And if the DM starts changing the level of light to match the adjusted vision, treating darkness as dim light, and dim light as bright light, it has effectively given humans darkvision ☺
No, they do not. I was talking outside under a full moon on a clear day, not any number of conditions where there isn't enough ambient light for human eyes to handle.
Darkvision, in contrast, is only limited by specific forms of magical darkness that block it, at least with respect to light levels.
You seem to be under the impression that vision is not impaired while in the dead of night with not sources of light available other than the moon. You are wrong.
Will your eyes adjust to this lighting enough to allow you to move around? Sure. To walk along a clear path? Sure. To notice the feline predator stalking you from the bushes? ... maybe??
Those guys are hard enough to spot in the best of conditions, you telling me you claiming you could spot a cat in the dead of night? Doubt. Your vision is impaired in these conditions. Blind? No. Impaired? Yes.
That... is Dim Light. Where you can still see but it is hard to do it. Takes effort. Maybe some details are missing. But you can see. Just not well.
And if the DM starts changing the level of light to match the adjusted vision, treating darkness as dim light, and dim light as bright light, it has effectively given humans darkvision ☺
No, they do not. I was talking outside under a full moon on a clear day, not any number of conditions where there isn't enough ambient light for human eyes to handle.
Darkvision, in contrast, is only limited by specific forms of magical darkness that block it, at least with respect to light levels.
You seem to be under the impression that vision is not impaired while in the dead of night with not sources of light available other than the moon. You are wrong.
Will your eyes adjust to this lighting enough to allow you to move around? Sure. To walk along a clear path? Sure. To notice the feline predator stalking you from the bushes? ... maybe??
Those guys are hard enough to spot in the best of conditions, you telling me you claiming you could spot a cat in the dead of night? Doubt. Your vision is impaired in these conditions. Blind? No. Impaired? Yes.
That... is Dim Light. Where you can still see but it is hard to do it. Takes effort. Maybe some details are missing. But you can see. Just not well.
We are talking open terrain. When you add bushes big enough to conceal the predator, there are bushes big enough to conceal a predator. You are changing the situation.
If the darkness is sufficiently concealing to hide in, the bushes should be redundant.
But I am guessing that you have not been in an open field under full moonlight. You can actually see very well indeed. In the winter, when there is snow on the ground to reflect the light, it is even easier to see in the moonlight.
And again, we are talking open field, full moon high in the sky (i.e. not near the horizon).
So, basically, all your posts are just to say: "You're not entirely blind while in dim light"
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
In real life perhaps you can actually see in most moonlit nights, but in 5E you can't, ''Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)''
So most moonlit nights are darkness (heavily obscured), but particularly brillant full moon nights are dim light (lightly obscured). So most of the time, humans are blind at night without a light source.
Like i said, 5E's rules for light and vision are not all that realistic. Like many rules, they were designed to be simple and easy to use.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion on the very definition of dim light. What I consider to be dim light is significantly dimmer than what you consider dim light. You are entitled to your own definition and I have tried to explain that.
Simply someone that they are wrong is not going to convince them either way.
I'll try it one more time. There are different degrees of light and different degrees of dark. There is a threshold past which the environment is dark enough that it becomes significantly hard to see. I set that threshold as less light than a full moon in an open field. That is not the same as not having a threshold and therefore not the same as giving everyone Darkvision. Seriously, the moon is not full every night of the week, not every night has clear weather and the group is not going to be in an open field that often, let alone all those three conditions together.
As long as it is clear that you are homebrewing a different set of boundaries between Darkness - Dim Light - Bright Light, then that is fine.
So, basically, all your posts are just to say: "You're not entirely blind while in dim light"
Okay. That is true.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion on the very definition of dim light. What I consider to be dim light is significantly dimmer than what you consider dim light. You are entitled to your own definition and I have tried to explain that.
Mine comes from the PHB. Chapter 8: Adventuring. Topic: The Environment. Specific Header: Vision and Light
It isn't really "my" definition, it is the game's. You seem to have chosen to address your argument at me, but you're really arguing against the PHB.
Simply someone that they are wrong is not going to convince them either way.
I don't know what to tell you. If you've decided to ignore the rules then I'm not sure what more there is to talk about here.
I'll try it one more time. There are different degrees of light and different degrees of dark. There is a threshold past which the environment is dark enough that it becomes significantly hard to see.
No problem so far, the game rules agree and say the same thing as ^
I set that threshold as less light than a full moon in an open field.
Whoopsies. Error. The PHB directly says otherwise. "A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light."
That is not the same as not having a threshold and therefore not the same as giving everyone Darkvision.
Light sources have a threshold between their bright illumination and their dim illumination. Spells, items, effects, abilities, the number of ways to create a light source is many-fold. And surprising no-one, they often list how far the Bright light potion goes and then also how far the Dim light portion goes. Between the two, is what you'd call a threshold.
You can do a lot of things with these light radius figures. You can calculate lux from lumens, or reverse engineer the lumens based on the distance of the threshold if you can nail down the bright<>dim transition point value. Do you need to do this ever? Highly unlikely anyone would ever need to calculate the exact lumens of say a daylight spell... but could you? Yes.
Seriously, the moon is not full every night of the week, not every night has clear weather and the group is not going to be in an open field that often, let alone all those three conditions together.
Night is typically Darkness in 5e. Only when well lit by the moon does it get to Dim.
Again, you can disagree but you're not really disagreeing with me, you disagree with the rulebook. So,
In real life perhaps you can actually see in most moonlit nights, but in 5E you can't, ''Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)''
So most moonlit nights are darkness (heavily obscured), but particularly brillant full moon nights are dim light (lightly obscured). So most of the time, humans are blind at night without a light source.
Like i said, 5E's rules for light and vision are not all that realistic. Like many rules, they were designed to be simple and easy to use.
Absolutely, RAW makes this clear and any argument for something else is homebrew.
In real life perhaps you can actually see in most moonlit nights, but in 5E you can't, ''Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)''
So most moonlit nights are darkness (heavily obscured), but particularly brillant full moon nights are dim light (lightly obscured). So most of the time, humans are blind at night without a light source.
Like i said, 5E's rules for light and vision are not all that realistic. Like many rules, they were designed to be simple and easy to use.
Absolutely, RAW makes this clear and any argument for something else is homebrew.
Like many rules, they were designed by ultra conservative DM's who are paranoid about PC power levels (and also have likely never been outside in the conditions they are making rules over).
Not sure what about being able to see normally outside under a full moon would be any more or less simple than having trouble seeing under those specific lighting conditions.
Absolutely, but the game is still fun going by RAW.
It can be fun going by RAW staying true to the rules.
It can be fun going by homebrew setting a darker tolerance for dim light.
In real life perhaps you can actually see in most moonlit nights, but in 5E you can't, ''Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)''
So most moonlit nights are darkness (heavily obscured), but particularly brillant full moon nights are dim light (lightly obscured). So most of the time, humans are blind at night without a light source.
Like i said, 5E's rules for light and vision are not all that realistic. Like many rules, they were designed to be simple and easy to use.
Absolutely, RAW makes this clear and any argument for something else is homebrew.
Like many rules, they were designed by ultra conservative DM's who are paranoid about PC power levels (and also have likely never been outside in the conditions they are making rules over).
Not sure what about being able to see normally outside under a full moon would be any more or less simple than having trouble seeing under those specific lighting conditions.
Absolutely, but the game is still fun going by RAW.
It can be fun going by RAW staying true to the rules.
It can be fun going by homebrew setting a darker tolerance for dim light.
We can all respect each other's gaming stances.
We can all have fun.
It can be. It can also be unfun for any given table. The respect thing goes both ways. And yes, we can still all have fun.
Well, the DM will decide on their own adjudication of the rules.
Players can join if they think they will enjoy it.
I think the RAW should be changed but the RAW are the RAW. We've got what we've got.
Some players will better enjoy staying true to RAW while others may better enjoy a realism favouring homebrew. Personally, I'd marginally edge to the latter but, once in a game, I'd probably not think of any of this stuff. I'd be busy trying to keep my character alive.
If you want light, do your adventuring by day and carry torches when going into shadow.
If you want light, do your adventuring by day and carry torches when going into shadow.
Also! Pack the control flames cantrip. It is far better than light in effective distance it lets you see. Sure, someone's gotta now carry a torch, but, 40ft/40ft bright/dim on a simple torch? Or 60ft/60ft radius on a hooded lantern? Can be active on 3 light sources at once! Toss it onto a Bullseye lantern for a whoppin 120ft+120ft bright+dim range of light.
Taking RAW literally, people have disadvantage on seeing anything under a beach umbrella on a sunny day, even when the something is otherwise in plain sight.
Taking RAW literally, people have disadvantage on seeing anything under a beach umbrella on a sunny day, even when the something is otherwise in plain sight.
There's no darkness on the other side of the beach umbrella.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
In my homebrew I restrict/permit access to darkvision with surface elves and humans... evenly allowing darkvision to be swapped out with a proficiency. I'll may also homebrew dim light to persist until I'd judge a blinding level of darkness would take effect but, for me, I think optional access to 'darkvision' may be homebrew enough.
If you want light, do your adventuring by day and carry torches when going into shadow.
Also! Pack the control flames cantrip. It is far better than light in effective distance it lets you see. Sure, someone's gotta now carry a torch, but, 40ft/40ft bright/dim on a simple torch? Or 60ft/60ft radius on a hooded lantern? Can be active on 3 light sources at once! Toss it onto a Bullseye lantern for a whoppin 120ft+120ft bright+dim range of light.
If you want light, do your adventuring by day and carry torches when going into shadow.
Also! Pack the control flames cantrip. It is far better than light in effective distance it lets you see. Sure, someone's gotta now carry a torch, but, 40ft/40ft bright/dim on a simple torch? Or 60ft/60ft radius on a hooded lantern? Can be active on 3 light sources at once! Toss it onto a Bullseye lantern for a whoppin 120ft+120ft bright+dim range of light.
Taking RAW literally, people have disadvantage on seeing anything under a beach umbrella on a sunny day, even when the something is otherwise in plain sight.
Taking RAW literally, people have disadvantage on seeing anything under a beach umbrella on a sunny day, even when the something is otherwise in plain sight.
There's no darkness on the other side of the beach umbrella.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
It is a shadow, though. ...
It's a poorer aspect of a poor and misleading description by WotC.
... It is also a boundary area from a source of bright light ([as from] the sun) and the darkness that would be there if the bright light was completely blocked (the darknessthat would exist if the umbrella was instead solid walls and a solid roof that let no sunlight through.
Its December. It's cloudy outside (not very bright by real-world standards). I'm indoors. I haven't put a light on because I don't have any difficulty seeing things.
You're right though.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Dim light, for instance, may characterise the entryway into a dungeon.
You then light a torch and the boundary area between bright light and darkness is prescribed.
I don't think an umbrella cast shadow deep enought to be considered dim light and be at a disadvantage to see, but a DM is certainly rule this way if he or she wishes.
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.
There are two sentences, so let's examine the first one.
A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely.
That seems pretty clear in terms of intent, but not necessarily in terms of rules.
Let's remove the examples to distil the statement:
A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely.
So, the whole of that area blocks vision. It is not possible to see through any part of that area. A character standing inside the area cannot see other creatures in the area, nor can they see out of the area, as some part of the area is between them and creatures outside of the area.
The second sentence of this rule states:
A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
The important thing to note here is that this is a separate sentence and it doesn't override, or change, the previous sentence.
It's important to note that, with the way the rules are written, we sometimes see statements like this that are there to help clarify common situations.
Let's evaluate a situation I've seen discussed, where a creature is inside the heavily obscured area. Are they at advantage or disadvantage to attack a creature outside the area?
Applying the first statement of this rule, we know that neither creature can see the other, because there is at least some of the area between them (even though one is inside and the other is outside).
As others have noted, this leads to an odd situation where, as neither creature can see the other, they both have disadvantage on their attacks, as well as advantage on their attacks - this cancels out.
It's also worth noting that it's not possible to "stack" multiple instances of advantage or disadvantage.
My favourite odd example of this is a character suffering from 3 levels of exhaustion, which causes disadvantage on attack rolls. That character casts a darkness spell over the combat, so now all combatants have advantage and disadvantage (assuming no other way to see, such as blindsight). This effectively removes the penalty for being exhausted.
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.
There are two sentences, so let's examine the first one.
A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely.
That seems pretty clear in terms of intent, but not necessarily in terms of rules.
Let's remove the examples to distil the statement:
A heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely.
So, the whole of that area blocks vision. It is not possible to see through any part of that area. A character standing inside the area cannot see other creatures in the area, nor can they see out of the area, as some part of the area is between them and creatures outside of the area.
The second sentence of this rule states:
A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
The important thing to note here is that this is a separate sentence and it doesn't override, or change, the previous sentence.
It's important to note that, with the way the rules are written, we sometimes see statements like this that are there to help clarify common situations.
Let's evaluate a situation I've seen discussed, where a creature is inside the heavily obscured area. Are they at advantage or disadvantage to attack a creature outside the area?
Applying the first statement of this rule, we know that neither creature can see the other, because there is at least some of the area between them (even though one is inside and the other is outside).
As others have noted, this leads to an odd situation where, as neither creature can see the other, they both have disadvantage on their attacks, as well as advantage on their attacks - this cancels out.
It's also worth noting that it's not possible to "stack" multiple instances of advantage or disadvantage.
My favourite odd example of this is a character suffering from 3 levels of exhaustion, which causes disadvantage on attack rolls. That character casts a darkness spell over the combat, so now all combatants have advantage and disadvantage (assuming no other way to see, such as blindsight). This effectively removes the penalty for being exhausted.
"The important thing to note here is that this is a separate sentence and it doesn't override, or change, the previous sentence."
this statement is not true. there is inference. it is English 101. The first sentence makes a statement, the second clarifies the point. it is Called a context Clue. Because both sentences are together in a definition, the second sentence is designed to clarify the first via context clue. It expands on the point. https://www.ldsd.org/cms/lib/PA09000083/Centricity/Domain/18/5contextclues.pdf
Applying the first statement of this rule, we know that neither creature can see the other, because there is at least some of the area between them (even though one is inside and the other is outside).
This is also incorrect. There is only the specific inference that the rules apply when attempting to look INTO the heavily obscured area. Not out. The original errata "A heavily obscured area doesn't blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it" Proves this point. It was changed I believe in 2017 when people did not understand in context to cover. So creating the current version allows for more context. You can't say anymore you aren't blind if the reason you are heavily obscured is for example, if you have 4ft thick vines all around you as heavy obscurement.
This is also incorrect. There is only the specific inference that the rules apply when attempting to look INTO the heavily obscured area. Not out. The original errata "A heavily obscured area doesn't blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it" Proves this point. It was changed I believe in 2017 when people did not understand in context to cover. So creating the current version allows for more context. You can't say anymore you aren't blind if the reason you are heavily obscured is for example, if you have 4ft thick vines all around you as heavy obscurement.
Problem is, this errata didn't really address the problem that darkness was treated as all the other heavily obscurement, only clarifying that you weren't generally blinded. But you can't have darkness behaves like all other heavily obscurement because light should be visible within darkness, while not within other heavily obscured area such as heavy fog or snow storm. In other words, you should not be effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by darkness since vision should not be blocked to light in such case.
Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.
I think the answer would be that light specifically counters non-magical darkness, effectively removing or mitigating it. In other words, treat light as the specific whereas darkness is the general. Darkness is defined, after all, as the absence of light. If there is a light source, then there is less darkness.
Neither which you can see if said darkness blocks your vision. A strict reading of those rules have characters literally unable to see the moon and the stars most of the time. It's not new, R&D had the very same problem in 4E basically for the same reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You seem to be under the impression that vision is not impaired while in the dead of night with not sources of light available other than the moon. You are wrong.
Will your eyes adjust to this lighting enough to allow you to move around? Sure. To walk along a clear path? Sure. To notice the feline predator stalking you from the bushes? ... maybe??
Those guys are hard enough to spot in the best of conditions, you telling me you claiming you could spot a cat in the dead of night? Doubt. Your vision is impaired in these conditions. Blind? No. Impaired? Yes.
That... is Dim Light. Where you can still see but it is hard to do it. Takes effort. Maybe some details are missing. But you can see. Just not well.
I got quotes!
So, basically, all your posts are just to say: "You're not entirely blind while in dim light"
Okay. That is true.
I got quotes!
So most moonlit nights are darkness (heavily obscured), but particularly brillant full moon nights are dim light (lightly obscured). So most of the time, humans are blind at night without a light source.
Like i said, 5E's rules for light and vision are not all that realistic. Like many rules, they were designed to be simple and easy to use.
What are the different degrees of dark?
The rules have 2 degrees of light (bright, dim) and only 1 degree of dark (darkness). The formers let you see, the latter doesn't.
As long as it is clear that you are homebrewing a different set of boundaries between Darkness - Dim Light - Bright Light, then that is fine.
But RAW, the boundaries are clearly defined.
Mine comes from the PHB. Chapter 8: Adventuring. Topic: The Environment. Specific Header: Vision and Light
It isn't really "my" definition, it is the game's. You seem to have chosen to address your argument at me, but you're really arguing against the PHB.
I don't know what to tell you. If you've decided to ignore the rules then I'm not sure what more there is to talk about here.
No problem so far, the game rules agree and say the same thing as ^
Whoopsies. Error. The PHB directly says otherwise. "A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light."
Light sources have a threshold between their bright illumination and their dim illumination. Spells, items, effects, abilities, the number of ways to create a light source is many-fold. And surprising no-one, they often list how far the Bright light potion goes and then also how far the Dim light portion goes. Between the two, is what you'd call a threshold.
You can do a lot of things with these light radius figures. You can calculate lux from lumens, or reverse engineer the lumens based on the distance of the threshold if you can nail down the bright<>dim transition point value. Do you need to do this ever? Highly unlikely anyone would ever need to calculate the exact lumens of say a daylight spell... but could you? Yes.
Night is typically Darkness in 5e. Only when well lit by the moon does it get to Dim.
Again, you can disagree but you're not really disagreeing with me, you disagree with the rulebook. So,
I got quotes!
Absolutely, RAW makes this clear and any argument for something else is homebrew.
Absolutely, but the game is still fun going by RAW.
It can be fun going by RAW staying true to the rules.
It can be fun going by homebrew setting a darker tolerance for dim light.
We can all respect each other's gaming stances.
We can all have fun.
Well, the DM will decide on their own adjudication of the rules.
Players can join if they think they will enjoy it.
I think the RAW should be changed but the RAW are the RAW. We've got what we've got.
Some players will better enjoy staying true to RAW while others may better enjoy a realism favouring homebrew. Personally, I'd marginally edge to the latter but, once in a game, I'd probably not think of any of this stuff. I'd be busy trying to keep my character alive.
If you want light, do your adventuring by day and carry torches when going into shadow.
Also! Pack the control flames cantrip. It is far better than light in effective distance it lets you see. Sure, someone's gotta now carry a torch, but, 40ft/40ft bright/dim on a simple torch? Or 60ft/60ft radius on a hooded lantern? Can be active on 3 light sources at once! Toss it onto a Bullseye lantern for a whoppin 120ft+120ft bright+dim range of light.
That would be in bright light. RAW. No penalty.
I got quotes!
There's no darkness on the other side of the beach umbrella.
In my homebrew I restrict/permit access to darkvision with surface elves and humans... evenly allowing darkvision to be swapped out with a proficiency.
I'll may also homebrew dim light to persist until I'd judge a blinding level of darkness would take effect but, for me, I think optional access to 'darkvision' may be homebrew enough.
Thanks, that's just awesome! :D
It's a poorer aspect of a poor and misleading description by WotC.
Its December. It's cloudy outside (not very bright by real-world standards). I'm indoors. I haven't put a light on because I don't have any difficulty seeing things.
You're right though.
Dim light, for instance, may characterise the entryway into a dungeon.
You then light a torch and the boundary area between bright light and darkness is prescribed.
I don't think an umbrella cast shadow deep enought to be considered dim light and be at a disadvantage to see, but a DM is certainly rule this way if he or she wishes.
What are you trying to see? Seems like a rather trivial thing, to argue over this matter
"The important thing to note here is that this is a separate sentence and it doesn't override, or change, the previous sentence."
this statement is not true. there is inference. it is English 101. The first sentence makes a statement, the second clarifies the point. it is Called a context Clue. Because both sentences are together in a definition, the second sentence is designed to clarify the first via context clue. It expands on the point. https://www.ldsd.org/cms/lib/PA09000083/Centricity/Domain/18/5contextclues.pdf
Applying the first statement of this rule, we know that neither creature can see the other, because there is at least some of the area between them (even though one is inside and the other is outside).
This is also incorrect. There is only the specific inference that the rules apply when attempting to look INTO the heavily obscured area. Not out. The original errata "A heavily obscured area doesn't blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it" Proves this point. It was changed I believe in 2017 when people did not understand in context to cover. So creating the current version allows for more context. You can't say anymore you aren't blind if the reason you are heavily obscured is for example, if you have 4ft thick vines all around you as heavy obscurement.
It was actually changed in the first PHB errata in 2015 https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf
Problem is, this errata didn't really address the problem that darkness was treated as all the other heavily obscurement, only clarifying that you weren't generally blinded. But you can't have darkness behaves like all other heavily obscurement because light should be visible within darkness, while not within other heavily obscured area such as heavy fog or snow storm. In other words, you should not be effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by darkness since vision should not be blocked to light in such case.
Neither which you can see if said darkness blocks your vision. A strict reading of those rules have characters literally unable to see the moon and the stars most of the time. It's not new, R&D had the very same problem in 4E basically for the same reasons.