Can “partial” surprise happen? Would it be an acceptable rule?

I’m thinking the "surprise round" rule just isn’t fair. Say there’s a 2 vs 2 encounter (teams PC and Creatures (Cs)), then PC1 could notice the 2 Cs and PC2 just one of them. Also for the sake of discussion PC1 is mute for whatever reason, so he can’t quickly communicate with PC2 and he also plays last according to iniciative order. Then PC2 loosing an entire round seems unfair to me, because he could perfectly be taking actions against the C he found. Also if PC2 gets attacked by the Cs it would be doubly unfair, even if one has advantage and the other don’t, it’s 2 actions against none. So I figured you could ask PC2 to just turn around when it isn’t his turn during the surprise round, so as not to reveal the concealed C position to him and then, when he plays his turn remove the hidden C and let PC2 play as always…or if he gets attacked by hidden C before his turn he now sees it. What do you think?

What to include in generated emails to make them acceptable to email servers?

I need to send some automated emails from a program I’m working on. This is a new feature. I’m generating the emails now, but they get filtered by most of the email servers that I send tests to. Only one server I am using accepts the emails and it allows a lot of spam through. I need to find what headers or authentication or whatever I need to add to make the emails acceptable to major servers.

I’ve tried searching the internet for questions about sending automated emails, but the lead responses are all from companies that are willing to send the emails for me, or that are recommending what the body should look like.

How do I authenticate the email so that it doesn’t get flagged or filtered as spam?

Also, does length play any part in typical spams filters (i.e. are short emails more likely to be filtered)?

Acceptable background by level

Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with backgrounds from DND5.

It happens a lot that the story you create for your character sometimes is not as in point with what happens afterwards in-game. If you are a Lvl 1 Warrior you maybe can say you fought in the frontlines of a bloody war, and now are a retired mercenary.

Then you end-up losing to a bunch of rats the GM threw your way because the ceiling was too low and you forgot your matches.

What I want to know, is there a table/resource that has some indicator of what you may have accomplished when creating a character of a specific level?

That way I won’t embarrass myself narrating when I defeated a lich in my Lvl3 Ranger backstory, just to be inmediately destroyed by two goblins and their pet wolf in my first encounter.

I don’t mind DND/pathfinder responses, even when the power level may differ between the two, and even between versions, I’m more interested if the resource itself exists, or how to create one.

Can there be a language not Context free but still PDA acceptable?

Let the input alphabet be $ Σ = \{1,x,=\}$
Let the stack alphabet be $ \tau = \{1,$ \}$ where $ $ $ is the initial stack symbol.

Let,
$ q_0$ be the initial state of the PDA,
$ q_f$ be the final state of PDA,
I can define a transition function for PDA like this.

$ (q_0,1,$ )\rightarrow($ 1,q_1)$
$ (q_1,1,1)\rightarrow(1,q_1)$
$ (q_1,x,1)\rightarrow(1,q_2)$
$ (q_2,1,1)\rightarrow(1,q_2)$
$ (q_2,=,1)\rightarrow(1,q_3)$
$ (q_3,1,1)\rightarrow(\epsilon,q_3)$
$ (q_3,\epsilon,$ )\rightarrow($ ,q_f)$

Now the PDA can recognize language $ L = \{1^m x 1^n = 1^{mn}\}$ But According to https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1142/lectures/18/Small18.pdf Slide 24 this language is not Context Free.

Assume that I am quite beginner in TOC.

Is it a valid or acceptable practice to develop a separate page to meet accessibility requirements?

I recently visited some websites that seems to be using either deprecated technology (e.g. Flash) or contain a lot of complex front end javascript code to create the interaction of the user interface.

Some of these websites provide a link or button that takes you to a accessibility mode page which strips all the unnecessary features and provide just the content that is optimised for screen readers and provide other accessible features (e.g. keyboard navigation).

With accessibility being such a big focus today, and inclusive design slowly being incorporated into many of the standard design systems, is it still seen as an acceptable practice to provide a separate page to meet accessibility guidelines (i.e. WCAG 2.0)? Are there other reasons why this might be a better strategy/option in the current design and development culture?

Is storing a JWT secret as docker env variable acceptable?

I understand how JWTs work and that with my secret anyone can issue new tokens. I control the server that my node website runs on and am considering different options for hosting the key.

  1. In code – Not acceptable because my code is in a github repo
  2. ENV variable – seperate secrets for dev and production while not leaking to github
  3. Store in database – Seems more like #2 with more work, being that an on-machine attacker can find access to the db anyways

2 looks like the best method for a simple website (no super sensitive user info like credit cards or SSNs). Is this a good solution?

Would Epic Heroism be an acceptable rule variant for a small, first-time group?

I’m DMing a group with 4 players. For all of us, this is our first D&D experience. We’ll be playing Lost Mines of Phandelver.

I’m concerned about the survivability, especially given how green the players are. At first level, they’ll have 10 or 12 hit points, facing groups of goblins that can hit for 1d6+2. I’m adjusting the number of monsters in each encounter, but still worry.

Healing seems to be very rare. At first level, the spellcasters will have the ability to cast two spells in an entire dungeon.

Epic Heroism (DM Guide p267) seems like it could help, but might tip the balance too far the other way into easy mode:

This variant uses a short rest of 5 minutes and a long rest of 1 hour. This change makes combat more routine, since characters can easily recover from every battle. You might want to make combat encounters more difficult to compensate.

Spellcasters using this system can afford to burn through spell slots quickly, especially at higher levels. Consider allowing spellcasters to restore expended spell slots equal to only half their maximum spell slots (rounded down) at the end of a long rest, and to limit spell slots restored to 5th level or lower. Only a full 8-hour rest will allow a spellcaster to restore all spell slots and to regain spell slots of 6th level or higher.

Am I missing some element that would make the party more likely to survive the first dungeon, or would this rule variant be a good way to introduce the mechanics of the game?

Are dismissible banners acceptable UI for purchase confirmations?

Here’s some context:

A user on a Free account is editing a draft in our text editor. To be able to publish the draft (they get auto-saved), they need to purchase a plan.

When they click on the “Upgrade” button, they are taken to the Checkout flow. After Checkout completion, what is the best way to confirm their purchase?

  1. A screen that says “Purchase was successful” with a CTA that will take them back to the editor?

  2. Or take them back to the text editor, but append a banner notification up top that says their purchase was successful?

I would think Option 1 would be the best way to go about it. IMO, a purchase is a big deal/big decision, hence a warrants its own single page instead of just a banner?