What are the rules for attacking a willing target? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • Can someone decide to be hit? 6 answers

I will give an example.

My ally is in a grapple that they do not want to be in and they keep failing the checks to escape. I am a Druid with a 30′ speed and I am 50′ away. I can not reach them to pull them out so I run up 30′ and cast Thorn Whip. My ally’s AC is 22. If my ally is willing to be hit by my spell to pull him from the grapple, would the attack auto hit? Would I still have to hit 22+ AC?

What rules can I use to emulate a W20 wendigo’s clan werewolf with V5 rules

I make a scenario using vampire the masquerade V5 rules where I want that my players face a wendigo’s clan werewolf as those werewolfs are in werewolf the Apocalypse W20 (the werewolf have characteristics of a neonate equivalent for werewolf for his powers). Since in V5, they only give rules for “basics” werewolf, I have to adapts those power from my W20 book.

The problems are that I am not so good to homebrew things, so if I can use vampirics powers that work the same way, I prefer to use them; and that I’m not very good to understand some of the W20 rules (maybe because I am too much influenced by vampire V20)

I have some ideas (e. g. use blood sorcery rituals used to track someone to emulate the feature that make wendigos so dangerous), but I think that the experience of peoples that have way more experience in this domain can only make it better.

Are the Player’s Basic Rules the same as the Player’s Handbook when it comes to combat?

I have seen quite a few threads that compare the free basic rules with the Player’s Handbook for 5e, but none of them seem to mention combat. I have played a lot of 3.5, and I always felt the combat rules were a bit too much for me. After reading the basic combat rules, I was pleased they were simpler, but I don’t know if that is because it is a basic rule set.

Are the combat rules in the basic rules the same as in the full version (simpler grappling, fewer attacks of opportunity, fewer combat actions available, etc.)?

Rules about invisibility, bag of holding, an imp and an undead’s head scenario

Okay….to make an extremely long story short. A PC put an imp inside his bag of holding. Running out of oxygen I made the imp transform into a spider to survive a much longer time than 10 minutes. (Looking online this imp/spider can now survive weeks with little oxygen)

At some point my PC also added a head of an immortal being inside the bag of holding. (The imp is assumed to be long dead to due to the lack of knowledge of its transformation ability)

So some bullet fire questions to help me as a DM to know if it’s allowed (and have some back up that this is not “too bs” for the players)

  1. He will take that head out at some point
  2. That head will have a spider in its mouth/ear/neck-hole whatever
  3. The spider will crawl out of it’s hiding spot and transform back into an imp.
  4. The Imp will take the head and go invisible while holding the head and escape.

The stuff I listed, do any of these break the rules that’s currently in place for the game? imp’s invisibility, transformation, bag of holding functions and etc.

RAW is it against the rules to take another class’s class feature as a feat?

For example, I want to play a Firbolg life cleric (because our party desperately needs more healing) but for roleplay purposes I don’t want him to wear armor so I was thinking that I could take the Unarmored Defense Feat and use my Wisdom like a monk. So imagine my surprise when I found out that it wasn’t a feat and just a class feature of some classes. Thus my question.

My DM is pretty is pretty lenient so as long as the rules don’t specifically say “This is forbidden” she’ll probably let me do it. Now I know that this could be easily solved by just taking 1 level in monk so that’s an option but not my first.

There is an extremely related question, Gaining Other Class Feats, but that doesn’t answer my “Is it explicitly forbidden?” question.

Other related questions (both from 3.5):

Is choosing a different class feature too good as a (house rule) replacement for a redundant feat? Answer seems to be “No, that is a fine rule.”

What can I do with an existing feat that I later get free as a class feature? Answer is “Retrain the feat for a new one.”

Snort Doesn’t Generate Default Rules

I am new to information security, and am trying to set-up Snort 2.9.15.0.

It seems like on Windows and Linux, that Snort doesn’t generate any default rules at installation. It doesn’t even generate default files, causing the .conf file to be mostly commented out, or having to generate the .rules myself. ./rules, and ./etc/rules are empty.

Why no default .rules? Is this intended? Is there a repository of rules that I can reference for my own learning?

Is there anything in the rules giving Loxodons disadvantage on Stealth checks?

I’m curious if there is a ruling on this topic. Specifically the debate was over whether a Loxodon Way of the Shadow Monk could benefit from the massive stealth advantages and ninja-teleportation. This would apply equally I presume for Centaurs and other larger (but still medium) playable races.

Speaking of “flavor” it seems a Loxodon/Centaur ninja would be highly ineffective. A 7ft tall 400lb elephant probably wouldn’t make a great ninja, right? It makes sense from a world concept level.

But is there actually anything in the rules that would give these large (but still Medium-sized) creatures disadvantage on Stealth checks?

Proper algorithm for resolving ambiguity in grammars via enforcing associativity and precedence rules

I was told there is a algorithm that always resolves ambiguity for grammars that have issues with precedence and associativity. I know ambiguity in general is undecidable, so I only want to resolve those two sources of ambiguity (precedence and associativity).

As far as I know from reading this course, the heuristic I have developed are the following:

  • higher precedence = appear lower in the tree always (so they are never produced by any rule bellow a symbol that is higher up). A different way to understand this is; higher precedence operators are evaluated first, so they appear lower in the parse/computation tree.

  • right-associativity = when two operators of the same type fight for an argument if its right associative then the op on the right wins. Thus, this means that immediate recursion of the same production rule generating that op must always appear on the right (and that symbol/op can never be produced on the other side/left).

however, these rules must be incomplete or slightly wrong because when I was trying to resolve a “tricky” grammar I got wrong answers or couldn’t make sense of the right solution.

For example, imagine we have this:

<exp> ::= 0 | 1 | b<exp> | <exp>a | <exp>m<exp> 

and we want to enforce:

Right associativity for m and the following precedence inequality is the one we want: $ b >_p m >_p a$ which means b has higher precedence than m has higher precedence than a.

the solution given was:

<exp> ::= <no a m> | <not m>m<no a> | <exp>a <no a> ::= <no a m> | <no a m>m<no a> <not m> ::= <no a m> | <exp>a <no a m> ::= b<no a m> | 0 | 1 

However, according to the “rules” I came up this must be wrong. But since its the instructor solutions to its safer to assume I am wrong and need to refine my understanding.

The reason I think its wrong is that the first rule there is a <not m> to the left of m. That means we can generate an a. But a has lower precedence than m, so according to my rule it must never appear bellow the parse tree of m, but it does. So it seems I do not understand precedence properly or the algorithm to enforce it.

My understanding is that precedence means that if you have higher precedence then you bind tighter than other operators, so you steal the arguments from others. I was also told that means that you appear lower in the parse tree, which intuitively makes sense. But that’s too vague for me to really unambiguously and formally define a way to resolve precedence in any grammar (assuming I only want to resolve precedence and associativity only and solving that “solves the grammar”).

So is my understanding correct? Can someone help me make my algorithms for resolving these issue more rigorous (and ideally bullet proof)?


Note, I am aware that resolving ambiguity is undecidable in general, but I was told precedence and associativity is not undecidable assuming thats all we want. So thats what Im looking for.


Cross-posted:

  • https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-proper-algorithm-for-resolving-ambiguity-in-grammars-via-enforcing-associativity-and-precedence-rules
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/e0lz9o/proper_algorithm_for_resolving_ambiguity_in/

Are monsters subject to the massive damage instant-death rules?

I have been looking at the following two questions recently:

  • Are Trolls immune to all instant death effects?
  • Does the Instant Death rule apply to zombies too?

The first states the following in the question itself:

[…] In addition to such spells, there are more general effects that cause death, mainly massive damage and failing three death saves […]

That and the answers there seem to work under the assumption that massive damage does apply to monsters.

However the second question’s currently most upvoted answer (36 upvotes) states the following:

The rule for dealing damage in excess of your total hit points is intended for player characters, not monsters […]

These two seem to be in direct opposition and I’m unsure then what the correct ruling is.


Here are the passages I believe are relevant to answering this question:

Monsters and Death

Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws […]

Instant Death

Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum […]


Does the rule on instant death from massive damage apply to monsters?