Does Evasion allow half damage even when unconscious?

Evasion is a class feature gained by Rogues and Monks at level 7:

At 7th level, your instinctive agility lets you dodge out of the way of certain area effects, such as a blue dragon’s lightning breath or a Fireball spell. When you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.

Does this feature allow a character to “dodge” area effects, taking half damage, even if they are unconscious?

How do I allow the Rogue opportunities to be stealthy with a Druid in the party?

My party is currently level 6, and consists of a Halfling Rogue, Human Druid, Halfling Barbarian, and Half-Elf Monk. They’re all excellent players who play tactically and know their class well. I’m currently running into a problem with the Rogue and the Druid.

My Rogue has Expertise in Stealth (+10 at this level) and a Cloak of Elvenkind. This means that her minimum roll (barring four 1s because they’re a Halfling) on a Stealth check is a 12, and her average roll is around a 25. Even on a minimum roll, most NPCs will not be able to see her (and in a few levels that will extend to all NPCs).

However, the party’s current methodology is to have the Druid do the sneaking instead of the Rogue. Their reasoning is that even though it’s highly unlikely that the Rogue will get caught, if she does get caught then really bad things happen – the enemy will know they’re being spied on, the Rogue gets captured, etc. However, the Druid is spying in the form of a rat, spider, owl, or other sneaky animal, so if a bandit spots a bat they probably won’t think much of it. Additionally, the druid will have a much easier time escaping a secure location (say, by summoning 8 Giant Badgers and then Wild Shaping into a spider).

Here’s my problem with this: I see “Being Sneaky” as a core part of a Rogue’s class identity, and the player has invested a lot of resources (proficiency, expertise, and an attuned item) into being sneaky. I try to give all of my players a chance to live out their class identity: The Barbarian gets to hulk out and smash things, the Druid gets to save Dryads and heal cursed forests, the monk gets to take people down bare-handed, etc. I want to have at least some opportunities for the Rogue to get to experience this key feature of their class by sneaking into a secure location or scouting out an enemy party.

How can I design stealth-based encounters or challenges so that the Rogue will be a better choice than the Druid?

Does Telekinetic Projectile allow choosing both projectile and target within range even if they are further apart than 30 feet?

Telekinetic Projectile allows you to "hurl [an] object that is within range […] at the target". The spell’s range is 30 feet.

My reading of this is that both the target and the object must be picked from within 30 feet from the caster. But nothing states that the path that the projectile flies (from object to target) must be less than 30 feet.

Are my assumptions correct or have I missed any relevant rules?

Also, if so, does the path between them have to be clear as to not provide Cover for the target?

Object <- 30ft -> caster <- 30ft -> target        <-         ~60ft          -> 

Can Mask of the Wild allow you to basically ‘disappear’ in front of your opponent if in a light foliage area? [duplicate]

Hiding on P177 PHB states

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly.

Then Mask of the Wild PHB P24 indicates

You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

So, can a wild elf in melee combat with a creature in a wooded area with light bushes around them simply take a move action, move 5 feet in a light foliage square, then use his action to hide right in plain sight of his opponent (5 feet away)? Then complete his movement using the cover of the light foliage to escape ?

I am looking for the RAW ruling on this no interpretations must be traced back to specific words in official written rules or official WotC rule clarifications

Total catastrophic failure, or should a GM ever allow re-rolls and do-overs?

It’s a critical moment in the game at the end of a marathon session, everyone is on the edge of their seats, and the player rolls… a 1. Evil bad guy wins, party dies, game over. As a GM, what should you do? Probably don’t structure your game to hinge on the result of a single roll, right? Well what if it was an improbable-but-possible series of bad rolls?

Should you ever let people re-roll after failing? I’m thinking no, otherwise everybody will want to re-roll after every bad outcome.

What about letting the party start over from when they first entered the room? Just for the sake of convenience and without any sort of time reversal game mechanic.

The road not taken, or do GM’s typically allow replays?

Some people say games are supposed to be unique experiences that cannot be recreated. What if the player wants to replay the same game from the beginning, but try a different path at a fork in the road that occurred somewhere in the middle? Would you allow him to use the same character and keep all his previous XP and loot, or would you make him start a new character?

Do Illusionist’s Bracers actually allow you to cast two minor illusions?

The description of the Illusionist’s Bracers (GGR p. 178) states:

flavour:

A powerful illusionist of House Dimir originally developed these bracers, which enabled her to create multiple minor illusions at once. The bracers’ power, though, extends far beyond illusions.

effect:

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

However to me it would seem that the effect provided would not actually allow one to cast multiple minor illusions at once because the description of the spell minor illusion states:

The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again.

Am I missing something or does this magic item not actually allow one to do what its flavour text suggests?

What is the most restrictive way to allow IPv6 ICMP requests on iptables?

This is what I have so far but it is pretty open.

*filter :INPUT DROP [0:0] :FORWARD DROP [0:0] :OUTPUT DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -p ipv6-icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p ipv6-icmp -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT COMMIT 

If you have time, explaining the rules would be amazing.