Which would you take?

[Ferio]

If you had to choose between 2 racials and everything else was the same:

Darkvision (60 feet) but a Vulnerable 5 Cold

Or

Low-light Vision and no vulnerability.

[ShadowcatX]

Probably whatever fit my character concept better, but in general I think I'd rather have the low light vision and no vulnerability, not because I think the vulnerability is necessarily too bad to have, but its just I like low light vision.

[MurphysParadox]

Depends on the class. If I'm doing close-in work and/or away from the party often, then darkvision. If I'm medium/long range and stick around with the group, then low-light.

Also depends what the rest of the party has. If everyone else has darkvision, I'd go with that option so I'm not the idiot who is ruining all the unobservable approaches.

[Sangalor]

I second ShadowcatX's post :-)

You can gain darkvision through multiclassing and other options, low-light vision is more difficult. Also, often low-light vision will be more useful (increased range) since most parties still need to utilize torches/light spells for those members who do not have darkvision :-)

[Ferio]

Doing a monster build based on the testplay for advanced race book. It's a centaur by design and paladin class.

Melee 2 handed build and my entire party currently has Darkvision or else it would be a no brainer.

But cold 5 can add up...

[ShadowcatX]

If your entire party currently has darkvision, go with darkvision 100% of the time. An elite strike force that can all see in the dark >>>>>> an elite strike force that can mostly see in the dark.

[Sangalor]

Ferio wrote:

Doing a monster build based on the testplay for advanced race book. It's a centaur by design and paladin class.

Melee 2 handed build and my entire party currently has Darkvision or else it would be a no brainer.

But cold 5 can add up...

Oh, when your entire party has darkvision, you should get this as well. If all of you can see in the dark, that is a great asset :-)

[Cheapy]

Can you even have vulnerability 5? I don't recall seeing that anywhere. Does it just mean + 5 damage from cold? Vulnerability is usually 50% more.

[Robespierre]

Darkvision is lame.

[Davor]

I don't like vulnerability. It's not even that it comes up that often, but DM's like to twist the knife in your gut when they know they can...

[blackbloodtroll]

How does vulnerable cold 5 even work? I do not understand.

[Davor]

I assume it's a reference to 4th edition, where you have Vulnerable X to different types of attacks, where X is the increased damage you take.

So all damage from cold effects would be increased by a flat 5.

[Crysknife]

Davor wrote:

I assume it's a reference to 4th edition, where you have Vulnerable X to different types of attacks, where X is the increased damage you take.

So all damage from cold effects would be increased by a flat 5.

If it's as you say I would take low light vision, but mostly because I don't value darkvision very much (unless of course all your companions have it)