| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 23:43:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
...I despise 4E and post-Spellplague Faerun with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns, but I'm still morbidly curious about how it'll turn out.
My feelings exactly.
quote:
...Things like 'Are they going to tell us WTF is going on with Narbondel now that drow have darkvision, not infravision?' Because there are some bits of 2E drow lore that don't work properly with later editions.
Oddly enough, the geeks of the early 90s (the ones familiar with infrared scopes, in particular) were the ones who ruined infravision for the drow. In Dragon #211 (1994), there's an article by Roger Moore (not the sexy James Bond actor) describing the capabilities and limits of actual infrared vision from a biological and mechanical standpoint. Like we needed that much realism in a fantasy game. Anyway, you can blame him. 
In my Realms, I still use infravision. I just didn't want the hassle of trying to explain why all the drow, dwarves, halflings, elves, and deep gnomes suddenly had massive ocular evolution overnight. So I know exactly where you're coming from. Darkvision, meh!
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4459 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 04:34:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
Things like 'Are they going to tell us WTF is going on with Narbondel now that drow have darkvision, not infravision?' Because there are some bits of 2E drow lore that don't work properly with later editions.
I'd imagine Narbondel could easily be "retconned" to function for those with Darkvision, a spell effect that only allows such creatures to view it.
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
Though admittedly, some of the more drastic lore changes in 4E will be difficult to reconcile. (A lot of drow tactics, psychology and so on being influenced, in the past, by spell resistance and certain innate powers they lack in 4E...)
While they did lose Spell Resistance, I don't ever remember it drastically changing the lore of Drow or their tactics from the novels I read. They pretty much remain silent assassins with a penchant for devestating magic or unwavering faith in their spider-goddess Lolth/Lloth (don't really know which spelling is P.C. these days). Also, the only powers straight from the barrel they lack was Dancing Lights and Levitation (somthing the latter was fixed with the Neverwinter Campaign Setting). They gain Faerie Fire (called something else) and Darkness.
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
But working out how things go with the darkvision would be nice. As would any bits of 'how we got here' history that fills in plot developments up to that point (if we know that, say, fifty years ago House X crushed its rivals and became far more powerful, then in campaigns set earlier, one could throw in hints of their slowly increasing power, as their plots gradually come to fruition), provided said history hasn't been mangled too severely by the need to make it fit a 4E status quo.
I'm hoping for some history about the place too such as houses that have come and gone, what House Baenra is up to these days, and what possible threat might a Drow city of that size really face? As for the 4E status quo, I'm drawing a blank to what you mean here? Such as information on how the Spellplague changed things...? |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 05:49:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Oddly enough, the geeks of the early 90s (the ones familiar with infrared scopes, in particular) were the ones who ruined infravision for the drow. In Dragon #211 (1994), there's an article by Roger Moore (not the sexy James Bond actor) describing the capabilities and limits of actual infrared vision from a biological and mechanical standpoint. Like we needed that much realism in a fantasy game. Anyway, you can blame him.
In my Realms, I still use infravision. I just didn't want the hassle of trying to explain why all the drow, dwarves, halflings, elves, and deep gnomes suddenly had massive ocular evolution overnight. So I know exactly where you're coming from. Darkvision, meh!
I need to track that issue down. I've really never understood why they got rid of infravision. Just because there are limitations with scopes, which see infravision but translate it into visible light, and we all know that things get lost in translation, does not necessarily mean that seeing directly in infrared would have to be so limited. A limitation in human technology hardly means that biology must be similarly hampered. And if that biology is bolstered by magic, then that goes double. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 07:24:17
|
| Drow darkvision/infravision and Narbondel can be found here, here, and here. Probably many other places, although these are the only scrolls I've read which discuss the topic. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
raist
Acolyte
6 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 19:00:48
|
You have no idea how excited I am about the release of this book! I am a huge drow fan, have been for many many years now. In my opinion this is going to be one of the best D&D years since Wizards took over with the releases of all the new drow based products they are having this year. I used to be apart of the Menzoberranzan team for the PW server we had on Neverwinter Nights in which we created pretty much the entire city of Menzoberranzan using their toolset. We are actually putting a team back together for various Drow based projects. We are in the beginnign stages of all of these projects and have started a new forums that is being built as we speak lol. So if any of you would like to discuss anything further about drow feel free to signup on our forums as well, Id love to meet some new drow fans.
http:menzoberranzan2.com |
Moderator @ http://www.menzoberranzan2.net/info |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 19:07:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Probably many other places, although these are the only scrolls I've read which discuss the topic.
Here's a take from one of the early 3rd Edition D&D designers on why Infravision had to go, and why it was replaced by Darkvision. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 27 Apr 2012 19:07:58 |
|
|
|
raist
Acolyte
6 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 19:19:51
|
i am not a huge fan of 4E either, but Ill take any core product based on drow from any edition lol.
I'm hoping the thing they elaborate the most on in this is the houses and the academy. It would be awesome to see maps of a few of the Major Qu'ellars and of the Academies. I also hope they do a good job explaining the day to day of the drow. So moany people that used to signup to play on our PW server used to think drow were just mindless evil elves that killed on site and did whatever they want whenever they want. Which is very far from the truth. In my opinion drow are the hardest race to Roleplay correctly in the D&D world. They have so many rules and guidelines, and are very intelegent and far from the mindless killers a lot of people seem to see them as. I guess thats because they are EVRYONES favorite NPC villain though lol. |
Moderator @ http://www.menzoberranzan2.net/info |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36870 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 19:50:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by raist
They have so many rules and guidelines, and are very intelegent and far from the mindless killers a lot of people seem to see them as. I guess thats because they are EVRYONES favorite NPC villain though lol.
Pretty sure I've never heard drow referred to as mindless killers... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 19:58:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by raist
They have so many rules and guidelines, and are very intelegent and far from the mindless killers a lot of people seem to see them as.
Drow can be pretty nasty slayers, I agree; just totally focused on killing and riding the hate.
When I imagine this, I see them hunting surface elves. Reminds me of the story of the hunt Drizzt went on.
I'm interested in this new book too. I hope it has details without burying us in too much lore. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 02:11:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by raist
They have so many rules and guidelines, and are very intelegent and far from the mindless killers a lot of people seem to see them as. I guess thats because they are EVRYONES favorite NPC villain though lol.
Pretty sure I've never heard drow referred to as mindless killers...
I've heard them described as such by some folk who routinely used them in long-ago 1e adventures in the Underdark. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 02:19:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Probably many other places, although these are the only scrolls I've read which discuss the topic.
Here's a take from one of the early 3rd Edition D&D designers on why Infravision had to go, and why it was replaced by Darkvision.
I absolutely, hate, HATE, HATE!!! that article. Basically, the author just said, "Infra-vision is hard, and we don't want to have to put forth effort to make it stand up to scrutiny. So we'll just scrap it and substitute some make-believe type of vision that cannot even begin to hold up to scrutiny, and save ourselves the trouble."
That's LAZY.
So we lost infravision because the powers that be were lazy?! 
He spent over half of that article helping to explain how infravision would normally work, in plausible scientific terms. Great.
But then right at the end, he finally throws up a bunch of specific cases in which infravision might struggle, and he calls on everyone to just quit and throw in the towel.
I think that he could've used that as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the limitations of infravision, and to show how infravision-equippped creatures could possibly be defeated while adventuring. He could've applied that info to enrich the world and the overall experience.
Instead, he just took the slacker route.  |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 03:04:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I'm interested in this new book too. I hope it has details without burying us in too much lore.
Did you just say TOO MUCH LORE? 
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 03:51:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Instead, he just took the slacker route.
Oh I dunno...I thought he made a pretty compelling case for why infravision had to go.
Me, I still get annoyed with the whole vision system in 3E (even without the headaches infravision would have caused if they'd kept it) in terms of who can see in the dark, who can sort of see in the dark, who can see farther than who in dim light, etc...pain in the butt, IMNSHO. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36870 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 04:46:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Probably many other places, although these are the only scrolls I've read which discuss the topic.
Here's a take from one of the early 3rd Edition D&D designers on why Infravision had to go, and why it was replaced by Darkvision.
I absolutely, hate, HATE, HATE!!! that article. Basically, the author just said, "Infra-vision is hard, and we don't want to have to put forth effort to make it stand up to scrutiny. So we'll just scrap it and substitute some make-believe type of vision that cannot even begin to hold up to scrutiny, and save ourselves the trouble."
That's LAZY.
So we lost infravision because the powers that be were lazy?!
He spent over half of that article helping to explain how infravision would normally work, in plausible scientific terms. Great.
But then right at the end, he finally throws up a bunch of specific cases in which infravision might struggle, and he calls on everyone to just quit and throw in the towel.
I think that he could've used that as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the limitations of infravision, and to show how infravision-equippped creatures could possibly be defeated while adventuring. He could've applied that info to enrich the world and the overall experience.
Instead, he just took the slacker route.
I think he had some valid points... But at the same time, even with all that info in mind, I still would have preserved infravision in the game. Tossing it out violated a lot of prior lore, and there wasn't even an acknowledgement that this was a retcon.
I want a degree of realism in fantasy, but there comes a point where you've got to let the flavor of the world override real-world science. And that point comes a lot earlier when your choices are to maintain continuity at the cost of scientific realism that few people care about, or to stick with scientific realism at the cost of the game world.
Quibbling over whether or not the game version of infravision is realistic is pretty silly when you've got giant flying critters that all spit out different things, screaming mushrooms, floating balls that are half mouth and one big eye, intelligent swords, and people who don't let being dead get in the way of pursuing their goals. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 18:54:40
|
Vision is tough - so are all the other senses.
I've home-brewed systems with each sense getting its own stat, but the problem lies in the baseline - humans are just way too far on the low-end of the scale, and the rest of the game is designed with them as the baseline.
And thats without even getting into 'special' types, like infravision, telescopic vision, 'The Sight' (the ability to see into other dimensions), etc...
No simple system can replicate the senses, and an overly-complex system that accounts for every variable would be unplayable, so this is just one of those things that should be left up to the DMs to decide, unfortunately.
I do agree they should have kept Infravision - it has been part of the game since the beginning, and much lore is tied to it, and DMs have been adjudicating it forever, so what was the problem? Not everything has to be nailed-down by the rules - thats why the game has a DM in the first place. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 28 Apr 2012 18:55:31 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 23:00:45
|
I'm a melee-minded pragmatist. The rules and mechanics of magic are hard for me to understand. So I don't even try.
Let's scrap those for the next edition of the Realms, too, shall we? Let's not bother trying to work through it. Let's just give up.
Dragons--giant, heavy monsters--are supposedly fast and nimble, and can fly and breathe all sorts of nasty stuff. How does one explain that? Let's not even attempt it, anymore. Let's just do away with them, too.
Dungeons seem to have been constructed all over the Realms, often in places that seem as if they existed for no other reason than for adventurers to ransack. Now, that seems awfully convenient, doesn't it? How can we rationalize that? Let's stop trying.
Bah!
If they ever make Drizzt movies, especially Homeland and Exile, they just gotta show infravision with cool (warm? ), wacky special F/X. It was crucial to the creation of an alien atmosphere for scenes set in the Underdark in those stories. Darkvision grayscale? How utterly boring!
P.S.: I still don't see anything in SKR's list of faults that would justify eliminating infravision. They only illustrate its limitations. Heck, Bob did that in the novel Starless Night, showing how infravision could be defeated by hiding from pursuers behind underground natural steam vents. That doesn't make infravision obsolete--it just helps to show a practical aspect and shortcoming of it in use. That's wonderful! It should be embraced as another jewel helping to enrich the world--not used as a blade to cut part of the world down. 
Let's look at SKR's case for dumping infra-vision:
quote:
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
Infravision has a fixed range (usually 60 ft.). This meats that a red dragon standing in the dark 70 ft. away from a dwarf cannot be seen by the dwarf, even though it should be putting out plenty of heat to reach into the dwarf's 60 ft. infravision range.
This is not worded very precisely.
The dragon's physical body cannot be directly seen. But heat radiating away from the dragon's body surely can, if it radiates within 60 ft of the dwarf's eyes. The dwarf will see a telltale brightening of its otherwise dark surroundings, and being a denizen of the Underdark, with sound and smell, he would probably recognize that heat signature as properly draconic.
quote:
To account for these effects, infravision would need rules to determine how far out a creature's heat signature extends beyond its body (suggestion: I'd add it's smallest face statistic in each direction as a rough guideline). Of course, that means that infravision is not longer a simple flat value -- more work for the DM.
If infravision is sensitive enough to be able to identify facial features and such, then infravision must be sensitive enough to see tracks on the ground from a warm creature (as we established above). AD&D doesn't have any rules for how long it takes for these tracks to fade. It also doesn't have any rules for the difficulty of tracking in this manner.
A DM has to make up some figures and do some basic math? Boo hoo! 
What kind of an objection is that, really?
I don't play the game. I've never had the patience to sit down and learn the rules. Just let me sit down and hack & slash on a video game, and I'm good.
But do the D&D & FR rules ever explicitly explain the technicalities for how characters eat food and drink beverages? Are metabolism, enzymes, and endocrine systems & hormones ever worked out in quantitative detail?
How about excretion of bodily wastes? Do the rules spell out how PCs go potty?
I could be going way out on a limb here--but I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that I don't think so.
So is that a reason to eliminate all consumption of nutrients in the Realms? Should Realmsians never eat, because there are no clear-cut rules about eating? Do they never urinate/defecate, because there are no clear-cut rules about urination/defecation? (Where does all that dwarven ale go, then? )
Infrared energy/heat dissipates over distances, just as light images dissipate and fade over distances. How far depends upon lots of variables, such as the amplitude/brightness of the light, collimation of the lightwaves, obliqueness of the intermediate medium (the atmosphere), ambient lighting/glare, and visual acuity of the observer. There are actually a whole lot of variables behind normal light vision. And I'd reckon that most of them haven't been nailed down in excrutiating detail in the rules, either.
Does that justify doing away with normal light vision in the Realms, as well?
How far does a torch cast its light, and how should a DM quantitatively take this into account using normal vision? Has that ever been set down in stone in the rulebooks, either?
Uh oh! Maybe it's time to get rid of torches in the Realms, too.
What's wrong with making some stuff up as you go along, to fit your own local needs? It has to be done with almost every aspect of lore and mechanics, at some point, methinks.
It's kinda a fool's notion to think that any game/fictional world could ever spell out everything, anyway. We don't even have everything completely spelled out for us right here in the real world!
quote:
Now let's take a look at some spells and how infravision would affect them (or, if infravision exists, how these spells require answers on other aspects of the game rules).
Blur: Wouldn't infravision negate this spell? A person using infravision is used to looking at a creature with a blurring, shifting outline (since the creature's body is heating the air around it, which the infra-user can see), so they should have no miss chance, or at least a reduced miss chance.
How does blur work? Does it create an energy field which disrupts propagation of the visible light (VL) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from the dragon?
Or does a blur spell work by introducing particles of dust into the air around an object, which refract the VL?
Either way, the blur spell's working medium functions by interfering with the transmission of EMR of VL's frequencies and wavelengths. The blur spell's countering energy would be at wavelengths similar to those of the VL; or else, the blur spell's dust particles would be spaced apart from one another at roughly the same distance as VL's wavelengths.
But EMR of other frequencies and wavelengths might be able to pass through unhindered. If the wavelengths are different, then waves might propagate right past one another, except when intersecting at certain angles.
So a VL blur spell would be most effective with VL EMR, and less effective with IR, or UV, or radio, etc., EMR.
An IR blur spell would be called for if one wanted to cause blurring for an IV creature, but this might not be so effective at interfering with VL images.
Also, I would object to the notion that infravision (IV?)-equipped creatures would be used to seeing blurring, shifting outlines just because other creatures heat the air around them. That heating of the air around them may be only a minor effect, as the air would rapidly release its heat just as quickly as it absorbed it. The visibility of the heated air would probably be minimal compared to the stream of IR EMR leaving the dragon's body and headed straight for the dwarf's eyes. That would be high in amplitude/intensity, and normally clear.
Just because human IR scopes have historically been quite limited in terms of resolution and differentiating between direct heat and ambient heat, as well as being limited in terms of translating an IR image coming through the scope into a VL image going out through a viewscreen display, does not mean that an IV-equipped creatures' eyes would be so limited. How long might such a creature race's eyes have been able to evolve and develop? Now contrast that with how long humans have been building IR scopes.
quote:
Burning Hands: Does this (and other fire spells) negate infravision temporarily because it's so hot?
They don't "negate" IV; they just temporarily blind the IV-equipped creature. Per RAS's novel descriptions, a very hot object appears bright red in IV; and an ultra-hot object appears blindingly white.
I imagine that as an object gets hotter, it goes through red to pink, and then on to brilliant white, before an IV creature must avert its eyes.
At any rate, it's sorta like a VL creature looking directly at the sun.
That doesn't justify doing away with VL vision for all Realmsians.
This shouldn't justify doing away with IV, either.
quote:
Likewise, is an ice creature (like a gelugon, or ice devil) invisible to infravision because it doesn't give off heat?
Per RAS's books, in IV, a cold object appears dark blue or purple, and a completely frozen object appears pitch-black.
And while a completely-black object would not be visible, the contrast between that completely-black object and its surroundings probably would be glaring. It would give itself away to an IV creature by providing a sort of cold silhouette or shadow, much like a campfire or torch flame can give someone away when seen in VL during the night.
quote:
Cone of Cold: If this spell drains heat, do creatures that have been hit by it become harder to see with infravision for a while?
If the dragon has been cooled, then its image would appear to shift lower in the fantasy IV spectrum. It would appear to go to green, then blue, then perhaps even purple. It depends on how long that cone of cold was blasted onto the dragon, and how intense it was.
This has never been clarified in the books, but I imagine that colder objects also appear fainter than hotter objects. So hot, red objects would be brighter; while cold, purple objects would be dimmer.
quote:
Darkness: If darkness prevents infravision, it's keeping heat from flowing through the air. Shouldn't that give some benefit against fire attacks?
This depends on whether a globe of darkness is purely a magical spell, and only interferes with VL EMR; or if it is a more comprehensive physical phenomenon (as per the rules), interfering with all bands of EMR.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that RAS has written that heat (from lightning?) could be felt through various drow's globes of darkness in his books, so this points to those particular darkness spells, at least, merely being VL-related.
But perhaps there are more comprehensive darkness spells in use somewhere in the Realms, which block all EMR, and therefore fire attacks, as well?
I do believe that black holes are said to prevent all EMR from emanating outwards, except at their poles, where everything is spewed out.
And I've read that the cloaking devices in Star Trek might also simultaneously be quite effective force fields/shields, because by being designed to deflect VL to warp around the cloaked ships, they could also be rigged to deflect IR, UV, gamma, radio, etc., EMR energy, as well. A shielded ship might effectively be a cloaked ship, and vice versa! (But in Star Trek, they usually portray ships that have been shielded from phaser fire as still being visible in VL, so they seem to want to have their cakes and eat it, too. They usually don't make their shields that "smart".)
quote:
Displacement: Shouldn't infravision negate this, too? Even if the target's radiating heat is displaced, the target is also heating the air and ground, which shouldn't be displaced.
Nope. The dragon's body, which is being continuously internally heated, will still emanate more heat than the surrounding air, which is only being indirectly heated at a distance. If the body magically appears in VL to be displaced, then the warmest emanator of heat (the body) should likewise appear to be displaced in IR. Sure, the dwarf could target the warm air, but it's the hot body that he should be focused on. (Of course, that's not to mention what sort of "leading", "windage", or "compensating" one might have to incorporate when dealing with magical displacement.)
quote:
Faerie Fire: Not so much of a 3E D&D problem as an AD&D problem. AD&D faerie fire outlined a subject in a glow, making them easier to hit. A creature being viewed with infravision is glowing and should therefore be easier to hit than one viewed with regular light.
While true, I don't understand how this is supposedly a problem with infravision.
Faerie fire is one option a character can use. It doesn't have to be used. When it is best employed depends on the situation.
Infravision might be best, when available, and when ambient heating doesn't cause interference (like that experienced during daylight on the World Above).
But the sudden appearance of fairie fire on a target tends to be alarming to the target, causing a brief distraction, and giving the caster a tactical advantage. Merely continuing to look with infravision fails to attempt any such temporal advantage.
Think of it as a sort of dim flash-grenade. It's a cheap, momentary trick.
quote:
Gaseous Form: Can you see the gaseous person with infravision? A wandering hot zone of air?
The dragon in gaseous form would have a body comprised of billions of tiny particles vibrating wildly. This cloud probably would not have any definite physical shape, but would rather be amorphous.
Likely, that blob would still give off heat, though.
It would be interesting to know if a being's gaseous form body heat is comparable to its normal form body heat.
At any rate, how is this a problem for infravision? The dwarf would still definitely take note of a hot cloud wandering around in front of him--especially if it started wandering his way!
quote:
Heat Metal: Even if it's not enough to blind infravision, shouldn't this spell make the target easier to hit, since they'd be outlined in extra heat?
Yeah.
So? How is that in any way a problem for infravision?
If you recall, in Homeland, patrol leaders purposely used heated metal plates as signalling devices to their troops. After the signal, they then tucked the heated plates away, and went on to raise an infrared ruckus.
quote:
Invisibility: Infravision breaks this spell.
Or, put another way, this spell breaks infravision. Tomato, tomahto. It's all relative. It all depends on how you look at it.
Now, if the former is a problem for infravision, then the latter is also a problem for invisibility. I don't see why it is automatically an Achilles heel for one, but not the other.
quote:
If a creature is invisible to infravision, then something must be either (a) preventing the heat from escaping your body or (b) rapidly cooling the body heat leaving your body so it's indistinguishable from the surrounding air.
If it's the first option, then the invisible creature will heat up over time and eventually succumb to heat exhaustion and die[...].
Not necessarily. As I mentioned before, it depends on whether the spell is purely a magical effect, or also a comprehensive physical one. Does the spell only magically interfere with VL and IR being propagated to the eyes of the dwarf? Or does it physically prevent the photons of all EMR from ever emanating away from the dragon? The last quote presumes the latter. But it really comes down to the subtle nuances of how the spell is defined.
That is not a defeat of infravision, in any regards. It's an illustration of how vaguely the invisibility spell has been defined in the rules.
quote:
If it's the second option, shouldn't it be a transmutation spell instead of an illusion?
No, because rapidly cooling the energy emanating from something does not constitute transmuting or transforming that thing, itself. Where did this conflation of concepts come from?
quote:
And wouldn't the spell have to be very "smart" to recognize the different patterns of heat and cold around you? Basically the spell would have to being doing double duty, muting two entirely different types of radiation to compensate for the senses that detect those types. It's like asking a French horn player (a fairly complex instrument) to play the keyboard at the same time -- quite a lot of work for a 2nd-level spell.
Aye, if invisibility (and darkness, for that matter) can block both VL and IR (and/or darkvision, if you like), then those spells must be very "smart", indeed.
But that's not an overly convenient, i.e., undermining, feature of infravision--it's an overly convenient feature of those spells.
If it in any way undermined infravision, then it would likewise undermine darkvision. But I never saw 3E calling for the end of that.
Heck, if the fact that such spell blocks all forms of EMR simultaneously means that it undermines infravision and darkvision, then why isn't it seen as undermining normal vision, too?
quote:
Furthermore, it doesn't address the secondary effects of a warm body -- the heated air and solid objects it touches. Does invisibility affect the cloud of warm air?
Excellent question; I don't think that was ever answered in the rules.
But that's a weakness in the rules about invisibility--not the rules about infravision.
(Similarly, does an invisible subject cast a shadow?)
quote:
If doesn't, an infravision user should be able to see the warm outline of an invisible creature and therefor be able to locate it in some way.
Yep.
And that doesn't undermine infravision at all.
quote:
If invisibility does affect the cloud of warm air, does it affect the parts of the ground they touch?
It certainly should. If the VL and IR can't get to the dwarf's eyes, then they shouldn't be able to get to the ground, either. They should be swallowed up by the spell--period.
quote:
What about the weirdness of an invisible user holding a torch? The light is visible … is the heat visible? You're asking a lot out of a 2nd-level spell.
That sounds like a fault of the invisibility spell--not of infravision. 
quote:
Iron Body: If you're "living iron," do you radiate heat? Or are you room temperature like an iron golem?
[...]
Statue: Same issues as iron body.
That's a critical question about the iron body spell--not infravision.
Natural iron is a hard, solid metal at room temperature. It's atoms are situated in a tight crystal lattice structure and vibrate in a very small range of motion. Thus, iron does not give off much heat.
But what makes an iron body-ensorcelled creature "living" iron? What is the nature of this life?
In normal, organic creatures, physical life is ordinarily accompanied by a whole slew of chemical and physical processes which generate body heat.
An iron body creature does not seem to possess the mechanisms for these processes. So it probably does not generate those forms of body heat.
As mentioned, friction would most likely take place, though, as iron atoms are tightly packed, and any movement within an iron body would surely force the atoms to move past one another, generating friction and heat. (I vaguely recall from chemistry class some notion of electrons being stripped from outer orbitals surrounding atomic nuclei, giving off EMR, and this might be an underlying part of friction-generated heat.)
quote:
While we're at it, if infravision is used, you'd need to note for each creature whether or not it gives off heat, and if it's a low, medium, or high level of heat (relating to the gelugon/ice devil question earlier).
To be fair, if you want to be a completist, then you'd need to note this for every creature.
That's just like how you need to note what every creature looks like in VL. I'm sure that hasn't been an easy undertaking. But it's a necessary one.
One has never suggested scrapping visible light vision in the Realms just because it's difficult to describe what every creature looks like in VL.
So it hardly seems appropriate to defend scrapping IV on similar grounds, either.
At any rate, at the end of the day, individual DMs should be free to go into this level of detail to whichever degree that they please. It should not be seen as a burdemsome chore, but just as an optional level of detail at their disposal.
quote:
Mirror Image: Since this spell is a figment, it cannot produce real effects. It can't make light, and therefore it can't make infrared light, which means that the mirror images don't show up in infravision[...].
Is there a source which clearly states this?
If duplicates are generated which give forth the illusion of the caster, then those duplicates would appear to be transmitting images of themselves in VL. They are emanating EMR in the VL range.
So what's to stop them from somehow, magically, likewise emanating EMR in the IR range, as well? Why is magic able to produce VL energy from out of nowhere, but not produce IR energy? That seems awfully arbitrary--especially when other spells (darkness, invisibility, etc.) are said to affect both VL and IR. Why would this one suddenly be different?
But if so, then OK.
quote:
[... T]he spell would never be used by drow or other dark-dwelling creatures that don't use light.
Never say "never". "Rarely" would probably be better, here. Just because IV creatures live in the dark doesn't mean that they never use VL. Drow still possess eyeballs that see VL, don't they?
Perhaps a drow would want to distract an opponent in the heat of the moment by dropping some bright faerie fire in the area, and then bringing up a few mirror images who could be visibly seen in VL as moving erratically or threateningly. This might just cause an opponent to pause long enough to get whacked.
At any rate, this in no way undermines infravision. It might make mirror image silly for a drow, but it doesn't undermine IV.
quote:
Otiluke's Spheres: Does infravision penetrate these spells?
I would say, "Probably not". Such spheres would probably appear as black blobs to an IV creature.
But here again, the contrast between those black spheres and the background should still be noticeable.
quote:
If so, at what threshhold does the spell stop allowing heat? Could you do a "low heat" spell that could still damage people through these force effects?
This brings up questions of detail--not a problem with the concept of infravision.
Varying levels of coldness could be seen as varying shades of "black", gray, deep violet, purple, indigo, navy blue, etc.
But on a practical level, I don't think that the color of a thrown Otiluke sphere is gonna matter much . . . when it's hurtling toward you at breakneck speed! It'll probably smack you and cold-burn you before you ever had time to react.
quote:
Wall of Force: Same question as Otiluke's sphere spells: Is a creature on the other side invisible to infravision? It allows visible light but not damaging sorts of energy, but enough heat will damage someone.
What source defines this? As I understand it, a wall of force allows EMR in the VL range to pass, but blocks physical attacks and most magical attacks. There is nothing to say that it would also block physical EMR in the IR range (heat). It would probably block magical heat, such as a magically conjured fireball. But AFAIK there's nothing to indicate that it would block a person from, say, feeling a bonfire on the other side.
quote:
All right, enough of spells. Get my point? Compared to infravision, darkvision is simple[...].
Let's follow that line of thinking to its natural conclusion, shall we? Just having VL vision is simpler than darkvision, too. So let's chuck darkvision.
I never heard that suggestion. Why not?
Why single out infravision?
Hells, man, if simplicity is the standard we should be going by, then why not chuck the whole dang thing? The whole game is complicated. Better yet to just gaze at one's navel like Drizzt of yore and call it a day.
"Ooh, is that a black hole?" 
quote:
[...D]arkvision is simple, elegant, and it works without all of these questions and extra work.
As I understand it, darkvision is just as hinky as infravision when blur, darkness, displacement, and invisibility are concerned. It's hardly infallible.
And how in the heck does darkvision even work? How can someone see in shades of gray in complete darkness? That's a total self-contradictory paradox. At least with infravision, eyeballs are seeing electromagnetic radiation, just like eyeballs are seeing electromagnetic radiation when they see in visible light. (They're just different flavors of the same stuff; there's nothing particularly exotic about either VL or IR.) But what is it exactly that eyeballs see when they see in darkvision?
Is it even seen by eyeballs at all, or is there something wonky like their pinky fingernails which actually detect it, so it's only described as "seeing"?
That ain't simple or elegant. It's ad hoc strained contrivance. It smacks of made-up BS just to skirt around unwelcome issues.
The only way it "works without all the extra work" is by sidestepping reality altogether, and artificially being described as working. It works by capricious fiat--not by any discernible reason.
quote:
A warm-bodied creature using infravision would blind itself with its own body heat; it's like standing with your face right nekt to a lamp and trying to see in an otherwise dark room.
I've heard this objection before, but it makes no sense to me.
1) Holding a VL-emitting lamp next to your face is not akin to 2) your face, itself, emitting IR.
1) entails EMR being transmitted from an external object toward your eyes.
But 2) entails EMR being emanated, largely, away from your body and face into the surrounding space. Only a small percentage of your body's IR energy would be propagated toward your eyes; most of it would actually be propagated outward, away from you altogether.
Natural EMR-absorbent material in the eye socket and around the eyelids should shield the eyes from internal IR EMR. (Stealth eyeballs! Uber-ninja!)
That would only leave a faint heating of the air right in front of an IV creature's face to contend with. And if you check out the photos in SKR's own post, you can see that the heat-halo effect is actually quite minimal.
There may still be real world problems with the idea of IV. But I don't see Realmsian ones. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 29 Apr 2012 05:42:57 |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 06:36:18
|
| Touche'. FTN. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 07:27:20
|
Beast, two things:
1. You win the award for biggest wall of text. (4400 words!)
2. Who are you talking to?
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 20:38:59
|
Ack!
first Icelander and now BEAST - I feel my Crown of Excessive Verbiage is at stake! 
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 22:26:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Beast, two things:
1. You win the award for biggest wall of text. (4400 words!)
Yeah, and it's especially glaring since SKR didn't use half that many words in the original article!
Solly. I let it get away from me. 
But I was just trying to carefully respond to each and every point that supposedly was used to justify ending infravision. That whole deal still chaps my hide!
quote:
2. Who are you talking to?
I was talking to all those who stated above in this thread that they thought that SKR made valid points explaining why infravision needed to be dropped. The general concept of dropping it annoyed be, but I thought I would finally address each specific point.
I guess I was ranting to WOTC, too.  |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36870 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 04:50:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I was talking to all those who stated above in this thread that they thought that SKR made valid points explaining why infravision needed to be dropped.
I think he had valid concerns about infravision, but as I said, I don't think it should have been dropped. We accept too much that isn't scientificly plausible to quibble over a type of vision.
I like some of the stuff SKR has done, but in this case, I think that dropping infravision was a mistake. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 07:07:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I guess I was ranting to WOTC, too.
Well, I did a sense of deja vu from your response, as though it were twelve or thirteen years ago.
I can see the frustration, but I think a lot of the responses to why Infravision should have stayed actually sort of champion the idea that the game should be made more complicated than it needs to be.
Veteran gamers might view it as a non-issue, having house-ruled or otherwise reached an accord with their longtime players and friends over how the ability works vis-a-vis the rest of the game, but for new players it would have been a major stumbling block (amongst a whole host of unavoidable other such blocks; you can only reduce them, never eliminate all of them).
So I'm glad they removed it. Yeah, it lessened the flavor but IMNSHO this was one time where a smart, well designed rules change won out over the setting. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36870 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 10:41:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I guess I was ranting to WOTC, too.
Well, I did a sense of deja vu from your response, as though it were twelve or thirteen years ago.
I can see the frustration, but I think a lot of the responses to why Infravision should have stayed actually sort of champion the idea that the game should be made more complicated than it needs to be.
Veteran gamers might view it as a non-issue, having house-ruled or otherwise reached an accord with their longtime players and friends over how the ability works vis-a-vis the rest of the game, but for new players it would have been a major stumbling block (amongst a whole host of unavoidable other such blocks; you can only reduce them, never eliminate all of them).
So I'm glad they removed it. Yeah, it lessened the flavor but IMNSHO this was one time where a smart, well designed rules change won out over the setting.
... And caused serious retcons.
I'm really not sure how a form of vision would be able to cause problems in-game. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 16:46:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
... And caused serious retcons.
I don’t really see that as a negative.
Now that I think about it, technically the 3E transition simply adjusted the lense (i.e. the rules) through which the Realms are viewed.
If you view the Realms through 2E rules, there is infravision (and other stuff not in 3E and later Realms).
If you view the Realms with 3E rules, there is darkvision (and other stuff not in 2E and earlier Realms).
In hindsight, I think it would have been cool to see infravision stick around in 3E-era novels. I haven’t read all the novels with drow in them, so I don’t know if some kept it, though I’m pretty sure some didn’t.
More reason to separate the rules from the Realms? I think so. That way people (especially those who don't play D&D) can get used to the Realms being presented consistently, without worrying over it changing every time D&D goes through a rules metamorphosis.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm really not sure how a form of vision would be able to cause problems in-game.
It’s good to be skeptical.
EDIT: you’ve played 2E, right? Ever had let’s-break-this-thing-down discussions or even arguments at the table over infravision? I recall having a few.
I remember after the Predator movies came out I couldn’t view infravision any other way than how it was depicted in the movies.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 30 Apr 2012 17:06:19 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 17:06:52
|
I am in the middle of reading the Omnibus edition of Return of the Archmunchkins, and in that volume, pg. 104 -
quote:
Spoken by Elminster
"How is it that this Melegaunt could snatch ye and the others from beneath the phaerimm's very noses? They see magic the way dwarves see body heat."
That was at the very outset of 3e - perhaps someone should have let Troy Denning read the new rules first.
Thats what happens when you make retcons - you create endless ripples. Its heavy-handed, and poor design. Sometimes, you shouldn't fix things just because you can.
For most of you who don't have the omnibus, that quote appears on the page directly preceding chapter 11.
Sorry I have nothing to contribute on-topic: I am trying to observe my own signature. Despite my own lack-of-interest, I hope this product is a resounding success. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Apr 2012 17:08:02 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36870 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 18:07:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
... And caused serious retcons.
I don’t really see that as a negative.
So you're a fan of a setting that has, as one of its core strengths, a well-defined continuity and a rich history, and it doesn't bother you when these things are arbitrarily changed? It doesn't bother you to see references in Menzoberranzan lore to using heat vision to tell time, knowing that this has been invalidated? That's just one example, and it's quite relevant to this overall discussion, as well...
And not all retcons have been driven by rules changes. Some have happened thru whim of the designers, some have happened thru not bothering to do sufficient research.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
EDIT: you’ve played 2E, right? Ever had let’s-break-this-thing-down discussions or even arguments at the table over infravision? I recall having a few.
I played in 2E, and many of my characters were half-elves, because I liked the option of having infravision. And we never had any arguments or discussions over that. We just dealt with it and moved on. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 18:15:34
|
We don't have arguments over my table... at least not between DM and players.
The DM exists for a reason - he adjudicates every instance of 'grey area'. I really wish players and WotC would stop trying to nerf his power. Without him, the game couldn't happen - just let him do his job.
And there have been plenty of times, later-on after a session has finished (usually at the next session) when I was proven wrong by the RAW by a player, and I'd just say "well, now we know for the next time". Its that simple - the game should never stop so people can look up rules. In fact, the only book I allow at my table (for players) is the PHB, and even then its just one copy getting passed around (and you don't read it during your turn).
In the RW, you don't get to look stuff up every time you need to know something (okay... granted this has actually changed since I started playing..) - you get to react, and thats it. Keeping the game moving is one of the DMs major functions; rules are secondary (IMHO). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Apr 2012 18:16:48 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 19:33:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So you're a fan of a setting that has, as one of its core strengths, a well-defined continuity and a rich history, and it doesn't bother you when these things are arbitrarily changed…
I wasn’t happy to see the change then, but it’s not like I’ve held on to this bother and nurtured it into some form of refined hatred over the past twelve years or felt it was somehow necessary for me to no longer think of Narbondel like I did in the past when I was a kid or make sure I had to specifically not describe how Narbondel used to work for my players if the subject ever came up during play.
That would be pretty stupid, since the point of the setting and the game is to have fun and enjoy it.
That’s what I mean by “not viewing it as a negative.”
I get the sense that if you’re someone who just reads the novels, the switch from “Narbondel is this” to “Narbondel is that” would be more than a little annoying.
But for someone like me who reads novels and plays D&D in the Realms, it’s like this: there was a change and I thought it took away some from the flavor, but I understood why the change was made and I know for a fact it was not made in bad faith (see the link I provided earlier, if you haven’t already), nor made arbitrarily or on a whim.
As I mentioned earlier, sometimes the rules trump the setting. To me it was one of those “oh well, life goes on” kind of things. No big deal.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And not all retcons have been driven by rules changes. Some have happened thru whim of the designers, some have happened thru not bothering to do sufficient research.
Really not following you here. Are you suggesting I'm supposed to find a reason to be upset?
Why would I do that?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I played in 2E, and many of my characters were half-elves, because I liked the option of having infravision. And we never had any arguments or discussions over that. We just dealt with it and moved on.
Cool, so your group was in universal agreement from the start about how Infravision works and you never had any issues during play. That’s awesome.
If every 2E D&D game could have been like yours, maybe they wouldn’t have replaced the ability with Darkvision for 3E.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 30 Apr 2012 19:39:40 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36870 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 20:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So you're a fan of a setting that has, as one of its core strengths, a well-defined continuity and a rich history, and it doesn't bother you when these things are arbitrarily changed…
I wasn’t happy to see the change then, but it’s not like I’ve held on to this bother and nurtured it into some form of refined hatred over the past twelve years or felt it was somehow necessary for me to no longer think of Narbondel like I did in the past when I was a kid or make sure I had to specifically not describe how Narbondel used to work for my players if the subject ever came up during play.
That would be pretty stupid, since the point of the setting and the game is to have fun and enjoy it.
I've not "nurtured it" as a "refined hatred", either... But that doesn't change the fact that a wholly unnecessary change invalidated prior lore. And that is something I find irksome. It's not much more than a point of reference, but it's still irksome.
It detracts from the enjoyment of the setting when something is described for years as being one thing, and then becomes something totally different.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I get the sense that if you’re someone who just reads the novels, the switch from “Narbondel is this” to “Narbondel is that” would be more than a little annoying.
It's more than a little annoying if you read the sourcebooks, too, which were drawn, in part, from the novels.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
But for someone like me who reads novels and plays D&D in the Realms, it’s like this: there was a change and I thought it took away some from the flavor, but I understood why the change was made and I know for a fact it was not made in bad faith (see the link I provided earlier, if you haven’t already), nor made arbitrarily or on a whim.
A setting is all about the flavor. Taking away that flavor diminishes the setting.
And I do think it was arbitrary, since they were sweating scientific accuracy on a type of vision, but not worrying about the aerodynamics of flying horses or how a large powerful bird can spring up out of the ashes of its own corpse or explaining why someone who breathed and had a reflection should somehow lose the reflection, no longer breathe, and still keep wandering about, in search of his or her now entirely blood-based diet.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
As I mentioned earlier, sometimes the rules trump the setting. To me it was one of those “oh well, life goes on” kind of things. No big deal.
Rules should serve the setting, not the other way around. No one reads novels for the rules, they read them for the stories -- and the setting is its stories.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And not all retcons have been driven by rules changes. Some have happened thru whim of the designers, some have happened thru not bothering to do sufficient research.
Really not following you here. Are you suggesting I'm supposed to find a reason to be upset?
Why would I do that?
I guess I'm not understanding how you can like something and not be bothered by things that detract from it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If every 2E D&D game could have been like yours, maybe they wouldn’t have replaced the ability with Darkvision for 3E.
Or if they'd've asked if it was really that big a deal. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 21:30:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've not "nurtured it" as a "refined hatred", either... But that doesn't change the fact that a wholly unnecessary change invalidated prior lore.
People like to use that word “invalidated” and I really wonder why? When reading the novels or playing the game, I decide what the Realms is to me. Yes I understand what’s “official” is important to a lot of people, but if I’m talking about my own personal happiness (which is really important to me, no matter how much it may seem I enjoy banging my head against a wall here at Candlekeep) then no, the infravision change isn’t really something to get worked up over.
Based on the sales and overwhelming success of the 3rd Edition D&D core rulebooks and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say for most people it wasn't an issue either.
Whether or not the Infravision-is-now-Darkvision change was “wholly unnecessary” isn’t settled. Rather it’s an issue that’s been called up like some half-forgotten Edition War zombie and taken over a scroll that was originally about the new Menzo book.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's more than a little annoying if you read the sourcebooks, too, which were drawn, in part, from the novels.
If you’re reading them for Realmslore only, I can see that.
If you’re playing the game (which sort of assumes you like the game), well, I’d wager it’s not that big a deal.
I still think Narbondel is cool either way and I’m willing to bet most older readers and gamers enjoy the Realms enough that they can ignore the change as they see fit when reading or playing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I do think it was arbitrary, since they were sweating scientific accuracy…
I guess we’re using the term ‘arbitrary’ in two different ways.
You seem to be viewing it entirely from a setting-first perspective: “Don’t change the rules if those changes affect prior Realmslore” seems to be the motto. Or more specifically, “don’t worry over the science when so much else that’s scientifically implausible isn’t worried over.” If you do these things and cause big changes to the setting, well that’s a little arbitrary.
What’s not initially clear in SKR’s take is this: he’s not worried about the science first; he’s worried about game mechanics first. Otherwise he wouldn’t have asked any of several questions that your average player would have come up with during play had Infravision been kept in 3rd Edition D&D. Remember, this work was done for the (then) next iteration of the D&D game. They were concerned with what was best for the game and took a deliberate, specific approach that concerned itself with making changes that promoted ease of play and kept the game moving.
That method can’t accurately be described as an arbitrary approach to doing things, and it wasn’t.
Rules that directly affect player choices or get in the way of player actions are much more likely to have the effect of slowing the game down. That’s the distinction here: what affects play and what doesn’t? What’s going to tie up the DM in a rules discussion with players?
You ask me, I think that’s where the decision to remove infravision rested. Rightly or wrongly, they concluded that Infravision was open to interpretation and prone to slow the game down.
That’s why I agree with the removal of infravision. In my opinion making changes that speed up play and limit rules discussions are generally good changes to make, even if they alter the flavor of a campaign setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Rules should serve the setting, not the other way around.
Sometimes the setting informs the rules and the two work rather well together, as in the case of Prestige Classes (when they’re done right), just as the rules do a lot to inform the setting. After all, infravision is a D&D game rule that grew up in the form of Realmslore.
(Narbondel, please say thank you to Gygax and Co.)
Ideally I’d like to see the rules divorced from the setting. There’s real potential for that to kill a setting’s flavor but if we balance that against when rules changes alter or detract from flavor…well, why not try a rules-divorce for 5th Edition?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No one reads novels for the rules, they read them for the stories.
Actually that’s not true. Yes a lot of people read novels for the story, but some—if not most—people have read or do read the novels with the full expectation the rules will be reflected in them (or had one of those “wait, how can he/she/it do that when the rules don’t allow for it?” moments).
Otherwise there would never have been so many discussions (well, ‘rants’ if I’m being honest) about Drizzt putting bracers of speed on his ankles in order to run faster.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I guess I'm not understanding how you can like something and not be bothered by things that detract from it.
I guess it’s because I don’t view the setting in (what is to me) a one-sided manner. The Realms have always been a place to set fantasy fiction in and to play D&D games in.
That, and I don’t see the net negative over the loss of infravision. I’m mean, it’s not like they only subtracted from the setting without adding anything back.
And I did say I do feel irritation when changes are made I don’t agree with. But then I let it go.
Would you say you’re at more of a middle ground? As in this is one of those things you prefer not to let go?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Or if they'd've asked if it was really that big a deal.
They playtested the new (at the time) rules and surveyed DMs and players about their games before releasing 3E. I don’t recall if they ever asked about infravision specifically in the surveys, though I’ll bet they got a lot of feedback on darkvision vs. infravision from the playtests. I wish they had published their playtest feedback online in some form.
And that’s it for me. I learned a lot, but I’m starting to repeat myself and in the process I helped kill another scroll. Outsiders wanting to talk about the new Menzo book are probably shaking their heads in disgust.
Sorry.
EDIT: fixed quote tags |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 30 Apr 2012 21:47:46 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
New Menzoberranzan Sourcebook in the works!
