Does casting spells thru mizzium armor allow for upcasting?

Mizzium Apparatus lets a caster cast a spell on their spell list for which they have a spell slot of the spells level to cast a spell that they don’t know, assuming a successful arcana check.. Per dmg pp141 "some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn’t expend the users spell slots,and requires no components, unless the items description says otherwise".

This pretty clearly says that if i do not know the spell scorching ray, and i successfully use the Apparatus to cast it, it will cast as its native level.

Is this correct?

Do the rules allow you to Backstab with a bow or ranged weapon?

Backstab is the starting ability received by Rogues at level 1 in Dragon Age RPG. The full explanation of the ability is outlined below. Highlighting the key section in bold

You can inflict extra damage with an attack if you can strike an opponent from an unexpected direction or catch them unawares. You must approach your opponent with a move action If attacking with a melee weapon. Then you must win an opposed test of your Dexterity (Stealth) vs. your target’s Perception (Seeing). If you win the test, you can use your major action this round to Backstab him. This is an attack with a +2 bonus to the attack roll that inflicts +1d6 extra damage. You cannot Backstab an enemy that you begin your turn adjacent to (but see the Bluff power at level 4.

This section differs between the printed book and the PDF edition.

The same highlighted sentence in the printed book reads:

You must approach your opponent with a move action

We are struggling to figure out whether this means that the move action is only required for melee weapons (and ranged surprise attacks are possible) or backstab is only possible with a melee weapon, the 2 books appear to imply different answers and we can’t figure out which is which.

Is Allow: in robots txt an exclusion to an exclusion?

Say I have a MediaWiki website and all the Special: namespace webpages are excluded with robots.txt Disallow: Special: but there are a few specific Special: webpages that I do want to include;

  • Allow:Special:RecentChanges
  • Allow:Special:RandomPage
  • Allow:Special:Categories

Is Allow: in robots txt an exclusion to an exclusion?

To ask a more specific and two-factored question: Is the code above what I need to add to robots.txt and is it correct to say that these allocations are "exclusions to the (general) exclusion"?

Does Molten Silver Strike or Steady hand allow Whirlpool strike to have higher range?

Molten Silver Strike allows to add Solar Wind boosts to Mithral Current attacks and adds +5ft/4init level to their range. Whirlpool strike allows you to attack every enemy in your weapons reach. Steady Hand (Solar) adds 30 ft range to your attack. Do they work together to allow you to attack everyone in 35+ range?

Why doesn’t the Gutenberg code editor allow code to be nested in sections?

I’m trying to add my own HTML code in the Gutenberg code editor, but unfortunately when trying to save the editor automatically moves the closing tag </section> to the end of the first line. What is this about ? Why can’t I nest my code this way normally ? To illustrate the problem I attach a picture.

enter image description here

I would like the section closing tag to be at the end of all code.

In 5e, are there two versions of a ‘shove’, and if so, what further effects do the different versions possibly allow?

As I see it there are two versions of ‘shoving’ in 5e: a physical verion and a magical version.

The physical version allows pushing an opponent backwards OR knocking them prone, while the magic version moves them towards you or away from you but does not mention possibly knocking them prone.

The physical version is described on p. 195 (PHB) as follows,

"Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them. The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of Making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

The Shield Master feat (p.170 of PHB) allows for this physical version as well.

The Telekinetic feat in Tashas C. of E. (p.81) is described this way,

"As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. When you do so, the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward or away from you. A creature can willingly fail this save.

Certain spells and other magical abilities, such as thorn whip and the eldritch invocation Grasp of Hadar, move opponents closer to, or farther from the caster, but do not mention the possibility of knocking the opponent prone.

I can imagine a reasonable explanation for why/how there are two versions: the physical is a crashing, concussive impact, while the magical is perhaps more like a tractor beam or magnetic attraction or repulsion and–possibly–not as abrupt.

But if there are two versions, does that lead to further issues?

Perhaps it’s a separate question, but I ask here to highlight why/how answers to my initial question might matter:

Is the telekinetic (magic) version of a shove something that could reasonably be a surprise to an opponent–would/should that give some disadvantage on the opponent’s chance to resist being shoved?

If an opponent were magically shoved from behind, when they didn’t think anyone was there, would that be a reasonable basis for giving advantage to anyone attacking them from the front?

I’d appreciate any thoughtful input on this–whether directly answering the initial question or just focusing on other aspects. I want to understand how ‘shove’ can be used and haven’t seen much online that explores the topic. Of course each DM could rule as they see fit, and talking about this ahead of time to flesh out some aspects of the spell would be wise (I just emailed my DM to do so), but I’m glad for any input here, as well.

Does Voice of the Chain Master allow casting certain spells from an isolated space?

An interesting question popped into my brain recently while researching the Pact of the Chain for a Genie Patron Warlock. Casual shenanigans aside, I was wondering if taking Voice of the Chain Master allowed me to cast certain spells while safely tucked in my vessel but, maybe not in the way you think I’m going to ask about. Allow me to elaborate;

As per Voice Of The Chain Master

You can communicate telepathically with your familiar and perceive through your familiar’s senses as long as you are on the same plane of existence. Additionally, while perceiving through your familiar’s senses, you can also speak through your familiar in your own voice, even if your familiar is normally incapable of speech.

I’m led to believe that Bottled Respite is NOT another plane of existence, since similar items like a Portable Hole specifically mention when they are.

You can use an action to unfold a portable hole and place it on or against a solid surface, whereupon the portable hole creates an extradimensional hole 10 feet deep. The cylindrical space within the hole exists on a different plane, so it can’t be used to create open passages.

I think it’s safe to assume then, that the interior of the Vessel is simply ‘bigger on the inside’ and not an isolated dimension that you’re teleported to. With this in mind, let’s clarify one more subject before moving on.

I want to be clear; I’m not using my Familiar to ‘carry’ the spell. I understand those limitations. I’m using them purely for approximating my own visual range and my interest is in the wording of certain spells that require you to target ‘a creature you can see within range,’which also don’t otherwise state the spell ‘traveling’ through space in any specific fashion. Let’s set up our hypothetical from here, and pick a spell I personally think would have suitable water retention for this argument.

My Warlock is safely within a collar or ring (The Vessel) worn by my familiar (standing or sitting against nearest wall in the forward facing direction of the ring, to avoid losing as much spell range as possible), through which, I am perceiving through their sight as though I’m in their space (technically, I am, since they are carrying me.) I want to cast Flesh to Stone and I see a creature within 60ft of me (and am confident the range is correct because me and my familiar are occupying the same space). I cast Flesh to Stone which has a range of 60ft and, has the following description;

You attempt to turn one creature that you can see within range into stone. If the target’s body is made of flesh, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, it is restrained as its flesh begins to harden. On a successful save, the creature isn’t affected.

A creature restrained by this spell must make another Constitution saving throw at the end of each of its turns. If it successfully saves against this spell three times, the spell ends. If it fails its saves three times, it is turned to stone and subjected to the petrified condition for the duration. The successes and failures don’t need to be consecutive; keep track of both until the target collects three of a kind.

If the creature is physically broken while petrified, it suffers from similar deformities if it reverts to its original state.

If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.

RAW it seems pretty sound from my point of view but, I also just really like this combat tactic so, I may be overlooking something. Thoughts?

How do I get my GM to include downtime to allow crafting

In D&D 5e, most characters can craft or otherwise benefit from downtime. I love the idea and when I DM I always include time for the players to build something with all the gold they have acquired.
Unfortunately, I have found that most DMs, especially those that work from modules, refuse to let characters take a break, preferring to go from cliff hangar to cliff hangar.
My current DM is one of those.
I would love to hear some arguments, that might convince her, it is to her benefit, as well as the players, to allow for some downtime. Obviously I have already made some suggestions, but Id like more options before I turn this into a direct discussion. Worth noting, is that she is a tiny bit sexist, and dislikes taking any advice, or suggestions from men.. so I have to be a bit delicate in my communication.

How to allow NULL in foreign keys of a compound primary key

I want to have NULLs in foreign keys of a compound primary key. This is an example of what I would expect to be valid data.

product_id variant_id
123-123 ABC
123-123 NULL
456-456 ABC

I cannot figure out why the following SQL in postgres gives NOT NULL violation constraint me when inserting NULL as variant_id.

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS inventory.price (   product_id             UUID NOT NULL, -- this has to be always to a valid product   variant_id             UUID,          -- this could be NULL   amount                 MONEY NOT NULL,   created_at             TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),   -- Constraints   CONSTRAINT inventory_price_pkey PRIMARY KEY (product_id, variant_id),   CONSTRAINT inventory_price_inventory_product_fkey FOREIGN KEY (product_id)     REFERENCES inventory.product (id) MATCH FULL,   CONSTRAINT inventory_price_inventory_variant_fkey FOREIGN KEY (variant_id)     REFERENCES inventory.variant (id) MATCH SIMPLE,   CONSTRAINT inventory_price_amount_gt_0 CHECK (amount > '0'::money) ); 

And the inspection to information_schema confirms the non-nullable constraint.

column_name column_default is_nullable data_type
product_id NULL NO uuid
variant_id NULL NO uuid
amount NULL NO money
created_at now() NO timestamp with time zone

Do the Illusionist’s Bracers allow you to concentrate on two cantrips?

Illusionist’s Bracers (GGR p178) Says:

whenever you cast a cantrip, you can use a bonus action on the same turn to cast that cantrip a second time.

However some spells like Create bonfire require concentration.
Under spell duration, the players handbook says:

You lose Concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires Concentration. You can’t concentrate on two Spells at once.

Do the bracers allow you to concentrate on two cantrips at once?