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

[Oofta]

In my games, light and hiding are open to DM ruling. Let's say there's an elephant 50 yards away. Half a football field. It;s just sitting there munching whatever elephants eat [1].

• Middle of the day, you will see it.
• Middle of a clear night with at least a partial moon, you will still see it.
• Middle of a clear night with no moon, you'll see something.
• Middle of a heavily clouded night? What elephant?

If the elephant trumpets, you will know there's something there even if you can't see it. However, if you can't see it you may not know exactly where it is unless it's close.

I don't consider any of that house ruling (except maybe the partial moon bit), but at some point the DM has to use common sense to determine what you can detect and how well. Unlike previous editions, there is nothing in the rules that states that I know exactly where someone is unless they are actively hiding.

 

[Satyrn]

When I run caving trips I always get people to turn off their lights at some point. In our modern world, we never actually encounter real darkness.

Hey, now. Back when I did photography, I encountered real darkness every time I forgot to turn on my red lamps before flicking off the lights.

It was horrifying.

 

[Hriston]

In my games, light and hiding are open to DM ruling.

I know you didn't introduce it, but this aspect of the thread seems a little strange to me. My assumption is it's generally the DM who establishes lighting and other conditions that may or may not be appropriate for hiding, so why the DM would then need to make any rulings that override the way those elements affect gameplay is beyond me. It seems like a simpler, more direct approach would be to establish the elements that have the effect you want. For example, if you want normally-sighted characters to be unable to see into an area then establish a heavily obscured area, such as an area of darkness or dense foliage. If you want them to be able to see, but not so well, make it lightly obscured instead.

Let's say there's an elephant 50 yards away. Half a football field. It;s just sitting there munching whatever elephants eat [1].

• Middle of the day, you will see it.
• Middle of a clear night with at least a partial moon, you will still see it.
• Middle of a clear night with no moon, you'll see something.
• Middle of a heavily clouded night? What elephant?

If the elephant trumpets, you will know there's something there even if you can't see it. However, if you can't see it you may not know exactly where it is unless it's close.

I don't consider any of that house ruling (except maybe the partial moon bit), but at some point the DM has to use common sense to determine what you can detect and how well. Unlike previous editions, there is nothing in the rules that states that I know exactly where someone is unless they are actively hiding.

Nice example. Just so we're on the same page, it sounds like the elephant isn't trying to hide and there are no intervening obstructions to vision, so the only variables here are lighting conditions and whether the elephant makes a loud noise.

Here's how I would rule it with the elephant at 150 feet:

• Bright light (day)- You see the elephant.
• Dim light (night with full moon)- You see the elephant.
• Darkness (night with less than full moon and no other light source)- You can't see the elephant. It's also too far away to be noticed by hearing if it makes normal levels of noise. If it makes a loud noise, however, it will probably be noticed depending on prevailing conditions for sound traveling. But there's a chance that it still won't be noticed.

I don't think I'm using any house-rules either. I generate audible distance from the chart on one of the published DM's screens. The one exception is that I hand-wave the difference between a night with a maximum full moon and the other half of the time when the full moon's maximum occurs below the horizon.

 

[Oofta]

I know you didn't introduce it, but this aspect of the thread seems a little strange to me. My assumption is it's generally the DM who establishes lighting and other conditions that may or may not be appropriate for hiding, so why the DM would then need to make any rulings that override the way those elements affect gameplay is beyond me. It seems like a simpler, more direct approach would be to establish the elements that have the effect you want. For example, if you want normally-sighted characters to be unable to see into an area then establish a heavily obscured area, such as an area of darkness or dense foliage. If you want them to be able to see, but not so well, make it lightly obscured instead.



Nice example. Just so we're on the same page, it sounds like the elephant isn't trying to hide and there are no intervening obstructions to vision, so the only variables here are lighting conditions and whether the elephant makes a loud noise.

Here's how I would rule it with the elephant at 150 feet:

• Bright light (day)- You see the elephant.
• Dim light (night with full moon)- You see the elephant.
• Darkness (night with less than full moon and no other light source)- You can't see the elephant. It's also too far away to be noticed by hearing if it makes normal levels of noise. If it makes a loud noise, however, it will probably be noticed depending on prevailing conditions for sound traveling. But there's a chance that it still won't be noticed.

I don't think I'm using any house-rules either. I generate audible distance from the chart on one of the published DM's screens. The one exception is that I hand-wave the difference between a night with a maximum full moon and the other half of the time when the full moon's maximum occurs below the horizon.

Right, the elephant is not trying to hide, and there is nothing for it to hide behind.

Some of this is just terminology and approach. For example, I may decide that it's raining. How heavy the rain is will depend on the scene I'm trying to set or perhaps just a random roll of the dice. I then decide how is that rain going to affect visibility. Light rain may not have any effect at all, heavy rain may lightly obscure. In other words I decide on a scene first, mechanical effects are determined based on the scene.

I take the same approach with light. I may decide that it's a clear night with a full moon overhead ... and then decide what level the light is based on that. So in this case, it's dim light if the group is out in the open. If there's no moon, a partial moon or clouds I will adjust based on what I think makes sense all the way up to people without darkvision can't see anything.

I also rule that there are some in-between areas the rules don't cover, hence my elephant on the football field. If you were truly blind, you wouldn't know anything was there without hearing it. But there will be situations where you can see something well enough to target it with disadvantage but wihout your half-orc buddy, you wouldn't necessarily know it's an elephant. You know approximately where it is even if you do make ranged attacks with disadvantage.

If that same elephant is being relatively quiet and it is pitch black, you won't even know it's there. Someone can tell you where it is of course, but your PC would have to guess the location or have someone instruct you on exact location.

I guess you could say I added a stage between lightly obscured and heavily obscured. There's a point where you go from being just disadvantage to perception checks to disadvantage to hit but you still see an outline and/or shape. Finally you have "can't see anything". Moderately obscured? Creature is effectively blind, but sees something.

I do it this way because I know what it's like to be outside at night with a full moon. I see no reason to use a binary rule that has people scratching their heads. There are many places where it makes sense for simplicity and the flow of the game to have simple binary conditions (HP and consciousness come to mind), and others where I think the game is better if you acknowledge gray areas.

 

[CapnZapp]

What about inanimate objects you cannot see?

They succeed at their Stealth check.

I guess? (Not sure what answer your question was angling for...)

 

[smbakeresq]

Strict enough as DM to make sure PCs carry a light source that lights them up like a Christmas tree so enemies can see them coming.

 

[smbakeresq]

As DM you also have to know how serious the PC are about lighting. If someone has faerie fire readied, you got to put some situations in their where it’s important. Same thing with control flames as it doubles normal torches, which is a pretty nice effect.

You need to let the dark vision types shine sometimes also. That’s a pretty big part of race selection, so you need to work that in so it’s important.

 

[Saeviomagy]

They succeed at their Stealth check.

I guess? (Not sure what answer your question was angling for...)

Mostly a thread derailment - how is it that you can't see a statue of a person, but you can see the person themselves, even if they take no action?

 

[CapnZapp]

Mostly a thread derailment - how is it that you can't see a statue of a person, but you can see the person themselves, even if they take no action?

Not sure we're still having the same discussion, but in a game a benefit should carry a cost.

In order to benefit from "hidden", you need to spend an action on a Stealth check (and not roll poorly).

Of course you can rule circumstances are so very favorable you the DM hand out "hidden" for free, but:

1) don't overdo it
2) don't let the mere absence of light be enough

The reason is of course that play balance trumps simulationism.

Does this address your question? Either way, have a nice day!

Ps. Since statues, walls and crates gain nothing from "hidden", there's no reason to track their Stealth.

 

[iserith]

Mostly a thread derailment - how is it that you can't see a statue of a person, but you can see the person themselves, even if they take no action?

Detecting a creature is not just a matter of sight. If a creature is both not clearly seen and is also unheard, then it is hidden. Uncertainty as to whether a creature is both not clearly seen and unheard is resolved with Dexterity (Stealth) versus the observer's passive Perception score. You'd have to guess that creature's location or search for it which would be the Search action in combat. If a creature is clearly seen or heard, then it is not hidden and anyone can pinpoint its location.

Finding an inanimate object in the dark is reasonably resolved in my view via the rules for Finding a Hidden Object. The player describes where the character is searching and if there's uncertainty as to whether the character can find the object, the DM asks for a Wisdom (Perception) check. If lack of sight would reasonably hinder this search but not make it impossible, the DM could apply disadvantage to the check.