Pathfinder 1E Hide in Plain Sight = poor man's invisibility?

[Abraxas]

It doesn't matter if an observing creature has darkvision - being observed doesn't stop the ability from working. The only condition is there being shadows within 10 ft of the shadow dancer - those shadows exist whether or not a creature can see clearly in them.

The shadowdancer could hide from 100 orcs in the middle of a field with only one tree in it at high noon while wearing a lime green jumpsuit because the tree casts a shadow. With your interpretation no creature with darkvision could ever be a shadowdancer because they can see clearly in shadows.

 

[Ashtagon]

It doesn't matter if an observing creature has darkvision - being observed doesn't stop the ability from working. The only condition is there being shadows within 10 ft of the shadow dancer - those shadows exist whether or not a creature can see clearly in them.

The shadowdancer could hide from 100 orcs in the middle of a field with only one tree in it at high noon while wearing a lime green jumpsuit because the tree casts a shadow. With your interpretation no creature with darkvision could ever be a shadowdancer because they can see clearly in shadows.

With my interpretation, it would mean that the hips would fail only against those individuals that have darkvision. If I have hips, my own darkvision (or lack of it) has no bearing on whether it works. When I use my hips, my human opponent can't see me, but my dwarven opponent (who has darkvision) can still see me. Simply having one individual present who can still see you because darkvision doesn't mean those who lack darkvision can also see you.

By way of analogy, imagine I am sneaking past two opponents, one of whom is deaf. Since I am outside their direct field of view (behind them let's say), their ability to see is irrelevant. But now I start singing, loudly and badly. The one with good ears notices me just like that. The deaf one doesn't. But the fact that one can hear me doesn't mean the other can also hear me.

 

[Abraxas]

With my interpretation, it would mean that the hips would fail only against those individuals that have darkvision. If I have hips, my own darkvision (or lack of it) has no bearing on whether it works. When I use my hips, my human opponent can't see me, but my dwarven opponent (who has darkvision) can still see me. Simply having one individual present who can still see you because darkvision doesn't mean those who lack darkvision can also see you.

You said "It doesn't count as a shadow if the opponent has darkvision, because darkvision trumps all visibility issues regarding normal visible light." if it doesn't count as shadow for the opponent, why would it count as shadow for the shadowdancer with darkvision? If the shadow is there regardless of the visual abilities of the creatures involved then the shadowdancer can use it. The shadowdancer can hide "while being observed". The creature's ability to see clearly in shadows is irrelevant.

By way of analogy, imagine I am sneaking past two opponents, one of whom is deaf. Since I am outside their direct field of view (behind them let's say), their ability to see is irrelevant. But now I start singing, loudly and badly. The one with good ears notices me just like that. The deaf one doesn't. But the fact that one can hear me doesn't mean the other can also hear me.

But if you had an ability such as "Sing Without Being Heard (Su)" it wouldn't matter that one creature can hear and the other can't - Hide in Plain Sight is the equivalent.

 

[Ashtagon]

Thing is, hips works on teh plain old visible light level, where a shadow exists. Darkvision works on a different spectrum, where the shadow does not exist. For those who have darkvision, you are attempting to use hips in a place where there is no shadow.

 

[Abraxas]

Thing is, hips works on teh plain old visible light level, where a shadow exists. Darkvision works on a different spectrum, where the shadow does not exist.

The presence of shadows doesn't depend on the observer. If it did, you are back to the state where a creature with darkvision can't use hide in plain sight - because as you say

For those who have darkvision, you are attempting to use hips in a place where there is no shadow.

 

[Empirate]

No, Ashtagon, this is not what is stated in the ability's description. The Shadowdancer's HiPS ability reads:

"Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."

This is a statement in three parts:

1) "A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed." This is a sentence which stands on its own and does not stipulate the use of shadow or anything else. The Shadowdancer can simply use the Stealth skill (with all the normal ramifications of using that skill) while breaking a single rule for that skill - namely, you normally need to be unobserved to use it, or create a diversion to hide, which part the Shadowdancer can ignore.

2) "As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind." There is no reference to opponents' sensory capabilities here. "Dim light" is a condition that can objectively exist in the game world, irrespective of the presence or absence of creatures which may happen to be affected by it or not.
Note that normally, you need concealment or cover to use the Stealth skill to hide. Further note that normally, dim light is one condition among many that affords concealment (fog would be another, a Blur spell another, and so on). So normally, a character can use the Stealth skill to hide within an area of dim light
Creatures with darkvision would, however, not be affected by the dim light: against them, it doesn't provide concealment, which is the sole reason you cannot hide from them if there's only dim light and no other condition allowing hiding.

However, Shadowdancers get to break not only the "must be unobserved or create a diversion to hide" rule. They also get to break the "need concealment or cover to hide" rule. They can hide whenever there's an area of dim light within 10 feet. This is totally independent of the question whether said area of dim light would be enough to afford them concealment. See, Shadowdancers don't need concealment - they only need dim light (which accidentally also happens to provide concealment vs. creatures without darkvision, but that is beside the point here). For this reason, darkvision or the lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on a Shadowdancer's ability to hide. Shadowdancers need dim light to do so, period.

[Ironically, by RAW, they can't hide in total darkness. Funny though, that.]

3) "She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow." This is a clarification of the second part and has almost no in-game ramifications as long as you have any disposable object on your person that can be thrown to the ground.


So far the rules. How you flavor it in-game is your own decision, of course, but a lot of D&D publications hint that shadow is considered a substance, "shadowstuff", that can be molded and shaped if you have the magic to do so. This is what Shadowdancers do IMO, but whether that also holds true in your game doesn't influence the logic of the rules discussed above.

Finally, somebody mentioned the Ranger's (Ex) HiPS ability. That ability reads:
"Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use theStealth skill even while being observed."

Note how this differs from the Shadowdancer's ability: it only duplicates 1), but not 2), and even that only in certain kinds of terrain. This means that a Ranger still needs something to hide behind (cover or concealment), unlike the Shadowdancer. If a 17th level Ranger tries to hide in an area of dim light, creatures with darkvision will still see him!


Magic blows mundane out of the water once more.

 

[Ashtagon]

Let's agree to disagree. At this point, we are both repeating the same statements.

 

[Cadence]

Let's agree to disagree. At this point, we are both repeating the same statements.

Given the number of times this has come up on various sites (what counts as a shadow, darkvision, relation to attacking), it's kind of disappointing that Paizo (apparently) hasn't FAQed it.

 

[gamerprinter]

Back in 2e and before, it was infra-vision instead of darkvision, as if to imply one was seeing in the infra-red spectrum (heat), which would make invisibility, let alone HiPS not work.

This is not the case in PF/3x, darkvision let's you see a certain range in total darkness, but not 'heat' related sight. And darkvision cannot be presumed to be magic, since there are natural races that have darkvision as an ability. For a human to have it, it requires a spell. However, one cannot consider darkvision as magic, rather that to give darkvision (the natural ability) to someone without it naturally, must have the spell cast to have it. This is magically induced darkvision, yet still darkvision on it's own is not magic.

Darkvision does not trump Hide in Plain Sight, as HiPS works as it does as long as the parameters within the (Ex) or (Su) is complied with. Neither ability suggests darkvision bypasses the ability.

If you think that darkvision circumvents Hide in Plain Sight, you are adding words to the rules that do not exist; hence you are house-ruling. Nothing wrong with houserules, but you can't win an argument of rules based on that.

 

[N'raac]

I don['t see anything that indicates that either version of hips can beat darkvision.

I agree that none of SU, Ex or Spell determinatively answer the Darkvision question. I'd say that the question is whether the character can use Stealth. He is permitted to use Stealth under observation, and with no cover or concealment.

Looking at the ability itself, and the Stealth description, it seems like an issue that would be appropriate for a FAQ. Absent that, I think the GM needs to make a judgement call.

If the Shadowdancer is manipulating the shadows in the dim light to provide a place to hide, then this would logically be negated by Darkvision - it's like hiding behind a plate glass door. If we interpret the ability to thicken the shadows so even Darkvision cannot penetrate them to see the Shadowdancer, then any other Stealth user should be able to use the same thickened shadows to use Stealth against opponents with Darkvision. If the shadows are limited to the Shadowdancer, his concealment is pretty ineffective as the Darkvision user need only strike at the portion of the shadows his Darkvision can't penetrate.

We can certainly put the Rules Blinders on and assume that, since the rules are terse and don't specify the implications of the ability, it must somehow provide the ability to hide from Darkvision users in the shadows that they can otherwise see through. However, it seems more logical to interpret what the Shadowdancer's abilities actually do, and rule that Darkvision is not affected by conditions of dim light, so using dim light to enhance stealth, as the Shadowdancer does, is futile against anything with Darkvision.

That said, it seems like the rules continually expand to prevent any possible interpretation issues (such as not being able to create water in someone's lungs, not being able to target specific body parts with Magic Missiles, etc.), so it would not seem unreasonable to interpret HiPS to (for unexplained reasons) permit the user to use shadows to hide from creatures that can see through shadows, even though the same shadows will provide no concealment for anyone else.