Is a Feat really better than Darkvision?

[2D8HP]

I often see posts that say things like:

"I do find one problem with feats is that it makes V. Human way too appealing relative to other races.."


:confused:

Usually, in my experience, the need for light makes humans very handicapped compared to most races, and a Feat at first level doesn't compensate.

What Feats are better than Darkvision?

How so?

[JellyPooga]

Magic Initiate: Wizard (Dancing Lights, Light, Detect Magic)

Now you don't need to be able to see in the dark because you have at-will light (bright or dim, your choice) AND you can find magic stuff.

[clash]

The rules for light and dark are pretty finicky and usually not well understood. In my experience most dms just handwave light rules and say that areas are well enough lit to see or failign that just carrying a light source like a torch or a single caster having the light cantrip will avoid most issues. The game is setup not to require darkvision and the rules for it dont usually come into play anyways.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's only a problem if no one in your party is willing to make/carry a light source for you. If it's that much of a problem and you can't just make some light, someone in your party is bound to be a spellcaster and they can cast Darkvision on you.

Now that I understand that Darkvision only changes darkness into dim light for those who have it my estimation of it has gone from "very good" to "it's nice to have, but a light cantrip works too"

Feats are enough fun for me that I can deal with having my party members drag me around in the dark, and they don't usually mind because a Vhuman tears it up in a fight.

[the secret fire]

Short answer: many feats are better than darkvision because stealth/lighting/vision is probably the single worst-implemented and worst-understood part of 5e's game mechanics.

Long answer: if played according to the rules, darkvision is quite powerful, and pretty much a necessity for any character who plans on being stealthy. Carrying sources of light draws attention to the party and grants creatures normal attacks against the party due to bright light while the party may be attacking at disadvantage due to dim light, or worse...the monsters may have advantage because they are completely unseen. Getting attacked by, let's say, a bunch of goblins with shortbows who stay outside of the standard 40' torch or Light spell radius is the sort of scenario that gets lethal fast.

Imo, the game hands out darkvision so generously and so many DMs hand-wave a lot of the lighting/vision mechanics because not doing so moves the game quickly in the direction of horror, and that's just not the mood most people want from their D&D.

[Pex]

I think dark vision is over rated. It's a good ability, but it's not a must have else you're The Suck. The value of it is paranoia. Some players don't want to use a light source in dark places like caves and the Underdark because they fear (not stupidly) they will be ambushed since the bad guys know they're coming. It is a consideration to consider seriously, but the question is how often will it be something to worry about. That will be campaign dependent.

There's nothing wrong with a DM creating an adventure in a dark place where the party is mostly non-dark vision people and using a light source can be a vulnerability. If the campaign will mostly to always be in dark places then the DM needs to let the players know. A non-dark vision race character might pick it up by some means such as a class feature.

If a character not having dark vision is becoming a major problem for the campaign, at some level > 1 where class features are significant enough such that racial abilities have become ribbons it would be nice of the DM to have a goggles of night in a treasure hoard or patron reward.

[Armored Walrus]

All my D&D currently is done on Roll20 and on these forums (with the battlemaps on Roll20) and I've subscribed to get dynamic lighting. IMCs darkvision is far more important, IMO, than in the average campaign. Having a system that handles those mechanics for you, even though it has a few drawbacks, does add a lot to the experience. When I drop a human character on to a dark map, the dismay is real.

That being said, if your party is a paladin, war priest, barbarian and wizard, you aren't likely trying to sneak anywhere without magical aid anyway.

In my experience, darkvision is either the most important trait to determine your race for rolling up a rogue, or it literally doesn't matter because light and vision will never be brought up.

A quick note to the poster above me; dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on attacks, only on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on sight.

Edit: Wow, ninja'd hard. A note to the poster three posts above me...

[Specter]

Depends on your party.

If nobody has darkvision, then you having it won't change much, since everybody will still be using light and torches.

But if everyone has it, then try not to be the a-hole ruining the party's stealth with your little light.

[MaxWilson]

Most people miss the point of Darkvision, as you can see from this thread. Yes, you can carry a torch instead, but that just paints you with light so that enemies outside the light radius get advantage on their ranged attacks against you. What Darkvision, especially party-wide Darkvision, does is allow you to be stealthy in the dark without taking any penalties. It also enables powerful combinations such as a Skulker rogue (or rogue dip) who can effortlessly hide anywhere in the dark from anything that lacks truesight/blindsight/devil's sight, gaining advantage on his attacks and being very difficult to attack back. If you try that kind of thing when someone in the party is relying on torches, you'll just divert the attacks onto them; ergo, you don't want them relying on torches.

Darkvision is fairly short-ranged usually (60'), so it's not like it completely obviates torches anyway, but the way you want to use torches is as NARC beacons: you want all of your ENEMIES to be illuminated so you attack them at advantage, but you want PCs to be in the dark (beyond enemy darkvision range). Darkvision is just insurance so that if an enemy does close the distance with you, you're not at disadvantage to attack them and they don't have advantage to attack you. (Note: long-range darkvision such as drow and svirfneblin have, or from stacking Goggles of Night on regular darkvision, functions similarly to illuminating enemies in terms of giving you advantage under vanilla 5e rules.)

Darkvision is however fairly easy to acquire: any druid or Shadow Monk can Darkvision you for 8 hours with no concentration cost (2 ki or one 2nd level spell slot), and so can some wizards. The good feats are NOT that easy to acquire.

Conclusion: Darkvision is a nice fringe benefit, worthy of consideration in any campaign where fighting in the dark is likely to happen. But there's a definite opportunity cost in foregoing that feat.

[randomodo]

Also, despite the name of the game, many campaigns aren't focused on gigantic underground labyrinths.

As with most race/feat/class/skill/spell combinations, the nature of the campaign is key to whether something is necessary/useful/useless

[Spiritchaser]

While this is obviously campaign dependent, I would argue that in any campaign I’ve played in or DM’d any “optimized” character has to have a source of Darkvision or similar, and race is the most straightforward source.

The opportunity for stealth comes up a LOT

Full darkness can (in my experience usually does) come up very frequently

If you have to light a light, you just guaranteed that you will be seen by anything that might be “looking” in the conventional sense

Darkvision et. al. are such a huge potential advantage that the races without it are, in my experience, regularly and significantly troubled by the lack.

I can recall 5 or 6 encounters where relatively powerful combat NPCs travelling with the party hindered more than they helped simply because they required torches.

Now... goggles of the night ARE a thing, so it’s not insurmountable.

[Tetrasodium]

I often see posts that say things like:

"I do find one problem with feats is that it makes V. Human way too appealing relative to other races.."


:confused:

Usually, in my experience, the need for light makes humans very handicapped compared to most races, and a Feat at first level doesn't compensate.

What Feats are better than Darkvision?

How so?

there are races other than human that lack darkvision (not many, but some). Variant human is not so over represented & appealing (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) among players is that you can bring a feat dependent concept online 4 levels earlier than other races and put your stat bonuses where they most benefit you and very few of the other races have a stat+benefit combo that outweighs the ability to start with your choice of PAM/Mobile/gwm/sentinel/warcaster/etc with no downside. Yes there are racial abilities that are very useful, but very few of those are the sort of game changing thing that any of the above mentioned feats can be.

As to what feats are better, if you look at pretty much any of the class guides (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491) people have written, anything in cyan or blue is almost certainly better & anything in black is probably better. Then finally for reasons I'll go into, anything in red or purple might be better.


I make that last point about feats generally considered bad or a trap because unless your role within the group requires you to sneak off in the dark uinknown to scout ahead you aren't really hindered by the lack of darkvision. Not only are you not often going to be affected by it, the over the abundance of darkblind races (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) compared to everything else ensures that you probably will not be the odd man out so allowances will be made. Not only is it certain that allowances will willing;y be made for the handicap of the night blind majority... but the rules themselves make efforts to minimize the exceptional minority races capable of seeing in the dark with darkvision.
[list]
Devils sight works the same for a human as a race with darkvision or superior darkvision. every mundane light source sheds bright light, with the exception of the bard soekk dancing lights, light spells all shed bright light, magic items that shed light all shed bright light. spells that snuff out light tend to drop it straight to either no light because the torch is out or magical darkness. The only magic items that seem to even consider (superior) darkvision are the moontouched blade (sheds moonlight so won't blind your sunlight sensitive friend to give your darkblind ally when it sheds bright light) & goggles of night (gives everyone else darkvision to 60 feet or darkvision races an extra 30 feet of darkvision). For almost every class, you are more likely top be hindered by sunlight sensitivity in a dungeon crawl heavy game than a lack of darkvision. Even though dark vision having races combined are a slight majority over the rest, the lack of light sources designed to allow them to leverage their darkvision limits the usefulness.

[GorogIrongut]

I'm a firm believer that Darkvision is vital in a character. As a DM, I warn my players that I do implement the dark/light rules and while I try not to be harsh, I do enact consequences to being able to not see in the dark/see better than other characters in the dark. These consequences won't be fatal but they will be realistic.

As such, I'm firmly in the camp that human characters aren't worth my time. Just look at a dwarf. You get so much being a dwarf before you even take into account dark vision. The free feat isn't worth it and... if I'm DM'ing, clues me in to the fact that the player is trying to enact a specific build without looking at well rounded gameplay. When I DM I like well rounded game play. People who fly should be able to cope in situations where flying isn't an option. People who are antisocial should be able to cope (somewhat) in the social element of a game. The same goes for those players who go V Human because they want they're Frontliner to have GWM at level 1. I'm not going to just send encounters of things for them to use their axe against. There'll be magic and intrigue and more. Because giving you something to hit with your axe is good in small doses, but bores me as a DM in large doses and doesn't help the player stretch and grow.

p.s. I even have a hard time playing a halfling because they don't get darkvision. Usually I'll play a Gloom Stalker if my character is from a race that doesn't get dark vision.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm a firm believer that Darkvision is vital in a character. As a DM, I warn my players that I do implement the dark/light rules and while I try not to be harsh, I do enact consequences to being able to not see in the dark/see better than other characters in the dark. These consequences won't be fatal but they will be realistic.

As such, I'm firmly in the camp that human characters aren't worth my time. Just look at a dwarf. You get so much being a dwarf before you even take into account dark vision. The free feat isn't worth it and... if I'm DM'ing, clues me in to the fact that the player is trying to enact a specific build without looking at well rounded gameplay. When I DM I like well rounded game play. People who fly should be able to cope in situations where flying isn't an option. People who are antisocial should be able to cope (somewhat) in the social element of a game. The same goes for those players who go V Human because they want they're Frontliner to have GWM at level 1. I'm not going to just send encounters of things for them to use their axe against. There'll be magic and intrigue and more. Because giving you something to hit with your axe is good in small doses, but bores me as a DM in large doses and doesn't help the player stretch and grow.

p.s. I even have a hard time playing a halfling because they don't get darkvision. Usually I'll play a Gloom Stalker if my character is from a race that doesn't get dark vision.


I take a similar stance when gm'ing by including good-lights & light gems giving off 10-20 feetof dim light & no bright light that can be had so cheaply that shopkeepers will frequently try to include one or more for free to make a sale of one more $whatever that a player was uncertain about taking. The end result is that the sneaky types pop theirs in a pocket/pouch when going off to scout ahead & the darkvision having races grumble at their human/whatever ally for giving their position away with that silly bright floodlight. You only need to say things like "Yea, they saw joe's bright torch coming a thousand yards away & setup that ambush while you were three curves back in that tunnel." once or twice before they start making joe keep his stupid light cantrip'd pebble in his pocket until after fights have started

[jas61292]

Dark vision is both over and under valued, depending on the group and the situation. In my experience, when played by the rules, it is sometimes invaluable, but far more often a false security blanket.

In places the players are familiar with and when they suspect that they know everything they will encounter, dark vision is incredible. Sneaking into a castle at night where you know where he guards are posted and everyone inside will have a light if they are awake? Forgoing light and relying on dark vision is by far the best way to do things.

But, when it comes to exploring dungeons or other adventure sites that you know little about, relying on your dark vision is a folly. The disadvantage on perception is simply not worth the risk. Yeah, bringing light will let things see you easier, but you have to remember, anything that lives in a lightless dungeon will be able to perceive things in the dark. And probably better than you can. By forgoing light, you are just making it more likely that you will run into traps, miss secret passageways, and let enemies sneak up on you.

So, all in all, what I'm saying is that dark vision is a nice utility to have, but far more situational than a lot of people would have you believe. Too me it is the equivalent of a weak feat or half feat. No where near as good as the variant human's feat.

Of course, my table bans the variant human anyways, so its a moot point for me.

[JellyPooga]

Most people miss the point of Darkvision, as you can see from this thread. Yes, you can carry a torch instead, but that just paints you with light so that enemies outside the light radius get advantage on their ranged attacks against you. What Darkvision, especially party-wide Darkvision, does is allow you to be stealthy in the dark without taking any penalties.

As you can see from this thread, most people miss the point of Darkvision. Yes, you can attack without penalty in total darkness if you have Darkvision, but you cannot operate without penalty. Disadvantage on Perception checks is a big deal, especially when using Passive Perception. Most characters that have Darkvision will want a light source anyway. If they don't have one they risk falling prey to traps and ambushes, as well as missing opportunities for finding hidden details, secret doors and so forth, not to mention the consequences for any party members that don't have it.

Darkvision combined with the Skulker Feat is a combo every bit as powerful as you'd want it to be.
Darkvision with a Dim light source is the next best thing.
Darkvision with a Bright light source is probably necessary for your darkblind friends, but it's better than no light at all.
Darkvision on its own, without a light source, is a fools gamble.

[the secret fire]

But, when it comes to exploring dungeons or other adventure sites that you know little about, relying on your dark vision is a folly. The disadvantage on perception is simply not worth the risk.

Which is why the Skulker feat is so underrated.

[Armored Walrus]

Most characters that have Darkvision will want a light source anyway. If they don't have one they risk falling prey to traps and ambushes, as well as missing opportunities for finding hidden details, secret doors and so forth, not to mention the consequences for any party members that don't have it.

Just a minor quibble, ambushes - if the enemy has darkvision and isn't using a light source, then you have equal chance of noticing each other. Traps, though, that's also campaign-dependent. Published modules tend to have traps in them, but I'm under the impression that there's a pretty big crowd of DM's out there that think traps are cheap shots at player (I'm not in this camp, FYI, but it exists, whether it's wrong or right) and therefore don't use traps at all in their campaigns. If you're running with one of these DMs, there's less pressure to have darkvision. If you're running with a DM who both doesn't like traps, and can't be bothered to figure out the vision mechanics, then darkvision is probably less important than anything else on your sheet.

In my campaigns, though, all your points are solid.

[MaxWilson]

Just a minor quibble, ambushes - if the enemy has darkvision and isn't using a light source, then you have equal chance of noticing each other.

Aside:

Due to the shape of the d20 curve and the fact that PCs typically have more trained skills than monsters do, a fight in the dark is likely to favor the PCs: it is very, very difficult for even dark elves to spot PCs hiding in the darkness. However, this doesn't mean the Dark Elves just lay down and die. What tends to happen IME is that it turns into a game of readied actions and geometry: the first guy to attack lands his attack and then gets pasted with a dozen readied crossbolt bolts/ranged attacks from the other side, so before he attacks he tries to spot as many hiding enemies as he can and maneuver to a position where as few of them as possible can see him. It's very exciting, like Kriegspiel (the chess variant), but like Kriegspiel it is hard to run without a neutral referee or computer support. (If the DM is running both the monsters and the action resolutions for everyone, the DM does not count as a neutral referee--you need a separate person or a computer.)

This is yet another reason I want to turn 5E into a CRPG. It's an exciting and fun tactical scenario which isn't easy to run at the table.

[Armored Walrus]

Aside:
This is yet another reason I want to turn 5E into a CRPG. It's an exciting and fun tactical scenario which isn't easy to run at the table.

This is why I ponied up the $100 to enable dynamic lighting in my Roll20 campaigns. It removes at least one instance of bias from the DM. As I tell my players, "If you can see it, you can see it." It doesn't cover perceiving by means other than sight, but it at least narrows things down.

[nickl_2000]

Yes and here is my reasoning.

Darkvision can be replicated easily for 8 hours with 1 second level spell that doesn't require concentration (and that is only needed to be cast when you are out at night or in a dark dungeon). On the other hand, you can't replicate GWM, SS, PAM, Healer, Warcaster, Resilient Con, Crossbow Expert, or most of the other powerful feats you get with 1 second level spell.


It may not be worth it if you are going level 20 fighter, but for many other classes that feat makes a huge difference

[MaxWilson]

Darkvision can be replicated easily for 8 hours with 1 second level spell that doesn't require concentration (and that is only needed to be cast when you are out at night or in a dark dungeon). On the other hand, you can't replicate GWM, SS, PAM, Healer, Warcaster, Resilient Con, Crossbow Expert, or most of the other powerful feats you get with 1 second level spell.

+1. This is huge.

[JellyPooga]

Just a minor quibble, ambushes - if the enemy has darkvision and isn't using a light source...

Just to minor quibble your minor quibble (double-quibble? re-quibble?), why would your darkvision possessing foe not use a light source themselves? Drow and Orcs like being able to see what they're doing in their own homes, so they have little incentive to be walking around in pitch darkness, or douse the lights if the PC's are taking a stealthy approach and have not been detected upon entry. If the PC's have been detected and the enemy are setting up a good ambush, they're going to use light as part of that; the cunning foe should set up the light source in an unsuspicious manner, a less than cunning foe might just put a lone torch somewhere in the dark (though that can be cunning in itself; curiosity is a powerful lure...). Anyway, the point being that a good ambush in the dark can very well involve light, whether or not you have Darkvision; springing the trap at the opportune moment. All Darkvision does is change the level of light required.

[Errata]

allow you to be stealthy in the dark without taking any penalties.

So you didn't actually read the rules, but you think other people are the ones who miss the point? You take penalties. You're at disadvantage to perception. Darkvision isn't what players from previous editions might be thinking. Unless you like stumbling around in dim light and blundering into traps or bumping into an enemy you didn't even notice, you still have reasons for light.

Good luck with your no light source darkvision when you go up against that young red dragon with blindsight, not to mention high perception and a larger darkvision radius than you.

And this idea of an entire party of ninjas doesn't just rule out anyone in the party having a non-darkvision race. It also rules out playing a heavy armor strength-based martial character. Nobody is stealthing in heavy armor. And if you have your whole party trying to stealth, someone is inevitably going to roll a very low number and mess it up. In a realistic party you're almost always going to have someone splitting off if you want stealth, because the entire party as a whole isn't likely to accomplish much with it, without magical assistance.

Stealth is fine in certain situations, but there are a lot of caveats, and in most campaigns it's only really going to be applicable for a small minority of encounters anyway. Not crucial enough to mandate that nobody in the party should play any of the non-darkvision races.

[Easy_Lee]

It depends. Answer the following questions:

Do you use stealth? If not, carry a torch, lantern, or other lightsource. There are few situations where a lantern won't work.
Does your DM worry about lighting? If not, darkvision isn't very useful.
Is there a shadow monk in the group? If so, you might want darkvision just so situations where he excels (night time, dark caves) don't handicap you without you having to counter the darkness with light.

Group composition and DM-awareness are important.

[mephnick]

If I wished to be a stealthy character I'd pick a race with Darkvision, but the penalty on Perception hurts, hence the Skulker feat. If I'm not a stealthy character it really doesn't matter unless I'm the only one in the group without it. Even PCs with Darkvision should light a torch most of the time unless you're really afraid of ambushes.

[Tetrasodium]

+1. This is huge.

Yea the darkvision spell being an 8hr duration & no concentration for a mere level 2 spell slot with is another example of how racial darkvision's potential value is minimized at every turn.

[Errata]

Yea the darkvision spell being an 8hr duration & no concentration for a mere level 2 spell slot with is another example of how racial darkvision's potential value is minimized at every turn.

And even with that, a lot of parties don't bother having anyone learn the darkvision spell. Which shows you that while the game caps the value of the racial ability as at most comparable to a single level 2 spell slot, in practice most players would value having darkvision lower than that, most of the time. It does come in handy situationally for those times when you absolutely need to stealth the entire party through a difficult spot.

If there was a level 2 spell that gave the target any feat you wanted for 8 hours, you can bet that more people would learn it than the darkvision spell.

[Boci]

Magic Initiate: Wizard (Dancing Lights, Light, Detect Magic)

Now you don't need to be able to see in the dark because you have at-will light (bright or dim, your choice) AND you can find magic stuff.

But the enemies can also see.

[JellyPooga]

But the enemies can also see.

Let's face it; like 90% of a typical adventuring parties enemies have Darkvision anyway, so yeah, they can see either way.

[jas61292]

But the enemies can also see.

If it's dark and there are enemies, they can likely see you regardless. Probably better than you can. Things don't live in the dark if they can't function in the dark at least as well as your average, diurnal, surface dwelling elf.

Sure, it's nice for night ambushes on non-darkvision possessing humanoids, but it's severely less useful elsewhere.

[Boci]

Let's face it; like 90% of a typical adventuring parties enemies have Darkvision anyway, so yeah, they can see either way.

Even if the 90% thing is assumed true, they can't see you as well as they can see a bobbing light announcing your arrival.

[MaxWilson]

So you didn't actually read the rules, but you think other people are the ones who miss the point? You take penalties. You're at disadvantage to perception.

No duh. Of course you do. I was referring to combat penalties, but if you want to remove perception penalties you obviously need low light or the Skulker feat, which is great for dark-fighting in so many ways (and which I already mentioned in the post you quoted).

Obviously.

Ironic that you complain about heavy armor giving disadvantage to stealth checks in a scenario where almost all the monsters have disadvantage on their perception checks AND are untrained in Perception...

Bottom line: you can't sneak through the Underdark (or anything like it) with a torch, and even in active combat light is something you want on the BAD GUYS, not the PCs. Also, Shadow Monks are amazing in the dark.

[the secret fire]

Ironic that you complain about heavy armor giving disadvantage to stealth checks in a scenario where almost all the monsters have disadvantage on their perception checks AND are untrained in Perception...

Pretty sure the disadvantage suffered by the monsters is to Perception checks based on sight, only. The heavily-armored goon is still going to have disadvantage to Stealth checks because he is both shiny, and noisy.

[MaxWilson]

Pretty sure the disadvantage suffered by the monsters is to Perception checks based on sight, only. The heavily-armored goon is still going to have disadvantage to Stealth checks because he is both shiny, and noisy.

Interesting argument, but it cuts both ways. If stealth checks are opposed by hearing, then Skulker is less important because everybody can hear enemies without disadvantage anyway. Can't have it both ways, and the 5E rules are silent on when to use which sense in a Stealth contest. (Note also that heavy armor penalizes your stealth roll--it doesn't give your opponents bonuses to their perception roll, so the argument that it is noisy as opposed to awkward is a bit questionable.) Ask your DM.

[the secret fire]

Interesting argument, but it cuts both ways. If stealth checks are opposed by hearing, then Skulker is less important because everybody can hear enemies without disadvantage anyway. Can't have it both ways, and the 5E rules are silent on when to use which sense in a Stealth contest. (Note also that heavy armor penalizes your stealth roll--it doesn't give your opponents bonuses to their perception roll, so the argument that it is noisy as opposed to awkward is a bit questionable.) Ask your DM.

One of the disadvantages of merging Hide in Shadows and Move Silently into Stealth and Listen and Spot into Perception. Considering the current state of hiding/detection mechanics in 5e, it seems that they've made the mechanic more complicated in their attempt to simplify it.

[MaxWilson]

One of the disadvantages of merging Hide in Shadows and Move Silently into Stealth and Listen and Spot into Perception. Considering the current state of hiding/detection mechanics in 5e, it seems that they've made the mechanic more complicated in their attempt to simplify it.

Agreed about vagueness creating complications, although I never played 3E so when you say Spot I just think "failed Hide In Shadows roll." (AD&D is my prior edition, not 3E.)

A corollary is that monsters with keen senses don't work very well in 5E. In real life a bear has a sense of smell better than a bloodhound and can smell food from up to twenty miles away; in 5E, a bear has "advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell", starting from a Perception of +3, which means the bear is as good as two 1st level PCs communicating open with each other. (If either one can smell something they'll tell the other--whether you model that as the Help action for advantage or as two separate checks, mathematically it's the same either way.) Feh, useless, and not at all like a real bear, unless you're also prepared to let bards with Perception expertise and Enhance Ability smell things a hundred miles away.

Keen Smell is one of the laziest parts of vanilla 5E design, and is best rewritten entirely. (It would be nice if WotC had done the work already but obviously they didn't, so the only one who can fix it is the DM.)

[Willie the Duck]

Agreed about vagueness creating complications, although I never played 3E so when you say Spot I just think "failed Hide In Shadows roll." (AD&D is my prior edition, not 3E.)

AD&D if I recall correctly the big problem with getting the 'Hide in Shadows' rules, 'hide behind a curtain' rules, and 'surprise' rules to play nice together. That and whether you had double jeopardy when needing to hide in shadows and move silently. I don't recall how scent played (if at all).

3e I think the big issue was illumination rules wording. I think in either 3.0 or 3.5 normal darkness actually prevented a light source from transmitting through it (if you followed the wording literally).

This seems to be an ongoing problem for the writers.



A corollary is that monsters with keen senses don't work very well in 5E. In real life a bear has a sense of smell better than a bloodhound and can smell food from up to twenty miles away; in 5E, a bear has "advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell", starting from a Perception of +3, which means the bear is as good as two 1st level PCs communicating open with each other. (If either one can smell something they'll tell the other--whether you model that as the Help action for advantage or as two separate checks, mathematically it's the same either way.) Feh, useless, and not at all like a real bear, unless you're also prepared to let bards with Perception expertise and Enhance Ability smell things a hundred miles away.

Keen Smell is one of the laziest parts of vanilla 5E design, and is best rewritten entirely. (It would be nice if WotC had done the work already but obviously they didn't, so the only one who can fix it is the DM.)

Monster skills in general seem to have been incredibly sloppily done. A bear that had advantage and a +6-8 would be a more realistic model and an interesting challenge. Although I wonder if the bear's sense of smell is one of those things where the writer's were like--
writer1: 'I have an idea for a bear being CR 1, and making them good at catching stealth builds will create a problem."
writer2: 'do you think a lot of the player base know how well bears smell, and/or think of bears as iconic sentry animals?'
w1: 'no.'
w2: 'ignore reality, go with stats that fit your plans.'
w1: 'alright, bears can be CR1.'

[MaxWilson]

AD&D if I recall correctly the big problem with getting the 'Hide in Shadows' rules, 'hide behind a curtain' rules, and 'surprise' rules to play nice together. That and whether you had double jeopardy when needing to hide in shadows and move silently. I don't recall how scent played (if at all).

The AD&D method is to assume you are always detected unless you are specifically not detected. (Hide In Shadows represents preternatural stealth, basically James Bond/super spy-level ability.) The AD&D approach to scent would be to just say, "You can't hide from creatures with a keen sense of smell unless you cover up your smell with oil fats or overwhelm their sense of smell with tons of rotten meat or something of that nature." It wouldn't be an opposed-rolls situation involving number contests.

[Vorpalchicken]

With Gloomstalkers and Shadow Blades to worry about these days evil humanoids are often better off leaving the lights on.

[Luccan]

I think dark vision is over rated. It's a good ability, but it's not a must have else you're The Suck. The value of it is paranoia. Some players don't want to use a light source in dark places like caves and the Underdark because they fear (not stupidly) they will be ambushed since the bad guys know they're coming. It is a consideration to consider seriously, but the question is how often will it be something to worry about. That will be campaign dependent.

There's nothing wrong with a DM creating an adventure in a dark place where the party is mostly non-dark vision people and using a light source can be a vulnerability. If the campaign will mostly to always be in dark places then the DM needs to let the players know. A non-dark vision race character might pick it up by some means such as a class feature.

If a character not having dark vision is becoming a major problem for the campaign, at some level > 1 where class features are significant enough such that racial abilities have become ribbons it would be nice of the DM to have a goggles of night in a treasure hoard or patron reward.

I completely agree. The problem with Darkvision in 5e is too many races have it, which means people get used to it. Since people are used to it, now they're convinced not having it means blindness in any environment darker than a cloudy day. It's handy, particularly on a sneaky character, but is it better than certain feats on, say, a Str Fighter with 10 Dex and no Stealth proficiency? How often would they succeed on their check?

[Lombra]

The fact is that even darkvision races want light sources, dabbling in constant dim light makes it easier to get ambushed, harder to notice details.

[MaxWilson]

I completely agree. The problem with Darkvision in 5e is too many races have it, which means people get used to it. Since people are used to it, now they're convinced not having it means blindness in any environment darker than a cloudy day. It's handy, particularly on a sneaky character, but is it better than certain feats on, say, a Str Fighter with 10 Dex and no Stealth proficiency? How often would they succeed on their check?

Why would you not take Stealth proficiency? 5E makes it virtually free of opportunity cost. You can just get it from your background, no matter WHAT your background is.

Stealth, Athletics (or Acrobatics if you're Dexy, although Athletics is better), and Perception are the trifecta of combat-desirable skills in 5E. If you don't take those, presumably it can only be because you're deliberately choosing (for roleplaying reasons) not to play a fully combat-effective character. E.g. maybe you want to play a scholar or a baker who just happens to get dragged on a lot of adventures. But in that case you're probably not going to be a trained Fighter.

[randomodo]

As such, I'm firmly in the camp that human characters aren't worth my time. Just look at a dwarf. You get so much being a dwarf before you even take into account dark vision. The free feat isn't worth it and... if I'm DM'ing, clues me in to the fact that the player is trying to enact a specific build without looking at well rounded gameplay.

I think that's a myopic view. There are many, many reasons why someone would prefer to not play a member of an alien species, particularly in worlds in which humans are considered the most common race with the most prominent nations.

Even desiring a feat at first level doesn't inherently mean a player isn't "looking at well-rounded gameplay." There's an opportunity cost in terms of capabilities paid by losing darkvision, but there's also an opportunity cost lost in terms of customizability to be paid by playing a non-human.

Consider for example a human from my most recent campaign. He was a wild magic sorcerer who picked the acolyte background and Magic Initiate: Cleric as a feat. He was desperately trying to convince others (and himself, to some extent) that he could be a good priest of Lathander, and that he didn't have semi-controllable abyssal magic bubbling within him. I looked at that as a solid role playing choice. Those who expect every single character to be fully optimized may be disdainful of such choices, but the fact that you dislike humans doesn't make them bad characters nor their players cheesy.

[GorogIrongut]

I think that's a myopic view. There are many, many reasons why someone would prefer to not play a member of an alien species, particularly in worlds in which humans are considered the most common race with the most prominent nations.

Even desiring a feat at first level doesn't inherently mean a player isn't "looking at well-rounded gameplay." There's an opportunity cost in terms of capabilities paid by losing darkvision, but there's also an opportunity cost lost in terms of customizability to be paid by playing a non-human.

Consider for example a human from my most recent campaign. He was a wild magic sorcerer who picked the acolyte background and Magic Initiate: Cleric as a feat. He was desperately trying to convince others (and himself, to some extent) that he could be a good priest of Lathander, and that he didn't have semi-controllable abyssal magic bubbling within him. I looked at that as a solid role playing choice. Those who expect every single character to be fully optimized may be disdainful of such choices, but the fact that you dislike humans doesn't make them bad characters nor their players cheesy.

And were one of my players to sincerely do that, then as DM I would actively seek to make them more effective so they were on level with the optimizers. Because good role playing is rewarded at my table.

You'll also note, that I mentioned GWM as the feat. There are a handful of other feats that have been mentioned that would fit into the cheesy mindset of playing (i.e. are viewed as super powered compared to the majority of feats out there). I did not mention Magic Initiate, which I consider to be appropriately powered.

As I mentioned, I dislike humans. I find them boring and am eager to delve into an alien mindset (except for the elven mindset as I have an aversion to them. Call me bigoted... or just assume that my dwarven predilections are so deeply rooted that I can't embrace the mindset of prissy elves.) That said, I find it ridiculous that people embrace V Humans as overpowered. I stand firmly behind my stance that the rewards from most of the other races easily exceed that of +1 to two stats and a feat.

You don't even have to head to HElfs to trump them. Or Mtn Dwarfs. Just looking at a Hill Dwarf, you've got a lot of win over V human:

Speed: This is a mixed bag. 25' is weak but you also get to wear H Armour without any movement restrictions.
Darkvision: As the basis of this thread, I view this in and of itself as strong enough to trump the free feat. Yes there are ways of getting around dark vision, but this is an effort free, inexhaustible, resource free source of seeing in the dark. That's a win for me.
Dwarven Resilience: Poison is a very common source of damage. Even better the condition of being poisoned can be a real impediment. Access to this is a major boost. By itself possibly worth of being a feat.
Dwarven Combat Training: For martial classes this isn't a big deal. For casters, this can actually be useful. For the most part a ribbon ability.
Tool Proficiency: This is a ribbon ability... but who doesn't want their choice of proficiency in smithery or brewery?
Stonecunning: Seems like a ribbon ability, but I've had it reveal a LOT of information over many adventures I played in and DM'd.
+2 Con +1 Wis: Good stats to have bonuses in. You get 1 more than the V Human even if they get the freedom to choose where to put their bonuses. I'd argue it balances out. Half an ASI extra in good stats vs. the freedom to pick where to apply the bonuses.
Dwarven Toughness: A free +1 to hp... That in and of itself is half a feat (see tough). The fact that you can have this AND Tough turns you into a hp factory.

I don't consider V Humans to be cheesy in anything but the narrowest of mindsets. If anything I consider them to be impaired with a super specialization that benefits them for the first 4ish levels before the rest of the other races get a chance to catch up. Considering how quickly those early levels pass, I find it to be a poor exchange.
It's part of why I like to start my players at level 4-5. They're not so fragile. And they're better able to customize their characters. Once I did that, even the min maxers in my group stopped taking V Humans and went for other races (even the sub optimal Dragonborn is taken more frequently which isn't hard because... while V Humans were previously common, since the change they haven't been taken once).

[randomodo]

Okay, I'll buy that. And I agree on not starting at level 1 (at least other than for beginning players).

[Tanarii]

I completely agree. The problem with Darkvision in 5e is too many races have it, which means people get used to it. Since people are used to it, now they're convinced not having it means blindness in any environment darker than a cloudy day. It's handy, particularly on a sneaky character, but is it better than certain feats on, say, a Str Fighter with 10 Dex and no Stealth proficiency? How often would they succeed on their check?
Yup. Stealth is extremely useful to scouts ranging ahead by whatever distance the DM requires you to split the party, provided they have a way to communicate, and hastily retreat in case of trouble. And Darkvision is very useful to a scout, since generally speaking, any time you're trying to stay unlocated in the dark, light is a giveaway.

But for the party as a whole, light isn't as big problem nor Darkvision as needed. Not all outdoor or underground environments are wide open, so for a party with scouts out, it's usually not a big giveaway for a party engaging in an invasion of the adventuring site (aka "exploring"). The light isn't going to be noticeable until the PCs are within encounter distance anyway.

(Edit: to be clear, typically a scout wants to get into or closer than encounter distance unnoticed, then back off to report to the party. The party generally wants to rapidly close to encounter range, and annihilate the enemies the scout has located.)

[Specter]

A general tip for non-darkvision users: get yourself a bullseye lantern and find a way to strap it to yourself without using a hand. Then light it (preferably through the Light spell. That way, enemies with darkvision will need to at least get closer to understand what you are, whereas if you use a torch they can figure you out from miles away.

[Pex]

Why would you not take Stealth proficiency? 5E makes it virtually free of opportunity cost. You can just get it from your background, no matter WHAT your background is.

Stealth, Athletics (or Acrobatics if you're Dexy, although Athletics is better), and Perception are the trifecta of combat-desirable skills in 5E. If you don't take those, presumably it can only be because you're deliberately choosing (for roleplaying reasons) not to play a fully combat-effective character. E.g. maybe you want to play a scholar or a baker who just happens to get dragged on a lot of adventures. But in that case you're probably not going to be a trained Fighter.

Because other skills are more important by virtue of not everyone everywhere thinks Stealth is the god stat you must have it else don't even bother playing. You get a limited number of proficiencies and need to prioritize. You may also want to be wearing heavy armor and dumping DX so there's no point. You don't care you're not stealthy.

Some skills are more useful than others over the long run but none are absolutely necessary unless the DM says otherwise in session 0 because of campaign circumstances.


Okay, I'll buy that. And I agree on not starting at level 1 (at least other than for beginning players).

I wouldn't. I'd still consider playing a variant human and have two feats. Maybe I don't want to play a stereotype. If I want to play a monk, I don't always want to be playing a wood-elf as a requirement. Why must only half-elves and tieflings be warlocks? Racial abilities are set in stone. As a variant human I have versatility. I can be any class I want and have any feat I want and still have, in Point Buy, 16 in my prime and second prime, where I choose the prime and not the race. 4th level gives me the 18 or a second feat.

Of course, in this case the DM admits his bias against humans I probably wouldn't be playing because I'm not making choices he wants me to make.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A general tip for non-darkvision users: get yourself a bullseye lantern and find a way to strap it to yourself without using a hand. Then light it (preferably through the Light spell. That way, enemies with darkvision will need to at least get closer to understand what you are, whereas if you use a torch they can figure you out from miles away.

Put Light on your weapon and keep it sheathed until combat. Now you don't look like a nerd with a lantern strapped to his head and you can have a glowing weapon of whatever color you want, sure to strike fear into the hearts of your enemies.

For more versatility just hold a glowing pebble in your closed palm and drop/kick it at the start of combat.

You can even use that free feat on Magic Initiate (Wizard) to grab Light to make up for your lack of darkvision and still gain a first level spell and a second cantrip. Light, (your choice of damage cantrip) and Find Familiar sounds real nice.

It's not very hard to work around the lack of darkvision and it probably won't fall on you to scout ahead in the deep dark caves anyway.

[Angelalex242]

The vhuman Paladin gives no f*** about whether he sees in the dark, but that Heavy Armor Mastery taking 3 damage off every hit matters a lot. Then he goes into Sentinel and...well, he's a tank, not a sneaker. If the sneaky types want to go sneak, they can sneak without their heavily armored Paladin/Fighter/Cleric. Or their wizard, in most cases.

[GorogIrongut]

Of course, in this case the DM admits his bias against humans I probably wouldn't be playing because I'm not making choices he wants me to make.

I've admitted that I'm biased against V Humans and elves. I actually kind of like standard humans because they get +1 to each stat (even if they miss out on everything else). My biases are my own and don't affect my DM'ing. My last campaign, there were two Welves and a dragonborn. The former I am outright biased against. The latter I consider suboptimal. We still took it to 15 without any complaint.

If I only DM'ed for choices that I want my players to make, then I'd only have my players be the dnd equivalent of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (because... if you haven't guessed by now... I really like dwarves.)

As a DM, I'm fairly permissive. If a player wants to play a ranger but be a tiefling, I have no problem with them swapping their stat bonuses, as long as they can provide a good justification. Just like I have no problem with some being a flying tiefling, aarakocra, etc. My permissiveness is how I help balance out the party so that no one player is strongest in every situation, even with players who roleplay instead of optimizing. In the end, everyone comes out with a strong character and gets their moments of being awesome.

Which is why I'm so opinionated about V Human, because people make it out to be the ultimate in awesome sauce, when, as I've already expressed, I find it to be sub par with moments of uber specialization.

[ProsecutorGodot]

*snip*

But when a human wants to trade some of his stat bonuses for a feat that's munchkinny and boring? What if their idea of being strong and useful is to have Sentinel at level 1 to prevent the goblin scout from escaping and alerting the camp?

With everything you've said I can't help but believe that your bias is clearly leaking into your DMing.

It's not a bad thing as long as the people you're playing with are all okay with it but the fact that you'd look right at a player who wants to play a non darkvision race and say "My lighting rules are super realistic and you're going to get shot all the time because you can't see people" is as clear a sign of bias as a Dwarven Cleric being a good pal and casting Light on the human's sword is a sign of common sense.

Darkvision is also something a 4th or higher level wizard could cast for free on a short rest. A human warlock doesn't even need to cast Darkvision, he could leave your dwarves in the dust with his 120ft magical darkvision.

[Tetrasodium]

But when a human wants to trade some of his stat bonuses for a feat that's munchkinny and boring? What if their idea of being strong and useful is to have Sentinel at level 1 to prevent the goblin scout from escaping and alerting the camp?

With everything you've said I can't help but believe that your bias is clearly leaking into your DMing.

It's not a bad thing as long as the people you're playing with are all okay with it but the fact that you'd look right at a player who wants to play a non darkvision race and say "My lighting rules are super realistic and you're going to get shot all the time because you can't see people" is as clear a sign of bias as a Dwarven Cleric being a good pal and casting Light on the human's sword is a sign of common sense.

Darkvision is also something a 4th or higher level wizard could cast for free on a short rest. A human warlock doesn't even need to cast Darkvision, he could leave your dwarves in the dust with his 120ft magical darkvision.

except humans are very much over represented compared to other races . Look at the numbers in 538's breakdown (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) out of 13 races, a full quarter of the 100,000 characters in the dataset were human. depending on your group, the over-representation might be wildly obviousto the point of any nonhuman character looking like the token nonhuman

[Boci]

But when a human wants to trade some of his stat bonuses for a feat that's munchkinny and boring? What if their idea of being strong and useful is to have Sentinel at level 1 to prevent the goblin scout from escaping and alerting the camp?

As a DM I don't like that because I hate humans being special snowflakes that can have feats. I'm fine reworking humans to be competitive with what others, but I don't like that only way feat based concepts can work.

[DanyBallon]

As a DM I don't like that because I hate humans being special snowflakes that can have feats. I'm fine reworking humans to be competitive with what others, but I don't like that only way feat based concepts can work.

Humans in D&D are a shortlived, industruous ans versatile race. In 5e they decided to represent this through having +1 to every abilities, or, for those who use the feats options, they gave them a bonus skill, and a feat of their choice to represent this versatility (it’s also a throwback at humans from 3.P). It’s not about giving humans something cool because they are a special snowflake, it’s just the designers trying to keep the versatility theme of humans.

[Tetrasodium]

Humans in D&D are a shortlived, industruous ans versatile race. In 5e they decided to represent this through having +1 to every abilities, or, for those who use the feats options, they gave them a bonus skill, and a feat of their choice to represent this versatility (it’s also a throwback at humans from 3.P). It’s not about giving humans something cool because they are a special snowflake, it’s just the designers trying to keep the versatility theme of humans.

Yes, except very few of the other races have anything that compares with the leap you can pull out of that feat & almost none of them catapult the other races along racially tailored paths. at the end of the day humans are the only race that really defines a character concept (with that feat), a kobold moon druid can come close with advantage in wildshape, but one kobold moon druid is going to be pretty much the same as every other kobold moon druid & the inability to use heavy weapons drastically limits viable options opened by pack tactics. Goblin could likewise allow for some awesome stuff by practically getting a racial cunning action, but again the heavy weapons reduces its options... and those are some of the more standout nonhuman options

[Boci]

Humans in D&D are a shortlived, industruous ans versatile race. In 5e they decided to represent this through having +1 to every abilities, or, for those who use the feats options, they gave them a bonus skill, and a feat of their choice to represent this versatility (it’s also a throwback at humans from 3.P). It’s not about giving humans something cool because they are a special snowflake, it’s just the designers trying to keep the versatility theme of humans.

Its a mixture. Yes, I'm overstating for effect, and I doubt the designers wanted this to happen, but humans have longed a proper identity. "The adventure race" and "Potentially good at everything" are not strong cultural identities, and as a DM I dislike them on a player race.

[DanyBallon]

Yes, except very few of the other races have anything that compares with the leap you can pull out of that feat & almost none of them catapult the other races along racially tailored paths. at the end of the day humans are the only race that really defines a character concept (with that feat), a kobold moon druid can come close with advantage in wildshape, but one kobold moon druid is going to be pretty much the same as every other kobold moon druid & the inability to use heavy weapons drastically limits viable options opened by pack tactics. Goblin could likewise allow for some awesome stuff by practically getting a racial cunning action, but again the heavy weapons reduces its options... and those are some of the more standout nonhuman options

Again, your examples demonstrate that humans are more versatile. Also the inability to become really good into a specific area is a representation of the ingenuosity of humans.
Dwarves and elves become better craftsman, because they can spend more time perfectionning their art, but humans Manage to create empires that will rise and fall during the same time.

That some players use a mechanic that was put there to reflect what humans are in D&D to exploit the system is a different matter.

[DanyBallon]

Its a mixture. Yes, I'm overstating for effect, and I doubt the designers wanted this to happen, but humans have longed a proper identity. "The adventure race" and "Potentially good at everything" are not strong cultural identities, and as a DM I dislike them on a player race.

Agreed, but how do you want to give a strong identity to a race that is supposed to be the most numerous and diverse upon the lands? If we look only at Forgotten Realms, what trait would you give to represent both Northeners, Cormyrians, Amnish, etc.?

Saying that humans are versatile to represent the diversity of the different nations is pretty decent in my opinion.

The other races being less numerous are easier to fit into a stereotype, like grumpy dwarven fighter or brash half-orc barbarian, but the game system still allow you to play a dwarven wizard or an half-orc bard if you wish.

[Boci]

Agreed, but how do you want to give a strong identity to a race that is supposed to be the most numerous and diverse upon the lands? If we look only at Forgotten Realms, what trait would you give to represent both Northeners, Cormyrians, Amnish, etc.?

Subraces could work well for that. Alternativly, humans could stop being the most numerous and diverse race by default? I know Forgotten Realms will always be a huge part of D&D, but the core rules don't need to cater to that.

Ultiumatly, a race cane become the most numberous and diverse in a world largely independant of the default racial states (as long as they don't have obvious regional specific weaknesses like light sensativity). Presumably culture starts counting more than the indevidual somewhere along the line.

[Tetrasodium]

Again, your examples demonstrate that humans are more versatile. Also the inability to become really good into a specific area is a representation of the ingenuosity of humans.
Dwarves and elves become better craftsman, because they can spend more time perfectionning their art, but humans Manage to create empires that will rise and fall during the same time.

That some players use a mechanic that was put there to reflect what humans are in D&D to exploit the system is a different matter.

Okay... what about an elf or dwarf $InsertClass screams "perfected art" or "amazing craftsman" on a mechanical level on par with starting with a variant human $insertClass being able to catapult out of the gate with sentinel/PsAM/GWM/warcaster/etc?.... absolutely nothing.



Subraces could work well for that. Alternativly, humans could stop being the most numerous and diverse race by default? I know Forgotten Realms will always be a huge part of D&D, but the core rules don't need to cater to that.

Ultimately, a race cane become the most numberous and diverse in a world largely independant of the default racial states (as long as they don't have obvious regional specific weaknesses like light sensativity). Presumably culture starts counting more than the individual somewhere along the line.
Pointing at the core rules for races not needing to line up with FR is a good example. In eberron for example, goblinoids & elves are very warrior culture with different secondary traits (good of the clan & ancestor worship respectively). Not only that, but elves were enslaved by the most advanced empire ever & goblinoids later build an advanced continent spanning empire with levels of technology that the human dominated empire have yet to match in certain areas. Not only that, some of the most advanced stuff (ie airships & the creation forges used to create warforged) was blatantly stolen by gnomes from the drow in the case of elemental binding for airships and just found by someone where the giants left it in the case of the creation forge. The elves of valenar & goblin(oid)s of darguun were significantly more elite than human armies. That says nothing about the deep & intense emotions that orcs have to make them such great candidates as druids & such or any number of other racial things.

The problem is not "humans are blahblah" but that nothing else holds a candle to it when you get down to it.

[DanyBallon]

Subraces could work well for that. Alternativly, humans could stop being the most numerous and diverse race by default? I know Forgotten Realms will always be a huge part of D&D, but the core rules don't need to cater to that.

Ultiumatly, a race cane become the most numberous and diverse in a world largely independant of the default racial states (as long as they don't have obvious regional specific weaknesses like light sensativity). Presumably culture starts counting more than the indevidual somewhere along the line.

I agree, but standard D&D defines humans as a race that while they came later than some other races, their short longivity, combined with their versatility and ingenuosity, let them conquered the world. The same as dwarves being described as a stern hardworking race, tough as the rock they lives in. And elves are described as long lived gracious creatures that favors nature and beauty, and that understand magic like no one else.

Those are the standard sets for D&D from its earliest editions. And it’s what the core rules try to codify.

If you don’t want to use the standard, feel free to do so. As Tetrasodium showed us, Eberron ditched the D&D standard backstory to creates it’s own and it worked very well. The same for Darksun, but those are very specific settings that are farther from the D&D standard as described and codify in the PHB.
I can’t say for Eberron, but in the case of Darksun, the all races had their abilities and features changed to fit the setting backstory.

And in regards of the immediate boost provided by feats, I don't see it a problem compared to a +2 (or sometimes 2x +2) in ability score, being almost immune to poison or magical sleep, or getting a bonus HP every level, or having a breath attack (a weak one though). And we need to remember that access to a feat at 1st level, is there to represent the versatily of the D&D human race, and it is assume that not every Human character will pick PAM, Warcaster, Resilient or GWM as their 1st feat.

[Specter]

Put Light on your weapon and keep it sheathed until combat. Now you don't look like a nerd with a lantern strapped to his head and you can have a glowing weapon of whatever color you want, sure to strike fear into the hearts of your enemies.

For more versatility just hold a glowing pebble in your closed palm and drop/kick it at the start of combat.

You can even use that free feat on Magic Initiate (Wizard) to grab Light to make up for your lack of darkvision and still gain a first level spell and a second cantrip. Light, (your choice of damage cantrip) and Find Familiar sounds real nice.

It's not very hard to work around the lack of darkvision and it probably won't fall on you to scout ahead in the deep dark caves anyway.

If you're okay with not seeing anything until the combat starts, then sure, you can cast it at a weapon.

Casting Light or Dancing Lights has nothing to do with 'overcoming' the lack of darkvision: you're still making the party a bullseye from far away, and if you want to use it after you spot an enemy it will cost you an action. Dancing Lights is a bit better in the sense that you can direct the light, but it still doesn't compare to not needing any light.


And in regards of the immediate boost provided by feats, I don't see it a problem compared to a +2 (or sometimes 2x +2) in ability score, being almost immune to poison or magical sleep, or getting a bonus HP every level, or having a breath attack (a weak one though). And we need to remember that access to a feat at 1st level, is there to represent the versatily of the D&D human race, and it is assume that not every Human character will pick PAM, Warcaster, Resilient or GWM as their 1st feat.

The Human benefit is very significant at low levels, and then it's whatever at higher levels when everyone has boosted the stats they want.

[Tetrasodium]

If you're okay with not seeing anything until the combat starts, then sure, you can cast it at a weapon.

Casting Light or Dancing Lights has nothing to do with 'overcoming' the lack of darkvision: you're still making the party a bullseye from far away, and if you want to use it after you spot an enemy it will cost you an action. Dancing Lights is a bit better in the sense that you can direct the light, but it still doesn't compare to not needing any light.
Let's be honest most characters don't need to see until the combat starts be they are not the spotty mcspotter rogue or whatever.
If the combat to be requires them to see on the charge up, the dark vision having group members will probably eat the light's illumination or make allowance for it that does not really cost anything like "put your hand on their shoulder and follow".

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you're okay with not seeing anything until the combat starts, then sure, you can cast it at a weapon.

Casting Light or Dancing Lights has nothing to do with 'overcoming' the lack of darkvision: you're still making the party a bullseye from far away, and if you want to use it after you spot an enemy it will cost you an action. Dancing Lights is a bit better in the sense that you can direct the light, but it still doesn't compare to not needing any light.
We've been over why this is untrue, unless you're the scout there's no true necessity for you to be able to see in darkness outside of combat, assuming you don't mind being kept in the dark and herded around like a dog on a leash. Keeping the light covered outside of combat is a common strategy, it's even available in non magic form in hooded lanterns.

Also it's very important to note that dropping and kicking a pebble does not take an action and drawing a sword already alight does not take an action. Preparation is key. With the spell lasting an hour you've got no excuse to not have it already cast before you go into the darkness.

Everyone in the party doesn't need to see in the dark, just the character who should be spotting things best and even that character needs light (or a feat) to not have disadvantage in sight based perception.

[DanyBallon]

The Human benefit is very significant at low levels, and then it's whatever at higher levels when everyone has boosted the stats they want.

V. Humans get +1 in two different stats, a bonus skill, and a feat. How is it that getting a feat at 1st level is so much better to over shadow;


Dwarves that gets +2 in CON, an ability that benefits everyone, +1 (hill) or +2 (mountain) to another ability, resistance to poison a type of damage that is common at low and high level, tool proficiency and stonecunning, which are similar to the V. Human bonus skill, Darkvision (on which utility we are debating), and finally a bonus feature from the sub-race; +1 HP for Hill dwarves and light and medium armor for Mountain dwarves.
Elves that gets +2 in DEX, which again is an ability that benefits to almost everyone, +1 in another ability, advantage on Saves vs being charmed, and immunity to magical sleep, Darkvision, Proficiency with Perception, and either a cantrip, or a faster base speed and being able to hide more easily.
Haflings that gets +2 in DEX (see above), Lucky that let you reroll all 1s, advantage vs being frightened, +1 in another ability (CHA or CON) and either being able to hide more easily, or having the same poison resistance as dwarves.


As far as I see this, having an early access to a feat is not so much a powerup. The only difference, is that you get to pick your powerup, which thematically fits the versatility aspect of D&D humans.

[Pex]

Variant Human is optional because technically feats are optional. They go together.

A feat equals +2 to an ability score or +1 to two ability scores.

Half elf: +2 CH and +1 to two ability scores of choice. That right there is +2 CH and a feat worth of stuff. The half-elf gets proficiency in 2 skills of choice. The variant human gets only 1. The half-elf is now a skill proficiency and +2 CH ahead of variant human. Half elf gets Elvish and one extra language. Now the half-elf is ahead by +2 CH, a skill proficiency, and Elvish. The half-elf also gets darkvision, advantage on saves vs charm, and immunity to magical sleep.

Where are all the rants about banning half-elves?

[Tanarii]

V. Humans get +1 in two different stats, a bonus skill, and a feat. How is it that getting a feat at 1st level is so much better to over shadow;
Because it does. A feat at 1st level is generally more powerful than all other non-stat class features, including Darkvision, combined. They're that powerful at that level.


Where are all the rants about banning half-elves?You haven't being paying attention if you haven't seen them.

[Boci]

Variant Human is optional because technically feats are optional. They go together.

A feat equals +2 to an ability score or +1 to two ability scores.

Half elf: +2 CH and +1 to two ability scores of choice. That right there is +2 CH and a feat worth of stuff. The half-elf gets proficiency in 2 skills of choice. The variant human gets only 1. The half-elf is now a skill proficiency and +2 CH ahead of variant human. Half elf gets Elvish and one extra language. Now the half-elf is ahead by +2 CH, a skill proficiency, and Elvish. The half-elf also gets darkvision, advantage on saves vs charm, and immunity to magical sleep.

Where are all the rants about banning half-elves?

Half-elves generally aren't going to make or break a charactercept mechanically. Yes, what the race offers is very good, but any half-elf character would, whilst weaker, still be functional as a regular human. By contrast, if your character concept needs a feat at level one to work, vuman is literally the only way to do it. Which to some people, like me, is bad game design.

[GorogIrongut]

Diminish the strength of Lucky, GWM, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, Polearm Master, etc. and this whole thread would be moot. There are certain feats that grant an extra level of functionality that many find appealing and dare I say, character defining. I personally have no problem with a feat being character defining... as that's what we all as players are trying to do. To make our characters cool and interesting.

I've yet to see an argument that convinces me that the V Human feat outpaces the abilities of most non human races... including dark vision. That said, that level of specialization/min-maxing can appeal to players. Just don't tell me that it makes a stronger character. There's a reason all my players stopped taking V Human as a race once we moved to starting our games at level 4-5.

If it were up to me, I'd bring the strength of all feats into line with one another and then reduce it by half of what it is now. Then, when a player levelled up and got an ASI, I'd let them have one of the new, weaker feats as well as the +2 to stats. That way the character progresses in their stats as well as getting that character defining customization that we all crave.

[mephnick]

You haven't being paying attention if you haven't seen them.

I'm responsible for many of them!

[ProsecutorGodot]

Half-elves generally aren't going to make or break a charactercept mechanically. Yes, what the race offers is very good, but any half-elf character would, whilst weaker, still be functional as a regular human. By contrast, if your character concept needs a feat at level one to work, vuman is literally the only way to do it. Which to some people, like me, is bad game design.

I don't think there's any character concept that requires the feat at level 1, it just turns those concepts online sooner.

Half-Elves are pretty overtuned though, and they don't even need a variant rule to end up being that way.

[Boci]

Diminish the strength of Lucky, GWM, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, Polearm Master, etc. and this whole thread would be moot. There are certain feats that grant an extra level of functionality that many find appealing and dare I say, character defining. I personally have no problem with a feat being character defining... as that's what we all as players are trying to do. To make our characters cool and interesting.

There's nothing wrong with feats being character defining, no, if they weren't, feats would be rather pointless. But when feats are character defining and only one of the 9 races can start with them, that becomes problomatic.


I don't think there's any character concept that requires the feat at level 1, it just turns those concepts online sooner.

"Come online" and "required" are pretty similar. If only one of the nine races allows a character concept to come online 4 levels sooner, that's problematic, for me at least.

[DanyBallon]

Half-elves generally aren't going to make or break a charactercept mechanically. Yes, what the race offers is very good, but any half-elf character would, whilst weaker, still be functional as a regular human. By contrast, if your character concept needs a feat at level one to work, vuman is literally the only way to do it. Which to some people, like me, is bad game design.

How does a feat is necessary to fill you character concept? Feats helps you get additionnal perks to enhance your concept, but they aren't a necessity at all.
You don't need PAM to wield a Polearm, nor GWM to be effective with a two-handed weapon, neither Warcaster to be a sword and board spellcaster. But those who have have a knack, or became better over time and can now perfom deeds that a normal character can't. Just as a character concept can evolve only through only taking ASI.

As a D&D Human character, there's no way for me to pick resistance to poison, having Darkvision, being immune to sleep, and have better chance vs bieng charmed, except through magic, and magic have a cost. This cost (monetary or through taking a spellcasting class) is a hindrance to my character concept.

If you want to blame the designer for bad game design, blame that they created a few feats that are just too good for optimizer to pass on.

[Boci]

How does a feat is necessary to fill you character concept? Feats helps you get additionnal perks to enhance your concept, but they aren't a necessity at all.
You don't need PAM to wield a Polearm, nor GWM to be effective with a two-handed weapon, neither Warcaster to be a sword and board spellcaster. But those who have have a knack, or became better over time and can now perfom deeds that a normal character can't. Just as a character concept can evolve only through only taking ASI.

No, but they make you better at it. Immunity to sleep, poison resistance, don't make you a better a polarm user or caster who uses weapons too, or really any character concept (beyond being positive traits any character would benefit from having).

Darkvision yes, that can be required/very important, but its not unique to one race.

To be clear I don't think regular humans are a good race, I do want them to be redesigned to compare better with the other options. Just, not by giving them a feat.


If you want to blame the designer for bad game design, blame that they created a few feats that are just too good for optimizer to pass on.

True, that is an issue too, but I also don't like how the core rules presents humans as a race fluffwise.

[DanyBallon]

No, but they make you better at it. Immunity to sleep, poison resistance, don't make you a better a polarm user or caster who uses weapons too, or really any character concept (beyond being positive traits any character would benefit from having).

Darkvision yes, that can be required/very important, but its not unique to one race.

To be clear I don't think regular humans are a good race, I do want them to be redesigned to compare better with the other options. Just, not by giving them a feat.



True, that is an issue too, but I also don't like how the core rules presents humans as a race fluffwise.

Everyone can be the target of a sleep effect, or dealt poison damage. These resistance/immunity, makes you better, the same as a V. Human that take the Alert feat, will often act before during combat, or another that took Actor, will be able to impersonnate someone else, or sway the mood of a crowd.

I'd really like to see what kind of design that you have in mind for humans that reflect the D&D standard (versatile, ingenuous, adaptable, shortlived and trying to do the most of the small time they have)?

[Boci]

Everyone can be the target of a sleep effect, or dealt poison damage.

Right. And I said it was useful? But it doesn't make you better at your character concept specifically. You're not better at wielding the polearm or blencing two weapons and magic.


I'd really like to see what kind of design that you have in mind for humans that reflect the D&D standard (versatile, ingenuous, adaptable, shortlived and trying to do the most of the small time they have)?

You're assuming I like that identity. "versatile, ingenuous, adaptable" is basically a place holder for "we have no idea what this races identity is" or "this race doesn't have a culture" with fits a half-breed rather well, who would not feel at home in either their mother or their father's world and so would choose the open road. Half-elf are much better fits for the title "the adventuring race" than humans. Short lived doesn't work either, because humans live longer than plenty of other core races.

But sure, if that's what we have to work with, regular human, plus they get their choice of resilience, weapon master or maybe something else, I'd need top check. Another idea I tried but wasn't convinced worked was that humans got a point of inspiration automatically after finishing a long rest.

[DanyBallon]

Right. And I said it was useful? But it doesn't make you better at your character concept specifically. You're not better at wielding the polearm or blencing two weapons and magic.
What about a concept where you want your character to be sturdier and able to eat/drink almost anything, or a character that suffered from someone close that was charmed, and want to prevent such a thing happen to him? Character concept are not the exclusiveness of combat prowess.



You're assuming I like that identity. "versatile, ingenuous, adaptable" is basically a place holder for "we have no idea what this races identity is" or "this race doesn't have a culture" with fits a half-breed rather well, who would not feel at home in either their mother or their father's world and so would choose the open road. Half-elf are much better fits for the title "the adventuring race" than humans. Short lived doesn't work either, because humans live longer than plenty of other core races.
You realise, that what you don't like is the core identity of humans in D&D from the very beginning of the game? That you don't like it is one thing, saying it's bad design because it doesn't fit your expectation, is completely something else! It is as if you were saying that giving dwarves a+2 to CON is bad design, because believe that dwarves should be dextrous instead of sturdy as it is in D&D lore!

[Boci]

What about a concept where you want your character to be sturdier and able to eat/drink almost anything, or a character that suffered from someone close that was charmed, and want to prevent such a thing happen to him? Character concept are not the exclusiveness of combat prowess.

That's not a character concept, that's a character trait. "Polarm mastery" and "duel wielding caster" gives a pretty good idea of what the character's basic abilities are going to look like. "able to eat/drink almost anything" and "suffered from someone close that was charmed" don't tell you much about the character as a whole.

Plus you already cannot do that by the rules, so my house rules change nothing.


You realise, that what you don't like is the core identity of humans in D&D from the very beginning of the game? That you don't like it is one thing, saying it's bad design because it doesn't fit your expectation, is completely something else! It is as if you were saying that giving dwarves a+2 to CON is bad design, because believe that dwarves should be dextrous instead of sturdy as it is in D&D lore!

That's not the same at all. Humans have lazy fluff. The fact that this has been this way since the beginning doesn't change it. If every race other than humans is a stereotype, humans should be a stereotype too, that a DM is then free to embrace, subvert or outright ignore in their own personal world. That's good design. Bad design is making humans a poorly explained default race for no other reasons other than we're humans.

[DanyBallon]

That's not a character concept, that's a character trait. "Polarm mastery" and "duel wielding caster" gives a pretty good idea of what the character's basic abilities are going to look like. "able to eat/drink almost anything" and "suffered from someone close that was charmed" don't tell you much about the character as a whole.

Plus you already cannot do that by the rules, so my house rules change nothing.

A character concept is what defines your character. Wanting that your character be a heavy drinker that can out drink everyone else and don’t get drunk because poison resistance is as much a concept as someone who wants to be a polearm master. The difference, is that in order to get resistance to poison, you either need a natural restance like dwarves, or use magic, while as for being a polearm master, you only need to be proficient in polearms and wield one, and boost you STR score. PAM just gives you new tricks to enhance your concept.



That's not the same at all. Humans have lazy fluff. The fact that this has been this way since the beginning doesn't change it. If every race other than humans is a stereotype, humans should be a stereotype too, that a DM is then free to embrace, subvert or outright ignore in their own personal world. That's good design. Bad design is making humans a poorly explained default race for no other reasons other than we're humans.
It’s not lazy fluff, it’s the D&D stereotype. In ODD, humans were the only allowed to take levels in one of the four existing classes. Later they came up with races as classes. In 2e, you could play every classes as long as you had the minimum requierements, and didn’t have any level cap, you could as well dual class forever if you wished and had the class requierements, while other races where limited in ther multiclassimg options. In 3.P humans, got more skills, and a bonus feat. I don’t know for 4e, and in 5e they either have +1 in every ability scores, or get a feat and a bonus skill. Seems like we have a stereotype about humans being versatile...
But like you said, as a DM you can aleays change it if you don’t like it, but it’s not a bad design like you pretend it is.

[Boci]

But like you said, as a DM you can aleays change it if you don’t like it, but it’s not a bad design like you pretend it is.

It is bad design. "Versatile" is not an identity for a traditional community based culture, nor it is a cultural stereotype. Its the complete opposite of a cultural stereotype. Its the school child who when told they can only have one super power picks "Everything".

[DanyBallon]

It is bad design. "Versatile" is not an identity for a traditional community based culture, nor it is a cultural stereotype. Its the complete opposite of a cultural stereotype. Its the school child who when told they can only have one super power picks "Everything".

Versatile is a perfect descriptive for a race that is known to have many cultures, and the major common traits between these cultures is that they adapt easily and are up to try themselves against wide variety of task. That's what the race is as a whole.
Could the designers have try to create broad subraces as Northeners, Desert dwellers, Jungle tribesmen, Metropolis citizen, farmsteaders, or Easterners? They could have, but let's face it, creating stereotypes for such categories, would first be based on the real world ethnicities, and would be very risky to offense a specific group. By taking giving a stereotype for the race as a whole, they prevent all the possible juridic issues, and by assigning versatile as a defining trait to humans, it allow players to emulate real world ethnicities just as well.

[Boci]

Versatile is a perfect descriptive, for a race that is known to have many cultures

Right. And having humans be that race hurts world building. It means humans are very often the default race, not because the DM intended that, but because they were just using the default fluff of the rule books.


Could the designers have try to create broad subraces as Northeners, Desert dwellers, Jungle tribesmen, Metropolis citizen, farmsteaders, or Easterners? They could have, but let's face it, creating stereotypes for such categories, would first be based on the real world ethnicities

No it wouldn't. Humans are survivors, their racial bonuses relate to passing saving throws. There, a definiting trait, not too restrictive but not the current "humans could be anything".

[Errata]

It is bad design. "Versatile" is not an identity for a traditional community based culture, nor it is a cultural stereotype. Its the complete opposite of a cultural stereotype. Its the school child who when told they can only have one super power picks "Everything".

There are other roleplaying games. If you think such fundamental pillars of this game are wrong, maybe it's not the game for you. D&D humans are versatile. You're not going to convince people that it's wrong for that to be the case.

We've heard variously that humans are brokenly underpowered, because you're constantly in an open field in the dark surrounded by evil moths who will swarm any source of light, and that humans are brokenly overpowered because they can get a feat. The fact is that they are neither. They are the most commonly chosen race, and have enduring popularity among newbies and optimizers alike, so they aren't underpowered, no matter how many times you tell us that you can't play any race without darkvision. Yet even as the most common race, it's chosen less than half the time, and the other Tolkien races are all very common too, and there are reasonable arguments about how other races can be far better for certain builds than just 1 feat. Humans being versatile suit a lot of different builds, but it doesn't mean they are overwhelmingly better than the second choice at them, and certainly not all of them. Humans being a common choice is not a problem at all, but a positive feature of game design. In a game universe where humans are supposed to be extremely common, it would be poor game design if they were only useful in minor niches and the uncommon races overwhelmed them among PCs.

[Tetrasodium]

How does a feat is necessary to fill you character concept? Feats helps you get additionnal perks to enhance your concept, but they aren't a necessity at all.
You don't need PAM to wield a Polearm, nor GWM to be effective with a two-handed weapon, neither Warcaster to be a sword and board spellcaster. But those who have have a knack, or became better over time and can now perfom deeds that a normal character can't. Just as a character concept can evolve only through only taking ASI.

As a D&D Human character, there's no way for me to pick resistance to poison, having Darkvision, being immune to sleep, and have better chance vs bieng charmed, except through magic, and magic have a cost. This cost (monetary or through taking a spellcasting class) is a hindrance to my character concept.

If you want to blame the designer for bad game design, blame that they created a few feats that are just too good for optimizer to pass on.
show me a character concept other than "stealthy "scout for the nightblind *and/or noisy ones 3 rooms back" where resistance to poison, being immune to sleep/resist charm etc wil have the same night & day difference as wielding a pole arm with PAM, being a caster with warcaster, being a high damage melee with sentinel, etc? The problem is not that the feat is OP, the problem is that basically none of the other races have any benefits on that level where you see class guides say things like "Obviously high-elf is your best choice because of that cantrip" is something you will never see. Nor will you ever see "you really want your assassin to be a dwarf because advantage on the con saves if you fail applying poison to your weapon is just too helpful"


you start looking at the class guides, you will almost always have some races that are called out as a terrible fit for the class(ie high elf barbarian, orc wizard, etc), but you will never see a human called out as anythying but a decent choice at worst & usually one of if not the best choices. If variant humans are only called out as a good choice because the guide does not comsider feats to be important enough to elevate it once more.... you can be certain to see people complaining that variant human is undervalued by only being a dark blue good/safe/ok choice.




No, but they make you better at it. Immunity to sleep, poison resistance, don't make you a better a polarm user or caster who uses weapons too, or really any character concept (beyond being positive traits any character would benefit from having). If

Darkvision yes, that can be required/very important, but its not unique to one race.

To be clear I don't think regular humans are a good race, I do want them to be redesigned to compare better with the other options. Just, not by giving them a feat.


True, that is an issue too, but I also don't like how the core rules presents humans as a race fluffwise.

While I agree that the feat is lazy, the problem is not so much that Variant human is so ,much better than the other races as the fact that none of the other races hold a candle to vwhat ariant human brings to the table. The few that could stand on even footing like goblin/kobold/mountain dwarf/etc are hobbled by vision penalties, an inability to use heavy weapons, or in the case of mountain dwarf's medium armor an ability that is almost universally granted by any class that fits so well with the other racial abilities that it makes the race a clear winner (ie mountain dwarf barbarian for the hp & such is awesome, mountain dwarf wizard for the medium armor... not so much)




Everyone can be the target of a sleep effect, or dealt poison damage. These resistance/immunity, makes you better, the same as a V. Human that take the Alert feat, will often act before during combat, or another that took Actor, will be able to impersonnate someone else, or sway the mood of a crowd.

I'd really like to see what kind of design that you have in mind for humans that reflect the D&D standard (versatile, ingenuous, adaptable, shortlived and trying to do the most of the small time they have)?

The problem is that races are given abilities that sum up to being about as valuable as a feat. variant human by comparison gets to pick any one feat that perfectly fits their character concept & gets it off the ground 4 levels sooner. Kobbolds have one of the single greatest racial abilities (pack tactics), but small size, daylight sensitivity & an inabiliuty to use it with heavy weapons limits their awesome where you can sidestep one or more of those things (ie a moon druid wildshapes to lose daylight sensitivity & gain heavy weapon equivalent natural weapons). you will never find a guide talking about how variant human would be incredible if only it was not hamstrung because the only penalty they have (nightblindness) is trivially so easy to sidestep that the default assumption is that no explanation of it is needed... and that assumes you ever need to sidestep it. For an extreme example, compare the half orc to the full blooded orc to see what happens when you add a dash of human to the core race. Half elf is in a similar boat to elf, but at least the full elf subraces are good on their own & better in their own ways while the full orc is like the base race where they forgot to include a page with the orc subraces.





What about a concept where you want your character to be sturdier and able to eat/drink almost anything, or a character that suffered from someone close that was charmed, and want to prevent such a thing happen to him? Character concept are not the exclusiveness of combat prowess.

those are traits not concepts. Short of a darksun type setting where the water is probably poisoned & you are lucky to find enough food to eat today & already making plans for what you are going to eat tomorrow, that poison resistance is barely notable.

[Boci]

There are other roleplaying games. If you think such fundamental pillars of this game are wrong, maybe it's not the game for you. D&D humans are versatile. You're not going to convince people that it's wrong for that to be the case.

I didn't say its wrong, I said it was bad. If you think nothing about D&D is bad, you're lying to yourself. You're allowed to like and play a game whilst still thinking some aspects of the design are bad. And humans being versatile is hardly a fundamental pillar to the game. Its easily changed and people tend not to complain when you do.

[DanyBallon]

Right. And having humans be that race hurts world building. It means humans are very often the default race, not because the DM intended that, but because they were just using the default fluff of the rule books.



No it wouldn't. Humans are survivors, their racial bonuses relate to passing saving throws. There, a definiting trait, not too restrictive but not the current "humans could be anything".

Your idea about humans being survivors is great, but unfortunately is not the human stereotype that D&D had since it beginning. The lore of D&D assumes that Humans are the default race, and the core books through D&D history reflects that.
You may not like it, and you are perfectly right if you don't like it. But it's not a bad design because you don't like it. I don't like Bard being full spellcasters, as I see them more scoundrel and storyteller, but D&D bard are spellcasters so be it. Because I don't like them, doesn't mean their design is bad, it just don't appeal to me as much as it could.
If you don't like so much the lore behind D&D humans, homebrew them, or just don't use them. The same I can change the bard class, or decide to change dwarves to have them being dextrous instead of the strudy folk of D&D lore.

[Boci]

You may not like it, and you are perfectly right if you don't like it. But it's not a bad design because you don't like it.

Yeah it isn't. It might be bad though if it hurts world building creativity by promoting humans as the default race rather than letting DMs choose which race they want to be the default one in their setting, which is what I actualled argued.

[Luccan]

Your idea about humans being survivors is great, but unfortunately is not the human stereotype that D&D had since it beginning. The lore of D&D assumes that Humans are the default race, and the core books through D&D history reflects that.
You may not like it, and you are perfectly right if you don't like it. But it's not a bad design because you don't like it. I don't like Bard being full spellcasters, as I see them more scoundrel and storyteller, but D&D bard are spellcasters so be it. Because I don't like them, doesn't mean their design is bad, it just don't appeal to me as much as it could.
If you don't like so much the lore behind D&D humans, homebrew them, or just don't use them. The same I can change the bard class, or decide to change dwarves to have them being dextrous instead of the strudy folk of D&D lore.

Although I would argue Bards are one of the most well designed classes and default humans could use a bit of a boost (especially since Half-Elves stole their skill niche for some reason), I basically agree with this. Not liking them is one thing. Having bad design is an argument that has to be supported by facts.

For instance: Default human assumes most characters will benefit from a boost to all stats. While this is true to a limited degree (higher stats are always better no matter what), most character need three decent to high stats at most. And since that's all humans get, their versatility isn't displayed with that. What's displayed is that they're slightly better than most races at any given task, but not better at another race's specialization. More jack-of-all-trades than a collectively versatile people. Contrast with V. Human, who pick two stats to boost, get a free skill, and a feat. That speaks of versatility that allows humans to specialize in any attribute easily, while also branching out on their skills, and potentially further branching out or becoming uniquely specialized via a feat.

[DanyBallon]

show me a character concept other than "stealthy "scout for the nightblind *and/or noisy ones 3 rooms back" where resistance to poison, being immune to sleep/resist charm etc wil have the same night & day difference as wielding a pole arm with PAM, being a caster with warcaster, being a high damage melee with sentinel, etc? The problem is not that the feat is OP, the problem is that basically none of the other races have any benefits on that level where you see class guides say things like "Obviously high-elf is your best choice because of that cantrip" is something you will never see. Nor will you ever see "you really want your assassin to be a dwarf because advantage on the con saves if you fail applying poison to your weapon is just too helpful"


you start looking at the class guides, you will almost always have some races that are called out as a terrible fit for the class(ie high elf barbarian, orc wizard, etc), but you will never see a human called out as anythying but a decent choice at worst & usually one of if not the best choices. If variant humans are only called out as a good choice because the guide does not comsider feats to be important enough to elevate it once more.... you can be certain to see people complaining that variant human is undervalued by only being a dark blue good/safe/ok choice.


While I agree that the feat is lazy, the problem is not so much that Variant human is so ,much better than the other races as the fact that none of the other races hold a candle to vwhat ariant human brings to the table. The few that could stand on even footing like goblin/kobold/mountain dwarf/etc are hobbled by vision penalties, an inability to use heavy weapons, or in the case of mountain dwarf's medium armor an ability that is almost universally granted by any class that fits so well with the other racial abilities that it makes the race a clear winner (ie mountain dwarf barbarian for the hp & such is awesome, mountain dwarf wizard for the medium armor... not so much)


The problem is that races are given abilities that sum up to being about as valuable as a feat. variant human by comparison gets to pick any one feat that perfectly fits their character concept & gets it off the ground 4 levels sooner. Kobbolds have one of the single greatest racial abilities (pack tactics), but small size, daylight sensitivity & an inabiliuty to use it with heavy weapons limits their awesome where you can sidestep one or more of those things (ie a moon druid wildshapes to lose daylight sensitivity & gain heavy weapon equivalent natural weapons). you will never find a guide talking about how variant human would be incredible if only it was not hamstrung because the only penalty they have (nightblindness) is trivially so easy to sidestep that the default assumption is that no explanation of it is needed... and that assumes you ever need to sidestep it. For an extreme example, compare the half orc to the full blooded orc to see what happens when you add a dash of human to the core race. Half elf is in a similar boat to elf, but at least the full elf subraces are good on their own & better in their own ways while the full orc is like the base race where they forgot to include a page with the orc subraces.


those are traits not concepts. Short of a darksun type setting where the water is probably poisoned & you are lucky to find enough food to eat today & already making plans for what you are going to eat tomorrow, that poison resistance is barely notable.

First I must say that IMO guides are a waste of time, because they tend to focus only on the combat aspect of the game and evaluate everything in this regard, also outside of PAM, GWM, SS, Warcaster and a few other feats, they considers feats a waste of ressources. So when you talk about how high V. Human rank in many guides, it doesn't prove anything outside that they are effectively a versatile bunch.

Next, you seems to be mistaken on what a character concept is. A character concept is how you want your character to be. A human knght in shiny armor, is a character concept, a lady death elven assassin is an other. Taking the PAM feat is not a character concept. In fact PAM only enforce a polearm user character concept.

Lastly, on the Darkvision topic, not being able to see in the dark is not such a big deal, mostly because even races with darkvision needs a light source if they want to be effective. Also, spells or items as the lantern had been created to allow a light source, while keeping to a minimum the possibility to be noticed.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah it isn't. It might be bad though if it hurts world building creativity by promoting humans as the default race rather than letting DMs choose which race they want to be the default one in their setting, which is what I actualled argued.

Humans have always been the default race through out D&D history, and it never prevent anyone from selecting an other race as the default race in their home game. And in many settings (or even other RPGs) humans are the default, mostly because we are all human being and it is easier to project ourselves in a human character, even one that can cast fireball from the tip of his finger. :smallwink:

[Boci]

Humans have always been the default race through out D&D history, and it never prevent anyone from selecting an other race as the default race in their home game. And in many settings (or even other RPGs) humans are the default, mostly because we are all human being and it is easier to project ourselves in a human character, even one that can cast fireball from the tip of his finger. :smallwink:

We don't need it made easier though, because of the very joke you immediatly make. And nothingis stopping the DM from chosing an alternate, except for the fact that it would mean going against the core rules suggests, which not everyone will think of doing. If humans aren't the default race by the core books and the DM selects as being so, we know its because they wat to. But if the DM has humans as the default race now, that might be just because its what the rule book says, and however slightly the world they created could be poorer for it.

[Tetrasodium]

First I must say that IMO guides are a waste of time, because they tend to focus only on the combat aspect of the game and evaluate everything in this regard, also outside of PAM, GWM, SS, Warcaster and a few other feats, they considers feats a waste of ressources. So when you talk about how high V. Human rank in many guides, it doesn't prove anything outside that they are effectively a versatile bunch.

Next, you seems to be mistaken on what a character concept is. A character concept is how you want your character to be. A human knght in shiny armor, is a character concept, a lady death elven assassin is an other. Taking the PAM feat is not a character concept. In fact PAM only enforce a polearm user character concept.

Lastly, on the Darkvision topic, not being able to see in the dark is not such a big deal, mostly because even races with darkvision needs a light source if they want to be effective. Also, spells or items as the lantern had been created to allow a light source, while keeping to a minimum the possibility to be noticed.

"doesn't prove anything"?... Perhaps... but statistics absolutely do (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/). If the other races had abilities that were truly on par with variant human's choice of feat, the numbers would have a much more even distribution.

[DanyBallon]

We don't need it made easier though, because of the very joke you immediatly make. And nothingis stopping the DM from chosing an alternate, except for the fact that it would mean going against the core rules suggests, which not everyone will think of doing. If humans aren't the default race by the core books and the DM selects as being so, we know its because they wat to. But if the DM has humans as the default race now, that might be just because its what the rule book says, and however slightly the world they created could be poorer for it.

What do you want me to tell you? you decided to play a game where humans have always been the default race, and yet you complain they are... I hate saying this, but have you picked the right game to play?



"doesn't prove anything"?... Perhaps... but statistics absolutely do. If the other races had abilities that were truly on par with variant human's choice of feat, the numbers would have a much more even distribution.

What the data prove is that human is the most played race, and that they are versatile enough to be nearly the most numerous in each class. But what the data don't say is the reason why the players picked human, is it for the feat, is it because they like it's versatility, because they can project themselves more easily in a human character, nor it make distinction between regular humans and variant humans.

[Tetrasodium]

What the data prove is that human is the most played race, and that they are versatile enough to be nearly the most numerous in each class. But what the data don't say is the reason why the players picked human, is it for the feat, is it because they like it's versatility, because they can project themselves more easily in a human character, nor it make distinction between regular humans and variant humans.


Combined with your complete and abject failure to show character convcepts that rely on the racial abilities of the nonhuman races as keystone night and day difference foundational elements to a build even while trying to argue that the situation is fine... it does.

[Boci]

What do you want me to tell you? you decided to play a game where humans have always been the default race, and yet you complain they are... I hate saying this, but have you picked the right game to play?

Why do people do this? "You have one problem with an entire game? Well, you can always stop playing"

Yeah, yeah I could. Alternativly, I could continue playing a game I enjoy, whilst also pointing out the problems and short comings I see it in when the discussion comes up? Why is this such a hard concept to understand for people.

[DanyBallon]

Combined with your complete and abject failure to show character convcepts that rely on the racial abilities of the nonhuman races as keystone night and day difference foundational elements to a build even while trying to argue that the situation is fine... it does.

I believe that as long as you see character and to an extend character concept as "build" we will never agree. To me a character is a part in a story that your fellow players/DM and you created. They are not just a pile of mechanics that you put together.
Feats are only a mechanics I can totally play any character concept without taking any feat. I can create a dwarven halberd wielder that stand upon the bridge to prevent anyone from crossing with just the base rule, or even without war caster I can play a war cleric that wield a shield and a mace while casting spells. What the feats gives are tricks to enhance what your character can mechanically do when you roll the dice Sentinel allows you to use your reaction against people trying to pass you by, warcaster remove the necessity to stow your weapon to cas a spell, PAM allow you to use the butt of your halberd. That's not what I call defining a character concept.

[DanyBallon]

Why do people do this? "You have one problem with an entire game? Well, you can always stop playing"

Yeah, yeah I could. Alternativly, I could continue playing a game I enjoy, whilst also pointing out the problems and short comings I see it in when the discussion comes up? Why is this such a hard concept to understand for people.

Hence why I was sorry to come to that. I also dislike when people do so, but from the very start you were complaining about something that is not a design issue, but more a matter of preference.
Saying that you don't like an aspect of the game is not a problem. Stating that it's bad design because it's not how you would have like it, is an issue.

[Boci]

Stating that it's bad design because it's not how you would have like it, is an issue.

Never stated that.

[DanyBallon]

Never stated that.

It's not the exact wording, but it sums up to something like this: "Versatile as human identity is lazy fluff, and focusing on human versatility is bad design"
Unless you meant that parts of the D&D core is ill suited for your needs and in such its design is bad for your home play. But that's not the first impression I had when reading your previous post, hence my comment.
If I was mistaken, please accept my excuses.

[Boci]

It's not the exact wording, but it sums up to something like this: "Versatile as human identity is lazy fluff, and focusing on human versatility is bad design"
Unless you meant that parts of the D&D core is ill suited for your needs and in such its design is bad for your home play. But that's not the first impression I had when reading your previous post, hence my comment.

That makes no sense. Yes I basically said ""Versatile as human identity is lazy fluff, and focusing on human versatility is bad design", but in no way can that I must think it only because I don't like it. I explained why I feel that way, there's no reason for it other than humans made the game, and this makes all fantasy worlds more similar, which isn't a good thing.

You don't have to agree with me, but its a bit rude to ocntinually dissmiss the reasons I present for my argument and pretend I just don't like it.

[DanyBallon]

That makes no sense. Yes I basically said ""Versatile as human identity is lazy fluff, and focusing on human versatility is bad design", but in no way can that I must think it only because I don't like it. I explained why I feel that way, there's no reason for it other than humans made the game, and this makes all fantasy worlds more similar, which isn't a good thing.

You don't have to agree with me, but its a bit rude to ocntinually dissmiss the reasons I present for my argument and pretend I just don't like it.

And what I'm telling you is that human prevailance is a choice that have been made over 30 years ago and that is a staple of the game. Just the same as elves being dextrous, and dwarves being sturdy. I fail to see how your comments are anything else but disliking an aspect of the game.
Sorry, if it sounds rude, but your complaining about something that have always been there and never have been a stop for creativity, yet you criticize the design as if your taste were the only ones that matters. Millions of players over 30 years played and enjoyed the game, we can't all be wrong, don't you think so?

I think I'll take a step back to let the discussion go back to it's original topic. I wish you a good day and that even with its flaws, I hope that you'll still enjoy the games we all like, and for many years to come :smallsmile:

[Boci]

And what I'm telling you is that human prevailance is a choice that have been made over 30 years ago and that is a staple of the game.

You keep saying that like this is a good thing. Its not. Its a thing. Its true, but by default its neither good nor bad. And I disagree its a staple, plenty of D&D worlds don't use for one.

And if its been the same way for 30 years, doesn't that lend itself to changing it? Maybe it would be better. We can't know for sure until we try. Its not like we'd lose anything by changing this. Only the core rules need change, Forgotten Realms would still have humans as the default race because that's been established that way, and pre-Cataclysm Dragonlance and Greyhawk would coninue to be largely ignored, because we'd have Forgotten Realms.

[Tetrasodium]

I believe that as long as you see character and to an extend character concept as "build" we will never agree. To me a character is a part in a story that your fellow players/DM and you created. They are not just a pile of mechanics that you put together.
Feats are only a mechanics I can totally play any character concept without taking any feat. I can create a dwarven halberd wielder that stand upon the bridge to prevent anyone from crossing with just the base rule, or even without war caster I can play a war cleric that wield a shield and a mace while casting spells. What the feats gives are tricks to enhance what your character can mechanically do when you roll the dice Sentinel allows you to use your reaction against people trying to pass you by, warcaster remove the necessity to stow your weapon to cas a spell, PAM allow you to use the butt of your halberd. That's not what I call defining a character concept.


We use language to communicate, redefininga generally accepted terms is a deliberate perversion of the discussion. the racial feat/abilities are tangible mechal abilities defined by rules. a character build is a collection of defined mechanical components into a mechanically functional package. What you are attempting to rope under the term is fluff and lore; but both of those tend to be nonmechanical things you can not simply point to in a formula.

I can't help but notice your nonhuman examples in no way depend on being $race either.... The dwarven halberd wielder you mention almost certainly has medium and/or heavy armor from the same class that made her proficient with the halberd negating one of the mountain dwarf's best racial abilities entirely redundant. The hill dwarf gets +hp/level+1wis +2 con & some weapon proficiencies that do not include your halberd example.... So not only is it a bad example, as a dwarf it gains no particular advantage over any other race in the role your example build suggests. The warcaster free mace swinging cleric example you make is so hollow that you don't even bother to pretend that race or warcaster plays any role in the build. Now.. a sorcadin/other type of gish is going to very much need warcaster & while the tiefling/half elf might argue that the +2 charisma will help their abilities not be resisted as often, but they will still require warcaster & none of the other abilities those races get adds the total up to warcaster+1 cha +1 to the stat you want it in... and that's using one of the best examples that the nonhuman races can try to crown themselves into.

[Pex]

Yeah it isn't. It might be bad though if it hurts world building creativity by promoting humans as the default race rather than letting DMs choose which race they want to be the default one in their setting, which is what I actualled argued.

I fail to see in the racial abilities of human where it says:
Domination: Humans are the dominant race of the game world. Not even the DM can change it.

You can declare whatever race you want dominant. Whatever game world you want you create.

[Boci]

I fail to see in the racial abilities of human where it says:
Domination: Humans are the dominant race of the game world. Not even the DM can change it.

You can declare whatever race you want dominant. Whatever game world you want you create.

Yes, but DMs are more likely to go with what the book says. Its not exactly a secret that there is a difference betweem:

1. "Pick any option for this"

2. "This is X. This can be changed"

Technically they both mean the same thing, but 2 comes with a suggestion, people are more likely to leave it be than if they are told they need to choose one.

[Pex]

Hence why I was sorry to come to that. I also dislike when people do so, but from the very start you were complaining about something that is not a design issue, but more a matter of preference.
Saying that you don't like an aspect of the game is not a problem. Stating that it's bad design because it's not how you would have like it, is an issue.


Never stated that.

Let's check on that.


Yeah it isn't. It might be bad though if it hurts world building creativity by promoting humans as the default race rather than letting DMs choose which race they want to be the default one in their setting, which is what I actualled argued.


I didn't say its wrong, I said it was bad. If you think nothing about D&D is bad, you're lying to yourself. You're allowed to like and play a game whilst still thinking some aspects of the design are bad. And humans being versatile is hardly a fundamental pillar to the game. Its easily changed and people tend not to complain when you do.


It is bad design. "Versatile" is not an identity for a traditional community based culture, nor it is a cultural stereotype. Its the complete opposite of a cultural stereotype. Its the school child who when told they can only have one super power picks "Everything".



That's not the same at all. Humans have lazy fluff. The fact that this has been this way since the beginning doesn't change it. If every race other than humans is a stereotype, humans should be a stereotype too, that a DM is then free to embrace, subvert or outright ignore in their own personal world. That's good design. Bad design is making humans a poorly explained default race for no other reasons other than we're humans.

[Boci]

Let's check on that.

Yeah. Now bold the part where I explain that it is bad solely because I don't like that way. I'll wait.

[2D8HP]

....Where are all the rants about banning half-elves?


...You haven't being paying attention if you haven't seen them.


I'm responsible for many of them!


O.P. here, sorry guys, I haven't seen any "half-elves are over-powered" posts,


:redface:

but I have chosen to play a half-elf PC instead of a human one just because the mechanics are so good, even though a human would've been a better fit for role-playing the character concept.

I usually play Archer Fighters, and Swashbuckler Rogues and I've played 5e wood-elves, because of the mechanics, even though I"d rather role-play a human.

[Tanarii]

I usually play Archer Fighters, and Swashbuckler Rogues and I've played 5e wood-elves, because of the mechanics, even though I"d rather role-play a human.
Most of my initial 5e characters were humans, even a couple with the dread +1 across the board when variant human was not available. I'm not immune to optimizing racial choices, but sometime mid to late 4e I got sick of every official play party being shardminds and minotaurs and gith and wilden and the like. Many times my eladrin (who are actually fey creatures in 4e) warlock was the least 'alien' race in the party, and that just doesn't seem right. By the time 5e rolled out, I'd been consistently choosing humans as a reaction, so there'd always be one in a party.

The other thing that it did was give me a bias against "humans in a race suit", played mainly for the stats. The 5e PHB gives some nice little blurb on how to play a typical non-human, but I wish they'd given some sample race specific personality, ideal, bonds and flaws for each one. It'd be too stereotypical to choose all four from a race, but being able to pick one category and make that a racial instead of background one would be perfect.

Obviously you can do that yourself, since you're not required to pick from the examples, although random rolling gave me some fun characters. But as someone who gets lots of brand new players, I can tell you solid examples are needed. Hell, even experienced players need help sometimes breaking out of the often useless mindset of "backstory" and creating explicit & useful character motivations.

Edit: despite my love of motivations, and anti-play races for mechanics but just like a human, I do recognize its a bias. As I've said many times on these boards, if a player wants to play an avatar of their own personality, I consider that they aren't actually doing anything wrong, and they are still roleplaying.

[2D8HP]

Most of my initial 5e characters were humans, even a couple with the dread +1 across the board.......


My very first 5e PC was a half-elf Rogue that I thought of as "Burt Lancaster as Elmer Gantry with pointed ears", which I played very briefly, my next PC was a standard human Fighter, and I'm playing a very similar PC now, as it's just easier, but knowing the diversity of human cultures, I don't think that I've ever played a demi-human PC that wasn't a "human-in-a-suit", and most of my PC's wind up as "typical Dwarves" because their player (me) likes ale, is grumpy, and blue-collar, despite my never playing Dwarves.

But getting back to the value of Feats, the most attractive Feat to me "Sharp-shooter", just doesn't look as good to me as +2 to DEX, which gets you better "to hit", damage, Stealth, and AC., and while all the Feats look cool, I'm not perceiving how they'd help PC survival more than stat increases or many non-human "racial packages".

Which Feats and how are they better?

[Willie the Duck]

But getting back to the value of Feats, the most attractive Feat to me "Sharp-shooter", just doesn't look as good to me as +2 to DEX, which gets you better "to hit", damage, Stealth, and AC., and while all the Feats look cool, I'm not perceiving how they'd help PC survival more than stat increases or many non-human "racial packages".

Which Feats and how are they better?

I prefer feats like Healer, Ritual Caster, and the like which actually let you do something new, rather than do something you already could do better. However, i definitely understand the value of Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master (even though I do think that they are overblown). Sharpshooter, in particular, gives two things--it offsets two very common ranged-combat penalties (and let's be clear, +2 Dex will help you shoot your shortbow at the guy who is 100 ft away and ducking behind a low wall, but negating the range and cover penalties has a higher overall increase in hit change; provided your DM uses such things often), and it gives significant damage boosts if you can still hit often with a -5 (this is where I feel it is overblown, other players seem to run into ranged-advantage situations more often than I ever have).

[Tanarii]

and it gives significant damage boosts if you can still hit often with a -5 (this is where I feel it is overblown, other players seem to run into ranged-advantage situations more often than I ever have).At first level with a Dex 16, its superior to use against an AC 18 or lower with a longbow and no bonus damage source other than your Dex. AC 20 if you have Archery Style. At level 5 still with a Dex 16, that goes up by 1 AC. It's basically an 'always on' thing.

[2D8HP]

....it gives significant damage boosts if you can still hit often with a -5 (this is where I feel it is overblown, other players seem to run into ranged-advantage situations more often than I ever have).


At first level with a Dex 16, its superior to use against an AC 18 or lower with a longbow and no bonus damage source other than your Dex. AC 20 if you have Archery Style. At level 5 still with a Dex 16, that goes up by 1 AC. It's basically an 'always on' thing.


Huh?

How is potentially doing more damage worth so greatly reducing the chance of doing any damage?

-5 on a d20 is a lot!

[Tanarii]

Huh?

How is potentially doing more damage worth so greatly reducing the chance of doing any damage?

-5 on a d20 is a lot!And +10 damage is a lot too. DPR goes up overall. Especially if you have high hit chance or low base damage. And Fighters with Archery style usually have both of those being the case. They have a higher hit chance than a GWM character due to Archery style, and a lower base damage due to d8 instead of 2d6 or 1d12.

If you want to crank the numbers yourself you can.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro

[Tetrasodium]

My very first 5e PC was a half-elf Rogue that I thought of as "Burt Lancaster as Elmer Gantry with pointed ears", which I played very briefly, my next PC was a standard human Fighter, and I'm playing a very similar PC now, as it's just easier, but knowing the diversity of human cultures, I don't think that I've ever played a demi-human PC that wasn't a "human-in-a-suit", and most of my PC's wind up as "typical Dwarves" because their player (me) likes ale, is grumpy, and blue-collar, despite my never playing Dwarves.

But getting back to the value of Feats, the most attractive Feat to me "Sharp-shooter", just doesn't look as good to me as +2 to DEX, which gets you better "to hit", damage, Stealth, and AC., and while all the Feats look cool, I'm not perceiving how they'd help PC survival more than stat increases or many non-human "racial packages".

Which Feats and how are they better?




Half elf rogue (presumably heavy on bows given your sharp shooter comment) can be directly improved with

Crossbow master: Ignore the loading property on an xbow if you ever use one, but more importantly no longer suffer disadvantage if an opponent is within 5 feet of you
Moderately armored: Gain profficiency with medium armor & shields, raise your dex by +1 as well to turn your variant human's +1 dex +1 whatever choice of feat into Medium armor & shield proficiency,+2 dex, +1 whatever.
Dual wielder: +1 ac when wielding a melee weapon in each hand, the ability to use two weapon fighting even if the weapons are not light & can thus step up from d6's to d8's, draw two weapons when you would normally only be able to draw one
Alert: +5 initiative, other creatures don't get advantage to attack you just because they are hiding from you, you can't be surprised either
Practically any other feat will let you either have very nearly the racial ability of another race (hill dwarf & durable, halfling & lucky, etc)

or you could spend the variant human feat to let you do entirely new things as others have pointed out.

Again & as I've said many times before... the problem is not that the choice of feat is too good, it's that the other racial abilities are pretty much only on par with a mediocre or redundant feat at best if some other racial quality like daylight sensitivity & a size/stat penalty does not in itself negate the possible awesomeness of racial qualities

[MaxWilson]

Numeric feats like Inspiring Leader and Heavy Armor Master and DPR boosts are nice (at low levels, Inspiring Leader is like +4 Con or better for everyone in the party, plus short-rest healing), but the real game-changers in my mind are the qualitatively improved capabilities like you get from Mobile and Skulker and Healer and Mounted Combatant and Warcaster. Things that make it possible to do things that are just flat-out impossible or at least infeasible normally. (Sharpshooter is a special case because it's a broad range of numeric boosts that synergize so well that it's effectively a qualitative boost.)

We've already talked at length in this thread about how Skulker plus Darkvision plus Stealth Expertise plus Cunning Action equals complete dominance over darkvision-reliant monsters. Obviously that's not JUST about Skulker--there are additional costs besides the feat cost to enable qualitative dominance--but the point as I see it is that qualitative superiority is fun (and effective) in a way that, to me at least, an extra +1 on a given roll is not.

Skulker: unlock possible darkness dominance. (Also, numerically, improved sneak attack accuracy, particularly combined with Sharpshooter and Extra Attack. Good for fighter/rogues.)

Mobile: scout ahead alone and survive the experience; beat up lots of things in solo combat; make better use of difficult terrain. Makes you better at the tactic of spending distance instead of HP.

Mounted Combatant: what it says on the tin. Bring your warhorse into combat without getting it killed. Extra movement, bigger weapons, free Dash/Disengage, possible extra attacks (depending on if the mount is in a "controlled" state or not). Interesting synergies with Moon Druids and exotic saddles.

Warcaster: be a gishy tank. Let your paladin/sorcerer grapple/prone enemies without giving up his shield or his Shield; make Booming Blade opportunity attacks to incentivize enemies to stay focused on you, not the back line; reliably keep your concentration spells like Wrathful Smite even if you get hit (which means you have less need to cast Shield under routine conditions).

Healer: a bit harder to justify in power terms, but I love the roleplaying image of a fighter who identifies as a combat medic thanks to his bonus Healer feat. Unlimited heals-from-0-HP, well, I have a soft spot for unlimited anything; and heals-per-short-rest isn't bad either. I would totally play a Purple Dragon Knight combat medic.

[Psikerlord]

5e Houserule no 1 - No PC races have darkvision.

A simple but highly effective tweak to make your monsters a little scarier, and player choice of PC races a litle broader.

Tweak #2 - allow that +2 stat to be applied to any stat, regardless of race.

[Luccan]

5e Houserule no 1 - No PC races have darkvision.

A simple but highly effective tweak to make your monsters a little scarier, and player choice of PC races a litle broader.

Tweak #2 - allow that +2 stat to be applied to any stat, regardless of race.

Keep in mind, races are somewhat balanced. There are outliers, but presumably if you have darkvision you don't have something else. So that might make certain race choices much less appealing, espcially with a floating +2 to a stat at creation.

[Boci]

5e Houserule no 1 - No PC races have darkvision.

A simple but highly effective tweak to make your monsters a little scarier, and player choice of PC races a litle broader.

What about drow and other underground dwelling races? Are they no longer available to PCs, or can you play a drow, but you don't get dark vision?

[dreast]

A lot of people use darkvision wrongly in any event. If it's complete darkness, you have DISADVANTAGE on perception checks. That's the most commonly rolled check in the game, so it behooves even darkvisiony groups to have a dim light source... at which point the humans in the group can at least see well enough to be getting on with, and simply will fail to contribute much to perception checks.

Also, goggles of night are a minor uncommon magic item... very easy to get. A magic item that does "insert feat here" is conversely very hard to come by. And you shouldn't be looking at attunement limitations until MUCH later in the game, unless you're simply drowning in treasure.

[MaxWilson]

A lot of people use darkvision wrongly in any event. If it's complete darkness, you have DISADVANTAGE on perception checks. That's the most commonly rolled check in the game, so it behooves even darkvisiony groups to have a dim light source... at which point the humans in the group can at least see well enough to be getting on with, and simply will fail to contribute much to perception checks.

Dim light will also remove the monsters' disadvantage on their Perception checks to detect you.

It's safer just to have a Skulker or Observant PC or cast Enhance Ability (Wisdom) on someone, plus a means of communicating between PCs, instead of lighting a torch--unless of course you're deliberately using a stalking horse to draw the monsters out of their hiding places so you can counter-ambush them with a lot more PCs than the one PC they saw in the dim light.

[Tetrasodium]

A lot of people use darkvision wrongly in any event. If it's complete darkness, you have DISADVANTAGE on perception checks. That's the most commonly rolled check in the game, so it behooves even darkvisiony groups to have a dim light source... at which point the humans in the group can at least see well enough to be getting on with, and simply will fail to contribute much to perception checks.

Also, goggles of night are a minor uncommon magic item... very easy to get. A magic item that does "insert feat here" is conversely very hard to come by. And you shouldn't be looking at attunement limitations until MUCH later in the game, unless you're simply drowning in treasure.

This is why a dim light emitting object on a clip/thong giving 15-20 feet of dim light at a practically free price solves the proble, nicely... pretty much everyone with darkvision probably has one & uses it similar to how we all pull out our cellphone to light up the path in the dark. Darkness is still a thing beyond the near-immediate area & both sides probably have them. Even human structures are probably going to have them embedded in many of the walls for safety if nothing else... nonhuman dwellings with darkvision having inhabitants by extension are definitely going to have them in common areas & such.

[Moxxmix]

Keep in mind, races are somewhat balanced. There are outliers, but presumably if you have darkvision you don't have something else. So that might make certain race choices much less appealing, espcially with a floating +2 to a stat at creation.

There was a guy who reverse-engineered the race creation system, settling on a "12 point" build (2 points per ASI). For him, he worked out that darkvision was free, and feats cost 6 points.

However, this reminded me that I was never terribly happy with the results he came up with, so I just redid the reverse-engineering of the PHB races myself, and settled on a "25 point" system (4 points per ASI), and it resulted in darkvision costing 1 point (or 2 points for 120' darkvision), and feats costing 14 points.

Here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1536HDqVDs4FVFmArX-D9XklXIcRxka9C/view?usp=sharing) is the spreadsheet with my calculations.

[Theodoxus]

5e Houserule no 1 - No PC races have darkvision.

A simple but highly effective tweak to make your monsters a little scarier, and player choice of PC races a litle broader.

Tweak #2 - allow that +2 stat to be applied to any stat, regardless of race.

I took a slightly different tact and brought back low-light vision and gave it to everything that didn't have a legitimate need for darkvision: ie underground races (Drow, Mountain Dwarves and Snirfnevblin).

Aasimar, Dragonborn, Half-orcs, Rock gnomes and Tieflings get 30' darkvision.

Works well enough for me.

[Willie the Duck]

There was a guy who reverse-engineered the race creation system, settling on a "12 point" build (2 points per ASI). For him, he worked out that darkvision was free, and feats cost 6 points.

However, this reminded me that I was never terribly happy with the results he came up with, so I just redid the reverse-engineering of the PHB races myself, and settled on a "25 point" system (4 points per ASI), and it resulted in darkvision costing 1 point (or 2 points for 120' darkvision), and feats costing 14 points.

Here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1536HDqVDs4FVFmArX-D9XklXIcRxka9C/view?usp=sharing) is the spreadsheet with my calculations.

The very idea that all racial components are modular and accounting for dis/synergy is unnecessary seems not to play out. But impressive effort.

[strangebloke]

There was a guy who reverse-engineered the race creation system, settling on a "12 point" build (2 points per ASI). For him, he worked out that darkvision was free, and feats cost 6 points.

However, this reminded me that I was never terribly happy with the results he came up with, so I just redid the reverse-engineering of the PHB races myself, and settled on a "25 point" system (4 points per ASI), and it resulted in darkvision costing 1 point (or 2 points for 120' darkvision), and feats costing 14 points.

Here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1536HDqVDs4FVFmArX-D9XklXIcRxka9C/view?usp=sharing) is the spreadsheet with my calculations.


The very idea that all racial components are modular and accounting for dis/synergy is unnecessary seems not to play out. But impressive effort.
Yeah, I agree. It's still a cool spreadsheet though. My assumption has always been: 3 ASIs, with more allowable so long as there's no synergy. (As with mountain dwarf) This is why regular humans fall behind a bit. They have 3 ASIs with little to no synergy.

[Spiritchaser]

This is why a dim light emitting object on a clip/thong giving 15-20 feet of dim light at a practically free price solves the proble, nicely... pretty much everyone with darkvision probably has one & uses it similar to how we all pull out our cellphone to light up the path in the dark. Darkness is still a thing beyond the near-immediate area & both sides probably have them. Even human structures are probably going to have them embedded in many of the walls for safety if nothing else... nonhuman dwellings with darkvision having inhabitants by extension are definitely going to have them in common areas & such.


A party carrying a light source with them cannot ( exceptional circumstances notwithstanding) attempt stealth

You might detect critters without dissadvantage out the range of your light, but they WILL see you.

Far better to be in the dark and both be at disadvantage. Traps could be a problem, but in the general case, these are usually far less of a problem than suffering surprise rounds at the hands of... whatever.

Obviously it’s better yet have skulker, Devil’s Sight, perceptive, observant and or dungeon delver working for you to help find traps, doors, critters or whatever.

[sithlordnergal]

Seems like I'm the odd man out in this thread. The power of having a feat pretty much trumps everything else. When I'm making a character I usually find myself asking "How badly will not having X feat hinder me in the future? Are the other racial abilities equal to or better than X feat?" For example, Yuan-Ti from Volo's. They're one of the few races I would deem better then VA Human because their racial abilities are that much better then a feat. Half-Elves are similar, having enough racial ASI boosts and extra skills to out-weigh the benefits of a feat. However, I never consider Darkvision when making a character because it simply isn't important to me.

From what I've seen, Darkvision is highly useful for sneaky characters in darkness. I've yet to make a stealth based character in 5e, and I have made a lot of characters. Even my Wizards, Bards, and Warlocks have that single level of Fighter to give them Heavy or Medium Armor, the best of which apply disadvantage with stealth. Mix this with a Dex that I usually max at 14 and no stealth proficiency, and you're looking at a character with permanent disadvantage to stealth with a max +2 stealth mod. And to top it off, my main close range AoE is Thunderwave, meaning if enemies didn't know where we were before, they do after I cast it. As a result, I figure a light source from Light or a torch can't possibly sink my stealth any lower then a spell that literally "emits a thunderous boom audible out to 300 feet".

And if I ever desperately need darkvision for some reason? There are spells and class abilities galore that grant it. Why lose out on a feat when I can get something for 2-3 levels in a class?

[Tanarii]

And to top it off, my main close range AoE is Thunderwave, meaning if enemies didn't know where we were before, they do after I cast it. My players have mostly stopped using that spell. It's too likely to cause a TPK. It's far more dangerous that Light, which is blocked by corners and thick foliage.

Edit: if a campaign regularly features possible encounters where there are clear lines of sight to 300ft, it's highly unusual, and thus obviously requires totally different tactical thinking from the norm as a result.

[2D8HP]

[......]From what I've seen, Darkvision is highly useful for sneaky characters in darkness. I've yet to make a stealth based character in 5e, and I have made a lot of characters.[......]

[......]And if I ever desperately need darkvision for some reason? There are spells and class abilities galore that grant it. Why lose out on a feat when I can get something for 2-3 levels in a class?


I guess that's my perception problem, all of my 5e PC's have had Stealth, and only one could cast (the Firebolt Cantrip).

I want to play humans but in terms of what I want to be able to do, Elves and half-elves seem best.

Unless I start as a third level Gloom Stalker, my usual PC choice of a sneaky archer exploring dungeons seems handicapped as a human, and for my current PC (a standard human third level Champion) I can't think of a Feat at fourth level that's better than +2 to DEX.

It would be nice to find Goggles of the Night, but that's up to the DM, not me.

[Tetrasodium]

A party carrying a light source with them cannot ( exceptional circumstances notwithstanding) attempt stealth

You might detect critters without dissadvantage out the range of your light, but they WILL see you.

Far better to be in the dark and both be at disadvantage. Traps could be a problem, but in the general case, these are usually far less of a problem than suffering surprise rounds at the hands of... whatever.

Obviously it’s better yet have skulker, Devil’s Sight, perceptive, observant and or dungeon delver working for you to help find traps, doors, critters or whatever.


While true, the key is they need to be so stupidly cheap that everyone has the & even dark blind races probably have a box of freebie ones like old people seem to accumulate bread ties. Walking around in the underground lair with a bright light?... "hey bob, glad I found you, I was in the shed in back & noticed that we've got some intruders in the foyer"... walking around with a dim light emitting doodad?... "that's just alice.. or bob.. or chuck.. chopping the fungus, makin a stew... gonna get with alice... cause I found her a cactus..." -twang- -thump-



My players have mostly stopped using that spell. It's too likely to cause a TPK. It's far more dangerous that Light, which is blocked by corners and thick foliage.

Edit: if a campaign regularly features possible encounters where there are clear lines of sight to 300ft, it's highly unusual, and thus obviously requires totally different tactical thinking from the norm as a result.

In my games, the average sized rooms tend to be 50-60 feet at the low end, sometimes larger. It has an unexpected secondary effect of causing more movement from pc's & npc's during combat.

[sithlordnergal]

My players have mostly stopped using that spell. It's too likely to cause a TPK. It's far more dangerous that Light, which is blocked by corners and thick foliage.

Edit: if a campaign regularly features possible encounters where there are clear lines of sight to 300ft, it's highly unusual, and thus obviously requires totally different tactical thinking from the norm as a result.

The players who know me well tend to dislike Thunderwave since it has:

Alerted an entire Orc Tribe who's cave we were in, bringing the entire tribe into a single room to try and kill us...we survived

Alerted the undead hoards in Omu in Tomb, bringing a large group of ghouls and ghasts to us...we survived

Knock alerted a massive group that the DM sent in specifically to kill my character off because he was tired of my character alerting so many things...the entire party survived.

I still use it though since it is a decent amount of damage that few things resist, and has a rider that pushes things away. Since I know I won't be stealthing anyway, the noise isn't much of a problem. And if the enemies somehow manage to get past a 21+ ac, then I figure they deserve the hit.

EDIT: Yeah, my DMs have probably made it louder then it really is, and if we're in an enclosed space or in places where things echo the noise goes far beyond 300 feet.

[MaxWilson]

The players who know me well tend to dislike Thunderwave since it has:

Alerted an entire Orc Tribe who's cave we were in, bringing the entire tribe into a single room to try and kill us...we survived

Alerted the undead hoards in Omu in Tomb, bringing a large group of ghouls and ghasts to us...we survived

Knock alerted a massive group that the DM sent in specifically to kill my character off because he was tired of my character alerting so many things...the entire party survived.

I still use it though since it is a decent amount of damage that few things resist, and has a rider that pushes things away. Since I know I won't be stealthing anyway, the noise isn't much of a problem. And if the enemies somehow manage to get past a 21+ ac, then I figure they deserve the hit.

EDIT: Yeah, my DMs have probably made it louder then it really is, and if we're in an enclosed space or in places where things echo the noise goes far beyond 300 feet.

If monsters come running every time there's a loud noise, you can exploit that to ambush them. Prepare the ground first with Mold Earth and Snare and caltrops and chokepoints--and if you're high-enough level, maybe a few Glyphs or Symbols or Guards and Wards--and then make your noise. Wait for all the enemies to come running and then kill them with AoEs when they get tangled up in your preparations.

It's more like Dungeon Keeper than regular dungeoneering, but it's a valid approach.

[Tanarii]

For someone that extols the importance of not drawing enemies with light, you're awfully cavalier about doing it far more easily with sound.

[sithlordnergal]

If monsters come running every time there's a loud noise, you can exploit that to ambush them. Prepare the ground first with Mold Earth and Snare and caltrops and chokepoints--and if you're high-enough level, maybe a few Glyphs or Symbols or Guards and Wards--and then make your noise. Wait for all the enemies to come running and then kill them with AoEs when they get tangled up in your preparations.

It's more like Dungeon Keeper than regular dungeoneering, but it's a valid approach.

Heh, well the first time it happened we got lucky. We just happened to be in a room with two choke points for the entrance, and three tanks when I used Thunderwave. After that I made sure to give us as much of a strategical advantage as possible before summoning everything to the room.

And as you said, it's a valid approach to clearing out a dungeon. After we kill everything, we don't really need to worry as much about ambushes because there's no-one to ambush us. Or at the very least, there are fewer things to ambush us.

[sithlordnergal]

I completely forgot to mention my other approach to stealth...light EVERYTHING ON FIRE then run the other way. Example: First chapter of Out of the Abyss when you're trying to escape the Drow Prison. First thing I did was get those beast-things the Drow use to sing, then I used Thaumaturgy to make them 3 times louder that attracted several demons, then I set their temple of Lloth on fire while insulting their Goddess, then I set the spiderwebs under the camp on fire, and we escaped in the chaos...after I set the elevator to the floor on fire to prevent them from following us.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: if a campaign regularly features possible encounters where there are clear lines of sight to 300ft, it's highly unusual, and thus obviously requires totally different tactical thinking from the norm as a result.

5E DMs seem to radically overestimate how big 600' is in real life. Aside from the potential for wilderness encounters, gigantic underground chasms are a classic trope. My local football stadium almost 300' tall (260'), and judging by Google Maps the stadium's horizontal dimensions are about 600' x 800'--a gigantic underground chasm should be at least that big to be impressive. (The Grand Canyon is 600' wide at its narrowest point.)

When you're dealing with an outdoor scenario such as a hobgoblin warcamp from Volo's Guide to Monsters, you should outright expect the warcamp to be situated in an area where the hobgoblins have at least 600' of view in each direction (and hobgoblins will clear brush if necessary to create those sightlines) in order to maximize the advantages of their ranged weapons. It should not be at all hard for hobgoblins to locate a smallish hill on which to erect their warcamp--again, 600' is not far at all by outdoor standards. It's the distance between two stoplights in a city. It's less than a quarter of the distance at which many (most?) people like be already in the exit lane on the freeway, and in fact if you're not in the right lane by the time you're 600' away (1/8 of a mile) and there's any kind of traffic at all you should probably be nervous that you're about to miss your exit.

If it's rare in a campaign to be able to see something 300' away, it's only because that campaign is being run in a very unusual, unnatural geography. You're arguing that this unusual geography is in fact the norm for 5E and you might be right, judging by forum discussions. But it's still ridiculous, and ought not to be the norm.

(If a whole adventure takes place in a series of ten 30' x 40' rooms in a contiguous structure, there's really no excuse for having separate encounters at all. That's just one big encounter where all the monsters start out in separate rooms and require a round or three to get to the PCs.)

[MaxWilson]

Heh, well the first time it happened we got lucky. We just happened to be in a room with two choke points for the entrance, and three tanks when I used Thunderwave. After that I made sure to give us as much of a strategical advantage as possible before summoning everything to the room.

And as you said, it's a valid approach to clearing out a dungeon. After we kill everything, we don't really need to worry as much about ambushes because there's no-one to ambush us. Or at the very least, there are fewer things to ambush us.

It also has a possible advantage, if everything comes running quick enough, that you can make one spell (e.g. Greater Invisibility or Web) last for more monsters than if you had to hunt down the monsters in individual pockets.

The corollary of course is that smart monsters may very well take the opposite course: instead of coming running, they may set up to ambush you as soon as you move, and then as soon as you start casting spells they will fade away and come back in sixty seconds when most of your spells have dissipated.

PCs can counter that strategy in a number of ways of course, but the point is that if the monsters do just predictably come running, that can be a good thing.


I completely forgot to mention my other approach to stealth...light EVERYTHING ON FIRE then run the other way. Example: First chapter of Out of the Abyss when you're trying to escape the Drow Prison. First thing I did was get those beast-things the Drow use to sing, then I used Thaumaturgy to make them 3 times louder that attracted several demons, then I set their temple of Lloth on fire while insulting their Goddess, then I set the spiderwebs under the camp on fire, and we escaped in the chaos...after I set the elevator to the floor on fire to prevent them from following us.

Yep, starting fires is a strong strategy, both in-game and in real life. DMs should make sure to build adventures so that this strategy has a cost--e.g. magic items which will burn up if the PCs just burn everything down. ("In the ashes, you discover... the charred remains of a Cloak of Displacement!" <chorus of groans>)

[Willie the Duck]

Yep, starting fires is a strong strategy, both in-game and in real life.



Why do I have the feeling that your parents have very interesting stories regarding your teenage years? :smallbiggrin:

[sithlordnergal]

Why do I have the feeling that your parents have very interesting stories regarding your teenage years? :smallbiggrin:

Remember, fire and explosives fix everything. ^_^

[Tanarii]

If it's rare in a campaign to be able to see something 300' away, it's only because that campaign is being run in a very unusual, unnatural geography. You're arguing that this unusual geography is in fact the norm for 5E and you might be right, judging by forum discussions. But it's still ridiculous, and ought not to be the norm.
Nonsense. It absolutely ought to be the norm, because it matches typical environments. Unless you're constantly fighting in open plains / tundra / farm fields, or assaulting forts approaching through cleared lines of fire.

And if that's the case, warn your players. They need to know they either have to make super-stealth-darkvision characters and operate exclusively as night assassins. Or make archery-kiting characters, preferably mounted, who are effective at super long ranges. And stay away from me lee characters.

Your apparent abnormal experiences with extreme range campaigns certainly explains why you think nighttime stealth assaults and mounts and ranged kiting are so effective.

[Doug Lampert]

Remember, fire and explosives fix everything. ^_^

"At no time do the fingers leave the hand."

Important thing to keep in mind when playing with explosives or incendiaries.

[MaxWilson]

Nonsense. It absolutely ought to be the norm, because it matches typical environments. Unless you're constantly fighting in open plains / tundra / farm fields, or assaulting forts approaching through cleared lines of fire.

Apparently we don't live on the same planet, because on my planet it is absolutely normal to see things at a distance. Plains, tundra, fields, hills, villages... exclude all those and there starts to be not much left besides caves and forests. Even in urban environments it is normal to see many things from 300' to 1000' away, unless you are indoors in a room without windows. There may be buildings or trees around which prevent you from getting a look behind them at first, but you can always move, which in D&D can easily include climbing a tree or levitating up 100' or sending a familiar up 100'. In order to be unseen from all angles you pretty much have to be indoors or deliberately hiding.

If you're genuinely not used to seeing anything more than a hundred yards away I can only assume you live in a dense rainforest with no roads, or perhaps underground in a secure government bomb shelter.

[Xetheral]

Edit: if a campaign regularly features possible encounters where there are clear lines of sight to 300ft, it's highly unusual, and thus obviously requires totally different tactical thinking from the norm as a result.


Nonsense. It absolutely ought to be the norm, because it matches typical environments. Unless you're constantly fighting in open plains / tundra / farm fields, or assaulting forts approaching through cleared lines of fire.

And if that's the case, warn your players. They need to know they either have to make super-stealth-darkvision characters and operate exclusively as night assassins. Or make archery-kiting characters, preferably mounted, who are effective at super long ranges. And stay away from me lee characters.

Your apparent abnormal experiences with extreme range campaigns certainly explains why you think nighttime stealth assaults and mounts and ranged kiting are so effective.

It's not always up to the DM. In a combat-as-war campaign, the terrain of an encounter is often going to be determined by whichever group is more mobile. A group that has the advantage in both mobility and range will opt to force confrontations in areas with long, clear lines of sight.


Apparently we don't live on the same planet, because on my planet it is absolutely normal to see things at a distance. Plains, tundra, fields, hills, villages... exclude all those and there starts to be not much left besides caves and forests. Even in urban environments it is normal to see many things from 300' to 1000' away, unless you are indoors in a room without windows. There may be buildings or trees around which prevent you from getting a look behind them at first, but you can always move, which in D&D can easily include climbing a tree or levitating up 100' or sending a familiar up 100'. In order to be unseen from all angles you pretty much have to be indoors or deliberately hiding.

If you're genuinely not used to seeing anything more than a hundred yards away I can only assume you live in a dense rainforest with no roads, or perhaps underground in a secure government bomb shelter.

Given that we apparently spend our time on an internet forum, it would be reasonable to infer that the odds each of us live in bunkers is somewhat higher than the general population. If we were outdoors we'd have things to look at that were farther away than our screens.

[Tanarii]

Apparently we don't live on the same planet, because on my planet it is absolutely normal to see things at a distance.
Apparently not. Because I usually have lines of sight impeded by trees, folds in the ground, or buildings in my planet.

[mephnick]

Anyone ever done a 100m race? That's 328ft. Envision it. That is not a long distance in an outdoor environment.

[Tanarii]

Anyone ever done a 100m race? That's 328ft. Envision it. That is not a long distance in an outdoor environment.Track and field race tracks and football fields are uncommonly open compared to the typical non-desert outdoor environment IMX.



It's not always up to the DM. In a combat-as-war campaign, the terrain of an encounter is often going to be determined by whichever group is more mobile. A group that has the advantage in both mobility and range will opt to force confrontations in areas with long, clear lines of sight.I agree. And it's still abnormal to assume open lines of sight even as far as 300ft. That's a very specialized kind of D&D.

It's worth noting that the "norm" for starting D&D encounters is supposed to be, what, 2d6x10 ft?


Given that we apparently spend our time on an internet forum, it would be reasonable to infer that the odds each of us live in bunkers is somewhat higher than the general population. If we were outdoors we'd have things to look at that were farther away than our screens.Lol nooooooooooo! Not the outdoors! :smallamused:

[MaxWilson]

Anyone ever done a 100m race? That's 328ft. Envision it. That is not a long distance in an outdoor environment.

Yep. Another way to put it is that it's the distance you move in three and a half seconds on the freeway. If you're a safe driver that means it's about one car ahead of you.


It's worth noting that the "norm" for starting D&D encounters is supposed to be, what, 2d6x10 ft?

According to the 5E DMG it's visual range if neither party is trying to hide, which again according to the DMG can be a mile or more.

Conclusion: if you want to force short-ranged combat[1] in a wilderness encounter, somebody has to be trying to hide.

[1] As opposed to "allow short-ranged combat" when PCs stumble over monsters/NPCs when they turn a corner somewhere, because they don't care enough to control the circumstances of the encounter.

[mephnick]

Track and field race tracks and football fields are uncommonly open compared to the typical non-desert outdoor environment IMX.

Ehh. I spent a lot of time building hiking trails in the mountainous Pacific rainforest. Even in the middle of nowhere 300ft clearings are not exactly rare. These are not areas that have been artificially cleared or anything, forestry just isn't that dense. You'd have to be in some deep stuff not to be able to see at least partially 300+ft even in a forest. Not to say hiding within that distance wouldn't be fairly easy and cover would be an asset, but it's not like your sight just stops at 50ft.

[Tanarii]

According to the 5E DMG it's visual range if neither party is trying to hide, which again according to the DMG can be a mile or more.Sure. On the flat in a wide open plains or field, that's good to go.

In any other terrain it's going to be considerably shorter to detect someone by sight.


Conclusion: if you want to force short-ranged combat in a wilderness encounter, somebody has to be trying to hide.Sight range isn't necessarily the effective starting encounter range. Example from an unusual environment: I hike a lot in the mountains. That's an unusual environment, because it provides occasional quite open distant lines of sight to see hikers moving around far down to other parts of the trail, so you know they are there. But often it wouldn't be the start of an "encounter" until the enemy actually came around a bend in the trail through the scrub & trees, which is always significantly less than 300 ft.

All that aside, effective detection range is what is relevant to the point about typical LoS for Light vs detection by Sound. (Basically, I'm invalidating my own point on "typical" encounter range, because it's not necessarily the same thing.)


Ehh. I spent a lot of time building hiking trails in the mountainous Pacific rainforest. Even in the middle of nowhere 300ft clearings are not exactly rare. These are not areas that have been artificially cleared or anything, forestry just isn't that dense. You'd have to be in some deep stuff not to be able to see at least partially 300+ft even in a forest. Not to say hiding within that distance wouldn't be fairly easy and cover would be an asset, but it's not like your sight just stops at 50ft.Either you've been in a different Forest area than me, or you're judging "typical" lines of sight completely different from from me. Occasional open areas isn't anything like regular long lines of sight, and occasional was the best way to describe them where I used to hike.

[Tetrasodium]

Ehh. I spent a lot of time building hiking trails in the mountainous Pacific rainforest. Even in the middle of nowhere 300ft clearings are not exactly rare. These are not areas that have been artificially cleared or anything, forestry just isn't that dense. You'd have to be in some deep stuff not to be able to see at least partially 300+ft even in a forest. Not to say hiding within that distance wouldn't be fairly easy and cover would be an asset, but it's not like your sight just stops at 50ft.

Agreed. Not only is it not uncommon to have clearings and/or sparse forest where you can see that far with minimal obstructions... But islets part ofthe reason why I use the dirt common dim light things, just seeing "someone" is different from seeing who

[Willie the Duck]

Apparently we don't live on the same planet, because on my planet it is absolutely normal to see things at a distance. Plains, tundra, fields, hills, villages... exclude all those and there starts to be not much left besides caves and forests. Even in urban environments it is normal to see many things from 300' to 1000' away


Apparently not. Because I usually have lines of sight impeded by trees, folds in the ground, or buildings in my planet.


Here's the thing, you're both right. You can walk across a plain grassy field in a park and not see a deer in a park because of contours of the land, and see a rabbit in a forest clearing 1/8 mile away. Both are true aspects of reality because reality is complex. And when trying to map a game to reality, a lot of considerations can (but are not required to be) taken into account.

[MaxWilson]

...occasional quite open distant lines of sight to see hikers moving around far down to other parts of the trail, so you know they are there. But often it wouldn't be the start of an "encounter" until the enemy actually came around a bend in the trail through the scrub & trees, which is always significantly less than 300 ft.

That's very Combat As Sport-ish. Quoting from the CAW thread:


For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.

For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

If I knew there were Frost Giants a couple of switchbacks below me in the mountains, and the DM denied me a chance to plant caltrops on the trail or charge down the trail after them or pre-cast Spirit Guardians or anything until the Frost Giants actually turned the bend, I'd be pretty annoyed.

(That being said, I acknowledge that 5E and CRPGs both work better in Combat As Sport mode, and if I made a 5E CRPG I would likewise deny the player the opportunity to do CAW-y things before the "encounter" "starts".)

[Boci]

Ehh. I spent a lot of time building hiking trails in the mountainous Pacific rainforest. Even in the middle of nowhere 300ft clearings are not exactly rare. These are not areas that have been artificially cleared or anything, forestry just isn't that dense. You'd have to be in some deep stuff not to be able to see at least partially 300+ft even in a forest. Not to say hiding within that distance wouldn't be fairly easy and cover would be an asset, but it's not like your sight just stops at 50ft.

Yeah, you can see 300ft, in that you can draw a line that long in one particular directions (or maybe even a few). But statistically, you any other indevidual in the rain forest will have line of sight blocked between you by the trees and stuff until you are way closer than 300ft.

[Moxxmix]

The very idea that all racial components are modular and accounting for dis/synergy is unnecessary seems not to play out. But impressive effort.
What aspect would you say doesn't play out? Other than the Triton. <annoyed>

(There's also the monstrous races, but those are explicitly noted as possibly being weaker or stronger than normal player races, so there's no real way to compare those. On the other hand, the very fact that they're called out as being weaker or stronger than the player races implicitly indicates that all the player races are supposed to be roughly equal in strength, which means they should be measurably equivalent.)


Yeah, I agree. It's still a cool spreadsheet though. My assumption has always been: 3 ASIs, with more allowable so long as there's no synergy. (As with mountain dwarf) This is why regular humans fall behind a bit. They have 3 ASIs with little to no synergy.
And how would you say synergy applies? Certainly the various races are designed to fit particular themes, but I don't see any evidence that, say, Darkvision is more valuable for some races than others, just because of 'synergy'.

I realize you may think that there's no point to a system like this, but I'd at least like to get a handle on other ways of viewing and approaching the problem.

To me, it seems like baseline humans are designed for those who would take ASIs over feats. Just build a starting set of values that are mostly odd

~~~~

As for human (+1 to all stats) vs non-human (+2/+1 to stats), there's actually some interesting things that fall out if you look at the results of using stat buys on them.

First, the human will focus on getting odd numbers in as many stats as possible, in order to benefit from the racial improvement.

Human [with total +mods]:
1) 15, 15, 13, 10, 9, 9 ⇒ 16, 16, 14, 11, 10, 10 [+8] (no negatives)
2) 15, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 ⇒ 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 9 [+8]
3) 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 ⇒ 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11 [+10]
4) 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8 ⇒ 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 9 [+9]
5) 15, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9 ⇒ 16, 14, 14, 14, 11, 10 [+9] (no negatives)
6) 15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10 ⇒ 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 [+9] (no negatives)

The Non-human can only affect two stats, so you might as well use the standard array to get a pair of 16's.

Non-human (+2/+1):
A) 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 ⇒ 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8 [+7]
B) 15, 14, 12, 12, 10, 9 ⇒ 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 9 [+7]
C) 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10 ⇒ 16, 16, 12, 11, 10, 10 [+7] (no negatives)
D) 15, 12, 12, 12, 12, 10 ⇒ 16, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10 [+8] (no negatives)

Variant Human (+1/+1):
X) 15, 15, 11, 10, 10, 10 ⇒ 16, 16, 11, 10, 10, 10 [+6] (no negatives)
Y) 15, 13, 14, 10, 10, 10 ⇒ 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 [+7] (no negatives)



For the human options 1 and 2 (with two 16's each), the remaining stats only gain +1 mod over the non-human build. Either the 12/8 vs 12/9 are roughly equivalent, or it trades 12 to 11 to raise 8 to 10. Despite having 3 more points of stats to spend, the overall stat totals are 77 for human, 75 for non-human — a 2 point difference, which means the human gained less than the actual racial stat bonus difference available.

Options 3-6 gain a lot more. However you have to approach it assuming only one 16 at best. I would probably go for build 4 or 5 as a human. The stat total for options 4-6 are 79, which means 4 points over the focused non-human setup; a net gain over the racial stats which only give an explicit +3.

The variant human options total up to 73-74 points of stats, which actually puts that 5 to 6 points behind the standard human, rather than the expected 4.

So non-humans do better on a focused stat build, and humans do better on a broad stat build. A non-human can do a broad build, but it only gets up to 76 stat points; not as good, really. And the stat totals you can reach are actually a little higher than the obvious difference in stat bonuses provided would imply, assuming you do a stat buy and actually try to get the best result you can manage. The 'synergy' for humans is having a broad stat base to work off of (better for multiclassing and MAD classes). It doesn't work very well with a focused stat base.

The better comparison between options, I think, is what your stat mod total is, and then whether the extra features like darkvision or feats are worth +2 or +3 in stat mods (considering that feats are worth +1 stat mod when you get a class ASI).

~~~~~~~

As for the darkvision question, I've found it to be of extremely limited use in the campaigns I've played in. In dungeons we've had to deal with enemies with the Darkness spell, which renders darkvision moot. Another game has been a city campaign, so darkvision is a mild benefit at best. And of course the most common advice to heed: "Never confront the forces of darkness at night." If you need darkvision in the first place, you weren't planning things very well.

So overall, very much a "YMMV" type of question.

[Willie the Duck]

What aspect would you say doesn't play out?

Exactly what I said, that racial ability components can be judged as modular components, without delving into their context and synergies or dis-synergies. The mountain dwarf is the simplest example: it can 'get' +4 in attribute adjustments, along with dwarven goodness and decent armor and str-based melee weapon proficiencies because it is hard to find situations where at least one part of that or another is not redundant or hard to use. I think (and, yes, this is opinion) any system that does not take such things into account is an imperfect model.

[Tanarii]

Here's the thing, you're both right.Never! There can be only one! It's an Internet argument where all people involved can only see the other person's views as extreme! :smallamused:


That's very Combat As Sport-ish. Quoting from the CAW thread:



If I knew there were Frost Giants a couple of switchbacks below me in the mountains, and the DM denied me a chance to plant caltrops on the trail or charge down the trail after them or pre-cast Spirit Guardians or anything until the Frost Giants actually turned the bend, I'd be pretty annoyed.That was kind of my point. The encounter doesn't begin until they Frost Giants come into view in effective combat range. That doesn't mean that detecting them early doesn't potentially give a large advantage pre-encounter.

That's why I was saying my point about encoinr starting distances isn't necessarily relevant to a discussion on typical ranges of detecting someone holding a light in the darkness vs a loud spell at 300ft.

Although the latter also isn't really an apples to apples comparison, unless you're comparing in both cases being in an area with multiple encounters. Which I definitely was. From what I can tell, you're thinking in terms of a single encounter in the wilderness, in (from my perspective) quite open terrain. In that case, thunderwave in the combat isn't going to draw anyone since there probably isn't anyone for some miles.

[Xetheral]

I agree. And it's still abnormal to assume open lines of sight even as far as 300ft. That's a very specialized kind of D&D.

It's worth noting that the "norm" for starting D&D encounters is supposed to be, what, 2d6x10 ft?

Where are you getting 2d6x10 ft from? That seems absurdly short. I would consider 300 feet to be an unusually short distance for an outdoor encounter to start. (Note that combat usually starts at 300 ft or less. My parties usually want to try a nonviolent approach first, and that involves approaching to conversational range. Even when known hostiles are around, I don't switch to initiative until someone is in weapon (or spell) range of someone else.)


According to the 5E DMG it's visual range if neither party is trying to hide, which again according to the DMG can be a mile or more.

Conclusion: if you want to force short-ranged combat[1] in a wilderness encounter, somebody has to be trying to hide.

[1] As opposed to "allow short-ranged combat" when PCs stumble over monsters/NPCs when they turn a corner somewhere, because they don't care enough to control the circumstances of the encounter.

Agreed. Although there are exceptions: weather, ultra-dense vegetation, and extremely rough terrain being the big ones.


Sure. On the flat in a wide open plains or field, that's good to go.

In any other terrain it's going to be considerably shorter to detect someone by sight.

On a flat, open plain, two 1.7m humans can see each other's head poking over the horizon at a range of 5.8 miles (on an Earth-sized spherical planet anyway). On horseback, with eyes at about 3m off the ground, riders can see each other at 7.6 miles. So no, I don't think the listed sight range of a mile is limited to wide-open plains. (For clarity: being capable of seeing each other at those ranges doesn't mean they will see each other.)

[MaxWilson]

That was kind of my point. The encounter doesn't begin until they Frost Giants come into view in effective combat range. That doesn't mean that detecting them early doesn't potentially give a large advantage pre-encounter.

So, is this a semantic argument over the meaning of the word "encounter" then? If I'm interacting with those giants at a distance, even though they haven't turned the bend yet, does it really matter if you call that "pre-encounter" and I call that "part of the encounter"?

(Honestly, in practice I find the biggest factor that makes combat start at close range is when PCs default to talking instead of instant violence, because talking can only happen at close range, and talking also doesn't work as well if you have a bunch of allies providing covering fire at ideal combat ranges--so if you want to attempt a friendly conversation with someone you just met, you have to do some tactically non-ideal things.)


That's why I was saying my point about encoinr starting distances isn't necessarily relevant to a discussion on typical ranges of detecting someone holding a light in the darkness vs a loud spell at 300ft.

Although the latter also isn't really an apples to apples comparison, unless you're comparing in both cases being in an area with multiple encounters. Which I definitely was. From what I can tell, you're thinking in terms of a single encounter in the wilderness, in (from my perspective) quite open terrain. In that case, thunderwave in the combat isn't going to draw anyone since there probably isn't anyone for some miles.

When it comes to enclosed spaces, the idea that Thunderwave will draw attention is quite plausible... but it's not plausible that other things won't draw similar attention. D&D location-based adventuring is often written as the TTRPG equivalent of "the call is coming from inside the house" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCallsAreComingFromInsideTheHouse). I can buy the idea that swords and arrows are quieter than gunshots, and that you could potentially "clear" an entire five-to-ten-room building in minutes without giving defenders a chance to coordinate between themselves or regroup... but I can only buy it if the whole assault is over in minutes. I would call that "one big encounter", and I already know you have a different definition of "encounter" so perhaps you'd call it "five to eight encounters," but however you define terms I cannot buy the idea that you can assault the guards in one room, spend two or three rounds fighting, pause for a few minutes to lick your wounds and discuss further plans, and reasonably expect that the situation in the next room won't have changed. Whether "the Thunderwave is coming from inside the house" or "the shouts of 'To Arms!' are coming from inside the house", either way the effect is the same.

In an outdoor scenario with more distance between locations (e.g. separate barracks spaced every hundred feet or so) I can buy isolated interactions more easily. "To Arms!" might at least call for a Hearing check by whoever is awake on firewatch, and maybe some kind of morale check or discipline check to see if they have the nerve to sound an alarm and risk making a mistake, and then some delay after the alarm while a response is coordinated.

[Coffee_Dragon]

However, this reminded me that I was never terribly happy with the results he came up with, so I just redid the reverse-engineering of the PHB races myself, and settled on a "25 point" system (4 points per ASI), and it resulted in darkvision costing 1 point (or 2 points for 120' darkvision), and feats costing 14 points.

Here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1536HDqVDs4FVFmArX-D9XklXIcRxka9C/view?usp=sharing) is the spreadsheet with my calculations.

A few short comments from just looking at the humans:

* I wouldn't use "ASI" to mean +1 to a stat; we already use it to refer to two +1s.

* You can't value the default human's "ASIs" equally; at most three of them should be +4, and the rest maybe +2 at best. I would typically value a freely chosen proficiency over a +1 to a random stat, and you have that at +2.

* If the feat is valued at +14 just so it sums up to 25, then the number is pointless. It cannot be assumed races are balanced.

[MaxWilson]

A few short comments from just looking at the humans:

* I wouldn't use "ASI" to mean +1 to a stat; we already use it to refer to two +1s.

* You can't value the default human's "ASIs" equally; at most three of them should be +4, and the rest maybe +2 at best. I would typically value a freely chosen proficiency over a +1 to a random stat, and you have that at +2.

* If the feat is valued at +14 just so it sums up to 25, then the number is pointless. It cannot be assumed races are balanced.

Furthermore, it should be intuitively obvious that +1 to six stats is not the same value as +6 to one stat. Clearly humans with +6 to a stat of choice would not fit with 5E.

Ergo, just because you can derive some constraints as if they were based on fixed point-buy values doesn't mean that the original system was based on point-buy.

[Moxxmix]

A few short comments from just looking at the humans:

* I wouldn't use "ASI" to mean +1 to a stat; we already use it to refer to two +1s.

* You can't value the default human's "ASIs" equally; at most three of them should be +4, and the rest maybe +2 at best. I would typically value a freely chosen proficiency over a +1 to a random stat, and you have that at +2.

* If the feat is valued at +14 just so it sums up to 25, then the number is pointless. It cannot be assumed races are balanced.

OK, I'll change "ASI" to just "Stat".

I don't think I'd agree on the reduced value of additional stat points, because, as I worked out in the other post, they become more valuable the more you aim for a broad stat base instead of a focused stat base. If you're trying to build for a focused stat base, then obviously the extra +1's aren't gaining you much because it's a poor approach to using those resources.

As for the feat cost, that's not what's being balanced against for the rest of the races. The 25 point sum came from the non-feat human, and thus what all the other races are balanced against. The 14 point cost does actually fit some of the other races' feature costs, though, as several of them seem to be priced at or about 7 points — a "half" feat — for abilities that might reasonably be considered half a feat.


Furthermore, it should be intuitively obvious that +1 to six stats is not the same value as +6 to one stat. Clearly humans with +6 to a stat of choice would not fit with 5E.

Ergo, just because you can derive some constraints as if they were based on fixed point-buy values doesn't mean that the original system was based on point-buy.

That's a good point. I know when people consider free-er stat choices, they include a caveat that you can't put +3 into a single stat. It will require a rework of the general costs. I'll try it and see what comes out.

[MaxWilson]

That's a good point. I know when people consider free-er stat choices, they include a caveat that you can't put +3 into a single stat. It will require a rework of the general costs. I'll try it and see what comes out.

You might also try redoing your math under the assumption that +2 to a stat is roughly equal in value to one feat, because we have reason to believe the designers tried to make that true. (Because ASIs can be converted to/from feats.)

[Moxxmix]

You might also try redoing your math under the assumption that +2 to a stat is roughly equal in value to one feat, because we have reason to believe the designers tried to make that true. (Because ASIs can be converted to/from feats.)

I'm making a separate thread for this topic, so as not to clog up this one. Thread is over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552840-Determining-Racial-Build-Costs).

[Belier]

A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition.
This is in the PHB.

This game is not about realism any way, this wording means exacly that when you take 5 ft from the last bit of light you had into darkness, you are now blind and see nothing(even the light you left, you arent seeing it any more).

Compare this to magical darkness, when you are in it, it is the same, you don't see the bright day even if it's 5 ft from you.

Now, most dm will house rule that you can see lightsources when you stand in the dark(non magical), which is fine because that is how reality work, they want logic. Jn those game, you don't need darkvision, the feat is better because you just can paint your target with cheap spells or throw a light source at them and still use range attack in the dark.

or some dm will not pay to much attention to light sources in the game. those dm will make you feel like your darkvision is a waste of text in the book. You are clearly better with a feat.

Now, for those that accept the game as it is and won't house rule on vision, darkvision is a blessing, and should not be looked down for a feat, they are situation dependant. You will regret your sharpshooter feat in the dark, and you will envy a sharpshooter feat in the bright light if you chose to have darkvision.

I vote they are equals. It is a game where the team has to provide some cover to others weakness so they can use their strenght.

[MaxWilson]

A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition.
This is in the PHB.

This game is not about realism any way, this wording means exacly that when you take 5 ft from the last bit of light you had into darkness, you are now blind and see nothing(even the light you left, you arent seeing it any more).

You're using an old version of the PHB. The original text, as you've noticed, is insane and does not match the way light actually works. WotC corrected this, and both the errata and new printings of the PHB now state the opposite: you are blinded WITH RESPECT TO creatures in a heavily obscured area. I.e. you can't see things in the dark, unless you can see through that kind of darkness due to darkvision or whatnot (in which case it's not heavily obscured for you).

This is the only sane way to run darkness and it's good that WotC eventually caught on and fixed it.

[Tanarii]

This is the only sane way to run darkness and it's good that WotC eventually caught on and fixed it.
The only problem is they need to add a line to the Darkness spell making it explicit it blocks LoS now. Or an SA would do it. It's the most likely intent of the spell, and certainly how I run it. But it's not explicit that it does that, just that it creates darkness that negates existing light and blocks darkvision.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The only problem is they need to add a line to the Darkness spell making it explicit it blocks LoS now. Or an SA would do it. It's the most likely intent of the spell, and certainly how I run it. But it's not explicit that it does that, just that it creates darkness that negates existing light and blocks darkvision.

It seems pretty clear to me, if you fill a section of a corridor completely only someone who could see through magical darkness would be able to see anything on the other side. Darkness(spell) can't be illuminated through low level magic or non magical light and darkness(no light) blocks vision entirely.

Darkness made through a lack of a light source would also block your line of sight unless there was a light source that you could see.

If you can't see something, you don't have line of sight. Sure it would help to have an extra line stating that, but it doesn't need one.

[MaxWilson]

The only problem is they need to add a line to the Darkness spell making it explicit it blocks LoS now. Or an SA would do it. It's the most likely intent of the spell, and certainly how I run it. But it's not explicit that it does that, just that it creates darkness that negates existing light and blocks darkvision.

Yes, if they want it to do that, they need to say so in the spell text. As written it is not opaque.

[Tanarii]

It seems pretty clear to me, if you fill a section of a corridor completely only someone who could see through magical darkness would be able to see anything on the other side.
Why? As MaxWilson says, it isn't specified it is opaque.

Anyone that had played older rules of D&D will certainly assume it is. But the spell itself just says "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it." That means technically as written, it's just stopping you from seeing stuff inside the area, not on the other side of it.

Just like normal darkness, except a lantern can't change its visibility and darkvision can't penetrate it.

I suspect it's just an oversight in the wording, or they didn't think about due to the old wording of obscuring in the PHB.

[Pex]

Why? As MaxWilson says, it isn't specified it is opaque.

Anyone that had played older rules of D&D will certainly assume it is. But the spell itself just says "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it." That means technically as written, it's just stopping you from seeing stuff inside the area, not on the other side of it.

Just like normal darkness, except a lantern can't change its visibility and darkvision can't penetrate it.

I suspect it's just an oversight in the wording, or they didn't think about due to the old wording of obscuring in the PHB.

Tanarii having a problem with vagueness of rules? I wonder what that's like.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why? As MaxWilson says, it isn't specified it is opaque.

Anyone that had played older rules of D&D will certainly assume it is. But the spell itself just says "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it." That means technically as written, it's just stopping you from seeing stuff inside the area, not on the other side of it.

Just like normal darkness, except a lantern can't change its visibility and darkvision can't penetrate it.

I suspect it's just an oversight in the wording, or they didn't think about due to the old wording of obscuring in the PHB.
I suppose you're right, I just think it's completely ridiculous that you could say that you're looking PAST the darkness and somehow know where magical darkness would end for that purpose.

The way I'm reading it, I believe that the part where it can't be illuminated would prevent any light from travelling through, ergo you wouldn't be able to see past it, but since that's not what it explicitly says then I guess you'd be able to see a torch as long as it wasn't in the sphere.

By the same logic you could just hold a lantern up to it and have a 15ft sphere cut out of your lanterns light and completely see past into the other side.

Definitely needs some wording changed in that case, since as ludicrous as all of that sounds it's not technically wrong. I'd still go with a common sense ruling of being of not being able to see past it though.

[MaxWilson]

I suppose you're right, I just think it's completely ridiculous that you could say that you're looking PAST the darkness and somehow know where magical darkness would end for that purpose.

The way I'm reading it, I believe that the part where it can't be illuminated would prevent any light from travelling through, ergo you wouldn't be able to see past it, but since that's not what it explicitly says then I guess you'd be able to see a torch as long as it wasn't in the sphere.

Having darkness be "anti-light" is weird in the first place; but in fiction like Harry Potter, a moving field of darkness does not typically cast shadows if it comes between a light source (like the sun) and the protagonists. It just creates an area where there is no light, in which nothing can be seen. If you like, you can think of it as a zone in which reflectivity is zero.

So the way Darkness works by RAW in 5E is actually intuitive, by fantasy standards. It's weird in the same way that a living shadow that moves independently of the creature is weird: weird to imagine physics for it, but straightforward to apply in fantastic terms.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii having a problem with vagueness of rules? I wonder what that's like.I think it's an error, a simple oversight. Not vagueness.


I'd still go with a common sense ruling of being of not being able to see past it though.If you look at it with absolutely no assumptions of previous ways the Darkness spell used to work in other editions, there's no particular reason to think a Darkness spell would do anything other than create darkness in it's area of effect, extinguishing all light and illumination within it. In other words, I can't see how it's "common sense" to think it creates an impenetrable inky blackness, as opposed to an area that cannot be illuminated. I can certainly envision either way very easily.

On the other hand, as soon as you add the way Darkness traditionally works in D&D to the mix, which is impenetrable inky blackness ... I completely agree it's a common sense ruling.