Am I overreacting or seeing things where they don’t exist?

I am a new D&D player and was having a blast playing with my friends. We are all new to this, including our GM, and it’s been so much fun. When we do critical hits, he plays a Power Ranger-like song and we all celebrate with this silly dance.

Anyway, I liked it so much that I reached out for a new group so I could play more. I did find a new one that was currently in progress and the story that was presented to me as a brief discord pinned text was something like: there’s a church order that exist to maintain order in the world and fight against evil.

Seeing this description and that the group that I was entering (there are like, 3 groups that share a common world) had no healing source, I decided to make a cleric to heal them. My boyfriend, who is also new to the game, made an Elf wizard.

The GM then gave me an important letter to deliver to some city and to stop by in a small village that the other players happen to be there. I was attacked and eventually we all met each other. Long story short, they were two tieflings and a barbarian. My boyfriend dropped unconscious and the barbarian stole his items, the tieflings despised me for being anti-christ or something like that, almost tried to kill me. The DM then made a demon appear on some church and told the other players that all that fight was happening because of something that I was carrying, which was the letter that I had to send to the other city. The barbarian took the letter from me and read that the church was going to kill those who were not pure blood in the church or something like that. I actually thought that was a cool way to put the story together, from the game perspective. The demon then asked if they would join their side which they accepted without much hesitation.

Now, please, enlighten me.
My first reflection was that those guys were playing selfishly. My boyfriend did get healed by one of them but he didn’t got his stolen crossbow back. They even stole his robe. We all just met that day and maybe I was expecting more… group behaviour, you know? I had this assumption that we were bonding as a group and should do stuff together.

Anyway, should I have just told something like “you know what? forget that I’m actually good and let’s just go to the demon side, even though I’m only alive because of the church” and tell my bf just to put those acts of stealing all in the past, that we should move on to carry on with the group.

I even tried to stop them from stealing from him, but they threw an axe next to me and they were all lvl 3.

There were 2 DMS, one was watching so he could help the group later. After the session, they kinda congratulated the barbarian because of her roleplay. I felt I was in a harsh position for my character to do anything at all and I just couldn’t imagine get going after what they did to my BF. He seemed actually less upset than myself but I found that extremely disrespectful. How we are supposed to play in a group if we are not a group? Two of the players were new to the game as well.

I couldn’t actually look at them with the same eyes after the session too. I mean, to some degree (and most of it) you ARE your character, right?

Needless to say I got really frustrated by this experience and thought that RPG was just fun because I was doing with my friends in the first place… we all share loot, gold, experience… on my first group, we had to feed people to a demon and there’s a girl who is good and she couldn’t stand it so she just didn’t look, because it was our only way of leaving the dungeon.

I am pretty confused right now… would you guys kindly give me some clarification?

Are there any models of operating systems which don’t require rings of privileges, that are also secure?

I am working on a simple operating system in JavaScript and have noticed that there are two kinds of processes: the “main” process (or “kernel” process), and all the other processes. Basically they are implemented completely differently (which makes sense). But I’m wondering if you could reuse some of the logic and just have it all be one type of process. Do any operating systems do this? If so, what do they do? If not, why not?

Modifying insert and remove functions of an AVL tree so that nodes that don’t need to be rebalanced are not checked for balance

Trying to modify an insert and remove function for an AVL Tree so that no nodes are checked for balance that do not need to be. The suggested way to do was was to change the return types of insert, remove and balance, so that they return information about whether more balance checking is needed. In the case of insert, we know that after one node is rebalanced, no other node will need rebalancing. We can let balance(t) return true if the node t was rebalanced and false otherwise. Then insert should also return a bool value to notify nodes further up the tree that no more rebalancing is required.

 void insert( const Comparable & x, AvlNode * & t )     {         if( t == nullptr )             t = new AvlNode{ x, nullptr, nullptr };         else if( x < t->element )             insert( x, t->left );         else if( t->element < x )             insert( x, t->right );          balance( t );     }  void remove( const Comparable & x, AvlNode * & t )     {         if( t == nullptr )             return;   // Item not found; do nothing          if( x < t->element )             remove( x, t->left );         else if( t->element < x )             remove( x, t->right );         else if( t->left != nullptr && t->right != nullptr ) // Two children         {             t->element = findMin( t->right )->element;             remove( t->element, t->right );         }         else         {             AvlNode *oldNode = t;             t = ( t->left != nullptr ) ? t->left : t->right;             delete oldNode;         }          balance( t );     }   void balance( AvlNode * & t )     {         if( t == nullptr ) return;          cout << "balancing <" << height(t->left) << "> " << t->element << " <" << height(t->right) << ">" << endl ;          if( height( t->left ) - height( t->right ) > ALLOWED_IMBALANCE )             if( height( t->left->left ) >= height( t->left->right ) )                 rotateWithLeftChild( t );             else                 doubleWithLeftChild( t );         else         if( height( t->right ) - height( t->left ) > ALLOWED_IMBALANCE )             if( height( t->right->right ) >= height( t->right->left ) )                 rotateWithRightChild( t );             else                 doubleWithRightChild( t );          t->height = max( height( t->left ), height( t->right ) ) + 1;     }  

I am stuck on how to do this. Would I be adding “return true” after any of the following calls: rotateWithLeftChild( t ), doubleWithLeftChild( t), rotateWithRightChild( t ), doubleWithRightChild( t ) and false otherwise? If someone could point me towards the right direction, it would be appreciated

Can you counterspell a spell if you don’t know who’s casting it?

Related to this question about a spellcaster hiding in a group of spellcasters.

The reaction trigger for counterspell is “when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell”. It has a range, but no target.

Suppose the Death Eaters all start chanting and waving their wands at once, and I can’t tell which of them is really casting the spell. But one of them is a creature casting a spell within 60 feet, and I do see it (because I see them all). Can I counterspell “whoever”, or do I have to aim for one of them specifically?

(If you want mechanical details, assume all but one of the mages readied this action: “When any other Death Eater chants and waves their wand, chant and wave my wand.” Then one of them started casting a V, S, M spell. Also assume the whole thing isn’t a bluff, which would be a different scenario.)

How can I DM a long fall that should be lethal if my players don’t do anything to save themselves? [on hold]

I am planning a short campaign in DnD 5e that starts out with my players imprisoned upon an airship. The airship gets attacked, and all passengers are hurled towards the ground from a substantial height (more than 3000ft).

A few key points:

  • These are 16th-level characters (because we want to do a high-level adventure). I won’t tell my players that they “should” or “might take” magical starting equipment or spells that give them flying speed etc.
  • They are stripped of their equipment (because they were imprisoned, by even stronger characters)
  • the fall should be lethal, if they do not intervene. I’m considering moving the damage cap for falling up for this very reason (I plan to use the “a creature falls 500 ft at the start of a round” rule). I want to avoid the “raging barbarian just fell out of the sky and just tanks the impact” scenario, if possible.

My current ideas are as follows:

  • the cargo from the ship – that contains their equipment, which they can recover later in the campaign – also includes Scrolls of Feather Fall. The scrolls are scattered in the air around them and can be grabbed and used. This has the caveat that Feather Fall is only on the Bard’s, Sorcerer’s, and Wizard’s spell list, so if we don’t have one player with this class, RAW they cannot read this scroll
  • a player could grab a sail from the airship and use it as a improvised parachute – this is probably far out of the rules, but I might rule this as a DC 20 Acrobatics or Athletics check?
  • the players can attempt to fall into water, a lake or something similar. This will reduce their damage, but might still kill them.

So, are there any good solutions for this scenario that – work for (almost) all classes or – let one player save the whole party or – somehow negate the fall damage otherwise?

I got an HCI assignment from my lecturer, and I don’t understand it

There were two assignments I’d got. The another one I could do it, but not this one( which is shown on this post). I don’t know how to give the examples for the description in the assignment by applying those 2 things( the cognitive in a reaction time task and the findings of 7(+2)) given from it. Could anyone give me for some hints or solutions? I’ve searched the information on the Google to make an apply for the answer, but it still didn’t make any sense for me. enter image description here

Can a PC cursed with lycanthropy voluntarily shapeshift if they don’t embrace the curse?

Recently, I wrote an answer to this question: When does a character cursed with lycanthropy become aware that they are cursed?

At the end of the answer, I pointed out that the character’s alignment will only change if the character embraces the curse, as outlined in the sidebar in the Monster Manual, p. 207:

If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope.

However, on p. 206, it states:

By resisting the curse, a lycanthrope retains its normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form.

I interpreted this to mean that someone resisting the curse cannot voluntarily shapeshift. However, I could not point to anything to back this up, since it seems that, according to the sidebar, they simply gain the traits of a lycanthrope, which includes the Shapechanger trait.

Can a PC cursed with lycanthropy but who is choosing to resist the curse voluntarily shapeshift (i.e. use the Shapechanger trait)?

I say “voluntarily” just to exclude the “full moon” scenario; that’s not what I’m asking about here.

Why don’t raytracing algorithms include the speed of light?

From what I understand about ray-tracing, it is instantaneous in its speed from the light source to the user. Is there a type of ray-tracing where the “rays” move at the speed of light or are affected by gravity? Such methods would be useful in simulating large scale systems (like planets).

Also, can the same method be applied to sound?

How can I improve combat so my players don’t always use the strategy of focusing fire on one enemy at a time until it’s dead?

I’m DMing a campaign on 5e with a group of four players. We’re all experienced in RPG in general but not specifically on 5e.

Players are Level 4. Wizard, Fighter, Rogue and Druid, Circle of the Moon.

My players have come to the conclusion that, given the mechanics of the game, is much more effective to focus all the fire power on a creature at a time and avoid spreading damage. Their logic is it really doesn’t matter if a creature has 1 or 80 HP left, as longs a it has over 0, he has all capacity to do damage. In effect, creatures are binary, they are either alive and therefore have full capacity to act, or death, in which case they don’t.

Unfortunately I agree with this assessment but I feel it makes the game less fun. Not because I’m looking for super realistic combat but because it limits the combat strategy to “drop them one at a time”.

As such, they tend to not distribute their efforts or engage separately but, instead, swarm into a single enemy, concentrate all the attacks and then move to the next. This feels to me like the more effective tactic but also the least “fun” and role playing way of doing combat.

Is my players interpretation wrong or am I handling the combat in the wrong way? What am I missing?