D&D 5E ... and we have a wizard!

[mach1.9pants]

They're the worst.

Thaumaturge.

I've got four, so I should know

 

[evileeyore]

The hit points are too low. 8 hit points, this character will die the first encounter or first challenge. This wizard better be best friends with the Cleric who can Revivify.

So you're saying he's always the first to die?

 

[evileeyore]

They're the worst.

Thaumaturge.

Yeah, total brauts.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I've got four, so I should know

I'm currently at 2 and have one compiling.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Yeah, total brauts.

Take that bock.

Thaumaturge.

 

[ren1999]

Why am I always that guy.
Who is always the first to die.

Always the first to die.
So you better REVIVIFY.

 

[SkidAce]

So you're saying he's always the first to die?

Nah..Everquest..."Ranger Down!"

 

[occam]

Well that's the first time I've read that article. Many of the problems he identifies, especially those with illusions and invisibility, are clearly dealt with in AD&D. On top of that, visible light is just a form of radiation. In terms of science, you CAN make something invisible to the infra-read spectrum because it's also just radiation, but radiating at a lower frequency. In fact I recall reading that scientists have already made things invisible to the infra-red in the lab.

Yes, but he was pointing out that a warm creature or object would also heat the air and other objects in contact with it, which would also radiate in the infrared, thus betraying its presence unless the invisibility or other effect also made its immediate surroundings invisible. The point being that if you make it too science-y (e.g. by calling it infravision instead of darkvision), it can get complicated.

In addition, I think his use of science isn't justified for D&D. You would need to have an eye over 1m in diameter to see into the infra-red. So clearly, infravision is some sort of semi-magical or supernatural attribute. As such, it doesn't have to conform exactly the laws of science. Perhaps some new form of advanced biology that science hasn't discovered could allow for smaller eyes, but based on what we know, it's just not possible anyway.

Exactly Sean's point also. Why describe it as seeing infrared radiation, and bringing up all the complicated scientific repercussions, when darkvision is easier?

Besides, as far as we know, "seeing" into the infrared (as opposed to sensing the presence of heat, like a pit viper) isn't an ability possessed by biological organisms. (Into the ultraviolet, yes, which leads us to ultravision and back to its modern descendant, darkvision.) Of course, neither is the ability to breathe fire, but that hasn't generated nearly as many table arguments over the years.

 

[RotGrub]

Yes, but he was pointing out that a warm creature or object would also heat the air and other objects in contact with it, which would also radiate in the infrared, thus betraying its presence unless the invisibility or other effect also made its immediate surroundings invisible. The point being that if you make it too science-y (e.g. by calling it infravision instead of darkvision), it can get complicated.

Exactly Sean's point also. Why describe it as seeing infrared radiation, and bringing up all the complicated scientific repercussions, when darkvision is easier?

Besides, as far as we know, "seeing" into the infrared (as opposed to sensing the presence of heat, like a pit viper) isn't an ability possessed by biological organisms. (Into the ultraviolet, yes, which leads us to ultravision and back to its modern descendant, darkvision.) Of course, neither is the ability to breathe fire, but that hasn't generated nearly as many table arguments over the years.

Well it was never a problem for me because the spell invisibility was very clear.

"This spell causes the creature touched to vanish from sight and be undetectable by normal vision or even infravision"


what part of "undetectable" didn't he understand?


And then the infravision spell says the following


"By means of this spell, the wizard enables the recipient to see in normal darkness up to 60 feet without light. Note that strong sources of light (fire, lanterns, torches, etc.) tend to blind this vision, so infravision does not function efficiently in the presence of such light sources. Invisible creatures are not detectable by infravision"


So his entire argument is completely shut down by the spell descriptions of Infravision and Invisibility.

In top of that the DMG had two rules for Infravision. There was the standard definition (see in the dark rule) and an optional infra-vision rule.

 

[Emerikol]

While it was full of flavor, it was also full of problems. Check out SKR's rant why it was switched to Darkvision here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/infravision.html

I wish more D+D developers published rants like these.

I'm coming to dislike Sean's opinions more and more. Darkvision is pure gamism. It works because it works. No explanation. The very issue with infravision is that it is a natural explanation. I'm not for coming up with something different that has some basis for how it works. I do not believe dwarves are magical 24/7 so I'd like a natural explanation for how they see in the dark other than - they just do. Those kinds of answers are never satisfying for me. I don't mind that the world works differently but I want it to have a basis for how it works. It is why I prefer there to exist a theory of magic and not just have every spell be an arbitrary exception.

I agree with SKR. It will never be in D&D ever again. Infravision though was not an oversight in the old days. They just cared about this stuff and nowadays the developers do not.