Using a mirror in the dark

[mrspaghetti]

Claxon wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

I guess I'm saying that the game does not define how a mirror works. In the absence of such a definition, other rules that define how abilities work and how characters interact with the in-game world are all we have to go by. Darkvision explicitly grants the ability to "see in darkness and dim light just as well as...in bright light". So if a character can see an image in a mirror in bright light, they should be able to see the same image in the absence of light, but in black and white.

I really do understand your point of view, I just think the game is served better in this case by suspending your understanding of real-world science. Why can there not be a kind of light in Golarion that is present everywhere but can only be seen by those with Darkvision? And maybe still another type that is invisible even to those with Darkvision, but not Greater Darkvision. And mirrors reflect these light varieties just as they do the mundane kind. Poof, problem solved.

So then, if a prism is in a room with no light, does someone with Darkvision see a greyscale rainbow being emitted from the prism, despite the absence of light needed to create the rainbow in the first place?

Exactly! You get my argument. Without light, things that rely on light don't do what they normally do.

Without light, there are no reflections. So in the absence of light polished metal, water, mirrors, etc have no reflections. Prisms have no light to separate into different wavelengths.

This has nothing to do with darkvision, it's simply how those objects works and while it is physics, it basics extremely basic physics to understand that without light you don't have reflections.

So anyone, with any sort of sense, cannot detect what isn't there to be detected.

Next someone will try telling us that with blind sense you can see the reflection in the mirror/water/metal and see the "rainbow" of the prism, all without any light.

NO. It's not there, it can't be seen.

Quite a rigid interpretation for a world where characters can transform into animals or inanimate objects, create Walls of Force, walk on water, and any number of other physics-defying activities.

I guess you will not allow characters to see reflections on the surface of water they are walking on (or flying above) if they have also cast the spell Darkvision on themselves? Note the spell description for Darkvision:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

[Claxon]

If there's no light there's no reflection, regardless of whether it's water or metal or a mirror.

The characters ability to manipulate themselves or the world through other magic doesn't mean darkvision should manipulate the world.

So, if someone is flying over water and there's light (and the creature has darkvision) they will be able to see reflections (because there's light) but darkvision wont matter. If they're flying in a cave that's completely dark over an underground lake there will be no reflection to be seen in the water because there is no light.

[S. J. Digriz]

Claxon wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

I guess I'm saying that the game does not define how a mirror works. In the absence of such a definition, other rules that define how abilities work and how characters interact with the in-game world are all we have to go by. Darkvision explicitly grants the ability to "see in darkness and dim light just as well as...in bright light". So if a character can see an image in a mirror in bright light, they should be able to see the same image in the absence of light, but in black and white.

I really do understand your point of view, I just think the game is served better in this case by suspending your understanding of real-world science. Why can there not be a kind of light in Golarion that is present everywhere but can only be seen by those with Darkvision? And maybe still another type that is invisible even to those with Darkvision, but not Greater Darkvision. And mirrors reflect these light varieties just as they do the mundane kind. Poof, problem solved.

So then, if a prism is in a room with no light, does someone with Darkvision see a greyscale rainbow being emitted from the prism, despite the absence of light needed to create the rainbow in the first place?

Exactly! You get my argument. Without light, things that rely on light don't do what they normally do.

Without light, there are no reflections. So in the absence of light polished metal, water, mirrors, etc have no reflections. Prisms have no light to separate into different wavelengths.

This has nothing to do with darkvision, it's simply how those objects works and while it is physics, it basics extremely basic physics to understand that without light you don't have reflections.

So anyone, with any sort of sense, cannot detect what isn't there to be detected.

Next someone will try telling us that with blind sense you can see the reflection in the mirror/water/metal and see the "rainbow" of the prism, all without any light.

NO. It's not there, it can't be seen.

I like your argument, but the trouble is that mirrors are just special cases of ordinary objects. For, say, a statue, photons normally hit the statue, and cause the electrons in the atoms of the statue to jump a number of orbits, and then because those are less stable orbits, they fall back, and the atom releases photons. So, statues also reflect light, just not as nicely as a mirror.

None the less, as a GM I would rule that mirrors don't work well with darkvision. They were made to reflect visible light, not darkvision light. Of course, it would not be unreasonable for there to be (more expensive) mirrors specially made to work with darkvision.

[Claxon]

Actually, I agree that as a GM I would probably allow a magical mirror to exist that would somehow have reflections for those that use darkvision.

[Ravingdork]

So how about them shadows? Seen or unseen? There or not there?

Being undead make any difference?

[Aratorin]

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

[mrspaghetti]

Would the spell Gust of Wind work in a vacuum? What about Hydraulic Push in the middle of a desert, or on a plane of existence where water does not exist?

[mrspaghetti]

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

[GM Glyn]

Mirrors work by reflecting light without scattering the reflection, but then all objects reflect light (assuming they are not radiating their own light) just not as well as a mirror. Why assume that a reflection for one class of object doesn't work, but does for another.

Interestingly the darkvision spell is classified under divination so it could be showing you what you would see if there was light, but that wouldn't explain non-magical darkvision.

In the rules, Darkvision is a sight-based sense and should be treated like other sight-based vision. Why make the rules more complicated than it needs to be?

[Unicore]

What does it even mean to only be able to see in black and white? As a GM, I like to take a hard stance that that excludes the gray scale as a whole and works much more like an ink and paper cartoon that doesn't even have shadows, because what is a shadow without light? So you can see basic shapes and forms pretty clearly, but not really nuance. Therefore, I think it is more interesting to not let mirrors work with darkvision (other than being able to see that there is no light).

Cause let's be honest, "Normal vision" except in black and white is not something mechanically possible in the real world so we don't really have a clear mechanical framework for what that works like.

Make it fun, make it consistent, and make sure everyone at the table buys into the physics you have created for yourselves and it is not going to be a problem.

[Ravingdork]

The dwarven adventurers hiding in the dark keep asking themselves if the dragon over across the gorge is a maleficent red scale dragon or a benevolent gold scale dragon, or some other color. XD

[thenobledrake]

I had not considered the different possible interpretations of "black and white." I was far too baffled by the trying-to-make-it-work-like-physics-when-it-clearly-can't and "rule of cool" parts of the discussion.

So, while "black and white" definitely can mean the binary of things being either fully black or fully white with no gradation involved, I don't think that is the intended meaning - especially because we are not given a threshold to divide the two, and thus we don't have enough information to determine what would blend into what.

If I could directly upload images, I would absolute grab some piece of dungeon-y art and show what I mean... but let's just use Merisiel as our example (page 181 for reference). Depending on where the cut-off point is, a binary take on black & white could leave her skin, hair, and drawn blades white, and every other part of her black, or it could make just the red leather and blue clothing black and everything else white. Neither of which makes seeing her with that kind of vision actually useful - especially if there's no way to distinguish between the black parts of her and the walls and floor around her that would also be black.

Definitely doesn't evoke a feeling of "just as well" when it comes to comparing what would be seen in bright light.

Which is why I assumed that when the book said "black and white" it meant like how TV used to be in black and white - you still see gradation in shade, there's just no variance in hue. That way, there is just as much detail - besides color - to see, which does evoke a feeling of "just as well" when it comes to comparing what would be seen in bright light.

[mrspaghetti]

Unicore wrote:

So you can see basic shapes and forms pretty clearly, but not really nuance.

In other words, you're saying you can't see "just as well as you can see in bright light".

[Ubertron_X]

Ravingdork wrote:

The dwarven adventurers hiding in the dark keep asking themselves if the dragon over across the gorge is a maleficent red scale dragon or a benevolent gold scale dragon, or some other color. XD

Those dwarves really need to up their dragon recogniton game!

[mrspaghetti]

GM Glyn wrote:

Mirrors work by reflecting light without scattering the reflection, but then all objects reflect light (assuming they are not radiating their own light) just not as well as a mirror. Why assume that a reflection for one class of object doesn't work, but does for another.

Interestingly the darkvision spell is classified under divination so it could be showing you what you would see if there was light, but that wouldn't explain non-magical darkvision.

In the rules, Darkvision is a sight-based sense and should be treated like other sight-based vision. Why make the rules more complicated than it needs to be?

All the spell does is give you darkvision, exactly as if you were a dwarf or goblin. Again, the spell says:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Edit: I think the way you phrased it above is essentially how I am interpreting the way darkvision functions. "You can see in darkness exactly what you would see if there were bright light". I think if the book had phrased it that way we might all agree that a mirror works in darkness for those with darkvision.

[Aratorin]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

Yes, of course the Spell is Magical. That was never under debate. The ability that it grants is not, nor is the natural ability of Dwarves. Just like the Goblin Pox inflicted by Goblin Pox is not a Magical Disease. It's a mundane thing created by a Spell.

mrspaghetti wrote:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Evocative descriptions are not Rules. Magical abilities have the Magical Trait.

[mrspaghetti]

Aratorin wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

Yes, of course the Spell is Magical. That was never under debate. The ability that it grants is not, nor is the natural ability of Dwarves. Just like the Goblin Pox inflicted by Goblin Pox is not a Magical Disease. It's a mundane thing created by a Spell.

mrspaghetti wrote:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Evocative descriptions are not Rules. Magical abilities have the Magical Trait.

Interesting that spells themselves do not actually have the Magical trait... so I guess no spells are magical.

OR, the devs didn't give it the magical trait because they don't want Dispel Magic to be able to blind dwarves and goblins in a cave. Yet that doesn't mean it works like UV goggles, which are restricted by the laws of nature that exist in the real world. UV goggles are not 'supernatural'.

[Aratorin]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

Yes, of course the Spell is Magical. That was never under debate. The ability that it grants is not, nor is the natural ability of Dwarves. Just like the Goblin Pox inflicted by Goblin Pox is not a Magical Disease. It's a mundane thing created by a Spell.

mrspaghetti wrote:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Evocative descriptions are not Rules. Magical abilities have the Magical Trait.

Interesting that spells themselves do not actually have the Magical trait... so I guess no spells are magical.

OR, the devs didn't give it the magical trait because they don't want Dispel Magic to be able to...

Spells have Tradition Traits, which make them Magical.

Lots of people describe the abilities of Bruce Lee, Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, and the like as "supernatural". That in no way means Magical.

[mrspaghetti]

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

This whole post is "reverse metagaming". It makes no sense anymore than the GM analyzing Lightning Bolt and saying that it doesn't work if the target is standing on a rubber mat of sufficient thickness. Or that the Cloud Jump feat simply doesn't work because it's, well, impossible.

[Ravingdork]

If darkvision doesn't account for shades of gray or any gradiation, then you could end up with any of the following. The threshold between black and white will make a BIG difference in what you can identify or not.

Ergo, I suspect that the intent is that there are gradiations.

[thenobledrake]

Ravingdork wrote:

If darkvision doesn't account for shades of gray or any gradiation, then you could end up with any of the following. The threshold between black and white will make a BIG difference in what you can identify or not.

Ergo, I suspect that the intent is that there are gradiations.

Thank you for linking to an example of what I was talking about before, it's very illustrative.

[Jared Walter 356]

Claxon wrote:

Let me come at this from a slightly different direction.

Let's assume we have a room with no visible light (and we're going to ignore the existence of ultraviolet and infrared light). There is a mirror in the room (and no people). Does the mirror reflect anything?

Mirrors are routinely used to focus and reflect UV, infrared, and radio waves. The right mirrors can reflect other kinds of light as well. So while your mirror might not reflect anything in the visible range, and appear empty to you, other EM radiation is still being reflected.

Each mirror will have a fairly broad, but limited spectrum so yes the mirror would reflect EM radiation outside the visible range.

[S. J. Digriz]

Back in the wild west days of 1st edition where the rules taken as a whole never made much sense anyway, there was infravision, which let you see infrared light sources, like body heat, and ultravision, which let you see ultraviolet light sources, like black lights (it was the 1970s). We added things like the ability to see microwaves, radio waves and x-rays for those with very good vision. It seems complicated in retrospect, but it didn't come up very often, because everyone had continual light amulets.

[Unicore]

Ravingdork wrote:

If darkvision doesn't account for shades of gray or any gradiation, then you could end up with any of the following. The threshold between black and white will make a BIG difference in what you can identify or not.

Ergo, I suspect that the intent is that there are gradiations.

In my mind, those examples you give are excellent tools for consideration. Players are probably worried that GMs will lean towards one of the extreme ends in a plan to undermine their ability to use darkvision in play, but if the GM applies the limit fairly on both sides of the table (after all, far more monsters have darkvision than players), then you can come to a fairly beautiful portrayal, (that would make for a stunning effect in a fantasy movie) that darkvision works like an animation of all off those overlaid on top of each other all at once, so that the character can clearly identify the shapes, edges and even depth of what they see in the dark, but not get any grayscale gradation that is really impossible to imagine without the presence of any kind of light source. What makes for the grays in darkvision?

Any attempt to apply real world physics to darkvision is going to mean trying to apply real world limits to how infrared, ultraviolet or other means of radiation detection works. Should dark vision be impaired in extreme temperatures?

In the end, this is very much a discuss this at your table issue, and if, as either a player or a GM, you have specific ways you intend this to be a limit or exploitable feature, hiding it from the rest of your table is going to result in creating a bad play dynamic.

[thenobledrake]

S. J. Digriz wrote:

Back in the wild west days of 1st edition where the rules taken as a whole never made much sense anyway, there was infravision, which let you see infrared light sources, like body heat, and ultravision, which let you see ultraviolet light sources, like black lights (it was the 1970s). We added things like the ability to see microwaves, radio waves and x-rays for those with very good vision. It seems complicated in retrospect, but it didn't come up very often, because everyone had continual light amulets.

And in 2nd edition there was a psionic ability that let a character "see" sound so they could just walk around snapping their fingers and it was about as good as packing a torch.

[Claxon]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Let me come at this from a slightly different direction.

Let's assume we have a room with no visible light (and we're going to ignore the existence of ultraviolet and infrared light). There is a mirror in the room (and no people). Does the mirror reflect anything?

Mirrors are routinely used to focus and reflect UV, infrared, and radio waves. The right mirrors can reflect other kinds of light as well. So while your mirror might not reflect anything in the visible range, and appear empty to you, other EM radiation is still being reflected.

Each mirror will have a fairly broad, but limited spectrum so yes the mirror would reflect EM radiation outside the visible range.

Yes, but the presupposition of darkvision is that it is a type of vision that doesn't use light at all, and light doesn't just mean visible light though it is easy to make that assumption if it's not otherwise specified. But I'd already mentioned about UV and IR light not applying, and stated a no light situation situation (that is detectable using darkvision or regular vision).

If darkvision does rely on some wavelength of light that regular vision does not, then we would have something akin to IR or UV which is going to look very different than "regular vision but black and white". Infrared vision (thermal vision) does not have detail compared to regular vision, would not let you read, and basically just shows the relative temperature difference between objects.

The main problem here is that darkvision is magic/supernatural with no explanation of how it functions.

[thenobledrake]

It doesn't need an explanation of how functions, since the end result of whatever that may be is stated: it allows seeing everything normal vision would see with bright light present, but in black & white.

The only part of which that is genuinely ambiguous is whether black & white means literally only 100% black and 100% white, or it means like how a photo or TV show can be "in black & white".

In fact, not trying to provide an explanation of how something that doesn't exist in the real world works is standard procedure for the game: see literally any spell and how we don't have even a hint of a description at how strange hand poses and words in some unspecified language translates to the effect that happens. So that's just another reason to add to the list of why it's strange to single out darkvision and try to force it to explain itself.

[Themetricsystem]

It seems that the original D&D 3.5 FAQ tackled this question in an official manner and while Pathfinder Second Ed it totally divorced of the 3.X legacy it is probably worth recognizing that it is assuredly in its bloodline still.

Old D&D 3.5 FAQ Archive from before the axed all 3.X support when 5th Ed released.

For brevity and ease so you don't have to download anything as I did...

D&D 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Does darkvision allow a character to read and write in the dark? Can he see his reflection in a mirror?

Darkvision is described as the “ability to see with no light source at all” (DMG 292). This suggests that a character with darkvision can read, write, and otherwise perform a normal range of actions despite being in complete darkness. The simplest answer to the mirror question is yes. To avoid delving too deeply into real-world physics—something it’s best to resist, particularly in fantasy gaming—it’s easiest to treat darkvision as allowing a character to perceive anything that a normal person could see with light.

[Claxon]

@TheMetricSystem That's probably the strongest argument there is. It's not logical, in fact it's a statement in recognition that it doesn't make sense but for ease of use and a gamist approach of "it simply works" is an acceptable answer in that way.

It still doesn't make any sense, it's not logical, it provides no explanation for how or why, rather it is an avoidance of all and that and just says "don't look at this too hard".

I accept that as an answer and say that while I still don't like that answer, and would personally rather get rid of darkvision and substitute Infravision...I can accept that as answer.

[mrspaghetti]

thenobledrake wrote:

Darkvision, in that it lets you see in the dark just as well as in bright light but in black and white already is not compatible with real-world understanding of how vision works - made especially clear by that there is no clause stating that in areas with absolutely no light at all darkvision does not work.

That means every reason a GM could have for not letting a creature using darkvision see a reflection - just as clear as if the area were brightly lit, but in black and white - is clearly incompatible.

Trying to force real-world physics to function in the game rules only ever works on out accident, and that's the exceedingly rare case, so it's best to just leave the physics out of it and make up rules for game play reasons - might be a different story if the RPG industry were littered with physicists rather than fiction authors.

So essentially this, which was the 3rd post in this thread.

[Fumarole]

thenobledrake wrote:

And in 2nd edition there was a psionic ability that let a character "see" sound so they could just walk around snapping their fingers and it was about as good as packing a torch.

There are people that can echolocate in the real world.

[thenobledrake]

mrspaghetti wrote:

So essentially this, which was the 3rd post in this thread.

Thanks for noticing.

Most people tend to react differently to "that's something a drake said" and the implied higher authority of "that's something a game designer said" for some reason - nice to see that even extends to a gamer designer that is saying something about a different game that just happens to be relevant.

Claxon wrote:

...it provides no explanation for how or why...

Almost nothing in the entire game provides an explanation for how or why. How or why does a spell work? How does the catfall feat actually do what it does? (It says "catlike aerial acrobatics" but that doesn't explain anything - especially not the potential of falling thousands of feet and having no risk of taking damage, since cats can't just jump out of planes and be fine because they are 'catlike'"). How does Treat Wounds always restore hit points even though hit points aren't only representative of actual wounds?

The answer is always the same: because how or why doesn't matter, just that it does what it says it does.

[Corvo Spiritwind]

Themetricsystem wrote:

It seems that the original D&D 3.5 FAQ tackled this question in an official manner and while Pathfinder Second Ed it totally divorced of the 3.X legacy it is probably worth recognizing that it is assuredly in its bloodline still.

Old D&D 3.5 FAQ Archive from before the axed all 3.X support when 5th Ed released.

For brevity and ease so you don't have to download anything as I did...

D&D 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Does darkvision allow a character to read and write in the dark? Can he see his reflection in a mirror?

Darkvision is described as the “ability to see with no light source at all” (DMG 292). This suggests that a character with darkvision can read, write, and otherwise perform a normal range of actions despite being in complete darkness. The simplest answer to the mirror question is yes. To avoid delving too deeply into real-world physics—something it’s best to resist, particularly in fantasy gaming—it’s easiest to treat darkvision as allowing a character to perceive anything that a normal person could see with light.

Would the ruling that the darkvision text dictates how objects work also mean a shadowdancer with darkvision would have shadows to jump into?

[Charlatan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Can a creature or character with darkvision make use of a mirror in the dark?

I know there's little to no light for the mirror to work for people without extra-sensory capabilities, but darkvision isn't exactly scientific in the way it's defined, so I don't know if those with darkvision simply see the almost non-existent light that is present due to extreme sensitivity, or if it's something else altogether at work.

Interesting question. As a gm I'd lean towards no, because the darkvision itself is extrasensory, but the mirror is mundane. Seeing it's mundane all it can do is reflect genuine light, and in a dark dark cave there isn't any light to reflect.

I imagine darkvision working like infrared, only its "magical ability" that bounces out the eyes and back into them, not starfinder magic.

So because it's magic, for eye to eye, it hits the mirror and does nothing. Just my 2 cents, but interesting.

[thenobledrake]

Charlatan wrote:

I imagine darkvision working like infrared, only its "magical ability" that bounces out the eyes and back into them, not starfinder magic.

If it did work like infrared, it'd show reflections in mirrors.

[Pirate Rob]

Back in 3rd edition I remember reading about Dwarven or Gnomish settlements that had problems with Drow did things like write all their street signs in color but in a similar brightness to the underlying material, rendering them unreadable with dark vision but perfectly visible with light.

Since they normally used light it let them have functional street signs while denying the same info to drow infiltrators sneaking under the cover of darkness.

(Races of Stone, Drow of the Underdark? Something else? Not quite sure which book)

[mrspaghetti]

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

It seems that the original D&D 3.5 FAQ tackled this question in an official manner and while Pathfinder Second Ed it totally divorced of the 3.X legacy it is probably worth recognizing that it is assuredly in its bloodline still.

Old D&D 3.5 FAQ Archive from before the axed all 3.X support when 5th Ed released.

For brevity and ease so you don't have to download anything as I did...

D&D 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Does darkvision allow a character to read and write in the dark? Can he see his reflection in a mirror?

Darkvision is described as the “ability to see with no light source at all” (DMG 292). This suggests that a character with darkvision can read, write, and otherwise perform a normal range of actions despite being in complete darkness. The simplest answer to the mirror question is yes. To avoid delving too deeply into real-world physics—something it’s best to resist, particularly in fantasy gaming—it’s easiest to treat darkvision as allowing a character to perceive anything that a normal person could see with light.

Would the ruling that the darkvision text dictates how objects work also mean a shadowdancer with darkvision would have shadows to jump into?

Obviously this is a hypothetical since Shadow Dancers are a 1st edition thing, but from the Shadow Jump write-up:

"The limitation is that the magical transport must begin and end in an area with at least some dim light."

So no.

[mrspaghetti]

Pirate Rob wrote:

Back in 3rd edition I remember reading about Dwarven or Gnomish settlements that had problems with Drow did things like write all their street signs in color but in a similar brightness to the underlying material, rendering them unreadable with dark vision but perfectly visible with light.

Since they normally used light it let them have functional street signs while denying the same info to drow infiltrators sneaking under the cover of darkness.

(Races of Stone, Drow of the Underdark? Something else? Not quite sure which book)

For sure, anything unreadable by someone who is completely colorblind would be unreadable by a character relying on Darkvision to read.

[Fumarole]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

It seems that the original D&D 3.5 FAQ tackled this question in an official manner and while Pathfinder Second Ed it totally divorced of the 3.X legacy it is probably worth recognizing that it is assuredly in its bloodline still.

Old D&D 3.5 FAQ Archive from before the axed all 3.X support when 5th Ed released.

For brevity and ease so you don't have to download anything as I did...

D&D 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Does darkvision allow a character to read and write in the dark? Can he see his reflection in a mirror?

Darkvision is described as the “ability to see with no light source at all” (DMG 292). This suggests that a character with darkvision can read, write, and otherwise perform a normal range of actions despite being in complete darkness. The simplest answer to the mirror question is yes. To avoid delving too deeply into real-world physics—something it’s best to resist, particularly in fantasy gaming—it’s easiest to treat darkvision as allowing a character to perceive anything that a normal person could see with light.

Would the ruling that the darkvision text dictates how objects work also mean a shadowdancer with darkvision would have shadows to jump into?

Obviously this is a hypothetical since Shadow Dancers are a 1st edition thing, but from the Shadow Jump write-up:

"The limitation is that the magical transport must begin and end in an area with at least some dim light."

So no.

Shadowdancers are in the second edition Advanced Player's Guide.

[Nefreet]

Themetricsystem wrote:

It seems that the original D&D 3.5 FAQ tackled this question in an official manner and while Pathfinder Second Ed it totally divorced of the 3.X legacy it is probably worth recognizing that it is assuredly in its bloodline still.

Old D&D 3.5 FAQ Archive from before the axed all 3.X support when 5th Ed released.

For brevity and ease so you don't have to download anything as I did...

D&D 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Does darkvision allow a character to read and write in the dark? Can he see his reflection in a mirror?

Darkvision is described as the “ability to see with no light source at all” (DMG 292). This suggests that a character with darkvision can read, write, and otherwise perform a normal range of actions despite being in complete darkness. The simplest answer to the mirror question is yes. To avoid delving too deeply into real-world physics—something it’s best to resist, particularly in fantasy gaming—it’s easiest to treat darkvision as allowing a character to perceive anything that a normal person could see with light.

Paizo needs to hire whoever wrote that and put them in charge of FAQs and Errata pronto.

[Pirate Rob]

Nefreet wrote:

Paizo needs to hire whoever wrote that and put them in charge of FAQs and Errata pronto.

While I'm sure there were a lot of people involved behind the scenes I believe Andy Collins was the face of the long running 3.5 Sage Advice column which is where most of the D&D 3.5 FAQ answers are from and thus at least technically the author for most.