The pass without trace spell description reads:
A veil of shadows and silence radiates from you, masking you and your companions from detection. For the duration, each creature you choose within 30 feet of you (including you) has a +10 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) checks and can’t be tracked except by magical means. A creature that receives this bonus leaves behind no tracks or other traces of its passage.
Does this mean that an ally who moves within 30 feet of the caster after the spell has been cast can begin to benefit from the spell? Does an ally who leaves the 30-foot radius while the spell is in effect lose the spell’s benefits?
We have a website running on Tomcat whose certificate will epire in a few weeks. I generated a CSR, got a new cert. Added that cert to the new store and changed the server.xml file to point to the new store.
HOwever when I go to the page it is still reflecting the existing cert. I deleted cache, restarted Tomcat, renamed the current store. How can it use it? Also did: keytool -list -keystore D:\Tomcat\ukdp.keystore -storepass 123456 to verify that the key was in there and it is as a private key.
The Centaur’s racial feature “Charge” reads as follows:
If you move at least 20 feet straight toward a target and then hit it with a melee weapon attack on the same turn, roll the weapon’s damage dice twice and add them together. Once you use this ability, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest. (Source of wording D&D Beyond)
From this I understand that the affected attack(s) must occur after the Charge ability is triggered, and must occur during the same turn the Charge is triggered.
But, as the title question indictes, I’m in doubt whether this wording means that the doubling of the weapons damage dice only occurs on a single attack that hits after the Charge, and if so must it then be the first attack that hits or can it be any attack that hits during that turn? Or would it affect every attack that hits after the Charge during that turn?
Hackers are able to steal 2FA sms messages by exploiting SS7, in my understanding basically by hacking in to the SS7 system and then saying “this number is roaming on my network, send me all their sms messages!”
Would this work for a Google Voice number? If my understanding above is correct, Google knows it’ll be sending the sms to the app and not to some other network, so I would guess it might be immune to SS7 exploitation. Or does the hacker only need to say the number is roaming to whoever is generating the sms message?
NOTE: I’m aware of the other downsides to using Google Voice as a 2FA factor, and am mitigating them by using an alternate Google account for which I have a strong, separate password that I only ever enter when logging into the app on my mobile device, and nowhere else, ever. I trust Google’s security a hell of a lot more than the telcos. This way customer service won’t give out my info or re-route the number just because someone knows my mother’s goddamn name, keylogger attacks are unlikely, and i hope i might be at least a bit more protected from atrocious SS7 holes.
Please don’t respond to this telling me to use Google Authenticator or a hardware key – I already do so where possible.
I have applied for Tier 2 ICT work permit 3 years visa from a reputed A rating Premium sponser.. In the marital status I have mentioned as separated since with my wife am not in good terms, it been more than 6 months we spoke and I have a baby child. Will this separated status make ECO to reject my visa? In case without reject if they ask for clarification what type of questions or proof they may ask. I do not have any proof of documents that we are separated.
I am familiar with the concept of path-copying in the context of binary trees to achieve persistent modifications, but I am unsure if the inclusion of parent pointers has any effect on the complexity. We can assume that rotations may occur, so for practical consideration we can assume an AVL or red-black tree.
My current thought process is that “when a node is modified, anything that points to that node must also be copied”. If that theory is correct, and we therefore copy every node along the path from the root to the node, what happens when we do rotations along the path? My intuition is that nodes on the path are the only ones modified, but I am worried that the sibling node that is not on the path might also need to be copied. I would guess that that is not the case, but I am struggling to confirm that.
Does the existence of parent pointers affect the number of nodes to be copied during a modification in a persistent binary tree?
I am new to RMA so i have some questions for which i could not find answers on other articles.
Order on which customer initiates RMA, does it’s amount calculated on dashboard sales statistics?
If customer return/replace order item, does it update existing order or create new order?
What’s status of order for which RMA initiated/approved?
I also referred some RMA extension guides but could not find any satisfactory answers.
I am experimenting with Addon domains.
I understand that normally one sets up a 301 redirect when pointing, for example, domain.com at domain.com.au (where domain.com.au is to become the new primary domain with a new website on it)
The old domain.com has a wix website that we are throwing out and moving everthing to a new hosting service on a Centos Web Panel VPS i control.
I was considering;
setting up two copies of the website (ie domain.com and domain.com.au) and hosting them on separate accounts, OR
Setup the new website on domain.com.au and create an addon for domain.com with redirects using htaccess.
I am using Centos-web Panel. I note that when i create the Addon domain, i have the option to set its home directory.
So if i set home directory for the addon domain to domain.com.au/public_html (where the new wordpress website for domain.com.au resides) is that good enough for SEO rankings?
Essentially, if i now type in domain.com, it loads domain.com.au. Is that going to work, or does google penalise a change from .com to .com.au even though the “domain name” is the same?
What negatives and other issues can i expect from doing this?
On page 288-289 of the DMG there is a variant spell points rule. Below is the best summary paragraph of the system.
In this variant, each spell has a point cost based on its level. The Spell Point Cost table summarizes the cost in spell points of slots from 1st to 9th level. Cantrips don’t require slots and therefore don’t require spell points.
I am considering using this system in the near future. I plan to playtest it as a player before using it for a campaign and wanted to find out if there are issue I should be aware of.
My question is for anyone that has used this variant system, either as a player or DM. I would be interested in hearing examples of issues that came up when using this system as well as overall feel of the balance of this system compared to traditional spell-slots. If anyone is super great at balance-math I would be interested in mechanical answers as well.
How does using the spell point variant rule affect balance for spell casting classes?
To what extent do explicit game mechanical rewards, such as various types of fate points (hero points, willpower, artha, other consumable resources) or experience points, affect player behaviour?
Anecdotally, OSR folk seem to enjoy experience from gold and refer to it as an incentive for good play, while modern D&D often uses milestone experience or just levels whenever the game master says so.
Likewise, I recall reading some people speaking for the beliefs and artha in Burning wheel as finally rewarding them for playing like they want to, while others think of these as artificial and unnecessary crutches. I remember similar discourses around other games with such explicit mechanical rewards.
Since everyone has an opinion and personal experience, those are not very useful answers. Scientific studies would be optimal, but surveys or other larger scale data would also be interesting.
Some credible possibilities might be: Although a vocal minority says something, the trend is that most people change or do not change their behaviour in the presence of mechanical rewards. Or perhaps some personality factor affects this, or perhaps people can toggle it on and off, depending on what they are playing.