Real science isn't necessary for a fantasy game. But some internal logical consistency is. When we are discussing light in a game, we usual mean the visible spectrum of radiation. Light that we can see with our eyes.
Except for very shallow caves, most caves have no visible light very far beyond the entrance. They are completely dark. I've been in caves with all of the lights turned off. It is fair to call that utter darkness, and it is fair to say that is the same as being blind. Even a cat would be blind in a cave like that. Deep mines would be total darkness. Abandoned Dwarven cities like Moria would be total darkness. Underground crypts and even the basement of a castle could be total darkness. Total darkness is pretty common in many DnD settings.
But DnD says that even most moonlight is the same as total darkness. And that darkness is the same as being blind. So a cat is completely blind in the moonlight, according to DnD. A wolf is blind. A deer is blind. So many real animals with very good night vision are blind at night in DnD.
Darkvision is the ability to see in both total darkness and that moonlight. It means you aren't blind in those situations. But that must also mean that it couldn't be dependent on the visible light spectrum.
The only normal animals in DnD with Darkvision are usually ones with other ways to 'see.' There aren't many of them. They are usually animals that can sense in infrared, ultraviolet, or use something like echolocation. They aren't super consistent with it though. Owls and tigers have Darkvision, but in reality they still depend on the visible spectrum of light to see.
So maybe Dwarves see in infrared. Or maybe it's magic. But also in DnD worlds, humans are blind at night, and so are cats. It doesn't make much sense. You have to unlearn reality to play it correctly. And you lose so many opportunities for more interesting encounters.
If Dwarves and cats both just saw visible light better than humans, it would all make sense without magic handwaving. The world would feel like a real world. And light could mean more than it does now. Make true darkvision something magical, used to see in magical darkness and real total darkness. Let PCs and house cats just see better in low light. Then the moon won't blind anyone. But deep caves will. And light sources can matter more. That's all I'm saying.
I've tried to use the light rock in a scroll tube to make a flashlight and have the one character without darkvision keep it pointed at the ground. So they can see where they're walking without hopefully giving us away at a distance.
I've tried to use the light rock in a scroll tube to make a flashlight and have the one character without darkvision keep it pointed at the ground. So they can see where they're walking without hopefully giving us away at a distance.
Literally any bright light stands out like a...well, light bulb...in deep darkness. I remember a story from the Afghan occupation where a U.S. soldier described a starlight operation against a Taliban base in the mountains. Even one flash of a single headlamp down on the plains, miles away from the base, would've given the game away and blown the entire operation.
One single ordinary household-grade flashlight, in miles of open terrain, would've been reason to call the entire mission off and abort.
Bright light can be seen at virtually any distance in darkness. Dim light might be missed depending on terrain and background light conditions, but it would have to be very dim and localized. A hooded lantern with the hood down, casting five feet of dim, comes to mind. And man - remember the last time a character in any of your (generally addressing the thread now, not just Amunsol) games actually gave a single fat frogmorton croak about lanterns, hooded or otherwise?
Bright light can be seen at virtually any distance in darkness.
Not in 5e it can't. If a source of light indicates an area of illumination, then that's what you get. In the previous example of the stone using the light spell, if you're more than 40 feet away from the source of the light, then there is no meaningful illumination and someone without special senses is effectively blind.
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.
To paraphrase a prolific forums poster, "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 is being stolen from your table."
Bright light can be seen at virtually any distance in darkness.
Not in 5e it can't. If a source of light indicates an area of illumination, then that's what you get. In the previous example of the stone using the light spell, if you're more than 40 feet away from the source of the light, then there is no meaningful illumination and someone without special senses is effectively blind.
Incorrect. If the thing you're looking at is more than 40' away from the source of the light, someone without special senses is effectively blind. Where the observer is illuminated has no effect. Thus, the light spell (and everything in its immediate radius) is visible at the same distance as it would be in daylight.
This does understate just how obvious a light source is at night, but given that a light illuminates everything in its area, including things that are not trying to hide, carrying a light basically means you're automatically detected by enemies.
Bright light can be seen at virtually any distance in darkness.
Not in 5e it can't. If a source of light indicates an area of illumination, then that's what you get. In the previous example of the stone using the light spell, if you're more than 40 feet away from the source of the light, then there is no meaningful illumination and someone without special senses is effectively blind.
A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.
To paraphrase a prolific forums poster, "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 is being stolen from your table."
"When trying to see something in that area." Not "See something from within that area." As Pantagruel said, illumination allows vision of everything within the illuminated area. Carry a torch and you can see everything around you including yourself. So can the orcish warband half a kilometer away watching you through the meadowlands grass under cover of darkness. So can the archers lurking at the far side of the fortified cavern entrance you're assailing. So can the jungle predators within their arboreal concealment.
Because that is how light intuitively, naturally works. Unless you have Galactic Standard Darkvision and get to ignore light.
If you're in a heavily obscured area such as darkness, it blocks your vision entirely. This is why you can't stand in the middle of a cloud of fog and see someone out in the open, even if they are holding a torch.
Since we are discussing the way darkness and vision work in reference to how we would like to see it work, I will say that I would enjoy seeing a distinction drawn between natural darkness (the absence of light) and the kind of obscuring darkness that magical darkness, fog, a blizzard, etc. would create. The example that Yurei gave should work, and it would be easy enough to adjust the wording so that it does.
If you're in a heavily obscured area such as darkness, it blocks your vision entirely. This is why you can't stand in the middle of a cloud of fog and see someone out in the open, even if they are holding a torch.
Actually, that's super inconsistent. As written in the section in the PHB, you actually can see out of the fog cloud just fine, the only rules that actually tell you that a heavily obscured area blocks vision through it is the section on mapped combat in the DMG. The fact that 5e doesn't have two different types of obscured is also a problem with how light is handled.
This is not the forum for me to dig in on the details of the rules, but I'll happily discuss it elsewhere. I do reiterate that a minor distinction in wording could make a big difference and bring logic back into a rule. I know that rules in a magical world often are not logical, but I think they should be when they can be.
The Rules as Written are actually very weird . Here are the relevant rules from the PHB -
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of Magical Darkness.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area.
Blinded - A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.
So, Darkness creates an area that is Heavily Obscured. A Heavily Obscured area blocks vision entirely. If we take that literally, it makes some sense for opaque fog or dense foliage. You can't see through those in real life. Meaning, you can't see what's on the other side. But that makes no sense for darkness. A dark room does not really prevent a person from seeing the candle on the other side. Only what's in between. But by the rules, the darkness is like a wall you can't perceive through. It blocks vision entirely.
When you are trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured area, you suffer the Blinded condition. You can't see, you fail sight based checks, and suffer combat disadvantages. That could strangely be taken in two different ways. It could mean that you are Blinded when you are in the area, and trying to see anything. Or it could mean that you are Blinded any time you just try to see something that is in the area itself. That leads to two equally strange outcomes. Either you can't see a candle in a dark room because the darkness you are in Blinded you. (Similarly you could not see out of a fog cloud if you were in it, even standing right at the edge.) Or it means if you are standing in front of some dense foliage and try to look inside, you are suddenly struck blind just for looking at the bushes. Likewise, if you were standing under a street lamp and glanced down a dark alley, you're also struck Blind. The rule says you are Blinded 'when trying to see something in that area.' Does being in the area and trying to see make you blind, or does looking in the area make you blind? Neither make any sense at all. Not if you expect them to work like real life.
So either the DnD world is super strange, or the rules are just written badly. My money is on the latter. The best solution is to stop trying to treat darkness like bushes and to clean up the language.
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
I take it you haven't been to many caves or even basements for that matter. I've been to a volcanic cave once - and believe me, though it wasn't deep, after the first turn, it's complete pitch black darkness. There's a reason why all of the world's mythologies place eldritch, hostile and mysterious realms, realms of the dead, underground. Underground = darkness. A still, silent world where Sun, the most powerful, life-giving entity that often personifies the chief deity of the pantheon, has no power. Fear of the dark and fear of chthonic depths are intertwined, and nighttime is the time when things that dwell below may come to the surface.
Yes, not everything has to adhere to the rules of science. But we're talking about a tool with the power to create mood, tactics, and certain experience. Exactly the thing we're looking for in a fantasy game. Not to mention logic and verisimilitude. I could understand if drow had darkvision - they are born in the dark, live in the dark, and die in the dark. Maybe dwarves. But for the rest to have darkvision, they have to be either underground or nocturnal species, though even the latter doesn't exactly mean that a creature that is active in the night relies on vision and not other senses.
I take it you haven't been to many caves or even basements for that matter. I've been to a volcanic cave once - and believe me, though it wasn't deep, after the first turn, it's complete pitch black darkness. There's a reason why all of the world's mythologies place eldritch, hostile and mysterious realms, realms of the dead, underground. Underground = darkness. A still, silent world where Sun, the most powerful, life-giving entity that often personifies the chief deity of the pantheon, has no power. Fear of the dark and fear of chthonic depths are intertwined, and nighttime is the time when things that dwell below may come to the surface.
Yes, not everything has to adhere to the rules of science. But we're talking about a tool with the power to create mood, tactics, and certain experience. Exactly the thing we're looking for in a fantasy game. Not to mention logic and verisimilitude. I could understand if drow had darkvision - they are born in the dark, live in the dark, and die in the dark. Maybe dwarves. But for the rest to have darkvision, they have to be either underground or nocturnal species, though even the latter doesn't exactly mean that a creature that is active in the night relies on vision and not other senses.
No, I haven't been in any caves. Yes, I have been in numerous basements. And yes, I was able to make out shades of gray in most of them. Also, I never said that Darkvision wasn't flawed; I do not think the mechanic is perfect and know and acknowledge that it could be improved. I would like more stages of light, so we aren't stuck with picking between bright light, dim light, and total darkness because things rarely fit neatly into those three axes.
However, I was by and large responding to the original proposal, which did not solve any of the problems I had with the mechanic and only seemed to make some of the things I liked about Darkvision worse. Yes, the range for Darkvision makes no sense, and yes, the rules for it aren't perfect. But overall, I like the mechanic and will run the version at the core rules at my table. Feel free to use different rules for it at yours. No one is stopping you.
But anyways, this thread - which was originally intended as a way of homebrewing modifications to a mechanic to make it better - has been threadjacked into people complaining about how horrible and evil Darkvision is and how it will ruin your game. Not only is that largely unrelated to the original subject, but discussing this is a fruitless waste of time and doesn't change anything.
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.
I take it you haven't been to many caves or even basements for that matter. I've been to a volcanic cave once - and believe me, though it wasn't deep, after the first turn, it's complete pitch black darkness. There's a reason why all of the world's mythologies place eldritch, hostile and mysterious realms, realms of the dead, underground. Underground = darkness. A still, silent world where Sun, the most powerful, life-giving entity that often personifies the chief deity of the pantheon, has no power. Fear of the dark and fear of chthonic depths are intertwined, and nighttime is the time when things that dwell below may come to the surface.
Yes, not everything has to adhere to the rules of science. But we're talking about a tool with the power to create mood, tactics, and certain experience. Exactly the thing we're looking for in a fantasy game. Not to mention logic and verisimilitude. I could understand if drow had darkvision - they are born in the dark, live in the dark, and die in the dark. Maybe dwarves. But for the rest to have darkvision, they have to be either underground or nocturnal species, though even the latter doesn't exactly mean that a creature that is active in the night relies on vision and not other senses.
No, I haven't been in any caves. Yes, I have been in numerous basements. And yes, I was able to make out shades of gray in most of them. Also, I never said that Darkvision wasn't flawed; I do not think the mechanic is perfect and know and acknowledge that it could be improved. I would like more stages of light, so we aren't stuck with picking between bright light, dim light, and total darkness because things rarely fit neatly into those three axes.
However, I was by and large responding to the original proposal, which did not solve any of the problems I had with the mechanic and only seemed to make some of the things I liked about Darkvision worse. Yes, the range for Darkvision makes no sense, and yes, the rules for it aren't perfect. But overall, I like the mechanic and will run the version at the core rules at my table. Feel free to use different rules for it at yours. No one is stopping you.
But anyways, this thread - which was originally intended as a way of homebrewing modifications to a mechanic to make it better - has been threadjacked into people complaining about how horrible and evil Darkvision is and how it will ruin your game. Not only is that largely unrelated to the original subject, but discussing this is a fruitless waste of time and doesn't change anything.
I think it's all somewhat relevant to the original topic. I had some issues with Darkvision, and some ideas to fix it, and saw the only opportunity we might get for the next 10 years to do something about it with 1DnD. At the very least, maybe they will clear up some of the confusion in the text this time around.
But yeah I never expected that everyone would like my proposal. It's a big change to a classic feature. That's totally okay. I really respect your opinions and I'm happy to hear other views on things. It's helped me really see what would and wouldn't work. Even if just for my own table. Really, thank you for your input!
This is only tangentially related to the discussion about changes we might like to see in darkvision in ODD, but I think it would be pretty cool if they included blindsight as part of truesight. That way you could see through things like fog and other forms of heavy obscurement in addition to what it does already.
Late to the party but I agree - darkvision has become a norm and it ruins the game in that it takes away the mystery of the dark and creates problems between those that have it and those that don’t. My next campaign I’m actually removing darkvision from all except dwarves and drow. I’m even consider darkvision is negated if your standing in bright light so to use it yiu need to be in the shadows. I want my players to be afraid of what might lurk there beyond the light..i want them to explore by the light if a torch, i want them to have to think of who carries the lightsource and what to do in combat when arrows start wizzing at them from the darkness around them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Real science isn't necessary for a fantasy game. But some internal logical consistency is. When we are discussing light in a game, we usual mean the visible spectrum of radiation. Light that we can see with our eyes.
Except for very shallow caves, most caves have no visible light very far beyond the entrance. They are completely dark. I've been in caves with all of the lights turned off. It is fair to call that utter darkness, and it is fair to say that is the same as being blind. Even a cat would be blind in a cave like that. Deep mines would be total darkness. Abandoned Dwarven cities like Moria would be total darkness. Underground crypts and even the basement of a castle could be total darkness. Total darkness is pretty common in many DnD settings.
But DnD says that even most moonlight is the same as total darkness. And that darkness is the same as being blind. So a cat is completely blind in the moonlight, according to DnD. A wolf is blind. A deer is blind. So many real animals with very good night vision are blind at night in DnD.
Darkvision is the ability to see in both total darkness and that moonlight. It means you aren't blind in those situations. But that must also mean that it couldn't be dependent on the visible light spectrum.
The only normal animals in DnD with Darkvision are usually ones with other ways to 'see.' There aren't many of them. They are usually animals that can sense in infrared, ultraviolet, or use something like echolocation. They aren't super consistent with it though. Owls and tigers have Darkvision, but in reality they still depend on the visible spectrum of light to see.
So maybe Dwarves see in infrared. Or maybe it's magic. But also in DnD worlds, humans are blind at night, and so are cats. It doesn't make much sense. You have to unlearn reality to play it correctly. And you lose so many opportunities for more interesting encounters.
If Dwarves and cats both just saw visible light better than humans, it would all make sense without magic handwaving. The world would feel like a real world. And light could mean more than it does now. Make true darkvision something magical, used to see in magical darkness and real total darkness. Let PCs and house cats just see better in low light. Then the moon won't blind anyone. But deep caves will. And light sources can matter more. That's all I'm saying.
I've tried to use the light rock in a scroll tube to make a flashlight and have the one character without darkvision keep it pointed at the ground. So they can see where they're walking without hopefully giving us away at a distance.
Literally any bright light stands out like a...well, light bulb...in deep darkness. I remember a story from the Afghan occupation where a U.S. soldier described a starlight operation against a Taliban base in the mountains. Even one flash of a single headlamp down on the plains, miles away from the base, would've given the game away and blown the entire operation.
One single ordinary household-grade flashlight, in miles of open terrain, would've been reason to call the entire mission off and abort.
Bright light can be seen at virtually any distance in darkness. Dim light might be missed depending on terrain and background light conditions, but it would have to be very dim and localized. A hooded lantern with the hood down, casting five feet of dim, comes to mind. And man - remember the last time a character in any of your (generally addressing the thread now, not just Amunsol) games actually gave a single fat frogmorton croak about lanterns, hooded or otherwise?
Please do not contact or message me.
Oddly enough, 5th edition is the only edition of D&D that didn't have two forms of ability to see in darkness
AD&D had infravision, which worked like dark vision, and ultravision, which allowed seeing at night but not underground.
D&D 3e, 3.5e, and 4e all had Dark Vision and Low-Light Vision, which doubled vision distance in dim light.
Not in 5e it can't. If a source of light indicates an area of illumination, then that's what you get. In the previous example of the stone using the light spell, if you're more than 40 feet away from the source of the light, then there is no meaningful illumination and someone without special senses is effectively blind.
To paraphrase a prolific forums poster, "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 is being stolen from your table."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Incorrect. If the thing you're looking at is more than 40' away from the source of the light, someone without special senses is effectively blind. Where the observer is illuminated has no effect. Thus, the light spell (and everything in its immediate radius) is visible at the same distance as it would be in daylight.
This does understate just how obvious a light source is at night, but given that a light illuminates everything in its area, including things that are not trying to hide, carrying a light basically means you're automatically detected by enemies.
"When trying to see something in that area."
Not "See something from within that area."
As Pantagruel said, illumination allows vision of everything within the illuminated area. Carry a torch and you can see everything around you including yourself. So can the orcish warband half a kilometer away watching you through the meadowlands grass under cover of darkness. So can the archers lurking at the far side of the fortified cavern entrance you're assailing. So can the jungle predators within their arboreal concealment.
Because that is how light intuitively, naturally works. Unless you have Galactic Standard Darkvision and get to ignore light.
Please do not contact or message me.
If you're in a heavily obscured area such as darkness, it blocks your vision entirely. This is why you can't stand in the middle of a cloud of fog and see someone out in the open, even if they are holding a torch.
Since we are discussing the way darkness and vision work in reference to how we would like to see it work, I will say that I would enjoy seeing a distinction drawn between natural darkness (the absence of light) and the kind of obscuring darkness that magical darkness, fog, a blizzard, etc. would create. The example that Yurei gave should work, and it would be easy enough to adjust the wording so that it does.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Actually, that's super inconsistent. As written in the section in the PHB, you actually can see out of the fog cloud just fine, the only rules that actually tell you that a heavily obscured area blocks vision through it is the section on mapped combat in the DMG. The fact that 5e doesn't have two different types of obscured is also a problem with how light is handled.
This is not the forum for me to dig in on the details of the rules, but I'll happily discuss it elsewhere. I do reiterate that a minor distinction in wording could make a big difference and bring logic back into a rule. I know that rules in a magical world often are not logical, but I think they should be when they can be.
To my eyes, this looks like you are saying that the rule showing up only in one place isn't enough.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The Rules as Written are actually very weird . Here are the relevant rules from the PHB -
Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of Magical Darkness.
A Heavily Obscured area—such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions ) when trying to see something in that area.
Blinded - A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.
So, Darkness creates an area that is Heavily Obscured. A Heavily Obscured area blocks vision entirely. If we take that literally, it makes some sense for opaque fog or dense foliage. You can't see through those in real life. Meaning, you can't see what's on the other side. But that makes no sense for darkness. A dark room does not really prevent a person from seeing the candle on the other side. Only what's in between. But by the rules, the darkness is like a wall you can't perceive through. It blocks vision entirely.
When you are trying to see something in a Heavily Obscured area, you suffer the Blinded condition. You can't see, you fail sight based checks, and suffer combat disadvantages. That could strangely be taken in two different ways. It could mean that you are Blinded when you are in the area, and trying to see anything. Or it could mean that you are Blinded any time you just try to see something that is in the area itself. That leads to two equally strange outcomes. Either you can't see a candle in a dark room because the darkness you are in Blinded you. (Similarly you could not see out of a fog cloud if you were in it, even standing right at the edge.) Or it means if you are standing in front of some dense foliage and try to look inside, you are suddenly struck blind just for looking at the bushes. Likewise, if you were standing under a street lamp and glanced down a dark alley, you're also struck Blind. The rule says you are Blinded 'when trying to see something in that area.' Does being in the area and trying to see make you blind, or does looking in the area make you blind? Neither make any sense at all. Not if you expect them to work like real life.
So either the DnD world is super strange, or the rules are just written badly. My money is on the latter. The best solution is to stop trying to treat darkness like bushes and to clean up the language.
I take it you haven't been to many caves or even basements for that matter. I've been to a volcanic cave once - and believe me, though it wasn't deep, after the first turn, it's complete pitch black darkness. There's a reason why all of the world's mythologies place eldritch, hostile and mysterious realms, realms of the dead, underground. Underground = darkness. A still, silent world where Sun, the most powerful, life-giving entity that often personifies the chief deity of the pantheon, has no power. Fear of the dark and fear of chthonic depths are intertwined, and nighttime is the time when things that dwell below may come to the surface.
Yes, not everything has to adhere to the rules of science. But we're talking about a tool with the power to create mood, tactics, and certain experience. Exactly the thing we're looking for in a fantasy game. Not to mention logic and verisimilitude. I could understand if drow had darkvision - they are born in the dark, live in the dark, and die in the dark. Maybe dwarves. But for the rest to have darkvision, they have to be either underground or nocturnal species, though even the latter doesn't exactly mean that a creature that is active in the night relies on vision and not other senses.
No, I haven't been in any caves. Yes, I have been in numerous basements. And yes, I was able to make out shades of gray in most of them. Also, I never said that Darkvision wasn't flawed; I do not think the mechanic is perfect and know and acknowledge that it could be improved. I would like more stages of light, so we aren't stuck with picking between bright light, dim light, and total darkness because things rarely fit neatly into those three axes.
However, I was by and large responding to the original proposal, which did not solve any of the problems I had with the mechanic and only seemed to make some of the things I liked about Darkvision worse. Yes, the range for Darkvision makes no sense, and yes, the rules for it aren't perfect. But overall, I like the mechanic and will run the version at the core rules at my table. Feel free to use different rules for it at yours. No one is stopping you.
But anyways, this thread - which was originally intended as a way of homebrewing modifications to a mechanic to make it better - has been threadjacked into people complaining about how horrible and evil Darkvision is and how it will ruin your game. Not only is that largely unrelated to the original subject, but discussing this is a fruitless waste of time and doesn't change anything.
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.I think it's all somewhat relevant to the original topic. I had some issues with Darkvision, and some ideas to fix it, and saw the only opportunity we might get for the next 10 years to do something about it with 1DnD. At the very least, maybe they will clear up some of the confusion in the text this time around.
But yeah I never expected that everyone would like my proposal. It's a big change to a classic feature. That's totally okay. I really respect your opinions and I'm happy to hear other views on things. It's helped me really see what would and wouldn't work. Even if just for my own table. Really, thank you for your input!
This is only tangentially related to the discussion about changes we might like to see in darkvision in ODD, but I think it would be pretty cool if they included blindsight as part of truesight. That way you could see through things like fog and other forms of heavy obscurement in addition to what it does already.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Late to the party but I agree - darkvision has become a norm and it ruins the game in that it takes away the mystery of the dark and creates problems between those that have it and those that don’t. My next campaign I’m actually removing darkvision from all except dwarves and drow. I’m even consider darkvision is negated if your standing in bright light so to use it yiu need to be in the shadows. I want my players to be afraid of what might lurk there beyond the light..i want them to explore by the light if a torch, i want them to have to think of who carries the lightsource and what to do in combat when arrows start wizzing at them from the darkness around them.