Could I have handled this PC interaction better?

I started up a play by post game on roll20 for a group of friends. A co-worker, and friend of another player, had asked to join in. Let’s call him P1, or Player 1. I said sure, we got the game going after some slow start up.

The party is meeting for the first time in a tavern. They get the adventure hook and agree to work together. P1 is playing a gnome wizard. My wife is playing a human paladin. She thought it would be funny, since her paladin isn’t the brightest of the bunch, to pick up the gnome and get them on the road. P1 responds by wanting to not be picked up. I ask both for a strength roll. P1 loses. So I ask him what his response is to being picked up. His response was to quit and leave our discord server we were using for ooc talk.

While I don’t miss someone who would bail so quickly, I do wonder if I could have done something better. I’d like to learn from this to avoid such a situation in the future. Should I have stopped my wife before she even tried to pick up P1? Was it wrong to let the dice decide who won the conflict of being picked up?

How should invisibility be handled in Genesys?

Every Genesys sourcebook mentions invisibility, but there’s no consistent definition.

  • The Genesys Core Rulebook says (p. 212) that an Augment spell could turn a character invisible with at least a Hard (♦︎♦︎♦︎) check, but doesn’t spell out the mechanical benefits.
  • The Expanded Player’s Guide says (p. 100) that a Mask spell could turn a character invisible with a Formidable (♦︎♦︎♦︎♦︎) check. Illusions can be detected passively with an Average (♦︎♦︎) Vigilance check or actively with an Average Perception check.
  • Realms of Terrinoth describes (p. 102) an Invisibility Potion as granting ◼️◼️◼️◼️ of concealment.
  • Shadow of the Beanstalk describes (p. 93) an Optical Camouflage Suit as adding one upgrade to the difficulty of spotting the wearer.

What’s the best way to handle invisibility in an original setting?

How is precedence and associativity handled by multi-stack parsers?

In parsers where rewrite rules are applied uniquely (LL), achieving associativity and precedence are a matter of writing a grammar such that the productions encode them. However, my question pertains to algorithms like GLR, which search for every possible substitution by maintain multiple stacks, each stack representing a different interpretation. My understanding is that they will generate ambiguities even when grammars are written as I described above. What method(s) is used to efficiently select which parse tree is the correct one in consideration of precedence and associativity?

How is plaintext handled at protonmail server?

I am quite happy with, indeed grateful for, protonmail. There is one point I’d like to understand better regarding end-to-end encryption. I asked this twice at protonmail.com, and twice it was removed by the moderator. I hope someone here can answer.

I infer that an outgoing message is transmitted via https to the protonmail server where it is pgp-encrypted and the plaintext discarded; the reverse for incoming messages. Is this basically correct?

If so, then “end-to-end encryption” doesn’t mean quite what I thought, and I would like to know a little more about how the plaintext is handled by the server.

I don’t distrust protonmail. I understand that if I felt the need I could download public and private keys and encrypt locally, but then I might as well use gmail :p

Must a component pouch/focus be “out” to be handled, or can I keep it in my pocket?

Ellen the Eldritch Knight is holding a longsword and wants to cast fireball. If she pulls out her component pouch to cast the spell, then (according to this question), she won’t have time during the rest of the action to put it away, so if she gets to make an opportunity attack before her next turn, she won’t be able to use her weapon’s versatile feature. Could this tragedy be avoided by keeping the component pouch in her pocket the whole time and only interacting with it by sticking her hand in her pocket, rather than taking the pouch out of her pocket?

How are hardware interrupts handled?

I have read that a hardware interrupt is handled asynchronously by the CPU, which means that the interrupt signal may arrive at any point of time with respect to the CPU clock cycle. Now, this means that an interrupt may asynchronously hit the processor when it is in the middle of executing some instruction. So, how does the control pass to the OS in this case? For the case of software interrupts (exceptions), we know that the instruction being executed (trap instruction) itself is the cause of the interrupt. So, it will synchronously finish executing and then the control will transfer to the kernel as per the trap instruction nature. How does all this happen for hardware interrupts?

Is it possible to eat an object affected by Allfood while in combat? If so, how is the damage handled?

I realize this is a very strange and seemingly useless question, but hear me out on this. I’ve recently been assessing more creative uses of spells that seem useless in combat but may be made useful under the right conditions. I ran into the spell allfood. It’s a rather useful spell that can turn anything into a consumable food so long as it falls within the weight parameters of the spell: 5 lbs. per caster level. Of course, the limitations on this spell are huge in that an attended item gets a Will save to negate the effect and SR must be overcome.

The way I see it, it should be possible for a character to disarm their opponents, steal their weapons, and make those weapons into food to be eaten. But there’s the devil in the details, specifically for the act of eating. Eating food seems to be an out-of-combat task that’s to be done during rests, so no rules seem to cover how long eating takes or if it’s even feasible to do so in combat.

The first question: What action should it be? According to the rules, it seems like a standard action would be necessary to hold a weapon and bite into it, much like how you hold an enemy and attack it in a grapple, only the object (usually) won’t fight back in this case. However, it could be argued that it should be a full-round action. Obviously, despite whatever action it may take, the action should provoke attacks of opportunity.

And that’s about the only simple part of this whole ordeal that I can reason out, and even that’s not decisive. The rest of the details seem to be very difficult to find information on if any info exists. These details are as follows:

  • How much damage does eating deal to the object? As the allfood spell states, the hardness is dropped to 0 only for the sole purpose of eating the affected object (and not damaging the object in any other way) so the damage should affect the object’s hit points directly, but what is that damage and how is it calculated?
  • Can a creature with a bite natural attack use it to eat a weapon that is under the effects of allfood and have its bite damage bypass the hardness of the weapon, or would this be considered a sunder action that would still take the object’s hardness into account?

User authentication handled by a web service

I seek your help and advice. By default, Drupal manages user authentification using the user module that resides in the “core/modules” and through the main Drupal Database. In my case, the user is authenticated through an external webservice, the process is as follow: 1- The user enters his credentials and click submit 2- the credentials are then sent to the webservice 3- the webservice checks the data(credentials) to the one he has in his database 4- upon validation the webservice sends a token (JWT) otherwise it sends 401 Unauthorized

PS: the admin will have normal login (through Drupal Database)

The question is how can I proceed to elaborate this process of authentification?

  • Is there some existing modules that could help with this?
  • should I override the existing user module or create a new module?

Any info will be of great help.

How are exceptions handled in microservices?

I have 3 microservices and we are sometimes throwing the same exception in all microservices like

MicroService 1      throw new AlreadyLinked  MicroService 2      throw new AlreadyLinked  MicroService 2      throw new AlreadyLinked 

i.e parsing the error message and throwing an exception with help of code. But lately, I have been thinking to create a private repo for an exception so that duplication of code is prevented. But is this the right way to do?