How valuable is Darkvision?

harpy

First Post
Taken as a whole, how valuable is Darkvision?

Now of course the immediate response is, "it depends", but that answer is boring, I'd rather go with more general impressions and also splitting hair impressions.

Having played D&D for around 30 years I've seen Darkvision be absolutely crucial at times. Without someone being able to see in absolute darkness the party would be screwed. The character that could see was able to to keep fighting effectively, or lead the rest of the groping characters out of the dungeon, or finding the character that was bleeding out and bind their wounds, etc.

Still, the overall impression I've got is that it's really important that someone in the party have it as a backup, but that in general the darkvision doesn't get used exclusively that often. Parties normally have someone who needs a light source and so when you go down in the dungeon you carry your torches, ever burning torches, or light spells aplenty to make sure that there is some illumination.

In these instances the darkvision tends to only get used in that those with darkvision get a spot check before imitative as they have a chance to see the monster farther down the corridor than the rest of the party. Most of the time it is the more elegant low-light vision in that you don't have to calculate out squares, shadowiness, etc.

Of course when a character is away from the party, such as a rouge taking point, then darkvision becomes very useful, but it is an isolated instance in which the character is well built for their particular role.

My overall impression is that unless the DM is blood thirsty, or just wants to give a twist to an encounter by creating situations where the lights go out, that Darkvision doesn't get used too often, that it's application on the meta-level of play is a bit diminished by the fact that the party generally needs light to function on a regular basis.

Like I said, there are a million instances in which darkvision was crucial for the party as a whole, but if you would somehow be able to collect the data of all the games of D&D ever played, I'd be surprised to hear it being used in a crucial way nearly as often as it just sitting in the party's back pocket waiting to be used either as a utility or emergency safety tool.

How do other feel?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Situation has somewhat changed between 3.0e and 3.5e.

Typical adventuring party has some (often several) light sources. Above certain levels, usually, they have enough Sunrods and Daylight spells.

In 3.0e, a character with Low-Light could see things within 60 ft. (30 ft. x2) of those light sources. And a character with Darkvision could see things within his range of Darkvision (usually 60 ft.). So, basically, those 2 visions are almost equal for most adventurers. Low-Light tend to be slightly better as there are ways to let light-sources go far away from adventurers (say, fairy fire). Still, darkvision was useful for reconnaissance as having light sources may reveal their existence.

In 3.5e, someone with Low-Light can see things within 60 ft. of those light sources clearly, and up to 120 ft. with penalty (shadowy illumination). So, when adventuring as a party, Low-Light is often better than Darkvision. Still, Darkvison is more useful for reconnaissance.

Of course, PCs may have better version of those 2 visions.

A PC in my current campaign is a Half-Elf Ruathar who has better low-light. For her, something within 240 ft. of a sunrod or a Daylight spell is lit under shadowy illumination, and thus can target with her spell.

Some races, such as Drow, have longer darkvison. And there are ways (usually prestige class) to increase the range of it. Those characters may become deadly in wide dungeon environment (underdark and such).

IMHO, in overall, in 3.5e, low-light tend to be better for a typical PC.
 

Darkvision is a potent rogue foiler. It's hard to hide in darkness and shadow when the darkness can be seen through. It forces anyone trying to hide to have substantial concealment or some other concealing effect, not just a shadow to hide in.
 

Darkvision is a potent rogue foiler. It's hard to hide in darkness and shadow when the darkness can be seen through. It forces anyone trying to hide to have substantial concealment or some other concealing effect, not just a shadow to hide in.
bild91...
I wasn't aware that Darkvision foils sneak attacks without the rogue having concealment? If this is true I am one happy camper lol! I frequently play Dwarves and have since 3.0. Please explain further reference of rules etc. how Darkvision works vs. Sneak Attacks. If I am overlooking some easily referenced area, then I am sorry 2 ask you 2 waste your time but this is first I have heard of it to be frank.
Shin Okada...
I have NEVER heard anyone in 3.0 or 3.5 claim that Low-Light vision is in anyway superior to Darkvision. By very name definition it is a poor man's Darkvision requiring some light to get any benefit while Darkvision is 60' of normal sight in black & white color even in pitch black? I guess I just don't see how it is better. Sorry if that came across like an attack I didn't mean for it to sound that way. lol.
 

bild91...
I wasn't aware that Darkvision foils sneak attacks without the rogue having concealment? If this is true I am one happy camper lol! I frequently play Dwarves and have since 3.0. Please explain further reference of rules etc. how Darkvision works vs. Sneak Attacks. If I am overlooking some easily referenced area, then I am sorry 2 ask you 2 waste your time but this is first I have heard of it to be frank.
Shin Okada...
I have NEVER heard anyone in 3.0 or 3.5 claim that Low-Light vision is in anyway superior to Darkvision. By very name definition it is a poor man's Darkvision requiring some light to get any benefit while Darkvision is 60' of normal sight in black & white color even in pitch black? I guess I just don't see how it is better. Sorry if that came across like an attack I didn't mean for it to sound that way. lol.

It doesn't foil sneak attack directly. But, to hide one needs concealment or cover. Normally, dim light and darkness can offer concealment. To characters with darkvision, inside the area of where it is in effect, they perceive no darkness. No darkness = no concealment = no chance to hide = reduced ability to sneak attack. That rogue needs some other way to gain concealment other than poor lighting. Could be blur, some other form of camouflage, hiding behind something, whatever. But he can't be standing out in a dark room and expect to not be seen by darkvision like he can expect with normal vision.

Instructively, Star Wars Saga Edition choose to define darkvision as negating the miss chance caused by concealment by darkness. That's how it should be perceived in 3e as well.
 

bild91...
I wasn't aware that Darkvision foils sneak attacks without the rogue having concealment? If this is true I am one happy camper lol! I frequently play Dwarves and have since 3.0. Please explain further reference of rules etc. how Darkvision works vs. Sneak Attacks. If I am overlooking some easily referenced area, then I am sorry 2 ask you 2 waste your time but this is first I have heard of it to be frank.

PHB pg 152 under ignoring concealment.

Concealment isn't always effective. For instance, a shadowy area of darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision.

As pointed out it doesn't apply to sneak attack directly but it will prevent the rogue from hiding in the darkness thus providing the ability to deny his opponent his Dex bonus to AC and making him eligible to be sneak attacked.
 

Well since a ring of darkhidden is quite cheap the shouldn't matter a lot.
But in my opinion darkvision is at least superior to lowlight vision, at least if the whole group has it.
 

I have NEVER heard anyone in 3.0 or 3.5 claim that Low-Light vision is in anyway superior to Darkvision. By very name definition it is a poor man's Darkvision requiring some light to get any benefit while Darkvision is 60' of normal sight in black & white color even in pitch black? I guess I just don't see how it is better. Sorry if that came across like an attack I didn't mean for it to sound that way. lol.

Actually, unless the PC is a lone sneaker or an entire party has darkvision and adventuring without any light source, low-light is better for typical adventurers. Especially for casters.

Low-light doubles the area of illumination. So, with a sunrod or Daylight spell, anywhere within 120 ft. from the light source is treated as under shadowy illumination. Thus, a low-light caster can target something 120 ft. away from the light source. A caster with 60 ft. Darkvision CAN'T.

This is a big difference, especially when you are adventuring in really wide subterranean area such as underdark or mega-dungeons in some official modules.

Also, low-light is better if your are fighting under moonlight/starlight. Have you played Red Hand of Doom? One encounter is fought under shadowy illumination and the starting distance is 480 ft.! In such a case, an archer with darkvision suffer 20 % miss-chance due to shadowy illumination, while an archer with low-light vision having no problem at all.

No, Low-Light is not a poor man's Darkvision at all.
 

Remove ads

Top