Darkvision.

[Neoh]

Hey guys, I've been wondering, what's your opinion on darkvision? Just in general, how you feel about it as a mechanic.

And also, have you played in a party with a majority of players without darkvision? How did you handle it? Torches, Spells, not going out at night, other? Was it annoying? Was the DM making easier encounters or setting them up differently from usual? Did you receive some magic items to counter the lack of darkvision? Did you find it more challenging?

[HappyDaze]

When there is no light at all, I place heavy emphasis on darkvision turning darkness into dim light. This is still suboptimal for a great many things, so disadvantage flows freely in such conditions. As a result, while darkvision is better than normal (human) vision in such situations, everybody is best off using light sources for most activities. This includes PCs and the monsters (orc caverns are likely lit with burning torches or phosphorescent moss and both dwarf & drow cities have magical lighting).

[EggKookoo]

I'm fine with darkvision but I find it mostly a convenience to avoid having to carry torches everywhere. In my current Eberron campaign, I have an elf, a warforged, a tiefling, a shifter, and a goblin. Only the warforged doesn't have it, and it hasn't really been a problem.

One thing I try (and often fail) to remember is that darkvision has a range, typically 60 feet. It's not like they can just see everywhere. And even in the equivalent of dim light provided, vision-based checks suffer disadvantage.

[Neoh]

*Snip*.

True, and people tend ignore this, which works even more at the disadvantage of races that lack darkvision.


*Snip*.

I think it's a bit too big of a convenience. I mean, there are too many races with darkvision and too few that lacks it. I often see people ask "Why would I play a Halfling Rogue when I can't even do my job properly?".

Yeah, I sometimes forget the range too, probably because it doesn't come up that often, it's pretty rare to have encounters that starts hundreds of feet apart.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, I sometimes forget the range too, probably because it doesn't come up that often, it's pretty rare to have encounters that starts hundreds of feet apart.

Not for encounters so much, but outdoors at night? Sixty feet is pretty close when you're out in the open. But in a more concrete example, a few sessions back they stumbled into a monstrously huge cavern. Ceiling 100 feet up, and the far end hundreds of feet away. I got partway through describing it before realizing they wouldn't see any of that.

[Maelynn]

Hey guys, I've been wondering, what's your opinion on darkvision? Just in general, how you feel about it as a mechanic.

And also, have you played in a party with a majority of players without darkvision? How did you handle it? Torches, Spells, not going out at night, other? Was it annoying? Was the DM making easier encounters or setting them up differently from usual? Did you receive some magic items to counter the lack of darkvision? Did you find it more challenging?

What has been really confusing for me at first, was that some people seem to think that a torch somehow cancels out the effects of darkvision. I never understood that reasoning, because it makes no sense and the PHB entries for Darkvision or torch or even Light in general say nothing about it. However, these people were so persistent that I reckoned I must be wrong and just went with their version. Even when I started DMing I continued to have doubts about this as one of my players held the same opinion, until a few weeks ago when I decided to do some research about it and get the right answer once and for all. Apparently, there's nothing in 5e that says a light source has a negative effect on Darkvision. My conclusion is that it's probably a remnant from an older edition and those players unwittingly drag it into 5e. I know that the player in my party has already done so on occasion, so it wouldn't surprise me.

For me, what really helps is looking at it like a Venn diagram. Just use overlapping circles for bright light, dim light, darkvision, and wherever they overlap you go with the brightest one or apply changes where necessary. Made it so much easier for me.

As for using it, in a previous party we had a Human who was the only one without Darkvision, and she had to make sure she used torches. Often she'd just grab the shirt of another character to function as a guide dog, especially so as not to give away our position. I don't recall the DM ever giving her disadvantages in dim light, which can either be an oversight or a deliberate eschewing of detailed rules in favour of the game experience. Knowing him, I'd wager it's the latter.

At my table, the party also has 1 character (Halfling Fighter) who doesn't have Darkvision. I've tried to give him the appropriate disadvantage wherever applicable, but it was tough and tiresome to keep track of it all. At some point I decided to kill several birds with one stone: he dipped a level into Cleric and replaced his armour/weapon, and had often proclaimed he was after a 'magical flaming sword' because he wanted to be a hero and all heroes had flaming swords. So, when his deity bestowed the clerical powers upon him, he provided him with a sword that burned with bright silver flames when wielded. Or at least, that's what the Halfling sees. To the rest of the party, it's just a sword. I passed the player a note saying that the flames of the sword provided light akin to a torch and follow the same rules. Again, the rest of the party don't see this light. The player knows what's up and appreciated the joke, his character however hasn't realised yet. Mostly because he has INT as a dump stat and partly because he's too happy with his magical flaming sword to really care.

[Neoh]

*Snip*.

Yeah I'm more talking from a player's view, we often assume the things happening are happening or rather close to us.
Haha, well, as long as you don't spoil anything too important I guess it's fine, just wasted a bit of time and ended up with "Actually you guys can't see anything but the ground around you and the wall at your back".


*Snip*.

I've seen a similar kind of confusion, players that believed a guy with darkvision would get blinded by a torch or light spell.

Yeah when there's only 1 or 2 players that lack darkvisions, they often end up just being able to follow behind another player that can see. It's more an issue for parties where they have a majority of players without darkvisions, seeing how monsters tend to have it or some variant that helps them perceive things.

As I thought, it often ends up being annoying enough for the player that the DM ends up helping him so he won't have to be frustrated every session.
I wish darkvisions was done better so that there wouldn't be such a big disparity between races.

[Guy Lombard-O]

What has been really confusing for me at first, was that some people seem to think that a torch somehow cancels out the effects of darkvision.

I see the same weird thinking with Devil's Sight. If everything's not 100% darkness, then it can't function. :smallconfused:

[TigerT20]

Generally, I find it a bit weird. I feel low-light vision should be brought back and darkvision be placed under the 'only magical races get' label. Because it doesn't make sense that an elfs 'improved nightvision from living in twilight forests' works in pitch darkness. But then I remind myself that 'darkness' is anything less than a supermoon.
This is how I generally have it so far homebrew rules-wise:

Most races with it get 'low-light vision'. This is just darkvision that only turns dim light to bright light.
Underground races get 'darkvision' which works as written, but there has to be some form of lighting in the dictionary terms. You can't use this if there isnt so much as a small patch of glowing moss. You don't have laser eyes.
Races like tieflings and aasimar get laser eyes. They can see even in a region with no light sources. Up to 60 feet anyway.

In terms of 'light source disrupts it', its less of a D&D rules thing and more a realism/versimilitude thing. Picture this scene: You are in your bedroom at night. The lights are off. You can see fairly well, enough to note the fact that the pile of clothes looks like a gibbering mouther come to eat you whole while you sleep. You walk to the bathroom, through a corridor lit by a lamp. When you get back, you can no longer see the gibbering mouther. Not because its moved, but because your eyes are on 'seeing with light mode' not 'seeing in the dark' mode. If you adjust to the dark, when you look at the light again, it will seem brighter than it is until you adjust again. We can assume this sort of thing is even worse if you have darkvision

[da newt]

I find that having a gloomstalker (or other darkness optimized PC) in the Party tends to decrease the frequency of limited light encounters helping the non-darkvision party members.

Whenever you ask if there are dark shadows in the room, or is it dark enough for me to be invisible it seems that there is plenty of light. Conversely, have a couple non-darkvision party members in the party asking can I see, is it too dark, do I need to light a torch or something and it seems like the whole world is darker than Gotham ...

[KorvinStarmast]

One thing I try (and often fail) to remember is that darkvision has a range, typically 60 feet. It's not like they can just see everywhere. And even in the equivalent of dim light provided, vision-based checks suffer disadvantage. That's a think that at our tables needs to get constant emphasis.

[Contrast]

I see the same weird thinking with Devil's Sight. If everything's not 100% darkness, then it can't function. :smallconfused:

While I agree Devil's Sight should just allow unaffected vision regardless of light levels there is some RAW backing to that. I would probably run it per the below at an AL table if I ever GM'd one.


You can see normally in darkness, both magical and nonmagical, to a distance of 120 feet.

Darkness is defined in game. No mention of dim light, means you do not get to ignore its effects.

The darkvision issue is, I imagine more a thing of people not reading the rules and assuming it works like real life night vision, rather than the Devil's Sight thing which is a case of people reading the rules very carefully.


I made the mistake of making a character with a non-darkvision race for a campaign thats been running during the shutdown. The DM hasn't tried out Roll20 before and is enjoying messing around with the dynamic lighting and various visual things. As a result every single encounter has either been in the dark or involved mixed areas of light and dark. It has been quite problematic, made more frustrating by the fact that I know when I forget to impose the penalties on myself the DM never notices/remembers so it always feels like a self nerf. Though a lot of this depends on if anyone else in the party is willing/able to have a free hand/has the Light cantrip or if stealth is a thing your party regularly tries to engage in.

My personal preference is to replace almost all versions of darkvision with low light vision (changes dim light to normal) and reserve proper darkvision for the spell and true nightmares of the dark places.

[Guy Lombard-O]

While I agree Devil's Sight should just allow unaffected vision regardless of light levels there is some RAW backing to that. I would probably run it per the below at an AL table if I ever GM'd one.

Sorry, I was unclear about my gripe.

I wasn't saying that Devil's Sight should just work as if you always have bright light regardless of the actual lighting conditions (although that would be nice). I think the RAW is clear enough that it doesn't help with dim light.

My problem is when you're in a party with torches or such and in bright light, then 40' away it becomes darkness, and the DM thinks that since you're in light yourself, the Devil's Sight is ruined and does nothing for the darkness 40' - 120' from you. That is annoying.

[Quietus]

What has been really confusing for me at first, was that some people seem to think that a torch somehow cancels out the effects of darkvision. I never understood that reasoning, because it makes no sense and the PHB entries for Darkvision or torch or even Light in general say nothing about it. However, these people were so persistent that I reckoned I must be wrong and just went with their version. Even when I started DMing I continued to have doubts about this as one of my players held the same opinion, until a few weeks ago when I decided to do some research about it and get the right answer once and for all. Apparently, there's nothing in 5e that says a light source has a negative effect on Darkvision. My conclusion is that it's probably a remnant from an older edition and those players unwittingly drag it into 5e. I know that the player in my party has already done so on occasion, so it wouldn't surprise me.

I would wager that this may have something to do with previous editions. Darkvision wasn't a thing, Dwarves had "infravision" - they would see heat sources, rather than just seeing in the dark. In cases like that, yes, a torch would blind them by being such an intense source of heat as to create problems.

Note that this is 100% armchair information, I never played during those days. Just been around long enough to absorb some information about this.

[Yora]

One thing I try (and often fail) to remember is that darkvision has a range, typically 60 feet. It's not like they can just see everywhere. And even in the equivalent of dim light provided, vision-based checks suffer disadvantage.

As phrased in the PHB, darkvision lets you treat dim light as bright light within 60 feet, and darkness as dim light with infinite range.

[elyktsorb]

90% of people and games forget darkvision is even a thing while they are playing. If the party consists of all characters without darkvision, night time excursions just barely happen or torches are outright ignored.

If the team is all darkvision then it is well and truly ignored.

If there is 1 person with darkvision they will always mention it anytime it might be dark, prompting the light spell or torches to be brought out.

As someone who plays races that typically don't have darkvision (like halflings) out of all the games I have played,(like around 10 or so) 4 of them have accounted for my lack of darkvision. 1 of them merely gave my character goggles to circumvent it, and the other three it actually had to be dealt with. But of those 3 one was a very homebrew setting, and the other 2 were pathfinder modules that the DM converted to 5e.

I think darkvision would be more interesting if it had an immediate mechanical effect that was noticeable upon getting it. Like if having darkvision gave you a bonus to perception in the dark (as opposed to just negating a negative) and if it gave you a detriment in too bright of an environment. ( I mean if we were going to make it realistic darkvision would have to make it so colors were less bright or something and such, complicated eyeball biology)

[EggKookoo]

As phrased in the PHB, darkvision lets you treat dim light as bright light within 60 feet, and darkness as dim light with infinite range.

From the Basic Rules PDF (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf), page 68.

Darkvision

Many creatures in the worlds of D&D, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.

[Yora]

The character race trait goes "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."
The limited range version makes much more sense, given how darkvision always worked in 3rd edition. And I feel quite certain that that's how it was always meant to work. But the PHB and the Basic Rules still describe darkvision in two different ways.

[EggKookoo]

But the PHB and the Basic Rules still describe darkvision in two different ways.

Right, that's partly why it's one of those things that falls through the cracks for me. In the end I find it easier to justify that darkvision as a whole is limited to 60 feet, or whatever. It's not too weird that it would be able to convert nearby dim to bright but somehow infinite dark to dim, but it's less weird to just say it has a range and that's it. As rules ambiguities go, it's hardly the worst thing to deal with.

[Galaxander]

Seems to me, the sensible thing for a DM (assuming they don't want to homebrew different racials or whatever), would be to make true darkness pretty rare. Say there's always moonlight, or the residual light from the candle three rooms over, or patches of luminous lichens. A tiny bit of light makes a big difference in what would otherwise be total darkness, enough to let a halfling rogue at least find their way around, even if still eating disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

As phrased in the PHB, darkvision lets you treat dim light as bright light within 60 feet, and darkness as dim light with infinite range.
How do you figure?
You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.

Pretty clear that it works within 60 feet.

[Samayu]

You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.


Two clauses, separated by a comma:
You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light
and in darkness as if it were dim light.

There is no range listed in the second clause.

[False God]

I regularly refer to it as "jerkvision" because it bypasses one of the simplest early-game tension building mechanics.

[Grey Watcher]

Generally, I find it a bit weird. I feel low-light vision should be brought back and darkvision be placed under the 'only magical races get' label. Because it doesn't make sense that an elfs 'improved nightvision from living in twilight forests' works in pitch darkness. But then I remind myself that 'darkness' is anything less than a supermoon.
This is how I generally have it so far homebrew rules-wise:

Most races with it get 'low-light vision'. This is just darkvision that only turns dim light to bright light.
Underground races get 'darkvision' which works as written, but there has to be some form of lighting in the dictionary terms. You can't use this if there isnt so much as a small patch of glowing moss. You don't have laser eyes.
Races like tieflings and aasimar get laser eyes. They can see even in a region with no light sources. Up to 60 feet anyway.

In terms of 'light source disrupts it', its less of a D&D rules thing and more a realism/versimilitude thing. Picture this scene: You are in your bedroom at night. The lights are off. You can see fairly well, enough to note the fact that the pile of clothes looks like a gibbering mouther come to eat you whole while you sleep. You walk to the bathroom, through a corridor lit by a lamp. When you get back, you can no longer see the gibbering mouther. Not because its moved, but because your eyes are on 'seeing with light mode' not 'seeing in the dark' mode. If you adjust to the dark, when you look at the light again, it will seem brighter than it is until you adjust again. We can assume this sort of thing is even worse if you have darkvision

Eh, I kinda prefer that there aren't half a dozen different versions of "can see in the dark" floating around and you have to keep track of which one each player has.


While I agree Devil's Sight should just allow unaffected vision regardless of light levels there is some RAW backing to that. I would probably run it per the below at an AL table if I ever GM'd one.



Darkness is defined in game. No mention of dim light, means you do not get to ignore its effects.

The darkvision issue is, I imagine more a thing of people not reading the rules and assuming it works like real life night vision, rather than the Devil's Sight thing which is a case of people reading the rules very carefully.


I made the mistake of making a character with a non-darkvision race for a campaign thats been running during the shutdown. The DM hasn't tried out Roll20 before and is enjoying messing around with the dynamic lighting and various visual things. As a result every single encounter has either been in the dark or involved mixed areas of light and dark. It has been quite problematic, made more frustrating by the fact that I know when I forget to impose the penalties on myself the DM never notices/remembers so it always feels like a self nerf. Though a lot of this depends on if anyone else in the party is willing/able to have a free hand/has the Light cantrip or if stealth is a thing your party regularly tries to engage in.

My personal preference is to replace almost all versions of darkvision with low light vision (changes dim light to normal) and reserve proper darkvision for the spell and true nightmares of the dark places.

Funnily enough, I spent a good chuck of today making a big list of what changes I'd make to make Darkvision less common. It's not complete because I don't have a complete book collection, but I've gone from 32 race options with Darkvision down to eight and generally feel good about my substitutions (a few, like High Elves and Half-Elves, don't GET a substitution, but I feel like they do OK without it).

(If you want to see it, it's here, but it's incomplete because I don't have the full set of books: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xj72i17ObgoaP4AfE7BB63Xpb-M2sgwIzbn1Og5jjvg/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/135tB4TKSyIFUrcsSKNbKYOuuWzmVpvc_SD9zB-1o8Dg/edit?usp=sharing )

Some highlights:

Fallen Aasimar keep Darkvision, but lose the light cantrip. Other types of Aasimar keep the cantrip, but lose the Darkvision.

Non-Drow Elves don't have Darkvision, but Wood Elves get something I called "Preternatural Senses," which negates disadvantage for looking through cover in natural settings (eg leaves, snowstorms, etc.).

I'm tempted to turn down the "default" radius from 60 to 30 or even 15, but I think the default radius is "torchlight + 20 feet" on purpose.

[Yora]

Seems to me, the sensible thing for a DM (assuming they don't want to homebrew different racials or whatever), would be to make true darkness pretty rare. Say there's always moonlight, or the residual light from the candle three rooms over, or patches of luminous lichens. A tiny bit of light makes a big difference in what would otherwise be total darkness, enough to let a halfling rogue at least find their way around, even if still eating disadvantage.

Certainly a viable aesthetic choice. But that's not what real caves, abandoned minds, or tombs are like. Those literally have zero light anywhere. Even underground passages beneath a castle would not have someone replace all torches every 30 minutes, especially when there's usually only one or two people using it on any given day.
I think total darkness is one of the main thing that makes underground places interesting adventure environments. Something that usually gets ignored because much of fantasy is film and videogames which communicate their stories visually. But there is so much fun to be had with darkness. Veins of the Earth is a whole RPG book basically dedicated to managing the darkness in caves.

[Galaxander]

Certainly a viable aesthetic choice. But that's not what real caves, abandoned minds, or tombs are like. Those literally have zero light anywhere. Even underground passages beneath a castle would not have someone replace all torches every 30 minutes, especially when there's usually only one or two people using it on any given day.
I think total darkness is one of the main thing that makes underground places interesting adventure environments. Something that usually gets ignored because much of fantasy is film and videogames which communicate their stories visually. But there is so much fun to be had with darkness. Veins of the Earth is a whole RPG book basically dedicated to managing the darkness in caves.

Of course, but it's a balancing act between how fun your players will find that vs. how much they'll feel like they made a terrible mistake by rolling a race without darkvision.

And I think some degree of light is a totally logical choice for anyplace with inhabitants that don't have 20/20 darkvision. A natural cave that doesn't have an orc camp in it or whatever would be total darkness for sure.

[Tanarii]

Two clauses, separated by a comma:
You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light
and in darkness as if it were dim light.

There is no range listed in the second clause."
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct."

But also /rolleyes

Thanks for pointing it out though. I was missing the technical parsing going on for the forest. :smallamused:

[Democratus]

Recently started playing on Roll20 (for the obvious reasons).

One of the true eye-opening (pun intended) revelations was how important lighting was.

We had one party member with a light spell, and 2 party members with darkvision. Line of sight and darkness was a big deal.

When playing on the tabletop, players would assume that they could just communicate with each other to help know where all the creatures were. But when we were actually dealing with LOS and darkness, it wasn't that simple.

Players got attacked by creatures standing right next to them, but they couldn't see. Spell casters were unable to accurately drop area-of-effect spells. The front line fighter with the light source ran off to kill something leaving the party in darkness.

It was awesome! :D

[Segev]

Given how Superior Darkvision on Drow and svirfneblin is worded, simply extending darkvision’s range to 120 ft., the intended reading is clear. And the intended reading is not a technically improper one, given how implied verbiage works. So it’s clearly an incorrect reading to read it as infinite range.

[CapnWildefyr]

"
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct."

But also /rolleyes

Thanks for pointing it out though. I was missing the technical parsing going on for the forest. :smallamused:

But this is not a case of specific overriding general, I don't think. The "general rule," as posted by EggKooBoo, is really specific in that darkvision is restricted by a range for both dim light and darkness, and RAI would have to be that this range therefore is not infinite. I think its more a case of a misplaced comma in the racial description.

This interpretation is also consistent with Segev's points.

[Tanarii]

But this is not a case of specific overriding general, I don't think. The "general rule," as posted by EggKooBoo, is really specific in that darkvision is restricted by a range for both dim light and darkness, and RAI would have to be that this range therefore is not infinite. I think its more a case of a misplaced comma in the racial description.

This interpretation is also consistent with Segev's points.
I completely agree.

But as someone who loves to bring the technically correct and parsed rules language into a discussion, even when I think it's silly on a personal level, I had to /salute. :smallamused:

[Segev]

I completely agree.

But as someone who loves to bring the technically correct and parsed rules language into a discussion, even when I think it's silly on a personal level, I had to /salute. :smallamused:

As a suggestion, I have found it best, online, given text's difficulty in conveying tone, to be very clear when I'm pointing out a technicality rather than trying to use that technicality to argue a greater point. There's a difference in seriousness with which I expect an argument I make that is, "Well, technically, one way to interpret it is this silly way, isn't that funny?" than when I say, "Well, technically the rules DO work this way, which means it's the right way to parse it."

[Draconi Redfir]

personally my only gripe with darkvision is that way too many races have it. i could see Dwarves, MAYBE half orcs with it. other then that... very few in general. Same with low-light vision personally.

if i could, i'd make at least half the playable races have just normal vision. darkvision and low-light vision either 50-50, or less evenly 70-30 on Low'light's side.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Hey guys, I've been wondering, what's your opinion on darkvision? Just in general, how you feel about it as a mechanic.

And also, have you played in a party with a majority of players without darkvision? How did you handle it? Torches, Spells, not going out at night, other? Was it annoying? Was the DM making easier encounters or setting them up differently from usual? Did you receive some magic items to counter the lack of darkvision? Did you find it more challenging?

I don't know. I almost always play 'ooman and I rarely feel disadvantaged for not having it.

Regular o' darkvision is not turning pitched black into day, and has limited range [60'].

There are some times, particularly where stealth is an important consideration and it's actually dark-dark [not just night outside] where we need a light and we don't want to light a torch or cast a light, and at those times it's something to work around, but most of the time darkvision isn't a big enough bonus to be relevant. By the time you spot them with darkvision, they're already too close.

[Cheesegear]

have you played in a party with a majority of players without darkvision?
How did you handle it? Torches, Spells, not going out at night, other?
Was it annoying?
Was the DM making easier encounters or setting them up differently from usual?
Did you receive some magic items to counter the lack of darkvision?
Did you find it more challenging?

Yes. It's...Not great.

The easiest way to handle it, is the Cantrip, Light. However, if your DM is an a*hole (as I am), a Dispel Magic can shut down the entire party. The party learns their lesson and starts using Torches and Lanterns.

Yes, it is annoying. But also maybe the entire party shouldn't be Variant Humans? You know I can see what you're doing?

I absolutely did not change my encounters. However, I also know that Darkvision isn't 'see in the dark'. Most sentient/civilised creatures, realistically, would still have light sources in fixed places. Because becoming Blinded every 60ft. isn't actually ideal. They just don't need light to function in enclosed spaces. So, some creatures are lit up, and some creatures wont be.

There was one encounter I had, where it made sense for the hostile to have Goggles of Night, so I gave it to him. But that's only one item. There's five players in the party and three of them will still lack Darkvision.

It is more challenging, and one of the main reasons not to play a Variant Human.

[Pex]

It's overrated. Some players are paranoid and hate using light sources for fear of being noticed and ambushed everywhere. That doesn't happen. Even drow need light. They don't run around in the complete dark. Darkvision is helpful but not a requirement to play the game. Sometimes the party does need to travel or stay in place without a light source to give them away. That doesn't happen every adventure every encounter to be anxious about not having darkvision.

What makes it worse are DMs who treat darkvision as blindsight. Having darkvision means you see perfectly in darkness. Having a light source negates darkvision, so they encourage players not to have light sources making having darkvision more important than it needs to be. Some DMs fuel the paranoia angle by having continuous ambush encounters because the PCs are using a light source and making it seem like it's the players' fault.

[Segev]

How does dispel magic shut down a party using the light cantrip? They just recast it, and the enemy just used up a third level spell slot!

[Cheesegear]

How does dispel magic shut down a party using the light cantrip? They just recast it, and the enemy just used up a third level spell slot!

Because it's a surprise round?

Opposing Spellcaster casts Dispel Magic, and most of the party is now Blinded.
In the next Initiative round, if the party caster doesn't have good Initiative, the party is still Blinded until it can be cast again.

The hostiles, more or less, have ~1.5 rounds of Advantage. It's quite brutal.

[Contrast]

But also maybe the entire party shouldn't be Variant Humans? You know I can see what you're doing?

Just to put a counter point here - most settings I play in have humans as the majority population, so it always felt weird that the party often contains a single token human, if that. I have argued in the past that human should be the most powerful race by default specifically to encourage people playing them.

More broadly I'm a little confused by your seeming approach here - people shouldn't powergame by playing variant humans, instead they should play races with darkvision for powergaming reasons? Is that intrinsically better?

I do generally agree that all races would use proper light when it was convenient/at their homes. We could light our homes with dim light to save energy or whatever but we use bright light because screw that. I don't see why goblins would be any different.

[Cheesegear]

More broadly I'm a little confused by your seeming approach here - people shouldn't powergame by playing variant humans, instead they should play races with darkvision for powergaming reasons? Is that intrinsically better?

Wouldn't be the first time someone is confused by my approach.

I dislike it when individuals power-game, and seem to play a separate game from everyone else at the table.
I strongly encourage all my players, to power-game, together. Because I rarely - if ever - design encounters where parties stand 30ft away from each other and go.

One player, playing a Variant Human, can pick up the free Feat and excel in their role, providing the party is aware of the Humans' weakness (the most obvious of which is lack of Darkvision). In a particular situation, the other three or four players can pick up the slack.

Four out of five players, playing Variant Humans, can be rolled if they're Surprised in the Dark.

[Segev]

Because it's a surprise round?

Opposing Spellcaster casts Dispel Magic, and most of the party is now Blinded.
In the next Initiative round, if the party caster doesn't have good Initiative, the party is still Blinded until it can be cast again.

The hostiles, more or less, have ~1.5 rounds of Advantage. It's quite brutal.

Ah. So more than half your party lack darkvision. Okay, I see how that's a worthwhile use of a 3rd level spell slot, then.

[Keravath]

Because it's a surprise round?

Opposing Spellcaster casts Dispel Magic, and most of the party is now Blinded.
In the next Initiative round, if the party caster doesn't have good Initiative, the party is still Blinded until it can be cast again.

The hostiles, more or less, have ~1.5 rounds of Advantage. It's quite brutal.

Sounds like a good argument to use lanterns and torches and not rely on one person with a light cantrip for your light source :)

It is also not a good use of dispel magic unless the entire party is relying on ONE source of magical lighting.

"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."

You can only snuff out one magical light source carried by one creature using a single casting of dispel magic. (there is no dispel magic 20' radius in this version of the game). So all the party needs is two folks with the light cantrip or a couple of people with mundane light sources to prevent this sort of issue.

If the party has a number of members who can't see in the dark and are relying on a light cantrip from one character to light the way then they more or less get what they deserve :)

[Cheesegear]

If the party has a number of members who can't see in the dark and are relying on a light cantrip from one character to light the way then they more or less get what they deserve :)

I don't describe myself as a 'Killer DM'. But I'm always trying to figure out what's reasonable for a hostile to do:

1. It's commonly known that Humans can't see in the dark.
2. An enemy who's high enough level to cast Dispel Magic - whether Arcane or Divine - is a Level 5 enemy, at least. They know how magic works.

If they've got high INT, they might go Knowledge (Arcana) plus Knowledge (History) equals Dispel the light source.
If they've got high WIS, they might go Insight, equals Dispel the light source.

Either way, I don't think it's unreasonable that a 5th+ level hostile with Surprise might open a fight vs. a party of Humans by removing their light source. The party gets what they deserve, indeed.

[Segev]

I don't describe myself as a 'Killer DM'. But I'm always trying to figure out what's reasonable for a hostile to do:

1. It's commonly known that Humans can't see in the dark.
2. An enemy who's high enough level to cast Dispel Magic - whether Arcane or Divine - is a Level 5 enemy, at least. They know how magic works.

If they've got high INT, they might go Knowledge (Arcana) plus Knowledge (History) equals Dispel the light source.
If they've got high WIS, they might go Insight, equals Dispel the light source.

Either way, I don't think it's unreasonable that a 5th+ level hostile with Surprise might open a fight vs. a party of Humans by removing their light source. The party gets what they deserve, indeed.

Yeah, as you say, they get what they deserve. Under most circumstances, with most parties, I wouldn't expect that to work (or at least not work well enough to spend a third level slot to negate a measly cantrip) for a number of reasons. But under the circumstances described, it's actually a good use of the slot.

[Zirconia]

Recently started playing on Roll20 (for the obvious reasons).

One of the true eye-opening (pun intended) revelations was how important lighting was.

We had one party member with a light spell, and 2 party members with darkvision. Line of sight and darkness was a big deal.


The group I play with has been using Roll20 for over a year, our whole campaign, since we are scattered over 3 states (stupid people moving away for jobs, darn them). The lighting and LOS issues were indeed very interesting, and gave much more of a "fog of war" feeling to the fights. My Wizard is now blocking off a level 2 slot every day to give the Rogue Darkvision for scouting, as he is a non-darkvision race (not a Variant Human, actually), so there are tactical implications. I can also think of at least one case where someone moved to get a better view because of line of sight issues, and walked into a trap.

As a warning, though, sometimes the "personal lighting" assigned to characters doesn't transfer properly when character tokens are being moved between maps, so keep an eye on it.

[Contrast]

Sounds like a good argument to use lanterns and torches and not rely on one person with a light cantrip for your light source :)

It is also not a good use of dispel magic unless the entire party is relying on ONE source of magical lighting.

"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."

You can only snuff out one magical light source carried by one creature using a single casting of dispel magic. (there is no dispel magic 20' radius in this version of the game). So all the party needs is two folks with the light cantrip or a couple of people with mundane light sources to prevent this sort of issue.

If the party has a number of members who can't see in the dark and are relying on a light cantrip from one character to light the way then they more or less get what they deserve :)

I mean casting Darkness and then immediately dropping concentration would also achieve the same thing, effect multiple magic light sources and only use a 2nd level slot in fairness. But not everyone is going to have Darkness prepared/available to be fair.

As others have said, relying on a single source of light (magic or otherwise) is generally asking for trouble.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Wouldn't be the first time someone is confused by my approach.

I dislike it when individuals power-game, and seem to play a separate game from everyone else at the table.
I strongly encourage all my players, to power-game, together. Because I rarely - if ever - design encounters where parties stand 30ft away from each other and go.

One player, playing a Variant Human, can pick up the free Feat and excel in their role, providing the party is aware of the Humans' weakness (the most obvious of which is lack of Darkvision). In a particular situation, the other three or four players can pick up the slack.

Four out of five players, playing Variant Humans, can be rolled if they're Surprised in the Dark.

I've never thought lack of Darkvision is a human weakness, because darkvision is weak as is.

I've yet to be "Surprised in the Dark" in a way that would have been prevented by a character having Darkvision. Perhaps a character having Superior Darkvision, but not ordinary darkvision. 60' is just not enough to see anything. I have, however, "surprised in the dark" many parties who do have DV characters up and on watch.

Darkvision characters still have disadvantage to spot the enemy strike team, so unless they're not only really built into perception and lucky, odds are they're still going to be surprised when fire starts coming in, and DV is really only supposedly valid for setting up or trying to negate the surprise round.

DV helps to allow the stealth option sometimes where light will give you away, but that's usually a narrower case and can be overcome by just casting it.



As a side note, it's also really weird that "night time" is darkness, because it's not hard to see things outside on a moonless night even in the far country away from cities.

[Asisreo1]

You could be a true harda** DM and target their torches or whatever they're using light with. Including the object that they casted the "light" spell with.

[Asisreo1]

As a side note, it's also really weird that "night time" is darkness, because it's not hard to see things outside on a moonless night even in the far country away from cities.
I walk home in the nighttime from work, and it's truly pitch black through the open field I pass through. I legitimately can't see anything. I had a woman that appeared out of nowhere offering me Illicit Substances that I didn't see until I turned on my phone's flashlight.

I can attest it's that dark.

[Cheesegear]

Darkvision characters still have disadvantage to spot the enemy strike team, so unless they're not only really built into perception and lucky, odds are they're still going to be surprised when fire starts coming in, and DV is really only supposedly valid for setting up or trying to negate the surprise round.

As I said previously, without Darkvision you're Blinded until such time as you can see again. In combat...One, maybe even two Rounds...Is a long time.
In rounds after the surprise round, the hostiles will still have advantage, and you will still have disadvantage to hit them. Until you fix it.

One encounter that I've always thought about; Is everytime the party lights a torch, the High Elven caster (free Cantrip) has a readied Action to cast Prestidigitation to blow out the torch, while the other Elven friends dunk on the party.

[Keravath]

As a side note, it's also really weird that "night time" is darkness, because it's not hard to see things outside on a moonless night even in the far country away from cities.

I've been out walking at night while camping. Stars by themselves do not, in my experience, provide much illumination. The full moon in an open field is pretty good and would qualify as dim light. A partial moon with some trees - too dark to see except a few vague outlines. An overcast night, pitch black and can't see anything if you are away from light pollution. Open field at night with a clear sky and stars and you can probably make out some shapes. Add a moon and it isn't bad. Add a few trees and you are back to seeing little if anything. Add overcast and there is nothing to see.

If you see more than that, your eyes are better than mine :)

P.S. Rules wise, a full moon lit night can be considered dimly lit. Anything darker is treated as darkness even if it isn't completely dark, it is dark enough to prevent seeing clearly and cause attack rolls to be made with disadvantage.

[Democratus]

I mean casting Darkness and then immediately dropping concentration would also achieve the same thing, effect multiple magic light sources and only use a 2nd level slot in fairness. But not everyone is going to have Darkness prepared/available to be fair.

There's a reason old-school Drow all had Darkness as an inate spell. Their ambushes were nasty! :smallcool:

[LordCdrMilitant]

I've been out walking at night while camping. Stars by themselves do not, in my experience, provide much illumination. The full moon in an open field is pretty good and would qualify as dim light. A partial moon with some trees - too dark to see except a few vague outlines. An overcast night, pitch black and can't see anything if you are away from light pollution. Open field at night with a clear sky and stars and you can probably make out some shapes. Add a moon and it isn't bad. Add a few trees and you are back to seeing little if anything. Add overcast and there is nothing to see.

If you see more than that, your eyes are better than mine :)

P.S. Rules wise, a full moon lit night can be considered dimly lit. Anything darker is treated as darkness even if it isn't completely dark, it is dark enough to prevent seeing clearly and cause attack rolls to be made with disadvantage.

Maybe I just have better eyesight [well, according to my optometrist, I actually do, but that's another matter]. I've done night hiking in the mountains & desert a couple of times [once because I had to help evacuate another person, which was a pretty concerning exercise], and was able to see "well enough" [not enough to read a map, but enough to see which way the trail goes and not walk into trees, rocks, or off ledges without a light]. We generally did it without our lights because the light difference meant that you could see okay in the light cone but can't see anything at all outside the cones, whereas not using the lights meant you could see poorly everywhere. I couldn't see so well that I couldn't have been ambushed, but I wasn't blinded.

I don't doubt that it's possible to get to a point where I can't see anything, since I've been in rooms where I do walk into walls because there's just no light, but I think it has to be pretty dark, seriously cloudy [we were obviously not going to be up a mountain or in the desert in bad weather, so I don't think I've ever been out on a truly overcast night] or something, to get to the point of actually being blind.




But whether humans can see okay in the dark is another thing. I may have been up mountainsides out of doors at night, but I have not been underground in ancient tombs at night. It's probably a lot darker there than outside. I just don't think DV makes a different. After the first round, you can light up the situation so non-DV characters can see adequately enough to fight, and the trade of darkness/dispel vs. torch/light is bad action and spell economy for the attacker [very few parties IME are limited to one source of light, or even the light cantrip, and of course Darkness blocks darkvision anyway]. And DV characters still have disadvantage, and that's the important thing. It would be a big deal if DV characters could see as day in the dark, because then they'd have a serious chance of seeing and stopping the surprise attack, but they still can't see the ambush coming, so it's more of an offensive ability than a defensive one IE.
And, of course, there are enough features & feats available that can prevent you from becoming surprised at all or giving up the disadvantage.

That's not to say you can't engineer situations where not having DV is a problem. The most common one I see and use is the stealth attack/infiltration mission, where lighting up a light source would compromise the infiltration. But I don't think it's a critical ability. There are other reasons to pick non-human, like having wings or being an Angel, DV is just sort of an add on to make most other species be a little more magical or just characterize them as being darkness dwellers.

Personally, I think having DV should light the area up for you. Why would dwarves live and work where they can't see? [obviously, they have lights] It would also make it a stronger defensive ability, since parties are generally not likely to exploit it's offensive function if the whole party can't help, and having disadvantage on perception anyway really limits it's defensive and scouting potential.



I've run some night attack encounters. Fairly often. DV characters never make a difference. Either the enemy lights them up with flares or the enemy goes in with equipment to give them a decisive vision advantage in the dark, and 60' range isn't enough to see whose shooting at them.



As I said previously, without Darkvision you're Blinded until such time as you can see again. In combat...One, maybe even two Rounds...Is a long time.
In rounds after the surprise round, the hostiles will still have advantage, and you will still have disadvantage to hit them. Until you fix it.

One encounter that I've always thought about; Is everytime the party lights a torch, the High Elven caster (free Cantrip) has a readied Action to cast Prestidigitation to blow out the torch, while the other Elven friends dunk on the party.



My favorite "it's all gone to hell" night encounter was as follows [it has nothing to do with DV though, just night attacks being hell for parties]:
8 players, in the ruins of a dwarven city. [Definitely dark-dark].
Two party members went off to try to loot some stuff in the dark, setting off a mechanical warning device since they had disadvantage to see things and were relying on DV. Cue the Shadar-Kai, who both were responsible for the current state of the dwarfish city and had been hunting them since they breached the perimeter two days prior, dispatching their prepared task group to respond.
One party member realizes two were missing, and sets off alone with a torch to find them.
The strike force reaches the two who tripped the trap and were looting stuff. No shots are fired, the two immediately surrender, because they're heavily outgunned and the Shadar-Kai just slide out of the darkness from beyond 60' from all directions with their weapons raised and ready. Even worse, a on-the-spot interrogation gets them to reveal the location of their camp and its defensive arrangements.
The strike force moves ahead, now with an intelligence advantage, in three parts to catch the party's encampment in a pincer maneuver and cut off escape routes. One team encounters the lone person searching with a torch, and jumps him from behind, subduing him in close quarters in under a round.
The Shadar-Kai wait beyond the 60' range of the sentry's vision for all their teams to be in position. Ranged fire teams will cover the two hall approaches, and a melee force will teleport directly into combat with the party, and then lock down the party's ability to teleport out themselves.
The attack commences with all teams in position. The sentry is in the hall watching the hall waiting for his friend, and is taken by surprise when the Shadar-Kai open fire and he's caught in a crossfire, surrendering on the spot. Everybody else wakes up to the sound of gunfire as the strike team teleports in, nobody has their weapons and armor equipped because they were sleeping, and the casters are depleted of spells. The party surrenders quickly.