Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eliminating darkvision from most races
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7000671" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Correct, not all throwbacks are good. But with only one type of low-light vision, elves would naturally receive it because they've always had superior vision. I can't comment on other RPGs specifically, although Pathfinder will naturally follow the 3.5e model, so I'd be interested in your references, although D&D lore would still indicate that they were originally designed with darkvision (infravision).</p><p></p><p>If you go with the 4e answer, there's the oddity that whenever there is at least some light available, those with low-light vision are the same as those with darkvision. Where there is "no" light, they are the same as those with normal vision. Sounds OK, but I still think it's a little strange that there is no middle point where they have disadvantage on their Perception checks like the others.</p><p></p><p>If it's the 3e version, then it depends on how you adjudicate darkvision. Does darkvision start where the light stops, or is it a straight 60' from the creature? If it's a straight 60', then a creature with low-light vision in the 3e mold can see better in a dungeon with low light than somebody with darkvision if the light source has a radius of more than 15'. For example, a hooded lantern with a radius of 30' bright, 30' dim would give somebody with low-light vision 60' of bright, and 60' of dim light, compared to the creature with darkvision who can now only see as far as a normal creature with 30' bright, 30' feet dim because that's the extent that their darkvision would work. Again it gets a bit strange. </p><p></p><p>The nightvision proposal keeps it very simple in that it works exactly like darkvision, other than not working in total darkness such as that underground with no light source.</p><p></p><p>All of this to reduce the number of creatures that have darkvision by two.</p><p></p><p>Your argument is that more <em>need</em> to lack darkvision, but you haven't explained why, other than you don't like the fact that there are more PC races that have it than don't. The fact is, there have always been more PC races that had superior vision than didn't, whether it was the OD&D to 2e version, the 3/3.5e version, or 4e version, of the core races, only humans and part of the halflings lacked it.</p><p></p><p>The original post had some specific flavor and mechanical reasons that he disliked it. [MENTION=6676774]bacon[/MENTION]-Bits points out that there doesn't seem to be a significant design cost to it, that it's more of a flavor choice, and I detailed the mechanics in detail. There are few circumstances where it will really matter, which is why the designers probably did away with the extra complexity.</p><p></p><p>Obviously you're welcome to do what you'd like. I'm just trying to understand, after the actual differences between darkvision/no darkvision have been outlined, what real benefit is gained by adding complexity of another type of vision. I am always in favor of altering things based on your campaign setting lore, and if that's the only reason, that's fine but it's not a compelling argument that there's an inherent problem with the current rules system that needs to be "fixed."</p><p></p><p>Playing a human was the norm back then, and you're right, they helped enforce that with rules like class and level limits. I do maintain some of that in my campaign, for example dwarves have magic resistance like they used to, and they can't be sorcerers. They can be wizards, but they have some disadvantages as such.</p><p></p><p>But ultimately, it's more a question of the world. My players all have at least 3 characters, and two of them have to be human. We don't have a mechanical rule to support that, it's just a matter of demographics in our campaign. The village that the players come from is 85%+ human. There are some travelers, and a few natives that are non-human, with halflings being the largest group. We also don't have dragonborn at all, tieflings are quite different (and virtually indistinguishable from humans like they used to be), and gnomes and half-orcs are NPC races only at this point. Of course, there are times where only the non-humans are playing in a given session, and that's fine. Our goal with this approach is to populate the world with a cross-section of characters that reflects the demographics themselves, thus making their non-human characters more "special."</p><p></p><p>That doesn't mean everybody should play this way. But if your campaign allows all of the races in the PHB, and especially if it includes those from other sources like Volo's, and you allow the players to freely select them, then you may not have many, if any, humans in your party.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7000671, member: 6778044"] Correct, not all throwbacks are good. But with only one type of low-light vision, elves would naturally receive it because they've always had superior vision. I can't comment on other RPGs specifically, although Pathfinder will naturally follow the 3.5e model, so I'd be interested in your references, although D&D lore would still indicate that they were originally designed with darkvision (infravision). If you go with the 4e answer, there's the oddity that whenever there is at least some light available, those with low-light vision are the same as those with darkvision. Where there is "no" light, they are the same as those with normal vision. Sounds OK, but I still think it's a little strange that there is no middle point where they have disadvantage on their Perception checks like the others. If it's the 3e version, then it depends on how you adjudicate darkvision. Does darkvision start where the light stops, or is it a straight 60' from the creature? If it's a straight 60', then a creature with low-light vision in the 3e mold can see better in a dungeon with low light than somebody with darkvision if the light source has a radius of more than 15'. For example, a hooded lantern with a radius of 30' bright, 30' dim would give somebody with low-light vision 60' of bright, and 60' of dim light, compared to the creature with darkvision who can now only see as far as a normal creature with 30' bright, 30' feet dim because that's the extent that their darkvision would work. Again it gets a bit strange. The nightvision proposal keeps it very simple in that it works exactly like darkvision, other than not working in total darkness such as that underground with no light source. All of this to reduce the number of creatures that have darkvision by two. Your argument is that more [I]need[/I] to lack darkvision, but you haven't explained why, other than you don't like the fact that there are more PC races that have it than don't. The fact is, there have always been more PC races that had superior vision than didn't, whether it was the OD&D to 2e version, the 3/3.5e version, or 4e version, of the core races, only humans and part of the halflings lacked it. The original post had some specific flavor and mechanical reasons that he disliked it. [MENTION=6676774]bacon[/MENTION]-Bits points out that there doesn't seem to be a significant design cost to it, that it's more of a flavor choice, and I detailed the mechanics in detail. There are few circumstances where it will really matter, which is why the designers probably did away with the extra complexity. Obviously you're welcome to do what you'd like. I'm just trying to understand, after the actual differences between darkvision/no darkvision have been outlined, what real benefit is gained by adding complexity of another type of vision. I am always in favor of altering things based on your campaign setting lore, and if that's the only reason, that's fine but it's not a compelling argument that there's an inherent problem with the current rules system that needs to be "fixed." Playing a human was the norm back then, and you're right, they helped enforce that with rules like class and level limits. I do maintain some of that in my campaign, for example dwarves have magic resistance like they used to, and they can't be sorcerers. They can be wizards, but they have some disadvantages as such. But ultimately, it's more a question of the world. My players all have at least 3 characters, and two of them have to be human. We don't have a mechanical rule to support that, it's just a matter of demographics in our campaign. The village that the players come from is 85%+ human. There are some travelers, and a few natives that are non-human, with halflings being the largest group. We also don't have dragonborn at all, tieflings are quite different (and virtually indistinguishable from humans like they used to be), and gnomes and half-orcs are NPC races only at this point. Of course, there are times where only the non-humans are playing in a given session, and that's fine. Our goal with this approach is to populate the world with a cross-section of characters that reflects the demographics themselves, thus making their non-human characters more "special." That doesn't mean everybody should play this way. But if your campaign allows all of the races in the PHB, and especially if it includes those from other sources like Volo's, and you allow the players to freely select them, then you may not have many, if any, humans in your party. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eliminating darkvision from most races
Top