D&D 5E Is 5e Darkvision A Good Design?

[Stormonu]

I can live with it as is, but unless I've got some tool or special need to worry about underground light, it doesn't even really come into play in my games.

Now, if I could come up with an easy-to-use template or somesuch to track it when I'm using miniatures, I might be more inclined to worry about it even off the grid. But right now the game hands out seeing in the dark so readily I rarely even bother with worrying about torches, lanterns, glowing swords and the like to illuminate the party's way.

Also, if I could I'd get rid of darkvision and have at best low light vision, and reserve it for a rare few monsters and animals. It would be interesting to try out a game where darkness is a threat and limit to how far you dare delve - as well as travel by night. Right now, my game has other worries - like how to keep the sticky-fingered Kenku in our group from walking off with all the local wizard's tomes and lorebooks, and keeping the ancient Sahaugin fortress from rising to the surface and unleashing a literal tidal wave of sea devils on the local countryside.

 

[Laurefindel]

No, I pretty much completely agree with you.

Well, I guess that doesn't mean you're not in the minority. There may only be two of us.

Nope, there are more

Give it to undead and devils. All others can cope without. Even the subterranean races. Let the drows actually use their dancing lights, and give a purpose to all these bioluminescent fungi and whatnot.

besides, a horde of 20,000 orcs bearing torches is more interesting narratively than 20,000 orcs that no one can see (because 99% will be out of range)

but aside from the fact that way too many PC races have it, it is my favourite iteration so far. The 60 feet fog-of-war can be an interesting narrative tool in itself, but it is often handwaved or ignored.

but now that I think of it,my issue isn’t so much with darkvision than regular vision. D&D darkness is so thick that a torch doesn’t reveal anything beyond 60ft. I’d revise that before revising darkvision...

 

[iserith]

I think it's fine. It creates some trade-offs which I think is good for the game. Specifically, the trade-off is that either everyone goes with darkvision and can move around more stealthily or they can shed some light on the subject and be less stealthy and more perceptive. If the game has traps and secret doors, a party going with all darkvision and no light may be running into a lot of hazards and missing opportunities. But that might be worth it if gaining surprise is more important to them, given the situation.

I find darkvision is overvalued in games where the DM isn't applying the disadvantage to passive Perception in dim light and/or not including many lurking monsters trying to surprise adventurers, traps, or secret doors.

 

[Shiroiken]

Voted other for the following reasons:

Having a limited visual distance with darkvision is good for gameplay, as it makes darkness and overall vision meaningful. However, I'll admit that the standard distances are a PITA, because it doesn't line up well with a lot of non-darkvision character options (light spell, torch, bullseye lantern), which can cause some problems. Our group currently has the DM describe everything visible by any player, with each player responsible for knowing if they can see it or not. I have considered a houserule to fix this: Darkvision does not work while in bright light, which would limit the usefulness when close to the party (but still excellent for scouting).

I liked the differentiation that 3E had with Low-Light vision. With that turning dim light to bright, and darkvision turning darkness to dim (and both turning everything to bright) would be a great setup. However, I understand that the binary setup is simpler and thus better for the majority of groups. There is nothing that prevents a DM from including this in as they see fit.

There are already options to see darkness as bright light, but only one of them is available to PCs, which I consider a good thing. Devil's Sight is the only method a PC can use, requiring a specific class plus resource from that class, making it a very limited option. The non-PC option is Blindsight, which usually has an extraordinarily limited range. Letting players see whatever they want whenever they want may make for simpler DMing, but it breaks the verisimilitude of the game IMO.

 

[Li Shenron]

The reason I detest darkvision is because I would prefer the whole party to have the same spendable resources. I want them to need torches or lanterns when they explore underground. I also find mixed parties annoying, as a DM and as a player. Who needs light, who doesn't, who can see what when and before whom

I also find this mildly annoying, and I believe it's one of the thing most DMs just decide to ignore eventually.

But see below...

I think darkvision is supposed to provide vision equivalent to dim lighting and therefore disadvantage on all perception checks. But I've never seen a DM use it that way. If they did then everyone would be carrying torches or lanterns.

A party where everyone has darkvision can choose what is more important between noticing threats (carry a light to avoid disadvantage on perception) or staying unnoticed by threats (don't carry a light).

I think disadvantage is a significant penalty and darkvision range is better than most light sources dim light range, so you would be able to negate disadvantage up to the light source full range, but so would your enemies.

The rules create a sort of minutiae I usually don't want to bother with, so I much prefer having a whole party with or without darkvision, but not a mixed one.

An interesting consequence of darkvision limited range is that a city of creatures with darkvision (e.g. drow in the underdark) still needs street illumination to be able to spot intruders from afar, but not indoor illumination.

 

[Coroc]

Much better than in older editions, Also in former editions some subrace of halflings had it as far as I can remember, maybe that one should be reintroduced? Otoh already many races have got it so it might well be left alone.

 

[Iry]

There is a radical difference between darkness and dim light. You go from having the blindness condition to being completely functional in combat thanks to darkvision.

That contrast seems way too steep for me.

 

[Perun]

Much better than in older editions, Also in former editions some subrace of halflings had it as far as I can remember, maybe that one should be reintroduced? Otoh already many races have got it so it might well be left alone.

Stout halflings had it, but only up to 30 ft. IIRC. Also, if you were using just the PHB, you could not choose your halfling subrace, but you had 30% chance at character creation to have Stout blood, and thus infravision. I might be misremembering, though.

 

[Krachek]

I cordially detest Darkvision in all it's forms. I might be talked around to low light vision in the mold of amplifying existing light, but only maybe. The reason I detest darkvision is because I would prefer the whole party to have the same spendable resources. I want them to need torches or lanterns when they explore underground. I also find mixed parties annoying, as a DM and as a player. Who needs light, who doesn't, who can see what when and before whom. Blech. Mostly though it's because I want the party to fear getting trapped in the dark. I'm probably in the minority though, I'd imagine.

Our table simply remove dark vision for all humanoid races, including the warlock.
work perfectly well

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think the range limitation is any more of an issue than it is with light sources. Either you enforce it strictly or you hand wave it.

I actually really like that in this edition Darkvision treats total darkness as dim light. It gives characters with darkvision a reason to use a light source, since disadvantage on Perception is a big deal (at least in my games). It still gives Darkvision users an advantage when there's a light source around, since they can treat the dim light range as bright.

As for too many races having Darkvision, it doesn't bother me. I don't see taking one of those races as being terribly distinct from taking the light cantrip. You're opting out of a resource management aspect of the game (which may signal that you find that aspect tedious). I've never (personally) found tracking light sources to be an interesting aspect of the game (and unsurprisingly, when I play a caster without Darkvision I frequently choose light for a cantrip).