Infravision

[Nellisir]

I don't think infravision was "too much trouble", but I did run it exactly as darkvision is now, and I did introduce ultravision almost exactly as low-light vision works now.

So I really don't have any complaints at all.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Algolei]

I still use infravision. In my 1E campaign.

 

[fusangite]

The problem with infravision/ultravision is not whether they are inconvenient or overpowered as a mechanic. The problem with them is that they are premised on Newtonian physics being true.

The existence of magic, the way falling damage works, the existence of four (instead of 100+) elements etc. show conclusively that Newtonian physics is not true in D&D. Therefore introducing ultraviolet and infrared radition becomes extremely messy and damages the fantasy medieval feel of the game.

D&D should move towards a more clearly defined physics rather than the rather confused jumble that it represents today. And in my view, elimination of infravision and ultravision was a good step in that direction.

 

[dcollins]

Well, from what I can remember, the primary reason for removing it was that it was a bit of pseudo-science, and didn't work the way the designers had intended. Seeing heat means that many things can be thwarted -- obscurement, cover, hiding, invisibility...

In AD&D 1st Ed. it wasn't pseudo-science, it was just primarily cool and descriptive.

In AD&D 2nd Ed., they made it pseudo-science, and all the complicated ramifications ruined it.