Let's Talk About Darkvision

[Lord Pendragon]

I've always interpreted Darkvision similarly to the way Patryn does. Rather than a b&w movie, which sees the world exactly as a color movie does, but translates everything into greyscale, I think of darkvision as the equivalent of an untrasound. It shows you object shapes and spacial relationships in a place where there is no light. As there is no light, there is no differentiation of colors, including black and white. The black and white of the image represent contours, textures, and shapes. Not the actual colors, which are indistinguishable to darkvision.

So with the way I rule it, a person using only darkvision cannot read with darkvision. It's a drawback of the sight. On the plus side, it works quite well in combat and for sneaking.

Of course, darkvision is not ultrasonic sight, though I think that analogy works best. It still functions in an area of Silence, and cannot function through solid objects. It also behaves similarly to normal sight, in terms of which effects/spells block and, and which do not.

My only response to this is to assume that it works in a non-visual way that is not defined any further in the rules for simplicity's sake.

Regarding darkvision vs. blindsight, I've always thought of darkvision as semi-blindsight. The weakest form of it, if you will. It cannot pierce invisibility like true blightsight can, but it is one step in that direction.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn,

You are positing that seeing in black and white (with the clear specification that "colors cannot be discerned", note this does not speficy that greys cannot be seen) rules out greys entirely.

No. Either you're misreading or I'm mistyping, so I apologize.

When you create a black and white movie, you are measuring the intensity of light reflected from a given surface. So, black cloth, because it reflects a small amount of light, will look darker than white cloth or shiny black metal - because it reflects less light towards the camera. Navy blue cloth will reflect less than the white cloth, but more than the black cloth, and so will appear grey.

Color movies work in the same way, except they capture the intensity of a several subsets of the whole spectrum of light - generally, Red light, Green light, and Blue light.

In a black and white movie, someone wearing a white suit and someone wearing an appropriately shiny black suit will look identical because, as far as the film can tell, they are reflecting the same amount of light. Because of this, you cannot determine the actual color of the suit.

Darkvision, specifically, does not allow you to distinguish color - which is an artifact of various things reflecting light differently. You can see the words written in black ink on white paper because the black ink reflects less light and a different wavelength of light than the paper does, creating dark spots on the paper which your brain is able to interpret as words. It is hard to see yellow ink on white paper because, as yellow is closer to white, the difference in amount of reflected light and the wavelengths of that light is smaller, and thus the *contrast* is smaller.

Since Darkvision works without light at all - and even in the presence of light - it cannot see colors. It cannot interpret the differences between red light and blue light and green light which separate a black piece of paper from a white piece of paper - or from black spots on a piece of paper from the background of the paper, because the *only* difference between the two is color.

So, where does the greyscale come in?

It comes in because it's like a false-color version of a Hubble telescope print. Those nebulae aren't really pink and purple - at least, the base data doesn't support the claim - rather, radio frequencies of a given wavelength are assigned the color purple, those of a different wavelength are blue, etc., and eventually you get a beautiful, but falsely colored, picture of the galaxy which allows you to make out certain details.

Darkvision does the same thing - it provides a false color image to the brain based on distance from the observer - out to 60', in the case of dwarves.

Thus, looking at someone, their nose is whiter than their forehead because it's closer. Eyebrows are brighter than the forehead, but darker than the nose. Etc.

For this reason, using Darkvision, you cannot read normally printed materials because you can't see the difference between "paper" and "paper with thin layer of ink."

You could, however, make out runes carved in a wall, or embossed paper, because the difference would be enough to register. This provides a great reason for dwarven reliance on such methods for their recordkeeping - you can't carve paper, but you can carve metal slabs.

And I'm pretty sure that, somewhere, it was explicitly stated that you can't use Darkvision to read normal writing. I just wish I could remember where.

 

[Nail]

FWIW, I agree with Patryn, and have played it that way for quite awhile.

The rules don't say otherwise, and I find a Patryn-type explanation enlighting, providing color to the campaign.



Darkvision can't see color. Given. It sees (gives it's visual info to the creature) in Black and White. Given. But does that mean darkvision can see the color black?

(Think about it carefully.)

I say: No. You cannot see the color black, any more than you can see the color red. There is no light, and therefore there is no color. Simple enough!

 

[apsuman]

No. Either you're misreading or I'm mistyping, so I apologize.


Since Darkvision works without light at all - and even in the presence of light - it cannot see colors. It cannot interpret the differences between red light and blue light and green light which separate a black piece of paper from a white piece of paper - or from black spots on a piece of paper from the background of the paper, because the *only* difference between the two is color.

...

For this reason, using Darkvision, you cannot read normally printed materials because you can't see the difference between "paper" and "paper with thin layer of ink."

...

And I'm pretty sure that, somewhere, it was explicitly stated that you can't use Darkvision to read normal writing. I just wish I could remember where.

I am trying to build my arguement in a step wise refinement so you can tell me, accoring to how you think darkvision works, where I go wrong.

By your logic, using only darkvision, you can not...

Distinguish a page of paper on top of another pagpe of paper.

Distinguish a flat door on a flat wall. (although I suppose you could see the doorknob)

See the pocket on my shirt.

See my belt

See that I am even wearing a shirt (if snug enough).

See the eyeslits on the helmet of the big bad evil guy

That *that* wall is wet, and *that* wall is not.

Gelantanous cubes.

See fish in water

See those gold coins in the water

See my new magic sword in that pool of water.

See the monster hiding behind that veil

Fingernails.

Wrinkles.

Tell a gold coin from a silver coin.

Emeralds from diamonds.

 

[Perun]

I'd say that the designers meant it to work just like the black-and-white film. The description of the darkvision is written very simply.

It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise -- invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be.

This bit here is telling, I'd say. They're talking about limitations of darkvision. If darkvision wasn't meant to allow for reading, I'd say this is where they'd mention it, seeing how reading (texts, maps, glyphs, whatever) is rather important in adventuring. Not to mention you have a whole class that's generally useless if you don't allow for reading, at least once per day (wizard).

Now that I mentioned it, I think wizards, and their spell-preparation method, provide an important clue. There are two darkvision-using races in the PH, dwarf and half-orc. Neither race is renwoned for its wizards, but still, if reading was impossible using only darkvision, I guess it'd have been mentioned in their racial descriptions, in Preparing Wizard Spells section of the Chapter 10: Magic (PH, p. 178), or in the darkvision description in the DMG. But it's not mentioned in any of those sources. OTOH, they did remember to mention that an elven wizard still requires for 8 hours of rest, even if he trances for only 4 hours.

The Preparing Wizard Spells section says that the wizard preparing the spells needs "[...]sufficient light to read them [spellbooks] by". But, if one can read without light, then no light is sufficient for him.

The final "clue" can be found in the description of Darkvision spell (PH, p. 216):

The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight. Darkvision does not grant one the ability to see in magical darkness.

Emphasis mine.

It's another example of how sometimes you have to hunt for the rules (like the famous two-weapon fighting with crossbows). So, I'd say it perfectly sensible to assume that the official way darkvision wokrs is just like black-and-white films, in shades of grey, allowing for reading.

Regards!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I am trying to build my arguement in a step wise refinement so you can tell me, accoring to how you think darkvision works, where I go wrong.

Roger! I'll start each section with a Yes / No / Maybe, followed by my rationale.

Distinguish a page of paper on top of another pagpe of paper.

Maybe.

You could, if at least one was of different thickness, they were of sufficient thicknesses, or if one was slightly raised. Place two pieces of normal paper next to each other - at what point are you able to tell one is higher than the other?

Now, imagine you'd been seeing that way since childhood, and how small a difference in thickness would be necessary to pick up that there were two things here, since, presumably, one piece would be closer than the other.

How small of a difference in color do you need to tell one piece from the other?

Distinguish a flat door on a flat wall. (although I suppose you could see the doorknob)

No / Maybe.

A perfectly flat door flush against a perfectly flat wall, with no crack around it - perfectly fitted? Sounds like the kind of doors dwarves are known for making - because, when dealing with darkvision, it's the only way to hide them - be it from dwarves or other underground creatures!

A normal door? Absolutely.

See the pocket on my shirt.

Yes.

Unless your shirt is really, really thin, the fabric of the pocket would be of sufficiently different distance from the shirt to notice it. So, yes.

See my belt

Yes.

Your belt goes over your pants, and so therefore there is a delta in distance. It'd be visible.

See that I am even wearing a shirt (if snug enough).

Yes / Maybe.

Possible. It'd be the same as someone wearing a looser shirt *just* close enough to skin tone that, when you look, he or she looks naked. If you looked close enough, however, you could tell. Dwarves should act likewise.

See the eyeslits on the helmet of the big bad evil guy

Yes.

They're eyeslits - spaces where there isn't anything to see. So, you'd see the helmet on each side of the eyslit and a darker "gap" where the eyeslit was. If you were close enough, you'd be able to see the face behind the eyeslits.

That *that* wall is wet, and *that* wall is not.

No / Maybe.

If the wall is merely damp, chances are the layer of water on is wouldn't be thick enough to register. On the other hand, if water was actively running down the wall, you'd be able to make out the variations as the trickles moved acoss is.

If we're talking two walls on each side of a corridor, one wet, one not, I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference without touching them - which is largely true for normal sight, as well, especially if the base wall is shiny to begin with.

Gelantanous cubes.

Yes.

It's a big solid thing. Shows up easily.

See fish in water

No.

You'd see the surface of the water, and the ripples made by submerged fish, but no the fish itself.

See those gold coins in the water

See above.

See my new magic sword in that pool of water.

See above.

See the monster hiding behind that veil

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?

Fingernails.

Yes.

They are easily distinguishable from the surrounding finger. You wouldn't be able to tell if they were painted, however!

Wrinkles.

Maybe.

If very fine, they'd probably be able to escape all but the most thorough examination. Thick, heavy wrinkles, of the kind dwarves are known for? Absolutely.

Tell a gold coin from a silver coin.

No / Maybe.

If the two coins are of equal size, marked in the same way, then no. If gold coins have different markings (a crown instead of an eagle), then yes.

Emeralds from diamonds.

No.

Barring some strange justification (diamonds are always cut princess, and emeralds never are), there wouldn't be enough of a difference to see.

I think this also has interesting ramifications for "generic" dwarven culture.

Dwarves make the finest secret doors in existence, because they need to hide them well from their own kind - so they must be perfectly fitted, or they stand out like sore thumbs in darkvision.

Dwarves are known for heavily carved items, rather than for gem-encrusted works (more the province of gnomes or elves). This is because, under darkvision, one gem looks pretty much like any other, while carving is still readily viewable.

Dwarves are known for carving runes in metal and rock - which I've discussed earlier.

Dwarves are the creators of rune magic (FRCS) - because normal scrolls are largely unusable without a source of light. So they made their own scroll-like system which is easily useable without light.

Dwarves are known for their beard - huge, prominent areas of physical irregularity and texture, which should stand out like a beacon under darkvision.

So, yeah, I like this way of looking at it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The Preparing Wizard Spells section says that the wizard preparing the spells needs "[...]sufficient light to read them [spellbooks] by". But, if one can read without light, then no light is sufficient for him.

Ah - but you're assuming the point to prove the point!

You can't assume you can read without light to prove that you can read without light.

I could just as easily turn around and say, "It actually said you need sufficient light to read them by, therefore proving that you need light to read. If it had meant that you could read them with darkvision, it would have specifically said so."

Also, I think the nonprevalence of dwarven wizards is a point in *my* favor. In general, dwarves don't write on paper. The paper-based spellcasting traditions of humans and elves, therefore, have penetrated very little into dwarven society for exactly that reason. Instead, they have devised their own methods of spell recording - rune magic, which is based on Divine magic.

And what's to prevent your dwarven wizard from making his spellbook out of small sheets of engraved and painted metal, so that he can read them both with and without light? I think it would add to the flavor of things.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Under the echolocation view, a Wall of Force would also be opaque to Darkvision...

Something I've wondered for a while. Since Darkvision works in complete absence of light, doesn't that mean it must have an active component? Rather than purely passive vision, a dwarf's eyes must emit something that gets reflected so he can 'see'?

In which case, isn't every dwarf with his eyes open projecting a sixty-foot cone of something that can be perceived by someone else with Darkvision?

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In which case, isn't every dwarf with his eyes open projecting a sixty-foot cone of something that can be perceived by someone else with Darkvision?

If you wanted to go that far, sure. I've never felt the need.

But it would only be visible, I'd wager, 120' out - the maximum distance a dwarf's "vision stuff" travels out and back and is recognizable.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Pardon the meta-game for a second, but please bear with me.

The creators of D&D 3rd ED replace Infravision with Darkvision. This was because Infravision was a far too complex ability tied to real world physics (see Sean's rant). Darkvision, from its design standpoint, is supposed to be a simple "See in Black and White" ability. Introducing anything more is, I believe, not what the author's had in mind when they created Darkvision as it becomes much more ambiguous and difficult to adjudicate by the DM.