D&D General Wearing a lantern on your belt?

[aco175]

Weirdly, though this has been a topic that goes back to 1e AD&D, both you and the YouTuber Pack Tactics mention this issue this week.

The truth is, people in our world hung lanterns on belts sometimes. It just makes sense to keep your hands free. This is a Flemish miner from 1906 using a lantern on his belt.
View attachment 410881

I recall hanging grenades on my belt back in the day, but not while they were in use. I do not know if having the light this low in use would be effective other than walking around- much like holding a torch out in front of you.

 

[Willie the Duck]

If we're diving headfirst into realism, we could go any number of levels down the rabbit hole. First off deciding 'when' D&D is really in terms of historical reference also where and how cutting edge/obscure (I'm sure that shield lamp above really existed, but was it commonly known of, much less available and used?). Oil lanterns, though existing, were not common in much of the pre-modern world -- at least enough that the word is often associated with candle-covers instead. Of course that's in part because poor people did stuff outside during the day and wealthy people rarely had to be portable but still encumbrance-concerned and the entire dungeon-crawling-armored-knight schtick of D&D is inherently ahistoric yada-yada-yada.

But let's assuming this is a ever-so-vaguely 'medieval + renaissance (possibly - gunpowder)' world that still has Coleman-style oil lanterns. Also let's assume there are knights in armor that want to use them in D&D-style dungeons, but also keep both hands free for fighting or trap-finding or whatnot. The 'realistic' answer probably isn't hanging it from their belt or an elaborate gyroscopic gimballed setup, but instead to hire a bearer to carry it for them.

I know the reason most won't want that -- they're either an expensive and combat-worthy hireling you'd rather have fight alongside you or they are low-level/HD/CR and die in the first encounter. However, if we're doing it 'realistically,' I don't think the bearer would be more fragile than the elaborately engineered lantern options otherwise discussed. Certainly not the flame in the lantern (which I assume you need to fight, since if you have darkvision why are we doing any of this?).

There is so much that is either nonsensical or anachronistic in D&D, I don't see how a belt lantern is any worse than any of the rest of it.
But I do question what the point of tracking light is at all if one is going to make it that easy to overcome darkness. Why require lanterns if you are going to let them be on the belt? What is even the point?

Overthinking aside, this is kinda where I land. If you want darkness to be a challenge, have it that way. If you want lighting not to matter, then don't have it matter. This seems to be a solution to a problem created only by an odd middle ground of which I don't see the value.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I would, but then I'd have the unequip my onion, and that is decidedly against the fashion of the time.

 

[Deset Gled]

The truth is, people in our world hung lanterns on belts sometimes. It just makes sense to keep your hands free. This is a Flemish miner from 1906 using a lantern on his belt.

It's worth noting that in 1906 we also had fax machines, machine guns, and automobiles. It's not exactly a tech level I would assume as common in baseline D&D. YMMV.

 

[Distracted DM]

If we're diving headfirst into realism, we could go any number of levels down the rabbit hole. First off deciding 'when' D&D is really in terms of historical reference also where and how cutting edge/obscure (I'm sure that shield lamp above really existed, but was it commonly known of, much less available and used?). Oil lanterns, though existing, were not common in much of the pre-modern world -- at least enough that the word is often associated with candle-covers instead. Of course that's in part because poor people did stuff outside during the day and wealthy people rarely had to be portable but still encumbrance-concerned and the entire dungeon-crawling-armored-knight schtick of D&D is inherently ahistoric yada-yada-yada.

But let's assuming this is a ever-so-vaguely 'medieval + renaissance (possibly - gunpowder)' world that still has Coleman-style oil lanterns. Also let's assume there are knights in armor that want to use them in D&D-style dungeons, but also keep both hands free for fighting or trap-finding or whatnot. The 'realistic' answer probably isn't hanging it from their belt or an elaborate gyroscopic gimballed setup, but instead to hire a bearer to carry it for them.

I know the reason most won't want that -- they're either an expensive and combat-worthy hireling you'd rather have fight alongside you or they are low-level/HD/CR and die in the first encounter. However, if we're doing it 'realistically,' I don't think the bearer would be more fragile than the elaborately engineered lantern options otherwise discussed. Certainly not the flame in the lantern (which I assume you need to fight, since if you have darkvision why are we doing any of this?).

For me it's more a question of design and balance, with some concern for practicality and realism due to a desire for some degree of verisimilitude.

Overthinking aside, this is kinda where I land. If you want darkness to be a challenge, have it that way. If you want lighting not to matter, then don't have it matter. This seems to be a solution to a problem created only by an odd middle ground of which I don't see the value.

Yes, light and darkness is something that I personally care about as a GM (unlimited cantrips and lots of darkvision/devils sight don't make it easy, ofc).
But the problem isn't created out of nothing- it's created by players wanting an advantage to help defeat challenges, and the GM considering the feasibility of such advantages while also weighing them against the challenges... just as with any other case of adjudication in GMing