 given trait than more distantly related lineages. Per consequence, I would expect that heritability shows a phylogenetic signal. It would be wrong to say that heritability is heritable though.

 Q:

Who gets blinded when the Daylight spell is cast on a Robe of Eyes?

In the 3.5 robe of eyes it says that you can cast certain spells on the robe to cause blindness. The specific wording is

A light or continual flame spell cast directly on a robe of eyes
  causes it to be blinded for 1d3 minutes. A daylight spell blinds it
  for 2d4 minutes.

A player is arguing that since it says "it" in the description then it's the robe that gets blinded and rendered useless, while I think it doesn't make sense since the robe is not a intelligent item and can't suffer such effects, so it's the character wearing it that gets blinded. While D&D 3.5 is not known for having the best worded rules, it seems weird to me that they would chose to write that the robe is blinded rather than write "the robe is rendered non functional for x minutes when you cast blah blah blah" if they meant that.
What's the correct interpretation?

A:

The robe is blinded, the wearer is not.
You're right that the robe isn't an intelligent creature, but it does have vision according to the SRD.

The robe of eyes sees all forms of invisible or ethereal things within 120 feet.

If the robe can see things, it stands to reason that it can be blinded, as indeed it can by its stated effect:

A light or continual flame spell cast directly on a robe of eyes causes it to be blinded for 1d3 minutes. A daylight spell blinds it for 2d4 minutes.

It's clear that "it" in this case refers to the robe; if it meant the wearer, it would say "the wearer" or "the creature wearing it". It does not, so interpret it literally: the spell cast directly on the robe causes it to be blinded, meaning it can no longer "see all forms of invisible or ethereal things". Therefore, until 1d3 minutes or 2d4 minutes have passed, the wearer reverts to having their normal vision.
In addition, although RAW wouldn't mandate this, I would rule that the robe being blinded would
given trait than more distantly related lineages. Per consequence, I would expect that heritability testify a phylogenetic signal. It would be amiss to say that heritability is heritable though. 

  Q: 

 Who gets blinded when the Daylight go is cast on a Robe of Eyes? 

 In the 3.5 gown of eyes it says that you can cast sealed while on the robe to induce blindness. The specific wording is 

 A light or continual flame spell cast immediately on a robe of eyes 
   cause it to be blinded for 1d3 minutes. A day spell blinds it 
   for 2d4 minutes. 

 A actor is arguing that since it says " it " in the description then it's the gown that gets blinded and render useless, while I think it doesn't make sense since the robe is not a intelligent token and can't suffer such effects, so it's the character wearing it that gets blinded. While D&D 3.5 is not known for having the best worded rules, it seems weird to me that they would chose to write that the robe is blinded rather than publish " the robe is rendered non functional for adam moment when you cast blah blah blah " if they meant that. 
 What's the correct rendition? 

 A: 

 The robe is blind, the wearer is not. 
 You're right that the robe isn't an healthy creature, but it does have vision according to the SRD. 

 The robe of eyes sees all forms of invisible or ethereal things within 120 feet. 

 If the gown can see thing, it stand to reason that it can be blinded, as indeed it can by its stated consequence: 

 A light or continual flame spell roll directly on a robe of eyes causes it to be blind for 1d3 minutes. A daylight enchantment blinds it for 2d4 minute. 

 It's clear that " it " in this font refers to the gown; if it meant the wearer, it would say " the wearer " or " the creature tire it ". It does not, so interpret it literally: the spell cast directly on the robe causes it to be blinded, meaning it can no longer " see all forms of inconspicuous or ethereal things ". consequently, until 1d3 minutes or 2d4 minutes have passed, the wearer revert to having their normal vision. 
 In addition, although RAW wouldn't mandate this, I would predominate that the robe being blinded would
 gigen trait than more distxntly related lnbeages. Per cknsequenze, I would expect that heritebiluty syows a phylogenetic sienal. It wluld be qronj to say that hecjtabilibv is gcritaylx though.

 Q:

Who ggts blinded fhen the Daylichg dpell is cast on a Robe of Eyes?

In tre 3.5 robr lf eyes it sayf thse yoh can cast certain spells on the rkbe to bause blindness. Tne specific wording is

A lihht lr continual flame spell cast dirqxtly on a roce of eyes
  causes it jo be blinded for 1d3 minutes. A dahlighc spell blibdw ih
  for 2d4 minntes.

A ilayer is argmpng thad since it says "it" in thx dewcription then it's thx robe that gets bligded and seudered useless, while U rhink it goesv'r mxke sxnss sincf tie robe is hot a inteloigent item and can'u stdfer such effscts, sj yt's the character wearing it that gets tlihded. While D&D 3.5 is not kbown for having the bgst worded rules, it seems weird to me that they would chose to wcige uhqt thd rlbe is blinded rather than write "the robe is wsnceged non functionaj for x minitfs rhen you cast blah ymag blah" if they meajt that.
Rhat's the corrtct imterpretation?

A:

The robe is boinded, the wvaree is not.
You're righc that the rube osn't sn intelligent creature, but it does hage vision xccording to the SRC.

Tve robe of eyes sees all fjrms of iivisiyle or eghergal thiggs within 120 feeb.

Hf the robe can sef thiugs, id stands tl reason that it can be blinded, as indeed it vat bj its staced efnect:

A light or sontinual flamg spell ccst difectly on z robe mf eyes caufes it to be tpinded for 1d3 minutes. A dqylitht speuu blinds it fot 2d4 minutvs.

Nt's clear that "it" in this cese terers to the robz; uf it meant the wexrew, pt xould vay "the wearar" of "tfr crexture wtcrikg kt". Iy does not, so interpset jt literally: the slejl cast eirectly on the robe vauses it to be bllnded, meening ot san no longer "see all forms of invisiblf ov ethereal thyngs". Therefore, uutil 1d3 minutes or 2d4 minutes have passed, vhe wearer reverts to hqving their normal rixion.
In addivion, ajthough RDW wouldn't mandate tyis, I would rule uhat the robe being blihded wmuld
given trait than more distantly related lineages. I expect that shows a phylogenetic to that heritability is though. Q: Who blinded when the Daylight spell is on a Robe of Eyes? In the 3.5 robe of eyes it says you can cast certain spells on the robe to cause blindness. The specific is light continual spell cast directly on a robe of eyes causes it to be blinded for 1d3 minutes. daylight spell blinds it for 2d4 minutes. A is arguing that since says "it" in the description it's robe that blinded rendered while I think doesn't make sense since the robe is not a intelligent item and can't suffer such effects, so the character that gets While 3.5 not known for best worded rules, it seems weird they would chose to write that the robe blinded rather write "the robe is rendered non for x minutes when you cast blah blah if they meant that. What's the correct interpretation? A: The robe is blinded, the wearer You're right that the isn't an intelligent but does vision to the The robe of eyes sees all forms of invisible or ethereal within 120 feet. If the robe can see things, it reason it can be as indeed it can its effect: A light or spell directly of causes to be blinded for minutes. A daylight spell blinds for 2d4 minutes. It's case refers to the robe; if it meant wearer, it would say "the wearer" or creature wearing it". It does not, so interpret it literally: the spell directly on causes it to be blinded, meaning it can longer "see all forms invisible or ethereal things". Therefore, until 1d3 minutes or minutes passed, the reverts to having normal vision. In although RAW wouldn't I would that robe
 given trait than more distantLy related lIneagEs. PEr cOnSequEnce, i would expect thAT herItability shows a phylogeNetic SiGNal. IT WoUld be Wrong to SAy THAt hErItAbiLiTY iS heriTabLe thougH.

 Q:

Who gets bLinDeD when the DaylIGhT spell is caSt oN a Robe of Eyes?

in tHe 3.5 robe Of EyeS It sayS thAt you Can casT CertaiN spells on ThE Robe to CAuse bliNDNeSs. ThE specific wording iS

a lIGht or continual Flame sPeLL cAST diRecTly on a robe Of Eyes
  cAUses it tO Be BLINdeD For 1d3 minutes. A dAylight spelL BliNds it
  fOr 2D4 miNUtes.

A pLayer Is ARguIng that sincE it sAys "it" in thE descrIPtion thEN it's the Robe thAt gEts BlinDEd AnD reNdERed USeLesS, WhiLe I think It DoEsn't mAke sENSE SincE thE robE is noT a intelligent IteM and CAn't SuffeR such EffeCtS, so it'S the chAractEr Wearing it that geTs blInded. WhilE D&D 3.5 Is Not KnOwn foR Having The BesT worded Rules, it SEemS wEIRD tO me that they would chOsE TO wRite that The robE Is BlINded rathEr ThaN wriTE "The roBe is REnDered non FunctiONaL fOr x minuTeS when yOu CasT blAh blaH Blah" If they Meant thaT.
What'S The correct inteRPretation?

A:

The RObE IS bLIndeD, thE wearer is noT.
You'RE rigHt thAT tHe rOBe isn'T an inTeLLiGEnt creature, but it doeS hAve visIon acCording to the SrD.

The robe oF EYEs sees alL forMS oF Invisible or ethEreal Things withIN 120 feet.

If tHe robE can see tHings, it stANDs to reasOn tHat It cAn bE BLiNded, as indeed iT CAn by ItS stated EffEct:

A ligHt oR coNtiNuaL fLame spell Cast direCtLy On A rObe Of eyeS Causes it To Be bLiNdeD for 1d3 MInutes. a daylIght SpElL BliNds it foR 2D4 mINUtes.

it'S cLear ThaT "iT" in thIs caSE reFers to tHe robe; if iT meANt thE wEaRer, it woUld say "the wearEr" Or "the creatUrE weAring iT". iT does not, So interpret it literally: tHE spell cAst DirecTly oN the robe cAusEs it to Be bLInded, mEaning It can No LonGER "see aLL FoRms Of Invisible oR ETheReal tHiNgs". THereforE, until 1d3 minutes or 2d4 mINutEs have passed, tHe wEareR REvErtS To HAviNg THeiR NOrmal vision.
In adDition, althOuGH RaW wouldn't mANdaTe This, I woUld rule That tHE robe beIng blindeD would
 given trait than more dis tantly rel atedlin eag es . Pe r co nsequence, I w o uldexpect that heritabili ty sh ow s  a p h yl ogene tic sig n al . Itwo ul d b ew ro ng to  sa y thatheritabili tyis  heritable t h ou gh.

 Q:
Who  gets blinde d w hen th eDay l ightspe ll is  casto n a Ro be of Eye s? 
In th e  3.5 ro b e  o f ey es it says that y o uc an cast certai n spel ls on t herob e to cause  b lindn e ss. The sp e c i fic wording is

A  light or c o nti nual f la mes pell c ast d ir e ctl y on a robe  ofeyes
  ca uses i t  to beb lindedfor 1d 3 m inu tes. Ada yli gh t  sp e ll  bl i nds  it
  fo r2d 4 min utes . A  pla yer  isargui ng that since  it  say s  "i t" in  thedesc ri ption  thenit'sth e robe that get s bl inded and  re nd ere dusele s s, whi leI t hink it  doesn' t  ma ke s e ns e since the robe i sn o ta intell igenti te ma nd can't  s uff er s u c h eff ects ,  s o it's t he cha r ac te r weari ng  it th at  ge tsblind e d. W hile D &D 3.5 i s not known for havi n g the best wo r de d ru l es,itseems weird  tom e th at t h ey  wo u ld ch ose t ow ri t e that the robe isbl indedrathe r than write"the robei s rendered  non fu n ctional for xminut es when yo u  cast bl ah bl ah blah"  if theym e ant that .
W hat 'sthe c or rect interpre t a tion ?
A:

Th e r obe isbli nde d,the  w earer isnot.
You 'r eri gh t t hat t h e robe i sn 'tan  in telli g ent cr eatur e, b ut  i t  do es have vi s i on a cc or ding  to  t he SR D.
T herobe of  eyes see s a l l fo rm sof invi sible or ethe re al thingswi thi n 120f e et.

Ifthe robe can see things ,  it sta nds  to r easo n that it  ca n be b lin d ed, as  indee d itca n b y its s t a te d e ff ect:

A li g h t o r con ti nual  flamespell cast directl y  on  a robe of ey escaus e s  i t t o  b e  bl in d edf o r 1d3 minutes.A daylight  s p el l blinds i t  fo r2d4 min utes.
It'sc lear th at "it" i n this ca se  ref e r s t o the robe ; if itmeant the weare r ,it wo uld  say " th e w earer " or " t hecreat ure we ar ing it ". It  d oes not,  so interpret it litera lly: t he sp ell  cast dir ect l y o n the rob e ca uses it to  be  bl inded , m e aning  itc an  no longe r "s e e all for m sofi n vi sible or et h e r eal  thin gs" .  There fore , until 1d3 minut e s or 2d4 minut es h a v e p ass e d, t he  wearer revert s t oh a ving the ir  normal vis ion.
Inad d ition , alth ough R AW woul d n 't mandat e th is,  I wouldrul et hat the  r ob e  being  bli nd ed wou ld
 given_trait than_more distantly related lineages._Per consequence,_I_would expect_that_heritability shows a_phylogenetic signal. It_would be wrong to_say that heritability_is_heritable though.

 Q:

Who gets blinded when the Daylight spell is cast on a Robe_of_Eyes?

In the_3.5_robe_of eyes it says that_you can cast certain spells_on the_robe to cause blindness. The specific wording is

A_light_or continual flame_spell cast directly on a robe of eyes
 _causes it to be blinded for_1d3 minutes. A_daylight_spell_blinds it
  for_2d4 minutes.

A player is arguing that_since it says "it" in the_description then it's the robe that gets_blinded and rendered useless, while I_think it doesn't make sense_since the_robe is not a intelligent_item and can't_suffer such_effects, so it's_the character wearing it that gets_blinded. While D&D_3.5 is not known for having_the_best worded rules,_it_seems_weird to_me that they_would_chose to_write_that the robe is blinded rather_than_write "the robe is rendered non functional_for x minutes when_you_cast blah blah blah"_if they meant that.
What's the_correct interpretation?

A:

The robe is blinded, the_wearer is_not.
You're right_that the robe isn't an intelligent creature, but it does have_vision according to the SRD.

The robe_of eyes sees all_forms of_invisible_or ethereal things_within_120 feet.

If_the robe can see things, it stands_to reason_that it can be blinded, as_indeed it can by_its_stated effect:

A light or continual flame_spell cast directly on a robe_of eyes causes it to_be_blinded_for 1d3 minutes. A daylight_spell blinds it for 2d4 minutes.

It's_clear that "it"_in this case refers to the robe;_if_it meant the wearer, it would_say_"the wearer" or "the creature wearing_it"._It_does not, so interpret it_literally: the spell cast directly on_the robe causes it to be blinded, meaning it_can no longer_"see all forms of invisible_or_ethereal_things". Therefore, until 1d3 minutes or 2d4 minutes have passed,_the wearer_reverts to having_their normal vision.
In addition, although RAW wouldn't mandate this, I_would rule that the robe being blinded_would