What spells with material costs or permanent effects could the Warlock: The Genie’s Limited Wish ability apply to?

I’m looking for ways to take the most advantage of this new ability from the upcoming Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything:

You entreat your patron to grant you a small wish. As an action, you can speak your desire to your Genie’s Vessel, requesting the effect of one spell that is 6th level or lower and has a casting time of 1 action. The spell can be from any class’s spell list, and you don’t need to meet the requirements in that spell, including costly components; the spell simply takes effect as part of this action. Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish 1d4 long rests.

Most of the spells with material costs or permanent/"until dispelled" effects I’ve come across either have a cast time longer than 1 action, or are level 7 or higher. So far the only spells I’ve found are Revivify and Continual Flame. What else am I missing?

Classroom course with limited seats and different memberships

I want to implement the below scenario: -Classroom course with a limit of 20 students in the class -Students can either pay weekly or monthly for this course -The important thing is that at any given time the students don’t pass 20 students.

I tried to implement this logic using LearnPress and Paid membership pro doing the following: -Created the course in LeanrPress with limit of 20 students -Created 2 membership levels for this course (weekly and monthly)

The issue is that for some reason when I buy any of the membership levels, the course student count doesn’t increment, so this leads to the possibility of buying more than 20 memberships.

Is there any other way (paid/free) achieving such logic ?

Thanks

Writing a list of names, with a limited amount of “active” letters at a time. Algorithm to sort the names to reduce the amount of swapping letters?

While making name-tags for a dinner seating, I stumbled upon a problem which I can’t find any algorithm to solve, and I’m not sure where to begin.

The goal is to write the name of each dinner guest on a card, completing one name at a time. The names are written with old-fashioned rubber stamps, so only 6 letters can be "active" at any given time. When a new letter is required, one of the active letters has to be swapped out for the new letter.

The problem is to sort the names in such an order, that I need to do the least amount of letter-swapping.

Example
I want to write the names:

  • Jack
  • Julie
  • Chuck

I can do this with 3 letter-swaps
Initial letters: J A C K H U
Write: Jack, Chuck

{swap A, C, K with L, I, E}

New active letters: J L I E H U
Write: Julie

Now I want to find an algorithm that, given a list of names and a limit of active characters, provide the order of names and which letters to swap at each name, to reduce the total amount of letter-swaps.

Any ideas or pointers are welcome.

How do Bolts From the Grave and a Rakshasa’s Limited Magical Immunity interact?

We recently included an UA Revived Rogue subclass in the group and the players had to face off against a Rakshasa. The question is, Bolt From the Grave says it’s a Ranged Spell Attack, but doesn’t get cast with a spell slot.

Bolts from the Grave. At 3rd level, you have learned to unleash bolts of necrotic energy from within your revived body. Immediately after you use your Cunning Action, you can make a ranged spell attack against a creature within 30 feet of you, provided you haven’t used your Sneak Attack this turn. You are proficient with it, and you add your Dexterity modifier to its attack and damage rolls. A creature hit by this attack takes necrotic damage equal to your Sneak Attack. This uses your Sneak Attack for the turn.

While the Rakshasa has the following:

Limited Magic Immunity. The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be. It has advantage on saving throws against all other spells and magical effects.

Previously I had decided that the Paladin ability to detect fiends, undead etc would work to find the Rakshasa (he has an amulet to hide his aura), so I feel like Bolts from the Grave should be effective. I was just wondering what the general thoughts would be on a ruling.

Why is the Halting problem decidable for Goto languages limited on the highest value of constants and variables?

This is taken from an old exam of my university that I am using to prepare myself for the coming exam:

Given is a language $ \text{Goto}_{17}^c \subseteq \text{Goto}$ . This language contains exactly those $ \text{Goto}$ programs in which no constant is ever above $ 17$ nor any variable ever above $ c$ .

$ Goto$ here describes the set of all programs written in the $ Goto$ language made up of the following elements:

With variables $ v_i \in \mathbb{N}$ and constants $ c \in \mathbb{N}$
Assignment: $ x_i := c, x_i := x_i \pm c$
Conditional Jump: if(Comparison) goto $ L_i$
Haltcommand: halt

I am currently struggling with the formalization of a proof, but this is what I have come to so far, phrased very casually: For any given program in this set we know that it is finite. A finite program contains a finite amount of variables and a finite amount of states, or lines to be in. As such, there is a finite amount of configurations in which this process can be. If we let this program run, we can keep a list of all configurations we have seen. That is, the combination of all used variable-values and the state of the program. If we let the program run, there must be one of two things that happens eventually: The program halts. In this case, we return YES and have decided that it halts. The program reaches a configuration that has been recorded before. As the language is deterministic, this means that we must have gone a full loop which will exactly repeat now.

No other case can exist as that would mean that we keep running forever on finite code without repeating a configuration. This means after every step, among our list of infinite steps, there is a new configuration. This would mean that there are infinite configurations, which is a contradiction.

Is this correct? Furthermore, how would a more formal proof look if it is? If not, how would a correct proof look?

Am I misreading the effect-cancelling part of Warforged Juggernaut’s Crag of Steel power, or is it meant to be extremely limited?

Warforged Juggernaut‘s Level 20 Daily Power is Crag of Steel; a stance that gives you a bunch of stuff, but the part of the power I’m interested in here is:

“Until the stance ends, you gain resist 5 to all damage, and whenever this reduces an attack’s damage to 0, you also negate that attack’s effect on you.”


The way I’m reading this, in order for this to kick in: an attack must do damage, which must be less than 5, AND also deal an effect.

An attack that just deals an effect isn’t ignored because the stance doesn’t “reduce the attack’s damage to 0″ – it already was 0 (or rather, there was no damage/null/etc.)

I can’t envision any other way of triggering the text in question;

  • Resistance doesn’t stack.
  • If a different resistance is higher and negates the attack it doesn’t count because it’s “whenever THIS [Resist 5] reduces an attack”.
  • Temporary hit points are just me taking the damage somewhere else…
  • ???

At best, I can see it synergising with a handful of specific powers that otherwise reduce attack damage by mechanics other than resist, but those are few and far between (and generally reduce the damage by a not significant enough amount to negate 90% of a reasonable opponent’s damage.)(And my party hasn’t picked any of the dozen specific paragon paths/backgrounds that get them.)

Overall, this means, I can’t really see an occasion where this text would actually kick in. It’s good for negating level 1 creature’s attack effects if they happen to roll a 1 on their damage dice… as a level 20 Daily.

(Don’t get me wrong, the rest of the power is fine. Resist 5 is fine. Free damage is good. Resist forced movement is good. It’s just an unlikely enough confluence of events for that power to trigger that.. it feels like I’m missing something?)

TL;DR: Am I mis-reading this part of the Crag of Steel power or is it just not going to come up in normal level-appropriate fights?

How to generate a CSR (certificate signing request) for creating a limited CA (Certificate Authority) with LibreSSL?

Related to this (too broad) question: How to implement my PKI?

I have a self-signed CA (ca0)

I would like to create a CA (ca1) with limited power derived from that first CA. ca1 should only be able to sign certificates for *.foo.com and for foo.com.

From this question, I found out that the Name Constraints extension is probably what I want.

The key for ca1 is already created and is ca1.foo.key.pem.

I already have an incomplete command for creating the request:

libressl req -new -sha512 -key ca1.foo.key.pem -out ca1.foo.csr.pem 

What should I add to that line to limit ca1’s power to what I want?

Are NP proofs limited to polynomial length?


In computational complexity theory, NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) is a complexity class used to classify decision problems. NP is the set of decision problems for which the problem instances, where the answer is “yes”, have proofs verifiable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine.

The proofs for an NP decision problem are verified in polynomial time.

Does this imply the proofs are at most polynomial length?

“Well you have to read the whole input. If the input is longer than polynomial, then the time is greater than polynomial.”

The decision problem “Is the first bit of the input a 0?” can be solved in constant time and space – without reading the whole input.

Therefore, perhaps some NP problem has candidate proofs that are longer than polynomial length but checked in polynomial time.

Does falling damage by weight get limited to 20d6?

I’m trying to build a character that does damage by dropping on people. (It’s a baleen whale with grafted wings.) I was reading the SRD on falling damage and it has this very confusing line about falling objects:

For each 200 pounds of an object’s weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).

Is the total falling damage limited to 20d6 or just the falling damage from height (which would make more sense since falling damage is limited because of terminal velocity)?