Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Himbo_Jones" data-source="post: 9551549" data-attributes="member: 7049217">This is a really good point and something I hadn't considered. I think the suggestion of having the light of a torch go out (maybe with some sort of save) during battle is really devious and interesting.I don't know if the argument is that it is the main element so much as that it is an element. And when you are a DM trying to introduce challenges to your players, losing any element to what is, in my opinion, a poorly thought out design choice, can be quite frustrating. The point is that darkness is a pressure that makes the players have to spend resources and consideration. There are certainly other things that do this, but darkness is (and I think should be) one of them.But, again, personal preference and all that.I do think I agree with Distracted DM on this front. Damage cantrips don't bug me as much, but having some utility spells be just consequence free can be a bit of a pain.This, however, is a great solution! I can see myself making tweaks to some utility cantrips so that they're concentration, forcing the wizard or cleric to choose between that and a more high-value concentration spell.That all being said, I'm still somewhat on the fence regarding the detriment of utility cantrips. A wizard at level 20 in A5E only has 5 cantrips in their arsenal and if I can get them to make one of those 5 a light cantrip (or perhaps even some other utility cantrips as well) then I feel as though the introduction of a challenge has sufficiently forced a response by using up a resource (cantrips known) that might otherwise go to just more damage or something.I could go either way on the matter, I think.This is really the intersection of game mechanics and worldbuilding, and I find myself on the side of mechanics in this particular case.Really, this just feels like a thread ender for me. It gets to the heart of the point so succinctly.But this. This is just... chef kiss.Hard agree. And the crux of the issue is that darkvision as a base mechanic makes it so that to recapture that type of playstyle you need to rely on DM Fiat in a lot of cases which doesn't always feel good on either side.I fully believe that the correct way forward would have been to make darkvision an optional rule rather than a baseline expectation. Then the tables who didn't want to worry about light management or weren't interested in that style of play could add that into their rule set from the jump. Adding something is, and always will be, a much easier sell than removing something.</blockquote>

Verification