Thanks TaleMasterTOV. I do really appreciate that you took the time to write up a helpful response. It's good advice.
Unfortunately it just doesn't address any of the problems I have with Darkvision in the first place. I guess I could have been a little more clear. My post was in response to being told I didn't understand the rules, or at least that I don't apply them well enough. But the rules are my problem. In other words... I get how they work, they just work against me.
In the example above, the problem is that I don't want the party to see the whole cavern at once. I don't want them to be aware of the space and the monsters until they stumble on them. I want it to be dark and mysterious. Even if they had a bullseye lantern or dancing lights, they would only get glimpses of the room, with ever present shadows somewhere. That would be so much more interesting. They would have to move with caution and work together.
But with Darkvision, everyone just knows the whole layout from the start. It's not spooky or dangerous at all. And I still have to deal with characters playing by different lighting rules from each other. I still have to track moving circles based on completely different factors. I still have to deal with the fact that some characters are going to get left out because it's tactically more sound to let the drow rogue just snipe all the zombies from 70' away. I still have the rogue player feeling like they had to pick a drow in the first place because a human would have hindered their class too much. These were the reasons I made the original post for this thread of how I wish Darkvision really worked instead.
Genuinely, I don't want to seem ungrateful for your effort. I appreciate the willingness to help. And it did give me some ideas for things outside of the Darkvision problem. Thank you!
There are several situations that must be taken into account.
The first thing is that the rules are an abstraction. They don't have to reflect reality as it is, they have to work for the game. In D&D, the light rules have two main goals: combat, and dungeon exploration. In combat, if you don't have Darkvision, and you are in darkness, you have disadvantage and your opponents have advantage against you. Could it be done differently? Well, yes, of course. But it works.
On the other hand, regarding dungeon exploration, if you don't have darkvision and you're in the dark, you don't see anything. If you have darkvision, you see shadows and bulges (hence what I said about moonlight, not that the game treats it that way. That is, for one to understand what it looks like in dimlight, the closest thing in the real world is a moonlit night).
All of that is simplified by saying that in darkness you are blinded, in dimlight you have disadvantage in perception, and if you have darkvision you see in darkness as if it were dimlight (and colorless). That could be done differently, but it works like it's supposed to. The problem is that many game tables do not apply it that way. Rather they narrate darkness with darkvision as if it were bright light (or even ignore dimlight altogether). And it is not like that. The Drow and Dwarf in your example see shadows beyond the torchlight, and lights in the background. The human and the halfling see darkness beyond the torchlight, and lights in the background (then you can complicate your life as much as you want beyond 60 feet from the dwarf, or the dimlight areas of the torches, etc... It's up to you.). I don't see why that ruins your gloomy and dark description.
On the other hand, as a DM you can complicate your life as much as you want. You can make groups and narrate the same separately, or you can assume that your players are adults and are going to play their characters with the information that their character can know. If the human sees nothing in the dark, and the Drow doesn't explain what he sees, his player should interpret that he doesn't know what's there. The rules can hardly change these table dynamics. And they don't have to either.
That being said, obviously the rules can abstract reality in many ways. For light D&D go for the option in the rulebook, and it works. That does not mean that they can do it in other ways, of course. But I don't see the need to change that. What I do think is that there are many tables that do not apply the rules of light and darkvision, and then complain that the light sources (such as the cantrip or the torches) are useless. And they do work. For everyone, even for those who have darkvision.
I think at this point Stegodorkus is just going to be getting tired of having the rules they've shown they understand repeatedly explained to them.
Instead of just assuming that someone who has an issue with the rule (and trust me, there are plenty of people out there that see problems with how darkvision is handled in 5e) must not understand the rule; maybe start assuming that while the rule works fine enough for you, it just might not for somebody else.
All of that is simplified by saying that in darkness you are blinded, in dimlight you have disadvantage in perception, and if you have darkvision you see in darkness as if it were dimlight (and colorless). That could be done differently, but it works like it's supposed to. The problem is that many game tables do not apply it that way. Rather they narrate darkness with darkvision as if it were bright light (or even ignore dimlight altogether).
Right, so you wrote "In darkness you are blinded, in dimlight you have disadvantage on perception, and if you have darkvision you see in darkness as if it were dimlight (and colorless)". Now, you did leave off the additional needed detail that if you have darkvision you see in dim light as if it were bright. This is also still leaving off the portion detailing that your darkvision is limited in range, so you're going to have to track that.
So ultimately what it is:
"In darkness you are blinded. In dim light you suffer disadvantage on perception checks. If you have darkvision you see in darkness as if it were dim light, but you are unable to see color; additionally, you see in dim light as if it were bright. Your darkvision is limited by a range dependent on your creature type, beyond which your vision functions as though you do not have darkvision."
You say this is simplified, and sure...it is; but it could be simplified in a better way (subjectively, but I think arguably borderline objectively) by just using Stegodorkus's suggestion, making it:
"In darkness you are blinded. In dim light you suffer disadvantage on perception checks. If you have darkvision you do not suffer disadvantage on perception checks in dim light."
And voila, there's still an appreciable benefit to darkvision, but actual darkness is handled the same for everybody, increasing the use of and benefit of mundane torches and lanterns, making more creative and necessary use of lighting spells, and (arguably most importantly) increasing party cohesion as well as reducing the feeling many players have that they MUST choose a race that has darkvision because the rest of the party is going to have it. Additionally, there's no longer any silly radius to worry about, which is easily a good portion of the reason people start being lazy about applying vision rules properly in the first place; because lets face it, when 1/4 of your party can't see anything at all in a particular lighting and the other 3/4 of the party can...but wait..****y so far away (and do they only have 60 ft. of darkvision or do they have 120 ft.?...wait...let me double check to see if they're within range to see this beholder lurking in absolute darkness) ...anyway...my point is you're very likely at points going to get lax about tracking and applying that 100% correctly.
I don't see why that ruins your gloomy and dark description.
Because the drow and dwarf you mentioned aren't blinded by natural lighting. At all. Ever. So, even though they suffer penalties, and do still benefit from having light, and yes it changes how the dm describes the environment to them, they do not ever actually NEED to do anything about it. Rather than getting maybe 25% of the scenery delivered to them as they try to carefully navigate their way through the terrain wondering what might be in that other 75% and contemplating if its worth the risk of lighting a torch or casting dancing lights, they are instead getting 75% of that scenery delivered to them and have much less reason to be concerned about that remaining 25% and thus are much more likely to shrug off the need for that light.
If the human sees nothing in the dark, and the Drow doesn't explain what he sees, his player should interpret that he doesn't know what's there. The rules can hardly change these table dynamics. And they don't have to either.
You're right, the rules can't really do anything about these table dynamics, and I agree they don't have to. Fortunately I have players that try their best to deal only with the information their character would have. But its also disingenuous and unfair to just expect the player to ignore all the information they heard that they have to pretend their character doesn't know. Even if they have absolutely no intention of abusing that information, they (and the dm) now have to wonder if any decision they make for their character has been subconsciously influenced by the knowledge they have as a player, and if you scoff or dismiss this then you don't really understand just how much all of that will influence even their tiniest thinking. Further, if they ignore the information they shouldn't have but do, and lets say they willfully move their character into a position that harms them (even though, it is possible they actually WOULDN'T have done this if they weren't trying to ignore information they shouldn't have) while telling themselves "well...my character wouldn't know" the player is going to feel bad. They just willfully made a bad decision as a player that hurt them, and maybe hurt the entire party, because they need to forcefully ignore information that they as a player have, but their character doesn't. Now...again, I agree this problem can't really be "fixed" entirely. It's always going to exist in some manner....but the amount of effect that darkvision specifically has on it can definitely be mitigated.
What I do think is that there are many tables that do not apply the rules of light and darkvision, and then complain that the light sources (such as the cantrip or the torches) are useless. And they do work. For everyone, even for those who have darkvision.
The complaints about light sources being useless are hyperbole, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a problem. My point is as I said above, that for these players, they aren't NEEDED. There is a big difference between something being useful, and something being needed. And if you have darkvision, the benefit of these spells, while never completely deniable, is arguable; there are tons of reasons to pass these spells up for things that will grant you larger and more consistent benefit since you always have your darkvision to fall back on.
Also, while I think the rules of light and darkvision get jumbled at tables in play with everything in flux (I listed above why I think that things are going to get mixed up at the table, and I'm sure you've done so too if you've dmed), I don't think most that complain are to the point that you imply where they're just not applying the rules at all; or they are but only because they got tired of losing track of who can see what, or losing time to party cohesion due to vision, so just granted everybody darkvision to simplify it for themselves. More importantly though, the point I want to get to here is: if so many people are just not playing with the rules for lighting and vision in place properly as you state, I'd say that means there's a solid argument that the rules for lighting and vision need to be reworked.
The rules can always be qualified, changed or expanded. But in my opinion in this case it is not necessary. I am not saying that they are infallible or perfect, but in general they work. And they do it the way they should, IMO.
Now here are things we can get into. Is looking for traps with disadvantage on the roll, or having a -5 passive perception enough to have to turn on a light? It depends. I played a campaign a long time ago that took place practically all in a dark dungeon full of traps and, at the beginning, despite being a drow, I had to light a torch from time to time to see where I was stepping (dancing light is not good for that because they emit dim light). Later, to avoid that, I gained expertise in perception. With that, the -5 or the disadvantage on the roll were no longer important to me, and I was able to walk in the dark without too much trouble. Is that a bug in how the rules handle darkvision? Not in my opinion. It's a rogue buff. The same if I had been a Warlock with devil's sight, that I would have seen normally in the dark. That is an advantage of the Warlock, that thanks to his class he overcomes an obstacle that others have.
On the other hand there are things that the rules do not specifically say, but that are common sense. If you see in darkness as if you were in dim light, you are seeing in shadows (at some point it tells you that dim light is equivalent to shadows, I don't remember exactly where now). Then the DM can easily tell you that the engraving you're trying to read doesn't show up clearly enough without a light source. Or that you can't clearly make out the faces of those figures that crouch in the shadows. Do the rules specifically tell you that this is the case? As far as I remember, no. But IMO it is implied.
Finally there is the issue of "bubbles" of light. For me that has never been a problem at all. I understand what you say, but I really don't see where the problem is. In the effective simulation of reality? In a game jam? In the difficulty of narrating that convincingly? I apply it according to the situation. If it is not relevant that the dwarf sees darkness beyond 60 feet, and then some lights in the background, for me he sees shadows and little flickering lights in the background. If it is relevant, because for example there is someone hiding there, then he sees shadows up to 60 feet, darkness, and some candlelight in the background.
In any case, to make my position clear, although I think it already is, in my opinion darkvision does not need a revision in one D&D. Many of the problems that are attributed to darkvision come from applying it badly, or not applying the lighting rules at all. can it be reviewed anyway? Yes of course. That can be done with any rule. But for me it has never been a problem of the rules. However, if they improve it, welcome. But I insist that many problems come from how it is being applied, rather than from the rule itself.
Thanks TaleMasterTOV. I do really appreciate that you took the time to write up a helpful response. It's good advice.
Unfortunately it just doesn't address any of the problems I have with Darkvision in the first place. I guess I could have been a little more clear. My post was in response to being told I didn't understand the rules, or at least that I don't apply them well enough. But the rules are my problem. In other words... I get how they work, they just work against me.
In the example above, the problem is that I don't want the party to see the whole cavern at once. I don't want them to be aware of the space and the monsters until they stumble on them. I want it to be dark and mysterious. Even if they had a bullseye lantern or dancing lights, they would only get glimpses of the room, with ever present shadows somewhere. That would be so much more interesting. They would have to move with caution and work together.
But with Darkvision, everyone just knows the whole layout from the start. It's not spooky or dangerous at all. And I still have to deal with characters playing by different lighting rules from each other. I still have to track moving circles based on completely different factors. I still have to deal with the fact that some characters are going to get left out because it's tactically more sound to let the drow rogue just snipe all the zombies from 70' away. I still have the rogue player feeling like they had to pick a drow in the first place because a human would have hindered their class too much. These were the reasons I made the original post for this thread of how I wish Darkvision really worked instead.
Genuinely, I don't want to seem ungrateful for your effort. I appreciate the willingness to help. And it did give me some ideas for things outside of the Darkvision problem. Thank you!
While I think I understand the basis of your problems with the vision rules in DnD, I really don't know if there is a genuine solution mechanically that would be able to reflect the complicated situation you described without being overly cumbersome. I guess playing in theater of the mind would allow a DM who has a flair for the dramatic to have greater control over the description, leaving more mystery. However, even in a simpler situation, the experiences related to human(oid)s sensing the world around them is a high bar to achieve in an RPG. I think the only way to come close to reflecting this is really through a high level of investment from both the DM and the players, leading to a greater level of immersion.
I'm gong to try again, because this is my fault for not doing a good job explaining myself. Or perhaps the thread went on too long and we lost track of each other. I'll try to be more to the point.
I know how Darkvision works. My example situation was meant to illustrate why I don't like it:
There's no mystery or ambience - everyone knows what's in the room
But they can't all use that knowledge the same way
The best tactical approach to the encounter is to leave some characters out of it
The advantages of darkvision are so great that people feel obligated to take it on some classes
I don't have a problem understanding this scene, or describing this scene to the players. I have a problem that the scenario exists in the first place because of darkvision.
I don't have a problem describing darkvision as dim, monochromatic light. It just doesn't matter to anyone because of the actual mechanical rules. Darkness is so much of a disadvantage that dim light is always better than being blind. And keeping yourself shrouded in darkness is such an advantage, that having 'dim light' that the enemy can't see is better than seeing well with a torch.
I fully expect my characters to talk to each other. I expect the drow to describe the room, the ravine, and the zombies to the other characters. The problem is that the whole party instantly knows it's all there because one does, but also they can't all do something about it equally. The DM loses any chance of mood and mystery, and the players don't all get to actually play.
My solution to all of this is to change darkvision. Let them see better in dim light, and nothing in darkness. Then everyone needs light. There is an advantage to having darkvision, but not so much that it creates these situations..
The scenario I described would play out completely different. They all see the same three light sources - the torch and the candles. Everything else is dark for everyone. They have to explore the room together. Once they reach the edge of the ravine, the dwarf and drow get to roll perception without penalty to see the zombies on the other side. Then they all get to fight together as a team in the flickering torchlight at the edge of a cliff.
It solves all of my issues with one simple rule. It's easier than the current darkvision, not harder. Because it's just like real life.
But I understand this might not be to everyone's taste. You might like darkvision just fine the way it is. I'm not trying to change any minds. That's why I said this is only how I personally wished it would work.
Another suggestion for ambience: roll stealth for the zombies the moment the party enters the room. If they fail (which is likely), you can then describe the candles at the far end of the room..."and as the party is watching, one of them winks out...then back. As though a shadow moved in front of one of the candles, momentarily blotting out its light." Then...say nothing more. Let them wonder what is over there...how big it is...and whether it is coming towards them. From that distance, darkvision would only allow them to see "humanoid forms". Maybe, if their perception roll is really high, they notice these humanoids are shambling clumsily around. Let the party wonder if these are zombies or...something worse.
Example from a recent session of mine: Most of the characters at my table have darkvision (*eyes roll*) and a ridiculously high passive perception, so I have to find other ways of hiding stuff from them. Darn those clever kobolds hiding their trip wires in the cobwebs that seem to cover every surface of this cavern (DC 20 or higher to spot). To get around these traps, the ranger has been scouting each room with his giant wolf spider, using web-sense to find the anomalies and then using his Speak with Animals spell to get what he thinks is a detailed impression of the layout of each room. But the kobolds have also set traps hanging from niches in the ceilings, so as DM I've begun narrating that the spider keeps pausing and "noping" away from certain passages from time to time (the first trap nearly killed it, so there's a reason to "nope"). The ranger likes this gameplay, because he feels like he has an edge up on the dungeon. The other players just let him do this, so it doesn't matter that, when the spider "nopes", they all see it and react warily. It's still tense because I keep describing whispers and scuffles coming down the passages as they creep along. It doesn't matter who has darkvision because all they can see is cobweb-covered walls and the "body language" of a cautious spider.
At one point, the party reaches a narrow passage that stops at a half-constructed wall of rocks that has been covered in a generous coating of green slime. Darkvision does not allow them to tell the difference between green slime and grey stone, but the druid has her Produce Flame spell active, so they clearly see this hazard. The spider is also on the ceiling, noping about something else, but the party assumes it is this wall. I let them assume.
The challenge here is not going too far to explain that this wall (and the trap overhead) was clearly meant to keep something in the room beyond from coming this way. I must have done a good job since the party assumed it was meant to keep treasure-seekers out of the chamber beyond. So the druid burns off the slime with her flame and decides to just "Leroy Jenkins" over the wall...tripping the slime-pot trap that the spider had been "noping" about on the ceiling. The fighter leaps over the wall to help scrape the slime off before the druid dies, at which point I roll for stealth against their passive perception (disadvantaged) and (luckily for them) it fails.
"As you sigh in relief to be free of the slime, you hear a loud, heavy slithering coming from the far side of this cavern."
The druid, with only one HP left, says, "Oh no."
At this point, the ranger, who has been holding back and letting his spider do the scouting, also charges into the cave. Now, he really has no reason to know there is something slithering towards his companions, but I let it go. Maybe he heard the druid's exclamation and realized there was trouble, maybe he just figured the traps had all been cleared and it was safe. Clearly I have managed to unnerve him, because he is no longer playing cautious with his spider-scout. In fact, he has forgotten about his spider entirely. As he comes through the narrow opening into the darkened cavern, the druid casts Produce Flame and I proceed to describe the grick slithering hungrily out from the shadows to snatch up its long-awaited meal. The party's focus is now on the grick, at which point it doesn't matter if it's in full light or shadow (nor that there is a pile of loot over in the corner), because the goal is now just to wack the grick until it dies.
In this situation, darkvision really didn't make much of a difference. I did not treat any of the characters as "blind" because they did not have darkvision. The action unfolded like a story, everybody had fun, and nobody felt like they had to suspend disbelief in order to "see". Also, when it came time to search the room, darkvision gave no advantage over the other players' perception rolls, because gold and gems look like every other pebble on the cavern floor until the flickering torch light sets them to sparkling.
To be honest, I like the current version of Darkvision. You talk about a mechanical sacrifice in terms of picking a species with Darkvision or picking a species you enjoy, but the more you limit Darkvision, the more you will just exacerbate that problem; an option that is mechanically harder to get is going to be mechanically more powerful, and people will then be more likely to sacrifice their fun in order to get it.
For all the talk of arguments over whether or not to use torches, I have never been in a party that spent more than 5 seconds deciding that. In the situations where it was completely dark and not all of us have Darkvision, everyone usually just agrees to go with torches. And while different people seeing different things can be annoying, I feel that you are overstating the significance of it; The difference between seeing in low light and seeing in bright light is small and doesn't usually matter much.
Darkvision isn't the end all be all for Rogues and other sneaky classes, and it can easily be worked around and circumvented. Not only that, but if basically every dungeon you have is completely dark, then I think you may have a bit of a problem. But anyways, if this rule helps you, use it. I personally just don't have a problem with Darkvision and thusly this change is not necessary for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To be honest, I like the current version of Darkvision. You talk about a mechanical sacrifice in terms of picking a species with Darkvision or picking a species you enjoy, but the more you limit Darkvision, the more you will just exacerbate that problem; an option that is mechanically harder to get is going to be mechanically more powerful, and people will then be more likely to sacrifice their fun in order to get it.
For all the talk of arguments over whether or not to use torches, I have never been in a party that spent more than 5 seconds deciding that. In the situations where it was completely dark and not all of us have Darkvision, everyone usually just agrees to go with torches. And while different people seeing different things can be annoying, I feel that you are overstating the significance of it; The difference between seeing in low light and seeing in bright light is small and doesn't usually matter much.
Darkvision isn't the end all be all for Rogues and other sneaky classes, and it can easily be worked around and circumvented. Not only that, but if basically every dungeon you have is completely dark, then I think you may have a bit of a problem. But anyways, if this rule helps you, use it. I personally just don't have a problem with Darkvision and thusly this change is not necessary for me.
Yeah. Honestly, my very first post that started this thread is really just saying "Hey, here's something I think would be cool. It would fix some minor problems I have with darkvision, make some animals make mores sense, open character options more, and generally be more fun for me."
For some people it clicked with them right away. They had some of the same issues it seems. That's awesome, and I hope maybe they can get some use out of the idea at least.
For others, maybe they didn't have the same problems, or I didn't explain my reasoning well enough. That's totally fine too. But then it turned into more of a situation where I had to keep explaining what my issues with darkvision were. And it's a very vague thing to explain. It's not as easy as showing that one feat does more damage than another. It's a lot of nebulous concepts, gut feelings, individual playstyles, game moods, and things that really would benefit from visual aids like diagrams that I don't have. So the more I had to explain it, the more it probably sounded like the problems were bigger than they really are to me. I tried to say many times that this is not a game breaking issue. Just something that I thought could be improved a little for my tastes. But that kind of gets lost in all the back and forth.
I know there are ways to make darkvision work. For me, I just wish it wasn't something anyone had to work around constantly. It should be a nice little perk. Not something that changes the way every encounter is designed. It's kind of like a PC having flight, but far more common. We're just used to having to make concessions to darkvision because it's so prevalent.
I guess for me personally, I just see missed opportunities for a more fun game. It's not a huge issue, even for me, in spite of the way I guess it sounded. I regret even putting as much effort into trying to explain it as I did. But if anyone can use the idea and enjoys it, I guess it was worth it
You're right though. If I use this as a house rule, it has to be all or nothing. Even drow and dwarves can't have true 'darkvision.' They would have have to have low light vision like everyone else, or exactly what you said will happen. I guess it's not too hard to believe anyway. Even drow and dwarf cities have lights everywhere. Drow know the dancing lights cantrip for a reason. So I think that can work.
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, and for making me realize how I was giving off the wrong impression. Really it's not a huge deal. It's just a hard thing to put into words.
Galactic Standard Darkvision is bad. Not because it's mechanically bad or unfair or imbalanced or any of that shit. Nah.
Galactic Standard Darkvision is bad because it's boring. It makes the game less interesting. It's completely identical across every species that has it, and for those species it acts as a Get Out Of Problem Free coupon. They just don't care in the slightest about light. Yes, a DM that works at it can *make* them care, but by default they just...don't. It removes light from being a real consideration and just acts as a tax on parties not made up entirely of Galactic Standard Darkvision havers. It doesn't say anything interesting about the character, it doesn't promote cool ideas or creative tactics/solutions. All it does is say "you no longer care about light."
If you've never run a battle where light mattered, where characters had to deal with torches or lanterns taking up valuable hands, with shadows concealing enemies the party doesn't know exist until they strike, you really don't know what Galactic Standard Darkvision is stealing from your table. Does it break the game? No. Plenty of tables get by without the minutiae of dealing with light and are perfectly happy for it. Awesome for them. But man. I like D&D a lot better when things like light matter, but they CAN'T matter if I don't do something about Galactic Standard Darkvision. It makes my game less fun and I don't like it.
Why isn't that enough for me to want to see it changed, even if just at my table?
While I find darkvision both mechanically weird (what's with having 'range' on vision? Why are we giving darkvision to creatures that are not, in fact, capable of functioning in a lightless cave?) and not conducive to good game play, I think the OPs problems would be best solved by just removing darkvision from PCs and most monsters. It's a really simple house rule (see where it says darkvision on your character sheet? Just erase it) and doesn't introduce weird anomalies.
For me, it's a balancing act between giving light and sight the appropriate amount of relevance to a given encounter, and not getting the encounter too slowed down by mechanics of who can see what with which modifiers. Playing darkvision the way it is in 5e has never caused too much complication, and it also has never left me feeling like the experience was cheapened.
Galactic Standard Darkvision is bad. Not because it's mechanically bad or unfair or imbalanced or any of that shit. Nah.
Galactic Standard Darkvision is bad because it's boring. It makes the game less interesting. It's completely identical across every species that has it, and for those species it acts as a Get Out Of Problem Free coupon. They just don't care in the slightest about light. Yes, a DM that works at it can *make* them care, but by default they just...don't. It removes light from being a real consideration and just acts as a tax on parties not made up entirely of Galactic Standard Darkvision havers. It doesn't say anything interesting about the character, it doesn't promote cool ideas or creative tactics/solutions. All it does is say "you no longer care about light."
If you've never run a battle where light mattered, where characters had to deal with torches or lanterns taking up valuable hands, with shadows concealing enemies the party doesn't know exist until they strike, you really don't know what Galactic Standard Darkvision is stealing from your table. Does it break the game? No. Plenty of tables get by without the minutiae of dealing with light and are perfectly happy for it. Awesome for them. But man. I like D&D a lot better when things like light matter, but they CAN'T matter if I don't do something about Galactic Standard Darkvision. It makes my game less fun and I don't like it.
Why isn't that enough for me to want to see it changed, even if just at my table?
Exactly. Lighting is such a simple and natural factor, yet it has so many uses, both tactical and narrative. Imagine if 2/3 of all the species in game had unlimited 30ft teleportation or flight speed instead of regular movement. Cool, comfortable, simple. Also, terrain and maps almost don't matter anymore. How much fun would that be?
I think we can agree to disagree on this. I have run encounters where the monsters utilized lighting and shadows - it's called tactical combat with terrain and other features - and "Galactic Standard Darkvision" doesn't stop you from making a battle like this whatsoever.
....It's completely identical across every species that has it, and for those species it acts as a Get Out Of Problem Free coupon.
You make it out like this is a problem. But in reality, having a rule for something and sticking to it makes the game less hectic and confusing. Also, there are only so many ways you can allow people to see in darkness. Why should a cat and wolf have completely different abilities for the exact same thing?
Why isn't that enough for me to want to see it changed, even if just at my table?
Feel free to change the rules for Darkvision at your table. No one is stopping you. But the fact that you personally don't like Darkvision doesn't automatically mean that it's "bad" and that the way it works needs to be drastically altered.
You make it out like this is a problem. But in reality, having a rule for something and sticking to it makes the game less hectic and confusing. Also, there are only so many ways you can allow people to see in darkness. Why should a cat and wolf have completely different abilities for the exact same thing?
There are zero ways you can allow people to see in darkness; neither a cat nor a wolf can do so. Plenty of things can see in dimmer light than humans, but if you're in a cave, either you bring a light source, or you don't use vision. It annoys me that so many humanoids have supernatural visual abilities.
Even in a cave, there will always be tiny cracks through which sunlight or moonlight shines. In fact, "total darkness" is extremely hard to find, because the sun will always be shining and the only really way to be away from it is to be deep under (inside) the Earth. So, it does make sense that some animals such as cast or wolves would be able to see in some of these very dark places. Also, D&D's light system exists on only a few axes; If something isn't close to being bright or dim light, then it must be classified as darkness. Meaning that what you would think of as "supernatural visual abilities" to see in total darkness really isn't how the mechanic is actually used in most gaming situations.
Also, this is a game with magic, dinosaurs, and dragons. Not everything in it has to adhere exactly to the rules of science
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Things don't have to adhere to science, but they do generally have to adhere to reason, intuition, and general logic. It's why absolutely nobody respects the "sixty foot range" nonsense for Galactic Standard Darkvision. "Sixty Feet" means I couldn't see my garage from the back porch of my house. Hell, 'Sixty Feet' means I could barely see from one end of my house to another. It doesn't make sense for vision to only work within such a narrow radius - and to work perfectly at that, as if you're seeing everything up to a point where the video game stops rendering. It's a simple enough idea when written as a rule, but it doesn't jive with how people's experience of vision works. And so Galactic Standard Darkvision means people just ignore lack of light. Which means lack of light is no longer noteworthy. Which means so many things are so much less tense than they should be.
Like, exploring a feral kobold den should be horrifying. You're in this tight, claustrophobic warren of underground tunnels full of hostile natives and unseen traps, you can barely see anything, and it's ridiculously easy to get stuck or lost. It should be a harrowing experience that keeps a young, inexperienced adventurer up at night. When players are staring down at it from above with the entire tunnel network laid bare on a well-lit annotated tac map, then yeah - it just becomes an exercise in chase-the-red-icons until mission extinguished. All the tension is gone, all the fear and horror, all the nerves and little acts of bravery...the entire exercise more or less becomes meaningless.
Sight matters. Things that block it should matter. And darkness, effectively, blocks sight. Unless you have Galactic Standard Darkvision, at which point darkness no longer matters for you and you're basically gifted free Daredevil echolocation. Yey. Such fun. 'Fun'.
I guess there would be some advantage to having dim light be described as a weaker/limited form of darkness, just so that truesight and devil's sight would wrap dim light into their effects. ODD does seem to be making good strides in clarifying different types of vision and conditions that affect sight. Also, it would be nice to not have the rules for light not treat natural darkness the same as magical obscuring darkness.
But that's probably the Rules & Game Mechanics part of me talking about a distinction that really isn't all that important to most tables.
Even in a cave, there will always be tiny cracks through which sunlight or moonlight shines.
That's only true for caves that are close to the surface. Deep cavern complexes (not very common in the real world, but common in D&D) or deep mines don't have any detectable light other than what you bring in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks TaleMasterTOV. I do really appreciate that you took the time to write up a helpful response. It's good advice.
Unfortunately it just doesn't address any of the problems I have with Darkvision in the first place. I guess I could have been a little more clear. My post was in response to being told I didn't understand the rules, or at least that I don't apply them well enough. But the rules are my problem. In other words... I get how they work, they just work against me.
In the example above, the problem is that I don't want the party to see the whole cavern at once. I don't want them to be aware of the space and the monsters until they stumble on them. I want it to be dark and mysterious. Even if they had a bullseye lantern or dancing lights, they would only get glimpses of the room, with ever present shadows somewhere. That would be so much more interesting. They would have to move with caution and work together.
But with Darkvision, everyone just knows the whole layout from the start. It's not spooky or dangerous at all. And I still have to deal with characters playing by different lighting rules from each other. I still have to track moving circles based on completely different factors. I still have to deal with the fact that some characters are going to get left out because it's tactically more sound to let the drow rogue just snipe all the zombies from 70' away. I still have the rogue player feeling like they had to pick a drow in the first place because a human would have hindered their class too much. These were the reasons I made the original post for this thread of how I wish Darkvision really worked instead.
Genuinely, I don't want to seem ungrateful for your effort. I appreciate the willingness to help. And it did give me some ideas for things outside of the Darkvision problem. Thank you!
There are several situations that must be taken into account.
The first thing is that the rules are an abstraction. They don't have to reflect reality as it is, they have to work for the game. In D&D, the light rules have two main goals: combat, and dungeon exploration. In combat, if you don't have Darkvision, and you are in darkness, you have disadvantage and your opponents have advantage against you. Could it be done differently? Well, yes, of course. But it works.
On the other hand, regarding dungeon exploration, if you don't have darkvision and you're in the dark, you don't see anything. If you have darkvision, you see shadows and bulges (hence what I said about moonlight, not that the game treats it that way. That is, for one to understand what it looks like in dimlight, the closest thing in the real world is a moonlit night).
All of that is simplified by saying that in darkness you are blinded, in dimlight you have disadvantage in perception, and if you have darkvision you see in darkness as if it were dimlight (and colorless). That could be done differently, but it works like it's supposed to. The problem is that many game tables do not apply it that way. Rather they narrate darkness with darkvision as if it were bright light (or even ignore dimlight altogether). And it is not like that. The Drow and Dwarf in your example see shadows beyond the torchlight, and lights in the background. The human and the halfling see darkness beyond the torchlight, and lights in the background (then you can complicate your life as much as you want beyond 60 feet from the dwarf, or the dimlight areas of the torches, etc... It's up to you.). I don't see why that ruins your gloomy and dark description.
On the other hand, as a DM you can complicate your life as much as you want. You can make groups and narrate the same separately, or you can assume that your players are adults and are going to play their characters with the information that their character can know. If the human sees nothing in the dark, and the Drow doesn't explain what he sees, his player should interpret that he doesn't know what's there. The rules can hardly change these table dynamics. And they don't have to either.
That being said, obviously the rules can abstract reality in many ways. For light D&D go for the option in the rulebook, and it works. That does not mean that they can do it in other ways, of course. But I don't see the need to change that. What I do think is that there are many tables that do not apply the rules of light and darkvision, and then complain that the light sources (such as the cantrip or the torches) are useless. And they do work. For everyone, even for those who have darkvision.
I think at this point Stegodorkus is just going to be getting tired of having the rules they've shown they understand repeatedly explained to them.
Instead of just assuming that someone who has an issue with the rule (and trust me, there are plenty of people out there that see problems with how darkvision is handled in 5e) must not understand the rule; maybe start assuming that while the rule works fine enough for you, it just might not for somebody else.
Right, so you wrote "In darkness you are blinded, in dimlight you have disadvantage on perception, and if you have darkvision you see in darkness as if it were dimlight (and colorless)". Now, you did leave off the additional needed detail that if you have darkvision you see in dim light as if it were bright. This is also still leaving off the portion detailing that your darkvision is limited in range, so you're going to have to track that.
So ultimately what it is:
You say this is simplified, and sure...it is; but it could be simplified in a better way (subjectively, but I think arguably borderline objectively) by just using Stegodorkus's suggestion, making it:
And voila, there's still an appreciable benefit to darkvision, but actual darkness is handled the same for everybody, increasing the use of and benefit of mundane torches and lanterns, making more creative and necessary use of lighting spells, and (arguably most importantly) increasing party cohesion as well as reducing the feeling many players have that they MUST choose a race that has darkvision because the rest of the party is going to have it. Additionally, there's no longer any silly radius to worry about, which is easily a good portion of the reason people start being lazy about applying vision rules properly in the first place; because lets face it, when 1/4 of your party can't see anything at all in a particular lighting and the other 3/4 of the party can...but wait..****y so far away (and do they only have 60 ft. of darkvision or do they have 120 ft.?...wait...let me double check to see if they're within range to see this beholder lurking in absolute darkness) ...anyway...my point is you're very likely at points going to get lax about tracking and applying that 100% correctly.
Because the drow and dwarf you mentioned aren't blinded by natural lighting. At all. Ever. So, even though they suffer penalties, and do still benefit from having light, and yes it changes how the dm describes the environment to them, they do not ever actually NEED to do anything about it. Rather than getting maybe 25% of the scenery delivered to them as they try to carefully navigate their way through the terrain wondering what might be in that other 75% and contemplating if its worth the risk of lighting a torch or casting dancing lights, they are instead getting 75% of that scenery delivered to them and have much less reason to be concerned about that remaining 25% and thus are much more likely to shrug off the need for that light.
You're right, the rules can't really do anything about these table dynamics, and I agree they don't have to. Fortunately I have players that try their best to deal only with the information their character would have. But its also disingenuous and unfair to just expect the player to ignore all the information they heard that they have to pretend their character doesn't know. Even if they have absolutely no intention of abusing that information, they (and the dm) now have to wonder if any decision they make for their character has been subconsciously influenced by the knowledge they have as a player, and if you scoff or dismiss this then you don't really understand just how much all of that will influence even their tiniest thinking. Further, if they ignore the information they shouldn't have but do, and lets say they willfully move their character into a position that harms them (even though, it is possible they actually WOULDN'T have done this if they weren't trying to ignore information they shouldn't have) while telling themselves "well...my character wouldn't know" the player is going to feel bad. They just willfully made a bad decision as a player that hurt them, and maybe hurt the entire party, because they need to forcefully ignore information that they as a player have, but their character doesn't. Now...again, I agree this problem can't really be "fixed" entirely. It's always going to exist in some manner....but the amount of effect that darkvision specifically has on it can definitely be mitigated.
The complaints about light sources being useless are hyperbole, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a problem. My point is as I said above, that for these players, they aren't NEEDED. There is a big difference between something being useful, and something being needed. And if you have darkvision, the benefit of these spells, while never completely deniable, is arguable; there are tons of reasons to pass these spells up for things that will grant you larger and more consistent benefit since you always have your darkvision to fall back on.
Also, while I think the rules of light and darkvision get jumbled at tables in play with everything in flux (I listed above why I think that things are going to get mixed up at the table, and I'm sure you've done so too if you've dmed), I don't think most that complain are to the point that you imply where they're just not applying the rules at all; or they are but only because they got tired of losing track of who can see what, or losing time to party cohesion due to vision, so just granted everybody darkvision to simplify it for themselves. More importantly though, the point I want to get to here is: if so many people are just not playing with the rules for lighting and vision in place properly as you state, I'd say that means there's a solid argument that the rules for lighting and vision need to be reworked.
The rules can always be qualified, changed or expanded. But in my opinion in this case it is not necessary. I am not saying that they are infallible or perfect, but in general they work. And they do it the way they should, IMO.
Now here are things we can get into. Is looking for traps with disadvantage on the roll, or having a -5 passive perception enough to have to turn on a light? It depends. I played a campaign a long time ago that took place practically all in a dark dungeon full of traps and, at the beginning, despite being a drow, I had to light a torch from time to time to see where I was stepping (dancing light is not good for that because they emit dim light). Later, to avoid that, I gained expertise in perception. With that, the -5 or the disadvantage on the roll were no longer important to me, and I was able to walk in the dark without too much trouble. Is that a bug in how the rules handle darkvision? Not in my opinion. It's a rogue buff. The same if I had been a Warlock with devil's sight, that I would have seen normally in the dark. That is an advantage of the Warlock, that thanks to his class he overcomes an obstacle that others have.
On the other hand there are things that the rules do not specifically say, but that are common sense. If you see in darkness as if you were in dim light, you are seeing in shadows (at some point it tells you that dim light is equivalent to shadows, I don't remember exactly where now). Then the DM can easily tell you that the engraving you're trying to read doesn't show up clearly enough without a light source. Or that you can't clearly make out the faces of those figures that crouch in the shadows. Do the rules specifically tell you that this is the case? As far as I remember, no. But IMO it is implied.
Finally there is the issue of "bubbles" of light. For me that has never been a problem at all. I understand what you say, but I really don't see where the problem is. In the effective simulation of reality? In a game jam? In the difficulty of narrating that convincingly? I apply it according to the situation. If it is not relevant that the dwarf sees darkness beyond 60 feet, and then some lights in the background, for me he sees shadows and little flickering lights in the background. If it is relevant, because for example there is someone hiding there, then he sees shadows up to 60 feet, darkness, and some candlelight in the background.
In any case, to make my position clear, although I think it already is, in my opinion darkvision does not need a revision in one D&D. Many of the problems that are attributed to darkvision come from applying it badly, or not applying the lighting rules at all. can it be reviewed anyway? Yes of course. That can be done with any rule. But for me it has never been a problem of the rules. However, if they improve it, welcome. But I insist that many problems come from how it is being applied, rather than from the rule itself.
While I think I understand the basis of your problems with the vision rules in DnD, I really don't know if there is a genuine solution mechanically that would be able to reflect the complicated situation you described without being overly cumbersome. I guess playing in theater of the mind would allow a DM who has a flair for the dramatic to have greater control over the description, leaving more mystery. However, even in a simpler situation, the experiences related to human(oid)s sensing the world around them is a high bar to achieve in an RPG. I think the only way to come close to reflecting this is really through a high level of investment from both the DM and the players, leading to a greater level of immersion.
Thank you, FadingPhoenix. I'm glad I'm making sense to someone! I'm doing a terrible job explaining myself overall I guess. Hahaha.
I'm gong to try again, because this is my fault for not doing a good job explaining myself. Or perhaps the thread went on too long and we lost track of each other. I'll try to be more to the point.
I know how Darkvision works. My example situation was meant to illustrate why I don't like it:
I don't have a problem understanding this scene, or describing this scene to the players. I have a problem that the scenario exists in the first place because of darkvision.
I don't have a problem describing darkvision as dim, monochromatic light. It just doesn't matter to anyone because of the actual mechanical rules. Darkness is so much of a disadvantage that dim light is always better than being blind. And keeping yourself shrouded in darkness is such an advantage, that having 'dim light' that the enemy can't see is better than seeing well with a torch.
I fully expect my characters to talk to each other. I expect the drow to describe the room, the ravine, and the zombies to the other characters. The problem is that the whole party instantly knows it's all there because one does, but also they can't all do something about it equally. The DM loses any chance of mood and mystery, and the players don't all get to actually play.
My solution to all of this is to change darkvision. Let them see better in dim light, and nothing in darkness. Then everyone needs light. There is an advantage to having darkvision, but not so much that it creates these situations..
The scenario I described would play out completely different. They all see the same three light sources - the torch and the candles. Everything else is dark for everyone. They have to explore the room together. Once they reach the edge of the ravine, the dwarf and drow get to roll perception without penalty to see the zombies on the other side. Then they all get to fight together as a team in the flickering torchlight at the edge of a cliff.
It solves all of my issues with one simple rule. It's easier than the current darkvision, not harder. Because it's just like real life.
But I understand this might not be to everyone's taste. You might like darkvision just fine the way it is. I'm not trying to change any minds. That's why I said this is only how I personally wished it would work.
Another suggestion for ambience: roll stealth for the zombies the moment the party enters the room. If they fail (which is likely), you can then describe the candles at the far end of the room..."and as the party is watching, one of them winks out...then back. As though a shadow moved in front of one of the candles, momentarily blotting out its light." Then...say nothing more. Let them wonder what is over there...how big it is...and whether it is coming towards them. From that distance, darkvision would only allow them to see "humanoid forms". Maybe, if their perception roll is really high, they notice these humanoids are shambling clumsily around. Let the party wonder if these are zombies or...something worse.
Example from a recent session of mine: Most of the characters at my table have darkvision (*eyes roll*) and a ridiculously high passive perception, so I have to find other ways of hiding stuff from them. Darn those clever kobolds hiding their trip wires in the cobwebs that seem to cover every surface of this cavern (DC 20 or higher to spot). To get around these traps, the ranger has been scouting each room with his giant wolf spider, using web-sense to find the anomalies and then using his Speak with Animals spell to get what he thinks is a detailed impression of the layout of each room. But the kobolds have also set traps hanging from niches in the ceilings, so as DM I've begun narrating that the spider keeps pausing and "noping" away from certain passages from time to time (the first trap nearly killed it, so there's a reason to "nope"). The ranger likes this gameplay, because he feels like he has an edge up on the dungeon. The other players just let him do this, so it doesn't matter that, when the spider "nopes", they all see it and react warily. It's still tense because I keep describing whispers and scuffles coming down the passages as they creep along. It doesn't matter who has darkvision because all they can see is cobweb-covered walls and the "body language" of a cautious spider.
At one point, the party reaches a narrow passage that stops at a half-constructed wall of rocks that has been covered in a generous coating of green slime. Darkvision does not allow them to tell the difference between green slime and grey stone, but the druid has her Produce Flame spell active, so they clearly see this hazard. The spider is also on the ceiling, noping about something else, but the party assumes it is this wall. I let them assume.
The challenge here is not going too far to explain that this wall (and the trap overhead) was clearly meant to keep something in the room beyond from coming this way. I must have done a good job since the party assumed it was meant to keep treasure-seekers out of the chamber beyond. So the druid burns off the slime with her flame and decides to just "Leroy Jenkins" over the wall...tripping the slime-pot trap that the spider had been "noping" about on the ceiling. The fighter leaps over the wall to help scrape the slime off before the druid dies, at which point I roll for stealth against their passive perception (disadvantaged) and (luckily for them) it fails.
"As you sigh in relief to be free of the slime, you hear a loud, heavy slithering coming from the far side of this cavern."
The druid, with only one HP left, says, "Oh no."
At this point, the ranger, who has been holding back and letting his spider do the scouting, also charges into the cave. Now, he really has no reason to know there is something slithering towards his companions, but I let it go. Maybe he heard the druid's exclamation and realized there was trouble, maybe he just figured the traps had all been cleared and it was safe. Clearly I have managed to unnerve him, because he is no longer playing cautious with his spider-scout. In fact, he has forgotten about his spider entirely. As he comes through the narrow opening into the darkened cavern, the druid casts Produce Flame and I proceed to describe the grick slithering hungrily out from the shadows to snatch up its long-awaited meal. The party's focus is now on the grick, at which point it doesn't matter if it's in full light or shadow (nor that there is a pile of loot over in the corner), because the goal is now just to wack the grick until it dies.
In this situation, darkvision really didn't make much of a difference. I did not treat any of the characters as "blind" because they did not have darkvision. The action unfolded like a story, everybody had fun, and nobody felt like they had to suspend disbelief in order to "see". Also, when it came time to search the room, darkvision gave no advantage over the other players' perception rolls, because gold and gems look like every other pebble on the cavern floor until the flickering torch light sets them to sparkling.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
To be honest, I like the current version of Darkvision. You talk about a mechanical sacrifice in terms of picking a species with Darkvision or picking a species you enjoy, but the more you limit Darkvision, the more you will just exacerbate that problem; an option that is mechanically harder to get is going to be mechanically more powerful, and people will then be more likely to sacrifice their fun in order to get it.
For all the talk of arguments over whether or not to use torches, I have never been in a party that spent more than 5 seconds deciding that. In the situations where it was completely dark and not all of us have Darkvision, everyone usually just agrees to go with torches. And while different people seeing different things can be annoying, I feel that you are overstating the significance of it; The difference between seeing in low light and seeing in bright light is small and doesn't usually matter much.
Darkvision isn't the end all be all for Rogues and other sneaky classes, and it can easily be worked around and circumvented. Not only that, but if basically every dungeon you have is completely dark, then I think you may have a bit of a problem. But anyways, if this rule helps you, use it. I personally just don't have a problem with Darkvision and thusly this change is not necessary for me.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Yeah. Honestly, my very first post that started this thread is really just saying "Hey, here's something I think would be cool. It would fix some minor problems I have with darkvision, make some animals make mores sense, open character options more, and generally be more fun for me."
For some people it clicked with them right away. They had some of the same issues it seems. That's awesome, and I hope maybe they can get some use out of the idea at least.
For others, maybe they didn't have the same problems, or I didn't explain my reasoning well enough. That's totally fine too. But then it turned into more of a situation where I had to keep explaining what my issues with darkvision were. And it's a very vague thing to explain. It's not as easy as showing that one feat does more damage than another. It's a lot of nebulous concepts, gut feelings, individual playstyles, game moods, and things that really would benefit from visual aids like diagrams that I don't have. So the more I had to explain it, the more it probably sounded like the problems were bigger than they really are to me. I tried to say many times that this is not a game breaking issue. Just something that I thought could be improved a little for my tastes. But that kind of gets lost in all the back and forth.
I know there are ways to make darkvision work. For me, I just wish it wasn't something anyone had to work around constantly. It should be a nice little perk. Not something that changes the way every encounter is designed. It's kind of like a PC having flight, but far more common. We're just used to having to make concessions to darkvision because it's so prevalent.
I guess for me personally, I just see missed opportunities for a more fun game. It's not a huge issue, even for me, in spite of the way I guess it sounded. I regret even putting as much effort into trying to explain it as I did. But if anyone can use the idea and enjoys it, I guess it was worth it
You're right though. If I use this as a house rule, it has to be all or nothing. Even drow and dwarves can't have true 'darkvision.' They would have have to have low light vision like everyone else, or exactly what you said will happen. I guess it's not too hard to believe anyway. Even drow and dwarf cities have lights everywhere. Drow know the dancing lights cantrip for a reason. So I think that can work.
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, and for making me realize how I was giving off the wrong impression. Really it's not a huge deal. It's just a hard thing to put into words.
Galactic Standard Darkvision is bad. Not because it's mechanically bad or unfair or imbalanced or any of that shit. Nah.
Galactic Standard Darkvision is bad because it's boring. It makes the game less interesting. It's completely identical across every species that has it, and for those species it acts as a Get Out Of Problem Free coupon. They just don't care in the slightest about light. Yes, a DM that works at it can *make* them care, but by default they just...don't. It removes light from being a real consideration and just acts as a tax on parties not made up entirely of Galactic Standard Darkvision havers. It doesn't say anything interesting about the character, it doesn't promote cool ideas or creative tactics/solutions. All it does is say "you no longer care about light."
If you've never run a battle where light mattered, where characters had to deal with torches or lanterns taking up valuable hands, with shadows concealing enemies the party doesn't know exist until they strike, you really don't know what Galactic Standard Darkvision is stealing from your table. Does it break the game? No. Plenty of tables get by without the minutiae of dealing with light and are perfectly happy for it. Awesome for them. But man. I like D&D a lot better when things like light matter, but they CAN'T matter if I don't do something about Galactic Standard Darkvision. It makes my game less fun and I don't like it.
Why isn't that enough for me to want to see it changed, even if just at my table?
Please do not contact or message me.
While I find darkvision both mechanically weird (what's with having 'range' on vision? Why are we giving darkvision to creatures that are not, in fact, capable of functioning in a lightless cave?) and not conducive to good game play, I think the OPs problems would be best solved by just removing darkvision from PCs and most monsters. It's a really simple house rule (see where it says darkvision on your character sheet? Just erase it) and doesn't introduce weird anomalies.
For me, it's a balancing act between giving light and sight the appropriate amount of relevance to a given encounter, and not getting the encounter too slowed down by mechanics of who can see what with which modifiers. Playing darkvision the way it is in 5e has never caused too much complication, and it also has never left me feeling like the experience was cheapened.
Seems good enough as-is.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Exactly. Lighting is such a simple and natural factor, yet it has so many uses, both tactical and narrative. Imagine if 2/3 of all the species in game had unlimited 30ft teleportation or flight speed instead of regular movement. Cool, comfortable, simple. Also, terrain and maps almost don't matter anymore. How much fun would that be?
I think we can agree to disagree on this. I have run encounters where the monsters utilized lighting and shadows - it's called tactical combat with terrain and other features - and "Galactic Standard Darkvision" doesn't stop you from making a battle like this whatsoever.
You make it out like this is a problem. But in reality, having a rule for something and sticking to it makes the game less hectic and confusing. Also, there are only so many ways you can allow people to see in darkness. Why should a cat and wolf have completely different abilities for the exact same thing?
Feel free to change the rules for Darkvision at your table. No one is stopping you. But the fact that you personally don't like Darkvision doesn't automatically mean that it's "bad" and that the way it works needs to be drastically altered.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.There are zero ways you can allow people to see in darkness; neither a cat nor a wolf can do so. Plenty of things can see in dimmer light than humans, but if you're in a cave, either you bring a light source, or you don't use vision. It annoys me that so many humanoids have supernatural visual abilities.
Even in a cave, there will always be tiny cracks through which sunlight or moonlight shines. In fact, "total darkness" is extremely hard to find, because the sun will always be shining and the only really way to be away from it is to be deep under (inside) the Earth. So, it does make sense that some animals such as cast or wolves would be able to see in some of these very dark places. Also, D&D's light system exists on only a few axes; If something isn't close to being bright or dim light, then it must be classified as darkness. Meaning that what you would think of as "supernatural visual abilities" to see in total darkness really isn't how the mechanic is actually used in most gaming situations.
Also, this is a game with magic, dinosaurs, and dragons. Not everything in it has to adhere exactly to the rules of science
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Things don't have to adhere to science, but they do generally have to adhere to reason, intuition, and general logic. It's why absolutely nobody respects the "sixty foot range" nonsense for Galactic Standard Darkvision. "Sixty Feet" means I couldn't see my garage from the back porch of my house. Hell, 'Sixty Feet' means I could barely see from one end of my house to another. It doesn't make sense for vision to only work within such a narrow radius - and to work perfectly at that, as if you're seeing everything up to a point where the video game stops rendering. It's a simple enough idea when written as a rule, but it doesn't jive with how people's experience of vision works. And so Galactic Standard Darkvision means people just ignore lack of light. Which means lack of light is no longer noteworthy. Which means so many things are so much less tense than they should be.
Like, exploring a feral kobold den should be horrifying. You're in this tight, claustrophobic warren of underground tunnels full of hostile natives and unseen traps, you can barely see anything, and it's ridiculously easy to get stuck or lost. It should be a harrowing experience that keeps a young, inexperienced adventurer up at night. When players are staring down at it from above with the entire tunnel network laid bare on a well-lit annotated tac map, then yeah - it just becomes an exercise in chase-the-red-icons until mission extinguished. All the tension is gone, all the fear and horror, all the nerves and little acts of bravery...the entire exercise more or less becomes meaningless.
Sight matters. Things that block it should matter. And darkness, effectively, blocks sight. Unless you have Galactic Standard Darkvision, at which point darkness no longer matters for you and you're basically gifted free Daredevil echolocation. Yey. Such fun. 'Fun'.
Please do not contact or message me.
I guess there would be some advantage to having dim light be described as a weaker/limited form of darkness, just so that truesight and devil's sight would wrap dim light into their effects. ODD does seem to be making good strides in clarifying different types of vision and conditions that affect sight. Also, it would be nice to not have the rules for light not treat natural darkness the same as magical obscuring darkness.
But that's probably the Rules & Game Mechanics part of me talking about a distinction that really isn't all that important to most tables.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's only true for caves that are close to the surface. Deep cavern complexes (not very common in the real world, but common in D&D) or deep mines don't have any detectable light other than what you bring in.