## Shouldn’t a net (or grappling) attack ignore armour / armor?

I look at grappling and net attacks and I’ve tried them extensively in game both as a player and as a DM. I wouldn’t want to unbalance the game but it’s not clear to me that in reality it would be any harder to grapple a night in plate armour with a net than it would were he unarmored.

Also the net is really completely useless as it stands. I’ve tried it for the monsters, my players have tried it as players. I’ve tried it as a player. It’s just a waste of everyone’s time… at best it causes a player to lose an action… and when you’re trying it on the tank then invariably it misses anyway with no chance of even doing damage. If you want to make a dent in the party it’s much more effective just whittling away at their hit points.

In my view it would be better (and make a lot more sense) if it ignored armour. Only DX mod should count against such attacks. I’d go further and say that the same argument could be made for any type of grappling.

Now I understand that RAW does not make this allowance but my question is – should it? Maybe this is something that should be changed. And I also understand that I’m probably going to get shut down because I’m asking for opinion, not rules interpretation… but I want to socialise this idea in some way and can’t think of a better platform.

There are many benefits to it. If grappling is effective then it will be used… which means less death in the campaign, which can lead to more Role Play.

## [ Etiquette ] Open Question : Why do people think I ignore them on purpose at work?

I work at McDonald’s. On multiple occasions, an hourly manager at work called my name multiple times and I never answered. Why? Because I didn’t hear her. She never believed me when I said I didn’t hear her. Well, I was doing something else. She called for me 5 times? ok well I didn’t hear her any of those times. She’s not the only one. The GM sometimes tell me to do something 3 or 4 times b4 I hear him. He doesn’t accuse me of ignoring him. Yet, she says I never listen and ignore the hell out of her. If I’m getting something done, I’m focusing on it. How can anyone expect me to hear anything more than few feet away? Outside work: I could be getting out of a friend’s car when they drop me off somewhere (like work) and as I get out, she be yelling my name but I wouldn’t hear a thing. Then she be so damn offended. Well I was already several feet away

## Does UA Psionic Wizard’s Though Form let you ignore non-consumed material components with a cost?

UA Psionic Wizards get a special ability called Thought Form where they become beings of pure energy. Part of that ability is Psionic Spellcasting.

Thought Form

Psionic Spellcasting.

When you cast a spell while in thought form, you can cast the spell psionically. If you do so, the spell doesn’t require verbal, somatic, or material components that lack a gold cost.

What does this mean? Functionally, you have an arcane focus as a class feature so material component usually doesn’t matter.

This means you can’t cast spells like Glyph of Warding (200gp dust, consumed) for free. However, can you cast spells that don’t consume the materials like Chromatic Orb (50gp, diamond)?

Otherwise, the “no material component” seems irrelevant as you have your psionic focus already to activate the ability.

## Do hexblade warlocks with pact of the blade ignore the limits on the type of weapons summoned?

So I play hexblades warlocks alot. I of course, usually take pact of the blade to go with it. It says you can only summon melee weapons. Do hexblades ignore this rule? Would I be able to summon a longbow as pact of the blade?

## Does the Githyanki Racial Spellcasting ignore all Spellcasting Components, or only the Material Components?

The Githyanki Player Character Racial Option permits limited casting of a few spells, which is similar to the spellcasting granted to several other Racial Options; but unlike most other options, this feature also specifies that the spellcasting components are not required:

Githyanki Psionics. You know the mage hand cantrip, and the hand is invisible when you cast the cantrip with this trait.
When you reach 3rd level, you can cast jump once with this trait, and you regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. When you reach 5th level, you can cast the misty step spell once with this trait, and you regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest.
Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for these spells. When you cast them with this trait, they don’t require components.

Githyanki, Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes, pg. 96

Does this mean that the verbal and somatic components for these spells are ignored, or just the material components, like required for the jump spell?

## Can a creature with Truesight ignore the tactile elements of Mirage Arcane?

Mirage arcane is a powerful illusion spell that:

includes audible, visual, tactile, and olfactory elements

However, the spell description adds:

Creatures with truesight can see through the illusion to the terrain’s true form; however, all other elements of the illusion remain, so while the creature is aware of the illusion’s presence, the creature can still physically interact with the illusion.

A creature without truesight cannot move through a wall created by Mirage Arcane without destroying the wall. Can a creature with truesight do so?

It seems like the answer hinges on exactly what work the last “can” in the above quote is doing.

## Why can we ignore the constant factor in Weis’s proof of the Master Theorem

In the 4th edition of his Data Structures textbook, Weis gives a proof of part of the Master Theorem. This proof says “Let us … ignore the constant factor in $$\theta(N^k)$$ … I don’t understand why it ignoring that constant is valid. (I know that the real Master Theorem is broader than the version presented in the text. I’m just having trouble understanding the argument presented in the text.)

Specifically, the relevant part of Theorem 10.6 on page 469 is

The solution to the equation $$T(N) = aT(N/b) + \Theta(N^k)$$ is $$T(N) = O(N^{log_b} a)$$ if $$a > b^k$$

The proof includes the phrase “ignore the constant factor in $$\theta(N^k)$$ …” and then goes on to use a telescoping sum to get

$$T(N) = T(b^m) = a^m \sum_{i=0}^m (\frac{b^k}{a})^i$$

At this point, he argues that because $$a > b^k$$, then the sum is a geometric series with a ratio less than 1. However, if we don’t ignore the constant in the $$\Theta$$ expression, isn’t there a constant inside the summation that would affect whether the geometric series converges?

## Does Circle of Spores Ignore Shaping Downsides?

The Circle of Spores druid (In Guildmaster’s Guide to Ravnica) has this feature:

At 2nd level, when you use your Wild Shape feature, you can awaken your spores, rather than transforming. When you do so, you gain 4 temporary hit points per level you have in this class, the damage of your Halo of Spores feature doubles, and your melee weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 poison damage to any target they hit. These benefits last for 10 minutes, until you lose all these temporary hit points, or until you use your Wild Shape again.”

Since this says instead of transforming do you ignore the downsides to wildshape “while transformed” like being unable to cast spells?

## Explicitly ignore certain updates

Is there a way to explicitly ignore certain updates for Ubuntu software ? For example I’m Firefox user and I get updates for codecs for Chromium which I don’t even have installed (to my knowledge).

In Linux Mint you can select updates to ignore but can you in vanilla Ubuntu ?

enter image description here

## Users expected to “ignore” irrelevant parts of a form?

I have a web form that is split in to several pages, it is an adaptation from a hard copy paper form, and the requirements are that the data captured should be the same.

For my web form I have asked for the users salutation/firstname/surname, I must also capture if they have a previous name.

The next page asks for their address, and also a previous address.

One thought that has been put forward is that most users won’t have a previous name, so this field is largely redundant and therefore wouldn’t need to be shown by default.

However, in my mind, if you are asking the user to action something “if” they have a previous name, then you are increasing the cognitive load, when it would actually just be easier to ignore the part of the form that isn’t relevant?

I will try and show you what I mean…

Or, Perhaps it would be better to do some user testing to find out? Would a simple user test be the best way to find out what works best?