## How to make a character that moves like a slinky?

I have a school assignment to make a 2D platformer game, with a character that moves like a slinky:

(Animated example from the assignment linked above)

1. At first, the character needs to grow in height over time

2. When the player presses a button, the character starts to bend toward the next platform

3. Its height when you press the button determines whether it will hit the next platform

4. After that it must shrink to its initial size, and it goes over again.

How can I approach this?

## How to bypass character filtering in XSS?

I am solving XSS challenges. I found difficulty in one that filters the character “o” both uppercase and lowercase. I can run tag. I have to call function “prettyRobot” to complete the cahllenge. But character “o” is filtered, I try to run with

“eval(“prettyR”+”o”+”b”+”o”+”t()”)”

But did not succeed. And fromCharCode cannot be used since character “o” is also inclued in fromCharCode function. How can I bypass this?

## XSS: Character showing in DOM

I have created an html page that redirects user to a test site that has an XSS vulnerability. I am able to successfully execute javascript via the vulnerability. However, I have found that some of the characters I am using as part of the XSS attack are displaying in the DOM. How can I hide these characters from showing in the DOM?

<body onload="document.forms[0].submit()">     <form action="http://sometestsite.com" method="POST">       <input type="hidden"         name="login"         value='"><script>alert(3)</script>' />       </form>   </body> 

## How can I play a Friar Tuck type of character?

I have a concept for a “fat” yet beefy character with focus on brawling/hand-to-hand combat and possibly quarterstaff combat. The character is a member of a monastery, abbey, or religious order, with a distinct European monk feel. I’d like to multi-class him with Cleric. The character is basically Friar Tuck from the Robin Hood legends.

The obvious class choice for this character would be Monk, both for RP reasons and mechanics. The Monk’s focus on hand-to-hand combat and quarterstaff usage would be perfect. Also, his use of Wisdom will synergize nicely with Cleric. Unfortunately, the Monk’s Dex focus ruins the concept of the beefy but slow brawler.

How could I make this character concept work? Is there any way to have a strength-based Monk? Are there any other classes which would work better for a strength-based brawler (maybe Fighter)?

I’m definitely more into the role-playing aspects of the game as opposed to optimization, so I’m willing to sacrifice some power for roleplay possibilities, as long as a character plays at least decent.

Also, if worst comes to worst I will sacrifice my beefy character idea for a traditional Dex based Monk design.

## Is it possible to build a custom weapon, and if so, how my character will be able to use it?

I plan to make a multiclass character with a Rogue and a Ranger. Since I want to stay at a distance when attacking, I want to use a shortbow (with the proficiency from Rogue), but I also want to use a shield (with the proficiency from Ranger). This is not possible because the shield takes one hand, and the bow two.

I want to make a custom weapon, combining a shield with a bow, like a bow attached to the shield (so my character is holding the shield/bow in one hand, and shooting the arrow with the other) My DM would allow the construction of such item, but I want to know what kind of interaction this will have with the rules.

I need to specify that in RP, my character will be ordering this weapon custom for him, for his needs. My goal is having the +2 AC, and still making ranged attacks.

I will be proficient with both a shield and a bow, but the combined item is a new weapon, not specified in my proficiencies… Is it reasonable to think that I can be proficient the combined item? What kind of balance can I expect of this kind of item?

## To find if a character is a delimiter

I have a function to check if a character is a delimiter and I wonder if it is consistent or can be improved:

int chDelimit(int ch) {     return         (ch == '\n' || ch == '\t') ||         (ch >= ' ' && ch <= '/') ||         (ch >= ':' && ch <= '@') ||         (ch >= '[' && ch <= '') ||         (ch >= '{' && ch <= '~') ||         (ch == ''); } `

## Inner product of a character

We let $$G$$ be a finite group.

If $$\chi$$ is a complex character of $$G$$, we define $$\overline{\chi}:G \to \mathbb{C}$$ by $$\overline{\chi}(g)=\overline{\chi(g)}$$ for all $$g \in G$$, and define $$\chi^{(2)}:G \to \mathbb{C}$$ by $$\chi^{(2)}(g) = \chi(g^2)$$. We write $$\chi_{S}$$ and $$\chi_{A}$$ for the symmetric and alternating part of $$\chi$$. We note that $$\chi_{S}$$ and $$\chi_{A}$$ are characters of $$G$$ with $$\chi^{(2)}=\chi_{S} + \chi_{A}$$ and $$\chi^{(2)}=\chi_{S} + \chi_{A}$$. We write

$$\nu(\chi):= \frac{1}{|G|}\displaystyle\sum_{g \in G}\chi(g^2)$$

for the Frobenius Schur Indicator.

First, let $$\chi_{1}$$ be the trivial character of $$G$$.=, i.e. $$\chi_{1}(g)=1$$ for all $$g \in G$$. We want to show that $$\langle \chi , \overline{\chi} \rangle= \langle \chi_{S},\chi_{1}\rangle + \langle \chi_{A}, \chi_{1} \rangle$$.

We have: $$\begin{split} \langle \chi , \overline{\chi} \rangle &= \frac{1}{|G|} \displaystyle\sum_{g \in G} \chi(g)\overline{\overline{\chi(g)}}\ &= \frac{1}{|G|} \displaystyle\sum_{g \in G} \chi(g)\chi(g)1\ &= \frac{1}{|G|}\displaystyle\sum_{g \in G} (\chi_{S}+\chi_{A})(g)1 \ &=\langle \chi_{S}+\chi_{A}, 1 \rangle \ &= \langle \chi_{S},1 \rangle +\langle \chi_{A} , 1 \rangle \ &= \langle \chi_{S},\chi_{1} \rangle +\langle \chi_{A} , \chi_{1} \rangle \end{split}$$

Is this correct?

Next, we let $$\chi$$ be irreducible. We want to show that $$\nu(\chi) \in \{-1,1\}$$ if $$\chi$$ is real-valued, and that $$\nu(\chi)=0$$ otherwise. Let us start from the ‘otherwise’ case first. We have:

$$\begin{split} \nu(\chi) &:=\frac{1}{|G|} \displaystyle\sum_{g \in G} \chi(g^2)\ &= \frac{1}{|G|} \displaystyle\sum_{g \in G} (\chi_{S}-\chi_{A})(g) \ &= \langle \chi_{S},\chi_{1} \rangle – \langle \chi_{A},\chi_{1} \rangle \ &= \langle \chi , \overline{\chi} \rangle – 2\langle \chi_{A} , \chi_{1} \rangle \end{split}$$

and I get stuck here. I think, for the ‘otherwise’ case, $$\langle \chi, \overline{\chi} \rangle = 0$$, because we assumed that $$\chi$$ is irreducible and so it follows that $$\overline{\chi}$$ is also irreducible and we also know the irreducible characters form an orthonormal basis (but is it for an arbitrary field?) and so it follows(?). For the real case we’d have that $$\langle \chi , \overline{\chi} \rangle = \langle \chi , \chi \rangle =1$$ from irreducibility of $$\chi$$, but then again, I am still not sure how to deal with $$1- 2\langle \chi_{A} , \chi_{1} \rangle$$…I’d very much appreciate some help.

## How might this homebrew undead hybrid character type unbalance combat compared to non-undead creatures?

About a week ago in-game (half a year IRL), a series of deadly events occurred resulting in two PCs becoming undead. One used to be a tabaxi, the other a high elf. Both of them are now undead versions of themselves: the tabaxi by making a pact with an neutral evil demi-god of the Death Plane and the other by dying and being resurrected during this pact-making process.

According to What are the mechanical consequences that arise for a PC with the undead creature type?

Undead type has no inherent mechanical effect in D&D 5e

So ever since these events happened, I’ve been finetuning the following homebrew traits.

# Characters that became undead

• Hybrid Nature.[*] You have two creature types: humanoid and undead. You can be affected by a game effect if it works on either of your creature types. For the humanoid traits, use your original race description.

• Undead Defenses. Vulnerable to radiant damage; Resistant to necrotic damage.

• Undying Resilience. Cannot be healed by conventional healing (e.g. spells, potions), but can sometimes be healed by cantrips from the necromancy school (such as Chill Touch). Make a Constitution save (with advantage) versus the spellcaster’s Spell Save DC. On a success, you are healed for the amount of damage dealt. On a fail, nothing happens.

• Desecration. Advantage on ability checks, saves and attack rolls while standing on a desecrated surface.

• Ill Will. 14th level necromancers can command you at will, while you automatically fail the first three Wisdom saves.

# Question

I’m trying to find a balance between benefits and downsides for becoming undead, so that undead humanoids are more powerful in combat than mere mortals, but not so strong (or without significant handicaps) that everyone wants to turn undead. My reasoning for this: with great risks come great rewards, but even greater downfalls. With “mere mortals” I mean (player) characters that are “just” humanoid while of the same level and class. So preferably the undead traits carry a danger to them, to keep the more careful characters (and players) from wanting to delve into such practice. Through interactions with the world setting and narration the dangers of undead seem clear to the players, but I’d like to emphasise this further through combat mechanics (of which some they can still discover).

The party has found out about all undead traits mentioned above, except from the final two (Desecration and Ill Will). I’m wondering whether I should add an additional benefit (such as a raised Constitution, or some other defense), and whether the desecrated grounds feature is too powerful already for a PC to have (as soon as they find out). I’m mostly wondering how the current undead hybrid type will unbalance combat at my table.

Other possibly relevant details regarding my campaign:

• Party composition (level 12): minotaur paladin of conquest, animated armor eldritch knight/wizard, undead tabaxi ranger/assassin/warlock, undead high elf mastermind, tiefling warlock.
• Every PC has Healing Surges.
• The main story arc heavily features undead creatures: mostly enemies but some (powerful) allies too
• The BBEG is a devil attempting to become a lich (so will also become undead as a result)
• From party level 15 onwards, an apocalyptic inter-planar war strikes down on the Material Plane (featuring mortals, angles, demi-gods, devils, necromancers and countless undead). The party is currently preparing for this coming war.
• Current allies of the party include an important figure within the clergy of Helm (one of the most popular gods in my world, though only this one cleric knows of their undead nature), some secret wizards, and the mentioned demi-god (undead necromancer) of the Death Plane.
• The organisation that hunts down the party consists of radical extremist paladins of Tempus that bring “redemption” to all magic users – they plan to slay ‘m all. These are adversaries by default, but some individuals could change their minds by the party’s initiative.

[*] based on Unearthed Arcana: Centaurs and Minotaurs

## What is the biggest/smallest range the same character can achieve?

Just for fun, I want to create a character who can vary from really tiny or smaller to huge or big.

Which is the bigger/smaller combination to create that “Ant Man” style char?

It can:

• Be from any race.
• Be from any class.
• Use any magical-item combination.
• Use temporary buffs/magic, but only if can use it himself. (Don’t need another player/NPC)
• Be level 20.

The more vanilla, the better

## Lack of character customisation options when levelling up [on hold]

One issue I have with D&D 5e is that I feel there’s really a lack of options when the character progresses. Don’t get me wrong, I like the concept of Bounded Accuracy as it makes room for epic situations where I can increase numbers as a challenge, instead of increasing levels, but I get the impression that once the player chooses a race + class + background, pretty much every level increase boils down to more hit points, better characteristics and an ability that is predefined for the class. Even with the inclusion of feats, I feel the characters are pretty much on a straight line with little room for the players to customise their character in non interpretative ways.

For example, if I’m interpreting the rules correctly, let’s say I create a pretty standard Dwarf Fighter. When I create the class, at Level 1, I get proficiency with all armours and all weapons and I get to choose two skills and a combat style. Then, at level 2, 5 and 9 I get a predefined new ability, there’s no choosing, I just get that one. At level 3 I get to choose a path, but still, once chosen it will follow from there with predefined advantages when I reach certain levels. My feeling is that every Warrior will be similar to each other, if two players choose to play a Fighter (even if they choose different races) they’ll end up with very similar characters from the capabilities point of view… Yes, they can personalise in background and history, but essentially I’ll have two players that can do more or less the same coming from different backgrounds.

The same logic applies to replayability. I have the feeling that running to adventures with two different warriors will feel exactly as if you were playing them with the same character all over again.

I have no experience actually playing the system so, is this just my misinterpretation of the rules or is it that lack of customisation real? If I’m misinterpreting the rules (I’ve reread over and over to try to find more flexible interpretations), are there any advice that you can give to make characters more flexible? Maybe an example of how two warriors starting at level 1 can be leveled up to look significantly different to each other.

To clarify, the main intent of the question is to verify if I’m misinterpreting or perceiving the rules wrongly and, in case I am, how to make character evolution appealing to players, as right now I can’t since it doesn’t look appealing to myself.

Example of answer would be: “Yes, that is a limitation of the system that streamlines character creation and ease of play” or “Not at all, you have the options to choose this and that and that will make your character significantly different at level 6 than if you had chosen this other advancement path”