How much should I value darkvision?

[Kekkres]

I'm planning on lowering a lot of vision levels because darkvision and low light vision are all but omni present. It's to the point where lack of darkvision on humans feels like a weakness, rather than having it feel like a strength for other races. However I dont want to strip it away without replacing it with anything, so my question is what level of utility should I be giving these options to compensate.

Canadates include

Goblin
Hobgoblin
Gnoll (in the future)
Tengu & leshy (I know they have low light vision)

Which now that I've written out is less than I anticipated. Huh.

Anyway what do you guys think is an appropriate compensation for say, knocking dark to low light or removing it entirely?

[Elicoor]

I think you tend to overvalue Darkvision. However, its value highly depends on which type of campaign or scenario you are playing.

If you do a lot of underground adventures and delves in deep dungeons, yeah Darkvision can be strong (by removing the need to have lights, and allowing you to see without giving out your position).

But, don't forget that a lot of situations don't play out in total darkness : at night, unless around a new moon in an unlit place, you're only in dim light. In a cave full of goblins, there's most probably a fire giving out light somewhere, providing light in a good radius, and dim light somewhat further.

And darkvision has another problem : you cannot see colours when looking in dim light or unlit spaces, making a lot of riddles and puzzles far more difficult. As a DM, you can use that limitation of darkvision.

Humans not having darkvision is not a problem by itself : torches, lanterns are common enough to be used by people who don't see in the dark. And a few levels higher, you have better items and spells allowing you to have darkvision. Plus, don't forget that they're no longer the only ancestry to have neither low-light nor darkvision (hi, halflings, iruxi). Basically, the lack of light is a trope for low-level adventurers.

I'd personally advise you to use more places with integrated light (natural light sources, enchanted lights, eternal flame spells used to lit places) if you want to make the lack of darkvision less of an issue for your players, rather than trying to tweak the balance of the game.

If you look at the game balance, Humans don't have a special sense, but :
- their Heritages and 1st-level ancestral feats are a bit stronger and adaptable than those from other ancestries.
- they also have an extra language, a choice among all common languages, - their ability boosts are both free, which is not the case for any other ancestries with only two boosts (using orcs Str/Free and tengu's Dex/Free as examples)

Removing darkvision or downgrading it would imply rebalancing a lot of heritages and/or 1st level ancestral feats for all ancestries the removal was applied to.

[Loreguard]

If it feels like Darkvision itself is too ubiquitous, another option would be to split darkvision into a couple different flavors, and grant the one that makes the most sense to each ancestry that gets darkvision.

Old versions of its predecesor had Infravision and Ultravision. And I could imagine perhaps low light was potentially inteneded to replace ultravision, and darkvision infravision, but they aren't exactly, so there could still be room for it.

Infravision was useful in the deep dark, basically heat vision, getting to see creatures in complete darkness by their body heat, or how their body reflected heat. (basic explanation why you might be able to see a cold blooded creature)

Ultravision was useful in a starry night. Lets be honest, a stary night with no moon can still seem otherwise pitch black. Or worse, the stars hidden behind clouds. My understanding of ultravision, if you were outdoors or in basic dwellings, not within a significant depth of stone or heavy metals, you could see fine. When you were deep underground, ultravision didn't do anything for you unless you happened into an area that had mushrooms that luminesced into the ultraviolet range giving you light.

I sort of came to view the old darkvision with a range a sort of active eyesight where your eyes somehow would reach out with their own light, and see the reflection of objects, but others couldn't generally see this personal light, but it was also something that could be blocked by things that block normal light. But it also gave this sort of a second reason why you might picture looking into the deep dark, and for the moment getting the flash of an image as if of light, and it being some creatures eyes looking back at you.

But as was mentioned, darkvision isn't supposed to leave creatures who use it, never using light. Personally, I took the darkvision not showing colors as not being you see everything in greyscales. (since in most cases you can probably read text written in a book if you took a picture of it and converted it to greyscale) I interpreted it as there was no color or shading at all, just the sensing of the physical surface, potentially some forms of texture might be enough to be visible if they are notable enough. A sheen surface might appear slightly different texture. And importantly, without light and colors, you aren't seeing shadows of things.

I actually liked that dwarves would write etchings into walls, because it made sense they would do this, and they likely could actually read these, even in the dark if made large enough.

If you are trying to make senses in your world more diverse, you could also swap darkvision for some other precise sense, such as a precise smell, or precise hearing. However, doing that doesn't change, other creatures aren't dependent on light to see/sense creatures unlike humans an a select few other species.

I think, as it was mentioned, darkvision has a lot of value in certain circumstances, especially at lower levels, but at higher levels the number of alternatives to it become easy enough to get that it starts becoming a non-issue. So you might need to factor that in, if you replace it with something else. You don't want to give out something that, for instance, increases value as you level.

[Kekkres]

Loreguard wrote:

stuff

I interperate darkvision in much the same way sort of a cg computer model with no texture vision,

It's not a matter of balance so much as i feel like being unable to see in darkness should be the standard not the exception with 3 ancesteries having "normal vision" to 7 low light, and 5 darkvision, similarly i would remove it from a ton of monsters who only have it cause "monsters have darkvision" all undead all dragons all constructs, all fiends all celestials etc so many blanket darkvision categories. I like the tension that darkness creates and that both sides can exploit and fall victim too, but in most encounters, I've seen the presence or absence of any light is completely irrelevent.

[UnArcaneElection]

This got me to look up the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Ancestries and their 1st Edition equivalents for comparison. With the following exceptions, they have stayed the same:

•Some Pathfinder 1st Edition races (including Humans) had alternate racial traits that would confer Low-Light Vision or Darkvision. It seems that not all of the corresponding Pathfinder 2nd Edition Ancestries have all of the corresponding options in Heritages, although I didn't do another run-through of Ancestry Feats, so I could have missed something.

•Half-Orcs got nerfed from having Darkvision to having Low-Light Vision.

[Gortle]

I do think it if a good idea if you want to put the effort into it to distinguish the different types and mechanisms of darkvision. But that is a fair bit of extra work and flavour.

It makes sense if it play into the story building and starts to affect the rhythm of the world. Like orcs raid during the night, humans raid during the day. Orcs and elves behave differently not just due to their nature but what they can do with their different senses.

I do like limits on the different types of vision, so its not just a one for one replacement with normal vision, so even dwarves might like to use torches.

PF2 has 73% of monsters in the bestiary with some kind of DarkVision. Normally more than half of the PCs and sometimes all of the PCs in the groups I play in have it. Honestly its over done.

[Midnightoker]

My fix for darkvision is instead of it being you can see perfectly in the dark you treat things beyond 5ft as concealed. Greater darkvision functions as current darkvision.

Keeps darkvision from being too binary and rewards being caught in the dark without punishing those who need light to see since everyone benefits from the light.

[Squiggit]

I don't think you can put a value on darkvision as is. Depending on the nature of the campaign and the GM it can be anything from an almost meaningless ribbon ability to one of the strongest buffs in the entire game or anywhere in between and I don't think there's really a good way to establish a baseline or a typical value.

It doesn't help that the way the game values Darkvision itself seems really arbitrary. Contrasting darkvision to non darkvision races, a lot of them don't gain all that much extra, suggesting it's pretty low value to Paizo.

On the other hand, it's basically having a second level spell active permanently.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

To me, not having Darkvision is like not having a viable back-up weapon or Plan B for fighting bad guys.

You might be able to work around it a lot of the time, but there are times where that work around isn't going to pan out in a certain situation, and if you don't have the item or function you need, it can get you killed instead. And if you're invested in the character, it's no fun watching them die stupidly and having to roll another one.

I have had so many situations where being a human or other ancestry has bogged the group down. Need a Light cantrip to see? Now the bad guys know where you are and that you're coming and can prepare against you.

Darkvision is invaluable in its application, and Low-Light just adds icing onto the cake for those events that call out Low-Light in particular.

[Zapp]

Kekkres wrote:

darkvision and low light vision are all but omni present. It's to the point where lack of darkvision on humans feels like a weakness, rather than having it feel like a strength for other races.

This is unfortunately true for both PF2 and 5E. Really irritating.

But to your question:

Having darkvision means nearly nothing when you are the only one in the party with darkvision. (Unless your friends are content sitting on their hands while you do solo scouting runs)

It is when *everybody* in the party has darkvision the true power of the ability is unlocked, since now the heroes can adventure in the dark. This is a huge huge advantage in any home-grown game (in official APs it nearly never matters).

This is why I believe darkvision has crept into nearly every race - it's value to a single party member is low, so the cost is rightfully kept low.

But this completely fails to extract a reasonable price for when the players (obviously) all go for darkvision.

In summary: darkvision needs to be given out cheaply to only a few ancestries, few enough that most play groups find it boring to take advantage of (few gamers will want to play an all-Dwarf party for example).

Then, it needs to be very expensive for everybody else. I mean, not just a low-level ancestry feat.

Basically, you can't use cost to control access. It needs to be cheap for the player that just wants Darkvision for fun (for coolness factor) but it needs to be expensive for the minmaxer who's only interested in the party ditching torches and magic light.

[Zapp]

(cont'd)

What you (and Paizo and WotC) needs to do is ask yourself:

If you want a game where darkvision isn't ubiquitous then you need to put a stop to everybody getting it.

But placing a steep price on it *will* come across as unreasonable, since for the single-use darkvision really isn't that valuable.

In my opinion the only good solution is to not make darkvision an ancestry option. It should only be given to a select few ancestries, and then not at all to everybody else.

Dwarves and Goblins sure.

Elves and Gnomes should not have access to Darkvision. They can have low-light vision that still requires light.

There can't be Cavern Elves or Svirfneblin as subraces, since canny gamers will simply select those subraces if it means the entire party can go dark.

Having a completely separate ancestry for Deep Gnomes (say) is fine, just as Duergar is a distinct race of its own.

A player who wants to play an Elf is not likely to go to a completely different stat block (that's likely published in a monstrous compendium), so featuring Drow there is fine.

It's in the PHB or CRB there needs to be very few ways to play a character with darkvision. Few enough that setting up an all-darkvision team should require real compromise. It should basically not be possible for any group of players who all want to play different ancestries. An all-Dwarf team, sure.

But replacing humans with half-elves and halflings with gnomes, and then everybody else has darkvision from the get-go (as in 5E): nope.

That was a mistake, and I'm glad to see I'm not only one that caught it.

[roquepo]

It's only kind of mandatory for stealth characters that want to go ahead of the party (a stealthy human can buy Googles of Night and get some darkvision). If stealth is not the gameplan, just have someone cast light on a helmet or a shield (or use a torch and drop it when combat starts) and go on. Darkvision doesn't go trough magical darkness, so they are in the same situation as any other character when it comes in. Right now, unless I am mistaken, there are only 3 ways to get greater Darkvision, 2 of them being kind of high level and the other making you unable to cast darkness spells and exclusive to dwarfs. Don't worry about Darkvision.

Humans are already an insane ancestry, don't try to make them better.

[Zapp]

roquepo wrote:

It's only kind of mandatory for stealth characters that want to go ahead of the party (a stealthy human can buy Googles of Night and get some darkvision). If stealth is not the gameplan, just have someone cast light on a helmet or a shield (or use a torch and drop it when combat starts) and go on. Darkvision doesn't go trough magical darkness, so they are in the same situation as any other character when it comes in. Right now, unless I am mistaken, there are only 3 ways to get greater Darkvision, 2 of them being kind of high level and the other making you unable to cast darkness spells and exclusive to dwarfs. Don't worry about Darkvision.

Humans are already an insane ancestry, don't try to make them better.

You presume the problem is "we can't see in the dark".

It's not.

The true power (in non-AP circumstances) of Darkvision is the ability to move about without others spotting an obvious lightsource.

If you just want to play balanced encounters (like in APs) there's no reason to do this - just walk up to each encounter and let it play out as written.

But in reality, when a human party moves through dark environs (outside in the night, or underground) every monster will instantly spot the party well in advance, and be able to set ambushes, or gang up together.

The true strength of Darkvision is when every party member can ditch their torch (or Cantrip) so that opponents don't see you coming from miles ahead!

[roquepo]

Zapp wrote:

roquepo wrote:

It's only kind of mandatory for stealth characters that want to go ahead of the party (a stealthy human can buy Googles of Night and get some darkvision). If stealth is not the gameplan, just have someone cast light on a helmet or a shield (or use a torch and drop it when combat starts) and go on. Darkvision doesn't go trough magical darkness, so they are in the same situation as any other character when it comes in. Right now, unless I am mistaken, there are only 3 ways to get greater Darkvision, 2 of them being kind of high level and the other making you unable to cast darkness spells and exclusive to dwarfs. Don't worry about Darkvision.

Humans are already an insane ancestry, don't try to make them better.

You presume the problem is "we can't see in the dark".

It's not.

The true power (in non-AP circumstances) of Darkvision is the ability to move about without others spotting an obvious lightsource.

If you just want to play balanced encounters (like in APs) there's no reason to do this - just walk up to each encounter and let it play out as written.

But in reality, when a human party moves through dark environs (outside in the night, or underground) every monster will instantly spot the party well in advance, and be able to set ambushes, or gang up together.

The true strength of Darkvision is when every party member can ditch their torch (or Cantrip) so that opponents don't see you coming from miles ahead!

The reality is that if the DM or the AP wants to ambush the players, most of the time the enemies will ambush you, regardless of light sources or not (unless you have someone scouting, as I said, the true strength of darkvision). The ambushers will have darkvision too if they ambush you in the night or a cave, they will see you far away anyway, so it is like a stealth encounter in midday for them in the worst case, a thing they are probably prepared for with a good Stealth modifier if ambushes are their combat strat.

Having Darkvision when moving as a group and not using stealth is only useful if a group of enemies without darkvision is trying to ambush you. In total darkness. And doing it as if you couldn't see in the dark. Such a good tactical decision.

If you see that as a huge boon, you do you.

[voideternal]

I personally don't rate darkvision very high. Once Goggles of Night come online, most players want it anyway for the perception / initiative boost, so all characters eventually end up with permanent darkvision. Also elixirs of darkvision eventually become cheap enough to practically ignore the cost.

[UnArcaneElection]

roquepo wrote:

It's only kind of mandatory for stealth characters that want to go ahead of the party (a stealthy human can buy Googles of Night and get some darkvision). {. . .}

Suddenly, I want to have a magic item that will let you do some serious searching . . . .

[Charon Onozuka]

Kekkres wrote:

However I dont want to strip it away without replacing it with anything, so my question is what level of utility should I be giving these options to compensate.

Kekkres wrote:

Anyway what do you guys think is an appropriate compensation for say, knocking dark to low light or removing it entirely?

Personally, I'd say it is probably fine to remove darkvision without replacing it with anything. Rather than being part of the power budget for an ancestry - it feels like darkvision is just sprinkled around liberally and humans are simply disadvantaged for not having it.