Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9749627" data-attributes="member: 7006">I don't mind at all that the game includes rules for aspects of D&D that might get ignored by 90% of the playerbase but be vitally useful for 10% (percentages are made up and merely for explanation).  All rules have their fans, so why get rid of them?  Especially considering that when some rules don't get ported over to the next iteration or edition the complaints about that are always there (see Warlord, Psion, Half-Elf etc.)And let's be honest here... even if WotC was to remove these "vestigial" rules from the game because the majority of players do not use them... they will only get replaced by new rules that ALSO won't get used by large amounts of the playerbase.  I mean WotC added Bastions into the game rules in the new DMG, but how many people actually use them?But in terms of specifics... in this case regarding Darkvision... if (general) you want darkness to matter as a ruleset in your campaign, then it's up to you to tell your players that you aren't allowing them to select species that have Darkvision.  You're the DM... select the aspects of the game you wish to use and toss out the others for that specific campaign.  When I ran Curse of Strahd that is exactly what I did-- all PCs had to be human.  And in fact, in order to make getting hurt more important I also removed all Healing spells from the game as well, only allowing for potions, hit dice expenditure, and the Healer feat to let PCs heal when not taking rests.  I wanted CoS to run a certain way, and as the DM I adjusted rules myself to get things the way I wanted.  I did not sit on my hands waiting for WotC to do it for me.  Because that is just a waste of time and I'd never actually get the game I wanted if I did.</blockquote>

Verification