Convince me low light vision wouldn't be a nice addition

[jleonardwv]

I have never played Pathfinder but I think 5e dark vision is problematic. It biases players against halflings humans and dragon born who lack it. I read the online Pathfinder doc and thought low light vision would be easily implemented in 5e. Then in the darkest dungeon almost everyone needs a light source. You could also grant a few more races low light vision.

[mgshamster]

I've thought about adding it myself.

Keep darkvision for drow and svirfneblin. The rest get bumped down to low-light vision. Humans, halflings, and dragonborn keep their regular vision.

[JAL_1138]

Darkvision is good but slightly overrated. People forget that you see as if in dim light, not as in normal light, when in total darkness and thus take Disadvantage on all Perception checks relying on sight. It's good for Rogues who want to stealth ahead to attack known enemies, but not so good for searching an area or finding traps. Only Barbarians with both Darkvision and Aspect of the Beast (Eagle), if and only if the two features stack (Eagle aspect removes dim light penalty, but may or may not help with darkvision seeing in total darkness as if in dim light--I'd personally allow it, but unsure of the official ruling), and Warlocks with Devil's Sight can get truly get around the need for a light source without a Perception penalty. It does of course allow for spellcasting--and for attack rolls without Disadvantage--in nonmagical darkness, and Perception checks without Disadvantage in dim light, so it's very good...but eight times out of ten a light source is much better.

[JellyPooga]

Darkvision + Skulker Feat combos up nicely too. I don't think implementing low-light vision would drastically reduce Skulkers use though.

[Theodoxus]

Low-light's already baked into Darkvision. Separating them out would be overly pedantic; and what exactly would Low-light provide? Dim = Normal, but Darkness = Blind?

Honestly, my biggest issue is with the distance. 60' (or 120 on specific races) is craptacular and doesn't make much sense. In a dungeon setting, sure, 60' is probably close to the max you'd see down a corridor anyway, but you're telling me on a starlit, cloudless night, that an elf can't see the forest for the trees?

[MrConsideration]

The thing is, D&D is a party-based game. If you're brilliant at seeing in the dark with your Tiefling Sorcerer, it is meaningless if your Dragonborn Paladin buddy is walking into walls.

For a Rogue, Bard or other sneaky character it is almost essential, though.

[jleonardwv]

Darkvision is good but slightly overrated...

I've seen similar arguments. My son and I argued (and he won) about a human rogue. No one will play one if you want to be the sneak-around-in-the-dark type. No darkvision. Ditto for other no-DV races.

As for disadvantage on perception, I won't argue, but for combat you don't have to worry. I'm still strongly of the opinion that darkvision basically means "no torch required". Do other tables play this way?

As for implementing in 5e, you'd reserve DV for deep gnomes, elves, dwarves, but give LLV to other appropriate races. Brings a tad more realism to the game.

[Hawkstar]

Low-light vision IS Darkvision in 5e. My only problem is, as above, the range. It should treat all dim lighting as Normal, with No lighting as Dim within 60'.

[Naanomi]

What would low-light vision do mechanically different than darkvision does now?

[mgshamster]

What would low-light vision do mechanically different than darkvision does now?

It would make it so the darkest areas are still scary and still require light. It would also remove the drastic difference between the three normal vision races and everyone else.

[LudicSavant]

It would also remove the drastic difference between the three normal vision races and everyone else.

In 5e, not having Darkvision makes you strange and unusual. This is even more true given how (relatively) unpopular Dragonborn and Halflings are.

What I've done in my 5e game is that elves think humans are super weird because they feel this compulsive need to bring fire everywhere and do this really creepy "sleep" thing where they knock themselves out and hallucinate vividly.

Seriously, what is wrong with you creatures? No wonder you can't make it past 100!

[JAL_1138]

I've seen similar arguments. My son and I argued (and he won) about a human rogue. No one will play one if you want to be the sneak-around-in-the-dark type. No darkvision. Ditto for other no-DV races.

As for disadvantage on perception, I won't argue, but for combat you don't have to worry. I'm still strongly of the opinion that darkvision basically means "no torch required". Do other tables play this way?

As for implementing in 5e, you'd reserve DV for deep gnomes, elves, dwarves, but give LLV to other appropriate races. Brings a tad more realism to the game.

I did say slightly overrated, not entirely overrated. It does allow for combat sans light source, and so can be powerful in the right circumstances.

My half-elf bard keeps the Light cantrip up when not sneaking in total darkness, though, for the Perception checks. They're too important in many cases to take Disadvantage on. There's typically also someone in the party without Darkvision, too. It doesn't help much in combat if I can see but our Vhuman Battlemaster archer can't shoot.

[jas61292]

I did say slightly overrated, not entirely overrated. It does allow for combat sans light source, and so can be powerful in the right circumstances.

My half-elf bard keeps the Light cantrip up when not sneaking in total darkness, though, for the Perception checks. They're too important in many cases to take Disadvantage on. There's typically also someone in the party without Darkvision, too. It doesn't help much in combat if I can see but our Vhuman Battlemaster archer can't shoot.

Agreed completely. The advantages it gives you for stealth related things are often offset by the disadvantages it gives you in perception related things. While obviously you would look like a fool trying to sneak into a heavily guarded castle carrying around a bright light source, you would look like just as big of a fool to the guards if you fall into a trap and get caught because you couldn't see well enough. Dim, concealable lights are the way to go when it comes to successful sneaking.

Also, the inability to see further than 60 feet is a big problem. Now, that is not one that a lot of common portable light sources can deal with, but the idea that some people have of dwarves or gnomes or whatever else where they somehow just live in their homes or cities without using any lights is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone of every race wants light, and they all are less capable without it. Those people who insist "I don't need light, I have darkvision," are the weirdos who are likely to die from a spiky trap while exploring a dungeon.

[jleonardwv]

What would low-light vision do mechanically different than darkvision does now?

Dim light becomes normal light for LLV but total darkness, like in a deep cave/dungeon requires light for LLV. Darkvision can still see in total darkness. Most races, then, need some sort of light on occasion.

This is one argument that V Human is not that great. As I saw posted by someone else, what single feat (vuman) gives you something like DV, three spells once/day, fire damage resist, as is true for Tieflings? This is even more critical since DV has such nice every dungeon utility.

[Tanarii]

There's a reason the burglars pack has a candle in it. And candles in general are on the equipment list. Sometimes a small less obvious light is needed.

Reading this thread made me think about it, and I can't see any reason a PC couldn't commission (or with the right tools make) a bullseye lantern that worked with a candle. Or even add something to a bulleye lantern (either oil or candle-based) that cut the light down, possible as low as just 5ft of dim light.

Of course, getting the person making it, or the watch if caught with it, to understand it's clearly intended for use in dungeons ... how could you possibly think it was intended to rob places? Some people. /smh

[Temperjoke]

I'm not sure that altering the current darkvision for a low light vision would be the best option. I'd rather that there was some sort of rule established for vision adjusting to the dark, like spending so long without lights you gain some level of dim vision, if you don't already have some form of darkvision.

[Naanomi]

It would make it so the darkest areas are still scary and still require light. It would also remove the drastic difference between the three normal vision races and everyone else.
And what would the proposed mechanics be? No penalty in dim light (like the skulker feat)? Making those races arguably better at sneakiness than darkvision races, who still suffer the penalty?

[Addaran]

And what would the proposed mechanics be? No penalty in dim light (like the skulker feat)? Making those races arguably better at sneakiness than darkvision races, who still suffer the penalty?

No penalty in real dim light, not heavy darkness turned dim light by darkvision.

So LLV: No disadvantage in dim light, but full combat/perception disadvantage in heavy darkness.
DV: No disadvantage in dim light, only perception disadvantage in heavy darkness.

[RumoCrytuf]

I have never played Pathfinder but I think 5e dark vision is problematic. It biases players against halflings humans and dragon born who lack it. I read the online Pathfinder doc and thought low light vision would be easily implemented in 5e. Then in the darkest dungeon almost everyone needs a light source. You could also grant a few more races low light vision.


Honestly, Adventurers who don't have darkvision should be packing torches anyway. Have a Ranged/Caster (Regardless of whether or not they have darkvision) carry the lantern. That way the up close and personal characters don't have to worry about sacrificing their shield/2nd weapon arm. Not to mention most casters (Especially Wizards/Sorcerers) will/should have a couple of tricks that bypass the need for darkvision.

[Zalabim]

Reading this thread made me think about it, and I can't see any reason a PC couldn't commission (or with the right tools make) a bullseye lantern that worked with a candle. Or even add something to a bulleye lantern (either oil or candle-based) that cut the light down, possible as low as just 5ft of dim light.

Speaking of the Bullseye Lantern, it occurred to me the other day that it's optional to include the origin square in the effect for a cone, so you can shine a bullseye lantern on a target without lighting yourself up as well, for combat purposes. Obviously you're still walking around with a highly visible light source, for detection, but at least you aren't providing a way to see yourself clearly like with a torch.

[Krivelios]

I've thought about adding it myself.

Keep darkvision for drow and svirfneblin. The rest get bumped down to low-light vision. Humans, halflings, and dragonborn keep their regular vision.

That is what i do. I just cant help to think that drows suck in underdark with original rules.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, the UD races get screwed with RAW DV, all for the sake of 'ease' or 'consolidation of rules' or 'speed of play'.

I'm still in the boat for bringing back Infra and Ultra vision. Get rid of DV and LLV; Infra lets your race increase the light level by 1. Dark becomes Dim, Dim becomes Bright, Bright becomes Blinding. Ultra lets your race increase the light level by 2. Dark becomes Bright, Dim and brighter becomes Blinding. Blinding as per the Sunlight Sensitivity rules. Classic UD races and Mountain dwarves have Ultravision, everyone else except Humans and Halflings have Infravision.

Would probably need to add an 'anti-skulker' feat, allowing Ultravision races to shield themselves; either permanently or through prosthetics, like sunglasses... Removing the sunlight sensitivity while not making the ability useless. If you're playing Out of the Abyss or similar, probably wouldn't need the feat - but as it stands, not taking Skulker if you don't have a reliable light source (hi Dawnbringer!) is just as silly for OotA.

Honestly though, is with three levels of light (I guess Sunlight would be considered a 4th), is it too much to ask for three levels of vision?

[tkuremento]

through prosthetics, like sunglasses...

http://puu.sh/t3llR/fe2c54dfe4.jpg

[Steampunkette]

Low-light vision in Third Edition as well as in Pathfinder does not allow you to see in dim light as if it were a normal light. It allows you to see twice as far in dim light as a person without low-light vision.

So a torch Which casts a 30 foot radius of bright light and a thirty-foot radius of dim light would appear to someone with low-light vision to cast a 30-foot bright light and a 60-foot dim light.

[BW022]

I don't think it is worth the complexity to try bringing low-light vision back. Darkvision, stealth, hiding, etc. already has enough rules/discussions.

In practice... lack of darkvision doesn't seem to cause any issues. Humans and halflings are still remarkably common in most games. Nor is it that useful. Most dungeons (cities, outdoor locations, etc.) have light sources. Most parties don't scout nor do they rarely go more than 30' ahead. Even rogues typically need light sources for traps, doors, searching, etc. due to needing to see color. Finally, its only a second-level spell (druids, sorcerers, and wizards). IMO, it is a secondary consideration and the races without it have much better abilities -- bonus feats and/or ability to hide behind other party members.

[Vogonjeltz]

Only Barbarians with both Darkvision and Aspect of the Beast (Eagle), if and only if the two features stack (Eagle aspect removes dim light penalty, but may or may not help with darkvision seeing in total darkness as if in dim light--I'd personally allow it, but unsure of the official ruling), and Warlocks with Devil's Sight can get truly get around the need for a light source without a Perception penalty.

Based on the wording of Darkvision (as for the Tiefling, for example) and the eagle totem ability, I'd say it's intended to work together.


This is one argument that V Human is not that great. As I saw posted by someone else, what single feat (vuman) gives you something like DV, three spells once/day, fire damage resist, as is true for Tieflings? This is even more critical since DV has such nice every dungeon utility.

If you itemize out the value of all the bonuses for each race, you'll find that the standard human carries more "value points" than anything else because it provides a total of +6 to ability scores (i.e. 3 ASI slots worth of value) whereas the others provide substantially less. (Vhuman for example only gives 2.3: i.e. 1 ASI, 1 feat = 1 ASI, and 1 skill = 1/3 a feat or .33 asi)'

Basically the reason to go Vhuman isn't because it provides the most total value, it doesn't, but because it allows the broadest degree of flexibility of how the value acquired is being distributed.

For any given choice of background and class, there's almost certainly a better tailored option than Vhuman, but variant human allows you to play as a human instead of feeling that you have to play as an Elf or what have you.


Getting back to the topic title, LL vision would just add a layer of unwieldy mechanics, it's not necessary and wouldn't enhance the game. Plus it would provide a minor devaluation to all other methods of seeing in the game, and change the decisionmaking calculus when it comes to choices of abilities where one provides vision in dim light.