D&D 5E Philosophy: Devil's Sight

[merwins]

Put on your GM hat:

When you narrate the effects of Devil's Sight (DS) and darkvision (DV) ...
Does the character actually recognize the difference between dark and light?

Foundational information (please correct if wrong):

• For typical (racial) DV, areas of dim light appear as if it was bright light (good as day) and in darkness you can only discern shades of gray.
• With DS, inside of 120 feet, darkness is as bright light, and dim light remains dim.
• So with DV and DS, both darkness and dim light within 60' would be as bright light.

If a character's vision is constrained to 60 feet or less, and and they had both DS and DV, would they have any idea whether the area was lit or not?

Obviously, the helpless squeals of characters without DS or DV are a good indicator of darkness, as well as outside cues (the sun, behavior or flora and fauna) and inside cues (lit torches), but let's not go there right now.

Also, let's not get into the brain scramble of nothing would cast a shadow and how that might result in depth perception issues and minuses to hit. Insert evil GM laugh.

 

[Leatherhead]

If a character's vision is constrained to 60 feet or less, and and they had both DS and DV, would they have any idea whether the area was lit or not?

Yes, they would be able to tell, but not without effort.

The operative word is "can", implying they can simply turn off their Devil Sight, or Darkvision, much like how someone could close their eyelids to stop seeing things.

Which brings up the cool mental image of a Warlock having a second set of eyelids that they use to see in the dark.

 

[merwins]

@Leatherhead Love your tagline.

Nowhere in the rules does it say you can turn those abilities off. They're not spells. They're just natural. You can close your eyes, but then you're effectively blind. But a nictating membrane is a cool concept.

 

[Leatherhead]

Nowhere in the rules does it say you can turn those abilities off.

The rules don't need to specify that. 5e is written in a format they call natural language. If I said "You can go get a soda from the fridge" that doesn't mean you must go get a soda from the fridge.

Likewise Darkvision and Devil Sight both use the word "can". The word "can" implies that it is an option, which could only be possible if there was some other option as an alternative. Which would be the default vision option.

 

[merwins]

I'll have to think about that. I always considered invocations that didn't take some sort of action to activate to be always on.

The followup would be, do you consider "can" abilities on or off by default? Probably up to the character.

And does it take an action to turn on or off? I'd guess that's GM fiat.

I looked at all the invocations. The only ones that are not optional are dependent on another action, such as Agonizing Blast, Eldritch Spear, Lifedrinker.

 

[merwins]

Might be worthwhile to interpret DS and DV as they do the lenses in the Predator franchise.

You recognize dark from light because you flip rapidly between the two states of vision when you want to.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The rules don't need to specify that. 5e is written in a format they call natural language. If I said "You can go get a soda from the fridge" that doesn't mean you must go get a soda from the fridge.

Likewise Darkvision and Devil Sight both use the word "can". The word "can" implies that it is an option, which could only be possible if there was some other option as an alternative. Which would be the default vision option.

In the English language, the word "can" doesn't necessarily mean an option, it also means you are able to.

Ex. I can ride a bike.

Your meaning: I have the option to ride a bike.
My meaning: I have the ability to ride a bike.

For Devil's Sight:
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance o f 120 feet.

The natural language here, to me anyway, means I am able to see normally in darkness, not that I have the option to.

To the OP: Yes, they would know if the area was lit IMO.

Of course, if you have DS and can see in darkness "normally" you should be able to see in dim light normally. After all, dim light is brighter than darkness. So, I wouldn't need DV to see in dim light normally if I had DS. DS also shows colors as if vision was normal. It is basically superior to DV in every respect.

 

[merwins]

To the OP: Yes, they would know if the area was lit IMO.

Of course, if you have DS and can see in darkness "normally" you should be able to see in dim light normally. After all, dim light is brighter than darkness. So, I wouldn't need DV to see in dim light normally if I had DS. DS also shows colors as if vision was normal. It is basically superior to DV in every respect.

Yes/no is not what I'm going for.
"Because magic/fantasy" is an adequate answer, though.

Unless I missed some authoritative source, DS does not affect dim light. It only makes darkness appear as brightly lit. Dim stays dim.

DV expressly makes dim appear as brightly lit.

 

[delphonso]

I would assume there's some sort of shift when changing light backgrounds. If you walk out of a lit bathroom into your dark house, it takes a second for your eyes to adjust. I consider the same for these abilities - not long enough to effect rolls or combat, but some sort of shift happening that they may or may not completely notice in certain conditions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes/no is not what I'm going for.
"Because magic/fantasy" is an adequate answer, though.

Unless I missed some authoritative source, DS does not affect dim light. It only makes darkness appear as brightly lit. Dim stays dim.

DV expressly makes dim appear as brightly lit.

Actually, it doesn't make darkness appear as brightly lit. I says you can see normally. What exactly is "normally?" I guess that is where interpretation of the rules comes in.

As I see it (pardon the pun), if you can see "normally" in darkness, how would it make any sense you couldn't see "normally" in dim light which is actually brighter than darkness?

Consider an example where both darkness and dim light would be present: You are standing on the edge of the forest on a bright moonlit night (full moon). The shadows under the trees cast those areas in darkness.

You are saying you could see under the trees (the darkness) as bright light, but the areas around that darkness is still dim light. Personally, I would fine that rather odd that the area with greater natural light is seen less easily. But, if that is how your table plays it, then I can't help since how someone would "see" under the scenario described in the OP would differ between us.

Sorry.