PCGen not allowing improved trip at level 1 monk

I am trying to create a monk pc using PCGen however it is telling me I do not meet the requirements for Improved Trip. It says “MonkBonusFeatLVL at least 6”.

I am taking the Maneuver Master archetype which says I should be able to take any improved combat maneuver as a bonus feat.

I have 13 int and my other feats are Combat Reflexes and Vicious stomp (I am human)

Is this a bug with PCGen or am i missing something that means I am not allowed to take this feat?

Script Editor web part not allowing me to insert code (or cancel)

Whenever I paste the following code into the script editor, instead of it allowing me to click ‘insert’, the entire window changes into the output of my script. There is no way to circumnavigate this without exiting the page – see error below:

Error occurring

For clarity, have posted my code below (it is a countdown clock, to a specific date).

<!DOCTYPE html> <html>   <head>     <title>APRA Countdown</title>     <style type="text/css">     body {         background: #f6f6f6     }      .countdownContainer{         position: absolute;;         top: 50%;         left: 50%;         transform : translateX(-50%) translateY(-50%);         text-align: center;         background: #ddd;         border: 1px solid #999;         padding: 10px;         box-shadow: 0 0 5px 3px #ccc;     }      .info {         font-size: 80px;     }     </style>   </head> <body>     <table class="countdownContainer">         <tr>             <td colspan="4" class="info">APRA Countdown</td>         </tr>         <tr class="info">             <td id="days">2</td>             <td id="hours">3</td>             <td id="minutes">5</td>             <td id="seconds">7</td>         </tr>             <td>Days</td>             <td>Hours</td>             <td>Minutes</td>             <td>Seconds</td>    </table>    <script type="text/javascript">      function countdown(){         var now = new Date();         var eventDate = new Date(now.getFullYear(), 7, 19);          var currentTime = now.getTime();         var eventTime = eventDate.getTime();          var remTime = eventTime - currentTime;          var s = Math.floor(remTime / 1000);         var m = Math.floor(s / 60);         var h = Math.floor(m / 60);         var d = Math.floor(h / 24);          h %= 24;         m %= 60;         s %= 60;          h = (h < 10) ? "0" + h : h;         m = (m < 10) ? "0" + m : m;         s = (s < 10) ? "0" + s : s;        document.getElementById("days").textContent = d;       document.getElementById("hours").textContent = h;       document.getElementById("minutes").textContent = m;       document.getElementById("seconds").textContent = s;        setTimeout(countdown, 1000);     }     countdown();   </body> </html> 

What are the balance implications of allowing only one non-reaction, non-cantrip spell to be cast per turn?

There have been several questions on the bonus action spell casting restriction which states (PHB, page 202):

[If you cast a bonus action spell] you can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

The number of questions on this make me feel it is not exactly an intuitive, or easily understood rule. In This Q/A David Coffron states the effects of this rule as follow:

“If you cast (or will cast) a bonus action spell (cantrip or non-cantrip) in a turn, no other non-cantrip spells (even ones using the action from action surge) can be cast.”

While this is certainly simpler there are multiple parentheticals and in particular the “or will cast” bit is, at least to me, an especially unusual way to write a rule.

So I changed the rule and am wondering if using the following instead of the bonus action casting restriction is imbalancing:

You cannot cast more than one non-reaction spell of first level or higher on a turn.

Normally, as shown in this Q/A if you cast a bonus action spell you are now unable to cast a reaction spell on your turn such as shield; this would no longer be a rule.
Without the “non-reaction” bit, you would be unable to cast a reaction spell on the same turn you cast an action spell. A common way for this to happen is if you cast, say, fireball and somebody cast counterspell on you, and you wanted to counterspell their counterspell. The “non-reaction” bit allows you to still do this, and the general change now allows you to do this even if you cast fireball as a bonus action, which previously was not possible.

Borrowing the table of all legal spell casting combinations from this Q/A this rule would change the table to the following (Ones that have changed from how they would work under the usual rules are marked with an asterisk): \begin{array}{|l|l|l|lr|} \hline \textbf{Action } & \textbf{ Bonus Action } & \textbf{ Action Surge } & \textbf{ LEGAL } & \kern 7em \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & & & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & & & \text{ Yes } \ \hline & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & & \text{ Yes } \ \hline & \text{ Cantrip } & & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & & \text{ Yes* } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & & \text{ No } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ No* } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ No } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ No } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ No } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ No } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \text{Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Yes* } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Non-Cantrip } & \text{ Yes* } \ \hline \text{Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Cantrip } & \text{ Yes } \ \hline \end{array}

The first change is not imbalancing as shown in this Q/A; however, Action Surge (the last two changes) is not mentioned, though I doubt it would have significant effects on balance.

I am wondering if the other change, Action Surge no longer allowing one to cast two non-cantrip spells, makes the Fighter class (Eldritch Knight, and also multi-classing) significantly worse off than before.

What are the balance implications of allowing players to use their action to make a bonus action? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • What overpowered combinations would be available if I allow a bonus action to be used in place of a standard action? 3 answers
  • Which balancing issues, if any, would arise from allowing PCs to spend actions on bonus action features? 4 answers

By the rules, according to the sage advice compendium actions and bonus actions are not interchangeable.

I can completely see why you shouldn’t be allowed to perform an action as a bonus action, because the action economy is a big part of balancing.

However I do not understand why you shouldn’t be allowed to perform a bonus action as an action. For example the description for spells with a casting time of bonus action in the PHB 202 states:

A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift

So if the spell is just faster, why can’t I use my action to cast it and then stare wholes in the air with the rest of the time?

To me it seems reasonable to allow players to use abilities that need a bonus action as their action. So I am considering house ruling this, because it comes up rarely but if it does it’s annoying for the player that he can’t.

In our special case the fighter/barbarian multiclass just got hit quite hard and he wanted to use his action and bonus action to rage and second wind for the damage resistance and heal. I didn’t allow him because I knew that by RAW it’s not allowed. But thinking about it I don’t really see a reason to forbid him.

So my question is: Are there any balance implications if I allow my players to use their action to make bonus actions?

If important, we are only playing with official and tested content, namely PHB, DMG, MM, VGtM, SCAG and XGE.

Are there any balance issues in allowing two half-feats to be taken without the Ability Score Increase instead of a feat?

Some feats such as Actor and Keen Mind provide a single Ability Score increase along with some other benefits. These feats are sometimes called half-feats (and I am using this definition for this question).

Half-feats are sometimes difficult to incorporate into a build unless you plan ahead and even then you probably need to spend at least part of your adventuring career with an odd Ability Score.

In order to somewhat ease taking these feats, I was considering including this house rule in a campaign:

When you would gain a single feat, you can instead gain two half-feats but do not receive their Ability Score Increases. This counts as taking both feats for the purpose of being able to only take each feat once.

At first glance, this seems naturally balanced because the non ability score benefits of a half-feat seem to be equivalent to a single Ability Score Increase, meaning you are still obtaining the “value” of two Ability Score Increases.

One difference I notice is that this is a bit better for half-feats where the Ability Score improved is fixed (such as CHA for Actor). If you spend 1 ASI on 2 half-feats and then spend the next ASI to increase two ability scores, you’ve effectively taken two half-feats but gained the ability to reassign their associated ability score increases however you like1. I am okay with this benefit.

Am I overlooking any other benefits or balance issues that this house rule might introduce?


1. As written by Ryan Thompson who helped clarify this in comments.

Scenario design allowing one remote player

Similar situation to this question: Tools/techniques for optimal tabletop gaming with one remote user

I will have one remote player, but I’m not worried about technical aides. My question is rather how to design a scenario to make this work and what pitfalls to look out for.

We have accepted there will be loss of information and probably even some “downtime” for the remote player and thinking to try and make use of this instead. My setting is SF so having the remote character at another location communicating over radio or similar would work perfectly fine.

The remote player could get access to some other resources, a map, a puzzle they need to solve based on clues the main group will find. I guess I’m aiming for a kind of asymmetrical co-op game in roleplaying format. How would you design a scenario for that?

Can I add a fingerprint without allowing it to unlock the phone?

Some of my more secure applications offer fingerprint unlocking. This would be convenient to use, and I don’t foresee any security issues with someone using my fingerprint because I would have had to have unlocked the phone with a pattern for someone to gain access to the application.

On the other hand, if the phone can be unlocked with my fingerprint as well, someone could unlock it while I am incapacitated (e.g. sleeping) without my knowledge, and then unlock the high-security applications as well. Having a pattern is a great form of two-factor authentication IMO.

I added a fingerprint to my rooted phone which runs LineageOS 14.1, Android version 7.1.1 — this automatically allowed unlocking the phone via fingerprint. I cannot find a setting to disable this without removing the fingerprint and being unable to use it in any of my apps. Is there any way I can forcefully disable fingerprint authentication on the lock screen, but retain access to fingerprint unlocking for various apps without using a custom lock screen?

Here are the options I have for the lock screen and fingerprints — I do not see any way to disable fingerprint authentication without removing the fingerprint, from the settings at least:

AAAA

What unforeseen consequences come from allowing corpses to count as creatures?

There have been quite a few questions about corpses and creatures, such as here where it is argued a dead creature is still a creature, here where the opposite is argued, and here where resurrecting an animated corpse is up in the air.

My question however, is if you allow spells, and other features, which target creatures to also target corpses (dead creatures), what are some possibly negative or game-ending/breaking effects that would occur from this houserule?

What unforeseen consequences come from allowing corpses to count as creatures?

There have been quite a few questions about corpses and creatures, such as here where it is argued a dead creature is still a creature, here where the opposite is argued, and here where resurrecting an animated corpse is up in the air.

My question however, is if you allow spells, and other features, which target creatures to also target corpses (dead creatures), what are some possibly negative or game-ending/breaking effects that would occur from this houserule?

How can I maintain game balance while allowing my player to craft genuinely useful items?

One of my players (a Forge Cleric – though I’m not sure that it matters) wants to be able to craft useful magical items, as the campaign goes on, rather than merely mundane equipment that’s easily available by other means. Crafting is a big part of his character backstory and I like to be a permissive DM whenever possible.

I intend to allow them some flexibility to craft magical items while sticking fairly closely to all of the crafting rules as laid out in this excellent answer by Xirema to a related question. My players will shortly hit level six, when according to the DMG they become capable of crafting Rare items.

In my game, in terms of how many items I usually hand out to my players, I stick pretty close to Xanathar’s guidance on item distribution (as found in the Magic Items Awarded by Rarity table, specifically), with a little bit of leniency to account for the fact that my group has 6ish players rather than the average usual 3-5.

If I allow my player to craft additional magical items how can I maintain game balance?

  • Reduce the number of items that my players can acquire by other means? This seems to punish the other players.
  • Make encounters more difficult than normal to account for my party possessing a higher than usual number of magic items? Doesn’t that just negate the reward?
  • Or, am I overthinking this and will 5e’s bounded accuracy, and each player being limited to three attunement slots, largely take care of any issues for me?

Please back answers up with your own experience in a comparable situation.