Infravision

[Pants]

Really though, it all depends on how detailed and realistic you want the physics in your campaign to be. If you want simple infravision that’s easy to use, just say that it allows you to see living beings in the dark (except reptiles, heheh).

Sounds almost exactly like Darkvision

 

[The Hanged Man]

Hmm... while I agree that infravision is physically unworkable in most cases, a lot of his arguments against it don't really hold water.

It's not so much physically unworkable. You can figure out how Infravision works, and apply it to the game. It's just hella complicated, with lots of annoying sub-rules and exceptions and changes to other rules and . . . I get a headache just thinking about it.

IMO, Darkvision is a great development. Go Simplicity!

 

[Trevalon Moonleirion]

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

I was always sort of suspicious of infravision and the mess that it could create, but most of my players were good and didn't push the limits of what could be done with it. For me theere wasn't much change. After reading Sean's rant, I'm rather fully convinced that infravision is a rather poorly thought out idea for D&D

 

[dcas]

In general - far better idea to get rid of the "infra" reference. Call the darned thing "Darkvision", and have it work however you want. The scientific reference pulls up too many questions from modern minds.

When you say "work however you want," do you mean that there could be variations in the effects of "darkvision," or that there could be variations in the underlying mechanics?

Do different DMs actually adjudicate darkvision differently? E.g. character with darkvision looks in a mirror -- DM #1 says he sees a blank screen, but DM #2 says he sees a perfect reflection of everything in black and white? Does it make a difference if the mirror is magical?

 

[BOZ]

And once again, we see that whole science/misunderstanding thing getting in the way.

actually, i was hinting at leaving reasonable science out of the equation.

 

[Almacov]

Personally, I live for complexity. Infravision doesn't give me a headache, it just gives me more to think about, and more twists for my campaign. In the few days before I run an adventure, I let it stew in my mind constantly. Planning the adventure is just as exciting as running it for me. While complexities like infravision can cause problems for DMs, for me the twists are things my mind thrives on. I was not complaining about the loss of that complexity, I completely agree that having that much to think about is just not everybody's cup of tea, and that replacing infravision with darkvision and low-light vision was the right decision.

 

[Umbran]

When you say "work however you want," do you mean that there could be variations in the effects of "darkvision," or that there could be variations in the underlying mechanics?

Either or both. The underlying game mechanic to darkvision is "the DM says so", after all. It isn't like it's intrinsically tied to levels or die checks or anything.

Do different DMs actually adjudicate darkvision differently? E.g. character with darkvision looks in a mirror -- DM #1 says he sees a blank screen, but DM #2 says he sees a perfect reflection of everything in black and white? Does it make a difference if the mirror is magical?

I'd say there's likely different interpretations out there, yes. I'd expect most folks that are actively trying to go by the letter of the law will say that mirrors don't work by darkvision, as mirrors are a light/color phenomenon. They'd probably say similar for reading ink on a page. But with a couple million gamers out there, I doubt they all play it exactly the same.

 

[Flyspeck23]

I'd say there's likely different interpretations out there, yes. I'd expect most folks that are actively trying to go by the letter of the law will say that mirrors don't work by darkvision, as mirrors are a light/color phenomenon. They'd probably say similar for reading ink on a page. But with a couple million gamers out there, I doubt they all play it exactly the same.

I'd guess most gamers would say that mirrors work with darkvision, and the character in question can read written words, because "darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves [or any other creature with darkvision] can function just fine with no light at all" (quoted from the SRD). Simple as that.
I don't see any "corner cases" with darkvision. Only infravision might call headaches. Or is it just my players who're not as creative with darkvision as they were with infravision?

 

[dcas]

I'd guess most gamers would say that mirrors work with darkvision, and the character in question can read written words, because "darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves [or any other creature with darkvision] can function just fine with no light at all" (quoted from the SRD). Simple as that.

Right -- but mirrors don't work in darkness. They work by reflecting light.

I brought up the "magical mirror" question because I was considering what might happen if one looked into a mirror of opposition (etc.) in total darkness while using darkvision.

I'm just thinking that darkvision was introduced in part because there seemed to be so many differing interpretations of infravision. If there's more than one interpretation of what darkvision can do, then what's exactly the point?

 

[Umbran]

I'd guess most gamers would say that mirrors work with darkvision, and the character in question can read written words

Thus proving my case that there are different interpretations. Thank you

... because "darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves [or any other creature with darkvision] can function just fine with no light at all" (quoted from the SRD). Simple as that.

that's from the entry on dwarves, right? Well, the 3.5 DMG entry on darkvision does not have the phrase "otherwise just like normal sight".

Reading is debatable, admittedly. I personally prefer the idea that the physical shapes of objects are revealed in black and white, but you recieve no information as to their coloration - along the lines of radar or sonar information, rendered as a greyscale image. Meaning you could tell the thing is a book by the shape, but the color information differentiating the writing from the page is lost. Gives dwarves a good reason to like all that carving and engraving, I think

As for mirrors - well, they work by reflecting light. Darkvision functions when there's no light. How on Oerth can Darkvision see reflected light that isn't there?