D&D 5E How strict are you with vision and illumination rules?

[Hriston]

I am always amused at how far folks go to pretend work "within" a rule as opposed to just owning up and changing it when it fails.

You can certainly rule as gm that "effectively" means "but not for peripheral vision" " as far as the explicitly stated "see something in that area" but the dance to say it's cuz thats what what "effectively" is for is to me is always a nice chuckle.

Wow. This is some extremely loaded language you're using. What makes you want to deride other people for things you've invented about them? Does it make you feel better about yourself?

Regardless, the blinded condition imposes no penalty on movement, and you don't use your peripheral vision when "trying to see something".

 

[Satyrn]

The rule is your basic simple interpretation that someone completely unfamiliar with the game can run as-is and not have it be that big an issue (because really, how often is a party going to be travelling without a light source anyway?) And for the rest of us... we can find the granularity we want and make our own rulings as the need arises. "Moon is full and you are in an open field? We'll call it Dim Light out to 60' as the moonlight will reflect off of moving individuals."

Nicely put. And since I'm more than halfway familiar with the game, I would feel like a fool if I ruled that the PCs couldn't see the elephant 10 feet away from them in a moonlit field because some strict reading of the rules looks like that's the case.



I'd actually be surprised if someone completely unfamiliar with the game would rule that way, too.

 

[5ekyu]

Wow. This is some extremely loaded language you're using. What makes you want to deride other people for things you've invented about them? Does it make you feel better about yourself?

Regardless, the blinded condition imposes no penalty on movement, and you don't use your peripheral vision when "trying to see something".

Absolutely, you got it in two, blinded condition does not impose movement restrictions... so why does one need to reimagine effectively and somehow work peripheral vision into movement at night for humans?

If peripheral vision is not seeing anything, what is it doing? How does it slide into "effectively" for the purpose it was just brought into? Why does peripheral vision do better without light that direct looking?

In short... what does peripheral vision have to do with darkness, blinded, seeing, movement et al so that it should be so effectively involved?

 

[Hriston]

Absolutely, you got it in two, blinded condition does not impose movement restrictions... so why does one need to reimagine effectively and somehow work peripheral vision into movement at night for humans?

I don't appreciate your condescending tone.

1. You need to explain how you think effectively is being "reimagined".

2. Anyone who has walked around in the dark knows peripheral vision is involved, so I'm not working it into anything. It's already there.

If peripheral vision is not seeing anything, what is it doing?

You're ignoring the words trying to. I take that to mean looking directly at something.

How does it slide into "effectively" for the purpose it was just brought into?

Under conditions of darkness (and other heavily obscured areas such as thick vegetation where there's plenty of light), the blinded condition is in effect when trying to see something under those conditions by searching it out with your eyes, meaning you can't and automatically fail any ability check to see it.

Why does peripheral vision do better without light that direct looking?

In short... what does peripheral vision have to do with darkness, blinded, seeing, movement et al so that it should be so effectively involved?

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Central vision is relatively weak in the dark (scotopic vision) since cone cells lack sensitivity at low light levels. Rod cells, which are concentrated further away from the fovea, operate better than cone cells in low light.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision

 

[5ekyu]

"You're ignoring the words trying to. I take that to mean looking directly at something."
Interesting take on it...

So even tho they know the cant see something looking at it but know they can see things looking off, you interpret the characters in those situations as staring directly at what or where they want to look?

I tend to err on the side of competent characters and stopped dinging them for whether or not they said this direction or that when they were movong, looking etc in like (edit) disco days.

Ok tho, if that works for you, thats great.

 

[Hriston]

"You're ignoring the words trying to. I take that to mean looking directly at something."
Interesting take on it...

So even tho they know the cant see something looking at it but know they can see things looking off, you interpret the characters in those situations as staring directly at what or where they want to look?

No, some things require they are directly looked at to see them. For example, you have no trouble walking down a path in the dark, but if the DM puts an obstacle in the way you could trip over, you have no chance of avoiding it before you run into it.

I tend to err on the side of competent characters and stopped dinging them for whether or not they said this direction or that when they were movong, looking etc in like (edit) disco days.

Ok tho, if that works for you, thats great.

I don't do that either, but if it makes you feel better about your own DMing to think I do, then I hope that works for you as well.

 

[5ekyu]

No, some things require they are directly looked at to see them. For example, you have no trouble walking down a path in the dark, but if the DM puts an obstacle in the way you could trip over, you have no chance of avoiding it before you run into it.



I don't do that either, but if it makes you feel better about your own DMing to think I do, then I hope that works for you as well.

"No, some things require they are directly looked at to see them." But you just said the things looked directly at cannot be seen now you are onto things that have to be directly looked at in your gming but not seen?

Ok, whatever, thats all very very very cool and my bet is finding all those * unseen paths you can only see by looking at them at times when looking at things you gm cant be seen * inside "effectively" is great for your games...

So, fantastic. Keep up the good work.

 

[Hriston]

"No, some things require they are directly looked at to see them." But you just said the things looked directly at cannot be seen now you are onto things that have to be directly looked at in your gming but not seen?

Right, those are the things you can't see when it's dark.

Ok, whatever, thats all very very very cool and my bet is finding all those * unseen paths you can only see by looking at them at times when looking at things you gm cant be seen * inside "effectively" is great for your games...

So, fantastic. Keep up the good work.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nicely put. And since I'm more than halfway familiar with the game, I would feel like a fool if I ruled that the PCs couldn't see the elephant 10 feet away from them in a moonlit field because some strict reading of the rules looks like that's the case.



I'd actually be surprised if someone completely unfamiliar with the game would rule that way, too.

If someone follows the rules to the letter and it makes them feel like a fool for doing so... that's precisely why the game tells them to make their own rulings that can be different than what the book says. If they do it anyway, then they deserve the feeling they get.

And that's the first step in becoming a more confident DM... when they make their first decision to change a rule they don't like. The DM then realizes that the game is truly their own and they are not beholden to what the books say. It is a day to be celebrated.

 

[Bupp]

Currently I am mainly running a game for my family and kids...

...This is obviously a simplification to remove one layer of tactics and management for my kids. It would be nice later on, when they are more experienced with the game, to restore the full rules on this.

That's where I'm at at the moment. Mostly I run for my kids, and they have tended to run characters with access to darkvision or the light cantrip. I do run this game as more heroic and epic, so it's just as easy to hand wave away.

I do run a solo game via email for an old friend of mine that lives cross country. This is more of a gritty, old school type game. This one I pay more attention to the details.

What it comes down to is really the tone of the game you are wanting to play.