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

[5ekyu]

Well, if someone is thinking "I think this field should be illuminated enough by the crescent moon and starlight that it's not in darkness," and then rules that it's in darkness because the book says it is, they gain they're not doing their job as DM right. They can make exceptions - they should make exceptions, just like you would when you make an exception for the werewolf encounter.

Edit: the above paragraph doesn't say what I mean it to. Edit. Better, and I got rid the forgespeak.


I'm just trying to encourage people to make those exceptions when it makes sense, by showing them that the rules aren't even written in absolute terms; the rules aren't meant to be followed absolutely.

I agree completely and disagree mostly.

I **can** choose to leave the rule as is and then work around it by making most every case where it would matter **an exception** but in that case i have basicalky done a bait and switch.

That rule is in the PHB, telling the players what the expected norms and results are.

Why should i let that be known but then plan myself to gm fiat it out when it matters?

Are they not going to ever get to explout their choice to take all darkvision races because outdoors at night i *fix* the rule on the fly with my non-absolute rules?

Are they not going to feel the sting if a couple of them are normal sighted for the same reason?

If the plan to extinguish enemy lights outdoors at night to exploit that blinded thing, is that a good time to let the rule stand or to, as i have when it would eork against them, non-absolute it again?

The gist is this... For something as basic as "how well can we see outside at night?" I can choose as gm to be consistent with a rule the players expect and that is used **when it matters** or i can choose to be non-absolutist when it matters and then why did i choose to keep that rule in place?

Now of course, the some belueve less obvious non-absolute way to keep the rule except when it matters is the setting trait so i can add glowing moss or fantobabble de jour so that the scenes where it matters all qualify for dim light outside the moonlight thing.

But, to my way of thinking, i dont give my players a rule for how things work that i know i am going to non-absolute out frequently enough when it matters to make a significant difference.

Instead i would change the rule in the early campaign house rules and let the exceptions be exceptional.

Thats what i did in my game. Change the rule to represent how it will actually be played when it matters the majority of the time.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Yeah, nah. Being able to see enough to avoid tripping over a log or walking into a tree is not the test we're after here. Put one of your scout mates 10m away (that's a little over 30 ft for you peasants stuck in the 19th Century) in that forest you're hiking through without flashlights and tell him to stand really quiet and still, and you'll be struggling to spot them even if you know they're there. Assuming you do manage to spot them, you won't be able to tell who they are, what they're wearing (unless it's designed to be seen in the dark), if they're facing you, and what they're carrying. (And, like you, I have ample personal experience of moving through terrain it night without light). So, for my game purposes, outside at night is "darkness" unless you're in an open field with a full moon above you; and even then, it will be impossible to see anything in shadow. YMMV.

The other thing I'd add, purely as an aside - if humans had the gift of being able to see in darkness, does anyone think we'd have such a rich and diverse mythology and wariness about stuff that happens under cover of darkness? Frankly, we have our fundamental inability to see in darkness to thank for the very origins of D&D.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[CapnZapp]

I have added back low-light vision to D&D.

It turns moonlight into bright light, and starlight / clouds / forest into dim light.

Elves, cats, owls etc no longer have Darkvision. Instead they have Low-light vision.

This also doubles the effective range of light sources when in real darkness (such as dungeons); a torch becomes 40+40 feet and so on.

 

[Li Shenron]

I second the opinion that the RAW (ridiculous-as-written) fails a simple reality check when it comes to say that outdoor at night = blinded.

I know that rules are approximation, but even as an approximation this is an epic fail.

I am not criticizing the various (dis)advantages on attacks and perception granted by the blinded condition, those are fine, but rather the "can't see", which simply cannot be true.

 

[CapnZapp]

On the contrary, I think it is entirely reasonable for a human without light outdoors at night to suffer disadvantage on outgoing attacks and suffer advantage when attacked.

Since this is all "blinded" in D&D does, there is no need to even discuss whether you're ACTUALLY blind. Yes, unless the night is actually pitch dark, you are not "blind" in the usual sense. But "D&D blind" is MUCH less crippling than actual blindness, so why even discuss the usual meaning of blindness?

Since perception-by-sound isn't more difficult in D&D than perception-by-sight, you're still functional.

Compare Invisibility (from spell or otherwise) which does not save you from getting attacked (unless you also Stealth).

TLDR: don't confuse reality with D&D

 

[Li Shenron]

Since this is all "blinded" in D&D does, there is no need to even discuss whether you're ACTUALLY blind. Yes, unless the night is actually pitch dark, you are not "blind" in the usual sense. But "D&D blind" is MUCH less crippling than actual blindness, so why even discuss the usual meaning of blindness?

I told you I am not against the (dis)advantages. But are you ignoring the meaning of "can't see"? I am certainly going to ignore that in the night-outdoor case, but I am not going to ignore that in the unlit-dungeon case, however the book suggests they are the same because they both cause the "blinded" condition.

And yes, I am saying too that reality =/= RAW.

 

[CapnZapp]

I told you I am not against the (dis)advantages. But are you ignoring the meaning of "can't see"? I am certainly going to ignore that in the night-outdoor case, but I am not going to ignore that in the unlit-dungeon case, however the book suggests they are the same because they both cause the "blinded" condition.

And yes, I am saying too that reality =/= RAW.

It seems likely you are interpreting "can't see" as having a discrete mechanical impact (other than what the rules say).

In order to sort this out, I'd like to ask you if you can describe this impact you impose?

Then I will answer by telling you how much our games are alike or differ. This in turn should give you the necessary information you need to possibly reevaluate my statement. Ok?

So imagine a PC Wizard in a regularly-sized (lit) dungeon room going Invisible, but not attempting to Stealth. What impact does this have on the two enemy Kobolds that are also in the room? Please be exhaustive in your reply.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's perfectly understandable.

There are real problems with how 5E handles stealth (mainly that it doesn't) but illumination works well enough, given the extra level of detail.

In fact, I've reverted forest-y races (like Elves and Gnomes... and Owls) to low-light vision as defined in 3rd edition.

yeah I prefer all PC races lowlight at best. Only monsters see in the dark.

 

[Li Shenron]

It seems likely you are interpreting "can't see" as having a discrete mechanical impact (other than what the rules say).

In order to sort this out, I'd like to ask you if you can describe this impact you impose?

"Can't see" makes me think that you simply have no visual perception of your surroundings.

In practice it means you can't move around safely, and you have to guess where everyone is. Maybe you can use other senses to help, but that probably means you have a chance to figure it out by hearing or by touch, but definitely it can't be automatic as with vision.

I would expect this to mean that in combat you won't be able to know where everyone else is, after they move from the last place you've seen them. And while travelling or exploring, at the very minimum your pace will be limited, even assuming the rest of the party is leading you by hand.

I can imagine that you could decide to interpret "can't see" not as total blindness, but as a milder condition such as "can't see normally", as in having extreme miopia (near-sightedness), and thus impose no penalty on its own (so the only penalties are those disadvantages specifically mentioned). That's not what "can't see" tells me, however.

So imagine a PC Wizard in a regularly-sized (lit) dungeon room going Invisible, but not attempting to Stealth. What impact does this have on the two enemy Kobolds that are also in the room? Please be exhaustive in your reply.

That's different. You can see everything else around the invisible wizard. Only for targetting the wizard the two situations might be equivalent.

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay. No, you should read all my remarks as limited to mechanical effects (actually imposed by the rules).

A foe you can't see still makes noise. Unless it actively stealths - paying the game costs for that, and beating your passive Perception - it does not gain any of the benefits you give.

An invisible Wizard can still be targeted. In fact, everything is the same except what Invisible the condition tells you is different.

Meaning you can move alright in outdoorsy darkness, even though darkness penalties apply.

What sight-based checks tell me is you don't get to apply sight-based bonuses. It doesn't mean your Speed is affected, because it does not change your Speed, for instance. If the rules meant to hobble your Speed, it would have said so.

It is in that light ([emoji3]) you should interprete me when I say rulebook moonlight is reasonable. And probably a lot of other posters in this thread as well.

Only if you assume everyone else is running Stealth as you do is there reason to find them unreasonable for not hating rulebook moonlight as much as you do [emoji6]

There simply is no common ground as regards Stealth and therefore illumination. Not in 5E anyhow.

Cheers