Now add Darkvision, the Darkness required, as present as it may be, would appear as Dim Light. Sure - it's still darkness but Darkvision straight up says, "can see in darkness as if it were dim light" thus Devil's Sight's "You can see normally in Darkness" and you are not seeing into Darkness anymore, so you don't see normally. It's that simple. And there is nothing in either rule that blocks that interpretation outside of it being very not cool to the player.
Yes you are! I really don't get how you can still refuse to accept that.
If someone is looking into an area of Darkness then they will always be looking into and area of Darkness (until someone adds a light source of some sort). It doesn't matter which (or how many) special senses that someone has, the lighting conditions for the area will not change in any way, it will still be an area of Darkness.
I agree but someone can still say, "the Darkness you're looking into is as if it was Dim Light to you! You don't have the effect of Darkness to engage Devil's Sight!"
But what's the rule for seeing normally? Is it Bright Light? Probably, but then why didn't they say so? Or do they mean, "how you would otherwise see if there was no Darkness" to include those without normal vision?
They do!
It's explicitly stated even, "Bright light lets most creatures see normally". And even without that the rules are written in natural language so "normally" means just that , normally, not whatever convoluted argument that can be cobbled together.
And I glazed over this part and it's the main reason I'm quoting this comment - this is a really good point. But as far as interpretations go, it's not much different than Darkvision saying, "hey, you see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light, which is in greyscale" (without also including the other penalties, like disadvantage on Perception Checks and -5 to Passive Perception)... Point is, why didn't they say, in Devil's Sight then, "see's in Darkness as if it were Bright Light, which is normally"? Is this an editor oversight? Where very similar functions/interpretations are worded somewhat significantly differently? The interpretation folks are pounding (which again, I agree with - which is why I seemingly assumed correctly there would be additional clarifying rules which put it to bed) doesn't say that for one with Darkvision, who's normal view of Darkness is Dim Light, would be color and all that, when viewing Darkness as Dim Light with Darkvision, and then taking that same Darkness and making it appear as "normal" (not "bright light" suggesting "Normally" is a condition bright light matches... Like how Darkness is actually "Heavily Obscured/Blinded")
Long story short - I would agree that it helps clarify Devil's Sight see's color vision within line of sight out to the effective range. But that doesn't clarify which rule takes priority in your game. According to RAW, under Simultaneous effects, the player would get to pick. So you should just pick Devil's Sight as 1st order, Darkvision as 2nd - then regardless of your interpretation of the rules originally presented in the OP, there is no conflict.
Yet you don't acknowledge what it means, so you saying it is pointless. Since Darkvision doesn't change darkness, there is no potential conflict with Devil's Sight. If there is no potential conflict, there's no need for 5 pages of posts discussing other arguments and causing confusion about how Darkvision and Devil's Sight work. I know you said, after much wrangling, that Darkvision doesn't change darkness. But that's not the same as saying Darkvision can't interfere with Devil's Sight because it doesn't change darkness.
How about a rephrasing? Does the ability to see normally under normal lighting conditions interfere with Darkvision? Does the ability to hear while seeing things interfere with Darkvision? If you are using detect magic to see magical auras, does that interfere with Darkvision, Devil's sight, or even just normal vision? If you have blindsight, does it fail to function in situations where you can see normally, even in detecting anyone invisible within your blindsight radius? If you have 10' if blindsight, does that mean you cannot see normally outside of that 10' radius, lighting and other conditions permitting?
Those are all situations with competing sensory capabilities, but there are no stated incompatibilities.
Unless there is something specifically indicating an incompatibility, why would there be an incompatibility?
Anytime you have a character changing how they react to a condition present within the game can/likely has potential conflicts which would need additional clarifying rules.
Let's take one that doesn't really have much to do with this thread but you kinda-sorta presented here... Can someone without any extra abilities to see in the Dark spot the Magic? Well, Detect Magic says, "For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any." which suggests pretty readily that you would have to be able to see the magic object to see the faint aura - otherwise, you just know there's magic present (potentially much like Devil's Sight and Darkness under Darkvision - that is to say, attempting to apply Devil's Sight after Darkvision. You might know its Darkness, but since you don't see it that way, it doesn't trigger that way). But in this case the language of the rules is very clear. We don't have that explanation removing any conflicts between one person's interpretation of Devil's Sight and Darkness together versus another's.
Ok, so to toss out the "interpretation" of Darkvision, Devil's Sight, Light Levels from the OP and focus on RAW, consider this. Under Simultaneous Effects, they present the situation where someone may be picking Darkvision over Devil's Sight. Let's say no one is breaking that rule and ordering the player do so, it's just what the player decides to do. Then they choose to see Darkness as Dim Light under Darkvision or see however they normally see under Devil's Sight which is in-line w/ the rules "can" inclusion (that said, remember in elementary school when you may have heard the quip, "Yes you can, are you asking if you may?" and we realize "can" could simply means if there is nothing else preventing them to doing so or the "can" choose to enable the effect (which is kind of weird when you think about it - not exactly game breaking, but one can choose to see without Darkvision or Devil's Sight? Then one would assume they can choose not to see whatever they don't wanna see whenever they want, with or without closing their eyes. Don't wanna see that hag? ok, say you chose not to see them then even tho you're shooting at the guy right behind them w/ full vision. See how that could break down other rules?)
Either way, Simultaneous Effects puts the debate to rest! (well, not so much on what "can" could actually imply in the many, many rules it appears in but whatever - other rules present usually boil it down into irrelevancy which is why I didn't settle on that earlier in the thread - where others said that the inclusion of "can see" in Devil's Sight and Darkvision eliminate the potential conflict... It really doesn't as it might break other completely separate and independent rules you may come across elsewhere in your campaign. The main reason I'm also fighting simply re-interpreting the rules... If you say keywords mean something more than what they suggest at surface level, other rules with those same keywords and phrases stop working as intended but you set a precedent using interpretations as a short cut to locating a clarifying rule)
Remember, assuming a perfect bell curve, what you first thought of, 95% of other people are going to think very similar to your initial interpretation, but you should expect 1 in 20 (1 in 20!) to have something completely different. This is why RAW > RAI and why I've said this thread proves the rules originally presented in the OP (everything but Sim. Eff.) are wide open to interpretation when attempted to apply them all at the same time. That's not crazy. We should expect that in life.
TL'DR - SIMULTANEOUS EFFECTS PRESENT AND THEN RESOLVE THE EXACT ISSUE THE OP SUGGESTS: You have a DM illegally state you must apply your Darkvision before Devil's Sight removing the benefit of Devil's Sight in Darkness... You open Xanathar's Guide to Everything and say, "oh no no no, DM, I get to pick and thus get both benefits regardless - see on Page 5?"
Also, just to get this out there again: I play the way everyone who has been "disagreeing" with me suggests! I do not believe the rules were written with the intention to conflict but rather blend into a sum greater than their parts like you all suggest is plainly written. This is why I assumed there would be additional rules, not additional interpretations, which clarify this situation as well as many scenarios like it. Add to that I've had folks interpret seemingly far more simple rules than what was presented here in far more complicated ways which brought a session to a total standstill.
Also in the rules are suggestions for moving past such interruptions, from DM-Ruling to Coin-Flip, since the authors of the game know that written word can be interpreted in as many ways as you have readers.
Yes I have - the whole point is "what if someone is arguing between the interpretation of the language of the rules by themselves?" You can say, "This is how it's supposed to be" all day long, but without an additional rule, it's just your word against theirs's. This is why I say you need an addition rule that says, "The fact that Darkvision could have the Darkness as if it were Dim Light when the character goes to apply their Devil's Sight on the Darkness they don't see in as Darkness."
An interpretation that's wrong is, well, wrong. Actually correcting it is still better than saying 'doesn't matter, I have this semi-related rule that makes it a moot point". Otherwise, you could get even more silliness like "Darkvision could have the darkness as if it were dim light so Gloom Stalkers are never really in darkness so Umbral Sight can't work". Players who do have trouble interpreting a rule and go looking online for advice shouldn't be told that an inaccurate interpretation might be correct because 'it's just a subjective opinion' or some similar malarkey - they should be told what the right interpretation is, period.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes I have - the whole point is "what if someone is arguing between the interpretation of the language of the rules by themselves?" You can say, "This is how it's supposed to be" all day long, but without an additional rule, it's just your word against theirs's. This is why I say you need an addition rule that says, "The fact that Darkvision could have the Darkness as if it were Dim Light when the character goes to apply their Devil's Sight on the Darkness they don't see in as Darkness."
An interpretation that's wrong is, well, wrong. Actually correcting it is still better than saying 'doesn't matter, I have this semi-related rule that makes it a moot point". Otherwise, you could get even more silliness like "Darkvision could have the darkness as if it were dim light so Gloom Stalkers are never really in darkness so Umbral Sight can't work". Players who do have trouble interpreting a rule and go looking online for advice shouldn't be told that an inaccurate interpretation might be correct because 'it's just a subjective opinion' or some similar malarkey - they should be told what the right interpretation is, period.
An interpretation is simply an interpretation. It's what they thought when they read the rule. Now that interpretation might not be the meaning which was intended, but those are two distinct things you seem to be missing from my point of view (and to be fair, I would say it can be appropriate to say "you have the wrong interpretation" but you would have to be the author of the subject - like your interpretation of what I intended to communicate. For example, I've never said Darkvision turns Darkness to Dim Light as if it were the edge of torch light or something - I've been very clear it's for only that character using the Darkvision and only as far as how they see - this will be more relevant in a moment.
Now, my examples for conflicts were not my first thought, but the question came to me nonetheless - sure, you can just say, 'well hey it's darkness' and collect your benefit, but what specifically says that's how it works one way versus the other. What's the rule on the rule in other words? You can say, "this is what the author's intended" all you want, but without information from the author's that's just your personal opinion - the person you're addressing w/ the "wrong interpretation" can quite literally say the same thing back to you, just swapping the details/labels so it's from their point of view. You've offered no clarification that can't be reversed and still apply to other rule sets. Now, that's just my interpretation, which seems to have become the focus here, not the request for additional rules which would support your claim (the rule on the rules that is), but I digress.
Here's the thing - the additional clarifying rule, Simultaneous Effects, introduced by Farling and acknowledged by Paradox Traveler confirms the common interpretation is what the author's intended. No need to reread the rules over and over again. This is what the OP was seeking. "Hey, I know this is taken as a given, the apparent synergy between Darkvision and Devil's Sight, but what beyond those rules confirms it?" Your answer thus far is nothing but the rules presented in the OP which is like using a word to define itself (no offense).
Like saying, "Darkness is Darkness" when we know DnD is layers upon layers of rules which create the shared narrative.
...instead of "(as far as DnD goes) Darkness is a categorization of illumination. The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness. Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness. PLUS 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. PLUS the rule for blinded - A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage." (and then you could start talking about different rules which are affected by Darkness or which affect Darkness from there)"
And the silliness "Darkvision could have the darkness as if it were dim light so Gloom Stalkers are never really in darkness so Umbral Sight can't work" - not exactly, because Umbral Sight very clearly says, "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness." therefore, if they're using Darkvision to see you in Darkness, you're effectively invisible even though they see the Darkness as Dim Light because they used Darkvision to do so. True due to both the "can" inclusions but more specifically, Simultaneous Effects. The creature "can" always try to see without Darkvision, otherwise if that's what they're using, and the target is in Darkness (which appears as Dim Light to the owner of Darkvision) than the Stalker is straight up invisible to them (also, not actually invisible - just effectively invisible under those conditions to that character trying to see the Gloom Stalker w/ Darkvision). Want some silliness - block someone from using Devil's Sight to see the Stalker because you're unaware of Simultaneous Effects, lol and applying the rules in the strange, conflicted way I presented in the OP. It doesn't mention Dim Light because the character can see them without having to rely on Darkvision. Now since it's not mentioned in the rule, we can assume though, they may use Darkvision to see the Gloom Stalker in Dim Light as though it were Bright Light, but that only assists w/ Perception checks anyhow.
Remember when I said I've never claimed that Darkvision turns Darkness into Dim Light for everyone but instead said that it's how that character sees and therefore may affect rules impacting their sight. This is where the first portion of this comment is relevant. Umbral Sight blocks their ability to use Darkvision to see them while they are in Darkness - doesn't matter if it appears to be Dim Light to them now, they used Darkvision to do so, so the Gloom Stalker is invisible to them. Light em up with edge of a torch tho and they pop right into view.
TL;DR - I'm not trying to disagree with you for the sake of it. I'm looking for clarifying rules, errata, sage advice, or even other rules with same/similar language but for different effects, cementing the interpretation. If it's in a rule that would break under some interpretation presented for another rule, you can reasonably assume that wasn't the intention of the phrasing.
I do appreciate expanding to things like Umbral Sight though, as it makes it easier to draw intention from interpretation. Also, I'm not saying Darkvision works like a Torch - never did. I'm saying Darkvision and Devil's Sight affect the same thing differently (Darkness), potentially at the same time, so what additional rules clarify which effect to apply and how.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight don't change the ambient light at all so they both interact with what the light actually is, not what you perceive it as.
Mechanically, they DO change what it "actually" is. I'm blown away by how many people seem to think the perception of darkness and actual darkness are two separate things... Being in darkness and how you perceive it are the exact same thing. HOW you perceive it is up to the individual and whether they have things like Darkvision or Devil's Sight. Seriously, think about it: they are one in the same, lmao
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Darkvision says "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."
It doesn't change the fact that you are still trying to see in darkness.
Therefore the devil's sight rules can still be applied.
It does change the fact because you mechanically treat it as dim light. The fact that I can just as easily say the opposite means this interpretation does not actually clarify any potential conflicts between the ruleset.
In other words, you're claiming the benefit of the darkness becoming dim light, and then ignoring that mechanic to gain the benefit of devil's sight. Bear in mind the wording of Darkvision is to ensure players essentially always get its benefit - not to straddle the line with other very clear rules. To do what you're suggesting would break down the rules for light for the remainder of your campaign - Players saying, "well teeechnically I'm in this kind of light sooo" with a wide variety of spells and abilities. I could reach as far as saying like a torch in a dark tunnel - technically you're still in the dark but you have a bubble of light within it with your interpretation.
But do not be dismayed! You can still gain the benefits of both by declaring you see w/ Devil's Sight over Darkvision if you ever had to squeeze that rule out. Again, we're just playing w/ rule phrasing and your interpretation is every bit as legit as mine - but again, the fact that I can claim the rules could be interpreted the opposite leaves us at square one.
No, you're wrong.
The wording I quoted specifies "as if it were dim light". This means that it is still darkness, but you can see as IF it were dim light. Thus the wording of Devil's Sight can still be applied.
Other light/darkness spells actually change the level of light, so not relevant to this discussion where abilities are only working AS IF the lighting was something else rather than ACTUALLY something else.
no, you're wrong lol
"as if it were dim light" is to ensure that darkvision always has an opportunity to apply mechanically like with the phrasing in Find Familiar, "Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell"
Its key phrasing they use to widen the criteria for application. In other words, you're applying that phrasing backwards. You're saying it basically only applies when you want it to and/or has a specific meaning when its actually designed to widen the application and usage. It makes it "as if it" were something different, even though its not.
Darkvision treats Darkness as if it were Dim Light, even though it isn't. Find Familiar treats your spell cast as if it were the Familiar who cast it. That doesn't mean mechanically you treat it as though you cast the spell - but without the "as if it" wording, things like your caster's spell slots break down and what not after using the spell thru your familiar's reaction action. In other words, the Familiar casts your spell for you; "as if it" cast the spell itself (but it has no spellbook or slots so it needs your spell casting info)... Hence the phrasing "as if it"
And I get (and knew) you would contend "the actual light levels" change but that's all interpretation is the point. You nailed it w/ the Simultaneous Effect rule but you're stretching the Darkvision rule like under-sized yoga-pants rn, lol
Darkvision says "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."
It doesn't change the fact that you are still trying to see in darkness.
Therefore the devil's sight rules can still be applied.
It does change the fact because you mechanically treat it as dim light. The fact that I can just as easily say the opposite means this interpretation does not actually clarify any potential conflicts between the ruleset.
In other words, you're claiming the benefit of the darkness becoming dim light, and then ignoring that mechanic to gain the benefit of devil's sight. Bear in mind the wording of Darkvision is to ensure players essentially always get its benefit - not to straddle the line with other very clear rules. To do what you're suggesting would break down the rules for light for the remainder of your campaign - Players saying, "well teeechnically I'm in this kind of light sooo" with a wide variety of spells and abilities. I could reach as far as saying like a torch in a dark tunnel - technically you're still in the dark but you have a bubble of light within it with your interpretation.
But do not be dismayed! You can still gain the benefits of both by declaring you see w/ Devil's Sight over Darkvision if you ever had to squeeze that rule out. Again, we're just playing w/ rule phrasing and your interpretation is every bit as legit as mine - but again, the fact that I can claim the rules could be interpreted the opposite leaves us at square one.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight don't change the ambient light at all so they both interact with what the light actually is, not what you perceive it as.
Mechanically, they DO change what it "actually" is. I'm blown away by how many people seem to think the perception of darkness and actual darkness are two separate things... Being in darkness and how you perceive it are the exact same thing. HOW you perceive it is up to the individual and whether they have things like Darkvision or Devil's Sight. Seriously, think about it: they are one in the same, lmao
In other words, you're basically saying, "well it's darkness for other players so its darkness for you"
The wording of the rule is designed to avoid "group" conflicts. Otherwise, if it didn't say "treat as" or "as if it" then people could argue, under RAI, that since one person had Darkvision, everyone in the party could see. "It said with Darkvision Darkness looks like Dim Light - They must be explaining to me what I see or something."
The rules MUST specify such considerations we take for granted as participants (either player or DM).
Darkvision and Devil's Sight don't change the ambient light at all so they both interact with what the light actually is, not what you perceive it as.
Mechanically, they DO change what it "actually" is. I'm blown away by how many people seem to think the perception of darkness and actual darkness are two separate things... Being in darkness and how you perceive it are the exact same thing. HOW you perceive it is up to the individual and whether they have things like Darkvision or Devil's Sight. Seriously, think about it: they are one in the same, lmao
(edit: the following isn't necessarily just on you - I'm no writer...lol) This is what happens when you cherry pick phrasing and pull incomplete quotes - I wasn't saying Darkness becomes Dim Light for the game; just the character w/ Darkvision as far as their sight was concerned. And that isn't the first time I make the distinction. I'm pretty sure I made it to you as well prior to that. No offense, but maybe you just misinterpreted what I've been saying all along? (another issue w/ arguing interpretation; especially over text-based communication with no tone-of-voice/body language.)
I wasn't saying Darkness becomes Dim Light for the game; just the character w/ Darkvision as far as their sight was concerned.
Well, what you literally said was "Being in darkness and how you perceive it are the exact same thing".
I don't think it's a case of me misinterpreting what you said, but rather one of you misrepresenting what you mean. What you say, how you say it, matters. It's for that same reason my argument has never been "I think this is what the writer of the rule intended". My argument is and has always been that "this is what the writer of the rule literally wrote". There is no ambiguity to Darkvision or Devil's Sight. You just have to read what they say, exactly as they say it. If you do, there's only one possible interpretation. It's certainly possible for someone to misread it, that can happen, but in that case they are wrong and should be corrected. Letting errors stand is never the right way of dealing with things. Maybe the error is a moot point in this case, but you can't know if it won't have other consequences down the line. Set it right now, and it won't cause problems later.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
(edit: the following isn't necessarily just on you - I'm no writer...lol) This is what happens when you cherry pick phrasing and pull incomplete quotes - I wasn't saying Darkness becomes Dim Light for the game; just the character w/ Darkvision as far as their sight was concerned. And that isn't the first time I make the distinction. I'm pretty sure I made it to you as well prior to that. No offense, but maybe you just misinterpreted what I've been saying all along? (another issue w/ arguing interpretation; especially over text-based communication with no tone-of-voice/body language.)
But both Darkvision and Devil's Sight deal with the actual situation, not the subjective situation. Again, your argument is like saying that having 10' blindsight means you cannot see past 10' since the blindsight somehow blocks your use of normal sight. Or alternatively, that you cannot sense an invisible person within 10' in daylight since you can see everything else normally and therefore blindsight cannot function.
Not at all... Blindsight very clearly says, "Blindsight - A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as grimlocks and gray oozes, typically have this special sense, as do creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons. If a monster is naturally blind, it has a parenthetical note to this effect, indicating that the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception. There's absolutely nothing to suggest what you proposed.
And I never said it was subjective. I said two different things people are getting very confused over... 1-Darkvision and Devil's Sight cause mechanical changes to the way the character possessing the abilities reacts to specific conditions, which would be illumination levels. 2-Separately, Darkvision and Devil's Sight affect the same thing differently at the same time, which is Darkness. There's nothing in the rules by themselves which dictate who can pick which is in effect and when without Simultaneous Effects out of Xanathar's
In regard to point 1 just above - I wasn't always clear I meant for the person with the ability, but I thought that would be obvious considering the rules affect one's sense of sight which isn't exactly a shared experience without additional factors like Telepathy or something (which was never presented nor a consideration). In my initial posts, I talk about how the character's perception is the gameplay element which is in question but people ran with the notion that since one character is seeing Darkness as Dim Light, I must mean everyone is - that when I say things like their perception and level of darkness are the same thing that I meant they're allowing everyone to see thru their eyes or something. I don't really know after reviewing my comments - it only makes sense if you focus on bits and pieces of my comments and/or assume they're interpreting my interpretation wrong and trying to reinterpret what I mean for me (like many are for the author's of the actual rules). Anyhow, once I realized this silly bit, I'm very clear that I mean specifically the owner of the senses/abilities - right around comment #28...
And if I was conceding a point, I'd actual concede, like I do in several locations in this thread - I've never implied Darkvision works like a Torch in a dark room. It has always only even been you get a similar but distinctly different effect as an individual w/ darkvision; therefore, how does that play w/ Devil's Sight, RAW? RAW meaning not an interpretation of a rule already presented (I give both in the OP). Its words the author's wrote. RAI is what we think those words mean. RAW and RAI are pretty much always going to go hand in hand which is why you need multiple Rules as Written to have accurate Rules as Interpreted.
Funny thing is my argument remains intact whether we're discussing actual light levels or a person's perception since I'm asking in the OP, where's the rules that say which apply over the others? It's just the argument doesn't work that way since there are no rules that I'm aware of that could "illuminate" a room differently than some other effect? If they change the actual illumination level, they all say so very clearly:
Like a torch: A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. Says Provides. Or Light: You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. The light can be colored as you like. Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. The spell ends if you cast it again or dismiss it as an action. If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell. Says sheds. Or even Darkness (spell): Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness. If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled. Says all kinds of stuff, including what happens if another illumination level and what type collides with the spell. Likewise Daylight (spell): A 60-foot-radius sphere of light spreads out from a point you choose within range. The sphere is bright light and sheds dim light for an additional 60 feet. If you chose a point on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the light shines from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the affected object with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the light. If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the spell that created the darkness is dispelled.
and yet no one offers this verbiage - almost as if they knew that's not what I meant or felt the need to actively avoid offering any new information.
That darkvision lets you see in the dark does not mean you are not in the dark and that therefore devil's sight does not apply, nor the converse.
Maybe... Maybe not... Looking again, focusing on keywords, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" sounds like even though you're in Darkness, you see it as Dim Light with Devil's Sights saying "Seeing in Darkness as if normal" thus suggesting you have to "see in Darkness" which is actually Dim Light for your seeing...
And another point, which I've also made elsewhere, is we can toss the interpretation and say what if your DM simply says, "you have to pick one or the other: Darkvision or Devil's Sight" or even "if you're going to use your Darkvision to turn Dim to Bright, than its also turning your Dark to Dim (for the one character w/ the abilities of course) and no Devil's Sight for you unless its Magical Darkness" - then all you would have left is to argue or quit. However, toss Simultaneous Effects into the equation (Xanathar's, Pg 5 - thanks Farling!), and boop - player picks, not the DM; apply Devil's Sight "first" with Darkvision "second" and you're off to the races.
Again, we can all say, "I'm extremely confident they mean A" but someone else can just come in and say, "I'm extremely confident they mean B" and that's all there is to it if no one present a C.
I wasn't saying Darkness becomes Dim Light for the game; just the character w/ Darkvision as far as their sight was concerned.
Well, what you literally said was "Being in darkness and how you perceive it are the exact same thing".
I don't think it's a case of me misinterpreting what you said, but rather one of you misrepresenting what you mean. What you say, how you say it, matters. It's for that same reason my argument has never been "I think this is what the writer of the rule intended". My argument is and has always been that "this is what the writer of the rule literally wrote". There is no ambiguity to Darkvision or Devil's Sight. You just have to read what they say, exactly as they say it. If you do, there's only one possible interpretation. It's certainly possible for someone to misread it, that can happen, but in that case they are wrong and should be corrected. Letting errors stand is never the right way of dealing with things. Maybe the error is a moot point in this case, but you can't know if it won't have other consequences down the line. Set it right now, and it won't cause problems later.
Ah so taking one thing I said out of 6 pages again I see... Well, in that context of that post, they are. Folks were arguing the Environmental Effect takes all when it comes to rules pertaining to how a character sees that Darkness. Two senses which treat the same thing differently at the same time - hence the slam dunk w/ Simultaneous Effects from Farling. What I was saying is if a character is trying to "see in darkness" than it would need to "see darkness" and that your perception of darkness is what makes the darkness what it is for you. Darkness is indeed Darkness, but there are obviously rules which change how it plays for one character versus another. Hence the potential for conflicts. Like, "seeing Darkness" is literally "Darkness" - which is your point everywhere else. Darkness is just darkness, right? These are the points I was addressing.
And you can say I misrepresented my case but I've been saying the same things differently for over a week - and that's still a misinterpretation. You could say, "I'm not understanding your meaning" or something, instead of "No" or "You're wrong" (which I only echoed when I quoted you saying the same)... I say "Think of it this way" or "But look here at these rules" only to have you repeat your argument again. Was your original interpretation only "Venyxos is wrong, I'm right" when I made your case in the OP already? I'm not trying to be "right" - I'm trying to find additional rules which clarify the situation. You straight up agree w/ others after presenting the same points I do.
Maybe... Maybe not... Looking again, focusing on keywords, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" sounds like even though you're in Darkness, you see it as Dim Light with Devil's Sights saying "Seeing in Darkness as if normal" thus suggesting you have to "see in Darkness" which is actually Dim Light for your seeing...
It's not "suggesting" you have to see in darkness. It literally says "you can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet." Darkvision says "You can see ... in darkness as if it were dim light." That is not the same as seeing it's dim light for your seeing. In fact, we know with absolute certainty it's not dim light for your seeing because Darkvision also says "you can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray", which dim light does not. If you're standing in a particular spot, in darkness, and look around you with Darkvision things look differently to you than if you were standing in the same spot in dim light instead (both with and without Darkvision).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Maybe... Maybe not... Looking again, focusing on keywords, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" sounds like even though you're in Darkness, you see it as Dim Light with Devil's Sights saying "Seeing in Darkness as if normal" thus suggesting you have to "see in Darkness" which is actually Dim Light for your seeing...
It's not "suggesting" you have to see in darkness. It literally says "you can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet." Darkvision says "You can see ... in darkness as if it were dim light." That is not the same as seeing it's dim light for your seeing. In fact, we know with absolute certainty it's not dim light for your seeing because Darkvision also says "you can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray", which dim light does not. If you're standing in a particular spot, in darkness, and look around you with Darkvision things look differently to you than if you were standing in the same spot in dim light instead (both with and without Darkvision).
You can just as easily say Darkvision Dim Light + Greyscale (but I totally thought Dim Light in general included Greyscale - you should have zeroed in on that, lol. You kind of did at one point but it wasn't clicking. I make the point Dim Light includes the greyscale thing regularly, and it just doesn't lol) and that may settle debates in how one can determine which sense they're using but not which rule might take affect over another. Again, the two rules treat the same thing (Darkness) differently at the same time, so if someone beefs about that, what settles it? I would say Simultaneous Effects absolutely obliterates any potential conflict I can think of, whereas as we've both proved, interpretation is easy to counter. You easily counter mine. I easily counter yours. We go no where.
And what's more, I can make the same argument as the OP without any interpretation by dictating someone simply argues you can only use one or the other at a given time since they are popping off at the "same time - perpetually" (which is also a weird interpretation, but I've heard stranger). That's a conflict which Simultaneous Effects also resolves - get my meaning (honestly? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything whatsoever here - not that I was before, but I was certainly frustrated and I'm certain that bled thru my posts, haha)
Finally, I totally agree w/ your interpretations btw but it doesn't settle weird interpretations like I've offered as counters. In other words, what else is in the rulebook which confirms that what you're saying is the intended way? (which again, I do agree what you're saying is how its supposed to be, its how I've always played, but again I'm looking for extra rules which cement that notion - feel me? otherwise we can continue to chase each others tail, lol)
PS - like I mention in the OP as well as elsewhere, perhaps not so clearly like other things, there are other similar situations with completely different rules/effects we could probably come up w/ instead and have the same "what clarifies this situation" discussion. I'm sure they're their, I just don't have any right off the top of my head.
Like, "seeing Darkness" is literally "Darkness" - which is your point everywhere else.
That's never my point, because it's nonsense. "Seeing Darkness" is not the same as "Darkness", literally or otherwise.
Not that this was my intention, but now you know how I feel, lol... You regularly say, more or less, all that matters is the presence of environmental darkness and it doesn't matter how the character sees it but just that they're trying to see into it. Thus its effectively the same for you too, just spun the opposite direction. This is why arguing the meaning of words is somewhat futile.
Pangurjan, I just want to point out that this whole thread is based on a work of fiction. Venyxos claims that the alternate "interpretation" is viable, even though no one (including Venyxos) has stepped up to say that is how they actually read it. It was a deliberate misreading of the rules (aka made up conflict in the rules) to create discussion for some reason. Everyone that has posted on this thread has agreed that there isn't a conflict in the rules other than Venyxos and even then to only to defend an "interpretation" that they don't even believe themselves. I really don't think this discussion is going to resolve itself at this point.
Like, "seeing Darkness" is literally "Darkness" - which is your point everywhere else.
That's never my point, because it's nonsense. "Seeing Darkness" is not the same as "Darkness", literally or otherwise.
Not that this was my intention, but now you know how I feel, lol... You regularly say, more or less, all that matters is the presence of environmental darkness and it doesn't matter how the character sees it but just that they're trying to see into it. Thus its effectively the same for you too, just spun the opposite direction. This is why arguing the meaning of words is somewhat futile.
This is gibberish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) You can just as easily say Darkvision Dim Light + Greyscale (but I totally thought Dim Light in general included Greyscale - you should have zeroed in on that, lol. You kind of did at one point but it wasn't clicking. I make the point Dim Light includes the greyscale thing regularly, and it just doesn't lol) and that may settle debates in how one can determine which sense they're using but not which rule might take affect over another. Again, the two rules treat the same thing (Darkness) differently at the same time, so if someone beefs about that, what settles it? I would say Simultaneous Effects absolutely obliterates any potential conflict I can think of, whereas as we've both proved, interpretation is easy to counter. You easily counter mine. I easily counter yours. We go no where.
2) And what's more, I can make the same argument as the OP without any interpretation by dictating someone simply argues you can only use one or the other at a given time since they are popping off at the "same time - perpetually" (which is also a weird interpretation, but I've heard stranger). That's a conflict which Simultaneous Effects also resolves - get my meaning (honestly? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything whatsoever here - not that I was before, but I was certainly frustrated and I'm certain that bled thru my posts, haha)
3) Finally, I totally agree w/ your interpretations btw but it doesn't settle weird interpretations like I've offered as counters. In other words, what else is in the rulebook which confirms that what you're saying is the intended way?
1) This is nonsense. Neither rule prevents the other, so applying one before the other or vice versa doesn't make a difference, so Simultaneous Effects is moot.
2) See above. Nonsense.
3) I'm not arguing the intended way. I'm arguing what it says. If the PHB didn't say what it's supposed to say, WotC would have had plenty of time to fix it - it's been errata'ed for a long time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
(edit: the following isn't necessarily just on you - I'm no writer...lol) This is what happens when you cherry pick phrasing and pull incomplete quotes - I wasn't saying Darkness becomes Dim Light for the game; just the character w/ Darkvision as far as their sight was concerned. And that isn't the first time I make the distinction. I'm pretty sure I made it to you as well prior to that. No offense, but maybe you just misinterpreted what I've been saying all along? (another issue w/ arguing interpretation; especially over text-based communication with no tone-of-voice/body language.)
But both Darkvision and Devil's Sight deal with the actual situation, not the subjective situation. Again, your argument is like saying that having 10' blindsight means you cannot see past 10' since the blindsight somehow blocks your use of normal sight. Or alternatively, that you cannot sense an invisible person within 10' in daylight since you can see everything else normally and therefore blindsight cannot function.
Not at all... Blindsight very clearly says, "Blindsight - A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as grimlocks and gray oozes, typically have this special sense, as do creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons. If a monster is naturally blind, it has a parenthetical note to this effect, indicating that the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception. There's absolutely nothing to suggest what you proposed.
And I never said it was subjective. I said two different things people are getting very confused over... 1-Darkvision and Devil's Sight cause mechanical changes to the way the character possessing the abilities reacts to specific conditions, which would be illumination levels. 2-Separately, Darkvision and Devil's Sight affect the same thing differently at the same time, which is Darkness. There's nothing in the rules by themselves which dictate who can pick which is in effect and when without Simultaneous Effects out of Xanathar's
Maybe... Maybe not... Looking again, focusing on keywords, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" sounds like even though you're in Darkness, you see it as Dim Light with Devil's Sights saying "Seeing in Darkness as if normal" thus suggesting you have to "see in Darkness" which is actually Dim Light for your seeing...
And another point, which I've also made elsewhere, is we can toss the interpretation and say what if your DM simply says, "you have to pick one or the other: Darkvision or Devil's Sight" or even "if you're going to use your Darkvision to turn Dim to Bright, than its also turning your Dark to Dim (for the one character w/ the abilities of course) and no Devil's Sight for you unless its Magical Darkness" - then all you would have left is to argue or quit. However, toss Simultaneous Effects into the equation (Xanathar's, Pg 5 - thanks Farling!), and boop - player picks, not the DM; apply Devil's Sight "first" with Darkvision "second" and you're off to the races.
Again, we can all say, "I'm extremely confident they mean A" but someone else can just come in and say, "I'm extremely confident they mean B" and that's all there is to it if no one present a C.
Blindsight does not say 'See as as if in dim light' but rather perceives without relying on light at all. So, with blindsight, you see normally. How, exactly, is that different than the wording you are going on about with darkvision, other than without the 'as if in dim light' qualifier? Blindsight, not being so qualified, lets you see as if in normal light.
That argument was presented by someone making the same points you all are so we're saying the same thing.
1) No, it does not change the illumination levels or how the character reacts to them in any way that precludes the other. It changes the ability of the individual possessing such abilities to see in the existing illumination level. It is similar to having the same effect on one twice. The stronger applies.
Not necessarily since the keywords are all different except for Darkness. Thus you do not invoke Combining Magical Effects that way. It's very specific about phrasing which is the same notion that prompted my OP.
2) This line of yours " affect the same thing differently at the same time, which is Darkness" is a complete fallacy. Neither Darkvision nor Devil's Sight affect the darkness.
They 100% affect how the character who owns the abilities treats Darkness on a mechanical level. You're effectively saying "the rules don't actually do anything" even though I know that's not what you mean.
You then launch into a straw man argument. I have not suggested that these abilities affect the vision of anyone except the person possessing them. I have not accused you of making any such argument either. I have snipped that portion of the quote of your post accordingly.
There's no straw-man. I've simply addressed the points time and time again, beyond what people have quoted (which is never the language from the OP, ironically).
Again, it is not 'turning dim to bright' any more than Blindsight is. It is simply a different way of perceiving. Bats can see normally in addition to echo location. The best sensory ability applies to any given situation. It is not a difficult concept.
Except Darkvision straight up says, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" plus it appears as greyscale. Blindsight says nothing of the sort. Thus no conflict.
On the other hand, Devil's Sight and Darkvision both change the conditions of Darkness in different ways but at the same time. So what in the rules confirms how those apply beyond your interpretation?
Darkvision says "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."
It doesn't change the fact that you are still trying to see in darkness.
Therefore the devil's sight rules can still be applied.
It does change the fact because you mechanically treat it as dim light. The fact that I can just as easily say the opposite means this interpretation does not actually clarify any potential conflicts between the ruleset.
In other words, you're claiming the benefit of the darkness becoming dim light, and then ignoring that mechanic to gain the benefit of devil's sight. Bear in mind the wording of Darkvision is to ensure players essentially always get its benefit - not to straddle the line with other very clear rules. To do what you're suggesting would break down the rules for light for the remainder of your campaign - Players saying, "well teeechnically I'm in this kind of light sooo" with a wide variety of spells and abilities. I could reach as far as saying like a torch in a dark tunnel - technically you're still in the dark but you have a bubble of light within it with your interpretation.
But do not be dismayed! You can still gain the benefits of both by declaring you see w/ Devil's Sight over Darkvision if you ever had to squeeze that rule out. Again, we're just playing w/ rule phrasing and your interpretation is every bit as legit as mine - but again, the fact that I can claim the rules could be interpreted the opposite leaves us at square one.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight don't change the ambient light at all so they both interact with what the light actually is, not what you perceive it as.
Pangurjan, I just want to point out that this whole thread is based on a work of fiction. Venyxos claims that the alternate "interpretation" is viable, even though no one (including Venyxos) has stepped up to say that is how they actually read it. It was a deliberate misreading of the rules (aka made up conflict in the rules) to create discussion for some reason. Everyone that has posted on this thread has agreed that there isn't a conflict in the rules other than Venyxos and even then to only to defend an "interpretation" that they don't even believe themselves. I really don't think this discussion is going to resolve itself at this point.
You asserted the fallacy. I never said the ambient light changed. I always inferred it was for the owning character. The OP presents it as a solitary character with the abilities, so that for simplicity sake, what they're experiencing is the effective rules for the light level dictacted.
But since you mention a "deliberate misreading of the rules" then I have to assume you're projecting and deliberately misreading what I say. Possibly because I made suggestions you hadn't considered before.
And "everyone who posted" doesn't mean much. There's about 20 of us, at most. And Paradox Traveler had no issue understanding my meaning and presenting the case which most of you agreed with (or ignored).
And guess what: Farling resolved this post days ago on page 1 by dropping Simultaneous Effects into the mix, which tells you exactly what to do when you have 2 rules which address the same thing (darkness) differently at the same time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree but someone can still say, "the Darkness you're looking into is as if it was Dim Light to you! You don't have the effect of Darkness to engage Devil's Sight!"
And I glazed over this part and it's the main reason I'm quoting this comment - this is a really good point. But as far as interpretations go, it's not much different than Darkvision saying, "hey, you see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light, which is in greyscale" (without also including the other penalties, like disadvantage on Perception Checks and -5 to Passive Perception)... Point is, why didn't they say, in Devil's Sight then, "see's in Darkness as if it were Bright Light, which is normally"? Is this an editor oversight? Where very similar functions/interpretations are worded somewhat significantly differently? The interpretation folks are pounding (which again, I agree with - which is why I seemingly assumed correctly there would be additional clarifying rules which put it to bed) doesn't say that for one with Darkvision, who's normal view of Darkness is Dim Light, would be color and all that, when viewing Darkness as Dim Light with Darkvision, and then taking that same Darkness and making it appear as "normal" (not "bright light" suggesting "Normally" is a condition bright light matches... Like how Darkness is actually "Heavily Obscured/Blinded")
Long story short - I would agree that it helps clarify Devil's Sight see's color vision within line of sight out to the effective range. But that doesn't clarify which rule takes priority in your game. According to RAW, under Simultaneous effects, the player would get to pick. So you should just pick Devil's Sight as 1st order, Darkvision as 2nd - then regardless of your interpretation of the rules originally presented in the OP, there is no conflict.
Anytime you have a character changing how they react to a condition present within the game can/likely has potential conflicts which would need additional clarifying rules.
Let's take one that doesn't really have much to do with this thread but you kinda-sorta presented here... Can someone without any extra abilities to see in the Dark spot the Magic? Well, Detect Magic says, "For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any. For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any." which suggests pretty readily that you would have to be able to see the magic object to see the faint aura - otherwise, you just know there's magic present (potentially much like Devil's Sight and Darkness under Darkvision - that is to say, attempting to apply Devil's Sight after Darkvision. You might know its Darkness, but since you don't see it that way, it doesn't trigger that way). But in this case the language of the rules is very clear. We don't have that explanation removing any conflicts between one person's interpretation of Devil's Sight and Darkness together versus another's.
Ok, so to toss out the "interpretation" of Darkvision, Devil's Sight, Light Levels from the OP and focus on RAW, consider this. Under Simultaneous Effects, they present the situation where someone may be picking Darkvision over Devil's Sight. Let's say no one is breaking that rule and ordering the player do so, it's just what the player decides to do. Then they choose to see Darkness as Dim Light under Darkvision or see however they normally see under Devil's Sight which is in-line w/ the rules "can" inclusion (that said, remember in elementary school when you may have heard the quip, "Yes you can, are you asking if you may?" and we realize "can" could simply means if there is nothing else preventing them to doing so or the "can" choose to enable the effect (which is kind of weird when you think about it - not exactly game breaking, but one can choose to see without Darkvision or Devil's Sight? Then one would assume they can choose not to see whatever they don't wanna see whenever they want, with or without closing their eyes. Don't wanna see that hag? ok, say you chose not to see them then even tho you're shooting at the guy right behind them w/ full vision. See how that could break down other rules?)
Either way, Simultaneous Effects puts the debate to rest!
(well, not so much on what "can" could actually imply in the many, many rules it appears in but whatever - other rules present usually boil it down into irrelevancy which is why I didn't settle on that earlier in the thread - where others said that the inclusion of "can see" in Devil's Sight and Darkvision eliminate the potential conflict... It really doesn't as it might break other completely separate and independent rules you may come across elsewhere in your campaign. The main reason I'm also fighting simply re-interpreting the rules... If you say keywords mean something more than what they suggest at surface level, other rules with those same keywords and phrases stop working as intended but you set a precedent using interpretations as a short cut to locating a clarifying rule)
Remember, assuming a perfect bell curve, what you first thought of, 95% of other people are going to think very similar to your initial interpretation, but you should expect 1 in 20 (1 in 20!) to have something completely different. This is why RAW > RAI and why I've said this thread proves the rules originally presented in the OP (everything but Sim. Eff.) are wide open to interpretation when attempted to apply them all at the same time. That's not crazy. We should expect that in life.
TL'DR - SIMULTANEOUS EFFECTS PRESENT AND THEN RESOLVE THE EXACT ISSUE THE OP SUGGESTS: You have a DM illegally state you must apply your Darkvision before Devil's Sight removing the benefit of Devil's Sight in Darkness... You open Xanathar's Guide to Everything and say, "oh no no no, DM, I get to pick and thus get both benefits regardless - see on Page 5?"
Also, just to get this out there again: I play the way everyone who has been "disagreeing" with me suggests! I do not believe the rules were written with the intention to conflict but rather blend into a sum greater than their parts like you all suggest is plainly written. This is why I assumed there would be additional rules, not additional interpretations, which clarify this situation as well as many scenarios like it. Add to that I've had folks interpret seemingly far more simple rules than what was presented here in far more complicated ways which brought a session to a total standstill.
Also in the rules are suggestions for moving past such interruptions, from DM-Ruling to Coin-Flip, since the authors of the game know that written word can be interpreted in as many ways as you have readers.
An interpretation that's wrong is, well, wrong. Actually correcting it is still better than saying 'doesn't matter, I have this semi-related rule that makes it a moot point". Otherwise, you could get even more silliness like "Darkvision could have the darkness as if it were dim light so Gloom Stalkers are never really in darkness so Umbral Sight can't work". Players who do have trouble interpreting a rule and go looking online for advice shouldn't be told that an inaccurate interpretation might be correct because 'it's just a subjective opinion' or some similar malarkey - they should be told what the right interpretation is, period.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
An interpretation is simply an interpretation. It's what they thought when they read the rule.
Now that interpretation might not be the meaning which was intended, but those are two distinct things you seem to be missing from my point of view (and to be fair, I would say it can be appropriate to say "you have the wrong interpretation" but you would have to be the author of the subject - like your interpretation of what I intended to communicate. For example, I've never said Darkvision turns Darkness to Dim Light as if it were the edge of torch light or something - I've been very clear it's for only that character using the Darkvision and only as far as how they see - this will be more relevant in a moment.
Now, my examples for conflicts were not my first thought, but the question came to me nonetheless - sure, you can just say, 'well hey it's darkness' and collect your benefit, but what specifically says that's how it works one way versus the other. What's the rule on the rule in other words? You can say, "this is what the author's intended" all you want, but without information from the author's that's just your personal opinion - the person you're addressing w/ the "wrong interpretation" can quite literally say the same thing back to you, just swapping the details/labels so it's from their point of view. You've offered no clarification that can't be reversed and still apply to other rule sets. Now, that's just my interpretation, which seems to have become the focus here, not the request for additional rules which would support your claim (the rule on the rules that is), but I digress.
Here's the thing - the additional clarifying rule, Simultaneous Effects, introduced by Farling and acknowledged by Paradox Traveler confirms the common interpretation is what the author's intended. No need to reread the rules over and over again. This is what the OP was seeking. "Hey, I know this is taken as a given, the apparent synergy between Darkvision and Devil's Sight, but what beyond those rules confirms it?" Your answer thus far is nothing but the rules presented in the OP which is like using a word to define itself (no offense).
Like saying, "Darkness is Darkness" when we know DnD is layers upon layers of rules which create the shared narrative.
...instead of "(as far as DnD goes) Darkness is a categorization of illumination. The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness. Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness. PLUS 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. PLUS the rule for blinded - A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage." (and then you could start talking about different rules which are affected by Darkness or which affect Darkness from there)"
And the silliness "Darkvision could have the darkness as if it were dim light so Gloom Stalkers are never really in darkness so Umbral Sight can't work" - not exactly, because Umbral Sight very clearly says, "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness." therefore, if they're using Darkvision to see you in Darkness, you're effectively invisible even though they see the Darkness as Dim Light because they used Darkvision to do so. True due to both the "can" inclusions but more specifically, Simultaneous Effects. The creature "can" always try to see without Darkvision, otherwise if that's what they're using, and the target is in Darkness (which appears as Dim Light to the owner of Darkvision) than the Stalker is straight up invisible to them (also, not actually invisible - just effectively invisible under those conditions to that character trying to see the Gloom Stalker w/ Darkvision). Want some silliness - block someone from using Devil's Sight to see the Stalker because you're unaware of Simultaneous Effects, lol and applying the rules in the strange, conflicted way I presented in the OP. It doesn't mention Dim Light because the character can see them without having to rely on Darkvision. Now since it's not mentioned in the rule, we can assume though, they may use Darkvision to see the Gloom Stalker in Dim Light as though it were Bright Light, but that only assists w/ Perception checks anyhow.
Remember when I said I've never claimed that Darkvision turns Darkness into Dim Light for everyone but instead said that it's how that character sees and therefore may affect rules impacting their sight. This is where the first portion of this comment is relevant. Umbral Sight blocks their ability to use Darkvision to see them while they are in Darkness - doesn't matter if it appears to be Dim Light to them now, they used Darkvision to do so, so the Gloom Stalker is invisible to them. Light em up with edge of a torch tho and they pop right into view.
TL;DR - I'm not trying to disagree with you for the sake of it. I'm looking for clarifying rules, errata, sage advice, or even other rules with same/similar language but for different effects, cementing the interpretation. If it's in a rule that would break under some interpretation presented for another rule, you can reasonably assume that wasn't the intention of the phrasing.
I do appreciate expanding to things like Umbral Sight though, as it makes it easier to draw intention from interpretation. Also, I'm not saying Darkvision works like a Torch - never did. I'm saying Darkvision and Devil's Sight affect the same thing differently (Darkness), potentially at the same time, so what additional rules clarify which effect to apply and how.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
(edit: the following isn't necessarily just on you - I'm no writer...lol) This is what happens when you cherry pick phrasing and pull incomplete quotes - I wasn't saying Darkness becomes Dim Light for the game; just the character w/ Darkvision as far as their sight was concerned. And that isn't the first time I make the distinction. I'm pretty sure I made it to you as well prior to that. No offense, but maybe you just misinterpreted what I've been saying all along? (another issue w/ arguing interpretation; especially over text-based communication with no tone-of-voice/body language.)
Well, what you literally said was "Being in darkness and how you perceive it are the exact same thing".
I don't think it's a case of me misinterpreting what you said, but rather one of you misrepresenting what you mean. What you say, how you say it, matters. It's for that same reason my argument has never been "I think this is what the writer of the rule intended". My argument is and has always been that "this is what the writer of the rule literally wrote". There is no ambiguity to Darkvision or Devil's Sight. You just have to read what they say, exactly as they say it. If you do, there's only one possible interpretation. It's certainly possible for someone to misread it, that can happen, but in that case they are wrong and should be corrected. Letting errors stand is never the right way of dealing with things. Maybe the error is a moot point in this case, but you can't know if it won't have other consequences down the line. Set it right now, and it won't cause problems later.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not at all... Blindsight very clearly says, "Blindsight - A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius. Creatures without eyes, such as grimlocks and gray oozes, typically have this special sense, as do creatures with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats and true dragons. If a monster is naturally blind, it has a parenthetical note to this effect, indicating that the radius of its blindsight defines the maximum range of its perception.
There's absolutely nothing to suggest what you proposed.
And I never said it was subjective. I said two different things people are getting very confused over...
1-Darkvision and Devil's Sight cause mechanical changes to the way the character possessing the abilities reacts to specific conditions, which would be illumination levels.
2-Separately, Darkvision and Devil's Sight affect the same thing differently at the same time, which is Darkness. There's nothing in the rules by themselves which dictate who can pick which is in effect and when without Simultaneous Effects out of Xanathar's
In regard to point 1 just above - I wasn't always clear I meant for the person with the ability, but I thought that would be obvious considering the rules affect one's sense of sight which isn't exactly a shared experience without additional factors like Telepathy or something (which was never presented nor a consideration). In my initial posts, I talk about how the character's perception is the gameplay element which is in question but people ran with the notion that since one character is seeing Darkness as Dim Light, I must mean everyone is - that when I say things like their perception and level of darkness are the same thing that I meant they're allowing everyone to see thru their eyes or something. I don't really know after reviewing my comments - it only makes sense if you focus on bits and pieces of my comments and/or assume they're interpreting my interpretation wrong and trying to reinterpret what I mean for me (like many are for the author's of the actual rules). Anyhow, once I realized this silly bit, I'm very clear that I mean specifically the owner of the senses/abilities - right around comment #28...
And if I was conceding a point, I'd actual concede, like I do in several locations in this thread - I've never implied Darkvision works like a Torch in a dark room. It has always only even been you get a similar but distinctly different effect as an individual w/ darkvision; therefore, how does that play w/ Devil's Sight, RAW? RAW meaning not an interpretation of a rule already presented (I give both in the OP). Its words the author's wrote. RAI is what we think those words mean. RAW and RAI are pretty much always going to go hand in hand which is why you need multiple Rules as Written to have accurate Rules as Interpreted.
Funny thing is my argument remains intact whether we're discussing actual light levels or a person's perception since I'm asking in the OP, where's the rules that say which apply over the others? It's just the argument doesn't work that way since there are no rules that I'm aware of that could "illuminate" a room differently than some other effect? If they change the actual illumination level, they all say so very clearly:
Like a torch: A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. Says Provides.
Or Light: You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. The light can be colored as you like. Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. The spell ends if you cast it again or dismiss it as an action. If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell. Says sheds.
Or even Darkness (spell): Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness. If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled. Says all kinds of stuff, including what happens if another illumination level and what type collides with the spell.
Likewise Daylight (spell): A 60-foot-radius sphere of light spreads out from a point you choose within range. The sphere is bright light and sheds dim light for an additional 60 feet. If you chose a point on an object you are holding or one that isn't being worn or carried, the light shines from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the affected object with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the light. If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of darkness created by a spell of 3rd level or lower, the spell that created the darkness is dispelled.
and yet no one offers this verbiage - almost as if they knew that's not what I meant or felt the need to actively avoid offering any new information.
Maybe... Maybe not... Looking again, focusing on keywords, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" sounds like even though you're in Darkness, you see it as Dim Light with Devil's Sights saying "Seeing in Darkness as if normal" thus suggesting you have to "see in Darkness" which is actually Dim Light for your seeing...
And another point, which I've also made elsewhere, is we can toss the interpretation and say what if your DM simply says, "you have to pick one or the other: Darkvision or Devil's Sight" or even "if you're going to use your Darkvision to turn Dim to Bright, than its also turning your Dark to Dim (for the one character w/ the abilities of course) and no Devil's Sight for you unless its Magical Darkness" - then all you would have left is to argue or quit. However, toss Simultaneous Effects into the equation (Xanathar's, Pg 5 - thanks Farling!), and boop - player picks, not the DM; apply Devil's Sight "first" with Darkvision "second" and you're off to the races.
Again, we can all say, "I'm extremely confident they mean A" but someone else can just come in and say, "I'm extremely confident they mean B" and that's all there is to it if no one present a C.
Ah so taking one thing I said out of 6 pages again I see... Well, in that context of that post, they are. Folks were arguing the Environmental Effect takes all when it comes to rules pertaining to how a character sees that Darkness. Two senses which treat the same thing differently at the same time - hence the slam dunk w/ Simultaneous Effects from Farling. What I was saying is if a character is trying to "see in darkness" than it would need to "see darkness" and that your perception of darkness is what makes the darkness what it is for you. Darkness is indeed Darkness, but there are obviously rules which change how it plays for one character versus another. Hence the potential for conflicts. Like, "seeing Darkness" is literally "Darkness" - which is your point everywhere else. Darkness is just darkness, right? These are the points I was addressing.
And you can say I misrepresented my case but I've been saying the same things differently for over a week - and that's still a misinterpretation. You could say, "I'm not understanding your meaning" or something, instead of "No" or "You're wrong" (which I only echoed when I quoted you saying the same)... I say "Think of it this way" or "But look here at these rules" only to have you repeat your argument again. Was your original interpretation only "Venyxos is wrong, I'm right" when I made your case in the OP already? I'm not trying to be "right" - I'm trying to find additional rules which clarify the situation. You straight up agree w/ others after presenting the same points I do.
It's not "suggesting" you have to see in darkness. It literally says "you can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet." Darkvision says "You can see ... in darkness as if it were dim light." That is not the same as seeing it's dim light for your seeing. In fact, we know with absolute certainty it's not dim light for your seeing because Darkvision also says "you can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray", which dim light does not. If you're standing in a particular spot, in darkness, and look around you with Darkvision things look differently to you than if you were standing in the same spot in dim light instead (both with and without Darkvision).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's never my point, because it's nonsense. "Seeing Darkness" is not the same as "Darkness", literally or otherwise.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You can just as easily say Darkvision Dim Light + Greyscale (but I totally thought Dim Light in general included Greyscale - you should have zeroed in on that, lol. You kind of did at one point but it wasn't clicking. I make the point Dim Light includes the greyscale thing regularly, and it just doesn't lol) and that may settle debates in how one can determine which sense they're using but not which rule might take affect over another. Again, the two rules treat the same thing (Darkness) differently at the same time, so if someone beefs about that, what settles it? I would say Simultaneous Effects absolutely obliterates any potential conflict I can think of, whereas as we've both proved, interpretation is easy to counter. You easily counter mine. I easily counter yours. We go no where.
And what's more, I can make the same argument as the OP without any interpretation by dictating someone simply argues you can only use one or the other at a given time since they are popping off at the "same time - perpetually" (which is also a weird interpretation, but I've heard stranger). That's a conflict which Simultaneous Effects also resolves - get my meaning (honestly? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything whatsoever here - not that I was before, but I was certainly frustrated and I'm certain that bled thru my posts, haha)
Finally, I totally agree w/ your interpretations btw but it doesn't settle weird interpretations like I've offered as counters. In other words, what else is in the rulebook which confirms that what you're saying is the intended way? (which again, I do agree what you're saying is how its supposed to be, its how I've always played, but again I'm looking for extra rules which cement that notion - feel me? otherwise we can continue to chase each others tail, lol)
PS - like I mention in the OP as well as elsewhere, perhaps not so clearly like other things, there are other similar situations with completely different rules/effects we could probably come up w/ instead and have the same "what clarifies this situation" discussion. I'm sure they're their, I just don't have any right off the top of my head.
Not that this was my intention, but now you know how I feel, lol... You regularly say, more or less, all that matters is the presence of environmental darkness and it doesn't matter how the character sees it but just that they're trying to see into it. Thus its effectively the same for you too, just spun the opposite direction. This is why arguing the meaning of words is somewhat futile.
Pangurjan, I just want to point out that this whole thread is based on a work of fiction. Venyxos claims that the alternate "interpretation" is viable, even though no one (including Venyxos) has stepped up to say that is how they actually read it. It was a deliberate misreading of the rules (aka made up conflict in the rules) to create discussion for some reason. Everyone that has posted on this thread has agreed that there isn't a conflict in the rules other than Venyxos and even then to only to defend an "interpretation" that they don't even believe themselves. I really don't think this discussion is going to resolve itself at this point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is gibberish.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) This is nonsense. Neither rule prevents the other, so applying one before the other or vice versa doesn't make a difference, so Simultaneous Effects is moot.
2) See above. Nonsense.
3) I'm not arguing the intended way. I'm arguing what it says. If the PHB didn't say what it's supposed to say, WotC would have had plenty of time to fix it - it's been errata'ed for a long time.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That argument was presented by someone making the same points you all are so we're saying the same thing.
Not necessarily since the keywords are all different except for Darkness. Thus you do not invoke Combining Magical Effects that way. It's very specific about phrasing which is the same notion that prompted my OP.
They 100% affect how the character who owns the abilities treats Darkness on a mechanical level. You're effectively saying "the rules don't actually do anything" even though I know that's not what you mean.
There's no straw-man. I've simply addressed the points time and time again, beyond what people have quoted (which is never the language from the OP, ironically).
Except Darkvision straight up says, "See in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" plus it appears as greyscale. Blindsight says nothing of the sort. Thus no conflict.
On the other hand, Devil's Sight and Darkvision both change the conditions of Darkness in different ways but at the same time. So what in the rules confirms how those apply beyond your interpretation?
You asserted the fallacy. I never said the ambient light changed. I always inferred it was for the owning character. The OP presents it as a solitary character with the abilities, so that for simplicity sake, what they're experiencing is the effective rules for the light level dictacted.
But since you mention a "deliberate misreading of the rules" then I have to assume you're projecting and deliberately misreading what I say. Possibly because I made suggestions you hadn't considered before.
And "everyone who posted" doesn't mean much. There's about 20 of us, at most. And Paradox Traveler had no issue understanding my meaning and presenting the case which most of you agreed with (or ignored).
And guess what: Farling resolved this post days ago on page 1 by dropping Simultaneous Effects into the mix, which tells you exactly what to do when you have 2 rules which address the same thing (darkness) differently at the same time.