Darkvision vs Hide

[Whammydill]

Given that the SRD says that Darkvision enables the user to see with no light source, does that automatically ruin hiding?

I'm building a stealthy character with the Dark template and was wondering if I would need to acquire that ring that makes you invisible to darkvision to remain effective.

[Ashtagon]

It doesn't make it impossible to hide. It simply means that you are under the same circumstances for hiding that you would be if the area was filled with daylight.

If you have hide in plain sight, darkvision won't beat that. Ditto for invisibility.

[Autopsibiofeeder]

Given that the SRD says that Darkvision enables the user to see with no light source, does that automatically ruin hiding?

I'm building a stealthy character with the Dark template and was wondering if I would need to acquire that ring that makes you invisible to darkvision to remain effective.

Darkvision is like normal vision, only black-and-white and with a limited range, so hiding interacts similarly with normal vision as with darkvision. Of course, in a pitch-black dungeon one can hide from a normal person easily, while hiding from a person with darkvision is harder. However, you should envision this as a penalty to the spot check of the 'normal' observer, not a 'bonus' to the one with darkvision.

[tyckspoon]

If you are relying on just mundane darkness to provide concealment, then yes, creatures with Darkvision will see you. Getting a Ring of the Darkhidden, some form of concealment that is not defeated by standard Darkvision (such as most kinds of magical Darkness), or one of the versions of Hide In Plain Sight that obviate both the need for concealment and the need to be unobserved will correct this problem for you. The ring is probably the easiest to just bolt on to an existing build; it's fairly affordable around level 4-5 on standard wealth.

[Whammydill]

The version of Hide in Plain Sight that is granted by the "Dark" template states that you can use it unless you are in broad daylight or in the effect of a Daylight spell. Since light is the issue for this version of HiPS and Darkvision seems to removed any need for light to see, how does that work out? I just need to have some other form of concealment? Like a cloak of minor displacement? It gives concealment a la 20% miss chance, that count?

The ring seems like the simplest answer, however I'd like to know what I have to work with should something happen to the ring (dispelled, lost, stolen, AMF...etc.)

[Curmudgeon]

The version of Hide in Plain Sight that is granted by the "Dark" template states that you can use it unless you are in broad daylight or in the effect of a Daylight spell. Since light is the issue for this version of HiPS and Darkvision seems to removed any need for light to see, how does that work out? I just need to have some other form of concealment? The Tome of Magic Dark Creature template always needs cover/concealment to function, since that (as general for Extraordinary versions of Hide in Plain Sight) only handles the "not being observed" Hide requirement. The Dark Creature template has all the usual limitations of Extraordinary HiPS, plus light level restrictions. It's the weakest of all forms of Hide in Plain Sight.

[Whammydill]

Bummer, looks like WBL to the rescue.

[White_Drake]

If you're looking for concealment and going to buy a Ring of the Darkhidden I would see if you can find yourself a Shadow Veil; I've got one, and if you combine it with a Ring of the Darkhidden you get total concealment against all but creatures with Blindsight.

[Twilightwyrm]

In theory, but Darkvision (except under special circumstances) only allows you to see in black and white. In other words, when viewed under darkvision "hiding" acts more like "camouflaging", since one of the primary manners in which we can spot something from something else is color. Hell, if not for the whole negating shadows thing, it would almost be easier to hide from someone with darkvision.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I just need to have some other form of concealment? Like a cloak of minor displacement? It gives concealment a la 20% miss chance, that count?

Miss chance is not concealment. Concealment grants 20% miss chance, not the other way around.

[Whammydill]

Cloak of Displacement, Minor

This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the displacement spell except that it only grants a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.

Displacement

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location.

Even if you liken it to the Blur spell:
The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

That being said, Cloak of Displacement, Minor takes care of the concealment need right?

[Curmudgeon]

That being said, Cloak of Displacement, Minor takes care of the concealment need right?
No, it doesn't. Displacement only provides a similar benefit to total concealment, and the spell emphasizes it is "unlike actual total concealment". Only an actual concealment effect can enable sneak attack.

On the plus side, this means that Displacement and actual concealment miss chances stack.

[Whammydill]

Guess I'll just get a wand or eternal wand of blur then. Since it specifically says it gives concealment.

[Keld Denar]

On the plus side, this means that Displacement and actual concealment miss chances stack.

Rules Compendium ruled that miss chances never stack. You only benefit from the highest degree of miss chance. Due to rather awkward wording, that means that a concealed incorporial creature isn't any harder to hit than a non-concealed incorporial creature. Incorporiality isn't even a true "miss chance", but more of a percent chance to be outright immune to a weapon attack. Unfortunately, Incorporiality is explicitly listed in the RC as one of the forms of miss chance that doesn't stack, which is rather weird, but RAW.

The only "miss chance" that would stack is Mirror Image, because it is NOT explicitly called a miss chance expressed as a percentage. Then again, Mirror Image won't work with most sources of total concealment, like Invisibility, since if you can't see the target, you can't see the images (hence why closing your eyes defeats Mirror Image). It would work other concealment sources like Blinking or Displacement, though, since the subject is still visible/targettable.

[Curmudgeon]

Rules Compendium ruled that miss chances never stack.
Rules Compendium is a contentious issue, because its applicability flies in the face of every other D&D 3.5 source book. Specifically, Rules Compendium makes changes to existing rules, and proclaims itself as the ultimate authority:
When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. However, the Primary Sources Errata Rule specifically maintains the authority of the primary source (core) books (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual), and rules every disagreement with their rules in favor of the primary source. No other Wizards of the Coast publication or errata file gives precedence to Rules Compendium. So each DM is left to make up their own mind about how much (if any) of Rules Compendium's changes they use in their games.

On a more directly related note, Rules Compendium itself give an "out" for that conflation of all miss chances to be concealment. It's on the same page (32); the "Degrees of Concealment" rule explicitly allows each DM to set a higher miss chance based on existing conditions (like other miss chances). Personally, as a DM I always use the "Degrees of Concealment" rule to make the total miss chance the same as in the core rules.

The only "miss chance" that would stack is Mirror Image, because it is NOT explicitly called a miss chance expressed as a percentage.
That's an unfounded argument, I think. Rules Compendium says nothing about percentages (or any other required terminology) in its rule:
Multiple concealment conditions don’t stack. If a creature receives miss chances from multiple sources, such as from being incorporeal and having concealment, only the highest miss chance applies. So, if you use this rule, Mirror Image's miss chance doesn't stack with any other miss chance. 3 Mirror Image figments is a 3/4 miss chance.

[Keld Denar]

I'm not gonna debate with your about primary sources and all that crap. Whether or not you like the RC or agree with its rulings, it DOES exist. Whether

By that respect, AC is considered a "miss chance", since having an AC of 21 when an opponent has a +5 to hit also results in a 75% chance to miss. No, I don't think thats right. Miss chance is something that is at least contextually defined as an expicit X%. 20% miss chance for blur. 50% miss chance for invisibility. 45% miss chance for Swiftblade's ability, etc, etc, etc.

[ericgrau]

You need concealment or cover to hide. Shadows grant concealment, unless the foe has darkvision. No concealment no hiding; you don't roll a check you just fail. If you have another source of concealment or cover you can hide with that instead.

[Kaeso]

Given that the SRD says that Darkvision enables the user to see with no light source, does that automatically ruin hiding?

I'm building a stealthy character with the Dark template and was wondering if I would need to acquire that ring that makes you invisible to darkvision to remain effective.

Let's approach this logically.
If somebody is hiding behind a pile of boxes, does it matter whether you can or cannot see in the dark? Alternatively, if somebody is, again, hiding behind a pile of boxes, does that mean it matters whether or not the room is illuminated? Actually, the guy against the opponent with darkvision has an advantage over the guy in the brightly lit room: the former doesn't have a (visible) shadow.