Are there any existing magical/artificial replacement arms written up?

So I lost my arm after shoving it into a cube and it getting cutoff… Honestly, I have been playing my character Wyn Wynn as a pretty straight forward Paladin of Lathander. I am new to the group I play with and the DM and players have given me credit and said I have been playing my character well and even like him as a character even if sometimes my character butts heads with one of the other characters. But now I want to stick out a bit and claim some glory for my own.

As I said I have just lost my arm, fun stuff truly but as luck would have it, we accepted a quest that if we clear out the tomb, we all get one wish. Now, assuming great Wyn Wynn the now one armed badass paladin lives, I was wondering: are there anything written about having an artificial limb or magical one in any of the official 5e D&D handbooks? I am hoping to wish myself a new arm that is magical or artificial. Not that my old Half-Elf arm wasn’t great, regrowing it just isn’t what I am looking for.

Is the DMG’s Disarm option an entire action, or a replacement for a single weapon attack?

My confusion comes from the somewhat ambiguous wording of the Disarm action as described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (p. 271):

A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.

Two things stand out to me:

A creature can use a weapon attack

One way to interpret this is to mean that this is replacing a normal weapon attack, disarming the target instead of dealing damage. The other way to interpret this is that this weapon attack is special; that despite being called an attack, it’s intended to be its own action type.

If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect

This also stands out to me. If this were its own action, and not a replacement for a regular attack, then it wouldn’t be necessary to specify that damage is negated; it would simply be presumed to deal no damage.

What is the correct way to interpret this action? Is it its own action, or a replacement for a single attack as part of the Attack action? If a character gets the Extra Attack feature, can Disarm replace every attack they’re otherwise allowed to make?

Replacement rules which for elements of a vector which meet conditions

I’m trying to create a function which will replace elements of a list with their values modulo 1, i.e. Mod[x,1], but only if Abs[x]>1. So, for example, the function would yield:

f[{-1.5,-1,0,1}]={.5,-1,0,1}].

I’m trying to do this in an elegant way. For example, I have a function for a related purpose:

C1[v_] := v /. _?Negative -> 0;.

This replaces negative elements of a list with 0, and it’s very clean.

I’d like to do something similar. My efforts so far have included breaking it into two functions:

CLim[x_] := Mod[x, 1] /; Abs[x] > 1;

C2[v_] := CQubitLim /@ v; But then, when I apply C2 to a list, it only seems to apply on some elements, for example

C2[{1,0,1.5}]={Clim[1],CLim[0],0.5}

My other idea was to use a conditional rule

v:>Mod[v,1]/;Abs[v]>1

But this doesn’t seem to evaluate when I put a vector through it.

Any ideas much appreciated.

Is this 3rd level rogue feature a balanced replacement for the Inquisitive rogue’s Insightful Fighting feature?

The Inquisitive rogue’s 3rd-level Insightful Fighting feature (XGtE, p. 46) originally states:

At 3rd level, you gain the ability to decipher an opponent’s tactics and develop a counter to them. As a bonus action, you can make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn’t incapacitated, contested by the target’s Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don’t have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.

This benefit lasts for 1 minute or until you successfully use this feature against a different target.

This is the homebrew feature I’m interested in having replace Insightful Fighting:

At 3rd level, you gain the ability to analyze incoming attacks and develop a counter to them. Whenever you take the Dodge action, you gain a bonus to your next attack roll equal to your Intelligence modifier. If this attack hits, you can use your Sneak Attack on it even if you don’t have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn.

This applies whether the Dodge action is taken using an action or bonus action (if a feature allows Dodge using bonus action).

This supposed to feel like parrying and counterattacking an enemy. I’m playing a more cunning rogue, rather than dexterous one, and find that I’m lagging behind with my attack modifier.

Although I’m planning to homebrew most of the subclass features, for this question I’m asking: How does this replacement feature compare to the original Insightful Fighting? Is it a balanced replacement

I’m not too worried about Eye for Weakness combo (I don’t think I’m gonna reach that high), so I guess it works the same.

Notable concern:

  1. Feature that grant Dodge as bonus action, so you can Dodge, then solo Attack with Sneak.
  2. Same with 1, but instead of Attack, cast True Strike for ‘guaranteed hit’.

Mechanical / balance issues with War Priest feature replacement? [Attempt 3]

I recently requested a review of a homebrew War Priest feature replacement that contained major mechanical flaws (it could not be used at 1st level).

Below is revised wording that is intended to be useful at all levels:

When you cast a spell on your turn by expending a spell slot, you may instead have the spell assume the level below the slot’s (if valid) and use your reaction to make one weapon attack against a creature that was a target of the spell.

Alternatively, when you cast a cantrip on your turn, you may choose to expend a spell slot and use your reaction to make one weapon attack against a creature that was a target of the cantrip.

My discussion in the last post is still relevant. Do you think there are mechanical or balance issues to this homebrew feature?

Is this replacement for Animate Dead balanced?

I am building a Circle of Spores druid and do not feel like animate dead would fit well in the party that I am joining, so I am looking to re-flavour it to be more plant based.

I will probably add a follow up question on plant-based equivalents to zombies and skeletons, but for now I am just looking at the spell itself.

To replicate the requirement for corpses I created a cantrip which will create the materials for the new spell, and that cantrip requires bodies.

The cantrip:

DECOMPOSE

Necromancy Cantrip

Casting time: 1 action

Range: Touch

Components: V, S

Duration: 1 minute

You reach out and touch the corpse of a creature. Over the next minute, the corpse begins to rapidly decompose, sprouting fungus and moss as it begins to decay into mulch.

At the end of the duration, you can use your action to extract a single seed from the corpse, which can be used as a component for the Animate Plants spell.

Applicable requirements for resurrection are not affected by this spell.

The spell itself:

ANIMATE PLANTS

3rd-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 minute

Range: 10 feet

Components: V, S, M (a seed created by the decompose cantrip, a drop of water, and a pinch of dirt or soil)

Duration: Instantaneous

This spell creates a plant based servant.

You plant the seed in the ground and as it grows your spell imbues it with life, raising it as a creature. The target quickly grows into the shape of a humanoid with the stats of either a skeleton or zombie (you choose) over the casting time of the spell.

On each of your turns, you can use a bonus action to mentally command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple creatures, you can command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same command to each one).

You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures.

Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete. The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you’ve given it.

To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you animate or reassert control over two additional undead creatures for each slot level above 3rd.

The majority of the text from animate plants is taken directly from the animate dead spell, so I think the crux of the matter is if there are any likely shenanigans I can pull with my version that the corpse requirement prevents on the normal version, plus anything else I have not thought about.

An algorithm which efficiently generates random samples without replacement, from a large range [0-N], N ~ 10^12?

I want an algorithm which generates random integers, without replacement, from a large range [0-N], N~10^12.

However, the whole range should not be stored in memory. The memory footprint should be O(1) relative to N. The algorithm can (probably must) retain state after every sample request.

The randomness should be “strong” in the cryptographic sense.

Mechanical / balance issues with War Priest feature replacement? [Attempt 2]

I recently proposed a homebrew replacement for the War Priest domain feature. Consensus was that it was overpowered, because 1st level domain features should (paraphrasing):

  • Be situtational if they are powerful.
  • Have a meaningful resource cost.
  • Pose a trade off to the player.

(My personal opinion is that some equivalent abilities – e.g. the Order Domain feature – do not abide by these restrictions, but obviously there are contextual differences between subclasses).

I’ve written a new homebrew replacement for the War Priest feature based on that feedback. It allows a War Cleric to make an attack when they reduce the power of a spell they cast.

When you use your action to cast a spell by expending a spell slot, you may instead have the spell assume the level below the slot’s and use your reaction to make one weapon attack against a creature that was a target of the spell.

The assumed level must be a valid level at which the spell may be cast.

Some comments:

  • It’s situational. It requires the cleric to be blasting / debuffing (instead of the more common healing / buffing). This also better matches the aggressive nature of the original feature.

  • It’s limited by the number of spell slots the cleric can use, and costs a reaction. There is a soft precedent for using a reaction on your turn in the UA Blade Mastery feat, and there may be other such features that I’m not aware of.

  • It trades an extra attack for one level of a spell slot. So the cleric can either throw away a low-level slot to weak blast + attack, or nerf a high-level slot to strong blast + attack.

  • It stacks with Spiritual Weapon. So in the best case, the cleric can blast + reaction attack + bonus attack with spritual weapon. In contrast, the Order Domain cleric can heal + have an ally reaction attack + bonus attack with spiritual weapon.

Do you think there are mechanical or balance issues to the homebrew feature?

Attempt 2: mechanical / balance issues with War Priest feature replacement?

I recently proposed a homebrew replacement for the War Priest domain feature. Consensus was that it was overpowered, because 1st level domain features should (paraphrasing):

  • Be situtational if they are powerful.
  • Have a meaningful resource cost.
  • Pose a trade off to the player.

(My personal opinion is that some equivalent abilities – e.g. the Order Domain feature – do not abide by these restrictions, but obviously there are contextual differences between subclasses).

I’ve written a new homebrew replacement for the War Priest feature based on that feedback. It allows a War Cleric to make an attack as part of a casting action by weaking the spell cast.

When you use your action to cast a spell by expending a spell slot, you may instead have the spell assume the level below the slot’s and target one or more hostile creatures. Make one weapon attack against a creature that was not a target of the spell, as part of the casting action.

The assumed level must be valid for the spell, and the hostile creatures must be valid targets for the spell at that level.

Some comments:

  • It’s situational. It requires the cleric to be both blasting (instead of the more useful healing / buffing) and engaged with other enemies. However, it does remain useful into the mid- and late-game.

  • It’s limited by the number of spell slots the cleric can use. However, it doesn’t have an action economy cost (cf. the 1st level feature of the Death Domain).

  • It trades an attack for one level of a spell slot. So the cleric can either throw away a low-level slot to weak blast + attack, or nerf a high-level slot to strong blast + attack.

  • It stacks with Spiritual Weapon. So in the best case, the cleric can blast + attack + bonus attack with spritual weapon. In contrast, the Order Domain cleric can heal + trigger a sneak attack + bonus attack with spiritual weapon.

Do you think there are mechanical or balance issues to the homebrew feature?