Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

Does Darkvision Ruin Dungeon-Crawling?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I can't see my answer


Results are only viewable after voting.
It isn't like encounter distances in dungeon and cave environments is long anyway. When the typical distance before line of sight is blocked is perhaps 30 feet, I don't need darkness to surprise the party.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It isn't like encounter distances in dungeon and cave environments is long anyway. When the typical distance before line of sight is blocked is perhaps 30 feet, I don't need darkness to surprise the party.

Yeah. This is why the limitations of mundane light range were much more likely to be an issue outdoors most of the time than in buildings or underground.
 

not to re-tangent but personally my issue with infinite offensive cantrips... (SNIP)

One new consideration I learned in this thread is the point that strong attack cantrips reduce the need to "load out" spell slots with nukes. I've never liked the infinite offensive cantrips, but I hadn't really considered this aspect of it. (Then again, I don't like spell slots, either.)

Combined with the sheer variety of utility spells, and their specificity*, I've long thought that utility spells and attack spells should somehow be treated differently, for exactly this reason. I don't think the choice between the two is an interesting one to have to make. Making utility spells rituals (in D&D) would be one solution, but that would also make casters even more useful outside of combat, which some people would hate.

I like how Shadowdark does it (surprise, surprise): instead of spell slots, you make a casting check, and if you fail you can't use that spell for the rest of the day. So different types of spells don't compete with each other, except in the sense that you pick which new ones you learn at when you level up. But Wizards (not Clerics) can still learn new spells from scrolls. E.g., if a Wizard finds a utility scroll, they have the option to learn it (consuming the scroll), and then from then on that spell is available.

*By "specificity" I meant this: even if an attack spell isn't the perfect one for the situation, it still has a high probability of being somewhat useful (unless the target has immunity). But a Knock spell, say, is of no use unless the problem to be solved is very specific. So the choice between Lightning Bolt and Fireball is not the same as a choice between, say, Knock and Alter Self. You just need a LOT more utility spells to be fully prepared.
 


You know, it occurs to me that while I have traveled in pitch black places with lamps and flashlights, I have never done so with an actual flaming torch. That would be an interesting experience to apply to this argument. Has anyone actually used a real fire torch for light? How did that go?
 

You know, it occurs to me that while I have traveled in pitch black places with lamps and flashlights, I have never done so with an actual flaming torch. That would be an interesting experience to apply to this argument. Has anyone actually used a real fire torch for light? How did that go?
Does exploring a set of abandoned labs and workshops in part of an old factory complex by the light of a cigarette count?
 

They weren't doing it in the pitch dark, though; its not like most places people would want to scout didn't have at least some lighting. They were normally trying to avoid other humans who don't see in the dark any better than they do.
If you are scouting in a pitch black environment, bring a light.
 

I voted No because the lighting issue is only a slice of the dungeon crawling pie. And while it may be some players'/GM's favorite aspect, there are plenty more that aren't significantly affected by the presence of darkvision or even relatively persistent and cheap/free lighting.
 



Remove ads

Top