Darkvision is overrated?

[Schwann145]

People like to say part of the reason Twilight Clerics are overpowered is that they have 300ft Darkvision that is sharable with the party.
Really? How often does that sort of distance even come up? If you're indoors, it's basically irrelevant, and if you're outdoors at night, you first need a clear line of sight to take advantage (which most terrain will hinder, if we're being honest) and, at best, you're a very slightly better camp scout than normal.
Is all that really worth the fuss?

Additionally: I tend to think it's beyond silly that Darkvision even has a distance limit shorter than "whatever your field of vision would normally be." If your eyes are such that they can see as well in pitch darkness as they can in light, then why is there a limit on one but not the other? If you can see to the horizon, and your eyes are such that you can see in the dark, then it shouldn't matter what the lighting conditions are.
The Drow of Menzoberranzan tell time via Narbondel (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Narbondel)... except none of them can see Narbondel because it's way further away than their vision allows? C'mon...

[stoutstien]

Dark vision is rated highly because most tables use vision rulings as little as possible. I don't think I even see DMs calling for perception checks at disadvantage due to it more than once or twice before they stop.

[Chronos]

The biggest problem with darkvision is that, unless everyone in a party has it, you're going to need light sources anyway, and most parties have one or two humans or other non-darkvision races in them.

But when you have an ability that can share darkvision, that problem goes away.

[DarknessEternal]

Very much.

Light is trivial.

[LudicSavant]

Darkvision is useful, but on its own it’s hardly the reason Twilight Cleric is overpowered. Not even close.

It’s the kit as a whole that’s overpowered.

[Willie the Duck]

Darkvision is not unlike, well, the automatic light you have in the back hall of your house -- it's nothing special until you are trying to come in the door at night with two bags of groceries, your car keys, and who knows if the dog is about to be underfoot, and don't want to deal with the lightswitch.

Light being a cantrip definitely eats into darkvision's luster (although continual light and ever-burning torches did that previously). As has the fact that, despite it being a core rogue/previously thief ability, the stealthy part of the party going off into the darkness to sneak about has never consistently been a good idea.

That said, stealthers having the option to go off into the darkness and sneak about is of great tactical benefit. No one in the party having to hold the torch/lantern, and no caster having to cast Light during the first round of combat (hope they have a high initiative, too) can also have a semi-serious benefit (it doesn't take a lot of squandered first rounds to make this worth considering). I think if players faced more 'do or die' combats, such that the enemies getting in a round of attacks while the party gets their proverbial act together, then darkvision would be seen as more key to general party success.

As for Twilight Cleric's 300' darkvision, it isn't that it is 300 feet, it is that it is one or more feet more than the other side is likely to have. Provided you have ranged attacks and a comparable speed to your opponents, you can force them to take one or more rounds of move+dash while you respond with move+attack. Often times that's only one round of attacks (which is very much not nothing), but sometimes it is not. Yes, many terrains will hinder a long stretch of line of sight, but there are plenty of perfectly reasonable medieval environs where straight level terrain does exist--including but not limited to roads, stream beds, and around fortifications (which, unless they are abandoned or the occupants are terminally foolish, they will have cleared around specifically so attackers cannot take cover). So, yeah, 300' darkvision is not chump change (but I do think it would be considered an interesting novelty if not for the other 'wildly power upgrade' abilities twilight cleric has, such as the temp hp).

As for darkvision with a specified distance, yeah, this is decidedly a holdover from when the game was unabashedly a gamist dungeon treasure hunt with 10' poles and so forth.

[Ganryu]

Who looks at the Twilight Cleric, with their channel divinity, and goes "The darkvision is overpowered!"?

[Marcloure]

I think people say it is overpowered when compared to any other darkvision ability in the game. Not even vampires or Shadow Sorcerers can see that far in the dark or share it with their allies. Also, if you play on a VTT like Roll20 or Foundry, you are much more likely to use the vision rules and feel the impact darkvision can have.

[Corran]

I think people say it is overpowered when compared to any other darkvision ability in the game. Not even vampires or Shadow Sorcerers can see that far in the dark or share it with their allies. Also, if you play on a VTT like Roll20 or Foundry, you are much more likely to use the vision rules and feel the impact darkvision can have.
More than that, I think because it's something you can share with others. Similar to how pass without a trace works for stealth.

[Leon]

The cleric Subclass is a bit absurd in the distance it can see in the dark versus the distance that any number of races who nominally live deep under ground can.

[jas61292]

Darkvision is massively overrated. The Twilight Cleric's Darkvision is still busted. Both can be true.

Darkvision, if played by the rules, is nice, but hardly essential. Relying on it and failing to see things because you have disadvantage on perception is far worse than just having a light in the first place. Its great to have when you need it, but a smart player should never need it. The main reason it is valued so highly is because people don't actually follow the rules and just let you see perfectly in the dark with it. Obviously if you give something a huge power boost from what the rules say, it will be more highly valued.

That being said, the Twilight Cleric's Darkvision is stupid. Not because it is inherently overpowered, but because it invalidates other actual valuable options with something that should be no more than a ribbon ability. As said, Darkvision is very nice to have when you need it, and having Darkvision that is better than the standard is even more so, because it potentially allows you to see common threats in the dark before they can see you. That is a very nice perk you get for very specific races and classes. Giving Twilight Cleric (a subclass that is already massively powerful) an ability that massively overshadows these more niche picks at something they are supposed to be good at is ridiculous and bad design.

[Merudo]

Darkvision (60') is useful in roughly 2 situations:

1. Sneaking around in a dark environment, when you don't want light sources to give away your position.

2. The party forgot to buy lanterns. 60' dim vision seems impressive when you compare it to a torch, but it looks weak after you try a Bullseye lantern that gives you 60' bright light and 120' dim light.

Now 300' darkvision is something else entirely, and pretty much lets you see farther in the dark than any creature out there. The best way to maximize the ability is probably to visit dangerous locations in the middle of the night, to fully take advantage of the amazing range it provides. Engaging enemies from 300 feet away when they can't see anything can be game breaking.

[Lunali]

Darkvision (60') is useful in roughly 2 situations:

1. Sneaking around in a dark environment, when you don't want light sources to give away your position.

2. The party forgot to buy lanterns. 60' dim vision seems impressive when you compare it to a torch, but it looks weak after you try a Bullseye lantern that gives you 60' bright light and 120' dim light.

Now 300' darkvision is something else entirely, and pretty much lets you see farther in the dark than any creature out there. The best way to maximize the ability is probably to visit dangerous locations in the middle of the night, to fully take advantage of the amazing range it provides. Engaging enemies from 300 feet away when they can't see anything can be game breaking.

3. You don't want to track consumption of light sources.

[Willie the Duck]

Darkvision (60') is useful in roughly 2 situations:

1. Sneaking around in a dark environment, when you don't want light sources to give away your position.

2. The party forgot to buy lanterns. 60' dim vision seems impressive when you compare it to a torch, but it looks weak after you try a Bullseye lantern that gives you 60' bright light and 120' dim light.

Now 300' darkvision is something else entirely, and pretty much lets you see farther in the dark than any creature out there. The best way to maximize the ability is probably to visit dangerous locations in the middle of the night, to fully take advantage of the amazing range it provides. Engaging enemies from 300 feet away when they can't see anything can be game breaking.

Bullseye lanterns work in 60 degree cones. If you have opponents who split up, there will be cases where darkvision is superior.

[schm0]

Darkvision is fine if you don't need sight to do anything, like look for traps or search for hidden doors. Those opportunities are there, but highly situational.

On the other hand, light gives away your position from an infinite range as long as there's no obscurement, which prevents most forms of stealth.

There are pros and cons to both.

[Corran]

As for Twilight Cleric's 300' darkvision, it isn't that it is 300 feet, it is that it is one or more feet more than the other side is likely to have.
There are some benefits to increasing the range of darkvision even if you dont need the whole 300 feet to beat the enemy's (though it should be noted, that there are few ways to beat 120' feet, which is the range of truesight of some tough baddies). Number 1, at that range you are far less likely to need to roll for stealth, as opposed to if you were operating closer (eg at 60'). An important effect of this is that makes scouting far safer. Secondly, you will get more attacks in before the enemy has you in sight (both because of the grater range but more than that because you can share it with allies). And lastly, you have more options for acquiring a good defensive position from where you could try to bait the enemies to engage you, since 300' of darkvision increases the area from where you could begin an attack.

[Willie the Duck]

There are some benefits to increasing the range of darkvision even if you dont need the whole 300 feet to beat the enemy's (though it should be noted, that there are few ways to beat 120' feet, which is the range of truesight of some tough baddies). Number 1, at that range you are far less likely to need to roll for stealth, as opposed to if you were operating closer (eg at 60'). An important effect of this is that makes scouting far safer. Secondly, you will get more attacks in before the enemy has you in sight (both because of the grater range but more than that because you can share it with allies). And lastly, you have more options for acquiring a good defensive position from where you could try to bait the enemies to engage you, since 300' of darkvision increases the area from where you could begin an attack.

These are valid points, but I feel that you cut the quote of my words off right before my primary point, muddling it.

[Frogreaver]

Darkvision is massively overrated. The Twilight Cleric's Darkvision is still busted. Both can be true.

Darkvision, if played by the rules, is nice, but hardly essential. Relying on it and failing to see things because you have disadvantage on perception is far worse than just having a light in the first place. Its great to have when you need it, but a smart player should never need it. The main reason it is valued so highly is because people don't actually follow the rules and just let you see perfectly in the dark with it. Obviously if you give something a huge power boost from what the rules say, it will be more highly valued.

That being said, the Twilight Cleric's Darkvision is stupid. Not because it is inherently overpowered, but because it invalidates other actual valuable options with something that should be no more than a ribbon ability. As said, Darkvision is very nice to have when you need it, and having Darkvision that is better than the standard is even more so, because it potentially allows you to see common threats in the dark before they can see you. That is a very nice perk you get for very specific races and classes. Giving Twilight Cleric (a subclass that is already massively powerful) an ability that massively overshadows these more niche picks at something they are supposed to be good at is ridiculous and bad design.

This is where I'm at. Giving Twilight Cleric Darkvision to a longbow using character can easily provide advantage (or negate his disadvantage) even against other darkivsion creatures due to the large range (if you are outside their darkvision and in the dark then they can't see you).

[SharkForce]

300 feet of darkvision is quite good. information is power. in the right situation it can allow you to have a very strong influence over how a battle is conducted. that said, as has been previously mentioned if that was the only thing that seemed out of line that the twilight cleric got, you probably wouldn't hear much about it because many groups ignore all that stuff. they're not interested in combat as war, they're interested in combat as sport.

in combat as war, being able to see your enemy 5 times as far away as they can see you (or 2.5 times for a select few races), representing several rounds of movement, is a major advantage. it likely means that you get your pick of where and when to fight, which in turn means that you get to lay whatever traps you want and at least one or two free rounds of attacks.

true, it won't *always* apply. sometimes you're in an area where there are almost always walls within 50 feet of you. sometimes you're in a place that is well-lit. sometimes the enemy has special powers that let them ruin your trap, instantly close the distance, or otherwise deal with it. but when it does apply, it can be quite significant.



but I don't know where you got the impression that everyone thinks this part of twilight cleric is the real problem.

[Cheesegear]

People like to say part of the reason Twilight Clerics are overpowered is that they have 300ft Darkvision that is sharable with the party.

Really? How often does that sort of distance even come up? If you're indoors, it's basically irrelevant, and if you're outdoors at night, you first need a clear line of sight to take advantage (which most terrain will hinder, if we're being honest) and, at best, you're a very slightly better camp scout than normal.

Well, if you have 300 ft. Darkvision:
You have 200 ft. Darkvision.
You have 125 ft. Darkvision.
You have 65 ft. Darkvision.

You have - theoretically - unlimited Darkvision, whenever you want. If all's it did was 120 ft. Darkvision...Sure, you'd be on par with Drow and other Underdark species. But 300 ft. makes you better than Underdark species.

As to 'How often does that come up?' ...If it comes up once, that's enough. But as I said, it will actually come up all the time, because 300 ft. actually also represents all the distances less than that, too. Which means that 300 ft. Darkvision covers all situations, and then some more. It may be pointless overkill, but that pointless overkill ensures that it will always be useful, always. Anything over 60 or 120 is already plenty. 300? Great. Awesome. Sign as many people up as you can - with Twilight Clerics, you can!

'Who needs 125 ft. Darkvision? 200? That's silly!' ...Well, yes. That's why Twilight Clerics are...Overpowered - they give 300, which is more than almost anyone will ever need. That's literally what that word means.

Similarly, how many people have actually used the 600 ft. range on a Sharpshooter'd Longbow? Not many. That range is stupid so obviously Sharpshooter is dumb, right?
However, if anyone is using a Longbow to shoot 155 ft., then Sharpshooter is also still paying dividends. Sharpshooter is still good, even when you're not shooting 600 ft.
Twilight Clerics giving everyone Darkvision is still incredibly good, even when you don't use it for 300 ft.

Finally, Darkvision is only as good as the number of members in the party with it. Darkvision is 'overrated' because it doesn't actually work most of the time because other members don't have Darkvision. Then Twilight Clerics ensure that Darkvision is good, and not overrated. Because when everyone has Darkvision, you can actually do the things that Darkvision is supposed to allow you to do.

[Frogreaver]

Finally, Darkvision is only as good as the number of members in the party with it. Darkvision is 'overrated' because it doesn't actually work most of the time because other members don't have Darkvision. Then Twilight Clerics ensure that Darkvision is good, and not overrated. Because when everyone has Darkvision, you can actually do the things that Darkvision is supposed to allow you to do.

Twilight Cleric has a limited number darkvision grants and they are only limited to 1 hour.

It's still good, but it's not like 300ft darkvision on the whole party all night long.

[loki_ragnarock]

People like to say part of the reason Twilight Clerics are overpowered is that they have 300ft Darkvision that is sharable with the party.

I think it's less the reason and more the example of the flaw in Twilight Cleric's whole design:

Even the ribbon ability is overtuned.

It's a subclass with no thematic heart that's just a grab bag of top tier abilities. It's like they looked at people saying the same thing about hexblade and said, "Ha, you ain't seen nothing yet. Jerry! Hey, Jerry! Put an extra zero on the end of that ribbon ability. That'll piss 'em off for sure. They'll never bring up hexblades again."

[kwanzaabot]

I think the problem with DV is that unless everyone has it, you'll still need a light source, which makes having it a waste of time.
And if you don't take a light source, you're punishing the one human player (because everyone else has DV) for no good reason.

I don't know if I preferred it or not back when Low-Light Vision was still a thing (I don't think combining the two really made much of a difference at the end of the day), but my one real complaint is that I do think it's silly that the Darkness spell is effectively a "NUH-UH, I was using anti-forcefield bullets!"-tier spell. It's so cheap.

The fact that it ignores Darkvision and nullifies the Light cantrip for no good reason feels like I'm cheesing my players and I don't like it. I'd make the Light have a severely reduced radius, and would make Darkvision work in it. Being unable to see is already achieved by the Blindness spell, IMHO.

[Cheesegear]

And if you don't take a light source, you're punishing the one human player (because everyone else has DV) for no good reason.

More like punishing the Halfling.
The Variant Human is now Custom Lineage and has Darkvision for no reason.

[kwanzaabot]

More like punishing the Halfling.
The Variant Human is now Custom Lineage and has Darkvision for no reason.

You could approximate the Halfling flavour with the Lucky feat I guess but I'll grant you you've got a point

[Pildion]

Everything about Twilight Clerics is overpowered, even the Darkvision. Like stated before, give the party Archer 300' darkvision and they will laugh with Advantage all the way to the bank. Normally for a race darkvision of 60' its not a big deal, torches and the Light cantrip are not hard to get.

[Sigreid]

Whether it's over rated depends on how the party plays. If the party is a stereotypical one with a heavily armed and armored warrior and priest who kick in the door while unleashing their battle cries at the top of their lungs, it's really not that great as at that point you may as well have all the light sources you need. If the party optimizes their builds and plans for stealthy infiltration and opening surprise alpha strikes, it's invaluable.

[Corran]

These are valid points, but I feel that you cut the quote of my words off right before my primary point, muddling it.
I did. Apologies. Must have read up to that point and decided to respond before reading the rest.:smallsigh:

[Cheesegear]

Whether it's over rated depends on how the party plays...

No it doesn't. 'It depends' always muddies the waters. Because it doesn't depend.

You know when Darkvision is good; You know when longer-range Darkvision is better. In any situation where having Darkvision is a benefit, is there a better choice than the Twilight Cleric? No.

That is, in all situations requiring (superior) Group Darkvision, the Twilight Cleric is not only the best choice. It is the best choice by far - hence why it's considered overtuned and/or overpowered. It doesn't depend. If you want your party to have Darkvision - for whatever reason - you run a Twilight Cleric, because it has the best version of the best Darkvision. It doesn't depend.

'Well what if the party is in broad daylight and-' ...No. That's not the conversation and you're willfully ignoring the subject of the conversation.

It doesn't depend:
If having Darkvision is better than not having it,
If having everyone in the group with Darkvision, increases the effectiveness of Darkvision,
If having longer-range Darkvision than a hostile group, increases the effectiveness of the party against that hostile group,
Then Twilight Cleric is bonkers.

You may as well say that a Paladin's Smite, with a critical hit, with Power Attack, isn't strong because 'What if ranged combat?' Yeah...That's not wrong...But that's not what people are talking about, and bringing up ranged combat simply missing the point - perhaps even on purpose.


If the party is a stereotypical one with a heavily armed and armored warrior and priest who kick in the door while unleashing their battle cries at the top of their lungs

In darkness, the characters with Heavy Armour, have 300 ft. Darkvision, compared to the hostiles' 60 ft. Darkvision, they can now see the enemy, and the enemy can't see them. Perhaps for several rounds. This allows the Fighter to shoot off several Longbow attacks with the hostiles being Blind, that is, those attacks are made with Advantage. Is the Cleric going to fire off Ranged Attack Spells with a range greater than 60ft.? Oh, hey Guiding Bolt, didn't see you. Yeah, again, the hostiles are Blind 'cause we're attacking outside their Darkvision (We can see them, they can't see us, how is this not a massive advantage?), better not waste my spell slots and throw out the Guiding Bolt with Advantage as well, just to make sure it hits.

Furthermore, being Blind interferes with the hostiles' Perception check. Who cares if you're wearing Heavy Armour and rolling Stealth with Disadvantage? They're making Perception checks with Disadvantage, too! So it cancels out. Now you can have Heavy Armour'd characters rolling Stealth! What a game!

'Well we weren't going to do that before, because we'd just fail...So our preferred method is just running inside the hostiles' Darkvision range and screaming at them.'
Okay. Okay. Hear me out...What if you didn't?
'Umm...How? We don't have Darkvision, and our ranged attacks aren't great. But the time we're inside our Darkvision range, we may as well just take a Move action and Melee them to death.'
What if I told you that you could have one, two, potentially even three rounds of ranged attacks before the enemy could even hurt you?
'No our ranged attacks aren't very good.'
What if I told you that those ranged attacks could be made with advantage?
'Oh really?'

[Schwann145]

In darkness, the characters with Heavy Armour, have 300 ft. Darkvision, compared to the hostiles' 60 ft. Darkvision, they can now see the enemy, and the enemy can't see them. Perhaps for several rounds. This allows the Fighter to shoot off several Longbow attacks with the hostiles being Blind, that is, those attacks are made with Advantage. Is the Cleric going to fire off Ranged Attack Spells with a range greater than 60ft.? Oh, hey Guiding Bolt, didn't see you. Yeah, again, the hostiles are Blind 'cause we're attacking outside their Darkvision (We can see them, they can't see us, how is this not a massive advantage?), better not waste my spell slots and throw out the Guiding Bolt with Advantage as well, just to make sure it hits.

•Yes, in this very contrived fight that likely never happens (and if it does happen, it happens so infrequently that over many years of playing you could probably count it on one hand with fingers leftover), the extra range on Darkvision is indeed obviously better.

•Guiding Bolts are bolts of light. You can't see the caster but you can definitely see the attack. Makes sense to disallow advantage on the initial GB attack.

[Cheesegear]

Yes, in this very contrived fight that likely never happens...

Chill Touch has a range of 120 ft., most hostiles' Darkvision is 60 ft; If you're 65 ft. away (let alone 300 ft.), you have Advantage. This is good. It happens frequently. Especially when you have Drow Wizards with Superior Darkvision where their range is equal to their Darkvision, making Darkvision not terrible. That is, it's Superior Darkvision in the first place, that allows the tactic. The tactic isn't good because you have Darkvision. The tactic only works because you have Darkvision.


the extra range on Darkvision is indeed obviously better.

...And then now scale the above scenario all the way to 300 ft. It doesn't get worse. It stays basically the same. If the hostiles' Darkvision is 60 ft., it doesn't matter if you're 65 ft. away, or 300 ft. away. The 'bonus' is the same.

This is where the overtuned vs. overpowered argument comes into play:

'Yeah, but you don't need 300 ft. Darkvision. That's silly.'

Fine. I'll take 125 ft. worth of Darkvision and the rest is gravy. Can I still hand it to my entire group? Does it still last for a whole hour (multiple combats' worth of time)? It's still good, even if you halve the range. Even if you go less than half range. It's main benefit most of the time will be at 65<120 ft. range. Very regular combat distance. No contrivance unless all's you do is play dungeon crawls and make people fight in 30 ft-cubes. Use it all the time. 60+ ft. range is two rounds' worth of most creatures' movement...Or they can Dash and 'do nothing' on the first round. It's overpowered.

You don't need 300 ft. of Darkvision...
If you're only going to use it at 65-120 ft., though; Then it's also overtuned.


Makes sense to disallow advantage on the initial GB attack.

As DM, I'd say no. You're targeting the Guiding Bolt without the hostile's knowledge. By the time the opponent can see the GB, the GB has already been fired.

[Schwann145]

As DM, I'd say no. You're targeting the Guiding Bolt without the hostile's knowledge. By the time the opponent can see the GB, the GB has already been fired.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Not only would I, as a DM, negate the advantage because the enemy can clearly see the attack coming (especially with a longer flight path from the distance this argument necessitates), I'd even say the archer fires with Disadvantage because of the difficulty seeing clearly in darkness. Yes, the rules only specify disadvantage to Perception checks, but if things are both unclear enough to get a disadvantage to see them and are at an extended distance, it's wholly reasonable (IMO) to not give out bonuses to that attack.
If that seems too harsh to do to the archer, blame 5e for going all-in on the adv/disadv system and not including other types of penalties. *shrug*

[diplomancer]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Not only would I, as a DM, negate the advantage because the enemy can clearly see the attack coming (especially with a longer flight path from the distance this argument necessitates), I'd even say the archer fires with Disadvantage because of the difficulty seeing clearly in darkness. Yes, the rules only specify disadvantage to Perception checks, but if things are both unclear enough to get a disadvantage to see them and are at an extended distance, it's wholly reasonable (IMO) to not give out bonuses to that attack.
If that seems too harsh to do to the archer, blame 5e for going all-in on the adv/disadv system and not including other types of penalties. *shrug*

Well, Darkvision is indeed useless if you don't let people see their targets with it.

As to "seeing Guiding Bolt and reacting to it, so no advantage", at what speed do these "bolts of light" travel? The speed of light, perhaps? No one can react to that.

[Khrysaes]

I have actually been considering removing racial darkvision from the game. Magical darkvision would be fine I think. So darkvision spell, shadow sorc, rune knight, warlock, looking through a familiar's eyes.

I am not sure about Twilight cleric. Maybe nerfing the range.

Edit: In part, because I think some races are overlooked simply because they don't have darkvision.

[Cheesegear]

I'd even say the archer fires with Disadvantage because of the difficulty seeing clearly in darkness. Yes, the rules only specify disadvantage to Perception checks...

No. In darkness (lower-case), they have Disadvantage on Perception checks because they're only seeing in Dim Light via Darkvision...And they're Blind beyond that radius.

The rules state that if your target is Blind, you have advantage on attack rolls against them. End.


but if things are both unclear enough

So you've ruled that Darkvision doesn't do what it says. Well yeah. If you don't let Darkvision let you see - partially or fully - then of course it's overrated because it's not doing what it's supposed to be doing.


and are at an extended distance

A Longbow's 'short distance' is 150. 120 is well inside that range.


I am not sure about Twilight cleric. Maybe nerfing the range.

Edit: In part, because I think some races are overlooked simply because they don't have darkvision.

In my examples, 120 ft. Darkvision is probably the maximum I would give. I would also maybe rule that that 120 ft. is divided evenly amongst the number of creatures it's being applied to.
You can give one creature 120 ft.
You can give two creatures, 60 ft., each.
You can givee three creatures, 40 ft., each.
etc.

[Khrysaes]

Another option I have been considering, other than using light rules properly, is reimplementing Low Light Vision ala 3.5.


You can see in dim light within _ 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.


Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

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.

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.


Candle. For 1 hour, a candle sheds bright light in a 5-foot radius and dim light for an additional 5 feet.

___ can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. __ retain the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.

__ can see in the dark up to __ feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and ___ can function just fine with no light at all.


In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.

In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat.


Normal vision: In a candle's light, <5ft normally, >5ft <10ft disadvantage on perception based on vision, >10ft blinded

Low Light Vision: Can see twice as far as a human in dim light. Retain the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.
I.e. in a candle's light, <5ft normally, >5ft <15ft disadvantage on perception based on vision, >15ft blinded

Darkvision: You can see in darkness within _ feet of you as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.

In a candle's light, <5ft normally, >5ft <10ft(Dim light) disadvantage on perception based on vision, >10ft <_ ft(based on darkvision) darkness treated as dim light. >_feet blinded

Finally, if you have low light vision AND dark vision
In a candle's light, <5ft normally, >5ft <15ft(Dim light) disadvantage on perception based on vision, >15ft <_ ft(based on darkvision) darkness treated as dim light. >_feet blinded

[Sigreid]

No it doesn't. 'It depends' always muddies the waters. Because it doesn't depend.

You know when Darkvision is good; You know when longer-range Darkvision is better. In any situation where having Darkvision is a benefit, is there a better choice than the Twilight Cleric? No.

That is, in all situations requiring (superior) Group Darkvision, the Twilight Cleric is not only the best choice. It is the best choice by far - hence why it's considered overtuned and/or overpowered. It doesn't depend. If you want your party to have Darkvision - for whatever reason - you run a Twilight Cleric, because it has the best version of the best Darkvision. It doesn't depend.

'Well what if the party is in broad daylight and-' ...No. That's not the conversation and you're willfully ignoring the subject of the conversation.

It doesn't depend:
If having Darkvision is better than not having it,
If having everyone in the group with Darkvision, increases the effectiveness of Darkvision,
If having longer-range Darkvision than a hostile group, increases the effectiveness of the party against that hostile group,
Then Twilight Cleric is bonkers.

You may as well say that a Paladin's Smite, with a critical hit, with Power Attack, isn't strong because 'What if ranged combat?' Yeah...That's not wrong...But that's not what people are talking about, and bringing up ranged combat simply missing the point - perhaps even on purpose.



In darkness, the characters with Heavy Armour, have 300 ft. Darkvision, compared to the hostiles' 60 ft. Darkvision, they can now see the enemy, and the enemy can't see them. Perhaps for several rounds. This allows the Fighter to shoot off several Longbow attacks with the hostiles being Blind, that is, those attacks are made with Advantage. Is the Cleric going to fire off Ranged Attack Spells with a range greater than 60ft.? Oh, hey Guiding Bolt, didn't see you. Yeah, again, the hostiles are Blind 'cause we're attacking outside their Darkvision (We can see them, they can't see us, how is this not a massive advantage?), better not waste my spell slots and throw out the Guiding Bolt with Advantage as well, just to make sure it hits.

Furthermore, being Blind interferes with the hostiles' Perception check. Who cares if you're wearing Heavy Armour and rolling Stealth with Disadvantage? They're making Perception checks with Disadvantage, too! So it cancels out. Now you can have Heavy Armour'd characters rolling Stealth! What a game!

'Well we weren't going to do that before, because we'd just fail...So our preferred method is just running inside the hostiles' Darkvision range and screaming at them.'
Okay. Okay. Hear me out...What if you didn't?
'Umm...How? We don't have Darkvision, and our ranged attacks aren't great. But the time we're inside our Darkvision range, we may as well just take a Move action and Melee them to death.'
What if I told you that you could have one, two, potentially even three rounds of ranged attacks before the enemy could even hurt you?
'No our ranged attacks aren't very good.'
What if I told you that those ranged attacks could be made with advantage?
'Oh really?'

I think you missed my point. It's always good. Over valued for any ability depends on a group's ability to exploit the advantage it gives. So the more you're able to exploit the advantage darkvision gives you. If you're not optimized to exploit the ability to function in darkness, it's not as valuable as if you are.

[Cheesegear]

Over valued for any ability depends on a group's ability to exploit the advantage it gives.

And I'm saying that any group should be able to exploit it with ease.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it is broad daylight, outside. Darkvision isn't even required. We're not talking about Darkvision:

What does your party do if they see a group of hostiles approx. 120 ft. away? More?

...Now, whatever that is, do that, but the hostiles are also Blinded and you most likely have surprise. That's what the Twilight Cleric does. Whatever you were going to do anyway at that range, in daylight...You can now do in the dark, except also way better.

Unfortunately, there may be some players that...Yes. If the hostiles are 120 ft. away they put their thumbs up their butts for one, two or three rounds. The only thing darkness changes is who can see them doing it. Which means they can put their thumb up their butt and not even take damage form the opposing group like they normally would - again, because the opposing group is Blinded.

But as I've been saying this entire time...Whatever you can do at 120 ft. range:
- You can do at 100 ft. range.
- You can do at 80 ft. range.
- You can do at 65 ft. range.

Just...Forget the range that the Twilight Cleric gives. Just imagine it like this:

'In darkness, at any range over 60 ft., most hostiles wont be able to see you. You can see them. At any range over 120 ft. in darkness, almost nothing in the game can see you. You can still see them.'

Even an unoptimiser should be able to figure out something to do in that situation.

It's like...Conditional Gloom Stalker. And Gloom Stalker is really good.

[Kurt Kurageous]

•Yes, in this very contrived fight that likely never happens (and if it does happen, it happens so infrequently that over many years of playing you could probably count it on one hand with fingers leftover), the extra range on Darkvision is indeed obviously better.

This is what gives a drow in darkness a distinct advantage with their 120' darkvision. Sure, they might be disadvantaged, but to quote Stalin (who never said it), "Quantity has a quality all it's own."

[Thunderous Mojo]

Furthermore, being Blind interferes with the hostiles' Perception check. Who cares if you're wearing Heavy Armour and rolling Stealth with Disadvantage? They're making Perception checks with Disadvantage, too! So it cancels out. Now you can have Heavy Armour'd characters rolling Stealth! What a game!

I've agreed with many of the points you have raised.
The scenario quoted above is just one of the areas where the 5e rules,
(and the rules reliance on Advantage/Disadvantage),
fail to represent a satisfactory verisimilitude.

Why does lighting a torch make you hear better under 5e rules?
That is indeed a truth of the system, somehow, one hears better, with light and visibility.

It is silly, beyond all belief. As a DM and Player, I expect most Tables to have modified the vision and Unseen/Seen Attackers rules, because as written, Unseen Ranged Attacks are deadly.

To those that think Darkvision matters so little, I propose an experiment:

Create a goblin ambush scenario, but give the goblins 300' Darkvision, and have the goblins be well stocked with efficient ranged weapons.

Does this change have no effect compared to goblin classic?

If something can not physically see the position of the creature shooting it, does it make any impact at all that ranged attacks reveal your position?

[Sigreid]

And I'm saying that any group should be able to exploit it with ease.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it is broad daylight, outside. Darkvision isn't even required. We're not talking about Darkvision:

What does your party do if they see a group of hostiles approx. 120 ft. away? More?

...Now, whatever that is, do that, but the hostiles are also Blinded and you most likely have surprise. That's what the Twilight Cleric does. Whatever you were going to do anyway at that range, in daylight...You can now do in the dark, except also way better.

Unfortunately, there may be some players that...Yes. If the hostiles are 120 ft. away they put their thumbs up their butts for one, two or three rounds. The only thing darkness changes is who can see them doing it. Which means they can put their thumb up their butt and not even take damage form the opposing group like they normally would - again, because the opposing group is Blinded.

But as I've been saying this entire time...Whatever you can do at 120 ft. range:
- You can do at 100 ft. range.
- You can do at 80 ft. range.
- You can do at 65 ft. range.

Just...Forget the range that the Twilight Cleric gives. Just imagine it like this:

'In darkness, at any range over 60 ft., most hostiles wont be able to see you. You can see them. At any range over 120 ft. in darkness, almost nothing in the game can see you. You can still see them.'

Even an unoptimiser should be able to figure out something to do in that situation.

It's like...Conditional Gloom Stalker. And Gloom Stalker is really good.

Yes, it's really good. I covered that in my original post. Depending on your party/group, it can be a really nice thing to have, or it can be a critical feature that enables a play style. So, while it's always really nice and convenient, people can place more value on it than it really brings to their team. Darkvision, as long a distance as you can manage is always handy. It's not always worth giving up something that will benefit your team more for.

[Frogreaver]

One decent way of evaluating a feature is - what level of spell would it be?

Regular Darkvision is essentially a 2nd level spell. I'd say most would rate twilight cleric Darkvision as a 4th - 5th level spell.

[Willie the Duck]

One decent way of evaluating a feature is - what level of spell would it be?

Regular Darkvision is essentially a 2nd level spell. I'd say most would rate twilight cleric Darkvision as a 4th - 5th level spell.

I would guess the people that consider darkvision to be a ribbon would call Darkvision at 2nd level to be an underperforming spell.

[greenstone]

[I]Why does lighting a torch make you hear better under 5e rules?
Umm... It doesn't. The light level has no effect on Wisdom (Perception) checks that don't require sight.

From the Vision and Light section in the PHB:

In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

[Schwann145]

No. In darkness (lower-case), they have Disadvantage on Perception checks because they're only seeing in Dim Light via Darkvision...And they're Blind beyond that radius.

The rules state that if your target is Blind, you have advantage on attack rolls against them. End.
Yes. And I'm saying that, in addition to that, it's reasonable to say an archer/ranged attacker firing in darkness (effectively dim light with darkvision - which causes a penalty to sight) would be asked to do so with Disadvantage. Their Advantage from firing on Blind foes would cancel out with the imposed Disadvantage from firing with a sight penalty to equal an unmodified attack roll.
Seems fair to me. You clearly disagree on RAW grounds.


So you've ruled that Darkvision doesn't do what it says. Well yeah. If you don't let Darkvision let you see - partially or fully - then of course it's overrated because it's not doing what it's supposed to be doing.
I've done no such thing. Dim vision causes a sight penalty. A creature with Darkvision, in full darkness, sees as if they were in dim lighting, lighting that would give them a sight penalty.
I've been approaching this conversation with the assumption of a darkness lighting situation, not a dim light situation. I thought you were too.


A Longbow's 'short distance' is 150. 120 is well inside that range.
You don't consider that to be meaningfully long range where sight is concerned? Especially sight that is hindered by lighting conditions?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Umm... It doesn't. The light level has no effect on Wisdom (Perception) checks that don't require sight.

From the Vision and Light section in the PHB:

Yet, right on page one of this thread, we have bemoaning that "DMs do not assess Disadvantage on Perception checks for no light".

Of course one of the answers to that is "Even in the dark, creatures can hear".
This level of granular assessment is often not made.

[diplomancer]

Umm... It doesn't. The light level has no effect on Wisdom (Perception) checks that don't require sight.

From the Vision and Light section in the PHB:

Hehe... take this literally and someone going round a corner, whether in darkness or not, can be detected with no penalty, but someone coming just straight ahead, but in darkness, imposes a penalty on the perceiver... unless the perceiver closes his eyes :p

[greenstone]

Yet, right on page one of this thread, we have bemoaning that "DMs do not assess Disadvantage on Perception checks for no light".
Ahh, right, re-reading the thread I get what you mean.

I agree, darkvision is overpowered when GMs are not restricting dim light properly. If I had a dollar for every time my players said "what?" when I said, "Your Wisdom (Perception) is at disadvantage," I'd probably have a Big Mac combo.

I also get the "what?" when I tell them their characters can't read using darkvision.