## Does a zombie or skeleton explicitly need to have spoken in life?

The SRD claims that both the Skeleton and the Zombie have the following mastery in languages:

Languages Understands the languages it spoke in life but can’t speak

I’ve always taken this as that the original creature that turned into the sekeleton or zombie, mastered a certain language and took this knowledge with them when they became an undead creature. However, when looking at the Specter, I noticed it said the following:

Languages Understands the languages it knew in life but can’t speak

Is this difference intentional? Does the skeleton or zombie explicitly need to have said something in the language it mastered, or this is just a small overlooked difference that I should ignore?

I suppose it’s a situation that rarely comes up, but it could be relevant when a mute creature becomes a zombie. Certain creatures can understand but not speak certain languages, so it could be relevant for those whether their zombified undead could understand such languages.

Does a zombie or skeleton explicitly need to have spoken in life, or is this an unintended difference?

## Do we need SSL Certificate on both Firewall and WAF for inbound traffic?

We have a website hosted behind WAF(FortiWeb) and Firewall (FortiGate). The WAF already has the server valid SSL Certificate from public CA. Do we need to install SSL certificate on Firewall also for inbound traffic to make it more secure ? Will Unscanned https traffic reach the firewall first compromise the network ?

## How many scrolls do I need to keep the spell Disguise Self all the time?

I plan to create a dragonborn wizard disguising as an elf as the society there is racist towards anyone but elves.

Constraints:

• The character is level 1.
• I can’t have any feat.

As far as I know, I have two slots of level 1 spells, and the spell disguise self lasts for 1 hour.

If I wanted to keep my slots for other spells, How many scrolls of Disguise self do I need if I want to keep my elf form for 30 days?

## Does a Barbarian need to be in combat to rage?

From the PHB, page 48, under the “Rage” section:

In battle, you fight with primal ferocity. On your turn, you can enter a rage as a bonus action.

Does this imply that a Barbarian can only enter a rage whilst in combat? And if not, does there need to be an impetus for the rage to occur, or can it be on a whim? For instance, if my Barbarian decides she wants to rage to impress the lord of a manor with her enhanced strength, is that an acceptable condition to start raging?

## I need a website to track a west marches discord campaign [closed]

I am not a coder, so I would like to find a web site portal that can be installed (like wordpress or drupal) that would allow the following features

• information about the RPG setting
• permanent pages for rules, home brew customization, materials for the rpg, etc
• user-unique pages for characters to be uploaded by normal users and approved by staff members, tracking progress for each
• news feed/update blog/misc info feed
• Webhook capability to discord would be nice but definitely not required

things like Obsidian portal, Epic Words, Kanka.io have all met some of the criteria (Kanka is obviously the closest), but being able to put full D&D 5e characters into a system that has multiple DMs, (hundreds) of players with characters to track, it’s a bit difficult to find the right software.

Does anyone know if this exists?

## Need hint for bipartiteness proof

I am given a graph $$G = (V, E)$$ with $$N$$ connected components and $$G^\prime = (V^\prime, E^\prime)$$, where for each $$v \in V$$ there is $$v_1, v_2 \in V^\prime$$ and for each $$(u, v) \in E$$ there is $$(u_1, v_2), (u_2, v_1) \in E^\prime$$.

I need to prove:

$$G^\prime \textrm{ has 2N connected components} \Leftrightarrow G \textrm{ is bipartite}$$

I don’t know what technique or approach I need to use to prove this in either direction. I have a feeling I can use a direct proof for both directions. I have tried to come up with something but after an hour nothing has come up.

## Do id tokens need to be signed assymetrically?

Access tokens that are passed to the public in an OAuth flow clearly need to be signed using asymmetric encryption (e.g. RSA) so that they cannot be altered by the client to gain access to new scopes, etc.

Id tokens on the other hand are not used to access any resources on the server. So if the client is able to alter the id token they will not be able to gain access to any extra resources. Does that mean that it would be okay to use a symmetric (HMAC) signature with a secret that is shared between the server and a specific client application (like the oauth client_secret for a given oauth client)?