D&D 5E (2014) Eliminating darkvision from most races

[Cap'n Kobold]

The idea that 120ft Darkvision races would use light everywhere is illogical.

Have you encountered anyone suggesting that?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't live in a wilderness where everything and everybody that sees my light will come to eat me

...who does?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Note: I might sound like that's an objectively bad thing, but I'm actually not saying that.

It's only if you, like me, prefer classic conservative fantasy where gaining access to darkvision is supposed to be a thing (a low-level challenge), this needs to be a problem.

It is if you share this view I present my suggestion to move elves to low-light vision.

So I deleted my (shorter) long post to your prior post, to go with this one instead...The reason being, the only objection I have to any of these posts is the seeming implication that it is a problem with the game design as a whole.

In this post you are acknowledging that it's not a problem for everybody or the game design (which seems to contradict some of the things you said earlier, but I'm OK with that). Instead, it's a preference thing, and if you don't like everything having darkvision you are presenting an alternative.

Obviously I don't think elves having darkvision is a problem, so I'm not likely to change it.

But for those that have an issue, which version of low-light vision do you prefer?

1) Double the range of vision for bright light/dim light
2) Dim light = bright light; darkness = darkness

They both have their moments of wonkiness in relation to darkvision, but they function quite a bit differently. The main reason I'm interested is that I still have an issue that so many nocturnal creatures don't have superior night vision. I may just give them darkvision since it's rarely going to matter that a hyena can see in the Underdark, for example.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Read the first pages of the thread (not all of it) but didn't see this comment, so here goes.

Removing darkvision hits different classes/roles very differently. Mainly, it kills any chance of advance scouting in darkness. Now, stuck doors also eliminate scouting, but corridors, caverns, and open temple maps can be scouted even underground. So, a scout basically has to have darkvision, and having the main party not use light lessens the distance the scout has to be ahead of the party, thus reducing the scout's vulnerability.

That said, I agree with the OP. 100% darkvision removes a lot of ambience. But so does total darkness. My solution is that few underground areas, especially inhabited ones, are actually lightless. Rays of sunlight from above, glowing fungus, glowing crystals, and light used by inhabitants (after all, who wants disadvantage). This creates areas of different illumination, which promotes stealth and creates great ambience.

I agree with the use of light (usually dim for darkvision capable creatures), and that approach is exactly what is presented in published materials as well. In Out of the Abyss there's a 50% chance that any given area will have some natural (dim) light source.

This also perhaps highlights one of the main reasons why I (and my players) don't have a problem with what races have darkvision, etc. We don't build a character because they might be scouting in the Underdark where they'll need darkvision to be effective. If the character is a ranger or a rogue that might act as a scout, then they adjust to the situation while accounting for any weaknesses or disadvantages they might have. For example, they aren't always picking a darkvision race if they want to be a rogue. So no, they don't have to have darkvision. It just makes it easier.

Darkvision is an ability gained at birth. Some small number of humans in my campaign have darkvision too. We design characters based on who they are now, and their place in the world now. Why are they a rogue? Or a ranger? Over 85% of the population in the civilized regions of my campaign are human. Most of the time, the characters reflect this. Sometimes they don't (like the infamous Halflings, Inc. of the Waterdeep). Each group of characters, each individual character has their strengths and weaknesses. A party that's all creatures with darkvision might choose different adventures, and will obviously have different options available to them. 100% darkvision doesn't remove ambience, it just provides different ambience.

One of the simplest and safest methods of scouting is the dancing lights cantrip. You can illuminate an area up to 120 feet away from you, while not giving away your location (depending on how your DM adjudicates the verbal component). Even better, if you find something with that light, you have advantage on your attacks (because you are unseen), and they not only have disadvantage, but potentially have an outright chance of missing you altogether because you are still in darkness.

The point is, darkvision, no darkvision, spells, no spells, all of that is part of what makes the situation variable and interesting. Each group will handle things differently.

 

[CapnZapp]

...who does?

Are you talking about players like you or me... or our characters?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Are you talking about players like you or me... or our characters?

I'm not talking about anyone, you were. I was asking for clarification.

 

[CapnZapp]

So I deleted my (shorter) long post to your prior post, to go with this one instead...The reason being, the only objection I have to any of these posts is the seeming implication that it is a problem with the game design as a whole.

In this post you are acknowledging that it's not a problem for everybody or the game design (which seems to contradict some of the things you said earlier, but I'm OK with that). Instead, it's a preference thing, and if you don't like everything having darkvision you are presenting an alternative.

To be exact - the problems I am discussing are these:
* it is too "easy" to create an all-darkvision party in 5th edition. Obviously it's always been as easy as an all-Dwarf team, but by this I mean that previously you needed to go further away from the archetypical human, halfling, dwarf, elf team into the exotic or monstrous (or duplicate) to achieve that, but 5e offers more character races than any previous edition, it is more "inclusive" of non-humans than arguably any previous edition (generally a good thing, mind you) and it simplifies vision into only darkvision or no darkvision. Note: this is far from a huge problem, since there are several solutions, including just asking your players to generate a party reliant on light if you want that to be a challenge (much like the OP).

While the problem isn't huge, the solution I present isn't huge or complex or intrusive either, which is why I feel it is proportionate: switch elves back to night vision.

* too many designers and players are seemingly ignorant of how light functions in dark environs. As a game it is obviously quite okay to just ignore this (much like so many other real-world issues are ignored or glossed over in D&D), but I feel better if people ignore the property of light to spread to huge distances knowingly rather than because they don't know any better.

If for no other reason than to understand my reluctance to play a human rogue. In my view, you simply can't expect the DM to let you get away with carrying a light with you on your sneaking raids if it is utterly dark.

And you can't expect the monsters to helpfully light their caverns just for convenience, when you know how utterly foolish it would be to squander your advantage (=Darkvision) like that.
And no, "the others have darkvision too" argument does not hold water. In fact, that argument only reveals that you're STILL not fully cognizant of how remarkably far light will spread if it is utterly dark. You WILL be spotted if you have a light, which is very bad news, since it will make any intruder aware of the existence of a possible target/threat and thus go into "stealth mode", making it that much more difficult to spot them in time.

Obviously I don't think elves having darkvision is a problem, so I'm not likely to change it.

And that's okay. I certainly don't expect everybody to think about it as much as I do. It's "only a game" after all.

Just as long as you don't get upset if other players feel your lightning arrangements are too simplified, and don't start to design games with ridiculously short light-is-seen ranges

But for those that have an issue, which version of low-light vision do you prefer?

1) Double the range of vision for bright light/dim light
2) Dim light = bright light; darkness = darkness

They both have their moments of wonkiness in relation to darkvision, but they function quite a bit differently. The main reason I'm interested is that I still have an issue that so many nocturnal creatures don't have superior night vision. I may just give them darkvision since it's rarely going to matter that a hyena can see in the Underdark, for example.

Kind of both: I see no reason to reinvent the wheel - the d20 definition of night vision works well enough

Low-Light Vision

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light.

Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#lowLightVision

If I had to choose only one of your selections (say I couldn't use the 3rd ed definition for some reason), I would definitely go with your #2, since it is the simplest and quickest, and I'm assuming it still grants the most important benefit (the moonlight-in-forest benefit).

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not talking about anyone, you were. I was asking for clarification.

Then please ask a straight question and I shall answer it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Have you encountered anyone suggesting that?

You might not have read the entire thread, but yes, there have been posters suggesting it would be entirely reasonable for darkvision-enabled creatures to give up the safety of darkness for purposes that could be construed as frivolous (compared to survival, that is).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Then please ask a straight question and I shall answer it.

In what way, exactly, was my question not "straight"?

You've stated circumstances in which you do not live in a phrasing and context that suggests you believe some other person or persons do. I've asked you who you believe lives in those circumstances.