Have you ever encountered a player or a GM who actually liked

>>51610030
No. Which is why I always quietly laugh at "this race is better because it has darkvision" argument.

File: fda80b5630618f949024c0b3160f7cee.jpg (255KB, 636x900px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 636x900px

>>51610049

To be fair, "this race is better because it has darkvision" has merit.

If the GM dislikes tracking lighting mechanics, then everything in that dark dungeon or cave will be in pitch black darkness, save for that one little radius of torchlight the party brings in.

I do it as a Shadowrun GM. There's a table in the back of the book that I refer to every time combat happens.

Not that it matters when the street sam can see in ultrasound and radar and half the team has thermographic goggles.

>>51610030
I do. If you don't have lowlight vision of some sort, you're going to have a hard time during the night unless there's a full moon out. If you're underground and your torch goes out (and they can go out pretty easily in a damp dungeon), you better have a plan on how to light one up or have some magic.

Also, walking around with torches and other forms of light underground is very good at ensuring everything else that lives there is aware of your presence.

Why are everburning torches like 110GP?

>>51612898
Dunno. A casting of continual light costs 60gp and you can just cast it on a piece of scrap rebar or a torch.

>>51610030

As a gm, I do it pretty lightly. They can choose how much light they are omitting (Which will effect how easy they are to see) and I'll keep the lighting in pathfinder generalizations (Bright, well-lite, low-light, completely dark). It works out for what I want to do, and keeps the players conscious of it when it matters. The challenge of eyesight or stealth is a slightly interesting ones in certain circumstances. Otherwise, it's not really a big deal.

I do. It is mandatory for a lot of dungeon crawls. I only tell people what they see in the distance that they are supposed to see given lighting conditions.

>>51610030
Yes, but lightly. Light shouldn't really matter unless it's in the extremes. Besides, going into low light environments and being blasted with flashes of light can be debilitating.

>>51612987
Does the light burn?

>>51612898
Profit and being made out of fancy materials.

File: Super Bowl MAGA.jpg (107KB, 884x903px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 884x903px

Yes because I don't run a pansy new school D&D game

YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT LIGHT RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT

>>51613159
Nope. Neither does an everburning torch.

>>51613420
I just checked the item and I have to ask. Shouldn't this be an illusion spell?

>>51613530
You have a save versus most illusion spells. So if you made your save you couldn't use an everburning torch.

>>51613530
For the same reason Faerie Fire isn't illusion; this shit is purely arbitrary (and 5e's grab bag school is evocation)

>>51613530
>Pass a save
>You fail to see reality as it actually is
Reminds me of a homebrew of 40k orks as a race. Their psyker potential is based on how stupid they are. Damage is based on how flashy and loud it is. So if an ork fails a check after they get quietly back-stabbed they take 0 damage. On the flip side a flash grenade is the equivalent of a nuke.

I play gurps, so yeah.

>>51610030
Me, I am that GM. I make sure it is present when relevant and I keep track.