I've just been considering this, a point first brought to my mind by my good friend, Sexi Golem: Would it really be that unbalancing to remove the sight range limit on Darkvision? The character still has to make spot and listen checks to sense approaching foes and magical darkness still hinders it, but otherwise, it's just like normal daylight. Would that be such a big deal? I, like Sexi, just think it's silly that the uber-powerful vampire BBEG, or whatever, can't see anyone more than 60 feet away in his prefered environment of the dark. Would it make dark-sighted creatures more powerful? Slightly, but I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. It also seems better, from a lore/in-game character knowledge stance, to be able to actually say, "This creature can see in the dark," rather than, "This creature can see 20 yards in the dark." Besides, once I tell the players that I'm going with this option, they simply expect dark-sighted creatures to have that ability, which encourages them to take greater precautions in dark areas and adds even more of a "fear" element, which I think most DMs like.
Anyway, what are the opinions of other Lords of the Boards?
|
While I am hesitant to call myself a "Lord of the Board" I will offer my own humble opinion on this matter. I think you bring up an excellent point, but I guess it depends on the 3.5E "mechanics" of darkvision (which I am sadly not familiar with).
Does it work like heat vision, where you are seeing the varying thermal signatures of people and objects around you? If so, then it would make sense to put in a range factor. Heat energy dissipates over distance, therefore the thermal signature would be weaker over distance as well.
If, on the other hand, the system is based off of how (for example) a cat's or dog's eyes work (which I can't remember the physics of right now) then it makes sense to remove the range increment.
Does it work like heat vision, where you are seeing the varying thermal signatures of people and objects around you? If so, then it would make sense to put in a range factor. Heat energy dissipates over distance, therefore the thermal signature would be weaker over distance as well.If, on the other hand, the system is based off of how (for example) a cat's or dog's eyes work (which I can't remember the physics of right now) then it makes sense to remove the range increment.
The physics behind darkvision are not explained to my knowledge. It is stated in the racial description of dwarves in the PH that they can see 60 ft. even without light, and that that vision is black and white only.
The heat vision was "infravision" back in 1st and 2nd Ed., but is not part of 3e. So, it isn´t heat vision.Cats and dogs (and other animals) have some kind of low-light amplification in their eyes, IIRC. But there has to be some light to be amplified. So darkvision isn´t like having a cat´s eye also. The elves low-light vision is more like that, I think.
The "best" explanation is probably that it is some kind of "magical" gift allowing certain creatures to see in the dark, as I don´t see a (pseudo-)physical explanation of darkvision at the moment. And if it is, then maximum ranges are all right.
Stefan
Fair enough. I'll just create a new category of vision, something like "dark sighted" or some such, that applies to vampires, mind flayers, etc., that allows them to see without limit in the dark. Other beings, such as goblinoids and orcs and dwarves, retain their darkvision (although I might extend the range at which they can see with it). Thanks!
There is a feat out of Plot and Poison, by Green Ronin, that allows you to see in complete darkness, though it is a supernatural ability and thus doesn't work in an antimagic field. It requires the Alertness and Skill Focus (Spot) feat as well as 120-ft darkvision.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think an unlimited range of darkvision would create a strong incentive for all PCs to acquire the ability early (either through magic items or race selection) to gain the advantage of operating without light (e.g., it's not as easy to spot you in the dark when you don't have a light source, you gain advantages over creatures that rely on light to see, etc.) Furthermore, the advantage of low-light vis-a-vis darkvision is the range, and this mod takes away that advantage.
I'm not sure how unbalancing it would be in the long run, but it would definitely change the feel of low level play. Currently, low level characters in my campaigns tend to use dancing lights or low-light vision to extend their range in combat in dark conditions. Characters with darkvision are good at being scouts or acting as the first wave into dark encounter areas, but they can never get too far ahead because they can only see so far. With this house rule, the darkvision character is going to get to act at a greater range while all his buddies are bringing their light sources to bear on the threat.
Darkvision is already a good ability. The limited range balances it against low-light and no-light vision. I wouldn't modify it for PC's. For vampires, I would give them low-light and darkvision. That way they would be able to effectively see unlimited distances in the open air at night, but would have somewhat less range in an enclosed space. Unless a creature lives predominantly underground, giving them low-light will probably achieve the desired effect without unbalancing PC choices.
I hadn't really considered low-light vision in addition to the darkvision, Sebastian. I seem to recall visibilty ratings for moonlight and starlight that would limit the range of low-light vision even on a clear night, but I've looked through my PH and DMG and can't find them, so maybe it was a 3.0 rule. Anyway, your suggesstion makes perfect sense and doesn't mess with game balance since it doesn't affect player options. Thanks.
Well, since I am obviously a Lord of the Board (having been here for all of two weeks :) ), I'll give my two cents.
I think that Darkvision shouldn't have a range. Otherwise, it's kind of silly (like in Order of the Stick) to have a headlights of sorts in your eyes (see Durkon and Hilgya).
I think that Darkvision should function like normal vision, but possibly with some penalties to Search or Spot to balance it. (After all, the 3e PHB shows us that things look kinda' weird in Darkvision.)
Though I hadn't though about this before, I kinda have to agree with Seren (something I tend to do on a regular basis). I don't see any problem extending darkvision to "normal" sight ranges. I might impose a modifier to find any kind of detail due to the fact that you can only see in black and white. I'm not sure if this is really how things would work, but it's harder for me to spot detail in an old black and white movie (this could just as easily be due to the relatively poor quality film of the era).
There's no reason that darkvision has to be as high quality as regular vision in daylight, Sel Carim. Though the workings are(intentionally, I believe) never described, it would be no stretch to say that, since there is no light present when darkvision is in effect, the quality of sight also greatly decreases, so that fine detail is hard to pick out. This might bestow a -2 or even -4 penalty on Spot and Search checks, and possibly halve range increments on weapons.
I think the mechanics for lighting and vision ranges in general are a bit problematic in the game, although maybe there is no practical alternative, without running into the "excessive simulation" problem. The physics of light don't work very much like the game mechanics of light. There is no easy way in game mechanics to allow for the variable effects of different kinds of light or the relationship of a particular creature's location to the light source that is illuminating its targets. It's up to the DM to make an ad hoc ruling that, for example, everyone can see twice as far as normal because there's a full moon, or you have a +5 bonus to spot that ettin because he is silhouetted against the starlight emanating from the night sky, or you have a 20% miss chance because the bullseye lantern your target is carrying is shining in your face, so you can't see clearly. Many light spells create an area of diffuse illumination without a source, allowing one to cast light on one's helmet or the tip of one's bow without light-blinding oneself. Darkness spells are supposed to create an area of shadowy illumination (in 3.5) that partially suppresses the illumination created by a torch or other light source. (Many people, including authors of Dungeon adventures, seem to still use the old 3e rules that darkness completely suppresses all light in the area of effect, thus requiring blind-fight to operate in effectively).
In reality, there has to be some kind of light in order for vision to occur. This is why 1e had infravision (replaced by darkvision)--dwarves and other creatures had the ability to detect radiation in the infrared spectrum as well as in the human visual spectrum, providing a modern physics explanation for their ability to see well in the dark.
In game terms, I think darkvision 60' works nicely with the 20' radius of bright illumination from a torch. In the dungeoneering party, the human sees clearly 20' and dimly 40', the elf sees clearly 40' and dimly 80', and the dwarf sees clearly 60'. The elf can out-see the dwarf by 20', but gets a 20% miss chance when trying to shoot out there with his bow. Foes that are fully dark-adapted have darkvision 90 or 120, and can outsee either, but only by enough to detect the party before being detected and take a quick action to prepare (shoot, buff, or hide). If the party is carrying a light source, of course, that gives them away much farther in advance--I'd rule the light-source is visible at 10 times the range of its radius of dim illumination, multiplied by the number of such light sources in close proximity, as a rough rule of thumb.
In the PH it states that darkvision is not based in the infrared spectrum--which implies (since it is an extraordinary rather than supernatural ability) that it is merely a very superior form of night vision that works with the miniscule amounts of light available in an underground environment. It might make sense to give darkvision a radius of shadowy vision equal to twice its normal range, or to rule that darkvision is by nature effectively equivalent to seeing in shadowy illumination. (The latter makes a lot of sense in game terms, as it allows for the possibility of "hiding in the shadows" from a creature with darkvision, a task that would otherwise be impossible without some cover being available.) It also makes sense that darkvision, while useful for detecting and targeting enemies, and avoiding hazards, should not be useful for other tasks, like reading or anything that requires color differentiation.
Sorry for the dissertation on vision--it's one of those things where I'd like to see more realistic and consistent rules that don't detract from the playability of the game by making things too complicated. Obviously I haven't succeeded in doing that here!
|
the only explaination i've ever been able to decern from the small clues given about darkvision is that it works somewhat like FLER,the police night cameras, which pick up ambiant heat/radiation. since all things give off infantesimle ammount of radiation,it stands to reason that creatures from an ecology of near to perfect darkness may have developed the ability to detect the ambiant radiation and convert it into easily identifiable images...a big clue for are alchemical substances found in "Unearthed Arcana", Dwarf blind(renders creatures with darkvision temporarily unable to use the ability,overload anyone), andI believe the other is called darkvision powder(allows a message to be written on any surface that can only be read by someone with darkvision)...
game on...in the Underdark
Though I hadn't though about this before, I kinda have to agree with Seren (something I tend to do on a regular basis). I don't see any problem extending darkvision to "normal" sight ranges. I might impose a modifier to find any kind of detail due to the fact that you can only see in black and white. I'm not sure if this is really how things would work, but it's harder for me to spot detail in an old black and white movie (this could just as easily be due to the relatively poor quality film of the era).
There is no question that Saern is wise beyond his years.
But it maybe that Darkvision - though registered as "sight" is really soem other sort of sensory perception - or combination of different senses.Or maybe it is just magic - there is no scientific rationale (this is what I think - maybe thats childish of me - but bats can't see in the dark - the trace radiation thing to me seems well - silly).
I think though the issue is mostly game balance - the ability to snipe from two range increments out - would be REALLY powerful. Darkvision of 60' though it has the dissadvantage of being a sort of arbitrary cutoff can be balanced - there are spells/items/even mundane solutions to 60'.
Thats my take anyway.
Awww, Kyr, I'm blushing!
However, from the way the DMG described it, it seems to me that darkvision is in fact a form of optical sensory reception, and since it is listed as an extraordinary ability, it's not magical. The 3.0 DMG had a good comparison picture of an image in normal and dark vision, but I don't think it got transfered to 3.5.
I don't find the sight limit is that big of a factor to begin with, since when darkvision is in play, maximum viewing distance are often limited (due to cavern/dungeon walls, trees in a dark forest, etc.) and when that isn't the case, the normal viewing distances limit effective maximum range, anyway. By stating the visual quality of darkvision is worse than that of normal vision, it becomes even less of an issue, as Spot checks take penalties, range increments on weapons are cut down, and I really like the suggestion that even the best darkvision is only equivalent to shadowy illumination. The additional 20% miss chance, in combination with the other factors, illustrates that dakvision is quite inferior to normal vision, as well as imposing good game balance solutions, and lets rogues sneak up on dwarves at night. :)
well, I am more like the pauper of the boards; but not that you bring it up; the whole dark, low light; whatever night visions in this game are really pretty sad. Maybe the game was written by moles; but I would think that any race that lives primarily in darkness would see a whole lot better than 60 feet without their eyes glowing like flashlights. modern nightvision gear is certainly much much better than 60 ft for example; giving more distance to darkness overcoming visions should not at all be unbalancing, but instead make it a better game. Am going to give this some consideration and bounce it around my table top of peeps then institute some changes; thanks for pointing this out though I do agree with Saern that it rarely comes into play due to topigraphical inpediments.
Sean K Reynolds has a rant about Infravision, Darkvision and why it isn't the way it was in 2e. Rant: Infravision and Why It Should Be Destroyed
Id say that darkvision should b described as heat-vison for ease of descripton to players and believeability, it also solves the "why is the sight limited" question. Varying degrees of senstivity to such "heat signatures"
I like the idea of it varying by type of critter. Some things, like vampires, I could really dig being able to see as well at night as a human could in total daylight, whereas I also have to say there's a nice ambiance to the fact that PC races with darkvision going underground have a tight circle of vision, like on a foggy day or while carrying a torch. Much of that would be lost if the dwarf in the party (they have DV right?) could just poke around and tell the rest of the party everything about the whole joint. Besides it's just nice to have more things in the game that aren't stock templates, y'know. I'm so tired of special abilities that are just cut and paste from creature to creature.
As for visual quality, I've always imagined darkvision being a little grainy looking anyway, like the way old silent movies look. I like the idea that it uses a different set of structures in the eyes and so the image is a bit different looking, plus it gives things a neat look when I picture it in my head--and that always has milage for me since I try to run games that are sensory detail heavy.
Director of Narrative
|
Sean K Reynolds has a rant about Infravision, Darkvision and why it isn't the way it was in 2e. Rant: Infravision and Why It Should Be Destroyed
Wow! And I thought I got too "science-y" with this kinda stuff.
Id say that darkvision should b described as heat-vison for ease of descripton to players and believeability, it also solves the "why is the sight limited" question. Varying degrees of senstivity to such "heat signatures"
The problem is that picking up heat signatures already has many implications and problems that darkvision does not cover.
For example: Darkvision would not give away a human hiding behind a blanket. It would not be able to follow the footprints of warm creatures. You could use darkvision to navigate through a sub-zero cave, thermal imagery would leave you just as blind. So I doubt how easy the discription is going to be when players start asking to use their "darkvision" in broad daylight to find a baddie hiding in magic fog.
Darkvision is identical to normal sight but colorless and does not require light to function. That is a very easy way to describe it. When asked about it's limitations you always know what it can and cannot do.
A random idea: make whatever the range is for darkvision a range increment instead. So they can see as far as they want in darkness, but spot checks (or whatever) beyond 60 ft. (for example) are at a -2 penalty, beyond 120 ft. at a -4, so on and so forth.
When they ask you how this makes sense, hold your arms out at waist level, wiggle your fingers, and say "DM MAGIC!!!" in a high-pitched voice.
I'm very tired. I'm going to bed now.
A random idea: make whatever the range is for darkvision a range increment instead. So they can see as far as they want in darkness, but spot checks (or whatever) beyond 60 ft. (for example) are at a -2 penalty, beyond 120 ft. at a -4, so on and so forth.
Great Idea!
Good idea Padan; that is how some other game systems handle it and it works well; like Hero games has range sight modifiers; it would be easy to do this in D&D and use the basic number for how far a creature can see before a modifier as being based upon their initial sight range; so if you have 12" vision; you get a negative per each additional 12" that you try to see with all applicable other sight modifiers.
I think anything that makes the game more interesting is worth it.
Not always.
ICE's combat system, the most complete system I ever saw for fantasy RPGs with fantastic (and oftimes hilarious) critical tables, often slowed combat to a crawl for us.
As the old proverb goes: "be carful what you wish for -- you might just get it."
Regards,
Jack
Are you talking about Roll Master? hehe I mean Role Master? Very good game if you have a good GM; GM really has to know the system though and very well or the game will take a long time; make sure everyone has a player copy of the crit charts they need or stuff will take an absurdly long time to find in all the books, same with spells; this is one game you have to be organized for or you party will have lag worse than, well, pretty bad; got a snickers? Love the game though; any game that you can have 8 spell casters in and none of them able to cast a spell someone else has is ok by me.