I like it! :D If a DM wants to go that route, I can roll with it.
Bear in mind "that route" is the official, RAW, route, though. I was merely offering a thematic in-game explanation that meshes properly with the rules as written. (Hm, déjà vu... didn't we have this conversation before? :D)
LOL. :D So, here's a story that will help explain my position.
1st Edition. 'Weapon Speeds'. This was a mechanic that was almost universally despised by everyone who ever played the game, and was generally thought to make the game terrible and almost unplayable by almost anyone who did not also have a to-scale miniature replica of multiple Civil War battles in their basement. The idea was that different weapons were slower than other weapons, and so should get combat advantages (not 'Advantage', that wasn't a thing yet). Swinging a two-handed sword was thought to be slower than attacking with a dagger, so there of course needed to be some statistical way to acknowledge this.
That way was, when two opponents are tied for initiative, the opponent with the faster weapon actually got to go first. And so, if he killed his opponent with that strike, the opponent wouldn't get to attack, even with simultaneous initiatives. And...because that's not enough, if the differences in speed were significant enough, the attacker with the faster weapon could even get two attacks before the slower opponent got one. And, if they were super-duper faster, they could get two attacks before, and one attack at the same time as the opponent.
So
There was no mention in that passage of whether the faster opponent had to have the ability to attack twice already granted to them by their class. It didn't say "if you get to attack twice in a round, you may make both attacks before your opponent." It just said "If the difference is twice the factor of the lower...the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to two attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is allowed any attack whatsoever." (I looked this up just now to get it right, so much is my hatred for this rule.)
This gave someone who only would otherwise get one attack in a round two attacks, if only they tie in initiative with their opponent.
But initiative was supposed to be rolled for the whole party, not for individuals.
This left the barbarian with the two-handed sword at Initiative 6 (you rolled init on a d6) attacking before the dagger-wielding thief on Init 5. But if they were both at 5, the Thief would attack twice (whether or not he could have attacked twice had they not tied), and then maybe even attack again as the Barbarian attacks.
But that leaves you still with simultaneous attacks, the very thing that these weapon speeds were supposed to do away with. Just that now they really, really are simultaneous. Because Gary and Friends couldn't think of any other way to nickel and dime you into rolling more dice or keeping more stats.
So that was RAW weapon speeds. And I just simply would not play a game with a DM who used them. They were awful. (They also got badly interpreted soooooo frequently so as to make them even worse, but that's beside the point.)
My perspective, to make a long story long, rests on the assumption that not all RAW is great RAW :D
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of 1st edition rules, either. Way too many loose ends, conflicting rules, and just plain overpowered combinations. But 5e was written with a different mindset, a different intention. As I understand it, one of the goals was to have a coherent and inherently balanced set of rules. I believe it was playtested extensively in order to achieve that goal. So while weapon speed rules in 1st edition were probably added because they sounded cool, I'm pretty sure they weren't tested enough before being included. (Btw, I think 2nd edition did it better: weapon speed was just a modifier to your initiative, so characters attacking with slower weapons just went later in the turn. It was still probably more bookkeeping that most people wanted, but it wasn't that bad.) On the other hand, 5e rules were (and new ones are) playtested for balance and coherence and ease of use. I'm not gonna claim they're perfect, but I'll start from that assumption, until I see evidence of the contrary. (For example, in my table we started out using the optional flanking rules, but ended up getting rid of them, because while they add a fun tactical option in combat, they ended up just being constant Advantage for most attacks.)
I do think it's important to make the distinction, though, between "this is how the rules work" and "this is what works for me", especially in a sub-forum dedicated to "Rules & Game Mechanics". It's fine, and often very useful and helpful, to suggest house rules, but it's crucial to talk about how the written and official rules work.
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of 1st edition rules, either. Way too many loose ends, conflicting rules, and just plain overpowered combinations. But 5e was written with a different mindset, a different intention. As I understand it, one of the goals was to have a coherent and inherently balanced set of rules. I believe it was playtested extensively in order to achieve that goal. So while weapon speed rules in 1st edition were probably added because they sounded cool, I'm pretty sure they weren't tested enough before being included. (Btw, I think 2nd edition did it better: weapon speed was just a modifier to your initiative, so characters attacking with slower weapons just went later in the turn. It was still probably more bookkeeping that most people wanted, but it wasn't that bad.) On the other hand, 5e rules were (and new ones are) playtested for balance and coherence and ease of use. I'm not gonna claim they're perfect, but I'll start from that assumption, until I see evidence of the contrary. (For example, in my table we started out using the optional flanking rules, but ended up getting rid of them, because while they add a fun tactical option in combat, they ended up just being constant Advantage for most attacks.)
I do think it's important to make the distinction, though, between "this is how the rules work" and "this is what works for me", especially in a sub-forum dedicated to "Rules & Game Mechanics". It's fine, and often very useful and helpful, to suggest house rules, but it's crucial to talk about how the written and official rules work.
I completely agree, I try to make that distinction as well (I hope I've succeeded :)
I was just talking about weapon speeds to give insight as to why my initial response isn't always towards RAW. I prefer to look at RAW, look at how that group of players wants things to work, and take the preferred of the two. I don't have a bias against RAW of course. But I am very willing to believe that a given rule isn't a good one. That's all I was saying.
You're right that 5e is far far far more balanced than 1st ed. And though we were all led to believe that Gary et al had been playing for years and playtesting and etc etc, the truth is that some of those rules weren't even Gary's (I'm in a discussion of falling damage in another thread right now, a good example of Gary's rules not making it into 1st Ed), and I also suspect that many were just thrown in to formalize a system that was in Gary's head in large part. "Hey guys, what happens if someone needs some condiments...at some point?" "Shoot, you're right. Let's throw in a random condiment table before sending it off to print." (But they never playtested it! Why such a crazy high chance of mustard!?)
As written, if you don't have darkvision you can see better in complete darkness than you can in dim light. This makes no sense so most people will homebrew it to work in dim light as well.
"Blow out the candle, apprentice, that we may see clearly."
Pacts with powerful creatures don't have to make sense.
For most creatures, there are three lighting levels: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (blinded condition).
For a warlock with devil's sight these are: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
A creature with normal darkvision: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (disadvantage on WIS checks).
A creature with darkvision and devil's sight: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (full vision to 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that).
For most creatures, there are three lighting levels: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (blinded condition).
For a warlock with devil's sight these are: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
A creature with normal darkvision: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (disadvantage on WIS checks to 60ft or 120 ft, blinded past that).
A creature with darkvision and devil's sight: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
GW, you're almost entirely correct. I've bolded the clarifications.
Darkvision still has a max range (with the exception of one really oddball source I can't recall), and it doesn't just turn all darkness to dim light. It really just shifts the effective category effects up one level within its range increment. Dim light is bright light, up to the max range. Darkness is dim light, up to the max range. Everything past that upper limit on the range increment is just whatever the natural lighting for that area is. An area of darkness, beyond the max range of a creature's Darkvision, is still darkness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
For most creatures, there are three lighting levels: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (blinded condition).
For a warlock with devil's sight these are: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
A creature with normal darkvision: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (disadvantage on WIS checks to 60ft or 120 ft, blinded past that).
A creature with darkvision and devil's sight: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
GW, you're almost entirely correct. I've bolded the clarifications.
Darkvision still has a max range (with the exception of one really oddball source I can't recall), and it doesn't just turn all darkness to dim light. It really just shifts the effective category effects up one level within its range increment. Dim light is bright light, up to the max range. Darkness is dim light, up to the max range. Everything past that upper limit on the range increment is just whatever the natural lighting for that area is. An area of darkness, beyond the max range of a creature's Darkvision, is still darkness.
I think your corrections are wrong.
From the rulebook (from the elf race):
Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
The distance 60 feet only applies to the dim light. There is no range for vision in darkness (the range clause is before the comma).
You can see in dim light within 60 feet as if it were bright light and you can see in darkness as if it were dim light.
It doesn't say "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness within 60 feet of you as if it were dim light."
For most creatures, there are three lighting levels: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (blinded condition).
For a warlock with devil's sight these are: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
A creature with normal darkvision: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (disadvantage on WIS checks to 60ft or 120 ft, blinded past that).
A creature with darkvision and devil's sight: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
GW, you're almost entirely correct. I've bolded the clarifications.
Darkvision still has a max range (with the exception of one really oddball source I can't recall), and it doesn't just turn all darkness to dim light. It really just shifts the effective category effects up one level within its range increment. Dim light is bright light, up to the max range. Darkness is dim light, up to the max range. Everything past that upper limit on the range increment is just whatever the natural lighting for that area is. An area of darkness, beyond the max range of a creature's Darkvision, is still darkness.
I think your corrections are wrong.
From the rulebook (from the elf race):
Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
The distance 60 feet only applies to the dim light. There is no range for vision in darkness (the range clause is before the comma).
You can see in dim light within 60 feet as if it were bright light and you can see in darkness as if it were dim light.
It doesn't say "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness within 60 feet of you as if it were dim light."
Nah, the distance applies to the entire thing, but I'll agree that the wording on that particular description is wonky. The actual rule on the Darkvision sense is perfectly clear. A sense only applies itself within a specific range.
Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Nah, the distance applies to the entire thing, but I'll agree that the wording on that particular description is wonky. The actual rule on the Darkvision sense is perfectly clear. A sense only applies itself within a specific range.
Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
That rule is from the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook. Monsters use different rules than characters. When the two contradict, the PHB applies to PCs.
Nah, the distance applies to the entire thing, but I'll agree that the wording on that particular description is wonky. The actual rule on the Darkvision sense is perfectly clear. A sense only applies itself within a specific range.
Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
That rule is from the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook. Monsters use different rules than characters. When the two contradict, the PHB applies to PCs.
It is from the PHB. I linked the "basic rules" which is just a public mirror of the PHB. Here's a direct link to the PHB with the exact same entry: Chapter 8-Adventuring, The Environment, Vision and light, Darkvision. What I said is correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The same is valid for the spell True Seeing. A powerful spell (6th level) that by RAW can't pierce dim light... That makes sense to you?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here..? True Seeing provides 120 feet of Truesight, which allows the creature to see normally within that range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The same is valid for the spell True Seeing. A powerful spell (6th level) that by RAW can't pierce dim light... That makes sense to you?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here..? True Seeing provides 120 feet of Truesight, which allows the creature to see normally within that range.
Technically, it allows you to see in normal and magical darkness (among other things) but doesn't give you any benefit in dim light. However, unlike with devil's sight where I feel it's appropriate to treat it as using darkness as illumination, in this case I would house rule it as being able to see normally in any lighting condition.
The same is valid for the spell True Seeing. A powerful spell (6th level) that by RAW can't pierce dim light... That makes sense to you?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here..? True Seeing provides 120 feet of Truesight, which allows the creature to see normally within that range.
Technically, it allows you to see in normal and magical darkness (among other things) but doesn't give you any benefit in dim light. However, unlike with devil's sight where I feel it's appropriate to treat it as using darkness as illumination, in this case I would house rule it as being able to see normally in any lighting condition.
... Huh. That's technically correct, and weird AF. Mearls has said that Truesight disrupts the ability of a (different) creature with the Skulker feat to hide in dim light (lightly obscured), so it's at least RAI that Truesight treats dim light as normal vision as well. Frankly, the entirety of Vision and Light badly needs an errata with clear delineation of what does what.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Should rules for seeing into/out of heavy obscurement apply to seeing through the obscurement to something on the other side that is not obscured?
This one, at least, should be a definitive 'yes'. If an effect is blocking your vision, it blocks your vision of anything on the other side of it as well--within the area encompassed by the projected vectors from yourself to the outer surface of the obstruction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of 1st edition rules, either. Way too many loose ends, conflicting rules, and just plain overpowered combinations. But 5e was written with a different mindset, a different intention. As I understand it, one of the goals was to have a coherent and inherently balanced set of rules. I believe it was playtested extensively in order to achieve that goal. So while weapon speed rules in 1st edition were probably added because they sounded cool, I'm pretty sure they weren't tested enough before being included. (Btw, I think 2nd edition did it better: weapon speed was just a modifier to your initiative, so characters attacking with slower weapons just went later in the turn. It was still probably more bookkeeping that most people wanted, but it wasn't that bad.) On the other hand, 5e rules were (and new ones are) playtested for balance and coherence and ease of use. I'm not gonna claim they're perfect, but I'll start from that assumption, until I see evidence of the contrary. (For example, in my table we started out using the optional flanking rules, but ended up getting rid of them, because while they add a fun tactical option in combat, they ended up just being constant Advantage for most attacks.)
I do think it's important to make the distinction, though, between "this is how the rules work" and "this is what works for me", especially in a sub-forum dedicated to "Rules & Game Mechanics". It's fine, and often very useful and helpful, to suggest house rules, but it's crucial to talk about how the written and official rules work.
I completely agree, I try to make that distinction as well (I hope I've succeeded :)
I was just talking about weapon speeds to give insight as to why my initial response isn't always towards RAW. I prefer to look at RAW, look at how that group of players wants things to work, and take the preferred of the two. I don't have a bias against RAW of course. But I am very willing to believe that a given rule isn't a good one. That's all I was saying.
You're right that 5e is far far far more balanced than 1st ed. And though we were all led to believe that Gary et al had been playing for years and playtesting and etc etc, the truth is that some of those rules weren't even Gary's (I'm in a discussion of falling damage in another thread right now, a good example of Gary's rules not making it into 1st Ed), and I also suspect that many were just thrown in to formalize a system that was in Gary's head in large part. "Hey guys, what happens if someone needs some condiments...at some point?" "Shoot, you're right. Let's throw in a random condiment table before sending it off to print." (But they never playtested it! Why such a crazy high chance of mustard!?)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I have the eyes of a devil I can see perfectly in the dark, oh no a candle now I cant see very good. Nonsense.
Some people take this fun stuff too seriously.
"Blow out the candle, apprentice, that we may see clearly."
Pacts with powerful creatures don't have to make sense.
For most creatures, there are three lighting levels: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (blinded condition).
For a warlock with devil's sight these are: light (full vision), dim light (disadvantage on WIS checks), darkness (full vision to 120ft, blinded past that).
A creature with normal darkvision: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (disadvantage on WIS checks).
A creature with darkvision and devil's sight: light (full vision), dim light (full vision to 60ft or 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that), darkness (full vision to 120ft, disadvantage on WIS checks beyond that).
I think of Devils Sight as having something similar to IR vision, where dim light interferes with it.
GW, you're almost entirely correct. I've bolded the clarifications.
Darkvision still has a max range (with the exception of one really oddball source I can't recall), and it doesn't just turn all darkness to dim light. It really just shifts the effective category effects up one level within its range increment. Dim light is bright light, up to the max range. Darkness is dim light, up to the max range. Everything past that upper limit on the range increment is just whatever the natural lighting for that area is. An area of darkness, beyond the max range of a creature's Darkvision, is still darkness.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Dude did you all Necro my thread? lol
I think your corrections are wrong.
From the rulebook (from the elf race):
The distance 60 feet only applies to the dim light. There is no range for vision in darkness (the range clause is before the comma).
You can see in dim light within 60 feet as if it were bright light and you can see in darkness as if it were dim light.
It doesn't say "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness within 60 feet of you as if it were dim light."
Yes they did.
Blank
Yeah, I reported it yesterday without commenting since it didn't contribute anything new.
I think being able to see through any distance of darkness as dim light is new (or at least new to this thread).
Nah, the distance applies to the entire thing, but I'll agree that the wording on that particular description is wonky. The actual rule on the Darkvision sense is perfectly clear. A sense only applies itself within a specific range.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That rule is from the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook. Monsters use different rules than characters. When the two contradict, the PHB applies to PCs.
It is from the PHB. I linked the "basic rules" which is just a public mirror of the PHB. Here's a direct link to the PHB with the exact same entry: Chapter 8-Adventuring, The Environment, Vision and light, Darkvision. What I said is correct.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The same is valid for the spell True Seeing. A powerful spell (6th level) that by RAW can't pierce dim light... That makes sense to you?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here..? True Seeing provides 120 feet of Truesight, which allows the creature to see normally within that range.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Technically, it allows you to see in normal and magical darkness (among other things) but doesn't give you any benefit in dim light. However, unlike with devil's sight where I feel it's appropriate to treat it as using darkness as illumination, in this case I would house rule it as being able to see normally in any lighting condition.
Or however your DM best interprets "the ability to see things as they actually are."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
... Huh. That's technically correct, and weird AF. Mearls has said that Truesight disrupts the ability of a (different) creature with the Skulker feat to hide in dim light (lightly obscured), so it's at least RAI that Truesight treats dim light as normal vision as well. Frankly, the entirety of Vision and Light badly needs an errata with clear delineation of what does what.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I wouldn't mind seeing an errata to lighting and vision in general. It could clear up a lot of this with just a few words
The rules are adequate as they are now, but those pesky edge cases :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This one, at least, should be a definitive 'yes'. If an effect is blocking your vision, it blocks your vision of anything on the other side of it as well--within the area encompassed by the projected vectors from yourself to the outer surface of the obstruction.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.