In plotting out low-level encounters at the start of a campaign (especially with new players) I prefer to create opponents who don’t want to kill the PCs right away. Instead, I generally have them use nonlethal force and capture the PCs if they lose a fight. Then I provide the PCs with a potential out to escape captivity later.
I’m aware that some GMs strongly advocate against capturing PCs on the basis that players hate the feeling of helplessness that capture provides, but I haven’t had bad luck with it in the past, and its useful in generating challenging encounters with much less risk of total party kill, especially at low levels where margins for error are small (I’m talking about D&D 3.5, but this generally holds true of most tactical system RPGs as well).
In the past I’ve used as a pretext for this opposition consisting of slavers (the PCs will bring a fine price if captured alive) and evil cultists (the Blood God demands living sacrifices on the night of the Blood Moon!) But the truth is my imagination could use some fresh input. What other generic reasons can you think of that the opposition would use nonlethal force on the PCs?
I am currently working on a python program that utilizes GnuPG (with symmetric encryption) to store data on the client: User supplies password, gpg file is decrypted, data is loaded, etc.
Say an attacker copies this gpg file. What can be done to slow down brute forcing of the password? Maybe it is possible to do thousands of iterations in a PBKDF (or maybe SHA), then use that as the password?
I was wondering if someone could confirm my working for the complexity for 0/1 Knapsack Brute Force and Dynamic Programming solutions,
For the Brute force I reasoned its $ O(N.2^N)$
This is because to work out all possible subsets (The way I did brute force was to compute power set then calc weight/values for each set), takes $ 2^N$ and then we calculate the sum of each subset of size from 1-N, that takes $ N.2^N$
Space complexity would be $ O(P)$ where p is the total number of subsets
But from my notes the Brute Force 0/1 Knapsack is $ O(2^N)$ with space $ O(N)$
I think that is for the recursive solution but my brute force is not recursive.
I have a number of contacts who can only decrypt 3DES, when it comes to S/MIME encrypted mails. I’m aware that this is by far not ideal, but better than no encryption at all.
My problem is, that I can’t find a way to force Thunderbird to use 3DES for specific mails. Thunderbird itself doesn’t seem to have an option, so I’ve installed the Enigmail plug-in, which states in the FAQ:
Note that you can force usage of a specific symmetric algorithm by using the GnuPG option –cipher-algo, but this is not recommended; this option can easily break things and is intended for debug purposes only.
This sounds good, but the setting does not change a thing for me.
I’ve also asked on the mozilla support page and on the enigmail support page
I’m baffled that there’s no obvious solution to this.
How can I force Thunderbird to use a specific encryption cipher for S/MIME encrypted mails?
The cube of force states that
A barrier of Invisible force springs into existence, forming a cube 15 feet on a side
And the 5th level of this is
Nothing can pass through the barrier. Walls, floors, and ceilings can pass through at your discretion
How would this work if there was a large living creature currently occupying the space that the wall acts? Would it cut the creature in 2, freeze it in space as it can’t move in any direction, or force it to be on one side of the wall?
So, for instance if there was a 26 foot tall storm giant, and I stood next to it and activated this 5th level what would happen to the giant?
I want to test how long it would take someone to run into the hash im using is there a program windows/Linux that can lets me decide the characters used but also put some of the info in. The secret would look like this
date %random% hello %random%
They are meant to find the secret given the characters used
I have two tables
bar has column
a that references
foo.id as a foreign key. When creating table
foo, the error
column "a" referenced in foreign key constraint does not exist is given. This is obvious and intended. However, the creation of these two tables are handled by two different entities that of which I cannot control. It’s guaranteed that no data will be added to either table until both are successfully created, but the creation itself may happen out-of-order. Is there a way to force the creation of
bar even though
foo does not exist?
An artillerist artificer gains use of an “eldritch cannon” as part of the subclass’ abilities. It has several modes, one of which is force ballista, which allows the artillerist to fire it as a bonus action to do the following:
Make a ranged spell attack, originating from the cannon, at one creature or object within 120 feet of it. On a hit, the target takes 2d8 force damage, and if the target is a creature, it is pushed up to 5 feet away from the cannon.
When DnD Beyond shows this attack, it shows the spellcaster’s attack modifier being applied to damage, but the ability is unclear as to whether this ability should be applied, and we know that DnD Beyond makes mistakes. Should this modifier be applied to damage?
Per the description:
If you die while wearing the ring, your soul enters it, unless it already houses a soul. You can remain in the ring or depart for the afterlife. As long as your soul is in the ring, you can telepathically communicate with any creature wearing it. A wearer can’t prevent this telepathic communication.
Our party has found a such a ring that already has a soul in it. And he is quite the chatterbox.
Only the wearer can hear, but the soul is known to talk late into the night, yell when the wearer is trying to concentrate, and tell bad jokes at the wrong time. And frankly, we’re fed up with it.
Per the description, the soul can choose to leave, but is there a way to make it leave?
It the description of the Sword of Vengeance, it calls out:
You can break the curse in the usual ways. Alternatively, casting banishment on the sword forces the vengeful spirit to leave it. The sword then becomes a +1 weapon with no other properties.
But there is no such clause for the ring. Are we stuck with Murray forever?
If we look at the NP problems (or NP-Complete and NP-Hard) we must currently use brute force to solve them exactly. We currently need to search through “all” possible solutions until arriving at a correct solution.
But doesn’t this assume only the final solution we try will be correct? Isn’t it is unlikely that we would actually have to try all of them, regardless of whether brute force is truly needed or not? It could easily be the case that we only need to try say 30% of all possible solutions until we find a correct solution.
So why to people say brute force must try ALL possible solutions?