Running “Orrery of the Wanderer” adventure from “Acquistions Inc”, need clarification on franchise rules

I am running the pre-made adventure in the Acquisitions Incorporated rule-book and my PCs have just got to the point where they acquire their franchise. I have three different questions about the franchise rules, with the first being the most important/pressing:

  1. The wording on the “running a franchise” task is vague. Does it mean you add the number of days each person works together, even if they overlap? For example, if your character spends 5 days working the franchise and your majordomo works the same 5 days, do you get 10 days worth? If that is the case, with just the majordomo and your two unskilled hirelings you could easily just have them all work all 30 days for a +90% and always get the best result without having to roll or sacrifice player time (you can even have your one skilled worker do something else useful to boot). That seems broken. Or do the days have to be different ones, in which case the maximum bonus you can get on the percentile roll is +30%? This is really my big sticking point as I just got the PCs to the point where they are getting their franchise and I don’t want the roll to auto succeed, because that seems boring, and what’s even the point of having a table if it can just be bypassed so easily?

  2. Most of the activities in the book either have a table of incremental DCs for specific results, or they have a DC given (typically a random one 2d10+5, for example). The one exception seems to be the “headquarters modification” activity, which calls for an intelligence (arcana or history) check, and two of either strength (athletics) or intelligence (relevant tool) checks, but does not specify DCs. This is less pressing as my PCs are unlikely to undergo this task anytime soon, but it is a curiosity as to whether these DCs are intended to be determined by the DM or if they were supposed to be listed for the activity but were accidentally omitted (perhaps an errata is in order to clarify this)?

  3. The Orrery of the Wanderer DM notes suggest the characters make marketeering checks to establish business with various NPCs they have come into contact with. The cost of these checks, of 100gp each, however, is quite prohibitive at level 3 with the PCs having very little disposable wealth. Moreover, according to the charts, these checks will cost the PCs money overall because they cost 100gp, and only provide a maximum benefit of +25% of their 350gp operating costs, or 87.5gp. The PCs have pointed this out to me and are more likely to run other activities like the charitable causes, that are likely to yield 200gp or ever 500gp at the cost of only 50gp. I still want them, flavor wise, to firm up those business contacts like the lizardmen tribe with the potion algae, for example, and I am going to allow them to use schmoosing instead of marketeering for this purpose, as it only costs 10gp. My question here is would schmoosing work to make business deals, especially ones that basically are already agreed to like the lizardmen tribe where they just need to make details as to amounts and times of delivers? Also was the module intended to be asking the PCs to throw around 100s of gp they don’t have at marketeering or was it written without the details of marketeering known? In which case maybe an errata is in order (either to the module or the marketeering rules)?

There seems to be a lack of contact info for the development team or who to ask for rules clarifications for these books, so I sent the above questions directly to Jerry Holkins on Facebook messenger. In the meantime I thought I’d ask the D&D community what you think. Have any of you ran this adventure or used the franchise rules from the book in your campaign and how do you handle the above (particularly question 1)?

How much should I as a GM adapt the rules of my world to suit my players? [closed]

I’m DMing a DnD 3.5e game with some combat but mainly focused on narrative and building towards interesting moral themes. I told my players this in session 0. In the game for our last session the party were guests in a manor house. There was one player acting up for laughs and building friction with their slightly haughty in-game hosts. This ended with him failing a save to steal a paperweight and getting locked away until I could think of a way to deal with him. I’m not afraid to imprison badly behaved characters.

I guided the others on with the plot I had written but the player ended up leaving the session early as there wasn’t anything for his character to do and he hadn’t said anything for about 40 mins. I said I would allow him to contribute to the discussions the main party were having but he didn’t seem interested.

This obviously wasn’t ideal but it fit the reality of the situation and environment they were in. Even when the rest of the party attempted to free him they were unpersuasive and rolled badly and I couldn’t justify letting him go.

I think the player and I have different approaches to playstyle. My question is how much am I expected to compromise? I don’t want to upend the rules and lore of my world because someone wants to mess around.

Using the elements of one Matrix to form a new Matrix with specified rules

Given a matrix [a], how to get matrices [b] and [c] based on the following two rules?

  1. rule [a]->[b]: Strike out corresponding term in [a] and take product of the remaining two terms in the same column.
  2. rule [a]->[c]: Strike out the row and column containing the corresponding term in [a] and take sum of cross products in the 2×2 matrix remaining.

x,y,z can be replaced with 1,2,3; For example, $ a_{xy},a_{yz}$ can be replaced with a12,a23; [a] can be replace with:

a = {{a11, a12, a13}, {a21, a22, a23}, {a31, a32, a33}} 

Thank you

Matrix [a]

enter image description here

Matrix [b]

enter image description here

Matrix [c]

enter image description here

Are there rules to create Troops of casters?

So a person I play Pathfinder with showed me the Troops sub-type which opens up a whole lot of possibilities for high level parties to deal with high numbers of enemies.

But I don’t find much about how to deal with Troops composed of caster characters.

Let’s say that a high level party (lvl 15) is attacking an evil wizard school, and they could end up fighting through dozens of low level wizards.

Of course a GM could always just add 20 level 4 wizards to the mix, but honestly, it would be TERRIBLE to manage that combat for the GM, it would take days for the players to act again, and rolling all those possible saves and ranged touch attacks would be just not fun at all. And that’s not even mentioning that a 4th-6th level wizard would probably not be able to do much to a 15th level character unless the player rolled a 1 on their saves, and that has 5% chance of happening.

So I think the immediate solution would be to implement something like a Troop of wizards.

Are there any rules or guidelines for such a thing?

Applying rules to functions with non numeric arguments

I am trying to do the following (it’s a simplified version):

In[1]:= rulepositive = { f[a_?Positive]:> f[a] }; In[2]:= rulenegative = { f[a_?Negative]:> 0 };  In[3]:= $  Assumptions = Elements[w,Positive];  In[4]:= f[w]/.rulepositive In[5]:= f[w]/.rulenegative 

where I expect

Out[4]:= f[w] Out[5]:= 0 

But it doesn’t work. In words I want to apply a set of mapping rules in functions with non numeric arguments, which nevertheless have definite nature (e.g. Positive/Negative). How could I do it?

firewalking output rules

Scenario is as follows:

In a vulnhub lab, I got limited shell. By means of

attacker> nc -lvp 1234

victim> nc _attacker_ip 1234

I found out that ubuntu’s ufw is limiting outgoing traffic.

Since I’m no root, I can’t list ufw rules. Is there any software that can detect outgoing rules? I guess it wouldn’t be that hard to set a server on the attacker machine to listen in ALL ports, and a client in the victim machine that would “tcp-ping” every port, so it can detect outgoing rules.

Is there any similar software out there? If not, I would maybe roll my own.

Balance implications of these output to input luck change house rules?

What classes and approaches are helped and/or hindered by this set of house rules?

For an upcoming DnD 5e campaign I am considering two house rules, both of which substantially effect one another. The implications are far reaching and complex enough I am having trouble deciding what classes, techniques, and playstyles come out ahead or behind.

Rule 1: Players Roll Rule

  • When a PC is attacked, they roll a defense and add ac bonus vs a static attack (calculated as attack bonus +10)
  • When a PC casts a save spell on an NPC they roll, and add the DC bonus (static save for npc is calculated as save+12)

Rule 2: Deck Play in Combat

  • Use a 52 card deck (without Jokers) instead of a D20 during combat rounds.
    • When initiative is rolled in combat draw 10 cards.
    • When a D20 would be rolled as part of an action (not a free action) instead you must play a card from your hand.
    • Red number cards are listed value
    • Black number cards are listed value plus 10
    • Aces are 1 (1 if red, 11 if black)
    • Royals are top of your discard minus a value. K=D-1, Q=D-2, J=D-3
      • If the top card of the discard is a royal or the discard is empty, the royal is =2
      • When the last card is played from your hand, draw back up to ten
    • When the last card is drawn from your deck, shuffle in the discard.
  • Adv and Disadv
    • Advantage is “play 1 card from your hand, and the top card of the deck, take the higher result”
    • Disadvantage is “play 1 card from your hand, and the top card of the deck, take the lower result”
  • You may take a full round action to discard your entire hand and draw up to ten.


The title of this campaign, as pitched to the players, is “An extremely house rule heavy and experimental campaign” so they at least know what they’re in for. ^_^

Rule tweaks and alternatives sound conversationally fun, but are not quite answers.

The motivation here is to turn some output random into input random, inspired by this video:

This is intended to embrace the “figure out the enemies’ ac/hp/attack value” aspect of some combat.

How to prove that isotropic materials have only two independent constants by tensor operation rules

I want to use tensor method to prove that there are only two independent elastic constants for isotropic materials. But I can’ t get two independent results after reading related posts.

The following resources can be referenced:


That is to find the invariant linear transformation f under $ SO(3)$ . For any C belonging to $ SO(3)$ , 3 * 3 matrix A. There is $ C.f(A).C^T=f(C^T.A.C)$ , then f can be decomposed into the linear combination of identity, transpose and trace, that is, f = C1 * Identity + C2 * Transpose + C3 * I3 * Trace, I3 is the third-order unit matrix.

2.SE community related posts

Length[indeps = SymmetrizedIndependentComponents[{3, 3, 3, 3}, sym]] sym = {{{2, 1, 3, 4}, -1}, {{3, 4, 1, 2}, 1}}; Length[indeps = SymmetrizedIndependentComponents[{3, 3, 3, 3}, sym]] 

How can I get 2 independent variables?