Action per target to initiate VS Edge

In the Cypher System rulebook, somes abilities (like Accelerate Third Tier Speaker) say instead of dealing efforts to decrase the difficulty, you can use it to affect more targets, but you must spend one action per target, and so one target per turn only.

But you can reduce cost with Edge, why would you make those efforts since you can just use the ability each turn, each time for one target, and each time using Edge to reduce.

To what extent would using the initiative system from Edge of the Empire in 5e break the game?

I’ve been checking out Star Wars – Edge of the Empire and I really like the initiative system used in it.

… Once all Initiative checks have been made, the CM notes down the results of each check and ranks them in order, from highest number of successes to lowest number of successes.

STEP 2: ASSIGN INITIATIVE SLOTS

Once the GM has determined the Initiative order, he notes which results were generated by Player Characters, and which results were generated by NPCs. The results generated by Player Characters become Player Character Initiative slots. The results generated by NPCs become NPC Initiative slots.

STEP 3: PARTICIPANTS TAKE TURNS

Beginning at the top of the Initiative order, the players and CM fill each Initiative slot one at a time with a character turn. If the Initiative slot is a Player Character Initiative slot, then the players agree on one Player Character to fill the slot from amongst the Player Characters who have not acted that round. That Player Character then takes this turn. If the Initiative slot is an NPC Initiative slot, then the CM chooses one NPC to fill the slot from amongst the NPCs who have not acted that round. That NPC then takes this turn.

In essence, players roll initiative ‘slots’ that can then be used by any player to take their turns each round.

I’m considering implementing this in my 5e campaign, as I’m not a huge fan of the static initiative rules they currently have. Players would roll for initiative as normal, but then would be able to freely choose their turn order within the rolled slots.

I realize this would be a significant step up in power for the PCs, as they would be able to much more consistently pull off synergies between classes that are highly dependent on turn order (eg. barbarian knocks enemy prone and rogue can get the sneak attack before the enemy stands back up), as well as increasing the potential effects of ‘until end of next turn’ features (eg. monk going first on round 1, using stunning strike, then going last on turn 2 so the enemy is effectively stunned for 2 rounds). However, I plan to combat this by having enemies able to use the same system to gain similar advantages.

My aim is to enable tactical choices regarding turn order and initiative, beyond those of the base rules.

Considering the above, to what extent would using this initiative system break/unbalance the game? I’m fine with an overall increase in power level, as I can adjust encounters etc. to suit but I’d like to avoid upsetting the class balance if possible.

Cost of Numenera “Disrupting Touch” ability if player has Edge in both Speed and Might?

Disrupting Touch is an ability that can only be used when the player has already declared a use of the “Phase Sprint” ability. The Player’s Handbook states for Phase Sprint:

Note that some of your other special abilities enable specific actions that you can take while using Phase Sprint. For instance, when using Disrupting Touch, you can make one touch attack while moving…”

and for Phase Sprint

You can turn your Phase Sprint into a melee attack by purposefully grazing another creature as you run.

The character in question has an Edge of 1 in Speed and an Edge of 1 in Might.

So the question is, are these played in combat as two actions, or one, and how is the cost paid? Is it:

  1. Phase Sprint is action 1 which costs 0 because of Speed Edge; Disrupting Touch can’t be done till next turn, but also costs 0 because of Might Edge; Phase Sprint continues until the attack is made.
  2. Phase Sprint is declared as an action, and its cost is zero (1 Edge in Speed), then Disrupting Touch is declared as a modification to the action but its cost is 1 Might (because Edge was already used during this turn). Phase Sprint ends at the end of the turn (in sync with the attack).
  3. Phase Sprint is declared as an action, and its cost is zero (1 Edge in Speed), then Disrupting Touch is declared as a modification to the action and its cost is zero (because of 1 Edge in Might). Phase Sprint ends in sync with the attack at the end of the turn.

The player would, of course, prefer #2, but we’d all prefer to be sure we applied the system’s rules properly.

I came up with a way to modify Dijkstra’s Algorithm to handle graphs with some negative edge weighs (as long as there are no negative cycles) [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • Why can't we find shortest paths with negative weights by just adding a constant so that all weights are positive? 2 answers
  1. Let $ w_{min} < 0$ be the lowest weight of an edge in $ G$ .
  2. Add a constant $ c\geq |w_{min}|$ to each edge of $ G$ , so that each edge now has non-negative weight.
  3. Run Dijkstra’s algorithm on this modified graph.
  4. Compensate for the added weighs on each edge by subtracting them from the total distance.

Can anyone tell me if this is viable or if it fails?

Why is BFS “vertex based” and DFS “edge based”?

I am trying to understand the various differences between Breadth-first and Depth-first search on graphs. Two sources state that BFS is “vertex based” and DFS is “edge based” even though in implementation, we use the vertices to iterate over.

So, what exactly does “vertex based” and “edge based” mean in this context?

Sources: (1) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-bfs-and-dfs/ (2) https://techdifferences.com/difference-between-bfs-and-dfs.html

EDGE processing of Multiline Rich Text URLs in JQuery

I am having difficulties setting up URL values within a list Multiline Rich Text field. The code I am using is as follows:

      ThisList = "TK0001 TK0002 TK0003 TK0004"       TaskArray = ThisList.split(" ");       var AssocHTML = '';       for (i = 0; i < TaskArray.length; i++) {                AssocHTML = AssocHTML + '<a href="https://oursites<snip>/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID='+TaskArray[i].substr(j+2) + '&RootFolder=%2A">'+TaskArray[i]+'</a> ';                           };       $  ('nobr:contains("Task List")').closest('tr').find('div.ms-rtestate-write').html(AssocHTML);                           }; 

If I run this code using IE, the field is populated correctly

"<a href="https://oursites<snip>/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0001&RootFolder=%2A">TK0001</a> <a href="https://oursites<snip>/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0002&RootFolder=%2A">TK0002</a> <a href="https://oursites<snip>/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0003&RootFolder=%2A">TK0003</a> <a href="https://oursites<snip>/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0004&RootFolder=%2A">TK0004</a>" 

However, if I run this same code under EDGE, the following value is populated into that field

"<a href="/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0001&RootFolder=%2A">TK0001</a> <a href="/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0002&RootFolder=%2A">TK0002</a> <a href="/Lists/TestList/DispForm.aspx?ID=0003&RootFolder=%2A">TK0003</a> <a>TK0004</a>" 

The URL is modified (fair enough) but the last value is always corrupted.

How do I stop EDGE applying field edits, or is there some encoding that I need to apply to the AssocHTML value to stop EDGE reevaluating the value?

Maximum flow with maximum flow on specific edge

I am trying to solve the following problem:

We’re given a network flow $ (V,E,c,s,t)$ and an edge $ (u,v)$ . We have to provide an algorithm that computes the maximum flow which has maximum flow on $ (u,v)$ also.

The idea that I had was, computing max flow and on the residual graph trying to compute a cycle that starts from $ s$ and passes through the edge $ (u,v)$ and trying to increase $ (u,v)$ ‘s flow while decreasing the flow from other edges. In other words, trying to maximize the flow of $ (u,v)$ while preserving the maximum flow value. But I feel like there’s a simpler way.

Can someone point me in the right direction? Is my thinking correct? If not how should I approach the problem?

Any help is appreciated! Thanks!