Is probability of succeeding an opposed check the same when the second check is passive?

An “opposed check” is a well-known kind of check in many games, when two opponents roll dice, add modifier and compare results. It differs from a convenient dice roll when you compare your result against a constant number (DC, target number or whatever).

There is also a concept of “passive check” in 5e when you just take 10 instead of rolling d20. An opposed check against a “passive” value effectively turns into a “simple” one, being made against a constant number.

Now, let’s say there are two sides makes opposed rolls using modifiers A and B. First one rolls d20 and adds A, while second one always uses constant number 10 + B. In terms of statistics, should these checks have the same hit/miss rate? —

  1. d20 + A as opposed to d20 + B
  2. d20 + A as opposed to 10 + B

I’d say rolling d20 is a little better than 10, since the average of d20 is 10.5, but my probability intuition isn’t very good.

In order to minimize number of dice rolls, if I change all opposed PCs vs. NPCs checks to “roll vs. passive” checks (players always roll, NPCs always use their passive values), how does it affect my games?

Finding sequence of pairs with second element of previous pair matching first element of next pair

I am interested in efficient ways of doing certain problem.

I have list of $ n$ pairs, where $ n$ is usually a few houndred thousands and each pair’s element is an integer (let’s assume it is integer from $ 0$ to $ 10000$ ) and I am trying to find a sequence such that it start and ends at chosen integer (we can assume it is eg. $ 0$ ) and second element of previous pair matches first element of next pair. So as an example, if we have set of pairs $ \{(0,1), (1,3), (3, 2) (3,0)\}$ the valid sequence would be eg. $ (0,1), (1,3), (3, 0)$ . If there is a few answers then I can find arbitrary one. Moreover it is no certain that my list of pairs actually has a solution. If it does not have solution, then the method should return no valid solutions.

I think that maybe some kind of dynamic programming could be useful here, but I don’t really have an idea for something better than just checking all the options, which I am almost certain is quite bad. Do you have any interesting insight about this problem?

Are there any more Game-Mechanical Advantages for having a second set of arms like those an Aegis’ suit can provide? [closed]

Are there any more Game-Mechanical Advantages for having a second set of arms like those an Aegis’ suit can provide besides…..

+3 circumstance bonus to Climb checks and CMD against grapple attempts for each extra arm that is not holding anything and multi-weapon fighting.

Like bonus craft checks or make crafting faster, swim checks, writing or drawing. So far all I can think of is blacksmithing where one or two limbs holds on to a piece being forged and two to three other limbs with hammers shaping it.

Can second internal hard disk cause infection after reinstall?

Lets say I have two internal hard disks, one for the operating system the other for backups. If i make sure to delete the MBR and partition table with dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=512 count=2048 of the disk with the operating system to avoid the possibility of a boot sector virus.

If I reinstall in what ways can that second hard disk be used to cause an infection of the primary disk with the operating system?

I was reading thata boot sector viruses can even spread to other hard drives you have installed or physical media you have plugged into your system.

So what impact can a boot sector virus on a backup drive have on on the primary drive? And any other threats I may have missed? I guess it could effect USB sticks plugged in?

Is it safe to assume that my computer’s clock will always be synced with actual time within the second or a few seconds at the worst?

Years ago, I was running a service where the moderators were able to do various actions with massive privacy implications if the accounts or contributions were less than a short period of time. I did this by checking the timestamp against the current Unix epoch, allowing for X hours/days. Normally, this worked well.

One day, the server where this was hosted on had been “knocked offline” in the data centre where I was renting it, according to the hosting company. When it came back on again, its clock had been reset to the factory default, which was many years back.

This resulted in all my moderators potentially being able to see every single account’s history and contributions in my service until I came back and noticed the wrong time (which I might not even have done!) and re-synced it. After that, I hardcoded a timestamp into the code which the current time had to be more than or else it would trigger “offline mode”, to avoid any potential disasters like this in the future. I also set up some kind of automatic timekeeping mechanism (in FreeBSD).

You’d think that by now, not only would every single computer be always auto-synced by default with tons of fallback mechanisms to never, ever be in a situation where the clock isn’t perfectly synced with “actual time”, at least down to the second, if not more accurately; it would be impossible or extremely difficult to set the clock to anything but the current actual time, even if you go out of your way to do it.

I can’t remember my Windows computer ever having been out of time for the last “many years”. However, I do important logging of events in my system running on it. Should I just assume that the OS can keep the time at all times? Or should I use some kind of time-syncing service myself? Like some free HTTPS API, where I make a lookup every minute and force the system clock to me whatever it reports? Should I just leave it be and assume that this is “taken care of”/solved?

When I cast Glyph of Warding, can I use Wish to supply the second spell?

Assuming I do not have access to a second 9th level spell for that day (such as via a Boon, a scroll, or an item), when I cast glyph of warding at a lower level than 9th, can I use wish to supply the second spell?

The key considerations I am thinking about are that if I replicate a spell using wish, that spell is cast using a 9th level slot; that, and the highest level spell that a glyph of warding can store is equal to the level of the spell slot it was cast with.

Can a multiclassed Wizard enchant an arcane bonded weapon by qualifying with a second casting class?

Suppose that I want to have a first-level wizard school ability, and that I took an arcane bond with a weapon. Say that for whatever reasons, I take the rest of my levels in a different casting class. Can I still magically enhance my Arcane Bond weapon without taking the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat? Arcane Bond says:

A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required Item Creation Feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat).

Now, usually a wizard would do this by reaching CL5 as a wizard, but the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat only specifies you have to be CL5 to use it. Certainly you can always magically enhance a weapon with the feat, then re-bond to it, but that’s not the question. If I am a wizard 1 / witch 5 (for example), am I able to magically enhance my arcane bonded weapon, e.g. to be a +1 weapon without having the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat? If not, why not?

Note: This is not specific to the wizard/witch combo, I’m asking about all caster combos with wizard in general.

Is a grappling character considered to be distracted for the purposes of an attack by a second opponent?

If a character is grappling a struggling opponent, and a second opponent attacks the character, would the DM rule that the distraction of dealing with the grappled opponent causes opponent number 2 to have Advantage on its attack?

I suppose it might depend on the nature of the Grapple. Merely grabbing an opponent by the wrist to impede his slingshot might leave you alert and ready to parry or dodge, but a more violent tussle, involving a grab with both arms would, I presume, leave you wide open for a whack from behind and thus at a Disadvantage versus a second opponent.

Even if you have followed up with a move to leave your grappled opponent Prone, I imagine that you are now kneeling, crouching or otherwise distorting your fighting stance in such a way (at least I cannot imagine that grappling a prone opponent can be done standing up) as to give a second opponent the Advantage.

I don’t see anything in the Rules (I have Essentials Kit Rulebook) covering this.

does the true seeing spell modify your actual sight, or give you a second sight?

The reason this matters is for determining another question: Can a creature under the effect of the true seeing spell see a creature under the effect of nondetection inside magical darkness?

True seeing reads:

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually are. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

As such it apparently gives the creature truesight (by means of divination magic). So the creature is granted a new sense, but is the use of that sense mutually exclusive to the use of their normal sight?