This would make all those characters still depend on torches and light spells like everyone else.
Characters with darkvision are still dependent on light. Treating darkness as dim light means they're still making visual Wisdom (Perception) checks with disadvantage. That's -5 if you're relying on passive scores. And they can't see in color, either. Think of all the ways a DM can mess with players, just by using colors they might be choosing not to see.
That's the key. And that's the reason why darkvision doesn't work on many tables: People misapply it. Another thing that a lot of people misapply, or don't apply at all, is darkvision range. Out of range, you see nothing at all.
In my opinion darkvision works fine as it is. But it has to be applied well. And in general peaople need to apply the luminosity rules well, which are usually ignored.
I understand the rules for Darkvision and lighting well, and know how to apply it. I know all the tricks you can use with it and ways to try to mitigation some problems. My issues with Darkvision is that the correct application of it is tedious, takes away some of a DMs ability to create good dramatic ambience, and leaves a power gap that makes some players make character decisions based solely on it. I explained all that in that full response, but basically...
Characters with Darkvision don't really need light the same way characters that don't have it need light. They are essentially their own light source, centered on their eyes. They carry with them their own 60' bubble of different light, that when applied correctly, overlaps actual light source bubbles and interacts differently everywhere they cross. It's like playing with a very complicated, always moving, Venn diagram. Within their persobnal bubble, mechanical benefits change from square to square on the map, but they are also never actually blind to any danger within 60'.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
Yeah I find that very strange. It never did sit right with me. Heavily Obscured is the same as being Blinded in DnD. You can't see at all and fail all checks that require sight. But fighting in moonlight is not the same as being in a cave with no lights. I've done both. A cave with the lights off is absolute darkness. It's fair to call that Blind. Moonlight takes a little time to adjust to, but I would call it dim light.
Eh, I'd probably be willing to call it something like "heavily obscured, but you can still discern position" (so similar to what tremorsense does). That would give me tiers as follows:
Bright Light: as current rules.
Dim Light: as current rules.
Minimal Light: there's some light, but not enough to reliably act by. Creatures are heavily obscured but their locations can still be determined with vision.
Darkness: as current rules.
Night Vision: you can see in dim light as if it were bright. You can see up to your night vision range in minimal light as if it were dim light.
Dark Vision: as current rules.
Then change most instances of dark vision to night vision -- dark vision is mostly for undead and fiends.
It's a good idea to capture a wider range of types of lighting. It addresses some of the problems I personally have with Darkvision, but not most of them. If minimal light still means characters without Darkvision have disadvantage on attacks, and attacks against them get advantage (the other part of Heavily Obscured) then a lot of the same issues exist. Characters with Darkvision have a personal bubble where they have massive advantages against those without it. And you have to still track their vision as a 'separate light source' in a sense. But at least anyone can actually see in moonlight, so that's already an improvement over 5e haha.
It's a good idea to capture a wider range of types of lighting. It addresses some of the problems I personally have with Darkvision, but not most of them. If minimal light still means characters without Darkvision have disadvantage on attacks, and attacks against them get advantage (the other part of Heavily Obscured) then a lot of the same issues exist.
Well, night vision is still an advantage, but it means you don't have people creeping through a dungeon without a light source, which was always my issue (yes, it limits your ability to see traps, but it also vastly limits the ability of the monsters to see you coming).
Yeah I find that very strange. It never did sit right with me. Heavily Obscured is the same as being Blinded in DnD. You can't see at all and fail all checks that require sight. But fighting in moonlight is not the same as being in a cave with no lights. I've done both. A cave with the lights off is absolute darkness. It's fair to call that Blind. Moonlight takes a little time to adjust to, but I would call it dim light.
Eh, I'd probably be willing to call it something like "heavily obscured, but you can still discern position" (so similar to what tremorsense does). That would give me tiers as follows:
Bright Light: as current rules.
Dim Light: as current rules.
Minimal Light: there's some light, but not enough to reliably act by. Creatures are heavily obscured but their locations can still be determined with vision.
Darkness: as current rules.
Night Vision: you can see in dim light as if it were bright. You can see up to your night vision range in minimal light as if it were dim light.
Dark Vision: as current rules.
Then change most instances of dark vision to night vision -- dark vision is mostly for undead and fiends.
It's a good idea to capture a wider range of types of lighting. It addresses some of the problems I personally have with Darkvision, but not most of them. If minimal light still means characters without Darkvision have disadvantage on attacks, and attacks against them get advantage (the other part of Heavily Obscured) then a lot of the same issues exist. Characters with Darkvision have a personal bubble where they have massive advantages against those without it. And you have to still track their vision as a 'separate light source' in a sense. But at least anyone can actually see in moonlight, so that's already an improvement over 5e haha.
While it may be a good idea in theory, in practice most groups don't really care. Most of the time a group will basically have 'you can see just fine', 'if you have dark vision you can see just fine. If not you're basically blind.' and 'you're blind even if you have dark vision.' in terms of lightning. Adding more kinds of lightning seems like it would only matter in a tiny number of groups. Most only barely follow the lightning rules in the first place.
Yeah I find that very strange. It never did sit right with me. Heavily Obscured is the same as being Blinded in DnD. You can't see at all and fail all checks that require sight. But fighting in moonlight is not the same as being in a cave with no lights. I've done both. A cave with the lights off is absolute darkness. It's fair to call that Blind. Moonlight takes a little time to adjust to, but I would call it dim light.
Eh, I'd probably be willing to call it something like "heavily obscured, but you can still discern position" (so similar to what tremorsense does). That would give me tiers as follows:
Bright Light: as current rules.
Dim Light: as current rules.
Minimal Light: there's some light, but not enough to reliably act by. Creatures are heavily obscured but their locations can still be determined with vision.
Darkness: as current rules.
Night Vision: you can see in dim light as if it were bright. You can see up to your night vision range in minimal light as if it were dim light.
Dark Vision: as current rules.
Then change most instances of dark vision to night vision -- dark vision is mostly for undead and fiends.
It's a good idea to capture a wider range of types of lighting. It addresses some of the problems I personally have with Darkvision, but not most of them. If minimal light still means characters without Darkvision have disadvantage on attacks, and attacks against them get advantage (the other part of Heavily Obscured) then a lot of the same issues exist. Characters with Darkvision have a personal bubble where they have massive advantages against those without it. And you have to still track their vision as a 'separate light source' in a sense. But at least anyone can actually see in moonlight, so that's already an improvement over 5e haha.
While it may be a good idea in theory, in practice most groups don't really care. Most of the time a group will basically have 'you can see just fine', 'if you have dark vision you can see just fine. If not you're basically blind.' and 'you're blind even if you have dark vision.' in terms of lightning. Adding more kinds of lightning seems like it would only matter in a tiny number of groups. Most only barely follow the lightning rules in the first place.
Which is one of the reasons I made the suggestion I did originally. It just simplifies everything. Everyone looks at the map and sees the light sources (or imagines them in their minds without a map) - the torch in your hand, the streetlamp, the Light spell.
It's bright light near the source. It's dim light further from it. It's dark beyond that. Everyone sees the same thing, originating from the same actual sources, not their characters. Some just don't suffer the disadvantage on Preception rolls where it's dim.
It's as easy and intuitive as I could make it. It's probably not for everyone, and that's totally cool. It's just how I wished it worked.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I have never seen a group utilize it. Most barely remember to utilize torches unless the fight is specifically designed around it.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
That's certainly not just you) How I wish to bring back darkness as a universal factor...
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I have never seen a group utilize it. Most barely remember to utilize torches unless the fight is specifically designed around it.
Two out of the three characters I currently play have one (and all three of my characters have darkvision). One of them is just a pack rat Gnome Rogue that filled a bag of holding with just about every mundane item from the PHB, but has never needed to use the lantern. The other is a Dwarf Wizard and the lantern has come in quite handy when searching out some caverns (plus, he really has no use for his off hand in combat).
I should note, that I came back to DnD 5e after a hiatus of 25-30 years, so I am a bit more used to the ADnD playstyle, which may have influenced my equipment choices.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I almost universally play humans so when I do get to play which isn't often I use them. I like to take the control flame cantrip with this. I will usually hang a hooded lantern on me and carry the bullseye. With control flames doubling their light range the hooded is bright 60' dim another 60, and the bullseye is bright 120, dim another 120 in the cone. Bring a few torches as well as oil can break. With that much bright light generally there isn't many complaints from the darkvision crowd, I just may have to shutter them occasionally when the stealth group wants to do something.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I almost universally play humans so when I do get to play which isn't often I use them. I like to take the control flame cantrip with this. I will usually hang a hooded lantern on me and carry the bullseye. With control flames doubling their light range the hooded is bright 60' dim another 60, and the bullseye is bright 120, dim another 120 in the cone. Bring a few torches as well as oil can break. With that much bright light generally there isn't many complaints from the darkvision crowd, I just may have to shutter them occasionally when the stealth group wants to do something.
I think this may hit on why people just don't really bother with lighting rules unless something specifically revolves around it. A lot of races, including several of the most popular ones (elf, dwarf, tiefling, half-elf, and half-orc) have dark vision innate. If you don't have dark vision multiple classes have access to cantrips including ones like light and produce flame. So only a small section of characters (basically human fighters. Most common race/class combination by far admittedly.) will be in a situation where they don't have some method of lighting anyways. Even if they are you can probably just have the caster cast the light cantrip on your armor or something so you can illuminate the area around you. So an even a smaller amount of parties will be in a situation where illuminating a torch or lantern is useful. And remember, this is for something that doesn't matter the majority of the time and, frankly, a lot of players and GMs don't remember and/or consider 'unfun'. So... Yea.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I almost universally play humans so when I do get to play which isn't often I use them. I like to take the control flame cantrip with this. I will usually hang a hooded lantern on me and carry the bullseye. With control flames doubling their light range the hooded is bright 60' dim another 60, and the bullseye is bright 120, dim another 120 in the cone. Bring a few torches as well as oil can break. With that much bright light generally there isn't many complaints from the darkvision crowd, I just may have to shutter them occasionally when the stealth group wants to do something.
I think this may hit on why people just don't really bother with lighting rules unless something specifically revolves around it. A lot of races, including several of the most popular ones (elf, dwarf, tiefling, half-elf, and half-orc) have dark vision innate. If you don't have dark vision multiple classes have access to cantrips including ones like light and produce flame. So only a small section of characters (basically human fighters. Most common race/class combination by far admittedly.) will be in a situation where they don't have some method of lighting anyways. Even if they are you can probably just have the caster cast the light cantrip on your armor or something so you can illuminate the area around you. So an even a smaller amount of parties will be in a situation where illuminating a torch or lantern is useful. And remember, this is for something that doesn't matter the majority of the time and, frankly, a lot of players and GMs don't remember and/or consider 'unfun'. So... Yea.
This touches on a related issue I have with the game, and that is mundane items are very very frequently overlooked for solving problems because spells or magic items can solve the problem 90% of the time, or there are magical features the PCs have that can act as a substitute anyway.
Ironically mundane items (and classes, for that matter) are some of the least supported elements of this game, and I don't know how to feel about it to this day.
Then come up with challenges the spells can't simply circumvent.
That's... not really easy to do. Especially without getting into 'cruel/punishing GM' territory. Like, what? Are all dungeons and mines suddenly going to have magical darkness throughout to stop someone from using a light spell? Will every night fight start with the enemy casters constantly spamming darkness to keep anyone who has a light cantrip from illuminating the area; but also for some reason avoiding people who use torches/lamps? You punish players for using a solution because it's not YOUR solution and don't be surprised if you lose players. If you don't want them using something like light just inform them that it's banned or something right from the get-go instead of punishing them. IIRC Goblin Slayer had a moment where Priestess used a purify spell to turn a goblins blood into water killing it and the Goddess allowed it to happen but also told her that it wouldn't work again; which is how a situation like that should be handled.
That's... not really easy to do. Especially without getting into 'cruel/punishing GM' territory. Like, what? Are all dungeons and mines suddenly going to have magical darkness throughout to stop someone from using a light spell? Will every night fight start with the enemy casters constantly spamming darkness to keep anyone who has a light cantrip from illuminating the area; but also for some reason avoiding people who use torches/lamps? You punish players for using a solution because it's not YOUR solution and don't be surprised if you lose players. If you don't want them using something like light just inform them that it's banned or something right from the get-go instead of punishing them. IIRC Goblin Slayer had a moment where Priestess used a purify spell to turn a goblins blood into water killing it and the Goddess allowed it to happen but also told her that it wouldn't work again; which is how a situation like that should be handled.
You have that completely backwards.
You don't shut down the spell by creating magical darkness or whatever. You remove it from consideration by not making illumination the problem to be solved. There are other ways to challenge the players. If you want to see more mundane items used to solve problems, then present those kinds of problems to the players. Granted, success does require the DM knowing what their players have on hand. But the DM should at least have an idea.
Or you can play with what the spells can do. The light spell doesn't just create light. It creates light in a color of the spellcaster's choosing. So why not black light? Blood spatter and invisible paint just became tools the DM can use for their games. Or have you ever seen National Treasure? The Ben Franklin glasses had multiple different-colored lenses for reading a map drawn with special inks. Used in a variety of combinations, the lenses revealed different facets of the map. A similar approach could work with multiple people having the light spell. Just need to tease that as a possible solution in advance.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I almost universally play humans so when I do get to play which isn't often I use them. I like to take the control flame cantrip with this. I will usually hang a hooded lantern on me and carry the bullseye. With control flames doubling their light range the hooded is bright 60' dim another 60, and the bullseye is bright 120, dim another 120 in the cone. Bring a few torches as well as oil can break. With that much bright light generally there isn't many complaints from the darkvision crowd, I just may have to shutter them occasionally when the stealth group wants to do something.
I think this may hit on why people just don't really bother with lighting rules unless something specifically revolves around it. A lot of races, including several of the most popular ones (elf, dwarf, tiefling, half-elf, and half-orc) have dark vision innate. If you don't have dark vision multiple classes have access to cantrips including ones like light and produce flame. So only a small section of characters (basically human fighters. Most common race/class combination by far admittedly.) will be in a situation where they don't have some method of lighting anyways. Even if they are you can probably just have the caster cast the light cantrip on your armor or something so you can illuminate the area around you. So an even a smaller amount of parties will be in a situation where illuminating a torch or lantern is useful. And remember, this is for something that doesn't matter the majority of the time and, frankly, a lot of players and GMs don't remember and/or consider 'unfun'. So... Yea.
This touches on a related issue I have with the game, and that is mundane items are very very frequently overlooked for solving problems because spells or magic items can solve the problem 90% of the time, or there are magical features the PCs have that can act as a substitute anyway.
Ironically mundane items (and classes, for that matter) are some of the least supported elements of this game, and I don't know how to feel about it to this day.
In my example I used a cantrip to enhance it but the core problem solver was the mundane item of lanterns and torches. A standard lantern gives bright light out to 30 feet and dim out to 60 feet. Dark vision is 60 feet, but darkness is considered basically dim light for them. So a standard hooded lantern puts you on the same footing as dark vision. And its not hard to rig something on your pack to hold it for you. The light spell is 20/40 so the lantern is better it just requires a annoying resource management feature. Using both a magic spell and a mundane item is the best result but I can't see how that is bad for the game.
The issue with darkvision isn't the difficulty of getting light and vision for the party as that is easy both with or without magic. The issue is the stealth benefits of a all dark vision party are massive. A light doesn't just illuminate the area, it announces your presence for a distance well past the range the light illuminates.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
I almost universally play humans so when I do get to play which isn't often I use them. I like to take the control flame cantrip with this. I will usually hang a hooded lantern on me and carry the bullseye. With control flames doubling their light range the hooded is bright 60' dim another 60, and the bullseye is bright 120, dim another 120 in the cone. Bring a few torches as well as oil can break. With that much bright light generally there isn't many complaints from the darkvision crowd, I just may have to shutter them occasionally when the stealth group wants to do something.
I think this may hit on why people just don't really bother with lighting rules unless something specifically revolves around it. A lot of races, including several of the most popular ones (elf, dwarf, tiefling, half-elf, and half-orc) have dark vision innate. If you don't have dark vision multiple classes have access to cantrips including ones like light and produce flame. So only a small section of characters (basically human fighters. Most common race/class combination by far admittedly.) will be in a situation where they don't have some method of lighting anyways. Even if they are you can probably just have the caster cast the light cantrip on your armor or something so you can illuminate the area around you. So an even a smaller amount of parties will be in a situation where illuminating a torch or lantern is useful. And remember, this is for something that doesn't matter the majority of the time and, frankly, a lot of players and GMs don't remember and/or consider 'unfun'. So... Yea.
This touches on a related issue I have with the game, and that is mundane items are very very frequently overlooked for solving problems because spells or magic items can solve the problem 90% of the time, or there are magical features the PCs have that can act as a substitute anyway.
Ironically mundane items (and classes, for that matter) are some of the least supported elements of this game, and I don't know how to feel about it to this day.
I created a thread in the homebrew section because of this problem. Basically, because 5e is designed for players to speed-run through the first 5 levels, there is a dearth of mundane gameplay (masterwork weapons, keen edges, etc). The end result is also that dungeons feel more empty, with only a few items found--over and over again--in the low-level treasure tables.
This would make all those characters still depend on torches and light spells like everyone else.
Characters with darkvision are still dependent on light. Treating darkness as dim light means they're still making visual Wisdom (Perception) checks with disadvantage. That's -5 if you're relying on passive scores. And they can't see in color, either. Think of all the ways a DM can mess with players, just by using colors they might be choosing not to see.
That's the key. And that's the reason why darkvision doesn't work on many tables: People misapply it. Another thing that a lot of people misapply, or don't apply at all, is darkvision range. Out of range, you see nothing at all.
In my opinion darkvision works fine as it is. But it has to be applied well. And in general peaople need to apply the luminosity rules well, which are usually ignored.
I understand the rules for Darkvision and lighting well, and know how to apply it. I know all the tricks you can use with it and ways to try to mitigation some problems. My issues with Darkvision is that the correct application of it is tedious, takes away some of a DMs ability to create good dramatic ambience, and leaves a power gap that makes some players make character decisions based solely on it. I explained all that in that full response, but basically...
Characters with Darkvision don't really need light the same way characters that don't have it need light. They are essentially their own light source, centered on their eyes. They carry with them their own 60' bubble of different light, that when applied correctly, overlaps actual light source bubbles and interacts differently everywhere they cross. It's like playing with a very complicated, always moving, Venn diagram. Within their persobnal bubble, mechanical benefits change from square to square on the map, but they are also never actually blind to any danger within 60'.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but with that message you show that you don't know how the rule works. That's not to say you don't know what the rule says. But you are not applying it well. It really is something that works well. If applied as it's supposed to be applied, characters with darkvision are going to have problems if they don't have any light source in the dark. It's always better to have darkvision if you don't have light, as is logical and as it should be, but you can't go through the dark without a light source without consequences. Think how you see in the moonlight without any other light source, and you will understand how you should narrate darkvision as a DM.
I understand the rules for Darkvision and lighting well, and know how to apply it. I know all the tricks you can use with it and ways to try to mitigation some problems. My issues with Darkvision is that the correct application of it is tedious, takes away some of a DMs ability to create good dramatic ambience, and leaves a power gap that makes some players make character decisions based solely on it. I explained all that in that full response, but basically...
Characters with Darkvision don't really need light the same way characters that don't have it need light. They are essentially their own light source, centered on their eyes. They carry with them their own 60' bubble of different light, that when applied correctly, overlaps actual light source bubbles and interacts differently everywhere they cross. It's like playing with a very complicated, always moving, Venn diagram. Within their persobnal bubble, mechanical benefits change from square to square on the map, but they are also never actually blind to any danger within 60'.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but with that message you show that you don't know how the rule works. That's not to say you don't know what the rule says. But you are not applying it well. It really is something that works well. If applied as it's supposed to be applied, characters with darkvision are going to have problems if they don't have any light source in the dark. It's always better to have darkvision if you don't have light, as is logical and as it should be, but you can't go through the dark without a light source without consequences. Think how you see in the moonlight without any other light source, and you will understand how you should narrate darkvision as a DM.
No, that's pretty accurate. I get what they're saying, at least, from a mechanical perspective. Because darkvision does create a bubble around the character that can overlap with other bubbles. By itself, it never lets that radius be treated as anything less than dim light for that character. And it can overlap with other areas of dim light to create bright light for that character.
The issue is everything else. Poor illumination can be easily circumvented, via both tools and spells, so relying on that alone for atmosphere is a problem. Which is why we should be striving to paint a picture via other means. The light has finite reach, so expand the area to maintain noticeable darkness. The light is relative safety. Threats can still exist beyond its bounds─unseen. Add sounds and visual evidence. The greatest risk of misapplying the rule is as a storytelling tool.
As for their proposal, I don't like it. But it's also not official, unlikely to ever be official, and even if it were─I just don't have to use it. It's not broken, so I have no intention of fixing it.
This would make all those characters still depend on torches and light spells like everyone else.
Characters with darkvision are still dependent on light. Treating darkness as dim light means they're still making visual Wisdom (Perception) checks with disadvantage. That's -5 if you're relying on passive scores. And they can't see in color, either. Think of all the ways a DM can mess with players, just by using colors they might be choosing not to see.
That's the key. And that's the reason why darkvision doesn't work on many tables: People misapply it. Another thing that a lot of people misapply, or don't apply at all, is darkvision range. Out of range, you see nothing at all.
In my opinion darkvision works fine as it is. But it has to be applied well. And in general peaople need to apply the luminosity rules well, which are usually ignored.
I understand the rules for Darkvision and lighting well, and know how to apply it. I know all the tricks you can use with it and ways to try to mitigation some problems. My issues with Darkvision is that the correct application of it is tedious, takes away some of a DMs ability to create good dramatic ambience, and leaves a power gap that makes some players make character decisions based solely on it. I explained all that in that full response, but basically...
Characters with Darkvision don't really need light the same way characters that don't have it need light. They are essentially their own light source, centered on their eyes. They carry with them their own 60' bubble of different light, that when applied correctly, overlaps actual light source bubbles and interacts differently everywhere they cross. It's like playing with a very complicated, always moving, Venn diagram. Within their persobnal bubble, mechanical benefits change from square to square on the map, but they are also never actually blind to any danger within 60'.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but with that message you show that you don't know how the rule works. That's not to say you don't know what the rule says. But you are not applying it well. It really is something that works well. If applied as it's supposed to be applied, characters with darkvision are going to have problems if they don't have any light source in the dark. It's always better to have darkvision if you don't have light, as is logical and as it should be, but you can't go through the dark without a light source without consequences. Think how you see in the moonlight without any other light source, and you will understand how you should narrate darkvision as a DM.
Don't worry I'm not insulted. :)
Oddly enough, moonlight is considered to be the same as utter darkness to the game designers. Only a 'particularly brilliant full moon'' could be considered dim light. I disagree with them on this, (and sometimes wonder how much time they've spent outside), but that's the rule. Shrug. They say dim light is closer to dawn or twilight. But I think candlelight is also a pretty easy way to look at it.
I'm not trying to say that darkvision is perfect sight. I just meant the characters that have it don't worry about light in exactly the same way others do. Mechanically the only penalty for dim light is disadvantage on perception checks. The penalty for darkness is suffering the blindness condition, which is massive. If a party has to choose how to approach a group of lizardfolk sitting around a campfire, they won't care if they have a penalty to perception checks, or what color the world is, or if the details are hard to make out. They're going to take advantage on attacks against the monsters, and disadvantage on being hit by them. They're going to use darkvision if they have it.
The 'always moving Venn diagram' aspect is an annoyance to even narrate or visialize. It's hard to explain well without actually drawing it. But I'll try a scenario:
The party is in a dungeon. The human fighter holds a torch in the center of a large dark cavern. The halfling cleric stands beside her. The dwarf wizard is 15' to the right. And the drow rogue is 10' behind them. 100 feet ahead there is a pair of candles on the far wall. Just try to picture exactly what each character can see, and how they see it. It's enough to make your head hurt. And it changes every turn.
For the human and the halfling, they see the light of the torch as normal, and the light of the candles ahead as normal. Three bubbles of light, defined clearly by their source and the area they illuminate on the map. All of the players at the table can visualize it instantly. They can easily imagine three orbs of light in the darkness. They can see the areas on the map. Everything else is pitch dark.
But what about the dwarf and the drow? The dwarf doesn't base his vision totally on the lights alone. He sees the torch light 15' to his left, and the candles at the end. The candles are too far for darkvision to make them brighter for him. But he can see 60' ahead in that direction and see a ravine crossing the center of the room. A ravine the human and halfling can't see. But his vision gives out before he can see the other side. It doesn't matter that it all looks and dim and black and white to him. He sees the danger. He also sees a circle of light around the torch on his left that all looks bright to him, but overlaps his own circle of personal darkvision. So there are weird intersecting fields of color and monochrome vision for him. And as soon as he takes a step, they move in trippy ways.
The drow rogue is even stranger. She is standing in the torch light, and can see all the way to the candles. Her 120' darkvision circle overlaps 3 circles of real light in 3 different places. Everything in between these bright patches is monochromatic, and these 'fliters on the camera' of her mind shift every time any of them move. But she can also see the other side of the ravine and the three giant zombies milling about there! The monsters that no one else saw.
Now, as a DM, we have some choices to makes. First, do we even try to describe these ever shifting bubbles of different light filters? Not every time probably. That would be repetitive and annoying and add nothing to the story. But maybe in certain situations like this? Though I suspect the players don't care that the zombies are in dim black and white. Just that they are there.
Which brings up the second problem. There are no surprises in this whole cavern. No dangers or mood. I can describe it beautifully for the human and halfling. The echos in the dark. The distant candle light flickering, giving a faint clue that this room is much larger than they can see.
But for the dwarf and drow? I can take them each aside separately and tell them what they see. But that's going to get old. And there's not much point. Because as soon as they get back to the table, their characters are just going to say:
'There's a ravine ahead, watch your step.'
And 'Not just that, there's zombies on the other side'
So now the cavern might as well have been lit from wall to wall with the warm light of dawn. The information is all there for everyone. All of the interesting things about the room are exposed and the spooky ambience is gone. But the third part is even worse.
So what does this party do now? They have to deal with the ravine and the zombies. Crossing a ravine will be much easier without monsters on the other side. If the dwarf wizard and drow rogue can sneak up on them, they'll get a huge advantage. The dwarf and zombies have the same darkvision range, but the zombies have terrible passive perception. So the dwarf can sneak closer and prepare a spell. The drow rogue can easily stay just outside of the zombies vision and get sneak attacks (and reliable Sharpshooter) with a crossbow every turn.
But the human fighter and halfling cleric can't get closer without blowing it for everyone. If they walk up with a torch, the zombies see everybody. If they put the torch out, they walk blindly into the ravine. So for the tenth time this dungeon, they just sit this fight out and let the other party members take care of the monsters. Then they can cross the ravine that surprised no one at their leisure.
Those are my problems with darkvision summed up with an example. These kinds of situations happen again and again in any kind of dungeon crawl, or wilderness encounter at night, and even in cities and castles. You can only describe darkvision as looking different so many times before no one cares. There is a clear mechanical advantage that outweighs whether they can see in color or not, or how dim the light looks. It's the difference between seeing something and being blind. It's revealing the whole room at once or just part. It's getting advantage on attacks and the benefits that come with it. And all of those mechanical bonuses require tracking vision that's not based on light sources, but character positions too.
I don't really want to lay circle templates on my map around every character to track the details of what they can and can't see. I want to have room for some surprises in the dark. I want all my players to get to play the game without feeling like they are wasting a mechanical advantage just by having the human present in the room.
But if you have any solutions, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm always eager to learn better ways to DM. Darkvision isn't the worst thing in the game. I just think the game could be a lot better without it.
This would make all those characters still depend on torches and light spells like everyone else.
Characters with darkvision are still dependent on light. Treating darkness as dim light means they're still making visual Wisdom (Perception) checks with disadvantage. That's -5 if you're relying on passive scores. And they can't see in color, either. Think of all the ways a DM can mess with players, just by using colors they might be choosing not to see.
That's the key. And that's the reason why darkvision doesn't work on many tables: People misapply it. Another thing that a lot of people misapply, or don't apply at all, is darkvision range. Out of range, you see nothing at all.
In my opinion darkvision works fine as it is. But it has to be applied well. And in general peaople need to apply the luminosity rules well, which are usually ignored.
I understand the rules for Darkvision and lighting well, and know how to apply it. I know all the tricks you can use with it and ways to try to mitigation some problems. My issues with Darkvision is that the correct application of it is tedious, takes away some of a DMs ability to create good dramatic ambience, and leaves a power gap that makes some players make character decisions based solely on it. I explained all that in that full response, but basically...
Characters with Darkvision don't really need light the same way characters that don't have it need light. They are essentially their own light source, centered on their eyes. They carry with them their own 60' bubble of different light, that when applied correctly, overlaps actual light source bubbles and interacts differently everywhere they cross. It's like playing with a very complicated, always moving, Venn diagram. Within their persobnal bubble, mechanical benefits change from square to square on the map, but they are also never actually blind to any danger within 60'.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but with that message you show that you don't know how the rule works. That's not to say you don't know what the rule says. But you are not applying it well. It really is something that works well. If applied as it's supposed to be applied, characters with darkvision are going to have problems if they don't have any light source in the dark. It's always better to have darkvision if you don't have light, as is logical and as it should be, but you can't go through the dark without a light source without consequences. Think how you see in the moonlight without any other light source, and you will understand how you should narrate darkvision as a DM.
Don't worry I'm not insulted. :)
Oddly enough, moonlight is considered to be the same as utter darkness to the game designers. Only a 'particularly brilliant full moon'' could be considered dim light. I disagree with them on this, (and sometimes wonder how much time they've spent outside), but that's the rule. Shrug. They say dim light is closer to dawn or twilight. But I think candlelight is also a pretty easy way to look at it.
I'm not trying to say that darkvision is perfect sight. I just meant the characters that have it don't worry about light in exactly the same way others do. Mechanically the only penalty for dim light is disadvantage on perception checks. The penalty for darkness is suffering the blindness condition, which is massive. If a party has to choose how to approach a group of lizardfolk sitting around a campfire, they won't care if they have a penalty to perception checks, or what color the world is, or if the details are hard to make out. They're going to take advantage on attacks against the monsters, and disadvantage on being hit by them. They're going to use darkvision if they have it.
The 'always moving Venn diagram' aspect is an annoyance to even narrate or visialize. It's hard to explain well without actually drawing it. But I'll try a scenario:
The party is in a dungeon. The human fighter holds a torch in the center of a large dark cavern. The halfling cleric stands beside her. The dwarf wizard is 15' to the right. And the drow rogue is 10' behind them. 100 feet ahead there is a pair of candles on the far wall. Just try to picture exactly what each character can see, and how they see it. It's enough to make your head hurt. And it changes every turn.
For the human and the halfling, they see the light of the torch as normal, and the light of the candles ahead as normal. Three bubbles of light, defined clearly by their source and the area they illuminate on the map. All of the players at the table can visualize it instantly. They can easily imagine three orbs of light in the darkness. They can see the areas on the map. Everything else is pitch dark.
But what about the dwarf and the drow? The dwarf doesn't base his vision totally on the lights alone. He sees the torch light 15' to his left, and the candles at the end. The candles are too far for darkvision to make them brighter for him. But he can see 60' ahead in that direction and see a ravine crossing the center of the room. A ravine the human and halfling can't see. But his vision gives out before he can see the other side. It doesn't matter that it all looks and dim and black and white to him. He sees the danger. He also sees a circle of light around the torch on his left that all looks bright to him, but overlaps his own circle of personal darkvision. So there are weird intersecting fields of color and monochrome vision for him. And as soon as he takes a step, they move in trippy ways.
The drow rogue is even stranger. She is standing in the torch light, and can see all the way to the candles. Her 120' darkvision circle overlaps 3 circles of real light in 3 different places. Everything in between these bright patches is monochromatic, and these 'fliters on the camera' of her mind shift every time any of them move. But she can also see the other side of the ravine and the three giant zombies milling about there! The monsters that no one else saw.
Now, as a DM, we have some choices to makes. First, do we even try to describe these ever shifting bubbles of different light filters? Not every time probably. That would be repetitive and annoying and add nothing to the story. But maybe in certain situations like this? Though I suspect the players don't care that the zombies are in dim black and white. Just that they are there.
Which brings up the second problem. There are no surprises in this whole cavern. No dangers or mood. I can describe it beautifully for the human and halfling. The echos in the dark. The distant candle light flickering, giving a faint clue that this room is much larger than they can see.
But for the dwarf and drow? I can take them each aside separately and tell them what they see. But that's going to get old. And there's not much point. Because as soon as they get back to the table, their characters are just going to say:
'There's a ravine ahead, watch your step.'
And 'Not just that, there's zombies on the other side'
So now the cavern might as well have been lit from wall to wall with the warm light of dawn. The information is all there for everyone. All of the interesting things about the room are exposed and the spooky ambience is gone. But the third part is even worse.
So what does this party do now? They have to deal with the ravine and the zombies. Crossing a ravine will be much easier without monsters on the other side. If the dwarf wizard and drow rogue can sneak up on them, they'll get a huge advantage. The dwarf and zombies have the same darkvision range, but the zombies have terrible passive perception. So the dwarf can sneak closer and prepare a spell. The drow rogue can easily stay just outside of the zombies vision and get sneak attacks (and reliable Sharpshooter) with a crossbow every turn.
But the human fighter and halfling cleric can't get closer without blowing it for everyone. If they walk up with a torch, the zombies see everybody. If they put the torch out, they walk blindly into the ravine. So for the tenth time this dungeon, they just sit this fight out and let the other party members take care of the monsters. Then they can cross the ravine that surprised no one at their leisure.
Those are my problems with darkvision summed up with an example. These kinds of situations happen again and again in any kind of dungeon crawl, or wilderness encounter at night, and even in cities and castles. You can only describe darkvision as looking different so many times before no one cares. There is a clear mechanical advantage that outweighs whether they can see in color or not, or how dim the light looks. It's the difference between seeing something and being blind. It's revealing the whole room at once or just part. It's getting advantage on attacks and the benefits that come with it. And all of those mechanical bonuses require tracking vision that's not based on light sources, but character positions too.
I don't really want to lay circle templates on my map around every character to track the details of what they can and can't see. I want to have room for some surprises in the dark. I want all my players to get to play the game without feeling like they are wasting a mechanical advantage just by having the human present in the room.
But if you have any solutions, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm always eager to learn better ways to DM. Darkvision isn't the worst thing in the game. I just think the game could be a lot better without it.
Two suggestions: first, describe the sounds. The entire party can get an idea of the cavern's size by its echoes. Even if the ceiling rises up 25 feet (out of range for the torch light) you can still describe faint glimmers of damp stone far above. And...from somewhere ahead of them, they hear a faint shuffling sound--not quite footsteps, not quite something being dragged. And then, faintly, they think they might have heard what sounded like...a moan.
After that ambience is described, the human and halfling may turn to the dwarf or drow and ask of their own accord, "do you see anything in the darkness ahead?" And then you can describe the situation at maximum level of perception.
Second, I used to play with a "point man" position for this very reason. Basically, it's the PC in front or near the front who has good perception and is going to spot the hazards first. It is simply assumed that, if they see something worth mentioning, they are immediately going to let the entire party know. Most kinds of ambush from the front would to have to roll for stealth against the point player's perception or everybody in the party would hear their cry of alarm and have a chance to react. Passive perception works this way, also, with the unspoken understanding that the party is cohesive enough to share information quickly and accurately.
A side note: my table loves playing with decorative minatures that I can scatter all over the dungeon. Piles of bones, debris, crates, barrels, webs, etc. I love to sprinkle the dungeon floor around the players as they move through the chambers, to help them understand that this is the area they can see clearly. Beyond that I may put up some wall pieces here and there (or draw a basic wall-line on the vinyl mat we play on), but it is not filled in, which helps to present the idea that those areas are not quite fully perceived.
As for how your example would play out: if somebody in the party had a bullseye lantern, then everybody would be able to see the ravine in bright light and the zombies in dim light. If either the cleric or wizard has Dancing Lights, then the zombies could be in bright light (but the crevice might not be, depending on where the lights are positioned).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I understand the rules for Darkvision and lighting well, and know how to apply it. I know all the tricks you can use with it and ways to try to mitigation some problems. My issues with Darkvision is that the correct application of it is tedious, takes away some of a DMs ability to create good dramatic ambience, and leaves a power gap that makes some players make character decisions based solely on it. I explained all that in that full response, but basically...
Characters with Darkvision don't really need light the same way characters that don't have it need light. They are essentially their own light source, centered on their eyes. They carry with them their own 60' bubble of different light, that when applied correctly, overlaps actual light source bubbles and interacts differently everywhere they cross. It's like playing with a very complicated, always moving, Venn diagram. Within their persobnal bubble, mechanical benefits change from square to square on the map, but they are also never actually blind to any danger within 60'.
My proposal means no one has a personal bubble. Everyone's vision is dependant on the light sources available. What characters can see or not is clearly represented on the tabletop by the lights themselves. Every player can see it and understand it instantly. And you can actually bring back mood lighting and a fear of the dark.
I know a lot of people don't have a problem with Darkvision. And a lot of people get it wrong because it's unnecessarily complicated to implement. I just personally wish it was different. So people could play the species they really want without worrying they'll be left behind. So DMs can make dungeons spooky for once. And so no one has to do mental gymnastics imagining overlapping bubbles of vision. Everyone can look at the map, see the torches on the walls and the shadows in the corners, and just instantly get it. But that's just me.
It's a good idea to capture a wider range of types of lighting. It addresses some of the problems I personally have with Darkvision, but not most of them. If minimal light still means characters without Darkvision have disadvantage on attacks, and attacks against them get advantage (the other part of Heavily Obscured) then a lot of the same issues exist. Characters with Darkvision have a personal bubble where they have massive advantages against those without it. And you have to still track their vision as a 'separate light source' in a sense. But at least anyone can actually see in moonlight, so that's already an improvement over 5e haha.
Well, night vision is still an advantage, but it means you don't have people creeping through a dungeon without a light source, which was always my issue (yes, it limits your ability to see traps, but it also vastly limits the ability of the monsters to see you coming).
While it may be a good idea in theory, in practice most groups don't really care. Most of the time a group will basically have 'you can see just fine', 'if you have dark vision you can see just fine. If not you're basically blind.' and 'you're blind even if you have dark vision.' in terms of lightning. Adding more kinds of lightning seems like it would only matter in a tiny number of groups. Most only barely follow the lightning rules in the first place.
Which is one of the reasons I made the suggestion I did originally. It just simplifies everything. Everyone looks at the map and sees the light sources (or imagines them in their minds without a map) - the torch in your hand, the streetlamp, the Light spell.
It's bright light near the source. It's dim light further from it. It's dark beyond that. Everyone sees the same thing, originating from the same actual sources, not their characters. Some just don't suffer the disadvantage on Preception rolls where it's dim.
It's as easy and intuitive as I could make it. It's probably not for everyone, and that's totally cool. It's just how I wished it worked.
Does anybody equip their characters with the bullseye lantern any more?
In the older editions, there was a better description of its purpose that implied an alternative to darkvision (which explains why it is twice the cost of the hooded lantern).
Basically, it gives the person holding it the ability to see well in a single direction (the direction they are looking, same as with darkvision) while still being "concealed". True, anything hiding in the darkness is going to be able to spot that point of light and know somebody is coming, but the holder is not illuminated and their position remains unknown relative to the light source, so a ranged shot is going to be disadvantaged at best.
I suppose the drawback is that the holder can't use two hands for combat, but as far as range, it's actually twice as effective as darkvision.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I have never seen a group utilize it. Most barely remember to utilize torches unless the fight is specifically designed around it.
That's certainly not just you) How I wish to bring back darkness as a universal factor...
Two out of the three characters I currently play have one (and all three of my characters have darkvision). One of them is just a pack rat Gnome Rogue that filled a bag of holding with just about every mundane item from the PHB, but has never needed to use the lantern. The other is a Dwarf Wizard and the lantern has come in quite handy when searching out some caverns (plus, he really has no use for his off hand in combat).
I should note, that I came back to DnD 5e after a hiatus of 25-30 years, so I am a bit more used to the ADnD playstyle, which may have influenced my equipment choices.
I almost universally play humans so when I do get to play which isn't often I use them. I like to take the control flame cantrip with this. I will usually hang a hooded lantern on me and carry the bullseye. With control flames doubling their light range the hooded is bright 60' dim another 60, and the bullseye is bright 120, dim another 120 in the cone. Bring a few torches as well as oil can break. With that much bright light generally there isn't many complaints from the darkvision crowd, I just may have to shutter them occasionally when the stealth group wants to do something.
I think this may hit on why people just don't really bother with lighting rules unless something specifically revolves around it. A lot of races, including several of the most popular ones (elf, dwarf, tiefling, half-elf, and half-orc) have dark vision innate. If you don't have dark vision multiple classes have access to cantrips including ones like light and produce flame. So only a small section of characters (basically human fighters. Most common race/class combination by far admittedly.) will be in a situation where they don't have some method of lighting anyways. Even if they are you can probably just have the caster cast the light cantrip on your armor or something so you can illuminate the area around you. So an even a smaller amount of parties will be in a situation where illuminating a torch or lantern is useful. And remember, this is for something that doesn't matter the majority of the time and, frankly, a lot of players and GMs don't remember and/or consider 'unfun'. So... Yea.
Then come up with challenges the spells can't simply circumvent.
That's... not really easy to do. Especially without getting into 'cruel/punishing GM' territory. Like, what? Are all dungeons and mines suddenly going to have magical darkness throughout to stop someone from using a light spell? Will every night fight start with the enemy casters constantly spamming darkness to keep anyone who has a light cantrip from illuminating the area; but also for some reason avoiding people who use torches/lamps? You punish players for using a solution because it's not YOUR solution and don't be surprised if you lose players. If you don't want them using something like light just inform them that it's banned or something right from the get-go instead of punishing them. IIRC Goblin Slayer had a moment where Priestess used a purify spell to turn a goblins blood into water killing it and the Goddess allowed it to happen but also told her that it wouldn't work again; which is how a situation like that should be handled.
You have that completely backwards.
You don't shut down the spell by creating magical darkness or whatever. You remove it from consideration by not making illumination the problem to be solved. There are other ways to challenge the players. If you want to see more mundane items used to solve problems, then present those kinds of problems to the players. Granted, success does require the DM knowing what their players have on hand. But the DM should at least have an idea.
Or you can play with what the spells can do. The light spell doesn't just create light. It creates light in a color of the spellcaster's choosing. So why not black light? Blood spatter and invisible paint just became tools the DM can use for their games. Or have you ever seen National Treasure? The Ben Franklin glasses had multiple different-colored lenses for reading a map drawn with special inks. Used in a variety of combinations, the lenses revealed different facets of the map. A similar approach could work with multiple people having the light spell. Just need to tease that as a possible solution in advance.
In my example I used a cantrip to enhance it but the core problem solver was the mundane item of lanterns and torches. A standard lantern gives bright light out to 30 feet and dim out to 60 feet. Dark vision is 60 feet, but darkness is considered basically dim light for them. So a standard hooded lantern puts you on the same footing as dark vision. And its not hard to rig something on your pack to hold it for you. The light spell is 20/40 so the lantern is better it just requires a annoying resource management feature. Using both a magic spell and a mundane item is the best result but I can't see how that is bad for the game.
The issue with darkvision isn't the difficulty of getting light and vision for the party as that is easy both with or without magic. The issue is the stealth benefits of a all dark vision party are massive. A light doesn't just illuminate the area, it announces your presence for a distance well past the range the light illuminates.
I created a thread in the homebrew section because of this problem. Basically, because 5e is designed for players to speed-run through the first 5 levels, there is a dearth of mundane gameplay (masterwork weapons, keen edges, etc). The end result is also that dungeons feel more empty, with only a few items found--over and over again--in the low-level treasure tables.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but with that message you show that you don't know how the rule works. That's not to say you don't know what the rule says. But you are not applying it well. It really is something that works well.
If applied as it's supposed to be applied, characters with darkvision are going to have problems if they don't have any light source in the dark. It's always better to have darkvision if you don't have light, as is logical and as it should be, but you can't go through the dark without a light source without consequences.
Think how you see in the moonlight without any other light source, and you will understand how you should narrate darkvision as a DM.
No, that's pretty accurate. I get what they're saying, at least, from a mechanical perspective. Because darkvision does create a bubble around the character that can overlap with other bubbles. By itself, it never lets that radius be treated as anything less than dim light for that character. And it can overlap with other areas of dim light to create bright light for that character.
The issue is everything else. Poor illumination can be easily circumvented, via both tools and spells, so relying on that alone for atmosphere is a problem. Which is why we should be striving to paint a picture via other means. The light has finite reach, so expand the area to maintain noticeable darkness. The light is relative safety. Threats can still exist beyond its bounds─unseen. Add sounds and visual evidence. The greatest risk of misapplying the rule is as a storytelling tool.
As for their proposal, I don't like it. But it's also not official, unlikely to ever be official, and even if it were─I just don't have to use it. It's not broken, so I have no intention of fixing it.
Don't worry I'm not insulted. :)
Oddly enough, moonlight is considered to be the same as utter darkness to the game designers. Only a 'particularly brilliant full moon'' could be considered dim light. I disagree with them on this, (and sometimes wonder how much time they've spent outside), but that's the rule. Shrug. They say dim light is closer to dawn or twilight. But I think candlelight is also a pretty easy way to look at it.
I'm not trying to say that darkvision is perfect sight. I just meant the characters that have it don't worry about light in exactly the same way others do. Mechanically the only penalty for dim light is disadvantage on perception checks. The penalty for darkness is suffering the blindness condition, which is massive. If a party has to choose how to approach a group of lizardfolk sitting around a campfire, they won't care if they have a penalty to perception checks, or what color the world is, or if the details are hard to make out. They're going to take advantage on attacks against the monsters, and disadvantage on being hit by them. They're going to use darkvision if they have it.
The 'always moving Venn diagram' aspect is an annoyance to even narrate or visialize. It's hard to explain well without actually drawing it. But I'll try a scenario:
The party is in a dungeon. The human fighter holds a torch in the center of a large dark cavern. The halfling cleric stands beside her. The dwarf wizard is 15' to the right. And the drow rogue is 10' behind them. 100 feet ahead there is a pair of candles on the far wall. Just try to picture exactly what each character can see, and how they see it. It's enough to make your head hurt. And it changes every turn.
For the human and the halfling, they see the light of the torch as normal, and the light of the candles ahead as normal. Three bubbles of light, defined clearly by their source and the area they illuminate on the map. All of the players at the table can visualize it instantly. They can easily imagine three orbs of light in the darkness. They can see the areas on the map. Everything else is pitch dark.
But what about the dwarf and the drow? The dwarf doesn't base his vision totally on the lights alone. He sees the torch light 15' to his left, and the candles at the end. The candles are too far for darkvision to make them brighter for him. But he can see 60' ahead in that direction and see a ravine crossing the center of the room. A ravine the human and halfling can't see. But his vision gives out before he can see the other side. It doesn't matter that it all looks and dim and black and white to him. He sees the danger. He also sees a circle of light around the torch on his left that all looks bright to him, but overlaps his own circle of personal darkvision. So there are weird intersecting fields of color and monochrome vision for him. And as soon as he takes a step, they move in trippy ways.
The drow rogue is even stranger. She is standing in the torch light, and can see all the way to the candles. Her 120' darkvision circle overlaps 3 circles of real light in 3 different places. Everything in between these bright patches is monochromatic, and these 'fliters on the camera' of her mind shift every time any of them move. But she can also see the other side of the ravine and the three giant zombies milling about there! The monsters that no one else saw.
Now, as a DM, we have some choices to makes. First, do we even try to describe these ever shifting bubbles of different light filters? Not every time probably. That would be repetitive and annoying and add nothing to the story. But maybe in certain situations like this? Though I suspect the players don't care that the zombies are in dim black and white. Just that they are there.
Which brings up the second problem. There are no surprises in this whole cavern. No dangers or mood. I can describe it beautifully for the human and halfling. The echos in the dark. The distant candle light flickering, giving a faint clue that this room is much larger than they can see.
But for the dwarf and drow? I can take them each aside separately and tell them what they see. But that's going to get old. And there's not much point. Because as soon as they get back to the table, their characters are just going to say:
'There's a ravine ahead, watch your step.'
And 'Not just that, there's zombies on the other side'
So now the cavern might as well have been lit from wall to wall with the warm light of dawn. The information is all there for everyone. All of the interesting things about the room are exposed and the spooky ambience is gone. But the third part is even worse.
So what does this party do now? They have to deal with the ravine and the zombies. Crossing a ravine will be much easier without monsters on the other side. If the dwarf wizard and drow rogue can sneak up on them, they'll get a huge advantage. The dwarf and zombies have the same darkvision range, but the zombies have terrible passive perception. So the dwarf can sneak closer and prepare a spell. The drow rogue can easily stay just outside of the zombies vision and get sneak attacks (and reliable Sharpshooter) with a crossbow every turn.
But the human fighter and halfling cleric can't get closer without blowing it for everyone. If they walk up with a torch, the zombies see everybody. If they put the torch out, they walk blindly into the ravine. So for the tenth time this dungeon, they just sit this fight out and let the other party members take care of the monsters. Then they can cross the ravine that surprised no one at their leisure.
Those are my problems with darkvision summed up with an example. These kinds of situations happen again and again in any kind of dungeon crawl, or wilderness encounter at night, and even in cities and castles. You can only describe darkvision as looking different so many times before no one cares. There is a clear mechanical advantage that outweighs whether they can see in color or not, or how dim the light looks. It's the difference between seeing something and being blind. It's revealing the whole room at once or just part. It's getting advantage on attacks and the benefits that come with it. And all of those mechanical bonuses require tracking vision that's not based on light sources, but character positions too.
I don't really want to lay circle templates on my map around every character to track the details of what they can and can't see. I want to have room for some surprises in the dark. I want all my players to get to play the game without feeling like they are wasting a mechanical advantage just by having the human present in the room.
But if you have any solutions, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm always eager to learn better ways to DM. Darkvision isn't the worst thing in the game. I just think the game could be a lot better without it.
Two suggestions: first, describe the sounds. The entire party can get an idea of the cavern's size by its echoes. Even if the ceiling rises up 25 feet (out of range for the torch light) you can still describe faint glimmers of damp stone far above. And...from somewhere ahead of them, they hear a faint shuffling sound--not quite footsteps, not quite something being dragged. And then, faintly, they think they might have heard what sounded like...a moan.
After that ambience is described, the human and halfling may turn to the dwarf or drow and ask of their own accord, "do you see anything in the darkness ahead?" And then you can describe the situation at maximum level of perception.
Second, I used to play with a "point man" position for this very reason. Basically, it's the PC in front or near the front who has good perception and is going to spot the hazards first. It is simply assumed that, if they see something worth mentioning, they are immediately going to let the entire party know. Most kinds of ambush from the front would to have to roll for stealth against the point player's perception or everybody in the party would hear their cry of alarm and have a chance to react. Passive perception works this way, also, with the unspoken understanding that the party is cohesive enough to share information quickly and accurately.
A side note: my table loves playing with decorative minatures that I can scatter all over the dungeon. Piles of bones, debris, crates, barrels, webs, etc. I love to sprinkle the dungeon floor around the players as they move through the chambers, to help them understand that this is the area they can see clearly. Beyond that I may put up some wall pieces here and there (or draw a basic wall-line on the vinyl mat we play on), but it is not filled in, which helps to present the idea that those areas are not quite fully perceived.
As for how your example would play out: if somebody in the party had a bullseye lantern, then everybody would be able to see the ravine in bright light and the zombies in dim light. If either the cleric or wizard has Dancing Lights, then the zombies could be in bright light (but the crevice might not be, depending on where the lights are positioned).
~not a "lazy dungeon master"