In a mechanics and lore perspective is this reasonable customized dragon mechanics [duplicate]

I am working on the first main antagonist for my campaign a DnD 5th edition

This will be a green or blue dragon who has the ability to shape change into a human and is a magic user.

The dragon will be attempting to gather magical knowledge, spell books, arcane items etc therefore gathering strength and becoming harder for the party to combat as the campaign progresses. Initially appearing as an ally.

My question is that I know there is an arcane dragon archetype in the monster manual but these dragons seem to have inherent magic much like a sorceror as opposed to learnt. I am looking for my dragon to have some inherent magical ability strengthened by utilizing spells more like a wizard, having an ever growing list of available spells that grows as it gains more knowledge but needing to prepare a set amount each day based on its development.

In terms of either Current or historic DnD lore and mechanics are there examples of dragons learning spells in this way, gathering a magical Arsenal in the same way as a wizard would and growing in terms of magical ability over time by learning new knowledge? Am happy if the lore or mechanics ideas come from older editions of DnD that I can tweak to fit in with 5th edition.

I am specifically looking to see if there is any precedent I can work from to try and make this more balanced as the campaign progresses.

Unarmored Defense (Barbarian plus sorcerer plus monk) [duplicate]

If there is a level 3 Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer, with a level in Barbarian for Unarmored Defense, and another level in Monk, for a 5th level character in total, would their total AC be 13 + CON + DEX + WIS? What if this character was also a warforged, with +1 to AC, +2 to Constitution, and +1 to Intelligence, Strength, or Dexterity?

Could a 5th level character do that in the first place? If so, does Unarmored Defense stack in that way?

Can you Greenflame Blade / Booming Blade with a Shield? [duplicate]

Both these cantrips want a weapon as the material Component, and then later want a weapon attack. However if you are an Arcana Cleric (learns a wizard cantrip), and as a cleric you can use your shield as the spellcasting focus (ignoring the 1st requirement).

But can the shield be considered an improvised weapon for the 2nd requirement?

Can True Strike give me specific information about my target’s defenses? [duplicate]

The True Strike cantrip provides:

You point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn’t ended.

There’s another thread on this site discussing the cases in which casting this spell might make sense. Implicit in these arguments seems to be the idea that the "brief insight" granted by the spell is not useful in itself. It occurred to me that such insight could be useful in itself if it granted knowledge of specific details that might be useful for higher-order tactical or strategic planning outside of just getting Advantage on the next turn.

Does the brief insight granted by True Strike provide access to specific details about the target’s defenses, or is the language simply an explanation of how the player gains Advantage? An example could be where I don’t particularly need to gain Advantage on my next roll, but I want to know whether that bandit over there is concealing any weapons or wands underneath his cloak.

If the first case is true, a DM might report,

Ok, you cast True Strike at the cloaked bandit. He has knives hidden in each of his boots, and is carrying two wands of Fireball and one of Magic Missile in the sack over his shoulder. The walking stick he is carrying conceals a three-foot double-edged sword. He is resistant to lightning damage though a spell that seems to have been cast on him, but you would need a more powerful spell than True Strike to identify the exact spell or source. If you still have concentration at the start of your next turn, you will have Advantage in attacking.

Can magic missile be considered both 1 damage roll and several? [duplicate]

While 99% of the time this doesn’t matter if you roll several dice or just the 1 dice for all the darts, a player did something which seems contradictory and knowing the true answer to this would clear up a lot of uncertainty.

They cast magic missile after using Hexblade’s curse, to add their prof to each damage roll. Then after used the Empowered Metamagic to reroll the 1 for all the darts, into a 4, and topped it all of with the wizards Empowered Evocation to add their INT to the dart.

The way I see this the Hexblades curse would only work several times if you were treating each of the darts individually, by rolling them out separately. This would have the benefit that the Lore Bards cutting words can’t cut the damage down to zero as effortlessly, by cutting the 1 dart that is multiplied down to 0.

But if treated as an AOE the Empower Metamagic and wizards Empowered Evocation would work. This also matters immensely when considering how magic missile works on damage thresholds (others have answered, and it seems to contradict again).

So my question which way does it work?

Do negative modifiers change a critical hit? [duplicate]

I want to play a champion fighter and am considering whether or not to get the Great Weapon Master Feat which states:

Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a – 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attackā€™s damage.

If I take the -5 to attack roll and roll a critical hit, will that crit still be in effect, or will the -5 counteract that? Also, in the event that I do crit with a -5, would I add the +10 damage before, or after I double damage, like with other modifiers. It doesn’t say that the +10 is a modifier specifically, so I was a bit confused (note: for critical hits, my group usually has house-rule to double the damage and then add modifiers instead of the normal double dice.)

Can we say that CA produces the hash of TBSCertificate and then encrypt it instead of signing it? [duplicate]

CA signs the TBSCertificate, this is a pretty known fact.

Signing m means producing the hash value of m then encrypting m. For example: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_algorithm#Signing_messages

Does this apply to signing certificates?

Here the answerer says:

The most important is that both your encrypt boxes are wrong, they should say sign.