like magic missiles too i'd say you need to see, for fairness since you can't have disadvantage.

[Lunali]

Blindsight lets you treat it as if you see them, blindsense (such as from 14 rogue) does not.

[Kane0]

Well, tis in the name as well to be fair. Probably an oversight on the Dev's part due to trying to interweave game terminology with standard speak.

[Deen]

Blindsight lets you treat it as if you see them, blindsense (such as from 14 rogue) does not.

Again, RAW Blindisight "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius"

Hearing, smelling, sensing etc. is not seeing.

Spells don't say "target you can perceive", but "traget you can see".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm totally ok with saying blindsight is close enough to count as sight. I don't see a point in trying to do a close parse and pull out tiny differences.

[Kane0]

Again, RAW Blindisight "A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius"

Hearling, smelling, sensing etc. is not seeing.

Could also be read as:
Blindsight: You can see without seeing within a specific radius.

5e tends to be much less focused on precise wording, it's best not to get too hung up on it.

[Deen]

I'm totally ok with saying blindsight is close enough to count as sight. I don't see a point in trying to do a close parse and pull out tiny differences.

I have nothing against such rulling, but I try to find RAW conclusion, not RAI.

[JNAProductions]

I have nothing against such rulling, but I try to find RAW conclusion, not RAI.

Why? What do you gain by sticking to strict RAW when RAI is clear and RAF is right there?

[Deen]

Why? What do you gain by sticking to strict RAW when RAI is clear and RAF is right there?

Um, becasue I just want to know and that was the question in my first post? I can RAI what I want, but I always prefer to know RAW first and also it's interesting to uncover rules.

[Kane0]

Um, becasue I just want to know and that was the question in my first post? I can RAI what I want, but I always prefer to know RAW first and also it's interesting to uncover rules.

RAW, Blindsight doesn't let you see anything, and spells specify 'see'.

But as we've stated, rarely does that interpretation happen at the table.

[Tanarii]

If it's a creature with native blindsight and a spell on its list that requires sight? I probably wouldn't even notice the Dev mistake when doing the write up.

If it was a homebrew enemy or one that somehow gained blindsight, I'd go with nope, it's not sight.

The spells in question don't require merely perceiving the enemy. And IMO if they did, there'd be a whole set of rules tying them into Wisdom (Perception) checks, as well as far more detailed rules on detecting/hearing things.

[Kane0]

The spells in question don't require merely perceiving the enemy. And IMO if they did, there'd be a whole set of rules tying them into Wisdom (Perception) checks, as well as far more detailed rules on detecting/hearing things.

Ain't that a can of worms. The rules don't tell you how far you can see and hear normally, not to mention any other factors that would be involved. And there's the problem of peripheral vision, seeing things behind you, etc.

I think that's why I prefer to describe it to include with some form of 'accurately' phrasing to differentiate from 'merely perceiving', much like the difference between blindsight and blindsense.

[Tanarii]

Ain't that a can of worms. The rules don't tell you how far you can see and hear normally, not to mention any other factors that would be involved. And there's the problem of peripheral vision, seeing things behind you, etc.Sight is 2 miles unless limited by light source or obstacles. Per the DMG.

But in addition to the 360 vision in combat, there's also a question of noticing things / being able to pick them out accurately. For spells in combat range (as opposed to a mile away), not usually an issue. But it might a reasonable question be if it's Dim Light or lightly concealed.

Agreed on hearing, other than Thunderwave and Knock, it's really lacking.

[Dark.Revenant]

The real reason that it says "a creature that you can see" rather than "a creature that you can directly perceive with one of your senses":

It's pedantic. "see" is just three characters, compared to forty-one characters including an adverb, a prepositional phrase, and some set notation while we're at it. Not only would it be harder to parse while reading a spell, it would also need to be duplicated many, many times, leading to multiple wasted pages throughout a PHB-sized book.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The real reason that it says "a creature that you can see" rather than "a creature that you can directly perceive with one of your senses":

It's pedantic. "see" is just three characters, compared to forty-one characters including an adverb, a prepositional phrase, and some set notation while we're at it. Not only would it be harder to parse while reading a spell, it would also need to be duplicated many, many times, leading to multiple wasted pages throughout a PHB-sized book.



5e tends to be much less focused on precise wording, it's best not to get too hung up on it.

These. 5e rejects the "close parsing"/"precise wording" canons of construction so prevalent in 3e. Read for meaning, don't parse words and phrases to find edges and corner cases. Then things will flow way better and you'll find that the rules make way more sense.

[Tanarii]

The real reason that it says "a creature that you can see" rather than "a creature that you can directly perceive with one of your senses":

It's pedantic. "see" is just three characters, compared to forty-one characters including an adverb, a prepositional phrase, and some set notation while we're at it. Not only would it be harder to parse while reading a spell, it would also need to be duplicated many, many times, leading to multiple wasted pages throughout a PHB-sized book.

These. 5e rejects the "close parsing"/"precise wording" canons of construction so prevalent in 3e. Read for meaning, don't parse words and phrases to find edges and corner cases. Then things will flow way better and you'll find that the rules make way more sense.
Then they would work against Invisible creatures, or ones in a Fog Cloud, or in darkness. That's a major buff to all those spells. It's not just pedantry / parsing. There's a big difference.

Now if you want to object to reading blindsight too closely as pedantry / parsing, I won't object.

[verbatim]

Intellect devourers their abilities said creatures they can see but they only have blindsight.

So I think RAW blindsight is equivalent to seeing.

Whether we count this as RAI or RAW I think it should be enough to settle the matter at hand.

[Chronos]

Quoth Tanarii:

Sight is 2 miles unless limited by light source or obstacles. Per the DMG.
Unless you're an eagle totem barbarian, in which case the distance you can see is extended to a mile.

[Merudo]

A relevant Jeremy Crawford tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/972239019642781697), for what it is worth:

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

[Deen]

A relevant Jeremy Crawford tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/972239019642781697), for what it is worth:

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

Nice find!

[RSP]

I’m pretty sure the reason for “sight” spells is to be a limiting factor on magic. I’d not trash that just to do so.

I’m my book, and what I believe to be RAW, no, you can’t cast at a target unless you can actually see them.

I’m fine finagling monsters who abilities don’t make so that they make sense, but I’m not allowing OAs, or spells from PCs that require sight; to target those you can’t see.

[MaxWilson]

Unless you're an eagle totem barbarian, in which case the distance you can see is extended to a mile.

"Eagle. You gain the eyesight of an eagle. You can see up to 1 mile away with no difficulty, able to discern even fine details as though looking at something no more than 100 feet away from you."

Anyone can see up to a mile or two, but an Eagle Totem barb might be able to read your lips from a mile away.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I’m pretty sure the reason for “sight” spells is to be a limiting factor on magic. I’d not trash that just to do so.

I’m my book, and what I believe to be RAW, no, you can’t cast at a target unless you can actually see them.

Jeremy Crawford has already clarified that the distinction between "perceiving" and "seeing" is a distinction without a difference.

If, as others oft claim, that there is no separation between "flavor text" and "rules text"...the fact the ability is called "Blindsight" and not "Blindsense" or "Echolocation" is a good indicator that "Blindsight" is analogous to "seeing".

Tasha's also introduces the Blind Fighting style, which as the latest bit of rules, clarifies explicitly that Blindsight is to be treated like sight, vis a vis rules interactions.

BLIND FIGHTING
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.

I support others decisions on how to run their game. Yet, if a Spell Casting Dragon can't cast spells via BlindSight but an Eldritch Knight with Blind Fighting can...even though both have Blindsight...then I think the referee has fallen into a Pedantry Trap.

[Tanarii]

Jeremy Crawford has already clarified that the distinction between "perceiving" and "seeing" is a distinction without a difference.
If that's what he said, he's wrong. Because you can perceive something by hearing, touch, taste, smell, or (in D&D) possibly some extra-sensory method via magic/psionics.

Sight and perceiving are different things.

Which doesn't necessarily have bearing on the developer RAI for Blindsight. But I'd hope that wasn't the basis for the RAI, because it'd be a mistake in that case.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Sight and perceiving are different things.


I agree with you in terms of the real world. In game terms, the position is, alas, missing the mark. Blindsight is intended to be Extra Special Sight.

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

That is the intent of behind Blindsight, and how the rule should have been written. The writing in 5e rules leaves much to be desired.

[Kane0]

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

That is the intent of behind Blindsight, and how the rule should have been written. The writing in 5e rules leaves much to be desired.

Indeed, quite often just a single word can make all the difference

[Tanarii]

I agree with you in terms of the real world. In game terms, the position is, alas, missing the mark. Blindsight is intended to be Extra Special Sight.

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

That is the intent of behind Blindsight, and how the rule should have been written. The writing in 5e rules leaves much to be desired.In that case, the rule for blindsight is written wrong. Because 5e game terms are supposed to use the common meaning of the words.

I checked out the thread, and further down the chain Crawford even is quoted on his early tweet that "Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English. #DnD"

In other words, per his own earlier tweet, the RAW written for blindsight appears to contradict his later tweet that it qualifies for sight.

[Rukelnikov]

The pedantic reading that blindSIGHT doesn't allow you to see, means that every creature that relies solely on blindsight always attacks with disadvantage, since by the unseen attackers rules, enemies are always unseen. Just pointing it out for those that want to "stick to RAW"

"Unseen Attackers and Targets PHB p194

Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

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."

[Thunderous Mojo]

In that case, the rule for blindsight is written wrong. Because 5e game terms are supposed to use the common meaning of the words.

.....edit.......
In other words, per his own earlier tweet, the RAW written for blindsight appears to contradict his later tweet that it qualifies for sight.

So despite that in the original MM Blindsight write up, the word "perceive" could mean and has been clarified by the game's Lead Designer was meant to convey "perceive better than with sight".

So despite the fact that Tashas's Cauldron of Everything clarified that Blindsight does indeed count as 'sight' and 'seeing' vis a vis spells and other rules interactions...
........your response is to state "the rules are wrong".

Okay...this is completely within you rights as a DM.

Many players wouldn't mind since in effect you would only be nerfing Non Player Blindsight, as the Blind Fighting style text is clear that a PC can use Blindsight to cast spells as if they were 'seeing'.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.

[RSP]

Jeremy Crawford has already clarified that the distinction between "perceiving" and "seeing" is a distinction without a difference.


I, nor RAW, care about what Crawford tweets. By all means, use it if you want, but you may find your rules changing back and forth a bit, and not really making sense too much of the time.

[da newt]

The below is from the SAC #2 so I think that makes it official.

Can a blinded creature make an opportunity attack?
An opportunity attack is triggered by “a hostile creature you
can see” (PH, 195). If you can’t see an enemy, you can’t
make an opportunity attack against it. Creatures with
blindsight are an exception to this rule, because that ability lets
those creatures “see” within a certain radius.

[Tanarii]

The pedantic reading that blindSIGHT doesn't allow you to see, means that every creature that relies solely on blindsight always attacks with disadvantage, since by the unseen attackers rules, enemies are always unseen. Just pointing it out for those that want to "stick to RAW"
Good catch.

They really should have written blindsight more clearly, and stated outright that it functionally counts as sight for all rules purposes.

[Chronos]

Yes, they should have, except that one of the design goals of this edition was to avoid clear language.

[Segev]

If that's what he said, he's wrong. Because you can perceive something by hearing, touch, taste, smell, or (in D&D) possibly some extra-sensory method via magic/psionics.

Sight and perceiving are different things.

Which doesn't necessarily have bearing on the developer RAI for Blindsight. But I'd hope that wasn't the basis for the RAI, because it'd be a mistake in that case.

I believe what he's getting at isn't saying that "perception is sight" in a real-world sense, or even that "perception is sight" in the sense that something that restricts sight restricts perception in D&D, but rather, he's saying that, whenever something says you "need to see" a target, if you can perceive it, that's sufficient.

Technically, that's wrong, too, if you carry it out logically, because that means you can OA anything that isn't actively hidden, and concealment does nothing if you're not hidden, etc.

I suspect, given context, however, that what he's truly trying to say is that, if you have any sense that lets you see-without-seeing, it counts for targeting things that require you to "see" the target. i.e., he's saying that blindsight works for "seeing" for purposes of targeting.

Now, I don't put a ton of weight behind his tweets, so take it as you will. I do happen to agree with him, here, though.

[Tanarii]

I believe what he's getting at isn't saying that "perception is sight" in a real-world sense, or even that "perception is sight" in the sense that something that restricts sight restricts perception in D&D, but rather, he's saying that, whenever something says you "need to see" a target, if you can perceive it, that's sufficient.

Technically, that's wrong, too, if you carry it out logically, because that means you can OA anything that isn't actively hidden, and concealment does nothing if you're not hidden, etc.Thats not just technically wrong, it's a major rules change that affects lots of things. Starting with spells that require sight now being possible to use based on hearing.


I suspect, given context, however, that what he's truly trying to say is that, if you have any sense that lets you see-without-seeing, it counts for targeting things that require you to "see" the target. i.e., he's saying that blindsight works for "seeing" for purposes of targeting.

Now, I don't put a ton of weight behind his tweets, so take it as you will. I do happen to agree with him, here, though.
And that's fine, which comes back around to my point that blindsight wasn't very well written in that case. All it needed to have is say "creatures with this sense can use it in place of sight."

[Segev]

And that's fine, which comes back around to my point that blindsight wasn't very well written in that case. All it needed to have is say "creatures with this sense can use it in place of sight."

Probably, yes. Though I would argue that the TCE version of it for the Fighting Style is essentially doing that.

[Chronos]

If you're going to use the "plain language" rule to rule out "perception", because that doesn't mean the same thing as "sight", then you should also apply the "plain language" rule to the name of the ability itself: "Blindsight". In other words, you can see even if you're blinded.

Which is clearly what the designers intended. But yeah, they did a really sloppy job of wording it.

[Tanarii]

If you're going to use the "plain language" rule to rule out "perception", because that doesn't mean the same thing as "sight", then you should also apply the "plain language" rule to the name of the ability itself: "Blindsight". In other words, you can see even if you're blinded.

Which is clearly what the designers intended. But yeah, they did a really sloppy job of wording it.
Down with that. My objection is to "perceived" = "sight". Not to: replaces sight in all ways. And Crawford wrote the latter initially.

Because the first argument causes too many problems else elsewhere.

[RSP]

If you're going to use the "plain language" rule to rule out "perception", because that doesn't mean the same thing as "sight", then you should also apply the "plain language" rule to the name of the ability itself: "Blindsight". In other words, you can see even if you're blinded.

Which is clearly what the designers intended. But yeah, they did a really sloppy job of wording it.

Only problem with that is stuff like Detect Evil and Good, Prot from Evil and Good, etc. There’s more than one ability in 5e that doesn’t live up to its name, which goes against “the ability has to follow what its name states.”

[Kane0]

Only problem with that is stuff like Detect Evil and Good, Prot from Evil and Good, etc. There’s more than one ability in 5e that doesn’t live up to its name, which goes against “the ability has to follow what its name states.”

Which are also problems in their own right. Its a bit if a faux pas when the thing doesnt do what it says on the tin

[Rukelnikov]

Good catch.

They really should have written blindsight more clearly, and stated outright that it functionally counts as sight for all rules purposes.

Yeah, they should have, but its the least of the probles the rules on perception have in this edition, the whole "up to 2 miles" makes no sense at all, can't I see mountains farther than that? Can I actually pinpoint a frogs location more than 300 ft away? And the you always know everyones exact location unless they take an action to hide is equally as nonsense. Can I tell the exact location of someone who entered a house 300 feet away but didn't take an action to hide? Can I know the exact location of someone 30 ft away from me in the midst of a rock concert?

I think they chose to deliberately make them vague, not what I like but w/e...

[Thunderous Mojo]

I, nor RAW, care about what Crawford tweets. By all means, use it if you want, but you may find your rules changing back and forth a bit, and not really making sense too much of the time.

Which is all well and good, I certainly have chosen to ignore Crawford,(which is easy as I do not use Twitter).

You are electing to ignore the clearly stated Design Intent given by the Lead Designer, as irrelevant. You also are electing to ignore the D&D products subsequently published to the Monster Manual, chiefly TCoE, that have verbiage that turn the previously stated Design Intent into rules reality. This is your right.

Outside of some vague satisfaction that somehow you are meeting the exact wording of the Monster Manual, (despite the context clues indicating the MM verbiage is flawed), what benefit is garnered by having "Monster Blindsight";be weaker than the Blind Fighting style?

I don't see how it improves play....it just adds confusion by having separate and not equal Blindsight abilities. I would love to see an explanation for the benefits in having two separate and not equal Blindsight abilities.

[RSP]

Which is all well and good, I certainly have chosen to ignore Crawford,(which is easy as I do not use Twitter).

You are electing to ignore the clearly stated Design Intent given by the Lead Designer, as irrelevant.


{Scrubbed}

Me, personally, I do not think the idea behind a trained combatant who is particularly accomplished in blind-fighting, is the same thing as seeing someone for purposes of sight spells. Seeing someone, requires seeing them. Again, I take NPCs as a case-by-case basis as to what I allow, as that directly impacts the challenge to the Players.

But no, a Wizard cannot dip Fighter to get around seeing targets with sight spells.

You obviously are bothered by this for some reason. The good news is: you probably don’t have to worry about playing at my table.

[Rukelnikov]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Me, personally, I do not think the idea behind a trained combatant who is particularly accomplished in blind-fighting, is the same thing as seeing someone for purposes of sight spells. Seeing someone, requires seeing them. Again, I take NPCs as a case-by-case basis as to what I allow, as that directly impacts the challenge to the Players.

But no, a Wizard cannot dip Fighter to get around seeing targets with sight spells.

You obviously are bothered by this for some reason. The good news is: you probably don’t have to worry about playing at my table.

RAW they can, you are electing not to stick to RAW for this.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Can someone explain why Blindsight should differ between PCs and Creatures? What gameplay advantages, this distinction adds?

I'm not willing nor interested in engaging in heated conversations, but am interested in what others see, especially since the advantages to having two different Blindsight abilities are not apparent to me.

[Chronos]

Quoth Rsp29a:

Only problem with that is stuff like Detect Evil and Good, Prot from Evil and Good, etc. There’s more than one ability in 5e that doesn’t live up to its name, which goes against “the ability has to follow what its name states.”
Certainly those spells have problematic names (they should have said "supernatural" instead of "Evil and Good"). But the text of the spells is pretty clear on what they actually do. With Blindsight, however, it's not so clear, and so I'm inclined to give the name of the ability some weight in resolving that ambiguity.

[RSP]

RAW they can, you are electing not to stick to RAW for this.

Sure, I’m not claiming it’s RAW; it’s just my preference. Fortunately, nothing binds us to stick to RAW.

[RSP]

Certainly those spells have problematic names (they should have said "supernatural" instead of "Evil and Good"). But the text of the spells is pretty clear on what they actually do. With Blindsight, however, it's not so clear, and so I'm inclined to give the name of the ability some weight in resolving that ambiguity.

Sure, but they’re not alone. Sneak Attack, for instance, does not, in any way, require one to be sneaking. The argument that the ability has to follow the name, doesn’t really hold up too well in 5e.