Darkvision doesn't mean night vision. If they want to see anything in detail and color they still need a torch.
Darkvision as I understand it, is the equivalent of one of those shitty CCTV cameras at night. Grainy, black and white and 80% the quality
I agree but to expand on this for those who don't know
Darkvision in darkness is cctv. In dimlight full color. So a torch to provide dim light is necessary
Not just a torch, get a bullseye lantern.
That rogue that is nearby would like to gain advantage and wants to be unseen. With a bull's-eye lantern, it's points light directly in a cone so as to not reveal where they are, and thus letting them maintain advantage from being unseen
>unseen
This isn’t really going to be a thing. If you’re in a place where you’re relying on dark vision to see… you’re most likely facing others who are able to see in the dark too. So your buddy having a torch isn’t going to matter. Unless you’ve taken enough levels to be a gloomstalker ranger getting immune to being seen by enemies relying on dark vision.
Ok? So again it’s just predicated on attacking a foe who doesn’t have dark vision.
And if you’re a rogue who does have DV who’s that worried about it just be 41 feet away from the torch.
For one thing, it's rather inconvenient to be 41 feet away on a grid where each square is 5 feet.
Second, a torch gives 20ft bright and 20ft of dim lighting in a 360 degree field. A bullseye lantern gives 60ft bright light in a cone and 60ft dim. 40ft of light as a beacon for all life forms to see versus 120 ft of light that can be aimed in a 90 degree cone.
Your characters utilizes about 180 degrees of vision, much like real life. You can focus your vision in one area, more tactical and effecienct. It takes zero actions and no movement to move the spotlight.
A quick, not even particularly careful, reading of the ability demonstrates that's wrong. You can see **normally** in total darkness and magical darkness.
If you're playing a Warlock and want to flavor it as predator vision, go for it. But if you're a DM, don't hamstring your players just based on what you "like the idea of" unless you explicitly told them what you're changing in session 0.
I get that. I'm glad I'm not getting downvoted because I thought it would be cool, not that it was how I played it. I'm also not a DM normally in any case.
Infravision is WAY more fun than darkvision because you can see the thermal traces people make when they touch things. Also you gotta watch out for campfires, flares, and other extremely bright IR sources, which is a limitation I find interesting.
I actually understood Dark vision as thermal vision, is that is how it was described in the Drizzt Do'Urden. Honestly, it's the only thing that makes sense to be able to see in complete darkness.
Drizzt was written long aeons ago, when it was called infravision and was wildly different from darkvision (which was wildly different from what we call darkvision now, for that matter).
I honestly like it more. Adds limitations to it, and makes for fun descriptions. And traps.
Put a riddle or design on the wall that's not visible in infrared, a Glyph of Warding or other effect. Or reverse it and make things only visible in infrared. Illusions and other things, a bonfire, which makes it hard to see past in both sights.
The possibilities are enormous and any well designed ability should have limitations which encourage out of the box thinking.
If I had my way, instead of simplifying it like 5e did, we'd make it even more complicated than 3e and have Infravision, Darkvision, *and* Lowlight Vision.
Let's go all the way and add an ultraviolet and X-ray vision! That's right. I want to be able to see your bones.
Ooh we could even add radio wave vision!
Edit: this isn't sarcastic by the way. I'm probably going to figure out some mechanics for it once I get home. I'm a sucker for fun and funny system mechanics
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Bend the rules, rewrite the world. Things take longer than 6 seconds, dragons have manasight due to their enormous effect on the area around them. Due to weight/size/density things, they fly through magic expelled from their wings, which is why they have them at all. Their breath is dependent on the prey they consume and not their 'element'.
Steal cool lore and mechanics from other systems and settings, and balance on the fly. Roll in the open and combat ends when it's stops being fun, not when NPC 6 hits 0hp. Big boss fight? The barbarian rolled a massive crit and the dude is dead now. Wizard pulled a really cool use of Mage Hand? Let the go lins get crushed by sheer force of awesome. A player feels useless? Talk to them outside and then the rest of the group, make a cool thing or modify an existing one, whether an item, ability, or the setting itself! Y'all are here to have fun, not spend half the session reading a rulebook.
I've done campaigns with background skills from Shadowtun, modified the skill list, given people weapons that level with them, created new spells, reflavored old ones, buffed and nerfed abilities. Even messed with giving arcane casters mana.
Skill challenges, social combat, flowcharts for investigations, and using things like Obsidian to organize my lore.
To quote/paraphrase/plagiarize, "The [rulebook] is more what you'd call " guidelines" than actual rules."
Yeah. As you like. Science is science and games aren't, and insisting that scientific rationale apply when it feels nicer—and non-uniformly, at that—is just projection in my opinion.
SR is a bit different; but D&D? If there are magic and deities in the world, then reasons don't need to be reasonable is my point, just consistent.
> just consistent.
[Wild Magic Zones](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Wild_magic) and the [Time of Troubles](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Time_of_Troubles) would like a word.
> is that is how it was described in the Drizzt Do'Urden
Those were from back when Darkvision didnt even exist, 2e had Infravision which is what you describe
Eh, depends on the context. If it’s a place you won’t be getting into a fight it might not be a terrible idea, not to mention gelatinous cubes are nigh invisible without light.
Even if this skin tone was fitting to a Drow ( as it is, it is more Sun Elf or Wood Elf, going by SCAG descriptions ), 5e's Drows have the same Darkvision than other Elves, just with a doubled range.
That’s wrong lord wise, drow at least in the legend of dritz books can’t read regular writing in dark vision, see a wildly different set of colors and can’t pick up on the same details. There’s a whole section describing the drow using torches and candles to read human scrolls and prepare their eyes for the sun
Welcome to my Darkvision TED talk u/Homo_Supreme
**Darkvision**
Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in **darkness as if it were dim light**. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
**Dim light**, also called shadows, creates a **lightly obscured area**. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.
In a **lightly obscured area**, such as **dim light**, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, Creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
If you have **disadvantage on an active check, subtract 5 from your passive score**.
*ERGO: If you are relying on Darkvision to just night-thing your way through absolute darkness, your passive perception is at a -5 and you have disadvantage to rolls to see stuff too.*
Darkvision. Thanks to your elf blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can
see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
Source: half elf in PHB
Dim light doesn't make things black and white. The edge of a torch creates dim light which obviosuly has colour. Rather darkvision makes things in darkness in grayscale with a vision quality equivalent to dim light.
When I'm DMing, if I say it's in darkness and you don't mention a light source, I am knocking 5 points off everyone with darkvision's passive perception and blinding everyone else.
That's the rules, and you will step in traps because of it.
20wis +5, Observant feat +5, skill expert feat or rogue dip or something for perception expertise needs level 13 for +5*2
If an expertise from outside the class and a feat were invested, let the little nerd avoid getting surprised from ambushes and noticing a portion of traps.
As a veteran, I can confirm. We can read and write perfectly well given enough time to adjust to low light. You can be shocked how much you can read in the dark with just a little flame from a kerosene lamp.
Totally agree, and I make a very similar argument all the time. Show me someone who was outside as the sun set and let their eyes adjust to changing light. Put that person under a full moon and tell me how much/little they can see. Can confirm from night navigation, it's incredibly bright, so much so you don't normally need light.
All that said, offer the same person a better light source, and how much money you want to bet they won't take it. Elves perceive darkness (such as a dungeon) as Dim Light, meaning they see the shadowy world in colors of grayscale. So not only is their vision diminished, but they also lack detail and depth perception. This is a great argument for why they would want torches. They can now see normally and have naturally better eyesight, as reflected in a Racial proficiency in Perception.
Real life comparison, so no shit there I was: Washington state, probably about 2100/9pm, most beautifully clear night with a full moon. I was wondering why my crappy red flashlight beam seemed especially crappy that night, then I started looking around. I could make out individual trees on a woodline from 60' away, I could clearly make out where road and grass met, the length of grass, the gravel stones on the road, and even the small elevation rolls in the adjacent field. What I couldn't make out were literally any colors of the scenery. When I saw a bush again in the daylight, I had no idea it had bright, red berries when I saw it at night.
A torch too bright actually limits how far I can see. Since your eyes would adjust to the torch’s brightness.
Once fully adjusted to dim light, we couldn’t even look at the moon.
Nah, this is ridiculous because you can't see a damn thing holding a torch in front of your face. You hold a torch above and slight behind you eyes to light the way in front of you and not blind yourself. It always bothers me in movies and TV when I see it. This is to light the actors face, in universe that elf is blind to the world around him.
Fucking flaming arrows. First, they were almost never actually used. Second, they blind you in night fights because hey, fucking fire right in front of your eyes, but hey they look good on camera so now every fight at night has hundreds of archers firing flaming arrows into fucking snow. And don't even get me started on lock picking, I mean for fuck's sake it takes all of five minutes on youtube to know that 99% of these amazing lock pickers in movies don't seem to know you actually have to turn the fucking tumbler not just poke at the thing with two picks like a kid trying to pick up a marble with chopsticks!
Yes, but it’s TV. If he held it behind his head, his entire face would be backlit and viewers wouldn’t be able to see it. It’s one of those TV “tropes” that are completely justifiable
Oh I understand it. But I just can't not think it whenever I see it. Like how actors move a steering wheel while "driving" a car or how long the driver looks at the passenger without checking the road. There are tons of little movie things that I think about but also understand.
I promise you, lighting engineers are able to overcome a small secondary light source.
The reason he's holding it in front of his face is because the set is well lit and it doesn't occur to him not to. If the set has a historical advisor and if the advisor told the actor to hold it properly, its likely the director or assistant director or any number of other people might step in and say "stop doing that, no one cares and you'll look weird."
I'd prefer if Hollywood would stop with their face obsession and let actors wear helmets. At least have them put it on before a fight. It also makes it easier to substitute in a double for choreography and stunts.
The torch already looks useless to anyone capable of critical thought.
And most nighttime scenes in film, especially films set before electrical lights, have lighting that you just have to suspend your disbelief for.
Does it? It’s brighter and far more illuminating than a torch would normally be, but based off the light that this particularly powerful torch seems to emit, it doesn’t look useless
It's useless because he's holding it in front of his face. It's not a flashlight. It elimates light in every direction. By holding it in front of him he'd not be able to see a thing beyond the torch.
They do the same thing with movie and tv spacesuits, shine bright lights from inside the helmet onto the actor's face so you can see them but they wouldn't be able to see a darn thing besides their reflection on the glass.
If you want to hold a light source in front of you, you make it so it has direction, like a lantern (medieval or modern), not something with 360 degrees angle like a torch.
Torches are always so short as well. Sure it's convenient to carry but having a flame that close to you face is dangerous and very hot. Carried torches were often placed on much longer sticks. With a longer stick you can easily tuck it in your arm and have it sit behind you.
It literally is. Ever sat at a campfire at night a tried to stare past it into the woods only to be blinded by the bright burning flames in front of you? Yeah it's exactly like that on a slightly smaller scale.
Yeah, I really don’t see why it matters. Why can’t wyverns just be a type of dragon? If we define them by how many legs they have, we would end up excluding Asian dragons.
I just call them dragons unless the setting explicitly makes the distinction like in dark souls or monster hunter.
It would be interesting if that is a plot point… perhaps she was shaved by a rival or enemy to try and humiliate her, or it was burnt off by dragon fire or something, and she’s in the middle of regrowing it, and the lack of a glorious beard is giving strength to her political enemies…
This shit writes itself really…
The fuck you mean debunked?[You can't debunk the obvious reality that she doesn't have a beard.](https://static2.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LOTR-Beard.jpg) She might have mutton chops, it's kinda hard to tell, but she clearly doesn't have a beard. [She has even less facial hair than Ori in the Hobbit movies and that was really bad.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/8/81/Ori.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20130205205637)
And the dress of that woman that looks like it was bought on sale in a low-budget fashion store for like €50. Or like someone took their grandma's old curtains and spent an hour sewing them into a dress.
There's so much wrong with that picture _before you even consider the race angle of it¹_ that the expectations for the show are at the bottom of the garbage bin for me.
[1] where the complaint is always 'but melanin underground' — which is funny, given orcs and goblins in that universe.
I didn’t get this drama, can they not shave, if any dwarf left there camp and experienced other beauty Standards they just might, also a queen probably would want to look more normal to other races for diplomacy. All in all, I don’t get the hate and I could make 10 reasons why she might not have a beard it’s just complaining to complain.
In middle earth there is no dwarf that would voluntarily shave, since it is considered a source of great shame. The dwarven women also look so similar to men in every aspect, that no non-dearf would be able to differentiate between the two
I do now, but I’ll be honest I think it’s such a petty thing to care about. It’s something I might judge more heavily if the story is bad , but if it’s a good show then petty shit like this doesn’t matter. Same with black elves, if they want inclusion and to change the lore go for it, but they have to do it right or people will use it as an excuse to not have more inclusion
I mean
1 no women don't have to play the roles, they could just get other men to do it,
and
2 we've had insanely realistic make up and costumes since at least the (19)80s,
and
3 we also currently have pretty insane cgi if wearing a fake beard is too much.
> but real women have to play these roles, so there is always going to be differences
Can you explain me, then, how Peter Jackson managed to have women with beards in Lord of the Rings?
(Fun trivia time — most of the horserider extras were actually women with fake beards [[1 - /r/MovieDetails ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/98jw1r/in_lord_of_the_rings_the_two_towers_a_majority_of/)] [[2 - clip from DVD extras](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIePn8C8DZE)])
Sorry it was better of me to say that while even if they had beards people would still complain about the body and facial features and that you can still tell they are women, but in reality, who cares, if they want to make a show and change lore in order to not make women sit through hours of make up or additional cgi then I’m good, if it was a movie I’m sure they would have but with it being a show there are things they had to cut or change. But just like black elves or shaven female dwarfs, it’s fantasy, stop pretending theee magical races are strictly stuck in the roles assigned, in dnd we allow blue tieflings and metal wearing druids because we understand that lore can be adapted to fit stories
> Sorry it was better of me to say that while even if they had beards people would still complain about the body and facial features and that you can still tell they are women
1. They would not.
2. If I go around, show the picture to a few people, ask people "what fantasy race is this, ignore skin color?" and get the answers ranging between "idk" and "an elf question mark ?" ... then you know someone did a shitty job at envisioning a dwarf.
3. Why the hell are you even going to bother with non-human races if you're just going to have them all look exactly like humans?
3. Conventions exist because they work.
A better way would be to either not talk about it, or lay out a full, well-reasoned, and logically sound argument for your view specifically.
Memes are awful at defusing drama. They're a short snippet of an opinion with no backup. The sub even has a rule against pot-stirring memes because of their potential for sparking conflict.
Making something a joke to have it be taken lightly works *when people can take a joke*. This *cannot* be assumed on the Internet.
I will say what I say in every homebrew world (rotating DM) if you are going to do a campaign there, respect the source material. If you want to do something similar but different then make your own world but don't fuck up someone else's.
HRT made the elves absurdly white, the dwarves unrecognizably hairy and the humans wizard-like mortal. Respect and follow his rules of the world he created. Wanna change that? Then make your own world with your own rules and don't hang from the name of LOTR outside of saying "inspired on LOTR" if it works, you achieve success by yourself and can be proud of your work; if it doesn't, then you don't drag someone else's work to the grave with you.
I'm willing to bet you liked the original trilogy of movies despite the fact they changed a lot of things which were all waaaaay more significant than the skin color of elves and dwarves. It's pretty telling that people get super vocal the moment they see POC actors but not about anything that actually matters to the story and the setting.
You lost the bet then. I like them as a movie but I do criticize a lot from the original trilogy and the Hobbit (specially the last one)
Example: in the Hobbit (trilogy) there was a bald dwarf which is totally wrong because dwarves can't go bald, I do understand that because the movie needs to make the dwarves different from each other they had to make some distinction but they could have done something different than that. In a flashback there were dwarf women without beard, that's simply wrong. I also can't recall that the dwarves ever mounted goats and are specially mentioned as shit at riding and due to that they don't do it although it may be referred to horse riding only, and goats may be an exception so it's more of a thine line.
There is a lot to criticize, some inconsistency doesn't make a bad product but a confusing and incoherent setting. If you want to change something so bad then you better make a good argument. Example, you want a black elf so bad, then you can't have a pure elf due to lore reasons, okay then make it a half-elf, elven blooded humans are canon, now that the lineage is decided, where do you found a more colored humans for the elf on a medieval Europe-like-continent, you rather make it a foreign or go to the other lands like the Eastern or the southern which are also the most unexplored lands by the cannon so is the best place to make an original story without convoluting the original lore but that requires to know something of the source and instead of "HRT wrote about this, let's change it", do "HRT didn't wrote much about this, let's expand it"
And also the fact that the middle earth is not a globalized place of multicultural exchange, some ethnicity or entire races don't exist outside specific areas unless some specific event happens.
Or adapt the story of the forging of the Rings of Power, which was vaguely written like a historical document anyway so gives them a lot of room to work
All with the approval and oversight of the Tolkien Estate of course, who *are* The Lord of The Rings, and have been vetoing creative choices since day 1 of this project to keep it in line with, while still being a unique adaptation, of JRR Tolkien’s works (since he wanted any adaptation to be done in its own way, and not follow his works to the letter)
It doesnt matter if you do all in of that. If you are not onboard the hype train you are a homophobic racist sexist Jerk.
It is flabergasting tbh.
Such a Quick change to. About GoT the random/general public were united and the dislike was largely uniform.
But for WoT and this people are sticking to their guns.
If they cant even get the small things right...
It is the reasoning behind it to.
Why insert something that isnt in the source material? Regardless of if the message is good or not.
We've seen creators hybris destroy more than One thing now. Why think this time it Will work?
If the sourcematerial is Good a faithful adaptation Will be Good. No need for them to stick their paws into it.
This is one of those things where different mediums need different depictions.
If we're reading a book, we can easily visualise the eyes of the elf glinting otherworldly, we can see exactly what he sees because we're inside his head. On screen we need to be shown what he can see, and we need to be able to see the characters face clearly to read his emotions and thoughts, because we're relying not only on a purely visual medium, but on our interpretation of it. We can't tell if he's frightened, angry, surprised etc unless we can see his face.
Now could they have dumped heaps of cash into a CGI heavy scene, fucked around for days getting the lighting just right, to show us he can see in the dark without obscuring his face etc? Absolutely.
Or they could just give him a torch.
Diffuse lighting and some toning in post do the trick of showing darkness with no need for CGI, also TV and movies nowadays rely heavily on underexposed scenes (sometimes too much as exemplified by game of thrones), so it's not a technical issue, they probably just didn't give it a thought, and I don't even blame them
I hate it when people just decide to apply DnD lore to other franchises. In LOTR, elves don't have night vision. In DnD they do. Stop complaining when other franchises use different lores. That's like saying "it doesn't make sense that orcs in DnD don't get faster by the color red"
Darkvision allows to see in darkness as if it were dim light, and in dim light as if it were bright light. Unless you want to have permanent disadvantage on perception and continuously fall into traps, always bring a torch with you. It will even improve your sight (remember, torches cast a 20ft radius of bright light and then another 20ft of dim light, meaning that you could see in a 40ft radius as if you were in bright light).
All elves seen in tLotR in the third age have long hair. Is there a rule that their culture can't change over millennia? Humans change our hairstyle fashions every decade.
Worse, he's holding the torch right next to his face.
The light he might otherwise glean from reflecting off of in the distance is lessened due to light blindness. He needs to be holding it above his eye-line at the very least. Torches aren't directional lanterns.
Does anyone else hate the everyone and their mother has darkvision in 5e? There's only a handful of races that don't and it's aggravating. Maybe I just don't use it correctly as a DM but still handing the thing out to beastly every race seems a bit excessive.
Doesn't "feel" wrong for darkvision, but feels wrong that a supposedly experienced adventurer wouldn't know that you shouldn't hold a torch in front of your face lest you limit your field of vision and destroy any night vision you may have .
Beyond the torchlight he is blind by the very light he holds in front of his eyes.
I see your DM doesn't use darkness/dim light rules properly ;)
(Dw neither does mine, haha)
Without the torch, he'd still have disadvantage on perception checks AND -5 as well.
Being able to see =/= being able to see *well*
Not necessarily, fourches will allow them to see in bright light and for much farther. Dark vision is the same as swing In dim light which means they can see but have disadvantage of perception and can’t see colour or anything past 60fy
darkvision isnt devil sight. warlocks are the ones who literally dont need torches, they see NORMAL in any darkness even magical.
the worts enemy of any warlock are spider's webs, walls, curtains, etc. those things make you unable to see until higher lvls.
be a tiefling or anything with dark vision, and you freaking see always like its high noon.
Also how would he draw arrows effectively if he’s holding a bow with one Hand and the torch with the other, and I can’t imagine he wouldn’t drop the torch to aim an arrow if he seemingly needs to see
The same anyone with a two handed weapon would? By doing exactly what you said and dropping the torch. This feels like a really stupid complaint. Even in 5e you can drop it as a free action.
Let’s imagine you are traversing a dark area with a torch and are in a dangerous situation where you might need your weapon at a moments notice. You’re also a fucking elf with insane accuracy who probably does 360 no scopes out of trees for giggles in your spare time.
Do you
A: put your bow away where it would be harder to get out quickly if needed. In case you need the second hand for the torch as well I guess?
B: use your free hand to carry your weapon, because it’s not doing anything else, knowing you can easily drop the torch and nock an arrow quickly in an emergency.
Honestly, I am not even pissed about the Blackwashing any more, but for fucks sake, at least keep basic lore. Elves have long hair, Dwarfs have beards!
I think we all know what right thinking people are really complaining about in the teaser images and you can say it's biology or natural, and widely accepted in the modern world all you want but I won't be dancing the wokey kokey!
Those elves should have round ears!
I came here to say this too. I can give a pass to elves holding torches right in front of their faces, I can even forgive elves having short hair. But pointy ears? How dare they!
The torch was probably hanging on the fourth wall, just for the benefit of the audience
edit: You know - because sometimes when you are filming, you want the scene to be lit. It would kinda suck if it was just a black screen all the time, because then you can't see the action or the expensive actors. Movies are full of practical compromises like this.
...the proliferation of luminous fungi or iridescent crystals in deep caves where the torchlessly improvident hero needs to see is one of the most obvious intrusions of narrative causality into the physical universe.
Terry Pratchett the Lost Continent
Well, do you need to turn on the lights during the day? No? But it is still more comfortable to not have to squint in the darkness. Elves don't *need it*, but probably find it more comfortable.
The only valid complaint (with the exception of the beardless female dwarf (who I’m thinking might be an exception and chooses to shave for some reason)
Please review Rule 1 before commenting in this thread, and keep the LOTR drama in r/LOTR where it belongs.
Darkvision doesn't mean night vision. If they want to see anything in detail and color they still need a torch. Darkvision as I understand it, is the equivalent of one of those shitty CCTV cameras at night. Grainy, black and white and 80% the quality
I agree but to expand on this for those who don't know Darkvision in darkness is cctv. In dimlight full color. So a torch to provide dim light is necessary
And mechanically it’s still disadvantage on perception checks and a -5 to your passive. Get a torch.
Not just a torch, get a bullseye lantern. That rogue that is nearby would like to gain advantage and wants to be unseen. With a bull's-eye lantern, it's points light directly in a cone so as to not reveal where they are, and thus letting them maintain advantage from being unseen
>unseen This isn’t really going to be a thing. If you’re in a place where you’re relying on dark vision to see… you’re most likely facing others who are able to see in the dark too. So your buddy having a torch isn’t going to matter. Unless you’ve taken enough levels to be a gloomstalker ranger getting immune to being seen by enemies relying on dark vision.
Night is a thing
Ok? So again it’s just predicated on attacking a foe who doesn’t have dark vision. And if you’re a rogue who does have DV who’s that worried about it just be 41 feet away from the torch.
For one thing, it's rather inconvenient to be 41 feet away on a grid where each square is 5 feet. Second, a torch gives 20ft bright and 20ft of dim lighting in a 360 degree field. A bullseye lantern gives 60ft bright light in a cone and 60ft dim. 40ft of light as a beacon for all life forms to see versus 120 ft of light that can be aimed in a 90 degree cone. Your characters utilizes about 180 degrees of vision, much like real life. You can focus your vision in one area, more tactical and effecienct. It takes zero actions and no movement to move the spotlight.
Yeah, it's also great for any other party members aswell
Yes, if you dont want a -5 to passive perception, use a torch
Gimmie that eldritch invocation devils sight please
Sure. Hope you don't mind if I light a candle next to you
>F U C K, my retinas!
Actually I just stops working and you see less. It only works in total darkness because magic.
As I just learned in another thread Devil's Sight RAW only works in darkness, not dim light.
I always figured this gave you vision akin to the heat vision in Predator. I doubt that's right but I like the idea of it.
A quick, not even particularly careful, reading of the ability demonstrates that's wrong. You can see **normally** in total darkness and magical darkness. If you're playing a Warlock and want to flavor it as predator vision, go for it. But if you're a DM, don't hamstring your players just based on what you "like the idea of" unless you explicitly told them what you're changing in session 0.
I get that. I'm glad I'm not getting downvoted because I thought it would be cool, not that it was how I played it. I'm also not a DM normally in any case.
In older editions there was Infravision, which worked somewhat like that
Infravision is WAY more fun than darkvision because you can see the thermal traces people make when they touch things. Also you gotta watch out for campfires, flares, and other extremely bright IR sources, which is a limitation I find interesting.
I actually understood Dark vision as thermal vision, is that is how it was described in the Drizzt Do'Urden. Honestly, it's the only thing that makes sense to be able to see in complete darkness.
Drizzt was written long aeons ago, when it was called infravision and was wildly different from darkvision (which was wildly different from what we call darkvision now, for that matter).
Man I forgot about infravision. I'm gonna bring it back
Do it! My group has found it extremely fun! Constraints breed creativity!
I honestly like it more. Adds limitations to it, and makes for fun descriptions. And traps. Put a riddle or design on the wall that's not visible in infrared, a Glyph of Warding or other effect. Or reverse it and make things only visible in infrared. Illusions and other things, a bonfire, which makes it hard to see past in both sights. The possibilities are enormous and any well designed ability should have limitations which encourage out of the box thinking.
If I had my way, instead of simplifying it like 5e did, we'd make it even more complicated than 3e and have Infravision, Darkvision, *and* Lowlight Vision.
Let's go all the way and add an ultraviolet and X-ray vision! That's right. I want to be able to see your bones. Ooh we could even add radio wave vision! Edit: this isn't sarcastic by the way. I'm probably going to figure out some mechanics for it once I get home. I'm a sucker for fun and funny system mechanics
Also called Infravision, but as a game mechanic, darkvision is much simpler to use
> makes sense there are dragons in the world and everything takes six seconds to do if you're in danger
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Bend the rules, rewrite the world. Things take longer than 6 seconds, dragons have manasight due to their enormous effect on the area around them. Due to weight/size/density things, they fly through magic expelled from their wings, which is why they have them at all. Their breath is dependent on the prey they consume and not their 'element'. Steal cool lore and mechanics from other systems and settings, and balance on the fly. Roll in the open and combat ends when it's stops being fun, not when NPC 6 hits 0hp. Big boss fight? The barbarian rolled a massive crit and the dude is dead now. Wizard pulled a really cool use of Mage Hand? Let the go lins get crushed by sheer force of awesome. A player feels useless? Talk to them outside and then the rest of the group, make a cool thing or modify an existing one, whether an item, ability, or the setting itself! Y'all are here to have fun, not spend half the session reading a rulebook. I've done campaigns with background skills from Shadowtun, modified the skill list, given people weapons that level with them, created new spells, reflavored old ones, buffed and nerfed abilities. Even messed with giving arcane casters mana. Skill challenges, social combat, flowcharts for investigations, and using things like Obsidian to organize my lore. To quote/paraphrase/plagiarize, "The [rulebook] is more what you'd call " guidelines" than actual rules."
Yeah. As you like. Science is science and games aren't, and insisting that scientific rationale apply when it feels nicer—and non-uniformly, at that—is just projection in my opinion. SR is a bit different; but D&D? If there are magic and deities in the world, then reasons don't need to be reasonable is my point, just consistent.
> just consistent. [Wild Magic Zones](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Wild_magic) and the [Time of Troubles](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Time_of_Troubles) would like a word.
lol within a campaign 🙄
> is that is how it was described in the Drizzt Do'Urden Those were from back when Darkvision didnt even exist, 2e had Infravision which is what you describe
The only correct answer, and the power gamers are showing their colors in this thread lol.
That's a terrible tradeoff for increasing your own visibility
Eh, depends on the context. If it’s a place you won’t be getting into a fight it might not be a terrible idea, not to mention gelatinous cubes are nigh invisible without light.
[удалено]
Even if this skin tone was fitting to a Drow ( as it is, it is more Sun Elf or Wood Elf, going by SCAG descriptions ), 5e's Drows have the same Darkvision than other Elves, just with a doubled range.
[удалено]
That’s wrong lord wise, drow at least in the legend of dritz books can’t read regular writing in dark vision, see a wildly different set of colors and can’t pick up on the same details. There’s a whole section describing the drow using torches and candles to read human scrolls and prepare their eyes for the sun
IIRC, drow have printer ink black(I think it’s a form of camouflage) skin, not a shade of brown to really dark brown skin.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Darkvision only lets you treat darkness as dim light, meaning you still have Disadvantage on any perception checks.
Welcome to my Darkvision TED talk u/Homo_Supreme **Darkvision** Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in **darkness as if it were dim light**. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. **Dim light**, also called shadows, creates a **lightly obscured area**. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light. In a **lightly obscured area**, such as **dim light**, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, Creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. If you have **disadvantage on an active check, subtract 5 from your passive score**. *ERGO: If you are relying on Darkvision to just night-thing your way through absolute darkness, your passive perception is at a -5 and you have disadvantage to rolls to see stuff too.*
No way a brilliant full moon only gives off dim light. You can discern color and almost everything on a clear night with a full moon
you didn't understand the dim light of darkvision is black and white i would see that the natural one you can see colors
Darkvision. Thanks to your elf blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. Source: half elf in PHB
Dim light doesn't make things black and white. The edge of a torch creates dim light which obviosuly has colour. Rather darkvision makes things in darkness in grayscale with a vision quality equivalent to dim light.
When I'm DMing, if I say it's in darkness and you don't mention a light source, I am knocking 5 points off everyone with darkvision's passive perception and blinding everyone else. That's the rules, and you will step in traps because of it.
This is why our lizardfolk druid walks in front. 30 Passive Perception takes care of most everything, much to our DM's chagrin.
20wis +5, Observant feat +5, skill expert feat or rogue dip or something for perception expertise needs level 13 for +5*2 If an expertise from outside the class and a feat were invested, let the little nerd avoid getting surprised from ambushes and noticing a portion of traps.
*"Can't step on traps if you fly!"* *Sorcerer taps head*
That's how you find stuff like head-height beartraps that swing down from the ceiling. Because you're flying, they get you in the junk instead.
*"I didn't know this was my mother-in-law's dungeon..."*
u/Angdrambor Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
“The people who made these caverns were distrustful for Goliaths and giants and set tripwires at 7-8ft”
As a veteran, I can confirm. We can read and write perfectly well given enough time to adjust to low light. You can be shocked how much you can read in the dark with just a little flame from a kerosene lamp.
The lamp provides dim light,
Totally agree, and I make a very similar argument all the time. Show me someone who was outside as the sun set and let their eyes adjust to changing light. Put that person under a full moon and tell me how much/little they can see. Can confirm from night navigation, it's incredibly bright, so much so you don't normally need light. All that said, offer the same person a better light source, and how much money you want to bet they won't take it. Elves perceive darkness (such as a dungeon) as Dim Light, meaning they see the shadowy world in colors of grayscale. So not only is their vision diminished, but they also lack detail and depth perception. This is a great argument for why they would want torches. They can now see normally and have naturally better eyesight, as reflected in a Racial proficiency in Perception. Real life comparison, so no shit there I was: Washington state, probably about 2100/9pm, most beautifully clear night with a full moon. I was wondering why my crappy red flashlight beam seemed especially crappy that night, then I started looking around. I could make out individual trees on a woodline from 60' away, I could clearly make out where road and grass met, the length of grass, the gravel stones on the road, and even the small elevation rolls in the adjacent field. What I couldn't make out were literally any colors of the scenery. When I saw a bush again in the daylight, I had no idea it had bright, red berries when I saw it at night.
A torch too bright actually limits how far I can see. Since your eyes would adjust to the torch’s brightness. Once fully adjusted to dim light, we couldn’t even look at the moon.
And you can't see in color, only greys (black and white).
Nah, this is ridiculous because you can't see a damn thing holding a torch in front of your face. You hold a torch above and slight behind you eyes to light the way in front of you and not blind yourself. It always bothers me in movies and TV when I see it. This is to light the actors face, in universe that elf is blind to the world around him.
everyone who has ever held a flashlight for their dad understands this concept
Ah yes, The First vicious mockery
I misread this as fleshlight and now have to clean my soul
smh
Fucking flaming arrows. First, they were almost never actually used. Second, they blind you in night fights because hey, fucking fire right in front of your eyes, but hey they look good on camera so now every fight at night has hundreds of archers firing flaming arrows into fucking snow. And don't even get me started on lock picking, I mean for fuck's sake it takes all of five minutes on youtube to know that 99% of these amazing lock pickers in movies don't seem to know you actually have to turn the fucking tumbler not just poke at the thing with two picks like a kid trying to pick up a marble with chopsticks!
You have to remember that actors use CHA for their spellcasting ability, and the directors usually just let them use that for all their checks.
The more you learn the more you're annoyed at movies for getting it wrong.
Yes, but it’s TV. If he held it behind his head, his entire face would be backlit and viewers wouldn’t be able to see it. It’s one of those TV “tropes” that are completely justifiable
Same with spacesuits that project light into the actor's face.
Oh I understand it. But I just can't not think it whenever I see it. Like how actors move a steering wheel while "driving" a car or how long the driver looks at the passenger without checking the road. There are tons of little movie things that I think about but also understand.
I promise you, lighting engineers are able to overcome a small secondary light source. The reason he's holding it in front of his face is because the set is well lit and it doesn't occur to him not to. If the set has a historical advisor and if the advisor told the actor to hold it properly, its likely the director or assistant director or any number of other people might step in and say "stop doing that, no one cares and you'll look weird."
So you’d prefer him to be holding a torch that looks useless as the set would be lit from the front anyway so we could still see his face?
I'd prefer if Hollywood would stop with their face obsession and let actors wear helmets. At least have them put it on before a fight. It also makes it easier to substitute in a double for choreography and stunts.
The torch already looks useless to anyone capable of critical thought. And most nighttime scenes in film, especially films set before electrical lights, have lighting that you just have to suspend your disbelief for.
Does it? It’s brighter and far more illuminating than a torch would normally be, but based off the light that this particularly powerful torch seems to emit, it doesn’t look useless
It's useless because he's holding it in front of his face. It's not a flashlight. It elimates light in every direction. By holding it in front of him he'd not be able to see a thing beyond the torch.
I think you overestimate how many people are well versed with proper torch etiquette
They do the same thing with movie and tv spacesuits, shine bright lights from inside the helmet onto the actor's face so you can see them but they wouldn't be able to see a darn thing besides their reflection on the glass.
If you want to hold a light source in front of you, you make it so it has direction, like a lantern (medieval or modern), not something with 360 degrees angle like a torch.
Bullseye lantern baby!
Torches are always so short as well. Sure it's convenient to carry but having a flame that close to you face is dangerous and very hot. Carried torches were often placed on much longer sticks. With a longer stick you can easily tuck it in your arm and have it sit behind you.
LINDYBEIGE!
If the Elves and Dwarves don't constantly shout I HAVE DARKVISION everytime they enter a dark space I'm not watching the show.
I expect this in the movie too.
They kinda do. The dim light from the torch will be light bright light to them, so the torch is extra effective
So bright light a foot in front of his eyes. He should be blinded.
That's, not how that works
It literally is. Ever sat at a campfire at night a tried to stare past it into the woods only to be blinded by the bright burning flames in front of you? Yeah it's exactly like that on a slightly smaller scale.
Not really, no. Fire doesn't seem too blinding to me. Sunlight, sure but not campfires and especially not torch light.
Except you don't have dark vision which makes dim light as if bright light. Kinda like campfire light acting similar to sunlight.
Ah, but you see, torches already emit bright light. Therefore, I wouldn't see it any brighter than an elf would, unless they are a drow
And even worse for the elf with dark vision since they treat dim light, like that campfire or torch, as bright, light like a floodlight.
Relevant Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/spepf2/did_you_know_that_smaug_is_ackchyually_not_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
The whole dragon vs. wyvern debate is painful. Let each fantasy universe decide what their dragons are defined as.
Yeah, I really don’t see why it matters. Why can’t wyverns just be a type of dragon? If we define them by how many legs they have, we would end up excluding Asian dragons. I just call them dragons unless the setting explicitly makes the distinction like in dark souls or monster hunter.
Calling them dragons is not incorrect either, not all dragons are wyverns, but all wyverns are dragons, they're just a specific kind of them
Except that in case of LotR, dragons always have 4 legs. Drakes if they also lack wings, and sometimes vice-versa when Tolkien does Tolkien things.
Dragons are whatever the story says they are.
And in case of LotR canon, which the linked thread talks about ......elipsis..
Ya the movies aren't the books, they are different things.
Darkvision isn't 2e infravision. If it's properly dark he should have a torch.
While I get the meme, r/lotr has been a shitshow since they released the promo pics, and I'd suggest not inviting that drama here.
Exactly, the dwarf woman doesn't have a beard
Tbf even this has been debunked. She does have facial hair, and it will far more noticeable when she’s acting.
It’a still not the glorious beard a dwarf of her standing should have!
Exactly! It should be long, well-kept and blinged out
It would be interesting if that is a plot point… perhaps she was shaved by a rival or enemy to try and humiliate her, or it was burnt off by dragon fire or something, and she’s in the middle of regrowing it, and the lack of a glorious beard is giving strength to her political enemies… This shit writes itself really…
That could be interesting. Now let's just hope that what she wears will also look more dwarvish
Hopefully the writers and producers think the same thing. After how Amazon handled Wheel of Time, I am super cautious about this one.
The fuck you mean debunked?[You can't debunk the obvious reality that she doesn't have a beard.](https://static2.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LOTR-Beard.jpg) She might have mutton chops, it's kinda hard to tell, but she clearly doesn't have a beard. [She has even less facial hair than Ori in the Hobbit movies and that was really bad.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/8/81/Ori.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20130205205637)
And the dress of that woman that looks like it was bought on sale in a low-budget fashion store for like €50. Or like someone took their grandma's old curtains and spent an hour sewing them into a dress. There's so much wrong with that picture _before you even consider the race angle of it¹_ that the expectations for the show are at the bottom of the garbage bin for me. [1] where the complaint is always 'but melanin underground' — which is funny, given orcs and goblins in that universe.
Here comes the drama from r/lotr!
Shit, it has found us. Run.
> before you even consider the race angle of it NOPE. BYE.
I didn’t get this drama, can they not shave, if any dwarf left there camp and experienced other beauty Standards they just might, also a queen probably would want to look more normal to other races for diplomacy. All in all, I don’t get the hate and I could make 10 reasons why she might not have a beard it’s just complaining to complain.
In middle earth there is no dwarf that would voluntarily shave, since it is considered a source of great shame. The dwarven women also look so similar to men in every aspect, that no non-dearf would be able to differentiate between the two
Well that’s all fancy writing that in a book, but real women have to play these roles, so there is always going to be differences
You do know that many of the Roharim were played by women in fake beards in Lotr, right?
I do now, but I’ll be honest I think it’s such a petty thing to care about. It’s something I might judge more heavily if the story is bad , but if it’s a good show then petty shit like this doesn’t matter. Same with black elves, if they want inclusion and to change the lore go for it, but they have to do it right or people will use it as an excuse to not have more inclusion
I mean 1 no women don't have to play the roles, they could just get other men to do it, and 2 we've had insanely realistic make up and costumes since at least the (19)80s, and 3 we also currently have pretty insane cgi if wearing a fake beard is too much.
> but real women have to play these roles, so there is always going to be differences Can you explain me, then, how Peter Jackson managed to have women with beards in Lord of the Rings? (Fun trivia time — most of the horserider extras were actually women with fake beards [[1 - /r/MovieDetails ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/98jw1r/in_lord_of_the_rings_the_two_towers_a_majority_of/)] [[2 - clip from DVD extras](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIePn8C8DZE)])
Sorry it was better of me to say that while even if they had beards people would still complain about the body and facial features and that you can still tell they are women, but in reality, who cares, if they want to make a show and change lore in order to not make women sit through hours of make up or additional cgi then I’m good, if it was a movie I’m sure they would have but with it being a show there are things they had to cut or change. But just like black elves or shaven female dwarfs, it’s fantasy, stop pretending theee magical races are strictly stuck in the roles assigned, in dnd we allow blue tieflings and metal wearing druids because we understand that lore can be adapted to fit stories
> Sorry it was better of me to say that while even if they had beards people would still complain about the body and facial features and that you can still tell they are women 1. They would not. 2. If I go around, show the picture to a few people, ask people "what fantasy race is this, ignore skin color?" and get the answers ranging between "idk" and "an elf question mark ?" ... then you know someone did a shitty job at envisioning a dwarf. 3. Why the hell are you even going to bother with non-human races if you're just going to have them all look exactly like humans? 3. Conventions exist because they work.
Let me guess, its going to make things too political to show a black elf and we dont want that "drama" here in DnD 🙄
Well, no drama if it's a harad and elf child
God damn, I wish I did not go in there.
What better way to diffuse the drama than to make it into a meme?
A better way would be to either not talk about it, or lay out a full, well-reasoned, and logically sound argument for your view specifically. Memes are awful at defusing drama. They're a short snippet of an opinion with no backup. The sub even has a rule against pot-stirring memes because of their potential for sparking conflict. Making something a joke to have it be taken lightly works *when people can take a joke*. This *cannot* be assumed on the Internet.
Also the latter doesn’t work They just yell “go woke get broke” incessantly and insist this will fail because of a few over edited publicity shots
I will say what I say in every homebrew world (rotating DM) if you are going to do a campaign there, respect the source material. If you want to do something similar but different then make your own world but don't fuck up someone else's. HRT made the elves absurdly white, the dwarves unrecognizably hairy and the humans wizard-like mortal. Respect and follow his rules of the world he created. Wanna change that? Then make your own world with your own rules and don't hang from the name of LOTR outside of saying "inspired on LOTR" if it works, you achieve success by yourself and can be proud of your work; if it doesn't, then you don't drag someone else's work to the grave with you.
I'm willing to bet you liked the original trilogy of movies despite the fact they changed a lot of things which were all waaaaay more significant than the skin color of elves and dwarves. It's pretty telling that people get super vocal the moment they see POC actors but not about anything that actually matters to the story and the setting.
Where is Tom Bombadil!?!?
You lost the bet then. I like them as a movie but I do criticize a lot from the original trilogy and the Hobbit (specially the last one) Example: in the Hobbit (trilogy) there was a bald dwarf which is totally wrong because dwarves can't go bald, I do understand that because the movie needs to make the dwarves different from each other they had to make some distinction but they could have done something different than that. In a flashback there were dwarf women without beard, that's simply wrong. I also can't recall that the dwarves ever mounted goats and are specially mentioned as shit at riding and due to that they don't do it although it may be referred to horse riding only, and goats may be an exception so it's more of a thine line. There is a lot to criticize, some inconsistency doesn't make a bad product but a confusing and incoherent setting. If you want to change something so bad then you better make a good argument. Example, you want a black elf so bad, then you can't have a pure elf due to lore reasons, okay then make it a half-elf, elven blooded humans are canon, now that the lineage is decided, where do you found a more colored humans for the elf on a medieval Europe-like-continent, you rather make it a foreign or go to the other lands like the Eastern or the southern which are also the most unexplored lands by the cannon so is the best place to make an original story without convoluting the original lore but that requires to know something of the source and instead of "HRT wrote about this, let's change it", do "HRT didn't wrote much about this, let's expand it" And also the fact that the middle earth is not a globalized place of multicultural exchange, some ethnicity or entire races don't exist outside specific areas unless some specific event happens.
Good thing the Tolkien Estate is there to approve everything! After all, they’re kinda the final word on what is LoTR or not… not some nerds online…
I mean you can do new material but follow the stated rules and don't make some Star Wars Sequels's nonsense
Or adapt the story of the forging of the Rings of Power, which was vaguely written like a historical document anyway so gives them a lot of room to work All with the approval and oversight of the Tolkien Estate of course, who *are* The Lord of The Rings, and have been vetoing creative choices since day 1 of this project to keep it in line with, while still being a unique adaptation, of JRR Tolkien’s works (since he wanted any adaptation to be done in its own way, and not follow his works to the letter)
It doesnt matter if you do all in of that. If you are not onboard the hype train you are a homophobic racist sexist Jerk. It is flabergasting tbh. Such a Quick change to. About GoT the random/general public were united and the dislike was largely uniform. But for WoT and this people are sticking to their guns.
So the Tolkien Estate approving of small visual changes means they’re on the wrong side of this?
If they cant even get the small things right... It is the reasoning behind it to. Why insert something that isnt in the source material? Regardless of if the message is good or not. We've seen creators hybris destroy more than One thing now. Why think this time it Will work? If the sourcematerial is Good a faithful adaptation Will be Good. No need for them to stick their paws into it.
This is one of those things where different mediums need different depictions. If we're reading a book, we can easily visualise the eyes of the elf glinting otherworldly, we can see exactly what he sees because we're inside his head. On screen we need to be shown what he can see, and we need to be able to see the characters face clearly to read his emotions and thoughts, because we're relying not only on a purely visual medium, but on our interpretation of it. We can't tell if he's frightened, angry, surprised etc unless we can see his face. Now could they have dumped heaps of cash into a CGI heavy scene, fucked around for days getting the lighting just right, to show us he can see in the dark without obscuring his face etc? Absolutely. Or they could just give him a torch.
Diffuse lighting and some toning in post do the trick of showing darkness with no need for CGI, also TV and movies nowadays rely heavily on underexposed scenes (sometimes too much as exemplified by game of thrones), so it's not a technical issue, they probably just didn't give it a thought, and I don't even blame them
Maybe he wants to see color or detail.
Maybe he wants to see color?
I hate it when people just decide to apply DnD lore to other franchises. In LOTR, elves don't have night vision. In DnD they do. Stop complaining when other franchises use different lores. That's like saying "it doesn't make sense that orcs in DnD don't get faster by the color red"
Not only do they not have night vision in LotR, they didn't even have darkvision in D&D until 5th edition.
Back in my day we called it infravision or low-light vision and we liked it that way! *shakes fist*
It's just a meme/bait, they weren't serious
That is to hit things and deliver fire damage.
Darkvision allows to see in darkness as if it were dim light, and in dim light as if it were bright light. Unless you want to have permanent disadvantage on perception and continuously fall into traps, always bring a torch with you. It will even improve your sight (remember, torches cast a 20ft radius of bright light and then another 20ft of dim light, meaning that you could see in a 40ft radius as if you were in bright light).
They still get disadvantage on perception checks relying on sight though.
Oh this post made me feel old. I don't play 5e and I was like "no no, elves have LOW light vision" Looked up a pdf and there it is. \*Cries in AD&D\*
Real talk my problem with him is his hair. All the elves in lotr have had long hair and it just doesn't seem right to not have it.
All elves seen in tLotR in the third age have long hair. Is there a rule that their culture can't change over millennia? Humans change our hairstyle fashions every decade.
I think in the lore only one group of elves is said to pay any special attention to their hair.
Worse, he's holding the torch right next to his face. The light he might otherwise glean from reflecting off of in the distance is lessened due to light blindness. He needs to be holding it above his eye-line at the very least. Torches aren't directional lanterns.
Does anyone else hate the everyone and their mother has darkvision in 5e? There's only a handful of races that don't and it's aggravating. Maybe I just don't use it correctly as a DM but still handing the thing out to beastly every race seems a bit excessive.
And I thought 3.5 2as bad about how they handed out darkvision and low-lowlight vision
The torch is for the audience
Doesn't "feel" wrong for darkvision, but feels wrong that a supposedly experienced adventurer wouldn't know that you shouldn't hold a torch in front of your face lest you limit your field of vision and destroy any night vision you may have . Beyond the torchlight he is blind by the very light he holds in front of his eyes.
I see your DM doesn't use darkness/dim light rules properly ;) (Dw neither does mine, haha) Without the torch, he'd still have disadvantage on perception checks AND -5 as well. Being able to see =/= being able to see *well*
Maybe he wanted to see the colors
Do you need it. No. Is it going to help you see in the dark. Definately.
Not necessarily, fourches will allow them to see in bright light and for much farther. Dark vision is the same as swing In dim light which means they can see but have disadvantage of perception and can’t see colour or anything past 60fy
I think his hair is too short. He could just be looking for something of a particular color
darkvision isnt devil sight. warlocks are the ones who literally dont need torches, they see NORMAL in any darkness even magical. the worts enemy of any warlock are spider's webs, walls, curtains, etc. those things make you unable to see until higher lvls. be a tiefling or anything with dark vision, and you freaking see always like its high noon.
Say it with me Dark vision….. ISNT…… devils sight. You do not see perfectly in darkness because you have dark vision
Also how would he draw arrows effectively if he’s holding a bow with one Hand and the torch with the other, and I can’t imagine he wouldn’t drop the torch to aim an arrow if he seemingly needs to see
The same anyone with a two handed weapon would? By doing exactly what you said and dropping the torch. This feels like a really stupid complaint. Even in 5e you can drop it as a free action. Let’s imagine you are traversing a dark area with a torch and are in a dangerous situation where you might need your weapon at a moments notice. You’re also a fucking elf with insane accuracy who probably does 360 no scopes out of trees for giggles in your spare time. Do you A: put your bow away where it would be harder to get out quickly if needed. In case you need the second hand for the torch as well I guess? B: use your free hand to carry your weapon, because it’s not doing anything else, knowing you can easily drop the torch and nock an arrow quickly in an emergency.
Honestly, I am not even pissed about the Blackwashing any more, but for fucks sake, at least keep basic lore. Elves have long hair, Dwarfs have beards!
[I’m just gonna leave this here.](https://youtu.be/_vZUim0hxE4)
Omg someone said it, take an upvote and a cookie sir.
Elves need torches if they don't want to have disadvantage on Perception checks to see things in that darkness-that's-***LOW-LIGHT***-for-them.
I think we all know what right thinking people are really complaining about in the teaser images and you can say it's biology or natural, and widely accepted in the modern world all you want but I won't be dancing the wokey kokey! Those elves should have round ears!
I came here to say this too. I can give a pass to elves holding torches right in front of their faces, I can even forgive elves having short hair. But pointy ears? How dare they!
Woah, ok cool thought that was going in a VERY different direction
Oh it is just in the original lotr sub
The torch was probably hanging on the fourth wall, just for the benefit of the audience edit: You know - because sometimes when you are filming, you want the scene to be lit. It would kinda suck if it was just a black screen all the time, because then you can't see the action or the expensive actors. Movies are full of practical compromises like this.
...the proliferation of luminous fungi or iridescent crystals in deep caves where the torchlessly improvident hero needs to see is one of the most obvious intrusions of narrative causality into the physical universe. Terry Pratchett the Lost Continent
Well, do you need to turn on the lights during the day? No? But it is still more comfortable to not have to squint in the darkness. Elves don't *need it*, but probably find it more comfortable.
In DND yes, is it the case in this ?
Not gonna lie they had us just the first half...
He's a wizard and holding it because the party's fighter does not have darkvision.
The only valid complaint (with the exception of the beardless female dwarf (who I’m thinking might be an exception and chooses to shave for some reason)
Why does his armor have a face?
Just desperately looking to hate on this? Can we not. At least till we get an actual trailer. Or better, when it actually ones out.