What exactly is the Dragonborn template?

I’m completely unfamiliar with the Dragonborn template, as I’ve never read the sourcebook it has come from, could someone enlighten me as to what it means to be a dragonborn character? Can you summarize?

In what way can it be applied to a character to enhance their roleplaying? Can you choose the type of dragon, or is it randomized? Does it change your physical appearance? Are there any bonuses that would make the character seem special by comparison to the spell slinging rage-wizard?

What are the benefits to being a dragonborn? I already know about the +2 con, -2 Dex and I’m thinking of using it with an elf to eliminate their con penalty. While I know it is sub-optimal to make an elf, the character I’m making is actually an Elf cleric ( Elf domain, Celerity domain ) of Ehlonna. ( She’s a cohort. )

Part of my reason for asking this is that I’m at work and a lot of stuff I have access to is actually firewalled, but the other half is that I’m really interested in hearing others thoughts concerning Dragonborn.

Who or what exactly does the “Same Origin Policy” aim to protect

As I understand the “Same Origin Policy” is a browser security feature that aims to protect the user. It prevents scripts to load data from another webserver (typicall with ajax).

So esentially there are 3 actors:

  • The User in the Browser
  • The Original Website
  • The “other origin” Web Resource

Does it protect the user ? No: With CORS I can just allow any Origin on a malicious “Other origin” Web Resource

Does it protect the original Website? No: With CORS I can just allow any Origin on a malicious “Other origin” Web Resource

Does it protect the “other origin” Web Resource? No: A browser with Same Origin Policy disabled or a crafted request can be used to get the request trough anyway

I cannot get my head around that. What is the situation where the SOP help and which of these 3 actors does it protect in this situation.

What exactly is the scope of Wish?

So I’ve been looking at various questions about the spell “Wish” on this site, and I’m seeing a lot of people respond with the list of things wish can do reliably from the player’s handbook, and saying that anything else is able to be twisted by the DM.

But the player’s handbook specifically says that the DM can twist wishes if they request something GREATER than the listed things. So what if something is almost definitely around the power level of these things or less, but not very similar to them?

I’ve seen people say that if a request is very similar to an existing spell, it’s reasonable. But what if it’s not? Yet is still the right power level? Can the DM still twist this kind of wish?

Also, in the case where these types of things are allowed as safe uses of wish, I have a follow-up question:

How can I tell if something’s power level is in the right territory? Especially if it’s not similar to an existing spell. When I look at the list of spells of a certain level, it doesn’t give me a great idea of what degree of power that level represents.

Determine if a graph has exactly 1 cycle using a SAT solver

I have a connected undirected graph whose edges are either enabled or disabled. I want to create a set of clauses that are SAT iff all enabled edges are part of a single loop.

If I assert that each vertex has either 0 or 2 enabled edges, then graphs where all enabled edges are part of a single loop will satisfy the clauses. However, graphs with multiple disjoint loops can will also satisfy those clauses. How can I make sure that only 1 loop graphs satisfy the clauses?

What exactly is called a “murder hobo”?

I’ve been here reading Q&A for some month now, and I already saw some concerning murder hobo (or sometimes called murderous cretins).

As I’m french, I tried to directly translate it, but it gave something I guess not that accurately linked to the concern the Q&A have.

From what I have read until now, a “murder hobo” is a player who is killing everything in sight if he can and don’t care about the actual fact of killing.

Is there anything more about the term “murderous hobo” ? Is there something more deep or complex that can influence something else ?

When exactly have you “taken/used the Attack action”?

There are several features with phrases similar to “When you take the Attack action” and I am wondering when exactly you have “taken the Attack action”, I have found several questions and features which have ended up making this even more confusing than I originally thought.

Extra Attack says:

“You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”

This implies the following is true before getting extra attack: “you can attack once whenever you take the Attack action”, which, to me, is equivalent to the following: “After you take the attack action, you can attack once” which means you would have to first take the attack action, and thus you are allowed to attack once.
And then the Fighter’s Extra Attack (2) says:

“You can attack three times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”

I can’t think of a way “taking the Attack action” could mean making every available attack while having the extra attack features still work as intended.
The Battle Master Fighter’s Commander’s Strike Maneuver states:

“When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks…”

If taking the Attack action meant making an entire attack then this maneuver would be useless until you acquired extra attack because you wouldn’t have any attacks left that you could forgo.
Then there’s the Polearm Master feat which says:

“When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear…”

This unfortunately seems to say that “taking the Attack action” means completing all available attacks because only at that time could you know whether all your attacks were made with the required weapons.
And then there’s the Way of the Four Element Monk’s Fangs of the Fire Snake feature which says:

“When you use the Attack action on your turn… Your reach with your unarmed strikes increases by 10 feet for that action, as well as the rest of the turn…”

I would assume this is meant to benefit the triggering attack as well, in which case you would have to gain this benefit before you’ve made your first attack, which means “taking the Attack action” would happen before your first attack.
On top of all this, there’s the Gloom Stalker Ranger’s Dread Ambusher which has the following:

“If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action…” Emphasis mine

This answer here says that the additional attack must come after your first attack, due to the part that I have bolded making an exception to the general rule.
Lastly there is the Monk’s Flurry of Blows feature which states:

“Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn…”

This answer here states that you can use FoB anytime after the first attack of your Attack action. But I am not exactly sure how this works, especially with the “immediately after” bit.
And amongst all this, though his tweets are no longer official, Crawford has said the following:

“No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.”

Which implies that “taking the Attack action” would actually mean making every single available attack.

All of these different features, at least to me, don’t seem to have any coherent/consistent meaning of the phrase and I’m wondering if there is one supported in these books.

When have you actually taken/used the Attack action?

This matters because at what point you are considered to have taken this action determines when you can use any of the above features.

What exactly is meant by contact angle between two circles?

In the Wikipedia article “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision#Two-dimensional_collision_with_two_moving_objects”, a contact angle phi is mentioned.

I am unsure if the angle is the angle between the normal and the x axis or just the angle between the line formed by connecting the centers and the x axis.

Thanks!

What exactly is a fey/fiend/celestial spirit?

A few spells mention using spirits, specifically fey, fiend or celestial spirits, usually regarding summoning them to take the form of another creature. A few examples are listed below:

Conjure animals (PHB, p. 225):

You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces you can see within range. … Each beast is also considered fey,

Find familiar (PHB, p. 240):

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes the form of an animal … the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

Find steed (PHB, p. 240):

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed … the steed has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey or fiend (your choice) instead of its normal type.

Some of these I am identifying as fiendish or celestial spirits by inference, although conjure animals explicitly says “fey spirits”.


My question is, what exactly is a fey spirit? Or a fiend or celestial one? (If this question is considered too broad by asking about all three, I’ll happy reduce the scope to just “what is a fey spirit”, but I don’t see these as being too different to make this too broad, personally).

The only way I can make sense of this is to assume that this is referring to a fey being that has died, so literally the ghost of a fey. But then why can’t some of these spells use an elemental’s spirit, or a humanoid’s spirit, even? But then wouldn’t they be undead type, rather than fey, etc? Shouldn’t spirits of dead fey have gone to some kind of afterlife; how come relatively low level magic can summon them? Maybe it isn’t literally a dead fey, but then what is a fey spirit?

Note that I don’t expect each of the questions in the above stream of non-bold questions to be answered, they are just included to try to give some insight into my train of thought/confusion.


Also note that, although I’m asking “why” this or that, this isn’t a designer-reasons question, this is a lore question, since I’m interested in the in-universe justification for things, not designer reasons. I don’t care why, in the read world, Jeremy Crawford or Gary Gygax or whoever else from however far back this goes decided that this is the case, only how this makes sense in-universe. What, from a lore perspective, is a fey (or fiend or celestial) spirit compared to an actual fey (or fiend or celestial) creature?

If a setting is necessary to answer this question, let’s assume Forgotten Realms, but I don’t actually care about a specific setting. Given that this is a lore question, I’m also happy for answers to include information from previous editions, but I’m primarily interested in information from 5e.

What does exactly theoretical computer science entail? [on hold]

I am confused by the term “theoretical computer science”. How can I distinguish which part of computer science are considered “theoretical” and which not?

To expand further, take Machine Learning. Is the study of Machine Learning Theoretical Computer Science? To me it is, because we are studying the computational qualities of learning, without declining our study into a particular technology or application, but usually, I hear machine learning spoken as a part of applied CS or engineering.