Except it's not irrelevant, except in the hands of DMs that gloss over the relevant rules, and in so doing make darkvision more powerful than it's intended to be.
How often do players in your games require the use of torches or other sources of light? How often is darkness an impediment? Does its presence ever pose a challenge? Is it ever a source of dread?
For we DMs who like a dose of horror with our fantasy darkvision is a nuisance.
Are you able to construct challenges from -5 to Perception checks and a hard limit on PC sight range? Because we can, and do.
And it's not about "requiring" light sources - it's about the players having meaningful strategic choices / weighing the pros and cons of having them vs not. Roleplaying, in other words.
The Darkvision spell does exist, right? I play a human Druid and i was always when needed casting it on myself and the Halfling. It’s just the choices we have to make.
I don't mind Darkvision because it doesn't mean you can see perfectly fine in the dark, with no additional light source. The problem is with everyone's poor understanding of how it works.
WotC needs to clarify that you can't see everything as if you were in direct sunlight. You have disadvantage on any check dealing with sight. And you're not going to be all that efficient in battle with it. So complain to the rule writers that they need to do better.
The construction of the rules mean that eventually, every character needs a means of flight - forcing 3d battlefields, making most terrain irrelevant, and so on. I have similar views on teleportation, making all encounters optional, and all straight up removing all travel.
Which is why those things aren't in my games.
In trying to make the game more magical, they make it less so. It's not that I don't understand the idea that .. when you can summon creatures from beyond mortal ken, and hurl exploding balls of fire, and so on, why is it you cannot fly, or teleport, or see in the dark. Well, it's for story reasons - and for a kind of relatability: We recognize ourselves in our characters, in their human limitations. Sure, the power fantasy doesn't stop there, but the story telling kinda does.
I hear you. As Professor Dungeon Master just recently pointed out not even the most powerful wizard in Middle-Earth could fly. Like you said. Less is more.
Middle-Earth is a lower magic setting than even Dark Sun. Magic in Middle-Earth is exclusively the province of semi-divine beings, and the most powerful wizard in Middle-Earth relies more on swordsmanship than on spells, with most of his magic being things that a 4th level D&D character could duplicate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I always assumed Darkvision as being the equivalent of a cats vision. In real life (I know this is not real life but its an example) they are short sighted at all times, have very little color vision but great low light vision in grays. We allow long range vision in full normal light.
Now I do think way to many races are granted Darkvision to the point its the norm and they had to find a way to make things equal.
I can live with darkvision, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it. 60' is the typical range with a few folks having 120' range So, when in dim light you can see 60/120' as if it were bright light and another 60/120' as if it were dim light and beyond that - nothing but blackness. That 120/240' range is enough to cover most encounter distances on fairly equal footing if everyone (friend and foe) are using darkvision. Equally important is the more limited range of actual illuminations: dancing lights=10' dim light, light spell = 20' bright light + 20' dim light, Torch= , daylight spell = 60' bright light + 60' dim light, however any of them provide visible evidence of a light source being used at far greater ranges (250 to 5000' away) . this is really why you want a party where everyone has access to darkvision in some way (inherent, spell, magic goggles, etc) the problems with having a more realistic system (infravision + sonar + blind sensing of other sorts is that you now have 3x the mechanics to deal with each with its own limitations to account for. While I personally don't have a problem with that extra workload I can accept that many DMs and players do - so I don't exp-ect we will see much change here.
I ran an adventure a little while back that removed natural Darkvision from PCs, and my conclusion was that Darkvision isn't really the problem; the Vision & Light rules are the problem. These rules just don't do very much: the Light Obscurement from Dim Light does functionally nothing in combat, and because of the way most people interpret Heavy Obscurement, it's impossible to effectively use an area of Darkness as cover, because somehow standing in it blinds you, too. And that's leaving aside the ubiquity of the Light cantrip, which trivializes the whole matter. I expected to be able to create some interesting tactical scenarios with the Vision & Light rules after removing Darkvision, but it turns out there's just not enough meat on those bones to do anything with.
The fact Light has not been a spell proper for a few editions now and can just be spammed doesn't help matters.
Are you able to construct challenges from -5 to Perception checks and a hard limit on PC sight range? Because we can, and do.
And it's not about "requiring" light sources - it's about the players having meaningful strategic choices / weighing the pros and cons of having them vs not. Roleplaying, in other words.
Roleplaying is not players looking at their character sheets to see what choices are available to them. When it's just Oh I have the Light cantrip. I'll just cast that. Again. That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is what players are forced to do when their character sheets can't save them. It's dark. None of us can adequately see in this. Water falling from a hole in the ceiling has spoiled our last remaining torch. We are going to have come up with a way of navigating our way forward in total darkness. (And I with fear in my heart as I am sure there is something in here with us.) We could start by each taking an end of this ... That's roleplaying. You can give your players all the strategic choices in the world. But really when they just stare at their character sheets before deciding which one of these choices to go with and then say I do [ ] they aren't roleplaying. That's the TRPG equivalent of scrolling through options available to you in a video game and making a choice and then just pressing a button.
Middle-Earth is a lower magic setting than even Dark Sun. Magic in Middle-Earth is exclusively the province of semi-divine beings, and the most powerful wizard in Middle-Earth relies more on swordsmanship than on spells, with most of his magic being things that a 4th level D&D character could duplicate.
His point was more that it creates drama and tension when characters are engaged in combat at high altitudes from which they could fall at any time. With Gandalf fighting the Balrog on the bridge of Khazad-dûm a prime example of this. Much is lost when a character can just fly at will because it belongs to a species with a flight speed. And any challenge that requires players to figure out a way for at least one of them to get to a high place to retrieve something is no longer a challenge. All because someone made a choice at character creation. Not by means of their using their wits to figure out such a way.
Why does WOTC have to make a change that you are perfectly capable of making at your own table? I personally don't have a problem with Darkvision. Nerfing things just to be doing it is never fun or the answer. You don't like Darkvision? Cool. Edit it out of your table like a person earlier said.
I ran an adventure a little while back that removed natural Darkvision from PCs, and my conclusion was that Darkvision isn't really the problem; the Vision & Light rules are the problem. These rules just don't do very much: the Light Obscurement from Dim Light does functionally nothing in combat, and because of the way most people interpret Heavy Obscurement, it's impossible to effectively use an area of Darkness as cover, because somehow standing in it blinds you, too. And that's leaving aside the ubiquity of the Light cantrip, which trivializes the whole matter. I expected to be able to create some interesting tactical scenarios with the Vision & Light rules after removing Darkvision, but it turns out there's just not enough meat on those bones to do anything with.
The fact Light has not been a spell proper for a few editions now and can just be spammed doesn't help matters.
Light should be a leveled spell. It is ridiculous that is costs nothing in resources. I even have a problem with 1e, where swords emit light to various degrees depending on the size of sword. Someone in the party should have to have a hand free for a torch, or an NPC hired to be the torchbearer.
Why does WOTC have to make a change that you are perfectly capable of making at your own table? I personally don't have a problem with Darkvision. Nerfing things just to be doing it is never fun or the answer. You don't like Darkvision? Cool. Edit it out of your table like a person earlier said.
ShadowDark won four gold ENNIEs. It also won this year's Three Castles Award for best game design. None of the ancestries have darkvision. And the way darkness is treated in the game is just one of the many things that make it worthy of all the praise and promotion it has been receiving.
Your first question is a question all of us might ask ourselves. I myself personally prefer a more DIY approach to D&D. But too many who say "just edit it out at your table if you don't like it" when others don't like something expect the rules as written to reflect their own desires.
When it's just Oh I have the Light cantrip. I'll just cast that. Again. That's not roleplaying.
It's absolutely roleplaying. "Should I create this light source that will allow our non-darkvision members to not need to be led by the hand, and allow our trapfinder the best chances of seeing the tripwire ahead, but may cause us to be visible from further away? What would my character do? Which alternative would they be more or less worried about?
You can give your players all the strategic choices in the world. But really when they just stare at their character sheets before deciding which one of these choices to go with and then say I do [ ] they aren't roleplaying. That's the TRPG equivalent of scrolling through options available to you in a video game and making a choice and then just pressing a button.
If you want to play freeform why are you even playing D&D? There are way better systems out there if you don't want class features and just want to narrate everything.
When it's just Oh I have the Light cantrip. I'll just cast that. Again. That's not roleplaying.
It's absolutely roleplaying. "Should I create this light source that will allow our non-darkvision members to not need to be led by the hand, and allow our trapfinder the best chances of seeing the tripwire ahead, but may cause us to be visible from further away? What would my character do? Which alternative would they be more or less worried about?
You can give your players all the strategic choices in the world. But really when they just stare at their character sheets before deciding which one of these choices to go with and then say I do [ ] they aren't roleplaying. That's the TRPG equivalent of scrolling through options available to you in a video game and making a choice and then just pressing a button.
If you want to play freeform why are you even playing D&D? There are way better systems out there if you don't want class features and just want to narrate everything.
I don't want to play "freeform." I just prefer old-school play in which players rely more on observation and description than they do essentially pressing buttons.
I don't want to play "freeform." I just prefer old-school play in which players rely more on observation and description than they do essentially pressing buttons.
Those editions haven't gone anywhere either, the PDFs are on DrivethruRPG.
How it is controversial that some of us expect player skill to be prioritized over character abilities. D&D essentially began as a strategy game. One with a referee. It was less about "strategizing" what skills and feats to opt for during character creation so these can then be activated and more about players having to get creative in the moment to handle any given challenge. Notice older editions and games that simulate these often don't even have skills or feats? Like I said elsewhere: the more options and customization available just means players work within the constraints of these. Sees players thinking what they can do is only what their character sheet tells them they can do. Give me player creativity over this any day.
Those editions haven't gone anywhere either, the PDFs are on DrivethruRPG.
I buy everything in a physical format. TRPGs, books, music. Thankfully second hand venders have made purchasing long out of print editions of D&D easy.
How it is controversial that some of us expect player skill to be prioritized over character abilities. D&D essentially began as a strategy game. One with a referee. It was less about "strategizing" what skills and feats to opt for during character creation so these can then be activated and more about players having to get creative in the moment to handle any given challenge. Notice older editions and games that simulate these often don't even have skills or feats? Like I said elsewhere: the more options and customization available just means players work within the constraints of these. Sees players thinking what they can do is only what their character sheet tells them they can do. Give me player creativity over this any day.
This is a false dichotomy you've somehow invented; player creativity is not mutually exclusive / at odds with a crunchy ruleset or mechanical depth.
Really the thing here is that going by the more precise definitions of the words, D&D is not a strategic game, it's a tactical one. That is to say, one about deciding how to employ your options in the moment. Ergo features are essentially a necessity in providing a suite of tactical options to choose from. Case in point, do you light a hooded lantern so you have the best chance of spotting melee ambushes or traps in a dark environment before you're in the middle of them at the risk of giving away your position and making yourselves targets for ranged ambushes, or do you take advantage of a general capability to move effectively in the dark to attempt to go unseen at the risk of missing a trap or ambush until you're in the middle of them? This is the definition of the players making a call in the moment based on their fixed capabilities, their knowledge of the situation, and what their characters would do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Are you able to construct challenges from -5 to Perception checks and a hard limit on PC sight range? Because we can, and do.
And it's not about "requiring" light sources - it's about the players having meaningful strategic choices / weighing the pros and cons of having them vs not. Roleplaying, in other words.
The Darkvision spell does exist, right? I play a human Druid and i was always when needed casting it on myself and the Halfling. It’s just the choices we have to make.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don't mind Darkvision because it doesn't mean you can see perfectly fine in the dark, with no additional light source. The problem is with everyone's poor understanding of how it works.
WotC needs to clarify that you can't see everything as if you were in direct sunlight. You have disadvantage on any check dealing with sight. And you're not going to be all that efficient in battle with it. So complain to the rule writers that they need to do better.
Middle-Earth is a lower magic setting than even Dark Sun. Magic in Middle-Earth is exclusively the province of semi-divine beings, and the most powerful wizard in Middle-Earth relies more on swordsmanship than on spells, with most of his magic being things that a 4th level D&D character could duplicate.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I always assumed Darkvision as being the equivalent of a cats vision.
In real life (I know this is not real life but its an example) they are short sighted at all times, have very little color vision but great low light vision in grays. We allow long range vision in full normal light.
Now I do think way to many races are granted Darkvision to the point its the norm and they had to find a way to make things equal.
I can live with darkvision, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with it. 60' is the typical range with a few folks having 120' range So, when in dim light you can see 60/120' as if it were bright light and another 60/120' as if it were dim light and beyond that - nothing but blackness. That 120/240' range is enough to cover most encounter distances on fairly equal footing if everyone (friend and foe) are using darkvision. Equally important is the more limited range of actual illuminations: dancing lights=10' dim light, light spell = 20' bright light + 20' dim light, Torch= , daylight spell = 60' bright light + 60' dim light, however any of them provide visible evidence of a light source being used at far greater ranges (250 to 5000' away) . this is really why you want a party where everyone has access to darkvision in some way (inherent, spell, magic goggles, etc) the problems with having a more realistic system (infravision + sonar + blind sensing of other sorts is that you now have 3x the mechanics to deal with each with its own limitations to account for. While I personally don't have a problem with that extra workload I can accept that many DMs and players do - so I don't exp-ect we will see much change here.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The fact Light has not been a spell proper for a few editions now and can just be spammed doesn't help matters.
Roleplaying is not players looking at their character sheets to see what choices are available to them. When it's just Oh I have the Light cantrip. I'll just cast that. Again. That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is what players are forced to do when their character sheets can't save them. It's dark. None of us can adequately see in this. Water falling from a hole in the ceiling has spoiled our last remaining torch. We are going to have come up with a way of navigating our way forward in total darkness. (And I with fear in my heart as I am sure there is something in here with us.) We could start by each taking an end of this ... That's roleplaying. You can give your players all the strategic choices in the world. But really when they just stare at their character sheets before deciding which one of these choices to go with and then say I do [ ] they aren't roleplaying. That's the TRPG equivalent of scrolling through options available to you in a video game and making a choice and then just pressing a button.
His point was more that it creates drama and tension when characters are engaged in combat at high altitudes from which they could fall at any time. With Gandalf fighting the Balrog on the bridge of Khazad-dûm a prime example of this. Much is lost when a character can just fly at will because it belongs to a species with a flight speed. And any challenge that requires players to figure out a way for at least one of them to get to a high place to retrieve something is no longer a challenge. All because someone made a choice at character creation. Not by means of their using their wits to figure out such a way.
I will say that I didn't really appreciate the importance of darkvision until I used a VTT that actually enforced the lighting rules.
Why does WOTC have to make a change that you are perfectly capable of making at your own table? I personally don't have a problem with Darkvision. Nerfing things just to be doing it is never fun or the answer. You don't like Darkvision? Cool. Edit it out of your table like a person earlier said.
Light should be a leveled spell. It is ridiculous that is costs nothing in resources. I even have a problem with 1e, where swords emit light to various degrees depending on the size of sword. Someone in the party should have to have a hand free for a torch, or an NPC hired to be the torchbearer.
ShadowDark won four gold ENNIEs. It also won this year's Three Castles Award for best game design. None of the ancestries have darkvision. And the way darkness is treated in the game is just one of the many things that make it worthy of all the praise and promotion it has been receiving.
Your first question is a question all of us might ask ourselves. I myself personally prefer a more DIY approach to D&D. But too many who say "just edit it out at your table if you don't like it" when others don't like something expect the rules as written to reflect their own desires.
Which ones shouldn't have it?
It's absolutely roleplaying. "Should I create this light source that will allow our non-darkvision members to not need to be led by the hand, and allow our trapfinder the best chances of seeing the tripwire ahead, but may cause us to be visible from further away? What would my character do? Which alternative would they be more or less worried about?
If you want to play freeform why are you even playing D&D? There are way better systems out there if you don't want class features and just want to narrate everything.
I don't want to play "freeform." I just prefer old-school play in which players rely more on observation and description than they do essentially pressing buttons.
Those editions haven't gone anywhere either, the PDFs are on DrivethruRPG.
How it is controversial that some of us expect player skill to be prioritized over character abilities. D&D essentially began as a strategy game. One with a referee. It was less about "strategizing" what skills and feats to opt for during character creation so these can then be activated and more about players having to get creative in the moment to handle any given challenge. Notice older editions and games that simulate these often don't even have skills or feats? Like I said elsewhere: the more options and customization available just means players work within the constraints of these. Sees players thinking what they can do is only what their character sheet tells them they can do. Give me player creativity over this any day.
I buy everything in a physical format. TRPGs, books, music. Thankfully second hand venders have made purchasing long out of print editions of D&D easy.
This is a false dichotomy you've somehow invented; player creativity is not mutually exclusive / at odds with a crunchy ruleset or mechanical depth.
Really the thing here is that going by the more precise definitions of the words, D&D is not a strategic game, it's a tactical one. That is to say, one about deciding how to employ your options in the moment. Ergo features are essentially a necessity in providing a suite of tactical options to choose from. Case in point, do you light a hooded lantern so you have the best chance of spotting melee ambushes or traps in a dark environment before you're in the middle of them at the risk of giving away your position and making yourselves targets for ranged ambushes, or do you take advantage of a general capability to move effectively in the dark to attempt to go unseen at the risk of missing a trap or ambush until you're in the middle of them? This is the definition of the players making a call in the moment based on their fixed capabilities, their knowledge of the situation, and what their characters would do.