What would a Warlock understand from written spells outside of their class, via Eyes of the Rune Keeper?

This related question asks if you could transcribe a ritual spell to the warlock book via the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation regardless of spell lists, and the answers were generally “yes, but you can’t tell what the spell is”.

This other one asks if you had the Eyes of the Rune Keeper invocation, “could you cast a scroll of a spell outside of your spell list?”, and the answer, using a quote from Crawford, was that you cannot cast the spell since it was out of your spell list (but it did not state if you could actually read the scroll).

By this point, you can probably guess where I’m getting at.

The description of the Warlock eldritch invocation, Eyes of the Rune Keeper:

You can read all writing. You can comprehend any written word or symbol, should it hold any linguistic meaning.

The rules on scrolls outside of your spell list:

If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material Components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible.

Can I understand magical literature that is normally outside of my class list if I have the Eyes of the Rune Keeper?

What would I be able to identify from a written spell with Eyes of the Rune Keeper?

Note: I am not asking if I can cast spells outside of my class with the invocation; I am asking if I can understand the nature of the scroll/spell, even if I can’t cast from it.

Related: Can Warlock's Eyes of the Rune Keeper decipher written code?

Would creating undead minions be considered an evil action in PFS, and therefore earn Infamy?

Would creating undead minions be considered an evil action in PFS, and therefore earn Infamy? I’m not keen on GMing for a necromancer or anti-paladin type character, but also don’t want to deny a player’s choices outright. It seems like a necromancer (sans undead minions) is distinctly different than someone with an undead horde. This line of questioning extends to fiendish summoning, etc.

Would it be unbalanced to offer a cambion’s Fiendish Blessing as a racial feat for a tiefling player?

The Cambion monster in the MM p.36 has the trait Fiendish Bleesing:

Fiendish Blessing The AC of the cambion includes its Charisma bonus.

Would it be unbalanced to offer my player’s tiefling paladin a reskinned version as a racial feat (Feat as in instead of ASI)?

Reskinned:

Fiendish Blessing The blood of your fiendish ancestors protects you just as it does them. You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your Charisma modifier.

Why am I apparently the only one who would VASTLY prefer polishing the existing product instead of adding more features? [closed]

Take PostgreSQL as just one example out of countless. It’s more than “mature” now. Yet the upgrade process is a painful ordeal which makes me upgrade once every few years instead of months. It really is that annoying.

In each release, they have a bunch of new features, meaning just more and more stuff I will never use. I don’t even currently use 99% of the features which have existed for 20+ years. Yet more and more is added all the time.

But at the same time, they don’t seem to care at all about things which are worth a trillion times the value of any new feature: smooth installing, upgrading and self-configuring in terms of performance-related directives. That last part might be the most difficult to accomplish, but would be worth it for me that not one single feature is developed for 10 years until this have figured this out.

Is new features the only way they feel satisfaction? I don’t understand it. If there is one thing that gives me pleasure with my own code and projects, it’s to improve and streamline the existing, sub-par solution/code. I almost wonder if I psychologically make it worse from the start just because I love improving it so much… But clearly, that’s not the case for most other people? They just want to pile on more and more features of very dubious use while the basics of the product are neglected.

It really makes me scratch my head, especially for a project like PostgreSQL which doesn’t need to print huge bullet points on shiny boxes which are standing in a store for people to notice and want to buy it… since it’s open source and free of charge.

I’m confused.

Would a difficult to access “Key” be an option to securely solve the Apple vs. FBI problem?

In recent times, there has been an escalating demand by legislators in the US and the world around to be able to decrypt phones that come pre-configured with strong encryption. Key escrow is commonly suggested as a solution, with the risk seeming to arise out of the escrow agent misusing or not appropriately securing the keys — allowing for remote, illegal, or surreptitious access to the secured data.

Could a system secure from remote attack be devised by adding an offline tamper-evident key to the device? This could be an unconnected WLCSP flash chip or a barcode within the device with the plaintext of a decryption key.

I recognize the evil maid attack, but presume a tamper seal could be made sufficiently challenging to thwart all but the most motivated attackers from surreptitious access to the data.

What would be lost in this scheme relative to the current security afforded by a consumer-grade pre-encrypted device (cf. iPhone)? Bitcoin, Subpoena efficacy, and other scenarios that seem fine with “smash and grab” tactics come to mind.

Would there be any major balance implications for swapping the Soulknife rogue’s daggers to deal fire damage as opposed to psychic?

I have a specific character concept in mind but for it to work I would need to change the UA Psionic Rogue’s Psychic Daggers into Fire Daggers. I plan to ask my DM about it but before I do I want to be aware of any possible balance implications in the damage type change. Would it be over- or under-powered or would it be relatively the same?

What effects would casting Enlarge on a bag of holding have?

I was watching a video about underrated spells, and one of the spells listed was Enlarge/Reduce. One of the examples given was reducing a large, heavy statue, then the party carrying the statue away, and my mind leaped to “wait, what if you cast Enlarge on a bag of holding?”

My main thoughts are that it would increase its capacity for the duration of the spell, and possibly its weight limit as well, but I’m not too sure

What overpowered combinations would be available if I allow a bonus action to be used in place of a standard action?

It has come up in game a couple of times that a player might want to cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 bonus action using their “main” action (if they have another bonus action they also want to take on that turn, such as giving bardic inspiration, or controlling a Bigby’s hand, etc.)

On the face of it, it seems obvious that something (a bonus action) that is usually much faster than a full action could be done as your full action. Although the question comes up most often with respect to spellcasting, if I house rule this, I would rule that any bonus action can be taken as a regular action instead; however, I would not allow the same type of bonus action to be taken twice (so no giving bardic inspiration to two allies on the same turn, for instance).

Are there any abusive or overpowered combinations I should be wary of if I were to allow a character to take 2 bonus actions instead of one regular action and one bonus action on a turn?

The issue of casting two bonus-action spells would not come up because the rule against casting 2 spells on your turn unless one of them is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action would still be in effect:

PHB p. 203 (under Bonus Action casting time)

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

I know it’s hard to prove/justify a negative answer to a question like this, but I’d be happy to get answers that say you don’t think there would be any issues if you describe how you came to that conclusion.