If a creature is dropped on a monster, how much damage does each of them take?

If a character who was under the effect of a growth potion (double their height and eight times their weight) and weighed 2,400 lbs. was able to use Dimension Door to teleport 400 feet or more into the air, directly above a Huge-sized monster, and fell on it, how much damage would the falling creature – and the monster – take?

I would assume both would take the 20d6 max for the falling over 200 feet, but is there a estimation on additional damage for the falling creature’s size?

According to the splat calculator, at 500 feet you’d be falling at 196 km/hr, and it would expend 1.6 million joules of energy, the equivalent of over 3,000 mid-sized cars hitting an object at 60 km/hr.

A 2,400-lb. barbarian falling 500 feet is like dropping a mid-sized Toyota Corolla off a 50 story building onto a monster – it should do some damage.

Should a Bugbear PC take damage when holding an enemy on the other side of a Wall of Fire with Grapple?

Bugbears have long arms, allowing them to grapple enemies 10 ft. away.

The Bugbear’s square is not in the effect range of the Wall of Fire. However, about 5 ft. worth of one of the Bugbear’s hands is supposedly in a square that is.

Mechanically, should the Bugbear take damage? If so, simulationally, how do we reconcile that such a small fraction of the player being in the square and taking just as much damage as a character residing fully in the area of effect?

Does doubling up on Rope and Manacles increase DC or just take multiple checks to escape?

My D&D group is new and we are all still getting used to playing the game and are running through the Starter Set adventure.

During this adventure we end up capturing a Wizard and we bound and gag him. My character being paranoid made sure to attach manacles to him and also to use two different lengths of 50ft rope to ensure that he would not be able to break free. During the return back to town the DM had him keep rolling strength checks against the manacles and rope and one by one he kept breaking through them and I ended up having to borrow the entire party’s supply of rope to keep him secure because he kept breaking through them. By the time I was able to deliver him he was wrapped in 200 ft of rope and looked like more rope than man after breaking my manacles and two different lengths of rope.

I know that the rules say that the DC of Hempen rope is 17 but I still think that in any real world sense it is ridiculous to think that this Wizard can Samson his way through each individual rope while also being held by several other lengths of rope and a set of manacles. One would think that the weight of the ropes alone would keep him in check.

I guess my question is that is there any precedent for the DC being raised when you are attaching multiple different factors into keeping a prisoner secure or are you just supposed to roll each rope individually?

Edit: My DM has responded to my post and it looks like I didn’t have all of the information originally

“I rolled 2 rolls per day of travel. This was his daily attempt to free himself from his bindings with disadvantage. He got 2 Nat 20’s the day he broke the manacles and a 19 & 20 to break free of the rope. His Str modifier is -1, but 18 still clears the rope’s DC. He had disadvantage due to the leather armor and sheer volume of rope around him He also had to break the manacles before he could even start trying to work at the rope, since you did put those on him first”

How to force mathematica to take derivatives in a specific way?

I am attempting to take some derivatives of some Lagrange planetary equations. In this I have two types of anomaly which have derivatives that are found geometrically. I’m trying to force mathematica to use the results of these derivatives. I realize that to do this I have defined the derivatives. To get Mathematica to be happy I unprotect D before doing so. Heres my code for that:

Unprotect[D];  D[f, e] := (a/r + (\[Mu]*a)/((\[Mu]*a)^(1/2)*(1 - e^2)^(1/2))^2)*Sin[f]  Unprotect[D];  D[f, M] := (1 + e*Cos[f])^2/(1 - e^2)^(3/2) 

Okay so this is all well. When I evaluate D[f,M] or D[f,e] it seems to work correctly; however when I take the derivatives of other functions derivatives don’t follow those rules I set above. For example, I made up a simple function to check this:

In[58]:= abc [a, e, i, f, c] := e*f*Sin[f]  In[59]:= D[abc[a, e, i, f, c], e]  Out[59]= f Sin[f] 

Uh oh. So my question is how do I get mathematica to match the derivatives I want?

Thanks for all your help

How to deal with player who won’t roleplay, insists character-friction is bad, and doesn’t take the game seriously?

Edit- I’d browsed most of problem-players and still felt we needed more info, or more allegorical advice from experienced gamers but am now seeing stuff in gm-techniques I had missed that is somewhat relevant, if this question is redundant then I won’t begrudge it being moderated and locked or deleted, but I would still like to request some more specific advice.

I know this is a bit of an amalgamation of other similar questions on here, but this feels a little more of a specific case. The GM encouraged me to post this here to try and get some advice since we’re both kind of stumped.

I’m a player in a 3-person group (four including the gM) playing the modern Conan game. Three of us are close friends and the third party member is the girlfriend of the other party member, which is to say that this is a tight group and "booting someone from the game" is basically the nuclear option where me and the GM would potentially fracture off and form a new group with people we know, the least preferable option all things considered.

We’re continuously getting in to arguments about how the game should be played and how roleplaying and mechanics should work (specifically the more vague "non-dice roll" mechanics). The problem party member is consistently at arms with me when I insist that we should be in character more often, or that I’m not "acting in character", or that he doesn’t understand my character (which the GM understands very well, it’s just not a one-dimensional character like his is winding up to be), or that "it won’t be fun if your (my) character has a fleshed out backstory and the GM just turns it into an adventure about your guy."

The problem here is that the GM has pretty specifically stated that this is a "Roleplaying" game and the entire purpose of us playing this is to roleplay. When I (and the gm backs me up) suggest we should try and stay more in character, and use out of character chat more specifically, he basically said that it’s "cringe and I’m not going to go "OOC!!!!!" to talk about things." The problem here is that him and his girlfriend spent literally an hour and a half arguing over a plan in a very split second sort of hostage negotiation where I was set aside to ambush in case things go wrong. After everyone was clearly getting fed up with him trying to hatch some scheme where we come out on top with every reward and absolutely no bad things on our end I roleplay my guy coming up and basically ending the negotiation preemptively with a demand and ultimatum. I do this without consulting them, hoping to throw in some "surprise" to the entire thing. This goes over horribly and results in a huge fight over "we’re a team and we HAVE to always work together." The girlfriend has never played a tabletop and is sort of only here because he is, so she takes his side heavily and insists we have to always have perfect group cohesion or come to a mutual agreement before acting.

The problem with this is that the problem player in question constantly acts of his own accord without consideration for anyone else, but he’s almost never actually roleplaying. His character so far has consisted almost solely of acting like a toddler (playing "keep away" with an amulet an NPC is demanding back that he had stolen and acting confused that she isn’t "friends" with his character despite the fact that we basically murdered the entire group she was with before this). Of note is that he basically kidnapped this NPC for no in character reason just to "see what would happen."

During this amulet keep away, I once again try to have my character swoop in and grab the amulet away and toss it to the NPC and give him some light knock on the head and a quip about "If it’s baubles you want, I’ll treat you to some, let’s keep moving." I tried using advice I’d found in similar questions on here to encourage him to roleplay the situation, or do a pvp skill test to resolve the situation, but he got livid and insisted it was terrible and both him and his girlfriend compared it to "stealing from player characters at night with no consequences," a thing that both the GM and I rebuked were not remotely similar at all, as one was directly encouraging roleplay and in-group friction that isn’t necessarily conflicting. I even offered a friendly "out" for him to benefit by offering to buy him things at the market.

Because of him acting like this, and constantly challenging both me and the GM (for instance his character sheet was very wrong because he didn’t read anything in creation and just sped through in 15 minutes [it took me 4 hours and even took the GM like an hour to make a random gen character], but he got pouty about the fact that the GM said he had to rebalance it to be not broken), his girlfriend is basically staying silent and not roleplaying at all, despite having implied that she was interested in trying to get in to her backstory.

In addition, the GM has specifically requested us to give him a fleshed out backstory for incorporating story elements along the lines, to which he insists is "not fun and it’s more fun to make things up and develop our characters from a blank sheet as we go." Which is to say he basically wants to play a video game where nothing matters.

The biggest problem here is that he is the one who was the most insistent on wanting to play a tabletop RPG, but he both says he doesn’t want it to be "combat focused", but also consistently refuses to engage with roleplay in any meaningful way, and actively fights against it if anything happens that isn’t the literal perfect outcome for his character outside of dice rolls.

Sorry for the long post, but this feels like a pretty complex situation considering his girlfriend is constantly getting annoyed with him despite her always taking his side on things that the GM takes my side on, and it’s ruining the fun for everyone in different ways. The GM constantly has no idea how to handle the situation because his character is acting like a toddler, his girlfriend is bored out of her mind because he constantly overtakes any attempts of ours to have character agency, and I’m having no fun because I’m constantly being told to just not play my character and be a mindless video game companion character.

Is there any way for us to salvage this situation? Any last ditch efforts to try? Do we ultimately just have to have the GM message him and say "this is how I want to play the game, please take it more seriously or we will just have to stop"? The GM set up scenarios that will hopefully encourage him to roleplay, and I’ve been trying to stay in character (and the GM says he will force an in character resolution, instead of bending to his will that it’s not what he wants to happen, or at least a dice roll one, the next time there is friction between his and my character) in order to try and encourage him to roleplay.

Edit for clarity and as a TL;DR – The problem here is basically that the player refuses to actually get in to character, insists that "roleplaying is cringe" despite being the one who specifically wanted to play this game and said he didn’t want it to be a "combat exclusive" adventure (ie lots of roleplaying). He’s hostile towards anything not going his way or any "trolley car" situations he can’t BS his way into derailing the trolley car to save everyone and also find 5 gold on the ground. Any friction (that the GM says is good and interesting) between player characters is taken as a personal offense by him and leads to fighting between me and the GM and him and his girlfriend. He refuses to develop any sort of backstory for his character and is dragging down the entire party, but the group will stop existing without him since his gf would leave, so we’d like suggestions on how to push him in to actually roleplaying / taking things a bit more seriously and treating it less like he’s the protagonist of Oblivion or something.

The GM is linked to this question per his request, so any GM specific advice for him or player specific advice for me are both welcomed.

Does the Beast Master’s Primal Companion feature allows the beast to take two Actions in a single turn?

I watched a video from Dungeon Dudes on YouTube where they rated the Ranger subclasses. Around the 23:18 mark, they mentioned that the new Beast Master’s Primal Companion feature from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything can allow the Ranger to forgo one of their attacks to allow the Beast to take the Attack action, on top of the action that they can make using the Ranger’s bonus action. The Primal Companion feature description says the following:

Primal Companion

[…]
In combat the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes 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. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
[…]

As far as I know, a creature can only take one action on their turn. Is this a specific ruling for the Primal Companion since it doesn’t have its own turn because "it acts on your [the Ranger’s] turn?" Also does this mean that the Ranger can break up their movement, actions, and bonus actions with the Beast’s on their turn, essentially controlling two characters freely? In the video, Monty mentioned that a level 11 Beast Master Ranger can make one attack and have the beast attack four times which is crazy in my opinion.

Why take Linguistics if you can cast Comprehend Languages?

Given the nature of the spell Comprehend Languages in Pathfinder, is there any particular advantage to taking Linguistics for a character who can cast it? Especially given the chance of severe (or horribly entertaining, depending on your point of view) failure with Linguistics that doesn’t seem to exist for Comprehend Languages.

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.

Is there a reason not to take the optional class features from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything?

Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything includes optional class features for every class from the Player’s Handbook. Barbarians, for example, can choose to gain an extra skill proficiency at 3rd level, and/or choose to gain a small bonus move as part of the action they take to start raging at 7th.

These features are listed as optional, but they don’t seem to have any drawbacks attached, besides a note that you should consult with your DM about taking them. Given DM approval, is there any good mechanical reason not to take an optional class feature, or should they essentially be considered upgrades over the base class?