Darkvision / Blindness Conundrum


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jreyst wrote:
Princess: I recommend giving up. You won't get anywhere. The good thing is that the OP's GM made the right call so in all honesty there really is nothing to be gained by trying to convince those who seek to read these things literally.

There is no right call. There is your call, my call, her call, his call, et cetera. All of these calls are equally right or equally wrong, depending on context.

The real silliness is actually debating this as if there was One True Answer rather than merely a difference of opinions.

:)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Now I get a chance (heh) to disagree with a collaborator on the site. There are SOME rules which explicitly work a certain way. There is a "right" way and a "wrong" way, at least when deciding if you are doing it according to how something is "intended" to work by the makers/designers. Now certainly anyone is free to override this, and house rule whatever they want. Heck, make a house rule that cure light wounds turns you into a newt if you like, but that would be a "wrong" reading of the rules as written. To be clear, I couldn't care less how people house rule things, just saying that you have to start from an agreed on baseline, and then acknowledge when you deviate from that baseline.. admit its a house rule and move on.


Princess Of Canada wrote:
jreyst wrote:
Princess: I recommend giving up. You won't get anywhere. The good thing is that the OP's GM made the right call so in all honesty there really is nothing to be gained by trying to convince those who seek to read these things literally.
Your right...I should have stopped. But I couldnt resist since the spell implicity says it works like normal sight...ergo, your still blind. It'll be the last I say on the issue, I am sure most GM's dont allow it to bestow sight to the blinded.

Yes, it would act like normal sight, after giving you the ability to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jreyst wrote:
Now certainly anyone is free to override this....

And at this point in time, you essentially dismantle your own argument by neatly framing the topic within the realm of opinion.

:p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Chance wrote:

And at this point in time, you essentially dismantle your own argument by neatly framing the topic within the realm of opinion.

:p

And whereas my opinion is of paramount importance and yours is, oh look, something shiny....

Dark Archive

Brekkil wrote:

If only the spell description of the Darkvision spell used the words "enhance", like you all do. It doesn't, it says that you gain a new vision, which is darkvision.

Oh well, this has (as I feared) turned into a matter of thoughts with no real evidence.

I thought Erian already presented the "evidence" in his first reply? And to me it's crystal-clear how it's spelled in RAW -- you cannot negate mundane or magical blindness with 'Darkvision'.

Note that "the subject gains the ability to see 60 feet -- even in total darkness" (like you wrote it) has a different emphasis from "the subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness" (especially if you stress the first half of the sentence). And where does it say "you gain a new vision" in the spell description?


Asgetrion wrote:
Brekkil wrote:

If only the spell description of the Darkvision spell used the words "enhance", like you all do. It doesn't, it says that you gain a new vision, which is darkvision.

Oh well, this has (as I feared) turned into a matter of thoughts with no real evidence.

I thought Erian already presented the "evidence" in his first reply? And to me it's crystal-clear how it's spelled in RAW -- you cannot negate mundane or magical blindness with 'Darkvision'.

Note that "the subject gains the ability to see 60 feet -- even in total darkness" (like you wrote it) has a different emphasis from "the subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness" (especially if you stress the first half of the sentence). And where does it say "you gain a new vision" in the spell description?

I like how everyone keeps beating the dead horse of "darkvision doesn't let you see through blindness caused darkness" despite no one ever making that argument.

I also like how everyone believes it makes sense for a second level spell to prevent you from seeing forever but not for a second level spell to let you see temporarily.


Cartigan wrote:


I also like how everyone believes it makes sense for a second level spell to prevent you from seeing forever but not for a second level spell to let you see temporarily.

The question is in the rules forum, so we're trying to find the answer within the rules. If we wanted the sensible answer, we'd put it into the sensible forum. Which, you'll note, there isn't one of those, meaning games (and gamers) don't have to make sense!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brekkil, just curious how this worked out in your game? I know your DM ruled that darkvision would not benefit you in this case. How did you remove your blindness? Did you have a cleric in the group that could remove it?

Blindness/Deafness can be pretty rough when used against low level characters (1-4). Sucks to have a blind wizard or rogue (not to mention fighter, but at least they have a "fighting" chance to make their save) when you're in a dungeon.


"Blindness/Deafness" is without doubt one of the worse low level spells someone can be stricken with, so I'll conceede to Cartigan that for a second level spell it can be considered to be powerful at low levels, given that 'Remove Blindness/Deafess' is a 3rd level spell. But again, the "Darkvision" shouldnt override the 'Blind' status on the character, but I am not going to get back into that arguement.

But then again, some spells are pretty powerful, look at this one, another second level spell straight from the 'Spell Compendium', the official supplementary spellbook for D&D 3.5. Its an official spell and only one of many that others could argue are powerful...but still legal after all.

There are ALWAYS going to be spells of every level that are seemingly more powerful than others of the same level, but you do get saves against them at least and thankfully most NPC's dont have very high DC's given their generic scores.

'Phantasmal Assailants' (Page 154, Spell Compendium)

Illusion (Phantasm)[Fear, Mind Affecting]
Level Sorceror/Wizard Level 2
Components V,S
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Range Close (25ft +5ft/2 levels)
Target One living ceature
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw WILL Disbelief (if interacted with), then FORT half, see text.
Spell Resistance Yes

"You point at your intended target, instantly - shadowy shapes form at your flank and rush at the creature you indicate, surrounding it. Others nearby dont even notice the images that pursue your target."

You create phantasmal images of nightmare creatures in the target's mind, visible only as shadowy shapes to you and unseen by all others. If the target succeeds on an initial WILL save it recognises the images are not real and the spell fails. If not the phantasms strike the target, dealing 8 points of Wisdom and Dexterity damage (reduced to 4 points each on a successful FORT save).
If the subject of this spell succeeds in disbelieving and is wearing a 'Helm Of Telepathy the spell is automatically turned back on the caster with the same effect.

((For a second level spell this is pretty powerful but it does have a drawback, I'd assume any creature with Telepathy is eligable to reflect the phantasms back at the caster in this case since the ability is identical to the item in question.))


Princess Of Canada wrote:

"Blindness/Deafness" is without doubt one of the worse low level spells someone can be stricken with, so I'll conceede to Cartigan that for a second level spell it can be considered to be powerful at low levels, given that 'Remove Blindness/Deafess' is a 3rd level spell. But again, the "Darkvision" shouldnt override the 'Blind' status on the character, but I am not going to get back into that arguement.

But then again, some spells are pretty powerful, look at this one, another second level spell straight from the 'Spell Compendium', the official supplementary spellbook for D&D 3.5. Its an official spell and only one of many that others could argue are powerful...but still legal after all.

Are you honestly trying to make a point about the power level of a core spell by pulling a spell from a 3.5 book serving as a collection of every spell from almost every WotC supplement + extras + tweaks?


Ah, the wonderful ways of the rules lawyer. If only Jason had had the foresight to put in the extra line that says "This spell does not cure blindness, even temporarily." But then, no game designer can can be that thorough, and thus the debate rages on.


That wasnt my point at all, what I am saying is that not all spells are created equal, in my experience alot of my players have never bothered to use/memorise 'Blindness/Deafness', I dont know about other GM's. Its a one-shot deal, alot of players prefer spells which provide some limited effect on a successful save rather than a spell which can have no effect whatsoever. Thats all I am saying, 'all or nothing' spells in the core rulebook tend to be pretty powerful 'Bestow Curse' for example.

Dark Archive

Cartigan wrote:
Princess Of Canada wrote:

"Blindness/Deafness" is without doubt one of the worse low level spells someone can be stricken with, so I'll conceede to Cartigan that for a second level spell it can be considered to be powerful at low levels, given that 'Remove Blindness/Deafess' is a 3rd level spell. But again, the "Darkvision" shouldnt override the 'Blind' status on the character, but I am not going to get back into that arguement.

But then again, some spells are pretty powerful, look at this one, another second level spell straight from the 'Spell Compendium', the official supplementary spellbook for D&D 3.5. Its an official spell and only one of many that others could argue are powerful...but still legal after all.

Are you honestly trying to make a point about the power level of a core spell by pulling a spell from a 3.5 book serving as a collection of every spell from almost every WotC supplement + extras + tweaks?

Look, the original question was whether the poster's idea of a spell ('Darkvision') overcoming the condition imposed by another spell ('Blindness') is "legal" or not -- his GM thought it isn't, while he asked how other people would adjudicate this based on RAW. And that is what we have answered, haven't we?

I'm not sure if anyone here thinks 'Blindness/Deafness' is a good 2nd level spell -- it imposes a permanent condition on a failed save (one that is hard for low-level characters to remove) and does absolutely *nothing* if you save successfully. In fact, I personally think it's a terrible spell. I'd rather have it blinding the target for a short period of time (round/level) if you fail, and maybe you'd still become dazed or blinded for a round or two even if you succeed. Or even like this sort of stuff works in 4E, i.e. "Target becomes blinded (save ends)". However, it's written as it's written, and hopefully most of these spells will be tweaked a bit in PF RPG 2nd Edition.


Cartigan wrote:

He makes a point. The spell specifically says "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet [...]" Yes, the rest of it is "even in total darkness" but the word 'even' here is used as an adverb and could mean a number of things, usually that the following phrase is only a tack-on and is actually NOT the guts of the sentence. Also note that the spell does not say that it gives you the Darkvision extraordinary ability.

Now, if the spell doesn't give you the ability to see 60', perhaps Paizo ought to reword it instead of taking it straight from Wizards. You know, something like "You gain Darkvision as the Extraordinary Ability."

Sure, the blinded codition states that:

"The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), ..." and continues with some penalties that apply.
... But it doesn't state that those penalties are because you can't see. That dot after "see" could mean different things, too. Ex:
You cannot see.
And you take a -2 penalty to AC.
And you lose your Dex bonus to AC
... etc
And if you gain a new vision, those penalties don't disppear.
Paizo should rewrite it to something like
"The creature cannot see. THUS, it takes..."


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Something small to point out. Some people have argured that a dwarf with dark vision that was blind could not see. This is true, however, it should be noted that natural blindness, and blindness caused by a spell are not the same.

Mechanically they have the same effects but natural blindness is just that, blindness that occurs naturally and thus the creature can not see through visual sensory organs. So the blind dwarf could never see to begin with. And a Blindness spell would have no effect on a blind dwarf.

Blindness from a spell is a condition, such that the person has functioning visual sensory organs that have been obstructed by magic. In this case the visual sensory organs still work, they just can't be used, thus causing the blind condition.

I know it's a small point but still worth considering when making your arguments.


Cartigan wrote:
Robert Young wrote:


"It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise" - seems to be of relevance to the discussion at hand.
Except it actually isn't. That is the text of the Darkvision extraordinary ability, NOT the text of the Darkvision spell.

I think the question is, does the title of the spell convey meaning, or only the description of the spell. If the title is absolutely meaningless, then yes, reading the description of the spell would imply that it counteracts blindness (well, you'd still be blind beyond 60', regardless of the light conditions).

But if the title also conveys information then you would have to conclude that the spell is granting dark vision to the target. This seems to obviously be the case. They could have named it anything, but chose Dark Vision for a reason.


For some reason, this thread reminds me a little of former Pres. Clinton's definition of sex ... :P

Apparently, what is self-evident to some is not so to others.


Actually, our game died approximately one hour after my character had been blinded by this vicious dwarven cleric.

We were playing "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk" and having a lot of fun with it, until we finally arrived at Castle Greyhawk. Yes, I admit it, we had all created pretty arrogant characters, and so when the dwarves outside the three towers of CG told us that we had to pay them 25% of all the loot we took from the Tower of War, we all pretty much laughed them out of their clothes. My character, an arrogant wizard called Mallagast the Ill-Adviced, also called them a pack of thieves! Their leader, a cleric of some good dwarven god (whose name escapes me at this point), was angered and, yes, you guessed it...

Cast "Blindness" on my character! He then told me to crawl back to Greyhawk city and get cured. I could then return when I was ready to agree to their terms.

Hmm.

My character was kinda pissed at this point. (Note that he really wasn't all that worried by the blinded condition, since he had the Blind-Fight feat and some really cool dust of dissapearance! oh yeah, and a lot of nasty spells prepared just for this stupid dwarf!)

Since the dwarf had pretty much initiated combat with that spell, I then proceeded to cast a little "Shield" spell upon myself, and then hell broke loose!

Our DM declared at this point that the 25% had been a dealbreaker in the book. Pay the thieves the loot ransom or die! The 10 dwarves called upon six of their dwarven friends and soon it was clear that these were all above our level with a lot of nasty 5th level spells. Yeah, we were doomed from the start, apparently.

It was during this fight that I came upon the thought of using my darkvision spell creatively, but was denied. It really wouldn't have made a difference, since we were all pretty dead at the time, but it would have added to the flavor of the battle.

Mallagast actually did pretty well in the fight, with the blind-fight feat and the magical dust! We never played this one to the end, because our DM was offended by our actions and has now left our game! Yeah, pretty weird, but we continue on with a new and much better game, with me as DM, and yes, creativity is allowed in this one.

Btw, I posted the same question on Dungeonaday.com to get a Monte Cook oppinion. He said that he thought my DM had made the correct call, but that he really liked the idea and would definitely be tempted by it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Princess Of Canada wrote:


There are ALWAYS going to be spells of every level that are seemingly more powerful than others of the same level, but you do get saves against them at least and thankfully most NPC's dont have very high DC's given their generic scores.

'Phantasmal Assailants' (Page 154, Spell Compendium)

It's true, there often are spells at a certain level that just seem to pack more punch. I would say, however, phantasmal assailants does so to an unusually large degree. Here, failing the saves, the target takes 16 points of ability damage from a single 2nd level spell. And even if making the Fort save, takes 8.

The original version of the spell, in Complete Arcane, does 4 and 2, respectively. The Spell Compendium version seems to be excessively up-gunned.


I support the posts that state once you are blinded by a spell that darkvision does not grant you the ability to see again, whether you have it naturally or from a spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brekkil wrote:


Mallagast actually did pretty well in the fight, with the blind-fight feat and the magical dust! We never played this one to the end, because...

Although I agree with the former DM's judgement on the darkvision spell not foiling blindness, he/she sounds like a big baby for becoming "offended" by your party's actions! LOL! Sounds like you are doing a better job of it, and your group will probably have alot more fun now. :)


Brekkil, no chance to run away (granted, you were blind) or were folks too incensed to run?

My initial thought would be "how do the dwarven guards know how much loot we took out of the tower?" Try and bluff your way into a much reduced amount. But that's just me.

I've overpowered PC's before (when I was DM) with guards and such when they have acted inappropriately, but I generally don't kill them off. They get thrown in a dungeon cell to cool off and then it becomes a plot hook. Sorry yours went down as it did, but at least you're having fun now with the new group. /salute!

Liberty's Edge

erian_7 wrote:


Darkivision is a specific, defined ability in PRPG, and it specifically relies on sight. Being blinded definitely removes the ability to see. Thus, darkvision does not counter/obviate the effects of blindness.

RIGHT, you're reading it too literally.

Mike


angelroble wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

He makes a point. The spell specifically says "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet [...]" Yes, the rest of it is "even in total darkness" but the word 'even' here is used as an adverb and could mean a number of things, usually that the following phrase is only a tack-on and is actually NOT the guts of the sentence. Also note that the spell does not say that it gives you the Darkvision extraordinary ability.

Now, if the spell doesn't give you the ability to see 60', perhaps Paizo ought to reword it instead of taking it straight from Wizards. You know, something like "You gain Darkvision as the Extraordinary Ability."

Sure, the blinded codition states that:

"The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), ..." and continues with some penalties that apply.
... But it doesn't state that those penalties are because you can't see. That dot after "see" could mean different things, too. Ex:
You cannot see.
And you take a -2 penalty to AC.
And you lose your Dex bonus to AC
... etc
And if you gain a new vision, those penalties don't disppear.
Paizo should rewrite it to something like
"The creature cannot see. THUS, it takes..."

This. If we're going to be moronically rules-literal, let's go all the way, shall we?

The intent is clear. The rules are as clear as they can be reasonably expected to be. All that's left is people trying to take advantage of minute loopholes that are obviously and aggravatedly against the spirit and intent of the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone brought this up, I apologize - I started reading the thread and stopped when it degenerated into (as I read) nsulting tones. But I believe the rules you need are this:

PRD wrote:

Combining Magic Effects

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.

So the only question is, does the Blindness spell remove all forms of vision, or does it give the "blinded" effect? These are similar, but not completely the same - if it removes vision, then a source temporarily gives vision, you'd have that vision. If it gives the blindnes effect, you can gain any vision you want but still not see.


I am sad that our former DM saw things the way he did and would have loved to continue the game. I was really looking forward to questing in the grandfather of all dungeons! Perhaps we will return another day to take up the challenge... with new characters!

It wasn't really a matter of running and crawling away. Honestly, my character (Mallagast the Ill-Adviced) didn't want to fight these dwarves, not that he feared them or anything, but because that wasn't his reason for being there. He was there to retrieve magical artifacts that would make him the greatest wizard in the world! Yeah, such was his arrogance, and yes, he was trying to best his father!

I would have been happy to leave the dwarves, with my sight and try to find some other way into the towers. They had previously stated that they only guarded the entrance into the Tower of War and not into the other two towers...

Yeah, you are absolutely right, we could just as easily have bluffed our way through this, but then again, Mallagast wasn't the bluffing kind of guy... he always spoke his mind!

Lastly, I just want to point out that I'm not the type to dissect the rules just for the sake of it. I got an idea in the heat of the battle and thought that it sounded cool. In fact, I thought that it was a really cool idea and said so. This may also have been one of the tipping points with our DM.

Also...

...we shouldn't forget the Most Important Rule of All! The rules are ours. We can always change them to fit our needs. (page 9 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game)

Although I'm not talking about changing the rules, just to interpret them to fit our needs.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
If it gives the blindnes effect, you can gain any vision you want but still not see.

Blindness "You call upon the powers of unlife to render the subject blinded"

Blinded: "The creature cannot see."
Darkvision spell "The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like
normal sight."
'Like normal sight' means that it is not another new vision: you see with your eyes, can't see through opaque objects, etc. The spell does indeed state that you gain the darkvision ability: "Darkvision is black and white only"

Darkvision: "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."
This ability "does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise". If you are blinded, you can't see anything. As the ability does not allow to see anything more than usual, blindness also hinders it.


The point is the spell should just say "This spell grants you Darkvision as the extraordinary ability."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Putting a few things together here:

The blindness spell specifically links to the blinded condition

The Darkvision spell directly links to the darkvision ability.

The online PRD actually hyperlinks the Darkvision spell to the darkvision ability, but that's not required to be honest, it's just helpful. If the spell has 'darkvision' in its listing twice (once in the title, once in text), then it's obvious to what ability the spell is referring to.

And then the Magic section has the following quotes:

The PRD wrote:


Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:

...

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

Well, that's made it clear to me.


In the case that a character is temporarily blinded by a flash of light we do not have an interaction between two spells, but the interaction between a spell and a condition.

Well, my two cents is that the Darkvision spell grants a new kind of sight to the recipient. Nowhere in the text of the spell does it require the recipient to have any kind of sight already. It does however limit the effect of the ability to things that could normally be perceived. The absence of an exclusion in a rules-as-written scenario and the use of the word "grant" we must conclude that this ability is added to the character either physically or magically.

Since the spell is cast after the effect that blinded the character, the new ability cannot be retroactively blinded by an event that happened in the past.

Imagine that the spell works by adding rods to the retina (black and white photoreceptors). It doesn't matter how the sight is actually added, just follow along for the sake of the argument. When a person experiences flash blindness, the rods and cones of their eyes become overloaded and send a white signal to the brain along the optic nerve. The lens of the eye still functions. The optic nerve is fine. The only damage is to the receptors. When something "grants" a character new receptors, it would stand to reason that those receptors are not overloaded.

Don't get hung up on the physics of the above example. It is the order of events that is important. An event happens. An ability is granted. The event in the past is not applied to the new ability. In order to say it does you must add a dependency that does not exist in the rules.
The rules say that blinding a character will blind darkvision. It does not say that blinding a character will blind all the senses that they later acquire. That is a really dubious leap of logic.

Those who argue against this believe that the rules indicate that their is a attribute in the game called "vision." This one conflated attribute can be enhanced to be "normal, low-light vision, darkvision" etc. This means that the darkvision replaces normal vision. This is not supported by the rules. A character can still see colours in normal lighting -- thus, darkvision and normal vision are two separate kinds of vision. They can be affected simultaneously by effects. It is egregious to the laws of causality to deduce that darkvision is blinded by a prior event.

Does a character who suddenly acquires hearing have to save against a sonic effect from 3 rounds earlier? The case for yes is stronger than the case against darkvision working on a flash-blinded character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Are you aware that you're replying to a nearly 4-year-old thread?

EDIT: Also, from the Glossary entry for darkvision:

Core Rulebook wrote:
It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise


"It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise"

That sentence describes how the ability functions. It functions in all other ways like regular vision. It does not say "this ability is tied to your normal vision" or "you cannot have darkvision without regular vision."

This came up in a recent session so I thought I would weigh in on it. I am not that emotionally invested in the answer one way or the other. I just thought that the logic was a bit faulty that suggested that the two kinds of vision are connected when the rules only establish that effects that blind, blind both (all) kinds of vision.

Thanks for taking up the thread after so long. Do you find my argument convincing?


MachOneGames wrote:
Thanks for taking up the thread after so long. Do you find my argument convincing?

No. You're making the classic fallacy of conflating Implicit Writing with Unwritten. The rules don't spell out every little detail explicitly; the English language is such that you can convey implicit meaning with your words. If I use the statement, "Since it's not raining, would you like to take a walk?" I didn't explicitly state that I wouldn't want to take a walk while it was raining; you'll not find that phrase (nor any variation thereof) stated outright. But it is written implicitly using the clause, "Since it's not raining...". From that clause, in the context of the sentence, you have implied meaning that I don't want to take a walk in the rain. The same goes for the rules on vision and Darkvision. It doesn't state explicitly that "Darkvision is contingent on the ability to see normally and will not function if the character is blinded". It does, however, state implicitly that Darkvision lets you see under certain conditions in which you'd otherwise not be able. This is not equal to RAI, though, in this case, we can reasonably presume that it is equitable to RAI. This is, in fact, RAW; not the explicit RAW people get all hung up on when they try to juke the rules like this, trying to take advantage of technicalities by forced ignorance of implicit meaning. This is Implicit RAW.

Did you know that there's no line in the rules that states you fall prone when you are unconscious? Sure, you gain the Helpless condition which replicates all the penalties of being Prone, but the rules don't actually state that you fall down prone. Does that mean that you don't? Of course not. Sure, there's no explicit statement saying you fall prone, but given that you're unconscious and "knocked out" (the actual term used in the rules), it is implied that you fall prone.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

MachOneGames wrote:
Do you find my argument convincing?

Not even remotely.


@Kazaan I found your post slightly condescending.

"Darkvision is contingent on the ability to see normally" is exactly the assumption that I am challenging. Not because I lack the ability to read, but because the abilities seem morphologicaly different both in real life and the rules. The rules do not expressly conflate normal vision and darkvision, in fact they do the opposite. Effects or feats that increase the range of your normal vision do not increase the range of your darkvision, and vice-versa.

Deepsight
Your senses are especially keen in the utter darkness.
Prerequisite: Darkvision 60 feet.
Benefit: Your darkvision has a range of 120 feet.
Normal: Darkvision normally extends 60 or 90 feet.

Low-Light Vision (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race can see twice as far as a race with normal vision in conditions of dim light.

Stop and mull this over. Although both darkvision and normal vision use the eyes to see they can be modified separately. If they are modified separately then these abilities do not overlap. A spell that creates blindness may create a condition that is not thwarted by the casting of Darkvision. However, my post was about a character blinded by a flash of light. If darkvision is on a separate scale (according to evidence from the rules), why would a flash of light blind a character on a scale that they do not yet possess?

In my interpretation the character's normal color vision is still blinded, but they acquire the sensitive darkvision rods in their retina that allows them see in darkness. Darkvision comes from an old D&D ability called Ultravision, which used to be the ability to see the ultra-violet spectrum. After 3.x the designers took the concept of infra/ultra vision out of the rules and gave us a darkvision mechanic. Normal vision relies on light. Darkvision uses some other unidentified mechanic. What we know is that it is NOT normal vision. Modifying your normal vision has no effect on darkvision and modifying your darkvision has no effect on normal vision.

The rules imply that these two modes of seeing are separate. Although they can both be affected by a blinding effect, they do not need to overlap.

In order to see where I am coming from please re-read my original post with these considerations. I hope my position becomes more clear on second inspection.


James Risner wrote:
MachOneGames wrote:
Do you find my argument convincing?
Not even remotely.

Am I to expect an explanation? Simply voting doesn't do much for a conversation.


Darkvision references "seeing"; Blindsense and Blindsight already exist to cover non-visual methods of perception. If Darkvision lets you "see" non-visually, it wouldn't be Darkvision; it'd be Blindsight.

The Rods and Cones in eye eye perceive light based on "thresholds". Because of this, light of too low a level doesn't stimulate the organ up to the threshold so, even though photons are striking the retina, it isn't enough to "trigger" perception of that light. Conversely, if the rods/cones are overstimulated, they can continue perceiving the light, even after the actual light has ceased. This is how Fluorescent Bulbs work; the light is constantly flickering, but it's intense enough that it overstimulates the retina so you continue perceiving the light in the "gap" until the next flash. This is why, if you try to take a picture under a fluorescent light, the light level is inconsistent. As the bulb ages, the flashes gradually lose intensity until they reach a point that the excess stimulation isn't sufficient to completely cross the gap and we perceive the light as "flickering" (even though it had always been flickering).

That having been said, also consider that this is a fantasy game; it isn't made to simulate reality. Darkvision doesn't make sense, as an ability. You can see, even in Dark conditions, but only out to X number of feet? Light doesn't work that way; it's the relative intensity of the light that governs how well you can see, for which distance is only a single factor. But, since it's a game, we hand-waive that little scientific inconsistency.

The bottom line is that Darkvision is a type of perception based in sight. I more than adequately explained the fallacy you committed in determining that a lack of explicit statement about Darkvision being based in sight was equitable to that not being the case because of disregard for the implicit statements to the contrary. Any condescension you think you perceived was entirely imagined.


Perhaps it would follow that such a character would be "blind" in full light. They would see 30' in dim light; and they would see 60' in darkness. They have lost the ability to see in normal light, but their dark-sight functions.


I am suggesting that Darkvision is a visual sense.

It lets you see in a range that is not normal. (Somehow)

If you can't perceive something your ability to perceive it cannot be damaged.

When you add this new level of perception it should come in as un-blinded.

I said that darkvision and normal vision do not overlap.

Please re-examine my premise and syllogisms.

Major premise: Darkvision is a visual sense.
Minor premise: Normal vision is a visual sense.
Minor premise: A flash of light can overload all visual senses.
Minor premise: If a sense is not present it cannot be overloaded.
Conclusion: Casting Darkvision on a flash-blinded character bestows Darkvision but not normal vision.

Please explain my fallacy again. I must be missing something.


Your argument seems to be as follows:

Major premise: Darkvision is a visual sense.
Minor premise: Normal vision is a visual sense.
Minor premise: A flash of light can overload all visual senses.
Minor premise: Darkvision requires (overlaps) the normal vision.
Conclusion: Casting Darkvision on a flash-blinded character bestows nothing as the ability modifies normal vision.

I have indicated examples from the rules where this is not consistent. The two modes of "seeing" are independent. All of the text around the topic suggests that the ability is "granted" not that normal vision is modified. The flavour of the text suggests to me that these are separate ranges of sight.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

MachOneGames wrote:
Am I to expect an explanation? Simply voting doesn't do much for a conversation.

Vision is one thing, Darkvision alters your base vision.

Blindness prohibits your vision from working.


@James Risner

Thanks. That is consistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Darkflare

Source Pathfinder Chronicles: Faction Guide

Created by the drow-hunters, this alchemical flare explodes in black sparks 1 round after lighting. Any creature in the same square as a darkflare when it explodes must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or be unable to see with darkvision for 1d10 rounds. Affected creatures can still see in normal light with no penalty. A darkflare has no effect on creatures without darkvision. The DC to create a darkflare with Craft (alchemy) is 20.

This clearly illustrates that darkvision is on a separate scale from normal vision.

So the published material seems to contradict the consensus on this topic.


Based on my examination here is how I would rule if a player cast darkvision on a character blinded by ...

Blinded by a blindness spell: unsure
Blinded by a blinding critical: still completely blind
Blinded by a flash of light: Able to see in darkness but not in light.


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.
PRD wrote:
Blinded: The creature cannot see.

Emphasis mine.

What more is there to discuss? Darkvision allows you to see in a special way, while blindness prevents you from being able to see.

At some point, standard English is sufficient to interpret the game rules when there's really no logical reason to treat the rules otherwise.

Darkvision relies on your eyes. Can you find a creature that has Darkvision, but lacks eyes? Just because Darkvision, low-light vision, and normal sight can function independently of each other doesn't mean they function independently of your eyes!

In order to read this otherwise, you have to make an awful lot of rather tenuous assumptions. The ones you're putting forward, MachOneGames--that darkvision grants you new photoreceptors, that Blindness blocks your existing ones--are making assumptions about how these spells function with absolutely ZERO evidence to back up those assumptions. The Darkvision spell mentions nothing of HOW the new type of vision is gained, it is simply magically conferred. Similarly, Blindness/Deafness does not describe HOW the conditions are imposed. For all you know, Blindness/Deafness can cause the nerve centers of the brain connected to these senses to atrophy, or your eyes to cloud over blocking ALL light from entering your eyes, or your brain becomes incapable of interpreting visual stimuli, or tiny dark clouds appear just in front of your eyes preventing light from passing through.

The point is, the spells have to work regardless of your description of how they work, which means that a single assumption cannot go change the way the spells work, because that would clash with everyone else's assumptions on the same. If you want to rule that darkvision adds new photoreceptors to your corneas, that's fine, so long as that interpretation doesn't differ mechanically from someone who assumes your eyes grow larger, or magical fairies materialize inside your eyes who run back and forth between the viewport of your pupils and your brain, whispering highly detailed descriptions of all that THEY can see.


MachOneGames wrote:

Darkflare

Source Pathfinder Chronicles: Faction Guide

Created by the drow-hunters, this alchemical flare explodes in black sparks 1 round after lighting. Any creature in the same square as a darkflare when it explodes must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or be unable to see with darkvision for 1d10 rounds. Affected creatures can still see in normal light with no penalty. A darkflare has no effect on creatures without darkvision. The DC to create a darkflare with Craft (alchemy) is 20.

This clearly illustrates that darkvision is on a separate scale from normal vision.

So the published material seems to contradict the consensus on this topic.

There IS no contradiction here. You have a special substance that specifically calls out a type of vision that it blocks. It doesn't say why, or how, exactly, but that's how it works.

Blindness/Deafness bears no such stipulation.

Darkvision bears no stipulations that would suggest that it would function separately from normal vision, other than that you can see in total darkness, and that you see in black-and-white, and that you may still see normally when light is present.

The game has a hierarchy of rules that works for this item: a more specific rule overrides a the general one.

Also, there's plenty of published material in adventures and such that don't follow the game's core rules, whether because someone made a mistake, or because someone decided to write an unofficial amendment to a rule, or because they wanted to create an individual something that specifically breaks the rules in some way. Spells do this--they break some common-standing rules or the environment, and interaction therewith, to provide characters with unique abilities, yet the system still stands, because it is understood that exceptions do not alter the rules.


"Darkvision bears no stipulations that would suggest that it would function separately from normal vision"

Nor is there any stipulation that it doesn't. They are both assumptions. I am bringing forward evidence to examine my assumption in the context of the rules.

It has been suggested that I lack the ability to read because I don't conclude that normal vision and darkvision use [b]all[\b] the same components to create vision. The eye has many parts. My assumption is that some parts are shared between darkvision and normal vision and some parts are not.

My post was about flash blindness specifically. A blindness spell or effect from another source would likely preclude darkvision from being added.


"Just because Darkvision, low-light vision, and normal sight can function independently of each other doesn't mean they function independently of your eyes!"

Wow. You really think that is my argument?

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


They eye does have many parts, but nothing in the descriptions of the abilities or spells suggests that the parts of the eye have any bearing on the in-game functionality: it could be parts of the brain, or something entirely magical that defies biological explanation. MY point, is that with the rules being nebulous on those facts, one cannot make assumptions one way or the other, and you have to use the rules as they are presented. In this case, it's pretty straight-forward: both descriptions use the word "see", the word "vision" is included in each of the disparate parts, and absolutely no exception or difference is called out for effects such as Blindness, except in a very specific case, which makes that distinction, because it must.

If something says it makes you blind, it makes you unable to see with a visual sense, whether normal, low-light, or darkvision. If something specifies that it only blinds a particular type of vision, then THAT something does what it says. Since it calls out its own exception, its existence doesn't change (and doesn't need to) other rules.

51 to 100 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.