Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision

Satyrn said:

Despite the intriguing effort you spent delving into how darkvision works and Underdark ecology feeds, it was this that I gave XP for, this reminder that the players are partly hamstringing themselves if they rely on Darkvision and encouraging DMs to exploit that. Very nice.

Click to expand...

What makes it easy is if adventurers bring torches and other light sources. You'll see them from far away.

That Darkvision = dim light = Perception penalty I consider almost a benefit, not a detriment.

Why? Because ambushes are fun, and because without that -5 monsters have an almost impossible task of successfully surprising the heroes!

Caliburn101 said:

Previous editions of D&D did just fine without so very many creatures with Darkvision. 5th Edition didn't need for any reason to go in this direction and didn't add anything good in doing so. This was a simplified mechanic that didn't need simplifying. In fact, Low Light Vision is mechanically simpler and more intuitive in terms of narration.

That is the point of contention here. So if you can think of a reason Darkvision makes the game better, or simpler than the use of LL Vision, or adds more than it takes away, then please make those points, with some reasoned logic and examples.

Click to expand...

This.

Specifically, the issue isn't "Darkvision good" or "Darkvision bad".

The change that 5E needlessly made, is adding Darkvision to so many races, that it becomes "too easy" to have an all-Darkvision party.

With Elves etc back to not-Darkvision, you can still have an all-Dwarf party, but most parties will contain at least one not-Darkvision member.

This has significant implications for the feasibility of human adventurers, all good ones.

Kobold Stew said:

The flip side of this is that "historically" darkvision removed the problem of darkness, but in 5e it doesn't -- even with darkvision, in 5e you suffer disadvantage on all perception checks.

That's huge, and even parties with darkvision need to use light sources regularly.

Click to expand...

Anecdote time:

My players whose characters didn't have darkvision, about half the party, felt really insecure about not being able to see in the dark. They asked if they could buy something to give them darkvision. I allowed them to buy darkvision goggles from a dwarf smith. They excitedly forked over 500 gp each for goggles that gave them worse sight than buying a bundle of 1 cp torches.

Sure, the goggles don't give away their position like torchlight would. And, yes, the goggles don't need to be held in hand. However, it knocks down the passive perception stats of the party (the ranger drops from 21 to a more manageable 16), making them more susceptible to traps than they would be with torch- or lantern-light.

Also, don't forget to freely abuse the black-and-white nature of darkvision. In one of my group's delves they encountered a puzzle that could only be deciphered properly when you can see colors. When they got the wrong answer on the puzzle, it triggered a trap that nearly killed a couple of the party members. They had to leave the dungeon, cut some branches from a nearby tree, use magic to dry the wood out, tear up a pair of pants to get cloth to tie around the branches, and then head back into the dungeon.

MechaPilot said:

Anecdote time:

My players whose characters didn't have darkvision, about half the party, felt really insecure about not being able to see in the dark. They asked if they could buy something to give them darkvision. I allowed them to buy darkvision goggles from a dwarf smith. They excitedly forked over 500 gp each for goggles that gave them worse sight than buying a bundle of 1 cp torches.

Sure, the goggles don't give away their position like torchlight would. And, yes, the goggles don't need to be held in hand. However, it knocks down the passive perception stats of the party (the ranger drops from 21 to a more manageable 16), making them more susceptible to traps than they would be with torch- or lantern-light.

Also, don't forget to freely abuse the black-and-white nature of darkvision. In one of my group's delves they encountered a puzzle that could only be deciphered properly when you can see colors. When they got the wrong answer on the puzzle, it triggered a trap that nearly killed a couple of the party members. They had to leave the dungeon, cut some branches from a nearby tree, use magic to dry the wood out, tear up a pair of pants to get cloth to tie around the branches, and then head back into the dungeon.

Click to expand...

One time 500gp expense for avoiding either:
1 - being treated as blinded on most nights
2 - giving away position and being bright light visible myself to the max encounter distance (at least) PLUS loss of hand somewhere for the lighting

Yup, would do so in a heartbeat.

After all, disadvantage does not mean having to roll to see stuff that is plainly visible... it just means tougher time spotting things where they are hidden and such.

My torch lets you sit at bow range and fire unseen into my brightly lit camp/group with advantage.
My ggggles don't.

Seems like a no-brainer.

Caliburn101 said:

... So if you can think of a reason Darkvision makes the game better, or simpler than the use of LL Vision, or adds more than it takes away, then please make those points, with some reasoned logic and examples.

Simply telling us that you can still ambush people in the dark using the rules as written does not acknowledge that it cannot be done as creatively or with as many options as an ambush in the dark without Darkvision, and doesn't tackle the crux of the argument. It's akin to saying that a wobbly wheel on your bike is just fine because you can still peddle and get somewhere on it.

Click to expand...

Darkvision is, mechanically, very simple indeed. Certainly it is simpler than having infravision, ultravision, and low light vision to keep track of, and using darkvision allows you to do things like have a sign or an underdark trail marker that can only be seen with darkvision.

You're almost never going to have an ambush in the dark without darkvision. I don't know why that's even a thing you want to bring up... it won't happen unless you force it. It doesn't matter whether you have some or all of your party without darkvision, they won't be stumbling along in the dark without a light source. To have an ambush in the dark you'll have to cheat, and take away their light; it is just as easy to have mist or fog that blinds those with even darkvision 120. To suggest that you can't ambush a party "as creatively" if their using darkvision is simply the opposite of accurate, since an ambush in the dark without darkvision is pretty much limited to "You don't see them. Surprise!" In the first round, someone will get lights up and then you're just in a vanilla encounter. With darkvision, you can provide misdirection, you can tease glimpses of part of the ambush predator, and most importantly you can provide some very effective horror. Players whose characters are blind in the dark expect horrible things to stalk them through the lightless places, but characters with darkvision tend to fall into the trap of feeling at home there, as if those characters are native and comfortable in the deep places. They're not, and when they are confronted with the realization that they are on the menu as much as the human beside them, it can be more effectively creepy. Take, for example, the deep stalker ranger feature that makes a character invisible to darkvision. Consider how much it would freak out your dwarf or dark elf when you say "You can clearly see the entire chamber, and it seems to be empty. You can't see anything threatening at all... Roll initiative." It isn't quite as good as dropping a retriever into Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, but it will get someone's attention.

Caliburn101 said:

The vast majority of monsters cannot close a full 60ft and attack in the same round, which limits your options using darkness to ambushes using ranged attacks in the vast majority of cases, or with great stealth rolls where close-up fighting is preferred.

This is a limitation - whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Having Darkvision so widely available has taken something away from every DM's narrative and gameplay toolset - and hasn't added anything in return - once again, whether you care about it or not.

I do care about it - because if a game mechanic takes something away, I want to see something else as compensation. What does Darkvision do to compensate me for my restricted options for the use of darkness as an atmospheric narrative tool (you can feel the breath of the creature upon you but cannot see it...) or as a gameplay tool (daggers fly out of the dark alleyway 20ft away and you are caught entirely by surprise *rolls with advantage + sneak attack bonus*).

Previous editions of D&D did just fine without so very many creatures with Darkvision. 5th Edition didn't need for any reason to go in this direction and didn't add anything good in doing so. This was a simplified mechanic that didn't need simplifying. In fact, Low Light Vision is mechanically simpler and more intuitive in terms of narration.

That is the point of contention here. So if you can think of a reason Darkvision makes the game better, or simpler than the use of LL Vision, or adds more than it takes away, then please make those points, with some reasoned logic and examples.

Simply telling us that you can still ambush people in the dark using the rules as written does not acknowledge that it cannot be done as creatively or with as many options as an ambush in the dark without Darkvision, and doesn't tackle the crux of the argument. It's akin to saying that a wobbly wheel on your bike is just fine because you can still peddle and get somewhere on it.

Click to expand...

It's not akin to that at all, because the wheel isn't wobbly at all. It's akin to saying, "no, the wheel isn't wobbly."

Darkvision is simpler than having multiple types of special vision, and makes running the game smoother.

Further, the thing you claim it takes away is, IMO, rather questionable.

If you were saying "you've been attacked" in older editions, you were running stealth and ambushes incorrectly, so far as I can remember. At least in 2e and 3/.5e, you still had to roll to sneak up on someone. In 3/.5e there was a whole skill for it, called Move Silently. There was no, "they can't see me, therefor they cannot even roll to possibly perceive me in any way."

Add to that, groups should still be using torches in 5e, because having disadvantage in darkness still sucks quite a bit. If a DM is handwaving that, that's on them, not the rules. Groups should also have generally had torches in older editions, unless they all had Darkvision, in which case the enemy might as well have been trying to ambush the group in full daylight. With torches, they still had a limited scope of visibility, but at least they weren't literally blind, risking falling into a pit at every turn.

So, what has been taken away is...parties somehow navigating in total blindness through dangerous territory? Seriously?

CapnZapp said:

The change that 5E needlessly made, is adding Darkvision to so many races, that it becomes "too easy" to have an all-Darkvision party.

With Elves etc back to not-Darkvision, you can still have an all-Dwarf party, but most parties will contain at least one not-Darkvision member.

This has significant implications for the feasibility of human adventurers, all good ones.

Click to expand...

Have you really found humans to not be feasible? Do you not see humans, dragonborn, and halflings in your games? We know from an immense data set that the majority of groups don't have that problem.

"groups should still be using torches in 5e" - this is just some kind of inertia, or wishful thinking. When you really consider the case, having torches is more bad than good.

This also completely ignores the advantages of not having torches. These advantages are overwhelming!

So there should be a considerable incentive to use torches. The best way to incentivize torches is to make the non-darkvision party the default. That is, the party with at least one non-darkvision-enabled member.

By the RAW in 5E, the classic human-elf-dwarf-halfling can too easily be tweaked into a halfelf-elf-dwarf-gnome party, and suddenly you can ditch those pesky torches.

This is what I am fixing by reverting the ill-advised change that never before 5E was D&D, and returning elves to low-light vision

I think torches will be the exception, not the rule. Most parties will use the light cantrip instead. They'll graduate to shuttered lanterns with continual flame.

Regardless, why is it so important to incentivise torches? If your party really prioritises darkvision and doesn't want to have to frolic with using torches...

doctorbadwolf said:

It's not akin to that at all, because the wheel isn't wobbly at all. It's akin to saying, "no, the wheel isn't wobbly."

Darkvision is simpler than having multiple types of special vision, and makes running the game smoother.

Further, the thing you claim it takes away is, IMO, rather questionable.

If you were saying "you've been attacked" in older editions, you were running stealth and ambushes incorrectly, so far as I can remember. At least in 2e and 3/.5e, you still had to roll to sneak up on someone. In 3/.5e there was a whole skill for it, called Move Silently. There was no, "they can't see me, therefor they cannot even roll to possibly perceive me in any way."

Add to that, groups should still be using torches in 5e, because having disadvantage in darkness still sucks quite a bit. If a DM is handwaving that, that's on them, not the rules. Groups should also have generally had torches in older editions, unless they all had Darkvision, in which case the enemy might as well have been trying to ambush the group in full daylight. With torches, they still had a limited scope of visibility, but at least they weren't literally blind, risking falling into a pit at every turn.

So, what has been taken away is...parties somehow navigating in total blindness through dangerous territory? Seriously?



Have you really found humans to not be feasible? Do you not see humans, dragonborn, and halflings in your games? We know from an immense data set that the majority of groups don't have that problem.

Click to expand...

Also, it may be my misrecalling but in early to mid editions outdoors under starlight and moonlight on most every night was not explicitly defined as suffering blinded by RAW with all that jazz.

5e significantly raised the stakes on not having darkvision or setting up your "come hit me beacons " unless your adventures all stay indoors at night. So much for trekking across wild lands to get to the dungeons or shrines or whatever. This astounding vulnerability was obviously illustrate by their Aps who mostly stick to day trips, right? Oh, wait.... uhh...

Oh well...

epithet said:

I think torches will be the exception, not the rule. Most parties will use the light cantrip instead. They'll graduate to shuttered lanterns with continual flame.

Regardless, why is it so important to incentivise torches? If your party really prioritises darkvision and doesn't want to have to frolic with using torches...

Click to expand...

I thobk what seems to hapoen a lot is a lot of handwaving.

The math on torches (and,oil lamps) etc goes nuclear when,you start looking at wanting a lighted camp that is not a sitting duck.

For that you need a dsrk center ringed by external lights that reveals the enemy on approach while leaving you in an interior unlit zone.. I did the math for that, oils per lamp/lantern per night per week (torches worse) and barring getting handed the right items as magic items it gets prohibitive to spend a couple weeks in the field without bags of holding.

The problem with light cantrip is only one per caster. So no way to have that many surrounding your camp.

Sure, with ready supply of gems you can get CF until somebody's 2nd level darkness spell snuffs them all out and you gotta go get the gems and do it all over.