There is no such thing as "switching visions". Honestly? This discussion would be a lot more productive without bringing Darkvision up. All we are really arguing is if Darkness should be run by the "magically induced normal Darkness " interpretation or the "totally opaque inkblot" interpretation. That's all. Darkvision has squat to do with it.
His entire argument is predicated on the darkvision aspect - otherwise it's essentially just ordinary darkness in his opinion. And whether not you're making a perception check with or without darkvision is a relevant question, particularly on this topic. Let's see how this conversation plays out.
You really haven't read the thread from the beginning, have you? @FrogReaver could have excluded Darkvision from every single one of his posts and the main argument would still hold. Darkvision has absolutely no bearing in this discussion. Why are you so hung up on Darkvision?
Could you just answer @Mistwell directly? You may think it’s pointless, but they are going somewhere with this line of questioning.
They haven't asked any direct question though?
Yes. With their darkvision
I really have and now you're being rude. You don't know where I am going with this. You can wait or not, but please stop being a jerk to me.
Sorry if I came up rude. Wasn't really my intention. I just believe this thread has made abundantly clear that @FrogReaver does not defend the notion that Darkvision would be somewhat worse than normal vision under any circumstance, that's all.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, @FrogReaver 's interpretation is that the sphere of darkness acts just like normal darkness that you can see out of but not in, except that darkvision doesn't pierce it.
@FrogReaver ’s interpretation specifically relies on the wording “ A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness” (as opposed to something like “creatures can’t see through this darkness”), which is why they bolded it. They’re saying that this text constitutes an exception to how Darkvision normally works, rather than a description of how the spell works generally, implying that it otherwise works the same way as normal darkness (which can be seen out of, but not into). The objection @Mistwell is raising is that this interpretation suggests that a creature without Darkvision can see through the darkness (though still can’t see into the darkness. So they can see what’s on the other side of it) but a creature with Darkvision can’t. Which would be weird.
