## Can a Homunculus freely take a bonus action granted to it by a specific rule such as a spell?

After the errata / Tasha’s, we know that you can use your character’s bonus action to command a Homunculus to use a Spell Storing Item. I think we also know that a Homunculus can freely maintain Concentration on a spell cast from the Item, as Concentration requires no action.

Let’s say the Item contains Heat Metal. The Heat Metal spell lets the caster take a bonus action on subsequent turns to re-inflict damage (and disadvantage) on the target.

Can the Homunculus take this bonus action without being commanded by the character?

The Homunculus description in Tasha’s states that

it can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action.

Note that nothing is said about its ability to take a bonus action, probably because the ability to take a bonus action is granted by specific circumstances (e.g., dual wielding light weapons), class features (e.g., Defensive Field), feats (e.g., Crossbow Expert), and spells (e.g., Heat Metal).

Absent anything more specific in the Homunculus description, one could argue that the specific language from Heat Metal lets the Homunculus take a bonus action at will. On the other hand, one could also argue that a "bonus action" is a subcategory of "action" — however, I don’t think such an argument holds water, because while some bonus actions replicate actions (like weapon attacks), others do not (like Defensive Field), suggesting that "bonus action" is a separate category of game mechanic.

## How to add a goal in Google analytics with regular expression such as

I want to add Goal in Google Analytics with the same URL twice with a different regular expression such as

www.example.com/checkout#shipping www.example.com/checkout#payment 

these are on the same page with different tabs. So how I track user go which tab and other go where because google analytics just track my checkout page, not #shiiping and #payment

## Can magic tattoos be used by warforged, or other constructs such as the battle smith artificer’s steel defender?

Magic tattoos all say things akin to the following:

To attune to this item, you hold the needle to your skin where you want the tattoo to appear, pressing the needle there throughout the attunement process. When the attunement is complete, the needle turns into the ink that becomes the tattoo, which appears on the skin.

They each appear on the skin, they are applied by being held to the skin. Can the metal body of a warforged use it? If so, the only other item I am aware of that has race specific requirements is the dwarven thrower.

It dawned on me that warforged aren’t considered constructs in 5e (at least I don’t think there is a distinction made for what player characters are). However, I think it should be considered that what would bar constructs from being able to use the tattoos is that the tattoos specifically say how you apply it to the skin, or how it appears on the skin. I think this would be the same disqualifying factor for warforged, or for other ‘constructs.’

## Are the “Touched” feats’ spells ever subject to a spellcaster’s class rules (such as regarding preparation, components, and focuses)?

The Fey Touched and Shadow Touched feats published in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything each grant the use of two spells. Among other things, they say:

1. You learn the [spells].
2. You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot [once per long rest].
3. You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level.

The spellcasting ability for these spells is specific to the feat, so it may or may not be the same as the ability of the class that granted the spell slots.

My question applies to both feats and all spellcasting classes, but for the sake of clarity consider an artificer who has taken Fey Touched, which grants Misty Step. Artificers must add the M component to all spells they cast using the artificers’ spellcasting feature, but #2 above has nothing to do with their feature so shouldn’t require that. That’s good, because the reason the artificer can teleport is their prior exposure to the Fey, not some magical widget.

However, things get more complicated when they’re casting Misty Step as described in #3, because the artificer’s spell slots do come from their spellcasting feature. In that case, does the artificer simply use the spell slot as “fuel” and otherwise cast the spell exactly as it had been cast for #2? Or is this inherently different, for which we must assume the artificer studied the Misty Step effect and replicated it with a widget?

If the former, we can assume the spell never needs to be prepared; if the latter, it almost certainly does need to be prepared like all artificer spells.

Also, Misty Step is not on the Artificer Spell List, but the Invisibility spell granted by Shadow Touched is. Would that alter the answer in any way?

Potentially Related:

Does Magic Initiate allow the chosen spell to effectively be “always prepared” if the spell is on their spell list?

What makes a spell being cast considered to be a {class} spell?

If a spellcaster’s racial trait grants a spell that requires material components, can they use their class’ focus to cast that spell?

## Would the Haste Spell allow you to cast a second, singular weapon attack effecting cantrip (such as Greenflame Blade)?

So the Haste spell in 5e says that the targeted creature

gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.

This means I technically have a second action, so would that allow me to use the Greenflame Blade cantrip a second time in the same turn (once with the actual action, once with this action) as the cantrip applies to one weapon attack in a similar fashion as a Paladin with Haste could apply Divine Smite onto the Haste-given attack?

## Are there such thing as header files in unity/C#?

I am new to unity, and I love organizing. This is my issue: say I have two different scripts, Sword and Spear. Two of which share common stuff, such as an enum Size {Small, Medium, Large}, they also share the same class DamageAttributes, which contains information regarding their damage as well as methods to calculate them. This is my attempt to abstract my actual problem, what I would like to do is to declare the enum and the classes in a fashion similar to .h in C++, so I have a place where I know they will be, and I can put other stuff that will be shared into it as well. Is there a good way to implement this?

## How can I make such drawings

This Fig. represents LQU, where LQU is a function of $$c_1,c_3$$, and $$c_3$$, $$c_i \in[-1,1]$$.

How can I make such drawings?

## Why is burying yourself not such a great plan?

One of my player is a clever guy. At night when the others are putting the camp together he digs a hole big enough for himself (between 3-4 feet deep) and asks someone to cover his body with dirt; he then uses a straw to breath. His idea is to avoid ambush at night.

The first time I was baffled by this idea and had no response. After a couple of nights I started challenging his strategy. I identified a couple of potential complications but he was able to answer everything I offered.

• Sleeping under 3 feet of dirt at night would be terribly cold (But I have a bedroll which is warm enough
• You wouldn’t sleep comfortably and be sore in the morning (No specific rules for sleeping in armor I can use as a reference)
• Breathing through a straw requires keeping your mouth closed and doing so while you’re sleeping is impossible (I’m an elf and when I’m in trance I’m not asleep so I can keep my mouth shut)

He has no intention of quickly being able to help the rest of the party if they get attacked, so escaping his hole is not something I can use against him (I tried).

So far the problem has not transpired out-of-game. I’m annoyed because he’s obviously trolling but the other members of the group don’t mind his selfishness (he doesn’t get XP or loot from attacks at night).

Am I wrong to think that this is not such a great plan? I can’t think of any reason or mechanics to point out the flaws of his plan.

I don’t mind him doing it. I just think I’m not emulating the consequences properly because it’s an obviously stupid decision.

## Randomly assign n elements to n agents such that each agent only knows its own element

### Problem

I’m working on an app that involves shuffling and distributing playing cards to players. As a challenge, I tried to solve this problem in a way that doesn’t require a trusted intermediary.

In other terms, the task is to find a distributed algorithm that

• uniquely assigns $$n$$ agents numbers $$1..n$$
• allows each agent to know nothing about the assignment but its own
• when revealing the assignment, allows other players to verify the assignment

We also assume that knowing other’s assignment is an advantage for each agent, and revealing its own prematurely a disadvantage. Agents are also assumed to be able to talk with each other in a way hidden from all other agents.

## Partial solution

The solution I came up with works only under the assumption that adversaries do not collaborate.

The idea is to create a set of $$n$$ nonces, and assign each agent exactly one nonce. The set is then passed from agent to agent in an agreed upon order, hidden from all others, until each agent received the set exactly once. Each time an agent receives the set, it swaps its nonce with a new one, memorizes the new nonce, and confirms receival of the set to the others. This entire procedure is done twice, at which point, all agents have received the set at least once after all other agents swapped their nonces, making it impossible to recognize and hence map the nonces to the other agents.

When the last agent receives the set the second time, it shares it with everyone, and all agents confirm to the others that their nonce is contained in the set. The agents then assign a number to each nonce in the set based on an agreed upon random seed, giving us the required unique assignment.

To allow ownership verification, instead of the nonces, agents put the hash value of their nonce on the set, revealing the actual nonce only when verification is required.

The problem with this solution is that if adversaries are allowed to collaborate, each time an adversary receives the set, they can compare their versions, identify changes and potentially derive which nonce belongs to other agents, allowing them to know what number got assigned to them.

All ideas are appreciated!

## $L_2$ = {a,k | is a 3DNF (disjunctive normal form) and exist z such that safifies exactly k clauses in a} Validity of reduction $VC \leq_p L_2$

I have the following question :

$$L_2$$ = {$$a,k$$ | $$a$$ is a 3DNF (disjunctive normal form) and exist $$z$$ such that satisfies exactly $$k$$ clauses in $$a$$}

I know that $$L_2 \in NPC$$.

Show that $$L_2 \in NP$$ is relatively easy, I’ll skip that part.

I try to show that $$L_2 \in NPC$$ using a reduction from $$VC \leq_p L_2$$ (VC is vertex cover which we know in its $$NPC$$)

I defined the following function $$f$$ :

$$f(G,k)=(a,k)$$

I thought of something like that for each node $$i$$ in $$G$$ will define a literal $$x_i$$, and make it in $$3DNF$$ format, $$a=\bigvee(x_i \wedge x_i \wedge x_i)$$ where $$1 \leq i \leq n$$ where $$n$$ is the number of nodes in $$G$$. We can define that following $$z$$ such that $$z$$ safifies exactly $$k$$ clauses, just give $$‘1’$$ literal $$x_i$$ such that the node $$i$$ is in the VC, and $$‘0’$$ otherwise, so such $$z$$ exists.

So easy to see that $$(G,k) \in VC \implies (a,k) \in L_2$$ since we showed explicitly such $$z$$ that safifies exactly $$k$$ clauses.

But I’m not sure the other side holds $$(G,k) \not\in VC \implies (a,k)\not\in L_2$$ we given a graph that doesn’t have VC in size $$k$$ but I think due to my building of a ($$a=\bigvee(x_i \wedge x_i \wedge x_i)$$) we can find $$z$$ that safifies exactly $$k$$ clauses (actually we can find $$z$$ that safifies $$x$$ clauses where $$1 \leq x \leq n$$ where $$n$$ is number of nodes in G.

So my reduction doesn’t hold?

Thanks.