Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6999071" data-attributes="member: 7006">There is nothing mechanically going to be a problem if you remove darkvision from some/all of the races.  After all... people run games with all humans and those do fine without darkvision.But if you're looking to do it strictly because of "atmosphere"... I personally question whether you're really getting what you think you're looking for?  Cause here's the thing... with a bunch of PCs without darkvision, here's what you get:- If they don't have a light source and are walking around in complete darkness... monsters can get right up next to a person and still be considered Heavily Obscured, thereby letting them make a Stealth check to be Hidden.  But they still have to make a check.  And thus the question really is... how often were you planning monsters to do that, versus just them hiding behind Heavily Obscuring terrain like they normally would?  They have to make Stealth checks regardless... so unless you think melee "jump scares" have been so greatly missing from your games that you are desperate to get them back... combat wouldn't really be all that different.  After all... if you are a bunch of kobolds in a cave... why are you ever going to run up and engage them in melee to begin with (in the hopes those silly humanoids can't see you as you do) instead of staying back behind cover and shooting them (thus gaining the cover bonus to AC?)- If they do have a light source... then the matter of darkvision is negated regardless.  And instead all that is up in the air is playing the "Who's holding the lantern" mini-game.  Now, if you are a DM that has a hardon for "handedness" during games and who has what in which hand and can you cast a spell with this hand full or take that hand off to take this thing out as your one free action after you used your action to drop that thing so the hand was free, so on and so forth... adding a lantern or torch as "one more thing they have to worry about and keep straight!" probably is a good thing for you.  Buuuuuuuut... if you are one of the other 98% of DMs who doesn't spend their time worrying about it because it's just as much of a PITA as worrying about Encumbrance... what'll happen is one or two PCs will carry lanterns or torches, and no one will ever mention or concern themselves about light ever again.  Thus the "atmosphere" is exactly the same-- the PCs are walking around caves being able to see out to a certain distance.So while certain DMs would indeed get some mileage out of reducing (if not outright eliminating) the number of people who can always be in essentially 60' of Dim Light regardless of where they are... most DMs never actually set up challenges for those kinds of scenarios anyway.  Or at least... not so often that you actually notice you haven't done one in a long time because the entirety of the group is walking around in the dark.Speaking personally?  I have so many different fricking ways to challenge PCs that not using one of the hundreds of ways I have is not a loss.  At all.  But yeah... if in a particular style of campaign I want to run I think it would be?  Then sure... not allow races with darkvision, or nerf/remove darkvision from that campaign.  Whatever.  Game will play fine either way.</blockquote>

Verification