Does Blind Fighting let you see Scrying sensors?

[Burley]

The Blind Fighting style (obtained as a Fighter or taking the Fighting Initiate feat) says that you can see invisible creatures within ten feet of you, unless they successfully hide. It says "you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness."

The Scrying spell says that an invisible sensor appears within ten feet of the target and creatures who can see invisible objects can see the sensor (as a luminous orb).

So, is this a case where "creature" and "object" are different words, so, Fighters can't see Scry? Or, does the one "Anything" supersede creature and object, letting a fighter know they're being watched?

[JNAProductions]

DM judgement call. RAW debatable.

As a DM... I'd allow it, for sure.

[Zhorn]

Oh that's a fun one.

By RAW, yeah I'm agreeing with JNAProductions as 'debatable'

For my games... I'm going to have it still be unseen, but the fighter's going constantly have their spidey sense firing while it's in range, like a reflexive urge to swat something away, or turn to catch something they thought they saw flying it them in in their peripheral. Their fighting style sense is trained for detecting and predicting the movement of creatures, so the sensor being an object is existing in a weird blind-spot they'll have to actively lock down since there's no body/limbs to read the movements of. What it'll take for them to hone in on the sensor I'll leave up to the players, but they'll not be able to pinpoint the sensors position till they offer an attempted solution.

[Thunderous Mojo]

My inclination is to rule that the Blind Fighting, Fighting Style, does not enable a PC to see the natively, invisible, sensor of a Scrying spell.

The Sensor of a Scrying spell is neither a creature nor an object. The Sensor is the Visual Phenomenon of a spell....a visual phenomenon that typically is unseen and invisible.

The sensor being a visual phenomenon only, can easily get cover.
Indeed nothing in the rules text indicates, the sensor itself could not be placed inside a creature, or another object, or the wall, floor, or ceiling in a room.

A Scrying Sensor will try to stay within 10' of it's subject...which could place it inside something else.

I don't think Blind Fighting should be expected to detect an invisible visual phenomenon inside the horse the surveilled PC is riding, for example.

On the other hand, PCs suspecting they are under surveillance builds tension.

I could see myself as a DM dropping an atmospheric hint to the aforementioned PC with Blind Fighting: "You feel like something here...(point to map) is listening to you, but when you get there you feel nothing"...or something similar.
(Zhorn beat me too the punch🍻)

[Burley]

My inclination is to rule that the Blind Fighting, Fighting Style, does not enable a PC to see the natively, invisible, sensor of a Scrying spell.

The Sensor of a Scrying spell is neither a creature nor an object. The Sensor is the Visual Phenomenon of a spell....a visual phenomenon that typically is unseen and invisible.

The sensor being a visual phenomenon only, can easily get cover.
Indeed nothing in the rules text indicates, the sensor itself could not be placed inside a creature, or another object, or the wall, floor, or ceiling in a room.

A Scrying Sensor will try to stay within 10' of it's subject...which could place it inside something else.

I don't think Blind Fighting should be expected to detect an invisible visual phenomenon inside the horse the surveilled PC is riding, for example.

I also don't think the INTENT of Blindfighting is to allow mundane detection of magical, invisible effects, except that it is explicitly for magical invisibility effects, like Invisibility. :smalltongue:

You're right. The Sensor is not an object, but the spell does treat it as one for the purpose of detecting it. And, the spell allows you two options of sensor: Floating around 10ft from the target or being stationary in an area.

If you choose stationary, you could place it inside something else and still have it function, but, you see and hear through the sensor, so, placing it inside a [box] would render sensor's sight useless and sound muffled. If you put it inside a horse, I hope you like the sight of horse guts and the sound of horse BMs.
If you choose to tie it to a target, and the DM allows you to hide it in a [box], if the target moves 10 feet away from the [box], the sensor will do what? Harmlessly float through the side of the [box]?

The spell doesn't say that you have control over the sensor, only that it stays within 10ft. Spells will say what action you take to move them, if you can, like the Arcane Eye spell.
Ergo, you also couldn't command it to take cover (because you don't have control over it), and even if you could, it would make you unable to see the target through the sensor, which is, like 50% of the point of the spell.

So, here's my thing: If you can cast Scry and try to hide it (even though there's no text to support you could), why can't the Blindfighting Fighter detect it (since there is text to support it)?

(I'm debating because Blindfighting is a crazy strong ability, but can be useless if the DM doesn't throw invisible stuff at you. So, I'm looking for when it may be useful, if you never don't see invisible enemies. Like, it'd negate Hide in Plain Sight, or a rogue's stealth, right?)

[Thunderous Mojo]

Does the caster of the Scrying spell have control over the mobile sensor option?

The text of the spell doesn't indicate the caster has control over the mobile sensor's movement...but for the sake of argument, let us assume that generous DM's rule that the caster can control the movement of the sensor.

It is now time for a game of Hide and Seek!

The Sensor is a Tiny object, so it doesn't need to be inside the horse to benefit from total cover it just needs to be strategically placed next to the horse, or a dressing screen, or a tree..or anything that would serve as cover for a Tiny sized phenomenon.

I think this is cool...the PC would have moments of feeling like they were being watched, which would subside once the Sensor reaches cover.

A Counter Argument: I don't think it unreasonable to rule the Sensor is Hidden, in which case the Blind Fighting Style won't detect the Sensor.

[sithlordnergal]

From what I'm reading, Blind Fighting gives you 10ft of blindsight. Now, it does have that weird little "Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you.", but Blindsight already does that. Invisible creatures/objects are "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense.", and Blindsight falls under that "special sense.

Now, invisible creatures can still hide from those with Blindsight, but given the Scrying sensor is not hiding from you, I would say you can see it if its within that 10ft of blindsight.

[Mjolnirbear]

From what I'm reading, Blind Fighting gives you 10ft of blindsight. Now, it does have that weird little "Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you.", but Blindsight already does that. Invisible creatures/objects are "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense.", and Blindsight falls under that "special sense.

Now, invisible creatures can still hide from those with Blindsight, but given the Scrying sensor is not hiding from you, I would say you can see it if its within that 10ft of blindsight.

I mean, Keen Senses is a Special Sense, so I don't think the intent was to assume any special sense, any one at all, would beat invisibility.

I agree with your overall argument. Blindsight is meant to see the invisible. Blind fighting gives you Blindsight, except that it is limited to creatures that are not hiding.

Now they might have limited it to creatures for a good reason, such as limiting potential unforeseen abuses or express known ones I'm not aware of. I think it was more likely either an attempt at standardised language or an oversight, or both.

I'd say the fighter could see the orb. I mean, how often would he get to use this ability? How many invisible creatures happen to keep far enough away to not be revealed? I think he deserves to do it a bit more often, don't you? ;)

[Havlock]

Its an interesting conundrum but I'll go against the grain and argue a RAI interpretation (or at least, my interpretation of a RAI interpretation) and say blind fighting works by hightenening your other senses. Mainly hearing. And as the scrying "object" presumably makes zero sound, blind fighting wouldn't help you in the slightest.

[Zhorn]

Its an interesting conundrum but I'll go against the grain and argue a RAI interpretation (or at least, my interpretation of a RAI interpretation) and say blind fighting works by hightenening your other senses. Mainly hearing. And as the scrying "object" presumably makes zero sound, blind fighting wouldn't help you in the slightest.
I know it's a personal take; but I'd have to disagree that the intent was to be dependent on hearing or smell or tremors as the fighting style makes reference to none of them or makes the fighting style negated should any of those others get blocked.

[Townopolis]

I don't think there's a compelling argument that letting Blind Fighting detect divination sensors is RAI.

As a DM, however, I would 100% allow it, for all the usual reasons to do with giving increased agency to the characters most likely to have Blind Fighting.

[SharkForce]

my guess is that this is something WotC never thought about at all when introducing the fighting style. I don't know that there *is* a "Rules as Intended" answer to this, simply because I doubt there was any intent.

RAW, it doesn't work. their ability detects creatures, the sensor is an object rather than a creature, and truth be told may not even really be an object so much as it is a thing that can be seen by abilities that can detect invisible objects.

that said, my feeling is that fighters are not overburdened with cool utility abilities, so I would let them detect that there is something there. they probably wouldn't immediately know it's a scrying sensor if they don't have prior experience with scrying sensors, and it may show up as more of an invisible cloud or something of that nature (not really an "object" that you can interact with per se). but they'd be able to tell something is in that spot.

[Zichyli]

Oh that's a fun one.

By RAW, yeah I'm agreeing with JNAProductions as 'debatable'

For my games... I'm going to have it still be unseen, but the fighter's going constantly have their spidey sense firing while it's in range, like a reflexive urge to swat something away, or turn to catch something they thought they saw flying it them in in their peripheral. Their fighting style sense is trained for detecting and predicting the movement of creatures, so the sensor being an object is existing in a weird blind-spot they'll have to actively lock down since there's no body/limbs to read the movements of. What it'll take for them to hone in on the sensor I'll leave up to the players, but they'll not be able to pinpoint the sensors position till they offer an attempted solution.

{Scrubbed}

[Psyren]

I would definitely allow this. The Fighter or Paladin being able to detect something the casters might miss would make for a pretty cool moment in my view.

The counterplay is easy too, just aim the sensor at someone else in the party (preferably a companion or familiar. Or the monk :smallbiggrin:)



RAW, it doesn't work. their ability detects creatures, the sensor is an object rather than a creature, and truth be told may not even really be an object so much as it is a thing that can be seen by abilities that can detect invisible objects.

RAW, Blind Fighting lets you "effectively see anything within that range." The second sentence about invisible creatures doesn't trump the first. Moreover, blindsight itself states you can "perceive your surroundings without relying on sight."

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: apparently Blindfighting does not allow you read the rules on Thread Necromancy.