Darkvision?

[GutterFace]

Sorry everyone I have a lot of questions lately. anyways here is the short of it.

darkvision works, in the dark, allowing you to see dim light as bright light and darkness as low light (the short version of the description)

NOW, can someone with darkvision see both in darkness and with a light source at the same time, for example

there is a goblin standing guard. it's dark. he can see in the dark, lets say 30' for argument. player casts dancing lights and moves 2 orbs to the goblin. the goblin now has orbs that make dim light 10' around him.
can he see outside of that dim light with his darkvision? or does the presence of a light source make his eyes use normal mode and not night mode? (is this a thing?)

[Willie the Duck]

In real life, a light source diminishes one's night vision. However, there is no in-game mechanism to represent this. You're the DM, so you can rule it as such, but by the book, no. For each area your character can see, they use the most permissive vision they have available.

[Keravath]

In real life, a light source diminishes one's night vision. However, there is no in-game mechanism to represent this. You're the DM, so you can rule it as such, but by the book, no. For each area your character can see, they use the most permissive vision they have available.

I agree .. but just to add a couple examples.

A human warlock with devil's sight in a darkened cavern carrying a torch has the following visual capability.

within 20' - brightly lit - sees normally
from 20' to 40' - dimly lit - disadvantage on wisdom (perception) checks
from 40' to 120' - complete darkness - sees perfectly as if brightly lit due to devil's sight invocation

A character without devil's sight would not be able to see beyond 40'.

If the warlock with devil's sight was a half-elf or other creature with 60' darkvision they would be able to see normally for the entire 120' distance since the darkvision would turn the dimly lit section to regular vision.

Another example:

A shadow sorcerer (120' darkvision) holding a torch
within 20' brightly lit - sees normally
from 20' to 40' - dimly lit - sees normally due to darkvision effect
from 40' to 120' - darkness - counts as dimly lit due to darkvision

[Segev]

A human warlock with devil's sight in a darkened cavern carrying a torch has the following visual capability.

within 20' - brightly lit - sees normally
from 20' to 40' - dimly lit - disadvantage on wisdom (perception) checks
from 40' to 120' - complete darkness - sees perfectly as if brightly lit due to devil's sight invocation

That's a bizarre interpretation, that Devil's Sight doesn't actually help him see in dim light.

[Willie the Duck]

That's a bizarre interpretation, that Devil's Sight doesn't actually help him see in dim light.

It isn't darkness, so it makes sense (I am working under the operating hypothesis that Keravath is pointing out the idiosyncrasies of literal rules interpretations).

[Mortis_Elrod]

That's a bizarre interpretation, that Devil's Sight doesn't actually help him see in dim light.

It’s confirmed from JC I believe. They wanted it to be very spooky that. Warlock is has better vision in complete darkness than partial.

Of course Skulker feat does the same thing just doesn’t touch magical darkness, if you have darkvision already

[Segev]

It’s confirmed from JC I believe. They wanted it to be very spooky that. Warlock is has better vision in complete darkness than partial.

Of course Skulker feat does the same thing just doesn’t touch magical darkness, if you have darkvision already

They really, REALLY need to work on clarity of their wording, if that's so, because 5e is explicitly not meant to be read as denotatively specifically as 3e or 4e were. So if it's not meant to work in "dim light," that needs to be called out, because colloquially, if your vision works in darkness, it would of course work in less-complete darkness.

[Millstone85]

It’s confirmed from JC I believe. They wanted it to be very spooky that. Warlock is has better vision in complete darkness than partial.Indeed, in these tweets:

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/664148808377368576)

Devil's Sight is meant to be an eerie ability: "Douse that candle so that the Dark Powers will lend me sight."

link (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/957031642979221504)

Devil's Sight has no interaction with dim light. It alters only how you experience darkness.

[ProsecutorGodot]

They really, REALLY need to work on clarity of their wording, if that's so, because 5e is explicitly not meant to be read as denotatively specifically as 3e or 4e were. So if it's not meant to work in "dim light," that needs to be called out, because colloquially, if your vision works in darkness, it would of course work in less-complete darkness.

The wording is pretty clear. Darkness and Dim Light are distinctly different per the lighting rules. Standard Darkivision makes mention of Dim Light because it has an effect on it, Devil's Sight makes no mention of it because it doesn't have an effect on it.

The lighting rules are often very confusing, and definitely a bit backwards, but a careful reading makes the interactions pretty straightforward.

[Segev]

The wording is pretty clear. Darkness and Dim Light are distinctly different per the lighting rules. Standard Darkivision makes mention of Dim Light because it has an effect on it, Devil's Sight makes no mention of it because it doesn't have an effect on it.

The lighting rules are often very confusing, and definitely a bit backwards, but a careful reading makes the interactions pretty straightforward.

No, it's not clear unless you go into it with a very 3.5e mindset of highly legalistic, game-term-specific readings. I don't mind those kinds of readings, but they are antithetical to the design paradigm of 5e.

[Admael]

I don't think the light would have an effect since, as I understand it, Darkvision is a different type of vision, a simpler way of explaining 2E's old Infravision.

But that's just my group's interpretation.

[Millstone85]

No, it's not clear unless you go into it with a very 3.5e mindset of highly legalistic, game-term-specific readings. I don't mind those kinds of readings, but they are antithetical to the design paradigm of 5e.I am dubious of this paradigm's truth, considering 5e has pearls like the difference between a melee weapon attack, an attack with a melee weapon, and a melee attack with a weapon.

Compared to that, the game's use of three defined levels of lightning is very reasonable. There is bright light, dim light, and darkness. These do not overlap, so no treating dim light as moderate darkness.

[Segev]

I am dubious of this paradigm's truth, considering 5e has pearls like the difference between a melee weapon attack, an attack with a melee weapon, and a melee attack with a weapon.

Compared to that, the game's use of three defined levels of lightning is very reasonable. There is bright light, dim light, and darkness. These do not overlap, so no treating dim light as moderate darkness.

Does it really make that big of a distinction in a way that isn't painfully obvious in context? I don't recall seeing that come up, but I am hardly as good with 5e as I am with 3e.

Clarifying Devil's Sight with a clause on the order of "...but not dim light..." would have been pretty trivial and natural if the writer(s) actually were thinking that when they wrote it. This sounds like something JC thought sounded cool and decided to stealth retcon in with "yeah, we always meant that, really." Of course, I'm not a mind reader, so maybe they are just that bad at being clear in their meanings, in a system they go out of their way to be conversational in the rules presentation.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Does it really make that big of a distinction in a way that isn't painfully obvious in context? I don't recall seeing that come up, but I am hardly as good with 5e as I am with 3e.

Clarifying Devil's Sight with a clause on the order of "...but not dim light..." would have been pretty trivial and natural if the writer(s) actually were thinking that when they wrote it. This sounds like something JC thought sounded cool and decided to stealth retcon in with "yeah, we always meant that, really." Of course, I'm not a mind reader, so maybe they are just that bad at being clear in their meanings, in a system they go out of their way to be conversational in the rules presentation.

I think you have an issue of reading more than there is. It says darkness. Why would it mean anything other than what it said? Especially when there are clear distinctions made?

I never thought there was clarification needed. I do however think that people aren't actually reading the text, they are skimming it and assuming the rest.

[Segev]

I think you have an issue of reading more than there is. It says darkness. Why would it mean anything other than what it said? Especially when there are clear distinctions made?

I never thought there was clarification needed. I do however think that people aren't actually reading the text, they are skimming it and assuming the rest.

If I tell you, outside of any other context, "I can see clearly in the dark," do you assume that I can't see clearly at twilight, but see at night as clearly as I do during the day? Or do you assume that I am unaffected by the light levels being too low?

Yes, there is, in an entirely different part of the book, a distinction made between "dim light" and "darkness." In a conversational context, being immune to fire generally means you're also immune to uncomfortably warm heat. But one could argue that that's not what was said.

The trouble is that 5e is insistent on "rulings, not rules," and that the rules as written are meant to be taken broadly with DMs adjudicating any questions that arise.

Turning around and saying, "Yeah, well, we have precisely defined 'darkness' as a term, so obviously, Devil's Sight doesn't apply in dim light, which is a totally separate game term!" is trying to have it both ways: both a game where the rules are meant to be broadly understood with DMs making fine distinctions, AND a game with legalistically fine distinctions that don't need any clarification for inobvious-from-immediate-context effects.

Consider the player building his first 5e character, who reads the text of Devil's Sight. Is he really at fault for assuming it means what it seems to say, when it takes no pains to point out that "darkness" doesn't include "dim light" for purposes of what this lets him see clearly in?

If this was 3e, or 5e were written with the kind of legalistic precision that 3e sought, I'd agree with you. But this doesn't fly with 5e's claims that it's about "rulings, not rules."

[Millstone85]

Does it really make that big of a distinction in a way that isn't painfully obvious in context? I don't recall seeing that come up, but I am hardly as good with 5e as I am with 3e.According to Crawford, throwing a handaxe counts as a ranged weapon attack and as an attack with a melee weapon, while punching someone is a melee weapon attack but not an attack with a weapon.

However, I can't recall where it would matter, so maybe it is not that bad.


In a conversational context, being immune to fire generally means you're also immune to uncomfortably warm heat. But one could argue that that's not what was said.There is actually a rule for that. DMG p110. Creatures with resistance or immunity to fire damage automatically succeed on saving throws to resist extreme heat.

[Xetheral]

Does it really make that big of a distinction in a way that isn't painfully obvious in context? I don't recall seeing that come up, but I am hardly as good with 5e as I am with 3e.

It makes a large difference for particular abilities. Rage, for example, provides bonus damage when making a "melee weapon attack" (clarified by Crawford (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/amp/) to mean a "melee attack with a weapon") regardless of what type of weapon is used. So if you hit someone in melee with a bow you gain the bonus damage. But if you throw a melee weapon you're making a "ranged weapon attack" and don't qualify for the bonus.

And yes, this is exhibit one in the case against 5e being written to be easily comprehendable.

Edit: For added fun, reckless attack uses the unique phrase "melee weapon attack roll." I'm still not certain if that means an attack roll made as part of a melee weapon attack, or an attack roll made when attacking with a melee weapon.

[Lunali]

It makes a large difference for particular abilities. Rage, for example, provides bonus damage when making a "melee weapon attack" (clarified by Crawford (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/amp/) to mean a "melee attack with a weapon") regardless of what type of weapon is used. So if you hit someone in melee with a bow you gain the bonus damage. But if you throw a melee weapon you're making a "ranged weapon attack" and don't qualify for the bonus.

And yes, this is exhibit one in the case against 5e being written to be easily comprehendable.

Edit: For added fun, reckless attack uses the unique phrase "melee weapon attack roll." I'm still not certain if that means an attack roll made as part of a melee weapon attack, or an attack roll made when attacking with a melee weapon.

Just for extra fun, unarmed/natural weapon attacks are considered melee weapon attacks, but not melee attacks with weapons.

[sophontteks]

It makes a large difference for particular abilities. Rage, for example, provides bonus damage when making a "melee weapon attack" (clarified by Crawford (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/amp/) to mean a "melee attack with a weapon") regardless of what type of weapon is used. So if you hit someone in melee with a bow you gain the bonus damage. But if you throw a melee weapon you're making a "ranged weapon attack" and don't qualify for the bonus.

And yes, this is exhibit one in the case against 5e being written to be easily comprehendable.

Edit: For added fun, reckless attack uses the unique phrase "melee weapon attack roll." I'm still not certain if that means an attack roll made as part of a melee weapon attack, or an attack roll made when attacking with a melee weapon.

They did this poorly but there are 2 types of attacks at two ranges.
Melee or ranged
Spell or weapon

Melee weapon attack is any physical attack at melee range.
Ranged weapon attack is any physical attack at range.
Melee spell attack is any magical attack at melee
Ranged spell attack is any magical attack at range.

And physical means "Anything related to the body, not the mind"
Its like, a way better word then "weapon"

[JackPhoenix]

They did this poorly but there are 2 types of attacks at two ranges.
Melee or ranged
Spell or weapon

Melee weapon attack is any physical attack at melee range.
Ranged weapon attack is any physical attack at range.
Melee spell attack is any magical attack at melee
Ranged spell attack is any magical attack at range.

And physical means "Anything related to the body, not the mind"
Its like, a way better word then "weapon"

Meet Thorn Whip, melee spell attack with 15' range that causes piercing (i.e. physical) damage. Also, by your definition, everything but psychic damage is physical damage.

[Mellack]

They did this poorly but there are 2 types of attacks at two ranges.
Melee or ranged
Spell or weapon

Melee weapon attack is any physical attack at melee range.
Ranged weapon attack is any physical attack at range.
Melee spell attack is any magical attack at melee
Ranged spell attack is any magical attack at range.

And physical means "Anything related to the body, not the mind"
Its like, a way better word then "weapon"

Yet you can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon such as a handaxe.

[sophontteks]

Meet Thorn Whip, melee spell attack with 15' range that causes piercing (i.e. physical) damage. Also, by your definition, everything but psychic damage is physical damage.
Reach is the only thing that can increase the melee range, in this case its a whip with 15 feet reach.
I forgot to mention reach, but, yeah reach does increase the range of melee.


Yet you can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon such as a handaxe.
You are making a physical attack at range.
That makes it a ranged weapon attack.

[Mellack]

Reach is the only thing that can increase the melee range, in this case its a whip with 15 feet reach.
I forgot to mention reach, but, yeah reach does increase the range of melee.


You are making a physical attack at range.
That makes it a ranged weapon attack.

But it is still with a melee weapon, so gets any benefits for that. It is a highly confusing set of terms.

[Tanarii]

But it is still with a melee weapon, so gets any benefits for that. It is a highly confusing set of terms.
Examples where it matters:
Monk weapons are simple monk melee weapons and the shortsword.
Sharpshooter -5/+10 only works with ranged weapons.

A ranged weapon attack with a dagger is a ranged attack with a simple melee weapon. So it gets any monk weapon bonuses, but can't be used with sharpshooter -5/+10.

A ranged weapon attack with a dart it a ranged attack with a ranged weapon. So it doesn't get any monk weapon bonuses, but it can be used with sharpshooter -5/+10.

[Willie the Duck]

[Edit: I am leaving these posts unmodified, outside this disclaimer, to preserve the flow of the conversation. However, see further post #35, where I agree, upon reflection, with how others have read my initial post, and apologized.]


The trouble is that 5e is insistent on "rulings, not rules," and that the rules as written are meant to be taken broadly with DMs adjudicating any questions that arise.

Turning around and saying, "Yeah, well, we have precisely defined 'darkness' as a term, so obviously, Devil's Sight doesn't apply in dim light, which is a totally separate game term!" is trying to have it both ways: both a game where the rules are meant to be broadly understood with DMs making fine distinctions, AND a game with legalistically fine distinctions that don't need any clarification for inobvious-from-immediate-context effects.

Yes it is. And by answering tweets about the explicit interactions of these specific parsings of the wording of the rules, the designers are, effectively, having it both ways. If they wanted to be self-consistent with the "rulings, not rules" ethos, they would be answering those questions with, "well, what do you think would work best for your game?" but they don't. Personally, I wish that's what they did. The cult of RAW needs to die a cold, cruel death. But until that time, there will always be message boards where people argue over whether Devil's Sight warlocks can* see well in dim light, whether daggers and darts work the same for monks, barbarians, and sharp-shooters, and all the other stupid little bits and bobs of the game.
*"by RAW"

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes it is. And by answering tweets about the explicit interactions of these specific parsings of the wording of the rules, the designers are, effectively, having it both ways. If they wanted to be self-consistent with the "rulings, not rules" ethos, they would be answering those questions with, "well, what do you think would work best for your game?" but they don't. Personally, I wish that's what they did. The cult of RAW needs to die a cold, cruel death. But until that time, there will always be message boards where people argue over whether Devil's Sight warlocks can* see well in dim light, whether daggers and darts work the same for monks, barbarians, and sharp-shooters, and all the other stupid little bits and bobs of the game.
*"by RAW"

Why wouldn't they want to have it both ways when consumers want it both ways? Some people can follow the rules by RAW like they want and others can adjust them accordingly like they want.

People might also be unhappy to receive that kind of answer when they've asked a specific rules question. The intention of Sage Advice is to help make rulings, not to force you to make your own. It doesn't seem right to complain about people following the rules in a game with written rules, makes me think you're calling following the rules as written badwrongfun. A previously negative experience with 3.5E's rules doesn't make following 5E's terrible.

[Willie the Duck]

[Edit: I am leaving these posts unmodified, outside this disclaimer, to preserve the flow of the conversation. However, see further post #35, where I agree, upon reflection, with how others have read my initial post, and apologized.]


Why wouldn't they want to have it both ways when consumers want it both ways? Some people can follow the rules by RAW like they want and others can adjust them accordingly like they want.

They should.


People might also be unhappy to receive that kind of answer when they've asked a specific rules question. The intention of Sage Advice is to help make rulings, not to force you to make your own. It doesn't seem right to complain about people following the rules in a game with written rules, makes me think you're calling following the rules as written badwrongfun. A previously negative experience with 3.5E's rules doesn't make following 5E's terrible.

Where are you dreaming this up, since it clearly did not come from what I wrote? I stated very succinctly that they were having it both ways, and thus serving both needs. Then I stated my own, personal, preference*. Please explain where the declaration of badwrongfun is.
*which, if you have a problem with, it is you that is declaring badwrongfun.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Please explain where the declaration of badwrongfun is.

It was probably...

The cult of RAW needs to die a cold, cruel death. But until that time, there will always be message boards where people argue over whether Devil's Sight warlocks can* see well in dim light, whether daggers and darts work the same for monks**, barbarians, and sharp-shooters, and all the other stupid little bits and bobs*** of the game.
This line, where you're clearly implying that people who follow the RAW are a cult that shouldn't be following RAW. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding that being your (fairly aggressive) opinion against RAW. You're free to ignore RAW. You're free to ignore everything in the book in favor of your own rulings, the game is designed with that intention in mind, but don't call people who make their rulings in line with it "cult like".

*RAW and RAI they don't, Dim Light is not Darkness
**RAW and RAI they don't, Darts are not Melee Weapons
***Those are called Rules

[sophontteks]

But it is still with a melee weapon, so gets any benefits for that. It is a highly confusing set of terms.
While it is terribly worded and confusing, once you understand their terminology its not that hard to understand.

Again, there are 4 types of attacks, and those are what I described above. They are always in the same format: <Range> <Type> Attack

When they descibe what type of weapon must be used in the attack they tend to use "with" and lacks the word "attack"

"Make a ranged weapon attack with a melee weapon"= You throwing a melee weapon
Make a melee weapon attack with a ranged weapon"= You using a ranged weapon like a club

Look at divine smite and improved divine smite.

Divine Smite says- "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack," melee weapon attack is any nonmagical attack at melee range.

Improved divine smite says- "By 11th level, whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon..."
A melee weapon is completely different. Its strictly the weapons listed under melee weapons. Note how it didn't follow the format <range> <type> attack.

[sophontteks]

It was probably...

This line, where you're clearly implying that people who follow the RAW are a cult that shouldn't be following RAW. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding that being your (fairly aggressive) opinion against RAW. You're free to ignore RAW. You're free to ignore everything in the book in favor of your own rulings, the game is designed with that intention in mind, but don't call people who make their rulings in line with it "cult like".

*RAW and RAI they don't, Dim Light is not Darkness
**RAW and RAI they don't, Darts are not Melee Weapons
***Those are called Rules
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
There is a cult of RAW.
They are a very brutal and dark cult with a secret membership that worships Jeremy, who actually is a demon lord.

Of course, maybe you know this.
Maybe you are one of them.:smalleek:

[Millstone85]

The cult of RAW needs to die a cold, cruel death.I hold just the opposite opinion. "Rulings, not rules" is a terrible philosophy to write a rulebook under.

From the DM's perspective, it is good that they can homebrew their own rules, but they shouldn't be forced to on account of having been sold an unfinished work.

From the players' perspective, viewing the rules as mere guidelines just invites DM tyranny at worst and complete chaos at best. They need to agree on what the heck they are going to play.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
There is a cult of RAW.
They are a very brutal and dark cult with a secret membership that worships Jeremy, who actually is a demon lord.

Of course, maybe you know this.
Maybe you are one of them.:smalleek:

"Jeremy" is doing great work winning our half of the blood war. Our Demon Lord has convinced those pitiful devils pushing RAI that he, masquerading as the designer who would know the intentions behind the rules, is wrong.

We will be victorious, knowing won't save you. :amused:

[Tanarii]

Where are you dreaming this up, since it clearly did not come from what I wrote? your anti-cult of RAW and bit and bobs statements were anything but merely stating a preference. They were a statement of opinion of those who care about the intended reading by the devs of the rules written in the books.

[Willie the Duck]

[Edit: I am leaving these posts unmodified, outside this disclaimer, to preserve the flow of the conversation. However, see further post #35, where I agree, upon reflection, with how others have read my initial post, and apologized.]



Correct me if I'm misunderstanding that being your (fairly aggressive) opinion against RAW.

I had some choice words to say here*, but clarifying would better serve meaningful dialogue -- I was using the word "cult" under the assumption that the term was so over-the-top that people would recognize it as such and not take it too seriously.

*More diplomatically, as a wholly unsolicited piece of advice, I would recommend not declaring someone else's actions to be 'aggressive', while at the same time using the term/dog-whistle 'badwrongfun.' The two do not go together well.



I hold just the opposite opinion. "Rulings, not rules" is a terrible philosophy to write a rulebook under.

From the DM's perspective, it is good that they can homebrew their own rules, but they shouldn't be forced to on account of having been sold an unfinished work.

It is a matter of perspective, and a reaction to what has come before.

First and foremost, while I appreciate rulebooks which our complete enough to run a game. I think that, as a goal onto itself, tying up all loopholes and legalese-level contradictions can be both constrictive and counterproductive to other goals. Given finitely competent designers with finite development time (and constraints on both page count and convolutedness of wording that new-to-gaming players will be willing to wade through), giving them two goals (best overall game possible, and free from odd little rules interactions) instead of just the one (best overall game possible), will create a lesser success towards that one goal. I do not want the designers of the game feeling constrained from creating the best game (to all other goals) they can create, out of fear of some minor confluence of rules that creates bizarre little interactions. I don't want the designers to throw Simulacrum on the garbage heap of game history just because it ended up interacting poorly with Wish. I certainly do not want Multi-classing on the garbage heap of game history (something that very easily could have happened, given how they did it in 4e), because of Sorlocks or Sorcadins.

Second, well, 3e. I don't know if you were on the boards (this one, Wizard's, or in general) during the heyday, but the vitriol around RAW, what was RAW, and even how the designers were violating RAW with their actions*. It was bad. Heck, outside of alignment threads, aren't the RAW discussion threads here in 5e the most heated and contentious?
*I kid not, people who saw rules clarifications in the FAQ that they believed were changes to the rules would decry that these things weren't in the errata document, and were thus "unofficial." Or worse yet, that the entire book The Rules Compendium, which was designed as a omnibus rules clarification document, was completely negated because the core books were reprinted after it was produced, and had not had those rules clarifications included in the new printing (under the logic that most-recently printed was the rules to follow, and ignoring how much cost would be involved in updating the core books to reflect these changes vs. the profit WotC would recoup).

So, yes, I have a bit of reticence towards the overall value of RAW, especially when an ethos of 'the book gives the broad brush strokes, the DM finesses details and interactions' is a different option. I'll give PG the benefit of the doubt and say I was unclear in stating that this was a personal preference, not a demand on others. But that's what it is. I, singularly, prefer not to try to expect the game to have every little confluence mapped to one possible interpretation, nor have a gaming culture set up to expect it to. As I mentioned to Segev, the developers are playing to both preferences. And I think we can all agree that it's a strategically brilliant plan from their perspective. It is probably best for the game that neither you nor I get their personal preferences met, because the game as a whole is stronger with both of us on board for this edition.

[Willie the Duck]

your anti-cult of RAW and bit and bobs statements were anything but merely stating a preference. They were a statement of opinion of those who care about the intended reading by the devs of the rules written in the books.

I will mea culpa and say sorry. It's clear that people took 'cult of raw' a lot more seriously than I intended it. I've used that term before a few times and seen it used a few more, and no one has previously takenit this way. I didn't think anyone would believe I thought there was an actual cult, general mindless lockstep behavior, or anything like that.

As to bits and bobs, if the cult of raw bit hadn't turned this south, would 'stupid bits and bobs' been noticeable? 'Silly little bits and bobs?', 'odd little nit and bits?,' 'nooks and crannies?'

[ProsecutorGodot]

I had some choice words to say here, but clarifying would better serve meaningful dialogue* -- I was using the word "cult" under the assumption that the term was so over-the-top that people would recognize it as such and not take it too seriously.

*More diplomatically, as a wholly unsolicited piece of advice, I would recommend not declaring someone else's actions to be 'aggressive', while at the same time using the term/dog-whistle 'badwrongfun.' The two do not go together well.
Why am I not supposed to take it as an overly aggressive opinion. It's not an over the top word, it's a word I see all the time used in a negative connotation. Coupled with your obvious dislike for a following of the Rules as Written, and labeling them in general as "stupid little bits and bobs" I hope you can understand why I perceived your stance as aggressive.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

*Leaving this part out as a whole would serve more meaningful dialogue, it comes off as aggressive.

[Millstone85]

Second, well, 3e. I don't know if you were on the boards (this one, Wizard's, or in general) during the heyday, but the vitriol around RAW, what was RAW, and even how the designers were violating RAW with their actions*. It was bad.I wasn't, so it may well be that I have no idea how bad it got.

[Willie the Duck]

PG, I have modified my previous posts to point to post #35, where I reflect on my word choice, agree that they were poor, and apologize. And I mean it. There are people on this forum I think need a maturity injection, you are not one of them (and today, apparently, I am). This whole thing could have happened a lot better, and that's my fault.

Outside of thinking I was cheekily expressing a personal opinion and instead launched attacks at a whole side of a preference fault line, I point to the other part of my statement:

Yes it is. And by answering tweets about the explicit interactions of these specific parsings of the wording of the rules, the designers are, effectively, having it both ways. If they wanted to be self-consistent with the "rulings, not rules" ethos, they would be answering those questions with, "well, what do you think would work best for your game?" but they don't.

And that's still true. The designers know that they have multiple audiences and are playing to them all (or at least everyone except the far ends of the spectrum). The current model is actually pretty brilliant. Those people who most adamantly want a rulings-over-rules ethos (cartoon extreme, for illustrative purposes) are unlikely to worry about designer tweets. Those people (again cartoon extreme) who must have official rulings probably don't consider anything less than errata to be 'sufficient' and thus the tweets don't matter. The messy (and realistic) middle read them, take them with the occasional grain of salt, and incorporate a percentage of them (depending on their ethos/preference) into their game. Theoretical purists probably aren't satisfied, but 'they did clarify that concern, but you don't have to buy into it*,' serves most masters quite well.
*well outside of any discussion regarding having to play by the rules at all.

[Segev]

I like very clear RAW, personally. I do not like "rules as written in twitter posts," and I certainly don't like it when said RAWITP feel more like on-the-spot DM-calls (of the sort that, in a game, I'd expect to discuss with the DM after the game, later) than well thought-out examinations of the RAW we have.

I wouldn't mind RAIITP, but again, I question the honesty of the intent having been what is claimed when the RAW only suggest it if you have a deep and well-cross-referenced understanding of fine nuances...in a game that went out of its way to imply that you don't need finely-nuanced readings, but should just go with what seems to fit the situation when questions arise. (i.e. "Rulings, not rules.")

Even in 3e, I would have grumbled over them not providing clarification for something like "but not dim light." In 5e, it's inexcusable if they honestly had "but not dim light" in mind.

If JC's post was, "That would make it pretty spooky, wouldn't it? 'My Patron's dark vision only works absent all light!'" I wouldn't object. That would be an honest expression of what he thinks is cool, and a suggestion to players and DMs. I question his veracity when he claims that was always the intent behind the rule, because of how fine that nuance is.

[Tanarii]

I will mea culpa and say sorry.
Hey now, this is the internet. We can't have people going around apologizing for stuff they posted. How are we supposed to maintain miscommunications anD pointless (hostile) arguments? :smallamused:

(I've posted far worse. It wasn't really a big thing. But I figured you'd understand how it could look to others. You come across as reasonable.)

[Willie the Duck]

Hey now, this is the internet. We can't have people going around apologizing for stuff they posted. How are we supposed to maintain miscommunications anD pointless (hostile) arguments? :smallamused:

Yes, but wouldn't it be grand if everyone didn't dig in their heals and double down when they found themselves arguing something in retrospect they weren't trying to say in the first place? My main point was to talk about WotC's brilliant having-it-both-ways, not assail RAW-proponents.