Are spirits an inherently magical concept?

The Geminate Invoker Barbarian archetype involves inviting spirits into your body to gain totem rage powers, but RAW nothing about it directly contradicts the Superstition tree of rage powers, which focuses on rejecting and sundering all sorts of spells and enchantments.

That being said, would a barbarian that hates magic but also lets spirits power him up be a walking contradiction of a class? Just how magical are spirits considered in a world of high fantasy?

Pathfinder warbow concept review

This is a review request for a warbow, intended for the Pathfinder system. The purpose behind the creation of this particular item was to allow the player to quest for a magic item that was not essentially useless at higher levels, but rather gained abilities as the PC gained levels and powers. It is a single occurring item, could possibly be considered as an artifact status, even though it is intended to be available starting at a low level, slanted towards a horizon walker or similar concept. Description and capabilities are as follows:

[Insert name here] was a distinguished ranger, well known for his willingness to protect those around him when the cause was just, regardless of the consequences to himself. Many of the tales that have grown around him have reached the status of unverifiable legend, but it is certain that his bow was a feared weapon among the unjust. It is rumored that he even ventured onto the Abyss and other planes to retrieve people stolen from their land.

Sometime after he retired, he returned to his woodland home to find his wife murdered, and son missing from their house. Taking up his bow once more, he ventured forth to rescue his son. It is unknown what actually happened, but his son was returned, and […] and his bow were never seen again. Most believe that he either perished, or made a trade with an infernal being to exchange himself for his son.

Many people claim to have either seen or wielded his bow after that, but none of these have been confirmed, and few even believe that the bow existed, counting it as another fantastical tale that surrounds his legacy.

DESCRIPTION

[Insert name here] Warbow is dark wood intricately carved with arcane runes, and glows with a faint amber glow in dim light. A white leather grip is secured to the bow with three silver bands, one each at the top, middle and bottom of the grip. To successfully utilize […] Warbow to its fullest potential, a character must fulfill the following requirements:

Feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Far Shot*, Planar favored terrain** (Edit for clarification: The planar terrain relates only to the planar shift aspect).

Skills Craft (bowyer) 4 ranks, Spellcraft 4 ranks

ABILITIES TABLE

\begin{array}{c c l} \textbf{Character Level} & \textbf{Weapon Level} & \textbf{Weapon Effect} \ \hline 1^\text{st}-2^\text{nd} & 1^\text{st} & \textit{+1 adaptive war bow} \ 3^\text{rd}-4^\text{th} & 2^\text{nd} & \text{Activation ring }\textit{spell storing, minor} \ 5^\text{th}-6^\text{th} & 3^\text{rd} & \text{Enhance arrows} \ 7^\text{th}-8^\text{th} & 4^\text{th} & \text{Minor displacement (as }\textit{blur}\text{)} \ 9^\text{th}-10^\text{th} & 5^\text{th} & \textit{+1 adaptive distance* war bow} \ 11^\text{th}-12^\text{th} & 6^\text{th} & \text{Activation ring }\textit{spell storing, regular} \ 13^\text{th}-14^\text{th} & 7^\text{th} & \textit{Plane shift}\text{,** 3/day} \ 15^\text{th}-16^\text{th} & 8^\text{th} & \text{Imbue arrow} \ 17^\text{th}-18^\text{th} & 9^\text{th} & \text{Phase arrow} \ 19^\text{th}-20^\text{th} & 10^\text{th} & \text{Activation ring }\textit{spell storing, major} \ \end{array}

1: +1 adaptive: At first level, the bow gains the +1 adaptive quality. Bow is +1 to hit/damage, and Strength bonus applies as well.

2: Spell Storing (Su): At third level, activation of the first ring occurs. This ring activates and functions as a ring of spell storing, minor.

3: Enhance Arrows (Su): Each non-magical arrow fired gains +1, and one of the flaming, shock or burst attributes.

4: Minor Displacement (Su): When wielded, the weapon distorts light as a cloak of displacement, minor, resulting in 20% miss chance on attacks against the wielder.

5: Distance (Su): Every arrow fired by the bow gains the distance quality. *Note: For this to be used, wielder must have the Far Shot feat. If this is not available, this ability lies dormant until it is acquired.

6: Spell Storing (Su): Activation of the second ring occurs. This functions as a ring of spell storing, regular.

7: Plane Shift (Su): At 13 th level, the leather wrap darkens and close inspection reveals swirls. This can be used to activate and take up to 8 linked people as in the spell plane shift. If the shift is to a favored terrain, the bow grants the wielder the ability to natively survive while in possession. In addition, the accuracy is 1-10 miles from target. In other planes, normal accuracy and conditions apply. **Note: The wielder must have a plane as a favored terrain. If this is not available, the ability lies dormant until it is available.

8: Imbue Arrow (Su): The bow grants the ability to infuse any non-magical arrow with either a known or stored area of effect spell. This spell will activate on any hit. If the result of the attack is a miss, the spell is lost without activation.

9: Phase Arrow (Su): The wielder can launch an arrow 2x per day at a target known to him within range, and the arrow travels to the target in a straight path, passing through any nonmagical barrier or wall in its way. (Any magical barrier stops the arrow.) This ability negates cover, concealment, armor, and shield modifiers, but otherwise the attack is rolled normally.

10: Spell Storing (Su): Activation of the third ring occurs. This functions as a ring of spell storing, major.

Aura moderate abjuration; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must possess the arcane pool quality; Price +5 bonus.

I would like to determine if this is a logical progression, or if it is not enough in the beginning progressing to overpowered at the high end?

Is a character level an abstract concept, or a literal? [duplicate]

This question was inspired (at least in my head) by this wish question. Namely, wishing for higher levels.

One reason wishes for levels don’t work is because many DM’s say that a player is meta-gaming if they talk about "levels". But I wonder if levels are truly a abstract concept.

In game, a character would not understand things like experience points, hit points, ability scores, and terms like that. These are what I would call abstract–They are concepts we use as players to describe and work within the parameters of the 5e (and other systems) rules.

But levels have very specific traits attached to to them. The player gains more hit points, so yes, that part is still abstract and is reflected by the ability to withstand more punishment. But there are features that are determined (or even defined) by level such as extra attacks, new feats, ability to learn and use new spells. The list goes on. There is a direct correlation between these features/abilities and level.

In martial arts, there is the definitive marker of experience; the belt. In scouting there are merit badges. In the military there are ranks. These are what I would refer to as literal–proof of experience and training.

A 1st-level Fighter is a white belt, and a 20th-level Battle Master is a black belt and there would be stages in between. A 1st-level Ranger is a Cub Scout and a 20th-level Ranger is an "Arrow of Light". You get the idea.

So I’m asking, in 5e, is "level" (not XP) an abstract or a literal?

Does this character concept involving never taking a long rest and converting spell slots to sorcery points (aka coffeelock) violate RAW?

Does the following, very cheesy character concept, violate any RAW? Please cite rules or official rulings in your answer. (Apart from RAW, I expect my DM to disallow or limit the concept, in the interest of balance. That is not part of my question.)

Elf. Multiclass: Sorcerer 2+ / Warlock 1+ / Bard 1

  • Never takes a long rest. Ever. See question, Must 5e elves take a long rest? Specifically, whether adventuring or not, she makes sure that every 8 hour block includes more than 2 hours of combat or strenuous activity, to ensure that no interpretation of long rest rules would allow a long rest to be automatically triggered.
  • Converts warlock spell slots into sorcery points. See @JeremyECrawford’s tweet.
  • Converts sorcery points into sorcery spell slots (or into spellcasting spell slots, once also multiclassing Bard) via Flexible Casting
  • Spell slots created from sorcery points disappear upon long rest, as per Flexible Casting and a tweet from @JeremyECrawford; therefore these created spell slots will not disappear until used, e.g. for a character taking no long rests
  • Spell slots created from sorcery points are in addition to, and not restoration of the sorcerer’s spell slots which refresh on a long rest. This is not 100% clear from RAW or clarifications. But:
    (a) Flexible Casting uses the phrase, “additional Spell Slots”;
    (b) the rule stating that created spell slots disappear on long rests is superfluous if created spell slots can only replace expended spell slots — to have meaning it must be possible to create spell slots which are not replacements;
    (c) flexible casting does not use the word “recover”, which is the word used for wizards’ Arcane Recovery
  • Restores warlock spell slots on a short rest, and repeats the cycle above, converting warlock spell slots to sorcery points to sorcerer (or spellcasting) spell slots
  • During periods of downtime, takes as many short rests per day as permissible, to build up a stockpile of created sorcerer spell slots
  • Stockpiling requires using bonus actions out of combat, discussed elsewhere
  • Stockpiling requires having short rests on downtime days, discussed in a comment below
  • While adventuring, during combat, uses created spell slots to cast spells, and/or uses flexible casting to convert those spell slots back into sorcery points
  • While adventuring, after combat, will use created spell slots with Bard spells to restore hits points, since restoring hit points via long rest is unavailable, and via hit dice is mostly unavailable

I’m pretty sure this is not RAI, but does it violate RAW in some way?

Is escaping a concept in CS?

I understand "escaping data" as making an exception when matching data; for example, if a program can’t match data wrapped in single and/or double quotes without an exception, than we make an exception, "escaping" such characters to be matched.

Is escaping a concept in CS?
Is it "part of how any computer would work" or just a technical implementation in human-developed programming languages?

Is unary machine code a concept?

Please assume for the sake of this session that humans can fluently read and understand machine languages and time isn’t a problem in that regard.

I, not a computer scientist, would at least theorize that a unary machine language is possible but might just be much "less comfortable" than binary machine language.

Is unary machine code a concept?

Intuition behind the entire concept of Fibonacci Heap operations

The following excerpts are from the section Fibonacci Heap from the text Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen et. al


The potential function for the Fibonacci Heaps $ H$ is defined as follows:

$ $ \Phi(H)=t(H)+2m(H)$ $

where $ t(H)$ is the number of trees in the root list of the heap $ H$ and $ m(H)$ is the number of marked nodes in the heap.

Before diving into the Fibonacci Heap operations the authors try to convince us about the essence of Fibonacci Heaps as follows:

The key idea in the mergeable-heap operations on Fibonacci heaps is to delay work as long as possible. There is a performance trade-off among implementations of the various operations.($ \color{green}{\text{I do not get why}}$ ) If the number of trees in a Fibonacci heap is small, then during an $ \text{Extract-Min}$ operation we can quickly determine which of the remaining nodes becomes the new minimum node( $ \color{blue}{\text{why?}}$ ). However, as we saw with binomial heaps, we pay a price for ensuring that the number of trees is small: it can take up to $ \Omega (\lg n)$ time to insert a node into a binomial heap or to unite two binomial heaps. As we shall see, we do not attempt to consolidate trees in a Fibonacci heap when we insert a new node or unite two heaps. We save the consolidation for the $ \text{Extract-Min}$ operation, which is when we really need to find the new minimum node.


Now the problem which I am facing with the text is that they dive into proving the amortized cost mathematically using the potential method without going into the vivid intuition of the how or when the "credits" are stored as potential in the heap data structure and when it is actually used up. Moreover in most of the places what is used is "asymptotic" analysis instead of actual mathematical calculations, so it is not quite possible to conjecture whether the constant in $ O(1)$ for the amortized cost ( $ \widehat{c_i}$ ) is greater or less than the constant in $ O(1)$ for the actual cost ($ c_i$ ) for an operation.


$ $ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|} \hline \text{Sl no.}&\text{Operation}&\widehat{c_i}&c_i&\text{Method of cal. of $ \widehat{c_i}$ }&\text{Cal. Steps}&\text{Intuition}\ \hline 1&\text{Make-Fib-Heap}&O(1)&O(1)&\text{Asymptotic}&\Delta\Phi=0\text{ ; $ \widehat{c_i}=c_i=O(1)$ } &\text{None}\ \hline 2&\text{Fib-Heap-Insert}&O(1)&O(1)&\text{Asymptotic}&\Delta\Phi=1 \text{ ; $ \widehat{c_i}=c_i=O(1)+1=O(1)$ } &\text{None}\ \hline 3&\text{Fib-Heap-Min}&O(1)&O(1)&\text{Asymptotic}&\Delta\Phi=0;\text{ ; $ \widehat{c_i}=c_i=O(1)$ } &\text{None}\ \hline 4&\text{Fib-Heap-Union}&O(1)&O(1)&\text{Asymptotic}&\Delta\Phi=0;\text{ ; $ \widehat{c_i}=c_i=O(1)$ } &\text{None}\ \hline 5&\text{Fib-Extract-Min}&O(D(n))&O(D(n)+t(n))&\text{Asymptotic}&\Delta\Phi=D(n)-t(n)+1 &\text{$ \dagger$ }\ \hline 6&\text{Fib-Heap-Decrease-Key}&O(1)&O(c)&\text{Asymptotic}&\Delta\Phi=4-c &\text{$ \ddagger$ }\ \hline \end{array}$ $


$ \dagger$ – The cost of performing each link is paid for by the reduction in potential due to the link’s reducing the number of roots by one.

$ \ddagger$ – Why the potential function was defined to include a term that is twice the number of marked nodes. When a marked node $ у$ is cut by a cascading cut, its mark bit is cleared, so the potential is reduced by $ 2$ . One unit of potential pays for the cut and the clearing of the mark bit, and the other unit compensates for the unit increase in potential due to node $ у$ becoming a root.


Moreover the authors deal with a notion of marking the nodes of Fibonacci Heaps with the background that they are used to bound the amortized running time of the $ \text{Decrease-Key}$ or $ \text{Delete}$ algorithm, but not much intuition is given behind their use of it. What things shall go bad if we do not use markings or use $ \text{Cacading-Cut}$ when the number of children lost from a node is not just $ 2$ but possibly more. The excerpt corresponding to this is as follows:

We use the mark fields to obtain the desired time bounds. They record a little piece of the history of each node. Suppose that the following events have happened to node $ x$ :

  1. at some time, $ x$ was a root,
  2. then $ x$ was linked to another node,
  3. then two children of $ x$ were removed by cuts.

As soon as the second child has been lost, we cut $ x$ from its parent, making it a new root. The field $ mark[x]$ is true if steps $ 1$ and $ 2$ have occurred and one child of $ x$ has been cut. The Cut procedure, therefore, clears $ mark[x]$ in line $ 4$ , since it performs step $ 1$ . (We can now see why line $ 3$ of $ \text{Fib-Heap-Link}$ clears $ mark[y]$ : node $ у$ is being linked to another node, and so step $ 2$ is being performed. The next time a child of $ у$ is cut, $ mark[y]$ will be set to $ \text{TRUE}$ .)


Strictly I do not get the intuition behind the $ mark$ in the above block text especially the logic of doing the stuff in bold-italics.

[EDIT: The intuition of why to use the marking in the way stated was made clear to me by the lucid answer here, but I still do not get the cost benefit which we get using markings]


Note: It is quite a difficult question in the sense that it involves the description the problem which I am facing to understand the intuition behind the concept of Fibonacci Heap operations which is in fact related to an entire chapter in the CLRS text. If it demands too much in a single then please do tell me then I shall split it accordingly into parts. I have made my utmost attempt to make the question the clear. If at places the meaning is not clear, then please do tell me then I shall rectify it. The entire corresponding portion of the text can be found here. (Even the authors say that it is a difficult data structure, having only theoretical importance.)

Witch Character Concept [closed]

I am going to be playing in a Tomb of Annihilation game and I wanted to play a kind of witch/shaman native of Chult. How would you go about doing this? What I kind of have in mind is a Tiefling (rebranded as a witch human) Druid/Warlock. The reason I chose tiefling is I’d like the witch to have some sort of innate magic, as well as resistance to fire (and I later plan to take Infernal Constitution from XGtE for other resistances as well) My leveling would be something like Lock 8 Druid 3 at the end. Do you have any other suggestions? If not, what spells would you use for a witch?

To clarify, what I am looking for is a sort of creepy shaman from the jungle, who the tribes folk would go to for healing or to hire to curse an enemy. Think Calypso from Pirates of the Caribbean.

What is the origin of the Leadership concept in D&D?

In 3.5 D&D there is a Leadership Feat. It allows you to gain a cohort and some followers, a whole bunch of followers if your score is high enough.

But, what is the origin of this Leadership concept in D&D, where did this idea of leading a whole group of people come from, and why is this even an option given that most games seem to revolve around only the player characters rather than characters + groupies? That would be a whole lot of people to keep track of if every player character was a leader!

I would like to know about the background and history of this concept in D&D, or is it new to the 3.5 edition?

Is there a concept of prepared spells for clerical sidekicks in D&D 5th edition? [closed]

Is there a concept of prepared spells for clerical sidekicks in D&D 5th edition?

Сan Acolyte or the same Spellcaster Sidekick with clerical flavour know more spells than they do according to the "known spells" in Unearthed Arcana (UA) description? As much as Cleric: prepares a lot uses a little.

In particular, Acolyte has a class of Spellcaster, at the start he has a list of known spells (3 of the 1st level) and slots (3 of the 1st level), but the Cleric with the same abilities and with the 2nd level (according to UA) must have 6 prepared spells and 3 1st level slots.