Also, page 48 of the 3.5 players handbook displays camouflage and hide in plain sight as 'rogue special abilities' available for purchase at 10th level and above. (though those abilities only came at 10, 13, 16, and 19, and the rogue had to choose from a bunch of options)
Are you referring to the 3.5 Pathfinder Campaign Setting Players handbook? I have never seen that in the 3.5 PHB or any other WoTC books. It is an interesting concept though, I like it.
By my personal opinion, camouflage would translate into a normal rogue talent (perhaps one with various prerequisites to prevent it from being taken before level 6 or 8 or whatever), and hide in plain sight would be an advanced talent, who's only prerequisite is camouflage (hell you don't technically need camouflage for hide in plain sight to have value so you don't actually need to make it a prerequisite either, though the two are definitely synergistic)
I would agree and have considered building up some house rules to give straight 3.5 PHB Rogues a version of HiPS as a special Rogue Ability to chose from in the past as well.
The only thing I would consider doing differently than as you have suggested is that I might give Ranger-like HiPS as the lower ability and a Camouflage-like ability as a higher talent. Why? Well, it is just my personal opinion, but I think hiding without cover/concealment is a lot more powerful than being able to hide while observed.
I think of it this way. Ranger-like HiPS is just giving you the ability to hide while observed without first making a Bluff and taking -10 to your check. It is, however, something you are already able to do, it is harder, but possible. Camouflage on the other hand gives you the ability to do something that is utterly impossible to accomplish by any other means short of Invisibility. Just kind of seems like Camouflage is the more powerful of the two when you look at it that way.
EDIT: I have a big correction to make to one of my earlier posts.
I was looking through cover/concealment again today and realized that I screwed something up big time in my description of cover in this earlier post about Hellcat Stealth.
Soft cover does NOT allow you to make Stealth checks. I have no idea how I missed that before but I did. I was trying to think of how the rules for urban stealth were written (in one of the completes this is a use for hiding that allows you to blend into a crowd) and I saw Soft Cover and I just thought oh cool they simplified it with this in PF and completely missed the last part where it explicitly states you cannot use Soft Cover to make Stealth checks. I apologize for that oversight.
I did just have a thought. Cover OR Concealment may be used for stealth. Question is... would the 20% concealment from the Blur spell work?
According to RAW yes it will work. But I believe there was 3.5 Errata or FAQ that prevented it later, I am not 100% sure and Pathfinder doesn't seem to have put that in writing.
But before you go buying Blur for yourself remember this. In areas of normal or bright light you must have cover. Just having concealment isn't going to do it. So that means the only time you would be able to use Blur to hide is when you are in areas of dim light or darkness (or something like a fog), in which case you already have concealment and won't need the Blur effect.
Also I do not believe Blur would allow you to use Stealth within the range of a creature’s Darkvision. The reason is a Creature with Darkvision can see as clearly as if it was normal light or bright light, therefore, as in the light, you must have cover. Concealment just won't cut it.
According to RAW yes it will work. But I believe there was 3.5 Errata or FAQ that prevented it later, I am not 100% sure and Pathfinder doesn't seem to have put that in writing.
But before you go buying Blur for yourself remember this. In areas of normal or bright light you must have cover. Just having concealment isn't going to do it. So that means the only time you would be able to use Blur to hide is when you are in areas of dim light or darkness (or something like a fog), in which case you already have concealment and won't need the Blur effect.
Also I do not believe Blur would allow you to use Stealth within the range of a creature’s Darkvision. The reason is a Creature with Darkvision can see as clearly as if it was normal light or bright light, therefore, as in the light, you must have cover. Concealment just won't cut it.
Ok... so how about a Blur effect in addition to the Hellcat Stealth?
Hellcat Stealth lets you hide in the light even while others are observing you but you still need some sort of cover. Blur only provides concealment. The only time you can hide with concealment is in dim light or darkness - in which case you already have concealment and as such do not need Blur.
In the case of Darkvision: I would say that since Hellcat Stealth specifically states that it only changes your Stealth skill while in the light, I would say that it will not come into play against DV.
Because I was asked:
A) UD protects you both from being flat-footed and from losing your Dex bonus to AC to an attack from an invisible attacker. Blind Fighting only protects against the additional +2 that an invisible creature gets to attack you.
Not correct per RAW. UD does not protect you from losing your DEX mod.
I qoute the Rogue version here (the Barbarian version is identical; I didn't go digging up any others):
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can
react to danger before her senses would normally allow
her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the
attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to
AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose
her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses
the feint action (see Chapter 8) against her.
Note that the rogue can still lose her DEX mod for lots of listed reason. One more unlisted reason is Invisibility which doesn't make anyone flat-footed, so UD won't protect her.
B) UD protects you from being flat-footed. Attacks from an invisible attacker render you flat-footed to that attacker and give them a +2 to hit you. UD protects you from being flat-footed but they still get the +2 to hit you. This is what it sounds like you (Christopher Van Horn) are suggesting in your post above, and it is really effectively very similar to option A. Blind Fighting only protects against the additional +2 that an invisible creature gets to attack you.
Incorrect per RAW for the reason I stated after option A. Invisibility does not make you flatfooted.
C) UD only protects you from being flat-footed. Invisible attackers can deny you your Dex bonus to AC even without you being flat-footed and so UD doesn't work against them and they can SA you if they have SA. UD will protect you from being flat-footed but Blind Fighting is the only way to protect you from being an easy target and taking a lot of SA damage from an invisible foe.
Correct per RAW. See my reasons above.
D) UD only protects you from being flat-footed. Invisible attackers can ignore your Dex bonus to AC even when you are not flat-footed so they can still just as easily hit you as if you were flat-footed but they do not qualify for SA because you do still have your Dex bonus to AC they are just ignoring/bypassing it. UD will protect from being flat-footed but Blind Fighting is the only way to protect from being an easy target for an invisible foe.
Incorrect per RAW. Ignoring your DEX is the same thing as denying it. Sloppy wording on the part of the writer, but it's the same thing. If you are not using your DEX mod to improve your AC vs. this specific attack, it doesn't matter which word we use, either way, you're not protecting yourself and therefore you are subject to the full penalty for being denied your DEX mod.
You might ask, why am I ignoring the 3.5 FAQ that obliquely states that invisibiliyt causes flatfootedness?
Mainly, I believe that answer was carelessly misworded by someone who made a mistake when the wrote it. Nowhere in any part of 3.5 or Pathfinder can I find any confirmation that invibility renders your foes flatfooted. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it both versions of the rules go out of the way to specifically state, in complete sentences, what the defender suffers when being attacked by an invisible foe. If the writers had simply wanted the defender to be flatfooted, they could have replaced those complete sentences with that one single word. They didn't. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they were intelligent and, in multiple places in both rulesets, they said exactly what they wanted to.
On the other hand, I don't believe the person writing this FAQ was even addressing the invisibility/flatfooted issue at all. He/she was addressing another issue about sniping and thoughtlessly dragged in an off-hand reference to invisibility that didn't belong in this answer, and misrepresented it in the process. It was hasty and careless and in complete contradiction to everything else in the RAW of both sets of rules.
Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the right one. I believe a careless wording of an off-hand example in the FAQ, one that isn't even relevant to the question being addressed, is much more likely than multiple oversights in multiple sections of multiple rules.
Thank you for taking a look at that for me. I have to say I agree with you completely. I actually suspected it was something along the lines of "C" but was convinced otherwise by multiple factors.
Thanks again for breaking this down and addressing it for me.
I think the rule for HiPS is clear. Darkvison has nothing to do with this. After all the HiPS ability also means that you can hide even if being watched.
If the creature has HiPS without the need of cover or concelment and it doesnt also need shadow illumination to hide then DV is useless.
There are monsters and templates that have the HiPS ability only in shadow illumination or only when not in the bright light of a sunlight spell and not just from a torch.
So everytime the description pf the creature gives the answer.
This was covered in far more depth later in the thread. My view boils down to this:
1) Ranger HiPS would not be spoiled by DV because Ranger's don't need dim light or darkness to use their version of HiPS.
2) The Shadowdancer/Assassin version of HiPS (SU) is not spoiled by DV because although it relies on dim light or darkness to function it is a supernatural ability (magical in nature) and shouldn't be beaten by an (EX) ability. Also the reason the concealment of shadow doesn't hide you from DV is that the creature with DV can see in darkness as easily as he can in the light. But a Shadowdancer/Assassin is perfectly capable of using their HiPS to disappear in the light as well, they just have to be within 10' of dim light/shadows. So, if they can disappear from plain view while in the light in front of creatures with normal vision, then they could also disappear in the darkness in front of a creature with DV.
3) The only version of HiPS (that I know of) that I think might be spoiled by DV is the version of HiPS (EX) that is given to the Shadow Creature Template. They must be IN dim light or darkness for it to work and it is not magical in nature, it is an extraordinary talent for hiding in the darkness. So since this version of hips relies on being in the concealment of shadows to function, and since this version of HiPS and DV are both (EX) abilities, I think DV could spoil this version of HiPS.
Also, page 48 of the 3.5 players handbook displays camouflage and hide in plain sight as 'rogue special abilities' available for purchase at 10th level and above. (though those abilities only came at 10, 13, 16, and 19, and the rogue had to choose from a bunch of options)
Man, I am not seeing this at all. You're the second person to mention Rogues having HiPS, and I was starting to think I was going nuts, but you gave me page numbers and I had to investigate.
I have a first printing (July 2003) 3.5 PHB and page 48 only covers the ranger, but does mention both Camouflage (requiring a ranger of 13th level or higher) and Hide in Plain Sight (requiring a ranger of 17th level or higher). Rogue starts on page 49 and has neither Camouflage nor Hide in Plain Sight, from what I can see. Rogue options for the "Special Abilities" class feature (on pages 50-51, but only two descriptive lines about when you take the abilities are on page 50) are Crippling Strike, Defensive Roll, Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Slippery Mind, or just a bonus feat.
I pulled out my 3.0 PHB as well (Second Printing, November 2000) and while page 48 actually covers Rogue Special Abilities include: Crippling Strike, Defensive Roll, Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Slippery Mind, or just a bonus feat...so nothing changed on that score from 3.0 to 3.5...
As far as I know, 3.x Rogues have never had the opportunity for Hide in Plain Sight or Camouflage without multiclassing.
I am not 100% sure what Kyrt-ryder was talking about here either. I think maybe he is referring to Alpha or Beta rules for PF RPG that didn't make it into the final print.
He has also been discussing house-rules to allow HiPS as Rogue Talents. But I believe in the section you quoted he is talking about Alpha/Beta rules that got cut.
Here is another good discussion on HiPS:
Hide in plain sight and sniping clarification.
The above link has been changed to:
Hide in plain sight and sniping clarification.
The only version of HiPS (that I know of) that I think might be spoiled by DV is the version of HiPS (EX) that is given to the Shadow Creature Template.
Can I ask what version of that template you are quoting? AFAIK the Shadow Creature Template doesn't grant HIPS. It grants total concealment and a bonus to Hide, but not HIPS... I'm getting this from Manual of the Planes + the 3.5 Accessory Update for that book.
Have you more recent info? Or does Pathfinder have a different Shadow Creature template?
Ugh. Hide in Plain Sight.
Can someone take this ability out back and shoot it, once and for all?
Why couldn't the opportunity have been taken to kill this badly-worded, poorly-thought-out nonsense?
It's not nonsense. And no harder to work out than grapple (which I notice you use all the time in fecking up my character :-)
Give it a chance - read the thread!
NB: Snorter is my DM - for good or ill! (That works both ways actually)
|
It's not nonsense. And no harder to work out than grapple (which I notice you use all the time in fecking up my character :-)
It was nonsense when it was used against us both in The Brass Trumpet, and it will be nonsense when it is used against any other PC or NPC, ever.
This isn't a case of 'Martial Characters Aren't Allowed to Have Nice Things'. I fully understand the attraction of a ultimate sneak, styled after Roger Zelazny's 'Jack of Shadows', or the Amber family.
I wouldn't mind if they got a Plane Shift ability, or Dimension Door that let them hop from one pool of shadow to the next. Obscuring Mist, to grant a miss chance.
But all those abilities have precedents, and limitations, governing how they work, and how other effects work with them. A Dimensional Lock will mess up your day, just as surely as if you were a teleporting wizard. A column of black mist in a featureless, well-lit room instantly gives away your prescence.
But this HiPS is so badly worded, and fails to take into account any situational conditions, that it lays wide open to all sorts of rampant silliness that shatters disbelief.
It's the functional equivalent of putting a lampshade on one's head and shouting "YOU DON'T KNOW I'M HERE! HAHAHAHAHA!". And having everyone fall for it.
It's the equivalent of hiding next to a tray of crockery, by putting one hand on your hip, one arm out, and singing "I'm a Little Teapot".
It's not nonsense. And no harder to work out than grapple (which I notice you use all the time in fecking up my character :-)It was nonsense when it was used against us both in The Brass Trumpet, and it will be nonsense when it is used against any other PC or NPC, ever.
That was nonsense, but I don't think it was the fault of HIPS that made it so...
I wouldn't mind if they got a Plane Shift ability, or Dimension Door that let them hop from one pool of shadow to the next. Obscuring Mist, to grant a miss chance.
Well, miss chance I have covered. Dimension Door is also cool. Plane Shift royally fecks up a character without teleport by the way.
But all those abilities have precedents, and limitations, governing how they work, and how other effects work with them.
So does HIPS.
A Dimensional Lock will mess up your day, just as surely as if you were a teleporting wizard. A column of black mist in a featureless, well-lit room instantly gives away your prescence.
And you can still spot a HIPS dude with the Spot skill, and it's not even any harder than if they had concealment. And could well be easier if they (for instance) have attacked you.
But this HiPS is so badly worded, and fails to take into account any situational conditions, that it lays wide open to all sorts of rampant silliness that shatters disbelief.
It's the functional equivalent of putting a lampshade on one's head and shouting "YOU DON'T KNOW I'M HERE! HAHAHAHAHA!". And having everyone fall for it.
It's the equivalent of hiding next to a tray of crockery, by putting one hand on your hip, one arm out, and singing "I'm a Little Teapot".
Humph. Trying to make it silly by using daft examples won't work. See This post by Pirate Devon that illustrates HIPS with humour but without negating it as a tool.
I think all your problem is that you see it as a fudge as soon as it is used. It's nothing like that.
I don't know even why i'm arguing this so much - it's not like my character can ever have HIPS anyway! (Current, non-Dark Creature template build)
Can I ask what version of that template you are quoting? AFAIK the Shadow Creature Template doesn't grant HIPS. It grants total concealment and a bonus to Hide, but not HIPS... I'm getting this from Manual of the Planes + the 3.5 Accessory Update for that book.
Have you more recent info? Or does Pathfinder have a different Shadow Creature template?
In the 3.5 Tome of Magic there is a newer version of the Shadow Creature template. The template is a +1 ECL and is really quite different than the one in the Manual of Plains. The new template does indeed get a Ranger-like version of HiPS which basically treats "shadows" as the "favored terrain."
I do not believe Pathfinder has a new version.
Ugh. Hide in Plain Sight.
Can someone take this ability out back and shoot it, once and for all?
Why couldn't the opportunity have been taken to kill this badly-worded, poorly-thought-out nonsense?
You are more than welcome to your opinion but HiPS is actually a very interesting and useful ability for several classes. If you find it distasteful then perhaps it is because you are thinking about it in the wrong way. The fact of the matter is that most versions of HiPS are Supernatural so there is a magical element involved that most people don’t think about. They only see, "Oh that guy just decides to hide and suddenly he can disappear right in front of me," but they forget that there is magic involved. In the case of the Ranger it is intimate knowledge and connection to terrain types and although the ability doesn’t make this requirement I have always envisioned it as being partially from appropriate camouflage as well (such as a ghillie suit). As far as beating HiPS there are plenty of ways to do it, granted a Stealth specialist with HiPS is going to be dangerous but there are plenty of ways to defeat the ability especially if you allow for using 3.5 materials. If you have genuine concerns or questions I would be happy to do what I can but if your only comment is that it is purely nonsense then I suppose that is just your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, if one of your players or anyone who DMs for you is interested in HiPS then I think your friend had good advice when he said, "Give it a chance - read the thread!" There is a lot of useful HiPS information on this thread and the threads that have been linked to in some of the posts.
|
|
It was nonsense when it was used against us both in The Brass Trumpet, and it will be nonsense when it is used against any other PC or NPC, ever.
That was nonsense, but I don't think it was the fault of HIPS that made it so...
I believe it was. You saw how exasperated I got, and if it were just Lee being a dick, I'd put it down to his DMing, and have no problem with the ability.
But he was running it exactly as written.The situation:
Small low-lit room (25' square?), four PCs have burst in, and taken up position in the corners, surrounding (on all sides) an NPC in the middle, next to a wooden X-frame, on which is a hostage.
At least half the PCs have low-light vision, darkvision, see invisible, arcane sight, high Spot/Listen, etc. The Occult Slayer is completely unaffected by magical darkness or concealment effects.
The PCs have at least a minute of debate with NPC, who realises we'll quite happily raise her dead hostage, rather than let her go.
Initiative is rolled, aaaaand *poof*, the NPC is 'no longer there'.
'Is she invisible?'
'No'
'Did I detect an illusion being cast?'
'No'
'Did I see her drop through a trapdoor?'
'No'
'Did I see her move behind the X-frame?'
'No'
'Is she on the ceiling?'
'No'
'Is she lying on the floor?'
'No'
'Did I detect a teleport?'
'No'
'I'll ready an action, and ask the others on the other side of the room, if she's round their side of the furniture'
<PC answers no>
'I step forward to cut the hostage free'
'NPC attacks you'
Ooc debate ensues; apparently, NPC 'hid' by moving round the furniture, to end closer to two other PCs, with no intervening objects.
And that is legal, according to the RAW.
All objections, based on common sense, are irrelevant.
'But we knew she was there!'
Doesn't matter, HiPS allows hiding while observed.
'But we were talking to her!'
Doesn't matter, HiPS allows hiding while observed.
'But she was in full view!'
Doesn't matter, that's why it's called Hide in PLAIN SIGHT.
'But we can see through low-light as if it were day!'
Doesn't matter, HiPS doesn't need concealment.
'But we brought our own light source!'
Doesn't matter. As long as there is even one shadow within ten feet (such as, say, on the inside of someone's mouth/armpit/crotch?), you can't see the hider, even under the glare of a halogen searchlight.
'But we can see through shadows!'
Doesn't matter that the shadows may as well not be there. The ability only requires that there be a shadow nearby, and they get a Hide check, whether shadows hinder the viewer or not, since no concealment is required.
'But the Hide check must surely be at such a penalty, that it makes the check impossible to pass?'
Doesn't say that. The ability allows the hider to ignore all the normal downsides of being observed. If the check were penalised, to the point of being impossible to pass, then the ability would be pointless.
The ability is called Hide in Plain Sight, not 'Hide in Plain Sight at Minus 20 for Moving and Minus 20 for Being Observed and Minus 20 for There Being Only One Possible Place in the Room That Could Possibly Accomodate a Person of Your Size But The Players Cannot Use that Information Because That Would Be Metagaming So They Have to Suck It'.
|
|
Not if they only have to be within 10 feet of it.
And that's one of the main issues.
Any shadow.
Within 10 feet.
I want everyone to play a little game. Come on children! It's fun! It's called I-mag-in-ation.
Try to imagine a place with no shadows.
Let's all try!
It's difficult, isn't it?
You'd have to remove every single object.
Every. Single. Object.
Then you'd have to smooth out the ground, so that it was perfectly level, no one grain of dust or sand rising higher than any other...
Hmm, that doesn't work, since there'd still be microscopic holes in the surface.
I know! Let's melt the surface of the planet to glass!
Great! Now we have a featureless, level plain in all directions.
Let's walk along, just us, and Sneako the Shadowdancer.
Just between you and me, I don't trust that Sneako.
He's always muttering that he's better than all of us, and he could kill us in our sleep.
I think we'd better keep a close eye on him, just in case.
Phew! There he is, still. Twenty feet away, where he can't do us any harm.
Oh, but hang on; he might have heard us talking about him.
He's coming over to us.
Don't worry, though. We're keeping a close eye on him. He won't get up to any tricks...What! Where did he go? He was right there, being watched! The only object on the whole planet other than us!
There are NO distractions! Nothing to stop us watching him every step of the way. Closer, closer, then when he got to ten feet away...*poof*!
He just vanished!
<slice>
GLUUUURGH!!!!!
No! What's happening? Where is he? How is he hiding from us?
<slice>
GLLLUUUUURRRGGH!!!!!!
<cough> No! I see it now! He was hiding....in the shadows.....hiding....in plain sight....in the darkness....in the crack of your arse....damn him!....And damn your arse!
DAMN YOUR ARSE TO HELL!!!!!!
|
Quite the game.
I understand your point, but not the degree to which it is taken. Any shadow "on" me, I can perceive by touch, as such I can feel the supernatural hiding person and can then stab at them viciously. Normally we use "perception" by sight, the rules say so, but in the case where another person is touching you, because the shadow is cast on you, they are:
A. Perceivable by a sense other than sight and as such HiPS is no longer valid.
B. Perceivable by a sense other than sight and as such they are not allowed to use Stealth at all, as per the rules.
A room with a single cake, 7 feet tall, casting one small shadow. The room is white and bright. The shadow is a mere sliver from the placement of one wrong light.
The hiding person may very well be able to hide in shadow. Doesn't mean you can't circle the shadow and stab into it. They may be hidden but they are not "gone"...
You still get to roll perception checks, favorable conditions grant bonuses to perception (say a room of pure white or a planet of melted glass), you can still potentially hear them (because they *still* have to make checks, HiPs only allows them the additional benefit to roll if you are staring at them), not to mention you could create a web of people who then "assist" the best perception character. The only distinction is they get no penalties...it doesn't mean you don't get a ton of bonuses.
And I am only talking RAW not even RAI which I think we could then make the following observation:
At any moment the shadow of an object is smaller than the SD, the SD becomes the primary shadow producing entity, and they can't hide in their own shadow. A microscopic shadow is a shadow but ability to meld whit shadow does not alter your size, merely change what you may hide with. I couldn't hide behind a thimble, they cast a shadow larger than my ass crack. They would then be trying to hide in their shadow, which they clearly cannot do.
HiPs sucks. But when they attack, you can hit them. When they move, they make checks and so do you. Just because they get to make them in a situation that hurts you is not in my mind a compelling argument to claim the ability is as horridly broken as you describe.
@ Snorter:
Ah yes, the: "I can't figure out an easy way to beat it so it must therefore be broken," argument. The biggest problem with using this type of argument against HiPS is that at the end of the day it's just a Stealth check. If you can't figure out a way to defeat it then chances are you are simply unfamiliar with how Stealth works in general.
Firstly: If someone had Arcane Sight then they should have detected the glow of the NPC unless said NPC had specific countermeasures for that tactic, which would not be a problem with HiPS. But in the absence of such countermeasures the glow of all of the NPC's magical gear should have been immediately apparent to the PC who had Arcane Sight on. Even if the NPC did not have magical gear HiPS is a (SU) ability and is thereby arguably detectable by Arcane Sight as well. The PC who could detect the NPC could then point out the exact location of the NPC to other PCs in the party who could then surround the NPC and hack away with a 50% miss chance for still not being able to see the NPC.
Secondly: The "Me and my party weren't prepared for the situation nor were we good enough at thinking on our feet to defeat this foe easily" argument is in no way a justifiable argument that something is broken or poorly written.
A) At the end of the day HiPS is just a Stealth check. There are no bonuses or modifiers from the ability itself. You say your party had high Perception skills but apparently not high enough. You realize that a Stealth specialist is going to sink feats and magic items (detectable by Arcane Sight) into Stealth so if you are serious about being able to spot guys using Stealth you will need to invest the same into Perception. Every time someone using Stealth attempts to hide or move or anything else that might give away their location they must make a Stealth check, which triggers an automatic Perception check from everyone who might see. If your Perception skills were not high enough to at least give you a 50/50 chance of spotting this NPC then it is your own faults for not investing enough into Perception, not the fault of the DM for building a Stealth specialist or the fault of the game designers for writing an ability that allows Stealth to be used under a new set of circumstances.
B) If you have See Invisible and Arcane Sight on your party members than it is probably safe to say you have a Wizard or Sorcerer. Also since you have these very spells active on your party members it is safe to say you anticipated a fight with an NPC who might be able to become invisible or otherwise hide. In light of that it might have been prudent for that caster to also memorize, or at least have a scroll of, Glitterdust. That spell makes invisible creatures instantly visible and gives a -40 to Stealth checks for people hit by the glitter. In addition the NPC would have been possibly blinded and with a 10' radius you could even have cast it on the NPC in the middle without affecting the party members along the walls of the room. Hold Person might have been a good idea too if your caster had that spell.
C) There are spells available that boost Perception or Wisdom which would have been a tremendous help. There are also spells and magic items that grant Blindsight which would render HiPS meaningless unless the NPC had specific countermeasures for that threat. And I don't know if your caster could use it but an Antimagic Field would have taken care of all your problems too since (SU) abilities can't work in an AM Field.
D) Also not sure if there would have been opportunity for this but a good Gather Information check would have been really useful before the fight. If you hear any rumors about the NPC disappearing into shadows, speaking with shadows, or hearing any details about any previous fights he/she had been in would have given you a big clue as to what you were up against.
E) And lastly the easiest way to deal with HiPS is for your party to have sound tactics. Delay/Hold action is one of the best things you can do against HiPS. If you know they are going to attack then you know they are going to become visible. You cannot maintain Stealth during an attack. So you hold your turn or at least a Standard Action until the NPC appears and then you all unload on him/her at once. You could alternately have one person who is on the initiative count right after the NPC walk around the room as much as he can to attempt to provoke an attack of opportunity. If the NPC is foolish enough to take it then they are visible until their next turn allowing for the rest of the party to go to town. Also grappling is an instant Stealth killer. Hold a Standard Action until the NPC attacks you and then Grapple him/her, you cannot hide while grappling.
I do think Snorter just justified why the wording of Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight was changed though. The Shadowdancer has to be with in 10 feet of an area of dim light now. That kind of kills the "but shadows are everywhere" argument. "Area of Dim light" is a quantifiable game mechanic. So if there's a dark corner (a 5 foot square of dim light in the corner) and the shadowdancer is no more than 10 feet away from it, the SD can use HiPS.
I always considered that the shadow had to be at least as big as the shadowdancer (or dark creature or assassin), but the wording of the 3.5e ability didn't specify that.
It's my guess that the wording of the assassin's HiPS is an oversight.
I was really hoping Pathfinder RPG would have more clarification of how to use Hide in Plain Sight because it's one of my favorite abilities but also one I don't understand as well as I would like.
But he was running it exactly as written.
Well, all I can say is that we had some stellar spot ranks in there, and we couldn't see the fecker. That may not be the rules going wrong, but something else...
The ability allows the hider to ignore all the normal downsides of being observed. If the check were penalised, to the point of being impossible to pass, then the ability would be pointless.
So you roll a spot. At your normal chance. And if it fails then even in game your character knows something is amiss. Because the person is there.
Other posters have done a better job than I at explaining how to deal with hips, so I'll leave it there...
Got an interesting reply from SKR about the Hide in Plain Sight and Hellcat Stealth question I had posted awhile back.
Questions regarding the feat Hellcat Stealth. Is this meant to work like the Hide in Plain Sight class feature? Do you need cover/concealment?
Considering it is meant to resemble the Hellcat special ability I almost want to treat it like invisibility only with stealth checks.
and...
They work similarly. HS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but you have a penalty on the check. HIPS trumps the need for cover/concealment, but it requires a nearby shadow, and has no penalty.
Well if you choose to make fun of it, based on the old 'You can't do that in real life' argument, that is up to you. Remember that we are talking about Supernatural Abilities here, except in the case of Rangers where it is an Extraordinary Ability.
(EX) abilities can account for the Ranger's ability to disappear from sight:
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
As for (SU):
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.
Also in citing that poster you, in a way, are equating HiPS with Ninjas. However, 3.5 Ninjas don't have HiPS, instead they gain a different (SU) ability that allows them to actually become invisible, then it eventually allows them to become ethereal, finally culminating in the ability to use Ethereal Jaunt. I don't see anyone trying to apply the 'That can't happen in real life' argument to that (SU) ability.