D&D 5E Philosophy: Devil's Sight

[Big J Money]

This isn't exactly an answer, but if you want to explore the philosophical (or rather, psychological) ramifications of Devil's Sight and Darkvision, consider this:

You are someone who is immune to the dark. You don't know what darkness is because you can't even experience it unless you close your eyes (do these creatures in fact close their eyes; or if they do, does it really take away their vission or can they still see?). Your entire culture doesn't know what darkness is and never has. There are foreign races that speak of this thing called darkness, but you can't comprehend it. It sounds terrifying, but they must be telling tall tales, since it clearly doesn't exist anywhere. It's just their boogeyman. Or perhaps its a weakness that makes them inferior.

Now imagine a magic powerful enough to actually create a darkness that affects these darkness-immune creatures. That could be a truly terrifying villain.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I prefer the wording as is. Seeing normally in darkness, including magical darkness, is just more interesting exactly because you aren’t treating it as bright light. It isn’t giving your eyes greater sensitivity to light. It is a wholly unnatural ability to simply see in darkness. Even when that darkness is the absolute darkness created by magic, where no amount of light sensitivity will help you, you just...see normally. It’s creepy, and unnatural, and doesn’t interact with the world, which makes it perfect.

I just find it odd that an ability suffers if there is any light present, but that might be the idea.

Consider this:

The party is in absolute darkness underground. The half-orc can see via DV, and the warlock via DS. No one else can see, so the party casts Light.

Now, all the part can see in the bright light (20') and has disadvantage in the dim light (21-40').
The half-orc can see up to 40' as bright light since dim light is bright for DV, and as dim light (41-60'), reaching into the darkness.
The warlock can see in the bright light (20') of the spell, has dim light (21-40') like most of the party, but then sees as bright light (41-120') into the darkness beyond.

Without the light, the warlock counts all 120' as bright light. So, the warlock actually sees better in complete darkness than if there is any light because of the dim light the light source always creates.

Maybe the intent was that the light source interferes with DS, creating a region of "haze" (i.e. dim light) between the normal bright light from the light source and the enhanced vision of the DS?

That's about the only way I could see DS helping with darkness, but not with dim light. "Light" actually interferes with DS! Sort of makes sense...

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Yeah, but if we're going to go with the natural language argument, then we must also admit that sometimes in natural language "can" is used in place of "must" or "shall." It's fairly common in natural language to use less absolute or more passive verbs even when we're speaking in absolute or active terms. It's not even hard to find academic papers discussing the difficult semantics of these words.

Furthermore, the entire point of the natural language format was so that people explicitly didn't nit-pick the exact phrasing of the rules. They're intending to de-emphasize how things are phrased and emphasizing general or overall meaning.

Ultimately, I don't think the DM's job really changes here. They should:

1. Determine a model for how the mechanic works.
2. Explain the model to the players.
3. Base your rulings on that model.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, of course, every table is different. We had issues even in 1E and 2E, certainly. My point is there are a lot of rules missing or incomplete or vague, left yo to the DM and table to figure out. I understand much of this was intentional, but for myself I would prefer more concrete rules to argue over!

DS could have been written "Your character treats darkness as if it were bright light up to 120 feet away. It has no affect on dim light conditions." if that was their intent.



Except DS is balanced, especially if you rule it has no affect on dim light (which is the SA for those who care) which DV does help with. Warlocks have few eldritch invocations at their disposal, one of them allowing the PC to see in the dark is hardly overbalancing IMO and IME. If your players with DV are whining about it, remind them that they are liking getting it at no cost as part of their race.

You just said presented a self contradicting argument. You start out saying that devils sight is balanced and then immediately add that it needs to be ruled to work differently than written by either houserule or errata. There are a lot of things that could have been written as they intended with warlock, but there are certainly an awful lot that are written like bad homebrew with completely predictable errata & houserules being used to fix them. Not only that, but there are a bunch that are readable in absurdly broken ways that even cursory sanity checking from wotc would have caught if not for the gm's girlfriend style treatment so pervasive in the warlock class. Don't forget to note how few of them were actually included in the most recent phb errata.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You just said presented a self contradicting argument. You start out saying that devils sight is balanced and then immediately add that it needs to be ruled to work differently than written by either houserule or errata. There are a lot of things that could have been written as they intended with warlock, but there are certainly an awful lot that are written like bad homebrew with completely predictable errata & houserules being used to fix them. Not only that, but there are a bunch that are readable in absurdly broken ways that even cursory sanity checking from wotc would have caught if not for the gm's girlfriend style treatment so pervasive in the warlock class. Don't forget to note how few of them were actually included in the most recent phb errata.

How did I present a "self-contradicting argument"??? LOL!

DS is balanced. At worst, if you rule it makes darkness and dim light as bright light (the most powerful interpretation) it doesn't break anything as it is one of the limited eldritch invocations a warlock gets. Is it powerful? Potentially, but no more so than many other features classes get. In the right situation, just about any feature can be considered powerful--but certainly not broken or unbalanced. If you think it isn't, tell me how and I'll tell you how you are mistaken.

And please note the first part of my post has nothing to do with the second part, which is what I quoted you on and responded to for your benefit.

Don't try to bring me into your argument about anything else a warlock has and I don't care at all for your gm's girlfriend style treatment crap.

 

[tetrasodium]

How did I present a "self-contradicting argument"??? LOL!

DS is balanced. At worst, if you rule it makes darkness and dim light as bright light (the most powerful interpretation) it doesn't break anything as it is one of the limited eldritch invocations a warlock gets. Is it powerful? Potentially, but no more so than many other features classes get. In the right situation, just about any feature can be considered powerful--but certainly not broken or unbalanced. If you think it isn't, tell me how and I'll tell you how you are mistaken.

And please note the first part of my post has nothing to do with the second part, which is what I quoted you on and responded to for your benefit.

Don't try to bring me into your argument about anything else a warlock has and I don't care at all for your gm's girlfriend style treatment crap.

Simple "Except DS is balanced, especially if you rule it has no affect on dim light (which is the SA for those who care)" Near as I can tell, you are talking about a SA tweet from 2015, yet here we are four years later & it's still not reflected in errata. Your position is that devils sight is balanced fine if you use a four year old tweet from Crawford that WotC can't be bothered to add to errata like so many other poorly worded warlock things.... That's self contradicting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Simple "Except DS is balanced, especially if you rule it has no affect on dim light (which is the SA for those who care)" Near as I can tell, you are talking about a SA tweet from 2015, yet here we are four years later & it's still not reflected in errata. Your position is that devils sight is balanced fine if you use a four year old tweet from Crawford that WotC can't be bothered to add to errata like so many other poorly worded warlock things.... That's self contradicting.

No, that wasn't my argument.

My earlier posts (if you even read them) do not follow what JC says in SA. If you weaken it, as JC does, it is even more "balanced" for people who feel it is over-powered (which, it isn't). When I wrote "for those who care" I literally meant "who care" as in who cares about what JC says. I don't.

I said it is balanced no matter how you use it because it is a feature that relies on a very limited number of eldritch invocations and even ruled as its most powerful it doesn't break the game in anyway. And I have asked you: how do you think it isn't balanced?

As far as clarifications in SA not making it into errata, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of SA rulings that aren't in an errata yet. Does that reflect poorly on WotC in some ways, sure, I can agree to that. I'd much rather have an updated errata with clarifications if they are actually official (which at they point they should be).

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"

So, it ignores some things that affect creatures with DV, which is actually false. Many creatures with DV don't suffer from Sunlight Sensitivity, a separate feature.

You claim the range is "stupid". Why? because it is twice standard DV and the same as superior range DV? And you quote about something being tough to see at that range, etc. Seeing things at 120 feet isn't hard if you have normal eyesight. How difficult something is to see (at any range) depends on the size and level of detail you are tying to see.

And this:

"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"

makes no snese at all... You seem to be saying something along the lines of "oh, I want this cool ability" so the DM will tailor the game so I can show my character is the best." What is that about? Where in the world did you come up with THAT!

 

[tetrasodium]

No, that wasn't my argument.

My earlier posts (if you even read them) do not follow what JC says in SA. If you weaken it, as JC does, it is even more "balanced" for people who feel it is over-powered (which, it isn't). When I wrote "for those who care" I literally meant "who care" as in who cares about what JC says. I don't.

I said it is balanced no matter how you use it because it is a feature that relies on a very limited number of eldritch invocations and even ruled as its most powerful it doesn't break the game in anyway. And I have asked you: how do you think it isn't balanced?

As far as clarifications in SA not making it into errata, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of SA rulings that aren't in an errata yet. Does that reflect poorly on WotC in some ways, sure, I can agree to that. I'd much rather have an updated errata with clarifications if they are actually official (which at they point they should be).



So, it ignores some things that affect creatures with DV, which is actually false. Many creatures with DV don't suffer from Sunlight Sensitivity, a separate feature.

You claim the range is "stupid". Why? because it is twice standard DV and the same as superior range DV? And you quote about something being tough to see at that range, etc. Seeing things at 120 feet isn't hard if you have normal eyesight. How difficult something is to see (at any range) depends on the size and level of detail you are tying to see.

And this:



makes no snese at all... You seem to be saying something along the lines of "oh, I want this cool ability" so the DM will tailor the game so I can show my character is the best." What is that about? Where in the world did you come up with THAT!

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the darkness spell, especially this bit "A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it." I should not need to explain how that combines with this "You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical". Yea there are indeed dozens, like for example how level 19 sorcerer with one level of warlock does not get back 4x 1st, 2x 2nd-5th, 2x 6th-7th, & 1x8th-9th level sorcerer granted slots +1x 1st level warlock pact magic slots just because wotc can't be bothered to errata "You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a short or long rest." leaving GM's to stop the game and point that out over & over again even to players using ddb. Wotc's refusal to errata devils sight too is just a cherry on top of the nepotism* sandwich that is warlock dip.

* Since you do so dislike terms like playwright's/director's/GM's girlfriend. Or perhaps you's prefer it if it was simply the awkwardly worded "GM's Significant Other".
"

 

[Khelon Testudo]

What is really weird is that you insist an alleged balance issue in a class ability must have some personal issue of the designer's behind it. It's a really strange way of viewing as complex a process as designing an rpg, when the obvious reason for an imbalance in a complex system of interactions is human error; that is, an oversight.

 

[tetrasodium]

What is really weird is that you insist an alleged balance issue in a class ability must have some personal issue of the designer's behind it. It's a really strange way of viewing as complex a process as designing an rpg, when the obvious reason for an imbalance in a complex system of interactions is human error; that is, an oversight.

More mocking the lack of correction at some point between playtest & ~5 years after the 5e launch than declaring it the original oversight more than simple oversight ;D