Individual DMs may imo fairly rule differently but, by RAW, nighttime darkness will typically, and with few exceptions, be exactly that.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
If it's not too cloudy, I guess there might be a chance against that werewolf after all. :D
In other circumstances, item descriptions will make it clear as to areas of bright and dim light that they each support.
In darkness, I'd also give a chance for light bearers to see eyes looking in their direction or to see various reflective objects and creatures.
Whatever game developer(s) came up with that have obviously never been outside in a field away from any artificial lighting under a full moon. It is not dim light.
Yeah, it is extremely dim, actually. We just have really good eyes that can auto-adjust for extreme differences in ambient lighting.
What nearly everyone who talks about vision realism tend to ignore, or don't know, is how vast the divide between 'bright' and 'dim' really is.
Moonlight, full moon, clear skies, is like at most 0.2 lux maybe 0.3lux. Noontime daylight? About 100,000 lux.
The difference is staggering. Orders of magnitude. Many orders of magnitude.
I mean, even in the "shadows" of daytime where there is 0 direct sunlight you're still at something like 20,000 lux.
Process this true sentence: The shadows of daytime are one hundred thousand times more illuminated than the night sky lit my the full moon.
Your last sentence actually makes me feel like you are misunderstanding, since you are talking about how illuminated the sky is rather than the land, assuming an open field.
Your feeling is misplaced. We are talking about areas and the level of illumination within them.
Lux is what we'd use for something like ambient light sources, such as the sun//moon//sky. It is a measure of illuminance over a unit area. Specifically one lumen per square meter. But, knowing the exact unit isn't really relevant when comparing a lux measurement to another lux measurement. What is relevant is the ratio.
0.2 lux to 20,000 lux is a ratio of 1:100k.
One hundred thousand time more intense.
Shadows of day vs Moonlight night.
And it is true that in pure lumens, you may be right, but we are not talking about darkvision, but normal human vision range.
No one was talking about darkvision.... Now I'm the one with a feeling.
Right, but if there is light, is it still really complete darkness?
There is only 3 category in 5E; darkness, dim light and bright light.
At dusk, dawn and on particularly brillant full moon as well as cloudy or foggy day, outside is dim light and all is lightly obscured.
During clear day, it's bright light and nothing is obscured.
At night, it's darkness and all is heavily obscured.
Cloudy skies would not cause dim light. Cloudy skies are still 5 thousand time brighter than full moonlight, clocking in at 1k lux or so. Very bright.
Let's do some math. A mediocre torch would have is around 500 lumens or so. And, we know how large an area a torch is considered to illuminate as bright light. But we wanna know the lux, so we'll need to know the area which the torch would transition from bright to dim, and at 20ft, that puts us right around 6 meter radius. 4πr^2 gives of the surface area of roughly 450 square meters for the surface area of a 6 meter sphere. So those 500 lumens are about 1.1 lux at the transition from bright to dim light. So, we solved for the transition threshold of bright to dim. Roughly 1 lux. (And also means the transition from dim to darkness is at <0.25 lux or so) These numbers also line up with some of the descriptions for lighting, ie full moon sky barely/sometimes being illuminated enough to consider it dim light.
This actually means that the transition from dim to bright would happen very early/quickly at the first light of dawn and stay bright until the last fleeting moments of dusk. Having a threshold of 1 lux leaves very few things in the 'dim light' category. Moonlit skies, candles, edges of illumination disappearing into darkness etc.
Setting math and physics aside for a moment, practically speaking, when was the last time you had a hard time seeing anything just because of a couple clouds? Dim is supposed to represent extremely low levels of light, barely any at all really. At least compared to the light of day. Honestly, if you're outside during daylight hours you're not going to experience dim light at all. Unless it is the apocalypse or something wild is happening to entirely blot out the sky. But certainly not because of clouds.
Here are some fun reference values, obviously many fantasy environments wouldn't have modern lighting equipment, but it helps to gauge how bright you think something is against how bright it actually is, as measured.
Individual DMs may imo fairly rule differently but, by RAW, nighttime darkness will typically, and with few exceptions, be exactly that.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
If it's not too cloudy, I guess there might be a chance against that werewolf after all. :D
In other circumstances, item descriptions will make it clear as to areas of bright and dim light that they each support.
In darkness, I'd also give a chance for light bearers to see eyes looking in their direction or to see various reflective objects and creatures.
Whatever game developer(s) came up with that have obviously never been outside in a field away from any artificial lighting under a full moon. It is not dim light.
Yeah, it is extremely dim, actually. We just have really good eyes that can auto-adjust for extreme differences in ambient lighting.
What nearly everyone who talks about vision realism tend to ignore, or don't know, is how vast the divide between 'bright' and 'dim' really is.
Moonlight, full moon, clear skies, is like at most 0.2 lux maybe 0.3lux. Noontime daylight? About 100,000 lux.
The difference is staggering. Orders of magnitude. Many orders of magnitude.
I mean, even in the "shadows" of daytime where there is 0 direct sunlight you're still at something like 20,000 lux.
Process this true sentence: The shadows of daytime are one hundred thousand times more illuminated than the night sky lit my the full moon.
Yeah, I guess this calls for some more shadowy shadows.
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Other references specifically mention the soft light of twilight (whatever that means). Personally, I find that, on a clear day, the light of twilight at times just after sunset or just before dawn can still be quite bright.
Torch Type: Adventuring Gear Cost: 1 cp Weight: 1 lb A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.
Again, this really isn't very quantifiable. I've personally, as a member of one of the Lewes bonfire societies, made hundreds of torches and have burned quite a few. The torches we make are of a size that about 4 of them would fill a backpack and the light given off is still moderate especially approaching their 15ish minute burnout times. I'm not sure how good a reference we could get from any of this to help quantify 5e dim light.
My best guess (and that's all it is) is that, at the brighter end of dim light, the shadows are like the shadows of Mirkwood or the shadows of twilight (otherwise things might still be quite visible) while, for me, the darker end of dim light, prior to application of the blinded condition, would be a lot darker than under the light of the silvery moon.
I am going to go against everything standardized and popular in 5e and say that the reason why it is so contradictory is because your interpretation, as is everyones, is incorrect. Allow me to explain,. First. the rule.
"A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
The AREA is heavily obscured. inside it. Not outside it. Now. the next sentence can be better understood by looking at its inverse. You are blinded trying to see something IN that area. NOT OUT of that area. Another way to look at it, which is not clear but should be, is that You are blinded trying to see something In that area FROM OUT OF THAT AREA.
You seem to have missed the last part of the first sentence, "blocks vision entirely". The second sentence only clarifies about what happens to somebody outside; if you are inside then the last part of the first sentence applies.
Your last sentence actually makes me feel like you are misunderstanding, since you are talking about how illuminated the sky is rather than the land, assuming an open field.
Your feeling is misplaced. We are talking about areas and the level of illumination within them.
Lux is what we'd use for something like ambient light sources, such as the sun//moon//sky. It is a measure of illuminance over a unit area. Specifically one lumen per square meter. But, knowing the exact unit isn't really relevant when comparing a lux measurement to another lux measurement. What is relevant is the ratio.
0.2 lux to 20,000 lux is a ratio of 1:100k.
One hundred thousand time more intense.
Shadows of day vs Moonlight night.
And it is true that in pure lumens, you may be right, but we are not talking about darkvision, but normal human vision range.
No one was talking about darkvision.... Now I'm the one with a feeling.
You are talking about technical quantities of light. I am talking about ability to see. Full moonlight is not as bright as the sun but because the sun is NOT there, at night, because there is NOT any other bright light source nearby, human irises can safely widen to adapt and it is effectively brighter than measurement shows it to be.
It is exactly as bright as measurements show it to be. Magic isn't real. The illumination levels are exactly what they're measured as.
The thing you're having difficulty with is reconciling with how drastic and profoundly good our natural vision actually is. It is so powerfully capable of adjusting to wildly different lighting conditions you intuitively don't even recognize the work your eyes/mind are doing to produce viable images for you.
Our eyes adjust to be more efficient in such circumstances.
That you do not understand how Darkvision fits in with this discussion highlights your misunderstanding.
When we are talking about how well someone can see without Darkvision, we need to stop acting like our eyes have no irises and only have cone cells. It is how effectively one sees that we are discussing, not how much ambient light there actually is.
Darkvision isn't something people have, you have no lived experience of having darkvision, and discussing darkvision in the context of real world lighting is entirely nonsensical. I wasn't talking about darkvision, no one was. You keep bringing it up as some sort of red herring or something in a weird accusatory way but no one is talking about it so IDK what you're trying to say here. Do you have a point?
You seem to be discussing normal night vision, that normal adaption of our eyes to lower light levels as if it is darkvision, i.e. some special property one needs to see clearly in the open on a moonlit night, as if it is something humans do not normally possess.
Again, no idea what you're going on about. I didn't bring up darkvison at all. The fact you're fixated on it makes me doubt you're following along even a little.
So what you seem to be saying is that in 5e, anyone without Darkvision effectively (and inexplicably) suffers from night blindness.
I know you did not bring up darkvision. I did. That does not make it irrelevant.
Honestly no idea what you're talking about my man. Wish I could help but you seem to be having a totally different conversation and maybe you keep accidentally responding to me then? I'm not talking about darkvision or night blindness or whatever you think I am or whatever.
I was talking about the light intensity at which darkness transition to dim, and which dim transitions to bright.
The luminosity of 5e bright light is at a level to produce the effects of bright light.
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
The lack of luminosity of 5e darkness is at a level to produce the effects of darkness.
Simple.
And again, that assumes eyes cannot adjust to light levels. Magical world, but one does not expect heroic fantasy figures to suffer unexplained negative conditions such as night blindness.
There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light. There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels.
No it doesn't (though, admittedly, 5e does treat all creatures without darkvision as having a similar physical ability to manage light).
Yes, "There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light." Yes "There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels."
But at one level of lower light creatures will still reach a level of disadvantage despite their adjustments and at another level they will be effectively blinded again despite their adjustments. So a creature's eyes can adjust. Great. Light levels can still reduce. Everything I said is still valid.
For me, I'd be happy just considering that the moon in Toril's sky is not very bright and torches don't give off much light. I'd personally find it easier to continue working with RAW though I can certainly see that they're far from perfect.
The luminosity of 5e bright light is at a level to produce the effects of bright light.
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
The lack of luminosity of 5e darkness is at a level to produce the effects of darkness.
Simple.
And again, that assumes eyes cannot adjust to light levels. Magical world, but one does not expect heroic fantasy figures to suffer unexplained negative conditions such as night blindness.
There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light. There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels.
No it doesn't (though, admittedly, 5e does treat all creatures without darkvision as having a similar physical ability to manage light).
Yes, "There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light." Yes "There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels."
But at one level of lower light creatures will still reach a level of disadvantage despite their adjustments and at another level they will be effectively blinded again despite their adjustments. So a creature's eyes can adjust. Great. Light levels can still reduce. Everything I said is still valid.
For me, I'd be happy just considering that the moon in Toril's sky is not very bright and torches don't give off much light. I'd personally find it easier to continue working with RAW though I can certainly see that they're far from perfect.
Right, but as I just explained, those levels are left undefined. There are no formal definitions, only examples.
I think I see where we are miscommunicating. I'll rephrase,
The effects ascribed to 5e bright light can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e bright light.
The effects ascribed to 5e dim light can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e dim light.
The effects ascribed to 5e darkness can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e darkness.
We certainly have some parameters given for the sake of game mechanics. For instance, in a wider context that the game considers being in darkness, a creature or object that is more than 40 feet away from the nearest torch will remain in that game-mechanics darkness with all its related effects.
Beyond this I think that the relevant questions for a DM are:
Is it so dark that it would be hard to see?
Is it so dark so as to make creatures effectively blind if they don't have special forms of sight?
RAW gives us the definition:
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Sure, in the real world "a particularly brilliant full moon" produces way more light than would be needed for a minimum for vision and visual perception but these still aren't the kind of conditions that most people would choose to play tennis. At some level of decreasing light, even though a creature may not be literally made blind, it would eventually become disadvantaged in combat.
The luminosity of 5e bright light is at a level to produce the effects of bright light.
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
The lack of luminosity of 5e darkness is at a level to produce the effects of darkness.
Simple.
And again, that assumes eyes cannot adjust to light levels. Magical world, but one does not expect heroic fantasy figures to suffer unexplained negative conditions such as night blindness.
There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light. There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels.
No it doesn't (though, admittedly, 5e does treat all creatures without darkvision as having a similar physical ability to manage light).
Yes, "There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light." Yes "There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels."
But at one level of lower light creatures will still reach a level of disadvantage despite their adjustments and at another level they will be effectively blinded again despite their adjustments. So a creature's eyes can adjust. Great. Light levels can still reduce. Everything I said is still valid.
For me, I'd be happy just considering that the moon in Toril's sky is not very bright and torches don't give off much light. I'd personally find it easier to continue working with RAW though I can certainly see that they're far from perfect.
Right, but as I just explained, those levels are left undefined. There are no formal definitions, only examples.
I think I see where we are miscommunicating. I'll rephrase,
The effects ascribed to 5e bright light can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e bright light.
The effects ascribed to 5e dim light can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e dim light.
The effects ascribed to 5e darkness can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e darkness.
We certainly have some parameters given for the sake of game mechanics. For instance, in a wider context that the game considers being in darkness, a creature or object that is more than 40 feet away from the nearest torch will remain in that game-mechanics darkness with all its related effects.
Beyond this I think that the relevant questions for a DM are:
Is it so dark that it would be hard to see?
Is it so dark so as to make creatures effectively blind if they don't have special forms of sight?
RAW gives us the definition:
Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Sure, in the real world "a particularly brilliant full moon" produces way more light than would be needed for a minimum for vision and visual perception but these still aren't the kind of conditions that most people would choose to play tennis. At some level of decreasing light, even though a creature may not be literally made blind, it would eventually become disadvantaged in combat.
All three of those conditions can be translated to "There is some level of light to which these apply."
Yes, but that does not mean any given level of light is the level to which those apply. "Shadows" is ridiculous since those vary considerably. On every overcast day, everything is in the shadow of the clouds, but people do play sporting events just fine on overcast days. And that is my point, that is that they are far better seen as examples that might be dim light than as any hard or fast rules.
And as for who might play tennis under a full moon, who even thinks about such things? How many public tennis courts are open through the night? But the conditions are nowhere near as dim as suggested. They certainly are better vision conditions than patchy fog or light forest.
Lighting levels are something completely up to the DM and if a DM wants to rule the Moon not so bright, then they are obviously free to do so. However hard and fast rules as to what is any given light level is removing that kind of freedom rather than the other way around.
Yep and yep, the DM can consider conditions and rule on which effect applies.
The luminosity of 5e bright light is at a level to produce the effects of bright light.
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
The lack of luminosity of 5e darkness is at a level to produce the effects of darkness.
Simple.
And again, that assumes eyes cannot adjust to light levels. Magical world, but one does not expect heroic fantasy figures to suffer unexplained negative conditions such as night blindness.
There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light. There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels.
In 5E there is no rules for eye to adjust to light level, vision and light is static. It's among other things that might not be all that realistic. If you have normal vision and you are in darkness the area will always be heavily obscured to you. Similarly, If you have normal vision and you are in dim light, the area will always be lightly obscured to you.
Right, but if there is light, is it still really complete darkness?
There is only 3 category in 5E; darkness, dim light and bright light.
At dusk, dawn and on particularly brillant full moon as well as cloudy or foggy day, outside is dim light and all is lightly obscured.
During clear day, it's bright light and nothing is obscured.
At night, it's darkness and all is heavily obscured.
Cloudy skies would not cause dim light. Cloudy skies are still 5 thousand time brighter than full moonlight, clocking in at 1k lux or so. Very bright.
Some very dark cloudy days or during storm it can get quite dark. I assume it could become dim light in some extreme case. Here's exemples of cloudy days turned dark;
Right, but if there is light, is it still really complete darkness?
There is only 3 category in 5E; darkness, dim light and bright light.
At dusk, dawn and on particularly brillant full moon as well as cloudy or foggy day, outside is dim light and all is lightly obscured.
During clear day, it's bright light and nothing is obscured.
At night, it's darkness and all is heavily obscured.
Cloudy skies would not cause dim light. Cloudy skies are still 5 thousand time brighter than full moonlight, clocking in at 1k lux or so. Very bright.
Some very dark cloudy days or during storm it can get quite dark. I assume it could become dim light in some extreme case. Here's exemples of cloudy days turned dark;
Firstly I think it fits to interpret "full moonlight" as being on the darker side of 5e dim light as per:
The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
Other than that, yes, clouds can get pretty dark, possibly darker than just predawn twilight.
I appreciate that I'm winging it but I'd go with my definition that:
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
Yes, I've put myself in a quote box! :D
I wouldn't personally interpret mid-day cloudy skies as being dark enough to give creatures disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight, but I'd personally say the same about just predawn twilight.
The luminosity of 5e bright light is at a level to produce the effects of bright light.
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
The lack of luminosity of 5e darkness is at a level to produce the effects of darkness.
Simple.
And again, that assumes eyes cannot adjust to light levels. Magical world, but one does not expect heroic fantasy figures to suffer unexplained negative conditions such as night blindness.
There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light. There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels.
In 5E there is no rules for eye to adjust to light level, vision and light is static. It's among other things that might not be all that realistic. If you have normal vision and you are in darkness the area will always be heavily obscured to you. Similarly, If you have normal vision and you are in dim light, the area will always be lightly obscured to you.
No formal rule does not mean a DM does not have discretion over effective light levels. This discussion is going beyond the rules to say 'These specific conditions are always this specific visibility level.'
Your example regarding cloudy skies are the kind of thing I am talking about. There is cloudy and there is cloudy. There is moonlight and there is moonlight. Any given DM can decide light levels. They are not obligated to say 'It is just cloudy, you can see fine' or 'it is moonlight so dimly lit.' Cloudy days can be darker and moonlight brighter based on the DM's opinion of the situation. It is their world, after all.
RAW says "these are the rules for these lighting levels." It does not say "The DM must impose these lighting levels." This is a rather significant difference.
The DM can effectively do anything he or she wants. But there is a difference between determining an area is brighter or darker than usual, with its corresponding vision, and having unmatching degrees of light vs vision (bright light = not obscured / dim light = lightly obscured / darkness = heavily obscured)
If one decides that the night is so illuminated by full moon and starts to count as bright light (not obscured) or the day so dark and cloudy it's dim light (lightly obscured) it's one thing.
If one decides that overtime a creature's eye can adjust to dim light to treat it as not obscured, or to darkness to treat it as lightly onscured, it's different thing, as it change the level of vision corresponding to the level of light normally associated with it in the rules.
And if the DM starts changing the level of light to match the adjusted vision, treating darkness as dim light, and dim light as bright light, it has effectively given humans darkvision ☺
Ok... please show me the rule that says that days must be X light
Here the rules says what what days and night normally provides in term of illumination.
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius. Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light. Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness
So what you seem to be saying is that in 5e, anyone without Darkvision effectively (and inexplicably) suffers from night blindness.
I know you did not bring up darkvision. I did. That does not make it irrelevant.
Honestly no idea what you're talking about my man. Wish I could help but you seem to be having a totally different conversation and maybe you keep accidentally responding to me then? I'm not talking about darkvision or night blindness or whatever you think I am or whatever.
I was talking about the light intensity at which darkness transition to dim, and which dim transitions to bright.
I understand that you do not understand. However I was talking about how effectively bright dim light can be, rather than how actually bright. There is an important difference.
Ah okay, so you were quoting me, addressing me, but not actually addressing the post you quoted and instead were having an entirely different conversation all of your own about something else entirely. Neato. Thanks for the clarification.
What is actually dim vs what is dim for perception purposes is not the same and a full moon lit night is not particularly dim for perception purposes. It simply is not, despite the lower light intensity.
Dim light and darkness and bright light conditions are factors of the environment and not factors of your perception. These words, as used by 5e, represent objective conditions of the area. Not of your eye sockets. Not of your opinions about relative brightness. No, they are traits of the environment itself. That is best represented by objective illumination levels. Not by how the gloomy night sky makes you feel.
I agree that none of this is listed in RAW, but neither is any formal definition of dim light, especially in lux.
Dim light is defined though. And we can also reverse engineer an approximation of the thresholds from the radius of various lighting sources transitions from dark>dim>bright.
Eg. If a torch is 450 lumens (roughly as bright as a 40 watt incandescent bulb), and that torch lists that bright light goes out to 20ft, then the threshold for bright to dim is exactly 1 lux.
You might not know these terms or the math and the game certainly doesn't expect anyone to have to know all that. But... if you did know it, and are describing a scene as a DM, why would you not apply it? The RAW is that the DM determines the ambient lighting condition, so if you learn a little bit about how light actually works you might be able to do this part of DMing with a higher degree of realism. Required? Of course not. But it can up your game, certainly.
That is a long winded way to wind around back to this: The game does define dim light. Your assertion it doesn't, is false. See:
"Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light."
Missing from that definition: A cloudy day. Because a cloudy day wouldn't be dim. It'd still be bright. At roughly one to ten thousand times more intense illumination than the thresholds for dim light that are described here, a cloudy day unequivocally would still be bright light. Only extreme weather of apocalyptical or supernatural levels would ever darken the daytime sky to the degree that it is as dim as a full moon night sky.
Ravnodaus is right that rule wise even gloomy days provide bright light, which is what i meant by cloudy days. I guess it takes much more to go from bright to dim light.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, it is extremely dim, actually. We just have really good eyes that can auto-adjust for extreme differences in ambient lighting.
What nearly everyone who talks about vision realism tend to ignore, or don't know, is how vast the divide between 'bright' and 'dim' really is.
Moonlight, full moon, clear skies, is like at most 0.2 lux maybe 0.3lux. Noontime daylight? About 100,000 lux.
The difference is staggering. Orders of magnitude. Many orders of magnitude.
I mean, even in the "shadows" of daytime where there is 0 direct sunlight you're still at something like 20,000 lux.
Process this true sentence: The shadows of daytime are one hundred thousand times more illuminated than the night sky lit my the full moon.
I got quotes!
Your feeling is misplaced. We are talking about areas and the level of illumination within them.
Lux is what we'd use for something like ambient light sources, such as the sun//moon//sky. It is a measure of illuminance over a unit area. Specifically one lumen per square meter. But, knowing the exact unit isn't really relevant when comparing a lux measurement to another lux measurement. What is relevant is the ratio.
0.2 lux to 20,000 lux is a ratio of 1:100k.
One hundred thousand time more intense.
Shadows of day vs Moonlight night.
No one was talking about darkvision.... Now I'm the one with a feeling.
I got quotes!
There is only 3 category in 5E; darkness, dim light and bright light.
At dusk, dawn and on particularly brillant full moon as well as cloudy or foggy day, outside is dim light and all is lightly obscured.
During clear day, it's bright light and nothing is obscured.
At night, it's darkness and all is heavily obscured.
Cloudy skies would not cause dim light. Cloudy skies are still 5 thousand time brighter than full moonlight, clocking in at 1k lux or so. Very bright.
Let's do some math. A mediocre torch would have is around 500 lumens or so. And, we know how large an area a torch is considered to illuminate as bright light. But we wanna know the lux, so we'll need to know the area which the torch would transition from bright to dim, and at 20ft, that puts us right around 6 meter radius. 4πr^2 gives of the surface area of roughly 450 square meters for the surface area of a 6 meter sphere. So those 500 lumens are about 1.1 lux at the transition from bright to dim light. So, we solved for the transition threshold of bright to dim. Roughly 1 lux. (And also means the transition from dim to darkness is at <0.25 lux or so) These numbers also line up with some of the descriptions for lighting, ie full moon sky barely/sometimes being illuminated enough to consider it dim light.
This actually means that the transition from dim to bright would happen very early/quickly at the first light of dawn and stay bright until the last fleeting moments of dusk. Having a threshold of 1 lux leaves very few things in the 'dim light' category. Moonlit skies, candles, edges of illumination disappearing into darkness etc.
Setting math and physics aside for a moment, practically speaking, when was the last time you had a hard time seeing anything just because of a couple clouds? Dim is supposed to represent extremely low levels of light, barely any at all really. At least compared to the light of day. Honestly, if you're outside during daylight hours you're not going to experience dim light at all. Unless it is the apocalypse or something wild is happening to entirely blot out the sky. But certainly not because of clouds.
Here are some fun reference values, obviously many fantasy environments wouldn't have modern lighting equipment, but it helps to gauge how bright you think something is against how bright it actually is, as measured.
Natural Lighting:
Artificial Lighting:
I got quotes!
Yeah, I guess this calls for some more shadowy shadows.
Other references specifically mention the soft light of twilight (whatever that means). Personally, I find that, on a clear day, the light of twilight at times just after sunset or just before dawn can still be quite bright.
Again, this really isn't very quantifiable. I've personally, as a member of one of the Lewes bonfire societies, made hundreds of torches and have burned quite a few. The torches we make are of a size that about 4 of them would fill a backpack and the light given off is still moderate especially approaching their 15ish minute burnout times. I'm not sure how good a reference we could get from any of this to help quantify 5e dim light.
My best guess (and that's all it is) is that, at the brighter end of dim light, the shadows are like the shadows of Mirkwood or the shadows of twilight (otherwise things might still be quite visible) while, for me, the darker end of dim light, prior to application of the blinded condition, would be a lot darker than under the light of the silvery moon.
You seem to have missed the last part of the first sentence, "blocks vision entirely". The second sentence only clarifies about what happens to somebody outside; if you are inside then the last part of the first sentence applies.
It is exactly as bright as measurements show it to be. Magic isn't real. The illumination levels are exactly what they're measured as.
The thing you're having difficulty with is reconciling with how drastic and profoundly good our natural vision actually is. It is so powerfully capable of adjusting to wildly different lighting conditions you intuitively don't even recognize the work your eyes/mind are doing to produce viable images for you.
Darkvision isn't something people have, you have no lived experience of having darkvision, and discussing darkvision in the context of real world lighting is entirely nonsensical. I wasn't talking about darkvision, no one was. You keep bringing it up as some sort of red herring or something in a weird accusatory way but no one is talking about it so IDK what you're trying to say here. Do you have a point?
Again, no idea what you're going on about. I didn't bring up darkvison at all. The fact you're fixated on it makes me doubt you're following along even a little.
I got quotes!
The luminosity of 5e bright light is at a level to produce the effects of bright light.
The luminosity of 5e dim light is at a level to produce the effects of dim light.
The lack of luminosity of 5e darkness is at a level to produce the effects of darkness.
Simple.
Honestly no idea what you're talking about my man. Wish I could help but you seem to be having a totally different conversation and maybe you keep accidentally responding to me then? I'm not talking about darkvision or night blindness or whatever you think I am or whatever.
I was talking about the light intensity at which darkness transition to dim, and which dim transitions to bright.
I got quotes!
No it doesn't (though, admittedly, 5e does treat all creatures without darkvision as having a similar physical ability to manage light).
Yes, "There is more to eyesight than the physical quantity of light." Yes "There is also the biological ability to adjust to said light levels."
But at one level of lower light creatures will still reach a level of disadvantage despite their adjustments and at another level they will be effectively blinded again despite their adjustments. So a creature's eyes can adjust. Great. Light levels can still reduce. Everything I said is still valid.
For me, I'd be happy just considering that the moon in Toril's sky is not very bright and torches don't give off much light. I'd personally find it easier to continue working with RAW though I can certainly see that they're far from perfect.
I think I see where we are miscommunicating. I'll rephrase,
The effects ascribed to 5e bright light can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e bright light.
The effects ascribed to 5e dim light can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e dim light.
The effects ascribed to 5e darkness can dictate the level of luminosity in 5e darkness.
We certainly have some parameters given for the sake of game mechanics. For instance, in a wider context that the game considers being in darkness, a creature or object that is more than 40 feet away from the nearest torch will remain in that game-mechanics darkness with all its related effects.
Beyond this I think that the relevant questions for a DM are:
RAW gives us the definition:
Sure, in the real world "a particularly brilliant full moon" produces way more light than would be needed for a minimum for vision and visual perception but these still aren't the kind of conditions that most people would choose to play tennis. At some level of decreasing light, even though a creature may not be literally made blind, it would eventually become disadvantaged in combat.
Yep and yep, the DM can consider conditions and rule on which effect applies.
In 5E there is no rules for eye to adjust to light level, vision and light is static. It's among other things that might not be all that realistic. If you have normal vision and you are in darkness the area will always be heavily obscured to you. Similarly, If you have normal vision and you are in dim light, the area will always be lightly obscured to you.
Some very dark cloudy days or during storm it can get quite dark. I assume it could become dim light in some extreme case. Here's exemples of cloudy days turned dark;
Finland :Weather Caught On Camera: Beach Vanishes In Clouds - YouTube
China: Dramatic: Dark storm clouds hovering over east China’s city - YouTube
Firstly I think it fits to interpret "full moonlight" as being on the darker side of 5e dim light as per:
Other than that, yes, clouds can get pretty dark, possibly darker than just predawn twilight.
I appreciate that I'm winging it but I'd go with my definition that:
I wouldn't personally interpret mid-day cloudy skies as being dark enough to give creatures disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight, but I'd personally say the same about just predawn twilight.
The DM can effectively do anything he or she wants. But there is a difference between determining an area is brighter or darker than usual, with its corresponding vision, and having unmatching degrees of light vs vision (bright light = not obscured / dim light = lightly obscured / darkness = heavily obscured)
If one decides that the night is so illuminated by full moon and starts to count as bright light (not obscured) or the day so dark and cloudy it's dim light (lightly obscured) it's one thing.
If one decides that overtime a creature's eye can adjust to dim light to treat it as not obscured, or to darkness to treat it as lightly onscured, it's different thing, as it change the level of vision corresponding to the level of light normally associated with it in the rules.
And if the DM starts changing the level of light to match the adjusted vision, treating darkness as dim light, and dim light as bright light, it has effectively given humans darkvision ☺
Here the rules says what what days and night normally provides in term of illumination.
Ah okay, so you were quoting me, addressing me, but not actually addressing the post you quoted and instead were having an entirely different conversation all of your own about something else entirely. Neato. Thanks for the clarification.
Dim light and darkness and bright light conditions are factors of the environment and not factors of your perception. These words, as used by 5e, represent objective conditions of the area. Not of your eye sockets. Not of your opinions about relative brightness. No, they are traits of the environment itself. That is best represented by objective illumination levels. Not by how the gloomy night sky makes you feel.
Dim light is defined though. And we can also reverse engineer an approximation of the thresholds from the radius of various lighting sources transitions from dark>dim>bright.
Eg. If a torch is 450 lumens (roughly as bright as a 40 watt incandescent bulb), and that torch lists that bright light goes out to 20ft, then the threshold for bright to dim is exactly 1 lux.
You might not know these terms or the math and the game certainly doesn't expect anyone to have to know all that. But... if you did know it, and are describing a scene as a DM, why would you not apply it? The RAW is that the DM determines the ambient lighting condition, so if you learn a little bit about how light actually works you might be able to do this part of DMing with a higher degree of realism. Required? Of course not. But it can up your game, certainly.
That is a long winded way to wind around back to this: The game does define dim light. Your assertion it doesn't, is false. See:
"Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light."
Missing from that definition: A cloudy day. Because a cloudy day wouldn't be dim. It'd still be bright. At roughly one to ten thousand times more intense illumination than the thresholds for dim light that are described here, a cloudy day unequivocally would still be bright light. Only extreme weather of apocalyptical or supernatural levels would ever darken the daytime sky to the degree that it is as dim as a full moon night sky.
I got quotes!
Ravnodaus is right that rule wise even gloomy days provide bright light, which is what i meant by cloudy days. I guess it takes much more to go from bright to dim light.