Darkvision: Don't forget the Disadvantage & limitations!

[CapnZapp]

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. [emoji2]

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? [emoji3]

 

[CapnZapp]

The original post:



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

You responded:



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?

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 [emoji2] [emoji106]

 

[Doc_Klueless]

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.

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]

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. [emoji2]

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? [emoji3]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

Have great games.

 

[Mistwell]

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 [emoji2] [emoji106]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.