If a bonus action attack for Two-Weapon Fighting involves multiple ability modifiers, which ones are added to the damage roll?

This question is entirely inspired by the following:

  • Bonus action attack ability score modifier (5E Question)

That question, however, happens to ask about a homebrew method of adding multiple ability modifiers to the bonus action attack of Two-Weapon Fighting and so, ultimately, has a homebrew solution. This question concerns non-homebrew methods of creating this scenario.

Two-Weapon Fighting states:

[…] You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. […]

But what happens when you would add more than one ability modifier to the damage roll? There are a few ways of doing this, and I’ll list the ones I know of below:

The Way of Mercy Monk’s Hand of Harm feature:

[…] When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, you can spend 1 ki point to deal extra necrotic damage equal to one roll of your Martial Arts die + your Wisdom modifier. […]

The Devotion Paladin’s Channel Divinity: Sacred Weapon feature:

[…] For 1 minute, you add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls made with that weapon […]

The Oathbreaker Paladin’s Aura of Hate feature:

[…] Starting at 7th level, the paladin, as well any fiends and undead within 10 feet of the paladin, gains a bonus to melee weapon damage rolls equal to the paladin’s Charisma modifier […]

The Ranger’s Foe Slayer feature:

[…] Once on each of your turns, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll or the damage roll of an attack you make against one of your favored enemies. […]

The Warlock’s Lifedrinker Eldritch Invocation:

[…] When you hit a creature with your pact weapon, the creature takes extra necrotic damage equal to your Charisma modifier […]

Note, that perhaps some of these aren’t quite the same as the others, but what I’m asking remains the same: When a feature actually does cause you to add multiple different ability modifiers to an attack made as part of Two-Weapon Fighting which ones are not added to the damage roll?

Is there a way to find .obj files of the twisted ones? [closed]

Let me explain, you can go away if you don’t know about FNaF (although you could try to help), basically I am making a game about the twisted animatronics, but I cant put them in because I couldn’t find the .obj files anywhere on the internet, I did find one of them, but it wasn’t colored.

the files I need are .obj files of the following animatronics: Twisted Freddy, Twisted Bonnie, Twisted Foxy and Twisted wolf. you can search for these files for the internet, I will be thankful, or you can choose the hard way and make the models themselves. You can search up how they look like on the internet

Is there a standard way to handle spells that have *willing creatures* as targets but no ruling for unwilling ones?

Some spells allow to target willing creatures and specify what unwilling ones should do (usually, a saving throw) to avoid the magical effect (see Scatter, for example).

Other spells use wording such as "up to $ X$ willing creatures", "You touch a willing creature" and similar, but they do not have any rules for not willing ones.

Is there any standard/common way to handle spells belonging to the latter case? Or does the magical effect simply take place?

Most of these spell are buffs, hence usually the targets are willing creatures. Down below I report a couple of example situations in which a creature may want to avoid the spell’s effect.


You make a calming gesture, and up to three willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range fall unconscious for the spell’s duration. The spell ends on a target early if it takes damage or someone uses an action to shake or slap it awake. […]

The party is fighting a group of 3 ogres and they are heavily injured, they want to run away from combat: the bard casts Catnap and the ogres fall unconscious even they are not willing to do so.

Water Walk

This spell grants the ability to move across any liquid surface–such as water, acid, mud, snow, quicksand, or lava […]. Up to ten willing creatures you can see within range gain this ability for the duration.

If you target a creature submerged in a liquid, the spell carries the target to the surface of the liquid at a rate of 60 feet per round.

A group of enemies cast Water Breathing for fleeing under water from the party. The wizard casts Water Walk to force them to emerge from the water: now they are easy targets for the ranger.

What is damage you do vs. damage a creature takes? (and Dark One’s Blessing)

The Warlock ability Dark One’s Blessing says (emphasis mine)

Starting at 1st level, when you reduce a hostile creature to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier + your warlock level (minimum of 1).

Is there a general ruling on who or what is the author of damage? Most spells and attacks are written to describe how the target takes damage, rather than how the attacker does damage. I think it is safe to assume that an attack you make or a spell you cast is you doing damage, but I am unsure on how to rule in a more abstract example, such as forcing an interaction with a damaging environment.

Consider the following hypotheticals. None of them are my specific question, but serve to illustrate what I am trying to come to terms with. My question is whether there is a general underlying principle in the game that assigns authorship to damage.

For example, suppose oil has been spread on the floor and a hostile creature chooses to cross it. My warlock throws a lit torch into the oil and the DM requires an attack roll. The subsequent fire reduces the creature to 0hp. Does the warlock get to use Dark One’s Blessing?

Suppose the same warlock lights a nearby patch of oil on the floor and the DM does not require an attack roll. A hostile creature later chooses to enter the burning oil and is reduced to 0hp. Does the warlock get to use the ability? Did he reduce the creature to 0hp, or did the fire? Does it matter that the creature chose to enter the fire through its own movement – if the warlock had been able to use a spell or action to force the movement, would the answer be different?

Finally, consider three warlocks who all have initiative before a target. One throws a flask of oil on the floor, one throws a torch that ignites the oil, and one uses a shove attack to move a hostile creature into the space where the flaming oil is / will be. Which warlock(s) get to use Dark One’s Blessing? Does their order matter? That is, is it a different answer if the shove moves the creature to the space where the oil will be, vs. to a space where the flame already is?

Possibly related: If my familiar is forced through my action to drop a rock while over a target, is it considered an attack?

What’s with these pointless empty log files? And why does the csvlog mode create plaintext ones too?

I’ve been fighting for days now just to get god damn logging set up. I’ve had to write a ton of code manually because PG doesn’t provide any automated mechanism to do this, for some reason, nor even tells you anything, beyond this: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-logging.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-LOGGING-CSVLOG

I have:

  1. Set up the postgres_log table exactly like it says on that page.
  2. Set up my postgresql.conf like this (also as it says on the page, except it only describes it vaguely and lets me find out everything on my own):
log_destination = 'csvlog' logging_collector = on log_directory = 'C:\pglogs' # Yes, I requires double \ chars or else it removes them entirely... log_filename = 'PG_%Y-%m-%d_%H;%M;%S' log_rotation_age = 1min log_rotation_size = 0 log_truncate_on_rotation = on 
  1. Coded my own mechanism to constantly go through C:\pglogs for any .csv file, skipping any ones that PG reports are already in use with pg_current_logfile, feed them into PG’s table and then delete the file. This took me a huge amount of time and effort and not a word about it was mentioned in that "manual".


  1. PostgreSQL creates both PG_2020-09-20_00;56;19.csv (in CSV format) and PG_2020-09-20_00;56;19 (in plaintext format) files. I obviously don’t want the extensionless files. Why are they created?
  2. Every minute (as specified) PG creates new log files, even if there’s nothing new to log. This results in an endless stream of empty log files (which my custom script goes through, "imports" and then deletes). How do I tell PG to stop doing that? It seems like pointless wear & tear on my disk to make empty files which are just deleted seconds later by my ever-running script.
  3. Why isn’t all of this automated? Why do I have to spend so much time to manually cobble together a solution to import the CSV files back into PG? In fact, why are they dumped to CSV files in the first place? Why doesn’t PG have the ability to directly log into that database table? It seems like a pointless exercise to dump CSV files which are only going to be COPYied back into the database and then deleted.

Why use Convex Polygons and not Concave ones in path-finding?

I read in Unity’s path-finding documentation that they use convex polygons because there won’t be any ‘obstruction’ between 2 points. Then they add their vertices as nodes along with starting and ending points and traverse them using A* algorithm to reach the required destination.

However, I do not understand what they mean by "no obstruction between 2 points". I tried to check the differences between concave and convex polygons but only the angle differences come up (in convex the interior angles must be less than 180 degrees)

Are hardware security keys (e.g ones supporting Fido2) “able to protect authentication” even in case of compromised devices?

Correct me if I am wrong, please.

I understand that 2FA (MFA) increases account security in case an attacker obtains a password which might be possible via various ways, e.g. phishing, database breach, brute-force, etc..

However, if the 2FA device is compromised (full system control) which can also be the very same device then 2FA is broken. It’s not as likely as opposed to only using a password but conceptually this is true.

Do hardware security keys protect against compromised devices? I read that the private key cannot be extracted from those devices. I think about protecting my ssh logins with a FIDO2 key. Taking ssh as an example, I would imagine that on a compromised device the ssh handshake and key exchange can be intercepted and the Fido2 key can be used for malicious things.

Additionally: Fido2 protects against phishing by storing the website it is setup to authenticate with. Does FIDO2 and openssh also additionally implement host key verification or doesn’t it matter because FIDO2 with openssh is already asymmetric encryption and thus not vulnerable to MitM attacks?

Are there ways to let a sufficiently high Acrobatics(Jump) roll exceed ones Max movement?

I’m building a L9 Tier 3 mythic character in a Pathfinder game (with a DM who accepts a lot of 3pp, including Drop Dead Games / Spheres of Power & Might, which I’m using heavily).

Between abilities and items, I could easily have a 200+ foot jump…except that jump is limited to my max walking speed.

Do you know of any items / feats / abilities (1st or 3rd party) that allow one to jump further than their speed, in a single Move action? (Spheres of Might has the absurd Dragoon leap, but it’s only as a Full Round action.)

Counting one’s in a stream of bits

I have to count the number of one’s in last $ m$ bits in a stream of bits and $ m \leq n,$ where $ n$ is the window size and it should take polylogarithmic space in $ n$ . I could only store last $ n$ bits and then count the number of one’s in those $ n$ bits but it takes $ O(n)$ space. How to achieve it in $ O(\log^k n)$ , $ k>0$ .
Any hint would be appreciated.

Computing automaton for $L(A) / L(B)$ gives ones for $A,B$

I’m trying to figure out whether infinite language change the answer.

Show that the following language is decidable: $ $ L=\{\langle A,B \rangle : \text{$ A,B$ are DFAs, $ L(B)$ is finite, and $ L(A)/ L(B)=L(0^*1^*)$ }\}.$ $

(I am talking about right division.)

We know how to check whether the language of a DFA is finite, and given two DFAs, we know how to check whether their languages are equal. The algorithms I know to the above problems uses the DFA’s, so it is necessary having the DFA’s in order to decide those problems.

I’m trying to figure out whether $ |L(B)|=\infty$ changes the answer. To the best of my understanding, because $ |L(B)|<\infty$ , we can explicitly construct a DFA that accepts $ L(A)/ L(B)$ , whereas if $ L (B)=\infty$ all we know is about the existence of $ DFA$ that accepts $ L(A)/ L(B)$ .

However, even if $ L(B)$ is an infinite language, since there is a finite number of DFAs, one of which accepts $ L(A) / L(B)$ , I can certainly know that there is a Turing machine that decides the language $ L$ . Right?