Is a grappling character considered to be distracted for the purposes of an attack by a second opponent?

If a character is grappling a struggling opponent, and a second opponent attacks the character, would the DM rule that the distraction of dealing with the grappled opponent causes opponent number 2 to have Advantage on its attack?

I suppose it might depend on the nature of the Grapple. Merely grabbing an opponent by the wrist to impede his slingshot might leave you alert and ready to parry or dodge, but a more violent tussle, involving a grab with both arms would, I presume, leave you wide open for a whack from behind and thus at a Disadvantage versus a second opponent.

Even if you have followed up with a move to leave your grappled opponent Prone, I imagine that you are now kneeling, crouching or otherwise distorting your fighting stance in such a way (at least I cannot imagine that grappling a prone opponent can be done standing up) as to give a second opponent the Advantage.

I don’t see anything in the Rules (I have Essentials Kit Rulebook) covering this.

Would this enchanted bow be considered well balanced? [closed]

The idea of this bow is to adapt the idea of karma into the attacks. It absorbs some of the “bad karma” dealt by an enemy and is able to turn it into minor good karma, or impactful force damage. The effects have been slightly based on the Rod of Absorption, Absorb Elements, the spell provided, bow stabilizers, and my knowledge on karma.


Bow of Karma (any bow, attunement)

This elegant elvish bow was made with wood that grew in a graveyard: yew and ash limbs that are connected to an aspen riser (handle) which houses up to 20 jade orbs the size of peas. With the extra 1lbs weight, one can truly feel the weight of one’s actions using this bow, and strength in the archer’s resolve.

When the wielder is attacked by magic not exerted by the environment, the bow absorbs half the damage and stores it as pure energy within the jade orbs, filling one orb per the attack’s level and attributing 1/2 orb to cantrips and breath weapons. For the absorption to occur, at least one orb must be left empty.

If the archer is attuned to the bow, they can see dots of light along the limbs whenever an orb is filled and can use the energy as spell slots on the following spells, as long as they are equal to the wielder’s own level.

Spare the dying: 1 spell slot

self: When the wielder’s HP reaches 0, the bow automatically casts Spare the Dying on them as long as they have the bow in hand.

ally: with a direct line of attack within the bow’s normal range (distance range with sharpshooter feat), the wielder can cast this spell on any creature as if touching them, by dry loosing their bow.

Conjure Barrage 3 spell slots

This attack deals a cone of force damage at the bow’s normal range (distance range with sharpshooter feat) by loosing a mundane arrow. The blows are forceful enough to the creatures within the area of effect must succeed a DC17 saving throw or be stunned until their next turn.

Conjure Volley 5 spell slots

By shooting one mundane arrow in the air and picking an area of attack, a volley of force arrows descends with enough impact that the terrain becomes difficult to navigate. Each creature within the area of effect must make a DC 17 saving throw or be stunned until their next turn. If they are stunned, they become unconscious for the next 3 turns.

Additionally, this bow’s extra weight acts like a stabilizer, granting the archer +2 proficiency in attack rolls.


I was also thinking that casting Spare the Dying on an undead creature would break it free from their summoner’s control (if summoned through magic) and give them the option to either rest or seek revenge, but I think this would be an unsourced stretch.

All in all, I would like to know if this bow seems well balanced, if there are concepts I am missing in balancing a magical item, and if there are some concepts that would work better for such a bow.

How would you optimize a multiclass druid/monk for DPR assuming Natural Weapons are considered Unarmed Strikes?

Assuming that the Unarmored Defense, and Flurry of Blows features both work with the Druid’s Wild Shape feature, what is the optimal DPR build for a Druid/Monk multiclass, and what are the notable break points for this particular multiclass?

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.
PHB, page 67

Also assume that Natural Weapons are considered Unarmed Strikes, as per the the description of Alter Self:

Natural Weapons. You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose, and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
PHB, page 212

Given access to any appropriate Beast, as well as having the option to choose either:
a) Multi-attack from the Beast entry, or
b) Extra Attack from the appropriate Monk level
What is the highest DPR possible?

Other assumptions:

  • 27 Point Buy
  • Official D&D Content only, excluding Unearthed Arcana

Why is the Black-White Bakery Algorithm considered bounded?

As stated in Lamport’s papers for the bakery algorithm he states that the ticket numbers are unbounded specifically

The range of values of number is unbounded.

and

Fortunately, practical considerations will place an upper bound on the value of number[i] in any real application. For example, if processors enter the doorway at the rate of at most one per msec, then after a year of operation we will have number[i] < $ 2^{35}$ —assuming that a read of number[i] can never obtain a value larger than one which has been written there.

What I don’t understand is, why does Taubenfeld’s Black-White Bakery Algorithm solves this problem and thus considered bounded.

I see no reason why the usage of the extra color register would solve such a problem?

Thanks

What is considered “running water” for the vampire’s weakness?

I like a lot D&D vampires. I even bought curse of Strahd. But something I always wandered is “What is running water ?”

Rivers are running waters, since it is used as an exemple. But how about rain (no answers are given on the related question)? How about a bottle? How about peeing on a vampire? How about puddles?

related question:

Is rain considered Running Water for a Vampire’s weakness?

In what sense the computer program (Turing machine) can be considered as the complex system and its IIT Phi can be measured and improved?

I am reading https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-world-beyond-physics-9780190871338?cc=us&lang=en& about one approach of complex systems’ theory for the emergence of the life. It is about the autocatalytic soup of molecules from which the life can emerge. Of course, one is thinking further – every computer program, every Turing machine is more ore less autocatalytic soup of interacting software components from which the consciousness, mind and Artificial General Intelligence (https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jagi/jagi-overview.xml) can emerge.

Of course – ther program (Turing machine) should be of sufficient complexity for such consciousness to emerge – and such complexity/level of consciousness can be measured by Phi measure of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory .

My question is – how the theory of complex systems is applied to the software programs (including logic programs, sets of first order formulas, knowledge bases, functional programs, lambda terms), e.g. to derive the directions (modular organization, wealth of functionality, et.c) for evolving the programs into the programs with higher level of Phi, whith higer level of autonomy and consciousness? I presume, that consciousness is the driving force for the program to exhibit commonsense knowledge, for the capability to make generalizations and transfer skills among tasks (all those are very hot topics and deep learning community without almost any theory behind them). All these issues are the grails of current computer science and that is why my question is very applied in nature.

Currently computer programs and algorithms are developed in trial-and-error process. The development of software systems that are called cognitive architectures (http://bicasociety.org/cogarch/architectures.php) or that are called cognitive systems (http://www.cogsys.org/journal) is prominent features of such efforts. But maybe the theory of complex systems can be applied to such programs to determine why such programs exhibit or do not exhibit the capabilities of consciousness (as determined by IIT or any other computational theory of consciousness or mind – there are some others, academically sound) and what can be do on such programs to evolve them into capable systems with higher Phi. We have tried to design and program features but no cognitive architecture has achieved sufficient level of AGI. We can try still more harder. But maybe the theory of complex systems can provide some guidance to estimate the weak points and to provide some direction?

Just some reference for applying the theory of complex systems to the programs in the widest sense?

Would creating undead minions be considered an evil action in PFS, and therefore earn Infamy?

Would creating undead minions be considered an evil action in PFS, and therefore earn Infamy? I’m not keen on GMing for a necromancer or anti-paladin type character, but also don’t want to deny a player’s choices outright. It seems like a necromancer (sans undead minions) is distinctly different than someone with an undead horde. This line of questioning extends to fiendish summoning, etc.