Darkvision does not do what we think it does?

[Grod_The_Giant]

According to Crawford, characters using Darkvision to see in pitch blackness should still suffer disadvantage. Did I just... miss that with every group I've ever played with? Has anyone else caught that?

[pcamp88]

Creatures with Darkvision treat total darkness the same way that creatures with normal version treat dim light, which is disadvantage on perception checks that rely on sight.

[Unoriginal]

According to Crawford, characters using Darkvision to see in pitch blackness should still suffer disadvantage. Did I just... miss that with every group I've ever played with? Has anyone else caught that?

Disadvantage in Wis(Perception) checks, yes. It's in the rules.

Darkvision means pitch darkness count as dimly lit.



...Wouldn't surprise me if most people who think Darkvision is strong/that people who see in the dark never carry light sources didn't get the "downsides" part.

[mephnick]

I argued with another DM the other day that a cave of intelligent darkvision creatures would probably still have the odd lit torch..because why see worse when you don't have to? He refused to believe the disadvantage rule, then when I showed him said it didn't matter and the whole complex was always pitch black. Oh well, that's why I run games and don't play them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I made the same mistake for a long time, Darkvision played by the rules is still very good but horrendously overrated.

[Theodoxus]

It's about the only good use for Dancing Light, IMO. I'd be pretty happy with a continual flame type spell that was dim light only... especially if it had a decent radius, like 60' of dim. Be amazing for darkvision folk.

[OldTrees1]

Disadvantage in Wis(Perception) checks, yes. It's in the rules.

Darkvision means pitch darkness count as dimly lit.



...Wouldn't surprise me if most people who think Darkvision is strong/that people who see in the dark never carry light sources didn't get the "downsides" part.

In practice I have found Darkvision very useful for anyone that cares about perception or stealth.

If you want to perceive, you suffer disadvantage in dim light and blindness in the dark unless you have darkvision. So while suffering disadvantage in the dark is annoying (see Skulker feat), it is still a big step up from constant disadvantage and frequent blindness.

If you want to hide you need to find obscurement. Normal dim light is not obscurement against those with darkvision. Darkness is obscurement but renders you blind unless you have darkvision.

[MaxWilson]

It's about the only good use for Dancing Light, IMO. I'd be pretty happy with a continual flame type spell that was dim light only... especially if it had a decent radius, like 60' of dim. Be amazing for darkvision folk.

Are you kidding? Dancing Lights is practically a NARC beacon for calling in airstrikes. You use it to illuminate enemies for archers beyond normal Darkvision range, so the archers get advantage their attacks. It's so powerful that I've houseruled away advantage on ranged attacks from unseen attackers.

Admittedly, Dancing Lights is not the only way to achieve this effect (Light on an arrow works okay too once you shoot the arrow, or giving a torch to some high-AC guy and having him charge the foe while Dodging, or even just having superior Darkvision on all your archers thanks to Goggles of Night or drow blood or whatnot) but still, ability to illuminate things from 120' away while remaining in hiding yourself is quite powerful in the 5E ruleset. It's practically no-save at-will Faerie Fire, whenever it's sufficiently dark.

@OP, that is why Skulker is amazing for killing monsters in the dark. Skulker lets you hide in dim light, and monsters that are relying on Darkvision in the dark treat you as being in dim light, so you can hide from them. Monsters typically have poor skills compared to PCs, and pitting a Shadow Monk's or Rogue's enormous Stealth bonus against a typical monster's passive perception of 10-14 is a recipe full of win. Normally the biggest downside to stealth is having to find the right locations in which Hiding is a valid action, but in darkness with Skulker feat, every location is a valid location.

[UrielAwakened]

That's a pretty meaningless disadvantage honestly.

I'm pretty sure your passive perception doesn't care about advantage/disadvantage so it doesn't matter for 99% of scenarios you'd encounter while just wandering around a dark dungeon.

The only times you'd care is finding a stealthed creature you know is stealthed. And of course you're going to shine a light then.

Plus it doesn't affect stuff like Devil's Sight either.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's a pretty meaningless disadvantage honestly.

I'm pretty sure your passive perception doesn't care about advantage/disadvantage so it doesn't matter for 99% of scenarios you'd encounter while just wandering around a dark dungeon.

The only times you'd care is finding a stealthed creature you know is stealthed. And of course you're going to shine a light then.

Plus it doesn't affect stuff like Devil's Sight either.
It actually does.


PG 175 PHB
Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:

10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check

If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.

Devils Sight is also an entirely different thing, which as a note, does not affect your vision in dim light by raw. If you happen to only have devils sight and not darkvision, dim light will still give you disadvantage.

Lighting rules make little sense most of the time.

[LudicSavant]

According to Crawford, characters using Darkvision to see in pitch blackness should still suffer disadvantage. Did I just... miss that with every group I've ever played with? Has anyone else caught that?

Every time that Darkvision is mentioned in the PHB it notes something to the effect of "You can see in dim light within X feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."

[Davrix]

I'm with Grod on this one. Didn't even realize i was using this wrong all these years lol.

[Lombra]

The description is kind of circular, if you can see in dim light as if it were normally lit, and in darkness as if it was dimly lit, then you see darkness, which you see dimly lit, normally lit, since in dim light you see normally.

But I never read it that way and never played it different by RAW.

[Unoriginal]

I argued with another DM the other day that a cave of intelligent darkvision creatures would probably still have the odd lit torch..because why see worse when you don't have to? He refused to believe the disadvantage rule, then when I showed him said it didn't matter and the whole complex was always pitch black. Oh well, that's why I run games and don't play them.

Yeah, that's dumb. Intelligent beings will have lights when they can afford it.

No one want to live their lives in dimly-lit black-and-white when they can see clearly and in color.

[Contrast]

I knew this and still think darkvision is basically obligatory on any character with any pretensions of attempting to be stealthy.

That said, almost all enemies should have their homes lit by at dim light and the number of DMs who rule that <sentient creature> live their lives in pitch darkness is silly.

[Cwyll]

This is the (common) misreading that can make a gloomstalker ranger a murderous god.
Add in 3 levels of rogue/assassin, and foes will just be exploding in the darkness...

[Lorsa]

Another question then. Does disadvantage on Perception checks have any effect at all on attack rolls? I'm sure it's in the rules somewhere but having internet answer for me is quicker!

[Tectorman]

This is the (common) misreading that can make a gloomstalker ranger a murderous god.
Add in 3 levels of rogue/assassin, and foes will just be exploding in the darkness...

I don't follow. How does this misreading lead to Gloomstalker Ranger/Rogues being that good?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't follow. How does this misreading lead to Gloomstalker Ranger/Rogues being that good?

I believe it's because it gives the impression, like Mephnick mentioned above, that creatures with darkvision would sit around in pitch black darkness allowing a Gloom Stalker to run around virtually undetectable and kill them.

Which, in his example of the DM refusing to believe creatures with darkvision would want light every now and again, is true. A Gloom Stalker would get a permission slip from the DM to be a murder monster because the Kobold Caves don't have any torches or campfires.

[smcmike]

1. There is nothing wrong with making some of the true deep-dwellers live in darkness. It’s a fun way to make them more alien. Not everything has to be evaluated based upon whether it makes sense per the mechanics of the rules and some sort of reasonable monster standard.

2. Goblins and their ilk are not usually true deep-dwellers, and probably shouldn’t be imagined living their lives in the pitch-black. On the other hand, this doesn’t mean that one should expect their entire living complexes to be well-lit, with torches on every wall. There simply isn’t any need for this level of lighting.

3. Particularly when operating in areas infested with humans and other light-lovers, it makes a lot of sense for monsters with darkvision to employ pitch-darkness defensively. Disadvantage sucks, but being blinded is worse, and a goblin war band can probably count on any human invader bringing a light source. Do you know what is truly awesome? Attacking from darkness into light. This is what makes darkvision good, tactically - it allows you to move about effectively in areas of darkness and shoot at the idiots with torches.

[jas61292]

Darkvision played by the rules is still very good but horrendously overrated.
This. Based on what I read on forums like this, I consider Darkvision among the top five most overrated things in 5e. Yes, it has plenty of use, and is very good to have, but exploring anywhere you are unfamiliar with, using just Darkvision, is a recipe for walking into traps and ambushes.

After all, if you are walking into an unlit dungeon or lair, the most likely scenario is that whatever lives there can also see in the dark (as well or better than you can), and they actually know the terrain. In such situations, darkness is their ally, not yours.

[Tanarii]

According to Crawford, characters using Darkvision to see in pitch blackness should still suffer disadvantage. Did I just... miss that with every group I've ever played with? Has anyone else caught that?Did you miss that the Darkvision description said darkness was dim light, and/or carried over assumptions from a previous edition? Or was it because you missed that Dim Light causes a perception penalty in general?

They're in two different sections, and DMs usually handle lighting very poorly anyway. The perception penalty for dim light in general is something I used to see ignored on the regular in AL. Let alone having different light levels within a given area.


If you want to perceive, you suffer disadvantage in dim light and blindness in the dark unless you have darkvision. So while suffering disadvantage in the dark is annoying (see Skulker feat), it is still a big step up from constant disadvantage and frequent blindness.

If you want to hide you need to find obscurement. Normal dim light is not obscurement against those with darkvision. Darkness is obscurement but renders you blind unless you have darkvision.Are your adventuring areas always uniformly lit? Mine usually have areas where you can sneak through darkness or dim light by staying out of the areas of light. So sneaking while seeing is often possible.

Not that I think your general point, which seems to be that darkvision is hugely helpful to a scout in a generic dungeon-like environment, is totally wrong. It's definitely very helpful in that case.

-----------------------------------------

What bothers me the most about lighting levels in D&D is an unlit night anything except a brightly-lit-by-moonlight night is effectively darkness, but so it total underground pitch blackness or the inside of a Hunger of Hadar spell. The current effects of darkness, where you can freely move without penalty (unless the DM imposes one) and freely attack targets albeit at disadvantage (unless the DM makes you guess) would be best for an outside-at-night type of darkness. With something that hampers movement and makes attacking targets virtually impossible for pitch blackness. Of course, that's a bit too simulation and screwing the PCs in that situation for some people.

[tieren]

As a DM I don't let darkvision players differentiate color (per RAW) or even read (houserule) in the dark. this lets me get campy and do things like label the cell a monster is being held in or which stairs lead to the exit and let the party walk on by blissfully ignorant.

[SirGraystone]

As Darkvision let you see as in dim light, a torch (or other form of light) can be very helpful to read and write or recognize color.

[adolann]

I once used the lack of color vision to great effect with a trap that had a way around it if you did something in the right sequence based on color. If you had a torch, it was trivial to solve. If you relied on just darkvision, you did a lot of guessing.

[smcmike]

What bothers me the most about lighting levels in D&D is an unlit night is effectively darkness, but so it total underground pitch blackness or the inside of a Hunger of Hadar spell. The current effects of darkness, where you can freely move without penalty (unless the DM imposes one) and freely attack targets albeit at disadvantage (unless the DM makes you guess) would be best for an outside-at-night type of darkness. With something that hampers movement and makes attacking targets virtually impossible for pitch blackness. Of course, that's a bit too simulation and screwing the PCs in that situation for some people.

Yeah, I wish there was room for a slightly broader range of light. Personally, I thonk a good DM should use the lighting and perception rules as a very basic framework, and build on them on the fly (while taking into account player’s interests, of course). The game really seems designed for this, considering the absolute lack of hard rules on sound.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I wish there was room for a slightly broader range of light. Personally, I thonk a good DM should use the lighting and perception rules as a very basic framework, and build on them on the fly (while taking into account player’s interests, of course). The game really seems designed for this, considering the absolute lack of hard rules on sound.
It's fairly easy for a DM to do something like require some kind of check to move without falling flat on your face or bumping into stuff, choosing directions to move instead of freely moving, or requiring guessing a target's location to make any attack, including melee attacks. Deciding on checks for things, and/or choosing to have creatures guess target locations under certain circumstances, is even technically within the DMs purview as an application of RAW.

But I predict you'll have some players screaming about how unfair it is if you don't get buy-in in advance.

[Contrast]

Another question then. Does disadvantage on Perception checks have any effect at all on attack rolls? I'm sure it's in the rules somewhere but having internet answer for me is quicker!

No impact on attack rolls.

[Tanarii]

No impact on attack rolls.
Or more accurately, only an indirect impact. If you have to guess where a creature is or otherwise can't see it, e.g. because it's managing to Hide in dim light (e.g. Skulker Feat), you'd either be missing if you guessed wrong, or attacking with disadvantage if you guessed right or didn't have to guess.

Actually, having typed that out ... if a creature has made a Hide check in Dim Light, do you get disadvantage if you successfully guess where it is? I guess I can't recall if Hiding makes you unseen, or being unseen is just normally a prerequisite for Hiding so they go hand in hand.

[DarkKnightJin]

I once used the lack of color vision to great effect with a trap that had a way around it if you did something in the right sequence based on color. If you had a torch, it was trivial to solve. If you relied on just darkvision, you did a lot of guessing.

This is wonderfully diabolical, and I love it.
I am totally stealing something like that if and when I take my seat behind the DM screen.
Something easy to figure out if you're doing it with at least dim light there. But nigh-impossible if you're trying to be 'sneaky' and doing it in the dark. Amazing.

[DarkKnightJin]

Or more accurately, only an indirect impact. If you have to guess where a creature is or otherwise can't see it, e.g. because it's managing to Hide in dim light (e.g. Skulker Feat), you'd either be missing if you guessed wrong, or attacking with disadvantage if you guessed right or didn't have to guess.

Actually, having typed that out ... if a creature has made a Hide check in Dim Light, do you get disadvantage if you successfully guess where it is? I guess I can't recall if Hiding makes you unseen, or being unseen is just normally a prerequisite for Hiding so they go hand in hand.

You need to be Obscured to attempt a Hide check.
You can't just try and Drax it, and claim you're 'invisible' because you're standing very, very still.

[OldTrees1]

Are your adventuring areas always uniformly lit? Mine usually have areas where you can sneak through darkness or dim light by staying out of the areas of light. So sneaking while seeing is often possible.

Not that I think your general point, which seems to be that darkvision is hugely helpful to a scout in a generic dungeon-like environment, is totally wrong. It's definitely very helpful in that case.

No, I am not saying adventuring areas are always uniformly bright/dim/dark*. I was summarizing a comparison of all the cases. Consider case 2, sure there might be patches of all 3 intensities present, but the Halfling is going to need to blindly sneak through the Dark if they want to sneak past the Dwarf (and that is not likely to happen).


Halfling(No Darkvision) sneaking past a Halfling(No Darkvision): slightly in the sneak's favor
Dim = probable stealth. Darkness = sneaking while both of you are blind?! probably no stealth.
Halfling(No Darkvision) sneaking past a Dwarf(Darkvision Perception): the guard succeeds
Dim = no stealth. Darkness = sneaking while blind while only you are blind?! no stealth.
Dwarf(Darkvision Perception) sneaking past a Halfling(No Darkvision): the sneak succeeds
Dim = probable stealth. Darkness = definite stealth.
Dwarf(Darkvision Perception) sneaking past a Dwarf(Darkvision Perception): slightly in the sneak's favor
Dim = no stealth. Darkness = probable stealth.


While the sneak has an edge when both have the same vision, if only one has dark vision they are the winner in the challenge. Since you are going to encounter a variety of light levels and a variety of enemies, Darkvision is very important to both Stealthy and Perceptive characters.

*Although there are environments where a light is a sign of prey("juicy human magi") rather than a sign of danger("ouchy red flower"). In those situations I would expect almost everywhere to be complete darkness except for brief moments per day when someone needed a better view enough to risk inviting danger.

[Demonslayer666]

According to Crawford, characters using Darkvision to see in pitch blackness should still suffer disadvantage. Did I just... miss that with every group I've ever played with? Has anyone else caught that?

This is the way I play it, but I learned it from these boards so I didn't actually catch it myself.

And I still sometimes forget to impose the disadvantage on my players.

[Theodoxus]

It's fairly easy for a DM to do something like require some kind of check to move without falling flat on your face or bumping into stuff, choosing directions to move instead of freely moving, or requiring guessing a target's location to make any attack, including melee attacks. Deciding on checks for things, and/or choosing to have creatures guess target locations under certain circumstances, is even technically within the DMs purview as an application of RAW.

But I predict you'll have some players screaming about how unfair it is if you don't get buy-in in advance.

I have an AL DM who not only does all this, but when there are multiple targets of opportunity within a blind melee attack (such as imposed by fog cloud), she rolls to see which target was hit - potentially hitting an ally.

It was comical, but a little frustrating (re: unfair) when it first occurred. I ultimately changed my tactics to minimize the silliness. In some things, I totally agree with Pex's rant regarding DM Rulings.

[RSP]

I was aware of how Darkvision works, but there's still a lot of grey area in the lighting rules (get it?)

Mainly, in lightly obscured conditions like Dim light, there's Disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight, however, Stealth doesn't just rely on being unseen, but rather unseen and unheard.

If you impose Disadvantage on Perception checks in Dim light, you're effectively saying Dim light makes it harder to hear people. And in Heavily Obscured conditions, like Darkness, Sight Perception checks automatically fail, yet, again, this shouldn't affect Perception checks to hear someone.

It's a pretty big blind spot in the rules on how all of this is supposed to interact.

[jas61292]

I was aware of how Darkvision works, but there's still a lot of grey area in the lighting rules (get it?)

Mainly, in lightly obscured conditions like Dim light, there's Disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight, however, Stealth doesn't just rely on being unseen, but rather unseen and unheard.

If you impose Disadvantage on Perception checks in Dim light, you're effectively saying Dim light makes it harder to hear people. And in Heavily Obscured conditions, like Darkness, Sight Perception checks automatically fail, yet, again, this shouldn't affect Perception checks to hear someone.

It's a pretty big blind spot in the rules on how all of this is supposed to interact.

I think that is misinterpreting it. Humanoids in general, which PCs are, rely on sight as their main sense. Not imposing any disadvantage when something is hard or impossible to see is effectively saying that it is just as easy for a person to locate things by sound as it is by sight, which real life can certainly tell us is not the case. And since these checks are typically opposed checks, disadvantage is the only real way to represent this.

[smcmike]

I think that is misinterpreting it. Humanoids in general, which PCs are, rely on sight as their main sense. Not imposing any disadvantage when something is hard or impossible to see is effectively saying that it is just as easy for a person to locate things by sound as it is by sight, which real life can certainly tell us is not the case. And since these checks are typically opposed checks, disadvantage is the only real way to represent this.

Sure, but the rules don’t spell this out, as Rsp correctly notes. There are almost no rules about noise, and the interaction between the senses in perception checks is not explained.

That’s because DMs are supposed to make it up as they go along, I think. When an NPC Human sentry peers into the pitch darkness, he has no chance at spotting someone, but what are his chances of hearing something? More importantly (and this is the step that I see skipped all the time), what information does he get if he DOES hear something?

At the table, with a good DM, this can all seem very natural. The DM narrates the fact that the PCs cannot be seen, and describes the sound environment (rustling leaves? Silent night? Noisy camp?). Maybe he has the players roll stealth, based upon conditions. He then narrates a reaction from the guard, which could have a whole range between not noticing and shooting arrows (with disadvantage) at the sound.

[RSP]

I think that is misinterpreting it. Humanoids in general, which PCs are, rely on sight as their main sense. Not imposing any disadvantage when something is hard or impossible to see is effectively saying that it is just as easy for a person to locate things by sound as it is by sight, which real life can certainly tell us is not the case. And since these checks are typically opposed checks, disadvantage is the only real way to represent this.

Real life shouldn't really be involved here. How does real life tells us how well an elf (with their elongated ears and increased powers of Perception, as noted by the race having the skill) can hear, versus a human? Going by real-life science, their ears would capture greater amounts of auditory stimuli, similar to cupping one's ear. Not to mention having this general rule effects plenty of creatures other than elves and humans that are well known for their hearing.

But besides that, are you correlating that Dim light=Disadvantage on Perception and Darkness=autofailure?

Are you suggesting that anytime you can't clearly see someone that the Perception check should be at disadvantage? Isn't the perception check, at times, there to determine if you see them?If you're checking to find out if you see them, why are you giving them Disadvantage due to not being able to see them?

We'll start getting off topic here, but there are plenty of times where Hearing is what a character is using to notice Stealth'd character's (like when invisibility is in play): just because you don't see them doesn't mean you can't hear them.

Noticing someone pick pocketing someone probably relies on sight. Hearing someone sneaking around a dark warehouse, doesn't, yet it seems you're applying the sight rules to both.

[mephnick]

I generally differentiate between sight and hearing and inform the players what the perception check is testing. Trying to see something hidden in dimlight 60ft away in a forest, you probably can't hear or smell anything, so it's a sight perception check at disadvantage. Dark, but close enough to hear? Still Disadvantage on Passive Perception, but the DC to hear is -5 the DC to see. It's definitely vague and 100% DM call, but you can pretty easily differentiate the two with a moment's thought.

[jas61292]

Real life shouldn't really be involved here. How does real life tells us how well an elf (with their elongated ears and increased powers of Perception, as noted by the race having the skill) can hear, versus a human? Going by real-life science, their ears would capture greater amounts of auditory stimuli, similar to cupping one's ear. Not to mention having this general rule effects plenty of creatures other than elves and humans that are well known for their hearing.

But besides that, are you correlating that Dim light=Disadvantage on Perception and Darkness=autofailure?

Are you suggesting that anytime you can't clearly see someone that the Perception check should be at disadvantage? Isn't the perception check, at times, there to determine if you see them?If you're checking to find out if you see them, why are you giving them Disadvantage due to not being able to see them?

We'll start getting off topic here, but there are plenty of times where Hearing is what a character is using to notice Stealth'd character's (like when invisibility is in play): just because you don't see them doesn't mean you can't hear them.

Noticing someone pick pocketing someone probably relies on sight. Hearing someone sneaking around a dark warehouse, doesn't, yet it seems you're applying the sight rules to both.

Elves may be better at hearing, but that doesn't mean they hear as well as they see. If they did, they would likely have a keen senses trait. While it is true that not all races are exactly like humans, there is a good reason they are all humanoids that are at least similar. This is because it allows us to have a baseline assumption (real life) of how they function.

Now, I'm not saying ignore hearing all the time. It has appropriate places in the game. What I am saying is not to ignore the specifically called out disadvantage from dim light because hearing. If the game expected you to be able to perceive as well with hearing in those situations as you could if you could see, it would not be telling you to roll with disadvantage.

Of course, all of this should be tempered by DM calls. When you can and cannot locate things via hearing is always a DM call, and whether it is as easy as if you could see depends on the situation, not a default rule.

[RSP]

Elves may be better at hearing, but that doesn't mean they hear as well as they see. If they did, they would likely have a keen senses trait.

Yeah, too bad they don't have a trait called Keen Senses to reflect their abilities at perceiving things...

[jas61292]

Yeah, too bad they don't have a trait called Keen Senses to reflect their abilities at perceiving things...

I forgot that was the name of that, lol. I was thinking of the creature trait that gives certain creatures advantage on checks with certain senses. Such as a mastiff's keen hearing and smell.

Regardless though, that trait does not specify it is for hearing. It simply implies they are better at all senses; naturally as astute as a trained human.

Unless I'm forgetting some other wording too.

[Asmotherion]

Well, past their Darkvision, I'd give it for attack rolls, sure. Perception as well.

But come on. Otherwise it becomes quasi-obsolate...

You always have a Human in the party either way, and have to carry a Torch or something similar. At least, for the few times you're in total darkness, get some RP benefit of "hey, we should do this more often... why do we even carry torches?".

Ok, I get it. You don't want Average Jo the Dwarf to be like "I need no torch because I was born a Dwarf". This would make less sence for their society overall. That said, at least don't touch Magical Darkvision, or so many amazing Builds would be ruined.

[Lunali]

Creatures in their home should generally have enough light to have no penalties.

Creatures in someone else's home (PCs 90+% of the time) should have as little light as possible unless they are examining something.

[OldTrees1]

Well, past their Darkvision, I'd give it for attack rolls, sure. Perception as well.

But come on. Otherwise it becomes quasi-obsolate...

You always have a Human in the party either way, and have to carry a Torch or something similar. At least, for the few times you're in total darkness, get some RP benefit of "hey, we should do this more often... why do we even carry torches?".

Ok, I get it. You don't want Average Jo the Dwarf to be like "I need no torch because I was born a Dwarf". This would make less sence for their society overall. That said, at least don't touch Magical Darkvision, or so many amazing Builds would be ruined.

Magical Darkvision (as from the Darkvision spell) works as the Darkvision ability.

Darkvision does nothing beyond its range and imposes disadvantage on perception checks made in Darkness within its range.

But that does not make Darkvision quasi-obsolete, you basically get +1 light level which is a big deal for perception and stealth.

Also I don't think having a pet human or something similar is so inevitable. I have seen parties with everyone having darkvision through racial or magical means.

-------------

Although I did notice that Devil's Sight does nothing for Dim Light as a trade off for making you see clearly in the Dark. That is weird. Could someone double check that reading?

[Tanarii]

Do we have to repeat the many thread of many pages of arguments on how to handle checks that involve one or or both sight and sound all over again? :smalltongue:


You need to be Obscured to attempt a Hide check.
You can't just try and Drax it, and claim you're 'invisible' because you're standing very, very still.Not if you have the Skulker feat. You can then make Stealth checks in Dim Light. I don't play with feats, so I've never had to rule before on exactly what this means.


I have an AL DM who not only does all this, but when there are multiple targets of opportunity within a blind melee attack (such as imposed by fog cloud), she rolls to see which target was hit - potentially hitting an ally.

It was comical, but a little frustrating (re: unfair) when it first occurred. I ultimately changed my tactics to minimize the silliness. In some things, I totally agree with Pex's rant regarding DM Rulings.
I caveat on telling your players about things first fairly often. Because even I agree with Pex on that sometimes. Just don't tell him I said that.

[Drascin]

It's fairly easy for a DM to do something like require some kind of check to move without falling flat on your face or bumping into stuff, choosing directions to move instead of freely moving, or requiring guessing a target's location to make any attack, including melee attacks. Deciding on checks for things, and/or choosing to have creatures guess target locations under certain circumstances, is even technically within the DMs purview as an application of RAW.

But I predict you'll have some players screaming about how unfair it is if you don't get buy-in in advance.

Honestly having to do checks to not fall on your ass every round when in darkness would probably turn the entire scene into a farce and make it pretty impossible to take any of the participants seriously (also add more pain in the ass to keep track of for very little gain).

Especially given how extremely dependant on the die roll checks are in 5E. A running joke in our campaign is that the people who don't actually have a perception score actually succeed at more perception rolls than the people who actually have proficiency in it, simply because what the die shows is far more important than your scores. So the rule probably would end up with the supposedly preternaturally graceful elf rogue faceplanting into the ground to the eternal mockery of everyone else.

[OldTrees1]

Not if you have the Skulker feat. You can then make Stealth checks in Dim Light. I don't play with feats, so I've never had to rule before on exactly what this means.

The Skulker Feat lets you hide when lightly obscured. It does not mention Dim Light in that description although Dim Light does obscure you vs normal vision. However Dim light does not obscure you vs Darkvision. You need Darkness for that.

Although someone with Darkvision and the Skulker feat can hide in the Dark from someone with Darkvision and the Skulker feat. However the perception check is not penalized.

[Tanarii]

The Skulker Feat lets you hide when lightly obscured. It does not mention Dim Light in that description although Dim Light does obscure you vs normal vision. However Dim light does not obscure you vs Darkvision. You need Darkness for that.

Although someone with Darkvision and the Skulker feat can hide in the Dark from someone with Darkvision and the Skulker feat. However the perception check is not penalized.
Checks out as far I can see. It all has nothing to do with my original question though. :smallamused:

[Naanomi]

Skulker and Eagle Totem Barbarian... and to a lesser degree an easy source of advantage (like inquisitive Rogue)... can really make a difference

Wildshape into an animal that doesn’t rely on sight of course is always an option as well

[Zalabim]

I think that is misinterpreting it. Humanoids in general, which PCs are, rely on sight as their main sense. Not imposing any disadvantage when something is hard or impossible to see is effectively saying that it is just as easy for a person to locate things by sound as it is by sight, which real life can certainly tell us is not the case. And since these checks are typically opposed checks, disadvantage is the only real way to represent this.

There's a clear gradation between seeing and hearing anyway though. If you can see the target, no disadvantages. If you can just hear the target, you have disadvantage on your attacks. If you can't see or hear the target, you have to guess where they even are and have disadvantage on the attack even if you guess right.

It also isn't actually that hard to spatially place things that can be heard in real life. It makes no sense to essentially declare all wisdom (perception) checks for hearing are at disadvantage by default. That's still a situational modifier. It just reminds me of the complete bull**** line in another edition about how "it's almost impossible (+20 DC) to locate a creature by hearing." No, it isn't. Children do it as a game.

[Drascin]

There's a clear gradation between seeing and hearing anyway though. If you can see the target, no disadvantages. If you can just hear the target, you have disadvantage on your attacks. If you can't see or hear the target, you have to guess where they even are and have disadvantage on the attack even if you guess right.

It also isn't actually that hard to spatially place things that can be heard in real life. It makes no sense to essentially declare all wisdom (perception) checks for hearing are at disadvantage by default. That's still a situational modifier. It just reminds me of the complete bull**** line in another edition about how "it's almost impossible (+20 DC) to locate a creature by hearing." No, it isn't. Children do it as a game.

Yup. I have a sort of personal basic minimum litmus test I have when setting DCs, because the baselines for mundane action DCs have traditionally been way out of whack. The "if I can do it" test: if I, an out of shape, unperceptive nerd with the general skills of a tuber can do a thing, your badass dungeoneer doesn't need to even roll to do said thing, whatever the manual says - similar DCs are adjusted accordingly from that baseline.

[RSP]

A running joke in our campaign is that the people who don't actually have a perception score actually succeed at more perception rolls than the people who actually have proficiency in it, simply because what the die shows is far more important than your scores.

Just FYI: the intent behind Passive Perception includes it being the floor for a Perception roll (unless JC once again changed what his intent was after explaining it).

So if PP is 15, and the character rolls a 3 on the d20, their effective result is 15, not 8.

This may help keep up the effectiveness of those with proficiency in Perception.

[Theodoxus]

Do you have anything to back that up? I have a player with a passive of 24, so he'd be very interested in that.

[Davrix]

Just FYI: the intent behind Passive Perception includes it being the floor for a Perception roll (unless JC once again changed what his intent was after explaining it).

So if PP is 15, and the character rolls a 3 on the d20, their effective result is 15, not 8.

This may help keep up the effectiveness of those with proficiency in Perception.

Ok either your quoting something I cant find or your not actually remembering what he has said.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/29/should-i-let-passive-perception-notice-everything-if-high-enough/

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/01/if-your-passive-perception-is-your-effect-minimum-perception-would-this-apply-to-other-skills-2/

So nowhere does he say the PP is your base always. He does say it can be used as a base if the DM chooses for certain roles the Dm decides upon. Which is the point.

Example you walk into a room, do you notice the rogue stepping out from behind the door about to stab you. This is a good PP moment for the DM to roll against the players PP score.

That being said lets take the same example but the player says. "I enter the room, looking for danger or traps." You then can have them role active perception as they sated they were looking or you can still use the PP though anytime my player states he is actively looking for something I make them use active perception and not the passive. the PP is a tool for the DM to roll with behind the screen or when a player asks did I notice that?

Edit - Nope seems I'm wrong he does talk about it just in a podcast.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

From a Redit post recapping it

Jeremy Crawford talks for nearly 40 minutes about the RAI for stealth and hiding, in and out of combat. Its quite informative and has a number of insights that many players and DMs might find useful.

Some stand-out points:

Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.

Attacking while hidden is always at advantage if you aren't fully moving out of cover. So you get a split second to pop out and make a ranged (or even melee, if your enemy is adjacent to you) attack at advantage before you are no longer hidden. If you are moving out into the open in order to get in range to make an attack, by RAW, you are no longer hidden. Determining if you can stay hidden from an enemy after moving into line of sight is entirely up to the DM to decide if the enemy is distracted enough to see you or not (this part is actually right in the PHB, to be fair, but in the context of everything else he talks about here, it really makes more sense).

He basically lays out stealth and hiding in a way that is very simple, and that leaves any and all edge cases up to the DM to determine based on how they are roleplaying the NPCs and enemies.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[Naanomi]

Making Reliable Talent just a little worse... one of the most frequent uses was to shore up Perception

[Tanarii]

Edit - Nope seems I'm wrong he does talk about it just in a podcast.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

From a Redit post recapping it


I'm not sure how I feel about this.
For starters, that's not correct. Passive Perception is explicitly not "always on". The PHB adventuring chapter gives several ways it may not apply. Including undertaking tasks such as Navigating, Foraging, Tracking or Mapping. Or not being in a position to see clearly, such as not being in the front rank of the marching order.

[Davrix]

For starters, that's not correct. Passive Perception is explicitly not "always on". The PHB adventuring chapter gives several ways it may not apply. Including undertaking tasks such as Navigating, Foraging, Tracking or Mapping. Or not being in a position to see clearly, such as not being in the front rank of the marching order.

Not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't. Just providing the source of the ruling from the above poster had mentioned about it.

[Unoriginal]

For starters, that's not correct. Passive Perception is explicitly not "always on". The PHB adventuring chapter gives several ways it may not apply. Including undertaking tasks such as Navigating, Foraging, Tracking or Mapping. Or not being in a position to see clearly, such as not being in the front rank of the marching order.

Pretty sure that the caveat was "while you're doing something that allows the use of Perception".

It's not "you always use Passive Perception" it's "Passive Perception applies even when you're doing a Wis(Perception) ability check".

[RSP]

Pretty sure that the caveat was "while you're doing something that allows the use of Perception".

It's not "you always use Passive Perception" it's "Passive Perception applies even when you're doing a Wis(Perception) ability check".

I believe this is correct: if Perception is used, PP is the floor to your roll.

[Tanarii]

Pretty sure that the caveat was "while you're doing something that allows the use of Perception".

It's not "you always use Passive Perception" it's "Passive Perception applies even when you're doing a Wis(Perception) ability check".Yes, unfortunately that's (usually) wrong.

In many cases, Passive perception replaces a Wisdom (Perception) check. Any time it is a secret check or being done repeatedly. (The latter is not the same as making the exact same check in the same place over and and over again, which uses the automatic success rule instead.)

The only time it's a rolled check is:
- it's not secret, ie you're looking for something you know is there, but can't find right then. Usually a previously hidden creature.
- it's not being done repeatedly. Ie it's being determined just this one round.

That's pretty much limited to the Search Action in combat looking for hidden creatures. In that particular case, you're passive has already previously applied, when they made the Hide check, so it's an effective floor. Any other time, there is no need rolled checks, they're being replaced by passive perception checks.

Edit: what is boils down to is Crawford made the classic "passive checks means you're doing it passively" mistake when he was talking about checks. He was wrong about that, so most of the stuff he said that followed from it was also wrong.

[Davrix]

Yes, unfortunately that's (usually) wrong.

In many cases, Passive perception replaces a Wisdom (Perception) check. Any time it is a secret check or being done repeatedly. (The latter is not the same as making the exact same check in the same place over and and over again, which uses the automatic success rule instead.)

The only time it's a rolled check is:
- it's not secret, ie you're looking for something you know is there, but can't find right then. Usually a previously hidden creature.
- it's not being done repeatedly. Ie it's being determined just this one round.

That's pretty much limited to the Search Action in combat looking for hidden creatures. In that particular case, you're passive has already previously applied, when they made the Hide check, so it's an effective floor. Any other time, there is no need rolled checks, they're being replaced by passive perception checks.

Edit: what is boils down to is Crawford made the classic "passive checks means you're doing it passively" mistake when he was talking about checks. He was wrong about that, so most of the stuff he said that followed from it was also wrong.

So are you saying he is quoting the RAW wrong and thus his explanation is based on a faulty memory of the rules and thus is wrong by that reasoning or that he's wrong because your saying his wrong by your interruption of the rules as you see them?

[Tanarii]

So are you saying he is quoting the RAW wrong and thus his explanation is based on a faulty memory of the rules and thus is wrong by that reasoning or that he's wrong because your saying his wrong by your interruption of the rules as you see them?
The former. The passive checks rules very clearly state what they are for. And it's not "my character isn't actively doing something". It's for:
- it's a secret check
- when you're doing something repeatedly

(Also technically, any time the rules specifically call for a passive check.)

The former is any time the player can't know a check is happening or it will give something away, which is the majority of the time with a passive perception check.

The latter is when you're doing a task repeatedly, but not the same thing with no consequences for failure except time for ten times as long, which is instead the DMG automatic success rule. Example would be walking along a passageway looking for traps and other threats as you go, in the case of passive perception and passive investigation. You're repeatedly doing the (active) task for looking, but not in any one place. Automatic success would be carefully searching a body carefully for loot, or a desk, or a single door for a trap. And taking ten times as long to do it.

Both of those, secret checks and repeating the task, can apply to actively doing something, but result in a passive check instead of a rolled check.

[Lunali]

It's not so much that passive perception is the minimum roll on an active check, but rather you should never have to make an active check on something that can be noticed with your passive perception score.

Sometimes the DC will be lower for an active check or in some cases it may be impossible to detect something unless you are actually looking for it specifically.

In the case of stealth vs perception, a player should always get their passive perception checked first in any case where they would get an active roll against stealth.

[Naanomi]

Does that mean... characters with Observant and Advantage should never roll Perception (barring weird modifiers like Guidance)? Because they are already functionally ‘rolling a 20’ automatically?

[Tanarii]

It's not so much that passive perception is the minimum roll on an active check, but rather you should never have to make an active check on something that can be noticed with your passive perception score.
Pretty much.

Generally speaking, the default rules that already exist for finding stuff, there's almost no circumstances you ever need to roll Wisdom (Perception) check other than looking for a hidden creature that your Passive Perception has already failed.

It might be possible for the DM to think up some need for it to determine resolution of something you know is there (not a secret roll), isn't being done repeatedly (ie not on watch or searching as you go down a passageway), and can't be done over and over again until you succeed.

In fact I can think of one resolution where I could call for a rolled check: determining if you can pinpoint an enemy you know is there somewhere, isn't hiding, but is sufficiently far away but not too far to hear (let's say 30ft) and you can't see. Or if you have to guess the location. A check for that could easily be a rolled check against a fixed DC I've chosen, not passive score. I use passive score anyway for this question of resolution, but there's no particular reason for me to do that and I probably shouldn't be. And passive perception would not be a floor in this case if it were a rolled check.

[Zalabim]

Edit: what is boils down to is Crawford made the classic "passive checks means you're doing it passively" mistake when he was talking about checks. He was wrong about that, so most of the stuff he said that followed from it was also wrong.
Everything I've seen at the source (listening to the podcast and reading twitter responses about it) says he explained it right, but that it's basically been misrepresented by the internet's fabulously poor communication skills. It's not that you can't roll lower than your passive score, but that in almost any circumstance imaginable that has you rolling a Wisdom (perception) check, your passive perception score is applicable and should have already been checked. Basically just what Lunali said, but the internet is full of morons people who are incapable of managing even the simplest forms of communication.

It's not so much that passive perception is the minimum roll on an active check, but rather you should never have to make an active check on something that can be noticed with your passive perception score.

Sometimes the DC will be lower for an active check or in some cases it may be impossible to detect something unless you are actually looking for it specifically.

In the case of stealth vs perception, a player should always get their passive perception checked first in any case where they would get an active roll against stealth.
This. (Quoted to show which "what Lunali said" I mean.)

[the secret fire]

I made the same mistake for a long time, Darkvision played by the rules is still very good but horrendously overrated.

And the Skulker feat, especially with Darkvision on a character that can bonus action hide, is highly underrated.

[RSP]

Everything I've seen at the source (listening to the podcast and reading twitter responses about it) says he explained it right, but that it's basically been misrepresented by the internet's fabulously poor communication skills. It's not that you can't roll lower than your passive score, but that in almost any circumstance imaginable that has you rolling a Wisdom (perception) check, your passive perception score is applicable and should have already been checked. Basically just what Lunali said, but the internet is full of morons people who are incapable of managing even the simplest forms of communication.

This. (Quoted to show which "what Lunali said" I mean.)

Right. It’s essentially the idea of “if there’s something hidden the PC’s could notice, use PP; therefore, if the PC’s want to look around for something (and use the Perception skill), and there’s something hidden to find then PP would have already been used to see if it’s noticed.

So effectively, the floor of a Perception check is PP, due to PP should already be in effect to notice something hidden.

[samcifer]

IT would be nice if they would create a blindsense spell. It could add a new element to the game. To keep things fair, though, I'd say make it with a range of only 30 feet and require concentration.