Dark Vision as a feature?

[kirbwarrior]

Awhile back I had come up with an idea for one of my races; They see using darkness instead of light. The game mechanical effect is darkness penalties are reversed for them, with 'daylight' making them blind, and total darkness normal sight. To simulate this, I just put a -80% limitation on Dark Vision. But after playing with it in campaigns, I don't know if it is an advantage. Is it worth points? Is it a feature, or even a disadvantage?

Thanks ahead of time.

[Not another shrubbery]

It's just a logical extension of the normal procedure for reversing light level penalties, which usually excludes total darkness. This allows a virtual Night Vision 10 (for this purpose only) to be taken as a Feature. It doesn't seem more advantageous or disadvantageous than other forms of that trait to me.

[Walrus]

There's official rule of such racial feature in Fantasy and some other books. Just say that their normal light level is 10 (or any other number) and any difference from it into either side is light penalty.

[SCAR]

I'd treat it the same way as Infravision and Ultravision are treated if they are the primary vision mechanism - as a zero point feature.
Dark Vision normally costs 25 points, where as Infravision and Ultravision are 10 points, but since Dark Vision usually includes Colorblindness, you could consider that a standard part of the 'package', and applying all the time (even in light) making the overall cost 15 points, which sees fair enough.
If the race wants to buy Color Vision, it would cost them 5 points (the +20% Enhancement to the standard 25 point Dark Vision)

[Blind Mapmaker]

Well, I'd say it depends on how well-known this race is (i.e. whether people think of countermeasures specifically to thwart them) and to what degree the Dark Vision can be supplemented by technological/magical means.

In a straight setup, I think this would be a disadvantage. There are far fewer times and places that are completely dark than times and places where humans have none or negligible vision penalties. Unless the campaign is taking place underground the Dark Vision folks will have considerable disadvantages most of the time, especially if they have the unmodified version and lack the ability to perceive colours.

In a magical world with darkness spells and so on, it is considerably less limiting, although you might want to introduce a nice portable darkness spell analogous to Continual Light. If there are also "dark lanterns" that radiate a degree of darkness like a normal lantern radiates light, things are getting less and less disadvantageous. These lanterns should not use up any exotic material though or you're back to magical items.

On the whole, I think the concept is so limiting that it should have a negative cost. If Dark Vision includes the ability to see colours and dark light sources are common, I guess you could say it's a quirk. That would be close to racial version of Night Vision from GURPS Fantasy. I'd be tempted make it a disadvantage worth -5 points, though, but the quirk might be better to keep it in line with racial Night Vision (which I do think is a bit more of a hassle than a real feature).

[kirbwarrior]

If the Night Vision feature let you see in complete darkness (at a penalty to the difference, so Night Vision 5 would be -5), then it might actually be a feature.

The setting would have 'dark lanterns', and magic is common (built as Powers). If these are as common as normal lanterns, would they be fair as Perks, or would it be more fair as Obscure?

Even with Color Vision, it sounds at best a feature. It does sound half as limiting as Night Blindness, so -5 sounds fair for normal campaigns. I think I will go with a quirk for a setting that can help it.

The main problem is incorporating Color Vision/Colorblindness correctly.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

If the Night Vision feature let you see in complete darkness (at a penalty to the difference, so Night Vision 5 would be -5), then it might actually be a feature.

I don't follow your reasoning here. The NV5 Feature guy has penalties that range from -5 (in full daylight) to 0 (about the light at night from a half moon) to -4 (on a partially cloudy, moonless night), and is blind in total darkness. Pointedly more comparable is the guy with Feature-level NV9, whose penalty is -9 in full daylight, has normal vision on the cloudy, moonless night, but is still blind in utter darkness. I'm not seeing a significant difference between his situational modifiers and those of the character with the proposed trait, who can see normally in the complete lack of light, but is effectively blind in full daylight.

It does sound half as limiting as Night Blindness, so -5 sounds fair for normal campaigns.

Night Blindness is increasing your aggregate penalties, so it is not a very good comparison. The Night Vision Feature really is the best thing to measure it against.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

Well, I'd say it depends on how well-known this race is (i.e. whether people think of countermeasures specifically to thwart them) and to what degree the Dark Vision can be supplemented by technological/magical means.

In a straight setup, I think this would be a disadvantage. There are far fewer times and places that are completely dark than times and places where humans have none or negligible vision penalties.

Good point. Also, there are easy mundane ways to make light in darkness, but not vice versa.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I don't follow your reasoning here. The NV5 Feature guy has penalties that range from -5 (in full daylight) to 0 (about the light at night from a half moon) to -4 (on a partially cloudy, moonless night), and is blind in total darkness. Pointedly more comparable is the guy with Feature-level NV9, whose penalty is -9 in full daylight, has normal vision on the cloudy, moonless night, but is still blind in utter darkness. I'm not seeing a significant difference between his situational modifiers and those of the character with the proposed trait, who can see normally in the complete lack of light, but is effectively blind in full daylight.
Night Blindness is increasing your aggregate penalties, so it is not a very good comparison. The Night Vision Feature really is the best thing to measure it against.

Night Vision 9 guy seems far worse off than Night Vision 10 guy (both features). If NV9 guy was at a -1 in complete darkness, it would probably be more fair.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Good point. Also, there are easy mundane ways to make light in darkness, but not vice versa.

This is the best reasoning. Even in a magic heavy campaign, you still have to jump through hoops to make it dark. Anyone can pick up a torch. I'll make it a straight -5pts, including Color Vision. If they should stay color blind in complete darkness, then Colorblindness (Only complete darkness -50%) sounds fair. If it isn't affecting the race too much, I'll dial it back to a quirk.

Aside, I almost feel Dark Vision should just be 30pts and have Colorblindness as a -20%. I've yet to ever see a reason not to buy Color Vision.

EDIT: Since it's a disadvantage, is Controllable Disadvantage still worth only [1] with it?

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Yeah, I'd do it as a zero-point feature, and a simple inverse of normal vision. You see fine in complete -10 pitch-black darkness, with increasing penalties as it gets lighter, and as a mirror to normal vision, you're completely blinded by light in normal -0 conditions.

There are going to be some times when it's more useful (Spelunking), other times when it's a hindrance (Pretty much anything outdoors; even a night with a full moon has less penalties coming from normal -0 native vision than -10 native). So yeah, it's pretty much a perfect case of a 0-point feature.