Wanting to run a groundhog day/day after tomorrow campaign. Are there any known examples of campaigns that are similar I could use for inspiration?

I am thinking through a DnD 5E campaign based on the movies groundhog day and Edge of Tomorrow. The idea is that the players will exist in a loop of time, always waking up in the same moment and regardless of if they are alive or dead always resetting at the same time.

I have the narrative set out, and I am working on populating my region. I figure that with this kind of adventure I can fill my sandbox with a host of NPC’s who’s behaviour and actions every day can be stated unless/until the players do something to disrupt it. But I need to determine the game rules for this unique type of game. Things like Spell learning, gaining experience, repeating the same actions and the impact on DC. In my mind the players will reset every day with the same equipment so things like spell components etc an dhow I manage this.

In order to avoid this becoming a discussion I am looking for, either published examples of campaigns or adventures that have this kind of a story thread. DnD (any version) or another high fantasy system would be great, but if its a sci fi or other thematic system I can still look at how the rules are adapted to take account of the cyclical rather the linear nature of the story.

Alternatively I will also accept any first hand experience of running such an adventure and the rules you home brewed to deal with the issues you faced.

Can a known recipient of sending via sending stones conceal their identity?

A character has discovered one of a pair of sending stones in a D&D 5e game. They can use the stone to cast sending, with the target being the holder of the other stone. The person holding the other stone, who we’ll call the "recipient", is in fact someone that the character knows, but they are unaware that it is the recipient who holds the other stone, and the recipient does not want them to know. Can the recipient reply to the sending while concealing their identity from the character?

The question of the caster of sending concealing their identity has already been addressed in Is there any way to fake/conceal your identity when casting Sending?, and the caster cannot conceal their identity because sending says:

You send a short message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with which you are familiar. The creature hears the message in its mind, recognizes you as the sender if it knows you, and can answer in a like manner immediately.

This does not address whether the recipient can conceal their identity, but this is because the caster of sending must be familiar with the recipient in order to cast the spell. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that the recipient’s "reply", which is sent "in a like manner", will mean that the caster will recognise the identity of the recipient, because the caster knows the recipient, and because the caster knows who they targeted with the spell.

However, sending stones bypass this familiarity requirement:

While you touch one stone, you can use an action to cast the sending spell from it. The target is the bearer of the other stone.

There is no indication here that the user of a sending stone must be familiar with the recipient, who holds the matching stone. (And such a requirement would make sending stones considerably less useful! So I think it’s reasonable to assume that the user of a stone is not required to know the holder of the other stone.)

However, in the situation I’m describing, the "caster" is familiar with the recipient, but the recipient does not want them to know who the recipient is.

Obviously, the recipient can refuse to respond. However, it’s a lot more fun if the recipient can respond, while concealing their identity. So… is there a way for a known recipient of sending cast via sending stones to conceal their identity?

Use of additional magical items or spells by the recipient (such as the ring of mind shielding suggested in an answer to the linked question) is acceptable in an answer.

Does the Halfling deity Brandobaris have any known offspring?

I’m writing an adventure that features an Emyprean, who for story purposes would ideally be an offspring of Brandobaris. I’d like to know if there are any offspring of Brandobaris referenced in any of the Forgotten Realms lore. The answer need not be limited to 5th edition- if there are references from previous editions, novels or even other campaign settings, I’d like to take that into consideration.

Can I swap a maneuver known with another one if I have te requisite before the swap but stop having it after?

The Tome of Battle states the following:

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered swordsage level after that (6th, 8th, 10th, and so on), you can choose to learn a new maneuver in place of one you already know. In effect, you lose the old maneuver in exchange for the new one. You can choose a new maneuver of any level you like, as long as you observe your restriction on the highest- level maneuvers you know; you need not replace the old maneuver with a maneuver of the same level. For example, upon reaching 10th level, you could trade in a single 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd- or 4th-level maneuver for a maneuver of 5th level or lower, as long as you meet the prerequisite of the new maneuver. You can swap only a single maneuver at any given level.

So, let’s say my PC (Monk 4, Swordsage 4) has Mighty Throw as his only Setting Sun maneuver and wants to swap it at level 4 with Devastating Throw. He accomplishes the requisite of having 1 Setting Sun maneuver before the swap, however, he no longer accomplishes the requisite after the swap (unless you count the Devastating Throw itself). Is this swap possible?

Are there any known W[3] or W[3]-hard problems?

We are currently working on a variant of domination parameter and we have shown that it is in W[3] with regard to parameterized complexity. To show it is W[3]-complete, we must show the problem is W[3] hard i.e, reduce an already known W[3] hard problem to ours. But unlike W[1] and W[2], where many famous problems are proved those classes, surprisingly we have not come across a single problem that is W[3] hard and not even in just W[3]. Of course there is the general W[t] case which we can go for, but any result for W[3] in particular would help a lot.

What is the maximum number of known spells (that can be cast with spell slots and use Charisma) a character can have?

I often find it frustrating how few spells sorcerers have. This has led me to trying to increase the number of spells they have with a few multiclassing dips. I was then inspired to ask this question:

What is the maximum number of spells known a character can have?

I want this to be achieved primarily through multiclassing, so there are a few restrictions:

  • The spells must be cast using Charisma as the spellcasting modifier, so multiclassing into Wizard or Druid doesn’t help;
  • I’m not including features you’d get through subclasses (i.e. Eyes of the Dark gives you darkness for free), since I want this solution to be a template I can stick any subclasses onto;
  • A bard’s Magical Secrets is allowed, since that’s a base class feature, but Additional Magical Secrets is not, since that’s Lore bard only;
  • Feats are allowed, but Epic Boons and magic items are not;
  • I’ll allow Unearthed Arcana for this one, for example UA feats;
  • The spells known must be cast via your spell slots that you have via your class features;
  • Polymorphing into something else that can cast spells is not allowed;
  • Assume a level 20 character, and whatever ability scores are necessary (although I imagine that’ll just be Charisma 20);
  • Also note that this question has nothing to do with the number of spell slots, only spells known.

Cracking known salt MD5 Hashes online [closed]

I’ve been having trouble with this certain salted MD5 hash, even though I know the salt, and I’ve been having trouble finding anywhere online that will crack salted MD5 hashes. All I’m finding is just straight MD5 only. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Preferrably something free or affordable.It’s in the md5(hash.salt) format.

Yes, I have tried using hashcat and crackstations wordlist to no avail.

Thanks

How to use ‘Bind Variables’ in a ‘Dynamic Query ‘ when the exact number of variables are not known

I have a procedure in which I’m using Dynamic SQL. The input parameteri_tables is a string which is a concatenation of the name of some tables . It might be one these :

1)All tables test_table1,test_table2,test_table3.

2)Only two tables , for instance test_table2,test_table3 .

3)Nothing .So NULL will pass to the procedure.

I’ve read about Bind variable and the significant role it has in preventing injection and improving performance. I want to use bind variable in my procedure but there is one things I don’t know how to handle :

As you can see we do not know the exact number of variables.It might be one , two , three or nothing. Depending on The input parameteri_tables.

   create or replace procedure bind_variable_test(i_tables varchar2,                                                   i_cid    number,                                                   o_result out sys_refcursor) is     actual_query varchar2(1000) := '';    begin         -- this is the base query     actual_query := 'select *                 from z_test_a t1                   inner join z_test_b t2                 on t1.id = t2.id';      -- check input parameter " i_tables "       if i_tables like '%test_table1%' then              actual_query := actual_query || '  inner join test_table1 t3 on t3.id = t1.id and                              t3.cid = ' || i_cid;      end if;       if i_tables like '%test_table2%' then             actual_query := actual_query || '  inner join test_table2 t4 on t4.id = t1.id and                              t4.cid = ' || i_cid;      end if;       if i_tables like '%test_table3%' then             actual_query := actual_query || '  inner join test_table3 t5 on t5.id = t1.id and                    t5.cid = ' || i_cid;      end if;      open o_result for actual_query;     end; 

Is there a known way to make an efficient, compact, and fully persistent stack or queue?

In the world of mutable/ephemeral data structures and imperative programming languages, one of the classic ways to implement a stack or queue is to use array doubling: use mutation to fill up or empty an array, doubling or halving to expand/contract. Such stacks/queues have several nice properties:

  1. They use at most twice as much memory as strictly necessary.
  2. They involve minimal indirection.
  3. They use cache efficiently.
  4. They have amortized $ O(1)$ insertion and deletion operations.

In a purely functional system, this approach falls down quite flat, because "mutate the array to fill/empty" becomes very expensive: the array has to be copied each time. I was wondering if there might be some reasonable compromise approach, making something more compact than classical approaches (a la Okasaki) but still with constant amortized time operations. Stacks are simpler, so I started thinking about those. My first attempt (in Haskell notation) was

data Queue a   = Shallow !(Array a)   | Deep !(Array a) (Queue a) 

with the rule that the array at depth $ n$ must have either $ 0$ or $ 2^n$ elements. Unfortunately, this doesn’t look like it’s nearly good enough. It appears that insertions impose an $ O(\log n)$ amortized cost, since flipping from a 1 digit to a 0 digit gets more expensive the deeper it happens in the tree. My next attempt was the same, but using skew binary numbers instead of binary numbers. Same deal. Is there some trick I’m missing, or am I asking to have my cake and eat it too?