Darkvision and hide checks

[Esgath]

Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.

1. So, is that an autodetect for everything that's not invisible or doesn't have cover within 60 ft?
2. What if a creature outside of the range of my darkvision is hiding, then running in to attack me. Am I flatfooted?
3. Would a creature need cover all the way from the square it is hiding, to my square to get me flatfooted?
4. Let's say another creature has Hide in Plain Sight (the one from the Shadowdancer), could he hide?

[rot42]

I am pretty sure it just means that the concealment provided by darkness does not help against something with darkvision.

[NunoM]

Sorry for asking, but where did you get that quote on Darkvision from? I don't remember reading that part on "unless it's invisible or has cover". This sentence rules out shadows, which i'm pretty sure it's not supposed to do.

1. Yes. It works exactly the same for a light-dependent creature in a well lit room with no cover around. It just means that normal darkness isn't a hindrance of any sort to a creature with darkvision within the ability's range.
2. As soon as a creature moves out of hiding and enters the range of your darkvision, it's detected. He might as well be walking, instead of hiding, outside the darkvision's range. However, it can catch you flatfooted if using a ranged weapon (ex.: you're holding a torch and the creature is farther than 60ft. away).
3. A creature would have to be hiding in a square from which it could attack you (either melee or ranged) and, if it's within the 60ft. range of your darkvision, you must fail the opposed "Spot" check. If the creature is outside the 60ft. range, you wouldn't be allowed a "Spot" check. Maybe a "Listen" check, to tell you something's lurking in the shadows ahead, but that wouldn't give any special advantage on this.
BTW, the Hide skill description specifies that there must be some kind of cover close to the hiding creature to do so.
4. "Hide in Plain Sight" basically turns shadows within 10ft into cover. I'd rule it can hide from a creature with Darkvision.

[phaedrusxy]

Sorry for asking, but where did you get that quote on Darkvision from? I don't remember reading that part on "unless it's invisible or has cover". This sentence rules out shadows, which i'm pretty sure it's not supposed to do.

Normal darkness and shadows are exactly the same thing: the absence of light. So yeah, if it works against total darkness, it also works against shadows, "shadowy illumination", etc.

1) Basically, yes.
2) It is possible that you'd still be flat-footed when it attacks, but this would have to do with it getting a surprise round and/or beating you on initiative in the first round of combat. You'd see it as soon as it entered your darkvision range, but it still might get the drop on you if combat just started. If it ran outside of your darkvision range and back in during combat, it could not catch you flat-footed by hiding.
3) See answer #2. Not if it is the surprise round or 1st round of combat. To catch you flat-footed after combat has started by hiding, yes it would need cover or some other concealment aside from just mundane darkness.

4. "Hide in Plain Sight" basically turns shadows within 10ft into cover. I'd rule it can hide from a creature with Darkvision.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "turns shadows into cover" from. The answer to this question is really unclear, and I think actually might vary depending on which version of HiPS you have. There have been really long, really heated threads debating this off and on for years on various D&D forums. I am not sure if WotC ever officially answered this in a FAQ or otherwise.

[NunoM]

4. "Hide in Plain Sight" basically turns shadows within 10ft into cover. I'd rule it can hide from a creature with Darkvision.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "turns shadows into cover" from. The answer to this question is really unclear, and I think actually might vary depending on which version of HiPS you have. There have been really long, really heated threads debating this off and on for years on various D&D forums. I am not sure if WotC ever officially answered this in a FAQ or otherwise.

Following this reasoning, the Hide in Plain Sight ability would be completely negated by a creature with darkvision. IMHO, that feels wrong, because it would prevent a hard-earned class ability to be negated by a fairly common racial ability. To prevent this i always ruled that "hiding in plain sight", as a Supernatural ability, allowed the character to effectively "hide so well it would seem melded into the shadows". So, even in the darkvision spectrum, the hidden character would appear as a sort of shadow, camouflaged against the shadowy background.

[Kethrian]

Hide In Plain Sight does not change the need for cover or concealment to hide in, only that you may still hide while being observed.  You might be confusing it with Camouflage, which lets you hide in natural surroundings without the need for cover or concealment.

And Darkvision only negates nonmagical darkness-based concealment within its range.  Blur, displacement, invisibility, and other forms of concealment would remain unaffected.

[phaedrusxy]

Hide In Plain Sight does not change the need for cover or concealment to hide in, only that you may still hide while being observed.  You might be confusing it with Camouflage, which lets you hide in natural surroundings without the need for cover or concealment.

I'm fairly sure that some of them actually do. It isn't just one ability. There are several different versions of it, some of them quite different, unfortunately. For the ones that do not negate the need for concealment, yes, this would be correct. For the ones that do, it might not be.

For the Shadowdancer ability, it doesn't explicitly say it removes the need for concealment, but the language strongly implies that it does.

A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

IMO, the bolded part is talking about cover or concealment. I don't know what else it could be talking about, in fact. Since this is a supernatural ability, and the only requirement is to be within 10 feet of any shadow, I think this one would trump darkvision.

[EjoThims]

Yea, the fact that HiPS is (at least) 3 different abilities all with the same name gets a bit confusing.

But as already noted, Shadowdancer's HiPS would not, by RAW, be defeated by (a reasonable reading of) Darkvision.

But I would actually like a source on that quote on Darkvision as well, because as it's written there technically no one at all no matter what can hide within 60' of any character with Darkvision. And while that is obviously absurd, it's a nice piece to file away for potential theoretical abuse, just like Darkness spells making it less dark.

[Esgath]

The quote is from the PHB, page 165. Last paragraph on the subject "Vision and Light".

My brother told me earlier he found another passage clearing things a bit up

Ignoring Concealment:Concealment isn’t always effective. For instance, a shadowy area or darkness doesn’t provide any conceal-ment against an opponent with darkvision. ... (Fog, smoke, foliage, and other visual obstructions work normally against characters with darkvision or low-light vision.)

as Kethrian also pointed out.

[Jackinthegreen]

One thought I had is that if the hiding in shadows is just an extraordinary ability (regular Hide) then darkvision probably pierces it.  However, if it's supernatual et al then it might not because of actually becoming part of the shadow.