D&D 5E Darkvision range and light sources beyond.

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, strictly speaking, by RAW you can't see the candle at 71' feet even with normal vision, because per PHB 183, when you're in darkness you are in heavy obscurement, and creatures within a heavily-obscured area are "effectively blinded" and can't see anything.

I think that was errated.

 

[designbot]

Well, strictly speaking, by RAW you can't see the candle at 71' feet even with normal vision, because per PHB 183, when you're in darkness you are in heavy obscurement, and creatures within a heavily-obscured area are "effectively blinded" and can't see anything.

I think that was errated.

It was:

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that was errated.

Well, yeah, but I wrote that a year ago, before the errata came out.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Darkvision is an extra sense. So, a character can see anything he could see normally and whatever he can see using darkvision.

I see 5E darkvision as a simplified version of both 3E darkvision (see in the dark as in dim light) and 3E low-light vision (see in dim light as if bright light).

So no 'blinded by light sources'. Infravision in old editions was different, but IMO that's why they changed the name.

I don't think Darkvision actually requires light of any sort.

It's a mechanical simplification that covers both "see better in dim light" and "see without any light at all".

 

[Al2O3]

Seems I'm late to this thread, but can't resist commenting anyway.

I get the impression that some consider dim light to mess with darkvison. Since darkvison makes dim light act as bright light within the radius it obviously does not interfere.

Devil's sight had been stated to be intended as eerie since it would better without light at all than with dim light. I take that as:
1. Bright light is always bright light.
2. Dim light counts as bright light for those with applicable darkvison, gives disadvantage etc for others (lightly obscured?)
3. Darkness counts as dim light for those with darkvison, bright light for those with Devil's sight, heavily obscured otherwise.

So no reason to have light reduce our nullify darkvison, and the eerie part of Devil's sight is not upgrading dim light to bright light.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Seems I'm late to this thread, but can't resist commenting anyway.

I get the impression that some consider dim light to mess with darkvison. Since darkvison makes dim light act as bright light within the radius it obviously does not interfere.

Devil's sight had been stated to be intended as eerie since it would better without light at all than with dim light. I take that as:
1. Bright light is always bright light.
2. Dim light counts as bright light for those with applicable darkvison, gives disadvantage etc for others (lightly obscured?)
3. Darkness counts as dim light for those with darkvison, bright light for those with Devil's sight, heavily obscured otherwise.

So no reason to have light reduce our nullify darkvison, and the eerie part of Devil's sight is not upgrading dim light to bright light.

The "spooky" part of Devil's Sight is just Crawford et al. being goofy, since Truesight is worded in exactly the same way ("A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness..." with no mention of dim light) and there is obviously no implication or intention that Truesight be warlock-spooky/ineffective in dim light. When truesight says you can see in darkness, that obviously includes partial darkness i.e. dim light.

That tweet from Crawford is best ignored.

 

[Al2O3]

That tweet from Crawford is best ignored.

I could agree with you there. I still consider darkvison less interfered with by light sources, and I understand you as saying Devil's sight is not interfered with at all. So my overall point is still valid (and I see nothing in your post trying to argue against it).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I could agree with you there. I still consider darkvison less interfered with by light sources, and I understand you as saying Devil's sight is not interfered with at all. So my overall point is still valid (and I see nothing in your post trying to argue against it).

Yes, it was a bit of a tangent. Apologies for that.

I completely agree that darkvision is not impaired by dim light--so completely that it didn't even occur to me to verbally agree with your statement, because it's so obviously true. I'm rectifying that now by adding this: "And I agree with what Al203 says about darkvision not being impaired by dim light."