D&D 5E (2014) Rogues without Darkvision

[Guest 6801328]

Hiya!



I'm still not being clear...my bad, sorry!

I'm not saying I "houserule" Darkvision that way... I pretty much use the books description; "Darkness = Dim Light" for someone with Darkvision.

What I'm saying is that with Darkvision, there is very little variation in dark/light. With Darkvision, anything "dark" becomes "dim" and anything "dim" stays dim, and anything "bright"...well, if it worked that way, it would also be "dim". In stead of having 'light values' go from 0 to 100, using Darkvision in the dark shrinks that down to having 'light values' go from 45 to 55. Nothing is "dark", but nothing is "light"...everything gets pushed to the middle, "dim" area. Because of this, there are no "shadows" nor are there any "bright spots". A thief needs the full 0 to 100 range so that he can blend into the shadows and use the targets eyes against them...when you remove 90% of the "light values", IMHO, it would become significantly easier to spot a hiding thief (your eyes only have to account for 10 out of 100 possible variations...in stead of 100 our of 100 variations).

I really am having a difficult time trying to describe what I'm picturing in my mind....maybe I'll have to do some visuals or something...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Somehow I missed this post before.

First, I think you're making some assumptions about the physiology of Darkvision that may not be the only valid interpretation.

And even if you do want to model Darkvision in such a way, bear in mind that most human senses are logarithmic, not linear.

You're also making an assumption that stealth, at least the visual part of it, works solely/mostly by "blending in" with areas of light and dark. But timing (knowing when to move) and using cover wisely are also a big part of it.

But most importantly, what matters to me is fun not simulation. I believe it's fun and not OP to let rogues sneak around, so I'm going to interpret the rules in a way that lets them do that. I get the sense from your posts that you feel otherwise about stealth, and so you only allow it in the most "realistic" of circumstances.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], One of the awesome things about 5e is that you and I can both interpret and have different "rules" for the same thing...yet both of our games aren't going to implode.

My main concern was to make "I want to play a Thief!" not the equivalent of "I want to play a non-human class!". I want the player to not think they are going to be "screwed as a thief" if they don't have darkvision (at least as far as dungeon/cave bashing goes). I want Darkvision to be a "benefit", not a "must-have".

As always...play on and have fun!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], One of the awesome things about 5e is that you and I can both interpret and have different "rules" for the same thing...yet both of our games aren't going to implode.

Yup. That's why I made sure to acknowledge that different interpretations are valid. But I can see why you feel the need to be explicit about this point: there's a lot of OneTrueWayism here.

My main concern was to make "I want to play a Thief!" not the equivalent of "I want to play a non-human class!". I want the player to not think they are going to be "screwed as a thief" if they don't have darkvision (at least as far as dungeon/cave bashing goes). I want Darkvision to be a "benefit", not a "must-have".

Yeah, I agree with this, too. Although I try to solve it by giving non-Darkvision rogues plenty of opportunities to...wait for it..."shine", rather than by making stealth itself ineffectual. So if I were running a campaign with a human/halfling rogue I simply wouldn't throw put them through lots of pitch-black tunnels with darkvision-equipped monsters waiting in the darkness, staring down the tunnel hoping a lightly-armored halfling shows up....

 

[Saeviomagy]

The idea that a light-needing rogue is at a disadvantage has nothing to do with the absurd notion you can't hide with the lights on, and everything to do with the inability to see, walk and therefore skulk in areas of complete darkness.

If you light up all your dungeons to accommodate human and halfling scouts, that's great, but in a general campaign where this isn't assumed, I'll much rather choose a Darkvision-endowed race, thank you very much.

The only places which will not have at least minimal light are those that are inhabited by creatures that have blindsight or inhabited by creatures which literally never do anything except wait for adventurers (note that this may include ambushing groups that are already aware the PCs are enroute).

In those two scenarios, a rogue without darkvision will need to have some sort of light source.

In the vast majority of situations, however, creatures are not going to live their lives stumbling around in the equivalent of a darkened room.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

And the sound of a footstep is normally perfectly hearable, but stealth checks let you change that.

Well, sure, but that's not quite the same thing (IMO).

A footstep is audible, but to normal hearing, it's not so loud that it can't be missed, especially if it's quiet or there are distractions.

Tremorsense, though... to have a sense of vibrations that lets you pinpoint things to the degree that sight can - not just 'that general direction' but 'there'... that's a lot different.

And I'm not saying that as a DM I'd rule that tremorsense = stealth auto-fail in all circumstances. I wouldn't.

But it would be like how you need to be out of sight to hide from normal vision... if you're walking at anything like normal speed on the ground, you're "in plain sight" to tremorsense and can't hide (from that creature).

If you're hiding in ambush and a tremorsense creature walks by... it probably won't detect you until you spring the ambush, since you're not moving.

If you're not on the surface the tremorsense creature is in/on (and it can't see you with normal sight, either because it's blind or there's no light) you'd have advantage if you're on another surface that's physically connected (to transmit vibrations), like standing on a table above the floor or climbing on a wall, or would auto-succeed if there's not a connection, like levitating or flying.

Tremorsense isn't "auto-detect-everything"... it has distinct advantages, but there's also things it can't see at all.

EDIT: but in no case would throwing a pebble do anything for you, IMO. The vibrations are just too different - I think it'd be like a human with normal sight mistaking a bluebird for a cat.

 

[Saeviomagy]

EDIT: but in no case would throwing a pebble do anything for you, IMO. The vibrations are just too different

Are they? I honestly don't know. Looking around the web for information on geophones (ie - buried seismic sensors) for security purposes highlights issues with false positives that are only overcome by tracking over time and with distributed networks, or by combining with other above-ground sensors.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Regarding Tremorsense I think I'd give the "listener" Advantage unless the stealther was intentionally trying to deceive creatures with that ability. And maybe impose a big movement penalty to do so (i.e. reduced to 10' movement.)

As for "how", that's an example of how I believe in Player Narration Empowerment: I don't care if the player describes it as throwing pebbles, or dragging his feet, putting his feet down so slowly and carefully that he doesn't make tremors, or being so in the zone that his feet don't actually touch the ground*. He who rolls the dice gets to narrate the fluff, in my opinion.

*"Oh my god!" the usual suspects are gonna say, "So you're giving him free Levitate!!?!?!?!?!!"

 

[Ahglock]

Are they? I honestly don't know. Looking around the web for information on geophones (ie - buried seismic sensors) for security purposes highlights issues with false positives that are only overcome by tracking over time and with distributed networks, or by combining with other above-ground sensors.

Yes, who knows how it works. It's up to the GM to form a picture of how it will work. So the question should be IMO what is a way of looking at this that promotes the most fun for the group. Is stealth a issue in your games where it's being abused and rogue X walks around unchecked. Well then maybe it could use some checks. Me i assume the rogue is supposed to be hidden and sneak attacking every round and it seems to make rogues happy and none of the other players seem to have a problem with the rogue shining in that fashion. So the most fun is interpreting stealth in way that it can fool tremorsense in my games.

auto corrupt fun.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this but a rogue really only has a problem in the underdark or if he is facing enemies who don't use a light source themselves. Most beings on the surface will be using a light source whether it's torches or possibly globe lights.

If you are scouting through the woods and you come across a camp then it will most likely have some sort of light source that you can see in the distance.

 

[Azurewraith]

Regarding Tremorsense I think I'd give the "listener" Advantage unless the stealther was intentionally trying to deceive creatures with that ability. And maybe impose a big movement penalty to do so (i.e. reduced to 10' movement.)

As for "how", that's an example of how I believe in Player Narration Empowerment: I don't care if the player describes it as throwing pebbles, or dragging his feet, putting his feet down so slowly and carefully that he doesn't make tremors, or being so in the zone that his feet don't actually touch the ground*. He who rolls the dice gets to narrate the fluff, in my opinion.

*"Oh my god!" the usual suspects are gonna say, "So you're giving him free Levitate!!?!?!?!?!!"

OH MY GOD! You mad bro you giving him free levitation! For narration I want to play at your table "I go out hunting in the woods and find 1 oath bow 2 +3 vorpal short swords 1 liches phlyctary(he is now my slave) an ancient dragon army willing to serve me"

To much?

P.s this is in no way a serious post I wish my players were nore comfortable runnning a joint narrative.