| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 03:19:56
How does it work?
Do creatures with it emit radiation with their eyes? Have super-extended or multiple pupils to detect even the faintest depth difference of light? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 15:03:09
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
Depending on the superpower, I wouldn't call all mutant abilities fantasy or magic. Some powers are simply extrapolations of existing abilities found in nature. And there have been unique individuals with natural abilities beyond that of normal humans. Sure, lasers from the eyes are stretching it -- but there are many creatures that navigate by echolocation, so upscaling that is not necessarily outside the realm of possibility.
This reminds me of the excellent film Unbreakable. Upon proving the extraordinary strength of David Dunn (Bruce Willis), Elija Price (Samuel L. Jackson) said that the powers shown by comic book characters are actually real, slightly exaggerated, but based on actual characteristics of some people like David (who, as the title says, is unbreakable).
[The trailer does not do the film justice. The film itself is way more than what the trailer is saying.] |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 14:24:15
Nope. Only my perception of Michel Bay has marred my perception of Michael Bay. 
I never liked Tranformers, or any of the others.
When I was child their was only Gigantor. To me, he will always be the ONLY giant robot. Everything else are just toys.
Here's the thing - when you remember something fondly (from when you were just 5!), never ever 'go back'. Your memories of something are always far better then the genuine article. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 14:07:16
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I HATE when they turn into giant robot discussions.
Tsk tsk tsk...Don't let your hate for Michael Bay mar your perceptions about giant robots. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 13:53:02
I LOVE when they turn into comic book discussions.
I HATE when they turn into giant robot discussions. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 20 Jan 2013 : 23:03:05
I'll second that! Comic geeks unite!!! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Jan 2013 : 02:48:54
quote:
The Sage
[And I only just realised that this wasn't the scroll I thought it was for this kind of comic book-related discussion, so I'll shut up now.  ]
They all end up being about some kind of comic book-related discussion, eventually. Every scroll of sufficient length, it is absolutely inevitable. It's like a strangely mutated Candlekeep species of Godwin's Rule. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Jan 2013 : 02:19:39
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
I wouldn't say that's always true. In fact, one of the earlier issues of the recent X-Treme X-Men book makes a pretty convincing case for why mutant abilities and magic shouldn't always be seen as the same thing.
The writers of Superman actually went to great lengths to explain the science behind Superman's powers (this was back when he was faster then a locomotive, could make great leaps in a single bound, was stronger than 10 men. Before the flying and xray vision).
I'm glad Grant Morrison's gone a way toward reinforcing most of this in his take on the early days of Superman in Action Comics.
[And I only just realised that this wasn't the scroll I thought it was for this kind of comic book-related discussion, so I'll shut up now. ] |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 20:24:48
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Hey, I favor infravision, because it's more flavorful and it's part of Realmslore. I was just commenting on the invisibility thing, and how it illustrates the disconnect between fantasy and real-world science.
Alright, Wooly.
Or what is faerie fire made of? Or globes of darkness? Are they collections of chemicals ported in from somewhere else? Or are they purely magical effects, not subject to understood patterns of nature?
I've always considered them to be purely magical effects.
Again, I favor infravision because of flavor and prior lore. I realize that the science there is iffy, but given how iffy many other elements of fantasy are (particularly invisibility, as I agreed with above), I don't think that real-world science is the best argument for or against something in fantasy.
I'm really not trying to get into the infravision/darkvision debate. I've stated my preferences, and the reason for them. I was only commenting on an element of visibility that most people don't consider.
I'm quite content to let others debate the merits of one version of darksight over the other. No matter what others prefer, I'm quite satisfied with infravision, and I'm content to leave others to their own preferences. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 19:15:30
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
TSR said that in 1979, if you have a 1st Edition DMG you will read their concerns then about how it did not work well and DM must try to balance.
I don't have that.
But the problem there is that it works "well", in terms of realism abd flavor.
It just doesn't work "well" in terms of mechanical ease.
I get it that it takes balance in the final implementation. But don't all the rules and other aspects of the property? That doesn't justify dumping any one aspect. It just justifies an authoritarian decision to stop the debate at some point and move forward with the campaign/novel/etc.
quote:
quote:
if you are you are generous, you can allow different substances to radiate differently even if at the same temperature.
page 59, DMG Revised Edition December 1979.
OK, there's nothing really "generous" about that. That's just realism. Like I mentioned, different substances release their heat at different rates, even if they happen to be of the same temperature at a given point in time.
The air cools off at night far more quickly than does a large body of water. And the earth cools at a different rate, as well. Even if you were to heat them at such a rate in the first place that they were somehow all at the same temperature at 6pm at night, they would still release their heat energy at different rates. So they wouldn't remain at the same temperature for very long at all.
Maybe that all sounds complicated.
But reality already allowed for a lot of interpretive wiggle room for designers and DMs way back then.
That's why it seemed so unreasonable or unfair to drop this particular element from the property. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 19:04:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Hey, I favor infravision, because it's more flavorful and it's part of Realmslore. I was just commenting on the invisibility thing, and how it illustrates the disconnect between fantasy and real-world science.
Alright, Wooly.
Or what is faerie fire made of? Or globes of darkness? Are they collections of chemicals ported in from somewhere else? Or are they purely magical effects, not subject to understood patterns of nature? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 17:38:38
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Infravision was broke in 1979 and tech has not made it much better now.
I don't understand how you can say that. To declare that it was ever "broken" makes no sense. On what basis do you say that?
Also, technological advances have allowed for dramatically improved resolutions in infrared imagery. Just look at the pic of a guy's face on SKR's site, and compare that to something from 25 years ago.
TSR said that in 1979, if you have a 1st Edition DMG you will read their concerns then about how it did not work well and DM must try to balance. [quote] if you are you are generous, you can allow different substances to radiate differently even if at the same temperature. ... Note also that monsters very cold or very warm sort (such as a human) can be tracked infravisually by their foot prints. Such tracking must occur within 2 rounds of their passing, or the temperature difference will dissipate.
page 59, DMG Revised Edition December 1979.
It should be noted that 1st Edition a round lasted one minute. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 08:48:43
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
I wouldn't say that's always true. In fact, one of the earlier issues of the recent X-Treme X-Men book makes a pretty convincing case for why mutant abilities and magic shouldn't always be seen as the same thing.
The writers of Superman actually went to great lengths to explain the science behind Superman's powers (this was back when he was faster then a locomotive, could make great leaps in a single bound, was stronger than 10 men. Before the flying and xray vision). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 05:43:07
Hey, I favor infravision, because it's more flavorful and it's part of Realmslore. I was just commenting on the invisibility thing, and how it illustrates the disconnect between fantasy and real-world science. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 05:05:48
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I would advise not taking the science too seriously. Otherwise you'll eventually ask what sorts of surfaces "reflect" darkvision, how vision works at all when you (and your retinas) are completely invisible, or whether your players can cast continual light/darkness on liquids and what happens when these splash around.
Bolding mine. That's one that's bugged me, too!
It is a very good example, though, of why real world science shouldn't be relied on too heavily in a fantasy setting.
The thing there is, if we are to be expected to abide by the designers' and DMs' dismissive hand-waiving with darkvision, as if to say, "Don't analyze it any further--just take my word for it, and let's move on"; then why not expect the same with infravision? It seems inconsistent.
When religionists ask what made nature and the universe and posit "God" as the answer, then an atheist is entitled to ask, "Then what made 'God'?" If the religionist responds that nothing made God, then the Atheist is entitled to ask, "Why must nature be presumed to have been made by anything, then?"
Why must we concoct an entirely new concept to be deemed "beyond further question" (God, darkvision, etc.), instead of simply declaring that the concept that we already have (non-supernatural universe, infravision, etc.) is such?
Conversely, if the concept that we already have is to be deemed legitimately subject to analysis and criticism, then what reasonable basis do we have to consider its replacement concept beyond such?
It all just smacks of intellectual laziness. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 04:56:43
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Night vision the Military used is based on ultravission or now called Low*Light Vision. An enhancement collection of light, star light, etc.
That's part of it.
But some military and civilian night vision devices also use infrared beam emitters as a sort of flashlight to "paint" targets, with infrared-sensors picking up on that. They can work either way.
It does work.
quote:
The problem with infravision is a tunnel of a cave will hold the same basic temperature as long as there is no heat source.
Wood and store would have the same heat, unless a heat source is added. A heat source added will warm some things quicker then others. The time for heat added of course effects the rate of change. A warm bloodied body clearly can warm air, wood or stone, however the transfer is not that quick.
I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that they will hold the same basic temperature without a new application of heat. Different materials have different heat capacities, which is basically a measure of how much the substance changes in temperature for a given amount of change in heat energy. Substances don't all rise or cool in temp to the same extent, with the same change in energy. Some substances heat quickly, but also cool back down just as quickly. Others heat very slowly, but also cool back down quite slowly.
So even if you found a piece of wood inside of a stone tunnel and both were at the same temperature, that does not mean that they would both remain at the same temperature indefinitely. By virtue of one substance having a greater heat capacity, it would retain its heat for longer than the other substance, and therefore cool much more slowly.
Perhaps you mean to say that if a tunnel with some wood were left undisturbed for long enough, the two substances would reach a sort of equilibrium, in which heat transfer between the two substances and the air or whatever had reached some sort of stable constant?
I suppose that such remote, isolated environs might exist deep in the Underdark.
But it is my understanding that the drow do not frequent such remote places often. Menzoberranyr, for example, regularly patrol their assumed territory. And the city, itself, is rife with activity.
Infraviewing creatures would probably fear really, really remote locales which haven't been disurbed in a long time like light-viewing creatures fear pitch-black dark places. They'd probably tend to avoid them.
quote:
Infravision was broke in 1979 and tech has not made it much better now.
I don't understand how you can say that. To declare that it was ever "broken" makes no sense. On what basis do you say that?
Also, technological advances have allowed for dramatically improved resolutions in infrared imagery. Just look at the pic of a guy's face on SKR's site, and compare that to something from 25 years ago. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Jan 2013 : 22:49:23
Night vision the Military used is based on ultravission or now called Low*Light Vision. An enhancement collection of light, star light, etc.
Infravision is based on heat detection, there medical and science use this for some things. Most often looking at warm bloodied creatures. A person constantly exchanges cold and heat by breathing, blood circulation and so on. Heat detection is also use to detect fire hazards.
The problem with infravision is a tunnel of a cave will hold the same basic temperature as long as there is no heat source.
Wood and store would have the same heat, unless a heat source is added. A heat source added will warm some things quicker then others. The time for heat added of course effects the rate of change. A warm bloodied body clearly can warm air, wood or stone, however the transfer is not that quick. Infravision was broke in 1979 and tech has not made it much better now. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 17 Jan 2013 : 21:49:12
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
BEAST, I am not sure why my few comments have not been replied to. Even the Earth science you appear to ignore (all things the same temperature would look the same or not be seen at all) that does not apply to D&D and the Realms.
I think your view is flawed, Kentinal. While an object might possibly be at the same temperature as its surroundings, that does not mean that they would both radiate their infrared rays out in the same manner. If an object has a flat face pointed directly toward your eyes, then a whole lot of its IR would shine right at you; but if it were curved, my understanding is that a lot of its IR would radiate outward away from it in all directions, and not directly into your eyes. The flatter-faced object would appear brighter to you, while the curvier object would appear less bright.
Using Realmsian infravision, perhaps they would be same color (corresponding to the same temperature), but of varying intensities.
If you look at SKR's pic of a man's face in IR, there is quite a bit of detail. Certain areas of his face are broader and facing the camera lens more head-on, while other areas are more curved, which means less of their IR rays are headed straight for the lens. While his face might be of a fairly uniform temperature, it still radiates its energy out in wildly different directions, with wildly different concentrations.
At least, that's my understanding.
quote:
In many ways I would think this thread should be locked, because of attacks on members or design teams.
I apologize if my stance is upsetting to any, or many.
But it just seems like WOTC screwed up when they dumped on the lore for mechanics' sake back in 3E because of expedience, and they got away with it financially; then, having failed to see what was wrong with that approach before, they proceeded to dump on the lore even more dramatically with 4E, and this time it bit them in the butt. The hit in $ signs got their attention, but IMO, it all really ought to have started with a greater degree of respect for the lore.
Don't "fix" it if ain't broke; but if you're gonna "fix" it, then explain why in-world. Never simply pull the rug out from underneath something without such an explanation! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 16 Jan 2013 : 01:16:04
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
I wouldn't say that's always true. In fact, one of the earlier issues of the recent X-Treme X-Men book makes a pretty convincing case for why mutant abilities and magic shouldn't always be seen as the same thing.
Regardless, I would say that the regular bout of superpowers [if such a descriptor could be used without much fault] would work better in the interpretation equation above. Mutant abilities are more wholly genetic and grounded in science "fact." Whereas, we have multiple generic superpowers which have often been granted via either strange accidents or, even, magic. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 23:16:49
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
Depending on the superpower, I wouldn't call all mutant abilities fantasy or magic. Some powers are simply extrapolations of existing abilities found in nature. And there have been unique individuals with natural abilities beyond that of normal humans. Sure, lasers from the eyes are stretching it -- but there are many creatures that navigate by echolocation, so upscaling that is not necessarily outside the realm of possibility. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 21:16:38
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 21:08:37
Not so. His beams are solar-energy based, so infravision is more likely. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 20:56:49
Aye, but I'd call it redtinted darkvision. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 20:20:31
Nah, Wooly, I think he actually would have infravision. After all, he sees everything in red. (And I'm suddenly reminded of the Queensrych song "I Dream in Infrared" here, LOL!!) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 18:29:50
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I would advise not taking the science too seriously. Otherwise you'll eventually ask what sorts of surfaces "reflect" darkvision, how vision works at all when you (and your retinas) are completely invisible, or whether your players can cast continual light/darkness on liquids and what happens when these splash around.
Bolding mine. That's one that's bugged me, too!
It is a very good example, though, of why real world science shouldn't be relied on too heavily in a fantasy setting. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 18:13:38
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
My own theory remains firm, darkvision works bacause of a radiation is emitted by the eyes that is then recaptured into an eye capable of processing the scattered wavelengths.
So does that mean Cyclops of the X-Men would have darkvision? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 17:58:22
quote:
Bladewind
Our gaming table has used a certain assumption about darkvision I have been hesitant to accept lately: that creatures with darkvision ignore shadows within their vision range. Initially this has to be so if one takes darkvision as written. Sometimes there is no light to cast any shadows. But if I want to explain why darkvision can ignore shadows in shadowy illumination, I cant help but wonder if darkvision-shadows exist.
That's attempting to apply scientific thinking to a magical phenomenon. But sure, why not, it can be said that darkvision penetrates shadows just like infravision can penetrate fog and smoke.
I would advise not taking the science too seriously. Otherwise you'll eventually ask what sorts of surfaces "reflect" darkvision, how vision works at all when you (and your retinas) are completely invisible, or whether your players can cast continual light/darkness on liquids and what happens when these splash around.
I'm apprehensive about making eyeballs into active sensors which actually radiate something. It's magic (and this approach offers a basis for illusion and detection magics) so sure ... but there are always ways to detect or jam or exploit somebody else's active sensors. To be honest, the visual and missile ranges given in the rules are so pathetic that I'd hate to see the "passive sensor" version which has even poorer capabilities. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 17:03:46
Its magic!!!  |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 16:38:26
Heh. This thread has gotten more interesting then I'd imagined.
Our gaming table has used a certain assumption about darkvision I have been hesitant to accept lately: that creatures with darkvision ignore shadows within their vision range. Initially this has to be so if one takes darkvision as written. Sometimes there is no light to cast any shadows. But if I want to explain why darkvision can ignore shadows in shadowy illumination, I cant help but wonder if darkvision-shadows exist.
If one assumes a 30 ft suare pitch black room with tall furniture, an orc is able to see it all in greyscaled detail. But does that tall mirror hanging from the wall work? Does the area behind a couch become less grey/deeper black? Also, if I introduce a 5ft radius light source (like a bright candle), why can't a creature hide from an orc in the 10 ft circle of shadowy illumination? Shouldn't the light completely blind the orc's darkvision and prevent or limit any darkvision from being used (like a form of nightblindness does)?
I also think darkvision should be explained because I like poking at magical and seemingly unexplainable things like that. Just a personal preferance really. My own theory remains firm, darkvision works bacause of a radiation is emitted by the eyes that is then recaptured into an eye capable of processing the scattered wavelengths. |
| Arcanus |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 15:50:49
The obvious answer is to take Ed's a approach and "use what you like, it's your Realms".
Trying to use science explain away the workings of a magical world is an exercise in futility. The very physics of the Realms is different from our own and seeing as how nobody knows (except Ed) just how they work, then nobody here can possibly give a definative and accurate explanation as to how darkvision/infravision works. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 10:12:36
quote:
Wooly Rubric
This discussion is growing more heated than it needs to be.
A deliberate pun, Wooly?
And to think that most people had no difficulty accepting Tolkein's elves seeing well in starlight, no difficulty accepting Gygax's infravision in OD&D, no difficulty accepting Wizbro's darkvision in D&D 3E.
To paraphrase myself from above, how can a person seriously claim that one kind of fantasy is better than another kind?
From the perspective of a gamer who has had many characters fumble through darkness over the years, the simplicity of darkvision is sometimes a real advantage. Compare with games like Shadowrun which had magic and cybernetics and equipment capable of providing at least four distinct types of vision, along with various tables full of combat modifiers and pages and pages of scattered explanations in the rules and every piece of fiction. D&D 3E simplified this to a few paragraphs and moved the rules onto other things ... and I have met gamers who appreciate that. Darkvision is just easier to apply when a noob joins the table or the plot is already bogged down under an ocean of unimportant rules exactly because it requires no underlying explanations. My anecdotal experience is that while I prefer infravision, it is not for everyone.
From the perspective of a reader, I think I'd rather read about the fantasy than (bad) science which attempts to justify it. If elves have infravision then every story with elves is compelled to demonstrate their infravision for "flavour", a chore which would become pretty old pretty quick. It would be like half of each Star Trek or Star Gate episode being dedicated to linguistic fumbles for "realism" ... kinda cool the first time but after that it becomes a waste of time better spent telling a story.
From what I've heard, 5E will have some kind of modular rules framework compatible with whichever form is preferred. I see little point in complaining about past mistakes which are already being addressed and "corrected", and if push comes to shove, my group will just import our own rule subset, again, it's not a big deal. |
|
|
