dnd 5e – Can a Swords bard benefit from Blade Flourish’s speed increase again if they take the Attack action again?

The speed increase will stack because the effect does not have a duration

The Dungeon Master’s Guide errata (pdf link) added the “Combining Game Effects” section which states (emphasis mine):

Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. (…) Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. (…)

Since game features include class features one would think that we can conclude that two instances of Blade Flourish’s speed increase would not stack; but in this case, there is no overlapping duration. We can conclude this by looking to the Essentials Kit, which includes a “Effects with the Same Name Don’t Stack” section (page 3) stating (emphasis mine):

(…) But when two or more effects have the same proper name, only one of them applies while the durations of the effects overlap (a duration is a time span of 1 round or more). (…)

This defines what counts as a duration and in this case, the Blade Flourish’s speed increase lasts until the end of the current turn (less than 1 round), thus you can benefit from the speed increase multiple times if you took multiple Attack actions.

system compromise – HPC cluster slows to standstill, is it currently under attack?

I am part of a university with an HPC cluster, which has just slowed to an almost-standstill for no clear reason. The login nodes and the compute nodes both seem to be affected. I can connect, and do basic things (cd, ls) but anything more just seems to hang. My internet connection is fine. There is no scheduled maintenance.

Is this cluster under attack?

Is this a problem that needs to be solved urgently (as in “call people in out of hours”) to prevent some kind of damage?

wifi – how many network adapters does an evil twin attack require

Evil twin is an attack whereby you mimick a legitimate wireless network and try to get victims to associate to yours rather than to the legitimate one.

Conceptually, to execute the attack, all you need is one adapter. Now if you want to route traffic over another wireless network (or simply use the Internet…), you’ll need another adapter to connect to that network.

do i need to turn on monitor mode while doing MITM attack and arp spoofing?

I want to my attack my old PC by ARP spoofing and do some MITM attack .So i was wondering if i need to turn on monitor mode or i can do those attack in managed mode?

dnd 5e – Does making an attack with a previously cast Spiritual Weapon spell cause the Invisibility spell to end?

Invisibility states:

The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.

and Spiritual Weapon states:

you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon.
(…)
As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it.

Since using Spiritual Weapon involves making an attack it breaks Invisibility.

Furthermore you can look to the rule in the section “Making an Attack” (PHB, page 194):

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

attack – Hand crossbows, shortswords, and artificers

Ok, so here is my question. Let’s say you have an artificer that is a battle smith, so he has the extra attack ability. Now let’s say he has a shortsword in one hand, and a hand crossbow which is given the repeating shot infusion; Which specifically ignores the reloading property, and causes it to magically generate ammo to fire. Now, let’s say the artificer takes the attack action, would the artificer be allowed to swing with the shortsword with the first attack, and fire the hand crossbow with the second attack against another enemy? Or must both attacks granted from Extra Attack be made with the same weapon?

dnd 5e – How do I narrate Laeral Silverhand’s Silver Hair attack?

Depictions of the character have long silver hair, so the assumption that her actual hair is meant is reasonable.

Of course in the real world, hair is not suitable for attacks. But the attack description says the attack deals force damage. The rules on the force damage type state:

Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most >effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile >and spiritual weapon.

That suggests that even if the attack’s damage is not considered magical and it is not a spell attack, it is, in fact, magical.

Concerning the description, you should make sure, the players get that magic is involved. In my games, players usually do not find magical things (such as demons) absurd, they are part of the story’s reality. To convey the information that the hair is magically enhanced, you can describe that it glows or that it emits sparks of magical energy when moving. This works as a narrative indicator that the normal physical hair rules do not apply.

dnd 5e – Can you attack through full cover?

Someone Evil’s answer mostly covers the rules as written.

Rules on unseen attackers

That being said, if your DM wants to follow the RAW as much as possible while still allowing you to pull this off somehow, I suggest using the rules on object AC/HP and the rules for unseen attackers (PHB, p. 195):

When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. (…) If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, (…) When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

When attacking through the wall, you would make a normal attack roll, since you being unable to see the target and the target being unable to see you cancel each other out (having both advantage + disadvantage = normal roll).

Rules on object statistics

Regardless of the material the wall is made out of, the DMG has rules on object AC and hit points on p. 246; paper (for Japanese-style paper walls) has an AC of 11, wood has an AC of 15, and stone an AC of 17.
A paper wall would likely have 5 hit points (being “fragile”, see DMG p. 247), while a stone wall would have 27 hit points (being “resilient”). A wood wall could have either.
Depending on the material, your DM can decide that the object has damage vulnerabilities or resistances (see DMG, p. 247, “Objects and Damage Types”). For instance, a paper wall might be vulnerable to slashing and fire damage, while a stone wall could be resistant to slashing and piercing damage.

Those rules apply RAW as well, except you technically have to use a number of attacks on the wall until it is destroyed, before you can use a separate attack on the enemy behind the wall.

Houserule examples that are as close to RAW as possible

The closest to RAW would therefore be to grant you advantage on the second attack (assuming you can smash through the wall with your first attack), since your target didn’t see you. This wouldn’t technically be the case as it can see you once the wall is broken, but it’s a minor change that’s well within the DM’s ability to grant advantage in certain situations. I’m not 100% certain it would be RAW, but it’s at least debatable.

A more significant change (that is definitely not RAW anymore) would be to allow you to deal any excess damage from hitting the wall to the attacker. As an example, let’s say you hit a paper wall with a Greataxe and get a 22 on your attack roll and a 13 on your damage roll. Assuming the attack roll is higher than both the wall and the target’s AC, you would deal 10 damage to the target; 3 damage are required to destroy the wall, which I would consider a fragile large paper object (=5 HP) vulnerable to slashing, and the remaining 10 damage would hit the target.

dnd 5e – How do I describe Laeral Silverhand’s Silver Hair attack?

Depictions of the character have long silver hair, so the assumption that her actual hair is meant is reasonable.

Of course in the real world, hair is not suitable for attacks. But the attack description says the attack deals force damage. The rules on the force damage type state:

Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most >effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile >and spiritual weapon.

That suggests that even if the attack’s damage is not considered magical and it is not a spell attack, it is, in fact, magical.

Concerning the description, you should make sure, the players get that magic is involved. In my games, players usually do not find magical things (such as demons) absurd, they are part of the story’s reality. To convey the information that the hair is magically enhanced, you can describe that it glows or that it emits sparks of magical energy when moving. This works as a narrative indicator that the normal physical hair rules do not apply.

Is "Shove" an attack?

This question is prompted by reading this answer to a question about using the Polearm Master feat’s bonus action after a Shove and halbard Attack

In the section “Making an Attack” (PHB, page 194):

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

Shoving does not require an attack role but rather a contested Athletics check.

Under “Shoving a Creature” (PHB, 195)

Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. (…) You make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics)check (the target chooses the ability to use).

The text specifically says Shove is a “special melee attack”
Is this a case of “specific beats general” where the specific wording of Shove makes it an attack even though the general definition of an attack is different?
Alternatively is the wording of shove just using common language or is it intended to mean something different?