Polymorphing into a creature that is larger than the room

If a character has the ability to transform into different creatures (using polymorph or wildshape as examples), what would happen if they shift into a creature larger than the space they are in?

Example: a chartacter is in an 8x8x8 room and turns into an elephant via any shape changing spell/ability.

Would the polymorph or wildshape still take effect?

Would the character take damage and if so how would that be determined?

Would any other creatures in that room take that same amount of damage?

Is there a way (other than using a wish spell) for a Wizard to cast Ranger spells?

Using a wish spell you can duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower.


That’s a pretty high lv spell for gaining the use of a 1-5 level Ranger spell. I couldn’t find a version of limited wish. And the feat Magic Initiate doesn’t seem to apply to Ranger’s spells.

Is there another way to cast 1 or 2 Ranger spells without dipping into the Ranger class? Specifically I am looking at Conjure Barrage and Swift Quiver. Mostly because I think it would be cool to launch a ton of darts like a Naruto style Ninja…and it would be unexpected from my wizard.

Worth noting we only use the hardcover books. No UA or 3rd party stuff please.

What are the benefits of playing an alignment other than True Neutral?

Alignments of Good, Evil, Lawful & Chaotic seem to be hindrances. They affect your spell choice slightly, restrict certain equipment and worst of all, they make you weak to certain forms of weapons & magic.

True Neutral alignments have none of these weaknesses, and can still seem use almost all spells/equipment with alignment restrictions. What am I missing?

Do any single-cell organisms exist that approximate NP-hard problems within a factor better than $1/2$ $log$2?

I’ve seen on Wikipedia; that set covering cannot be approximated in polynomial time to within a factor mentioned above. Unless $ NP$ has quasipoly-time algorithms.

Now, this must pertain to classical algorithms and does not mention any approximation algorithms that may only work in nature.

(eg. Things like Amoebas solving $ TSP$ problems)

  • Do any single-cell organisms show any promise in solving $ NP$ -hard problems in polynomial-time?

  • Or approximating them better than any known classical algorithms?

Can Mage Hand drag more weight than it can carry?

I have been watching/listening to Chance’s D&D Spellbook, which highlights a potential ‘loophole’ in that the spell doesn’t list how much the hang can drag, say if attached via a rope that weighs less than 10lbs.

Normally a spell only does what it says, but carrying and dragging seem closely enough related that there might be some room for interpretation.

Can Cure Light Wounds Mass target the same creature more than once on its casting?

When you cast the mass version of the cure light wounds spell, its range changes from touch to close and from creature touched to creature touched/level with targets within 30 feet of each other. To this sounds like a ray spell as you would have to make an attack roll vs every creature (this is because you could target undead and living creatures with the same casting). Is it possible to have the same creature targeted by the spell more than once? I dont see any place which states you can only affect a creature once with the casting.


Since there has been debate over how the rules should be applied in this case, lets do a comparison with out multiple touch spells.

  • Cure Wounds mass spells “Target one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart”
  • Chill Touch “Targets creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)”
  • Haste “Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart”
  • Bull’s Strength mass “Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart”
  • Cat’s Grace mass – “Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart”

Since I dont know of anyone who can successfully claim that Chill Touch cant be applied to the same target multiple times in a round assuming a sufficient bab or hasted. Someone can be affected by multiple haste spells, but only one has the effect, and is not helpful doubling up in this case because its part of the same spell so any effect that would dispel or counter one would get all instances of it. Same with Bulls and Cats. The most important difference is that the others except for Chill Touch say “One creature” but that can be thought of in two ways. The one likely intended being that a creature can only be selected once for the spell, or the creature can be selected multiple times each time taking up one of the creature targets.

Are there any monsters that can target more than one target/creature?

I noticed that the attacks in Statblocks mention one target (and sometimes one creature). This made me curious. I have been pouring over the MM and VGtM, but have not found any monster that can make a melee/ranged attack against more than one target / one creature.

  1. Do we know of any example within the ‘official’ books where this is more than one?
  2. If it’s always one, do we know of any reason why this is at all mentioned in the statblocks?

Related: Are there any issues with creating creatures that can make multi-target melee attacks?

Related: In the descriptions of monster action options, what's the difference between "one target" and "one creature"?

Is it a useful strategy for Mobile VR titles to render faster than their simulation loop?

For example – If a title had a very heavy simulation loop (say 20ms), is it desirable to render at a greater rate, say 90hz?

This would always a present head pose correct to the view, without being stalled on simulation.

Or does this result in discomfort for the player, and instead render and sim should stay in lockstep?

more than one min cut in a net flow

I know the answer to the question, but I still can’t understand. I have the max flow and I need to determine whether there is more than one min-cut. I know that I need to run BFS from s in the residual network, and from t in the residual net work (after changing each (u,v) to (v,u)). What I can’t understand: why would I get different results? Every example I am trying shows me the same: Any vertex reachable from s (not include s) is a vertex that is reachable from t. Am I wrong? and if I’m wrong, what is the reason some other case can happen?