D&D 5E Is 5e Darkvision A Good Design?

[doctorbadwolf]

The question is simple, on the surface. Is it good design that 5e Darkvision has such a limited range, is mostly binary, and causes you to see in darkness as dim light and dim light as bright light, with no way (generally) to see in darkness without impairment?

But the question has several parts, once you actually look at it, so I will break it down in the poll.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I think that the distance limits are bad than good. It adds to what we have to either track or handwave, and I can't figure out any benefit to the game whatsoever. It also creates wierd situations where the rules feel like they are limited PCs in a way that doesn't seem to make sense, doesn't add to the fun, and I at least can't see any balance benefit.

The other aspects I mostly like/agree with.

 

[toucanbuzz]

AD&D "infrared" caused a headache in so many ways (can I see the invisible person's footprints, does hiding behind a rock defeat my vision, etc.). While infrared is more realistic, Darkvision simplifies it much in the way a pair of military grade Night Vision goggles might do. "I see everything, but only to a certain distance similar to my normal vision and only in black & white." It's in no way at all based on physics (night vision tech amplifies some existing light source to make it appear black and white, or greenish, and D&D Darkvision can exist with ZERO light), but it is a simple rule.

With that said, I did like playing the AD&D infrared spectrum. Players looked for ways heat signatures would come into play, and any time players are putting on their thinking caps, the game usually gets better.

 

[Fenris-77]

I cordially detest Darkvision in all it's forms. I might be talked around to low light vision in the mold of amplifying existing light, but only maybe. The reason I detest darkvision is because I would prefer the whole party to have the same spendable resources. I want them to need torches or lanterns when they explore underground. I also find mixed parties annoying, as a DM and as a player. Who needs light, who doesn't, who can see what when and before whom. Blech. Mostly though it's because I want the party to fear getting trapped in the dark. I'm probably in the minority though, I'd imagine.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't understand your poll.

I think the main (only?) problem with it is that too many races have it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I cordially detest Darkvision in all it's forms. I might be talked around to low light vision in the mold of amplifying existing light, but only maybe. The reason I detest darkvision is because I would prefer the whole party to have the same spendable resources. I want them to need torches or lanterns when they explore underground. I also find mixed parties annoying, as a DM and as a player. Who needs light, who doesn't, who can see what when and before whom. Blech. Mostly though it's because I want the party to fear getting trapped in the dark. I'm probably in the minority though, I'd imagine.

No, I pretty much completely agree with you.

Well, I guess that doesn't mean you're not in the minority. There may only be two of us.

 

[tommybahama]

The reason I detest darkvision is because I would prefer the whole party to have the same spendable resources. I want them to need torches or lanterns when they explore underground.

I think darkvision is supposed to provide vision equivalent to dim lighting and therefore disadvantage on all perception checks. But I've never seen a DM use it that way. If they did then everyone would be carrying torches or lanterns.

 

[Charlaquin]

Special snowflake option.

Limited distance: I think the distance limitations on darkvision and other special vision types is bad in 5e, but the problem is with the way 5e handles distances, not distance limitations on special vision types. Measuring distances in feet works fine on a grid but is difficult to utilize without one. But if a hypothetical 6e took the 13A approach and did abstract distance bands, I don’t think limiting the ranges of special vision types would be bad.

Binary Darkvision: I think binary darkvision was a good design choice in theory, but in practice it’s not really binary, is it? You’ve got 60 ft. Darkvision, and 120 ft. Darkvision from race, and dark-to-bright Darkvision from the Devil’s Sight Warlock Invocation, and functional low-light vision from the Skulker Feat. So, in theory I think binary darkvision would be a good design choice, but since 5e doesn’t actually have binary Darkvision anyway, I think it’s a poor use of the game’s design space not to utilize the various Darkvision mechanics more.

Lack of Dark-to-bright: As noted above, 5e does actually have a dark-to-bright vision mechanic, it’s just that it only comes from one optional feature of one class. I don’t think the decision to have or not have dark-to-bright vision is inherently good or bad design though. Again, since 5e has it, I think it is poor use of design space not to have utilized it more. But whether to include it or not include it is a neutral choice, what matters is how it’s used.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Special snowflake option.

Limited distance: I think the distance limitations on darkvision and other special vision types is bad in 5e, but the problem is with the way 5e handles distances, not distance limitations on special vision types. Measuring distances in feet works fine on a grid but is difficult to utilize without one. But if a hypothetical 6e took the 13A approach and did abstract distance bands, I don’t think limiting the ranges of special vision types would be bad.

Binary Darkvision: I think binary darkvision was a good design choice in theory, but in practice it’s not really binary, is it? You’ve got 60 ft. Darkvision, and 120 ft. Darkvision from race, and dark-to-bright Darkvision from the Devil’s Sight Warlock Invocation, and functional low-light vision from the Skulker Feat. So, in theory I think binary darkvision would be a good design choice, but since 5e doesn’t actually have binary Darkvision anyway, I think it’s a poor use of the game’s design space not to utilize the various Darkvision mechanics more.

Lack of Dark-to-bright: As noted above, 5e does actually have a dark-to-bright vision mechanic, it’s just that it only comes from one optional feature of one class. I don’t think the decision to have or not have dark-to-bright vision is inherently good or bad design though. Again, since 5e has it, I think it is poor use of design space not to have utilized it more. But whether to include it or not include it is a neutral choice, what matters is how it’s used.

IMO, if an option only exists in an optional feature of a single class, it's true to generally say, it isn't an option, when talking about the system in general. Dark-to-bright vision isn't a vision option, it's a magical class feature effect that warlocks can get.

I kinda agree on the rest, though. Mostly. I think that it's a good call to have binary darkvision with some exceptions from special options. I don't think it would improve anything to have all those options be things that some races get. It's better to just have Darkvision. IMO, there being a couple different distances isn't really a difference. It's just improved darkvision, not a new or different ability. it doesn't work differently, like darkvision and low-light vision in the past, it just works the same but for a greater distance.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think darkvision is supposed to provide vision equivalent to dim lighting and therefore disadvantage on all perception checks. But I've never seen a DM use it that way. If they did then everyone would be carrying torches or lanterns.

Even when they do run it that way (I do), disadvantage on Perception checks isn't enough of a penalty to offset the advantage of being able to function in complete darkness. That's just too valuable a capability. And it makes humans, halflings, and dragonborn a huge liability for the party in darkness: either they light a torch and blow stealth for the whole team, or they try to wander through blind.

I would much prefer for every PC race to have the same problem with total darkness and thus be on the same footing for the "Should we light a torch?" question. 3E-style low-light vision, which treats dim light as bright light and doubles the effective range of point light sources but is still blind in the dark, would have been a much more party-friendly way to model the eyes of elves and dwarves and the like. Maybe especially "dark-friendly" races like tieflings get a version of devil's sight on top of low-light vision: they can ignore magical darkness, but still need light to do it.

Once you get into class features and magical effects, I'm more okay with actual darkvision and devil's sight. Those are perks you earn. But the baseline assumption should be that everybody needs a torch or suffers the consequences for not having one together.