Something That Never Made Sense: Light Radius

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm quite sure it has been that way at least since 3rd Edition.

Yup.

Exploration :: d20srd.org

 

[Grydan]

I'm quite sure it has been that way at least since 3rd Edition.

In 3rd Edition, yes. Since 3rd Edition, no.

In 4E "A light source illuminates its square (your square if you're carrying the light source) and all squares within the range shown on the table. For example, if you carry a torch, bright light illuminates your square and 5 squares in every direction from you".

As far as the 4E rules are concerned, there's no surrounding area of dim illumination (4E's equivalent of shadowy) around the square area that your light source illuminates.

 

[ComradeGnull]

There's a reason why military flashlights have a red cover. It allows for light without the light traveling as far. I've been able to pick people out in the dark from quite a distance away simply because they were smoking a cigarette.

The red cover is also there because it was long believed that the light sensing chemicals in your eyes were less sensitive to red light, and that using a red filter would preserve your night vision. There seems to be some doubt about how well this works, though.

The cigarette thing is telling too about spotting distance- I think this was the (apocryphal) origin of the 'three on a match' superstition- the idea that more than two men lighting a cigarette off the same match would give an enemy sniper an opportunity to take aim and fire.

 

[Tovec]

As far as spotting light from a distance- you can see very small lights from a very far distance as long as you have line of sight on them. The 10x rule probably understates the real value by a lot- in flat country in the dark you can see a small light (candle, flashlight pointed at you) from 3 miles away or more before the curvature of the earth intervenes. If you are up on a hill or mountain, you can see lights from maybe 10x that far. I would essentially say that a light source has a chance of being spotted from far away as long as the observer can acquire a line of sight to it.

I just have one thing to add.

Sight, as in seeing things regardless of its light source is pretty much infinite unless something obstructs it so that is entirely not the point here. I mean we can see stars and other planets with the naked eye.

So the point here was that the 10x rule helps you see details. It helps you see what is in the light source. It helps you tell if there are people walking in that source or if it is a campfire or if it is a wall mounted torch. That is the only point I wanted to add about the 10x rule which doesn't make the slightest bit of distance as far as what terrain you are on (unless something is blocking that sight).

Besides that it has to do with the intensity of the light, a weaker light source and unassisted you aren't going to see much. Being 100x times from a stronger light source helps but I would have a harder time making any details out at that distance.

So yes I'll say you can see light from much further than 10x times, but I think that being able to no longer tell any major details at 10x makes all the sense in the world.

 

[howandwhy99]

A Lit Area is required for Line of Sight. LoS is pretty big in D&Dn, so determining this should be important, but keeping it simple (KISS) should apply too.

Light has traditionally been a radius as it was a burst of something from a point/singularity rather than a lack of something.

• Anything with line of sight on a light source can see it.
• Seeing anything nearby the light source is the question.
• To determine the answer we (in part) define light sources by size/area of effect.
• So we get larger and smaller radii depending on the Strength of the light source.

Whatever resides in a lit area is what can be seen with Line of Sight by any sighted creature inside or out.

After this human baseline we can get into improved or alternate-sightedness and things can change quite a bit. Here is where it gets complicated, but these details also give definition to... well, whatever is being defined whether it be a race, class, item, spell, whatever.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The thing is, if you want to simplify it much more, you kind of eradicate lighting as an adventuring concern.

Which is fine. I think lighting should be in the camp of an "optional module." You can assume that all characters always have enough light to seen fairly normally by, or that they don't (and are thus in darkness), or that they are somewhere in between (and thus have concealment). A torch gives you enough light to see by. A candle makes everything dim. Or whatever. The End.

Want to measure your torch's precise radius of bright and shadowy illumination? Mokay, but that's something you can opt into, not something every DM should be expected to consider Very Important.

 

[howandwhy99]

KM: Bingo. Can't rep you at the moment.

 

[ComradeGnull]

The thing is, if you want to simplify it much more, you kind of eradicate lighting as an adventuring concern.

Which is fine. I think lighting should be in the camp of an "optional module." You can assume that all characters always have enough light to seen fairly normally by, or that they don't (and are thus in darkness), or that they are somewhere in between (and thus have concealment). A torch gives you enough light to see by. A candle makes everything dim. Or whatever. The End.

Want to measure your torch's precise radius of bright and shadowy illumination? Mokay, but that's something you can opt into, not something every DM should be expected to consider Very Important.

I agree with you in theory- people should not be obligated to use the lighting rules if they slow down the game too much, or if it isn't an interesting concern for them. Disagree, however, as to making it a 'module', unless by module you mean 'in the core book, but clearly labelled as optional'.

My feeling on this comes down to a difference I am seeing a lot in these module arguments: is it easier to ignore a rule, or wait for one? To me, it is easier to ignore a rule I already have than it is to wait for one that I might get later, but I've seen people essentially making the opposite argument. I played for years largely ignoring lighting considerations that I had rules for, but it was very nice when I decided I wanted to include it (for a more traditional dungeon crawl-type adventure) to already have rules that had been planned from the get-go to work with the items, abilities, etc., that characters already have and that I was already familiar with.

Also worth noting that if light rules aren't in by default that changes the equation as far as balancing character races for Darkvision and Low Light vision- Darkvision is a big advantage for exploration/scouting if you use light rules, but useless without them. 4e seems to have moved away from PC races having Darkvision in favor of Low-Light vision. That seemed to be an intentional decision to balance all characters around needing light sources, but the light rules were also simplified and seemed to often be ignored.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, it is easier to ignore a rule I already have than it is to wait for one that I might get later...

Agreed, 100%.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Disagree, however, as to making it a 'module', unless by module you mean 'in the core book, but clearly labelled as optional'.

Actually, that was exactly my thinking on this particular rule. It's one that I think has enough tradition in D&D that most people will expect it, but it's not one that I think must occur for a sweet D&D game to happen. As optional as the half-elf and the bard.

Also worth noting that if light rules aren't in by default that changes the equation as far as balancing character races for Darkvision and Low Light vision- Darkvision is a big advantage for exploration/scouting if you use light rules, but useless without them.

This is a little bit of a tangential rant for me, but really, I think lighting in D&D has almost always been more complicated and more "valuable" than it really needs to be.

If you're using a simplified three-stage lighting system (you're either able to see normally, able to see a little bit, or not able to see), all low-light vision or darkvision does is change one or two of those categories to "able to see normally." It does precisely what a torch does. It's not remarkably powerful to give a first level character an auto-torch. Let the dwarf see in the dark. NO BIG DEAL.

Also, let the giant character be Large, and let the winged character fly, and lets not freak out too much about first level teleports if that's what you want. Really, I'd love 5e a bunch if it wasn't so friggin' fragile about everything.