Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision

doctorbadwolf said:

You might want to reread my comment, instead.

I made an argument against what you were proposing as necessary to have elves have the “correct” sort of vision.

Elves already do what you were talking about in the post to which I replied. They already see poorly in darkness, and are blind to things outside a fairly short radius.

What else would “now” have been referring to?

Click to expand...

Now you're not even making any sense. Unless, of course, you're intentionally obtuse. Or, you attempted a joke, in which case I failed to see it.

Anyway. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let me take this step by step, and end with a question.

This is a thread about ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision. My observation is that with the revert back to low-light vision, it becomes easier (from a minmax POV) to choose Human (or Halfling etc), since now the likelyhood of that breaking an otherwise all-Darkvision party is considerably reduced (since Elves and Gnomes now too lack darkvision).

It also avoids stupid stuff like an Owl not spotting a mouse unless it is within 60 ft. Or Elves not spotting the Orc Warband until they're up close, whereas with low-light vision the arrows can start whistling from hundreds of feet, like they need to. (Unless you like that Elves are a mere nuisance; that the Orcs only need to endure but a single round of ranged combat before they're in melee range. Which is too stupid for words)

The overarching question is whether the party can travel in the dark with no light. (And without having to create a "specialist party", like all-Dwarfs, which has certainly always been possible) In my mind, WotC conveniently forgot (or didn't care) that their 5E change makes it considerably less attractive to bring a pesky human along, since that means the group now needs to signal their presence to everybody from great distances.

The party goes from unlit torches to lit torches; a severe disadvantage unless you actively don't want to bother with the issue. Some DMs simply don't care. Others rule that darkvision is sufficiently poor vision that Underdark races use light anyway, even when on guard duty. I strongly object to this last ruling since it makes zero sense and is very silly.

All of this revolve around campaigns that heavily feature darkness, of course. (Groups with Darkvision can choose to travel at night. They can run circles around human sentries. They can even survive the Underdark, since predators are much less likely to notice them from a distance.) Other campaigns take place in well-lit cities, or on sunny fields, and darkness is simply not an issue. Which is fair enough, but that's not what's up for discussion.

Now then. Where in this is it useful to imply Elves doesn't need to be reverted back to low-light vision? When this entire thread is about exactly that, the usefulness of getting rid of elvish Darkvision? I don't get it.

doctorbadwolf said:

The Gloom Stalker isn't built that way because darkvision is too common. They're built that way because many of the creatures they are thematically fighting/stalking have always had something like darkvision, and the point of the ability is that they are invisible to such creatures' special sight, making them terrifying monsters in the dark, for races that have never had to fear the dark.

Low light and Dark vision as separate visions isn't less complex. 5e darkvision is simple. In dim light, you see clearly within the radius, and in darkness you see at disadvantage within the radius.

If night ambushes aren't working "as intended" with 5e RAW, that's on the DM, not the rules.

Click to expand...

To tackle each point made here;

Firstly - the vast number of things with darkvision in the game is precisely why the Gloomstalker has the ability to fool darkvision. I didn't limit my statement to PCs. Theme only comes into the fluff of it - the character class, as written and as reviewed by the various online people that do so is regarded as one of the best Ranger variants because of this - and not just in Underdark campaigns.

Secondly, I never said having LL Vision and darkvision separate was less complex, I have merely stated that LL Vision is simple. That's a fact, it is. Compared to darkvision it is also easier to run as it modifies just one variable - dim light - not the entire interplay between light, dim light darkness and variable ranges.

Thirdly, night ambushes in 5th Edition don't have a 'working as intended' ruling associated with them. They are just far less effective against parties, or against monsters in too many cases due to the lack of cover afforded by darkness when darkvision is so common. It forces a DM with any understanding of real world tactics, or just common sense on their own experience of darkness (and how evocative it can be for suspense, horror and surprise in an encounter) to largely discard this otherwise useful element of a game and come up with something counter-intuitive occurring in a black and white 60ft radius encounter bubble (most of the time). I say counterintuitive because humans run and play this game and don't have this sensory ability. I say counterintuitive with relevant experience, having used night vision technology in the military.

Ultimately darkvision being so very, very common adds nothing to the game, and takes away something from storytellers and players alike. To say that if night ambushes aren't working because of some failing in a DM is derisory and pretty ignorant of the history of conflict and how ambushes actually work. The effective use of darkness to surprise and ambush is a rich vein to mine for PC and monsters alike in the very many rpgs where darkvision is rare and this tactic is viable. It is used so very often in conflicts of all kinds in fact (both literary and real) that it is entirely illogical to state otherwise.

"Oh look, the stupid ninja is wearing black... like she thought that would hide her!" *derisory laughter emanates from any number of monsters in the 'ambushed' group*.

I am not saying that darkvision doesn't have a place, and that it is not possible to have suspense and surprise etc. whilst it is being used, but it's overuse makes such things more artificial and less relatable. It is very much overused in 5th Edition and without adding anything to replace what it takes away, trivialises a useful tool in the DM and Player narrative and gameplay arsenal as enjoyed widely in previous editions.

Ultimately, rpgs are just as much fun without ubiquitous darkvision - so why give it to so many of the denizens of a game world or a game just because of the argument that it is very marginally 'simpler' to run.

It isn't simpler, it isn't as easily imagined as low light vision and it adds nothing positive to the GM or Players experience to counterbalance the issues with it's over-availability.

I quite like having the odd mysterious NPCs "melt into the shadows" without players telling me they watch her go and see her scratch behind her ear as she turns the corner of the building in the pitch black. I quite like orcs bursting out of the darkness surprising the ill-prepared PC without having to wait until they make the mistake of camping in an area with easy approaches to it filled with heavy cover because they have, effectively a 60ft radius never-turned-off black and white floodlight.

Night activity adds atmosphere, fear of the unknown and the chance to be shocked and surprised by something close to you. That is not emulated by giving out disadvantage to everyone fighting in the dark. It only works when it is DARK.

If a game takes the opportunity from a storyteller to do that with most of the protagonists it needs to replace it with something to compensate.

5th Edition makes no attempt to and is poorer for it.

Darkvision only goes out to 60ft. You can do all of that in 5e.

I have ambushes in darkness all the time in my games. I also had to do the same things to accomplish that in older editions, because PCs always had to have light sources to move around in total darkness, and had trouble seeing in low light.

The drow assassins attack just before the torchlight reaches them, or in the space between when they can see their prey and their prey can see them using heir respective darkvision. It works fine.

Also, Human is still the most played race, so apperently groups don’t feel particularly disincentivised to “bring one along”.

Do all of what? You seem to be contesting something, but I'm not sure of what. (I'm not even sure you're in the right thread, seeing the title here is "Ridding Elves and Half-elves of Darkvision...)

You don't need light if you have Darkvision, that's just a fact. Light is a luxury you definitely can and will opt out of while travelling in unsafe territory.

Why? Because the benefit (not getting disadvantage on Perception) isn't that great - Characters with proficiency and Wisdom still outmatches most monsters even with -5. (Every well oiled group of players makes sure at least one of them is a high Wisdom character with Perception proficiency)

In contrast, the disadvantage of light is much worse: your light is seen from miles away (in extreme cases). That means alerting every monster, and kissing surprise good bye.

So... "You can do all of that in 5e". Do all of what?

I have ambushes in my games too. But not so much in the dark, mainly because since I've reverted Elves back to low-light vision, I haven't had an all-Darkvision party. Which in turn means the party no longer travels around in darkness (which is a gamechanging advantage that makes too much content too easy). That is, they can't creep up on monsters in the dark (and trivialize the encounters) while they themselves can be ambushed properly (not because the aenemic Stealth scores of monsters allow actual surprise, but because monsters see the heroes coming from a mile away and can take action accordingly)

Sure Humans are popular. However, all my players immediately switched from Human to Half-Elf to be able to ditch their torches, seeing that a party that doesn't contain Humans, Halfings and Dragonborn still offers great variety while still remaining able to travel in darkness. Plus as a Half-Elf you can still be raised in a human city, and you can downplay your elfin traits to pass as Human in most social arenas. (It's just like a Human, only minmaxed!)

So I had to revert back to 3E-era vision, and it works great. You should try it!

I don't remember if I posted the party make up in this thread, but right now we have the following:

Tiefling Warlock and Tiefling Barbarian (same player)
Dragonborn Sorcerer
Drow Ranger (she doesn't know about Drizz't but is reading the first three books now)
Half-Orc Rogue
Duergar Fighter (NPC)

Other than the Dragonborn, RAW they all have Darkvision. It wasn't intentional, those were the races that sounded "cool" to play (they are all pretty much newbies to D&D). I didn't check on Dragonborn, and my players thought they had Darkvision as well, so I've ruled to let him keep it since it makes more sense to me anyway.

Now, as to the disadvantages of traveling without light. So far, none.

The Half-Orc Rogue has the Dungeon Delver feat, gaining advantage on finding secret doors, which cancels out the dim light disadvantage. He is proficient in Perception and has a good Wisdom modifier (+2). He and the Drow Ranger are the scouts and she is also proficient in Perception, with a +1 Wisdom modifier. Although they have disadvantage when an ambush is possible, so do the monsters they are sneaking up on/ scouting out, so that basically negates itself. The Drow Ranger is also thinking about taking Alertness as her next Feat, so it will be really hard to surprise her after that.

I did explain they would need light in certain situations, and once the foes are vanquished they usually light lanterns while searching anyway.

It won't matter much for this campaign/group, house-ruling that Elves and Half-Elves now have my "Moonlight" vision (aka Low-light), since I am keeping Drow with Darkvision, but it will help in the future as it makes more sense and then we might get a human in the group!

Exactly

James Grover said:

I don't remember if I posted the party make up in this thread, but right now we have the following:

Tiefling Warlock and Tiefling Barbarian (same player)
Dragonborn Sorcerer
Drow Ranger (she doesn't know about Drizz't but is reading the first three books now)
Half-Orc Rogue
Duergar Fighter (NPC)

Other than the Dragonborn, RAW they all have Darkvision. It wasn't intentional, those were the races that sounded "cool" to play (they are all pretty much newbies to D&D). I didn't check on Dragonborn, and my players thought they had Darkvision as well, so I've ruled to let him keep it since it makes more sense to me anyway.

Now, as to the disadvantages of traveling without light. So far, none.

The Half-Orc Rogue has the Dungeon Delver feat, gaining advantage on finding secret doors, which cancels out the dim light disadvantage. He is proficient in Perception and has a good Wisdom modifier (+2). He and the Drow Ranger are the scouts and she is also proficient in Perception, with a +1 Wisdom modifier. Although they have disadvantage when an ambush is possible, so do the monsters they are sneaking up on/ scouting out, so that basically negates itself. The Drow Ranger is also thinking about taking Alertness as her next Feat, so it will be really hard to surprise her after that.

I did explain they would need light in certain situations, and once the foes are vanquished they usually light lanterns while searching anyway.

It won't matter much for this campaign/group, house-ruling that Elves and Half-Elves now have my "Moonlight" vision (aka Low-light), since I am keeping Drow with Darkvision, but it will help in the future as it makes more sense and then we might get a human in the group!

Click to expand...

Worst still (or better yet, depending how you look at it) your drow has Superior Darkvision - 120' - so she can get continuous advantage against creatures with normal Darkvision whenever in a larger enough space. (She can be unseen due to being out of their vision range, and will not become seen in that circumstance, even after attacking them with her longbow.) Your duergar has the same option.

It highlights the vexations of the 5e - all but one has darkvision - normal adventuring party. I think many DMs just say - okay, that one also sees well in the dark for... reasons.

doctorbadwolf said:

Also, Human is still the most played race, so apperently groups don’t feel particularly disincentivised to “bring one along”.

Click to expand...

It seems so utterly at odds with my experiences, that I question the data on that one. Is it produced by AL or something? Or perhaps it's variant-humans all the way down?

clearstream said:

It seems so utterly at odds with my experiences, that I question the data on that one. Is it produced by AL or something? Or perhaps it's variant-humans all the way down?

Click to expand...

IIRC, every data set that is large enough to matter says the same thing. DnD beyond has a great breakdown every month of how popular things are, if you want a deeper dive.