D&D General Darkvision, Dim Light, and Disadvantage

[Xeviat]

You are circumventing the point.

No. My point is you can try to attack while blind. If you guess where they are. And you get disadvantage because they can see how you're attacking and dodge, but you can't react to their dodge to redirect your attack. You're swinging blindly, hoping your passive perception is enough to tell you where someone is based on the sound of their footsteps.

 

[pukunui]

In the entirety of 5E, I've never had a party always go full darkvision.

My Mad Mage campaign has gone through a number of PCs since we started. Most of them had darkvision. Those that didn't quickly acquired goggles of night. However, they still occasionally use a light source because, when one PC took the Dungeon Delver feat, I pointed out that the advantage it gives them to find secret doors is negated by the disadvantage imposed by dim light, so they can only automatically find Undermountain's secret doors if the area is brightly lit.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

To me... if the players at the table ALL choose species with Darkvision... that tells me they don't WANT to deal with light and light sources and penalties and all that junk. And thus as the DM... I would just NOT use that stuff as something for the players to interact with.

There are so many other ways to challenge players and their PCs, so what point is there in forcing the players to interact with the light issue when they don't want to? It just seems like a massive waste of time.

This hypothetical gaming group appears to want to neutralize the challenge that darkness presents. I agree it would be best to not force that challenge upon them.

However, are there other challenges that this gaming group would also wish to neutralize? Afterall, darkness is one of the easiest to neutralize. Perhaps a dangerous water/bad air campaign would find them playing races that don't need to breathe, like tritons, warforged, and reborn. Or maybe an arcane spellplague type campaign would push them to seek out divine casting classes.

Why do we neutralizie challenges? Sometimes we do it because we don't want to be bothered with certain aspects of the game we find boring. However, sometimes we neutralize challenges to feel powerful, or to exercise system mastery.

It's interesting because darkness is a big part of Dungeons and Dragons, yet we give ourselves very easy ways to avoid it. Same goes for carrying stuff, losing hit points, and dying.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I have always applied disadvantage to ranged attacks against targets in dim light. Now, that was a misreading of the rule, but even once we found out we decided to keep it.

Darkvision is one of those things that is best just eliminated if you actually want to make dungeon exploration worthwhile.

Or, if you just want heroic, ignore lighting entirely and let everyone just see stuff. Or assume they figured it out with simple magic, at least.

This is another area where 5e's attempts to split the difference between two styles results in a setup that doesn't really work for anyone.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

No. My point is you can try to attack while blind. If you guess where they are. And you get disadvantage because they can see how you're attacking and dodge, but you can't react to their dodge to redirect your attack. You're swinging blindly, hoping your passive perception is enough to tell you where someone is based on the sound of their footsteps.

But, while you are right that this is permitted within the rules as presented in 5e, I'd argue that being able to walk up to a creature, pintpoint exact the 5ft x 5 ft zone they are standing in and attack with disadvantage is far from what I'd call ''blind''.

it could be:

Blinded

• You automatically fail any action that requires sight.
• You treat all terrain as difficult terrain
• Attacks against you have advantage and you fail automatically any DEX saves.

Now that's a brutal condition!

 

[el-remmen]

• In my currently on-hiatus 5e group three of four characters have darkvision.
• In my remote 5E game, three of five PCs have darkvision.
• In my in-person 5e group (same players as the on-hiatus game), two PCs don't have darkvision, one has low-light vision (which I grandfathered from 3E for some peoples), and the gloomstalker just got darkvision at 3rd level (and didn't have it before)

 

[jmartkdr2]

So, most species that have darkvision have it out to 60 feet. Darkvision does not allow you to see color, and you have disadvantage on sight based perception checks.

With all that said, what does that imply about "darkvision races" and how they live. What do their fortresses and cities look like? What does their art look like? When do they employ light? And when they do, what do they use for light? Fire? Bioluminescent fungus?

I've had some fun with this re: dwarves. Their cities would still be lit, because darkvision is still crappy lighting, though they wouldn't use a lot of light since they need about half as much as a human. If they use torches, they'd spread them out, though do to smoke buildup they'd probably try to find more permanent magical solutions for areas that would be always lit like causeways and guard posts. Places where there's always a fire (like forges or kitchens) would probably go without other light most of the time.

So for (human and halfling) visitors, it's dim, but not necessarily dark. Still, carrying an extra everburning torch is a good idea.

 

[Xeviat]

But, while you are right that this is permitted within the rules as presented in 5e, I'd argue that being able to walk up to a creature, pintpoint exact the 5ft x 5 ft zone they are standing in and attack with disadvantage is far from what I'd call ''blind''.

it could be:

Blinded

• You automatically fail any action that requires sight.
• You treat all terrain as difficult terrain
• Attacks against you have advantage and you fail automatically any DEX saves.

Now that's a brutal condition!

This is close to what it was in older rules. I could have sworn 5E had "your speed is halved", but it's not there when I check it.

But you can't pinpoint the exact location of a creature if you're blind. You have to guess where they are. If you want to pinpoint it while you're blind, you'd have to use an action to try to pinpoint them, a Perception check to hear them for instance. If you're blind, you fail sight based perception checks, but you can still hear.

 

[Reynard]

No. My point is you can try to attack while blind. If you guess where they are. And you get disadvantage because they can see how you're attacking and dodge, but you can't react to their dodge to redirect your attack. You're swinging blindly, hoping your passive perception is enough to tell you where someone is based on the sound of their footsteps.

My point is that the person you are attacking can simply negate your attack and chance to hit. All they have to do is step sideways. Unless you are specially trained in blindfighting (aka a feat, in D&D) if the target does not want you to hit them, then you simply cannot (barring extraneous circumstances like very tight quarters or while grappling). The whole idea that a normal person can pinpoint a an enemy despite being blinded is just nonsense.

 

[Xeviat]

We're both clearly discussing this around each other.

Being Invisible gives people disadvantage to attack you, same as them being blind, but they don't have to guess where you are unless you've successfully hidden. They can hear you moving around still. Same as blind.

I do agree that blinded should have some movement penalties. I could have sworn those were there.