First off, most of the players and gamesmasters who have played since the days of 3.0/3.5 likely hit upon the subject I am likely going to talk about, and that is Light Sources vs Darkvision, a debate that alot of GM`s and players alike have perhaps encountered.
Every since the early days of 2nd Edition Underdark campaigns many years ago my players have hit upon the idea that carrying a light source in any underground scenario is just asking to be ambushed and they often were by Drow and boy did it annoy them.
Most dungeons and complexes tend to favor darkness, and most lookouts are often stereotyped to be on the lookout for a bunch of surface dwellers carrying a big lit torch screaming `here we are` (which to be fair an average party, especially low level would likely have a light source) which can prompt the dungeon denizens into defensive mode, that being said (and depending on the denizens intelligence and layout), that can be avoided if you have a reasonably lit dungeon or a rogue or other sneaky type character that can see in darkness scouting ahead.
Then they realised, why arent WE (the players) doing the ambushing? (again I know a good non Darkvision using party can manage to stealth around and ambush if played right), true, most monsters in dungeons are possessed of Darkvision and dont need light to see by, but they infrequently may use fire to cook, etc. My players for whatever reason shunned all non Darkvision based races frequently (unless a non Darkvision based race could afford an item like Goggles Of Darkvision) so as to level the playing field, and frequently, it reduced the number of surprise attacks and ambushes drastically. Darkvision also foils stealth if using shadows to hide by, which forces players to rely on terrain or magical Darkness effects which provide concealment.
That being said Darkvision does have its drawbacks, for one it is stated that you cannot see a reflection (since reflections require light) and technically you cannot read (assuming of course you need light to differentiate colored characters on a white page for example) though this is never stated in Pathfinder but it was explained further in 3.5.
I know there should be parity between dungeon delves and other adventures, but I wonder if other dungeon masters have encountered this kind of gamer before who encourages all the other players to take characters who have or who invest in seeing in darkness asap.
I`m interested to hear what you think or have to share.
I once ran a campaign downgrading almost all dark vision to 'extreme Low-Light vision'.
Then again, I’m not really fond of the whole dungeon aspect of D&D, so most of my adventures take place in forest, cities, marshes, abandoned castles and not some 1000 Ft underground.
You’re average baddie still has a major night advantage in the perception area.
And the times you really have to go underground, your light source is a situational hazard instead of a constant bore.
I see darkvision like a constant climbing campaign. You have those who move freely, those who have talent for it, and those who are screwed the second something goes wrong. I hate it.
But that’s just me, I see no reason why a mine can’t be replaced by a maze of canyons. Or why a ‘sunken fortress’ can’t just be a abandoned fortress.
I do see the occasional problem with PC’s flying in from the top, but then again, predicting PC’s behavior hasn’t gotten any DM anywhere.
Then again, just make Darkvision a 1st LvL Spell with 2hr/LvL. Let them ‘find a 12th LvL wand and ignore it for the rest of your game.
|
I am currently running an Undermountain campaign, with all of the PCs playing the part of convicted fellons (an evil campaign). Most of them decided to play races w/ darkvision (drow, dwarf, goblin, etc). One played a human (he's quirky, he always plays human). The other players threatened to kill the human PC because of his light source issues. As much as I wanted to intervene, I didn't, because the players needed the freedom to do what they wanted when dealing with each other. So, the other player shifted to an orc character, after much, MUCH griping.
So now, I have a bunch of PCs, all of whom have darkvision. Its very annoying, but completely legal. So, I've needed to change my game around. It's very hard for the players to be ambushed (especially since the goblin rogue now has a Stealth bonus of +29), but these are the breaks. I don't want to be that DM, who always tries to nullify any advantage that the PCs come up with, so I just use the players confidence against them. I just look at it as a challange to up my game.
Thanks for sharing your experiences and input, personally I keep delves to a minimum, and I try to incorporate roleplaying elements as equal to the combat ones, after all, most creatures can talk so why not try that avenue instead? (after all, successfully defeating an encounter doesnt neccisarily mean killing everything in sight)
Darkvision was always a point of contention in a group, because as William stated, I have seen the same thing happen in a group I ran where one character alone didnt have Darkvision and the rest complained they were giving the rest of them away, while on the surface thats true (creatures with distance to and line of sight to the light source will be alerted sooner), Darkvision is NOT impeded with light sources present, though dealing with irate players who cant understand what differentiates what a "magical darkness" effect is to their Darkvision because of the 20% miss chance even though they say "why, my character can see in darkness"...lol, anyway, they learn as they go.
Now Baatezu (now just Devils in Pathfinder) are one of the few races that can see in any form of magical darkness, the implication is that it simply doesnt exist to their vision, I'd be interested to know what other players and DM's think this entails, for example, can a Devil/Baatezu read in total darkness or see their own reflection, etc as their ability works differently from Darkvision?, I'd appreciate some input so as to put a debate to rest.
Thanks.
What's this nonsense about reflections or reading? Darkvision is just like normal vision but limited to 60' and black/white, isn't it?
I've seen some players extol the virtues of darkvision, but frankly most games that I've played in don't take place in total darkness, so it's a moot point.
What's this nonsense about reflections or reading? Darkvision is just like normal vision but limited to 60' and black/white, isn't it?
Our group has always related Darkvision to turning all of the textures in a video game into a flat shade of grey. Yes, you can tell what shape it is, how large it is, the distance, etc. But gods help you if you want to know what color(s) are on it. It's not black and white like on a t.v. when it's shades of grey- it's just ALL the same color.
Well, in my eyes Darkvision isnt the same as using Night Vision Goggles, it doesnt 'create' the light neccisary to make reflections appear but what I was talking about is the Devil / Baatezu ability called "See In Darkness (Su)" which explains that the Devil can see normally in any kind of normal or magical darkness, does that mean the room is well lit as if a light source was present?, it doesnt mention the monochrome effect of Darkvision and would "See In Darkness" allow someone to read in an otherwise pitch black room or see their own reflection?
I'd appreiate the input.
...
We have a princess?
Cool.
What's this nonsense about reflections or reading? Darkvision is just like normal vision but limited to 60' and black/white, isn't it?Our group has always related Darkvision to turning all of the textures in a video game into a flat shade of grey. Yes, you can tell what shape it is, how large it is, the distance, etc. But gods help you if you want to know what color(s) are on it. It's not black and white like on a t.v. when it's shades of grey- it's just ALL the same color.
Ok, but that's your group's call on it, the rules say otherwise:
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.
Ink is usually black(or designed to contrast against the background) and paper/parchment is usually white(ish). So you can read, period.
The reflection thing is too simulationist to discuss, really.
Light is imprescindible to see(physics say so) but darkvision is clearly defined as seeing without light so the discussion is absurd because of the very definition of the ability.
|
Well, in my eyes Darkvision isnt the same as using Night Vision Goggles, it doesnt 'create' the light neccisary to make reflections appear but what I was talking about is the Devil / Baatezu ability called "See In Darkness (Su)" which explains that the Devil can see normally in any kind of normal or magical darkness, does that mean the room is well lit as if a light source was present?, it doesnt mention the monochrome effect of Darkvision and would "See In Darkness" allow someone to read in an otherwise pitch black room or see their own reflection?
I'd appreiate the input.
Firstly you can read and use mirrors just fine with Darkvision. The RAW say it is just like normal vision except it's limited in range and it's B&W only.
Secondly the ability "See in Darkness" allows a creature to see normally in either total normal darkness or magical darkness of any kind, though normally probably means using their darkvision (as all devils in the bestiary have darkvision).
--Vrock and Key
Fair enough, the reflection question stems from an NPC attempting to use a Mirror Of Opposition against the Player Characters, because there was no light the players argued they wouldnt cast a reflection that would attack them from the mirror, they thought the idea was absurd that reflections would happen in pitch darkness, Darkvision or no. End result, wasted surprise trap, and hours of arguements....
In my gaming circle you see I had a NPC drow attempt to read a scroll in a darkened corner and my players (at the time who none had Darkvision and were relying on a light source to see by) argued that the Drow cant read in darkness and needed light to do so by, this is what spiked the arguement. They argued physics, light, etc and because the use of the scroll would lead to the NPC's escape they said if it were another item or a scroll they wouldnt argue but something you had to read would require light to do so by, so to quell a riot I had the NPC use a run action to reach the nearest safe haven with a light source only to be cut down by the rangers confirmed natural 20 arrow...
So again, my intention wasnt to offend so sorry if anyone took it that way, just wondering what others would do.
... They argued physics, light, etc ...
Physics. D&D. No relationship.
Of course it does beg the question of WHAT IS DARKVISION?
however there are disadvantages, i will list some scenarios (not neccessarily the best) where distinguishing color is difficult.
the party rogue is a 12 year old tian-min girl in a kimono and the party winds up in minkai. the dwarf won't be able to tell which little girl is the party rogue. as all the dwarf sees are 12 year old girls in kimonos, but in shades of grey. he can't tell the kimono colors. all he'd see is light grey and dark grey, eye colors would appear black. the only cue he has is her hair style, since build and body size/frame won't matter.
a royal ball, the party dwarf will have a hard time seeing which extravagantly clad noblewoman clad in frills is the mayor's ex wife, that they need to silence.
the only way to tell a fighter from a cleric becomes thier holy symbol unless that cleric actively goes out of thier way to be identified, such as an aasimaar priestess in flowing white robes with a cutlass.
Discerning water from beer by sight. he can do it by taste, or smell but not sight.
Fair enough, the reflection question stems from an NPC attempting to use a Mirror Of Opposition against the Player Characters, because there was no light the players argued they wouldnt cast a reflection that would attack them from the mirror, they thought the idea was absurd that reflections would happen in pitch darkness, Darkvision or no. End result, wasted surprise trap, and hours of arguements....
In my gaming circle you see I had a NPC drow attempt to read a scroll in a darkened corner and my players (at the time who none had Darkvision and were relying on a light source to see by) argued that the Drow cant read in darkness and needed light to do so by, this is what spiked the arguement. They argued physics, light, etc and because the use of the scroll would lead to the NPC's escape they said if it were another item or a scroll they wouldnt argue but something you had to read would require light to do so by, so to quell a riot I had the NPC use a run action to reach the nearest safe haven with a light source only to be cut down by the rangers confirmed natural 20 arrow...
So again, my intention wasnt to offend so sorry if anyone took it that way, just wondering what others would do.
No offense at all, but I think all this drow need light to read thing is an artifact from R.A. Salvatore's novels where drow did not have darkvision but infravision, which was based on heat, not light.
Thats true, I remember Infravision, it was horrible, because technically, Undead are room temperature and are thus almost invisible in second edition D&D to Infravision, cue much ambushes on non light source using Drow I'd reckon...glad they changed it. Thanks to everyone for their input.
|
|
As most of us have said the game rules are simplified for ease of play so the physics are handwaved away. Darkvision is useful, but it has its drawbacks.
Is that fire breathing dragon Red or Brass? (assume failed Know [Arcana]) Is the fog ahead of us an obscuring mist, stinking cloud, or cloudkill??? Do I cut the red wire or the blue wire, tick-tick-tick...
--Vrock the Casbah!
The problem I have with even using in-game Knowledge rolls is that regardless if I put something against the players they inevitably act in a specific way.
Example, Blue Dragon at the start of the "Return To The Temple Of Elemental Evil", some of you may be aware of this module and encounter, all the players spread out wide to avoid the inevitable line-based breath weapon, at the time I recently procured (which was new at the time) the Draconomicon, which had Metabreath feats one of which was "Shape Breathweapon", much to the players surprise, the 60 ft line turned to a 30 ft cone and caught more of them than they bargained for...moral of the story, never metagame, never assume a monster is a run of the mill variety and of course expect the unexpected...lol
Sorry to get off topic, just had to share that.
The whole needing light in darkvision is a left over from earlier editions of the game. Back when they had Infravision and such several novels and what not talked about how drow wizards were the only ones that needed light to read their spellbooks. They also had some rules about if a table or skeleton would be visible to infravision as tehy exist at the same temprature as the rest of the room.
Darkvision was created in part to get "physics" out of the mix and just mark it "magic sight to see in the dark".
Do'h - Looks like folks already made my point. I guess I should read to the end before posting. LOL
Darkvision was created in part to get "physics" out of the mix and just mark it "magic sight to see in the dark".
And you know, asking "what really is darkvision" probably isn't a good idea (my bad), then people starting ruling on it rather than just following the rules as written.
Even saying it is magic could cause this, because then what happens to darkvision in an antimagic field. Or a place devoid of magic.
Ah makes sense now, some of the peeps who play my campaigns tend to read Salvatores work alot, and most of them were long-term weaned on Second Edition which explains why they are likely getting it all confused.
After all this is a game where physics and science really dont have a place, its a game, its supposed to be fun, though some of the people I have encountered running my games tend to react poorly to a failed saving throw (understandably), its a game nonetheless.
Thanks for clarifying that peeps.
however there are disadvantages, i will list some scenarios (not neccessarily the best) where distinguishing color is difficult.
the party rogue is a 12 year old tian-min girl in a kimono and the party winds up in minkai. the dwarf won't be able to tell which little girl is the party rogue. as all the dwarf sees are 12 year old girls in kimonos, but in shades of grey. he can't tell the kimono colors. all he'd see is light grey and dark grey, eye colors would appear black. the only cue he has is her hair style, since build and body size/frame won't matter.
a royal ball, the party dwarf will have a hard time seeing which extravagantly clad noblewoman clad in frills is the mayor's ex wife, that they need to silence.
the only way to tell a fighter from a cleric becomes thier holy symbol unless that cleric actively goes out of thier way to be identified, such as an aasimaar priestess in flowing white robes with a cutlass.
Discerning water from beer by sight. he can do it by taste, or smell but not sight.
Why is the dwarf trying to do all this in the dark?
Darkvision is an ability granted in addition to regular sight. Is the dwarf at a royal ball in the dark? If the party needs to kill someone, they should find their mark before the lights go out so they know what she looks like regardless of the color of her dress or its lack of color.
Yeah she is the daughter of the beaver King and Queen. Pfft everyone knows that....
We have a princess?
Cool.
Yes you indeed have a genuine princess on your hands! First thing I will do is charge wizards to look at their own spell books...and with this money I will raise an army muahahahahahahaha!
No offense at all, but I think all this drow need light to read thing is an artifact from R.A. Salvatore's novels where drow did not have darkvision but infravision, which was based on heat, not light.Fair enough, the reflection question stems from an NPC attempting to use a Mirror Of Opposition against the Player Characters, because there was no light the players argued they wouldnt cast a reflection that would attack them from the mirror, they thought the idea was absurd that reflections would happen in pitch darkness, Darkvision or no. End result, wasted surprise trap, and hours of arguements....
In my gaming circle you see I had a NPC drow attempt to read a scroll in a darkened corner and my players (at the time who none had Darkvision and were relying on a light source to see by) argued that the Drow cant read in darkness and needed light to do so by, this is what spiked the arguement. They argued physics, light, etc and because the use of the scroll would lead to the NPC's escape they said if it were another item or a scroll they wouldnt argue but something you had to read would require light to do so by, so to quell a riot I had the NPC use a run action to reach the nearest safe haven with a light source only to be cut down by the rangers confirmed natural 20 arrow...
So again, my intention wasnt to offend so sorry if anyone took it that way, just wondering what others would do.
Infravision was a product of 1e AD&D it was not a creation of Salvatore's.
No offense at all, but I think all this drow need light to read thing is an artifact from R.A. Salvatore's novels where drow did not have darkvision but infravision, which was based on heat, not light.Fair enough, the reflection question stems from an NPC attempting to use a Mirror Of Opposition against the Player Characters, because there was no light the players argued they wouldnt cast a reflection that would attack them from the mirror, they thought the idea was absurd that reflections would happen in pitch darkness, Darkvision or no. End result, wasted surprise trap, and hours of arguements....
In my gaming circle you see I had a NPC drow attempt to read a scroll in a darkened corner and my players (at the time who none had Darkvision and were relying on a light source to see by) argued that the Drow cant read in darkness and needed light to do so by, this is what spiked the arguement. They argued physics, light, etc and because the use of the scroll would lead to the NPC's escape they said if it were another item or a scroll they wouldnt argue but something you had to read would require light to do so by, so to quell a riot I had the NPC use a run action to reach the nearest safe haven with a light source only to be cut down by the rangers confirmed natural 20 arrow...
So again, my intention wasnt to offend so sorry if anyone took it that way, just wondering what others would do.
Actually infravision is not an artifact of R.A. Salvatore. AD&D 1st edition didn't have darkvision, it had infravision and ultravision, while 2nd edition only had infravision.
Drizzt is an artifact of 1st and 2nd edition (and though he didn't get ranger training until he had left the underdark and was capable of taking on a 17th level fighter by that point, his class levels in 2nd edition are still "Ranger 15," ah, the wonders of 2nd edition and the inability for demi-humans to change class after being created)
[EDIT: Ninja'd by Wolfthulu]
@Wolfthulu and ChrisR, thanks for the insight on infravision coming from 1stEdAD&D.
My reference was not the closest to the source, true. And of course R.A. did not invent infravision, I never claimed that.
In my defence I must say I never player 1st edition, when I started playing D&D we were well into 3.5 era.
|
|
The problem I have with even using in-game Knowledge rolls is that regardless if I put something against the players they inevitably act in a specific way.
Example, Blue Dragon at the start of the "Return To The Temple Of Elemental Evil", some of you may be aware of this module and encounter, all the players spread out wide to avoid the inevitable line-based breath weapon, at the time I recently procured (which was new at the time) the Draconomicon, which had Metabreath feats one of which was "Shape Breathweapon", much to the players surprise, the 60 ft line turned to a 30 ft cone and caught more of them than they bargained for...moral of the story, never metagame, never assume a monster is a run of the mill variety and of course expect the unexpected...lolSorry to get off topic, just had to share that.
Did that myself with the blue dragon in Castle Amber. Added the Clinging Breath feat as well. Killed one of them.
Did that myself with the blue dragon in Castle Amber. Added the Clinging Breath feat as well. Killed one of them.
Nice...lol, though Metabreath Feats can be over the top when combined together, I only allow my Dragons to use one at a time though technically they can use all of them at the same time that they have and suffer a long delay before they can use the Breath Weapon again...lol
About the Drow reading in the dark, my take is the following:
Drows are a whole race, the people of which often turn towards spellcasting, whether divine (female are often priests of their spider deity) or arcane (male are often wizards). They are a race with a superior form of darkvision (120 feet) which means they have adapted to the subterranean nature of their natural environment. They have whole towns, which wouldn't be illuminated by normal light sources or they would have lost their superior darkvision over time. Those mages of theirs probably have whole libraries of spellbooks and books on magical topics.
Mix all this together, and logic says that they are able to read in the dark.
Perhaps it is because they have such a superior form of darkvision, or because their written form include embossing or raising the letters (like Braille). This I don't know and it would be interesting to discuss in length about it. But a Drow should be able to use a Drow-made scroll in the dark without any problem.
Metallic ink solves all your problems! Shiny ink on paper.
Metallic ink solves all your problems! Shiny ink on paper.
Shininess is a reflection, which still requires light.
No offense at all, but I think all this drow need light to read thing is an artifact from R.A. Salvatore's novels where drow did not have darkvision but infravision, which was based on heat, not light.Fair enough, the reflection question stems from an NPC attempting to use a Mirror Of Opposition against the Player Characters, because there was no light the players argued they wouldnt cast a reflection that would attack them from the mirror, they thought the idea was absurd that reflections would happen in pitch darkness, Darkvision or no. End result, wasted surprise trap, and hours of arguements....
In my gaming circle you see I had a NPC drow attempt to read a scroll in a darkened corner and my players (at the time who none had Darkvision and were relying on a light source to see by) argued that the Drow cant read in darkness and needed light to do so by, this is what spiked the arguement. They argued physics, light, etc and because the use of the scroll would lead to the NPC's escape they said if it were another item or a scroll they wouldnt argue but something you had to read would require light to do so by, so to quell a riot I had the NPC use a run action to reach the nearest safe haven with a light source only to be cut down by the rangers confirmed natural 20 arrow...
So again, my intention wasnt to offend so sorry if anyone took it that way, just wondering what others would do.
Actually infravision is not an artifact of R.A. Salvatore. AD&D 1st edition didn't have darkvision, it had infravision and ultravision, while 2nd edition only had infravision.
Drizzt is an artifact of 1st and 2nd edition (and though he didn't get ranger training until he had left the underdark and was capable of taking on a 17th level fighter by that point, his class levels in 2nd edition are still "Ranger 15," ah, the wonders of 2nd edition and the inability for demi-humans to change class after being created)
[EDIT: Ninja'd by Wolfthulu]
Further ninja'd.
And trying to change Drizzt's stats over to Pathfinder would make most of his victories implausible. Lets see a 15th level ranger (or a fighter 10/barbarian 1/ranger 5 as he was in 3.0) take on a balor lord like Ertu nowadays. The battle would be over in two rounds with Drizzt's head on a pike. ;-)
We actually rule that a character or creature using darkvision in no light is blinded as per flare (not complete blindness, just a slight annoyance). The thing I alway hated was when a GM said with darkvision you see great in black and white between 30-60 feet, but with dim lighting you see like crap within 30 feet. LAME! I would think your darkvision woud mingle with the dimness for still good sight, but limited color distinguishing... any thoughts?
We actually rule that a character or creature using darkvision in no light is blinded as per flare (not complete blindness, just a slight annoyance). The thing I alway hated was when a GM said with darkvision you see great in black and white between 30-60 feet, but with dim lighting you see like crap within 30 feet. LAME! I would think your darkvision woud mingle with the dimness for still good sight, but limited color distinguishing... any thoughts?
You think right.
Normal, Low-Light and darkvision overlap. There's no need to be in complete darkness to benefit from darkvision. Apply the one that benefits you the most in every situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree that physics and science have no place in D&D, you just can't get too uptight about them. Physics and science help us to understand the world around us and relying on the basic world around us keeps us from having to build our own physics engine for every game we play.
I think I'd buy into the players' arguments that there'd be no reflection in complete darkness. That's a cool idea and an interesting difference between normal light vision and darkvision, one that the PCs may, at times, find limiting because everything would require a direct line of sight to be visually observed. That has some interesting implications. And for traps with mirrors of opposition, it's easy enough to build in a triggered light spell to provide that light for the reflection.
But as for not being able to read? They say that you need light to read when their darkvision allows them to see everything else? Puh-leeze. If they can see in black and white with enough contrast to identify what they're fighting, they can see enough contrast between light parchment and dark ink. The whole issue of needing light to see the text is completely undermined by the fact that, under normal circumstances, you'd need light to see anything at all - including the monsters you're normally seeing with darkvision.
I typically treat Darkvision in a similar manner as an infrared nightvision device. What a character sees is in greyscale (like a enhanced black and white photo). Details can be made out, but only for a relatively short range.
The eyes of creatures with darkvision are capable of chemically generating an active IR signature that is used to see by (much like an IR nightvision device). The resulting image is translated to greyscale by their brain to better distinguish details. As a result, the eyes of a creature with darkvision appear white when viewed by someone else with darkvision.
The chemical process that powers darkvision is not bright enough to aid someone with lowlight vision.
In Pathfinder, it states specifically that Darkvision works EVEN when a light source is present, its not affected by light sources in any way - its a continously functioning ability like it was in 3.5, it explains this in the text that describes what Darkvision does.
In Pathfinder, it states specifically that Darkvision works EVEN when a light source is present, its not affected by light sources in any way - its a continously functioning ability like it was in 3.5, it explains this in the text that describes what Darkvision does.
Agreed, but it's the same couple GMs I know who INSIST that walking up to a creature always incurs AoOs, even after seeing this (see common misconception #1). You can lead a donkey to water but you can't make them drink.
Oh... and on the mirror with the light I agree personally because in our group we have always agreed since the absence of light it functions, that it works like visual radar with a limited specrum of hues returning. Something such as a mirror is causing light to reflect the same way you get colors from it hitting a surface and absorbing part of the spectrum. The hues come from absorbancy for light detected by the radar.
Sounds ultra wierd, I know, but it's just how we decided to handle it in game when the arguement came up. I'm still openminded about a better explanation though, and it makes for some cool traps allowing a character with darkvision to wander into a mirror maze, then cut on the lights.
The problem I have with even using in-game Knowledge rolls is that regardless if I put something against the players they inevitably act in a specific way.
Example, Blue Dragon at the start of the "Return To The Temple Of Elemental Evil", some of you may be aware of this module and encounter, all the players spread out wide to avoid the inevitable line-based breath weapon, at the time I recently procured (which was new at the time) the Draconomicon, which had Metabreath feats one of which was "Shape Breathweapon", much to the players surprise, the 60 ft line turned to a 30 ft cone and caught more of them than they bargained for...moral of the story, never metagame, never assume a monster is a run of the mill variety and of course expect the unexpected...lolSorry to get off topic, just had to share that.
Ha! Very nice!
I was glancing through this thread and read that and had to give praise where praise is due.
Ha! Very nice!
I was glancing through this thread and read that and had to give praise where praise is due.
Thanks...lol, now my players dont anticipate anything from a Dragon except a hard fight - theres none of this predisposition to 'spread out' to avoid breath weapons from primarily 'line' based breath weapon using dragons such as the Blue dragon. Dont get me wrong, the players were annoyed the Dragon could do that in the fight...lol, after all the Draconomicon and the Metabreath Feats were new. But importantly, it served its purpose...lol
Metallic ink solves all your problems! Shiny ink on paper.Shininess is a reflection, which still requires light.
Interesting idea... maybe they had to breath on the pages to see the letters (with the metal ink differentially heating from the paper due to their breath.)
Thanks...lol, now my players dont anticipate anything from a Dragon except a hard fight - theres none of this predisposition to 'spread out' to avoid breath weapons from primarily 'line' based breath weapon using dragons such as the Blue dragon. Dont get me wrong, the players were annoyed the Dragon could do that in the fight...lol, after all the Draconomicon and the Metabreath Feats were new. But importantly, it served its purpose...lol
I'm a big fan of switching monsters feats around when I DM. Especially with dragons since they get so many. And the Draconomicon was a godsend for this.
I was running an Epic campaign for a time (early to mid 20th lvls) and got to put together a 55HD colossal+ black dragon (CR 34) for the PCs to fight. Oh boy did she have some fun feats and spells! And quite the lovely horde too...
In my games darkvision just allow you to see well enough to not trip over things as if you were blind. If you want to read you need a light. That's just how I do it though.
I also created a house rule that if you view a lighted area with darkvision there are shadows or it's just hard to see for 10' beyond the light areas range. So if you had a torch illuminating out to 30' radius then a ring from 30'to 40' is shadowed and offers concealment against those who have darkvision. For those with low light range just increased to 60-70' instead. Haven't applied it yet in any game, just an idea I'm toying with. Might or might not use it.