Darkvision: Don't forget the Disadvantage & limitations!

[UngeheuerLich]

True, but I posted the OP and have since corrected that OP a day or so ago to explicitly state that it's PP vision.

But we're starting to argue semantics and that path leads to MADNESS! Point is that some players (perhaps even most players) forget about the disadvantage to PP or AP sight when using darkvision in total darkness.

Oh. Sorry about the OP. I now see it.
I am however not sure that most players or DMs forget it. I might say many forme 3e or 4e players might forget it and I think the thread is a really good one. I don't however think the solution is changing the rules. Instead I thank you for reminding us all to apply the rule.

To PP and AP. I seperated thosr two because I just didn't want to argue about another thing. But since you asked: AP is a lot less problematic because I assume most people usw light if they try to investigate something closer. Which leads to a different point: do investiagtion checks have disadvantage while relying on darkvision?

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Which leads to a different point: do investiagtion checks have disadvantage while relying on darkvision?

Hmm... Probably?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

First off, I'm not the one with the problems. I've already solved my game.

This is about this thread, where people are having difficulty remembering specifics about 5th edition darkvision. I am providing a suggestion on how to solve that. Perhaps surprisingly, this wasn't a issue before, so if you revert the changes from 3rd edition to 5th edition, maybe those issues go away?

Then:
1. Stop lumping together "creatures". This is not the first time you try to misinterpret my argument. We're talking about PHB player character races here.

And stop bringing up pre-3E editions. The edition where it just works, is 3E. So that's the edition we contrast 5E to.

2. I want to help people having issues with darkvision to get rid of those issues.

The reason 5E adds Perception disadvantage is because so many races get Darkvision, possibly in a misguided attempt to get Underdark denizens to use light out on patrol even though they have Darkvision. Many races get Darkvision because Low-Light Vision is removed.

Unremove Low-Light Vision, and you can return Darkvision to how many people intuitively understand it - it allows you to see in the dark.

No special case necessary. No torches needed. Which in turn gets rid of really stupid suggestions, such as revealing your position to every ambush monster far in advance by bringing light to the Underdark.

Player characters should be the only ones required to carry torches in the Underdark. This enhances the mystical terrifying nature of the place. Try it

Yes, this thread is about the fact that some people forget that darkvision imposes disadvantage on Perception in the darkness. Perhaps the majority of those people that forget that are ones that played 3/3.5/Pathfinder/4e?

There are many people just picking up 5e, or those that played prior to 3e and didn't agree with the change that there was no disadvantage at all in the darkness for creatures that had darkvision (infravision). You can choose to contrast any edition you'd like. Just like I (and the collective we) can choose whichever one we'd like. And sources outside of D&D too.

Yes, you've made it clear that one of your issues is that too many character races have darkvision. But if you alter the rules for vision it will affect more than just those races. For example, if there is a low-light vision option, there are scores of creatures that had it in 3e but don't have darkvision in 5e. Should they have it again? Are there other races that had low-light vision that now have darkvision? Furthermore, this particular thread doesn't have anything to do with PC races. It's just that they sometimes forget the effects of darkness on darkvision.

3e "just worked" for you. It has no more or less relevance than any other edition. It just happens to be the one you like best (in terms of vision rules). It also happens to be the same rule that 4e used.

Kudos to you trying to help. So does that mean that others can't try to help? That perhaps there are other things regarding vision that other people like/don't like and that you're solution isn't one size fits all, and even potentially makes it worse for some of us?

I have "tried it" - when 3e came out. We hated it. Despised it. We did like the simplicity, but we thought it was overpowered/unrealistic, for both low-light and darkvision. If you recall (or if you didn't know), hiding used to be a function of move silently and hide in shadows. Hiding in D&D was specifically focused on the shadows. The answer in 3e was to require concealment or cover to attempt to hide, and there are no shadows or concealment in total darkness.

I totally agree with you, if a creature can see without hindrance in total darkness, they'd never use light. Although that's not the description of drowish cities going back to at least Menzoberranzan where things are lit with phosphorescent mosses and fungi, faerie fire, and such. But if darkness provides a significant disadvantage to your vision, then I still maintain that intelligent such creatures would use it.

Having said that, I'll once again state that for many people, your solution will work just fine. It's worked for most since 3e came out. I still think that most of the people that are forgetting it are those that played earlier editions. The system is still much better than the infravision/ultravision system of OD&D/AD&D/BECMI, if a bit too powerful and simplistic. It's just not a solution I'm interested in.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

"For creatures without darkvision, dim light (when our Perception is at a disadvantage) means we walk into things. We can't read. We can't see very far, so if we're outside and there are creatures that might be hunting us, we won't notice them. When our Perception is impaired, we are at a significant disadvantage. The only time that we would not want to use light is specifically when we want to be undetected, and be stealthy. Because light would make that impossible."

I will confess i have not followed all of these posts si i may be misding context here that makes this statement one referencing a house rule on perception in dim light. If that is the case then what i am about to say is possibly wrong.

For standard rules, i think one thing we may be hitting is a snag on what perception checks are for and when they are needed.

Dim light, disadvantage only has an impact when a check is required *or* passive perception needed.

I have not seen in the rules (or routine play) perception checks required for reading, for seeing non-hidden objects, not walking into things etc.

If a GM requires these under normal lighting that is itself likely causing an amplification in the already problematic lighting rules by making perception checks a necessity for even normal daily functions.

In my games, no roll is required for these, under the too easy.

In dim light, disadvantage would not hurt those.

If a GM is also adding "must roll for normally routine" into dim light **and** adding in disadvantage then the GM is even more increasing the dim light problems.

This is all within the DMs (and the players') interpretations of the rules. For me it also goes back to 1e combined with "common sense."

In 1e, you couldn't read with infravision. Furthermore, dim light in 5e is sufficient enough to give you disadvantage on Perception checks (passive or active). So, consider the real world - how dim would the light have to be for you to have "disadvantage" on perception checks? Pretty dim. You'll also notice that things naturally become black and white (grayscale) under those conditions, and that you can't read either. So when you're trying to be stealthy and sneak around, but then want to read that scroll? That's an interesting situation. If nobody in the underdark uses light because they all have darkvision that allows them to see without light with no problem, why did drow evolve the ability to cast darkness? Most are probably never exposed to light at all. Ever.

The rules cover specific circumstances where die rolls that come up fairly frequently. In addition, 5e is designed to be simpler and more streamlined, and remove many things that some folks don't consider "fun." By that broad measure, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is right. There are a lot of people that don't want to worry about creatures (or, sorry, PCs) with darkvision having disadvantage.

To us, the biggest factor that makes darkness fun is the environment itself. If you've ever explored a cave in poor lighting conditions, it's quite a challenge. Even in our houses, where we "know" where everything is, becomes much more difficult to navigate in the dim light of night. But in a cave with uneven floors and all sorts of dangers, movement slows to a crawl without some sort of light. So the question of whether a creature with darkvision has disadvantage under total darkness is a big deal for us. I totally get that some folks don't want to deal with that aspect. But it's a return to form for those of us who still remember using "hide in shadows" instead of a Stealth check.

For Stealth checks themselves - you'd have a significant advantage in dim light if you're just standing still. But what if you're moving? Again, what if you're moving across uneven ground? Does that make a difference? Enough to impose disadvantage (or eliminate any advantage you have). It's harder to remain undetected when you keep saying, "ow!"s or accidentally kick a rock across the ground.

So the DM determines when passive Perception matters. Going down a 10' wide hallway of fitted stone built by dwarves? Not needed. A natural cave with an uneven floor and risks that can actually cause damage? Yes. When there's a trap to be detected? Of course.

We don't make constant checks, of course. But if everybody is moving at a slowed rate, since they can't see well, it's also a good reminder that you're at a disadvantage in this lighting. For walking into something? Not often, but if you're trying to flee, then sure. Or in the midst of combat when you roll a 1? That's a perfect time to remind them that they can't see that well. Make a Dexterity save to avoid falling prone as you trip on that stalagmite that you didn't notice.

My point is that whenever the rules impose disadvantage, it's a significant disadvantage, and it's a representation of how much a given circumstance impairs your ability to do something. And that impairment is always an issue under those circumstances, and the DM (and players) should take that into account at all times under those circumstances.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Oh. Sorry about the OP. I now see it.
I am however not sure that most players or DMs forget it. I might say many forme 3e or 4e players might forget it and I think the thread is a really good one. I don't however think the solution is changing the rules. Instead I thank you for reminding us all to apply the rule.

To PP and AP. I seperated thosr two because I just didn't want to argue about another thing. But since you asked: AP is a lot less problematic because I assume most people usw light if they try to investigate something closer. Which leads to a different point: do investiagtion checks have disadvantage while relying on darkvision?

I agree. And frankly, in addition to reminding folks to apply the rules, if your table doesn't want to worry about it (or doesn't think creatures with darkvision should have disadvantage), then just ignore that part of the rule. It's not really necessary to do anything more than that, really, unless you want to.

As for investigation - I think that's circumstantial, but more often than not, no.

I consider Investigation to be related to reasoning, and Perception related to intuition. Note that neither are a direct measure of your senses. You have disadvantage on Perception checks relying on sight in dim light. It doesn't have any impact on, say, listening at a door.

For example, Perception picks up on small clues that point to something "not feeling right" and that there might be something out of place. Investigation takes those clues, the floor is a bit cleaner at the edges rather than the middle, and says "aha! There's a trap in the middle of the floor." It's more about piecing together disparate pieces of information, so it doesn't always rely on sight.

However, in many cases, we don't bother to separate the two skills. In the example above, your Wisdom lets you notice something is out of place. It's just as easy to say your intuition says, "it's a trap." But then you need to discover the extent of the trap, what's trapped, what's not, how it might be triggered, etc. All those are investigation, but might rely more on touch and spacial awareness rather than direct inspection with sight.

 

[Mistwell]

I happen to like the Skulker feat, which deals with this issue. However, I think more people would seriously consider it if it also gave +1 to Dex. For reference, it currently does the following three things:

You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. (Which means of course you can try to hide in the dark from creatures that are using only darkvision to see).

When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.

Dim light doesn’t impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

More like don't remember the way the 5e rules work...

Remember: the OP of this thread said:

"Too many people [] tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision."

I'm assuming we're discussing ways to ameliorate this issue.

My approach is very direct: remove the things you tend to forget - since that's a proven way to handle it


Thank you.

Personally, I think the 3E darkvision rules are even better than "as good as any", since they're exactly the same as 5E Darkvision except that specific part people tend to forget!

Anyway. All that remains is to ask...

What do you mean?

Wherever you have bright-dim-dark, you have it with low-light vision too?
(A torch just provides 40 ft bright light followed by 40 ft dim light, instead of the usual 20/20 ft.)

And above ground, you use the same DM adjucation for low-light vision at night as you adjucate regular vision during the day.

So I'm afraid I don't understand "having a dim step" (and what's good about it).

Regards,
Zapp

Or remind them of the rule? That works too!

In regards to a dim step - with low light vision you can either see perfectly, or not at all. There's no intermediate step where you can see, but not as well (that is, you have disadvantage). For a creature with low-light vision there is no such thing as dim light with the 3e rules. That doesn't make sense to me.

What's "good" about it is that there are circumstances where your vision is impaired, but you aren't blinded. Not so good for you, but it's the way things work. There's light bright enough for you to see without impairment, light that'd bright enough to you to still see but with impairment, and a state where you just can't see.

 

[Henry]

In four years, this is honestly the first time i’ve Even heard this, and I guarantee my group hasn’t been using it this way; we have been using it the same way that 3.5 and Pathfinder used it, never realizing there was a difference. I’ll be sure to bring this to their attention, now, though!

 

[CapnZapp]

Or remind them of the rule? That works too!

If that's your idea of a constructive houserule, sure.

In regards to a dim step - with low light vision you can either see perfectly, or not at all. There's no intermediate step where you can see, but not as well (that is, you have disadvantage). For a creature with low-light vision there is no such thing as dim light with the 3e rules. That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't follow.

By the rules you (I'm assuming you're a human with no special vision) can either see perfectly, or not at all. It's called "day" and "night".

I would have thought you have no problems adjucating the game when a human PC is out adventuring in the day - in towns, forests and hills. There aren't any intermediate steps in human day vision.

Assuming you don't either - then that is exactly how it works for an Elf with low-light vision during the night. No changes.

I don't see why anyone would need intermediate steps. (If you really need them 3E offered distance penalties, though getting rid of them in 5E was a good thing).

---

As for underground, low-light vision does have the intermediate step: a torch provides 40 ft of bright light and then 40 ft of dim light. No changes. Just double each range.

If anything, it is Darkvision that lacks any intermediate step. It works for 60 ft and then - nothing.

---

But since you have such... special... requirements, maybe we just end our discussion. I'm not talking to you in private after all, and I'm reaching out to everyone that recognizes the OPs plight.

And my reply to anyone saying "remind them of the rule" is "maybe drop the rule instead, that's way simpler"

 

[CapnZapp]

I totally agree with you, if a creature can see without hindrance in total darkness, they'd never use light. Although that's not the description of drowish cities going back to at least Menzoberranzan where things are lit with phosphorescent mosses and fungi, faerie fire, and such. But if darkness provides a significant disadvantage to your vision, then I still maintain that intelligent such creatures would use it.

I never question using light in well-defended outposts (let alone major cities).

Again this is about player characters, or any small group of vulnerable numbers.

The same drow that loves to light up their city would be foolish indeed if they used light when travelling on patrol. That would immediately squander their greatest asset: moving about in total darkness, and even spotting other darkvision-enabled races before they're seen themselves (since 120 ft Darkvision is twice the normal range).

Suggesting that creatures with Darkvision still travel with torches is not a solution. It is a problem - because it's utter insanity.

So removing the Perception penalty makes perfect sense, since players are no longer enticed to think maybe light would be a bright idea.

The problem then is that it's "too easy" to put together an "all-Dark" party of heroes. Remember, that NPCs scout in darkness is no problem (actually it makes perfect sense). PCs scouting in darkness, however, is.

So we need a way for most parties to feature at least one hero without Darkvision. And know what? That's another thing reverting back to 3E solves for us!