Can a hybrid character replace his only encounter attack power belonging to one of his classes?

Assume a Paladin|Swordmage with Cha and Con dumping Int or a SwarmDriud|Runepriest with Wis and Con dumping Str. As the relevant ability is very low, it would make sense not to pick any power from the secondary class. However, hybrid rules say you must.
Is there a way around this?

I do not think Reserve Maneuver or multiclass power swaps work, but I am not sure.

Is there a way to store an arbitrarily big BigInt in a bit sequence, only later to convert it into a standard BigInt structure?

I am trying to imagine a way of encoding a BigInt into a bit stream, so that it is literally just a sequence of bits. Then upon decoding this bit stream, you would generate the standard BigInt sort of data structure (array of small integers with a sign). How could you encode the BigInt as a sequence of bits, and how would you decode it? I don’t see how to properly perform the bitwise manipulations or how to encode an arbitrary number in bits larger than 32 or 64. If a language is required then I would be doing this in JavaScript.

For instance, this takes bytes and converts it into a single bit stream:

function arrayOfBytesTo32Int(map) {   return map[0] << 24     | map[1] << 16     | map[2] << 8     | map[3] } 

How would you do that same sort of thing for arbitrarily long bit sequences?

Does Mailgun seriously offer “Detailed Documentation” only for paying customers?


Detailed Documentation

Source: https://www.mailgun.com/pricing

The quoted text is a bullet point/"feature checkmark" for their $ 35 USD/month plan (the cheapest paid one).

Does this actually mean that they have a lesser manual for the "freeloaders", and a better written one for their paying customers?

If so, this is a new level of sadism which I never thought any company would admit to openly. None of the points are explained further from what I can tell.

why can’t we protect the password file so that only the system can read it?

can’t we design an OS in such a way that it doesn’t allow anyone(not even root) to read the passwords file?. Then there will be no need for encrypting the passwords. Why can’t we hard-code a computer to hide it’s password file?

I was reading Cuckoo’s egg by Clifford Stoll on page 32, I didn’t understand why encrypting passwords is necessary why can’t we program the computer so that it ‘hides’ the password file from all users?

here is the excerpt:

When your computer has fifty or a hundred users, you might just store each person’s password in a file. When the user tries to log on, ask for her password and compare that to what’s in your file. In a friendly environment, no problem. But how do you keep someone from sneaking a peek at that password file? Well, protect the password file so that only the system can read it. Even if you protect the password file, every now and then all the files will be copied onto backup tapes. Even a novice programmer could read those tapes on another computer and list the contents of the password file. File protection alone isn’t enough. In 1975, Bob Morris and Fred Grampp of Bell Laboratories developed a way to protect passwords, even when files weren’t secure. They would rely on encryption, rather than file protection.

What is the theoretical result of flattening a list containing only itself?

Consider the following python code

X = [None] X[0] = X 

This has many fun properties such as

X[0] == X 

and

X[0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0] == X 

I understand how this works from a practical standpoint, as it’s all just the same pointer.

Now, when flattening a list, we tend to convert things from

[[1, 2, 3], [[4, 5], [6, 7]], 8, 9] 

to

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] 

In this case, I am considering flattening to be reducing a multi-dimensional list down to a single list of only non-list elements.

In practice, flattening this list would be impossible, as it would create an infinite loop.

This may be more mathematical in nature, but I’m unsure how to put it in mathematical terms. Suppose we could flatten this list, would the result simply be the empty list?

For context, I initially got this idea by considering the list

X = [[], []] X[0] = X 

It is clear to see that at each pass of flattening, the empty list that is the second element simply disappears. This lead me to think that the overall result, may be the empty list.

Could it be possible that flattening this list would theoretically produce an infinitely long list of the list itself, as in

X == [X, X, X, X, X, X, ..., X] 

This is purely a fun thought exercise. Any insight and discussion on this would be appreciated.

P.S. Although I’m looking for an answer in plain terms, if anyone is more mathematically inclined, I would be interested to see how this problem could be formulated in some sort of set notation. Please feel free to point me to a relevant math exchange thread as well.

P.P.S. I would also be interested in a solid proof (not formal) to go along with the answer.

Datfortress’s programs are always visible in their cells, or triggered only when Netrunner pass by their cell?

In all the samples of Netmap, we can see data fortress with walls, gates, CPUs, memories, and also programs in a determined cell.

Now I wonder, when the netrunner enters in the subgrid and starts to attack the fortress, does he see the program in a far cell (if visibility is not blocked by an obstacle and withing 20 spaces)? Or the map that the netrunner sees, doesn’t show the location of programs and will be the referee to decide when a program appear in that determined cell, probably triggered by the netrunner or other programs passing by that cell?

Also, not all programs have "endurance", and they should be deactivated at the end of their action at the end of the turn, so how is possible that Datafortress has all its programs always activated?

So this makes me think that programs are "preassigned" to a cell, but they are like in a sleeping mode, and only after triggering they appear doing their action. Can somebody explain how you did in your netrunner mini-games?

What happens when a caster targets an object that looks like a creature with a spell that targets only creatures?

There are many spells which explicitly target creatures:

Choose one creature within range

The target creature is normally supposed to make a saving throw in this case.

What happens when the caster chooses a creature, that is actually an object? For instance, a scarecrow, a mannequin, an illusion, or a corpse.

Examples:

  • An evil mage is hiding in the bushes. He casts an illusion of himself on the road, using the Silent Image spell. A PC sorcerer walks down the road, sees the illusion and casts Magic Missile on it.

  • A cleric is standing near a pile of dead bodies. He has suspicions that a few corpses are actually undead creatures. He casts Sacred Flame on every corpse, see which if them succeed, hence, reveals the undead.

  • A wizard casts Acid Splash on a mannequin, trying to damage it with acid.

Possible outcomes I can think of are:

  1. The caster cannot even try to cast the spell, regardless of their information about what the target actually is.
  2. The caster tries to cast the spell, the casting fails, not expending the spell slot.
  3. The caster casts the spell, it expends the spell slot, then fails.
  4. The caster casts the spell, but it hits the original and not the illusion.
  5. The caster casts the spell, it flies to the target illusion but deals no damage to it (passes through it).

References in the rules and Sage advice

I was trying to investigate, but it didn’t make things clearer:

  • Does magic missile hit silent image's illusory creature? has an answer, that Magic Missile won’t hit. It says nothing about if it can be targeted at all, it leaves it up to the DM.

  • Magic Missile automatically finds the original, even when the caster targets an illusion. At least when the illusion was created by the Mirror Image spell. Now confirmed by Jeremy Crawford. This supports the counter-intuitive option 4.

on the other hand

  • Casters don’t automatically know when a spell fails, if there were no perceivable effects (let’s say you can try to cast the Command spell on an illusion). That assumes that casters can waste their spells on illusion, which means they at least can target it. This supports options 3 and 5.