# Darkvision: Don't forget the Disadvantage & limitations!



## Doc_Klueless (May 17, 2018)

Too many people including Critical Role's Matt Mercer (who is often used as an example of an excellent DM) by his own admission tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision. Namely that perceptions rolls with Darkvision are at disadvantage. Which is huge when traipsing through a trap/creature infested dungeons.

Oh, most people remember the fact that it can only see things in black and white (and I suppose grey), but it also mimics Dim Light. Dim Light conditions impose disadvantage on perception checks which also means that it's -5 on PASSIVE perception scores that deal with sight.

The problem. I think the main problem is that by ignoring this, darkvision kicks the crap outta human sight even more than it should.

Edit: Yes, I know that it's still better than being blind. The point is that it's not normal vision in darkness. It's poor black & white vision in darkness that still comes with a Disadvantage.


----------



## Laurefindel (May 17, 2018)

Yes, I try to stress that as often as possible (well, without going nuts over it that is). Even characters with darkvision will appreciate a source of light, notably because it effectively provides 60 feet of bright light for them (instead of 30 feet of bright light, plus another 30 feet of dim light)


----------



## Nevvur (May 17, 2018)

Having disadvantage on perception checks in darkness isn't a drawback compared to automatically missing visual cues because you're blind in the dark. 

But point taken. I'm guilty of forgetting about it, too. Happily, my current campaign is all human PCs, so there's nothing for me to forget, just lots of darkness for me to fill with unsettling noises and jump scares.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 17, 2018)

Disadvantage on Perception checks is still way better than being blind, but it does give a reason to carry a light source regardless, which means normal people won't feel quite so left out.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 17, 2018)

Misleading title.  It would be more accurate to describe it as a _limitation_ of Darkvision, not a drawback.  Or possibly "a drawback to relying solely on Darkvision."


----------



## Al'Kelhar (May 17, 2018)

Yep, I've had to remind my table time and again.

Me: "What light sources are you carrying?"

Them: "We don't need light, we've all got darkvision!"

Me: "OK. You know you all have disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight, right?  And you know I love traps, right?"

Them: "Um. Ok". [All scrabbles around on character sheets to see if they have a torch or lantern noted somewhere.]

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Shiroiken (May 17, 2018)

I've considered using a limitation where it doesn't work if you're within bright light. This is similar to the way infravision was limited in AD&D, which was the ancestor of Darkvision.


----------



## Ancalagon (May 17, 2018)

Huh... I didn't know about that.  I'll have to check and add it to my game!


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Its a huge trade off... Use lights and put yourself in bright light which can be seen clearly from long distances barring LoS issues... Or take perception disadvantage for checks vs hidden things.

To me though, the illumination light rules are crap anyway so the dim light perc dv thing is way down the list.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 17, 2018)

Funny, I usually don't forget the disadvantage in darkness but I keep making another mistake of thinking that darkvision allows to see in dim light as it was bright light...


----------



## Leatherhead (May 17, 2018)

This is true. Unless you are an Eagle Totem Barbarian.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 17, 2018)

Dim light does not reduce passive perception.
You can still hear. So even if you might not see the threat, you might still notice it. Now it is possible that you are not surpised but the enemy is still invisible.

So if your pp is 14 and the enemy rolls 11 on its stealth check, you roll initiative and if your initiative is higher than the enemy's you can act and might use dancing light. Now you also see ghe enemy.


----------



## Wrathamon (May 17, 2018)

I've HR it and added Investigation and reading to the list


----------



## Ymdar (May 17, 2018)

Can someone point me to this in the PHB?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (May 17, 2018)

Ymdar said:


> Can someone point me to this in the PHB?



Page 183 on the PHB deals with the effects of Lightly Obscured: Disadvantage on Wisdom(perception) checks that use sight.


----------



## Mirtek (May 17, 2018)

Still beats automatically failing all stealth attempts and being noticed even around corners or from miles away


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 17, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Disadvantage on Perception checks is still way better than being blind, but it does give a reason to carry a light source regardless, which means normal people won't feel quite so left out.






Nevvur said:


> Having disadvantage on perception checks in darkness isn't a drawback compared to automatically missing visual cues because you're blind in the dark.






Mirtek said:


> Still beats automatically failing all stealth attempts and being noticed even around corners or from miles away



 Right. Which is why I wrote: "I think the main problem is that by ignoring this, darkvision kicks the crap outta human sight even more than it should." Still beats normal vision, but not nearly as much as it does if you forget the whole Disadvantage on Wisdom (perception) sight rolls. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> Dim light does not reduce passive perception.
> You can still hear. So even if you might not see the threat, you might still notice it. Now it is possible that you are not surpised but the enemy is still invisible.
> 
> So if your pp is 14 and the enemy rolls 11 on its stealth check, you roll initiative and if your initiative is higher than the enemy's you can act and might use dancing light. Now you also see ghe enemy.



Oh, right! Should have been more specific in my first post. I'll fix that. Thanks for bringing that up!

What brought it to the front of my mind was that I was listening to Critical Role on my commute to work and back when Mr. Mercer brings up that he tends to forget about such things with Darkvision. Which made me realize that for about the first year of playing 5e with my all dwarf group that I'd definitely been forgetting it. Once I started using it, dungeons and such became way more dangerous.

It also dawned on me that races that live underground that rely on Darkvision would have designed ways of hiding things to Darkvision that can only be revealed by having a light source. Sort of like special paints that are too subtle under Darkvision to perceive while being noticeable under light. Which also had my dwarf party sparking up dim light Dwarven Torches.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 17, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Misleading title.  It would be more accurate to describe it as a _limitation_ of Darkvision, not a drawback.  Or possibly "a drawback to relying solely on Darkvision."



Right. Corrected the title.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 17, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> Too many people including Critical Role's Matt Mercer (who is often used as an example of an excellent DM) by his own admission tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision. Namely that perceptions rolls with Darkvision are at disadvantage. Which is huge when traipsing through a trap/creature infested dungeons..



On the contrary, I believe any rule as frequently forgotten about or ignored as this one is bad and should be removed. 

Much better to reinstate low-light vision to the game (elves, gnomes, owls) and have Darkvision work the way people intuitively think it works.


----------



## Psikerlord# (May 17, 2018)

The best fix for darkvision, by far imo, is to turn it into low light vision instead. When only monsters see naturally in the dark, the game is better for it.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 17, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> On the contrary, I believe any rule as frequently forgotten about or ignored as this one is bad and should be removed.



While I don't feel that way, I can understand where you might. I say that because, since I brought it to the front of my mind a couple of years ago, I haven't forgotten it yet and it's only added to my game.



> Much better to reinstate low-light vision to the game (elves, gnomes, owls) and have Darkvision work the way people intuitively think it works.






Psikerlord# said:


> The best fix for darkvision, by far imo, is to turn it into low light vision instead. When only monsters see naturally in the dark, the game is better for it.



Well, sure. You both could do that as could anyone else. I was just pointing out that the rules themselves have limitations built into Darkvision.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 17, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> On the contrary, I believe any rule as frequently forgotten about or ignored as this one is bad and should be removed.
> 
> Much better to reinstate low-light vision to the game (elves, gnomes, owls) and have Darkvision work the way people intuitively think it works.




No, that rule is good. It is also good that it is limited to 60ft. That way you don't have to describe everything three times. You stand in a great cave with strange textures reminding of flowers in every colour you can imagine.
You stand in a great cave with textures that remind you of flowers.
You stand in the dark.

That way: you stand in a cave that is bigger than your darkvision range is.
Or usually: you are in a cave that extends far beyond your dim light radius.
Having a reason for darkvison races to have light is a big plus for me... and it reminds a bit on infravision of old.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 17, 2018)

Mirtek said:


> Still beats automatically failing all stealth attempts and being noticed even around corners or from miles away




I disagree.

Disadvantage to perception means characters will be surprised a lot. Being surprised is terrible and greatly increases the chances of a TPK if enough characters were surprised.

The party will likely not be stealthy even with no light anyway, and they likely won't know where enemies are to be stealthy too. A lot of enemy creatures, especially ones who live in darkness, will get about with senses that don't rely on light so the party will still be obvious to them.

Darkvision has its place, but as written it isn't something to be used in night to night adventuring.


----------



## CubicsRube (May 17, 2018)

I fully plan on implementing it when i next run a 5e campaign. I'm in the camp of eliminating dark vision all together UNLESS it is for races like drow who get disadvantage in full light, so theres a trade off.

Id much rather put eveyone in the same step.

In the broader picture, i think while many are aware how players can push for advantage in a lot of situations, theres many things a dm can give disasvantage for, and they're a great way to make things harder.

Anything that produces a fear effect gives disad if they fail their roll. A dark deep cavern filled with echoes coming from all directions should give disadvantage. If you're creative enough there can be many things that very relistically would give disadvantage to characters.

The search for advantage then is really about getting back on an even footing.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (May 17, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> It also dawned on me that races that live underground that rely on Darkvision would have designed ways of hiding things to Darkvision that can only be revealed by having a light source. Sort of like special paints that are too subtle under Darkvision to perceive while being noticeable under light. Which also had my dwarf party sparking up dim light Dwarven Torches.



 Using paints of different colours but the same light tone would only show where you could distinguish the colour rather than seeing in black and white only.

Its also why intelligent underground races that have darkvision will still use light sources where appropriate rather than relying on darkvision all the time.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 17, 2018)

Mirtek said:


> Still beats automatically failing all stealth attempts and being noticed even around corners or from miles away



Yeah, I don't think the subject is "Darkvision sucks".

Darkvision is excellent, with or without Perception disadvantage. 

The "clutter" is what's discussed here, I think.

And I'm discussing the way Darkvision should not have been handed out like candy at Halloween...


----------



## Nebulous (May 17, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> Too many people including Critical Role's Matt Mercer (who is often used as an example of an excellent DM) by his own admission tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision. Namely that perceptions rolls with Darkvision are at disadvantage. Which is huge when traipsing through a trap/creature infested dungeons.
> 
> Oh, most people remember the fact that it can only see things in black and white (and I suppose grey), but it also mimics Dim Light. Dim Light conditions impose disadvantage on perception checks which also means that it's -5 on PASSIVE perception scores that deal with sight.
> 
> ...




Yep, we went through ALL of Lost Mine and PotA and completely flubbed up this rule.  At the start of Tomb I had to remind players that this is how it works.  And THIS is why people bring light into dark caves, so they don't suffer penalties.


----------



## Nebulous (May 17, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yeah, I don't think the subject is "Darkvision sucks".
> 
> Darkvision is excellent, with or without Perception disadvantage.
> 
> ...




I too and somewhat confused by the proliferation of darkvision.  I would think that species that are primarily night hunters or underground dwellers would be the ones with Darkvision.  But in D&D, that's often not the case.


----------



## robus (May 17, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> On the contrary, I believe any rule as frequently forgotten about or ignored as this one is bad and should be removed.




I think the issue is purely in the description of Darkvision, not in the rule itself. It should simply be written in the description that Darkvision imposes disadvantage to perception checks that rely on sight when the creatures is in dim light.


----------



## robus (May 17, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> And I'm discussing the way Darkvision should not have been handed out like candy at Halloween...




This I totally agree with  - I'm looking forward to running a game with zero darkvision enabled characters.


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

I want to know why the poor halfling doesn't get darkvision. I mean, the iconic halfling (hobbit) was known to have keen eyes and even the elves and dwarves both used to ask Bilbo if he could see something better than they could, both further away and in dimmer light.  Why the heck did they lose out but the elves and dwarves both got it? What...dwarves used to live underground and elves live in dark forests? Halflings live in friggen holes in the ground!


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 18, 2018)

I think it's the wording of the rule. Too many IF, THEN statements.

IF the character has Darkvision in the dark, THEN they see as if in Dim Light.
IF it's Dim Light, THEN the target is Lightly Obscured.
IF the target is Lightly Obscured, the character is at Disadvantage on Vision Perception tests.

Now, if the rule just said: C"haracters with Darkvision can see in the Dark as if in dim light, which gives disadvantage to Wisdom (perception) checks to Sight", people wouldn't forget it so much. 

But I think most players are like me. They're lazy readers.  They see: "Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness 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." and stop reading there. They (and I) don't go deeper by looking up Dim Light, etc. because it's not obvious that they should do so.

As far as the proliferation of Darkvision, I've scaled it waaaay back and replaced it with low light vision. The only PC races that have darkvision are Dwarves and Tieflings. All the others, except humans, have Low Light Vision. Humans just have regular sight. But that's a house rule and doesn't have much to do with the thrust of my OP.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 18, 2018)

robus said:


> I think the issue is purely in the description of Darkvision, not in the rule itself. It should simply be written in the description that Darkvision imposes disadvantage to perception checks that rely on sight when the creatures is in dim light.




Or, that part is dropped, along with the idea that forest-living and night-hunting creatures have Darkvision


----------



## CapnZapp (May 18, 2018)

robus said:


> This I totally agree with  - I'm looking forward to running a game with zero darkvision enabled characters.



Actually, having one or two isn't so bad (as long as it isn't the party Rogue). 

It's when the entire party has Darkvision wonky things happen.


----------



## robus (May 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Actually, having one or two isn't so bad (as long as it isn't the party Rogue).
> 
> It's when the entire party has Darkvision wonky things happen.




Welcome to my world...


----------



## CapnZapp (May 18, 2018)

Reverting back traditional low-light races to having low-light vision (can see outdoors at night; light sources have twice the range) is a great way to fix this issue.

Sure the players can still build an all Dwarf-and-Tiefling party, but *most* campaigns will now feature at least one party member that needs a torch in dark dungeons.

The 5E devs underestimated the ease with which the "traditional" four-man party of Human, Elf, Dwarf & Halfling could in 5E be tweaked into Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf & Gnome; thus giving it unprecedented all-group Darkvision which most modules quite frankly aren't equipped to handle.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 18, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is also good that it is limited to 60ft. That way you don't have to describe everything three times.
> 
> You stand in a great cave with strange textures reminding of flowers in every colour you can imagine.
> You stand in a great cave with textures that remind you of flowers.
> You stand in the dark.



Nobody suggested the range should change...?

And the best way to not have to describe everything three times is to make Darkvision work intuitively: it lets you see in the dark, so you don't need light.

The limitations on darkvision are really only there because in 5E everybody and their grandmother gets it. 

Much better then to remove Darkvision from major categories of creatures (most prominently: Elves) and instead let it work the way people expect it to. 

With only the Dwarf Fighter in the party having darkvision it's not a problem it is powerful.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Nobody suggested the range should change...?
> 
> And the best way to not have to describe everything three times is to make Darkvision work intuitively: it lets you see in the dark, so you don't need light.
> 
> ...




In 3.5 everyone and their grandmother had darkvision. In 5e a lot of creatures and player races have it. The usefulness of light even for darkvision races makes using torches in most explorations still useful. Thus you can easily assume that every party carries light.


----------



## Nebulous (May 18, 2018)

robus said:


> Welcome to my world...




yep, mine too, it's pretty LAME


----------



## billd91 (May 18, 2018)

Nebulous said:


> I too and somewhat confused by the proliferation of darkvision.  I would think that species that are primarily night hunters or underground dwellers would be the ones with Darkvision.  But in D&D, that's often not the case.




D&D has pretty much always been this way. The number of creatures with infravision in 1e/2e was very high.
5e's dark vision rules are definitely a nerf compared to previous editions, but I'm not actually complaining. I kind of like the change.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 18, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> In 3.5 everyone and their grandmother had darkvision.



No. Wrong. 

In fact, it is precisely reverting to 3.5 I propose as the solution 

Of the 5E PHB races Elves (except Drow), Half-Elves, and Gnomes lose darkvision. They gain low-light vision instead, but more importantly they join Dragonborn, Humans and Halflings in not having Darkvision. 

Before my fix everyone and their grandmother had darkvision (especially if you choose Half-Elf over Human and Gnome over Halfling).

With my fix only Dwarfs, Half-Orcs and Tieflings can see in the dark.

That's a decrease from 66% (88% with easy substitutes) to only 33%. Much better 

Sure you can still have an all-Dwarf party, but the chances of a regular group of players coming up with an all-Darkvision party goes from "disturbingly large" to "not worth fretting over". 

That's what I call a good fix


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No. Wrong.
> 
> In fact, it is precisely reverting to 3.5 I propose as the solution
> 
> ...




Since low light vision and darkvision merged, i think you should count darkvision and low light vision both for comparison. And furthermore I propose you look into the 3.5 mm and count the numbers of monsters without darkvision. You won't find a lot.

So please, don't introduce a 3rd vision type or we are back to what i stated first: describing everything 3 times...


----------



## CapnZapp (May 18, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Since low light vision and darkvision merged, i think you should count darkvision and low light vision both for comparison.



No, I will not do that. Since un-merging them is the solution I propose, that's entirely unreasonable to ask.



> And furthermore I propose you look into the 3.5 mm and count the numbers of monsters without darkvision. You won't find a lot.



Agree. But it's not relevant. Only player races are relevant to the issue at hand here: the PC party requiring light or not.

Rather than first handing out Darkvision like candy at Halloween and then having to unintuitively nerf it...

... I propose - wait for it - not doing any of that! 

Try it. You'll find that running vision was easy and clear in 3rd edition, and that it is equally easy and clear in 5th edition, once you get rid of the 5E-specific vision changes! I know it is, because I'm running it that way myself


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, I will not do that. Since un-merging them is the solution I propose, that's entirely unreasonable to ask.
> 
> 
> Agree. But it's not relevant. Only player races are relevant to the issue at hand here: the PC party requiring light or not.
> ...




So we just disagree. Low light vision of 3.5 was much more annoying since you had to account for an unlimited range vision enhancement. But you may homebrew as much as you want if that is your solution. I know that darkvision in 5e is very well done and easily applied during game as I am running it that way myself.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 18, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> Right. Which is why I wrote: "I think the main problem is that by ignoring this, darkvision kicks the crap outta human sight even more than it should." Still beats normal vision, but not nearly as much as it does if you forget the whole Disadvantage on Wisdom (perception) sight rolls.
> 
> Oh, right! Should have been more specific in my first post. I'll fix that. Thanks for bringing that up!
> 
> ...




I’ve noted in multiple threads that unless an intelligent underdark creature is intending to be stealthy, they would be using magical or mundane dim lights. While you have an advantage in being stealthy in darkness with darkvision, so does your enemy. But if you light an area larger than long range of missile weapons or spells, you take that advantage away.

The other way to think about it is that we don’t wait until it’s dark to use a light. We wait until it’s dark enough to impair our vision. Underdark creatures are likely to do the same. Because they aren’t worried about the odd human that wanders down, they’re worried about the other underdark monsters.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 19, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I’ve noted in multiple threads that unless an intelligent underdark creature is intending to be stealthy, they would be using magical or mundane dim lights. While you have an advantage in being stealthy in darkness with darkvision, so does your enemy. But if you light an area larger than long range of missile weapons or spells, you take that advantage away.
> 
> The other way to think about it is that we don’t wait until it’s dark to use a light. We wait until it’s dark enough to impair our vision. Underdark creatures are likely to do the same. Because they aren’t worried about the odd human that wanders down, they’re worried about the other underdark monsters.



This argument boils down to "I want creatures to use light in the underdark" 

In reality, what you would go for in utter darkness, is not being detected.

Since light spreads fantastically far (even around corners) when it is pitch black, what you do not do, if you want to stay undetected, is light even the smallest light source.

Darkness is your friend. Light is your enemy.

Unless, of course, you're an alpha predator - just ask those angler fish...


----------



## MNblockhead (May 20, 2018)

I'm fine with the 5e darkvision rules mechanically. But I do like thinking more about how exactly low-light vision and dark vision work.  I always assumed that darkvision is just "magic" vision. But I'm thinking of treating it more like other the other hightened senses being perceived as sight (more on this at the end, below). 

For those promoting using "low-light vision" instead of darkvision, how did that work in 3e (which I did not play)?  

Underground caves are dark. Unless you add fantastical glowing fungi, etc., to help the players out, it will be pitch black.  An owl or cat will be just as blind as me or you. 

So with low-light vision should not help you underground. Well, I suppose you could use a very dim light source and get more out of it.  Also, with low-light vision, you should be able to see in color or some colors.  In the real world, many animals with low-light vision see color in almost complete darkness, including geckos, moths, bats, and lemurs (a primate! maybe that's where wood elves come from  ;-) ). Human color receptors stop working when we get to about 1/2 moonlight. At that point our eyes switch to using more sensitive, but color-blind rods. But the Aye-Aye, a nocturnal lemur that has been nocturnal for millions of years has eyes tuned to see blue down to near ultraviolet even in dim light. Other nocturnal lemurs have eyes tuned to detect green at very low light. Bats have red and blue color vision at night. 

Still, rods are more efficient than cones and the theory is that most species that spend all of their time in the dark (e.g. not active in twilight and bright moonlight) will eventually lose the ability to see color. Also, as impressive as the night vision of bats, lemurs, geckos, moths, and owls (who actually have mechanisms to capture light twice) is, all require some source of light. Well, bats have echolocation, but that is an entirely different ability. 

So, how would dark vision work?  By dark vision, I mean seeing in total darkness. Well, 50% of people can "see" their hands in total darkness. Of course their eyes are not capturing the image of the hands. That is not how vision works. You need light for your eyes to work. But our brain combines information from different senses to create our perceptions.  So, perhaps dwarves, drow, etc. have evolved so that they are so sensitive underground to sounds, smell, touch, that they can perceive their surrounding as sight. What is neat about this, is that blindfolding a dwarf should not affect his dark vision. 

Or perhaps Darkvision is that, mixed with infravision. For most animals, infrared is not detected with the eyes. Even with mammals, like the vampire bat, most animals with infrared vision have a pit that collects infrared radiation and combines it with vision from retinas in the brain, so animals probably "see" the infrared information. Again, covering the eyes should not prevent infrared vision. So, elves, dwarves, and gnomes could have lip dents. 

Or its just magic. 

NOTE: most of the information about animals seeing color at night in this post comes from a the following very interesting BBC Earth article: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141128-these-animals-see-colour-at-night

Interesting article on infrared vision: https://io9.gizmodo.com/under-the-right-conditions-humans-can-see-infrared-1665448040


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

Darkvision in 3e works in darkness exactly like kn 5e. You see shades of grey up to 60ft. Underdark races usually see 120ft... shich means that if you rely on darkvision alone you have a problem.
Low light vision in 3e had unlimited range and you see in dim light as in bright light seeing all colours. Which means that often low light races had an advantage over darkvision races whenever there was the tiniest source of light.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Darkvision in 3e works in darkness exactly like kn 5e.



*No.*

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

5e imposes perception disadvantage to Darkvision, because Darkvision only provides dim light.

This is not so in d20 and Pathfinder. 

My entire suggestion is based on the fact Darkvision in 3e does not work exactly like in 5e. 

5e removed low-light vision from the game, and thus gave Darkvision to many races that should not have it. In return, the edition nerfed Darkvision and made it less intuitive to run.

So the easy, proven fix is to simply revert these changes.  

When only Dwarves, Half-Orcs and Tieflings have Darkvision, we can drop this pesky dim light provision that only trips people up.  

In addition, it makes it easier to keep in mind underdark races Do. Not. Carry. Light. under any circumstances when vulnerable in small groups since light gives you away from much greater distances than the area it illuminates!


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> This argument boils down to "I want creatures to use light in the underdark"




Uh, no. It's an answer to questioning, "Why do intelligent creatures use light and when?" I don't particularly care when something uses light or not. That's kind of "up to them." But since I'm the DM and I need to know when they would choose to use light, I have to ask and answer those questions.



CapnZapp said:


> In reality, what you would go for in utter darkness, is not being detected.




I disagree. An intelligent creature capable of creating light wants to not be at a disadvantage. If dim light means I can see everything without hindrance, and darkness puts me at a disadvantage, then I'll use light. 

For creatures without darkvision, dim light (when our Perception is at a disadvantage) means we walk into things. We can't read. We can't see very far, so if we're outside and there are creatures that might be hunting us, we won't notice them. When our Perception is impaired, we are at a significant disadvantage. The only time that we would not want to use light is specifically when we want to be undetected, and be stealthy. Because light would make that impossible.

For creatures with darkvision, they are at the same disadvantage in total darkness. For an intelligent creature capable of making light, they would do so in the same circumstances, although they would use dim light, since bright light is not needed.



CapnZapp said:


> Since light spreads fantastically far (even around corners) when it is pitch black, what you do not do, if you want to stay undetected, is light even the smallest light source.
> 
> Darkness is your friend. Light is your enemy.
> 
> Unless, of course, you're an alpha predator - just ask those angler fish...




Ahh, so there you go. _If you want to stay undetected_. Darkness is only your friend when it gives you an advantage. If you are lying in wait as an ambush, you have advantage on being stealthy, and almost every other creature has a disadvantage detecting you. But if you're trying to Stealthily walk through the underdark in darkness, with its uneven ground, rocks and things sticking out here and there, what you don't want to do is be the person that constantly kicking something, or hitting your shin, or knocking your head on a low stalactite, or slipping on damp, uneven ground, and constantly cursing and your equipment making noise, etc. Strap on some armor and several weapons like your average adventurer and try wandering through the woods on a moonless night and see how quietly and safely you can do it.

Darkness for a drow is no different. Laying in wait, especially if you've been able to select and prepare an ambush site where you know the terrain and won't have to worry about tripping on something? Absolutely. But when you're the one actually traveling? You want to make sure you see the Cave Fisher first, because that little strand in the dark will be almost impossible to see. Oops, didn't see that Gray Ooze? Perhaps you should have been using light. Oh, you broke your leg falling down a natural chimney? Yeah, it's really annoying that they're so hard to see in the dark. It would be much better to be able to have dim light as far as you can see so you won't be at a disadvantage noticing things like that.

See, most of the time creatures like drow, duergar, etc. aren't trying to stay undetected. They are going about their lives in their world. And their world is centered around dealing with other creatures of the underdark. It's not centered around "what happens if a bunch of humans come down?" since that's not a daily, maybe not even a yearly occurrence. Not to mention that if everything is in dim light, the humans are still at a disadvantage anyway.

If the drow are out hunting, they would want to be stealthy, and they'd go without the use of light. On the other hand, how frequently do humans hunt at night? In the same conditions that drow would be in darkness?

A drow guardpost? It would be lit by dim light to the range of vision. That way there are no surprises. Once you pass by the guardpost, within drow civilization, things would be dimly lit. For safety and convenience. A security patrol? It would be a show of force, not stealth. You would not only see them, but hear them coming. They aren't trying to remain undetected, they are trying to tell everything in the area to "stay away" or, if you're an intelligent being we allow around these parts, "follow our laws." 

To me, the main reason why this is questioned is because we're always looking at it from the lens of drow vs. human, and also nocturnal animals vs. non-nocturnal animals. A lion or hyena has good vision at night, an antelope doesn't. So when they hunt at night, they are at a distinct advantage. But drow and other underdark creatures aren't at that distinct advantage. _Everybody_ in the underdark can see just as well (or poorly) as you.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> *No.*
> 
> This is exactly what I've been trying to say.
> 
> ...




OK, so you want to revert it back the rules for an earlier edition? Fair enough. My vote is, well D&D the entire time it was produced by TSR, and they should all have infravision.

See, I like the dim light provision for darkness. Because it makes sense. It's not that they have perfect vision all the time, they have _better_ vision than creatures without it. Infravision (the way it was described in D&D/AD&D) was an interesting approach, because it provided a very different experience in darkness. It would make it impossible for an animal to hide, simply because their radiant heat overpowered that of the air around them. 

No, I much prefer the 5e approach. The only thing that doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint is that in total darkness underground, there wouldn't be enough radiant light for anybody to see, regardless of the quality of their vision. Magic is a possibility, but really doesn't make sense for every creature that has it.

From what I see, you have two issues with the current system:

1. Too many creatures have the ability to see in total darkness, to whatever degree. Although most of the creatures you're complaining about historically have had that abilit. Elves, for example, have always had the ability in D&D, it was nerfed when 3e came around with more granularity.

2. You want creatures with darkvision to have the same advantage against creatures without darkvision (including those with low-light vision, should it exist) that nocturnal creatures have against non-nocturnal creatures. Or to put it a different way, you want creatures with darkvision to not have any disadvantage in darkness.

Personally, I don't have a real issue with either of these, although I don't care for the "solution" which is that there is no middle ground for creatures with low light vision. For them, the three levels of light are bright, bright, and dark. Also, I don't think that creatures with darkvision should have no disadvantage in darkness, just an advantage against creatures with normal (or low-light/night) vision. 

The reason is simple. I think we have a fundamental difference in what we think darkvision should do. You seem to think that darkvision means a creature can see in the dark as well as we can see in bright light. I think that darkvision means that they can see _better_ than we can in dim light or darkness. I would agree that there are some creatures that I think should be able to see in darkness as well as we do in bright light, such as fiends. I'll get back to that idea in a moment.

If I cared to change it (and we haven't yet - I've asked and nobody in my group has any issue with elves having darkvision), it would be to have four levels of darkness:

Bright, Dim, Shadow, and Dark. Creatures with night vision would shift everything one step to the right, and darkvision two steps.

Bright: No penalties
Dim: Disadvantage on Perception
Shadow: Disadvantage on Perception and abilities requiring sight, and attacks.
Darkness: Any ability requiring sight fails, disadvantage on attacks. 

Most light sources would have three radiuses, bright > dim > shadow. If you cared to, you could also define how far you can see a given brightness, probably tied to the radius of its brightest light. For example, you can see a bright light in darkness from a distance of 20x it's brightest radius. You can see a dim light from 10x it's brightest radius. Shadow from 5x. That means that you'll see a bonfire from farther away than a candle, since they have a different radius of bright light. 

You have advantage on attacks if you don't have disadvantage on Perception (bright) and they have disadvantage on Perception (shadow or darkness).

Normal: bright, dim, shadow, dark.
Nightvision: bright, bright, dim, shadow.
Darkvision: bright, bright, bright, dim.

And for creatures like fiends (and maybe a feat available to tieflings):
Infernal vision: bright, bright, bright, bright. And probably dim in magical darkness.

So a creature with night vision would prefer dim light, because they aren't at a disadvantage, and they have advantage on attacks against creatures without nightvision.
A creature with darkvision would prefer shadow, since they have no disadvantage, but have advantage against creautures without darkvision.

The only creatures that would feel comfortable in total darkness are those with other senses that supplement or replace sight. And I think far more darkvision monsters should have these abilities, putting drow and such at a disadvantage against them.

Also, there's essentially a fifth category of "too bright" with the same effects of shadow. So creatures like drow with better darkvision have shadow (too bright), bright, bright, dim. Although I might argue that all creatures with darkvision might have this issue.

This provides more granularity, but also more complexity that most probably wouldn't care for.


----------



## Asgorath (May 20, 2018)

This is one of the reasons I'm really happy we've transitioned from a battle map and miniatures to Roll20 for our games (though the end goal is a screen on the table with a Roll20 map and miniatures on top of their respective tokens).  The dynamic lighting features of Roll20 make it really easy to manage darkvision and lighting/LoS in general, and it becomes very obvious how limited your vision is in large dark areas.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> OK, so you want to revert it back the rules for an earlier edition? Fair enough. My vote is, well D&D the entire time it was produced by TSR, and they should all have infravision.



No, I want to suggest the perfectly serviceable rules of 3rd edition. I want to flag the idea that maybe 5th edition made changes that are the root of the issue; and by reverting these changes, the problem also goes away 

I also took the opportunity to set you straight, thinking that perhaps you base your opinion on a misassumption.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> From what I see, you have two issues with the current system:
> 
> 1. Too many creatures have the ability to see in total darkness, to whatever degree. Although most of the creatures you're complaining about historically have had that abilit. Elves, for example, have always had the ability in D&D, it was nerfed when 3e came around with more granularity.
> 
> 2. You want creatures with darkvision to have the same advantage against creatures without darkvision (including those with low-light vision, should it exist) that nocturnal creatures have against non-nocturnal creatures. Or to put it a different way, you want creatures with darkvision to not have any disadvantage in darkness.



First off, I'm not the one with the problems. I've already solved my game.

This is about this thread, where people are having difficulty remembering specifics about 5th edition darkvision. I am providing a suggestion on how to solve that. Perhaps surprisingly, this wasn't a issue before, so if you revert the changes from 3rd edition to 5th edition, maybe those issues go away? 

Then:
1. Stop lumping together "creatures". This is not the first time you try to misinterpret my argument. We're talking about *PHB player character races* here.

And stop bringing up pre-3E editions. The edition where it just works, is 3E. So that's the edition we contrast 5E to.

2. I want to help people having issues with darkvision to get rid of those issues. 

The reason 5E adds Perception disadvantage is because so many races get Darkvision, possibly in a misguided attempt to get Underdark denizens to use light out on patrol even though they have Darkvision. Many races get Darkvision because Low-Light Vision is removed. 

Unremove Low-Light Vision, and you can return Darkvision to how many people intuitively understand it - it allows you to see in the dark. 

No special case necessary. No torches needed. Which in turn gets rid of really stupid suggestions, such as revealing your position to every ambush monster far in advance by bringing light to the Underdark. 

Player characters should be the only ones required to carry torches in the Underdark. This enhances the mystical terrifying nature of the place. Try it


----------



## 5ekyu (May 20, 2018)

"For creatures without darkvision, dim light (when our Perception is at a disadvantage) means we walk into things. We can't read. We can't see very far, so if we're outside and there are creatures that might be hunting us, we won't notice them. When our Perception is impaired, we are at a significant disadvantage. The only time that we would not want to use light is specifically when we want to be undetected, and be stealthy. Because light would make that impossible."

I will confess i have not followed all of these posts si i may be misding context here that makes this statement one referencing a house rule on perception in dim light. If that is the case then what i am about to say is possibly wrong.

For standard rules, i think one thing we may be hitting is a snag on what perception checks are for and when they are needed.

Dim light, disadvantage only has an impact when a check is required *or* passive perception needed.

I have not seen in the rules (or routine play) perception checks required for reading, for seeing non-hidden objects, not walking into things etc. 

If a GM requires these under normal lighting that is itself likely causing an amplification in the already problematic lighting rules by making perception checks a necessity for even normal daily functions.

In my games, no roll is required for these, under the too easy.

In dim light, disadvantage would not hurt those.

If a GM is also adding "must roll for normally routine" into dim light **and** adding in disadvantage then the GM is even more increasing the dim light problems.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, I want to suggest the perfectly serviceable rules of 3rd edition. I want to flag the idea that maybe 5th edition made changes that are the root of the issue; and by reverting these changes, the problem also goes away
> 
> I also took the opportunity to set you straight, thinking that perhaps you base your opinion on a misassumption.




My assessment of specifics may not be 100% correct. But it really boils down to this:

1. I don't think there is a problem to fix.

2. You do.

So, for folks that, like you, don't like the way the 5e rules work, the 3e rules are as good as any to go with, depending on your goals for the "fix." My point is that it's important to define the problem. 

To me, having low-light vision that doesn't have an intermediate (dim) step is a problem. So your solution doesn't work for me.
To me, having a creature with darkvision to have disadvantage to Perception in darkness is not a problem. So your solution is not needed.

I agree that 5e made changes. And while I don't like them 100%, I don't dislike them enough to change them. 

And more importantly, I think that the 3e rules are a step backward. I think they went too far in the opposite direction of AD&D. Infravision was a pain to use, but it still imposed penalties to those that had it. Darkvision took away the complexities, but also all of the disadvantages. So if I do make a change, it won't be to the 3e rules.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> So, for folks that, like you, don't like the way the 5e rules work



More like don't remember the way the 5e rules work...

Remember: the OP of this thread said:

*"Too many people [] tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision."*

I'm assuming we're discussing ways to ameliorate this issue. 

My approach is very direct: remove the things you tend to forget - since that's a proven way to handle it 



> , the 3e rules are as good as any to go with



Thank you.

Personally, I think the 3E darkvision rules are even better than "as good as any", since they're exactly the same as 5E Darkvision except that specific part people tend to forget! 

Anyway. All that remains is to ask...


> To me, having low-light vision that doesn't have an intermediate (dim) step is a problem.



What do you mean?

Wherever you have bright-dim-dark, you have it with low-light vision too? 
(A torch just provides 40 ft bright light followed by 40 ft dim light, instead of the usual 20/20 ft.)

And above ground, you use the same DM adjucation for low-light vision at night as you adjucate regular vision during the day.

So I'm afraid I don't understand "having a dim step" (and what's good about it). 

Regards,
Zapp


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> *No.*
> 
> This is exactly what I've been trying to say.
> 
> ...





Darkvision from the srd 3.5

Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black and white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.

So it is black and white vision without explicitely stating you see as if it was dim light.

And the distinction between low light and darkvision is a 3e thing. Before that it was infravision for elves amd dwarves alike. So it is really back to the roots.

So what are you trying to tell me? That because there are people who played 3e a lot mix up the rules? There are more rules that are more difficult for 3e players than players who never played it. So just purge your mind.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 20, 2018)

If people mix up the rule the fix is to...
Read the rule. It’s not that hard and an ‘all dark vision’ party isn’t a problem.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So it is black and white vision without explicitely stating you see as if it was dim light.



What are you trying to insinuate here? 

In 3E Darkvision does not impose any penalty on Perception. The reason it does not "explicitly state" you see as if dim light is because you don't see as if dim light.



> So what are you trying to tell me? That because there are people who played 3e a lot mix up the rules? There are more rules that are more difficult for 3e players than players who never played it. So just purge your mind.



A strange thing to say in a thread specifically started because many players forget about pesky detail. If you don't have any issues, why are you even in this thread?


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

I dislike 5e darkvision.  Anything that makes PC's feel light isn't or may not be required isn't a good thing IMO.

I would be much more okay with darkvision if it was just on a very few select races.  I like the low light vision suggestion.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> What are you trying to insinuate here?
> 
> In 3E Darkvision does not impose any penalty on Perception. The reason it does not "explicitly state" you see as if dim light is because you don't see as if dim light.
> 
> ...




No. Does not impose disadvantage. Bit it is still black and white vision which should have some kind of penalty. Strange that in 3e it had no disadvantge. Sounds very much as seing not as good as in bright light or human vision in low light scenarios... maybe a bit brighter.
I am in this thread because your solution is bad as you introduce a new kind of vision that was a 3e and 4e thing and dis not exist before. You want to revert a good rule for no reason. The thread was started as a reminder for those that are forgetful and I think just reading the rules helps. 3e did a lot of things differently. And in many cases knowledge of 3e rules interferes with 5e rules. So you can either houserule as you do with all new problems that arise or you can just play by the rules and know that even with darkvision carrying a dim light source is very usful so the disadvantage of not having it is not as big as in 3e.
Just for your information: before 3e darkvision was called infravision and allowed you to see the surrounding's heat radiation or as often played like the military sees through night vision goggles... which was not seeing as good as in bright light and thus illuminating your home in the underdark was useful.
So 5e actually in a way returns to its roots with darkvision only changing darkness to dim light and actually makes running the game easier if you remeber that 60ft is a hard limit. After that every race perceives the same. 3e low light vision was making the game more complicated.
So why do I post in this thread? To encourage players to try the rules as they are before making houserules to fix a nonexisting problem.
Edit: And to remind people that even total darkness does not reduce your passive perception at all as you still can hear perfectly. Yes, maybe you don't see the threat, but then you can still light a torch.


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Edit: And to remind people that even total darkness does not reduce your passive perception at all as you still can hear perfectly. Yes, maybe you don't see the threat, but then you can still light a torch.




Ummmmmm... Say what????


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

From dndbeyond:

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. 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.
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.

I don't know if you want a citation or if you think that it was obvious and no explanation needed... bit since the op thinks you have disadvantage on pp for dim light conditions, I think I explain I show the relevant text and explain it.

Passive perception is usually used when a creature tries to surprise you or stay hidden. In both cases the creature not only has to stay unseen but also unheard. Bad vision does not impose disadvantage on listen checks (perception that relies on hearing) or even checks that rely on smelling.
So there is no reduction of pp per se. But of course, there now is a certain stealth range where the sneaking person stays unseen but not unheard and thus not hidden.
Maybe you can have your party also have disadvantage on listen checks because your heavily armored party members are too noisy... but in that case you can as well carry a torch because you attract more enemies than you would with your torch amyway. At least you have a chance to spot the enemies beyond 60ft range.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't know if you want a citation or if you think that it was obvious and no explanation needed... bit since the op thinks you have disadvantage on pp for dim light conditions, I think I explain I show the relevant text and explain it.



Um, you do have disadvantage to PP for dim light conditions. For vision, at least.

Also from DnDBeyond:

_*Passive Checks*
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

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

*10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check*

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

For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14. _

So, yes, you do have disadvantage to passive checks. It's just calculated as a -5 to the passive skill. My mistake was applying it to all perception, not just sight.

As I said in an earlier post, the rule is written to follow this flow:

IF the character has _Darkvision_ in the dark, THEN they see as if in _Dim Light_.
IF it's _Dim Light_, THEN the target is _Lightly Obscured_.
IF the target is _Lightly Obscured_, THEN character is at _Disadvantage on Vision Perception_ tests.

Passive Perception falls neatly into the rules in the corebook (it's actually one of the examples!).

Edit: the underlines are me, not dndbeyond.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> Also from DnDBeyond:
> 
> _*Passive Checks*
> A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
> ...




Yes. Good quotes. Of course you have disadvantage on PP relying on sight resulting in a -5 bonus.
By the rules PP is normally only question if someone sneaks up at you. In only very rare corner cases vision and hearing are seperated. A short incestigation didn't help me to find out if finding traps is determined by using PP or active P. If it is PP I think I have to revert my statement and of course, finding traps with PP is indead more difficult with darkvision and needs to be accounted for.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 20, 2018)

People keep focusing on creatures, but there is a heck of a lot more going on in the dark in a dungeon: clues, secret doors, traps, treasures, etc. None of these things make noise (typically). Noticing them relies on sight. Disadvantage to Wisdom (Perception) vision rolls means that a lot of these things are going to get missed. To me, that's huge. And that zombie/skeleton that's just sitting there, isn't moving or _breathing_! Relying on hearing to detect such a beast is gonna get ya in hot water.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> People keep focusing on creatures, but there is a heck of a lot more going on in the dark in a dungeon: clues, secret doors, traps, treasures, etc. None of these things make noise (typically). Noticing them relies on sight. Disadvantage to Wisdom (Perception) vision rolls means that a lot of these things are going to get missed. To me, that's huge. And that zombie/skeleton that's just sitting there, isn't moving or _breathing_! Relying on hearing to detect such a beast is gonna get ya in hot water.




All you say is true and I really don't want to deter from that. Still the OP states that PP is reduced by 5 which is not ultimately true. And what you describe is exavtly the reason why carrying a light source is a good idea even if you have darkvision.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> A short investigation didn't help me to find out if finding traps is determined by using PP or active P. If it is PP I think I have to revert my statement and of course, finding traps with PP is indead more difficult with darkvision and needs to be accounted for.



The first part of Lost Mines of Phandelver, Goblin Arrows, states with the following it two places: 

_If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap.

The character in the lead spots the hidden pit automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 15 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to spot the hidden pit._

So, using the starter set as an example, PP does find traps if the PP matches or exceeds the DC of the Wisdom (Perception) check to spot it. If the character has disadvantage on sight (which seems to be the natural thing to use to "spot" something), their PP drops by 5 making it more likely that they walk by or into the trap before seeing it.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> All you say is true and I really don't want to deter from that. Still the OP states that PP is reduced by 5 which is not ultimately true. And what you describe is exavtly the reason why carrying a light source is a good idea even if you have darkvision.



True, but  I posted the OP and have since corrected that OP a day or so ago to explicitly state that it's PP vision.

But we're starting to argue semantics and that path leads to MADNESS! Point is that some players (perhaps even most players) forget about the disadvantage to PP or AP sight when using darkvision in total darkness.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 20, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> True, but  I posted the OP and have since corrected that OP a day or so ago to explicitly state that it's PP vision.
> 
> But we're starting to argue semantics and that path leads to MADNESS! Point is that some players (perhaps even most players) forget about the disadvantage to PP or AP sight when using darkvision in total darkness.




Oh. Sorry about the OP. I now see it.
I am however not sure that most players or DMs forget it. I might say many forme 3e or 4e players might forget it and I think the thread is a really good one. I don't however think the solution is changing the rules. Instead I thank you for reminding us all to apply the rule.

To PP and AP. I seperated thosr two because I just didn't want to argue about another thing. But since you asked: AP is a lot less problematic because I assume most people usw light if they try to investigate something closer. Which leads to a different point: do investiagtion checks have disadvantage while relying on darkvision?


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Which leads to a different point: do investiagtion checks have disadvantage while relying on darkvision?



Hmm... Probably?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> First off, I'm not the one with the problems. I've already solved my game.
> 
> This is about this thread, where people are having difficulty remembering specifics about 5th edition darkvision. I am providing a suggestion on how to solve that. Perhaps surprisingly, this wasn't a issue before, so if you revert the changes from 3rd edition to 5th edition, maybe those issues go away?
> 
> ...




Yes, this thread is about the fact that some people forget that darkvision imposes disadvantage on Perception in the darkness. Perhaps the majority of those people that forget that are ones that played 3/3.5/Pathfinder/4e?

There are many people just picking up 5e, or those that played prior to 3e and didn't agree with the change that there was no disadvantage at all in the darkness for creatures that had darkvision (infravision). You can choose to contrast any edition you'd like. Just like I (and the collective we) can choose whichever one we'd like. And sources outside of D&D too. 

Yes, you've made it clear that one of your issues is that too many character races have darkvision. But if you alter the rules for vision it will affect more than just those races. For example, if there is a low-light vision option, there are scores of creatures that had it in 3e but don't have darkvision in 5e. Should they have it again? Are there other races that had low-light vision that now have darkvision? Furthermore, this particular thread doesn't have anything to do with PC races. It's just that they sometimes forget the effects of darkness on darkvision.

3e "just worked" for you. It has no more or less relevance than any other edition. It just happens to be the one you like best (in terms of vision rules). It also happens to be the same rule that 4e used. 

Kudos to you trying to help. So does that mean that others can't try to help? That perhaps there are other things regarding vision that other people like/don't like and that you're solution isn't one size fits all, and even potentially makes it worse for some of us? 

I have "tried it" - when 3e came out. We hated it. Despised it. We did like the simplicity, but we thought it was overpowered/unrealistic, for both low-light and darkvision. If you recall (or if you didn't know), hiding used to be a function of move silently and hide in shadows. Hiding in D&D was specifically focused on the shadows. The answer in 3e was to require concealment or cover to attempt to hide, and there are no shadows or concealment in total darkness.

I totally agree with you, if a creature can see without hindrance in total darkness, they'd never use light. Although that's not the description of drowish cities going back to at least _Menzoberranzan_ where things are lit with phosphorescent mosses and fungi, faerie fire, and such. But if darkness provides a significant disadvantage to your vision, then I still maintain that intelligent such creatures would use it. 

Having said that, I'll once again state that for many people, your solution will work just fine. It's worked for most since 3e came out. I still think that most of the people that are forgetting it are those that played earlier editions. The system is still much better than the infravision/ultravision system of OD&D/AD&D/BECMI, if a bit too powerful and simplistic. It's just not a solution I'm interested in.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "For creatures without darkvision, dim light (when our Perception is at a disadvantage) means we walk into things. We can't read. We can't see very far, so if we're outside and there are creatures that might be hunting us, we won't notice them. When our Perception is impaired, we are at a significant disadvantage. The only time that we would not want to use light is specifically when we want to be undetected, and be stealthy. Because light would make that impossible."
> 
> I will confess i have not followed all of these posts si i may be misding context here that makes this statement one referencing a house rule on perception in dim light. If that is the case then what i am about to say is possibly wrong.
> 
> ...




This is all within the DMs (and the players') interpretations of the rules. For me it also goes back to 1e combined with "common sense."

In 1e, you couldn't read with infravision. Furthermore, dim light in 5e is sufficient enough to give you disadvantage on Perception checks (passive or active). So, consider the real world - how dim would the light have to be for you to have "disadvantage" on perception checks? Pretty dim. You'll also notice that things naturally become black and white (grayscale) under those conditions, and that you can't read either. So when you're trying to be stealthy and sneak around, but then want to read that scroll? That's an interesting situation. If nobody in the underdark uses light because they all have darkvision that allows them to see without light with no problem, why did drow evolve the ability to cast darkness? Most are probably never exposed to light at all. Ever.

The rules cover specific circumstances where die rolls that come up fairly frequently. In addition, 5e is designed to be simpler and more streamlined, and remove many things that some folks don't consider "fun." By that broad measure, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is right. There are a lot of people that don't want to worry about creatures (or, sorry, _PCs_) with darkvision having disadvantage.

To us, the biggest factor that makes darkness fun is the environment itself. If you've ever explored a cave in poor lighting conditions, it's quite a challenge. Even in our houses, where we "know" where everything is, becomes much more difficult to navigate in the dim light of night. But in a cave with uneven floors and all sorts of dangers, movement slows to a crawl without some sort of light. So the question of whether a creature with darkvision has disadvantage under total darkness is a big deal for us. I totally get that some folks don't want to deal with that aspect. But it's a return to form for those of us who still remember using "hide in shadows" instead of a Stealth check. 

For Stealth checks themselves - you'd have a significant advantage in dim light if you're just standing still. But what if you're moving? Again, what if you're moving across uneven ground? Does that make a difference? Enough to impose disadvantage (or eliminate any advantage you have). It's harder to remain undetected when you keep saying, "ow!"s or accidentally kick a rock across the ground. 

So the DM determines when passive Perception matters. Going down a 10' wide hallway of fitted stone built by dwarves? Not needed. A natural cave with an uneven floor and risks that can actually cause damage? Yes. When there's a trap to be detected? Of course.

We don't make constant checks, of course. But if everybody is moving at a slowed rate, since they can't see well, it's also a good reminder that you're at a disadvantage in this lighting. For walking into something? Not often, but if you're trying to flee, then sure. Or in the midst of combat when you roll a 1? That's a perfect time to remind them that they can't see that well. Make a Dexterity save to avoid falling prone as you trip on that stalagmite that you didn't notice. 

My point is that whenever the rules impose disadvantage, it's a significant disadvantage, and it's a representation of how much a given circumstance impairs your ability to do something. And that impairment is always an issue under those circumstances, and the DM (and players) should take that into account at all times under those circumstances.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 20, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Oh. Sorry about the OP. I now see it.
> I am however not sure that most players or DMs forget it. I might say many forme 3e or 4e players might forget it and I think the thread is a really good one. I don't however think the solution is changing the rules. Instead I thank you for reminding us all to apply the rule.
> 
> To PP and AP. I seperated thosr two because I just didn't want to argue about another thing. But since you asked: AP is a lot less problematic because I assume most people usw light if they try to investigate something closer. Which leads to a different point: *do investiagtion checks have disadvantage while relying on darkvision?*




I agree. And frankly, in addition to reminding folks to apply the rules, if your table doesn't want to worry about it (or doesn't think creatures with darkvision should have disadvantage), then just ignore that part of the rule. It's not really necessary to do anything more than that, really, unless you want to.

As for investigation - I think that's circumstantial, but more often than not, no.

I consider Investigation to be related to reasoning, and Perception related to intuition. Note that neither are a direct measure of your senses. You have disadvantage on Perception checks relying on sight in dim light. It doesn't have any impact on, say, listening at a door. 

For example, Perception picks up on small clues that point to something "not feeling right" and that there might be something out of place. Investigation takes those clues, the floor is a bit cleaner at the edges rather than the middle, and says "aha! There's a trap in the middle of the floor." It's more about piecing together disparate pieces of information, so it doesn't always rely on sight.

However, in many cases, we don't bother to separate the two skills. In the example above, your Wisdom lets you notice something is out of place. It's just as easy to say your intuition says, "it's a trap." But then you need to discover the extent of the trap, what's trapped, what's not, how it might be triggered, etc. All those are investigation, but might rely more on touch and spacial awareness rather than direct inspection with sight.


----------



## Mistwell (May 20, 2018)

I happen to like the Skulker feat, which deals with this issue. However, I think more people would seriously consider it if it also gave +1 to Dex. For reference, it currently does the following three things:

You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. (Which means of course you can try to hide in the dark from creatures that are using only darkvision to see). 

When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.
*
Dim light doesn’t impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight.*


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> More like don't remember the way the 5e rules work...
> 
> Remember: the OP of this thread said:
> 
> ...




Or remind them of the rule? That works too!

In regards to a dim step - with low light vision you can either see perfectly, or not at all. There's no intermediate step where you can see, but not as well (that is, you have disadvantage). For a creature with low-light vision there is no such thing as dim light with the 3e rules. That doesn't make sense to me. 

What's "good" about it is that there are circumstances where your vision is impaired, but you aren't blinded. Not so good for you, but it's the way things work. There's light bright enough for you to see without impairment, light that'd bright enough to you to still see but with impairment, and a state where you just can't see.


----------



## Henry (May 21, 2018)

In four years, this is honestly the first time i’ve Even heard this, and I guarantee my group hasn’t been using it this way; we have been using it the same way that 3.5 and Pathfinder used it, never realizing there was a difference. I’ll be sure to bring this to their attention, now, though!


----------



## CapnZapp (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Or remind them of the rule? That works too!



If that's your idea of a constructive houserule, sure.



> In regards to a dim step - with low light vision you can either see perfectly, or not at all. There's no intermediate step where you can see, but not as well (that is, you have disadvantage). For a creature with low-light vision there is no such thing as dim light with the 3e rules. That doesn't make sense to me.



I don't follow.

By the rules you (I'm assuming you're a human with no special vision) can either see perfectly, or not at all. It's called "day" and "night".

I would have thought you have no problems adjucating the game when a human PC is out adventuring in the day - in towns, forests and hills. There aren't any intermediate steps in human day vision.

Assuming you don't either - then that is exactly how it works for an Elf with low-light vision during the night. No changes.

I don't see why anyone would need intermediate steps. (If you really need them 3E offered distance penalties, though getting rid of them in 5E was a good thing).

---

As for underground, low-light vision does have the intermediate step: a torch provides 40 ft of bright light and then 40 ft of dim light. No changes. Just double each range.

If anything, it is Darkvision that lacks any intermediate step. It works for 60 ft and then - nothing.

---

But since you have such... special... requirements, maybe we just end our discussion. I'm not talking to you in private after all, and I'm reaching out to everyone that recognizes the OPs plight.

And my reply to anyone saying "remind them of the rule" is "maybe drop the rule instead, that's way simpler"


----------



## CapnZapp (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I totally agree with you, if a creature can see without hindrance in total darkness, they'd never use light. Although that's not the description of drowish cities going back to at least _Menzoberranzan_ where things are lit with phosphorescent mosses and fungi, faerie fire, and such. But if darkness provides a significant disadvantage to your vision, then I still maintain that intelligent such creatures would use it.



I never question using light in well-defended outposts (let alone major cities). 

Again this is about player characters, or any small group of vulnerable numbers.

The same drow that loves to light up their city would be foolish indeed if they used light when travelling on patrol. That would immediately squander their greatest asset: moving about in total darkness, and even spotting other darkvision-enabled races before they're seen themselves (since 120 ft Darkvision is twice the normal range).

Suggesting that creatures with Darkvision still travel with torches is not a solution. It is a problem - because it's utter insanity. 

So removing the Perception penalty makes perfect sense, since players are no longer enticed to think maybe light would be a bright idea.

The problem then is that it's "too easy" to put together an "all-Dark" party of heroes. Remember, that NPCs scout in darkness is no problem (actually it makes perfect sense). PCs scouting in darkness, however, is.

So we need a way for most parties to feature at least one hero without Darkvision. And know what? That's another thing reverting back to 3E solves for us!


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If that's your idea of a constructive houserule, sure.
> 
> I don't follow.
> 
> ...




Umm, a constructive houserule? I don't recall any request of such by the OP. Just an observation by them that some people forget that a creature with darkvision has disadvantage on Perception checks in darkness, and that they didn't like the idea of them _not_ having such a disadvantage because it seems too powerful. It really doesn't seem to be a request for any sort of rules change at all, actually. Simply an observation and a reminder that dungeons are more dangerous when you remember that a creature with darkvision has disadvantage on their Perception checks when in darkness.

As for the intermediate step I mention, it's really just the possibility that no matter what type of vision a creature has, there is some level of brightness that means they have disadvantage on Perception checks.

No, by the rules, I (a human) can see without penalty in bright light (day), with disadvantage (dim light), or not at all (darkness).  

A creature with darkvision is with no penalty in bright or dim light, with disadvantage in darkness, and not at all in magical darkness.

With 3e/4e low-light vision, an elf sees in bright light, dim light as bright light, or not at all (darkness). Your 40 feet of bright light and 40 feet of dim light is just 80 feet of bright light to a creature. There is no dim light and no point where they suffer disadvantage due to the level of light. That's all.

Hey, I'm not saying everybody cares, nor to I feel compelled to make anybody care. Just pointing out that by design both normal and darkvision feature a level of brightness that imposes disadvantage on their Perception check. The 3e/4e design for low-light vision does not. Each group has to decide whether they care or not. Even in my expanded example I pointed out that most people (including us) don't care. We're just sticking with the 5e rules as is.

I wouldn't consider them "special" (or requirements), but then apparently I'm "ridiculous" and "stupid" too, and I'm sure some other things I've missed (not debating it, just thanking you for your observations).

I have different thoughts about how I'd address many rules, and point out that it's one of the best things about the game. That whatever aspects of the narrative nature of the game that matter to you, the rules will generally support.


----------



## FrogReaver (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Umm, a constructive houserule? I don't recall any request of such by the OP. Just an observation by them that some people forget that a creature with darkvision has disadvantage on Perception checks in darkness, and that they didn't like the idea of them _not_ having such a disadvantage because it seems too powerful. It really doesn't seem to be a request for any sort of rules change at all, actually. Simply an observation and a reminder that dungeons are more dangerous when you remember that a creature with darkvision has disadvantage on their Perception checks when in darkness.




Another signed and framed example of Enworld being Enworld...  I mean since when did it become deviant to post about house rules we use and found useful in place of a certain rule?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 21, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Another signed and framed example of Enworld being Enworld...  I mean since when did it become deviant to post about house rules we use and found useful in place of a certain rule?




It's not, nor was that what I was saying.

I was responding to the comment "if that's your idea of a constructive houserule, sure" when I noted that the easiest solution was, in fact, to simply remind folks what the actual rule is. 

I think it's very clear from my posts that I'm hugely in favor of house rules, and part of what makes the game D&D to me is that it is extremely flexible and that each group can, and should, make it their own, and I have provided a few options in that regard as well. I love to see what other folks do and don't do, and frequently modify our own rules specifically because of what's been discussed here.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (May 21, 2018)

While aware of how Darkvision performs during play, we upped the ante by giving everyone without Darkvision the ability, after 10 minutes, to discern space and colour in anything other than total darkness and after 3 hours the ability to navigate their surroundings with no penalties, while combat and fine tool manipulation is at Disadvantage.

Races with Darkvision operate similarly, but adapt quicker, being able to discern space and colour after 1 minute and navigate their surroundings after 30 minutes and again suffering Disadvantage while in combat/attempting fine tool manipulation.

Finally, sudden exposure to bright light blinds anyone in the second stage of adjustment _(after 3 hours for those races without Darkvision, 30 mins with) _for 1 round. 

Yes, its a level of complexity. Yes, its worked so far and adds a level of realism that we appreciate.


----------



## Mistwell (May 21, 2018)

The original post:



Doc_Klueless said:


> Too many people including Critical Role's Matt Mercer (who is often used as an example of an excellent DM) by his own admission tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision. Namely that perceptions rolls with Darkvision are at disadvantage. Which is huge when traipsing through a trap/creature infested dungeons.
> 
> Oh, most people remember the fact that it can only see things in black and white (and I suppose grey), but it also mimics Dim Light. Dim Light conditions impose disadvantage on perception checks which also means that it's -5 on PASSIVE perception scores that deal with sight.
> 
> ...




Someone suggested the best way to address this is to remind the players of the rule.

You responded:



CapnZapp said:


> If that's your idea of a constructive houserule, sure.




I don't think the OP is asking for a houserule. He appears to be encouraging people to remember the rule about disadvantage. 

Do you have any opinion on how to encourage people to better remember and use the disadvantage rule, rather than changing the topic to houserules?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> This is all within the DMs (and the players') interpretations of the rules. For me it also goes back to 1e combined with "common sense."
> 
> In 1e, you couldn't read with infravision. Furthermore, dim light in 5e is sufficient enough to give you disadvantage on Perception checks (passive or active). So, consider the real world - how dim would the light have to be for you to have "disadvantage" on perception checks? Pretty dim. You'll also notice that things naturally become black and white (grayscale) under those conditions, and that you can't read either. So when you're trying to be stealthy and sneak around, but then want to read that scroll? That's an interesting situation. If nobody in the underdark uses light because they all have darkvision that allows them to see without light with no problem, why did drow evolve the ability to cast darkness? Most are probably never exposed to light at all. Ever.
> 
> ...



My common sense i would like to think has improved since 1e days, but certainly that is debateable.

First off, obviously any gm can house rule the vision and light rules to whatever degree they want - i did.

But there is a clear difference between "disadvantage" as a penalty and "disadvantage *and* require rolls for bunches of stuff that are automatic - no roll required." 

What you seem to be suggesting is that not only should disadvantahe on rolled checks be applied but also a whole lot of other things require rolls to even attempt.

In combat, you gain disadvantage on attacks made while prone - what other not specified common sense from 1e penalties do you apply? Do they have to roll to successfully draw a weapon or ammo? 

Or is the idea that disadvantage means more than the roll only applying to vision?

With infravision being its own thing in 5e, whether you could read with infravision in pre-5e has little sway.

I think its important to look at 5e itself when looking at the vision rules to get a handle on what dim light means.

"A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. 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."

I cannot apeak for everyone, but i think if GMs started telling folks the cannot read their maps (or need to pass disad check vs dc) in patchy fog or moderate foliage and supporting it as "common sense since 1e"  there would be a lot of WTF responses. 

Further do wn the RAW specifies dim light as shadows including "The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light." I say again telling someone they cant read (or need to pass disad check vs dc) their maps at dawn likely gets WTF responses.

Again, obviously, a gm can house rule special additional,penalties for DV 
, or dim light or a broader general rule for "when you get disadvantage" for any game subject to only that game's agreed upon hpuse rule policy.

But that means its not the core rules at fault problem if problems arise out of that.

Asude: My personal disagreement with the RAW lighting vision is that it created serious problems to the point that folks did not forget it bit intentionally handwaved it for playability. That seemed to make darkvision more of a necessity to survive and lack of darkvision way too massively exploitable - due to such a preponderance of "darkness - blindness" in everyday cases. 

That puts darkvision at mostly necessity and outdoors at night without it massively disadvantaged instead of simply making darkvision an advantage.

It should be fairly easy under RAW lighting for any human and halfling travellers or  caravans to be easy pickins for DV enabled raiders unless its a "exceptionally brilliant full moon" for instance - barting rather significant magical assistance.
This kind of thing leads to what quite a few gms describe as more or less "does somebody have torch and their sheet?" dismissal of the situation altogether.

What i prefer to have are consistent and playable rules for the visiin and lighting. 

Going the route of adding more severe penalties by house rule  to the borderline edge case is going in the wrong direction to me. The more onerous you make even the dim lighting situations the more necessary you make darkvision or the more likely you make "we cannot go there cuz of vision problem" decisions and the more likely you make "shoot out the lights" an oppressively threatening potentally overwhelming option.

That way lies "only adventure on bright sunny days" madness.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The original post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Remembering rules is a lroblem beyond the vision. Have seen plenty of forgotten concentration checks and bless bonuses.

My mechanicsl counter-foil  is to use pre-printed "circumstance  cards"  and to give one to a player when various conditions or situational effects apply, positive and negative.

So as GM i make sure to have the ones commonly needed or relevant to a planned encounter on hand.

If you use minis and grids, colored cotton balls are a time honored approach - can even color code circumstance cards to the balls but that can get problematic with multi-effects so likely just a red (problem), blue (boon) and white (mixed) ball to serve as reminder to check cards is good. 

A gm could also use gray balls of cotton just tossed down on the map to represent lighting or vision- with circumstance cards out by the map sides.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> My common sense i would like to think has improved since 1e days, but certainly that is debateable.
> 
> First off, obviously any gm can house rule the vision and light rules to whatever degree they want - i did.
> 
> ...




 “Dim light” due to patchy fog is different than the dim light of dawn and the dim light of a moonless night, etc., and not everything needs a rule.

To me “common sense” which could also be described as “table consensus” is what the table agrees to in terms of things that aren’t covered in the rules. So your table might differ than ours, but it’s consistency at your table that matters. At ours, darkvision isn’t sufficient to read by, nor is a starry night. In fog, it’s not a hindrance. Mostly because fog isn’t a hindrance due to it being dim light, it just has similar effects with regards to being able to clearly see beyond a certain distance.

I adjudicate such things on the fly based on what makes sense to me, based on research and experience, including experience as a DM and running many editions and RPGs. But if somebody at the table questions it, I’m happy to explain my reasoning, and the table can decide if that will be the ruling going forward or not. The entire purpose for the rules to us is to get out of the way as much as possible, and to help us determine what’s possible and whether something succeeds or not. We’ll agree pretty quickly on a decision in the moment, and discuss the final rule after the session, recognizing that the final adjudication may be different than this single instance. 

People at night, whether today or in medical times, use light at night to do such things. They build fires because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We expect they’ll do the same here.  If that’s something you don’t care for or wand to hand wave, there’s no problem with that. Our characters generally act the same way that people have for thousands of years. And while ogres, dragons, goblins, or whatever may not have existed, they thought they did. It didn’t alter their use of fire and light at night. 

Most of the time, we address the majority of these issues with passive scores and mitigating circumstances. So being knocked prone might have other impacts, although most of the time it’s not necessary to worry about anything else. If you’re knocked prone into thick mud or deep snow, on the other hand, then you might have to deal with other things. Our approach is to roll dice less and focus o. The characters and the narrative more. 

It has little to do with 1e or other editions, other than to adjust rules to maintain in-game consistency in the campaign that has been ongoing. The common sense aspect has to do with the here and now. If something doesn’t make sense to us now, then it doesn’t really matter what we decided 20 years ago. There are plenty of things that we have changed over the years. 

So yes, we allow for much greater variety of effects and impacts than simply consulting a rule that says, “this is what happens.” If you are knocked prone into 6” of water, the whole situation is going to play out quite differently than falling on a bare stone floor. To start with, you’re likely to be grappled in an attempt to drown you.

And as far as I’m concerned, there’s very little that is automatic, no roll required. However, the majority of that is taken care of by passive scores, and unless the circumstances are significant enough, even disadvantage is usually not enough to alter the results, and thus eliminate the need for a roll. For example, you don’t typically need to worry about being able to stand. But if you’re on a ship that is struck by a large wave? That changes things. 

We like the way vision works in our campaign because it makes sense to us. Right now it works pretty much as 5e describes, with a carryover from our long-running campaign that you can’t read by it. If you have disadvantage on Perception due to lack of light (not because of any other source of obscured vision) you can’t read.

We’ve been happy with that interpretation from the ‘70s and see no need to change it now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other games that do the same. I’m sure there are many that don’t. Probably most at this point, because it hasn’t been a part of the rules since 3e. So why would they if they’ve never played earlier editions? That doesn’t really have any bearing on us. What doesn’t make sense to us is that the elf suddenly sees differently because there’s a new edition released. Abilities suddenly changing due to a new edition was a running gag in Order of the Stick for a while.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> “Dim light” due to patchy fog is different than the dim light of dawn and the dim light of a moonless night, etc., and not everything needs a rule.
> 
> To me “common sense” which could also be described as “table consensus” is what the table agrees to in terms of things that aren’t covered in the rules. So your table might differ than ours, but it’s consistency at your table that matters. At ours, darkvision isn’t sufficient to read by, nor is a starry night. In fog, it’s not a hindrance. Mostly because fog isn’t a hindrance due to it being dim light, it just has similar effects with regards to being able to clearly see beyond a certain distance.
> 
> ...



Ok so now i see more clearly...

As i stated in the post where i started the response on the disadvantage means read problems etc - if that was referting to house rules them my response was void.

Your reply "This is all within the DMs (and the players') interpretations of the rules." Led me to further believe you were referting to the 5e rules not house rules.

From your response here, more detailed, its obvious what you are referring to as "interpretation of the rules" are basically house rules even possibly ad hoc house rules. 

I myself house ruled the light and vision in 5e to give what me and my players found more satisfactory play.

I believe we may agree on one aspect, the basic 5e core lighting rules without "house rules" or significant "re-imaginging" dont lead to the more commonly expected setting element where travel and being outside at night is risky but not suicidal. 

We do have sone differing opinions on auto-success but thats a different thread topic.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 21, 2018)

I really did like the 3.0 concealment rules. Everything from 10% miss chance up to 50% for toral concealment. Stralit night mighht be 40%.

Now that i don't want to change the rules I assume total darkness is not pitch black in most cases but rather so little light that you can't discern anything more than a few feet away from you. So you can still navigate in a starlit night with total darkness around you. Your human eyes are powerful tools. In effect it is like darkvision as you indeed only see black and white in those conditions not being able to discern many details. Darkvision just allows to work under no light at all even in pitch black conditions you might find in underdark surroundings and work up to a range of 60ft so well that it negates disadvantage on attack rolls.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> As for the intermediate step I mention, it's really just the possibility that no matter what type of vision a creature has, there is some level of brightness that means they have disadvantage on Perception checks.



The rules don't say a human gets a penalty to (or even Disadvantage) to a perception check made at a distance. Yet I submit nobody has any issues adjucating such a situation, except possibly you, and even then probably to create a problem with my suggestion that really isn't there.

Just like a human can get penalties even in broad daylight, obviously an elf can get them under a full moon. 

Otherwise abilities such as Barbarian Eagle Totem means nothing.

Your claim that you are prevented by the rules from applying disadvantage to low-light vision at night outdoors is just as feeble as it sounds like. 

Sure, you've made up your mind not to use my suggestion (and what your business in this thread even is, well probably never know!)

But don't make my suggestion out to be problematic when it isn't.

I'm suggesting that what worked perfectly before can easily be used in 5th edition.  

I'm saying that 5th edition made changes that themselves are the cause of the OPs case.

So maybe the simplest solution is to get rid of those changes?


----------



## CapnZapp (May 21, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The original post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In this case it's better to teach a man how to fish.

While we're off topic, let's adress the elephant in the room:

Darkvision is a piss-poor replacement to represent how an Owl's vision works.

I haven't brought it up until now, but 5th edition changed forest creatures so that they are blind beyond 60 ft (20 m).

Since this is clearly preposterous, my easy fix has yet another advantage over simply remembering the unintuitive RAW of 5E


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I don't recall any request of such by the OP. Just an observation by them that some people forget that a creature with darkvision has disadvantage on Perception checks in darkness. ... Simply an observation and a reminder that dungeons are more dangerous when you remember that a creature with darkvision has disadvantage on their Perception checks when in darkness.






Mistwell said:


> I don't think the OP is asking for a houserule. He appears to be encouraging people to remember the rule about disadvantage.



While both of these are true about my OP, posts are like children. You raise them as best as you can. But once they leave the house they're on their own!

I've found the topic interesting, for the most part.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The rules don't say a human gets a penalty to (or even Disadvantage) to a perception check made at a distance. Yet I submit nobody has any issues adjucating such a situation, except possibly you, and even then probably to create a problem with my suggestion that really isn't there.
> 
> Just like a human can get penalties even in broad daylight, obviously an elf can get them under a full moon.
> 
> ...




I make no claim that the rules prevent me from anything, nor have I stated that I have any issue adjudicating such situations.

My "complaint" is simply this: If using the 3e/4e rules for low-light vision, at what level of lighting does a creature with low-light vision suffer the effects of "dim" light?

That is, where they can still see but (in 5e terms and rules) they have disadvantage in the same way that a PC with normal vision does in dim light, or a creature with darkvision has in darkness?

Regardless of your answer, you probably don't care. Hey, whatever. From a game design standpoint, and a logical standpoint. it just makes sense to me that as the level of light decreases, there is a point where a creature with vision can still see, but not see as well as they do when in "bright" light, whatever the level of brightness is. It's not complicated, it's simply that there's a continuum that's consistent in the other types of vision from "no penalty" to "penalty" to "I can't see a damn thing." For a creature with darkvision, the step between the last two is magical darkness.

In the 3e/4e approach, the only creatures that have that step are those that have "normal" vision.

My business here is the same as yours and everybody else's here - to provide my opinion and thoughts on the question/rules at hand. 

The two simplest solutions would be to either, 1. remember the rule, or 2. eliminate the penalty for creatures with darkvision in darkness (which the OP specifically stated they didn't like). 

Your solution not only eliminates the penalty for creatures with darkvision in darkness (which the OP stated they didn't like), but it also suggests they add another type of vision, and assign it to either just PCs, or perhaps PCs and many other creatures.

Regardless, it amounts to 1. Change one rule to something the OP doesn't like, and 2. Add more rules that you might forget. So no, I disagree that it's the easiest solution for the OP, and really for new players. It is the easiest solution for people switching over from 3e/4e because it's what they are used to.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Ok so now i see more clearly...
> 
> As i stated in the post where i started the response on the disadvantage means read problems etc - if that was referting to house rules them my response was void.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I wouldn't call recognizing that the impediment to your vision is different for fog, foliage, and dim light a house rule, ad hoc or otherwise.

Those are simply examples of circumstances where your vision is impacted enough that you have disadvantage on Perception checks. That the rules use the same penalty for all three circumstances doesn't preclude you from recognizing that fact that the causes and their impact are different and adjudicating accordingly.

I don't consider traveling outside at night suicidal, but there's a reason why people, even today, don't travel through the wilderness at night, preferring to set up camp and rest. I think that's well reflected in the 5e rules as is. People without darkvision have disadvantage in dim light, and it's worse in total darkness. So they use light, but since most portable light sources have a relatively small radius (too small to be safe outdoors), they will tend to set up camp for the night.

I use the 5e vision rules just as they are. As I stated, we just happen maintain the previously existing rule (not for a rule's sake, but because it makes sense to us) that in light that is dim enough to cause a penalty, you can't read.

I don't think anybody would question it if I stated you can't read in darkness. 5e lumps both being outdoors at night and being in a dungeon as darkness. I don't know about you, but I've been outside in the country at night, away from artificial light sources, and while I can't read in those conditions (except for a bright moon). But it it substantially different than being in a cave without light (a circumstance I've also been in several times). I would consider the first to be dim light, and the second darkness. I would consider light to be bright enough to read by enough light that it doesn't impose a penalty to Perception. So my threshold for dim light and darkness is a bit different than described in the PHB. 

Having said that, darkness also imposes disadvantage on attacks, and thinking about it, perhaps a dark night is what I _would_ consider darkness.So perhaps that's the threshold for being able to read - darkness, or when the light is poor enough that you have disadvantage on Perception and attacks.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't call recognizing that the impediment to your vision is different for fog, foliage, and dim light a house rule, ad hoc or otherwise.
> 
> Those are simply examples of circumstances where your vision is impacted enough that you have disadvantage on Perception checks. That the rules use the same penalty for all three circumstances doesn't preclude you from recognizing that fact that the causes and their impact are different and adjudicating accordingly.
> 
> ...



You dont want to call adding in a rule from previous editions a house rule - thats fine and dandy.

Have great games.


----------



## Mistwell (May 21, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> In this case it's better to teach a man how to fish.
> 
> While we're off topic, let's adress the elephant in the room:
> 
> ...




Maybe the OP should have made this a "plus" thread to persuade you to not change the subject and to make a positive contribution to the topic he raised? Or perhaps you should start your own thread about Darkvision/Infravision house rules?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 22, 2018)

Doc_Klueless said:


> Too many people including Critical Role's Matt Mercer (who is often used as an example of an excellent DM) by his own admission tend to forget the drawbacks of darkvision. Namely that perceptions rolls with Darkvision are at disadvantage. Which is huge when traipsing through a trap/creature infested dungeons.
> 
> Oh, most people remember the fact that it can only see things in black and white (and I suppose grey), but it also mimics Dim Light. Dim Light conditions impose disadvantage on perception checks which also means that it's -5 on PASSIVE perception scores that deal with sight.
> 
> ...




Here's another approach that I don't think has been mentioned.

Use the 5e rules as written, except:

Creatures with superior darkvision don't have disadvantage on Perception checks in darkness.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 22, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> You dont want to call adding in a rule from previous editions a house rule - thats fine and dandy.
> 
> Have great games.




The difference between fog, foliage and darkness has nothing to do with earlier editions. But whatever. 

Thanks and you too!


----------



## ClaytonCross (May 22, 2018)

I laugh because my GM read something about this and came prepared to engage the rule and make darkness a scarier place. This was intended to effect me more than most since I am the groups scout. ... Whoever, I am Warlock scout with devil's sight which means perception checks of under 120ft are not effected by darkness AT ALL so he said "ok make your perception check at disadvantage due to limited light and the use of dark vision as you scout." I replied, "I don't have dark vision I have darkvison I am human, but I have devil's sight as a warlock and I see as if in bright light for 120ft also I have Eye's of the eagle and since you specified this is a visual test I have advantage." After him reading the Devil's Sight invocation and the eyes of the eagle magic item description, I roll high (20+) still failed spot the vampire ambush until int was 5ft away moving toward me and it put me in "surprised status" even though I have the alert feat and I am immune to the surprise condition while conscious. I pointed this out, "oh well will let you not be surprised in the future but I am not ret-coning this its already happened"  .... all further tests checking for danger since that happened have been investigation, lol. 

So GMs remember Devil's sight ignores this restraint and is a thing for warlocks and some demons/fiends.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 22, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> snip




Okay, so now that all your efforts to discredit, question and invalidate my suggestion have boiled down to "don't like it; rather use other houserules", maybe if there is nothing further, you can let me present my contribution without further interference. Thank you.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 22, 2018)

To any newcomer of the thread:

One great idea is to treat your forgetfulness as an opportunity to get rid of a few ill-advised changes 5th edition made.

If you reintroduce low-light vision to the game, lots of issues resolve themselves almost as if my magic!  

Not only can you remove the disadvantage to Perception you keep forgetting about, but you can also reduce the number of PHB races with Darkvision by three: give Elf, Half-Elf and Gnome low-light vision instead of darkvision. 

This reduces the tendency of city slicker DMs to have underdark races carry light in patrols (a big nono). It also allows forest animals to hunt prey at larger distances than 20 meters.

The best thing about this houserule suggestion is that it's proven to be functional and easy to use!  

(Indeed, D&D itself used it for a whole decade. Eager to reduce conditions and states, unfortunately 5E removed it without thinking it through. Good news is - it's very easy to rollback the changes.)

Anyway, just a suggestion  

Cheers!


----------



## Ilbranteloth (May 22, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Okay, so now that all your efforts to discredit, question and invalidate my suggestion have boiled down to "don't like it; rather use other houserules", maybe if there is nothing further, you can let me present my contribution without further interference. Thank you.




Huh? I have no intention, nor have I attempted to discredit anything you'd suggested. I simply stated that I didn't care for what you were proposing, and why.

Furthermore, my objections are to the design of the 3e rules for vision - it's not your houserule. It was the published RAW for 3e through 4e. The only objection I have to what you propose is to reintroduce a rule I didn't like in the first place.

I obviously didn't do a very good job at explaining what I don't like, because based on what you've stated in further examples you aren't understanding my issues. I'm OK with that, because I certainly don't think you'd be intentionally trying to troll me or bait me, and I don't think you're stupid either. My failure to explain myself lies squarely on my shoulders. Oh, and my consideration of what you and others have said here is also what led me to another houserule option that I hadn't thought about.

In the end, it's not really relevant whether you understand why I don't like it, and you certainly don't have to agree with it. I realized that I was spending a lot of time trying to find a different way to explain my thoughts, when it's really irrelevant because we aren't going to agree on what each of us thinks is a solution. Again, there's no problem with that, that's the beauty of the game. It can work with all sorts of different types of players, with different perspectives and ideas. 

Regardless, I wish you well. You've repeated your suggestion multiple times in the thread, and I see you've posted it again. In fact, I will help ensure that it is not lost since I replied to you, and to avoid causing further interference I will post it here too. I'm certainly not here to get in your (or anybody else's) way in presenting their ideas for the game.

For everybody else, here's [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s well-tested solution (2 full editions plus Pathfinder) for all of your darkvision woes! Enjoy!



CapnZapp said:


> To any newcomer of the thread:
> 
> One great idea is to treat your forgetfulness as an opportunity to get rid of a few ill-advised changes 5th edition made.
> 
> ...


----------



## nexalis (May 23, 2018)

Take a second look at the *Skulker* feat as well.  I've always been puzzled as to why this feat seems to get so little love in the community.  After reading this thread, I now realize its because people are ignoring the darkness = dim light aspect of the darkvision rules. 

Skulker becomes a lot more attractive for characters who plan to operate in the dark once you realize that:



it lets you hide in plain sight from anyone who is relying exclusively on darkvision, and
it lets you scout around without a light source sans disadvantage on visual Perception rolls (because no good sneak wants to signal his or her presence by carrying around a light source!)


----------

