D&D 5E Eliminating darkvision from most races

[Cap'n Kobold]

How interesting, understandable, and frankly, odd...

There seems to be an assumption made by more than one person that Underdark races would use light in Underdark warfare because of the perceived advantages. Is this right, or could it bely a lack of experience in night fighting as it is done in the real world and a lack of the application of self-reflection on the effect of our shared human experience on our personal point of view?

No one has suggested that underdark races would use active light sources regularly on military patrols.

In fact, the suggestion is that they would probably use light sources in a similar way as an NV-equipped military would: around forts, guard posts and other obvious emplacements where the light source (set away from the actual building) can be used to spot (and if necessary, shoot) travellers and potential threats from further than 60/120 feet away.

In actual battle, there would probably be a lot of use of light and darkness effects, trying to shoot, throw or cast light sources into the opposition ranks while keeping your own forces unlit.

I would guess that even patrols would carry hidden or unlit light sources with them, for the same reason that NV-equipped troops carry torches: Those occasions where they are safe from enemy detection and NV/darkvision isn't good enough to make out the details required. - Such as the tracking example I mentioned earlier.

I would say that seems likely.

Let me make a couple of illustrative examples with the rules mechanics thrown in to get the ball rolling on my point of view on this;

1. Attacking at disadvantage due to dim light/darkvision mechanics:

I can find no justification as to why darkvision races would give up the advantage of surprise to increase the chance to hit, they would I think just volley fire in volume at range to increase the number of hits. As nearly any enemy with darkvision (except for those with tremorsense mobs) would be at the same disadvantage in melee the issue balances out at shorter ranges. One only has to look at the effectiveness of the use of volley fired 'night arrows' in the medieval period - how it was both terrifying and regarded as dishonourable (note: this really meant 'too effective' due to the sneaky surprise factor) to see this would not be an advantage readily discarded in a way which evened the odds. Whe one considers longer range darkvision where one has a huge edge over 'normal' darkvision races, this becomes an utter no-brainer.

2. Darkvision and living underground:

With darkvision, in most of the Underdark, or caves, or dungeons (etc.) the next stone wall or turn in the tunnel is going to be within 60ft, and certainly 120ft. Check out real life cave systems, and look at the many dungeons and cavern systems mapped out over the years for D&D and count the instances of this - you will find the overwhelming majority of spaces are smaller, and once again, with longer range Darkvision, we are talking a very high percentage indeed. Why introduce a light source unless some threat you are expecting can only be discerned by colour and not shape... in truth, how many of these threats fit this incredibly narrow definition

This brings me to my other point - the effect of 'humanocentric' perception bias on the issue.

Where Drow cities in vast caverns are depicted in illustrations, sure, there are light sources, but these would in practicality be about landmark navigation as much as architects wanting everyone to see their magnificent handiwork. With good signage, or the kind of familiarity a denizen would have, even this would prove unnecessary.

It is HUMANS who created D&D and it's races, and humans who expect to see things with a background, and in colour. When is the last time you saw an Underdark scene without a light source and in black and white? That's right - you haven't, because we simply don't value this kind of image. The flipside of this of course is that we use such images as a subliminal baseline for 'what it should look like', and thus you get such illogical nonsense as Drow Houses who use colour in their heraldic devices to differentiate their houses - when in reality, shape of device would be far more prevalent. Drow on Drow fights have no need to include light - whatsoever - unless of course they are using coloured devices to differentiate themselves, in which case why would they use them at all considering the disadvantages?

They wouldn't...

I believe that they would use light sources in their cities and homes. The Drow likely do not regard their cities as a warzone. They would probably use lights for signage for the same reason that we do, even if everyone carried around NV goggles. Drow houses use colour in their designs to show off the artistry, and as a show of power.
And if an internal conflict erupts, and the area does in fact become a warzome?
Why then, you can just turn out the lights.

The parallel between older NV goggles and Darkvision is a pretty good one. Both have a limited range and very limited vision compared to actual light. However in situations where it is important to not be spotted by a hostile force, its better than stumbling around in the dark, and much better than waving a torch around.

We are all human of course, and are limited to this extent to the capabilities of our senses - but very small numbers of humans DO have experience of using darkvision to fight, and I can tell you from personal experience (I am ex-army), that the use of night vision equipment (a little cumbersome, and makes your blurrier more immediate environment green...) gives you a massive advantage in the darkness (despite the inconvenience and drawbacks of an equipment-based capability) over those without it. No-one would give that up given the alternatives, and if the military ever developed biotech eyeballs with nightvision capabilities, the advantages of using it would be even greater - especially if the user could not be temporarily blinded by bright light (as the short range darkvision races illogically enjoy...).

If you disagree with what I am saying, then of course you are entirely entitled to do so. But if I may ask, if you could justify in your rejoinder why it is you think every advanced army in the world is wrong about this I would genuinely be interested to hear what your reasoning is.

Thanks .

 

[CapnZapp]

How interesting, understandable, and frankly, odd...

There seems to be an assumption made by more than one person that Underdark races would use light in Underdark warfare because of the perceived advantages. Is this right, or could it bely a lack of experience in night fighting as it is done in the real world and a lack of the application of self-reflection on the effect of our shared human experience on our personal point of view?

I would say that seems likely.

Well, while I completely agree with you, I also need to point out that you can't get that experience by reading a book.

And more to the point here, not by reading the PHB rules.

What I mean is: there is nothing in the rules that actually suggest turning on a light would be a bad idea. And if all your play experiences is in conveniently lighted dungeons, there's no real reason to reevaluate this.

What I mean is; there are lots of things that the rules don't talk about, that you or I simply take for granted. Breathing air and taking bathroom breaks are two such things that (presumably) everyone else also take for granted.

But light issues simply isn't one of those things.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't judge these people because they don't know any better. After all, the real issue is: does a certain way to run illumination make the game better and more fun?

And I'm not so sure.

While I couldn't find any fun and even relate to a situation where kobolds or orcs were to hang up lights even though that benefits pesky human murderhobos much more than themselves, I accept that this simply isn't an issue in the games of others.

While I can't even begin to fathom the idea of playing a human rogue reliant on carrying a lantern, and still somehow being surprised when the monsters spot you Every Single Time, I have come to understand that is not a particularly rare or outrageous notion among our fellow gamers.

 

[Awesome Adam]

Also, most people aren't going to learn the light cantrip regardless of how many people have darkvision. Cantrips are too valuable to waste a pick on the edge case scenario that you don't have a light source. You would need to start by doubling the number of cantrips casters get, and then you might see someone picking light instead of just using a lantern.

That has not been my experience. Light is fairly popular in my gaming group, for any spaellcaster without Darkvision/Devil's Sight.

 

[Caliburn101]

While I can't even begin to fathom the idea of playing a human rogue reliant on carrying a lantern, and still somehow being surprised when the monsters spot you Every Single Time, I have come to understand that is not a particularly rare or outrageous notion among our fellow gamers.

Really? Human assassins and thieves have for millennia been sneaking around in the dark successfully taking people's lives or possessions.

Sure, in a darkvision ubiquitous world they would struggle by comparison, but level the playing field more with my (and others) Low Light Vision variant and humans can once again be knife wielding sociopaths and purloiners.

There are other poor optimisation choices for race and class combinations, but the way they have darkvision at the moment means Halfling Rogues are oddly at a serious disadvantage at night, in the dungeon and in the dark generally.

In fact, think about that one (I just have to be honest) - "She's playing a Halfing Rogue... what a noob!"

That as much as anything else flags the issue of too-widespread darkvision does it not?

 

[CapnZapp]

Not sure you're arguing with me or agreeing with me.

 

[Gwarok]

Seems to me that you're sorta bending fundamental things to fit how you want them at the expense of the campaign world. I think it makes a lot more sense to disallow races that see in the dark as PC playable. Humans should be nervous going underground in lightless caverns, but Dwarves? That's their wheelhouse man. They LOVE dark holes going into the earth, that's home to them. You start chopping off things like that what you've largely accomplished is reducing a distinct race into malformed humans. Say goodbye to the very idea of a Dwarven kingdom under the mountain. And for what? So you can set the mood one time, maybe two, for an adventure.

As DM you have the power to do anything you want with the campaign world, spin any story you like, cast any spell or introduce any monster or contrivance you like, but players are much more finite, they have to hit the scene with a set of limits, limits which define and actually help them be the character they are trying to play and interact with the world you make. Going after fundamental traits of races your PC's have chosen to play almost certainly because of those traits is basically telling them to re-imagine their character because it makes your job setting the mood easier, when you've already got the tools at your disposal. I would opt for another route than trying to make dwarves scared of the dark.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, while I completely agree with you, I also need to point out that you can't get that experience by reading a book.

Well, that all depends on the kind of books you read.

And more to the point here, not by reading the PHB rules.

What I mean is: there is nothing in the rules that actually suggest turning on a light would be a bad idea.

Pretty sure its in the DMG that light sources are visible from a large distance when in dark surroundings.

And if all your play experiences is in conveniently lighted dungeons, there's no real reason to reevaluate this.

What I mean is; there are lots of things that the rules don't talk about, that you or I simply take for granted. Breathing air and taking bathroom breaks are two such things that (presumably) everyone else also take for granted.

But light issues simply isn't one of those things.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't judge these people because they don't know any better. After all, the real issue is: does a certain way to run illumination make the game better and more fun?

I'd say no specific way to run illumination is going to make every game better: different games are going to encourage different ways of treating it. Some groups just won't find the minutiae of interest. Some will play up the inability to make out exactly what you're looking at through fog or under darkvision to instil a sense of fear or mystery as the party catch glimpses of movement and obscure shapes that could be friends, or monsters. Some will run on an all-or-nothing basis: either you can see or you can't. Some will apply the full penalties for obscuring factors.

While I couldn't find any fun and even relate to a situation where kobolds or orcs were to hang up lights even though that benefits pesky human murderhobos much more than themselves, I accept that this simply isn't an issue in the games of others.

Probably depends more on how realistic the game is. Some games might have Kobolds and Hobgoblins groping about under darkvision even in their lairs. Others would have them using light sources in the areas that they felt were safe. As long as it works for your group and is internally consistent with the setting its all good.

While I can't even begin to fathom the idea of playing a human rogue reliant on carrying a lantern, and still somehow being surprised when the monsters spot you Every Single Time, I have come to understand that is not a particularly rare or outrageous notion among our fellow gamers.

What has given you that impression?
Actually, to clarify, are you talking about the notion of playing a human rogue (which has been suggested in this thread) or the notion that a light source in a dark area isn't extremely visible (which hasn't.) Or is this understanding from elsewhere?

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, that all depends on the kind of books you read.

You didn't quote me in full. I'm talking about D&D rules.

Pretty sure its in the DMG that light sources are visible from a large distance when in dark surroundings.

You sure?

The reason for me asking:

I'm thinking about a game as recent as circa 3rd edition era, WFRP2... An excellent game in many regards, but not when its designer got a temporary insanity and claimed that the range of light sources included its visibility to others...

Not trying to point fingers here - just wanted to make the illustration that if even a professional game studio can release a print publication that isn't aware how (very) far light travels, it's hard to judge regular gamers for not having this awareness.

Especially since this subject is definitely in the realm of "things we just take for granted with no discussion". If you can find a discussion on illumination in the DMG, great. But you'd be surprised how many rpgs that simply say nothing on the subject.

Let alone get it completely and hilariously wrong...

 

[Tallifer]

When I DM, one of the things I really like to establish is mood and setting for my players. I want to play up the dread and unknown when they venture into a dark, damp dungeon. I want them to almost hear the scraping of the flint and the crackling fire as they light their torch. I want them to see the light dance upon the cavern walls, or light an ancient underground tomb that hasn't seen light in hundreds of years. I want them to wonder what else lurks out in the darkness just beyond where their light reaches.

I also want their light spells to be meaningful and useful. I want magical potions of darkvision, or goggles of night, to be coveted items.

But the fact that most all the races have darkvision simply ruins things. Sure it makes it easier of DMs that want to forget about running lighting and vision rules anyway, but I want to run those rules. That's a big part of the ambiance of dungeon crawling, in the way I run my games.

So in my own homebrew universe, I am thinking about getting rid of darkvision for all but Drow and Snirvneblin. Are there some potential game-breaking problems if I do that? Have any thoughts on running a game without racial darkvision?

I agree overall. Darkness should be intimidating and inconvenient in a dungeon or at night. Or an aid to stealth.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is why I'm trying to open up the discussion to the notions
* that playing a human rogue (carrying a lantern)
* that scouting in the underdark (as a member of a party reliant on light)
* that darkvision-equipped humanoids might give up that (huge) advantage for mere convenience (and light up their surroundings)
...doesn't necessarily need to be the outrageous notion it might look to you and me (that are cognizant of the range of light sources).

If a reputable publishing house can get it wrong, it's hard to judge, right?

As long as everybody involved is (at least at a basic level) aware they're leaving reality behind and entering an arranged game physics suited to simple but fun dungeonbashing... (much like hit points or saving throws or any other accepted D&Dism)