Anyone else miffed about dwarves' loss of darkvision?


4th Edition

Liberty's Edge

I would like to believe that 4e will be an improvement over 3.5. Heck, I was vehemently opposed to Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE) when it was announced. But I actually like it better than Star Wars Revised Core Rules (RCR). Still, the decision to do away with darkvision because it's too hard to describe a dark setting to characters with varying degrees of darkvision (or low-light or none at all)? Never been a problem in my games.

Actually, if you want to know how I think WotC could have improved darkvision - the company could have adopted SWSE's version - to distance limitations, but rather a focus on game mechanics, i.e., no total concealment due to dark. Simple. Sweet. Low-light is similarly simplified.

But for some reason WotC thinks that's too complicated?

Sorry, my dwarves have darkvision.

It is really hard to get geared up for 4e. First, I've already invested heavily in 3.5 (and 3e). Second, if anything, 3.5 could have been improved, rather than having 4e serve as a practical excercise in recreating BOTH fluff and crunch. WHY?! Crunch I can understand. But fluff. *sigh*

I'll stop here, because my main rant is how miffed I am with WotC doing away with darkvision. Wrong, I tell you. It's just darned wrong.


Wizards' designers have generally had a beef with lightless vision for a long time. They created darkvision to replace infravision because they didn't like that. Now they are getting rid of darkvision for dwarves, but mainly because they want to break the "dwarves live underground" stereotype.

WotC wants its dwarves to live in stone cities on the surface, with tunnels and mines stretching out all around it. And they want dwarves to have lights and lanterns and all that in their mines... perhaps a throwback to the Tolkein dwarves, who made all manner of lanterns and lights for Moria, the Lonely Mountain, and the Glittering Caves.

Frankly, I don't think its a big deal. It only mattered if the dwarves were on their own, as otherwise there would be some sort of light source around for the non dwarves.


My team has no human or halfling members. They don't carry around torches or lanterns. So that change could have affected us. ("could")


Timothy Mallory wrote:

Wizards' designers have generally had a beef with lightless vision for a long time. They created darkvision to replace infravision because they didn't like that. Now they are getting rid of darkvision for dwarves, but mainly because they want to break the "dwarves live underground" stereotype.

WotC wants its dwarves to live in stone cities on the surface, with tunnels and mines stretching out all around it. And they want dwarves to have lights and lanterns and all that in their mines... perhaps a throwback to the Tolkein dwarves, who made all manner of lanterns and lights for Moria, the Lonely Mountain, and the Glittering Caves.

Frankly, I don't think its a big deal. It only mattered if the dwarves were on their own, as otherwise there would be some sort of light source around for the non dwarves.

Yes, but you can't just suddenly retcon all this stuff for no reason. Now every dwarf in every campaign suddenly loses their darkvision in some strange, biological catastrophe or something? And dwarves suddenly don't live underground in the earth? So, a sudden and drastic cultural change happens, too?

WotC's changes make NO SENSE. None at all.

The Exchange

I am glad its gone. It never made sense to me.


Hmm, if they're going to break dwarven stereotypes I guess no more drinking, mining, axes, stupid accents, goblin-hating, or hardiness.

On a side note, I don't think they really NEED darkvision, it could make sense if you were playing "deep" dwarves - but regular dwarves - it's not that important to me. I always figured if you had a race that spent so much time underground it evolved a vision enhancer because of the darkness it would be adversely affected by bright light - which isn't the case currently. I run them w/o it now, so it's no change for me.


crosswiredmind wrote:
I am glad its gone. It never made sense to me.

Has anything ever made sense to you? Geez, it's almost like you've been playing some other game all this time...


I read that they got rid of darkvision because they want to emphasize the adventuring risks of darkness. In 3.5e almost everyone and their brother had darkvision because it was hard-wired into the Type rules.


So does anyone know what they are going to do in order for the monsters to get around in the dark? Kinda hard to picture a carrion crawler scuttling along with a lantern in hand, or do they prefer torches?


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
So does anyone know what they are going to do in order for the monsters to get around in the dark? Kinda hard to picture a carrion crawler scuttling along with a lantern in hand, or do they prefer torches?

There hasn't been any confirmation, but I think that some monsters will get darkvision as a special feature of the monster itself, not its type.


Shroomy wrote:
I read that they got rid of darkvision because they want to emphasize the adventuring risks of darkness. In 3.5e almost everyone and their brother had darkvision because it was hard-wired into the Type rules.

That's an exaggeration!


Shroomy wrote:
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
So does anyone know what they are going to do in order for the monsters to get around in the dark? Kinda hard to picture a carrion crawler scuttling along with a lantern in hand, or do they prefer torches?
There hasn't been any confirmation, but I think that some monsters will get darkvision as a special feature of the monster itself, not its type.

Pit Fiends got darkvision.

Yeah I'm miffed about dwarvves losing darkvision. Then again I'm a Dm, so if I want dwarves to have darkvision in my game they will. But I'll give the designers the benefit of the doubt and play it by the rules at first. Then I'll cchange things as I see fit. Just I have always done from 1st ed AD&D


Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Shroomy wrote:
I read that they got rid of darkvision because they want to emphasize the adventuring risks of darkness. In 3.5e almost everyone and their brother had darkvision because it was hard-wired into the Type rules.
That's an exaggeration!

I don't think so. The following types automatically have darkvision according to the RAW:

Aberrations
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Magical Beast
Monstrous Humanoid
Outsider
Undead
Vermin

That leaves animal, humanoid, giant, fey, ooze, and plant.


I kind of welcome it. I think everyone should have the same vision because


  • It makes things easier for the DM: only one set of description, not two or three depending on the type of vision
  • It opens interesting plot posibilities if you can't see more than 20ft (4 squares). It helps build the tension if the players can't really see what is lurking in the shadows


But as far as actual PC races go, only dwarves and half-orcs from the Player's Handbook had darkvision (incidentally, both races that were likely to be tanks, and thus serving their "defender" roles getting in front of bad guys they could see before the rest of the party, and usually only ONE ROUND before the rest of the party could see them).

From the expanded books, the only races in Races of the Wild that had darkvision were level adjusted ones, as were all of the PC races in Races of Destiny. This same pattern holds with Races of the Dragon as well. The Dream Dwarf from Races of Stone is the only non level adjusted race there that has darkvision. Elan and Xeph from the Expanded Psionics Handbook have darkvision for no level adjustment.

Glacial dwarves from Frostburn have darkvision, but they are, again, a variant race of dwarves. Uldra do as well, but they fall into the level adjusted category. Hm . . . nothing in Sandstorm, and the Hellbred from the Fiendish Codex II are free from darkvision . . . and nothing from Stormwrack either . . .

I know not everyone shies away from level adjusted races, but they do tend to turn off some players, and most of the races that have darkvision also have a level adjustment. Of the dwarves, half-orcs, elan, and xeph, I'm willing to bet two of those are much more likely to be played than the others are.

For what its worth, when I read that section, I don't remember seeing anything about too many races having the ability, but rather that dwarves were fairly popular choices and it forced DM to describe things differently for the dwarven character compared to the rest of the party.


KnightErrantJR wrote:


For what its worth, when I read that section, I don't remember seeing anything about too many races having the ability, but rather that dwarves were fairly popular choices and it forced DM to describe things differently for the dwarven character compared to the rest of the party.

I haven't heard that about the dwarves specifically (but I do see their point), but I do remember reading a designer's complaints about darkvision and types. I want to say it was Mearls who stated that they wanted to change the experience of adventuring in darkness.


That's cool. I was going by what they said in Races and Classes about dwarves and why they changed darkvision regarding them.


Their ideas and concerns about darkvision in playable races must have originated a while back given your summary of the races in recent supplements.

The Exchange

Barrow Wight wrote:
Hmm, if they're going to break dwarven stereotypes I guess no more drinking, mining, axes, stupid accents, goblin-hating, or hardiness.

Well, I wasn't born a dwarf; that was a side-effect of an argument with a disintegrate ray. And I'm not proficient with the axe. But you can put me down for a good helping of goblin-hating and an encyclopaedic knowledge of geology (or any knowledge skill, come to think). And any fool who ridicules my accent or my culture had better be prepared to defend those lies with his life!

The Grand Mufti of the Yatil Mountains urges us to disdain alcohol, which is why I have the physique of a god, compared to the degenerate infidels I see around me, puking their guts into the gutter every pay day.

He also teaches humility, and I am convinced I am a shining example of this aspect, too.

Scarab Sages

Barrow Wight wrote:
On a side note, I don't think they really NEED darkvision, it could make sense if you were playing "deep" dwarves - but regular dwarves - it's not that important to me. I always figured if you had a race that spent so much time underground it evolved a vision enhancer because of the darkness it would be adversely affected by bright light - which isn't the case currently. I run them w/o it now, so it's no change for me.

I agree; anyone who wants to keep it should just specify that they're a deep dwarf, and have done with it. In which case, they should be dazzled in bright light, just like goblins and such-like.

I never understood why PHB hill-dwarves got the benefit of darkvision, but escaped that drawback.

The Exchange

Snorter wrote:
I never understood why PHB hill-dwarves got the benefit of darkvision, but escaped that drawback.

Shut up, you idiot. The DM will hear you!

You see what I have to work with? I ask you...


I've been generally unimpressed with what I've seen of 4e so far, but I have to say that eliminating darkvision for PC races is a Good Thing, IMO.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:
I am glad its gone. It never made sense to me.

In truth Crosswired, I am curious so please don't take this as an attack; it's an honest question. What did you like about 3.5? I mean you DMed RPGA for how long but just about every change WotC makes you're right on board with them (at least as far as I have seen, it is possible that you have said that you don't like something and I missed it).

I mean if had as many problems with a game that it sounds like you had with 3.5, I would have switched to a different game some time ago. So, I'm just wondering, what did you like about it? Why did you keep playing it if you had this many problems with it?

(I know this is threadjacking, but this little Kobold King is rather curious (and wants to slay a cat).)

The Exchange

bubbagump wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I am glad its gone. It never made sense to me.
Has anything ever made sense to you? Geez, it's almost like you've been playing some other game all this time...

It never made sense that a critter can see in pitch black yet operate just fine in daylight. I accepted it as apart of the game but it was just one of those dumb D&D things.


I have to wonder if we'll see the return of dwarven darkvision (or something similar) as some sort of racial feat? That might be a good system for doing it in 4e.

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:


In truth Crosswired, I am curious so please don't take this as an attack; it's an honest question. What did you like about 3.5?

3.5 was great from 4th to 10th. No wacky critter abilities. No rock/paper/scissors encounters where the party either had or did not have the key to beat the encounter. Skill diversity was more important than maxing out a few skills. Spells were not crazed. The game played really well.

Low level was just too unpredictable - swingy. High level play was just way to whacked out and really exposed some deep flaws in the system. Once those flaws became apparent even playing in the 4-10 range was a bit off since you knew the wackiness was just over the hill.

I said it before - if 4E sucks I may take another extended break from D&D like I did between 1982 and 3E.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

crosswiredmind wrote:
It never made sense that a critter can see in pitch black yet operate just fine in daylight. I accepted it as apart of the game but it was just one of those dumb D&D things.

Cats come to mind as a critter than can function fine in daylight, but also with very little natural light. Nothing in the real world can see in true darkness*, so you can't come up with a real world equivalent there...

* You could make an exception for seeing infrared radiation or otherwise perceiving it. Things that can see/perceive IR function well in daylight. Certain snakes and goldfish come to mind.

The Exchange

Russ Taylor wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
It never made sense that a critter can see in pitch black yet operate just fine in daylight. I accepted it as apart of the game but it was just one of those dumb D&D things.

Cats come to mind as a critter than can function fine in daylight, but also with very little natural light. Nothing in the real world can see in true darkness*, so you can't come up with a real world equivalent there...

* You could make an exception for seeing infrared radiation or otherwise perceiving it. Things that can see/perceive IR function well in daylight. Certain snakes and goldfish come to mind.

To me cats have low light vision - quite excellent at that. Darkvision was like modern military night vision. IR could work too but not for seeing real detail.


Dwarves have low light vision in 4e, so I don't see how the cat comparison helps the argument in favor of full darkvision.

The Exchange

Razz wrote:
Now every dwarf in every campaign suddenly loses their darkvision in some strange, biological catastrophe or something? And dwarves suddenly don't live underground in the earth? So, a sudden and drastic cultural change happens, too?

That's one of the reasons why WotC recommended to finish old campaigns in 3.5 and start something new with 4E. They never claimed that 3.5 rules mesh well with 4.0 rules.

Personally I like this change. In a perfect world darkvision would pose no problems but in the reality of my games this can (and actually lead)easily lead to metagaming by those players without enhanced vision. So bye, bye, darkvision, I won't miss you.


Decoupling darkvision from type in order to reduce the total number of creatures that possess it cuts both ways. It should lead to some interesting situations were enemies cannot detect the PCs as easily as they could in 3.5e.

Sovereign Court

Timothy Mallory wrote:

Wizards' designers have generally had a beef with lightless vision for a long time. They created darkvision to replace infravision because they didn't like that. Now they are getting rid of darkvision for dwarves, but mainly because they want to break the "dwarves live underground" stereotype.

WotC wants its dwarves to live in stone cities on the surface, with tunnels and mines stretching out all around it. And they want dwarves to have lights and lanterns and all that in their mines... perhaps a throwback to the Tolkein dwarves, who made all manner of lanterns and lights for Moria, the Lonely Mountain, and the Glittering Caves.

At first glance, it might not be too bad, except when you start to think about real world implications.

I know ... underdark ... dragons ... D&D. Okay, everything in the game is stretching disbelief already.

But honestly ?
The first problem I have with the underdark is : where is the food coming from for everybody ? It's already pretty crowded down there with all them drow, duergar, svirfneblin, derros, what-have you ...

And then light ?

Lanterns ? Lantern burn things. What do you burn in the underdark exactly ? Where do you get it from ? Why do you burn it, instead of eating it ?

And most importantly ... OXYGEN ANYONE ?????

While hardly realistic, infra/dark vision was an acceptable compromise to explain that sort of things.


crosswiredmind wrote:
bubbagump wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I am glad its gone. It never made sense to me.
Has anything ever made sense to you? Geez, it's almost like you've been playing some other game all this time...
It never made sense that a critter can see in pitch black yet operate just fine in daylight. I accepted it as apart of the game but it was just one of those dumb D&D things.

Opossums. Raccoons. Bats. Cave crickets. Most fish. Most insects and spiders. Worms. Moles. Schrews. Gophers. Many reptiles. Nick Logue.

Yep, no real-world analogues for that idea at all. I couldn't think of a single one. I guess you're right.

Besides which, it's a _fantasy_ game. Since you have so much difficulty accepting that darkvision can work in that context, do you also have difficulty accepting flying dragons and magic spells? Do you have trouble accepting that halflings manage to survive instead of being eaten by...well, practically everything? Do you have trouble accepting the existence of fey creatures, too?

The problem is not with the game, it's with your thinking.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Razz wrote:


Yes, but you can't just suddenly retcon all this stuff for no reason. Now every dwarf in every campaign suddenly loses their darkvision in some strange, biological catastrophe or something? And dwarves suddenly don't live underground in the earth? So, a sudden and drastic cultural change happens, too?

WotC's changes make NO SENSE. None at all.

In their new Forgotten Realms its easy. They killed the dwarven god of darkvision along with all the other dwarven gods. See...fluff fix!

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:


It never made sense that a critter can see in pitch black yet operate just fine in daylight. I accepted it as apart of the game but it was just one of those dumb D&D things.

Umm...whales..squids..

Maybe we should give dwarves echolocation instead, like bats and some nightbirds.

Or...electrolocation like sharks and bony fishes.

Snakes..snakes can see in the IR spectra.

And ferrets (so presumably other weasels)..

most animals that do see in the dark have a tapetum lucidum that increases the light that their retinas can process. i agree that's more like lowlight vision.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I suspect that Goggles of Darkvision will become very common accessories for races that spend most of their time underground, like dwarves and gnomes.

I, for one, welcome the new D&D, where emphasis is on a character's innate abilities, rather than his gear.


Chris Mortika wrote:
...emphasis is on a character's innate abilities, rather than his gear.

That's where the emphasis has always been. It just hasn't been presented that way for several years.


Shroomy wrote:
Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Shroomy wrote:
I read that they got rid of darkvision because they want to emphasize the adventuring risks of darkness. In 3.5e almost everyone and their brother had darkvision because it was hard-wired into the Type rules.
That's an exaggeration!

I don't think so. The following types automatically have darkvision according to the RAW:

Aberrations
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Magical Beast
Monstrous Humanoid
Outsider
Undead
Vermin

Just because it is in Monster Manual doesn't mean it was designed as a Pc race. That leaves animal, humanoid, giant, fey, ooze, and plant.

only two of the seven playable pc races in the third edition core rules PHB have darkvision. So yaah it's an exaggeratrion, unless you invested in numerous splat books. Aa far as I know most of those are monster types.


I see where you are coming from and concede the point.


Stereofm wrote:


At first glance, it might not be too bad, except when you start to think about real world implications.

I know ... underdark ... dragons ... D&D. Okay, everything in the game is stretching disbelief already.

But honestly ?
The first problem I have with the underdark is : where is the food coming from for everybody ? It's already pretty crowded down there with all them drow, duergar, svirfneblin, derros, what-have you ...

And then light ?

Lanterns ? Lantern burn things. What do you burn in the underdark exactly ? Where do you get it from ? Why do you burn it, instead of eating it ?

And most importantly ... OXYGEN ANYONE ?????

While hardly realistic, infra/dark vision was an acceptable compromise to explain that sort of things.

Uhhh, I think you are misunderstanding. They aren't getting rid of darkvision as an ability. They are giving dwarves low light vision instead of darkvision. The food comment is exactly to the point: they want dwarves living on the surface near mines, not in the mines. So they can have a normal economy with agriculture and all that.

As for the other posters' comments about real world vision abilities, none of those things are vision. If you want echo locating dwarves or dwarves with heat sensors in their noses, cool. Regardless, there's no particular reason why dwarves need to be able to magically see in the total absence of any light. It has been part of D&D for ever and a day, though infravision wasn't anything like darkvision really. But its not a feature of the source material and not, imho, critical to the concept of a dwarf. Low light works just fine for me.

Scarab Sages

Timothy Mallory wrote:
As for the other posters' comments about real world vision abilities, none of those things are vision. If you want echo locating dwarves or dwarves with heat sensors in their noses, cool.

I think it would be cool to have dwarves or gnomes descended from moles, as humans are from apes. It would explain their affinity for burrowing mammals, and why they prize their beards so highly; they are sensors, like a cat's whiskers, to stop them climbing into narrow holes and getting stuck there.

Timothy Mallory wrote:
Regardless, there's no particular reason why dwarves need to be able to magically see in the total absence of any light. It has been part of D&D for ever and a day, though infravision wasn't anything like darkvision really. But its not a feature of the source material and not, imho, critical to the concept of a dwarf. Low light works just fine for me.

I agree; you could strip darkvision from a lot of creatures, and improve the game. If played properly, a group of goblins should TPK any group not composed completely of dwarves and half-orcs. It's too easy, and the DM is forced to go easy on the players if he doesn't want the game to end in the first encounter.

Sovereign Court

I was more miffed about dwarves no longer living underground; just in cities near underground tunnels/mines.

That doesn't really say "dwarf" to me. It says "West Virginia".


zacharythefirst wrote:

I was more miffed about dwarves no longer living underground; just in cities near underground tunnels/mines.

That doesn't really say "dwarf" to me. It says "West Virginia".

I heard they're going to wear lots of flannel and camouflage clothes too, hunt a lot and drive big flat-bed wagons with some sort of extra springy suspension-type thing and teams of really powerful horses.

;-)

Dark Archive

Razz wrote:
Yes, but you can't just suddenly retcon all this stuff for no reason.

Kind of like the retcon of the entire halfling race when 3e rolled out? Oh, and what about the retcon of infravision with elves and everyone else when 3e rolled out?

Razz wrote:

And dwarves suddenly don't live underground in the earth? So, a sudden and drastic cultural change happens, too?

Yeah, I'm going to have to totally rewrite the Principality of Ulek now. Oh, and the Dragonlance hill dwarves, or heck just hill dwarves in general.

Sovereign Court

GentleGiant wrote:
zacharythefirst wrote:

I was more miffed about dwarves no longer living underground; just in cities near underground tunnels/mines.

That doesn't really say "dwarf" to me. It says "West Virginia".

I heard they're going to wear lots of flannel and camouflage clothes too, hunt a lot and drive big flat-bed wagons with some sort of extra springy suspension-type thing and teams of really powerful horses.

;-)

See, now I'm fine with that. Just as long as they keep the traditional stuff, y'know... ;-)

Dark Archive

The loss of darkvision doesn't bother me any. Prior to 3e,the dwarves had infravision. I utilized infravision not as some sort of magical sight, but as vision in the infrared spectrum that kicks in when needed(the 2nd Edition DMG covers it as an optional rule).

Well, with dwarves having infravision, they still needed light in their cities to read, draw schematics, etc. Plus, as a naturally artistic race they would of course have light in their cities to make out the fine details of the excellent dwarven stonework and design.

Also, you can't discount the foundries and forges, that are without a doubt lit. So, to me it makes far more sense for them to have low light vision than it does to have dark vision.

As far as the dwarves building topside? Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Wilderlands and Mystara I know all have examples of surface dwelling dwarves.

Dark Archive

Oh,and what about the super-duper see in the dark drow? Even the citizens of Menzoberanzan required light to read their evil nasty spellbooks of DOOM!


DangerDwarf wrote:
Oh,and what about the super-duper see in the dark drow? Even the citizens of Menzoberanzan required light to read their evil nasty spellbooks of DOOM!

But they suffered penalties in the light. I think that was one of the issues. You can't have it both ways. If you have darkvision, you should also have a problem seeing in bright light. It makes sense.

I'm photosensitive. I have excellent night vision and can see in low-light, but bright light hurts my eyes. My eyes don't dilate properly, so they let a lot of light in...all the time. In a way, that is really what low-light vision and darkvision is, but taken to the extreme. So it would follow that if a races eyes are adjusted to pick up even the most miniscule amount of light in order to see, then they should be at a disadvantage when there is a lot of light.

Dark Archive

Bardsandsages wrote:
But they suffered penalties in the light. I think that was one of the issues. You can't have it both ways. If you have darkvision, you should also have a problem seeing in bright light. It makes sense.

I know I'm wandering off topic here a bit, but one thing I enjoy about infravision in 2nd Edition is that a character's eyes had to adjust to infravision. They had normal sight until conditions caused it to kick in, then, if exposed to bright light while infravision was active, you suffered a -2 penalty to roles for 1d4 rounds while your sight adjusted.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Anyone else miffed about dwarves' loss of darkvision? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition