D&D 5e inspiration dice as currency for PCs to improve their characters? [closed]

Has anyone heard of, or thought out, or even used D&D 5e inspiration dice as currency for PCs to improve their characters? I allow PCs to accumulate them, so it occurred to me, "why not let them buy a skill, feat, spell slot, etc… for ‘x’ number of I-Dice? Thoughts? Possible costs in I-Dice for each?"

Can a familiar give orders to minions of their wizard?

A wizard has a familiar and some other minions. Let’s go with a summoned monster and a non-intelligent undead minion. Can the familiar give commands to these other minions?

Does it matter if the wizard is present? (Like if they get teleported away) Does it matter if the wizard is conscious? Does it matter if the familiar can speak? Does it matter if how the wizard is controlling the undead (create undead vs command undead)?

Any other edge cases one can think of?

Is a familiar compelled when their wizard is?

I have a party and an aboleth dominated them (only two players present). The aboleth didn’t do anything to the wizard’s familiar. Does the wizard’s familiar get affected by the compulsion effect too? Would a familiar always know if their wizard was affected by a compulsion? (In my case the aboleth was out of view and hearing when casting)

In play I ruled that the familiar could act freely, as it had a reasonable intelligence score (Int 8 for wiz level 5). It tried to save its wizard but failed. Eventually the aboleth told the wizard to reign in their familiar. Now the party has a new subterranean "quest giver."

Trouble with spellcasting classes and their save DCs in Pathfinder

So I’ve played a caster in several Pathfinder games with my friends over the years, but I’ve continued to have the same problem with a lot of them. Namely, because of how save DCs work and how a lot of creatures are stated, it often feels pointless to use most spells on my list because FORT and WILL mods are always so high that I’d have to hope for 1 on the die half of the time. Even DEX saves can be remarkably high on an enemy’s side so my only recourse is touch attacks or spells without DCs and even then I’ve dumped everything into my casting stat to even hope to make my save DC high enough to force a spell through.

The system is very content-dense, but so far I’ve only managed to find some small buffs like Spell Focus feats to bump up DCs. I think Arcanists have some exploits that can help too but I am currently playing a witch and my options feel rather limited. But it seems like there must be other options out there since so many people swear by casters’ abilities and I know that to be true of this system and others, especially as I’ve seen other friends power game other builds. In particular, my friend’s (current GM) previous oracle build was untouchably powerful. Is there just something that I am missing to make my caster viable? Able to land a spell on a creature with decent saves?

Can a ranger pick two humanoid races as their favored enemy at level 1, and then two more humanoid races at level 6?

Can a ranger pick two humanoid races as their favored enemy at level 1, and then two more humanoid races at level 6 or level 14?

My reading of the Favored Foe feature is that any time the ranger chooses a favored enemy, be it at Level 1, 6 or 14, the ranger may alternately choose two humanoid races instead of one non-humanoid creature type. However, D&D Beyond does not allow a player to choose two more humanoid races at level 6 or 14 if they have previously chosen two humanoid races at level 1 or 6.

Is my interpretation of the Favored Foe feature incorrect, or is D&D Beyond’s implementation incorrect?

Note: My question is similar, but not a duplicate, to this one. That question is about a scenario where a ranger chooses a non-humanoid creature type as their favored enemy at level 1, and then wants to choose two humanoid races at level 6. My question is about a ranger who chooses two humanoid races at level 1, and wants to choose two more humanoid races at level 6.

Translate different ports on the same hostname/server, to their own host names [closed]

For example, if I have Jonathan-PC.local, how would I translate Jonathan-PC.local:81 to wordpress.Jonathan-PC.local, Jonathan-PC.local:82 to joomla.Jonathan-PC.local, and Jonathan-PC.local:83 to drupal.Jonathan-PC.local? Is this Network Address Translation? Would a DNS Server be involved in this translation?

Should abilities have their state and functionality separated?

I’m developing a top-down game using Javascript and Canvas in an ECS architecture.

I’m wondering, which of these is better from a design / elegance point of view?

Method 1: Combining the ability function and its metadata into one object:

// in ability factory createBlinkAbility() {   return {     cooldown: 5000,     castTime: 1000,     hotkey: "q",     execute(entity: Entity, scene: Scene) {       let position = entity.get(CT.Position);        let level = scene.queryComponent(CT.Level);        position.x = Helpers.randomInt(0, level.width);       position.y = Helpers.randomInt(0, level.height);     }   } }  function executeCurrentCast(entity: Entity, ability: Ability) {   ability.execute(entity); // all abilities have an execute function } 

Method 2: Separating ability metadata from its function:

// in ability factory createBlinkAbility() {   return {     type: "blink",     cooldown: 5000,     castTime: 1000,     hotkey: "q"   } }  // in ability factory castBlink = (entity: Entity, scene: Scene) => {   let position = entity.get(CT.Position);    let level = scene.queryComponent(CT.Level);    position.x = Helpers.randomInt(0, level.width);   position.y = Helpers.randomInt(0, level.height); }  function executeCurrentCast(entity: Entity, ability: Ability) {   switch (ability.type) {     case "bow": this.abilityFactory.castBow(entity); break;     case "blink": this.abilityFactory.castBlink(entity); break;     ...   } } 

I know in general in an ECS architecture it is wise to separate "state" from "actions", but I’m not sure if this would also apply to things like abilities. It seems like it might be wise to maintain that separation, but the code seems like it might be "cleaner", or shorter at least, in the former case.

Lastly, I’m not really concerned with the performance differences between these two approaches, but rather which is better from a design standpoint.

Can you Ready an attack with the trigger ‘enemy enters my reach’? If so, will you interrupt their movement on a hit?

Without using any feats, can a player with a reach weapon set that weapon to receive a ‘charge’ by the enemy, attacking them when they enter range? Or even a non-reach weapon? That is, can a player commit to using their attack action when an enemy crosses an arbitrary line with their movement? (Examples: Ready my glaive to attack when the orc gets 10′ away from me. Ready my shortbow to attack when the dragon enters 80′ from me. Ready my dagger in case the kobold comes adjacent.)

If this is possible, and the player’s attack hits, does it have any effect on the enemy’s remaining movement or other actions?

I think the answers are yes, and no, respectively.

Do spell targets know they were targeted if they make their saves?

A lot of spells in D&D 5e either work or they don’t, with no visual or audio effect. If your target cant see or hear that you are casting a spell, and they make their save for that spell… do they know that they were targeted? Do they "feel" it?

I ask because it seems that the only thing that counts as an attack in 5e is something with an attack roll. If that’s the case a lot of shenanigan’s can happen, with players claiming their spell meant to immobilize or even kill a foe, was not an attack and should not have provoked the target.
Is there an "official" way to handle it?