Let's Talk About Darkvision

[The Souljourner]

Regardless of why Patryn's theory would or wouldn't be feasible, the fact of the matter is that it is completely and utterly unsupported by the rules.

These are the things we know about darkvision -

1.) You can see with absolutely no light.
2.) You see in black and white.
3.) In all other ways, it works just like normal sight.

So whenever you have a question about darkvision... just go through the rules one by one.

Example 1:
Can you read in the dark with darkvision?

1.) - you can see in the dark. So far so good. Gotta be able to see to read.
2.) - you see in black and white. No problem, I can read stuff in black and white movies.
3.) - otherwise works like normal sight. Good, I can read with normal sight.
Conclusion: Yes, you can read with darkvision.

Example 2:
Can you see through completely dark water with darkvision?

1.) - you can see in the dark. So far so good, that negates the "completely dark" part.
2.) - you see in black and white. Nemo's not so pretty, but all I want is to be able to see.
3.) - otherwise works like normal sight. Good, I can see through water with normal sight, and the only other restriction (it being dark) is negated by #1.
Conclusion: Yes, you can see through completely dark water.

-Th Souljourner

 

[dcollins]

Patryn says "Black and White", others say "Grayscale" - but there is one drawing in the DMG that lends credence to Patryn's version, that of the photo attached to the "Darkvision" ability entry (the one with a mindflayer as seen by Darkvision). I don't know if the picture made it to the 3.5 version of the DMG, but it's in the 3E version. Man, is that a freaky picture.

Actually, looking at that picture right now, it definitely has different levels of grayscale in it. Therefore it argues in the other direction. There are some things close up (stalagmites) and some far away (deep tunnel) that are pitch black, while the mind flayer in the mid-ground is different tones of white and light gray.

 

[dcollins]

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?

Of course, now you're just channeling the details of how 1st Ed. infravision worked. Normal infravision (PC races, 60') was passively collecting differences in heat. Improved infravision (monsters, 90' or more) was emitting infrared infravision to scan its surroundings, and so "the eyes of all such creatures will appear as very brightly glowing red when observed by any other creature with standard infravision". (1st Ed. DMG p. 59) Satisfyingly creepy.

Personally, I very much preferred infravision as a more reasonable explanation of seeing-in-the-dark. You could make some reasonable extrapolations from it without the "blackbox" mystery of darkvision. It didn't have real problems until the 2nd Ed. guys (Sean K. Reynolds, et. al.) went way out of their way to complicate it and intentionally invent problems for it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It didn't have real problems until the 2nd Ed. guys (Sean K. Reynolds, et. al.) went way out of their way to complicate it and intentionally invent problems for it.

Psh! Maybe not at your table. They weren't inventing those problems, those problems were horrid. Back when I was 12 I might not have understood kinetic physics so well, but man, you'd think that those other 12 year olds I was playing with had their Ph.D.s the way they'd carry on about how Infravision could do all these wonderous things to make their life easier.

I had it houseruled years before 3E came out to be just normal sight in the dark (full color and all). Ultravision too (although it was much nicer than Infravision), even though it never really gave me any problems really.

Ahh those were the days.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

On the whales issue - they hunt by echolocation so Sperm Whales hunting in the depths of the ocean isn't really a problem cause they ain't looking they're listening.... doesn't mean a lot on the kraken front, but I'd have preferred WotC to have given the kraken echolocation... there's a real world precedent and it solves the issue.

New house rule:
Underwater creatures given darkvision now have echolocation instead. The effect is the same and I don't have to worry about people trying to pick holes in it... of course now kraken can't read in the dark, but I don't picture them relaxing in front of the fire with a good book before bed.

 

[Jhulae]

I always figured they saw in black and white the same way old movies and photographs are in black and white. I.e., what in computer terms we would call "Grayscale."

So if you could make out writing and reflections in a black and white movie, you could make them out with darkvision.

But characters with normal vision will likely find the cities of underdark races to be drab and devoid of interesting colors, should they view them in normal light.

This is just about exactly how Sean K. Reynolds answered the question on his website when someone asked it there.

Sean basically said that you could see anything with darkvision that you colud see with 'normal' sight, except colors.

So, that means a character with darkvision can read, can look in mirrors (out to the total of 60'), etc.

And, if you don't want to accept an answer from someone who helped design the game and the rule.. ::shrug::

 

[Jhulae]

Originally Posted by Henry
Patryn says "Black and White", others say "Grayscale" - but there is one drawing in the DMG that lends credence to Patryn's version, that of the photo attached to the "Darkvision" ability entry (the one with a mindflayer as seen by Darkvision). I don't know if the picture made it to the 3.5 version of the DMG, but it's in the 3E version. Man, is that a freaky picture.

Actually, looking at that picture right now, it definitely has different levels of grayscale in it. Therefore it argues in the other direction. There are some things close up (stalagmites) and some far away (deep tunnel) that are pitch black, while the mind flayer in the mid-ground is different tones of white and light gray.

Sean K. Reynolds stated that he hated that picture because it did not show what darkvision was intended to be: a simple system to let subterranian creatures see in the dark exactly the same way normal people see in the light (albeit sans color).

 

[ARandomGod]

I didn't say it was... It was an illustration...

And a good illustration of a house rule.

I believe darkvision gives a "false color" reading based on distance from the observer. If it were based on something else - like, say, the actual color of a piece of paper, then you could distinguish color using darkvision, which, specifically, you cannot do.

It also provides some good flavor for dwarves being so carved rune-centric - they can't see paint on the walls, but can see the physical change caused by the carvings.
[/QUOTE]

I do like the flavor.

(Re: Why they can't see black on white)
Because they are completely unable to distinguish color.

Black ink merely changes the color of white paper. Blue ink merely changes the color of natural linen. Unless you are saying that someone in a blue robe should look different than someone in a red robe under darkvision.

Actually, black and white aren't colors. This may be a main point in this particular confusion in communication between you and others.

 

[two]

To repeat what other have said (and heck, I said on page 1):

Do the simple, obvious, easy thing. Darkvision = seeing without light. What you can see with light, you can see without light, simply in black-and-white.

Like a movie, or darkvision goggles at night. Done. I know what you mean, you know what you mean, we understand each other. The game continues on.

It's quite possible to cook up other interpretations, but they require a lot of effort, are not very consistent with other parts of the game (kraken?), and are not a clear advantage over the "obvious" easy answer (which does not cause any strange complications like seeing through water).

I'm not against flavor, mind you, simply suggesting that over-complicated elaboration of a relatively simple premise can lead to strange places. This is seen most often, and most damagingly, in intrepretations of otherwise "sensible" scriptures, which after sufficient hoop-jumping can twist meanings 180 degrees. It's trivially easy to misinterpret, or creatively interpret a bit of text; the real question is, why is it being done, and what is to be gained?

In this case, I don't think very much is gained, barring an increase in ability to waste time on an internet Message Board thread. Which, now that I think about it, is not an insignificant advantage.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

I am firmly in the camp of Darkvision=B&W(grayscale) Movie.

I also do not agree that things in the underdark look drab to sighted persons. If you can only see shades of grey, then you would use a lot of patterns in your decoration. And if pink is light grey and green is medium grey, then there seems to be a good chance that things in the underdark could be aesthetically attrocious...


And while it is of litte use at this point in the discussion, here's a .jpg of various people's interpretation of darkvision.