Shortcode not work in picture source srcset tag

i have in my WP plugin:

<picture>     <source srcset="[bloginfo key='template_url']/images/image.webp" type="image/webp">     <img src="[bloginfo key='template_url']/images/image.png"> </picture> 

In a browser, img src code is OK, but on a srcset stays [bloginfo key=’template_url’]. What i missing about shortcode and srcset attribute to display it right?


What published source contained antimagic oozes?

So, I was talking with a friend about how to disable divine casters in D&D 3.5e, and they raised an intriguing possibility in that an unfortunate encounter with something called an "antimagic ooze" could do the job. However, they weren’t able to provide a citation for it, just the following details:

  • It projects an antimagic field for a ~30′ radius about it
  • Touching it makes the toucher permanently lose their ability to cast spells
  • It apparently is an (epic-level) trap, not a creature?
  • They recall it being in a Dragon Magazine somewhere, possibly as a variation on the Flux Slime epic hazard published in the D&D 3.5e SRD

Where was this published (if anywhere)?

Source link plugin – show just anchor / link

I implemented a small source link plugin on my WordPress website via the following codes.


                        <?php global $  post, $  pages, $  page;  $  total = count( $  pages ); // Link źródłowy if ( $  total < 2 || $  page === $  total ) :          if ( $  url = get_post_meta( $  post->ID, '_source_link', true ) ) :         $  label = get_post_meta( $  post->ID, '_source_link_label', true );         $  label = $  label ? $  label : $  url;     ?>         <div class="source-link">             <b>Źródło:</b> <a href="<?php echo esc_url( $  url ); ?>" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><?php                 echo esc_html( $  label ); ?></a>         </div>     <?php endif;  endif;  ?> 


add_action( 'add_meta_boxes', 'wpse_source_link' );   add_action( 'save_post', 'wpse_source_link_save' );   function wpse_source_link() {      add_meta_box(         'source_link',         __( 'Link źródłowy', 'myplugin_textdomain' ),          'wpse_source_meta_box',         'post',         'side'     ); }   function wpse_source_meta_box( $  post ) {      wp_nonce_field( plugin_basename( __FILE__ ), 'myplugin_noncename' );       echo '<label for="source-link">Link</label> ';   echo '<input type="text" id="source-link"" name="source_link" value="'.     get_post_meta( $  post->ID, '_source_link', true ) .'" size="25" />';    echo '<label for="source-link-label">Nazwa strony</label> ';   echo '<input type="text" id="source-link-label"" name="source_link_label" value="'.     get_post_meta( $  post->ID, '_source_link_label', true ) .'" size="25" />'; }   function wpse_source_link_save( $  post_id ) {    if ( defined( 'DOING_AUTOSAVE' ) && DOING_AUTOSAVE )        return;    if ( ! wp_verify_nonce( $  _POST['myplugin_noncename'], plugin_basename( __FILE__ ) ) )       return;     if ( current_user_can( 'edit_post', $  post_id ) ) {        update_post_meta( $  post_id, '_source_link', sanitize_text_field( $  _POST['source_link'] ) );       update_post_meta( $  post_id, '_source_link_label', sanitize_text_field( $  _POST['source_link_label'] ) );     } } 

As you can see there are two fields: Link źródłowy (Source link) and Nazwa strony (website name – anchor). However, at this moment this plugin only works, when both fields have some text inside. Is there any way to make it work also with just anchor/link? I mean, if two fields are completed it should show anchor with link, but if just anchor has some text in it, then it should show only anchor. Same goes for link.

Does anyone know how to make it work like that? To be honest I’m a newbie and I have no idea.

Did the UA “revised” Beastmaster Ranger make it into any official source book?

There was "The Ranger, Revised" pdf in the 2016 playtest material. A Beastmaster Ranger was considered the weakest class by many GMs and players, which apparently caused the need for a "revised" version.

However, I’ve never heard how exactly the playtesting ended. Googling "ranger revised" gives me the same 2016 pdf and nothing more.

What happened to the "revised" ranger from the Unearthed Arcana? Was it renamed from "revised" to something else? Was it published in any official source book, changed or unchanged? (I don’t have access to all of them so I can’t check it myself for now) Or was it abandoned by WoTC?

This is probably a duplicate of this question, which was answered in 2017, but things could change in 2021.

What is the source of the “spells do only what they say they do” rules interpretation principle?

Every time somebody asks a question like "can I use X spell for doing Y" the answer is usually "no" because spell descriptions are very short in 5e, and usually they don’t explicitly say a spell can do Y.

These answers are based on the "spells do only what they say they do, nothing more" principle.

What is the source of this premise?

Related question: Is there a rule for how to handle creative use of spells?

I’m asking this as a DM. My first thought was "well it is obvious, why should spells do something more". But the more I dig into this topic, the more contradictory arguments I find. I’ve gathered all thoughts down below, if anyone is interested (upvoted comments indicate that people are).

DMG examples

The Dungeon Master’s Guide has examples of spells doing things out of their originally described scopes:

An area of desecrated ground can be any size, and a detect evil and good spell cast within range reveals its presence. (p.110)

An identify spell reveals that a creature is inside the flask (p.178)

one torch can burn a Huge tapestry, and an earthquake spell can reduce a colossus to rubble (p.247)

Other factors might help or hinder the quarry’s ability to escape, at your discretion. For example, a quarry with a faerie fire spell cast on it might have disadvantage on checks made to escape (p.253)

RPG.SE answers

There are highly upvoted answers, implying creative spell usage is a thing in 5e:

Your players are using spells creatively…
That is exactly what D&D 5 encourages.

Open-ended spell descriptions

Some spells have quite open-ended wordings, like Prestidigitation:

harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind …

Other spells descriptions aren’t very detailed in 5e (compared to systems like Pathfinder), I guess that means it is the DM’s job to ultimately say what happens when somebody use a spell in an unusual way.

DMG supports this with its common principle, in Chapter 8: Running the Game (page 235):

Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa.

Trusted third-party sources

Some third-party sources encourages stretching spell limitations. See Geek&Sundry "How Watching Critical Role Made Me Better At D&D":

A spell is typically written vague enough that you don’t have to worry about specific limitations unless you’re trying to stretch them. When in doubt, explain to the DM what you want to do and see if they’d be game

See also The Rule of Cool by Matthew Mercer.

Common sense

The strict "spells never do anything their description doesn’t mention" principle simply doesn’t work. When a player asks "Is Grease flammable?" they already challenge the frame, regardless of the answer. If the DM says "yes", you can ignite the grease. If the DM says "no", you can extinguish flames using the grease.

Of course, since "spells do only what they say they do", DM might say "no" to both assumptions, but this effectively turns a tabletop role-playing game into a pen and paper computer game, boring and awkward. I don’t think this is actually RAI.

It seems a DM is supposed to resolve an unusual spell application case, using the intent behind the spell, rather its literal description. For example, it seems reasonable you should be able to use any fire-producing spell to light a torch in a non-combat situation, even when its description doesn’t explicitly say that it "ignites flammable things". It heavily depends on the particular DM’s style, like many other things in 5e.

What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do, nothing more" principle?

Where is the source material that reads there is not limit to the number of artifacts a character may have?

I have read elsewhere for Numenera and the Cypher System as a whole, that there are no limits on the number of artifacts a character may possess. However, I have both the Discovery and Cypher System rulebooks and have yet to identify the source for this rule. Does anyone know where this rule comes from? Also, without limits, how does a GM know how to balance access to artifacts with Tier level?

Is it a game breaking house rule, if all in combat healing source heals the rollable maximum?

In the next week I will start a new campaign where I will be the DM. The players will be totally new to the DnD World, and because of that, I want to let them to freely choose the class and race which they want to play, but it seems like there will be no healer PC, just damage dealers and some kind of PC which maybe will have some healing.

I want to play with them in a relatively long campaign (I’m planning from level 1 to 20) and because of that, I really want to give them more opportunity to overcome the missing healing power. Will it break anything, if I let the semi-healer PC to heal the maximum roll-able number with any healing skill, which he/she uses in combat? For short rest I wouldn’t allow this house rule, so I really want to know, if it would be too powerful in combat house rule or not, and why?

What are good options for a frontline melee with very limited source material?

I recently entered a Planescape campaign with a very rules heavy DM. I rolled stats in order, and now I have to make a character. As long as it stays within these sourcebooks and is neither a druid nor a full cleric (which my party already has) I’m open to options. Here’s the situation:

  • We are currently level 13, no LA buyoff possible.

  • I have 17 str, 15 Dex, 13 Con, 15 Int 15 Wis and 13 Cha.

  • I want to fill the role of a tank/melee combat controller. (I was considering maybe a trip oriented build?)

I have these options available:

  • PHB I
  • DMG I
  • MM I
  • Book of Exalted Deeds
  • Planar Guidebook
  • Tome of Magic
  • Guidebook to the Planetouched

Does rogue’s vest bonus damage apply separately for each precision damage source?

Rogue’s vest (MiC 130) grants users with "the skirmish, sneak attack, or sudden strike ability" an extra 1d6 damage "when making such an attack"

Does this mean that, for example, a scout 1/rogue 1/ninja 1 that moves 10 feet and attacks a flat-footed opponent (who lacks uncanny dodge) deals 1d6 base skirmish damage plus 1d6 extra damage because they made "such an attack", as well as 1d6 base sneak attack damage plus 1d6 extra damage for making "such an attack" and 1d6 base sudden strike damage plus 1d6 extra…For a total of 6d6 precision damage? Or is the "attack" only granted the item’s bonus damage once, for a total of 4d6 precision damage?

cannot scrape any proxies (all fail from Scrapebox provided source)

Am I suppose to use a proxy when scraping proxies, all of them failed…cedSEOClub 

This is method I used. Nothing else And this is fresh install of Scrapebox

I went ahead an checked if my ip is blacklisted anywhere I don’t think it is.

Is there a way I can export these results to have you take a look?