Is it really possible to hide behind another player character?

So I’ve been DMing a 5e game lvl 1-3 so far. And I have a question about stealth for my rogue. My player has been hiding behind/stealthing behind another PC.

So this is what usually happens. PCs bust into a room, and the enemies see him. The rogue makes a stealth check and hides behind a PC as a bonus action, then attacks from stealth and gets sneak attack. He will do this every round. I do try to do Perception for the NPCs, but they fail. So he basically disappears for the whole encounter.

So then he attacks cause he is fully hidden and gets a sneak attack every time. This seems OP!! I thought you could only hide in full cover. I know the Skulker feat allows a player to hide in partial cover, which I looked up. Hiding behind a PC of medium size only allows partial cover. Please help me! I just wanna make sure I’m doing this right and I hate players who take advantage of a loop hole.

Hide the subfolder from appearing in url

I want to move from www.example.com/_/randomfolder to example.com/randomfolder. It should acces the contents from /_/randomfolder but should show example.com/randomfolder.

What I have tried:

Trial 1

RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\. [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$   http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$  1 [R=301,L,QSA] RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off RewriteRule ^(.*)$   https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] 

Problem: it full fills my requirement from /_/randomfolder but should show example.com/randomfolder but affects my main domain example.com it shows nothing, only a 404 page. I want it to show public_html/index.php only.

Trial 2:

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d #To load site from  /_/xyz to /xyz  without hcanigng url RewriteRule ^[A-Za-z0-9._]+  /_/%{REQUEST_URI} [L] 

Problem: I have to manually change the address bar from www.example.com/_/randomfolder to example.com/randomfolder, it load contents with or without _ but on first time load its redirects to /_/random folder.

Is there any way to hide my using the internet (or maximize privacy) when connected via router to other computers?

I shall begin my question with the remark that I am not tech savvy at all!

The problem is the following:

A cluster of computers (laptops, desktops, etc.) A, B, C, D… are all connected to the same router. Let’s say my computer is computer A and I am a guest at big brother Bob’s home, who owns the router and computers B, C, D…

Assuming Bob has no physical access to my computer but can access the other computers, is there a way to prevent Bob from knowing what I am doing on the internet, or even better, to completely hide from Bob that I used internet at all? (short of his contacting his ISP and demanding a report or something which would take a non-trivial amount of time and assuming I don’t download anything or watch HD videos which could show up as a sudden spike of consumption)

When it comes to hiding the names of websites I visit and internet searches, according to some research it seems like Tor does a good job in hiding it completely, even if the ISP is contacted. However, can Bob determine quickly (i.e. without contacting his ISP, using some cmd dark arts) that computer A has connected to a Tor node at all without physically accessing computer A? (Let’s say it’s not in the cluster anymore when Bob does his checks)

According to further research it seems to be impossible to get the internet history of all connected devices to a router without access to the devices, but I am unsure and opinions seem to vary somewhat.

TL;DR I’m basically looking for a way to make my internet usage as inconspicuous as possible during a very specific time period when indirectly connected to other computers via a router I don’t own, is using Tor the best thing I can do in this situation to maximize privacy?

Thank you.

At what point is someone, who has attempted to hide, considered to be hidden?

Inspired by discussion in the comments on this question.

Successfully hiding is normally the result of a ‘contest’ sometimes known as an ‘opposed check’. The person attempting to hide makes a Dexterity (Stealth) roll contested by the Wisdom (Perception) of the person who may or may not be able to see them.

In the case of a tie between these two rolls:

the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default.

How should this ruling be applied with regards to hiding? If, in the event of a tie, ‘the situation remains the same as it was before the contest’ does that always means the hider has failed to hide? Or can it sometimes mean the hider stays hidden?

Consider the following scenarios (assume hiding is possible and allowed by DM in each and that hider has rolled 15 on stealth):

  1. Hider is chased through a fairly dense forest, gets a little distance between them and their pursuer and attempts to hide. The chaser quickly approaches their hiding place, with a perception check of 15, tieing their stealth roll – result: they failed to hide successfully and are spotted.

  2. Hider is chased through a forest by multiple pursuers, one pretty observant but unfit, one moderately fit but a bit of a daydreamer. The hider, as in scenario 1, gains a little distance on their pursuer and attempts to hide. First on the scene is the Daydreamer, with a perception check of only 12 they blunder straight on, past the hider, deeper into the undergrowth – the hider has successfully hidden from them. Seconds later, the more Observant, but less fit, pursuer comes panting and puffing into view and with their perception check of 15 they tie the hider’s stealth roll. What happens next?

    a. Does the hider remain hidden? We’ve already had an opposed check which has concluded that they have successfully hidden. So, if we resolve the tie by the situation ‘remaining the same’ then does that mean the hider remains hidden? That would mean that the pursuer’s chances of finding their quarry had been actively harmed, rather than helped by their companion. Their chance of finding him is now 5% worse.

    b. Or, is the hider discovered? Can we argue that the first contested check is entirely unrelated to the second? The first situation has resolved that the hider is hidden with respect to the Daydreamer. But in the second check the hider (with the same stealth roll) is attempting to hide from someone different. With respect to the observant pursuer they have failed to successfully hide and so are spotted.

Finally, is the result of any of the above scenarios changed if the amount of time that elapses between actions (hiding v. percieving) is lengthened?

Can you hide your OS from programs? Can you trick a program into thinking you are on a different OS?

I’ve been surfing through the internet for the past hour now, and I haven’t seen any answer to my question. I couldn’t even find my question on the web. Is there a way or program to make another program think I am using a different system? For example, let’s say currently I am on Windows 7 32-bit and I want the program to detect Windows 10 64-bit or perhaps Windows XP. Can I do something similar with hardware? Can I tell a program that I’m running on a pc from the early 2003 even tho it’s from last year (2019)?

Hide a div class on WordPress ID (Based on template) [closed]

Really not sure why I am struggling here but I am trying to hide this div:

<div class="qodef-post-info-category"> content here which I want to HIDE on this template only </div> 

I thought that this would work but no joy

    body.single-doctor.qodef-post-info-category {       display: none;  } 

This is the WordPress body tag meta info:

<body class="doctor-template-default single single-doctor postid-4633 qode-core-1.1.1 blush child-child-ver-1.0.1 blush-ver-1.3 qodef-smooth-page-transitions qodef-smooth-page-transitions-fadeout qodef-grid-1100 qodef-sticky-header-on-scroll-down-up qodef-dropdown-default qodef-header-standard qodef-menu-area-shadow-disable qodef-menu-area-in-grid-shadow-disable qodef-menu-area-border-disable qodef-menu-area-in-grid-border-disable qodef-logo-area-border-disable qodef-logo-area-in-grid-border-disable qodef-side-menu-slide-from-right qodef-default-mobile-header qodef-sticky-up-mobile-header wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.0.5 vc_responsive" itemscope itemtype="//schema.org/WebPage"> 

It has to be hidden per TEMPLATE…

Thanks for all help.

PS I have also tried !important and no joy…

How can you hide the usage of an external VPN?

Let’s assume we need a VPN to access some site, e.g. for bypassing geo-blocks. But those site doesn’t want VPN users. A good example is Netflix. However, I don’t want to specify this just on Netflix, since there are other services blocking VPNs as well.

So I thought about how those target site could detect if I’m using a VPN or not. One indicator is a high amount of connections from a single IP. This is relatively easily fixable with multiple external IPs on the VPN server. But those IPs themselves could leak this information.

1. Whois data

PrivateVPN is an example:

# whois $  (dig +short de-nur.pvdata.host) | grep -i vpn % Abuse contact for '185.89.36.0 - 185.89.36.127' is 'support@privatevpn.com' netname:        PRIVATEVPN 

VPN in the whois or even the name of common VPN providers are clearly and easily to match.

2. IP databases

I found ipinfo.io where we can enter an IP and even get information about the device type. For example, another VPN server 162.245.206.242 gave me

company: Object name: "i3D.net B.V" domain: "i3d.net" type: "hosting" 

where a query with my real IP (normal private customer home internet connection) shows type: "isp" with the name of my ISP. So I assume that simply querying those APIs and ban all users with type: hosting would match most VPN servers.

How could we hide it?

I don’t see a practical way to hide it. Services like ipinfo earn money by collecting such information and keeping them up to date.

The only way would be a VPN service that uses servers hosted by private ISPs. Is there any other method of using a VPN service without letting the target site knowing it?

Can I use Thaumaturgy to hide the effect of Detect Magic?

Detect Magic makes my character’s eyes glow blue. This sometimes can be very inconvenient, because it makes it abundantly clear that they have some kind of supernatural sight. Could I use Thaumaturgy, which can alter the color of my character’s eyes, be used to mask this effect (or at least if it can’t stop the glowing, change the eye color to that of my normal color)?