The idea of using Polymorph to get around the limitations on Awaken has been covered before. It has a bunch of issues, having to do with the fact that eventually you’ll want to unpolymorph the thing back into its original state and (preferably) keep the int boost and the free language, and there’s a lot of reasons that might not work the way you want. Find Familiar, though, gives you a critter that basically is a low-CR beast, other than the fact that it’s not actually a beast, so there’s much less incentive to change it back when you’re done. You can’t normally abuse True Polymorph to permanently upgrade your familiar in a meaningful way, because you can’t increase CR with that spell… but changing it into its actually-a-beast version, or into some other beast of the same CR should still be doable, and that seems like it would make the creature a valid target for Awaken. At that point, it seems like you could just… leave it as it is. It would be a beast instead of a celestial/fey/fiend, but that seems like a small enough price to pay for cranking the int up to 10 and giving it the ability to speak a language. There are a number of other useful features of familiars, but those all seem to be facts about what the caster can do, rather than things that would be disrupted by True Polymorph.
Basically, this looks like cheese. It’s a way to permanently upgrade your familiar with spells, and it seems pretty clear that the authors have made efforts to try to prevent exactly that. At the same time, as far as I can see, it’s viable-within-the-rules cheese. Is there anything I’m missing here?
The argument "it’s obviously cheesy so as DM I wouldn’t allow it" is not a acceptable answer to this question unless you can also find some in-the-rules way to challenge its validity. If doing this would cause you to lose out on any of the standard features of a familiar, that would be useful additional information.
The Hawker rigging upgrade reads as follows:
Hawker Rigging: One carried item is concealed and has no load. For example, you could carry a load of drugs or a weapon, perfectly concealed, for zero load.
Does this apply to items that require multiple load count to carry? For example armor requires 2 slots of total load. So in this case, could I use the Hawker rigging bonus to wear concealed armor for 0 load?
I am unable to install any tool or upgrade or fix broken upgrade.
We just upgraded from SQL Server 2008 R2 to SQL Server 2019(Compability lvl 150).
We have two different stored procedures that started failing after the upgrade, with error messages like this:
Msg 8632, Level 17, State 2, Procedure BuildSelfSaleStats, Line 14 [Batch Start Line 4] Internal error: An expression services limit has been reached. Please look for potentially complex expressions in your query, and try to simplify them.
Whats really strange is that this particular stored procedure doesnt take any arguments, and when we simply execute the body of the SQL code in SSMS, it works fine(!?).
What might cause some SQL code that works fine when executed in SSMS, to suddenly start failing when its wrapped in a stored procedure?
I am in infosec for very long time. But i am not able to improve my skills. What tips you will give to improve our level of hacking.
As per my analysis, TLS version is not tied with any certificates, but its tied with cipher suits during TLS negotiation. Is upgrading from TLS 1.1 to 1.2 mean that only TLS1.2 cipher suits are supported or its more than that ? does it change the way TLS1.1 communication happen? can it result in some more latency for your applications?
My Windows 10 build version is 1809. When I go into Windows update it does not offer to upgrade me to 1909 which should be the most recent as of today.
I notice that there is a bad bug (source: https://thehackernews.com/2020/03/patch-wormable-smb-vulnerability.html) in 1909 which is patched by KB4551762 (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4551762/windows-10-update-kb4551762), but I don’t get it on my build.
So does this mean 1809 is not vulnerable to the SMBv3 ‘wormable’ issue? ANd why don’t I get the newest version of Windows?
Let’s say I have a regular +2 weapon, but I want it to have Flaming Burst, which is a +2 equivalent ability. Could I pay the 10000gp difference to have it be upgraded to a +1 Flaming Burst weapon, or would I have to pay 24000gp to upgrade it to +2 Flaming Burst?
I’ve pentested a lot of websites and a few apps too but this app eludes them all. On the websites, when there’s a
websocket upgrade the BURP proxy recognizes it and starts showing it in the websockets tab. Somewhat similar happens on the apps, but not on this one.
This app doesn’t do any such thing.
How this app works :
- Gets it’s websocket endpoints from a config, downloaded from a website. Then ‘mysteriously’ it makes a connection to the websocket server, which isn’t visible in the BURP proxy.
My Setup : 1. Rooted phone with frida running and objection framework for ssl unpinning ( although not needed here, as I am already able to see all the http(s) traffic from the app ).
FYI I’ve added my BURP cert as root authority in my android 7.0 phone.
I’ve also tried ‘invisible proxying’ ( not sure how it works ) didn’t work either.
Any ideas would help ?
I have a FLAMING BLADE motherboard with intel core i7 950 cpu. I wanna upgrade the CPU to core i7 990x. The question is: it worth to upgrade?