D&D 5E Eliminating darkvision from most races

[Cyrinishad]

I am surprised by some of these expectations surrounding the utility of darkvision, and I don't see why any race that possesses darkvision as it is presented in the game wouldn't want to have just as many light sources around as the non-darkvision races. Has anyone considered how utterly impractical and frightening walking around in a place where the entirety of your visual input is shades of gray in a 60-foot bubble? Beyond that kind of disorienting aesthetic, it doesn't seem to provide any real tactical advantage in an encounter. The moment an adversary is within visual range, they are in melee range. So, in game terms, each 5-foot step forward by a character relying entirely darkvision, presents the very real threat of suddenly encountering a monster or humanoid at the perimeter of their visual range, that has a readied action to charge and make an attack at the first thing that enters their visual range... scary.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I am surprised by some of these expectations surrounding the utility of darkvision, and I don't see why any race that possesses darkvision as it is presented in the game wouldn't want to have just as many light sources around as the non-darkvision races.

In the world of D&D by the book, this is true: MOST races have darkvision. The only ones that don't are humans, halflings and lizardfolk. So unless your foes are mostly one of these three groups, it's not worth darkening your outposts, because you're not gaining a significant advantage through doing so, and you ARE making your own life harder.

So a sneak with no darkvision is playable simply because people will use light sources.

Once you start reducing the number of darkvision using races, you increase the power of darkvision though. If EVERY foe you face is totally worthless in the dark, then darkening your outposts is just common sense. You don't care if a foe pops out of the darkness if they're groping their way down a hallway.

That's kind of my point, and why you need to remove darkvision on both sides of the equation from a world-building point of view.

I mean, you could just not, and still have darkvision races use light sources even when it's the tactically inferior thing to do.

 

[CapnZapp]

That doesn't really address Saeviomagy's point though. The more PC races that you remove darkvision from, the less and less likely that the party scout is going to have darkvision. He's not talking about the entire party, just the scout, and questioning your earlier assumption that they will have darkvision.

It wasn't me who discussed taking away darkvision from most races.

My message is simple: How about starting by switching elves over to night vision and see how far that takes you?

To me elf night vision shifts the balance sufficiently away from an all-DV party, while not appreciably lessening the options for the scout to choose darkvision. Besides, it might not be such a big deal for you if the party scout lacks darkvision. You might think it is more important to achieve the "torchlight ambiance".

The important takeaway is that this doesn't need to be nearly as complicated as Saeviomagy's concerns might make it out to be.

 

[CapnZapp]

If I remember rightly, in 3.5, low-light seemed pretty well balanced with Darkvision.
Darkvision worked in absolute darkness but had limited range, whereas low-light allowed normal vision in most outdoor situations at night, and gave a boost to light sources in absolute darkness.

Exactly.

This means that even if you the reader are concerned about game balance, don't be

 

[CapnZapp]

That is pretty much the point Saeviomagy was making: A scout without access to darkvision is going to have trouble, particularly if many of the races that the party will be going up against do have darkvision.
And the more player races you remove darkvision from, and the less foe races you remove it from, the more likely your scout is going to be in that position.

But that's not me.

Look - there's nothing complicated about this.
The discussion has veered in many different directions that might make it look that way, but that's something I wholeheartedly regret and lament.

The OP asked for suggestions on how to ensure torches and lanterns see usage in his campaign.

I identified one major change compared to d20 to be the simplification of vision into only darkvision, and based on that suggested that elves (and half-elves) were reverted back to night vision.
Compared to the previous time elves had darkvision, lots of other stuff has changed, so that picking a non-human is a much easier and immediately accessible choice. Instead of human, pick half-elf. Instead of halfling, pick gnome (or, now with Volo's, why not goblin?). And more fundamentally, all races work the same now, while in AD&D non-humans were very much the non-standard choice. So the argument "5e only brings back elves to the default vision" is halting.

No other changes. Simple.

Of course that's hardly a fool-proof solution, so the next step is the suggestion to talk to the players before they create characters.

No more changes at all. Even simpler

 

[CapnZapp]

I am surprised by some of these expectations surrounding the utility of darkvision, and I don't see why any race that possesses darkvision as it is presented in the game wouldn't want to have just as many light sources around as the non-darkvision races. Has anyone considered how utterly impractical and frightening walking around in a place where the entirety of your visual input is shades of gray in a 60-foot bubble? Beyond that kind of disorienting aesthetic, it doesn't seem to provide any real tactical advantage in an encounter. The moment an adversary is within visual range, they are in melee range. So, in game terms, each 5-foot step forward by a character relying entirely darkvision, presents the very real threat of suddenly encountering a monster or humanoid at the perimeter of their visual range, that has a readied action to charge and make an attack at the first thing that enters their visual range... scary.

Because carrying a torch is even worse - it effectively alerts every scary monster to your presence for as far as that light travels. (And this is ambient and scattered light we're talking about; it easily travels around corners)

The chance of a monster just sitting there in the dark, continually readying its action hour after hour, is simply not very large (in my opinion). Some animals and bizarre monsters, sure. But most creatures would find that boring as hell.

At least I find the risk much higher of the same monster just milling about, minding its own business when it detects an approaching light from a hundred yards away, and has plenty of time to prepare an ambush.

Besides, a lantern creates the exact same 60-foot bubble of visual perception.

What I mean by this isn't to say you're playing the game badwrongfun if your adventurers prefer the "safety" of lanterns and torches. I only want understanding and acceptance of the fact that some players might not go for that line of argumentation.

If you simply just play the game, without thinking too hard about how someone would really percieve an approaching light in an otherwise pitch black cave, that's fine. It's certainly not something the rules have a say about.

 

[CapnZapp]

In the world of D&D by the book, this is true: MOST races have darkvision. The only ones that don't are humans, halflings and lizardfolk. So unless your foes are mostly one of these three groups, it's not worth darkening your outposts, because you're not gaining a significant advantage through doing so, and you ARE making your own life harder.

So a sneak with no darkvision is playable simply because people will use light sources.

Once you start reducing the number of darkvision using races, you increase the power of darkvision though. If EVERY foe you face is totally worthless in the dark, then darkening your outposts is just common sense. You don't care if a foe pops out of the darkness if they're groping their way down a hallway.

That's kind of my point, and why you need to remove darkvision on both sides of the equation from a world-building point of view.

I mean, you could just not, and still have darkvision races use light sources even when it's the tactically inferior thing to do.

I still have a nagging feeling we're arguing from different standpoints, different core assumptions.

While I'm okay with the idea that darkvision-enabled villages might still want to have light for various purposes, I'm firmly in the camp that their defensive outposts will be kept completely dark. Regardless of what their foe is.

Simply because having a light gives away your position. For miles away. That's simply not something I envision a guard will ever do if it possesses darkvision.

A human guard might do it, exactly for the same reason you or I might feel safe when we walk along a footpath and reach a streetlight. Us being inexperienced civilians, that is.

Of course, in reality we're much better off staying outside the light radius, since there we can't be seen.

Any serious guard would know this. Any outdoorsman worth his salt will watch the camp site from outside the light radius. (He will also face away from the fire, so as to not ruin his night vision, but that's something D&D heroes won't have to worry about). Just like a veteran soldier in the trenchlines would know not to light his cigarette without taking cover first.

You're painting a picture where you either keep everything as is, or suddenly you need to change a lot of things. To me that's grossly overestimating the impact of switching elves over to night vision.

 

[CapnZapp]

But likewise, you cannot assume that the party scout will have darkvision either.

Unless you tend to pick the magic items the party finds, or they're leaning heavily towards the Optimisation style of playing, that isn't a useful assumption.

Well, I don't exactly consider it a heavily minmaxing sophisticated powerplay to realize that if you want to sneak around in the dark, that it, you know, helps if you can see your way...

Again, that doesn't mean there's necessarily something wrong with, say, in an all-human campaign to pick the Rogue class. One would only hope that campaign would lean towards the classical daytime, outdoors humanocentric campaign, that's all. A campaign where the occasional dungeon is helpfully supplied with continual flames every twenty yards. And so on. That's actually not far-fetched at all. Lots of campaigns are based on the assumption that things are more fun if there is light.

It just means that to me, it's more a case of being a bit naive or newbie to pick a human scout and expect to do well in locales that are predominantly completely dark.

So ask your DM. Will the campaign prominently feature kobold warrens, goblin caves and subterreanean passages. Is the DM more like me, thinking "realistically" about light sources? Pick a race with darkvision.

Otherwise, you'll be fine.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, I don't exactly consider it a heavily minmaxing sophisticated powerplay to realize that if you want to sneak around in the dark, that it, you know, helps if you can see your way...

Again, that doesn't mean there's necessarily something wrong with, say, in an all-human campaign to pick the Rogue class. One would only hope that campaign would lean towards the classical daytime, outdoors humanocentric campaign, that's all. A campaign where the occasional dungeon is helpfully supplied with continual flames every twenty yards. And so on. That's actually not far-fetched at all. Lots of campaigns are based on the assumption that things are more fun if there is light.

It just means that to me, it's more a case of being a bit naive or newbie to pick a human scout and expect to do well in locales that are predominantly completely dark.

So ask your DM. Will the campaign prominently feature kobold warrens, goblin caves and subterreanean passages. Is the DM more like me, thinking "realistically" about light sources? Pick a race with darkvision.

Otherwise, you'll be fine.

That was the assumption that I was asking about. Picking your character's race based on pure rules mechanics (such as whether or not they have darkvision) rather than flavour is a more optimisation style of play.

It was whether or not a scout character would feel restricted as to the races that they could be in order to be viable, and whether the DM would simply assume they would pick the 'right' race, or consider the ramifications of removing darkvision from PC races while retaining it for the sort of enemies that the party would face in general.

In some games its fine to accept that the houserules introduced are going to restrict player choices regarding race or class. In others it isn't going to be what the DM wants. That is why its an important knock-on effect to consider when discussing the change, before its made.

 

[Psikerlord#]

When I DM, one of the things I really like to establish is mood and setting for my players. I want to play up the dread and unknown when they venture into a dark, damp dungeon. I want them to almost hear the scraping of the flint and the crackling fire as they light their torch. I want them to see the light dance upon the cavern walls, or light an ancient underground tomb that hasn't seen light in hundreds of years. I want them to wonder what else lurks out in the darkness just beyond where their light reaches.

I also want their light spells to be meaningful and useful. I want magical potions of darkvision, or goggles of night, to be coveted items.

But the fact that most all the races have darkvision simply ruins things. Sure it makes it easier of DMs that want to forget about running lighting and vision rules anyway, but I want to run those rules. That's a big part of the ambiance of dungeon crawling, in the way I run my games.

So in my own homebrew universe, I am thinking about getting rid of darkvision for all but Drow and Snirvneblin. Are there some potential game-breaking problems if I do that? Have any thoughts on running a game without racial darkvision?

yep, in Low Fantasy Gaming RPG, no player races get darkvision. Makes for a better atmosphere, as you suggest I highly recommend implementing your plan, game plays better as a result.