Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

[CreamCloud0]

One new consideration I learned in this thread is the point that strong attack cantrips reduce the need to "load out" spell slots with nukes. I've never liked the infinite offensive cantrips, but I hadn't really considered this aspect of it. (Then again, I don't like spell slots, either.)

Combined with the sheer variety of utility spells, and their specificity*, I've long thought that utility spells and attack spells should somehow be treated differently, for exactly this reason. I don't think the choice between the two is an interesting one to have to make. Making utility spells rituals (in D&D) would be one solution, but that would also make casters even more useful outside of combat, which some people would hate.

I like how Shadowdark does it (surprise, surprise): instead of spell slots, you make a casting check, and if you fail you can't use that spell for the rest of the day. So different types of spells don't compete with each other, except in the sense that you pick which new ones you learn at when you level up. But Wizards (not Clerics) can still learn new spells from scrolls. E.g., if a Wizard finds a utility scroll, they have the option to learn it (consuming the scroll), and then from then on that spell is available.

*By "specificity" I meant this: even if an attack spell isn't the perfect one for the situation, it still has a high probability of being somewhat useful (unless the target has immunity). But a Knock spell, say, is of no use unless the problem to be solved is very specific. So the choice between Lightning Bolt and Fireball is not the same as a choice between, say, Knock and Alter Self. You just need a LOT more utility spells to be fully prepared.

Dealing damage, IMO, for the most part should not be magic's point of focus and i think it's a bit of a shame it has come to be seen for blasting first problem solving second, it's focus should be utility or facilitation, and the directly offensive spells that do exist would do well to fill utility/problem solving roles for combat, it would be interesting to see a TTRPG that has a long list of spells like DnD but only ~10 of those are levelled offensive spells,

maybe magic missile, chromatic orb, thunderwave, ray of sickness, rime's binding ice, wall of fire, cloudkill, chain lightning, whirlwind, power word: kill

 

[Starfox]

People scouted and used stealth in real life without darvision or its equivalent for a long time, so I don't see how it can be "mandatory".

Its mandatory if it exists. If you have to factor in opponents with darkvision, and you don't have darkvision, that makes you useless as a scout. But if nobody has darkvision, the floor is level again and everybody can scout.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's the bulk and encumbrance that's the resource issue with torches in AD&D (and OD&D if you do more with encumbrance than just saying "all your misc equipment weighs 80" as in the example on page 15 of Men & Magic). They weigh 25cn each, so they do add up, and they burn pretty quickly; an hour in which you get 5 moves/turns and a rest in when in dungeon exploration mode (and each fight rounds up to a Turn). Yes, torchbearers, hirelings, mules, and potentially bags of holding down the road all could mitigate or eliminate the encumbrance issue, but they do have their own limitations and complications. Hirelings and bearers and animals typically have low HP and are subject to morale checks if you're playing this style, introducing a Shadowdark-like vulnerability of the light.

We occasionally saw morale checks for bearers during the slice of time they were used (same for mules, but honestly, unless a problem is right on them mules are more phlegmatic than most humans...), which is why the MU or MUs usually carried a torch as a backup (at least in OD&D I don't recall ever hitting a GM that wouldn't let a mage cast one handed). Also, just to be nit-picky, it was 6 exploration turns (10 min a pop). The encumbrance still didn't add up to much unless you were in a very sparse dungeon (because, again, it doesn't matter if the dungeon theoretically had more extent than was easy to handle with torches if you were going to turn around and go out as soon as the spellcasters ran dry, which was liable to happen quickly at the lower levels when the ancillary costs with light were most noticeable. Those bottom-end characters were usually the least likely to try and do things like camp in a dungeon, too.

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

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).

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. 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.

It is an interesting wrinkle to include such obstacles in dungeons. I ran into them a few times in the 1974-style OD&D games I played in online during the pandemic. A 10' pit trap at an intersection can also prove an uncrossable obstacle to a mule. An ascent up or descent down a cliff to enter the dungeon or within the dungeon to continue presents challenges in terms not only of being unable to bring a mule, but in terms of slowing entry and retreat.

It is, but I have to note a lot of those kind of obstacles could effectively make the same area impassible for the PCs depending on how the GM handled them; in the OD&D days things like climbing and jumping were so vaguely handled that before you even wanted to try you wanted to make good and sure it wasn't just an invitation for most of the group to take damage, and later on when skills or proficiencies became a thing, a lot of characters were poor enough at it to add up to the same. There's a reason a lot of people just shrug and wave magic at those sorts of problems if they can, and if they can't just won't even try. The cliff is a little better because you can do some finessing with rope but the 10' pit is often going to turn into "Let's find out if we can go around or forget it."

Again, that's probably only a big problem at the bottom end when the mule is more economic than bearers anyway. Beyond that, either there are other solutions to the problems, or any obstacle bearers can't handle at least some of the PCs probably can't, either.

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.

Combined with the sheer variety of utility spells, and their specificity*, I've long thought that utility spells and attack spells should somehow be treated differently, for exactly this reason. I don't think the choice between the two is an interesting one to have to make. Making utility spells rituals (in D&D) would be one solution, but that would also make casters even more useful outside of combat, which some people would hate.

I like how Shadowdark does it (surprise, surprise): instead of spell slots, you make a casting check, and if you fail you can't use that spell for the rest of the day. So different types of spells don't compete with each other, except in the sense that you pick which new ones you learn at when you level up. But Wizards (not Clerics) can still learn new spells from scrolls. E.g., if a Wizard finds a utility scroll, they have the option to learn it (consuming the scroll), and then from then on that spell is available.

*By "specificity" I meant this: even if an attack spell isn't the perfect one for the situation, it still has a high probability of being somewhat useful (unless the target has immunity). But a Knock spell, say, is of no use unless the problem to be solved is very specific. So the choice between Lightning Bolt and Fireball is not the same as a choice between, say, Knock and Alter Self. You just need a LOT more utility spells to be fully prepared.

[4E has entered the chat] But yeah.

 

[nevin]

Its mandatory if it exists. If you have to factor in opponents with darkvision, and you don't have darkvision, that makes you useless as a scout. But if nobody has darkvision, the floor is level again and everybody can scout.

you can hide or stealth against darkvision. (leaving invisibility out entirely here). No reason you can't scout even if you dont' have darkvision and they do. Rolls would suck but you could very quietly and slowly slip past someone with dark vision. They can still be distracted, sleepy,or just utterly bored and not paying attention. Then there's trained dogs, cats or other magical possiblities. A bloodhound would suck for creatures who had gotten lazy and depend too much on darkvision. An average dog can smell a normal human 40 feet away. New research shows that your average house cat has a map in it's head of all the sounds it can hear and cats can hear very small sounds 100 ft away. If they are normal even further. Your average house cat knows where in the house you are all the time. Ever wondered why sometimes you can't find the cat. It actually knows where you are all the time you are in range.

 

[Mannahnin]

You know, it occurs to me that while I have traveled in pitch black places with lamps and flashlights, I have never done so with an actual flaming torch. That would be an interesting experience to apply to this argument. Has anyone actually used a real fire torch for light? How did that go?

I have. You want to carry it with some care, and the amount of light it actually casts is proportionate to the surface area, which is at least to some extent inversely proportional to how long it will burn. As with any light source in a dark area, there's the issue of wanting it a little out of your direct field of view so it doesn't impinge on your sight through glare.

I've only used them for short periods, though.

This video does a good job of illustrating how they work. They're actually a lot more effective when you've got stone walls around you to reflect light back than when you're in a dark open area.

Which doesn't eliminate the "how do you carry it?" issue.

You attach it to your belt. I might be getting old and memory isn't what it was, but i kind of remember that was whole point of bullseye lantern.

No, the point of a bullseye lantern is that it has mirrored internal surfaces on the other three sides to focus the light in one direction. In D&D a hooded lantern throws light for 30' in all directions (less as you lower the hood). A bullseye lantern throws light 60' in one direction.

Lanterns are made in part of glass and other relatively fragile components* , and breaking the reservoir means getting flammable oil all over yourself if it's against your body. I'd certainly let someone hook one to their belt if moving slowly outside of combat, but combat or running (without at least a hand to hold and keep it from banging against your leg and other objects) would nearly guarantee breakage.

(*pre-glass societies can use horn shaved extremely thin to make a lantern which casts light a much shorter distance)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its mandatory if it exists. If you have to factor in opponents with darkvision, and you don't have darkvision, that makes you useless as a scout. But if nobody has darkvision, the floor is level again and everybody can scout.

I expect having to scout when the enemy has night vision goggles and you don't would be difficult, yes, but not impossible.

One game I like has its designated scouts have a class ability that gives them something that works similarly to darkvision, allowing them to scout without a visible light on their person.

 

[nevin]

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.

 

[GrimCo]

No, the point of a bullseye lantern is that it has mirrored internal surfaces on the other three sides to focus the light in one direction. In D&D a hooded lantern throws light for 30' in all directions (less as you lower the hood). A bullseye lantern throws light 60' in one direction.

Lanterns are made in part of glass and other relatively fragile components* , and breaking the reservoir means getting flammable oil all over yourself if it's against your body. I'd certainly let someone hook one to their belt if moving slowly outside of combat, but combat or running (without at least a hand to hold and keep it from banging against your leg and other objects) would nearly guarantee breakage.

(*pre-glass societies can use horn shaved extremely thin to make a lantern which casts light a much shorter distance)

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.

 

[Autumnal]

I thought you were going to say a trapped secret door in the dark with treasure behind it.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

There was a really good story in the ‘90s Hellraiser series from Epic Comics, by Scott and Bo Hampton, with a guy stuck in an endless black space with a single gold door in it. He goes through, the door vanishes, and now there’s a gold door twice as far away. And again And again. It takes a toll. I’ve never done that it in a game, and wouldn’t tiny where cosmic horror wasn’t front and center and everyone knew it in advance, but was really haunting.

so Perception checks are at a disadvantage. Also a lot of visual nuance is lost (colors and small details are harder to discern). And in dark, haunted places, the darkness is "alive" and must be kept at bay or else strange things happen...

Okay, now I’m really good with this. When the darkness is a positive presence, I withdraw my generalizations.

 

[Bae'zel]

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.

Yeah I always liked those moments in fiction where dark vision characters suddenly getting blinded by bright light like that. Some used that as a tactical advantage (I think some Dwarf did against a Drow in one of the Drizzt books...)