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 First off deciding 'when' D&D is really in terms of historical reference also where and how cutting edge/obscure (I'm sure that shield lamp above really existed, but was it commonly known of, much less available and used?).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

 

[MGibster]

Never mind the heat, having this large, glass thing on your belt while you wander around sounds like an incredibly awkward thing.

Like. Go to the sporting goods store, and hang a Coleman lantern from your belt, and see how that works for you as you walk around...

A lot of people don't think about how things would actually encumber them in the real world. On one hand, sure, it's make believe, so it's not completely unreasonable for someone not to care about that kind of thing. In one of my Deadlands games, a PC asked if he could attach chains to his pistols and his gun belt to ensure they'd never be lost. I realize some officers in the military had lanyards for their pistols, but there's a reason you don't see cowboys with chains connecting their pistols to their gun belts in old photos. I said yes, but with the caveat that he'd have a penalty applied to his Shooting roll.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Would you be OK with it if the light source in the lantern were from a continual flame spell?

 

[Deset Gled]

Would you be OK with it if the light source in the lantern were from a continual flame spell?

Absolutely. I even suggested the Light cantrip earlier in the thread.

Of course, the spell would ostensibly be on something smaller and manageable, like a key or a piece of leather. And it's magic, not tech. It's also cool to the touch, and doesn't immolate the wearer if an enemy throws a rock at it and splashes flammable liquid everywhere.

In one of my Deadlands games, a PC asked if he could attach chains to his pistols and his gun belt to ensure they'd never be lost. I realize some officers in the military had lanyards for their pistols, but there's a reason you don't see cowboys with chains connecting their pistols to their gun belts in old photos. I said yes, but with the caveat that he'd have a penalty applied to his Shooting roll.

Methinks there's a bit of a safety issue in there, too. The number of ways that a chain like that could get hooked and cause serious damage is painful to even think about.

 

[Mistwell]

Absolutely. I even suggested the Light cantrip earlier in the thread.

Of course, the spell would ostensibly be on something smaller and manageable, like a key or a piece of leather.

It's a flame now. You probably want it in a lantern, even if it's not going to burn you.

And it's magic, not tech.

Magic and tech are essentially the same in this game.

It's also cool to the touch, and doesn't immolate the wearer if an enemy throws a rock at it and splashes flammable liquid everywhere.

There are no rules for throwing a rock at a lantern and splash damage from it in 5.5e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, no. Lanterns are big, bulky, they can break and leak oil and they get hot. If you wear a shield, it will get in the way. Hire a torchbearer or hold it.

Continual Flame can be cast on any item. As a player, as soon as I can afford it, I spend money on a custom built "clip" that can clip on a sword or shield. The clip has a small opening with a shutter and, inside, my character will pay someone to cast continual flame on the small object inside the clip. Then it can be clipped on a belt, helmet, shield or weapon and can be opened and closed to turn it on and off.

Most DMs are okay with that and let me pay 25-100gp for the custom item plus the 25gp (or 50?) cost of continual flame.

I've done something similar, in that I've had PCs that have purchased "burned out" Ioun stones... the ones that ran out of whatever magical power they originally had and turned grey... and then had Continual Light cast upon them. Because even though the burned out grey Ioun stones no longer had their magical powers, they still retained the ability to float above your head in a circle like all Ioun stones do. So with Continual Light on it I now always had a floating, hands-free light source "halo" overhead... one that I could easily pluck out of the air and store in my bag when light was not needed. It was always a fun and cool little add that didn't actually cost that much.