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

[5ekyu]

Okay. No, you should read all my remarks as limited to mechanical effects (actually imposed by the rules).

A foe you can't see still makes noise. Unless it actively stealths - paying the game costs for that, and beating your passive Perception - it does not gain any of the benefits you give.

An invisible Wizard can still be targeted. In fact, everything is the same except what Invisible the condition tells you is different.

Meaning you can move alright in outdoorsy darkness, even though darkness penalties apply.

What sight-based checks tell me is you don't get to apply sight-based bonuses. It doesn't mean your Speed is affected, because it does not change your Speed, for instance. If the rules meant to hobble your Speed, it would have said so.

It is in that light ([emoji3]) you should interprete me when I say rulebook moonlight is reasonable. And probably a lot of other posters in this thread as well.

Only if you assume everyone else is running Stealth as you do is there reason to find them unreasonable for not hating rulebook moonlight as much as you do [emoji6]

There simply is no common ground as regards Stealth and therefore illumination. Not in 5E anyhow.

Cheers

"Cant see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight."

That seems to cover more than just bonuses - like say passive perception checks based on sight.

But one major impact is on all the various spells, feats and actions that require sight... Opportunity atracks for one, counterspell for another (but there are lots of spells - most of the non-aoe non-to-hit ones like hold person) easy to walk into a pit or snare that you would see normally etc.

This all seems to add up to a **lot** more impact than just the advantsge/disadvantage on to-hit - especialky when one comes from a pov of characters (p or np) working to exploit and utilize that huge advantage that opens up 8-12 hours a day.

 

[Li Shenron]

A foe you can't see still makes noise. Unless it actively stealths - paying the game costs for that, and beating your passive Perception - it does not gain any of the benefits you give.

So if someone is blinded, you allow her to pinpoint the location of anyone in battle who isn't actively using the Hide action?

Meaning you can move alright in outdoorsy darkness, even though darkness penalties apply.

What sight-based checks tell me is you don't get to apply sight-based bonuses. It doesn't mean your Speed is affected, because it does not change your Speed, for instance. If the rules meant to hobble your Speed, it would have said so.

It is in that light ([emoji3]) you should interprete me when I say rulebook moonlight is reasonable. And probably a lot of other posters in this thread as well.

Of course your speed is unaffected because if you really want you can choose to run even in absolute dark!

I think the epic fail of the RAW is in telling that we should treat moonlight and dungeon darkness the same way. I am NOT saying that you "can't see" in moonlight, I am trying to say the opposite i.e. that it's completely bogus to say that you can't see in moonlight in the same way you can't see in the depths of an unlit mine (I have actually tried this myself and believe me when I say not only you REALLY can't see, but you also get problem with your own balance just to stand up).

If you are allowing to move freely in the moonlight, to me you are doing the reasonable thing. But do you allow the same in dungeon darkness, since the RAW treat both the same?

 

[iserith]

So if someone is blinded, you allow her to pinpoint the location of anyone in battle who isn't actively using the Hide action?

That is the correct interpretation of the rules in my view. Blinded means that creature gets disadvantage on attacks against the enemy he or she pinpoints. To force the blinded creature to have to guess where the enemy is, the enemy needs to take steps to Hide.

 

[5ekyu]

"(I have actually tried this myself and believe me when I say not only you REALLY can't see, but you also get problem with your own balance just to stand up)."

I can confirm this as well. Having gone thru therapy for some issues, one of the lessons taught was how huge the into from your legs and your eyes play in balance. Having either compromised (both in my case) is vital.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I think the epic fail of the RAW is in telling that we should treat moonlight and dungeon darkness the same way. I am NOT saying that you "can't see" in moonlight, I am trying to say the opposite i.e. that it's completely bogus to say that you can't see in moonlight in the same way you can't see in the depths of an unlit mine (I have actually tried this myself and believe me when I say not only you REALLY can't see, but you also get problem with your own balance just to stand up).

When I run caving trips I always get people to turn off their lights at some point. In our modern world, we never actually encounter real darkness.

D&D only gives us three light levels - bright, dim, none. I rule that being outside in moonlight in D&D is dim light and being outside at night during a new moon is no light.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Okay. No, you should read all my remarks as limited to mechanical effects (actually imposed by the rules).

A foe you can't see still makes noise. Unless it actively stealths - paying the game costs for that, and beating your passive Perception - it does not gain any of the benefits you give.

What about inanimate objects you cannot see?

 

[Oofta]

Do we really need to derail onto yet another stealth rules argument?

 

[5ekyu]

Do we really need to derail onto yet another stealth rules argument?

Really, not for me. I am an absolute RAW lighting is bad guy but i rule that unless stealth check hiding is done you have no problem on finding "location" for unseen but not hidden adversaries - ***barring exceptional circumstances*** like situations say high winds storm which penalize hearing and other senses.

But even knowing location but not seeing empowers the "lighting" factor more than seems appropriate or beneficial... Hence, house rule.

 

[Li Shenron]

That is the correct interpretation of the rules in my view. Blinded means that creature gets disadvantage on attacks against the enemy he or she pinpoints. To force the blinded creature to have to guess where the enemy is, the enemy needs to take steps to Hide.

Ok.

So I guess you also have no problem letting an archer targetting any enemy in complete darkness, no matter the distance or whether they are in melee with your friends, as long as he gets disadvantage.

And also no problem for a spellcaster to carefully position an area spell to hit foes and avoid friends, in which case without an attack roll there is no disadvantage to apply.

Do you allow characters to read when they can't see if the rules don't specifically disallow it?

 

[iserith]

Ok.

So I guess you also have no problem letting an archer targetting any enemy in complete darkness, no matter the distance or whether they are in melee with your friends, as long as he gets disadvantage.

And also no problem for a spellcaster to carefully position an area spell to hit foes and avoid friends, in which case without an attack roll there is no disadvantage to apply.

Do you allow characters to read when they can't see if the rules don't specifically disallow it?

In order:

Yes.

Yes, provided the spell doesn't have some language about needing to see the origin point of the spell to cast it.

No.