Does the range of your original familiar increase to 1 mile when you cast Flock of Familiars

My question is about how the Flock of Familiars1 spell interacts with the Find Familiar spell.

According to the spell description of the Flock of Familiars spell:

If you already have a familiar conjured by the Find Familiar spell or similar means, then one fewer familiars are conjured by this spell.

Which would be fine if the Familiars conjured by the Find Familiar spell are equivalent to the familiars conjured by the Flock of Familiars spell, but in their respective spell descriptions the ranges for telepathic communication are 100 feet for a Find Familiar and 1 mile for a Flock of Familiars.

Find Familiar:

While your familiar is within 100 feet of you, you can communicate with it telepathically.

Flock of Familiars:

Familiars summoned by this spell can telepathically communicate with you and share their visual or auditory senses while they are within 1 mile of you.

RAW, does this mean already having conjured a familiar through Find Familiar and then casting Flock of Familiars causes you to be worse off – during the one hour Flock of Familiars lasts – then if you had only casted Flock of Familiars?

1 From the digitally published adventure, Lost Laboratory of Kwalish $1 SSD Hosting – cpanel – FREE Auto SSL & Setup – 99.99% uptime.

Hostpoco is a perfect choice for Beginners and every hosting buyer. We offer 1 dollar unlimited hosting with many features like unlimited space, unlimited bandwidth,
unlimited email accounts, and much more. We are also offering 30 days money-back guarantee with all our shared and reseller hosting plans where we assure clients that you are safe and can get money back within 30 days in case found issues with the services.

Hostpoco offers extremely easy to use cPanel web hosting solutions. Over the years we have experimented with various control panel software and we believe that 
cPanel is the most efficient and user-friendly tool for website administration. Once you use it once you will love it and you will never want to try another control panel to manage your web hosting service..go ahead!

$1 Unlimited Hosting Features and Plan:
– Single Domain Hosting
– 2GB Web Space
– Unlimited Bandwidth
– 100% CPU
– Unlimited Email Accounts
– Unlimited Sub Domains
– Unlimited Parked Domains
– Unlimited FTP Accounts
– Unlimited MySql Databases
– Unlimited Mailing List
– FREE CloudFlare
– FREE SiteApps
– FREE Online Sitebuilder
– FREE Data Migration
– FREE Attracta
– FREE Setup
– FREE Cpanel Control Panel
– FREE Auto Responders
– FREE Backup Restore
– FREE PhpMyAdmin
– FREE Virus Scanner
– DDOS Protection
– 99.99% uptime
– Softacolous Supported
– Tier 2 Technical Support

Order Now:…osting.php cheap web hosting | $1 web hosting | 1 dollar hosting | one dollar hosting | cheap reseller hosting | low-cost servers | $1 SSD hosting | cheap SSD hosting | best WordPress hosting | free web hosting | free hosting | free trial hosting | unlimited web hosting | unlimited space hosting | money back hosting | Cpanel web hosting | cheap windows hosting

Thank you.

Password entry: are “paste from password manager” and “eyeball to view passwords” mutually-exclusive features?


NIST SP 800-63b gives the following guidance for password forms (aka login pages):

Verifiers SHOULD permit claimants to use “paste” functionality when entering a memorized secret. This facilitates the use of password managers, which are widely used and in many cases increase the likelihood that users will choose stronger memorized secrets.

In order to assist the claimant in successfully entering a memorized secret, the verifier SHOULD offer an option to display the secret — rather than a series of dots or asterisks — until it is entered. This allows the claimant to verify their entry if they are in a location where their screen is unlikely to be observed. The verifier MAY also permit the user’s device to display individual entered characters for a short time after each character is typed to verify correct entry. This is particularly applicable on mobile devices.

I had the argument made to me that these two features should not be implemented together because they would allow a user to circumvent a password manager’s protection and view the auto-populated password. I suspect this argument won’t hold water, but I’m curious about community opinions.

What is the spell save DC for the spells gains via the dark gifts in Curse of Strahd?

In Curse of Strahd, in Amber Temple,

The descriptions of these dark gifts do not make any mention of a spell save DC, should the dark gift allow the casting of a spell. For a player who has a spellcasting class, I guess you can just use their class’s spell save DC (that’s what I ruled when this came up the other day, although if they had different spell save DCs if they were multiclassed, which one?), but for non-spellcasting classes, clearly they have no spell save DC from their class.

For some of these spells, clearly a spell save DC isn’t relevant, such as:

but for others, it is, such as:

but it doesn’t seem to mention anything about a spell save DC for these spells anywhere, either in each specific dark gift’s description nor in the general information about dark gifts in the sidebar on p. 191.

Am I missing something, or is there another way to determine what these spell save DCs should be?

What is the complexity of $i^i$?

What is the complexity of the following algorithm in Big O:

for(int i = 2; i < n; i = i^i) { somthing } 

I’m not sure if there is a valid operator to this type of complexity. My initial thought was as follows:

After $ k$ iterations we want: (using tetration?)

$ {^{k}i} = n \implies k=\log\log\log…_k\log{n}\implies\mathcal{O(\log\log\log…_k\log{n})}$ (where we have k times the log function) but i’m not sure if this is evan a valid way of writing this. Anyway, we have a complexity that that includes $ k$ , which does not seems right to me.

How effectively can a trancing Elf serve night watch?

Experienced DM, new to 5e. Dealing with a party that includes two Elves. Party did not establish a night watch. Dice dictated an overnight raid of the party’s provisions. Seems fair to give the Elves a chance of hearing the activity, although being situated 50′ away, it would not be great. However, having two of them should boost the math a little.

What is fair to do here, given 5e rules?

can someone please tell me how can we download malware pcap in ubuntu VM in microsoft azure?

I tried to download malware pcap on ubuntu VM in microsoft azure from the putty but it is not allowing me to do so .It gives following output: Permission denied Cannot write to ‘’

can someone please tell me how can we download malware pcap in ubuntu VM in microsoft azure?

Is there a limit on the “detection range” of Glyph of Warding’s trigger?

The conventional usage of a glyph of warding spell, exemplified by the “explosive runes” variant, is something like a magical land mine: step on or near it and it explodes, dealing damage in a small radius around the glyph itself. However, if one stores a spell with a long range and uses an appropriate trigger condition, it seems that the spell glyph form of glyph of warding could be used more like a single-shot turret. Consider these examples:

  • One could create a spell glyph containing a fireball spell (range 150 ft) with a trigger of “when a small or larger creature approaches within 150 feet” and place the glyph in the center of a room 300 feet across to effectively ward the entire room with a single glyph.

  • Going even further, one could imagine using a spell glyph as a magical alarm system, storing a loud spell (e.g. thunderwave or shatter) with a trigger of “when a drow approaches within 1 mile”. Such a glyph could act as an early warning system covering an entire castle or dungeon. (For bonus points, exploit the fact that the stored spell will be aimed in the direction of the triggering creature by placing bells of different pitches in the cardinal directions around the glyph, then determine the direction of approach based on which bell(s) ring the loudest.)

Either of both of these examples seems like they could be outside the intended power level for this 3rd level spell, but as far as I can tell, the spell’s text doesn’t explicitly rule out either example. In fact, I’ve intentionally phrased the above triggers to conform to the specific examples of “typical triggers” in the description (highlighted in bold):

You decide what triggers the glyph when you cast the spell. For glyphs inscribed on a surface, the most typical triggers include touching or standing on the glyph, removing another object covering the glyph, approaching within a certain distance of the glyph, or manipulating the object on which the glyph is inscribed. […]

You can further refine the trigger so the spell activates only under certain circumstances or according to physical characteristics (such as height or weight), creature kind (for example, the ward could be set to affect aberrations or drow), or alignment.

The lack of any apparent range limit is especially notable given that some spells with similar triggering mechanics do given an explicit range limit. For example, magic mouth requires the triggering circumstance to be observable within 30 feet:

The triggering circumstance can be as general or as detailed as you like, though it must be based on visual or audible conditions that occur within 30 feet of the object.

So, what, if anything, limits the “detection range” of the trigger for glyph of warding? Do either of the above examples work, or is there some part of the spell’s text, or some applicable rule, that prevents the glyph from detecting the triggering condition at that range? Is this entirely up to the DM’s discretion?

Why Are Table Scans Bad?

At my work, I am often told that I shouldn’t do a table scan because it could negatively impact the database and the app using the database. What exactly do they mean by "negatively impact"? One negative impact I can think of is that a table scan would use up a lot of the disk’s time, blocking other requests from using the disk.

Is there a way to do a table scan without any negative impacts? Sometimes I need to do a table scan for one off checks (for routine things, I would of course make an index).