Warlock's Devil's Sight questions

[nswanson27]

Sorry but I think if you can see in darkness as you would normally see in light, it doesn't make sense for dim light to have any effect on you.

I do agree about probably needed sight in general to be able to see in darkness, and also agree about not being able to see through thick fog or similar.

Definitely smell a RAW/RAI split here.

 

[Satyrn]

Sorry but I think if you can see in darkness as you would normally see in light, it doesn't make sense for dim light to have any effect on you.

When I read [MENTION=6802784]Bardbarian[/MENTION]'s post, I wondered about how to make his ruling make sense, because it didn't make sense to me, either.

But I figure I could view areas of dim light as also being "shadowy areas" and that helped me accept his ruling as we can say "shadows play tricks with your vision." Then, darkvision cuts through those tricks in some way, while devil's sight doesn't.

And that's why I said I could totally get behind his ruling. I still wouldn't rule it that way myself - although I would keep to his ruling if I sat down to DM at his table, with his group, and it's already been established.

 

[Oofta]

So if Devil's Sight only works in complete darkness, would that mean that a human in a party with a compatriot carrying a torch could see fine for 20 ft, be at disadvantage for 21-40 feet (dim light) and then be able to see clearly after that because it's dark beyond 40 feet?

That seems quite odd and the epitome of a rules-lawyer interpretation. IMHO dim light is just partial darkness because otherwise you get into all sorts of weird situations that make no sense.

Of course if you're the DM, it's your ruling that matters.

 

[jaelis]

So if Devil's Sight only works in complete darkness, would that mean that a human in a party with a compatriot carrying a torch could see fine for 20 ft, be at disadvantage for 21-40 feet (dim light) and then be able to see clearly after that because it's dark beyond 40 feet?

Yep. Guess you could say that shadows are confusing, like Satyrn suggested. Or maybe regular vision and devil's sight are like different senses, and it is confusing when both are operating at a similar level.

Or you could figure that you can see normally in dimness too

 

[Arial Black]

Otherwise I would find it too weird that you could see when it was dark, but not when it was light.

The '40s DC comics superhero Dr. Mid-Nite was blind, but could see in perfect darkness. He invented special lenses to make it 'dark' for his eyes even during the day, and used 'blackout bombs' to create darkness in an area rendering everyone except him unable to see.

Yes, if a player wanted to say that they were naturally blind but were able to see normally as a gift from their patron, that would be cool but I wouldn't make them use an invocation for it.

I would require the invocation, but I would allow it to let a 'blind' creature 'see' in darkness, for Rule of Cool. This is definitely DM fiat territory though, not a rules answer.

For the record, I would allow devil's sight to penetrate dimness as well.

Me too. It just doesn't make sense that an ability to ignore a 'lack of light' if there is no light, but not ignore it if only some light is lacking.

People treat 'dark' as if it were a real thing, like they treat 'cold'. But temperature is just molecules vibrating, so 'heat' is low or high, but 'cold' is not 'negative vibration'; 'cold' is just 'less heat'.

'Dark' is not a thing either. There is 'bright light', 'normal light', 'low light', 'no light'. There is no such thing as 'dark' in real life. You can project light from a torch, but you cannot project 'dark' in the same way, because 'dark' is not a thing, it is just the absence of a thing: light.

So an ability which lets you see despite a total absence of light should work equally well despite a partial lack of light!

 

[jaelis]

I would require the invocation, but I would allow it to let a 'blind' creature 'see' in darkness, for Rule of Cool. This is definitely DM fiat territory though, not a rules answer.

Kind of tough at level 1 though!

 

[Arial Black]

Kind of tough at level 1 though!

For the first 299xp yes, but they chose to play a blind PC.

They made that choice because they know that at level 2 they can solve that problem, and that it is a great role-playing hook as to why this person would make a deal with a devil.

 

[Volund]

Until this thread it never occurred to me that there was any interpretation of Devil's Sight other than you get the benefit of Bright light out to 120 ft. That's how it has worked in every 5e game I've every played in.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

It doesn't make sense, sure. But this is Devil's Sight, and the Devil isn't known for making sense either.

The Devil always makes sense... to him/her/itself.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

People treat 'dark' as if it were a real thing, like they treat 'cold'. But temperature is just molecules vibrating, so 'heat' is low or high, but 'cold' is not 'negative vibration'; 'cold' is just 'less heat'.

'Dark' is not a thing either. There is 'bright light', 'normal light', 'low light', 'no light'. There is no such thing as 'dark' in real life. You can project light from a torch, but you cannot project 'dark' in the same way, because 'dark' is not a thing, it is just the absence of a thing: light

But is that true for the nature of darkness in D&D

In Mage: the Ascension some people could treat darkness as a real force. That was the first time the concept ever really occurred to me. D&D seems to lean more toward the side of things like darkness and cold being positive states rather than lacks of other states, but that's debatable.