Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

[Maxperson]

You might have been slightly ninja'd here. The post above yours, as well as an earlier post of mine, discusses how permanent light sources involve tactical/resource decisions that darkvision doesn't.

I was starting from post #1! If I've only "slightly" been ninja'd, something has gone terribly wrong.

Well, regarding D&D 5e (sorry, Vampire 5e), a lot of combat decisions are nothingburgers. Archer problems? Just dash toward them for a round. Might get surprised by a troll? Have the cleric ready a cure spell for you. Need to place your fireball at least five feet away from your tank? Thanks, Grid. Prepare a light spell? Spells known are spells prepared.

Sure. Those others, though, use resources. Cantrip light spell and continual light spells in prior editions really don't.

As @Retros_x notes, other games have a bit more respect for darkness.

Sure. I can only really speak to D&D. I've not played a ton of other games and the rules can be and probably are very different depending on which game you are looking at.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Such lights still put you at a disadvantage trying to sneak up on others, which to me is the core of this thread. Common darkvision among monster disables scouting using Stealth.

As I said, if I ever saw a party or even heard of many that were broadly capable of useful stealth, I'd consider that a significant factor. In the D&D sphere there have been whole common classes its almost impossible to get that up to in any significant way, and outside the D&D sphere operating procedures that are much the same.

 

[Celebrim]

The only thing that I find hard about vision is that it's really really annoying in typical tabletop play when different characters are capable of seeing different things. They have a lantern. The dayvision races can see 60 feet, but only 30 feet clearly. The Darkvision races can see 90 feet clearly. The lowlight vision races can see 60 feet clearly but dimly perceive things at 120 feet. Then someone casts daylight. The darkvision race is now dazzled and can't see clearly through the daylit area. It's just so much easier to run a table when you can describe one thing to the whole party as what they see, because individualized experiences are just too much to do.

 

[Starfox]

Wouldn't the loss of dim light(in 5e) also be a giveaway?

I was trying to get around the advantages of darkvision, so no, that would lose the point. Realistically, I'm not sure how noticeable that difference would be. The real problem is when you see each other at great range, and suddenly there is a spot you can see way outside your darkvision range. But you don't need darkvision for that to happen.

I was also thinking of light sources that only emitted dim light.

In the end nothing came of it. I am trying the Darklight Lantern I posed in this thread instead, and it is in the starting inventory of the rogue and ninja. This may work... or not.

 

[Starfox]

As I've noted, most characters outside of specialty groups are pretty poor at stealth anyway, so counting on that is a nonissue.

We usually played that kind of specialty groups.

 

[Maxperson]

I was trying to get around the advantages of darkvision, so no, that would lose the point. Realistically, I'm not sure how noticeable that difference would be. The real problem is when you see each other at great range, and suddenly there is a spot you can see way outside your darkvision range. But you don't need darkvision for that to happen.

I was also thinking of light sources that only emitted dim light.

In the end nothing came of it. I am trying the Darklight Lantern I posed in this thread instead, and it is in the starting inventory of the rogue and ninja. This may work... or not.

I don't know if you make your own settings, but a setting where some sort of "murk" was ever present such that even during the day the best you could get was dim light, would make it so that darkvision and light were on the same level. It would/could be an interesting campaign.

 

[TiQuinn]

Light has always been inconsequential. In 1e/2e/3e you earned enough gold to buy continual light spells from NPCs by 2nd level. In 5e light is a cantrip.

Fair enough but i also look at those things as resources or disposable items, i.e. you chose to get rid of the darkness so you could see. Monsters can see you, the environment is now lit, and the light source is something that can be acted on by others. It’s still not quite the same thing as an “always on” ability.

 

[Distracted DM]

To the point of "oh darkvision has the big drawback of disadvantage on vision checks, no color, etc etc." honestly in practice it's such a PITA to make sure that you're including consequences for relying on darkvision that I'd rather not have it... But I'm not the kind of GM that enjoys punishing players.

It feels like the "gotcha! You didn't specifically say you were being quiet so the ogre heard you stomping around!" style of play, which is not for me. "Ha! You didn't carry a light and were just using darkvision so that puddle you stepped in is actually a black pudding/ochre jelly, surprise!"

Again, id rather just not have darkvision in the first place than have to add in those extra punishments for relying on it. You could look at it in a positive way, that it adds more challenge and depth, but in practice to me it's juice that's not worth the squeeze.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To the point of "oh darkvision has the big drawback of disadvantage on vision checks, no color, etc etc." honestly in practice it's such a PITA to make sure that you're including consequences for relying on darkvision that I'd rather not have it... But I'm not the kind of GM that enjoys punishing players.

It feels like the "gotcha! You didn't specifically say you were being quiet so the ogre heard you stomping around!" style of play, which is not for me. "Ha! You didn't carry a light and were just using darkvision so that puddle is actually a black pudding/ochre jelly!"

Again, id rather just not have darkvision in the first place than have to add in those extra punishments for relying on it.

I really agree with this.

Also, I hate Perception checks, both (secret) passive ones, and active player ones.

I suppose I could qualify telegraphed data: "...but they won't notice this if they are using Darkvision."

 

[Mannahnin]

To the point of "oh darkvision has the big drawback of disadvantage on vision checks, no color, etc etc." honestly in practice it's such a PITA to make sure that you're including consequences for relying on darkvision that I'd rather not have it... But I'm not the kind of GM that enjoys punishing players.

It feels like the "gotcha! You didn't specifically say you were being quiet so the ogre heard you stomping around!" style of play, which is not for me. "Ha! You didn't carry a light and were just using darkvision so that puddle you stepped in is actually a black pudding/ochre jelly, surprise!"

Again, id rather just not have darkvision in the first place than have to add in those extra punishments for relying on it. You could look at it in a positive way, that it adds more challenge and depth, but in practice to me it's juice that's not worth the squeeze.

I wouldn't call it punishing at all, but I agree that it's more work for the DM to remember and apply those limitations.