How useful is the 5e ‘Wish’ spell (‘Basic Use’ version) for spell research?

The 5e Wish spell does, literally, whatever you wish, but for a price. The Basic Use version may be useful for instant spell research without the usual time / gold costs. Logically, one could use this Basic Wish to learn all the wizard spells lvl. 8 and lower. But what are the limits? To quote:

The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don’t need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly Components. The spell simply takes effect.

Here are some possibilities:

  1. Casting ‘Wish’ may allow one to have a version of any existing / official spell (found in Player’s Handbook, Volo’s &/or Mordenkainen’s manuals). This exists as a memorized spell ‘slot’, uncast, in one’s mind. Wizards (class) could then write-scribe this spell, providing this was a wizard’s (spell-list) spell in the first place. This learning technique may also extend to some ritual spells, q.v.

  2. As the Basic Use of a ‘Wish’ spell does NOT require material components. As such, the caster of this spell can automatically gain one (1) fully transcribed non-magical version in a book (or scroll / carved tablet / scribed on a skull / whatever suits your fancy). Should this be a ‘wizard’ spell, the caster could then use this written version as though they had transcribed this themselves. Other wizards would need to endure the usual transcription-study-cost process from this origin material, as normal.

  3. This Basic Version of the spell vetoes any and all requirements! As such, any spell imaginable (of less than 8th level value) can be instantly scribed into a book. If it were considered a ‘wizard’ type spell others of that class could make use / transcribe it as usual. If it were a spell for any other list, those of the appropriate class could use this written spell to re-establish a new relationship with their deity, patron or other spell-delivery creature.

Off the cuff, the first one seems reasonable. The second version seems to be pushing boundaries a little (not sure why). The last one, drafting out Brand New Spells every day, seems totally implausible for a mere Basic Wish (perhaps a FULL wish could do this?) – yet i have no known RAW defence on this. It just seems like a bad idea to let a CR 11 ‘arch-mage’ pump out 300+ spells (of any class / up to 8th lvl) in any given year, risk free. But… why not?

Gathered Exchangers of Stackings… what say ye?

Are these homebrew attempts at recreating some blast shape invocations from 3.5e balanced for 5e? (Version 2)

This is a follow up to the question: Are these homebrew attempts at recreating some blast shape invocations from 3.5e balanced for 5e?

As that question explains, I wanted to convert some “blast shape” invocations from 3.5e to 5e, specifically those I recognise from the video game Neverwinter Nights 2 that don’t already have equivalents in 5e: Eldritch Chain, Eldritch Cone and Eldritch Doom.

Thanks to Cubic’s answer, I was able to redesign my 5e invocations based on that feedback and hopefully come up with something that’s simpler and more fun to use but hopefully also still balanced, which is my main question.

Here are my second attempts at these invocations, with commentary below:


Eldritch Chain

Prerequisite: 5th level, eldritch blast cantrip

This blast shape invocation allows you to improve your eldritch blast by turning it into an arc of energy that “jumps” from the first target to others. When you cast eldritch blast, you can choose to fire only your first beam, but if it hits, the second beam automatically hits a second target within 30 feet of the first target, dealing half of the total damage dealt to the first target.

When you reach 11th level, your third beam must then target a third creature within 30 feet of the second target, and when you reach 17th level, your fourth beam must then target a fourth creature within 30 feet of the third target. These beams also automatically hit their targets and deal half of the total damage dealt to the first target. A creature cannot be targeted more than once in this way per casting.

What stands out to me in Cubic’s answer is that the extra damage was too good not to pick, but at the same time all the extra dice rolls and fiddliness made it less fun and take up too much time. With this in mind, and with the aim of keeping it simple, I decided it would be best if the invocation used the beams you already have, rather than creating even more targets (and therefore more dice rolls) like my previous version, but this time they just automatically hit (if the first beam hits).

My hope is that automatically hitting (which gets better with more beams when you reach higher levels) is the attractive thing about this invocation, but is also offset by a) half damage, b) you can’t spam the same creature with it, the damage has to be shared around, and c) it becomes an “all or nothing” attack, since if you miss the first attack, that’s it.

I’m wondering if there are too many drawbacks that might make it less appealing, so maybe having it be a choice you can make if the first beam hits might help to make it more attractive again, since if you miss the first attack, you can just continue to fire more beams as normal (although the subsequent beams cannot become chains, only the first beam can). At worst, I could even ditch the half damage part entirely and make all targets take the full damage of the first target, either as well as or instead of my previous sentence?

Either way, hopefully this version is both more fun and less complicated, but still mechanically has a trade off that’s not “clearly better/worse” but is also attractive enough to take for situations where it would be better than just firing your beams individually.


Eldritch Cone

Prerequisite: 12th level, eldritch blast cantrip

This blast shape invocation allows you to invoke your eldritch blast as a 30-foot cone. Each creature within the cone must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d10 force damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. This damage increases to 4d10 force damage when you reach 17th level.

For Eldritch Cone, I’ve gone back to my original draft before I nerfed it, which is the version I posted in my previous question (the nerfed version, that it). My original draft had the total damage match the total damage output from a normal eldritch blast at that level. My intention is for Agonizing Blast to be included in this damage, so it’s actually 3d10 + 5 force damage for an optimised warlock; they don’t add the +5 to each d10, just the overall damage.

Given that Cubic’s answer pointed out that the range was too short and that saving throws become a less reliable way to deal damage as you get to higher levels, I’ve decided to both increase the range (which also increases the number of creatures that can be caught in it) and increase the damage.

Certainly now the short range of my previous version is less of an issue, but being able to deal 3d10 (later 4d10) force damage to a 30 foot cone’s worth of enemies does seem very strong as an at-will ability. Is forgoing the chance to crit and giving the targets a chance to half the damage really enough of a drawback that being able to do all that is still balanced, or have I gone too far in the other direction now?


Eldritch Doom

Prerequisite: 18th level, eldritch blast cantrip

This blast shape invocation allows you to invoke your eldritch blast as the dreaded eldritch doom. This causes bolts of mystical power to lash out and savage all targets within a 20-foot-radius sphere originating from a point you can see within 120 feet of you. Each creature within that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d10 force damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

For Eldritch Doom, again I’ve gone back to my original draft before I nerfed it, which is the version I posted in my previous question (the nerfed version, that is). My original draft had the total damage match the total damage output from a normal eldritch blast at that level. My intention is for Agonizing Blast to be included in this damage, so it’s actually 4d10 + 5 force damage for an optimised warlock; they don’t add the +5 to each d10, just the overall damage.

As above, Cubic’s answer points out that the 20 foot area is rather small, and that at Tier 4 play saving throws are a very unreliable way of dealing damage. I realised that part of this problem was actually that “area” isn’t really a term used in 5e anymore; what I actually meant was a 20-foot-radius sphere, same as fireball, which would effectively be a “40 foot area” (as I understand it; hopefully that’s right), so I’ve updated it to match what fireball says. I’ve also increased the damage to 4d10.

My main concern here isn’t so much the same concerns as with Cone, but rather whether Doom now seems a bit redundant compared to Cone given how strong Cone is now? Sure, this can be done from 120 feet away, whereas Cone does not, but is that enough that someone might want to pick this over Cone, or is Cone now strictly better (and therefore overpowered)? Maybe Cone’s damage needs to be dialled back a bit so that Doom still seems impressive to have at 18th level, but at the same time, I don’t want this one to be overpowered too.

But even without comparing it to Cone, there’s also the matter of whether or not its new effects are overpowered, so again, is forgoing the chance to crit and giving the targets a chance to half the damage really enough of a drawback to basically cast a force damage fireball at-will? Does the damage need to be cut back as I suspect I might have to do with Cone? Have I gone too far in the other direction again?


My question is are these three invocations balanced when compared to eldritch blast being cast in the standard way? Are any of them “must haves”, or are there still legitimate reasons to cast eldritch blast normally (or to pick other invocations over these in a way that doesn’t see these actually ending up being underpowered–more so looking at Chain here, since I doubt Cone and Doom could still be considered underpowered)?

How can I tell which version a classic World of Darkness book is for? [duplicate]

I’m a novice in the World of Darkness games. Most of my books are purchased piece-meal through game stores. This answer has been incredibly helpful in laying out the various games and editions that exist.

I have around 30 books of various classic World of Darkness product lines – Vampire, Hunter, Werewolf, etc. However, most of the books don’t explicitly say what version of the game they are for (1st, 2nd, revised, x20, V5, etc.). This leaves me confused about which materials are appropriate for which games – and where to put them on my shelf!

How can I tell whether my books are intended for 1st, 2nd, revised, x20, or some other edition? Are there tradedress somewhere I should be observing? Or unique mechanical elements that differ?

relocation error: symbol SSL_trace version OPENSSL_1_1_0 not defined in file libssl.so.1.1 with link time reference

I compiled libssl.so and libcrypto.so using openssl1.1.1d using command ./config -d enable-ssl-trace. when i use libssl.so and libcrypto.so and run my the apps. it show me this relocation error. i checked libssl.map and found SSL_trace is it OPENSSL_1_1_0 global feature. May I know how can I make it defined in file libssl.so.1.1?

Windows wants to install an old version even though i have the latest one, already downloaded it just needs restart, how do i know if it’s safe?

Here is the screenshot of my updates history/status.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0x2zvix5nh99zg/Screenshot%20%281%29.png?dl=0

Here in this dropbox picture there are 2 comments with all the info.

How to determine if particular .NET/ASP.NET version has known vulnerabilities by version-build number using Microsoft resources?

I’m trying to find any list which can help finding if particular ASP.NET version has known vulnerabilities by version-build number. Googling doesn’t help. Is there a known list by microsoft which can help me, containing all existing build numbers (like “ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.8813”), or any other way of checking if security patches has been already applied, for example the list of security patches with build numbers to which it updates the components? https://www.cvedetails.com/ doesn’t help because it doesn’t contain build information, only lists major versions.

seo and documenting multiple version of our software

How to markup the documentation of the different version of our product?

considering that

  • The content is not strictly identical across version,
  • but it is very often the same,
  • we wish newer version to be preferred by seo engines,
  • but older versions are preferred since they are older.

for a couple of year our strategy has been to follow this answer to the question

  • have all url prefixed by their version
  • create a “latest” prefix that is a symlink pointing to the most recent version
  • the most recent version have a <link rel="canonical" targeting the “latest”
  • all version (except the most recent) start with a disclaimer indicating that this version is not the latest, this disclaimer include a link pointing to the latest version

This is an example of our urls :

  • old version : https://www.itophub.io/wiki/page?id=2_4_0%3Auser%3Astart
  • latest version : https://www.itophub.io/wiki/page?id=latest%3Auser%3Astart
  • latest version duplicate, with the <link rel="canonical" : https://www.itophub.io/wiki/page?id=2_7_0%3Auser%3Astart

This is an example of the disclaimer including a link to the latest version picture of the link pointing to the latest version


This was meant to strengthen the “latest” url by having a stable url over time and by having several pages linking to it.

This does not seem to work, since google continues to prefer olds pages. What should we do? I only see the nuclear weapon here : adding on all version a <link rel="canonical" targeting the “latest”.

Does the 5e version of Hammer of Thunderbolts return to the thrower if a charge is used to make a ranged attack?

I have noticed in previous dnd versions, the hammer of thunderbolts explicitly returns to the thrower after ranged attacks, but I see nothing in the description of the 5e version of the hammer about returning to the thrower.

My problem is that I am a Dwarven Tempest Cleric of Thor that has a “blessed” hammer that probably will (DM hinted as much) become a Hammer of Thunderbolts and I currently act as a tank for the party (along with the Wild Shape druid). If I send the hammer off far enough not to be caught in the thunderclap (30ft) it takes me two turns (25ft per turn) to reach and retrieve it.

The only solutions I can think of are to take a feat to up my movement distance to 35ft, take 3 levels of Eldrich Knight to bond with my hammer (which also gets me Action Surge) or just never use any of its charges thus never use its big ability. I am currently level 9 and I know switching to fighter would probably make me a better tank for the party but it’s kind of odd that a magic item would be changing my course for progression. If the hammer returns on it’s own, it would make more sense and leave me more options, but I find that what I wish for and the way things are often do not match up.

Website not showing mobile version properly – randomly shows desktop version!

Our website here does not show properly on mobile phones much of the time. I have spent many hours trying to fix the issue to no avail.

We’re using a plugin called WPtouch to show a responsive mobile version of the blog. It used to work fine for years. However, in recent months, quite often when I visit the blog on a mobile device it shows the desktop version. This is very detrimental as the text on the site is miniscule and impossible to read.

We’re also using Cloudflare CDN and Swift Performance Lite to try to speed up the site. We’ve tried to clear / purge this CDN and cache regularly, as well as that of the browsers we use on the mobiles we test on. Quite often after we do it starts to show the mobile version of the site, but then reverts to showing the desktop version even on mobiles.

The thing that’s making me tear my hair out is it switches between the mobile and desktop versions on the same mobile phone in the same browser while surfing the site seemingly randomly (which leads me to believe it’s probably not a CDN or cache issue).

Is there anything I may do to finally fix this confusing issue please?

Thanks in advance!

Is this homebrew roguish archetype Shadowdancer balanced compared to the other archetypes? [Version 2]

This is a follow up to my previous question: Is this homebrew roguish archetype Shadowdancer balanced compared to the other archetypes?

In short, I want to convert the 3.5e prestige class Shadowdancer into a 5e roguish archetype. I made an attempt in that previous question linked above, but there were some balance issues as pointed out by the accepted answer. I have made some revisions and wish to get another evaluation from the community.

As before, the parts in nested quotation format in italics are my design commentary.

Roguish Archetype: Shadowdancer

Operating in the border between light and darkness, shadowdancers are nimble artists of deception. They are mysterious and unknown, never completely trusted but always inducing wonder when met. Despite their link with shadows and trickery, shadowdancers are as often good as evil.

Flavour text taken from here (since NWN2 is where my knowledge of 3.5e primarily comes from anyway, so I might as well borrow their flavour text).

Summon Shadow. At 3rd level, you can summon a shadow, an undead shade. As an action, you summon a shadow, which uses the statistics from the Monster Manual, but its alignment matches yours and it cannot raise new shadows via Strength Drain. The shadow lasts until it is dropped to 0 hit points, at which point it disappears. If you summon another shadow whilst you already have a shadow summoned, the first one disappears. You can use this feature again once you finish a long rest.

I have decided to move Summon Shadow to 3rd level. It now uses the stats of a CR 1/2 shadow rather than a CR 5 wraith, but cannot raise new shadows, just like how I removed Raise Spectre from my wraith in version 1. My concern here is that Strength Drain might still be rather strong, given that it reduces the target’s Strength rather than just dealing damage; would removing the Strength reduction help to balance this? Another concern is that the shadow, as written currently, remains indefinitely, although I did at least ensure you can’t have more than one. Should it have a time limit?

Shadow Sight. At 3rd level, you gain darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. If you already have darkvision from your race, its range increases by 30 feet.

I still think this makes sense at 3rd level, similar to a Gloom Stalker Ranger gaining (or improving) darkvision at 3rd level. This has not been changed since version 1.

Shadow Illusion. At 3rd level, you can create visual illusions from shadows. You can cast silent image once per long rest.

I have chosen to move Shadow Illusion to 3rd level, because it did seem odd before that my archetype gained two things at 13th level. Also, my hope is that gaining it at 3rd level will counterbalance the weakness of the trait, especially since this archetype is now getting three things at 3rd level. I did consider increasing the number of uses, say 3 times per long rest or something, but I didn’t want to front load this archetype more than it already is now.

Shadow Jump. At 9th level, you gain the ability to step from one shadow into another. When you are in dim light or darkness, as a bonus action you can teleport up to 60 feet to an unoccupied space you can see that is also in dim light or darkness. You then have advantage on the first melee attack you make before the end of the turn.

This is unchanged since version 1, I’m still happy with this. It’s the same as a Way of Shadows monk, except the Shadowdancer has to wait for three more levels before they get it.

Shadowy Dodge. Starting at 13th level, you can dodge in unforeseen ways, with wisps of supernatural shadow around you. Whenever a creature makes an attack roll against you and doesn’t have advantage on the roll, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on it. You must use this feature before you know the outcome of the attack roll.

Taken directly from the Gloom Stalker ranger. I’m still happy with this from version 1, although now it’s all you get at 13th level rather than getting it alongside Shadow Illusion. Since it competes with Uncanny Dodge for the rogue’s reaction, I don’t see it as being too strong, especially since that’s all you get at this level now.

Hide in Plain Sight. Starting at 17th level, you can hide from your enemies even while being observed. You can take the Hide action even when you are in plain sight of the creatures you are trying to hide from so long as you are within dim light. However, you cannot try to hide using your own shadow.

This has now been moved to 17th level, since it did seem too strong as a 3rd level rogue feature. I’m comparing it to the warlock invocation Shroud of Shadow, which is basically at-will casting of the invisibility spell (which warlocks can only take upon reaching 15th level); this isn’t quite that, since you’re not actually invisible, but on the other hand, given how high the rogue’s Stealth modifier is likely to be at this level, it’s almost the same thing.

My main concerns are:

  • whether or not Hide in Plain Sight is balanced, meaning not too powerful, but on the other hand, not too weak (it is supposed to be a 17 level ability, the Shadowdancer’s capstone);
  • front loading the archetype with three abilities (although I’ve seen official archetypes do this, so it’s more about whether these three abilities are balanced at 3rd level);
  • whether the Summon Shadow feature is balanced (in particular regarding it’s Strength Drain and the fact that it lasts indefinitely).

I think I’m happy with everything else.