D&D 5E Philosophy: Devil's Sight

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, but problems sometimes arise when different people have different interpretations. It is only supposed to be a game, but I've seen some people get pretty upset when those differences create problems. Much of that could have been avoided IMO if the rules were more concrete since the DM can always change them.

Anyway, I agree there is no "right", though.

Does that match your experience of the rules in 3.5 and 4e? It certainly doesn’t mine.

 

[cmad1977]

It’s basically 120’ of good light.
The character can discern areas that would be darker for others.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Does that match your experience of the rules in 3.5 and 4e? It certainly doesn’t mine.

I can tell you immediately, "No." But that is because my experience with 3E was less than one year's worth, back in around 2006-2007 or so. I never touched 3.5E or 4E. I've only been playing 5E a bit over a year now.

 

[tetrasodium]

I really dislike how devils sight works in 5e because it ignores things that hinder darkvision, ignores bright light that hinders kobold/drow/etc darkvision, and has a stupid range that amounts to "it's kinda tough to see that far but you think you can make out a $thing">"I have devils sight so see it normally & ignore magical darkness screw uncertainty for any reason other than the dense obscuring fog you are about to love overusing my class was made for some GM's girlfriend"

 

[keynup]

I really dislike how devils sight works in 5e because it ignores things that hinder darkvision, ignores bright light that hinders kobold/drow/etc darkvision, and has a stupid range that amounts to "it's kinda tough to see that far but you think you can make out a $thing">"I have devils sight so see it normally & ignore magical darkness screw uncertainty for any reason other than the dense obscuring fog you are about to love overusing my class was made for some GM's girlfriend"

That's like saying because you have a rogue with max possible pick locks you decide to add 10 DC to all locks.

If the player is good at something let them be good at it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Hahahah. I knew a very anal DM who ruled that Devil Sight did not allow you to see through darkness, because you "normally" see nothing in darkness.

Actually that's a valid reading of the RAW. The sage advice (which answers as a lawyer of the RAW rather than as a game designer) only goes less anal than your DM.

Clearly, DS is meant to provide a benefit. But it's also extremely suspicious to me that it was meant not to apply to dim light. It's likely that the author used the language a bit too naturally and didn't think of dim light. Unfortunately, when sage advice is faster than errata, it can cause all kind of unintended consequences because sage advice NEVER cares for the RAI, and even less for RAF. It's not his job.

Following the RAW too literally is the biggest cause IMXP of newcomers or casual gamers starting to believe that RPG hardcore gamers are true idiots, and leaving the game, because it destroys suspension of disbelief and RAF. Be warned of the choices you make when running the game for an extended audience.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's like saying because you have a rogue with max possible pick locks you decide to add 10 DC to all locks.

If the player is good at something let them be good at it.

It's more than just devils sight, it's the general lack of even first pass sanity checking for what happens with you combine sorcerer and warlock thst leads to the GMs girlfriend feel.

I might be more sympathetic to your suggestion if I'd ever heard it from someone not playing warlock 2-3 sorcerer more trying to be a coffeelock. It's not helped by the fact that those individuals need frequent reminders that multiclassing does not work that way* at dramatically higher percentages than any other class combo.

Also... Weather is a thing to the point that there are even cantrip to check it ahead of time and spells to create fog. The fact that the darkness spell blinds a table of dark vision equipped pcs (many of which could have daylight sensitivity) but is ignored by the devil's sight variant human scorlock certainly does not help much either

* sometimes "still doesn't work that way" frequent attempts plop gestalt and importing the 3.5 style caster level concept rather than using the 5e NC rules.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I would add that it is common for designers to use "may" when they mean to imply an option. "Can" is ambiguous, but I interpret it in this context as @dnd4vr does: the warlock has the ability to do X.

Consider the alternative text
You may see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance o f 120 feet.

We would all agree I think, that an option is implied, ergo one is not implied by "can" (or at least, it is up to each reader).

 

[clearstream]

LOL I would hardly call my response "shooting the OP".



And yet, IME, another reason why JC is not the best game designer out there.

Let's place three rogues hidden in a forested area:

#1 is hidden behind some bushes within the bright light of a torch held by a character. So, the character can try to see #1 with a normal Wisdom (Perception) check.

#2 is hidden up in a tree at the edge of the dim light provided by the torch. The character makes a check to spot #2 with disadvantage.

#3 is hidden behind a rock in the darkness beyond the light spell, so the character automatically fails the checks to spot him.

View attachment 116655
Note: the outer circle is 60 feet, the edge of DV typically.

Throw just DV in:

#1, bright light, no change
#2, dim light is now "bright", no disadvantage
#3, darkness is now dim, so with disadvantage

With just DS (JC-version):

#1, bright light, no change
#2, dim light is still dim light, so disadvantage
#3, the darkness beyond the dim light is now "bright, so no auto-fail and no disadvantage

So, by his (JC) interpretation, with DS, you have normal bright light, dim light, and darkness--which within 120 feet is also bright light... So, a rogue hiding in the bright light or darkness can be seen with normal perception, the one in dim light is a perception check with disadvantage?

That means the region between bright light and "bright" DS darkness is "dim light". How can your vision be bright, dim, and then bright again?

Yeah, that makes so much sense... Sigh.

Back to the OP: If a light is on in a room, it radiates light as well as that light illuminating the area. If magical darkness were cast over the light, it still radiates light, but now the illumination is suppressed. DS allows you to see through into the darkness, so you would see it radiating light as always just as you see a candle radiating light normally.

It preserves the value of the third consequence of Skulker...

Clutch!

 

[clearstream]

Back to the OP: If a light is on in a room, it radiates light as well as that light illuminating the area. If magical darkness were cast over the light, it still radiates light, but now the illumination is suppressed. DS allows you to see through into the darkness, so you would see it radiating light as always just as you see a candle radiating light normally.

That's pretty interesting, philosophically. Like, the candle radiance is suppressed for normal sight, but not suppressed for Devil's Sight. Paradoxical.

It implies the radiance is changed - tainted somehow - rather than blocked. Or maybe the effect is on the viewer?