I have been thinking a lot about the ancestry system, because I am very much in favor of it, and excited to see it in play, so I make a lot of posts about it, which I am trying to divide up into different threads to make the information about base questions easier to find.
This thread questions the role of lighting mechanics and whether access to low-light vision or darkvision for base racial templates is going to be significantly more powerful in the new edition, since other aspects of racial traits have been moved to be ancestry feats?
For example: Are gnomes inherently a better ancestry than halflings if they get low-light vision and halflings don't? Almost every other feature about the two is the same, so it seems like the answer is yes.
This can be mitigated a number of ways (as far as I am concerned):
1. Vision types should have limitations associated with them in addition to benefits:
Normal vision (no bonuses or penalties)
Low-lightvision (bonus to perception checks in dim light, penalties in bright light, or at least penalties if the available lighting changes rapidly).
Darkvision (limited ability to see in total dark (Black and white, or only heat signatures, and penalties when lighting levels change.
2. If the vision types incur no penalties, ancestries without them should have one less ancestry feat than those without. This will only work if ancestries get access to at least 2 or three starting feats.
3. The mechanics of lighting and light levels radically change. I don't personally have the answer for what this would look like, but I am in favor of something much less messy than 5+ lighting levels and trying to track where areas of lighting overlap, stack and cancel each other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the whole issue of lighting, vision, stealth, concealment and invisibility is going to be dealt with in one place. A blog would be nice, but the developers may still be working on it. (I really, really hope they have been working on it, it's a mess.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the problem of chopping everything into feats and tossing them across levels. I think these vision penalties would be quickly forgotten and relegated to "Did you know x rule of PF2.." thread that comes out in a few years.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still hoping the races get more abilities baked in than has been shown so far, and this is another example of the blog not giving us all the info. Because it would be unfortunate if the halfling was simply a worse version of a goblin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's kinda how Darkvision worked back when it was called Infravision. It was kinda messy and I don't think people really used all of it's nuances in gameplay anyways. It got changed to blanket darkvision for a reason.
I find darkvision a detriment to the game when it is a constant starting character choice, as it becomes a no-choice. Ask your players, darkvision comes as one of the main race deciders. In essence, for some players it can become a lack of choice and a necessity instead.
Also having a party where half can see half can not just means that there will be light so darkvision is useless or there wont be light so the ones without it will be useless. Democratic, but not a good game mechanic.
Lighting is a very interesting mechanic, it provides mood environment and strategic considerations. Even storytelling.
GM: "Suddenly the room drowns in darkness..."
Player3: "Yeh I can see cause darkvision. Whats there."
GM:"Well, you see -X- but only you know it" as you as a GM see it in your players faces that this last consideration is very lost to them.
Cue death of drama.
Lighting, when darkvision doesnt just nulify this wonderful tool, be used sparingly, and the concealment rules that accompany it are some of the most tedious, ill thought, bore inducing things out there. This should be looked at in PF2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kinda how Darkvision worked back when it was called Infravision. It was kinda messy and I don't think people really used all of it's nuances in gameplay anyways. It got changed to blanket darkvision for a reason.
Oh God, I hated infravision. Haha...
But yeah, I'd honestly be okay with them going dirt simple on this one. Low light vision removes lighting penalties where there is any light at all, dark vision just flat out lets you see in the dark. No range limit, other than just how far you can see normally.
Failing that, I hope they simplify the lighting effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Darkvision in Pathfinder currently only in black and white?
I am also in favor of simplified light rules. I am just a little bit nervous that vision type and speed seem like game mechanics that are only balanced currently off of starting hit point bonus, which seems like it will not hold up over higher level play. Without seeing the full list of ancestry feats or what they can do, it seems like the Elf is the front runner of most powerful default race: unmatched speed and low light vision. Elven rangers are going to be wildly awesome.
I find darkvision a detriment to the game when it is a constant starting character choice, as it becomes a no-choice. Ask your players, darkvision comes as one of the main race deciders. In essence, for some players it can become a lack of choice and a necessity instead.
Also having a party where half can see half can not just means that there will be light so darkvision is useless or there wont be light so the ones without it will be useless. Democratic, but not a good game mechanic.
Lighting is a very interesting mechanic, it provides mood environment and strategic considerations. Even storytelling.
GM: "Suddenly the room drowns in darkness..."
Player3: "Yeh I can see cause darkvision. Whats there."
GM:"Well, you see -X- but only you know it" as you as a GM see it in your players faces that this last consideration is very lost to them.
Cue death of drama.Lighting, when darkvision doesnt just nulify this wonderful tool, be used sparingly, and the concealment rules that accompany it are some of the most tedious, ill thought, bore inducing things out there. This should be looked at in PF2e.
Having dark vision is very relevant when you want to use stealth or scout ahead of your torch bearing party. Unfortunately, his consideration means you are shooting yourself in the foot if you don't have pick a race with dark vision and want to be a sneaky scout type.
Maybe this can be alleviated with some kind of "Rogue Sense" feat that either grants dark vision or some kind of work around, assuming that doesn't hurt the niche of the underground ancestries too much.
It works as a spell and as some special ability which very niche characters can get access to, like you say, Sir Henry. It doesnt work as a starting choice since it's just a race divider instead.
A druid with "eyes of the wild", a rogue with a level 5+ talent "One with the night", a short Darkvision spells (rounds/level)..these are options that I can see working, tools that add to the game meaningfully
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I always prep lightning/darkness for an encounter, I find it rarely amounts to much since so many races have darkvision and Light is a zero-level spammable spell. If there was a way to make it more interesting and dramatic in 2E, I'd be all for it.
For example: Are gnomes inherently a better ancestry than halflings if they get low-light vision and halflings don't? Almost every other feature about the two is the same, so it seems like the answer is yes.
I think it would be quite fitting to give halflings acess to tremorsense (and tremor-vision) as ancestry fe(e/a)t (while not wearing shoes, probably).
Also, I'd like to have a complete list of senses available with descriptions what they can do.
And I'd love stealth giving the possibility to fool those senses ("can hide in the darkness even from people with darkvision", "can sneak so carefully that creatures with tremorsense don't recognize her").
What are halflings part spider? (the hairy feet suddenly make sense!)