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.

Using nested objects for pointers with Javascript – Design concept

So, I am designing some data structure and I am curious if there are anything that specifically advises against having multiple object pointers within one master object. I found questions about C++ and it definitely seems doable in js also. I have tested it and it works, but I am just curious if it just is a terrible programming no-no. If it indeed are some major drawbacks, can describe them for me? When should I not use such structure?

a={}; a.b={}; a.c={}; a.d={}; e={};  a.b.sub1={name: 'a.b.sub1'}; a.c.sub1={name: 'a.c.sub1'}; a.d.sub1={name: 'a.d.sub1'};  a.e.arr=[]; a.e.arr.push(a.b.sub1); a.e.arr.push(a.c.sub1); a.e.arr.push(a.d.sub1);  a.b.sub1={name: 'test'}; console.log(a.e.arr[0].name === 'test'); // true 

How did (in particular) Americans just go along with the concept of having to own and show “photo id” everywhere? [closed]

I remember hearing or seeing a documentary or something a “long” time ago, likely in the early 2000s, about how a lot of Americans (USAians) refused to show an “id” even when voting, where it might possibly be justified to demand some form of identification in order to prevent duplicate votes (if you believe in the concept of democracy in the first place, which is not on-topic for this question).

I also know for a fact that they never had to show IDs to board cruise ships and stuff, for the longest time.

Nowadays, you have to scan and send a photo id to many sites or services online, you can’t as much as collect a package at the post office (pre-paid, with the notification number with you) where I live (Europe), and you’d never be allowed to board any kind of ship or airplane or anything like that without them “verifying” exactly who you are. This seems to very much go for Americans as well.

They even have “facial recognition” and hi-tech x-rays showing you fully naked to the personnel and whoever gets access to their computer systems (massive leaks happen every day).

I wonder: how did this happen without anyone putting up any kind of fight? I could really, really use a vacation for the first time in my life, and it would be interesting to go on one of those huge cruise ships, but given that they not only charge through the nose for it, but demand that I show them photo id to board it (not just my ticket), it’s an impossibility to me.

I literally don’t own a photo id, and getting one would involve having to go to some government building and all kinds of scary (to me) stuff. It’s way more than not wanting to be tracked, which in itself should be enough as a reason for not playing along with this. I feel fundamentally violated having to “prove who I am”. I just have zero interest in doing so. I’m violently disinterested in being tracked by anyone, for any reason, anywhere.

So how did Americans, who traditionally have been extremely “freedom-loving”, just go along with this? I’m furious and steaming from just thinking about this, and I live in the “merry old oppressive Europe”… I can only imagine how many Americans must feel completely “trapped” wherever they live because everything requires you to have these photo ids.

Is re-skinning equipment a balanced approach for concept diversity?

Sometimes, it is quite difficult to make that one concept you want for your character.

My group quite often ends up in the situation that the concept one of them have in mind for their character doesn’t quite fit the rules, and you can’t really make that character work with what Pathfinder offers as-is, sometimes even with supplements and third-party material. To give a recent example:

  • A player wants to roll a tanky barbarian-like warrior focused on defending its group while wielding an axe and shield, but:
    • Doesn’t like Rage mechanics,
    • Wants to keep her character’s gear more savage-like, with heavy furs serving as the little clothing she’ll wear,
    • Wants to be able to protect her group and tank effectively, while being able to deal good damage,

An almost-perfect match for this is the warder. The class is very tanky, has good defensive mechanics, is very closely-related in power level to the rest of the group, and works nicely with sword and board.

But the warder uses plate armor, and it doesn’t fit the “visual concept” the player wants for her character.

To solve that, I created the Berserker’s Battle Furs. It is basically the same as a Full Plate in terms of stats:

Type: Heavy Armor

Cost: 1,500 gp;

Weight: 50 lbs.

Armor Bonus: +9;

Max Dex Bonus: +1;

Armor Check Penalty: -6

Arcane Spell Failure Chance: 35%;

Speed: 20 ft./15 ft.

…But it looks like a heavy set of fur bracers, boots, loincloth and cloak, more or less like the reference image. I used a lore explanation to justify the price and the stats, saying that it is made from the treated pelts of dire beasts. My only problem would be to time to don, since this is obviously easier to put over your body than a full suit of armor, and even so this situation comes up so rarely that it wouldn’t be a big deal.

This solved the issue at hand, the player got quite happy, and now our group has a barbarian-but-not-really defending the group as a wall of flesh, fur, and awesomeness.

This got me wondering – is this a balanced approach for giving my players more diversity regarding character concepts? Or am I going to shoot myself in the foot, like I did so many other times in the past, by not seeing something coming?