Everyone has Darkvision!

[Skadi]

So yeah 9 races in the core rule book and 2/3rds have darkvision, then more races are introduced and most of them have darkvision too, anyone else think they might be overdoing it a little with the darkvision? Kind of makes light sources kind of pointless when everyone can see in the dark, also ruins a lot of spells and items, not saying no races or playable character options should have natural darkvision but do creatures like Elves really need darkvision and does it really make sense for them to have it? To me it would make more sense if Darkvision was only granted to creatures who spend the majority if not all of their natural life underground and have penalties in natural sunlight like Drow, Deep Gnomes and Duergar.

Kind of thinking of making some homebrew changes to certain races darkvision mechanics but not sure how players would react to that sort of thing, just wondering what the general consensus is here on this type of thing?

[sithlordnergal]

I mean, it doesn't actually change much to have Darkvision. Sure it lets you move around without a torch, but you have disadvantage on sight based checks while in the dark. So its best to bring a torch.

As for races who have darkvision...they actually seem fine to me.

[Wizard_Lizard]

yeah. I don't really find it a problem uness one character doesn't have it...

[Elysiume]

yeah. I don't really find it a problem uness one character doesn't have it...Yup. In my last campaign the DM all but threw Goggles of Night at the single non-darkvision character in the party.

[Anymage]

It's a legacy thing. Most nonhumans could see in the dark in earlier editions (and here I'm talking TSR era editions) because the writers thought it was cool. 3e at least broke it into darkvision vs. low-light vision, but that just makes the problem worse instead of better. Standardized vision means that everybody sees the same thing and you only have to give one description. Standard plus darkvision means two, and standard plus dark plus low-light is just extra headache. Luckily, when I explain it as such, there isn't as much grumbling about removing darkvision when I explain that it's there to save on DM annoyance.


yeah. I don't really find it a problem uness one character doesn't have it...

If 2/3 of the races have darkvision, it's better said that 1/3 of the races have darkblindness as an added weakness. I don't want people to feel that a darkblind race is a tactical liability for the group.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Yup. In my last campaign the DM all but threw Goggles of Night at the single non-darkvision character in the party.

We use the spell darkvision.
Our DM even made us a wand of darkvision based on the wand of web.

The biggest problem with light in a dark area is the fact you are a beacon for everything.

It is like telling the enemies to make an ambush and remove most of the group ability to stealth.

In an area with light darkvision have no use so I will refer to it in a dark area.

[Elysiume]

We use the spell darkvision.
Our DM even made us a wand of darkvision based on the wand of web.He wanted the least failure-prone option since the non-darkvision character was played by the least rules-adherent player in the group. No muss, no fuss, just assume the goggles are always on and there's zero bookkeeping. Either way, whether it's Goggles of Night or a Wand of Darkvision, the annoyance of variable vision incentivizes DMs to work around it.

My current PF campaign has 4 characters with normal vision, 1 with low-light vision, and 1 with darkvision. When the ratio skews that way, it's okay--the darkvision-having rogue-like character can skulk around when they want to and torches or other light sources are used when moving as a group. It's better than the inverse when one person feels like they're holding everyone else back with their weak human eyeballs.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

He wanted the least failure-prone option since the non-darkvision character was played by the least rules-adherent player in the group. No muss, no fuss, just assume the goggles are always on and there's zero bookkeeping.

That is a good solution.

[Mordaedil]

If 2/3 of the races have darkvision, it's better said that 1/3 of the races have darkblindness as an added weakness. I don't want people to feel that a darkblind race is a tactical liability for the group.
Generally the prospect that lack of darkvision for certain races is a liability is one born sort out of the idea that everyone will be playing monster races, when it's actually more realistic that most players are human. Only a certain subset of players really play monster races with darkvision and they are rewarded with it thusly.

[MoiMagnus]

On one side, peoples says everybody play a dark vision character, which makes non-dark vision characters annoying.
On the other side, peoples says everybody plays a variant human because the extra feat is OP.
So it probably depends on the table.

(The two other races to not have dark vision are Halfling and Dragonborn. I find the lack of dark vision on Halfling particularly sad since it is a Dex race, so a race where you really like to use stealth)

[JellyPooga]

Before anyone starts to go for their pitchfork over how many races get Darkvision, it's really important to remember that...well, Darkvision is pretty terrible.

Anyone with a lick of sense, Darkvision or not, will carry light into a dark place. Darkvision is not Devils Sight; it's not perfect. You might not have any penalties to attack rolls using Darkvision alone, but at the same time, a cunning foe can litrally Hide in "plain view" right in front of you and you're rolling at disadvantage against their Stealth roll. That's a really precarious combat situation.

Be smart. Don't walk in dark places without a light. You're liable to be eaten by a grue.

[Spiritchaser]

I find the lack of darkvision to be a huge deal, though I tend to DM, and play, in stealth heavy parties.

Yes there are a number of ways to get darkvision (or alternatively one could opt for Devil’s sight) but if you don’t have one of those, a large number of tactical options vanish.

It’s actually at the point where, in most campaigns, I wouldn’t likely play a character without it.

I remember one incident that fairly clearly educated me on this point

I’d constructed a bug filled cavern system, slowly filling with water as the underground rivers within it rose.

There were some mostly generic villagers to save and a couple non generic bugs at the end guarding them.

Because this was effectively on a death clock, I ran a bunch of simulations against the party to make sure everything was reasonable. I used the party’s typical slink heavy tactics, including their ability to pick their fights and get the drop on things (they all had darkvision, stealth or expertise in stealth one had invisibility and they had pass without trace)

The thing is, that’s not what happened.

They’d had a run in or two with some bandits who had a plot tie in with, and information on those bugs, and the meta plot tie in as to why the critters were there in the first place.

The paladin decided to talk the bandits into helping save those villagers. With the right incentive, she even pulled it off.

I was a little miffed, I’d Planned a cool fight there, but no-matter, they’d earned some help in those caves, more power to them.

That’s not how it worked out. I didn’t bother checking the encounters. I just figured the payers would face roll the bugs, I was mostly concerned with exactly what the right conditions would be for the bandits to backstab, or not backstab the party.

Without stealth (the helpful bandits required torches) the party was no better off than alone. Lost surprise rounds, lost preparations, lost time to form basic but coherent plans made things a mess.

Those bugs surprised the party a few times.

They would have been better on their own.

Not every party is stealthy, not every role requires stealth, but most benefit from it. A lot.

Stealth without darkvision is decidedly limited.

[Nibenay]

I think darkvision is quite important when needed. As mentioned before my experience is that while having a torch or light spell, you're a blazing beacon to anyone bad living whereever it's dark. Occationally you can't even light a torch or have light available. My experience is that not having darkvision is indeed a liablility.

[Corran]

Anyone with a lick of sense, Darkvision or not, will carry light into a dark place. Darkvision is not Devils Sight; it's not perfect. You might not have any penalties to attack rolls using Darkvision alone, but at the same time, a cunning foe can litrally Hide in "plain view" right in front of you and you're rolling at disadvantage against their Stealth roll. That's a really precarious combat situation.

Having darkvision prevents that (bolded part). Unless you meant it more generally, ie that it will be good having a light source so that an enemy cannot do that against an ally that does not have darkvision.

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

@OP: As others said, it's a legacy thing. Most non human races always had a small advantage in vision. Though if I remember correctly it was low light vision for most of them, and only a handful of races actually had darkvision. 5e treats this by giving darkvision with superior range to a few races (that live underground) and darkvision to almost everyone else.



Kind of thinking of making some homebrew changes to certain races darkvision mechanics but not sure how players would react to that sort of thing, just wondering what the general consensus is here on this type of thing?
I think to do that, you must begin from the rules about vision. As they are, they less complex than needed to handle any changes about darkvision well. Unless yyou are talking about completely removing or adding darkvision from and to certain races.

[JellyPooga]

Having darkvision prevents that (bolded part). Unless you meant it more generally, ie that it will be good having a light source so that an enemy cannot do that against an ally that does not have darkvision.

No. It doesn't.

Unless you're in dim light already, Darkvision only provides you (effective) Dim Light. Dim Light counts as concealment and concealment is all that's required for Hiding, as well as imposing Disadvantage on Perception checks. In a pitch dark battle, even with Darkvision, a foe can Hide freely, without further concealment. Can do it 5ft in front of your face, even and you'll have disadvantage on the opposed Perception vs. Stealth check to spot them. Darkvision does nothing to prevent this.

Darkvision is a good stop-gap, but it's far from ideal.

[Corran]

No. It doesn't.

Unless you're in dim light already, Darkvision only provides you (effective) Dim Light. Dim Light counts as concealment and concealment is all that's required for Hiding, as well as imposing Disadvantage on Perception checks. In a pitch dark battle, even with Darkvision, a foe can Hide freely, without further concealment. Can do it 5ft in front of your face, even and you'll have disadvantage on the opposed Perception vs. Stealth check to spot them. Darkvision does nothing to prevent this.

Darkvision is a good stop-gap, but it's far from ideal.
First of all, I am AFB, so apologies for continuing this instead of just waiting a few hours so I can check it in my own time. As far as I remember, you need heavy obscurement or total cover to attempt to hide. A quick internet search (which may not be accurate of course) confirms that to me.

Here is how I think it works. Concealment could mean either lightly obscured, or heavily obscured. You can attempt to hide when you are not being seen (with some exceptions, from memory wood elf and gloomstalker). If you are lightly obscured, you can be seen, so you cannot attempt to hide. If being heavily obscured or behind total cover, then you can take the hide action (assuming the DM does not find it unreasonable because of reasons).

[Spiritchaser]

The level of cover isn’t detailed, instead the phrase is: you can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly.

As I recall, early versions of the PHB lacked the word clearly, and it was errata that fixed this

So something less than full cover, but very much less than clear, therefore at least a little table dependent, and very prone to start unending forum flame wars with stubborn opinionated forum goers maniacally advocating for their point of view.

[NNescio]

There are numerous class features, traits and other game effects that allow creatures to hide under light obscurement (relative to the hidee). This strongly implies that one cannot — by default — hide while being lightly obscured; otherwise all those features are useless.

Edit: Removed irrelevant quote.

[Corran]

As I recall, early versions of the PHB lacked the word clearly, and it was errata that fixed this

Ah, that clears it up (:smallwink:) for me. Thanks.

[JellyPooga]

First of all, I am AFB

Me too, so apologies for any crossed wires. Did some looking up online and got them straight now, I think.


Here is how I think it works. Concealment could mean either lightly obscured, or heavily obscured. You can attempt to hide when you are not being seen (with some exceptions, from memory wood elf and gloomstalker). If you are lightly obscured, you can be seen, so you cannot attempt to hide. If being heavily obscured or behind total cover, then you can take the hide action (assuming the DM does not find it unreasonable because of reasons).

So it turns out I've been conflating standard hiding rules, which stipulate that it's basically up to the GM to determine when or under what circumstances you can hide (allowing you to avoid the "everyone can see everything 360° around them in combat" thing if you're trying to sneak up behind someone, out of combat, in otherwise plain view), with the bonus granted by Skulker whereby it allows you to hide in any light obscurement (which you'd have in Dim Light, or in Darkness with Darkvision).

It's a problem with playing Rogues and sneaky types a lot; you tend to take a few things as written/for granted because that's always the way you play (and yeah, Skulker is an awesome feat for just the reasons I outline above RE: hiding in dim light right in front of your foe, including their penalty to Perception).

[dreast]

D&D 3eify it?

New ability: Low-light vision - this creature can see in dim light as if it were bright light.

Applies to elves (except dark elves), eladrin, gnomes (except svirfneblin), half-elves, and as a general rule all other primarily above-ground races, replacing darkvision.

Doesn't apply to dwarves, half-orcs, tieflings, and all other subterranean (or extraplanarish) creatures (fire genasi being an edge case, but sure, why not).

This is the one and only place I think the fact that 5e is rooted in AD&D 2e is a weakness, rather than a strength; AD&D 2e had the same problem with infravision (basically darkvision).

[Spiritchaser]

There are numerous class features, traits and other game effects that allow creatures to hide under light obscurement (relative to the hidee). This strongly implies that one cannot — by default — hide while being lightly obscured; otherwise all those features are useless.

Edit: Removed irrelevant quote.

No

It simply states that in those cases light obsctrement will always be sufficient

If the RAW criterion is that, absent one of those features, you must not be seen clearly, then that and that alone is the requirement.

You are lightly obscured, and do not possess a feature that would permit you to hide while lightly obscured.

Can you be seen clearly?
Yes: you may not hide
No: you may attempt to hide.

Being seen clearly encompasses far more than just cover and obscurement.

It includes distance, camouflage, backlight and silhouette, shadows and relative brightness, distracting motions or images nearby, conditions affecting the observer, etc. etc.

A power that allows you to hide when lightly obscured does exactly what it says it does.

It does nothing to reduce the relevance of these other factors for everyone without such a trait.

Edit: I acknowledge that there’s obviously a huge, table-specific grey area around that term “clearly”. Given that it would not have taken much time or space for them to add a table of examples, I have to think it’s more than just possible that WotC may have wanted this to be a flavour element of a campaign that was table specific.

[Reevh]

My current adventuring party is 2 humans, a halfling, and a gemstone dragonborn, none of whom have darkvision. The lacking of that darkvision does have a fairly significant impact on our gameplay. For example, my eldritch knight is effectively required to have the light cantrip, which is rough on an EK who gets so few cantrips. Yeah, I could try to go without it and use a torch, but once combat breaks out, I'd have to drop the torch and my light source would no longer be mobile. Plus, we adventure underwater sometimes.

[Spiritchaser]

Ah, that clears it up (:smallwink:) for me. Thanks.

I remember being part of a less than polite full on forum battle on this point, it wasn’t until page... I don’t know, 8? That some helpful soul pointed out that, in addition to being obnoxious with each other, we were arguing both sides of a rule that had changed.

[Willie the Duck]

I think the different views here highlight that different campaigns will treat darkvision somewhere between a ribbon and of absolute vital importance. That seems to be the edition working as supposedly intended, given that it means that people who want to treat 5e as '3rd edition, take #4' can play it that way, and those who want to play it as 'TSR-era, but without racial level limits and other garbage' can also play it their way. If you want darkvision to be important, well then it is a pretty decent counterbalance to Vuman supremacy. If you want vision to be hand-waved away, well then light cantrips are plentiful, as are drift globes. What I find interesting is the edge cases. Examples: no one (well, very few people) consider non-variant humans or Dragonborn to be a high-powered racial choice, yet most people consider Vumans to be. Also, if you expect rogues to go off and stealth by themselves (away from allied torches and heavy armor, then a halfling somehow makes a challenging rogue pick.

[Keravath]

I don't find darkvision to be a big issue. I find not having it to be a bigger pain and in a lot of the characters I like to play I take two levels of warlock for devils sight (especially for a human or other race without darkvision). Otherwise, when playing characters without darkvision, I juggle carrying light sources and don't focus on stealth since there are too many situations where stealth and darkness go together.

Seeing in the dark is a very useful ability. Disadvantage on perception checks in darkness means that in a lot of cases you would want a light source anyway (searching, finding traps, exploring, scouting unknown areas .. where stealth isn't a consideration) but if you want to be stealthy in the dark then some ability to see in the dark either darkvision, the spell darkvision, goggles of the night, or devils sight is indispensable. Stumbling around blind isn't a realistic option in most scenarios.

Adding a level of complexity to the mechanic just seems to be a waste of effort to me. The main reason there were different types of vision dates back to first edition where underground races mostly had infravision and outdoor races had ultravision. Infravision saw more into the infrared and worked in subterranean locations without light sources while ultravision was assumed to extend farther to the ultraviolet end of the spectrum and had greater light sensitivity outdoors. These evolved into darkvision and low-light vision in later editions and finally to just darkvision in 5e. This was mostly, in my opinion, because the added complexity didn't really add to the fun of the game and 5e is designed to streamline the rules and focus on role play over mechanics in many cases.

[JackPhoenix]

you're rolling at disadvantage against their Stealth roll.

You are not. Dim light gives disadvantage on vision-based Perception checks, but you have other senses. You can hear or smell hidden creature perfectly fine even in total darkness.

[2D8HP]

...do creatures like Elves really need darkvision and does it really make sense for them to have it?...


As long as they cling to the surface Elves don't really need Darkvision, they only have it as a vestige of their ancestors who were Drow.

That's right, Drow are the original Elves!

Don't believe the surfacelander lies!

[Shabbazar]

Back in AD&D, the non-human races had many advantages over human, infravision being one of them. Humans didn't get any stat bonuses, yet every non-human race did. The non-human races were better in multiple ways than humans. The completely arbitrary balancing tool was humans could rise to unlimited levels, but non-humans had a maximum level they could reach in a particular class. I don't have my old AD&D books around for reference anymore, but IIRC most of the non-human level limits were in the high single digits. Once the level limits came off it just gave non-humans a list of benefits at effectively no cost.

[JellyPooga]

You are not. Dim light gives disadvantage on vision-based Perception checks, but you have other senses. You can hear or smell hidden creature perfectly fine even in total darkness.

You'll probably find that a hard sell to any GM with a brain, especially if the source of concealment you're using to hide is visual (like a tree or if you're using Skulker to hide in dim light). If that's your argument, then hiding is always impossible because few things will conceal a scent.

[Pex]

Darkvision is overrated.

When players put too much emphasis on it they're being paranoid. If you get surprised every encounter in a dark place blame your DM not having a light source. When a DM puts too much emphasis on darkvision, such as the aforementioned surprise every encounter or refusing to let players see things until too late, he's passive aggressively banning all races that don't have darkvision and needs to lighten up.

Certainly have it be significant when appropriate, but the key is when appropriate. If it's all the time that's frustration, not challenging.

[Luccan]

The problem is born out of combining low-light vision and classic darkvision. Back in the day, elves could see really far if there was starlight out, while dwarves could see in lightless caves underground (that was the big distinction, at least). Everyone had one or the other or neither, few player options had both.

But as has been pointed out, you still suffer disadvantage without a light source, so usually you'll want one and there's not really a reason to leave the human, dragonborn, or halfling behind at that point. Keep in mind that if you have Darkvision you didn't get something else, so even if you decide to change things for different races they still need something in return.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't have my old AD&D books around for reference anymore, but IIRC most of the non-human level limits were in the high single digits. Once the level limits came off it just gave non-humans a list of benefits at effectively no cost.

It varies a lot, and depends on if you are using 1e AD&D, 1e AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, or 2e AD&D. By 2e the level limits (particularly for elves and half-elves) were high enough that most campaigns wouldn't reach them anyways, making them something of a paper tiger.

[Contrast]

I have to disagree with the people who say 'pfft just bring a light source, disadv on perception checks makes it silly to walk around in the dark anyway'.

Yes if you're just generically setting up camp, are in a permanent living space or are travelling then you'll have a light source. However if you're trying to sneak somewhere it's much better to have disadvantage on perception checks than it is to allow enemies to potentially automatically detect you because you're holding a lantern in the middle of a dark field. Apart from anything else it means if they have darkvision too they're also at disadvantage to detect you compared to the advantage or automatic success that carrying a light source would bring.

Players: Screw it we'll just use our lantern which illuminates out to 60ft.
Enemies: Hey look we can see a group of people with a lantern over there
Players: *get shot by a load of arrows out of the darkness from 150ft away* sure am glad we didn't have disadvantage on perception checks to things within 60ft of us

Part of the issue is how granular lighting rules are - we go from normal vision, to kinda dark to totally blind. RAW a human is completely blind even on most moonlit nights.

If you're not sneaking I agree its not that big of a deal but in my experience most of the time we're lumbering about in the dark it's because we're trying to be sneaky.


Personally my recommendation is to turn darkvision into low light vision and have a much more generous version of what constitutes dim light than the PHB lays out.

[JellyPooga]

I have to disagree with the people who say 'pfft just bring a light source, disadv on perception checks makes it silly to walk around in the dark anyway'.

Yes if you're just generically setting up camp, are in a permanent living space or are travelling then you'll have a light source. However if you're trying to sneak somewhere it's much better to have disadvantage on perception checks than it is to allow enemies to potentially automatically detect you because you're holding a lantern in the middle of a dark field. Apart from anything else it means if they have darkvision too they're also at disadvantage to detect you compared to the advantage or automatic success that carrying a light source would bring.

Players: Screw it we'll just use our lantern which illuminates out to 60ft.
Enemies: Hey look we can see a group of people with a lantern over there
Players: *get shot by a load of arrows out of the darkness from 150ft away* sure am glad we didn't have disadvantage on perception checks to things within 60ft of us

Part of the issue is how granular lighting rules are - we go from normal vision, to kinda dark to totally blind. RAW a human is completely blind even on most moonlit nights.

If you're not sneaking I agree its not that big of a deal but in my experience most of the time we're lumbering about in the dark it's because we're trying to be sneaky.


Personally my recommendation is to turn darkvision into low light vision and have a much more generous version of what constitutes dim light than the PHB lays out.

What I take from this is; if you're sneaking in an area that is dark, then not taking a light source with you is a good idea. Otherwise, take one. That's a remarkably limited situation, given that even those with Darkvision will want their homes and permanent camps lit, that a moonlit night will probably count as Dim Light (seriously, go out for a walk on a cloudless full-moon, somewhere there's no light pollution; it's bright as day. Even on a partially cloudy night, you can still navigate. Arguing that a moonlit night counts as full darkness, rather than dim, makes about much sense as saying that RAW, the sun doesn't provide sufficient light for seeing in the day), etc. etc. Complete darkness is, or should be, a true rarity because anywhere an adventure is likely to take you is highly likely to be lit anyway. Darkvision really is a ribbon moat of the time and when it does come into play is still pretty bad compared to the alternative of having a light source.

[Contrast]

...that a moonlit night will probably count as Dim Light (seriously, go out for a walk on a cloudless full-moon, somewhere there's no light pollution; it's bright as day. Even on a partially cloudy night, you can still navigate. Arguing that a moonlit night counts as full darkness, rather than dim, makes about much sense as saying that RAW, the sun doesn't provide sufficient light for seeing in the day), etc. etc.

I agree but, for clarity and context, the PHB does not.


Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

[Nagog]

I mean, it doesn't actually change much to have Darkvision. Sure it lets you move around without a torch, but you have disadvantage on sight based checks while in the dark. So its best to bring a torch.

As for races who have darkvision...they actually seem fine to me.


We use the spell darkvision.
Our DM even made us a wand of darkvision based on the wand of web.

The biggest problem with light in a dark area is the fact you are a beacon for everything.

It is like telling the enemies to make an ambush and remove most of the group ability to stealth.

In an area with light darkvision have no use so I will refer to it in a dark area.

Downsides for not having darkvision:

1. No dual-wielding in the dark. No 2 handed weapon use in the dark. Nothing that requires 2 hands in the dark. If you don't have Darkvision, going into a dark area is going to drain resources no matter what.
2. No stealth, at all, in the dark. You can roll for stealth, but unless the people you're hiding from are completely blind to light, you're going to fail, hands down, no bones about it. So no ambush, no sneaking, nothing.

The upsides for having darkvision are only not having these downsides. So, I agree, Darkvision isn't a buff, not having Darkvision is a debuff. If the Darkvision spell were a cantrip (effectively similar to Light, Dancing Lights, literally any of the plethora of spells involving light), it wouldn't really be a problem. But it isn't, so it is.

[Contrast]

1. No dual-wielding in the dark. No 2 handed weapon use in the dark. Nothing that requires 2 hands in the dark. If you don't have Darkvision, going into a dark area is going to drain resources no matter what.

It usually isn't going to be that bad. Most parties are going to have at least one person who can either cast the light cantrip or has a hand free to hold a torch (even if it isn't necessarily the person without darkvision).

That said, I'm currently in a party exploring the underdark and am the only one without darkvision. The druid is casting Darkvision on me so I can see when we want to sneak and it has been fine. But my racial choice is now costing the party 1-2 2nd level spell slots a day which is a pretty big deal.

[sithlordnergal]

Downsides for not having darkvision:

1. No dual-wielding in the dark. No 2 handed weapon use in the dark. Nothing that requires 2 hands in the dark. If you don't have Darkvision, going into a dark area is going to drain resources no matter what.
2. No stealth, at all, in the dark. You can roll for stealth, but unless the people you're hiding from are completely blind to light, you're going to fail, hands down, no bones about it. So no ambush, no sneaking, nothing.

The upsides for having darkvision are only not having these downsides. So, I agree, Darkvision isn't a buff, not having Darkvision is a debuff. If the Darkvision spell were a cantrip (effectively similar to Light, Dancing Lights, literally any of the plethora of spells involving light), it wouldn't really be a problem. But it isn't, so it is.

Eh, why can't you dual wield or use two handed weapons in the dark? I don't see anything under the Blinded condition that would prevent you from doing so.

Same with stealth. You cam absolutely try to hide in the dark. Just because a creature has dark vision doesn't mean you can't hide. Heck, the Gloom Stalker is a subclass dedicated to being unseen in darkness, even to creatures with Darkvision.

[JellyPooga]

I agree but, for clarity and context, the PHB does not.

"Most" is a tricky sort of word. That statement also implies that some moonlit nights don't count as darkness and that it's up to the GM which do or don't. I see nothing hard and fast in that statment :smallwink:

[Reevh]

You are not. Dim light gives disadvantage on vision-based Perception checks, but you have other senses. You can hear or smell hidden creature perfectly fine even in total darkness.

Depends on the creature, I suppose, but I know my human nose is unlikely to pinpoint the location of another person in pitch blackness to within a 5ft square.

[Contrast]

Eh, why can't you dual wield or use two handed weapons in the dark? I don't see anything under the Blinded condition that would prevent you from doing so.

Same with stealth. You cam absolutely try to hide in the dark. Just because a creature has dark vision doesn't mean you can't hide. Heck, the Gloom Stalker is a subclass dedicated to being unseen in darkness, even to creatures with Darkvision.

I believe they were assuming those without darkvision would need to hold a light source of some variety like a torch or lantern, using up a hand and making you a literal beacon in the dark to anyone with their eyes on lookout.

[Segev]

And this thread has highlighted for me some things I've been doing quite wrong with goblins, which have Darkvision and the ability to hide as a bonus action. In the dark, they should be harder to roll to spot and gain an effective +5 to their Stealth rolls against those using Darkvision to see them. I also am reminded that I have forgotten, when they're hidden, to give them Advantage on their attack rolls. Woops.

I have in my party a dwarven Gloomstalker Ranger. Can he turn off his class-granted invisibility to Darkvision? Or is he only visible to his fellows if they turn on the lights, no matter his wishes?

The only one in the party without Darkvision is the Vuman Monk, and he's taken to having the acolyte travelling with the party cast light on his weapon. It gives me all the excuse I need to claim things can make Hide checks (due to the wildly dancing shadows), but otherwise works just fine.

[Reevh]

Eh, why can't you dual wield or use two handed weapons in the dark? I don't see anything under the Blinded condition that would prevent you from doing so.


The idea is that you'd have to be carrying a torch for light with one hand, making it so you don't have a free hand to dual wield or 2h wield.

Of course you can just drop the torch on the ground during combat and it can continue to provide light, but then it doesn't move with the player.

[ad_hoc]

Kind of makes light sources kind of pointless when everyone can see in the dark,

Dim light out to 60ft isn't what I would flatly call 'seeing in the dark'.

It's hugely disadvantageous to not have a light source, even with all characters who have darkvision.

[Willie the Duck]

I have in my party a dwarven Gloomstalker Ranger. Can he turn off his class-granted invisibility to Darkvision? Or is he only visible to his fellows if they turn on the lights, no matter his wishes?

Looking at the rules, it would suggest that it is always the case. The wording however ("You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision") suggests that the intent was that this ability be flagged as an act of skill (IC meaning of the term skill, not the game concept), and thus the Gloom Stalker could choose to not activate the ability when so choosing.

[NNescio]

Looking at the rules, it would suggest that it is always the case. The wording however ("You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision") suggests that the intent was that this ability be flagged as an act of skill (IC meaning of the term skill, not the game concept), and thus the Gloom Stalker could choose to not activate the ability when so choosing.

You are so adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision, why, you are invisible even when incapacitated and dying. And the Cleric has to hurry up and get a light source out so she can heal you with Healing Word. :smallbiggrin:

[JellyPooga]

Dim light out to 60ft isn't what I would flatly call 'seeing in the dark'.

It's hugely disadvantageous to not have a light source, even with all characters who have darkvision.

I'll agree here, too, that this is also a massive limitation to Darkvision. 60ft might be enough for many interiors, but by no means all and in the grand scheme of things, if something is 60ft away, it could be argued it's too close for comfort; if a grue suddenly appeared a mere 60ft away, I'd be wishing I'd known about it a touch sooner. Dancing Lights and Bullseye lanterns provide a much greater distance of illumination, whilst mainraining a relatively low profile with the former only providing dim light and the other having not only a directed cone of light, but also an easy "cut off switch".

[JackPhoenix]

You'll probably find that a hard sell to any GM with a brain, especially if the source of concealment you're using to hide is visual (like a tree or if you're using Skulker to hide in dim light). If that's your argument, then hiding is always impossible because few things will conceal a scent.

Any GM with a brain (and eyes) is able to read the rules.

Obscurement is always visual, and that's the requirement for being able to Hide at all. But it matters little for detecting hidden creatures. You may use other senses for that. Dim light doesn't give you disadvantage to hear the hidden creature, and Perception check cover all senses at once.

Scent doesn't prevent you from hiding, but creature with good scent can find your location.

[Spiritchaser]

Dim light out to 60ft isn't what I would flatly call 'seeing in the dark'.

It's hugely disadvantageous to not have a light source, even with all characters who have darkvision.

It is hugely disadvantageous to have a light source.

Every creatures will see that torch from a long, long way out.

It almost guarantees that unlit bows will be sending arrows through the dark, speeding towards those targets, painted brightly by their oh-so-easy-to-see torches... the archers scuttling and scattering and hiding behind a cloak of blackness after each volley.

It pretty much guarantees that those silent scouts, crouching in the darkness, will dispatch word to their masters, alerting a force too large for comfort.

It pretty much guarantees that those hungry eyes, open in the darkness will move to their favourite ambush point for a chance at fresh adventurer... still twitching!

It pretty much guarantees that those nimble adventurers, so well practiced at exploding into violence, will never do so on an unsuspecting enemy.

Of course there are penalties to going without light, but skulker, devil’s sight, even observant... are great solutions to the problem of hidden traps in the darkness... a problem that is generally less severe than the problem of foes in the darkness

And yes there will always be a time for torches... occasionally.

[darknite]

Darkvision alone has its' own issues. Also lots of creatures have it, too. Not sure what the problem is.

[MrStabby]

I began my current campaign co DMing with a friend. He liberally handed out goggles of darkvision to characters in a move that surprised me.

It gave me the chance to think about my views on this and why. Generally I am against ANY item that will obviate a choice made at character creation. No stat setting items, no items that grant racial or class abilities (with possible leniency for non represented classes). I wouldn't have done this, but his style and assumptions were just as valid.

I get the point that lack of darkvision can seriously impact other members though, and therefore should be pretty widely available. We had a shadowmonk for example. Lots of light sources everywhere can kind of screw with their level 6 ability and a rogue suffers from not easily being able to hide with advantage. If a lack of darkvision was only a detriment to the character that was missing it, then I think I would find the whole thing more simple.

My solution, of a sort, is to have some items be purchasable and include a version of goggles of darkvision amongst them. These may have additional properties to granting darkvision but all versions will require attunement. Yes, a party need not be screwed over by one player needing light, and nor will that player be constantly suffering disadvantage as they keep themselves in the dark. Further there is a measurable cost to not having darkvision: an attunement slot.

[JellyPooga]

It is hugely disadvantageous to have a light source.

Every creatures will see that torch from a long, long way out.

It almost guarantees that unlit bows will be sending arrows through the dark, speeding towards those targets, painted brightly by their oh-so-easy-to-see torches... the archers scuttling and scattering and hiding behind a cloak of blackness after each volley.

It pretty much guarantees that those silent scouts, crouching in the darkness, will dispatch word to their masters, alerting a force too large for comfort.

It pretty much guarantees that those hungry eyes, open in the darkness will move to their favourite ambush point for a chance at fresh adventurer... still twitching!

It pretty much guarantees that those nimble adventurers, so well practiced at exploding into violence, will never do so on an unsuspecting enemy.

Of course there are penalties to going without light, but skulker, devil’s sight, even observant... are great solutions to the problem of hidden traps in the darkness... a problem that is generally less severe than the problem of foes in the darkness

And yes there is always a time for torches... occasionally.

Whether or not you'll want light is, of course, very situational, but let's take the typical dungeon. Light doesn't go too far around corners and no-one is going to be sniping at the lights in such close confines. As for sentries, well, by the time they've seen you, you're probably close enough to chase them down and prevent them from setting up those ambushes...and you can do it because you can see them (you know, because you have a light source and aren't taking dim light penalties to spot them slinking away).

Conversely, if you are up against a foe shooting at the lights in an open plain, that does open up the possibility of using a little deception. Setting up "false leads" is very much a possibility; it's not like shooting at distant torches is a precise science. Sending a party member, hireling or pack animal (or a few) with a light source as a distraction will divide their fire as well as give them the impression of being under attack by a much larger force. That's not even delving into magical or more compex plans that take advantage of the enemies assumptions. Light can be as much a weapon as a liability.

[HappyDaze]

Darkvision is overrated.

When players put too much emphasis on it they're being paranoid. If you get surprised every encounter in a dark place blame your DM not having a light source.
Why would the DM be responsible for having a light source? IMO, it's up to the players to bring the light (if they need it) or to take the risk of not having it.

[ad_hoc]

However if you're trying to sneak somewhere it's much better to have disadvantage on perception checks than it is to allow enemies to potentially automatically detect you because you're holding a lantern in the middle of a dark field.

It is very hard to sneak around in 5e in the first place.

In the dark monsters are going to be much more adjusted to both being in darkness and ambushing the party. The party are the ones moving, the monsters are the ones waiting. It is much more likely that the party trying to do the sneaking will be the ones who are ambushed because they don't have light.

Also, a field is very rarely going to be in darkness - just dim light.

[Spiritchaser]

Whether or not you'll want light is, of course, very situational, but let's take the typical dungeon. Light doesn't go too far around corners and no-one is going to be sniping at the lights in such close confines. As for sentries, well, by the time they've seen you, you're probably close enough to chase them down and prevent them from setting up those ambushes...and you can do it because you can see them (you know, because you have a light source and aren't taking dim light penalties to spot them slinking away).

Conversely, if you are up against a foe shooting at the lights in an open plain, that does open up the possibility of using a little deception. Setting up "false leads" is very much a possibility; it's not like shooting at distant torches is a precise science. Sending a party member, hireling or pack animal (or a few) with a light source as a distraction will divide their fire as well as give them the impression of being under attack by a much larger force. That's not even delving into magical or more compex plans that take advantage of the enemies assumptions. Light can be as much a weapon as a liability.

I’m going to start with the annoying comment: there’s no such thing as a “typical dungeon”

Ok sorry about that, pure theatrics.

That said, how often is a 5’wide corridor really going to happen?

Natural caverns will vary greatly from one part to another, the bottoms of valleys at midnight could be any shape and a Forrest will be open everywhere except where the trees are.

If you do happen to be in an obviously artificial corridor with 90 degree bends, odds are it’s lit for you. Consider putting out that light. If you all have Darkvision it’ll quite probably provide an advantage.

If it isn’t lit? then yes maybe get that torch out... the better to see those poison dart holes/pit traps/whatever might be there.

[Contrast]

It is very hard to sneak around in 5e in the first place.

In the dark monsters are going to be much more adjusted to both being in darkness and ambushing the party. The party are the ones moving, the monsters are the ones waiting. It is much more likely that the party trying to do the sneaking will be the ones who are ambushed because they don't have light.

The monsters are going to be more adjusted by...being more likely for the entire group of them having darkvision? Yes I agree one group all having darkvision is a substantial advantage over the other :smallwink:

For reference through a combination of Pass Without Trace, bardic inspiration and Enhance Ability my party managed to achieve an average stealth score in the mid 20s the other day at level 4 (I think the lowest was 17?) which included several people in heavy armour with negative stealth scores. So perhaps very hard without expending resources.

I'm not sure what the mean by the party moving and the monsters waiting (do you mean the party are being ambushed or hunting down someone?). In my experience the party are usually the aggressors hunting down a foe who doesn't necessarily know where/when they're coming than the other way round and in that circumstance it seems to me stealth is a relatively important tool.


Also, a field is very rarely going to be in darkness - just dim light.

I agree if the DM ignores the guidance in the PHB on what constitutes darkness and dim light then darkvision is much less useful. For clarity - I would encourage a DM to ignore the guidance in the PHB on what constitutes darkness and dim light. :smallwink:

[MoiMagnus]

Why would the DM be responsible for having a light source? IMO, it's up to the players to bring the light (if they need it) or to take the risk of not having it.

If I understand correctly, he (and a lot of other players like him) consider light/darkness as something annoying and uninteresting to deal with, and see DM "penalising" you with surprise attacks in the darkness in the same way it would be unfair for a DM to penalize you for having an unbalanced diet because you did not cared about that when the DM asked "anything you want to do before leaving town?"

To be fair, I cannot really criticize him. Since whatever the RPG I played, I literally never played a game where dark vision was important, since most of the time, the DM handwaved a "sure, the wizard has a light source from his focaliser, and you see stuff quite well without anyway". I mean, the fact that some races had dark vision usually had some world building consequences, but it never had any mechanical consequences in my games.

(By the way, torches are totally unpractical since they rarely last half an hour, and taking multiple of them is cumbersome. Use oil lamps of you can afford it, and candle-like items otherwise. Use torches only when you need a lot of light for a short amount of time.)

[Pex]

Why would the DM be responsible for having a light source? IMO, it's up to the players to bring the light (if they need it) or to take the risk of not having it.

:smallsigh:

Accidental comma missing. Read again with a comma between DM and not.

[Helliquin]

Just make an enemy based on Ranger - Gloomstalker.

Umbral Sight. "While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."

That'll bugger 'em.

[Lunali]

And this thread has highlighted for me some things I've been doing quite wrong with goblins, which have Darkvision and the ability to hide as a bonus action. In the dark, they should be harder to roll to spot and gain an effective +5 to their Stealth rolls against those using Darkvision to see them. I also am reminded that I have forgotten, when they're hidden, to give them Advantage on their attack rolls. Woops.

I have in my party a dwarven Gloomstalker Ranger. Can he turn off his class-granted invisibility to Darkvision? Or is he only visible to his fellows if they turn on the lights, no matter his wishes?

The only one in the party without Darkvision is the Vuman Monk, and he's taken to having the acolyte travelling with the party cast light on his weapon. It gives me all the excuse I need to claim things can make Hide checks (due to the wildly dancing shadows), but otherwise works just fine.

Darkness only grants light obscurement vs creatures with darkvision, not enough to hide unless you have an additional trait of some sort. Likewise for dim light + creatures without darkvision. On the other hand, if the goblins have something to use for actual concealment, they would get the effective +5 to stealth in the dark.

[ad_hoc]

The monsters are going to be more adjusted by...being more likely for the entire group of them having darkvision? Yes I agree one group all having darkvision is a substantial advantage over the other :smallwink:

Many monsters have extrasensory powers beyond Darkvision. They know the layout of their lairs. They are also not the ones moving around.



For reference through a combination of Pass Without Trace, bardic inspiration and Enhance Ability my party managed to achieve an average stealth score in the mid 20s the other day at level 4 (I think the lowest was 17?) which included several people in heavy armour with negative stealth scores. So perhaps very hard without expending resources.

Yes, Pass Without Trace is great. It doesn't make the party obscured though. If the enemy can see you or otherwise clearly detect you with a special ability then it doesn't matter what your stealth score could be because you don't get to have one.



I'm not sure what the mean by the party moving and the monsters waiting (do you mean the party are being ambushed or hunting down someone?). In my experience the party are usually the aggressors hunting down a foe who doesn't necessarily know where/when they're coming than the other way round and in that circumstance it seems to me stealth is a relatively important tool.

I mean exactly that. The party is the one moving about. The monsters are the predators who live there.



I agree if the DM ignores the guidance in the PHB on what constitutes darkness and dim light then darkvision is much less useful. For clarity - I would encourage a DM to ignore the guidance in the PHB on what constitutes darkness and dim light. :smallwink:

I never said that. Quite the opposite. If the DM goes by the book then darkvision is a good ribbon. Nothing more.

It doesn't matter how many winks you give, you're still wrong.

[opaopajr]

WotC's like Oprah, everyone gets a brand new car under their seat. :smallbiggrin: "You get darkvision! And you get darkvision! Everyone gets darkvision!"

That said, I'd not drive my car out in the countryside if my headlamps worked like Darkvision. :smalltongue: The cut off at 60' (even 120'), especially since it still has Disadv on Perception, makes driving at speed suicide. Oooh, I see a grey lump, swerve or barrel on throu... too late! :smalleek: Even carriage rides at speed would be suicidal.

Strong light sources are useful! :smallsmile: Methinks the advantage is overblown.

[Dork_Forge]

Whether or not you'll want light is, of course, very situational, but let's take the typical dungeon. Light doesn't go too far around corners and no-one is going to be sniping at the lights in such close confines. As for sentries, well, by the time they've seen you, you're probably close enough to chase them down and prevent them from setting up those ambushes...and you can do it because you can see them (you know, because you have a light source and aren't taking dim light penalties to spot them slinking away).

Conversely, if you are up against a foe shooting at the lights in an open plain, that does open up the possibility of using a little deception. Setting up "false leads" is very much a possibility; it's not like shooting at distant torches is a precise science. Sending a party member, hireling or pack animal (or a few) with a light source as a distraction will divide their fire as well as give them the impression of being under attack by a much larger force. That's not even delving into magical or more compex plans that take advantage of the enemies assumptions. Light can be as much a weapon as a liability.

You can only see as far as that light reaches, but someone can see that light from much further away than you can see them. Even if you're in a dungeon that's twisty enough that there's no straight shot, they'll still see your light before they see you and any attempts at stealth instantly disappear.

Separately on the moon comment from before... no? Assuming you're outside, there's ZERO cloud cover AND it's a full moon sure, you can probably navigate and make out some general shapes, but it'd be difficult to see what you're stepping on, subtle movements etc.

In general on the topic: Darkvision shouldn't be on so many races, it becomes the norm and it flips it from being a benefit to not having it being a disadvantage. It could stand to be stripped out of a lot of race imo.

[Arkhios]

I guess it's somewhat a sacred cow situation. Humans (irl) have rather poor vision in the dark (yes yes, we can adjust to it, but no way we can see in the dark as well as cats for example), so of course non-human races must be special in that sense, as well as in other ways.

It does make sense (to me, anyway) that almost all other races than humans have darkvision. That way humans as a player maintain their "normalcy".

[JellyPooga]

You can only see as far as that light reaches, but someone can see that light from much further away than you can see them. Even if you're in a dungeon that's twisty enough that there's no straight shot, they'll still see your light before they see you and any attempts at stealth instantly disappear.

Ever try to spot someone using a modern torch (that's a "flashlight" to you guys over the pond :smallwink:) on a dark night in an open field? I have. It's not as easy/obvious as you might think. Bullseye lanterns are also known as Smugglers Lanterns because, you know, Smugglers used them to be stealthy at night and in other dark places and guess what? It worked :smalleek: They very often avoided the very people that were quite intentionally looking for them at the precise time they were flashing their lanterns around.


Separately on the moon comment from before... no? Assuming you're outside, there's ZERO cloud cover AND it's a full moon sure, you can probably navigate and make out some general shapes, but it'd be difficult to see what you're stepping on, subtle movements etc.

Cloudless & full moon; I'll say it again. Bright as day. I've literally seen horizon on a really bright night, but I'll admit that was unusual. On a regular full moon, being able to see 100yrds really rather clearly (as in, I've happily done night work, outdoors, without a light source on such nights, including reading) is not unusual, even with a little cloud cover. Partial cloud cover and or less than full moon obviously things get dimmer, as well as other cover (e.g. trees or building) obscuring things will reduce this significantly, even to the point of being really rather dark, but generally speaking the night isn't often actually so dark as we like to imagine. In this modern age of ubiquitous light, you might even be surprised at just how bright things are in some places when those lights go out, especially those that are an open plain, like fields, deserts and at sea.

[Gignere]

My two pennies as DM, darkvision doesn’t really impact any party unless you made a party of human stealth specialists.

However rogues or anyone playing the scout role will definitely need darkvision. That’s my only beef with darkvision. However I also reward players that try to be creative to work around their limitations. Like using a shuttering lantern to basically turn the lights off and on.

I mean the tank / healer in plate and shield isn’t going to be stealthing around anyway.

Also I enforce the darkvision limitations hard and as long as it isn’t a non intelligent monster my darkvision races typically carry light sources too.

[Spiritchaser]

Cloudless & full moon; I'll say it again. Bright as day. I've literally seen horizon on a really bright night, but I'll admit that was unusual. On a regular full moon, being able to see 100yrds really rather clearly (as in, I've happily done night work, outdoors, without a light source on such nights, including reading) is not unusual, even with a little cloud cover. Partial cloud cover and or less than full moon obviously things get dimmer, as well as other cover (e.g. trees or building) obscuring things will reduce this significantly, even to the point of being really rather dark, but generally speaking the night isn't often actually so dark as we like to imagine. In this modern age of ubiquitous light, you might even be surprised at just how bright things are in some places when those lights go out, especially those that are an open plain, like fields, deserts and at sea.

I won’t disagree that a full moon can seem bright, but this probably has as much to do with our eyes being pretty incredible than anything else.

Daylight comes in around 10000 lux (this would be around the level where the sunny 16 rule for photography actually works... though I’m not sure if anyone uses that anymore)


Moonlight is much much less, below 1 lux. Our eyes can of course adapt. For some reason When they do this our sensitivity to red and blue light increases, and sensitivity to green decreases. Maybe those parts of our eyes are more scalable

I’ve no idea if that also applies to elves or goblins.

In any case I wouldn’t, and don’t define that level of light as darkness in game, whatever the PHB might say. To my mind that should still count as dim light.

[Tanarii]

My experience running a game that pays close attention to light levels, in a mix of close set dungeons and above ground medium-to-dense terrain /w structures adventuring sites, is that darkvision is pretty much critical for scouts. And ranges from merely occasionally handy to totally meh for everyone else. And that Human and Halfling rogues will move mountains to get their hands on Googles of Night in such a setting.

Edit: Also I was very surprised the first time someone pointed out the RAW for moonlit nights is darkness. At first it's counter-intuitive. OTOH since darkness only results in disadvantage on attacks, no restrictions on movement, and depending on your DM possibly not even having to guess the location of non-hiding enemies, maybe it's not all that far off. Of course, the game really needs a new level of obscuring: "Pitch Black / Can't see ****". Must guess enemy locations even if they are in front of you, dex checks to move without falling, take away the battle mat if playing with one, etc. :smallamused:

[Dork_Forge]

Ever try to spot someone using a modern torch (that's a "flashlight" to you guys over the pond :smallwink:) on a dark night in an open field? I have. It's not as easy/obvious as you might think. Bullseye lanterns are also known as Smugglers Lanterns because, you know, Smugglers used them to be stealthy at night and in other dark places and guess what? It worked :smalleek: They very often avoided the very people that were quite intentionally looking for them at the precise time they were flashing their lanterns around.



Cloudless & full moon; I'll say it again. Bright as day. I've literally seen horizon on a really bright night, but I'll admit that was unusual. On a regular full moon, being able to see 100yrds really rather clearly (as in, I've happily done night work, outdoors, without a light source on such nights, including reading) is not unusual, even with a little cloud cover. Partial cloud cover and or less than full moon obviously things get dimmer, as well as other cover (e.g. trees or building) obscuring things will reduce this significantly, even to the point of being really rather dark, but generally speaking the night isn't often actually so dark as we like to imagine. In this modern age of ubiquitous light, you might even be surprised at just how bright things are in some places when those lights go out, especially those that are an open plain, like fields, deserts and at sea.

Actually I'm Welsh, so still a torch (and I'm torch enthusiast) ;) I also work permanent night shift in an area surrounded by unlit farm land and have lived in a simlarly rural area my entire life, I can't agree about moonlight to the same extent. Our eyes can adjust to a good degree, but I don't think I've ever seen a night as bright as you describe. You also said that true darkness is a rarity and that also doesn't sound right. Whilst creatures with darkvision would want their homes etc. lit, intelligent enemies may forgo lighting on the outside to conceal their domiciles/sentries. Enemies like Drow would certainly rely on their superior darkvision over a lightsource for sentry work for example. In terms of dungeons anything that's a natural cavern, or an unkept made structure (be it underground or a building) won't have any light at all if its inhabitants are things like undead, anything with blindsense, there's a substantial amount of the Monster Manual where the creatures aren't exactly intelligent enough to harness light sources.

If you're trying to be stealthy, then a lightsource is just a bad idea a lot of the time (if not most), even if it's a bullseye lantern you're still most likely heading towards the things you don't want seeing you, so that directional light is pointed in their direction.

[ad_hoc]

My experience running a game that pays close attention to light levels, in a mix of close set dungeons and above ground medium-to-dense terrain /w structures adventuring sites, is that darkvision is pretty much critical for scouts. And ranges from merely occasionally handy to totally meh for everyone else. And that Human and Halfling rogues will move mountains to get their hands on Googles of Night in such a setting.

Edit: Also I was very surprised the first time someone pointed out the RAW for moonlit nights is darkness. At first it's counter-intuitive. OTOH since darkness only results in disadvantage on attacks, no restrictions on movement, and depending on your DM possibly not even having to guess the location of non-hiding enemies, maybe it's not all that far off. Of course, the game really needs a new level of obscuring: "Pitch Black / Can't see ****". Must guess enemy locations even if they are in front of you, dex checks to move without falling, take away the battle mat if playing with one, etc. :smallamused:

Wow, I really should have looked that up.

In a forest it's going to be too dark to see anything even with a full moon. In a field with stars though, that's different. I can see my way around. I wouldn't be able to spot anything hiding, but I can move about and see people who are also moving about. Even with cloud cover unless it is heavy there should be enough light to see.

Looking at the book - full moon, twilight, and dawn is dim light - most regular moonlit nights are darkness. Looks like dim light is pretty broad too with dawn/twilight counting. Interestingly gloomy days count as bright. FWIW twilight and dawn are the best times to take photographs without flash as the light is dispersed so there are no shadows. I think if the light is bright enough to take pictures without a flash, it should be considered bright.

On the topic of scouting, it's the most dangerous job to have. I think sneaking characters tend to get away with more than they should. Even with an infinite amount of stealth if the enemy can see you then you aren't hidden.

Since darkness causes the 'blinded' condition I think we can extrapolate that to have consequences beyond what is plainly written under the condition. I certainly don't feel blind on moonlit nights.

[Tanarii]

On the topic of scouting, it's the most dangerous job to have. I think sneaking characters tend to get away with more than they should. Even with an infinite amount of stealth if the enemy can see you then you aren't hidden.Side topic, but agreed. One of the more common reasons for non-TPK character deaths IMC is scouts sticking their neck out, getting in over their head, and getting killed before the party can respond.

[KorvinStarmast]

Back in AD&D, the non-human races had many advantages over human, infravision being one of them. Humans didn't get any stat bonuses, yet every non-human race did. The non-human races were better in multiple ways than humans. The completely arbitrary balancing tool was humans could rise to unlimited levels, but non-humans had a maximum level they could reach in a particular class. I don't have my old AD&D books around for reference anymore, but IIRC most of the non-human level limits were in the high single digits. Once the level limits came off it just gave non-humans a list of benefits at effectively no cost. Yes. Nice summary.

[Spiritchaser]

New spell: Tanarii’s really really dark darkness.

Level 4
Evocation
1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V,M (a really dark square of chocolate, 90% coco or more, and some Sumatran coffee beans)
Duration: Concentration up to 10 minutes


Magical extra dark darkness spreads to fill a 15 ft. radius sphere from the point you choose which could be an object. The darkness spreads through cracks and around corners. Unlike regular darkness, this darkness is seriously dark, as in, you just can’t see f*** ***.
Creatures within the area of effect are blinded, fully obscured and considered to be moving over difficult terrain because they can’t see ****. Any light spell under 5th level which effects the same region as this spell will curl up in a foetal position and mutter uncontrollably. Creatures with Devil’s sight will be unable to see through really really dark darkness because it’s really really dark. Creatures with blindsight that relies on thermal imaging will also be unable to see through really really dark darkness because again, it’s really really dark. What? It doesn’t say which blindsight is thermal imaging? Well that sucks. Ok, sort that one out for yourselves.

Also you can eat the chocolate if you want to.

[NNescio]

New spell: Tanarii’s really really dark darkness.

Level 4
Evocation
1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V,M (a really dark square of chocolate, 90% coco or more, and some Sumatran coffee beans)
Duration: Concentration up to 10 minutes


Magical extra dark darkness spreads to fill a 15 ft. radius sphere from the point you choose which could be an object. The darkness spreads through cracks and around corners. Unlike regular darkness, this darkness is seriously dark, as in, you just can’t see f*** ***.
Creatures within the area of effect are blinded, fully obscured and considered to be moving over difficult terrain because they can’t see ****. Any light spell under 5th level which effects the same region as this spell will curl up in a foetal position and mutter uncontrollably. Creatures with Devil’s sight will be unable to see through really really dark darkness because it’s really really dark. Creatures with blindsight that relies on thermal imaging will also be unable to see through really really dark darkness because again, it’s really really dark. What? It doesn’t say which blindsight is thermal imaging? Well that sucks. Ok, sort that one out for yourselves.

Also you can eat the chocolate if you want to.

Hunger of Hadar already does something similar. Creatures fully within the radius are also blinded, darkvision or no (but creatures outside with darkvision can see inside).

(But I really like your spell, regardless.)

[Spiritchaser]

Hunger of Hadar already does something similar. Creatures fully within the radius are also blinded, darkvision or no (but creatures outside with darkvision can see inside).

(But I really like your spell, regardless.)

I break most blindsight into either echolocation or thermal imaging, such that I can rationalize how rogues might defeat it... so this would actually be a fairly strong effect against the right creatures.

[JellyPooga]

Actually I'm Welsh

I lived/worked a farm up Carmarthen way (Pencader, if you know it) for nearly a decade, which is where I'm coming from :smallwink: Experience differs, I guess, but I have many fond memories of nipping out in the middle of the night to check on the spring newborns and the like and perhaps time of year/location is giving me a bias, but I don't recall too many occasions when I really needed additional light. I can certainly only recall a handful of times I would ever call it true dark, as opposed to merely dim. Then again, maybe I just have good night-vision!

[Luccan]

Back in AD&D, the non-human races had many advantages over human, infravision being one of them. Humans didn't get any stat bonuses, yet every non-human race did. The non-human races were better in multiple ways than humans. The completely arbitrary balancing tool was humans could rise to unlimited levels, but non-humans had a maximum level they could reach in a particular class. I don't have my old AD&D books around for reference anymore, but IIRC most of the non-human level limits were in the high single digits. Once the level limits came off it just gave non-humans a list of benefits at effectively no cost.

Not as familiar with certain editions, but yes if you just took away level limits in AD&D it was completely unbalanced. The problem I see with 5e human is not that, though. In 3e, in order to maintain human viability, humans got more skills and a bonus feat. Without stat drawbacks like everyone else, this made them flexible enough to be one of the better choices for almost anything. No low-light or Darkvision (infravision) needed. No stat bonuses, either, in an edition where you wanted bonuses from pretty much every stat depending on your class.

5e wanted everyone to feel equally viable for almost every class and thus scaled humans back. Still flexible, but default human is just a less useful option 90% of the time. Variant human is still a really good option, though, so I think we're past level limits as a necessary balancing tool.

[Contrast]

Many monsters have extrasensory powers beyond Darkvision. They know the layout of their lairs. They are also not the ones moving around.

I don't know if I would say many (admittedly I have not done a comprehensive survey). Some certainly do, often at reduced ranges compared to darkvision.

I feel like a lot of this probably depends how you play the game and campaign specifics. I have almost never done typical dungeoneering. Most of my game time has been spent above ground in the open air (notwithstanding my comment earlier regarding currently being in the underdark) where you're much less likely to encounter creatures adapted for caves and the like with these adaptations.

In short, my experience does not match your experience that darkvision is almost worthless because your opponents will likely have darkvision+.

To a certain extent I would argue this point just makes 120ft darkvision amazing, darkvision obligatory and no darkvision a handicap.


I mean exactly that. The party is the one moving about. The monsters are the predators who live there.

If someone says 'do you mean x or y?' the answer 'yes I mean that' is not helpful in itself :smalltongue: I'm still not sure I quite understand what you're driving at. The party don't need to stealth because they're going into unknown territory? Surely that makes it even more important to make sure you retain the initiative otherwise you're going to be fighting on the enemies terms, which is BadTM.

We may just be working under different assumptions again here. If I had to classify typical PC interactions as a predator or prey relationship in my games, the PCs would definitely fall into the predator category, rather than prey for the monsters.


I never said that. Quite the opposite. If the DM goes by the book then darkvision is a good ribbon. Nothing more.

It doesn't matter how many winks you give, you're still wrong.

:smallfrown:

I note you appear to have missed where I flagged up the dim light/darkness moonlit nights thing. Regardless I will endeavour to to refrain from such profligate smiley usage in future.

:smallwink:

[HappyDaze]

:smallsigh:

Accidental comma missing. Read again with a comma between DM and not.

OK, that makes more sense.:smallamused:

[Segev]

I mean, if you want to blind devil’s sight warlocks, you can just use Silent Image or Fog Cloud.

[Reynaert]

I lived/worked a farm up Carmarthen way (Pencader, if you know it) for nearly a decade, which is where I'm coming from :smallwink: Experience differs, I guess, but I have many fond memories of nipping out in the middle of the night to check on the spring newborns and the like and perhaps time of year/location is giving me a bias, but I don't recall too many occasions when I really needed additional light. I can certainly only recall a handful of times I would ever call it true dark, as opposed to merely dim. Then again, maybe I just have good night-vision!

I believe there is a significant difference, human to human, on how well our eyes can adjust to low-light conditions.
Having been out in the dark in forests and fields without a light source, with a couple of friends. Some of them complained about not seeing anything while I could see quite clearly.

[Segev]

I believe there is a significant difference, human to human, on how well our eyes can adjust to low-light conditions.
Having been out in the dark in forests and fields without a light source, with a couple of friends. Some of them complained about not seeing anything while I could see quite clearly.
Have you checked your family tree for elven ancestry?

[goodpeople25]

If you're trying to be stealthy, then a lightsource is just a bad idea a lot of the time (if not most), even if it's a bullseye lantern you're still most likely heading towards the things you don't want seeing you, so that directional light is pointed in their direction.
I don't know how easy it was for others to see me but when I went camping as a kid, the direction of my flashlight was mostly angled downward or at least not pointed at where there might be people. (To not be rude to other campers, pretty sure we weren't smuggling or otherwise trying to avoid detection)

I think the military officers I was trying to sneak past in a forest that one time (Okay I'm exaggerating .... I can't remember for sure if it was the officers) had flashlights, but my memories are foggy (I was 12) on how easy they were to spot though I'd lean towards them not being too obvious.

[HappyDaze]

I don't know how easy it was for others to see me but when I went camping as a kid, the direction of my flashlight was mostly angled downward or at least not pointed at where there might be people. (To not be rude to other campers, pretty sure we weren't smuggling or otherwise trying to avoid detection)

I think the military officers I was trying to sneak past in a forest that one time (Okay I'm exaggerating .... I can't remember for sure if it was the officers) had flashlights, but my memories are foggy (I was 12) on how easy they were to spot though I'd lean towards them not being too obvious.

Forests can get dark, but caves (and many dungeons) can be totally black. Any light is going to show up--I remember being in a cave system in China and, after a short time down there, even the glowing watch faces looked really bright from 30+ feet away.

Of course, D&D seems to base surprise almost entirely on vision, and the fact that sound tends to travel a long way (even if you can't necessarily make out the direction) in many of the underground environments is ignored entirely.

[Tanarii]

Forests can get dark, but caves (and many dungeons) can be totally black. Any light is going to show up--I remember being in a cave system in China and, after a short time down there, even the glowing watch faces looked really bright from 30+ feet away.

Of course, D&D seems to base surprise almost entirely on vision, and the fact that sound tends to travel a long way (even if you can't necessarily make out the direction) in many of the underground environments is ignored entirely.
IRL Light at any distance just also just tends to give away presence and an approximate direction/location. In pitch black it's hard to make out anything except the light, which is (relatively) blinding, so looking at it directly isn't a great idea, and even if you do you can't really see who is holding it or others around them easily. Certainly the idea that you could accurately shoot arrows from the darkness at a party holding lanterns or torches at any significant distance is off.

Game mechanics wise, it's definitely possible though.

[KrakiiPedia]

First post here, so "hi, all!" Just got started reading these recently--been following the comic for years--but this one I had to speak to.


JellyPooga said, "seriously, go out for a walk on a cloudless full-moon, somewhere there's no light pollution; it's bright as day. Even on a partially cloudy night, you can still navigate."

Dork_Forge said, "Separately on the moon comment from before... no? Assuming you're outside, there's ZERO cloud cover AND it's a full moon sure, you can probably navigate and make out some general shapes, but it'd be difficult to see what you're stepping on, subtle movements etc."

Yeah.... no. You're thinking of standing in your backyard, with streetlights shining down the street, and that one light that's super-bright that your one annoying neighbor has on his porch, and like that.

Do what JellyPooga said: go stand out in the country somewhere, with no light pollution, on a full-moon night. If you can see something normally--I am nearsighted--you can see it really well in moonlight.

I speak from experience here. One evening at Philmont it was about 2:00am and I had to hit the latrine; full-moon night. With my glasses on, I could make out INDIVIDUAL BLADES OF GRASS in my walk, from normal standing height.
This is not "stumbling around in the half-dark." There Is Light, and plenty of it.
The grass appeared as a *light* surface; the 'dark' was the shadows being cast BY the grass.

Sure, it is in the realm of "more light would make this easier" (just like as a kid when your parents would walk past and say, "You need more light"), but I would still have been able to read a paperback book/normal print copy, at arms length/normal reading distance, just fine.

Light pollution really does destroy your nightvision, so grass (calling out my specific example) largely appears as "that dark stuff on the ground where you're walking" when you're in your average neighborhood.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah.... no. You're thinking of standing in your backyard, with streetlights shining down the street, and that one light that's super-bright that your one annoying neighbor has on his porch, and like that.

Do what JellyPooga said: go stand out in the country somewhere, with no light pollution, on a full-moon night. If you can see something normally--I am nearsighted--you can see it really well in moonlight.

I speak from experience here. One evening at Philmont it was about 2:00am and I had to hit the latrine; full-moon night. With my glasses on, I could make out INDIVIDUAL BLADES OF GRASS in my walk, from normal standing height.
This is not "stumbling around in the half-dark." There Is Light, and plenty of it.
The grass appeared as a *light* surface; the 'dark' was the shadows being cast BY the grass.

Sure, it is in the realm of "more light would make this easier" (just like as a kid when your parents would walk past and say, "You need more light"), but I would still have been able to read a paperback book/normal print copy, at arms length/normal reading distance, just fine.

Light pollution really does destroy your nightvision, so grass (calling out my specific example) largely appears as "that dark stuff on the ground where you're walking" when you're in your average neighborhood.

Can we please not assume that other people are deliberately lying about the situation they are describing? If Dark Forge says they are talking about being in the countryside without light pollution, then they are talking about being in the countryside without light pollution. They may still be mistaken or think their own low-light vision is representative of the norm when it is not, and we can discuss that.

[CapnWildefyr]

I've been following this thread and have picked up a lot of little bits of advice, so thanks all!

To speak to the original question, in my group there is always at least one person holding a light. The way we play, it works out.

One new point I'd like to make is about surprise. Yes, you can see a light from a long way off in the night-- but only if you are looking. If the guards are not attentive, or there is no reason to be wary-- especially when humans carrying light is common enough to not be suspicious-- then the party is not going to be set back. Consider the Underdark. If you are coming down a trade route, and if people carrying light regularly use that route, then why would a group of drow (assuming they have not been warned of danger) just start shooting? OK, if you've already started fighting and survivors have spread word, then maybe, but OW why attack your potential business partners? Who else roams the Underdark regularly? I know this is a very specific example, I am just saying that light down a hall or coming in under the door is only a telltale when someone is actively searching for it, and wary of trouble, and that is not all the time.

Also some beings actually have disadvantage when targets are in bright light (drow for ex).

[JackPhoenix]

Also some beings actually have disadvantage when targets are in bright light (drow for ex).

Only cloakers, shadow demons, darklings and meenlocks have light sensitivity. Everything else only cares about sunlight, and isn't bothered by other sources of light.

[CapnWildefyr]

Only cloakers, shadow demons, darklings and meenlocks have light sensitivity. Everything else only cares about sunlight, and isn't bothered by other sources of light.
I am sorry I do not have the PHB in front of me, but I'm pretty sure my edition mentions light sensitivity under 'races.' I was surprised about it when I read it, actually. I think it just says 'bright light.'

[JackPhoenix]

I am sorry I do not have the PHB in front of me, but I'm pretty sure my edition mentions light sensitivity under 'races.' I was surprised about it when I read it, actually. I think it just says 'bright light.'

I'm not sure what your edition is, but drow (and kobolds) have this: "Sunlight Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight."

NPC drow (and other creatures) have even less strict version, as it doesn't care where the target is standing: "Sunlight Sensitivity: While in sunlight, the drow has disadvantage on attack rolls, as well as on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight."

[Lyracian]

(The two other races to not have dark vision are Halfling and Dragonborn. I find the lack of dark vision on Halfling particularly sad since it is a Dex race, so a race where you really like to use stealth)
It can be interesting when you play with less experienced players.

From the first part of LMoP I played
Bunch of Humans and an Elf turn up at Goblins cave.
Humans: We cannot see anything...
Elf: I know the Light cantrip let me cast it on your shield...

In one game I play Halflings were allowed to have Infravision which instantly made them much more appealing as a character choice.

[Segev]

Just in my friends' front yard, which has no street lamps nearby, I can tell the difference between a moonlit and moonless night. The former, I don't need any light to see where I'm walking. The latter, I have to get out my phone to see the sidewalk and avoid the creek they have running through their yard (there's a bridge over it).

[Dork_Forge]

First post here, so "hi, all!" Just got started reading these recently--been following the comic for years--but this one I had to speak to.



Yeah.... no. You're thinking of standing in your backyard, with streetlights shining down the street, and that one light that's super-bright that your one annoying neighbor has on his porch, and like that.

Do what JellyPooga said: go stand out in the country somewhere, with no light pollution, on a full-moon night. If you can see something normally--I am nearsighted--you can see it really well in moonlight.

I speak from experience here. One evening at Philmont it was about 2:00am and I had to hit the latrine; full-moon night. With my glasses on, I could make out INDIVIDUAL BLADES OF GRASS in my walk, from normal standing height.
This is not "stumbling around in the half-dark." There Is Light, and plenty of it.
The grass appeared as a *light* surface; the 'dark' was the shadows being cast BY the grass.

Sure, it is in the realm of "more light would make this easier" (just like as a kid when your parents would walk past and say, "You need more light"), but I would still have been able to read a paperback book/normal print copy, at arms length/normal reading distance, just fine.

Light pollution really does destroy your nightvision, so grass (calling out my specific example) largely appears as "that dark stuff on the ground where you're walking" when you're in your average neighborhood.

Thanks for assuming I'm lying I guess? I LIVE in the country, I work permanent night shifts at a place surrounded by unlit farmland and unlit roads, and since this matters for some reason (?) I'm also short sighted, though that has zero to do with night vision. My girlfriend spent a lot of summers in Mexican desert and never saw a night as bright as you describe (her actual words were that scorpions and rattlesnakes are hard enough to see in daylight, at night it just wouldn't be safe). I do find it interesting that these examples tend to be regular things people would do in places they're familiar with, presumably you had gone to the toilet many times before and presumably the 'terrain' between you and it never really changed. That isn't really anything like pushing forward somewhere you are completely unfamilair with, with (potentially) uneven/cluttered surfaces being able to see adequately enough to both walk comfortably and keep alert for dangers. This is also talking about a situation that also doesn't seem particularly realiable? Completely open access to the sky, no clouds on a night with a full moon seems like a minority of the time situation (most of the time I see the moon at work it's going through SOME degree of cloud cover or clouds are regularly drifting past it).

At the end of the day maybe my night vision is subpar, maybe yours is exceptional, but whatever the answer to that particular question: can you honestly say you'd feel comfortable walking by moon light, with god knows how much gear on your back, towards potential death or maiming (especially in a world that is far more hostile than our own, with extradorinary creatures with far better sensory abilities than our own).

@WillieTheDuck, Thank you

[Magicspook]

First post here, so "hi, all!" Just got started reading these recently--been following the comic for years--but this one I had to speak to.



Yeah.... no. You're thinking of standing in your backyard, with streetlights shining down the street, and that one light that's super-bright that your one annoying neighbor has on his porch, and like that.

Do what JellyPooga said: go stand out in the country somewhere, with no light pollution, on a full-moon night. If you can see something normally--I am nearsighted--you can see it really well in moonlight.

I speak from experience here. One evening at Philmont it was about 2:00am and I had to hit the latrine; full-moon night. With my glasses on, I could make out INDIVIDUAL BLADES OF GRASS in my walk, from normal standing height.
This is not "stumbling around in the half-dark." There Is Light, and plenty of it.
The grass appeared as a *light* surface; the 'dark' was the shadows being cast BY the grass.

Sure, it is in the realm of "more light would make this easier" (just like as a kid when your parents would walk past and say, "You need more light"), but I would still have been able to read a paperback book/normal print copy, at arms length/normal reading distance, just fine.

Light pollution really does destroy your nightvision, so grass (calling out my specific example) largely appears as "that dark stuff on the ground where you're walking" when you're in your average neighborhood.

Welcome!

I agree with you entirely. When out camping, it can be weird to go out at night and finding that the campsite is brightly moonlit. I share the exact same memory of being able to discern individual blades of grass frol standing height.

[N7Paladin]

Hi everyone! I've been lurking on GitP for some time, mainly to seek advice or see fun discussions play out... But this discussion, to me, seems to have no end in sight (hah), and IMO has become a bit ridiculous so I had to chime in.

Firstly:


WotC's like Oprah, everyone gets a brand new car under their seat. :smallbiggrin: "You get darkvision! And you get darkvision! Everyone gets darkvision!"

That said, I'd not drive my car out in the countryside if my headlamps worked like Darkvision. :smalltongue: The cut off at 60' (even 120'), especially since it still has Disadv on Perception, makes driving at speed suicide. Oooh, I see a grey lump, swerve or barrel on throu... too late! :smalleek: Even carriage rides at speed would be suicidal.

Strong light sources are useful! :smallsmile: Methinks the advantage is overblown.

Your Oprah analogy made me laugh! Anyway, I agree with you.

Driving, or doing anything in the dark has risks that wouldn't be there even during an overcast day. That is because during night time, whatever the openness in the sky, or the fullness of the moon, shadows will by and large be most of what we see. Not details. This is why it's so dangerous.

Upon reading all the different races, it really does seem like nearly every race has Dark Vision and said advantage is overblown (even if you consider that humans might just have very poor night vision). I think that's one reason why I prefer to play as human, it has a more realistic feel in terms of darkness, there are more obstacles for my character, because she can't see as well as most other races in the dark. It's a good challenge.


Welcome!

I agree with you entirely. When out camping, it can be weird to go out at night and finding that the campsite is brightly moonlit. I share the exact same memory of being able to discern individual blades of grass frol standing height.


Thanks to my dad and cousins when I was younger, as well as my roommate more recently, I've been camping more times in my life than I can remember and have more camping gear than I could ever want. Out in the open, beautiful stars above in an open, in full moonlit clearings, fishing for dinner, s'mores, scary stories before sleep camping.

I remember many times, I would go out in the middle of the night (because I can't ever rest easy sleeping outside). I was, like you mentioned, surprised seeing the light of the moon shower our campsite. That said, I'm having a difficult time believing people who claim seeing individuals blades of grass in the dead of night. This feels like a complete exaggeration, or a fallacy/generalization that shouldn't be applied to most people and is very clearly being confirmed by members whose night vision appears to be an extreme exceptions and should be researched for a future betterment of night vision in humans as a whole. What I, and I'd wager most people, see at a middle-of-nowhere campsite in the middle of the night, isn't detailed blades of grass, but large shadows cast in the moonlight.


First post here, so "hi, all!" Just got started reading these recently--been following the comic for years--but this one I had to speak to.



Yeah.... no. You're thinking ....*snip*

Yeah... No. The poster was clearly (I reread their posts to make sure) talking about out in the middle of no where, no light pollution, kind of setting.

Camping in a setting such as you described later in your post, is truly beautiful in part thanks to the moon and stars, speaking from experience (I apologize for the sass, but I didn't appreciate how condescending you were being to the person you replied to). And a full moon does cast loads of light, making for a very unique and memorable perspective. But seeing individual blades of grass with ease? Nah. I lived out in the city (Chicago) and the suburbs, and have spent many gorgeous summers in my grandparents' vast farm, as well as have gone camping a fair amount, so I can happily and, with ease, tell the very different degrees of light pollution, as well as a complete lack thereof. The campsite, or forest clearing, is still very much just darkness. What IS lit up by the full moon is the tops of things, but that's still not strong enough to be able to discern individual blades of grass with ease.

Humans on the whole very much have poor night vision, and some individuals on this thread seem to be extreme exceptions otherwise (and like I said earlier in this post, should probably be studied as such strong exceptions, but congrats for being one such subject). People are predisposed to having a healthy fear of some things such as the dark, spiders, snakes (although I actually love snakes), etc., because our ancestors had enough dangerous experiences with these things that this fear developed into something more innate in modern-day humans. Sure, some people are less afraid than others, but at the end of the day, most people still have some aversion to these things. Night time darkness, being on of the aforementioned things (to varying degrees based on each individual, of course).





Of course, D&D seems to base surprise almost entirely on vision, and the fact that sound tends to travel a long way (even if you can't necessarily make out the direction) in many of the underground environments is ignored entirely.


You say that, but my DM doesn't allow my paladin to get away with sneaking around unless I get a very good roll, based entirely on my clankity clankness. And it makes sense, plus I like the challenge too, haha.

[Pleh]

Something else I wanted to share.

My last 5e game I had a pair of Drow Rogues adventuring together.

One of the things I noticed rather quickly is that there is no reason sources of obscurement can't stack. A dungeon full of darkness can just as easily be full of foggy mist. I had them explore a jungle island with varying densities of foliage while sahuagin stalked them through the underbrush. The sahuagin had left jungle traps designed to max stealth and deal minimum damage, because they only needed to scratch the enemy and make them bleed. Then the Sahuagin could smell the blood through the foliage, basically negating the PCs' concealment if they were in range.

[Willie the Duck]

I wanted to call out KrakiiPedia for suggesting that someone else was straight out lying, however, I also think we shouldn't dismiss her personal experience either.

Unlike lots of internet discussions where someone whips out some unverifiable credentials and it makes me suspicious, I think 'having spent some time out in the countryside/wilderness' is something 50+-99% of us have experienced (because you grew up there, you spent summer vacations at relative's farm, you were a scout, etc.). We might all be pseudo experts, and our divergent experiences with the phenomenon might speak to it actually being divergent.

Yes, we're all under the same sky, and if you take away the light of the city, it should be the same experience, right? Except it won't be, based on what you need to see, what else is around you, and whether our memories are catching a full moon night, a little/no-moon night (so starlight, but not moonlight), overcast skies, or some combination of the three.

My own experiences are in the national forests of northern USA and southern Canada. These were definitely far enough away from cities for light pollution to be muted because part of the experience was watching Aurora Borealis. My takeaway from these trips was just how dark actual nighttime could be. Of course, that was because my goal was navigating the trees and roots and rocks of a forest (full of trees which obscured any moonlight-illuminated patch of landscape not in direct line of sight). That's a decidedly different experience than sitting in a flat expansive field and potentially seeing illuminated grass blades (particularly 'can one see any individual grass blades?' as opposed to my own situation, where 'can you see the tree stump you are about to bang your knee on?' was my operating concern). I'm thoroughly prepared for both to be true.

[Tanarii]

My girlfriend spent a lot of summers in Mexican desert and never saw a night as bright as you describe (her actual words were that scorpions and rattlesnakes are hard enough to see in daylight, at night it just wouldn't be safe).Agreed. Camping in western USA deserts, same thing. Full moon nights are beautiful, but you don't go off trail exploring in them.

Another thing that's funky is depth perception gets all messed up. I run regularly, and I'm happy to run on asphalt with light pollution messing up my vision, because I can trust it's flat. I wouldn't try trail running with no light pollution and a full moon. I've also done some night rock climbing, and it always requires a lamp. Full moonlight isn't safe.

[HappyDaze]

You say that, but my DM doesn't allow my paladin to get away with sneaking around unless I get a very good roll, based entirely on my clankity clankness. And it makes sense, plus I like the challenge too, haha.

Is your starting encounter distance dictated by visual conditions or by hearing something well beyond LOS?

[Pleh]

Is your starting encounter distance dictated by visual conditions or by hearing something well beyond LOS?

I think it's more aptly dictated by the point at which someone can begin effectively attacking. You don't always need LOS to attempt an attack (LOE might be a different story).

You could be tracking an invisible enemy, knowing they were near, and listen for sticks snapping underfoot nearby.

Visual conditions certainly don't dictate encounter start distance. They often inform it, but not dictate.