dnd 5th – Does the target choose which side it moves to for the Wall of Ice?

Your GM decides who decides where the creature goes

(…) If the wall crosses the space of a creature when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice of which side). (…)

(…) If the wall crosses the space of a creature when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice). (…)

(…) If the wall crosses the space of a creature when it appears, the creature in its area is pushed to one side of the wall (…)

Unfortunately, it doesn't say how to determine which side of the wall a creature ends up on, but a reasonable assumption would be to govern it identically. force wall and stone wallthat is, the launcher decides. Of course, this part is not explicitly indicated and therefore it is ultimately left to GM.

A creature does not get a save against being surrounded by a wall of ice (or one force wall)

stone wall actually continues to say:

If a creature was surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. If successful, he can use his reaction to go back to his speed so that he is no longer trapped by the wall.

There is an explicit save throw that allows a creature to escape stone wall. A force wall or wall of ice does not grant such kindness to those who are trapped. If they did, they would say it, they don't say it, so they don't do it. Spells only do what exactly they say (except GM fiat of course)

Quotes Automation 2.1.0 + WHMCS V7.10 – choose what works best for your business! | NewProxyLists

1. Quote automation for WHMCS 2.1.0

Welcome to all! We are here today to treat you with reinforcement Quote automation for WHMCS 2.1.0 module offering a set of important new components that are guaranteed to work seamlessly in the latest WHMCS V7.10 environment.

Let's take a quick look at some of them, okay?

  • The all new option for create product sets which can be added later to your quote templates. Therefore, once a new quote has been created, the list of previously defined products will be made available to your customers who will be able to select one by hand.
  • The frequently requested possibility of create quotes for unregistered users – they can now preview and accept quotes before the registration process.
  • The option to duplicate model configuration on the basis of which you wish to create a new one.

Restless to see how all these ambitious initiatives work in practice? Go to the module change log page for a more detailed description and try them out!

Learn more about Quotes Automation for WHMCS 2.1.0!

2. In addition, we are pleased to present some of the modules that we have labeled as compatible with WHMCS V7.10 more recently:

Need custom software development for your business?

Especially for you, we will adapt an application and its design to your own needs, create a new module or even a whole new system built from scratch!

dnd 5e – Can you choose to automatically succeed on a saving throw that you make because of a spell that you cast?

There is no general rule that exempts spellcasters from throwing save throws for their own spells and, if a specific spell had such a rule, he would state it openly.

However, School of Evocation assistants have a useful culprit:

Sculpting spells

From the 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety in the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures you can see, you can choose a number equal to 1 + the level of the spell. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throw against the spell, and they take no damage if they normally take half the damage on a successful save.

The earthquake is an evocation spell, so an evocation school assistant could use sculpting spells to allow you to automatically succeed on a saving throw, at from a spell they cast and not fall prone.

The fate of the earthquake has a number of continuous effects; Sculpture spells would not protect you from these effects in subsequent turns after their initial cast.

They could also use sculpture spells for all other evocation spells (eg, Fireball, etc.), many of which have no permanent effect.

However, sculpture spells cannot protect the caster.

The text of the rules says very precisely: that you can protect & # 39;other creatures you can see"Other creatures can't mean you.

To achieve this effect, you would therefore need a friendly evocation assistant to cast a spell using sculpture spells; you couldn't get started.

How to choose outdoor TV using?

How to choose outdoor TV? What should I watch out for?

Disaster planning – Which CPanel backup solution did you choose and why?

I am a small shared reseller using WHM / CPanel, In terms of disaster planning – Which CPanel backup solution did you choose and why?

Thank you … | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1802986&goto=newpost

c # – Using const values ​​in the factory class to choose the implementation

I create a small program to analyze the content of Excel files. There are two types of Excel files, containing the same data, but with different models.

It is possible to distinguish them with 100% certainty by checking the content of a specific cell, which I call fingerprint.


Follows an MVCE:

Interesting data (two characters left / right depending on the class) are then displayed. (Obviously, the actual use case is more complex than extracting data from the fingerprint. In some cases I want to get the contents of column A, in some cases it’s 39; is the first word in column B, concatenated with column D, etc.)

I tried to find a way to go through all of the base class implementations, but I thought the remedy was worse than the disease …

using System;

public class Program
{
    public static void Main()
    {
        var factory = new Factory();

        var test1 = factory.CreateItem("something foo");
        Console.WriteLine(test1.GetInterestingData());


        var test2 = factory.CreateItem("something bar");
        Console.WriteLine(test2.GetInterestingData());
    }
}

public abstract class Base
{
    protected readonly string Data;
    public Base(string data){
        this.Data = data;
    }
    public abstract string GetInterestingData();
}

public class A:Base
{
    public const string Fingerprint = "Foo";
    public A(string data):base(data){}

    public override string GetInterestingData(){
        return this.Data.Substring(0,2);
    }
}

public class B:Base
{
    public const string Fingerprint = "Bar";
    public B(string data):base(data){}

    public override string GetInterestingData(){
        return this.Data.Substring(this.Data.Length - 2,2);
    }
}   

public class Factory
{
    public Base CreateItem(string data){
        if(data.Contains(A.Fingerprint, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)){
            return new A(data);
        }
        if(data.Contains(B.Fingerprint, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)){
            return new B(data);
        }
        throw new Exception("No fingerprint match");
    }
}

Probability pr – Choose weights so that they minimize an integral

I have a measurable function $ f: E to (0, infty) $, measurable weights $ w_1, ldots, w_k: E to (0,1) $ with $ sum_ {i = 1} ^ kw_i = 1 $, positive probability densities $ q_1, ldots, q_k: E to (0, infty) $ and measurable subsets $ H_1, ldots, H_l $ on a $ sigma $– finished measurement space $ (E, mathcal E, lambda) $ and $ t_1, ldots, t_k ge0 $ with $ sum_ {i = 1} ^ kt_i = 1 $ and i want to choose $ w_1, ldots, w_k $ so these weights minimize $$ max_ {1 le j le l} sum_ {i = 1} ^ k frac1 {t_i} int_ {H_j} lambda ({ rm d} y) frac {w_i ^ 2 (y )} {r_i (y)} left | f (y) – frac { lambda left (1_ {H_j} f right)} { lambda left (H_j right)} right | ^ 2, $$ or $ lambda left (1_ {H_j} f right): = int_ {H_j} f : { rm d} lambda $.

How can we solve this problem?

My first idea was to $ max $ by something that does not depend $ H_1, ldots, H_k $ more then minimize the limit: We could define $ lambda_i: = frac {w_i ^ 2} {r_i} lambda $ (density measure) and the probability measure $ operatorname P_i: = frac { lambda_i} { lambda_i (E)} $. We could then write $$ sum_ {i = 1} ^ k frac1 {t_i} int_ {H_j} lambda ({ rm d} y) frac {w_i ^ 2 (y)} {r_i (y)} left | f (y) – frac { lambda left (1_ {H_j} f right)} { lambda left (H_j right)} right | ^ 2 le sum_ {i = 1} ^ k frac { lambda_i (E)} {t_i} operatorname E_i left ( left | f- frac { lambda left (1_ {H_j} f right)} { lambda left (H_j right)} right | ^ 2 right) le sum_ {i = 1} ^ k frac { lambda_i (E)} {t_i} operatorname E_i left ( left | f- operatorname E_i (f) right | ^ 2 droite) $$ and try to minimize the right side.

Is this a feasible approach? If so, how should we proceed? If not, what else can we do?

design – How to choose the only and preferably only one obvious way to do it?

Let's start by saying that I love PEP0020, I really like it … rather than consider it as simple poetry, I rather consider it as a good set of guidelines that will lead me to write clean, neat code.

The thing is, sometimes I struggle a lot with some of its rules, especially the one that says There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it., Why? Because python in particular is such a versatile language that allows you to solve a given problem in many different ways, so it's pretty hard to find the obvious right one, no matter how many years of coding experience that you have or the correct code that you've read over the years.

Usually, I try to base myself on well-known rules such as these and the first solution that comes to mind will be "pretty good", so I will stop here, no more no less, this covers the current problematic space well. .. At other times, I fight a lot because the number of solutions that comes to my mind is just too great.

For example, let me give you a simple example:

# -------- A --------
class ListenerA(Listener):

    def __init__(self, verbose):
        self.lines = ()

        if verbose:
            self.on_process = self._on_process_verbose
        else:
            self.on_process = self._on_process_quiet:

    def _on_process_verbose(self, line):
        print(line)
        self.lines.append(line)

    def _on_process_quiet(self, line):
        self.lines.append(line)


# -------- B --------
class ListenerB(Listener):

    def __init__(self, verbose):
        self.lines = ()
        self.verbose = verbose

    def on_process(self, line):
        if self.verbose:
            print(line)
        self.lines.append(line)


# -------- C --------
class ListenerC(Listener):

    def __init__(self):
        self.lines = ()

    def on_process(self, line):
        self.lines.append(line)


class ListenerC1(ListenerC):

    def on_process(self, line):
        super().on_process(line)
        print(line)


# -------- D --------
class ListenerD1(Listener):

    def __init__(self):
        self.lines = ()

    def on_process(self, line):
        self.lines.append(line)


class ListenerD2(Listener):

    def on_process(self, line):
        print(line)

All of these classes will inherit from a Listener interface … sometimes the on_process method will be called thousands of times per second (performance required) but other times it will be called a few times.

The case exposed is just a trivial / dummy example to illustrate my point, I could think of at least 10 other (semantically equal) ways to easily solve the given problem, but I decided to limit it to these 4 cases (A, B, C, D)

My question would be: how do you go about assessing the solution that you objectively thought you spoke well enough to be able to continue? In other words, how do you know it was the "obvious way to do it"?

Or maybe so that the question becomes less "general" … say I asked you, given the example above, which solution of the 4 would pragmatically speak better? How would you classify them using a few well-known steps to take an obvious one?

The fact is that I tend to waste a lot of time choosing from the many possible solutions I can think of for a particular problem and it ends up being a huge waste of time, so I would like to become more agile. in this regard … And don't get me wrong, I usually try not to over-design the solution while trying to deal with existing use cases (I try not to predict future imaginary cases that may or may not happen) but sometimes even with that "agile state of mind" I end up having trouble choosing the right obvious way 🙂

Do not hesitate to explain how you proceed in such cases.

Thanks in advance!

c # – Using const values ​​in the factory class to choose the implementation

I create a small program to analyze the content of Excel files. There are two types of Excel files, containing the same data, but with different models.

It is possible to distinguish them with 100% certainty by checking the content of a specific cell, which I call fingerprint.


In order to make it more universal, the following code:

Interesting data (two characters left / right depending on the class) are then displayed.

Any ideas for improvement are welcome, but I am particularly concerned about Factory.CreateItem class. It's already a bit clunky with two different implementations, but there may be more to come.

I tried to find a way to go through all of the base class implementations, but I thought the remedy was worse than the disease …

using System;

public class Program
{
    public static void Main()
    {
        var factory = new Factory();

        var test1 = factory.CreateItem("something foo");
        Console.WriteLine(test1.GetInterestingData());


        var test2 = factory.CreateItem("something bar");
        Console.WriteLine(test2.GetInterestingData());
    }
}

public abstract class Base
{
    protected readonly string Data;
    public Base(string data){
        this.Data = data;
    }
    public abstract string GetInterestingData();
}

public class A:Base
{
    public const string Fingerprint = "Foo";
    public A(string data):base(data){}

    public override string GetInterestingData(){
        return this.Data.Substring(0,2);
    }
}

public class B:Base
{
    public const string Fingerprint = "Bar";
    public B(string data):base(data){}

    public override string GetInterestingData(){
        return this.Data.Substring(this.Data.Length - 2,2);
    }
}   

public class Factory
{
    public Base CreateItem(string data){
        if(data.Contains(A.Fingerprint, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)){
            return new A(data);
        }
        if(data.Contains(B.Fingerprint, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)){
            return new B(data);
        }
        throw new Exception("No fingerprint match");
    }
}

wild worlds – Why should I choose bows rather than powers?

Because it fits your character concept.

Your setting might not have powers, and even if it does, your character might not. If it doesn't make sense to have them, don't take them. Arcane Origins involves a set of messy assumptions about your character's identity.

On the other hand, it may suit your decor and your character concept of using a bow like a power. If you use Savage Worlds to play, for example, Avengers, and everyone has powers, and you are Hawkeye, it would make perfect sense for you to take powers representing your theme "can do ridiculous things with a bow". Use Bolt for your normal armor piercing arrows, Blast for a grenade arrow, Stun for a flashbang, etc. It works well as a set of powers because it's not like someone else can steal your bow and now they're Hawkeye. Narratively, the bow might as well be a magic wand.