PDA

View Full Version : Darkvision and Reading



Variable Arcana
2007-03-22, 05:01 PM
The SRD says:

Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black and white only (colors cannot be discerned). 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. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.
What's the consensus on reading a book in total darkness using darkvision?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-22, 05:03 PM
Um, yes. Darkvision lets you see in total darkness. So you can read, because you can see.

Tor the Fallen
2007-03-22, 05:04 PM
Unless you wrote with a color of the same shade as the paper.

Assassinfox
2007-03-22, 05:05 PM
Unless you wrote with a color of the same shade as the paper.

Then you wouldn't be able to read it with normal vision either. o.O

Vodun
2007-03-22, 05:07 PM
Ah, but even mighty darkvision can do nothing against a message written in lemon juice, the poor mans invisible ink.

Tor the Fallen
2007-03-22, 05:10 PM
Then you wouldn't be able to read it with normal vision either. o.O

You may be colorblind. (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~armiller/illusion/colortst.htm)

silentknight
2007-03-22, 06:36 PM
Yes. Especially since most writing is black on white.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-22, 06:37 PM
You may be colorblind. (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~armiller/illusion/colortst.htm)

Like me! Woo!

Jade_Tarem
2007-03-22, 06:39 PM
Like me! Woo!

So that explains the pink armor on your avatar.

Edit: Oh man, was that ever mean. I feel all dirty now.

Jannex
2007-03-22, 06:47 PM
I don't know how accurate it is to canon, but in some of the D&D-based novels I've read (yes, I have... let's not go into it), creatures with darkvision need to use visible light in order to read books and such. Take that for what you will.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-22, 07:02 PM
So that explains the pink armor on your avatar.

Edit: Oh man, was that ever mean. I feel all dirty now.

...what's "pink"?

Variable Arcana
2007-03-22, 07:21 PM
Jannex -- yes, indeed. R.E. Salvatore has that in his depictions of drow life -- but that's certainly not a source for RAW.

But that's why I asked -- the RAW do seem clear in the other direction.

Jannex
2007-03-22, 07:28 PM
Jannex -- yes, indeed. R.E. Salvatore has that in his depictions of drow life -- but that's certainly not a source for RAW.

But that's why I asked -- the RAW do seem clear in the other direction.

Fair enough. That's why I added the caveat that I wasn't sure how much impact it had on canon rules.

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-22, 07:29 PM
I think this was a previous version thing, where darkvision was "infravision" or something similar, and operated very differently. Rather than being black/white only, it actually didn't allow you to see the color of things...kind of like a CG render with no textures. So under that model, reading was out because you'd only see the "shape" of the paper. You needed special ink.

TheOOB
2007-03-22, 07:46 PM
According to current rules theres no reason you couldn't read with darkvision, think about it, you can still read words in old black and white movies, oftentimes better then when color is involved.

AmoDman
2007-03-22, 07:49 PM
I think this was a previous version thing, where darkvision was "infravision" or something similar, and operated very differently. Rather than being black/white only, it actually didn't allow you to see the color of things...kind of like a CG render with no textures. So under that model, reading was out because you'd only see the "shape" of the paper. You needed special ink.

Yes, the Salvatore (and most likely other authors) mentioned thing was because when he started writing about Drizzt and Drow they had infravison (2E).

Desaril
2007-03-22, 08:06 PM
As usual I take a different view. We have to do more than read the rules, we need to interpret them to understand how to apply them in different scenarios. In doing that, we have to consider as much information as possible regarding the rule.

We're talking about vision, it's difficult to capture that concept in words. Luckily, WOTC provided us an image to help. The DMG has a picture of a mind flayer seen in torchlight and in darvision. Using that as an example, I would rule it difficult, although not impossible, to read using only darkvision. I've heard people say that text overrules pictures/diagrams, but in this case a visual is a better indicator of what's being ruled- vision.

I can't make a strong case for the RAW, but it fits the "feel" of darkvision as a secondary means of vision. Notice that it is almost always short ranged and I'm not aware of any creature that has darkvision only.

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-22, 08:18 PM
Luckily, WOTC provided us an image to help. The DMG has a picture of a mind flayer seen in torchlight and in darvision. Using that as an example, I would rule it difficult, although not impossible, to read using only darkvision. I've heard people say that text overrules pictures/diagrams, but in this case a visual is a better indicator of what's being ruled- vision...So, darkvision is a cheesy photoshop filter?

Variable Arcana
2007-03-22, 08:22 PM
The DMG has a picture of a mind flayer seen in torchlight and in darvision.
Where?? Looking up "darkvision" in the index yields only the same text as in the SRD, quoted above.

DaMullet
2007-03-22, 08:27 PM
Either way, it doesn't matter;

In the SRD under Dwarves (the first time you see the work Darkvision in text in the PHB) it says "Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves can function just fine with no light at all."
Emphasis mine. If you can do it with normal sight, you can do it with Darkvision.

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-22, 08:32 PM
Where?? Looking up "darkvision" in the index yields only the same text as in the SRD, quoted above.It's only in the 3.0 DMG, page 75.

Desaril
2007-03-22, 09:55 PM
Either way, it doesn't matter;

In the SRD under Dwarves (the first time you see the work Darkvision in text in the PHB) it says "Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and dwarves can function just fine with no light at all."
Emphasis mine. If you can do it with normal sight, you can do it with Darkvision.

Like I said I can't make a good argument from the RAW, but if you're reading text, which is usually dark writing on light text, it would be hard to differentiate the writing in a black/white environment. The question is what appears black. grey or white against what in that environment. Is the table black and the paper white and the text black, or what. You really don't get a "feel" of how it looks until you see that picture. Once you look at the picture, you will see why I think it would be difficult.

Of course, the picture isn't really darkvision, its an attempt to demonstrate darkvision to someone who can't really experience it. If I could, they wouldn't need to provide a picture.

AmoDman
2007-03-22, 10:15 PM
Like I said I can't make a good argument from the RAW, but if you're reading text, which is usually dark writing on light text, it would be hard to differentiate the writing in a black/white environment. The question is what appears black. grey or white against what in that environment. Is the table black and the paper white and the text black, or what. You really don't get a "feel" of how it looks until you see that picture. Once you look at the picture, you will see why I think it would be difficult.

Of course, the picture isn't really darkvision, its an attempt to demonstrate darkvision to someone who can't really experience it. If I could, they wouldn't need to provide a picture.

I would imagine the text would appear black and the parchment would appear white, as per their actual standard colors. Think of black and white tv. That's everything in black and white. It's like a bloody 50's sitcom down in those Dwarven tunnels.

Desaril
2007-03-22, 10:33 PM
Again the picture doesn't look like a B/W photo or B/W TV. They didn't just take the color out of the art (which they could have), they made it look like an IR photo, but with black/white instead of color. The black/white/grey seems to indicate varying levels of ??? (density, heat, solidity, I can't say).

Mewtarthio
2007-03-22, 10:46 PM
I always figured Darkvision was less Black-and-White and more the ability to discern shapes. Well, technically, it is B&W, but something about just determining shapes seems more... how do you put it? Special? Magical? Fantastical?


Emphasis mine. If you can do it with normal sight, you can do it with Darkvision.

As Durkon and Hilgya have already demonstrated.

AmoDman
2007-03-22, 10:50 PM
Again the picture doesn't look like a B/W photo or B/W TV. They didn't just take the color out of the art (which they could have), they made it look like an IR photo, but with black/white instead of color. The black/white/grey seems to indicate varying levels of ??? (density, heat, solidity, I can't say).

Now, I don't mean to sound mean, but, considering it a random "artistic rendition" in a rulebook (though no one else has seem to have seen it), and since we know the general accuracy of said renderings...why do we care? The text implies (actually flat out states) black and white tv'esque, as per everything normal without color.

Also, what point are you trying to make? I'm not even sure, since the only difference you seem to be inferring by this picture is that reading is "difficult." I'm not even sure what that means in a D&D. Do you have to take 10?

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-22, 10:59 PM
Desaril, I'd be much more ready to buy this argument if they'd taken the time to separately render a "normal" and "darkvision" version of the flayer, instead of just applying what looks like a "glowing edges" filter. In fact, having just applied said filter to the original image...that's exactly what they did.

For instance, by contrast, there's a page in Dinotopia that shows the difference between human and dinosaur vision, with the dino vision being sort of an infrared heat-source thing. They're very different, and the artist has taken time to render that difference in a meaningful way.

With the mind flayer pic, there's not really an effort to show you "how darkvision is different," it's basically just "this filter looks vaguely like heat-vision, use that." I guess my point is they didn't really spend enough time deciding on this to use it as a basis for how it should work in the rules.

Plus, even if you DO rule that darkvision works just like the "glowing edges" photoshop filter...my test results show that black-on-white writing works just fine!

Desaril
2007-03-22, 11:05 PM
Actually someone confirmed that it is indeed on p. 75 of the 3.0 DMG, so I'm sure someone has seen it.

We should care only if you are willing to interpret the rules different from other people. If you want to interpret the rules like DaMullet (for example) this is not an issue. If you try to put the rules into a broader context, it does matter.

I think that just like we can discount the artistic rendering, we can discount the written word. We all know that written language has limits, that's why they add artwork to help bring the text to life.

Lastly, what does difficult mean? It depends. Maybe you can't cast from scrolls using darkvision? Maybe you can, but it takes a Search (or concentration) check. Maybe it takes a full round action because you have to peer closely. I don't know, becuase I'm not adjudicating that particular scenario. As DM, I would use whatever ruling heightens the dramatic tension of the scenario.

Borogove
2007-03-23, 06:06 AM
Actually someone confirmed that it is indeed on p. 75 of the 3.0 DMG, so I'm sure someone has seen it.
I'd say that picture's absence from 3.5 is a solid indication that it should be discounted, and the text treated as correct.

Vodun
2007-03-23, 03:11 PM
Well Its proven that sometimes the artists interpretations in DnD are sometimes not exactly what was intended by the writers, so I would take the text over the pictures most of the time, especially if its also in the SRD.

Tor the Fallen
2007-03-23, 03:30 PM
If a half orc is holding a lit torch on a cloudy night, how far can he see in the darkness?

AmoDman
2007-03-23, 05:14 PM
If a half orc is holding a lit torch on a cloudy night, how far can he see in the darkness?

Creatures with Darkvision can voluntarily see with or without it, light or no. So he could either see whatever his range of Darkvision is, or as far as a normal human could.

DaMullet
2007-03-23, 06:04 PM
Well, according to the SRD, "The presence of light does not spoil Darkvision." So I'd say he can see out as far as his Darkvision, unless the torchlight is farther, in which case he can see that.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-23, 06:30 PM
I turned off the computer and all other light and opened a book.

Yup, Darkvision allows reading in darkness, just like the RAW says.

kamikasei
2007-03-23, 06:36 PM
I turned off the computer and all other light and opened a book.

Yup, Darkvision allows reading in darkness, just like the RAW says.

If you also turned off the sun, the stars, and all other light sources anywhere, that might be a valid test. :smallwink:

(Oh, and of course, if you gained darkvision yourself...)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-23, 06:41 PM
If you also turned off the sun, the stars, and all other light sources anywhere, that might be a valid test. :smallwink:

Be careful what you suggest :smallamused:


(Oh, and of course, if you gained darkvision yourself...)

MM page 26 or LoM.

Hallavast
2007-03-23, 06:55 PM
So what is Darkvision based off of? You need to find that out before you decide on how to interpret the rule. (well you don't need to, but it would help to build consistency). I, personally rule that one can't read using only darkvision, but that's just because that flavor appeals to me. Also, I'd rule that one can't see a reflection in darkvision. It just makes sense to me. There's no light, so there's no reflection of light. Also, according to the picture that everyone seems ready to completely discard, it was very difficult to discern depth. You saw everything in 2D.

Edit:(well, of course we always see everything in 2D, but what I meant was there was no shading to indicate depth. Just outlines of shapes.)

kamikasei
2007-03-23, 07:02 PM
So what is Darkvision based off of? You need to find that out before you decide on how to interpret the rule. (well you don't need to, but it would help to build consistency). I, personally rule that one can't read using only darkvision, but that's just because that flavor appeals to me. Also, I'd rule that one can't see a reflection in darkvision. It just makes sense to me. There's no light, so there's no reflection of light. Also, according to the picture that everyone seems ready to completely discard, it was very difficult to discern depth. You saw everything in 2D.

You could make it something like: dwarven eyes emit a non-visible form of light to which they are also sensitive, so in darkness their own vision provides its illumination.

This would have the cool effect of making the eyes of other darkvisioned characters shine brightly in your sight...

Ashlan
2007-03-23, 10:35 PM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041116a


"The rules don't say so (probably because it's an obvious point), but you must be able to see a scroll to read it. If you're blinded, you can't activate a scroll, and you also cannot do so if darkness, fog, or some other condition keeps you from seeing the scroll. Darkvision lets you see in nonmagical darkness, and that allows you to read scrolls in nonmagical darkness."

Ash