Dim light/darkvision problem.

[Gabriel Van Hellsing]

Anybody know about the dim light affecting negatively the combat rolls and darkvision dont work/ not exist problem is corrected by the developers or its still ingame?

[Kasa]

The devs changed it, dark vison now works as per 5e rules.

some enemies now have superior dark vision that give them advantage in the dark but disadvantage in bright light to encourage the use of light sources.

https://www.solasta-game.com/news/110-solasta-winter-update-patch-notes

[Gabriel Van Hellsing]

Originally posted by Kasa:

The devs changed it, dark vison now works as per 5e rules.

some enemies now have superior dark vision that give them advantage in the dark but disadvantage in bright light to encourage the use of light sources.

https://www.solasta-game.com/news/110-solasta-winter-update-patch-notes

Many thanks for the answer

Its a really great game and im not played it a while. Do you know anything about some rework of the dim light mechanic?
Maybe the God of RNG is favouring me because i never struggled in any DnD based games. In Solasta some fight was really hard and i even doesnt aknowledged the dim light modifier. Later on my friends noticed it and (im not familiar with tabletop DnD) dim light in 5e best i know not affect combat this way.

[Blackmage]

TA's homebrew lighting rule for Solasta was fantastic. It actually made having a human or halfling in your party a more worthwhile option because you still needed light for your elves and dwarves anyways, that was the whole point of the design choice. But no, the purists had to throw a fit and whine and complain until they got their way. Light is still good to have against Soraks and Vampires, but now Humans are back to being a complete hindrance against everything else in the dark. No point in running anything but elves in the party because of this, which was exactly what TA wanted to avoid.

[gallaghan2000]

Originally posted by BlackMage:

TA's homebrew lighting rule for Solasta was fantastic. It actually made having a human or halfling in your party a more worthwhile option because you still needed light for your elves and dwarves anyways, that was the whole point of the design choice. But no, the purists had to throw a fit and whine and complain until they got their way. Light is still good to have against Soraks and Vampires, but now Humans are back to being a complete hindrance against everything else in the dark. No point in running anything but elves in the party because of this, which was exactly what TA wanted to avoid.

Honestly? I could give a rats ass about what TA wanted to avoid. If it's really a problem they can 'soft-lock' ♥♥♥♥ in that only humans can do. If a race has darkvision and there are base rules for what darkvision is, then use the damn rules. They should only have tried that if darkvision wasn't part of the SRD or they renamed darkvision to low-light vision and had it function like 3e's lowlight. I don't go to a wizard and expect them to hack n slash like a fighter, do i? no. I expect them to be a wizard casting spells, because that's what wizards DO. Same principle.

[EdrickV]

I've got a human as my main fighter, and I don't find her to be a hindrance for the most part. For situations where I'm preparing to ambush the enemy, I've used magic to light torches and such before combat, or cast Dancing Lights before combat starts. Flaming Sphere also can serve as a light source as well as an attack. There's also Guiding Bolt from my Cleric, and on occasion, Sparkle. (Just don't use the Ring of the Lightbringers.) More recently, I bought her a Ring of Darkvision. But I could also have used the Darkvision spell on her, or with the right recipe, make scrolls so I don't use up a spell slot. And since my fighter is also a Spellblade, she could light torches from a distance herself I think. Since my Rogue is a Shadowcaster it means everyone in my party can cast some kind of spell, which is kind of interesting.

Edit: Shadowcaster not Darkweaver.

[gallaghan2000]

Originally posted by EdrickV:

I've got a human as my main fighter, and I don't find her to be a hindrance for the most part. For situations where I'm preparing to ambush the enemy, I've used magic to light torches and such before combat, or cast Dancing Lights before combat starts. Flaming Sphere also can serve as a light source as well as an attack. There's also Guiding Bolt from my Cleric, and on occasion, Sparkle. (Just don't use the Ring of the Lightbringers.) More recently, I bought her a Ring of Darkvision. But I could also have used the Darkvision spell on her, or with the right recipe, make scrolls so I don't use up a spell slot. And since my fighter is also a Spellblade, she could light torches from a distance herself I think. Since my Rogue is a Shadowcaster it means everyone in my party can cast some kind of spell, which is kind of interesting.

Edit: Shadowcaster not Darkweaver.

And yet, what I find shoddy about this game is that the enemy doesn't REACT to you setting braziers and the like on fire right in front of their faces so that you can shift the battle in your favor. Also, your statement does not in the least support what you said earlier about it being better with their house-ruled change to darkvision. Are you one of those guys who can't be satisfied with a paladin being immune to fear in a fear-based horror campaign? Honestly asking because that's the equivalent of what your argument amounts to. Let me guess, you'd also be one of those guys all for the recent psionics change in Underrail because psionics are 'too easy.'

[EdrickV]

Originally posted by gallaghan2000:

Originally posted by EdrickV:

I've got a human as my main fighter, and I don't find her to be a hindrance for the most part. For situations where I'm preparing to ambush the enemy, I've used magic to light torches and such before combat, or cast Dancing Lights before combat starts. Flaming Sphere also can serve as a light source as well as an attack. There's also Guiding Bolt from my Cleric, and on occasion, Sparkle. (Just don't use the Ring of the Lightbringers.) More recently, I bought her a Ring of Darkvision. But I could also have used the Darkvision spell on her, or with the right recipe, make scrolls so I don't use up a spell slot. And since my fighter is also a Spellblade, she could light torches from a distance herself I think. Since my Rogue is a Shadowcaster it means everyone in my party can cast some kind of spell, which is kind of interesting.

Edit: Shadowcaster not Darkweaver.

And yet, what I find shoddy about this game is that the enemy doesn't REACT to you setting braziers and the like on fire right in front of their faces so that you can shift the battle in your favor. Also, your statement does not in the least support what you said earlier about it being better with their house-ruled change to darkvision. Are you one of those guys who can't be satisfied with a paladin being immune to fear in a fear-based horror campaign? Honestly asking because that's the equivalent of what your argument amounts to. Let me guess, you'd also be one of those guys all for the recent psionics change in Underrail because psionics are 'too easy.'

I said nothing about the rule change itself, you're confusing me with someone else. I've never played the game before the rule change.

The fact that the enemy doesn't react can be a bit unrealistic, but in some cases might make sense. (Orcs/Goblins would probably notice, not so sure about Skeletons/Zombies noticing the change in lighting unless they saw the spell itself.)

If enemies did notice you lighting torch sconces, (thus triggering battle) then I'd cast Dancing Lights out of sight before battle instead. When needed. Sparkle (on those occasions you can actually use it) could be cast after battle started. I did have one occasion early on where I cast Dancing Lights after battle started so that my fighter had a better chance at attacking an enemy that was unlit and up high, so we were attacking via range attacks. And I've previously used Dancing Lights in battle during random encounters since there's nothing you can use Sparkle on.

[paolo.bera]

Originally posted by BlackMage:

TA's homebrew lighting rule for Solasta was fantastic. It actually made having a human or halfling in your party a more worthwhile option because you still needed light for your elves and dwarves anyways, that was the whole point of the design choice. But no, the purists had to throw a fit and whine and complain until they got their way. Light is still good to have against Soraks and Vampires, but now Humans are back to being a complete hindrance against everything else in the dark. No point in running anything but elves in the party because of this, which was exactly what TA wanted to avoid.

The fact is that some races have penalty in exchange of darkvision, if you want to get rid of darkvision benefit then i want a dwarf that have 30 feet movement speed instead of 25 :)

[gallaghan2000]

Originally posted by EdrickV:

Originally posted by gallaghan2000:

And yet, what I find shoddy about this game is that the enemy doesn't REACT to you setting braziers and the like on fire right in front of their faces so that you can shift the battle in your favor. Also, your statement does not in the least support what you said earlier about it being better with their house-ruled change to darkvision. Are you one of those guys who can't be satisfied with a paladin being immune to fear in a fear-based horror campaign? Honestly asking because that's the equivalent of what your argument amounts to. Let me guess, you'd also be one of those guys all for the recent psionics change in Underrail because psionics are 'too easy.'

I said nothing about the rule change itself, you're confusing me with someone else. I've never played the game before the rule change.

The fact that the enemy doesn't react can be a bit unrealistic, but in some cases might make sense. (Orcs/Goblins would probably notice, not so sure about Skeletons/Zombies noticing the change in lighting unless they saw the spell itself.)

If enemies did notice you lighting torch sconces, (thus triggering battle) then I'd cast Dancing Lights out of sight before battle instead. When needed. Sparkle (on those occasions you can actually use it) could be cast after battle started. I did have one occasion early on where I cast Dancing Lights after battle started so that my fighter had a better chance at attacking an enemy that was unlit and up high, so we were attacking via range attacks. And I've previously used Dancing Lights in battle during random encounters since there's nothing you can use Sparkle on.

Sorry, you're right. got posters confused on my end. But yeah, mostly thinking of the starting sorak cave for the triggering battle with light.

[Blackmage]

Originally posted by paolo.bera:

The fact is that some races have penalty in exchange of darkvision, if you want to get rid of darkvision benefit then i want a dwarf that have 30 feet movement speed instead of 25 :)

False. What penalty to do elves and half-elves have for having darkvision? Dwarves get a speed penalty because they're short, but it's a negligible penalty. Most enemies come running at your party anyways.

Originally posted by EdrickV:

The fact that the enemy doesn't react can be a bit unrealistic, but in some cases might make sense. (Orcs/Goblins would probably notice, not so sure about Skeletons/Zombies noticing the change in lighting unless they saw the spell itself.)

If enemies did notice you lighting torch sconces, (thus triggering battle) then I'd cast Dancing Lights out of sight before battle instead. When needed. Sparkle (on those occasions you can actually use it) could be cast after battle started. I did have one occasion early on where I cast Dancing Lights after battle started so that my fighter had a better chance at attacking an enemy that was unlit and up high, so we were attacking via range attacks. And I've previously used Dancing Lights in battle during random encounters since there's nothing you can use Sparkle on.

The lack of reaction is probably the only thing saving people who use humans, and it's 100% stupid. Logic dictates nobody turns on a light and then ambushes. You ambush and then turn on the light. I certainly hope TA fixes this. Torch sconces don't spontaneously ignite. Anything with an intelligence and wisdom over 3 should react and begin combat.

With standard lighting rules in Solasta, forget the Dancing Lights, just pack your party full of darkvision races and ambush from the dark. Then you never have to turn on a light except when fighting against enemies who gain buffs for being in the dark, and you have a huge advantage against enemies with normal vision.

[Blackmage]

Originally posted by gallaghan2000:

And yet, what I find shoddy about this game is that the enemy doesn't REACT to you setting braziers and the like on fire right in front of their faces so that you can shift the battle in your favor. Also, your statement does not in the least support what you said earlier about it being better with their house-ruled change to darkvision. Are you one of those guys who can't be satisfied with a paladin being immune to fear in a fear-based horror campaign? Honestly asking because that's the equivalent of what your argument amounts to. Let me guess, you'd also be one of those guys all for the recent psionics change in Underrail because psionics are 'too easy.'

The enemies SHOULD be reacting to lighting effects, and if they did, you wouldn't be running humans. If enemies reacted to light like they should, you would be giving up the ambush advantage every time you light a sconce. I know for certain you would not be running humans in your party anymore if this were the case, because it amounts to babysitting. This is why TA's original lighting system was better. By nerfing darkvision, it actually kept humans on par with the other races, and made the game more challenging. I want humans to be useful, and you're arguing against me for it? How well is that logic panning out for you?

All of your arguments are about how lighting is so easy to get that TA's original change shouldn't be necessary. Well if the change is such a negligible issue, then you have no reason to be whining about it in the first place! You're like that kid who wanted a red gameboy but their parents got them a green one instead. That's your "logic." But either way, you got a gameboy, what difference does the color make? The only excuse you, and people like you have, is it wasn't RAW.

I have run horror campaigns before, and I don't have a problem with someone being a Paladin. I run a sanity rule. Paladins might be immune to fear, but nobody is immune to going insane. That's the sort of change TA had made for Solasta, and people like you whined about. You couldn't handle the challenge and demanded they make the game easier for your whiny baby attitudes.

[Something completely different]

Originally posted by BlackMage:

Originally posted by gallaghan2000:

And yet, what I find shoddy about this game is that the enemy doesn't REACT to you setting braziers and the like on fire right in front of their faces so that you can shift the battle in your favor. Also, your statement does not in the least support what you said earlier about it being better with their house-ruled change to darkvision. Are you one of those guys who can't be satisfied with a paladin being immune to fear in a fear-based horror campaign? Honestly asking because that's the equivalent of what your argument amounts to. Let me guess, you'd also be one of those guys all for the recent psionics change in Underrail because psionics are 'too easy.'

The enemies SHOULD be reacting to lighting effects, and if they did, you wouldn't be running humans. If enemies reacted to light like they should, you would be giving up the ambush advantage every time you light a sconce. I know for certain you would not be running humans in your party anymore if this were the case, because it amounts to babysitting. This is why TA's original lighting system was better. By nerfing darkvision, it actually kept humans on par with the other races, and made the game more challenging. I want humans to be useful, and you're arguing against me for it? How well is that logic panning out for you?

All of your arguments are about how lighting is so easy to get that TA's original change shouldn't be necessary. Well if the change is such a negligible issue, then you have no reason to be whining about it in the first place! You're like that kid who wanted a red gameboy but their parents got them a green one instead. That's your "logic." But either way, you got a gameboy, what difference does the color make? The only excuse you, and people like you have, is it wasn't RAW.

I have run horror campaigns before, and I don't have a problem with someone being a Paladin. I run a sanity rule. Paladins might be immune to fear, but nobody is immune to going insane. That's the sort of change TA had made for Solasta, and people like you whined about. You couldn't handle the challenge and demanded they make the game easier for your whiny baby attitudes.

Maybe you should try to make your arguments without insulting people who don't agree with you because it doesn't do your otherwise well written argument any favours.

[Blackmage]

Since when did calling something out for what it is become an insult?
Should I stop calling an empty jar an "empty jar?" Or a pile of dirt a "pile of dirt?"

Since the last update, people have started whining that dealing with somatic components RAW is "too hard" too. It gets in the way of their clerics and paladins casting spells, so they are going for options to make it easier, like turning components off.

It's the exact same problem.

These people want the game to be RAW or homebrewed when it's convenient for them, because they can't handle a challenge.

[gallaghan2000]

Originally posted by BlackMage:

Since when did calling something out for what it is become an insult?
Should I stop calling an empty jar an "empty jar?" Or a pile of dirt a "pile of dirt?"

Since the last update, people have started whining that dealing with somatic components RAW is "too hard" too. It gets in the way of their clerics and paladins casting spells, so they are going for options to make it easier, like turning components off.

It's the exact same problem.

These people want the game to be RAW or homebrewed when it's convenient for them, because they can't handle a challenge.

I actually don't have a problem with somatic components. It's part of the base game that people don't think about. What I have a problem with, that you've verbally attacked me over, is not going by the established rules. Nothing was stopping TA from renaming Darkvision and removing it from their game in favor of low-light, but redefining something as major as darkvision just because is a problem. It's the difference between a specific Pathfinder adventure path taking away a paladin's immunity to fear (replacing it with a heavy resistance) and doing what you commented upon in running sanity rules. One expands upon the game world itself, the other is a copout to change something a poor storyteller finds inconvenient about reality.

[Blackmage]

Originally posted by gallaghan2000:

I actually don't have a problem with somatic components. It's part of the base game that people don't think about. What I have a problem with, that you've verbally attacked me over, is not going by the established rules. Nothing was stopping TA from renaming Darkvision and removing it from their game in favor of low-light, but redefining something as major as darkvision just because is a problem. It's the difference between a specific Pathfinder adventure path taking away a paladin's immunity to fear (replacing it with a heavy resistance) and doing what you commented upon in running sanity rules. One expands upon the game world itself, the other is a copout to change something a poor storyteller finds inconvenient about reality.

You just proved my own point about you. You just said, "what I have a problem with is not going by the established rules." Your only argument is whether or not is "pure." That's not good enough. Video games sometimes have to have slight alterations to be viable, but you don't seem to want to accept that fact. Even if TA re-named dark-vision and/or gave elves low-light vision as they did in 3e, you'd be whining that it wouldn't be right because this is 5e and not 3.5e/Pathfinder. People expand/modify on the core rules because it makes the game more interesting to them and fits their game's theme, that's not a cop-out, that's D&D.

It doesn't matter what they actually call whatever changes they make, the name is completely irrelevant. The point is, you personally feel that unless TA conforms to exactly how you want the game to be, it can't possibly be good enough for you. People like you are never satisfied, so do us all a favor and learn to suck it up and shut up.