Is there an official treasure generation method to limit magic item rolls based on dungeon level or some other factor?

I’m running an AD&D campaign for a party of usually-three PCs, who were first level until our most recent session. (As for what they are now, we’ll get to that…) I have the 1e DMG (door cover) and Unearthed Arcana, and a Monster Manual that might be older than that, judging by its condition. The players are using the 2e PHB; these are all inherited books, and the previous owner only ever DM’d in 1e and PC’d in 2e.

My issue is with treasure generation– I’ve been using the standard dungeon generation tables from the DMG, and it works well except for the outcome of treasure rolls. Specifically, magic items don’t seem to be segregated by dungeon level. That first-level party happened upon a Mirror of Mental Prowess, which had some fairly powerful effects but nothing game-breaking, and was worth five thousand experience. Divided among the party, this alone was enough to bring the priest and rogue to second level. Combined with the remainder of the treasure, those two reached level three, and the ranger reached level two.

Now building a dungeon for a later adventure, another magic item roll came up, resulting in… a Ring of Three Wishes. I simply vetoed that and re-rolled, getting something more reasonable this time, but now the question is in my mind of whether this is actually correct.

So, the simple version of the question:
Is there a method in AD&D to limit magic item rolls for treasure based on dungeon level or some other factor, or does this need to be created manually by the DM?


Note that this is not the same question as “What can I do when I accidentally gave out an overpowered item?” This relates purely to the RAW methods for generating magical treasures.

Can you Hide from some but not all enemies?

One of my players is asking if he can use Wall of Fire to block off the line of sight of enemy archers. The spell description says the wall is “opaque”, so this seems like a valid thing to try.

However, because this opaque wall would make both sides unseen from each other, the advantage and disadvantage would cancel out, and it would provide no immediate tactical benefit.

When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.

When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. (PHB p. 193-4)

In the interest of trying to see if he can get any tactical benefits out of this – if he blocked the line of sight of the enemy archers in a group but not that group’s melee fighters, would he/others be able to take the Hide action from the archers even if the melee fighters could still see him?

If he can Hide in this way, that would mean the archers would no longer be able to know his precise position and would need to guess his square before making an attack.

Does Avada theme, Fusion Builder or Toolset plugin store some data remotely?

I have a new task to try to speed up one WordPress site. In order to do so, I copied the existing site to my company’s dev server. The problem is pages do not look quite the same. The code and DB are totally the same. After search I found that some theme settings and some fusion and toolset settings are not the same on prod and dev server. For example header width, fonts, custom.css is empty on dev (one that belongs to theme and can be edited from backend), etc…

What can that be? Do some of these components store data remotely and because of diff domain, I can not get that or I miss something else?

Why do some cars only have a physical lock on the driver side?

I have a car (tsx) and I realize that sometimes I will need to use the physical key instead of the electronic key fob to unlock my car. Such as if there is something wrong with the electronics or my battery died. But then I realize that on the passenger side of my car, there is no key hole for it!

I also rented a car (mazda 2) a while back and that car did not have an electronic key fob to unlock the door remotely. I went to open the door first for my wife, but then I realized that there is no lock hole on the passenger side! I had to unlock my driver side door first and then unlock hers from the inside.

Also, something has went wrong with the electronic trunk button inside my car, so i can only open my trunk using the key fob. Why isn’t there a physical lock on my trunk too?

Why doesn’t my car have a physical lock on the passenger side? Is it just because car manufacturers are being cheap?

Does timestamp protocol following thomas’s write rule allow non-view-serializable schedules in some cases?

I have came across following line in text book (Database System Concepts Textbook by Avi Silberschatz, Henry F. Korth, and S. Sudarshan $ 6e$ ) page no. 686:

Thomas’ write rule allows schedules that are not conflict serializable but are nevertheless correct. Those non-conflict-serializable schedules allowed satisfy the definition of view serializable schedules (see example box).

What I understood from above lines is that every schedule generated by timestamp protocol following thomas’s write rule is view serializable.

Now let’s take following little schedule: $ S: R_1(X), W_2(X), W_1(X)$ .

This schedule $ S$ is allowed under timestamp protocol which follows thomas’s write rule.

And serialization order is $ R_1(X), W_1(X).$

But I was not able to prove that it is view serializable.

Actually I think that it is non-view serializable because,

  1. Consider serial order as $ T_1, T_2$

    Now final value of $ X$ is being written by $ T_2$ . So not equivalent.

  2. Next alternative serial order is $ T_2, T_1$

    here, $ R_1(X)$ will read value of $ X$ written by $ T_1$ not original value which was there before start of both transaction. So this too is not view-equivalent.

What is going wrong here. please help me with this one.

Dividing 2 integers with some constraints

This a problem i came across while practicing binary search. Here is the problem:

Given two integers dividend and divisor, divide two integers without using multiplication, division and mod operator.

Return the quotient after dividing dividend by divisor. The integer division should truncate toward zero.

Note:

  1. Both dividend and divisor will be 32-bit signed integers.
  2. The divisor will never be 0.
  3. Assume we are dealing with an environment which could only store integers within the 32-bit signed integer range: [−2^31, 2^31 − 1]. For the purpose of this problem, assume that your function returns 2^31 − 1 when the division result overflows.

A Brute force Solution is that subtract the dividend with the divisor till it is greater and the number of subtractions is the result. But it is giving Time Limit Exceeding error.

How to solve the problem efficiently or using Binary Search ??

Also provide the time complexity as well.

Can a Mystic swap out their Bonus Disciplines for some that aren’t from their Order?

The Mystic is an Unearthed Arcana class in D&D 5th Edition. All the Mystic Orders (subclasses) except the Soul Knife get Bonus Disciplines :

At 1st level, you learn two additional psionic disciplines of your choice. They must be chosen from among [your Order’s] disciplines.

Regular disciplines can be swapped out :

In addition, whenever you gain a level in this class, you can replace one discipline you know with a different one of your choice.

Can the Bonus Disciplines also be swapped out, even for replacements that aren’t from the Order ?