Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

[Mannahnin]

Deutz pocket dark lantern is relatively simple, mostly metal, and intended to be buckled on the pocket. Dark lanterns / bullseye lanterns from late 1800s only had one piece of glass in them, that being lens in front that focused light. They were primarily made of metal though and very simple in design. No fragile pieces in them. I know, victorian era. But let's be honest, D&D isn't really medieval tech wise.

Sure, if you want to give your game later tech. I'm just talking about the game in the books and as I play it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

5 and the required 1 ten minute rest per hour, as I wrote. (The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, page 8).

I stand corrected.

Yeah, most editions usually only require casting with one hand, though since OD&D is silent on the subject, that was always open to DM ruling. AD&D 1E requires one hand for the somatic component and a second hand for material components, if the spell has both (Gary Gygax, clarification in Dragon #38). 2E is a bit vague, just saying you need "both arms free" (PH 85).

Sure, which is why I said "I don't recall seeing one that did"). I'm only really qualified to talk about OD&D and D&D3e since I was uninvolved during all the AD&D (and the various Basic derivatives) so I try to limit my comments to there.

In our OD&D and B/X games we usually had one or more Magic-Users holding lanterns or torches, though sometimes someone else would (instead or in addition), depending on the size and composition of the party.

The only reason it was usually them is that clerics and fighters usually wanted a hand each for a weapon and a shield, and thieves were often the last people you wanted holding the light source.

I've only played OD&D up to 5th, 6th level, but we still had a decent amount of resource challenges in dungeons, even after getting Continual Light.

Oh, sure. I was limiting my comment to lighting specifically here (though there were some issues that came up at higher levels with various mobility and barrier bypassing magics, some of them more pronounced outdoors).

Cliffs and pits in OD&D are always a question of getting on the same page with the DM about how the game world works and climbing, usually with references to real life and/or movie protagonists. Same as it ever was. Similar to Free Kriegspiel-style games. Playing the world.

Yeah, but in the old, old days there was a strong tendency for GMs to--how to put this?--be a bit more conservative here than seemed quite reasonable? So even with ones that weren't it was easy for players to just assuming the worst when climbing or jumping was involved and decide accordingly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, if you want to give your game later tech. I'm just talking about the game in the books and as I play it.

Which game? This is a ttrpg general thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't know where 5e rules are on switching vision but I do still enforce blindness for a round or two if you are using darkvision and someone lights the area up. I don't know of any animal that can see in the dark that isn't jacked up by bright light so I'll always do the same as DM if Darkvision is broken suddenly that way.

D&D style dark vision really has nothing to do with any real sense; animals have low-light vision which has rather vastly different traits than dark vision is described with (on one hand it has potentially much farther range, but it also requires some light--except for the critters which really have infrared sensitivity, which have their own set of issues)..

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D style dark vision really has nothing to do with any real sense; animals have low-light vision which has rather vastly different traits than dark vision is described with (on one hand it has potentially much farther range, but it also requires some light--except for the critters which really have infrared sensitivity, which have their own set of issues)..

Unfortunately, simple, broad appeal game design on the part of the industry leader has removed all nuance in favor of a "one-size fits all" approach, and their massive industrial weight discourages innovation that didn't come from them in the modern game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unfortunately, simple, broad appeal game design on the part of the industry leader has removed all nuance in favor of a "one-size fits all" approach, and their massive industrial weight discourages innovation that didn't come from them in the modern game.

There are games that still pay attention to that, but most of the ones I know of are modern period ones that do so largely because its also a technological option.

 

[nevin]

D&D style dark vision really has nothing to do with any real sense; animals have low-light vision which has rather vastly different traits than dark vision is described with (on one hand it has potentially much farther range, but it also requires some light--except for the critters which really have infrared sensitivity, which have their own set of issues)..

that's true and if you wanted to argue that a creature that can only see with dark vision couldn't be blinded I'd say sure. But WOTC loves it's monsters to see in any light so we have most creatures with switchable vision. (weird idea at best). So there should be some penalty to just switch from one to the other IMO. But I'd be ok with a creature that only had dark vision but it would be screwed by not having any variable distance vision like real vision works and that would make easy to kill encounters. or (not necessarily a bad thing) force dark vision to just be an underground thing. But I'd cheer the switch to lowlight (infravision) and ultravision from 1e and just make dark vision a monster ability. then we could do away with the whole at 60 ft you see a black wall of nothing and let all types of vision work more like it does with normal vision where you might see movement in the distance even if you can't see details.

 

[Micah Sweet]

that's true and if you wanted to argue that a creature that can only see with dark vision couldn't be blinded I'd say sure. But WOTC loves it's monsters to see in any light so we have most creatures with switchable vision. (weird idea at best). So there should be some penalty to just switch from one to the other IMO. But I'd be ok with a creature that only had dark vision but it would be screwed by not having any variable distance vision like real vision works and that would make easy to kill encounters. or (not necessarily a bad thing) force dark vision to just be an underground thing. But I'd cheer the switch to lowlight (infravision) and ultravision from 1e and just make dark vision a monster ability. then we could do away with the whole at 60 ft you see a black wall of nothing and let all types of vision work more like it does with normal vision where you might see movement in the distance even if you can't see details.

The hard range of darkvision always struck as hard to make anything resembling logical sense out of.

 

[nevin]

I think it was the back handed admission by WOTC that DarkVision was broken

 

[nevin]

i mean a red dragon flying at max of 80 ft per round who dashes cannot see past 120ft when he starts the dash. But he'll end move at 160 ft......George George George of the Jungle "watch out for that Tree!" very poorly thought out.