## Are those changes enough to save the Kineticist?

I’ve been toying with the idea of making a kineticist for a bit, now. The class is quite flavorful, with some interesting options and a nice set of utility.

…That said, its core sucks.

Like, really sucks.

While it has a nice group of stuff to do, most of its abilities are locked behind Burn costs. Burn, on itself, is a conceptually interesting idea: you cause some damage to yourself in exchange to do bigger, greater stuff. However, the amount of damage the kineticist takes is, honestly, ridiculous:

At 1st level, a kineticist can overexert herself to channel more power than normal, pushing past the limit of what is safe for her body by accepting burn. Some of her wild talents allow her to accept burn in exchange for a greater effect, while others require her to accept a certain amount of burn to use that talent at all. For each point of burn she accepts, a kineticist takes 1 point of nonlethal damage per character level.

and

A kineticist can’t choose to accept burn if it would put her total number of points of burn higher than 3 + her Constitution modifier (though she can be forced to accept more burn from a source outside her control).

Emphasis mine.

This mechanic makes it so that the Kineticist can’t really contribute that often in meaningful ways in combat by doing the coolest thing in her kit – blasting – without getting herself really close to dropping unconscious at the first lucky attack that manages to land. Plus, even if the Kineticist has a hefty HP pool and can handle all that damage without issues, the number of Burn points it can take is limited by that other clause (3 + Cons mod), which further hinders its usefulness.

So, I decided to do some changes – the fewer the better – to it, in hopes of pushing it to the goldylocks Tier 3. So far, those are the changes I’m thinking in doing:

Take away the “per level” clause.

For each point of burn she accepts, a kineticist takes 1 point of nonlethal damage per character level.

Burn was theoretically a mechanic introduced to keep the kineticist in check and preventing it from going overboard. This class, however, isn’t that strong to begin with, so I think that ‘nerfing’ Burn won’t make it too overpowered.

Secondly, just remove the entire con-based limitation.

A kineticist can’t choose to accept burn if it would put her total number of points of burn higher than 3 + her Constitution modifier (though she can be forced to accept more burn from a source outside her control)

This limitation makes no sense. Other classes can use their options several times per day, or have several different options to pick from. The Kineticist has a single pool of resource as it is, and it is far too limited to provide good gameplay. This needs to go.

Third, change how Gather Power works. Instead of offering a discount of Burn costs…

Gathering power in this way allows the kineticist to reduce the total burn cost of a blast wild talent she uses in the same round by 1 point. The kineticist can instead gather power for 1 full round in order to reduce the total burn cost of a blast wild talent used on her next turn by 2 points (to a minimum of 0 points). If she does so, she can also gather power as a move action during her next turn to reduce the burn cost by a total of 3 points.

…Make it so that Gather Power gives the Kineticist a nice (and much needed) damage buff:

Gathering Power in this way makes the Kineticist Empowered for a number of rounds equal 3 + its Con modifier. While Empowered, the Kineticist’s adds +1 damage to the damage of her Kinetic Blast, plus +1 for every 2 levels above beyond the 1st. The kineticist can instead gather power for 1 full round in order to increase the damage of her kinetic blast by 1d6, plus +1d6 for every 2 levels beyond the first.

I’m also thinking in bumping the Kineticist skills to 6 + int per level and giving it more or less the same class skill list the Magus has, but I’m not sure if this is needed.

Are these changes reasonable? Are they enough to push the Kineticist to Tier 3?

## How many Sorcery Points should it cost to add 1d4 to a spell’s save DC?

I have a homebrew idea to try and add more power to the sorcerer. The idea is that when sorcerer casts a spell that causes a target to make a saving throw, they can spend sorcery points to add 1d4 to their spell save DC. I’m not sure how many sorcery points this should cost though and was wondering what other people think.

## How is CON save DC determined for the Behir?

I am homebrewing a monster that has incorporates the Swallow mechanic used by the Behir (MM, pg. 25). My monster is not at the same CR and I need to adjust its statistics accordingly, but there is one part of Swallow’s text:

… the behir must succeed on a DC 14 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate the creature.

How is the 14 DC calculated? Is there some formula to arrive at 14, as opposed to 17 or 12? Or is it less rigorous than that and more subjective?

## In 5e, how can I offset the disadvantage created by not having a “big three” save proficiency?

I made a homebrew class. (I’m happy to share any details anyone deems necessary or even the entire class if it isn’t against the rules.) It’s a cha-based class which, for flavour reasons, has a variable secondary ability (depends on subclass). One subclass uses int, another uses str and the other uses wis.

It’s been brought to my attention that two of the subclasses suffer from not being proficient in any of the “big three” saves (dex, con, wis) while all 5e classes get one “big three” save and one of the other saves and therefore my class is at a disadvantage defence-wise 2/3 of the time.

The class gets a feature at 11th level that allows it to gain advantage on saving throws with one ability of its choice for a while, but it’s a once-per-short-rest thing and it doesn’t have access to that from 1st level to 10th level.

For flavour reasons, the secondary abilities and save proficiencies of my class’s subclasses absolutely cannot be changed; those two subclasses are stuck with not having any “big three” save proficiencies. How else could I offset the disadvantage this creates?

I’ve thought about bumping the save-advantage feature down from 11th level to 5th level and relying on low-CR monsters not having too many AOE/save attacks, but that seems like a really powerful feature for 5th level and I’m not entirely convinced by the idea.

## Save NDSolve output before break down point?

When `NDSolve` breaks down at a certain point and returns

NDSolve::ndstf: At t == 0.0002928741551966316623688760272534580839493029147882536749`40., system appears to be stiff. Methods Automatic, BDF, or StiffnessSwitching may be more appropriate.

is there a way to save or plot the solution from `t=0` up to `t == 0.0002` and see what went wrong?

## How I could save IDs of search results of Reactive Search Pro in DB?

I would like use Reactive Search Pro along with ACF in order to create Questions as CPTs that will have difficulty, grade, rating and other like that fields and I want to be searchable using WP AJAX.

Those search results I would like the Frontend user to be able to gather them and make a composite item that will be an Exam (a set of questions). Using the jquery sortable preferably. So later a user can save/edit them from frontend again using WP AJAX.

My main pain is how I gather the selected items from search and put them inside a sortable in order to make the list and how I submit them to DB so can later can edit them.

Are there any Hooks to use for that? Do you maybe have a guide for achieving something like that?

I am missing a way on how to glue them together the selected search results and storing them to DB via WP AJAX part.

Thanks!

## WP won’t save changes in post (any)

My WordPress does not save any changes in any post. I can create a new page or post and that one will be saved as ‘Draft’ but there is no content inside. When I make changes, press UPDATE it shows no error or something and the update button becomes inactive as it should. Then in a seconds a message appears saying ‘The backup of this post in your browser is differ…’

I still able create new and edit plugin entities like ninja forms, sliders etc. without any problems. The issue affects builtin WP posts only.

## Tried:

• Folders/files permissions: checked and ok.
• disable all plugins: did not help
• browser cache cleared: did not help
• switch to another browser: did not help

What else should I check?

For now, I can only change post content directly in DB field.

## How do you compute and compare the delays between a (4:2) compressor and (3,2) counter carry save tree?

My question: How is Table 6.8 shown below computed for different operands? For example, for 3 operands how did they compute:

Number of levels using (3,2) = 1

Number of levels using (4;2) = 1

Equivalent delay: 1.5

Or how about for 9 operands how did they compute:

Number of levels using (3,2) = 4

Number of levels using (4;2) = 3

Equivalent Delay: 4.5

The textbook also points out that the equivalent delay of a (4;2) compressor carry save tree with 9 operands (4.5) is bigger than that of a carry save tree using (3,2) counters. Why is that?

What are the general conditions when one is bigger than the other?

The following is an image of a (4:2) compressor taken from this book.

The truth table provided for this compressor is:

where $$a=b=c=1$$ and $$d=e=f=0$$. I think these constants are used to generalize the circuit.

An adder tree that uses (4;2) compressors will have a more regular struc-ture and may have a lower delay than an ordinary CSA tree made of (3,2) counters. Table 6.8 compares the delays of carry-save trees using either (3,2) counters or (4;2) compressors. Since the delay of a (4;2) compressor is 1.5 times that of a (3,2) counter, the number of levels of (4;2) compressors in column 3 is multiplied by 1.5 to yield the equivalent delay in column 4. Note that the equivalent delay of a carry save tree using (4;2) compressors (column 4) is not always smaller than that of a carry save tree using (3,2) counters (column 2). For example, for nine partial products, (3,2) counters will yield a carry save tree with an overall lower delay. Various other counters and compressors can be employed in the implementation of the addition tree for the partial product accumulation; for example, (7,3) counters

Please look at the bold face sentence above:

## How are creatures that make Reverse Gravity’s save affected?

Reverse Gravity allows affected creatures to try not to fall:

This spell reverses gravity in a 50-foot-radius, 100- foot high cylinder centered on a point within range. All creatures and objects that aren’t somehow anchored to the ground in the area fall upward and reach the top of the area when you cast this spell. A creature can make a Dexterity saving throw to grab onto a fixed object it can reach, thus avoiding the fall.

It clearly defines what happens to creatures that fail the save:

If some solid object (such as a ceiling) is encountered in this fall, Falling Objects and creatures strike it just as they would during a normal downward fall. If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, for the Duration.

However it has no guidance for what happens to creatures that succeed it. They are left hanging from the floor, (which is relatively speaking the ceiling for them), and all we know from the spell is that they must be using at least one arm to maintain that state.

There are a few questions to resolve in ruling on this:

1. Are they easier to hit? Maybe not – heavy armor is still good at deflecting missiles, and characters with light armor could be swaying and swinging to dodge.

2. Can they keep hanging on indefinitely? Should they be making Strength saves or Athletics checks to hang on? Presumably it should be easier to hang from whatever they’re holding if they are holding on with 2 hands?

3. (How) can they move? There are rules for climbing, but not climbing across a ceiling (which is what the floor is currently acting as), save some monsters’ Spider Climb ability. My guess would be that it would be an Acrobatics rather than Athletics check (swinging from handhold to handhold rather than pulling yourself up).