D&D 5E How strict are you with vision and illumination rules?

[Bupp]

I forget where, but I do remember a option for darkvision that I like.

Surface races with darkvision only get the benefits at night/twilight. Underground races only get it in complete darkness.

 

[Dualazi]

I tend to have a more strict interpretation/application of the light rules, as it's a nice way to add distinction or difficulty to encounters. I also stripped darkvision off many of the races, so light sources are a more pressing concern. Overall I think it's done more to enhance the game than hinder it, and it allows a lot more diverse tactics on both the player's part and mine as the GM. Depending on the level of the party, it can also factor into logistics of rationing fuel or scrounging for more, which are yet more ways it can tangentially impact the player's plans.

 

[5ekyu]

I tend to have a more strict interpretation/application of the light rules, as it's a nice way to add distinction or difficulty to encounters. I also stripped darkvision off many of the races, so light sources are a more pressing concern. Overall I think it's done more to enhance the game than hinder it, and it allows a lot more diverse tactics on both the player's part and mine as the GM. Depending on the level of the party, it can also factor into logistics of rationing fuel or scrounging for more, which are yet more ways it can tangentially impact the player's plans.

Certainly. The raw in game effects of darkness (except for those exceptionally brilliant full moons) make for a lot of tactical exploitations. The impact of orc raiders hitting a camped caravan at night starting ay 60' dv outside of torches, or even further once the caravan lights their camp up... Huge.

Spells that snuff out fires and torches... Also good for this.

If nothing else, start plugging the horses with arrows from long range into the lit up camp. Easy to hit and caravan not going anywhere without horses.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd say that if a DM who ruled that an area illuminated by the moon was in darknes, the DM ruled wrong.

But I don't recall these rules well. Does the book list moonlight as not providing at least dim light? Or are you suggesting that a human in dim light is essentially blind?

It says that even moonlight is typically darkness, but an especially bright moonlit night might qualify for dim light. Which just seems nuts.

I also think it's up to the DM to provide consequences when a character tries something he can technically do, but is fraught with risk. We can run at full speed in complete darkness, after all, but Bad Things will almost certainly happen.

I think it needs to be up to the DM what the bad thing is and how likely it is to happen, based on the circumstances (running in the dark on a football field is different than running in the dark through a farmer's field), At best the rules can provide some advice . . .

I have no idea what the rules could do in the absolute best scenario... but not calling it out at all in any way would seem not to be anywhere close to the best.

. . . and perhaps there should be a sidebar on every page of the rule books called "Making the Rulings" that offers bits of advice to the DM and players about running the rules in context of the game, along with a constant reminder that the game can actually cover nearly every situation, but only when the DM makes rulings.

Absolutely. It would have made them actually think through how they run a game and supply the cogent information in the places where it's needed, instead of the arrangement we have, where rules needed for a situation tend to be spread all around the place.

 

[CapnZapp]

Don't let CapnZapp here you say that! [emoji3]

Hhmmrhhm?

 

[Satyrn]

It says that even moonlight is typically darkness, but an especially bright moonlit night might qualify for dim light. Which just seems nuts.

Aye. When I replied to you earlier I didn't know what the rules said, and the way it reads is nuts.

But each tine I look at the rule, the more I'm convinced it wasn't trying to say that moonlight is darkness. "Characters
face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights). . ." doesn't have to mean "all of the outdoors is in darkness." It can readily mean that there are areas of darkness outdoors, especially considering they use a single sentence to describe a topic as vast as the lighting condition outdoors at night.

Suddenly, I realize this would have been a good topic for them to have expanded on in Xanathar's instead of the tying knots stuff (or the lists of names for those who thought they were pointless).

 

[iserith]

I treat day as light and night as dark. It's simple that way. If I want to make an exception by saying a full moon or whatever is providing sufficient light to see because it fits the theme of the encounter (maybe it's a werewolf fight or a social interaction scene with a lillendi), then I will. But otherwise, I don't see what is gained by throwing out this simple rule.

 

[Satyrn]

I treat day as light and night as dark. It's simple that way. If I want to make an exception by saying a full moon or whatever is providing sufficient light to see because it fits the theme of the encounter (maybe it's a werewolf fight or a social interaction scene with a lillendi), then I will. But otherwise, I don't see what is gained by throwing out this simple rule.

Well, if someone is thinking "I think this field should be illuminated enough by the crescent moon and starlight that it's not in darkness," and then rules that it's in darkness because the book says it is, they gain they're not doing their job as DM right. They can make exceptions - they should make exceptions, just like you would when you make an exception for the werewolf encounter.

Edit: the above paragraph doesn't say what I mean it to. Edit. Better, and I got rid the forgespeak.


I'm just trying to encourage people to make those exceptions when it makes sense, by showing them that the rules aren't even written in absolute terms; the rules aren't meant to be followed absolutely.

 

[iserith]

Well, if someone is thinking "I think this field should be illuminated enough by the crescent moon and starlight that it's not in darkness," and then rules that it's in darkness because the book says it is, they gain . . . ugh, I hate using phrases like this . . . the DM empowerment they were supposed to have anyway, that same DM (ugh) empowerment that you're exercising too when you make an exception for the werewolf encounter.

Edit: the above paragraph doesn't say what I mean it to.


I'm just trying to encourage people to make those exceptions when it makes sense.

Sure, I just generally take a dim view (Ha!) of rules changes based on some notion of how things work in the real world. Especially since people who do that often ignore a bunch of other rules that don't make sense in the real world. It's very inconsistent in my opinion, so I think it's best to just go with what the rules say and make the odd exception to enhance some aspect of the challenge.

 

[Satyrn]

Danggit, you quoted me before I got rid of the forgespeak