Darkvision / Blindness Conundrum


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

My assumption is that the blindness effect created by a flash of light blinds all visual senses that the character has.

If they add to their visual sense after the fact, I am not sure that sense would be blinded. It was my default assumption. I can see ruling the other way -- that the entire visual mechanism is broken.

I get annoyed when my position is described as illogical or re-phrased incorrectly. D&D was supposed to be a game of imagination. I imagined flash blindness. I imagined a darkvision ability that allows one to see in total darkness. I don't imagine them using the same mechanism. I do imagine that they both use the eyes.

The rules support some separation between these abilities. From a rules point of view I find it interesting that once they gain the "blinded condition" you consider the source of that blindness irrelevant in discussion.

A character blinded by a blinding critical and a character blinded by a flash of light have the exact same condition. I'm not sure I like that. I respect it. It is logical and consistent. To me, it makes the game flat and two-dimensional. Lifeless. Boring. I'd rather play chess.


MachOneGames wrote:

My assumption is that the blindness effect created by a flash of light blinds all visual senses that the character has.

If they add to their visual sense after the fact, I am not sure that sense would be blinded. It was my default assumption. I can see ruling the other way -- that the entire visual mechanism is broken.

I get annoyed when my position is described as illogical or re-phrased incorrectly. D&D was supposed to be a game of imagination. I imagined flash blindness. I imagined a darkvision ability that allows one to see in total darkness. I don't imagine them using the same mechanism. I do imagine that they both use the eyes.

The rules support some separation between these abilities. From a rules point of view I find it interesting that once they gain the "blinded condition" you consider the source of that blindness irrelevant in discussion.

A character blinded by a blinding critical and a character blinded by a flash of light have the exact same condition. I'm not sure I like that. I respect it. It is logical and consistent. To me, it makes the game flat and two-dimensional. Lifeless. Boring. I'd rather play chess.

There's enough other variation in the game to not render the whole system boring because of this.

The stance is illogical because it is making assumptions without basis, and discarding simply-worded spells and effects in the process.

If you imagine that they both use the eyes, and the definition of being blinded is being unable to use your eyes to see, then wouldn't it follow that, no matter how your eyes perceive the world, if you're blinded, you can't use them for ANY sort of vision?

If you want to differentiate sources of the blind condition as a house rule, that would be fine, and make sense. If the situation ever came up in my game, I might make such a mechanical distinction myself, but this is the RULES forum, so that sort of personal bias lies outside the scope of the discussion. I, and others, have already shown what the rules say, and they brook no argument, to the contrary without resorting to unsupported assumptions or creative reading.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a sad day when people are wondering whether you can see while blind.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

MachOneGames wrote:
"Major premise: Darkvision is a visual sense. " repeated over six times above. I wonder which of us lacks the ability to read.

Whatever your premise is, if your vision is based on a visual method and you are subject to blindness then you can not see.

You have a better argument if you are subject to blindness and you then add Blindsight (nonvisual sense to operate effectively without vision.)


Riddle me this, Mach:

If I close my eyes, then cast Darkvision on myself, can I see with my eyes closed? The Darkvision spell "grants" me the "ability" to see in the dark so if, by your presumption, it's relative to my current status at the time of casting, even if I have my eyes closed, I've now magically acquired the ability to see in the Dark which trumps the lack of normal vision from having closed my eyes.

If you answer 'No', it means you concede that the granting of darkvision isn't relative to current vision modes you possess so just because you've "deactivated" your normal vision doesn't mean that Darkvision applies on top of that and works anyway.

If you answer 'Yes'... well, that effectively ends the debate in its own way.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

What happens when someone with darkvision identifies a basilisk and averts/closes his eyes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you agree this thread is ridiculous, show your agreement by not posting to it any more.


Majuba wrote:
If you agree this thread is ridiculous, show your agreement by not posting to it any more.

Unfortunately, it's not the simple. That leaves the door open for some poor, innocent newbie to wander in, read the thread, and see that the ridiculous idea of having Darkvision while blinded based on a technicality is a valid concept because all the people who challenged it up and left and the people putting the idea forward had the last word. That propagates and reinforces the spread of disinformation and, worse, malinformation; which is abhorrent to many here who continue to be active in challenge to the base premise of the thread.


Jiggy wrote:
What happens when someone with darkvision identifies a basilisk and averts/closes his eyes?

Where is this "closes his eyes" defined in the rules?,

I think this is just a big conspiracy so mirror images lose effectiveness against fighter with blindfight, pfff.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nicos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
What happens when someone with darkvision identifies a basilisk and averts/closes his eyes?
Where is this "closes his eyes" defined in the rules?
Bestiary, Universal Monster Rules, Gaze (Su), Wearing a blindfold wrote:
The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes).


Jiggy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
What happens when someone with darkvision identifies a basilisk and averts/closes his eyes?
Where is this "closes his eyes" defined in the rules?
Bestiary, Universal Monster Rules, Gaze (Su), Wearing a blindfold wrote:
The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes).

Only defned against gaze attacks, and note that it say that you can not see the creature not that you can not see at all.

EDIT: also note that turnig ones back is also only defined against gaze attackscause this game hae no facing.


James Risner wrote:
MachOneGames wrote:
"Major premise: Darkvision is a visual sense. " repeated over six times above. I wonder which of us lacks the ability to read.

Whatever your premise is, if your vision is based on a visual method and you are subject to blindness then you can not see.

You have a better argument if you are subject to blindness and you then add Blindsight (nonvisual sense to operate effectively without vision.)

I agreed with your logic already. Your premise is that blindness applies to all visual methods -- even ones that are currently not available. Based on this your conclusion is undeniable.

My position was that "Darkvision" may be a parallel visual sense to normal vision. An immediate effect like a flash can disable all visual senses. That is not the same as the flash disabling your eyes. I read it as it disables all visual senses that you have. Yeti proposes the same definition as you ... "being blinded is being unable to use your eyes to see." You are only adding "the eyes" to the rules as written, which seems completely sensible.

The crux of Yeti's argument is the most germaine. It is simpler to assume that the eyes are completely impaired by any blinded condition. In the absense of any other information we should use the simplest answer from the rules.

When I see the eyes as a container that can hold various kinds of vision I am adding a level of complexity. My argument makes more sense when we look "behind" the rules, but on the face of it I am now inclined to agree with Yeti/Risner. @ Yeti. I didn't mean that reducing this one rule to a simplification flattens the game. This approach applied to everything will ultimately squeeze the Narrativist and Simulationist out of the hobby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blindness/Deafness writes "You call upon the powers of unlife to render the subject blinded or deafened, as you choose."

Darkvision writes "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight."

The way the Darkvision spell is written, it says you 'gain the ability to see".

So, after being blinded by the blindness spell, the Darkvision spell should allow you to see in black and white, up to 60ft away while it is active.

How is anyone not coming to that conclusion? That is absolutely what it says "The subject gains the ability to see"...


To be able to see requires functioning eyes. If a creature with no eyes has darkvision cast on them it does not allow them to see since they have nothing to see with.

If a person is blinded as the spell states "I render them blind as I choose" so I choose to blind them by crushing their eyes to jelly leaving empty sockets, or I choose to sever the optic nerve. Darkvision will not magically create a new pair of eyes or reconnect the optic nerve for you to only see in the dark with. If it was the case you describe other spells like Blindsense would not exist and everyone would just use Darkvision.

As others have pointed out the PRD hyper links the spell to the glossary of the definition of Darkvision.

Darkvision is defined as follows:

PRD wrote:
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.

Bold mine. As the bold line states since a blind creature cannot normally see anything, having darkvision does nothing.


MachOneGames wrote:

@ Yeti. I didn't mean that reducing this one rule to a simplification flattens the game. This approach applied to everything will ultimately squeeze the Narrativist and Simulationist out of the hobby.

I think there are plenty of open-ended rules still available for such purposes, and many things not covered in the rules at all, being entirely up for discussion and variation. On top of that, we come back to the GM having power at his table to make any alterations he or she sees fit. So, barring PFS, nothing is removed by settling a rules debate like this--you're still free to play with it however you like at your own table.

For my part, I think it's stupid to balance classes by denying them minor out-of-combat actions (Skills), and raise all of the 2+Int classes up to 3+Int+1 static skill that increases on its own (for example, clerics would get 3+Int and Knowledge: Religion would keep pace with your max ranks in everything else, because it's silly for a cleric to not know about being a cleric...that's what oracles are for).


Ignipotens wrote:

To be able to see requires functioning eyes. If a creature with no eyes has darkvision cast on them it does not allow them to see since they have nothing to see with.

If a person is blinded as the spell states "I render them blind as I choose" so I choose to blind them by crushing their eyes to jelly leaving empty sockets, or I choose to sever the optic nerve. Darkvision will not magically create a new pair of eyes or reconnect the optic nerve for you to only see in the dark with. If it was the case you describe other spells like Blindsense would not exist and everyone would just use Darkvision.

As others have pointed out the PRD hyper links the spell to the glossary of the definition of Darkvision.

Darkvision is defined as follows:

PRD wrote:
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.
Bold mine. As the bold line states since a blind creature cannot normally see anything, having darkvision does nothing.

Please note that you are discussing the Darkvision ability, and not the Darkvision spell.

While they may share a name, they are not identical.

The spell confers the ability to see. The spells says "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness."

The spell doesn't simply grant the 'Extraordinary' ability known as Darkvision, instead, it does what it actually says it does.

Interpreting the spell to simply be the granting of (ex) Darkvision is purely 100% fabrication. Understandable fabrication, but none the less fabrication.

Read the effect of the spell, apply the effect of the spell.

"The subject gains the ability to see".


What happens when someone who is blind, "gains the ability to see"?

They see.


Remy Balster wrote:

What happens when someone who is blind, "gains the ability to see"?

They see.

You can't end a sentence in the middle and claim to then have it mean something.

It grants the ability to see in the dark, not the ability to see. There's a big difference.

Are you just trolling?


yeti1069 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

What happens when someone who is blind, "gains the ability to see"?

They see.

You can't end a sentence in the middle and claim to then have it mean something.

It grants the ability to see in the dark, not the ability to see. There's a big difference.

Are you just trolling?

Even if he is, I am not. I interpret it the same way.

Frankly, the staunch resistance to the interpretation (and the insistence that anyone who comes with a different conclusion is false) is baffling to me.

There is RAW and there is RAI.

RAW has multiple interpretations. One of which is that the spell grants sight.

RAI is clearly not that, as Monte Cook has subsequently weighed in on the whole thing (and while he noted that wasn't what was intended, he also noted that he'd be tempted to rule an "okay" for it). The English, on the other hand, is ambiguous.

Blindness (caused by the spell): The creature cannot see.
Darkvision (the spell, as opposed to the special ability: The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness.
Remove Blindness: cures blindness or deafness (your choice), whether the effect is normal or magical in nature

Okay, so, to me, it seems pretty clear:
1) blindness makes you unable to see, permanently.
2) darkvision grants you the (temporary) ability to see.
3) remove blindness, well, removes the blindness.

No, I am not trolling. This is very much so how I would personally read the English to mean, if I didn't otherwise have Monte's input.
(Also, my wife, an English teacher, notes that, as written, it seems a valid interpretation to her, as well, and volunteers that I can mention this.)

For clarity, another example of events:

1) darkvision gives you a (partially redundant) ability to see.
2) blindness negates all ability to see permanently
3) darkvision (a second time) would grant a new (temporary) ability to see

This actually functions pretty well both in reading the rules and in terms of balance and play-ability.

2nd Level spell prevents your ability to do stuff.
2nd Level spell allows you to do stuff.

Again, I understand that this isn't RAI. Those who insist that it isn't RAW either, on the other hand... that... seems more dubious.

I certainly see the other way being read as well. It's an entirely valid reading. I'm not dismissing it as "wrong" at all.

I am, however, dismissing the dismissal of the other school of thought.

(I'm also ever-so-slightly disappointed in you Jiggy! Some of the rather amazing tricks you pull using RAW terminology, and you dislike this one? How exceedingly peculiar! You're still cool, though, bro.) :D

Oh, and for the curious, if you had Darkvision, and closed your eyes, you would: see the inside of your eyelids. I mean, come on guys. That was a "gimme". :)

(Also, Line of Sight is fairly comprehensively defined in a simple statement.)

((Also-also, to cut off the potential arguments, you could cast Darkvision while your eyes are closed - and congrats you can see! - ... to the inside of your eyelids, regardless of anything else, as it is a "solid barrier".)) :)


That's all fine and dandy if this were a game of ignore the implicit and only read the explicit in the most exploitative way possible. Unfortunately, that's not the game we're playing here. The Darkvision spell does not give you the ability to see. It gives you the ability to see in the dark. To put in the context of computer code, See is the function and Dark is a parameter (you have other parameters such as normal, dim-light, light sensitive, etc). Darkvision adds Dark as a temporary parameter to the logical function See. But Blindness, as a status effect, deactivates the See function. Again, keep in mind that Blindness isn't limited to being caused by flashes of light. It can also be caused by intervention of steel. How is the Darkvision spell going to let your eyes see in the dark when they've been plucked from your face?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm so sorry I ever brought this back up again. It is so tedious at this point. There are at least three ways of seeing this. Kazaan, your premise is that there is a see function and dark, normal, and low-light modify this function. From that premise your position is logical.

Tacticslion is expressing the view that there is one status -- seeing. Each time a status arises it replaces the current status. Normal sight is replaced by blindness. Blindness is replaced by darkvision, etc. Again, a fairly reasonable argument. I get it. @Tacticslion I used to teach High School English too and get where you and your wife are coming from. Structurally, I think the rules establishes the notion of conditions that override the use of certain abilities and actions. I think that is why you can't just take the English on face value.

My premise was that there are eyes and there are separate non-dependent kinds of vision. More complicated, but more in line with a natural world. Eyes become a container for different kinds of vision. An array with various elements if you will. My conclusion was in a very specific instance the logical result was darkvision. Yeti pointed out that my version has to add a concept to the text and should be considered a variation.

Nobody was pulling things out of their a@@ to try and break the game.

I own a technology company that consults with many different businesses. I am used to programmers being unable to understand things from two or more different points of view. I recognize that they are often strident in expressing their views and do not make an effort to genuinely understand other people's ideas. They believe that others are trying to "read the explicit in the most exploitative way possible" because someone naturally coming to a different conclusion is not considered. Don't get me wrong. Some of these guys are brilliant, but they have a hard time working with others.

Unfortunately many of these extremely talented individuals never reach their potential. Their inability to treat other views with respect and the lack of listening skills leaves them firmly and permanently fastened to mid-level positions. We end up managing them and they are very frustrated that they are managed by people with less technical skill and raw mojo. They rarely have a seat at the table with the C-level execs. They were so smart that they thought they didn't have to listen.

Even if you are the smartest guy in the room you are not going anywhere if you don't listen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry if the last post sounded "preachy." I found the whole experience of posting on the forum frustrating and sometimes infantile. Thanks to Yeti for the insight. I'm pretty comfortable with his/her conclusions. I'll use my house rule when I GM and be happy with the RAW (Rules-as-Written) interpretation when I play.

I wish you all a Happy New Year. Enjoy!


MachOneGames wrote:
Unfortunately many of these extremely talented individuals never reach their potential....

I think you're under the mistaken impression that I and certain others are doing this for our own benefit or even the benefit of the person they are directly addressing. Sure, it's a grand position when I can successfully turn someone around from wrong ideas and get them to objectively re-evaluate their ideas and realize the truth. I get to see this every now and then, a person who had been opposed to my explanation initially, but eventually reconsidered due to the shear weight of logic I bring to the table. But there's a third consideration; Negative Catalyst Towards Enlightenment. Sometimes, the subject is so obstinate that it's objectively hopeless to try to correct them because they do not want to be corrected. But it's not a matter of just "giving up" because there are others who can benefit from that incorrectness. As I present logical arguments and the subject feebly flails at them with their foolish ideas, it presents a grand stage for lots of others to see and makes it more and more obvious to everyone else following the events how wrong the subject's idea really is. They become a clown, of sorts, presenting the wrong way to do things in glorious caricature.

Thus, while the end result of correcting someone's error of reason is admirable and desirable, I know it doesn't always come about. But, lacking that, it's just as well that I preemptively prevent that misconception from arising in the minds of most other people who would have otherwise been "on the fence" about the concept. Those who easily come to the correct conclusion, no explanation is necessary and for those who insist on the wrong conclusion, no explanation is possible. It's for those in the middle that these debates take place.


Tacticslion wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

What happens when someone who is blind, "gains the ability to see"?

They see.

You can't end a sentence in the middle and claim to then have it mean something.

It grants the ability to see in the dark, not the ability to see. There's a big difference.

Are you just trolling?

Even if he is, I am not. I interpret it the same way.

Frankly, the staunch resistance to the interpretation (and the insistence that anyone who comes with a different conclusion is false) is baffling to me.

There is RAW and there is RAI.

RAW has multiple interpretations. One of which is that the spell grants sight.

RAI is clearly not that, as Monte Cook has subsequently weighed in on the whole thing (and while he noted that wasn't what was intended, he also noted that he'd be tempted to rule an "okay" for it). The English, on the other hand, is ambiguous.

I suppose this interpretation is a little less hard to swallow, but I still really don't understand how one could come to the point from that direction. We have a spell that Blinds a target, and a spell of the same level that removes Blindness from a target. Why would ANOTHER spell of the same level, that grants a benefit, ALSO be able to (sort of) remove Blindness from the target?

Further, Darkvision still isn't claiming to grant the ability to see but to see in the dark, the latter of which is a full clause.

Compare:
I grant the ability to see.
I grant the ability to see in the dark.
I grant the ability to see, in the dark.
I grant the ability to see. In the dark.
I grant the ability to see (in the dark).

All of them but the first clearly express a modification on the ability to see, not a granting of sight itself.

Also note that if you want to go with the interpretation that the spell grants the ability to see, period, you could also read the description as granting the ability to see normally as well:

PRD wrote:
The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight.

That could be read as: the subject gains the ability to see 60 feet (even in total darkness). That is, it COULD be read, if you want to employ the same reading process, to simply grant the ability to see 60 ft., and that it specifies, additionally, that this ability extends into total darkness. Therefore, you COULD read this, as being able to grant a Blinded creature the ability to see out to 60 ft. in normal light AND darkness.

That seems patently wrong to me. Does it seem reasonable to you, even merely as a RAW reading? To me, it just feels like breaking up the sentence in such a way as to alter intent.

Question: If a creature did not have eyes, or any access at all to a visual sense organ/ability, would you allow Darkvision to grant that creature the ability to see? Restricted to: in the dark)? Restricted only to 60 ft., regardless of illumination?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
That's all fine and dandy if this were a game of ignore the implicit and only read the explicit in the most exploitative way possible. Unfortunately, that's not the game we're playing here. The Darkvision spell does not give you the ability to see. It gives you the ability to see in the dark. To put in the context of computer code, See is the function and Dark is a parameter (you have other parameters such as normal, dim-light, light sensitive, etc). Darkvision adds Dark as a temporary parameter to the logical function See. But Blindness, as a status effect, deactivates the See function. Again, keep in mind that Blindness isn't limited to being caused by flashes of light. It can also be caused by intervention of steel. How is the Darkvision spell going to let your eyes see in the dark when they've been plucked from your face?

Um.

"The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness"

This sentence has one meaning. If you read it according to the rules of the English language, at least.

The spell grants you "the ability to see". The vision that the spell grants functions "even in total darkness".

You can repeat that it doesn't grant sight all you like, but that is literally what it says it does. It isn't vague about it; it straight up says "The subject gains the ability to see".

If you think this spell grants vision 'only' in dark conditions, you have failed to parse the words and apply grammatical rules, or have failed to parse the sentence with logic. I don't mean that insultingly, but to point out that those are the two areas where your mistake may be.

"Even in" doesn't mean "Only in". It simply does not equate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yeti1069 wrote:


Further, Darkvision still isn't claiming to grant the ability to see but to see in the dark, the latter of which is a full clause.

Compare:
I grant the ability to see.
I grant the ability to see in the dark.
I grant the ability to see, in the dark.
I grant the ability to see. In the dark.
I grant the ability to see (in the dark).

All of them but the first clearly express a modification on the ability to see, not a granting of sight itself.

The spell doesn't say any of those options.

"The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness."

This sentence, when broken down is;

The subject gains the ability to see.
The sight the subject has gained even (also) functions in total darkness.

To use a sentence in wording similar to yours;

I grant the subject the ability to see (even in the dark).

The word "even" is not to be ignored, which is what most people are doing.

The spell never says it "grants the ability to see in the dark".

The spell says "even in” the dark.

Even in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remy, I agree with your reading of English. Much like I agree with Tacticslion who made a very similar argument. However, what about the function of "conditions?" In the rules conditions seem to override abilities. For example a character who is stunned cannot take some actions even if they gain the ability to. I don't know if that is assumption or fact. Does anyone know ... Do the rules say somewhere that conditions always override abilities? Or, are we all inferring that from the context.

Again, your reading of the English is spot on.

Kazaan wrote:
"I think you're under the mistaken impression that I and certain others are doing this for our own benefit"

I never formed any opinion of why you post. Based on the good quality of your thoughts, I found your mis-reading of other people's opinions frustrating. I am sure you are normally an asset to these forums.

My initial post was.. could we not see vision as an array and flash blindness (from an event -- not a spell that persists) as a condition that gives blindness to all the elements currently in the array? Adding another element to the array (darkvision) after a flash event would therefore work in spite of the character having the blinded condition. My evidence for this was that darkvision and normal vision do not overlap and flashes don't damage the entire eye -- they just overload the photo-receptors. You can't have darkvision PHOTO-receptors. There must be another kind of receptor (magnetic? gravitational? who knows). Something separate. Mechanically the two kinds of vision can be altered independently.

Then there was a lot of noise.

Yeti eventually came at the crux of my hypothesis and suggesting that I was adding a concept to the rules from the Simulationist perspective. In the rules there is but one "blinded" condition. I agreed, lamenting that the newer versions of the game are driving the Simulationist and narrativist perspectives from the game. The challenge is to get all three types of players to co-operate and create a shared game at the table. Yeti suggested that this is best done at each gaming table.

To me, my part of the topic is closed.

..Although I am curious about the evidence for conditions trumping abilities. I suspect they do.


You're forgetting the ever so important principal of Occam's Razor. When faced with multiple, exclusionary conclusions, all of which have equivalent viability, you select the one that requires the fewest unnecessary presumptions. Darkvision canceling out blindness is an unnecessary presumption as logic dictates that process is outside of the scope of the ability. Ergo, the conclusion an intelligent mind must default to is that Darkvision does exactly what it says on the tin; it lets you see in any light condition. Nothing about that indicates it counters a pre-existing status such as blindness. If your eyes don't work for whatever reason, then visual-based perception, likewise, won't work. At this point, I find it hard to believe that anyone is making this mistake in judgement inadvertently and I honestly feel it's an act of deliberate disinformation because the arguments have all been made and the conclusions are abundantly clear to any rational mind.


Noise.


I don't know this is terribly complicated.

blindness applies the blind condition. darkvision does not remove it.

A spell such as ant haul which lets you carry a heavier load than normal does not let me move when you have the paralyzed condition. Conditions remain in place unless removed properly. In this case while the subject is granted the ability to see in the dark, they are unable to see at all, so the lesser, dependent ability of seeing in the dark is unable to function.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
You're forgetting the ever so important principal of Occam's Razor. When faced with multiple, exclusionary conclusions, all of which have equivalent viability, you select the one that requires the fewest unnecessary presumptions. Darkvision canceling out blindness is an unnecessary presumption as logic dictates that process is outside of the scope of the ability.

Logic does not dictate that, you do.

And that isn't even the right usage of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is about selecting the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions as a matter of efficiency and succinctness. It might be a good guiding principle, but in this case, determining who is running on the fewest assumptions is a mighty large task in and of itself, since no one has yet to divulge the full list of assumption they are operating on in list format.

Following Occam's Razor in this case is to not try to force Occam's Razor on this case... Trying to create lists of assumptions to see whose list is shorter to figure out which of us has the most efficient ruling is... not efficient.


But for the record… here is my list.

1. render the subject blinded
2. The creature cannot see.
3. gains the ability to see

This is the order that events happen in. Blindness says they are blind, Blind says they cannot see, Darkvision says they gain the ability to see.

Occam's Razor that for me. So, is your list shorter?


Remy Balster wrote:
Please note that you are discussing the Darkvision ability, and not the Darkvision spell.

No I am discussing the spell. The spell on PRD describes you gaining darkvision, it then hyperlinks the definition of darkvision. If it was not intended to work like the ability they would not hyperlink it.

Also, as Anguish pointed out the blindness gives you the blind condition. Darkvision does not remove the blind condition thus you remained blind.

Why would a spell like Echolocation ever exist if darkvision were to actually give you sight?

What is also interesting is if you look at the PRD Spell List Index. The index cuts the fluff in spells and gets straight to the point of the spell. Darkvision in the index is stated as:

Spell List Index wrote:
Index Darkvision: See 60 ft. in total darkness.

This is what the spell does, everything else is just fluff.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and the replies to it. Tone down the hostility, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to be clear.

Interpreting Darkvision as being rendered useless by Blindness is not wrong. In fact, that is one correct interpretation of the wording and rules. Any who view it that way are correct.

Now...

Remy Balster wrote:
Please note that you are discussing the Darkvision ability, and not the Darkvision spell.
Ignipotens wrote:
No I am discussing the spell. The spell on PRD describes you gaining darkvision, it then hyperlinks the definition of darkvision. If it was not intended to work like the ability they would not hyperlink it.

That is (as the quote from Monte Cook) solid evidence for RAI, not RAW. I agree that this view is the intent. This view is not what the spell text itself claims, as there are no hyperlinks in printed text.

Ignipotens wrote:
Also, as Anguish pointed out the blindness gives you the blind condition. Darkvision does not remove the blind condition thus you remained blind.

This is a very good point. The spell does not claim to remove the blind condition in game terms.

However, linguistically, it claims to give the ability to see... up to 60 feet. This effectively bypasses the blindness condition based on the alternate reading.

Ignipotens wrote:
Why would a spell like Echolocation ever exist if darkvision were to actually give you sight?

That's a great question! Let's look at the two spells!

Darkvision

Quote:

School transmutation; Level alchemist 2, antipaladin 2, ranger 3, sorcerer/wizard 2

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (either a pinch of dried carrot or an agate)

EFFECT
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

DESCRIPTION
The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight.

Darkvision can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

And...

Echolocation

Quote:

Echolocation

School transmutation [sonic]; Level alchemist 4, bard 4, druid 4, sorcerer/wizard 5

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V

EFFECT
Range personal
Target you
Duration 10 minutes/level

DESCRIPTION
You can perceive the world by creating high-pitched noises and listening to their echoes. This gives you blindsight to a range of 40 feet. The echo-producing noises are too high-pitched to be heard by most creatures, and can only be detected by dragons, other creatures with this ability (such as bats), and creatures with hearing-based blindsense or blindsight. You cannot use this ability if you are deaf, and cannot detect anything in an area of silence.

First of all, an immediate difference is that while Darkvision gives you the (temporary) ability to see (which can be overcome by a subsequent casting of Blindness in this process), echolocation gives you blindsense which functions even if you have the blinded condition. A definite advantage. In fact, let's look at blindsight.

Quote:

Blindsight

Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a non-visual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description.

Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight.
Blindsight does not subject a creature to gaze attacks (even though darkvision does).
Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures that use blindsight.
Deafening attacks thwart blindsight if it relies on hearing.
Blindsight works underwater but not in a vacuum.
Blindsight negates displacement and blur effects.

Compared to the black and white ability to see in the dark, blindsight is pretty awesome.

Don't worry about gaze attacks, blinding attacks, and it negates displacement and blur effects.

If you are deaf, the spell notes, you can't use this ability - thus it has a weakness that darkvision (the spell or special ability) doesn't have, but it has a larger number of strengths than darkvision (either version, even if different, take your pick) doesn't have. So regardless of how you interpret the spell Darkvision, echolocation is definitely useful.

Ignipotens wrote:

What is also interesting is if you look at the PRD Spell List Index. The index cuts the fluff in spells and gets straight to the point of the spell. Darkvision in the index is stated as:

Spell List Index wrote:
Index Darkvision: See 60 ft. in total darkness.
This is what the spell does, everything else is just fluff.

So, according to the spell list index, the spell allows you to see 60 ft in total darkness? That's really great! It still negates blindess!

One of the important rules to remember, though, is that if there is text that seems contradictory or different from a spell's short-hand entry on a list to a spell's full entry, the rules state that you use the longer version, as the index version is just a gist.

Kazaan wrote:
That's all fine and dandy if this were a game of ignore the implicit and only read the explicit in the most exploitative way possible.

I find it patently absurd that you simultaneously claim some sort of moral high ground and logical exemplary status when you are attempting to shut down an "exploit" that, at most, grants a player a minor and temporary reprieve from an otherwise debilitating condition for the sake insisting that "it doesn't work that way and others are wrong if they disagree with me." despite having been shown how, in English, there are multiple right answers.

You are trying to say that others will "play the game wrong" if you don't get in the last word. You are, in fact, incorrect.

RAI, you've got it - you have the correct RAI interpretation.
RAW, you've got one correct interpretation, but not the only one.

And, to reiterate, it's not that powerful a trick.

Remove Blindness/Deafness permanently negates the blindness condition without having to expend daily resources to do so for a few hours at a time.

"Oh no, the player, through creativity and a decent grasp of the English language, now has a very limited ability to make short ranged attacks and can do something other than twiddle their thumbs impotently until they get back to town, unless they get dispelled! We must squash this immediately!"

Seriously, guys, it's about the most minor of "exploits" you can make, it works by RAW via the English language (the one we all share), it's not RAI, but that's okay, and it's not that big a deal.

Insisting that those that don't shut it down are somehow playing the game "wrong" or can't use logic is nothing but empty self-importance. Let people play the game and don't get worked up over something you wouldn't allow. Note that you wouldn't allow it, don't read it that way by RAW (and that RAI is clearly different) and let it go.

The Intent: it doesn't work that way. (Creators and PRD back this up.)
The English: it can work that way.
The Game: it works that way if the GM wants it to.

EDIT: fixed a link, added a note to Intent. :)


@Tactics: All wrong. Every word of it. This is a rules forum, where we debate the meaning of the rules to find the default. "Let people run it the way they want," is never a valid conclusion here because it doesn't address the principal question. That said, alternate readings of ambiguous RAW aren't "correct", they are either "potentially correct" or "cannot be correct". The interpretation that Darkvision clears the blindness status effect cannot be correct. One can take the wording of Darkvision out of context and butcher the parsing to get quite a few (still incorrect) conclusions out of it, but that doesn't make them correct.

Furthermore, the severity of the misinterpretation is a non-issue. It doesn't matter if it's a major and gamebreaking benefit trying to be gained or a minor and negligible one; incorrect reading and deliberately faulty logic are never acceptable in any regard.

The core crux is that specific trumps general (and, by extension, more specific trumps less specific). By general, a character with normal vision can see by normal vision rules. Specifically, a character with Darkvision (either as an innate ability or bestowed temporarily) can see out a predetermined distance regardless of light level. More specifically, a character who is blind cannot see regardless of what kind of visual-based perception they possess. We know that Blindness is more specific because a character with preexisting Darkvision will lose its benefit when subjected to Blindness. Therefore, temporary sources of Darkvision cannot ever negate Blindness. That isn't even implied by RAW. It's only implied when you completely fail to parse the sentence properly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
"Let people run it the way they want," is never a valid conclusion here because it doesn't address the principal question.

I think so and I really want to agree. To some questions there may not be an answer. The rules are not perfect; like English the rules just evolved. There are lots of stupid parts in the rules.

Kazaan wrote:
The interpretation that Darkvision clears the blindness status effect cannot be correct.

That's his (Tactics) point too. He outright says that the Darkvision does not clear the blind effect/status in the post right above yours. The text says that the character can now see. However, if the blind condition still exists and the character sees 60', even in the dark is this next conclusion going to be that he can see but takes the penalties as if they are blinded because they haven't cleared the condition. (Hmm... do we still think this is a rational argument? I think I would rather bang my head against the table.)

Kazaan wrote:
The core crux is that specific trumps general (and, by extension, more specific trumps less specific).

Which is more specific -- the spell description or the blinded condition? These rules didn't descend from heaven. They are flawed. Much of it is un-compartmentalized crap. D&D has historically clung to a whole bunch of abstractions and tried to patch rules onto them.

I'm not a hard-core rules-lawyer. I'd try to solve it by imagining what makes the most sense according to verisimilitude. However, there isn't really a place for that at a rules-only discussion. So, I'm going to bid adieu to all of you now and go back to my own world and own game-table. I am afraid that the all the pieces of the game don't fit together with the level of perfection that some seem to think they do.

Maybe by the next edition they can flow-chart the rules and parse them through some computer analytics. They would be bullet-proof and unassailable, locked up tight in an iron box. Maybe we could have players declare their actions by pushing buttons on a controller. That would eliminate all of this ambiguity. It gets so messy when you let humans interact with the rules. They try to do things that are unexpected. Rather than describing what the players see we could even just flash images on the screen with music and effects and everything.

Yeah... a controller, a screen, and a box where the rules are.

Sorry all. This probably isn't the forum for me. Peace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

@Tactics: All wrong. Every word of it. This is a rules forum, where we debate the meaning of the rules to find the default. "Let people run it the way they want," is never a valid conclusion here because it doesn't address the principal question. That said, alternate readings of ambiguous RAW aren't "correct", they are either "potentially correct" or "cannot be correct". The interpretation that Darkvision clears the blindness status effect cannot be correct. One can take the wording of Darkvision out of context and butcher the parsing to get quite a few (still incorrect) conclusions out of it, but that doesn't make them correct.

Furthermore, the severity of the misinterpretation is a non-issue. It doesn't matter if it's a major and gamebreaking benefit trying to be gained or a minor and negligible one; incorrect reading and deliberately faulty logic are never acceptable in any regard.

The core crux is that specific trumps general (and, by extension, more specific trumps less specific). By general, a character with normal vision can see by normal vision rules. Specifically, a character with Darkvision (either as an innate ability or bestowed temporarily) can see out a predetermined distance regardless of light level. More specifically, a character who is blind cannot see regardless of what kind of visual-based perception they possess. We know that Blindness is more specific because a character with preexisting Darkvision will lose its benefit when subjected to Blindness. Therefore, temporary sources of Darkvision cannot ever negate Blindness. That isn't even implied by RAW. It's only implied when you completely fail to parse the sentence properly.

If you want to show how someone is wrong, please do so. Simply calling them wrong isn't helpful. He said a number of things, and a lot of it isn't wrong. You disagree? Fine, explain. But general sweeping dismissal? C'mon man, keep it civil and actually discuss it.

A spell is more specific than a condition. Btw. Conditions are general, as they are sub-aspects of other abilities and can be applied from multiple different methods of application. The darkvision spell is the darkvision spell. There is only one such spell. That is pretty darn specific.

The RAW isn't ambiguous either. The RAI and the RAW may be in conflict, sure... but the RAW isn't ambiguous at all. "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet" is pretty clear, and specific, and direct. Nothing ambiguous about it.

Ambiguity is that people don't read what the spell says, they read what they think the spell does, what the impression of the spell gives. But what it says? No, they don't read that.

The spell does not say it grants the darkvision ability. Fact.
The spell grants the ability to see up to 60ft, even in total darkness. Fact.

Is it understandable that people read the spell and make the leap to thinking it grants darkvision ability? Sure, of course it is. But it doesn't actually do that.

It does what it says it does. While what it says it does, in most cases, is nearly identical to having the darkvision ability, the recipient doesn't 'actually' have the darkvision ability... they have the spell effects of the darkvision spell.

They are not the same thing.


Remy Balster wrote:
If you want to show how someone is wrong, please do so. Simply calling them wrong isn't helpful. He said a number of things, and a lot of it isn't wrong. You disagree? Fine, explain. But general sweeping dismissal? C'mon man, keep it civil and actually discuss it.

That's an understandable response if you haven't read anything that's been posted this entire thread. I and others have shown several times how it's wrong. Refer to those.


Kazaan wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
If you want to show how someone is wrong, please do so. Simply calling them wrong isn't helpful. He said a number of things, and a lot of it isn't wrong. You disagree? Fine, explain. But general sweeping dismissal? C'mon man, keep it civil and actually discuss it.
That's an understandable response if you haven't read anything that's been posted this entire thread. I and others have shown several times how it's wrong. Refer to those.

Please cease being dismissive. Currently you are doing nothing except attempting to shout down something.

That is not logic. That is not clever. That is not right. That is not the rules of the forum.

You have not shown conclusively that it is wrong.

I can find no reason for your vitriol.

The rules have a meaning.

There is RAI - that is clear.
There is RAW - there are multiple interpretations.
There is House Rules - those are whatever you want. We're not discussing those.

EDIT: (added a line at the end)

Kazaan wrote:
The core crux is that specific trumps general (and, by extension, more specific trumps less specific). By general, a character with normal vision can see by normal vision rules. Specifically, a character with Darkvision (either as an innate ability or bestowed temporarily) can see out a predetermined distance regardless of light level. More specifically, a character who is blind cannot see regardless of what kind of visual-based perception they possess. We know that Blindness is more specific because a character with preexisting Darkvision will lose its benefit when subjected to Blindness. Therefore, temporary sources of Darkvision cannot ever negate Blindness. That isn't even implied by RAW. It's only implied when you completely fail to parse the sentence properly.

And this is where you are wrong. If the text of a spell (a specific, temporary effect) contradicts the text of a general ability, trait, or condition, the more specific - aka the spell - trumps the more general - aka the "normal" results of a status, condition, or ability.

Firestorm, despite its name and despite "whole area is shot through with sheets of roaring flame" notes that, "The raging flames do not harm natural vegetation, ground cover, or any plant creatures in the area that you wish to exclude from damage" which, and deals "1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 20d6)" which is very contrary to the more general entry of fire as it appears anywhere else. Specific (local, spell) trumping general (rules tendencies, generic).


Again, Kazaan, to be clear:

You and I agree on the RAI.

You are correct for one interpretation of the RAW, but wrong in your insistence that it is the only interpretation. If you cannot see that, you are not applying logic - you are instead behaving, in your own words in your own post above, "so obstinate that it's objectively hopeless to try to correct [you] because [you] do not want to be corrected" (substituting "you" for "them" and "they", of course).

So, in your own words, again, "... it's not a matter of just "giving up" because there are others who can benefit from that incorrectness. (sic)"

(I'm presuming there's a (sic) in that quote, unless you mean to infer you don't want people to benefit from something, which seems kind of an "off" thing in this thread.)

So please, start living up to your own post. You're obviously intelligent. Use that and be civil.


The only thing that matters is the intention. Rules as written can sometimes be awful and have very unintended consequences. Thinking that casting darkvision counters blindness may be a very literal RAW interpretation, but hardly seems RAI. I believe most agree that the intention is blind means blind. With the existence of spells like Remove Blindness, which is a 3rd level spell, it seems unlikely that the blindness spell was intended to be momentarily defeated by a second level spell like Darkvision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
The only thing that matters is the intention. Rules as written can sometimes be awful and have very unintended consequences. Thinking that casting darkvision counters blindness may be a very literal RAW interpretation, but hardly seems RAI. I believe most agree that the intention is blind means blind. With the existence of spells like Remove Blindness, which is a 3rd level spell, it seems unlikely that the blindness spell was intended to be momentarily defeated by a second level spell like Darkvision.

That seems about right, actually. Power level wise. There are other instances where there is a lower level spell that can suppress the effects of a condition temporarily, where as a higher level spell can remove it completely.

I didn't want to use that as a basis for whether this works or not. But as far as degrees of power and spell levels goes, having a 2nd level spell temporarily suppress a condition that a 3rd level spell can remove is very much in line.


Also, this just occurred to me.

Kazaan wrote:
@Tactics: All wrong. Every word of it.

Heh! I love how you just called the rules "wrong", considering how much of the rules (two whole spell entries) I had in my post!

You may wish to rephrase how you dismiss a post in future if you wish to retain the appearance that you "present logical arguments and the subject feebly flails at them with their foolish ideas" to quote you from earlier.

But seriously: truce. You're clearly an intelligent person. I do like your cleverness.

The ultimate result of everything:

1) The English RAW is ambiguous (it can be taken either way).
2) The RAI has been made clear (that it doesn't work).

Agreed?

:)


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Two edits eaten by the forums IN A ROW.

"http://paizo.com/posts#newPost"

... is now my most hated enemy.

101 to 150 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Darkvision / Blindness Conundrum All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.