Darkvision: Any reason NOT to have it?

[blackjack50]

So I know this has probably been discussed to death, but I’m really curious if there are ANY penalties for having darkvision? I know that there are some reasons to take a character over others. But if all things were equal? Having darkvision is better than not. There is no reason to NOT have it.

Does anyone else feel this is unbalanced? Or are there times where it is better to not have it?

[Damon_Tor]

So I know this has probably been discussed to death, but I’m really curious if there are ANY penalties for having darkvision? I know that there are some reasons to take a character over others. But if all things were equal? Having darkvision is better than not. There is no reason to NOT have it.

Does anyone else feel this is unbalanced? Or are there times where it is better to not have it?

There are some monster abilities like the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze which require the target be able to see the enemy to be effected. In such a situation it might in theory be better to not be able to see.

[JackPhoenix]

Obviously, it's always better to have beneficial feature than not to have it. It's not unbalanced, it's fact. Someone who's got ranged attack in addition to melee attacks will be better off than someone who's got only one option available.

However, relying on it too much bring its own problems: namely, you still suffer disadvantage on Perception in darkness (Darkvision only reduces it to dim light), there are things with longer darkvision range (not that most light sources help with that) and (though NPCs generally don't have access to it) Stalker feat will make you invisible to someone relying only on Darkvision.

It's also black and white only, which may lead to other problems.

[Great Dragon]

@JackPhoenix: From what I understand, Only Gloomstalker Rangers (edit) and Shadow Monks can be Invisibile to Darkvision.

Stalker feat negates Disadvantage and gives a better chance to Hide (not be noticed) from Darkvision and in dim light.

[stoutstien]

@JackPhoenix: From what I understand, Only Gloomstalker Rangers are Invisibile to Darkvision.

Stalker feat negates Disadvantage and gives a better chance to Hide (not be noticed) from Darkvision and in dim light.


Skulker allows you to hide as long as you are lightly obscured.

Dim light is labeled as lightly obscured and DV allows you to tread darkness as dim light.

[Great Dragon]

stoutstien: right. I was going with people already knowing that.

It was "Invisibility" that I was protesting.
You ninja'd my edits.

[stoutstien]

stoutstien: right. I was going with people already knowing that.

It was "Invisibility" that I was protesting.
You ninja'd my edits.

The rules don't distinguish between being invisible and able to hide while lightly obscured by dim light. Both still need to make a Dex check to be considered hidden. Neither can hide while considered being in bright light such as a npc with devil sight can see both just fine

[JNAProductions]

So I know this has probably been discussed to death, but I’m really curious if there are ANY penalties for having darkvision? I know that there are some reasons to take a character over others. But if all things were equal? Having darkvision is better than not. There is no reason to NOT have it.

Does anyone else feel this is unbalanced? Or are there times where it is better to not have it?

Why would it be unbalanced?

Yes, having Darkvision is a positive racial trait. But the races without Darkvision have their own racial traits-humans get a free feat and skill, halflings get reroll 1s (which is pretty dang nice) and Dragonborn get...

Okay, Dragonborn suck. But I'd consider the other two core races that lack Darkvision perfectly fine despite that.

[FrancisBean]

There are some monster abilities like the Medusa's Petrifying Gaze which require the target be able to see the enemy to be effected. In such a situation it might in theory be better to not be able to see.

I had the same thought, but that realized that it's still strictly better: you have the option to close your eyes (being at the same disadvantages as the non-darkvision guy) or leave them open, whichever gives the best odds. It really only hurts you on the first round, and only if you are surprised or lose initiative.

[mephiztopheleze]

Why would it be unbalanced?

Yes, having Darkvision is a positive racial trait. But the races without Darkvision have their own racial traits-humans get a free feat and skill, halflings get reroll 1s (which is pretty dang nice)

That Halfling Lucky trait is my personal favourite racial trait.

I'll gladly give up Darkvision for it. There are plenty of non-racial ways to get Darkvision, but only one way to get that 0.25% chance of wearing a critical fail.

Thinking back on it (way back to 1ed when this didn't exist), the vast bulk of my characters have been Halflings.

[SuperbDolphin]

5e is VERY broken in the fact that most races have darkvision, taking away the danger of being in a dark place with predators.

[JNAProductions]

5e is VERY broken in the fact that most races have darkvision, taking away the danger of being in a dark place with predators.

5E is not meant to be a realistic game.

It’s about larger than life heroes, mighty adventurers. Not people who are scared of the dark.

[Keravath]

5e is VERY broken in the fact that most races have darkvision, taking away the danger of being in a dark place with predators.

Well ...

1) Races without darkvision generally have something nice to compensate as mentioned above.
2) Races with darkvision in darkness see as if it were dim light so they will have disadvantage on perception checks to notice all those hidden darkness based predators. So the danger is still very much there. In addition, characters without darkvision will be using light sources so they will be able to see those darkness loving predators anyway.
3) The only really good way to see in darkness is the warlock's devils sight ability.

P.S. To the OP, having the ability to see in the dark is convenient and pretty much required for stealthy characters but in general is more something nice to have rather than something necessary.

[blackjack50]

5E is not meant to be a realistic game.

It’s about larger than life heroes, mighty adventurers. Not people who are scared of the dark.

He isn’t saying that it is realistic. Just that so many people having dark vision takes away the threat of the darkness. Personally? I’d be surprised if a party of 4 has more than one person without Dark vision.

[Dungeon-noob]

He isn’t saying that it is realistic. Just that so many people having dark vision takes away the threat of the darkness. Personally? I’d be surprised if a party of 4 has more than one person without Dark vision.
Check the ranges of the various darkvisions, and you might find it doesn't do nearly as much as you might think. 60 feet is neat, but most ranged attacks have longer ranges, and almost every battlefield is going to be too large to fully overview that way. It doesn't remove the darkness issues, it just alliviates them.

[ZorroGames]

The treasure is in the room with the green door (reference intentional) in the red hallway in the center of the third level of the dungeon. You see shades of gray.

As an old (0D&D) DM this would automatic for “all dark vision” parties to encounter.

That and non-dark vision NPCs that you need to take there for “some purpose.”

[Particle_Man]

Also, if someone in the party doesn’t have darkvision and this needs a light cantrip or torch or whatever, darkvision will not be seen in use as much.

[Kurt Kurageous]

IIRC there was always a problem with a mixed party (having DV and non-DV). An infrared (burning) light source fouled up infravision (heat seeing like orcs and dwarves). It was a mess, and reduced the usefulness of what is now called darkvision.

If you ask me, the limits of the torch and other light sources is just to keep the amount of space the DM has to manage/draw/simulate to a reasonable level.

[MaxWilson]

So I know this has probably been discussed to death, but I’m really curious if there are ANY penalties for having darkvision? I know that there are some reasons to take a character over others. But if all things were equal? Having darkvision is better than not. There is no reason to NOT have it.

Does anyone else feel this is unbalanced? Or are there times where it is better to not have it?

Besides opportunity cost, the only one I can think of is that certain DMs will rule that Darkvision causes you not to be able to see out off heavy obscurement created by the Darkness spell, because while heavy obscurement normally blocks seeing out but not in, Darkness also says "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness," and they interpret "can't see through" as "blocks line of sight" instead of "darkvision doesn't let you ignore it." I've at least had online discussions with DMs who at least claim they would rule that way, though I think it's a ridiculous interpretation myself.

So basically no, the only downside is opportunity cost and the occasional wrongheaded DM.

[Garfunion]

Whether this helps or not, I removed darkvision from most playable races. What they get in return is low-light vision; which removes disadvantage to perception check in dim-light conditions.

[Keravath]

Besides opportunity cost, the only one I can think of is that certain DMs will rule that Darkvision causes you not to be able to see out off heavy obscurement created by the Darkness spell, because while heavy obscurement normally blocks seeing out but not in, Darkness also says "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness," and they interpret "can't see through" as "blocks line of sight" instead of "darkvision doesn't let you ignore it." I've at least had online discussions with DMs who at least claim they would rule that way, though I think it's a ridiculous interpretation myself.

So basically no, the only downside is opportunity cost and the occasional wrongheaded DM.

I'm not sure what you are saying. :)

If someone casts a Darkness spell then no one can see into, out of or through the area of Darkness with or without Darkvision. You have to have Devil's sight or a similar ability in order to see through an area of Darkness caused by the darkness spell. At least that is how I read the spell. Fog cloud is similar in that it also blocks sight into, out of or through the area filled with fog. However, in this case neither Devil's sight nor Truesight will help you see through a fog cloud. You need blindsight/tremorsense or some other sense not based on vision to see through a fog cloud.

[blackjack50]

I think my big issue is seeing it as a “racial trait.” Where most races get other traits. This one just kind of seems independent of the other bonuses. So like, do the classes without darkvision get something in return for not having it that balances out their not having it? Not everyone plays variant human I know. Anyway. Just my thoughts.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not sure what you are saying. :)

If someone casts a Darkness spell then no one can see into, out of or through the area of Darkness with or without Darkvision. You have to have Devil's sight or a similar ability in order to see through an area of Darkness caused by the darkness spell. At least that is how I read the spell. Fog cloud is similar in that it also blocks sight into, out of or through the area filled with fog. However, in this case neither Devil's sight nor Truesight will help you see through a fog cloud. You need blindsight/tremorsense or some other sense not based on vision to see through a fog cloud.

This is definitely not the RAW. By RAW, you can see out of darkness just fine, but you can't see into it. The Darkness spell has an additional clause that notes that "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it," and I've met DMs on this forum who have said that they would rule that this prevents creatures with darkvision (and only those creatures) from seeing out of the darkness as well as into it.

[Segev]

This is definitely not the RAW. By RAW, you can see out of darkness just fine, but you can't see into it. The Darkness spell has an additional clause that notes that "A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it," and I've met DMs on this forum who have said that they would rule that this prevents creatures with darkvision (and only those creatures) from seeing out of the darkness as well as into it.

I will say that that is a dumb ruling, when the intent seems clear to me to simply indicate that this magical darkness doesn't allow Darkvision to negate its effects.

[Dalebert]

I'm in a city campaign right now where many enemies are humans. At night, they're screwed. We just stay out of their light sources and sniper them. Elven accuracy feat gives my rogue super advantage.

My gloomstalker benefits from Darkness but my other elven rogue has learned that if the enemy is lit up and you are outside their Darkvison range, you're basically a gloomstalker. I hit a troll with Create Bonfire and then got more than 60 away. Melee kept him in the lit area. Super advantage!

Another trick: I got Goggles of night. Now my range is 120 ft. Most creatures only have 60 ft. I stay more than 60 away with my longbow. Now I can see them but they can't see me. Super advantage!

[Sigreid]

Well ...

1) Races without darkvision generally have something nice to compensate as mentioned above.
2) Races with darkvision in darkness see as if it were dim light so they will have disadvantage on perception checks to notice all those hidden darkness based predators. So the danger is still very much there. In addition, characters without darkvision will be using light sources so they will be able to see those darkness loving predators anyway.
3) The only really good way to see in darkness is the warlock's devils sight ability.

P.S. To the OP, having the ability to see in the dark is convenient and pretty much required for stealthy characters but in general is more something nice to have rather than something necessary.

Darkvision and the skulker feat are a lovely combination.

[Lunali]

The rules don't distinguish between being invisible and able to hide while lightly obscured by dim light. Both still need to make a Dex check to be considered hidden. Neither can hide while considered being in bright light such as a npc with devil sight can see both just fine

Both need a dex check to be hidden, but an unhidden creature that is invisible can't be targeted by a large number of spells and attacks against it are at disadvantage .

[Dalebert]

I do think skulker feat is under-rated but you can't exactly hide in just dim light any time. You still have to be unseen to hide. So if a creature can see you when you attempt to hide in plain sight in dim light... Nope. You can hide "in shadows" when no one is there though. They walk in and could fail to see you.

[Segev]

I do think skulker feat is under-rated but you can't exactly hide in just dim light any time. You still have to be unseen to hide. So if a creature can see you when you attempt to hide in plain sight in dim light... Nope. You can hide "in shadows" when no one is there though. They walk in and could fail to see you.

You can ninja-vanish with a smoke bomb, though!

[Great Dragon]

Maybe it's just me, and I'm still stuck in 3.x D&D.

It never made sense to me for people to be able to see into, out of, or (around?) through magical Darkness without some (Class or Spell) ability that said you can.

But the OP's query was about Darkvision.

It can be handy to have, but DMs do need to keep track of the limitations that it has.

As Dalebert stated, if you have been spotted, you can't immediately Hide, even with Skulker in Dim Light/Darkvision. Moving out of Range, and the returning might allow another Stealth/Hide attempt.


You can ninja-vanish with a smoke bomb, though!

Indeed!

[Lord Vukodlak]

Maybe it's just me, and I'm still stuck in 3.x D&D.

It never made sense to me for people to be able to see into, out of, or (around?) through magical Darkness without some (Class or Spell) ability that said you can.
Seeing someone on the other side of an area of darkness spell is of course ridiculous. If you can see to the other side of a darkness spell the people and objects inside would physically block or obscure your view, like a guy standing up at the movie theater. Making the spell rather useless.

But seeing out of, not so much. Imagine you’re standing in a dark tunnel. You can see me standing outside the tunnel far better then I can see you.

Darkness does not create and area where light doesn’t enter it creates an area where light doesn’t leave.

[qube]

So I know this has probably been discussed to death, but I’m really curious if there are ANY penalties for having darkvision? I know that there are some reasons to take a character over others. But if all things were equal? Having darkvision is better than not. There is no reason to NOT have it.

Does anyone else feel this is unbalanced? Or are there times where it is better to not have it?
Reminds me of Call of Chuthulu: Of course, it's important for someone in the party to have a good perception ... it's just VERY important that this person ISN'T you.

(you can lose sanity if you see something very wierd... which, in Call of Chuthulu, tends to happen ;) )

[Segev]

Seeing someone on the other side of an area of darkness is of course ridiculous. If you can see to the other side of a darkness spell the people and objects inside would physically block or obscure your view, like a guy standing up at the movie theater. Making the spell rather useless.

But seeing out of, not so much. Imagine you’re standing in a dark tunnel. You can see me standing outside the tunnel far better then I can see you.

Darkness does not create and area where light doesn’t enter it creates an area where light doesn’t leave.

Not necessarily useless: you can still hide in front of things as well as behind them, and you can hide by posing as something not-you-shaped. And you can hide against walls and the like. The silhouette exposure is actually somewhat unusual. But if a DM ruled that it blocked sight like a black ball in the way, that's fine, too.

[MaxWilson]

Seeing someone on the other side of an area of darkness is of course ridiculous.

In real life it is commonplace.

[Lord Vukodlak]

In real life it is commonplace.
No its not because there isn't a darkness spell
Not with the way the spell functions. Someone or something standing in the area of the darkness spell would obscure the line of sight to anything. If you take the attitude that you can see something on the otherside of a darkness spell, then you can see where everyone is inside a darkness spell because they'd obscure your line of sight to the other side just like someone standing up in front of you at a movie theater.

[Kyutaru]

Just make it supervision in the sense that a bright light spell or explosion will blind the darkvision viewer. Takes time to adjust to lights even in the real world. If you adjusted your pupils to Dark Mode and suddenly the sun itself hits you out of nowhere, you're probably going to feel a little dazed.

Wax on, wax off.

[MaxWilson]

No its not because there isn't a darkness spell

According to RAW, the Darkness spell works just like real-life darkness: it creates an area inside of which you can't see anything, because it's too dark. Just as in real life, you can see stuff on the other side of the darkness just fine. The only thing that makes Darkness weird and magical is that it creates darkness where there shouldn't be any darkness--even if you build a bonfire next to the darkness, it's still dark.

You are of course free to make it work differently, but there's nothing absurd about the RAW for darkness or Darkness.

[Lunali]

I do think skulker feat is under-rated but you can't exactly hide in just dim light any time. You still have to be unseen to hide. So if a creature can see you when you attempt to hide in plain sight in dim light... Nope. You can hide "in shadows" when no one is there though. They walk in and could fail to see you.

Being in dim light gives light obscurement, which is all you need to be able to hide with the skulker feat.

[Dalebert]

Being in dim light gives light obscurement, which is all you need to be able to hide with the skulker feat.

It's not all you need. Hiding has the reqt that you're unseen when you hide. Light obscurement doesn't provide that. So as mentioned, smoke bomb--you're briefly heavily obscured and can hide. When it clears, you're only lightly obscured which is enough to remain hidden thanks to skulker.

Honestly though, in a Homebrew I'd probably allow it.

[Galithar]

If you can see out of/to the other side of Darkness I feel the spell is a misnomer. It's not a 'Darkness' spell anymore. It's a sphere of Invisibility. I can't see things in it, but I can see to the other side.

That's the only explanation that fits mechanically with seeing through/out of it. Otherwise in an open plain I cast darkness to just myself. But I'm the only thing in the area of Darkness and therefore everyone sees me just fine because I'm now just a silhouette standing on a black circle.

Alternatively if you can see through but not what's inside then I just become invisible... And so does the ground... So there's now an invisible half sphere of earth (assuming the point of origin is on the ground somewhere)

Or logically (to my mind at least) it's a big black ball of you can't see s***.

Now I'm not saying anything here is RAW. Just that only one explanation for how it should work makes any sort of sense to me.

[MaxWilson]

It's not all you need. Hiding has the reqt that you're unseen when you hide.

This is one of the cases where WotC's decisions to rely on "specific beats general" instead of clearly stating the exception ("Skulker: You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding [even though normally you couldn't]") causes some unnecessary confusion.

However, you're also quoting from an old version of the PHB. Quoting errata:


Hiding (p. 177). The following sentence
has been added to the beginning of this
section: “The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.”
The first sentence of the second paragraph now begins, “You can’t hide from a
creature that can see you clearly …”

There is no longer a requirement that you be unseen, as long as the DM thinks hiding is plausible under the circumstances (or you have Stalker/Mask of the Wild/some other applicable explicit permission).


If you can see out of/to the other side of Darkness I feel the spell is a misnomer. It's not a 'Darkness' spell anymore. It's a sphere of Invisibility. I can't see things in it, but I can see to the other side.

And yet, that is exactly how real darkness works: you can see the other side of it. It is a sphere of darkness, just like turning out the lights in a room. If you're sitting in your car with headlights on, looking at me in my kitchen with my lights on, you can see me even though there is darkness in between me and you. The stuff outside my house isn't invisible in any meaningful way--it's just in the dark.


That's the only explanation that fits mechanically with seeing through/out of it. Otherwise in an open plain I cast darkness to just myself. But I'm the only thing in the area of Darkness and therefore everyone sees me just fine because I'm now just a silhouette standing on a black circle.

More like they see a black area, and parts of your silhouette, depending on how tall they are compared to you and where they are standing. (It's not always easy to reconstruct a 3D image from its silhouette.) And an open plain in broad daylight is a bad place to rely on magical darkness anyway for exactly that reason. It's very conspicuous. Try using it in an urbancrawl or dungeoncrawl where you won't stick out like a sore thumb.

[Man_Over_Game]

As for a penalty for Darkvision, there is one minor one I can think of. Gloomstalkers can turn invisible if someone needs Darkvision to see them.

Someone using Darkvision to look for someone would continue to look for enemies.
Someone without Darkvision would use a torch.

In this case, the person using a torch would be successful. Why would someone with Darkvision use a torch? The person with Darkvision could be surrounded by a horde of Gloomstalkers and you wouldn't even know. Heck, they'd lead them back to the party. That'd be a terrible way to get ambushed and gives me the creeps thinking about it.

[Great Dragon]

The RAW version of the Darkness spell makes my Drow both frustrated and angry.

Because the "Drop Darkness on Party and then ambush them" no longer works, since everyone inside the spell can still "see" any Drow outside the radius of said spell.

So, I guess that I'll just stay a little stuck in 3.x and have Darkness be a big ball of no-one can see $**** - except for those Abilities and powers that state they can, of course.

[Galithar]

The RAW version of the Darkness spell makes my Drow both frustrated and angry.

Because the "Drop Darkness on Party and then ambush them" no longer works, since everyone inside the spell can still "see" any Drow outside the radius of said spell.

So, I guess that I'll just stay a little stuck in 3.x and have Darkness be a big ball of no-one can see $**** - except for those Abilities and powers that state they can, of course.

Not true. By RAW a creature in darkness is effectively blind and can't see anything outside. I just found the passage again, kept skipping over it when looking earlier.



A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)


So you can never see out of Darkness under RAW, which is the argument I wanted to make earlier but couldn't find my evidence. If I can't see out of it, why can you see through it? And technically under RAW this even includes mundane darkness. It's still a heavily obscured area.

[MaxWilson]

Not true. By RAW a creature in darkness is effectively blind and can't see anything outside. I just found the passage again, kept skipping over it when looking earlier.

You're quoting the old, pre-errata PHB, back when Darkness worked backwards. In new PHBs it effectively blinds you from trying to see anything within it, instead. This is exactly how darkness works in real life so RAW now matches reality.

The old PHB rules were so bonkers no sane DM would ever use them: if I'm holding up a torch in a huge dark cavern I can see everything and nothing can see me. Madness!


The RAW version of the Darkness spell makes my Drow both frustrated and angry.

Because the "Drop Darkness on Party and then ambush them" no longer works, since everyone inside the spell can still "see" any Drow outside the radius of said spell.

The drow trick that you should use is for the drow to all cast Darkness on themselves. Now the PCs can't see them.

A good countermove is for the PCs to charge forward into the Darkness so the drow can't see them either.

[Galithar]

Bah, darn eratta and my old PHB. Lol

I still think that magical darkness should operate that way, but it is clearly a houserule. Thanks for correcting me!

[Great Dragon]

You're quoting the old, pre-errata PHB, back when Darkness worked backwards. In new PHBs it effectively blinds you from trying to see anything within it, instead. This is exactly how darkness works in real life so RAW now matches reality.

The old PHB rules were so bonkers no sane DM would ever use them: if I'm holding up a torch in a huge dark cavern I can see everything and nothing can see me. Madness!
For the most part, I could understand that "I might see you, but you can't see me" working with Normal darkness, if there was something that gave even candle light illumination. So, two people (without Darkvision) standing in an unlit room can't see each other, unless one was closer to a light source of some kind.

Someone lighting a torch in the dark room would make them a beacon for all others to see, while only allowing those in the light to see normally for 20 feet.

Now, lighting that torch in Magical Darkness would have no effect.

But in 5e, if the touch is outside the Area, those inside could see them perfectly fine.

3.x Darkvision allowed the person to "see normally", just in black and white.
So, it might be difficult for the Dwarf to tell the difference between an Orc and a Hobgoblin at 30 feet, but hiding wasn't really possible without a Class/Prestige Class ability. [Shadowdancer] (Or Magical abilities)

But now, any Low Light condition (including Darkvision) has disadvantage to see, with the same odds of the Elf recognizing said Orc whether it's at the edge of their darkvision, or 5 feet outside the area of "bright light" for them.

So anyone Sneaking around in "dim light" would be hard to spot (Disadvantage, or -5 to Passive Perception) - but, once seen, can't hide.

The Skulker feat was someone trained to hide their outline even against those with Darkvision that have spotted them.
(I'm still wondering if that means a Skulker rolls with Advantage and the other rolls with Disadvantage?)

Gloomstalker Rangers and 11th level Shadow Monks (ninja) are "Invisible", but can be detected by non-visible means.


The drow trick that you should use is for the drow to all cast Darkness on themselves. Now the PCs can't see them.
I had thought of that.
One thing that bugs me is, how would those PCs only using Darkvision really notice an area of Magical Darkness? Short of litterally stumbling into it, and noticing that they now can't see each other?
Humm. Maybe Perception at Disadvantage to notice that the Tunnel/Cavern Wall is not there?

(One of the Drow could use Darkness on the side of the passage, and place an Item (or cast) Alarm (mental) to tell them when to drop the Darkness and attack)

To those PCs using light the Magical Darkness would be obvious, since the light would stop at the edge of the Area.


A good countermove is for the PCs to charge forward into the Darkness so the drow can't see them either.

LoL. Invisibile Tag!!

I suppose 3e Darkness makes Warlocks with Devil's Sight and Shadow Sorcerers more appealing....

[Dalebert]

("Skulker: You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding [even though normally you couldn't]")

Now that you've reminded me of the specific wording of Skulker, I do think it provides an exception to that reqt. Makes it a great rogue feat.

[Great Dragon]

Now that you've reminded me of the specific wording of Skulker, I do think it provides an exception to that reqt. Makes it a great rogue feat.

Right. It's great for Any stealth based (N)PC.

Am I correct in thinking that someone with Skulker could still hide even from a Warlock with Devil's Sight (or in the Shadow Sorcerer's Darkness), since they still have only Darkvision within Magical Darkness?

Gloomestalker and Ninja are still "Invisibile".
So - Devil's Sight Invocation + See Invisibility Spell to detect the Ninja?
(Stalker still allows Hiding!)

Gloomestalker (+Stalker) still rocks (even against CR 21 Monstosities!), though - need Blindsight to "see" them!! Dragons are tricky, still!! (I'll need to check to make sure that Gloomestalker's ability isn't magical, if it's not - then True Sight doesn't automatically detect them.)

Wow! I'm so going to use the above for my 5e D&D with Old School Rules games!!!

*****
Man, new Villain:
V-Human. criminal background. NE Assassin with Skulker feat at level one: Expertise in Stealth and Perception.
6th level Expertise: Investigation and Thieves Tools.
Goggles of Night (ASAP)
(Not really interested in Multiclassing)

Rival: Drow. (F) Noble Background. (Any Alignment) Gloomestalker Ranger (2 weapon style, Favorite Terrain: Underdark, Favorite Enemy: Humans, Hobgoblins. 2nd Enemy: Dragons!) with Sharpshooter feat. 8th Level: Skulker - mostly just to negate (all) Disadvantage while shooting Assassin (or Dragons) in the dark, at 120 feet away!!
But, loves getting into the Assassin's face (in the dark) with double Scimitars!!

[Dalebert]

Am I correct in thinking that someone with Skulker could still hide even from a Warlock with Devil's Sight (or in the Shadow Sorcerer's Darkness), since they still have only Darkvision within Magical Darkness?


No. Someone with D.S. sees normally in Darkness, magical or otherwise. So it's not even dim to them and you therefore don't have light obscurement.

That said, D.S. does nothing for actual dim light, unlike most racial forms of dark vision. So if you're in dim light and someone has D.S. but not dark vision, you can benefit from skulker.

It's bizarre. If a warlock is in dim light and he puts out all the lights or casts darkness, he actually sees better.

[Great Dragon]

@Dalebert:
Ah. Looks like the Shadow Sorcerer using 2 sorcery points when casting Darkness has that "can see" (normally is implied, I guess), as well.

Being limited to my phone means that I can't always get access to the Books/PDFs while posting.

Thanks!

That's still pretty good, though.


(Edit: query moved)