Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7527903" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>One ability that changes the way you see in two different lighting conditions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It says “you see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light.” If it were bright light, you would not suffer disadvantage on attacks and vision-related checks in it. It also says, “and in darkness as if it were dim light.” If it were dim light, you would suffer disadvantage on attacks and vision based checks in it, unless it were within 60 feet of you, in which case you would see in it as if it were bright light. This is, in my opinion, the most natural reading of the text. It is evidently not the intended function of the rule, and fine, I’m perfectly happy to accept that. I just think it could have been phrased with less ambiguity.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, which is why when I realized that the intent was for the range at which you can see in darkness as if it were dim light is limited to the same radius at which you can see in dim light as if it were bright light, it became clear to me that the intent was not for you to treat darkness within that radius as if it were bright light, because that would be dumb. But because the wording is also not clear that the range at which you can see in darkness as if it were dim light is limited <em>at all</em>, my initial interpretation is still a valid natural reading of the text, arguably a more natural one than the intended one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My argument is that it is what you call an incompetent way to word it, because the most obvious interpretation (to me) is that the difference in how the rule treats the two different conditions is the range at which it changes the way you treat them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7527903, member: 6779196"] One ability that changes the way you see in two different lighting conditions. It says “you see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light.” If it were bright light, you would not suffer disadvantage on attacks and vision-related checks in it. It also says, “and in darkness as if it were dim light.” If it were dim light, you would suffer disadvantage on attacks and vision based checks in it, unless it were within 60 feet of you, in which case you would see in it as if it were bright light. This is, in my opinion, the most natural reading of the text. It is evidently not the intended function of the rule, and fine, I’m perfectly happy to accept that. I just think it could have been phrased with less ambiguity. Right, which is why when I realized that the intent was for the range at which you can see in darkness as if it were dim light is limited to the same radius at which you can see in dim light as if it were bright light, it became clear to me that the intent was not for you to treat darkness within that radius as if it were bright light, because that would be dumb. But because the wording is also not clear that the range at which you can see in darkness as if it were dim light is limited [i]at all[/i], my initial interpretation is still a valid natural reading of the text, arguably a more natural one than the intended one. My argument is that it is what you call an incompetent way to word it, because the most obvious interpretation (to me) is that the difference in how the rule treats the two different conditions is the range at which it changes the way you treat them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision
Top