There is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time. Again, the whole point of the OP.
No, actually, this goes into the exact reason there's no point to the OP.
Recapping D&D 5 mechanics 101 for a sec: a mechanic essentially says stuff happens. It sometimes, but not always, says when this stuff happens and/or when this stuff doesn't happen. If the mechanic doesn't say anything about when, it simply always happens whenever pertinent unless another mechanic says otherwise. When something happens, it happens. When something else happens, it also happens. When two different somethings happen at the same time, they happen at the same time. The only thing that can prevent this is one of the things happening explicitly preventing the other thing.
Let me emphasize this: there is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time, because there doesn't have to be. You simply apply both rules as written.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight both (can) become active when you're seeing in darkness. They both are a mechanic that says stuff happens (you can see things as if in dim light, albeit in greyscale, and you can see normally respectively, both out to a given range) and they both say when this stuff happens (when seeing in darkness). There is no rule that says they can't happen at the same time, so they can and do. It's that simple.
Saying people can interpret the rules wrong or might overcomplicate things is one thing, but looking for other rules to correct them is silly. It's a ruleset. It tells you how to do things. It doesn't tell you not to do wrong things because you're supposed to do things right, the way it tells you to do them.
Simultaneous Effects is moot. Simultaneous Effects explains in what order to apply effects happening simultaneously, which is important if one effect can prevent the other. However, Darkvision can't prevent Devil's Sight and Devil's Sight can't prevent Darkvision. They just can't. You say that people could misinterpret this, sure, but then they're wrong and if they're wrong they need to be corrected rather than be told to perpetuate in their wrongness. If you let them go on believing that Darkvision and Devil's Sight can only work if the character is seeing as if in darkness rather than in darkness, they'll probably be get the wrong idea about what to do when an illusion of darkness is cast over them, for instance. Letting being wrong about something perpetuate leads to getting more things wrong.
When groups who argue over this issue go online to look up what's right, they shouldn't find you pointing at some irrelevant rule. That will just confuse them - they'll still have the wrong idea about Darkvision and Devil's Sight, and they might get the wrong idea about Simultaneous Effects too.
There is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time. Again, the whole point of the OP.
No, actually, this goes into the exact reason there's no point to the OP.
Recapping D&D 5 mechanics 101 for a sec: a mechanic essentially says stuff happens. It sometimes, but not always, says when this stuff happens and/or when this stuff doesn't happen. If the mechanic doesn't say anything about when, it simply always happens whenever pertinent unless another mechanic says otherwise. When something happens, it happens. When something else happens, it also happens. When two different somethings happen at the same time, they happen at the same time. The only thing that can prevent this is one of the things happening explicitly preventing the other thing.
Let me emphasize this: there is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time, because there doesn't have to be. You simply apply both rules as written.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight both (can) become active when you're seeing in darkness. They both are a mechanic that says stuff happens (you can see things as if in dim light, albeit in greyscale, and you can see normally respectively, both out to a given range) and they both say when this stuff happens (when seeing in darkness). There is no rule that says they can't happen at the same time, so they can and do. It's that simple.
Saying people can interpret the rules wrong or might overcomplicate things is one thing, but looking for other rules to correct them is silly. It's a ruleset. It tells you how to do things. It doesn't tell you not to do wrong things because you're supposed to do things right, the way it tells you to do them.
Simultaneous Effects is moot. Simultaneous Effects explains in what order to apply effects happening simultaneously, which is important if one effect can prevent the other. However, Darkvision can't prevent Devil's Sight and Devil's Sight can't prevent Darkvision. They just can't. You say that people could misinterpret this, sure, but then they're wrong and if they're wrong they need to be corrected rather than be told to perpetuate in their wrongness. If you let them go on believing that Darkvision and Devil's Sight can only work if the character is seeing as if in darkness rather than in darkness, they'll probably be get the wrong idea about what to do when an illusion of darkness is cast over them, for instance. Letting being wrong about something perpetuate leads to getting more things wrong.
When groups who argue over this issue go online to look up what's right, they shouldn't find you pointing at some irrelevant rule. That will just confuse them - they'll still have the wrong idea about Darkvision and Devil's Sight, and they might get the wrong idea about Simultaneous Effects too.
This is just you disagreeing with my interpretation - you have made the OP insanely relevant.
"Let me emphasize this: there is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time, because there doesn't have to be. You simply apply both rules as written." Yes there is. It's called Simultaneous Effects, and the controller player/DM picks in case of conflict. RAW. You missed it. I'm convinced you're more engaged by the fact someone thought of something you didn't than anything else here. You're just flat out wrong and your own comments are defeating the points you present.
Fact of the matter is our interactions can be summed up as you believe all you'll ever need when using Devil's Sight and Darkvision simultaneously are the two rules themselves (you barely reference Illumination Levels even) whereas I'm seeking general clarification rules that lock up some of the unwritten assumptions you and everyone who agrees with you makes (probably from playing for years without really thinking about it).
But go ahead, ignore my comments and keep beating me over the head with the rules I presented... As if I can't see you're just trying to call everything moot now as a kind of payback, lol
There is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time. Again, the whole point of the OP.
Let me emphasize this: there is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time, because there doesn't have to be. You simply apply both rules as written.
Simultaneous Effects is moot. Simultaneous Effects explains in what order to apply effects happening simultaneously, which is important if one effect can prevent the other. However, Darkvision can't prevent Devil's Sight and Devil's Sight can't prevent Darkvision. They just can't. You say that people could misinterpret this, sure, but then they're wrong and if they're wrong they need to be corrected rather than be told to perpetuate in their wrongness. If you let them go on believing that Darkvision and Devil's Sight can only work if the character is seeing as if in darkness rather than in darkness, they'll probably be get the wrong idea about what to do when an illusion of darkness is cast over them, for instance. Letting being wrong about something perpetuate leads to getting more things wrong.
[REDACTED]
just to say:
"Darkvision and Devil's Sight both (can) become active when you're seeing in darkness. They both are a mechanic that says stuff happens (you can see things as if in dim light, albeit in greyscale, and you can see normally respectively, both out to a given range) and they both say when this stuff happens (when seeing in darkness). There is no rule that says they can't happen at the same time, so they can and do. It's that simple. Saying people can interpret the rules wrong or might overcomplicate things is one thing, but looking for other rules to correct them is silly. It's a ruleset. It tells you how to do things. It doesn't tell you not to do wrong things because you're supposed to do things right, the way it tells you to do them."
this is why Simultaneous Effects is NOT moot and why it exists
When groups who argue over this issue go online to look up what's right, they shouldn't find you pointing at some irrelevant rule. That will just confuse them - they'll still have the wrong idea about Darkvision and Devil's Sight, and they might get the wrong idea about Simultaneous Effects too.
Actually they might get the opportunity to see EVERY way you might interpret those two rules and see that Simultaneous Effects nips all of the in the bud. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And besides, you're the one who keeps returning to fight anything I say creating any confusing. Especially when you're so adamant I simply accept the common interpretation of the rules, lol. If Darkvision and Devil's Sight are as clear as you say, then Simultaneous Effects would clear up the conflicted interpretation just as readily. Any groups coming online and find this post are going to be more confused to why everyone keeps reiterating the rules the OP presented and won't see any discussion as to why Simultaneous Effects eliminates my conflicted interpretation leaving only the conflict free interpretation you hound me with (which is in the OP). You have had the wrong idea and created the situation which you now suggest others will fall victim to. Considering I came here for help and got you instead with the sage like wisdon of "You're wrong - just read the rules the way I do and you're fine" then I think they were in trouble long before this thread was created.
After thinking about this some more and doing some research, I spotted an interesting trend on interpreting "can" as a player choice... Simply using the search function here on D&D Beyond, one can see can does not imply player choice in and of itself.
Search the terms: 1 May 2 Can 3 Choose
1 May almost never appears in a rule unless it is referencing the DM's discretion or character creation it seems 2 Can appears regularly, and sometimes may imply a choice but across the boards suggests mere capacity, usually under specific circumstances or conditions (these rules often include "as if it were" parameters which often require the target be treated differently than how/what it really is for the rule to function - it seems to be why the rule specifies something be treated differently than what it actually is) 3 Choose clearly pulls all rules where there is a clear choice like one might expect but more importantly, it gives plenty of examples of how rules are written when a choice is implied within D&D rules.
At this point, I would have to say you can't really fudge the "can" inclusion as a choice for the player, but rather they simply have the capacity under specific conditions. And "as if it were" means treat the specified item as if it were something different, not as it really is. D&D Beyond makes it incredibly easy to see this language throughout the various rulebooks.
No, actually, this goes into the exact reason there's no point to the OP.
Recapping D&D 5 mechanics 101 for a sec: a mechanic essentially says stuff happens. It sometimes, but not always, says when this stuff happens and/or when this stuff doesn't happen. If the mechanic doesn't say anything about when, it simply always happens whenever pertinent unless another mechanic says otherwise. When something happens, it happens. When something else happens, it also happens. When two different somethings happen at the same time, they happen at the same time. The only thing that can prevent this is one of the things happening explicitly preventing the other thing.
Let me emphasize this: there is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time, because there doesn't have to be. You simply apply both rules as written.
Darkvision and Devil's Sight both (can) become active when you're seeing in darkness. They both are a mechanic that says stuff happens (you can see things as if in dim light, albeit in greyscale, and you can see normally respectively, both out to a given range) and they both say when this stuff happens (when seeing in darkness). There is no rule that says they can't happen at the same time, so they can and do. It's that simple.
Saying people can interpret the rules wrong or might overcomplicate things is one thing, but looking for other rules to correct them is silly. It's a ruleset. It tells you how to do things. It doesn't tell you not to do wrong things because you're supposed to do things right, the way it tells you to do them.
Simultaneous Effects is moot. Simultaneous Effects explains in what order to apply effects happening simultaneously, which is important if one effect can prevent the other. However, Darkvision can't prevent Devil's Sight and Devil's Sight can't prevent Darkvision. They just can't. You say that people could misinterpret this, sure, but then they're wrong and if they're wrong they need to be corrected rather than be told to perpetuate in their wrongness. If you let them go on believing that Darkvision and Devil's Sight can only work if the character is seeing as if in darkness rather than in darkness, they'll probably be get the wrong idea about what to do when an illusion of darkness is cast over them, for instance. Letting being wrong about something perpetuate leads to getting more things wrong.
When groups who argue over this issue go online to look up what's right, they shouldn't find you pointing at some irrelevant rule. That will just confuse them - they'll still have the wrong idea about Darkvision and Devil's Sight, and they might get the wrong idea about Simultaneous Effects too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is just you disagreeing with my interpretation - you have made the OP insanely relevant.
"Let me emphasize this: there is nothing in the rules about when you try to use two different rules to do two different things to the same thing at the same time, because there doesn't have to be. You simply apply both rules as written." Yes there is. It's called Simultaneous Effects, and the controller player/DM picks in case of conflict. RAW. You missed it. I'm convinced you're more engaged by the fact someone thought of something you didn't than anything else here. You're just flat out wrong and your own comments are defeating the points you present.
Fact of the matter is our interactions can be summed up as you believe all you'll ever need when using Devil's Sight and Darkvision simultaneously are the two rules themselves (you barely reference Illumination Levels even) whereas I'm seeking general clarification rules that lock up some of the unwritten assumptions you and everyone who agrees with you makes (probably from playing for years without really thinking about it).
But go ahead, ignore my comments and keep beating me over the head with the rules I presented... As if I can't see you're just trying to call everything moot now as a kind of payback, lol
[REDACTED]
just to say:
"Darkvision and Devil's Sight both (can) become active when you're seeing in darkness. They both are a mechanic that says stuff happens (you can see things as if in dim light, albeit in greyscale, and you can see normally respectively, both out to a given range) and they both say when this stuff happens (when seeing in darkness). There is no rule that says they can't happen at the same time, so they can and do. It's that simple. Saying people can interpret the rules wrong or might overcomplicate things is one thing, but looking for other rules to correct them is silly. It's a ruleset. It tells you how to do things. It doesn't tell you not to do wrong things because you're supposed to do things right, the way it tells you to do them."
this is why Simultaneous Effects is NOT moot and why it exists
Actually they might get the opportunity to see EVERY way you might interpret those two rules and see that Simultaneous Effects nips all of the in the bud. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And besides, you're the one who keeps returning to fight anything I say creating any confusing. Especially when you're so adamant I simply accept the common interpretation of the rules, lol. If Darkvision and Devil's Sight are as clear as you say, then Simultaneous Effects would clear up the conflicted interpretation just as readily. Any groups coming online and find this post are going to be more confused to why everyone keeps reiterating the rules the OP presented and won't see any discussion as to why Simultaneous Effects eliminates my conflicted interpretation leaving only the conflict free interpretation you hound me with (which is in the OP). You have had the wrong idea and created the situation which you now suggest others will fall victim to. Considering I came here for help and got you instead with the sage like wisdon of "You're wrong - just read the rules the way I do and you're fine" then I think they were in trouble long before this thread was created.
[REDACTED]
Thanks again for the Simultaneous Effects!
Whew!
After thinking about this some more and doing some research, I spotted an interesting trend on interpreting "can" as a player choice... Simply using the search function here on D&D Beyond, one can see can does not imply player choice in and of itself.
Search the terms:
1 May
2 Can
3 Choose
1 May almost never appears in a rule unless it is referencing the DM's discretion or character creation it seems
2 Can appears regularly, and sometimes may imply a choice but across the boards suggests mere capacity, usually under specific circumstances or conditions
(these rules often include "as if it were" parameters which often require the target be treated differently than how/what it really is for the rule to function - it seems to be why the rule specifies something be treated differently than what it actually is)
3 Choose clearly pulls all rules where there is a clear choice like one might expect but more importantly, it gives plenty of examples of how rules are written when a choice is implied within D&D rules.
At this point, I would have to say you can't really fudge the "can" inclusion as a choice for the player, but rather they simply have the capacity under specific conditions. And "as if it were" means treat the specified item as if it were something different, not as it really is. D&D Beyond makes it incredibly easy to see this language throughout the various rulebooks.
Cheers!