Website related to the Cryptocurrency Balance

Why are you selling this site?
I focus on another project.

How is it monetized?
Currently not monetized. It is possible to monetize via affiliate links.

Is this site provided with social media accounts?

How long does this site take to run?
1 hour a day.

What are the challenges of managing this site?
Content creation

dnd 5th – What balance problems result from this internal rule that modifies Shield Master's exploit?

For a next match, I weigh Master Shield as a selection. The more I look closely (and recent decisions about it), however, the more I find it dull compared to other choices like Grandmaster of arms, Master of firearms, Elite shooter, and even Dual Wielder.

Third advantage of the master shield, the EvasionThe ability similar to avoiding damage when backing up successfully with DEX is tasty and useful. He embodies a classic narrative trope of use of the shield, and he is likely to save important HP that would otherwise be lost to breathe weapons, fireball and similar spells, etc.

The other two benefits of the exploit are more dubious.

The first advantage, which consists in granting a premium to the action in the event of an attack action, has been the subject of inversion of the rules limiting its application to after all attacks are over. I find this restriction unsatisfactory both mechanically and narratively. Mechanically, this means that a character using the bonus-action action will rarely benefit, as his target can simply move when his turn comes in, even before it has the opportunity to & # 39; Act again. And narratively, force a melee fighter to be "attacked" (or, for those who have Additional attack, potentially "Attack-Attack-Attack-Attack-Thrust") occurs in an arbitrary and unnatural way. Imagine a heroic adventure tale in which a character called "master" of the shield technique does not could never lead with his shield. Besides, why is it so difficult, even for a character with Shield Master, to effectively use a shield bash as a melee damage option? Overall, compared to the very effective and directly beneficial bonus action attacks by the Grand Master of Arms and the Master of Firearms, this part of Shield Master is disappointing.

The second advantage, which is to add the defensive bonus of the shield to the DEX backups compared to the single target effects, seems useful in theory, but is disappointing in its application and its scenario. It's not unrealistic to think that a character with Shield Master can survive an entire campaign without using this benefit. This is not an advantage at all.

Therefore, I consider a house rule modifying Shield Master by adding the following two bullets:

  • You control shields as improvised weapons.

  • When using a shield as an improvised weapon, you can use two – weapon combat even when the melee weapon with one hand that you wield in your other hand is not light.

This modification seeks to put Shield Master roughly at the same level as Polearm Master and Dual Wielder. A character with Dual Wielder may, for example, brandish two long swords with a d8 damage die, or a long d8 sword and a D4 whip with a range, and still gain a +1 to AC. A character who uses Firearms Master will not receive the bonus points of a shield and will only have one d4 damage dice for his casual attack (ie "to the opposite end "), but adds its ability modifier to the invisible damage. Polearm d10 damage dies for his main attacks and reaches all his attacks. In comparison, with this change, a Shield Master's character can benefit from the +2 bonus to AC from his shield and continue to use the two-weapon combat, although with an unmodified d4 dice from the shield . Or, thanks to the skill piece, she can easily drive with his shield, treating the shield as his main weapon and using his normal weapon for a bonus action attack with unmodified damage. She could even lead using the attack with her attacking action and continue to have a bonus attack by fighting two weapons – just as she could with Polearm Master or Dual Wielder.

Nevertheless, it is possible that I miss something. Are there any foreseeable problems of balance here? What are they?

Marriage problem: Is the stable balance on both sides highly optimal?

According to this problem: Unique stable solution in stable marriage Problem: Is it Pareto-effective and a Nash equilibrium?

Is the stable combination on both sides perfectly optimal for both sides? And is there a rule that in an optimal stable match m and w, at least one person gets his first choice, as in the example?

5th dnd – What are the implications in terms of balance to allow players to use their action to create a bonus action?

This question already has an answer here:

According to the rules, according to the compendium of wise advice, bonus actions are not interchangeable.

I can fully understand why you should not be allowed to perform an action as a bonus action because the economy of action is an essential element of balance.

However, I do not understand why you should not be allowed to perform a bonus action as an action. For example, the description of spells with a bonus action launch time in the PHB 202 indicates:

A spell cast with a bonus action is particularly fast

So, if the spell is just faster, why can not I use my action to cast it and then look at it in the air with the rest of the time?

For me, it seems reasonable to allow players to use abilities requiring bonus action as action. I'm therefore considering making a decision at home, as this rarely comes back, but if it does, it's annoying for the player that he can not. "

In our particular case, the fighter / barbarian multiclassification has just been hit hard enough and he wanted to use his bonus action and action to rage and second wind for damage resistance and healing. I did not allow it because I knew that by RAW it was not allowed. But in thinking about it, I do not really see why banning it.

So my question is: Are there equilibrium implications if I allow my players to use their actions to perform bonus actions?

So important, we only play with official and tested content, namely PHB, DMG, MM, VGtM, SCAG and XGE.

5th dnd – How can I balance the first levels in this Homebrew XP-buy 5th gestalt system?

I play in a 5th campaign that uses a homebrew gestalt system in which you can buy extra class tracks for xp and pay for each class level separately. Until now, everything is fine, but it is difficult to balance the first levels because they are either too powerful or incomplete.

To begin, here is a brief summary of the rules themselves:

A level track is a location for the linear advancement of class levels from 1 to 20. Each player character has at least one level track. The level tracks beyond this first track are called "Gestalt Tracks". All level tracks are parallel to each other. The level track divisions are designated in notation by a //, relative to the single / multiclash.

A gestalt is a holistic construct created from the fusion of several structures or systems. Here, it specifically refers to merged class levels in level tracks of a gestalt character (a character that has gestalt tracks). Classes in gestalt tracks can be called gestalt classes.

A character can "open" a gestalt track by paying the XP cost of a higher level, as shown in the table on the page. PHB. The starting level from which to calculate the progress is equal to the number of level traces that the character has already. Opening a track includes the cost to reach level 1 with a class in that track.

Example: a character without a Gestalt track, such as a Monk 1 / Paladin 4, can open a Gestalt track for 300 XP (the cost of raising your level of 1, the current number of tracks level, to 2), becoming eg. a Monk 1 / Paladin 4 // Sorcerer 1. To add another track, the cost is now 600 XP (the cost of raising from level 2 to level 3). The character could now be a Monk 1 / Paladin 4 // Sorcerer 1 // Bard 1.

The levels of each track are raised separately. The cost to move to the next level in a track is calculated by adding the track number to the class level contained in the track. The first track the character starts with is counted as 0 and counts up in steps of 1. As such, the cost of additional tracks and class levels increases with each track.

Example: the cost to increase the level of your first gestalt class from 1 to 2 is 600 XP (the cost to go from 2 to 3) while on the second Gestalt track, it would be 1800 XP (the cost of passing from 3 to 4). To make both tracks level, our Monk 1 / Paladin 4 // Sorcerer 1 must spend 13,700 XP, raising the level 2 to 6 (instead of 1 to 5), as each gestalt track adds 1 at the starting position in the XP table.

Gestalt characters acquire the class characteristics of the two / all their classes at each level, as long as they are distinct. Identical features overlap and the highest bonus is premium.

The overlapping features are the health points and dice, the skill bonus, the additional attack and, in general, the same or identical characteristics of all the characters. In the same way as multiclassing, some skills can not be acquired multiple times, such as a weapon, armor, skill, or tool. the character already has or Extra Attack class feature does not do anything if it is won more than once (the additional attack version generating the most attacks takes precedence).

Spell locations follow the rules for multi-class spellcasters. UPSs do not overlap because each UPS is considered a unique feature.

Our main problem is that, when a new track is opened, we do not find a solution for which the top-level features that the character should receive.

Giving them all that is needed in terms of savings and skills certainly seems too powerful, since opening a track is not so expensive. on three tracks, a character can control everything, including all backups. This is not at all a sensible solution.

One suggestion was to halve benefits by calculating their value in terms of UPS. We calculated that a backup skill equals about half of an ASI and that a skill skill equals a little less than half of an ASI (it all depends on that they cost in terms of performance) and that, as a result, the saving and saving skills of a top-level character are equal. about 2 ASI, so what if we give them an ASI and no skill? However, this calculation becomes a bit odd when considering armament and armor skills, and a free ASI seems a bit too powerful, even with the additional suggestion of requiring multi-class ability score preconditions (allowing possibly using the ASI to satisfy them), as a higher-level characters could easily buy 2 or 3 leads just to get a bunch of extra ASIs. Again, a gestalt character would certainly also need more abilities than a normal character.

Another idea was to treat gestalt classes as multiclasses, respecting the reduced skills described in the rules. However, this seems to defeat the spirit of Gestalt (that is, to combine the best features of each class) when, for example, a multiclass hunter fails to master heavy armor. In addition, taking more courses would involve assuming more responsibilities than it would be difficult to complete in this case without mastering the basics of the course. I would always consider it the most balanced, but it hurts.

I would like some suggestions on what should be gained with a new track / first level in this system. Critics of the ideas on display and new ideas are welcome. This is not purely opinion-based, because the mechanical power in the game can be compared and contrasted between the options. If this is useful, this can be considered as the XP costs involved balance the power between the different level track number characters, even if this is not really the case.

balance – Why can complex shapes be strung to such high levels?

There are many equivalences between resonance and magic; many of their abilities are very similar in both fluff and mechanics. A difference that stands out is the limit to which their respective abilities can be used.


You must declare the Force on which to cast the spell … You can cast a spell on a Force up to twice your magic rating. (it's me who emphasizes)


When you put on a complex shape, you choose a level for the effect … You can choose a level up to three times your note of resonance. (again, my emphasis)

I am well aware of the fact that the codebook is loaded with typos and lazy editing.
Is that all that is? Or is there a reason given for this difference?

Facebook announces the cryptocurrency Balance! Discover the secret of Bitmex Leverage trading that stock markets do not want you to know. – Advertising, offers

Visit this group to learn more about Bitmex Premium Bot, gdax trading, accurate coin predictions, and more. –

The #TRX Premium Signal has been smoothly executed via Bitmex Premium Bot on #Bitmex – It copies all premium signals without any manual intervention.

It is a fully automated Bitmex Premium bot. The success rate of these trades is phenomenal.

It executes all premium signals on your account + It also carries out automated independent transactions that look like trading according to the trend, the counting trend, the swing trading, etc.

The Bot performs transactions based on the selected leverage and quantity.

Once it is defined, no manual intervention is required, it carries out transactions, closes transactions, negotiates until the stop loss and realizes profits with a smooth execution.


bitcoinj – How to rebuild the balance of a bitcoin address using bitcoin

From the title of the question. I am using these file libraries biconij 0.15.2 and following:

  • guava 0.28
  • bcprov-ext-jdk15on
  • slf4j-2.0

and have downloaded all bitcoins blockchain full node. I've started to familiarize myself with some tools, just to understand how bitcoinj works.

Currently, I can scan the blocks and open them to read the transactions. For each transaction, in general, there is an entry address and an exit address, but they can be multiple.

Having an address (not in my default wallet, but any address), how could I rebuild his balance? I know a little about the mechanism of UTOX, the target address appears. If you have to memorize the UTXO, then repeat the same procedure for each block and sum up the found UTXOs (for the same address), is this correct?

house rules – Are there balance disadvantages to ignore physical, social or mental limits?

I ran games with the limit there and I ran games with the offside limit. I can not give you an objective answer, but I can certainly tell you about my experience.

The addition of limits is sometimes helpful because it helps to avoid (or at least increase the cost of obtaining) a dice package for a specific task and to overwhelm overwhelmingly any other nobody in this task, usually a fight. Those who have a very large pool will still win, but they will not win enough, so maybe they can not hit the troll in one shot and it will take two instead. This can moderate particularly unexpected roles and standardize particularly specialized characters so that they fit into the same kind of possibility space as other more generalized characters.

If you do not have people like that, then this is not a huge benefit because in my experience, it takes a lot of optimization and specialization of the characters to reach the limits, and it there are things you can do or can do. them slightly – people who make this kind of character also tend to choose these options to increase their limits, and so their limit ends up being higher than that of other peoples and comes into play in much the same way considering of their respective basins.

Using the limits is also complicated and limits the enjoyment of incredibly lucky players who are told that they can not hit the troll at once, even if they have recorded all the successes. on all the dice of their group. An extra step to check at each throw also slightly slows down the game (but it adds a lot in situations with a lot of throws, like fighting), and it's easy to forget. Even when people have big pools, it does not come all this often, and the above points mean that when this happens, the general sound at the table is usually "Oh, but … limit."

Given the above, I would not respect the limits when I play Shadowrun in the future, although I would pay more attention to anyone who specializes in something. On the one hand, they really want to succeed in this area, so leave them if you can, but on the other hand, Shadowrun is pretty easy to use, it will be a balancing factor, so it will depend on the group.

From my experience, no one has complained yet when they are not there.

trust – Is Facebook's currency of balance a threat to Bitcoin in an imaginable way?

Libra is not peer-to-peer based and centralized; it is not a bitcoin-like currency, but it is a digital currency held by a well-known company. Is this a potential threat to bitcoin, other than perhaps an attack on the confidence of readers in digital currencies to the public in case of failure?