Darkvision: Don't forget the Disadvantage & limitations!

[Mistwell]

I want to know why the poor halfling doesn't get darkvision. I mean, the iconic halfling (hobbit) was known to have keen eyes and even the elves and dwarves both used to ask Bilbo if he could see something better than they could, both further away and in dimmer light. Why the heck did they lose out but the elves and dwarves both got it? What...dwarves used to live underground and elves live in dark forests? Halflings live in friggen holes in the ground!

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I think it's the wording of the rule. Too many IF, THEN statements.

IF the character has Darkvision in the dark, THEN they see as if in Dim Light.
IF it's Dim Light, THEN the target is Lightly Obscured.
IF the target is Lightly Obscured, the character is at Disadvantage on Vision Perception tests.

Now, if the rule just said: C"haracters with Darkvision can see in the Dark as if in dim light, which gives disadvantage to Wisdom (perception) checks to Sight", people wouldn't forget it so much.

But I think most players are like me. They're lazy readers. They see: "Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray." and stop reading there. They (and I) don't go deeper by looking up Dim Light, etc. because it's not obvious that they should do so.

As far as the proliferation of Darkvision, I've scaled it waaaay back and replaced it with low light vision. The only PC races that have darkvision are Dwarves and Tieflings. All the others, except humans, have Low Light Vision. Humans just have regular sight. But that's a house rule and doesn't have much to do with the thrust of my OP.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the issue is purely in the description of Darkvision, not in the rule itself. It should simply be written in the description that Darkvision imposes disadvantage to perception checks that rely on sight when the creatures is in dim light.

Or, that part is dropped, along with the idea that forest-living and night-hunting creatures have Darkvision

 

[CapnZapp]

This I totally agree with - I'm looking forward to running a game with zero darkvision enabled characters.

Actually, having one or two isn't so bad (as long as it isn't the party Rogue).

It's when the entire party has Darkvision wonky things happen.

 

[robus]

Actually, having one or two isn't so bad (as long as it isn't the party Rogue).

It's when the entire party has Darkvision wonky things happen.

Welcome to my world...

 

[CapnZapp]

Reverting back traditional low-light races to having low-light vision (can see outdoors at night; light sources have twice the range) is a great way to fix this issue.

Sure the players can still build an all Dwarf-and-Tiefling party, but *most* campaigns will now feature at least one party member that needs a torch in dark dungeons.

The 5E devs underestimated the ease with which the "traditional" four-man party of Human, Elf, Dwarf & Halfling could in 5E be tweaked into Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf & Gnome; thus giving it unprecedented all-group Darkvision which most modules quite frankly aren't equipped to handle.

 

[CapnZapp]

It is also good that it is limited to 60ft. That way you don't have to describe everything three times.

You stand in a great cave with strange textures reminding of flowers in every colour you can imagine.
You stand in a great cave with textures that remind you of flowers.
You stand in the dark.

Nobody suggested the range should change...?

And the best way to not have to describe everything three times is to make Darkvision work intuitively: it lets you see in the dark, so you don't need light.

The limitations on darkvision are really only there because in 5E everybody and their grandmother gets it.

Much better then to remove Darkvision from major categories of creatures (most prominently: Elves) and instead let it work the way people expect it to.

With only the Dwarf Fighter in the party having darkvision it's not a problem it is powerful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nobody suggested the range should change...?

And the best way to not have to describe everything three times is to make Darkvision work intuitively: it lets you see in the dark, so you don't need light.

The limitations on darkvision are really only there because in 5E everybody and their grandmother gets it.

Much better then to remove Darkvision from major categories of creatures (most prominently: Elves) and instead let it work the way people expect it to.

With only the Dwarf Fighter in the party having darkvision it's not a problem it is powerful.

In 3.5 everyone and their grandmother had darkvision. In 5e a lot of creatures and player races have it. The usefulness of light even for darkvision races makes using torches in most explorations still useful. Thus you can easily assume that every party carries light.

 

[Nebulous]

Welcome to my world...

yep, mine too, it's pretty LAME

 

[billd91]

I too and somewhat confused by the proliferation of darkvision. I would think that species that are primarily night hunters or underground dwellers would be the ones with Darkvision. But in D&D, that's often not the case.

D&D has pretty much always been this way. The number of creatures with infravision in 1e/2e was very high.
5e's dark vision rules are definitely a nerf compared to previous editions, but I'm not actually complaining. I kind of like the change.