When a user registers their mobile number during sign up, how can we verify that they really own the mobile number?

A lot of websites send a 4-digit or 6-digit one-time code to a mobile number via SMS or phone call when the user registers a mobile number on the website?

Is this a secure way to validate the ownership of mobile number? Are there any issues with it?

If it is not secure, are there any better alternatives?

Have the D&D 5E designers ever done an official commentary about why they have designed certain rules the way they did?

I’m not asking for speculation or why people think the designers made the decisions they did. I’m looking to see if there’s evidence that they’ve ever done a developer commentary or something of the sorts that went into detail on their design decisions, or addressed popular questions from the community relating to that topic. Specifically, I went into this looking into official developer commentary addressing the design rationale for the true strike cantrip, but I couldn’t even find developer commentary of any kind while doing some searches with Google.

I know there’s a bit of issue with these types of questions, but I feel this is completely objective both in question and the types of answers it requests.

when using a hireling with a warrior skill how do they take the brunt of it?

The players I’m GMing are looking to get a hireling who’s a warrior. Looking at the description it states

If your attack results in consequences (like a counter attack) the man-at-arms takes the brunt of it.

It also states that a hirelings HP isn’t important. How do I damage him, figure out if he’s dead, if I don’t know his HP?

also looking at burglar it states:

Most traps leave a burglar in need of immediate healing.

how can I heal him if I don’t know his HP?

How can I show-not-tell my players that they are The Bad Guys?

My players have an interesting habit of changing their behavior on a dime. Between objectives, they’ll be trying to fix problems at small towns they pass through and helping the locals, but once they have an objective, they’re fine with taking shake-down jobs for money or services. It’s come to a head recently when the players tried to cross a border from their home country (A) to a new one (B), where the tensions between countries are rising, and were arrested and detained for having forged their papers to cross. When given the opportunity, they fought their way out, slaughtering most of the guards.

However, the guards managed to alert the network, leading to consequences. Country B, fearful that an advanced strike squad from Country A might be punching a hole through its border, prioritizes the capture of my players. The local Quest Giver tells a team of Good-aligned adventurers to apprehend the foul villains who perpetrated this crime. The players narrowly manage to escape being captured by the heroes with the help of an unusual ally of theirs – an ancient evil lich.

To my perspective, their actions line up with “The Bad Guys”. They kill people just doing their jobs when convenient, and essentially follow their own goals above all else when it comes to it. However, they are quite annoyed that the band of heroes (who they percieved as mercenaries, not wholly incorrect) were chasing them and trying to bring them down.

How to do I show my players it's their own damn fault, without making them feel bad?

From this question, I recognize that I need to signpost a little better. To help my players make informed moral decisions, I need to provide more guidance, in part from NPCs giving judgements small and large that tell them how their actions are perceived. For instance, the party of heroes didn’t attempt to talk down the murderous players, so that could certainly have been played better on my end.

My players went from 100% murderous cretins to 100% nonviolent diplomats; how can I achieve a middle ground?

From this question, I take that I need to have the world reflect their actions. However, I already am (making prop letters that the dead guards were carrying on them/having authorities try to apprehend the band of murderers), and the players still see themselves as wronged heroes, suffering the judgment of an unjust government.

I’m fine with them playing how they want to play, and have no problems GMing an evil party. However, I do believe that it would be best for narrative purposes to somehow convey that the world thinks of them as dangerous criminals. Thus, what means do I have to show them that they’re not acting morally?

Can a character dodge/fly if they use up all their speed?

There’s something about the language in the rules for Dodging and Flying that confuses me. In both cases, both can only performed so long as the character’s Speed is not ‘reduced to 0’.

By that logic, if a character with 30 feet speed, were to say use the full 30 feet speed on their turn, would that prevent them from taking the Dodge action?

Likewise, if a creature had, say, a Flying speed of 60 feet, would there character have to fly 55 ft in order to stay aloft or risk falling?

(As a side note, how do attacks like Thunderwave which force movement play into this? If a Thunderwave hits a 30 feet speed character who has only moved 25 feet, would that prevent the character from being able to use Dodge until their next turn?)

A player rolled very bad stats, how to make sure they still enjoy the game?


How to make sure that a player that rolled awful stats will still have an awesome time at the table? What possibilities are available for the DM? Would it feel cheap to find stat-boosting items? What can players do to make sure that player is still having fun?

The simple solution of re-rolling the stats is out of the question. The adventure has already begun and it would feel very unsatisfying if the original rolling carried no weight at all.


Starting a new adventure, we all decided to roll stats (highest 3 of 4d6) for our new characters. Most people rolled stats close to what one would get with point-buy, but one player had all stats in the range 8 to 11 and averaged below 10 (which is worse than a commoner).

The players are all quite new to the game and it is the debut for the GM. We all had some laughs on the horrible rolls and everyone is still having fun. The player has not complained yet, but my worry is that it will feel less fun in the long run.

The player picked druid, so they can wild-shape away the physical stats at level 2.

Databases and B-Trees: What are Keys and how are they related

I confused about the description & definition of "key" occuring as terminology for databases and b-trees.

In first case dealing with theory of databases a key is defined as a choice for a in certain sense minimal (see below) subset $ K \subset A := \{A_1,A_2,…,A_n\}$ of a fixed set of attributes $ A_i$ parametrizing a data table (consisting of relations; a single relation is abstraction of a row in the table), where each attribute is literally a column specifying a property of objects = relations.

A key is characterized by property that there exist no two different relations (a relation is a row) which have exactly the same values for all attributes which belong to the key. And a key is a minimal subset with this property, ie there not exist a proper smaller subset of attributes contained in the key and having the property described in last sentence. Clearly keys are not unique. So the set of a keys is certain subset of the power set of the set attributes $ A_i$ . See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_key

On the other hand the key concept occures as well for b-trees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-tree#Definition

Here keys are a priori numbers or integers and different knots of b-tree contain different totally ordered subsets of keys where the total order on the space of keys is inherited from the order "$ \ge$ " for integers $ \mathbb{Z}$ . Especially the set of keys is a totally ordered subset of integers.

Question: How are the two concept of ‘key’ related to each other? My first idea was that if we consider in light of for definition (as elements of power set of attributes), we can simply randomly enumerate all the keys (that is associate to each key an number; formally speaking to specify an injection $ f:\mathcal{K} \to \mathbb{Z}, K \mapsto f(K)$ where $ \mathcal{K} \subset \Omega(A)$ )

and then treat them as numbers when working with b-trees. Is this exactly the correct connection or is there another deeper one and my approach is wrong?