Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7870227" data-attributes="member: 93670">It doesn't matter why you keep bringing up that people could use JC's 5+ year old un-errata'd tweet, the fact is that you keep doing it in ways that try to imply DS is reasonable.Yes there are tons of regular Darkvision equipped races, but aside from 2(?) exceptions they are all limited to 30-60 feet  & that is well within the effective range of nearly every ranged spell or weapon rather than pushing into disadvantage, needing a feat to reach, or just too far away.... It's also well within the range of all but the most powerful spotights available to players (ie bulls eye lantern).  I'm not upset that DV equipped races might see normally the things lurking in darkness when they pass into the range of being already in or just inside the start of bad things.Using light shadow & darkness to build suspense & tension has been a storyteller's tool since fire was new because it speaks to the  hyperalert lizard brain within us.  Just like storytellers, <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostWritersAreHuman" target="_blank">most players are human</a>. The only person surprised by that "limited" thinking is you and whoever wrote devils sight like a badly worded twinky munchkin homebrew.  Yes using JC's advice in this case could be one of the rare exceptions where he has a good point & would have a good point(yea his advice is usually "crap" as you put it, but he does have say in what gets errata'd & probbly more than us).  Devils sight is not limited to 120feet on drow and deep gnomes, nor does it add daylight sensitivity to variant humans or any darkvision equipped race.    It's not like they get 120' devils sight because the character has superior darkvision, or even because it follows after the well established goggles  of night tradition  & improves it a notch... but that kind of 0>60>90 improvement isn't good enough for the twinky munchkin grabbag that is a design goal in the warlock.Why are non-devils sight warlock topics relevant to devils sight?  I felt like my sarcasm & derisive mocking of wotc's choices in some of those areas should have made that clear.  Frankly it's impossible to talk about warlock stuff (always on invocations with no level gate especially) without viewing them through the same lens normally reserved for badly worded & probably broken homebrew & not everyone accepts that it should get the sort of gm skeptcism not normally used when looking at "official WotC published content".  Whoever at Wotc keeps accidentally releasing badly worded & problematic warlock stuff like some of the things I've mentioned  bears some of the blame, but so too does WotC itself for not including the "well obviously RAI was.." & "this is the bit that got left out" shoulders the rest.  WotC could fix devils sight as JC suggests & others in this thread have said would be an interesting flavorful change,  but that would require them to gather a strong enough consensus to stand up against the director/playwright/owner/manager/producer/DM  with a significant other roadblock that results in so many warlock abilities with boneheaded obviously ripe for abuse wordings coming out of WotC that it's hard to say they are just an oversight without skepticism.</blockquote>

Verification