I'm not ignoring anything - check yourself. "See in darkness" and "see darkness" is a meaningful difference. However, what I'm saying is if it says, "Sees Darkness as if its Dim Light (in greyscale)"
Let me check this right here. It does not say "Sees Darkness as if its Dim Light (in greyscale)". It says "The monster can see in dim light within the radius as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light." If you agree that "see in darkness" and "see darkness" is a meaningful difference, then please stop arguing like it isn't and use the actual text of the ability, to the letter.
My bad - I missed the "in" but the point does not change: Sees in Darkness/See Darkness as if it were Dim Light. The monster can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. [Confirming the Darkness is seen as Dim Light aka greyscale]
As far as that character's sight is concerned, the darkness is seen as though its dim light. The rule MUST say "as if it were" or else people could interpret the rule as Darkness becomes Dim Light in general (like an actual light source would do - and once again, at no point have I said that's the case beyond how the character sees it mechanical, RAW)
Plus a new point: Devil's Sight says, "see in Darkness normally" which if that "character see in darkness as if it were Dim Light - than the "Normal" they see is Dim Light if giving Darkvision priority over Devil's Sight. That's an interpretation you must acknowledge from the standpoint of open debate, even if you don't agree. And again, that's in the situation that someone expects you to declare when you're using what sense. As ridiculous as you may think some of the interpretations I've offered are: anyone can make them in a real game and you would need a rock-solid rule to clarify further (some of which we covered already)
you typically have more than one character in a game so the rule literally MUST say in some way how it effects the light levels for that specific character separately from all the others.
No, it doesn't. Nothing in the rule would otherwise say or imply that one character's perception changes another character's perception (never mind that it would change that other character's reality).
Yes, that's what I'm saying! The rule is intentionally written in a way that no one can interpret it as removing the ordinary effect of darkness besides the character with Darkvision. That's what I mean every time I say it literally MUST include the language as if it were to indicate the state of the article didn't actually change, but the mechanics for that character in those conditions straight up did. At no point have I said the Darkness goes away in the game world - only for the person using the effect and under the assumption they're interpreting the rules in a manner which conflicts when you go to execute the play.
But Darkvision says "as if it were Dim Light" - Devil's Sight says 100% independently "see in darkness normally" which works for the rule. But you're ignoring that when you combine the rules or go to apply both or apply one over the other that Darkness is as if it were Dim Light due to Darkvision for the character's sense of sight.
Darkvision says you can see in darkness as if it were dim light. It doesn't say darkness becomes dim light. It doesn't say darkness gets treated as dim light. It doesn't say it creates dim light. It doesn't say you see the darkness as dim light. What it says is that it changes how you see things when certain conditions are met. Again, for the umptieth time, it doesn't change those conditions. As such, it doesn't change anything about darkness being darkness and thus can't change anything about darkness relevant to other mechanics.
If it said "becomes dim light" than that would imply it actually changed the real world light level! Which is why it says "as if it were"! It 100% changes the conditions for the character/creature/entity its being applied and only them. And "treat as" is the same as "as if it were" - I'm simply having a conversation which is why when I'm not quoting it, I often use other forms of speech, vs copy and pasting what I already said! Its just as if it were is more formal and clear, wouldn't you say?
Take a look at my OP (and earlier editions if you feel so inclined) - I offer your scenarios as a possibility right from the get go as an obvious interpretation of the rules and follow it up w/ highly technical arguments (which I've seen people make online and in real life) which one might challenge the common interpretation with. I may not have highlighted all the nuances you did, but I'm not saying that one "cannot" use the benefits together for a sum greater than the parts either. I think its very obvious that's what was intended. But RAW rules supreme, hence my hunt for additional rules with this thread so a DM can't fudge my strategies (like casting a ritual thru a familiar, lol) into irrelevancy as well as allowing me to run a more fair game if/when I DM.
I'm just going to wrap up everything else from your earlier post together with this one: none of the scenarios you offer as a possibility are actually possible under the rules. They're just not. That's what makes all this arguing pointless. None of the premisses you offer stand up to correctly reading the rules exactly as written.
They do tho - because all you've offered is personal opinion of the same two rules and nothing more; which I've been trying to illustrate to you, all someone needs to do to contend you is offer their own personal opinion on the same rules, nothing more. I've discussed 4 different rule sets in the OP and you've focused almost entirely on the Darkvision and a bit of Devil's Sight.
And this stuff may seem silly and trivial, but here's a scenario I recently encountered in an actual game: Can a familiar hold an object (assuming its light enough) while you cast a ritual through it? (I was trying to use Identify without touching the object of course) I would say yes but my DM said no. Rules seem pretty clear, but because there's nothing that says you can cast a ritual through the familiar, they said no. Having the wherewithal to say, "But DM! it doesn't say I can't either and all other conditions are clearly satisfied" is what prompts me to seek a stronger understanding of the rules as a collection, vs one off examples and scenarios that can be easy to write off without fully considering the implications.
In this case your DM was wrong°, but not because "it doesn't say I can't either". That's never an argument. The Fireball spell doesn't say I can't use it to summon a pink water buffalo to carry my dirty laundry for me either, and that really does mean I can't. A mechanic has to say you can do something with it for you to be able to do that something with it.
Agreed - I was thinking about it a bit more after I posted it and since it says "cast a spell" then you could "cast a ritual" as its very clearly under the "cast a spell" rules, lol. And you raise an oft overlooked factor w/ "can inclusions" - they only give you the option to opt out or choose not to apply the effect; which is usually silly because why do what it do otherwise, right? lol
My usage in that example is indeed in error!
° wrong only in the sense of applying the rules as written. Intent is something else. Identify's intent may be to require touching the object yourself for a minute, rather than having the spell delivered through your familiar. And regardless, the DM has final say.
^ THIS ^ This is what I believe you and I have ultimately been battling over, back and forth! Let me take this as an opportunity to say some things about RAI and RAW. I make it sound like all I care about is RAW and that the rules says exactly what you can and cant do. This is not true about me as a player or a person. I recognize that just about everything is wide open to interpretation. Due to this factor, DnD developers over the years have had a nearly impossible task in "writing the rules for any kind of experience you might be able to imagine" lol
This is why RAI is such a corner-stone of the game. Plus its important to remember, that Dungeons and Dragons itself was once entirely Home Brew! What people thought should happen in a situation became what we refer to as RAW. In our debate over Devil's Sight and Darkvision being used in tandem, we've uncovered DOZENS of interpretations which would suggest there is no conflict between the two with only a few pretty niche/specific suggesting that there might be some conflicts depending on circumstances - this suggests that most would agree with both of us, you CAN use both together (check out the OP - in micro print at the bottom I suggest people looking in Devil's Sight w/ Gloom Stalker's Umbral - its one of my favorite combinations to play and you best belieeeve I stack all the benefits and argue against conflicts like you did against me in this thread; its why I've thought of many ways someone could try to use the rules to block some of the REALLY OP elements you get there already and hardly had to think to flip the rules against your more obvious interpretations). But not everyone thinks within the bell curve, right?
In that, especially in books released later on in 5e, there are usually clarifications to any weird conflicts that don't really come up until the masses have play tested the material (which is likely why Xanathars almost functions like a 2nd PHB - yea you don't need it, but it really gives the rules some meat where they didn't have it before, and of course the Dungeon Masters Guide to really glue it all together - the rest is mostly bonus mechanics for the theme of the campaign)
This is why I was so pointed, even a bully, about finding additional rules that suggest the things you're saying versus simply reiterating them differently. I agree with basically everything you said, but as I was attempting to illustrate, someone could easily be very difficult about the rules and how they interpret them. This can have a good group of friends upset over a game of DnD - not getting what they expected out of it. Being familiar with additional references which go beyond the initial rulesets they may be examining can be a great way to mitigate any sour feelings.
My bad - I missed the "in" but the point does not change: Sees in Darkness/See Darkness as if it were Dim Light. The monster can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. [Confirming the Darkness is seen as Dim Light aka greyscale]
As far as that character's sight is concerned, the darkness is seen as though its dim light.
No. For the umptieth time, no. The darkness is not seen as though it's dim light. The darkness is seen in as if it were dim light. And yes, that changes the point. It's the whole point.
It doesn't matter what the darkness is seen as. Neither Darkvision nor Devil's Sight reference or rely on what the darkness, or anything else, is seen as. It's not about seeing the darkness, it's about seeing in darkness. And because it's not about seeing the darkness, or what it's seen as, it doesn't matter how Darkvision affects your vision. What you see is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you see in,and what you see inisn't changed by Darkvision. What you see is changed, but what you see inisn't.
I've lost count of how many times and in how many ways I've pointed this out now, and you keep reiterating the same incorrect position regardless. So I'm just going to tell you this is where you are clearly not reading the rules correctly, and I'm not going to bother with anything else past this point since until you get this fundamental element of the rules right nothing else you postulate can have any merit. Everything you say is based on confusing seeing in and seeing period, and is consequently irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My bad - I missed the "in" but the point does not change: Sees in Darkness/See Darkness as if it were Dim Light. The monster can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. [Confirming the Darkness is seen as Dim Light aka greyscale]
As far as that character's sight is concerned, the darkness is seen as though its dim light.
No. For the umptieth time, no. The darkness is not seen as though it's dim light. The darkness is seen in as if it were dim light. And yes, that changes the point. It's the whole point.
It doesn't matter what the darkness is seen as. Neither Darkvision nor Devil's Sight reference or rely on what the darkness, or anything else, is seen as. It's not about seeing the darkness, it's about seeing in darkness. And because it's not about seeing the darkness, or what it's seen as, it doesn't matter how Darkvision affects your vision. What you see is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you see in,and what you see inisn't changed by Darkvision. What you see is changed, but what you see inisn't.
I understand what you're trying to say, and I've illustrated that. I really don't think you're getting what I'm saying, especially considering you change your point more frequently than repeat it.
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between: 1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. 2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light. Especially considered Sage Advice confirms that the "in" includes "into" Also note, it doesn't say "as if it were in Dim Light" kind of cinching up what I'm saying on how that phrasing doesn't imply what you're saying. How exactly does that change the experience for the Player and their character?
Also notice, Devil's Sight says "You can see normally in darkness" stepping away from the language of Darkvision which specifies how it looks. Implying you follow the rules which would normally apply otherwise. Otherwise, why doesn't it just say "as if it were Bright Light"? Add to that its an interpretation which suggest you would need an additional rule, like Simultaneous Effects to establish priority of the effects.
I've lost count of how many times and in how many ways I've pointed this out now, and you keep reiterating the same incorrect position regardless. So I'm just going to tell you this is where you are clearly not reading the rules correctly, and I'm not going to bother with anything else past this point since until you get this fundamental element of the rules right nothing else you postulate can have any merit. Everything you say is based on confusing seeing in and seeing period, and is consequently irrelevant.
My point is this: Your interpretation doesn't dictate what's the correct or incorrect position. Period. That's the whole point of "interpretation" is its subjective and nothing more than your personal opinion. This is why I keep reiterating you need more support for your claims. Thats a standard. You are not the arbiter of all things DnD.
I can just as easily say you're not reading the rules correctly. And I thoroughly believe you're only reading to reply, not understand - you disregard any kind of common ground and just hammer the same "I'm right, you're wrong" opinions. I've made MANY points beyond "seeing in" and "seeing period" but you've made it a trend here to just grab some phrasing and run with it until you find something else to borderline spam.
And I certainly didn't mean to bother you with anything in the first place and you're here of your own volition, so if you don't want to continue until I agree with you that you're "right" when this entire discussion has been about what clarifying rules there are to stop people from going back and forth like you and I have the past however many days. I appreciate your participation nonetheless even though I too have lost count how many times you simply reiterate a rule I posted in the OP and have offered almost nothing in addition to that OP. A couple additional interpretations to what was originally presented which I acknowledged each time before explaining how someone can easily say the opposite of the one rule you were speaking on. DnD is layers of rules to help construct a shared narrative. So far, you just want me to share your perspective of 1, sometimes 2 rules and disregard any auxiliary rules which are designed to clarify these types of things exactly.
If you're simply looking for me to say, "You're right, I'm wrong" then I think you may be disappointed. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you besides you can take a horse to water...
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between: 1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. 2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
Easy.
Sees IN(or into) Darkness acknowledges that the room is still dark therefore there is no conflict between Darkvision and Devil's Sight as neither alters the state of the darkness. No matter how well you can see in it, it is still an area of Darkness. No where in the descriptions of Darkvision or Devil's Sight does it require you to "See Darkness" for either ability to work.
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between: 1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. 2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
Easy.
Sees IN(or into) Darkness acknowledges that the room is still dark therefore there is no conflict between Darkvision and Devil's Sight as neither alters the state of the darkness. No matter how well you can see in it, it is still an area of Darkness. No where in the descriptions of Darkvision or Devil's Sight does it require you to "See Darkness" for either ability to work.
This. Seeing darkness requires perceiving darkness; darkness is what you see. Seeing in darkness requires there to be darkness to see into, but doesn't say anything about how you perceive it. And there's nothing subjective about this interpretation. It's a straightforward literal reading of what it says.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If you're simply looking for me to say, "You're right, I'm wrong" then I think you may be disappointed. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you besides you can take a horse to water...
That's somewhat unfortunate for you considering that he IS right and you ARE wrong. But if you prefer to keep having trouble with this rule(s) instead of accepting the guidance/clarifications you have gotten (from several people) then that's your prerogative, I just don't why you would want to.
If you're simply looking for me to say, "You're right, I'm wrong" then I think you may be disappointed. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you besides you can take a horse to water...
That's somewhat unfortunate for you considering that he IS right and you ARE wrong. But if you prefer to keep having trouble with this rule(s) instead of accepting the guidance/clarifications you have gotten (from several people) then that's your prerogative, I just don't why you would want to.
Guidance and clarification from reiterating my OP?? I don't see where you're coming from.
I think people are really hung up on the idea that they think I'm trying to say, "as if it were" means "it becomes that thing" when I've been saying, "yes, its still the original thing, but it adopts the mechanics of something different" so that things like "seeing in Darkness normally" with Devil's Sight to an individual who also possesses Darkvision and would then "normally" see Darkness as Dim Light. And I'm sorry if folks disagree, but I really don't think that's a reach where someone might want an additional rule to clarify the dynamic between the original 2 (or however many). Afterall, each rule isn't written with conditions for how it plays with each and every other rule in the books individually - they have generalized clarification rules instead. But honestly, it feels like I uttered blasphemy even considering such a thing... I know I'm protective of my characters and how I expect them to play, so maybe that has something to do with it but I digress...
As I already mentioned, several people certainly reiterated my OP on how the rules can play together. Therefore, if I'm wrong, then I'm also right since I originally present both cases. I really didn't realize this thread would turn into a "who thinks Venyxos is wrong when presenting both sides in their OP" but oh well - what can you do?
The whole point of the discussion is how people can easily come to different conclusions when only looking at one or two rules at a time and therefore, what additional rules could help clarify. Darkvision and Devil's Sight just seemed like a good example to focus on (again, noted in the OP) because so many just take it as is when it has a lot of interesting language. Not to mention, very strong abilities players learn to rely on throughout their campaigns.
Many focused on common interpretations of the rules as they stand on their own but typically struggled to expand their explanations (provide support) in the form of additional rules not already offered by the OP or being carried over from another comment. However, others understood this and the topic did yield the results I was looking for from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg 5 which clarify the rules quite well (updated to the OP).
In other words, most responses had the rationale, "because I said so" or "because that's just the way it is" without providing additional rule sets to back up their claim. They would reiterate phrasing within a particular rule, like Darkvision, suggesting that phrasing worked in a very specific way but when examining another rule with the same language, those specifics would break down. Also, they usually were suggesting a kind of duality - where "as if it were" plays w/ the "can" inclusion to suggest the character is actually picking, on the fly, which benefit they're applying where, whether they announce it or not. Another way to think about it, the way most were suggesting the rules could not be used by software without additional lines of code, confirming how to process the other conditions. Humans just have a tendency to do that without really realizing it, often making mistakes. This is what I was looking for - the additional coding that clears any potential conflicts in mechanics or interpretation... Redefining the variables within the code only breaks the rule further, therefore, simply offering different explanations for phrasing within a rule doesn't actually clarify the rule - it actually confuses it further.
Frankly, I'm lost how people thought copy and pasting the rules I already had in the OP would actually address the OP... It's all already in there. Add to that the fact I typically address other's interpretation's as valid - everyone's is valid. Hence why you need additional rules to clarify MANY potential conflicts with DnD rulesets. That said, DnDBeyond forums will likely be the last place I check in the future even though I did obtain the information I was looking for. Just wasn't worth it and likely could have found it myself taking the time to reread the rulebooks instead of simply asking a community dedicated to the game.
It's perhaps unclear what you were trying to accomplish with this thread? The thread title "Devil's Sight vs Darkvision - A Discussion" indicates that you want clarification on that particular rule. But you seem to be wanting some sort of... I dunno, philosophical discussion/debate on how Rules can be interpreted and what you consider important as evidence to back particular interpretations?
Most people coming to this forum are looking for answers to complicated questions about how the Rules As Written work. This place is more of a question-answer line than a debate club (by which I mean a debate/forensics club in academia.) This is why people are confused by your responses and how you seem to be evaluating the quality of argument behind people's posts.
If you are wanting to have an actual discussion of what you consider necessary for Rules, then use a thread title like "Rules Interpretations - a Philosophical Debate" so that people who click on the thread will know what to expect. And also maybe use fewer "lol"s in response to people's earnest replies to your posts? It comes across as condescending. Treat other forum members as adults who are here to discuss things with you in good faith.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
But then I got wondering, "why wouldn't they conflict? where's the rule?"
"Darkvision makes darkness seem like dim light so devil's sight only functions in magical darkness and/or if and where its range exceeds that of the darkvision effect - hilarious, I know."
The reason why everyone is repeating themselves is due to these statements in your original post.
In order for there to be a conflict in the rules, YOU had to change the rules to make it happen. None of the rules say that you have to see darkness for Devil's Sight to work. That is why your perception of the Darkness does not matter. The rules literally don't match what you are saying.
"The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness."
This rule states that Darkness is a part of the environment and tied directly to the presence of light.
A monster with darkvision can see in the dark within a specific radius. The monster can see in dim light within the radius as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. The monster can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. Many creatures that live underground have this special sense.
This rule does not alter the light in the environment in anyway.
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet.
This rule does not alter the light in the environment in anyway
It's perhaps unclear what you were trying to accomplish with this thread? The thread title "Devil's Sight vs Darkvision - A Discussion" indicates that you want clarification on that particular rule. But you seem to be wanting some sort of... I dunno, philosophical discussion/debate on how Rules can be interpreted and what you consider important as evidence to back particular interpretations?
Well reading beyond the title would fill you in on what the discussion was about. I figured those two rules would generate hits on solid clarification rules and at a generalized level (like Simultaneous Effects for example - if someone said what I said, you could say, "Well under Simultaneous Effects, its totally legal to utilize both benefits, without any kind of 'order of operations' conflicts." and then they would have to beef about something different). Simply reiterating the rule the way you understand it doesn't automatically change how another might. Hence the request for additional rules throughout. It's the other, reading to reply, not to understand who are actually doing what you say. And it's hardly philosophical, but that's what happens when people start talking about the meaning of words within a rule instead of simply offering a rule designed to clarify such things.
Most people coming to this forum are looking for answers to complicated questions about how the Rules As Written work. This place is more of a question-answer line than a debate club (by which I mean a debate/forensics club in academia.) This is why people are confused by your responses and how you seem to be evaluating the quality of argument behind people's posts.
This post was all about complicated questions and RAW. It turns into a debate when individuals disagree over a single rule and how it works or RAI in other words... Hence the search for additional rulesets (RAW) which clarify a potentially complicated situation. The fact is, you're all evaluating me when I'm simply saying, "sure, but someone can literally just as easily say the opposite, so if you have an additional rule which supports your statements, ok" - which I did. People offered additional rules and I pretty much immediately conceded on those 1-3 posts.
If you are wanting to have an actual discussion of what you consider necessary for Rules, then use a thread title like "Rules Interpretations - a Philosophical Debate" so that people who click on the thread will know what to expect. And also maybe use fewer "lol"s in response to people's earnest replies to your posts? It comes across as condescending. Treat other forum members as adults who are here to discuss things with you in good faith.
Again, here you are critiquing how I should go about things based on your personal interpretation of what I said, ignoring my actual meaning. I was trying to have a fun conversation about Darksight, Darkvision, and generalized rules, beginning with potential conflicts of interpretation regarding Darkvision and Darkvision. All my posts are full of conversational language right from the OP.
Immediately I was greeted w/ condescendence but my use of "lol" is what gets the attention. Not to mention, "Rules and Mechanics" seems like the perfect place to have a conversation about the "Rules and Mechanics" of the -all- the rules presented by the original OP - Darkvision, Devil's Sight, Light Levels and auxiliary rules like Heavily Obscured & Blindness, MM's Devil's Sight for creatures and then once obtained, edited to include Simultaneous Effects DAYS ago.
Just to clarify - the OP is essentially saying, "we all have opinions on how the rules work - what are some additional rules which objectively clarify the situation?"
Not, "This is what how I think the rules should work - agree with me" I offered both interpretations in the OP the common interpretation with zero conflicts or complexity for the player and then separately a reaching example of how one might argue there are conflicts, thus prompting the question "which rules could you use to clear up those potential conflicts"
Again, thank you @Farling for the additional rule which clarifies the proposed scenarios, among MANY others which players may (or may not) experience!
I am suggesting that you edit your thread title at least slightly so that it's clear to forum members what to expect from your posts. Ending the title with "A Jolly Discussion" would do the job nicely for your conversational style.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I am suggesting that you edit your thread title at least slightly so that it's clear to forum members what to expect from your posts. Ending the title with "A Jolly Discussion" would do the job nicely for your conversational style.
I dig that, haha - and I do have to admit, when I typed "A Discussion" I remember thinking "you're not going to get a discussion......." lol as if it would be received as a challenge (which in a way it is, but only a challenge to render rules not already presented in the OP; not a challenge to how people play their games)
Not, "This is what how I think the rules should work - agree with me" I offered both interpretations in the OP the common interpretation with zero conflicts or complexity for the player and then separately a reaching example of how one might argue there are conflicts, thus prompting the question "which rules could you use to clear up those potential conflicts"
And I guess this is why you get the sort of responses that you get. There is no "both" here, the rules are clear and conflict free as written. The only reason you perceive there to be a conflict is that you misinterpret/misunderstand what the rules actually say. Doing so at first isn't a big deal but 4 pages in it starts to look more like you wanting there to be a problem than wanting to learn/understand and that gets somewhat annoying.
But then I got wondering, "why wouldn't they conflict? where's the rule?"
"Darkvision makes darkness seem like dim light so devil's sight only functions in magical darkness and/or if and where its range exceeds that of the darkvision effect - hilarious, I know."
The reason why everyone is repeating themselves is due to these statements in your original post.
In order for there to be a conflict in the rules, YOU had to change the rules to make it happen. None of the rules say that you have to see darkness for Devil's Sight to work. That is why your perception of the Darkness does not matter. The rules literally don't match what you are saying.
Well, that's because the rules don't define each other, they define themselves. When combining two conditions, you effectively create a third. This is the dynamic I'm discussing. I changed nothing; I simply added two rules together...
And I mean it straight up says, "You can see normally in Darkness" and has been clarified by Jeremy Crawford in Sage Advice (when that's how the posted official errata) the "in" means "into" and therefore suggests that's exactly what has to happen - you have to be looking/seeing into Darkness for any effect to manifest. Doesn't mean anything one way or the other though as most people agree "yea, darkness must be present" but... Now, everyone is in agreement, as there's clearly no effect listed on Dim Light, that it definitely does not apply to Dim Light on its own. Plus that's been clarified in then official errata. 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? 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.
Therefore, I repeat my point: the verbiage of Darkvision and Devil's Sight alone does not share enough common language to be clear on how they might function together. I'm not saying my interpretations reign supreme - I'm saying no interpretations do unless published by the authors. Hence why it does indeed require additional rules (which already exist) to clarify the combination of the two.
"The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness."
This rule states that Darkness is a part of the environment and tied directly to the presence of light.
But then Darkvision says "can see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" making the visual effect for that character Dim Light. Therefore, Devil's Sight (You can see normally in darkness) would be trying see into Dim Light for that character. Remember: Jeremy Crawford confirmed the "in" implies or at least includes "into" to afford the benefit of not having to be standing in the effect - this could mean it really is what that character is seeing vs how it really is OR it could confirm that it truly is just the environmental effect, as you put it, that matters. Everyone who shares your opinion is ignoring that aspect. As I've illustrated, no one has to share your interpretation as there isn't anything between the two rules alone to fully confirm. Now don't get me wrong here - I play the way all of you have stated - use each to their full benefit; don't overthink it. I talk about this in the OP. But using those benefits together has given me insight into areas the rules aren't so clear as they seem at first. Which is why I sought an additional rule which would clarify this situation, as well as many others regarding other rules with completely different effects. But good news, Simultaneous Effects on page 5 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything eliminates that conflict. You no longer have to worry about the "states" and "conditions" - Devil's Sight and Darkvision is worded so that running Devil's Sight 1st, then Darkvision 2nd, according to that rule, gives you all the benefits and leaves no conflict. Another commenter shared that one. Kills this debate entirely.
A monster with darkvision can see in the dark within a specific radius. The monster can see in dim light within the radius as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. The monster can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. Many creatures that live underground have this special sense.
This rule does not alter the light in the environment in anyway.
No, not in the environment - but how that specific character or creature see in it. "as if it were" how is this not a change of effect for the character? I'm not saying it behaves like a torch or anything like that; simply the character is now seeing Dim Light. Devil's Sight is an effect on how they see in Darkness, not how they see in Dim Light. Environmentally, its still Darkness, but as far as that character and seeing, its now Dim Light. That is a completely legitimate interpretation, even if its totally not fun... ...And somewhat complicated which I believe the PHB says somewhere the rules aren't intended to be complex with multiple meanings. I hear you, "Oh-ho! But isn't that what you're doing here Venyxos??" A bit - however, I think Darkvision and Devil's Sight are abundantly clear when being used separately/independently. Its combining them things can become somewhat complex, particularly in odd situations, like targeting multiple creatures in different levels of sight, with different sense for a single spell, like scorching rays. Usually there's no conflict of language, but sometimes there is. For weird, even potentially grey areas, there is almost always a general rule which clarifies the situation. We can thank Farling for their early contribution with Simultaneous Effects which puts it to bed.
You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet.
This rule does not alter the light in the environment in anyway
It doesn't define what "normally" is - is this so it doesn't give something blind the ability to see? probably. And what about if the darkness you're trying to see in is as if it was dim light? Think about this. If according to Simultaneous Effects, you declared Darkvision first, Devil's Sight second, and look at another character who's in darkness, then they appear greyscale, as if they were in Dim Light so you're not seeing in darkness. Again - absolutely no fun. Would not recommend this interpretation, BUT if someone insisted, like I have, that's the way it is (I say could be), then you just apply Devil's Sight first, Darkvision second, once again, according to Simultaneous Effects and you're all good. It basically reads that the player picks, thus allowing the player to pick the interpretation. I honestly think that's pretty neat.
You can program digital platforms for DnD under the same rules and it would require less code as you wouldn't have to patch or plan for any weird conflicts as the software tried to decide how what you're looking at looks like while two effects run simultaneously which treat the same thing differently - that is to say, they take the same thing and try to make it two different things at once. Devil's Sight would make it so the software tried to render the thing "normally" and Darkvision would try to render it as "Dim" - and your game would crash. You could put spaghetti code in - OR "stack" the effects in a priority so the software knows to render one, then the other in a manner which appears simultaneous and seamless. And hopefully enjoy your experience.
There is no conflict within the rules as written.
but I can just as easily say "there is a conflict within the rules as written" as I just illustrated. Thankfully! Farling dropped Simultaneous Effects into the discussion on Page 1 of this thread and eliminates any need for our discussion - which of course we could still continue to have but as many have pointed out, I'm not really saying anything new... Heck, even I've pointed out that my OP includes all the points, more or less, each of us have made. This is the issue with RAI and why rules like Simultaneous Effects and, in my opinion, folks like Farling, are so rad - with DnD bringing it aaall together.
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
So a player can choose in which order to apply Darkvision and Devil's Sight, if they have both.
I should have been multi-quoting this into every comment I've made since you posted it! Thanks again!
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between: 1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. 2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
Easy.
Sees IN(or into) Darkness acknowledges that the room is still dark therefore there is no conflict between Darkvision and Devil's Sight as neither alters the state of the darkness. No matter how well you can see in it, it is still an area of Darkness. No where in the descriptions of Darkvision or Devil's Sight does it require you to "See Darkness" for either ability to work.
This. Seeing darkness requires perceiving darkness; darkness is what you see. Seeing in darkness requires there to be darkness to see into, but doesn't say anything about how you perceive it. And there's nothing subjective about this interpretation. It's a straightforward literal reading of what it says.
Straight up says "See in darkness as if it were dim light" - that changes the state of the darkness for how that character sees it. That is another interpretation suggesting both are subjective. Thus requiring an additional clarification rule to settle any disagreement (or perhaps a flip of a coin).
Also, they didn't actually explain the difference between the wording which you had stated there was a major difference in earlier where you said: "It doesn't matter what the darkness is seen as. Neither Darkvision nor Devil's Sight reference or rely on what the darkness, or anything else, is seen as. It's not about seeing the darkness, it's about seeing in darkness. And because it's not about seeing the darkness, or what it's seen as, it doesn't matter how Darkvision affects your vision. What you see is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you see in,and what you see inisn't changed by Darkvision. What you see is changed, but what you see inisn't."
Its the same effect then regardless of the wording? We would have to keep backing up to the previous points that led us there to continue this point.
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between: 1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. 2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
Easy.
Sees IN(or into) Darkness acknowledges that the room is still dark therefore there is no conflict between Darkvision and Devil's Sight as neither alters the state of the darkness. No matter how well you can see in it, it is still an area of Darkness. No where in the descriptions of Darkvision or Devil's Sight does it require you to "See Darkness" for either ability to work.
Again, never said it affects the level of darkness in general, just as far as how that character sees it. And no where in the description does it define a difference between: See Darkness See in Darkness See into Darkness ...and whether that's how the character sees or what the character sees (the actual difference between what I'm saying vs others on this point). And like the OP says, I think 'no conflicct' is the most obvious interpretation but its not concrete - it just isn't. The nature of this thread proves it. Again, there is a general rule which satisfies BOTH interpretations. I sincerely don't understand why it's difficult to entertain the idea that there could possibly be a conflict on two rules which at first glance appear very similar in effect, or at least to affect similar things, but are worded so differently.
I get you're saying environmental darkness means that and only that, and that's all the rules care about, enjoy your benefits. But it does not have to be interpreted that way especially when you start examining other rules which have dramatically different effects but are worded the same.
Also, you didn't actually explain the difference presented in the question. You gave half the answer you declared was easy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My bad - I missed the "in" but the point does not change: Sees in Darkness/See Darkness as if it were Dim Light. The monster can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. [Confirming the Darkness is seen as Dim Light aka greyscale]
As far as that character's sight is concerned, the darkness is seen as though its dim light. The rule MUST say "as if it were" or else people could interpret the rule as Darkness becomes Dim Light in general (like an actual light source would do - and once again, at no point have I said that's the case beyond how the character sees it mechanical, RAW)
Plus a new point: Devil's Sight says, "see in Darkness normally" which if that "character see in darkness as if it were Dim Light - than the "Normal" they see is Dim Light if giving Darkvision priority over Devil's Sight.
That's an interpretation you must acknowledge from the standpoint of open debate, even if you don't agree. And again, that's in the situation that someone expects you to declare when you're using what sense. As ridiculous as you may think some of the interpretations I've offered are: anyone can make them in a real game and you would need a rock-solid rule to clarify further (some of which we covered already)
Yes, that's what I'm saying! The rule is intentionally written in a way that no one can interpret it as removing the ordinary effect of darkness besides the character with Darkvision. That's what I mean every time I say it literally MUST include the language as if it were to indicate the state of the article didn't actually change, but the mechanics for that character in those conditions straight up did. At no point have I said the Darkness goes away in the game world - only for the person using the effect and under the assumption they're interpreting the rules in a manner which conflicts when you go to execute the play.
If it said "becomes dim light" than that would imply it actually changed the real world light level! Which is why it says "as if it were"! It 100% changes the conditions for the character/creature/entity its being applied and only them. And "treat as" is the same as "as if it were" - I'm simply having a conversation which is why when I'm not quoting it, I often use other forms of speech, vs copy and pasting what I already said! Its just as if it were is more formal and clear, wouldn't you say?
They do tho - because all you've offered is personal opinion of the same two rules and nothing more; which I've been trying to illustrate to you, all someone needs to do to contend you is offer their own personal opinion on the same rules, nothing more. I've discussed 4 different rule sets in the OP and you've focused almost entirely on the Darkvision and a bit of Devil's Sight.
Agreed - I was thinking about it a bit more after I posted it and since it says "cast a spell" then you could "cast a ritual" as its very clearly under the "cast a spell" rules, lol. And you raise an oft overlooked factor w/ "can inclusions" - they only give you the option to opt out or choose not to apply the effect; which is usually silly because why do what it do otherwise, right? lol
My usage in that example is indeed in error!
^ THIS ^ This is what I believe you and I have ultimately been battling over, back and forth! Let me take this as an opportunity to say some things about RAI and RAW. I make it sound like all I care about is RAW and that the rules says exactly what you can and cant do. This is not true about me as a player or a person. I recognize that just about everything is wide open to interpretation. Due to this factor, DnD developers over the years have had a nearly impossible task in "writing the rules for any kind of experience you might be able to imagine" lol
This is why RAI is such a corner-stone of the game. Plus its important to remember, that Dungeons and Dragons itself was once entirely Home Brew! What people thought should happen in a situation became what we refer to as RAW. In our debate over Devil's Sight and Darkvision being used in tandem, we've uncovered DOZENS of interpretations which would suggest there is no conflict between the two with only a few pretty niche/specific suggesting that there might be some conflicts depending on circumstances - this suggests that most would agree with both of us, you CAN use both together (check out the OP - in micro print at the bottom I suggest people looking in Devil's Sight w/ Gloom Stalker's Umbral - its one of my favorite combinations to play and you best belieeeve I stack all the benefits and argue against conflicts like you did against me in this thread; its why I've thought of many ways someone could try to use the rules to block some of the REALLY OP elements you get there already and hardly had to think to flip the rules against your more obvious interpretations). But not everyone thinks within the bell curve, right?
In that, especially in books released later on in 5e, there are usually clarifications to any weird conflicts that don't really come up until the masses have play tested the material (which is likely why Xanathars almost functions like a 2nd PHB - yea you don't need it, but it really gives the rules some meat where they didn't have it before, and of course the Dungeon Masters Guide to really glue it all together - the rest is mostly bonus mechanics for the theme of the campaign)
This is why I was so pointed, even a bully, about finding additional rules that suggest the things you're saying versus simply reiterating them differently. I agree with basically everything you said, but as I was attempting to illustrate, someone could easily be very difficult about the rules and how they interpret them. This can have a good group of friends upset over a game of DnD - not getting what they expected out of it. Being familiar with additional references which go beyond the initial rulesets they may be examining can be a great way to mitigate any sour feelings.
No. For the umptieth time, no. The darkness is not seen as though it's dim light. The darkness is seen in as if it were dim light. And yes, that changes the point. It's the whole point.
It doesn't matter what the darkness is seen as. Neither Darkvision nor Devil's Sight reference or rely on what the darkness, or anything else, is seen as. It's not about seeing the darkness, it's about seeing in darkness. And because it's not about seeing the darkness, or what it's seen as, it doesn't matter how Darkvision affects your vision. What you see is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you see in, and what you see in isn't changed by Darkvision. What you see is changed, but what you see in isn't.
I've lost count of how many times and in how many ways I've pointed this out now, and you keep reiterating the same incorrect position regardless. So I'm just going to tell you this is where you are clearly not reading the rules correctly, and I'm not going to bother with anything else past this point since until you get this fundamental element of the rules right nothing else you postulate can have any merit. Everything you say is based on confusing seeing in and seeing period, and is consequently irrelevant.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I understand what you're trying to say, and I've illustrated that. I really don't think you're getting what I'm saying, especially considering you change your point more frequently than repeat it.
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between:
1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
Especially considered Sage Advice confirms that the "in" includes "into"
Also note, it doesn't say "as if it were in Dim Light" kind of cinching up what I'm saying on how that phrasing doesn't imply what you're saying.
How exactly does that change the experience for the Player and their character?
Also notice, Devil's Sight says "You can see normally in darkness" stepping away from the language of Darkvision which specifies how it looks. Implying you follow the rules which would normally apply otherwise. Otherwise, why doesn't it just say "as if it were Bright Light"? Add to that its an interpretation which suggest you would need an additional rule, like Simultaneous Effects to establish priority of the effects.
My point is this: Your interpretation doesn't dictate what's the correct or incorrect position. Period. That's the whole point of "interpretation" is its subjective and nothing more than your personal opinion. This is why I keep reiterating you need more support for your claims. Thats a standard. You are not the arbiter of all things DnD.
I can just as easily say you're not reading the rules correctly. And I thoroughly believe you're only reading to reply, not understand - you disregard any kind of common ground and just hammer the same "I'm right, you're wrong" opinions. I've made MANY points beyond "seeing in" and "seeing period" but you've made it a trend here to just grab some phrasing and run with it until you find something else to borderline spam.
And I certainly didn't mean to bother you with anything in the first place and you're here of your own volition, so if you don't want to continue until I agree with you that you're "right" when this entire discussion has been about what clarifying rules there are to stop people from going back and forth like you and I have the past however many days. I appreciate your participation nonetheless even though I too have lost count how many times you simply reiterate a rule I posted in the OP and have offered almost nothing in addition to that OP. A couple additional interpretations to what was originally presented which I acknowledged each time before explaining how someone can easily say the opposite of the one rule you were speaking on. DnD is layers of rules to help construct a shared narrative. So far, you just want me to share your perspective of 1, sometimes 2 rules and disregard any auxiliary rules which are designed to clarify these types of things exactly.
If you're simply looking for me to say, "You're right, I'm wrong" then I think you may be disappointed. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you besides you can take a horse to water...
This thread certainly was interesting.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Do me a favor and explain what happens, as far as the gameplay is concerned, between:
1 - Sees in Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
2 - Sees Darkness as if it were Dim Light.
Easy.
Sees IN(or into) Darkness acknowledges that the room is still dark therefore there is no conflict between Darkvision and Devil's Sight as neither alters the state of the darkness. No matter how well you can see in it, it is still an area of Darkness. No where in the descriptions of Darkvision or Devil's Sight does it require you to "See Darkness" for either ability to work.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This. Seeing darkness requires perceiving darkness; darkness is what you see. Seeing in darkness requires there to be darkness to see into, but doesn't say anything about how you perceive it. And there's nothing subjective about this interpretation. It's a straightforward literal reading of what it says.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's somewhat unfortunate for you considering that he IS right and you ARE wrong. But if you prefer to keep having trouble with this rule(s) instead of accepting the guidance/clarifications you have gotten (from several people) then that's your prerogative, I just don't why you would want to.
Guidance and clarification from reiterating my OP?? I don't see where you're coming from.
I think people are really hung up on the idea that they think I'm trying to say, "as if it were" means "it becomes that thing" when I've been saying, "yes, its still the original thing, but it adopts the mechanics of something different" so that things like "seeing in Darkness normally" with Devil's Sight to an individual who also possesses Darkvision and would then "normally" see Darkness as Dim Light. And I'm sorry if folks disagree, but I really don't think that's a reach where someone might want an additional rule to clarify the dynamic between the original 2 (or however many). Afterall, each rule isn't written with conditions for how it plays with each and every other rule in the books individually - they have generalized clarification rules instead. But honestly, it feels like I uttered blasphemy even considering such a thing... I know I'm protective of my characters and how I expect them to play, so maybe that has something to do with it but I digress...
As I already mentioned, several people certainly reiterated my OP on how the rules can play together. Therefore, if I'm wrong, then I'm also right since I originally present both cases. I really didn't realize this thread would turn into a "who thinks Venyxos is wrong when presenting both sides in their OP" but oh well - what can you do?
The whole point of the discussion is how people can easily come to different conclusions when only looking at one or two rules at a time and therefore, what additional rules could help clarify. Darkvision and Devil's Sight just seemed like a good example to focus on (again, noted in the OP) because so many just take it as is when it has a lot of interesting language. Not to mention, very strong abilities players learn to rely on throughout their campaigns.
Many focused on common interpretations of the rules as they stand on their own but typically struggled to expand their explanations (provide support) in the form of additional rules not already offered by the OP or being carried over from another comment. However, others understood this and the topic did yield the results I was looking for from Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg 5 which clarify the rules quite well (updated to the OP).
In other words, most responses had the rationale, "because I said so" or "because that's just the way it is" without providing additional rule sets to back up their claim. They would reiterate phrasing within a particular rule, like Darkvision, suggesting that phrasing worked in a very specific way but when examining another rule with the same language, those specifics would break down. Also, they usually were suggesting a kind of duality - where "as if it were" plays w/ the "can" inclusion to suggest the character is actually picking, on the fly, which benefit they're applying where, whether they announce it or not. Another way to think about it, the way most were suggesting the rules could not be used by software without additional lines of code, confirming how to process the other conditions. Humans just have a tendency to do that without really realizing it, often making mistakes. This is what I was looking for - the additional coding that clears any potential conflicts in mechanics or interpretation... Redefining the variables within the code only breaks the rule further, therefore, simply offering different explanations for phrasing within a rule doesn't actually clarify the rule - it actually confuses it further.
Frankly, I'm lost how people thought copy and pasting the rules I already had in the OP would actually address the OP... It's all already in there. Add to that the fact I typically address other's interpretation's as valid - everyone's is valid. Hence why you need additional rules to clarify MANY potential conflicts with DnD rulesets. That said, DnDBeyond forums will likely be the last place I check in the future even though I did obtain the information I was looking for. Just wasn't worth it and likely could have found it myself taking the time to reread the rulebooks instead of simply asking a community dedicated to the game.
It's perhaps unclear what you were trying to accomplish with this thread? The thread title "Devil's Sight vs Darkvision - A Discussion" indicates that you want clarification on that particular rule. But you seem to be wanting some sort of... I dunno, philosophical discussion/debate on how Rules can be interpreted and what you consider important as evidence to back particular interpretations?
Most people coming to this forum are looking for answers to complicated questions about how the Rules As Written work. This place is more of a question-answer line than a debate club (by which I mean a debate/forensics club in academia.) This is why people are confused by your responses and how you seem to be evaluating the quality of argument behind people's posts.
If you are wanting to have an actual discussion of what you consider necessary for Rules, then use a thread title like "Rules Interpretations - a Philosophical Debate" so that people who click on the thread will know what to expect. And also maybe use fewer "lol"s in response to people's earnest replies to your posts? It comes across as condescending. Treat other forum members as adults who are here to discuss things with you in good faith.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
The reason why everyone is repeating themselves is due to these statements in your original post.
In order for there to be a conflict in the rules, YOU had to change the rules to make it happen. None of the rules say that you have to see darkness for Devil's Sight to work. That is why your perception of the Darkness does not matter. The rules literally don't match what you are saying.
This rule states that Darkness is a part of the environment and tied directly to the presence of light.
This rule does not alter the light in the environment in anyway.
This rule does not alter the light in the environment in anyway
There is no conflict within the rules as written.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Well reading beyond the title would fill you in on what the discussion was about. I figured those two rules would generate hits on solid clarification rules and at a generalized level (like Simultaneous Effects for example - if someone said what I said, you could say, "Well under Simultaneous Effects, its totally legal to utilize both benefits, without any kind of 'order of operations' conflicts." and then they would have to beef about something different). Simply reiterating the rule the way you understand it doesn't automatically change how another might. Hence the request for additional rules throughout. It's the other, reading to reply, not to understand who are actually doing what you say. And it's hardly philosophical, but that's what happens when people start talking about the meaning of words within a rule instead of simply offering a rule designed to clarify such things.
This post was all about complicated questions and RAW. It turns into a debate when individuals disagree over a single rule and how it works or RAI in other words... Hence the search for additional rulesets (RAW) which clarify a potentially complicated situation. The fact is, you're all evaluating me when I'm simply saying, "sure, but someone can literally just as easily say the opposite, so if you have an additional rule which supports your statements, ok" - which I did. People offered additional rules and I pretty much immediately conceded on those 1-3 posts.
Again, here you are critiquing how I should go about things based on your personal interpretation of what I said, ignoring my actual meaning. I was trying to have a fun conversation about Darksight, Darkvision, and generalized rules, beginning with potential conflicts of interpretation regarding Darkvision and Darkvision. All my posts are full of conversational language right from the OP.
Immediately I was greeted w/ condescendence but my use of "lol" is what gets the attention. Not to mention, "Rules and Mechanics" seems like the perfect place to have a conversation about the "Rules and Mechanics" of the -all- the rules presented by the original OP - Darkvision, Devil's Sight, Light Levels and auxiliary rules like Heavily Obscured & Blindness, MM's Devil's Sight for creatures and then once obtained, edited to include Simultaneous Effects DAYS ago.
Just to clarify - the OP is essentially saying, "we all have opinions on how the rules work - what are some additional rules which objectively clarify the situation?"
Not, "This is what how I think the rules should work - agree with me"
I offered both interpretations in the OP the common interpretation with zero conflicts or complexity for the player and then separately a reaching example of how one might argue there are conflicts, thus prompting the question "which rules could you use to clear up those potential conflicts"
Again, thank you @Farling for the additional rule which clarifies the proposed scenarios, among MANY others which players may (or may not) experience!
I am suggesting that you edit your thread title at least slightly so that it's clear to forum members what to expect from your posts. Ending the title with "A Jolly Discussion" would do the job nicely for your conversational style.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I dig that, haha - and I do have to admit, when I typed "A Discussion" I remember thinking "you're not going to get a discussion......." lol as if it would be received as a challenge (which in a way it is, but only a challenge to render rules not already presented in the OP; not a challenge to how people play their games)
Started in on a response but Golaryn nailed all the important bits.
And I guess this is why you get the sort of responses that you get. There is no "both" here, the rules are clear and conflict free as written. The only reason you perceive there to be a conflict is that you misinterpret/misunderstand what the rules actually say. Doing so at first isn't a big deal but 4 pages in it starts to look more like you wanting there to be a problem than wanting to learn/understand and that gets somewhat annoying.
Well, that's because the rules don't define each other, they define themselves. When combining two conditions, you effectively create a third. This is the dynamic I'm discussing. I changed nothing; I simply added two rules together...
And I mean it straight up says, "You can see normally in Darkness" and has been clarified by Jeremy Crawford in Sage Advice (when that's how the posted official errata) the "in" means "into" and therefore suggests that's exactly what has to happen - you have to be looking/seeing into Darkness for any effect to manifest. Doesn't mean anything one way or the other though as most people agree "yea, darkness must be present" but...
Now, everyone is in agreement, as there's clearly no effect listed on Dim Light, that it definitely does not apply to Dim Light on its own. Plus that's been clarified in then official errata.
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?
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.
Therefore, I repeat my point: the verbiage of Darkvision and Devil's Sight alone does not share enough common language to be clear on how they might function together. I'm not saying my interpretations reign supreme - I'm saying no interpretations do unless published by the authors. Hence why it does indeed require additional rules (which already exist) to clarify the combination of the two.
But then Darkvision says "can see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light" making the visual effect for that character Dim Light. Therefore, Devil's Sight (You can see normally in darkness) would be trying see into Dim Light for that character. Remember: Jeremy Crawford confirmed the "in" implies or at least includes "into" to afford the benefit of not having to be standing in the effect - this could mean it really is what that character is seeing vs how it really is OR it could confirm that it truly is just the environmental effect, as you put it, that matters. Everyone who shares your opinion is ignoring that aspect. As I've illustrated, no one has to share your interpretation as there isn't anything between the two rules alone to fully confirm. Now don't get me wrong here - I play the way all of you have stated - use each to their full benefit; don't overthink it. I talk about this in the OP. But using those benefits together has given me insight into areas the rules aren't so clear as they seem at first. Which is why I sought an additional rule which would clarify this situation, as well as many others regarding other rules with completely different effects. But good news, Simultaneous Effects on page 5 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything eliminates that conflict. You no longer have to worry about the "states" and "conditions" - Devil's Sight and Darkvision is worded so that running Devil's Sight 1st, then Darkvision 2nd, according to that rule, gives you all the benefits and leaves no conflict. Another commenter shared that one. Kills this debate entirely.
No, not in the environment - but how that specific character or creature see in it. "as if it were" how is this not a change of effect for the character? I'm not saying it behaves like a torch or anything like that; simply the character is now seeing Dim Light. Devil's Sight is an effect on how they see in Darkness, not how they see in Dim Light. Environmentally, its still Darkness, but as far as that character and seeing, its now Dim Light. That is a completely legitimate interpretation, even if its totally not fun...
...And somewhat complicated which I believe the PHB says somewhere the rules aren't intended to be complex with multiple meanings. I hear you, "Oh-ho! But isn't that what you're doing here Venyxos??" A bit - however, I think Darkvision and Devil's Sight are abundantly clear when being used separately/independently. Its combining them things can become somewhat complex, particularly in odd situations, like targeting multiple creatures in different levels of sight, with different sense for a single spell, like scorching rays. Usually there's no conflict of language, but sometimes there is. For weird, even potentially grey areas, there is almost always a general rule which clarifies the situation. We can thank Farling for their early contribution with Simultaneous Effects which puts it to bed.
It doesn't define what "normally" is - is this so it doesn't give something blind the ability to see? probably. And what about if the darkness you're trying to see in is as if it was dim light? Think about this. If according to Simultaneous Effects, you declared Darkvision first, Devil's Sight second, and look at another character who's in darkness, then they appear greyscale, as if they were in Dim Light so you're not seeing in darkness. Again - absolutely no fun. Would not recommend this interpretation, BUT if someone insisted, like I have, that's the way it is (I say could be), then you just apply Devil's Sight first, Darkvision second, once again, according to Simultaneous Effects and you're all good. It basically reads that the player picks, thus allowing the player to pick the interpretation. I honestly think that's pretty neat.
You can program digital platforms for DnD under the same rules and it would require less code as you wouldn't have to patch or plan for any weird conflicts as the software tried to decide how what you're looking at looks like while two effects run simultaneously which treat the same thing differently - that is to say, they take the same thing and try to make it two different things at once. Devil's Sight would make it so the software tried to render the thing "normally" and Darkvision would try to render it as "Dim" - and your game would crash. You could put spaghetti code in - OR "stack" the effects in a priority so the software knows to render one, then the other in a manner which appears simultaneous and seamless. And hopefully enjoy your experience.
but I can just as easily say "there is a conflict within the rules as written" as I just illustrated. Thankfully! Farling dropped Simultaneous Effects into the discussion on Page 1 of this thread and eliminates any need for our discussion - which of course we could still continue to have but as many have pointed out, I'm not really saying anything new... Heck, even I've pointed out that my OP includes all the points, more or less, each of us have made. This is the issue with RAI and why rules like Simultaneous Effects and, in my opinion, folks like Farling, are so rad - with DnD bringing it aaall together.
I should have been multi-quoting this into every comment I've made since you posted it! Thanks again!
Straight up says "See in darkness as if it were dim light" - that changes the state of the darkness for how that character sees it. That is another interpretation suggesting both are subjective. Thus requiring an additional clarification rule to settle any disagreement (or perhaps a flip of a coin).
Also, they didn't actually explain the difference between the wording which you had stated there was a major difference in earlier where you said:
"It doesn't matter what the darkness is seen as. Neither Darkvision nor Devil's Sight reference or rely on what the darkness, or anything else, is seen as. It's not about seeing the darkness, it's about seeing in darkness. And because it's not about seeing the darkness, or what it's seen as, it doesn't matter how Darkvision affects your vision. What you see is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you see in, and what you see in isn't changed by Darkvision. What you see is changed, but what you see in isn't."
Its the same effect then regardless of the wording? We would have to keep backing up to the previous points that led us there to continue this point.
Again, never said it affects the level of darkness in general, just as far as how that character sees it. And no where in the description does it define a difference between:
See Darkness
See in Darkness
See into Darkness
...and whether that's how the character sees or what the character sees (the actual difference between what I'm saying vs others on this point). And like the OP says, I think 'no conflicct' is the most obvious interpretation but its not concrete - it just isn't. The nature of this thread proves it. Again, there is a general rule which satisfies BOTH interpretations. I sincerely don't understand why it's difficult to entertain the idea that there could possibly be a conflict on two rules which at first glance appear very similar in effect, or at least to affect similar things, but are worded so differently.
I get you're saying environmental darkness means that and only that, and that's all the rules care about, enjoy your benefits. But it does not have to be interpreted that way especially when you start examining other rules which have dramatically different effects but are worded the same.
Also, you didn't actually explain the difference presented in the question. You gave half the answer you declared was easy.