Down with Darkvision!

[The Human Target]

I'm a pretty big anti-darkvision guy myself.

 

[Tonguez]

Same here. I like the notion of underground creatures being blind and seeing by touch (tremorsense), or nocturnal creatures seeing by moonlight or echo-location, but I don't like the notion of darkvision -- particularly ubiquitous darkvision.

In DnD there are only two sesne (Spot and Listen) and the RAW saws Scent is an extraordinary ability that lets a creatures with the ability identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights

so I rationalised that darkvision actually referred to things like echolocation, electric fields, scent and similar things used to 'see' in complete darkness.

Nonetheless I agree that darkvision is ubiquitous to the point of ridiculous

 

[mmu1]

How many creatures does that actually describe? Animals don't get it, do they? That leaves magical beasts, aberrations, giants, etc., which are all supernatural, then a number of subterranean humanoids.

I suppose "supernatural" is an imprecise term to use in a D&D context.

I certainly wouldn't, speaking casually, call giants, or most magical beasts, or many aberrations "supernatural". (not in a D&D context, where they're almost ordinary compared to elementals, outsiders, undead, etc.) Hence the confusion...

It'd be more accurate to say I pulled it from most humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and magical beasts.

 

[Felon]

How many creatures does that actually describe? Animals don't get it, do they? That leaves magical beasts, aberrations, giants, etc., which are all supernatural, then a number of subterranean humanoids.

Not sure I'd classify ogres or trolls as supernatural, although the more advanced would be. The same could be said for many other creatures within a given type.

Of course, again we're mainly talking humanoids because they're the ones that build lairs and would actually implement light sources if they needed them. And I've already covered in my previous post the fallacious reasoning about humanoids getting darkvision just because they sometimes dwell in caves. Ask a cave fish or a bat how much better its eyesight gets by dwelling in darkness.

 

[Felon]

Something to keep in mind is that just because an underground species has darkvision does NOT necessarily mean that they do not use light sources.

You make a good point, one that obviously escapes the writers of adventures, both thos in WotC products and the late Dungeon magazine. You almost always have to bring your own light.

 

[pawsplay]

I suppose "supernatural" is an imprecise term to use in a D&D context.

I certainly wouldn't, speaking casually, call giants, or most magical beasts, or many aberrations "supernatural". (not in a D&D context, where they're almost ordinary compared to elementals, outsiders, undead, etc.) Hence the confusion...

Giants are definitely supernatural. Trolls regenerate, ogre magi heal and turn invisible, fire and frost giants have immunities to elements, cloud giants and storm giants have spell-like abilities, Dusk Giants grown in size when they eat, ettins have two heads, etc. The least supernatural would be ogres and hill giants, which are simply big.

Magical beats are, by definition, magical.

Aberrations are an interesting case.

 

[Vocenoctum]

The other thing is things with DR X/Good. So you've got a blood war? Good luck with that - neither the devils nor the demons can actually affect each other. Lovely. Vile damage? Guess what - if a demon does vile damage to a devil, it can't get healed until it goes to a good temple. Brilliant.

While I agree with you about the DR/ good, I would like to point out that it's "damage reduction", not "damage immunity". Demons can still do damage to devils, just not as much as celestials.

Which seems odd that the only ones that can penetrate your resistance is your enemy.

(I don't have Vile stuff to worry about.)

I also prefer the idea of goblins marching through caverns carrying torches. It just seems cooler.

I liked the Erelhei Cinlu eye cusps that reacted with the big radioactive stone in the ceiling and let the residents see. Otherwise Darkvision is way overused.

 

[Squire James]

As a DM, I totally ignore lighting in most situations. I generally assume adventurers can see fairly well up to 60 ft, and faintly to about 90 ft, unless some magical effect generates more light or total darkness. Shadows are normally available for use by certain monsters and prestige classes unless the situation clearly contradicts it.

In short, I usually don't get knotted up about lighting issues. Of course, this makes things like darkvision rather weak (so I consider making it work even with magical darkness, perhaps at half range).

 

[frankthedm]

I agree too many things have darkvision.

Replacing it for most creature with low light is an idea, though I also toyed with the idea of existing light sources trumping darkvision. Not having light "turn off" darkvision, more of having the light, if any, overrule it. Thus making shadowy illumnation murky even to those with darkvision.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, of course, there can be many arguments for the lack of the ability to see in the dark on the part of the PCs. Artificial light creates suspense, makes tactics necessary, makes for shadows in which things can hide in, gives the DM a chance to hide something from players and reveal it at the appropriate moment, and, well, it's traditional.

I like your solution to this problem......YOINK!