Infravision

[jasper]

infravision first started out as being able to see heat sources. Aka you bump into a guy in the dark alley and he glowing in the dark he okay. If he was not run it was undead.
Then more and more movies, articles, tv shows, started showing things with infrared so then you got people talking about specfic heat marks, following foot prints due left over heat transfer etc.

 

[BOZ]

you could always rewrite infravision and ultravision to work in 3e rules and put them back in your game as you see fit.

 

[seankreynolds]

Whatever happened to infravision? I felt it added tremendous flavour to the demihumans in first edition D&D, and now I look at third edition, and it has all been torn up and replaced with "low light vision" which basically says that elves and whatnot simply have more sensitive vision than humans.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/infravision.html

 

[HellHound]

All things considered, I agree with Sean's stance (and rant) on this topic.

 

[dcas]

Well, in the earlier versions of the game there were two types of infravision. Normal infravision, which granted infravision out to 60 feet, only allowed the character to see into the infrared spectrum. Characters with superior infravision (120 feet), the type possessed by drow and deep gnomes, actually emitted infrared radiation from their eyes and could see features, etc., just like soldiers wearing night-goggles.

I think the low-light vision of the 3e elves is very similar to ultravision. In fact I houseruled this for my game, giving elves (except for dark elves) ultravision and the 'subterranean' races (dwarves, gnomes, etc.) infravision.

I too think infravision is more flavorful than its replacement. I don't think it's too difficult to adjudicate, either -- it's just that one DM's interpretation will differ from another's. That's really not a big deal IMO.

P.S. What happens when someone with darkvision looks in a mirror?

 

[Umbran]

Pain in the neck for some, maybe. We (the people I know and game with) never had problems with it, and still continue to use it.

Yes, there will always be exceptions. However, the thing is notorious for being troublesome, leading to things like Mr. Reynolds' rant.

I wish the DMG had at least mentioned it as an option, but... noooooooo...

Yeah, now let's make a list of all the things that the occasional person feels should have been in the DMG as an option. The resulting options section would likely be longer than the rest of the book!

 

[Tsyr]

And that's a bad thing?

We need an options book. We really do. I'm holding my breath for UA, but...

 

[maddman75]

Infravision is flavorful, but IMO it's the wrong flavor for typical D&D. It's a scientific term that raises scientific questions and reasoning in a fantastic world. I mean if we're going to be niggling about tracks, are undead invisible, can I read with Infravision, can I see a pit with infravision - shouldn't we be talking about what a Lightning Bolt would really do? (strike the ground directly in front of the wizard) It would be a good bit of flavor for a modern or sci-fi game.

Now if you want to talk about Arcane Vision or Elfsight or some other fantasic term, I'm all with you. I don't miss Infravision arguements one little bit.

 

[BOZ]

truth be told, when we used infravision in 2E, it was often more like modern darkvision than what it was supposed to be.

 

[SkidAce]

It was too 'scientific' sounding, which led to a lot of house rules and twinky nonsense like 'Oh, you're near a torch; you're blinded for five rounds' or 'Hey, I'll try to tell if he's lying by reading his body temperature' or 'I'll flawlesly track him by looking at the ground and following the hot spots' etc, etc, ad nauseum. Yeah, it's easy to just say 'It doesn't work like that' but really, it just sounded silly.

Hmm, actually using our thermal imager we Security Forces have...I have tracked an individual's footprints for quite a ways....