complexity theory – For s set $Ssubseteq RE$, so call feature of language $S=emptyset$ vs. $S={emptyset}$

Assume that all languages are over the alphabet $Sigma$. What you have here is a bit of ambiguity. Indeed, ${ emptyset}$ refers the set of languages containing only the empty language ( in this case, $emptysetin 2^{Sigma^*}$). Also, $emptyset$ refers to the empty set w.r.t to the universal set of all languages, that is $emptysetsubseteq 2^{Sigma^*}$ (in this case, $emptyset in 2^{2^{Sigma}}$).

As you noted, if $S = emptyset$, then $L_S = { langle Mrangle: L(M)in emptyset} = emptyset in text{R}$. Now if $S = { emptyset}$, then $L_S = { langle Mrangle: L(M)in {emptyset}} = { langle Mrangle: L(M) = emptyset} = E_{TM}$ which is known to be in $text{coRE}setminus text{R}$.

wp query – How to create author.php with the help of wordpress pages feature

I need to create author posts archive with the help of WordPress pages feature. That’s why I created a page with the slug “author”. Now when I want to enter author page , it forward me to this page not to author.php. My problem is that I can get all author posts when I use author.php instead of WordPress pages feature But I can’t get author posts when I use wordpress pages feature. I mean main query does not work in this page.

But both urls are the same

when I use auhtor.php :      (main query works )
when I use wordpress pages : (main query does not work)

enter image description here

dnd 5e – How much does this Favored Foe tweak for the Ranger’s class feature from TCoE buffs the Rangers when compared to other martial classes?

I want to tweak the Favored Foe optional class feature for the Ranger from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything

I’m fairly disappointed with the Favored Foe optional class feature for the Rangers released in TCoE, it’s essentially just a worse Hunter’s Mark. This feature allows more versatility with your Foe Slayer feature at level 20, but it also locks your concentration. Since it’s a worse Hunter’s Mark, Favored Foe will probably see less use until you get Foe Slayer (and how many games reach level 20?). The only saving grace to this feature is the improved action economy. Two weapon fighting or crossbow expert Rangers might see some use out of this.

While the UA version is definitely better in terms of damage, I’d have to agree with this Reddit post that says that the UA version incentivizes 1 level dip to the Ranger class, but doesn’t incentivize more levels in Ranger. User u/ZatherDaFox added “One of the ranger’s biggest issues has always been a lack of really cool mid and late game abilities to justify taking the class that high.

Now, I’m trying to come up with a solution after Favored Foe was officially published in Tasha’s Caudron of Everything. tl;dr, here’s the changelog:

  • Renamed it to Hunter’s Mark
  • If you take this optional class feature, it replaces your Favored Enemy class feature and removes the Hunter’s Mark spell from this Ranger’s spell list
  • The damage still scales exactly the same as TCoE’s Favored Foe, but now it applies to every attack that hits (even spell attacks)
  • Added the advantage to track and find it bit from the Hunter’s Mark spell
  • Duration is 1 hour, following the Hunter’s Mark spell
  • Number of uses equal to proficiency bonus per short or long rest
  • At level 11, it no longer requires concentration

Hunter’s Mark

1st-level ranger feature, which replaces the Favored Enemy feature and works with the Foe Slayer feature. Furthermore, Hunter’s Mark is removed from your spell list.

When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can call on your mystical bond with nature to mark the target as your favored enemy for 1 hour or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). Until your concentration ends, you deal an extra 1d4 damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack, and you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it.
    You can use this feature to mark a favored enemy a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a short or long rest. This feature’s extra damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class: to 1d6 at 6th level and to 1d8 at 14th level. Furthermore, once you have reached 11th level in this class, this feature no longer requires concentration.

What this aims to fix:

As stated before, I want people to want to play the Ranger class and experience them at higher levels, not just as one level dips. I play a Ranger in my homebrew campaign, but I use the Revised Ranger UA version because the PHB just seems very DM-/campaign-dependent and, to me at least, is poorly designed compared to the other classes. Tasha’s has introduced a lot of new optional class features for the Ranger that I’m eternally grateful for (I’ll literally never take the PHB Natural Explorer ever again). So it sucks to see that one of them just barely misses the mark (get it? Hahah).

The changes don’t really alter the playstyle of the Ranger prior to level 11, I think. I set the uses at PB per short or long rest since this Hunter’s Mark can’t jump between targets when you reduce one to 0 hit points. And every Rangers still need to contemplate the usual “do I drop my Hunter’s Mark now and try something different, or should I stick with it?” This has always been a problem with me in my campaign, and in its current state I do plan on multiclassing into Rogue very soon, since I don’t think I can utilize many spells because my Wisdom is not that high. I know that sounds more like a me thing but Wisdom is not generally the Ranger’s main ability score either, so it’s usually lower than their Dexterity, de-incentivizing creative uses of spells with a saving throw or a to-hit.

This changes in level 11, though. This Ranger’s Hunter’s Mark now no longer requires concentration. I read somewhere (can’t find it anymore) that advised people who wants to homebrew stuff to stay away from altering the concentration mechanic in D&D 5e, among other things (action economy was also mentioned). I removed the concentration at level 11 because it’s entering a new tier of play, so I think it’s a fitting jump in terms of prowess for this class. Also, since it no longer requires concentration at this level, Rangers can now try more experiments with their spells! It removes one decision point in combat for the Ranger, which I think is a good thing.

The Ranger’s current level 11 class feature is tied to their subclass, so this adds another oomph to those as well. But, I am also deathly afraid that messing with concentration like this is going to overpower the Ranger when compared to the other martial classes. My biggest argument is that the Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite also at 11th level, which is very similar to this Hunter’s Mark since it a straight damage buff.

tl;dr, the question: do these changes for Favored Foe, now renamed Hunter’s Mark, significantly buffs the Rangers, to the point of overpowered when compared to the other martial classes?

dnd 5e – Can the Necromancy wizard’s Command Undead feature be used on the Nightwalker from Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes?

The School of Necromancy wizard has the Command Undead feature (PHB, p. 119):

Starting at 14th level, you can use magic to bring undead under your
control, even those created by other wizards. As an action, you can
choose one undead that you can see within 60 feet of you. That
creature must make a Charisma saving throw against your wizard spell
save DC. If it succeeds, you can’t use this feature on it again. If it
fails, it becomes friendly to you and obeys your commands until you
use this feature again.

Intelligent undead are harder to control in this way. If the target
has an Intelligence of 8 or higher, it has advantage on the saving
throw. If it fails the saving throw and has an Intelligence of 12 or
higher, it can repeat the saving throw at the end of every hour until
it succeeds and breaks free.

The Nightwalker from Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes (p. 216) has 8 charisma, 6 intelligence and a CR of 20.

Isn’t it a bit crazy? Outside of simply not putting this thing in the game if you have a necromancy wizard in it, what else can happen (or can the DM do) that is gonna prevent the game from breaking?

security – Should I be using the “encrypt wallet” feature in Bitcoin Core?

All my wallet.dats have no password. However, the internal hard disk where the “live” one is located is encrypted, and so are the offline storage devices where I have my “cold” wallet.dat.

I have known about the feature to encrypt your wallet.dat in Bitcoin Core for a long time, but never dared to do it. It feels like I will become one of those who forgot their password, even if I store it in multiple text documents on those redundant, encrypted, offline backups. I’ve had text files randomly get garbled many times for seemingly no reason. And it just makes my skin crawl to think of the possibility that I will one day have a wallet.dat but not be able to ever access it!

Plus, if I encrypt the “live” one, I can say “good bye” to any automation through the RPC API, which is obviously a requirement to run a Bitcoin-accepting service.

But the cold one? I feel extremely scared of it flying through my network cable away from my control. I wish I would dare to encrypt it, but I just don’t. It’s too scary. I’m already more than scared enough that my backup disks will fail or that I will forget the password to decrypt those! Or that they are all seized and broken into with their quantum computers.

I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time worrying and thinking about my security, especially as the Bitcoin value has increased so much. Still, it feels like I’m not at all safe enough and that it’s not even possible to be secure without going to such ridiculous lengths that life becomes one long ordeal.

And I don’t even own lots of BTC. I can imagine how paranoid people with like 100 or 1,000 BTC feel now…

dnd 5e – How does the Order of Scribes feature Awakened Spellbook work with multiple damage types?

Only the GM knows what happens when you try to change the damage type of a spell that deals multiple types of damage

Notably, the feature in question says that can replace its damage type, not its damage types. This works perfectly well for spells that only have one type of damage, but when there are spells like flame strike and ice knife and others, this becomes less clear. Strictly speaking those spells don’t even have a damage type, they have multiple. Thus, under some sort of strict reading of the feature, it wouldn’t work at all with these sorts of spells.

Instead, I would say it is undefined in this case and that any adjudication about what happens when you try the change the damage type of a spell that deals multiple types of damage is going to be left to the GM.

dnd 5e – Does the Hexblade Warlock’s Hex Warrior feature apply to a magic weapon that is transformed into your Pact Weapon?


First of all, the weapon has been transformed into your pact weapon, so that checks out. But is it “conjured” when you make it appear?

Conjuration school of magic includes summoning spells, including spells like Instant Summons and Secret Chest , which kinda do similar things.

Also, the plain English meaning of “conjure” is

to make something appear by magic, or as if by magic

(From Cambridge Dictionary )

And this is clearly what is happening here. There is no clear definition of “conjuring” in 5th edition which would contradict this.

So, it would be extremely strange for a DM to rule that making your magic pact weapon appear would not count as conjuring a pact weapon with the Pact of the Blade feature.

dnd 5e – Best DPR using the Horizon Walker’s teleporting feature?

I am hoping to play a 20th level character in my new campaign. We are starting from level 20 and using a homebrew progression from there.
What is the best combination my levels, ASI, feats, magic items, etc, with the optimization objective being to maximize Damage Per Round(DPR). Multiclassing is permitted.


The Character requires at least eleven levels in Ranger(Horizon Walker) to use its teleporting ability.


  1. All official WoTC books allowed
  2. Unearthed Arcana allowed
  3. Anything RAW allowed
  4. All magic items available – but only one artifact, and two legendary items
  5. No wish/wish-granting
  6. An answer including setup, and optimal buffs from another player, is helpful, but only as an extra – do not rely on the others for damage
  7. Aim for consistency – things like Wild magic surge aren’t good

Can a feature component be initially locked? [closed]

I would like to lock some components when the feature is enabled, as described in Provide way to "lock" a feature component from being reverted/rebuilt on a site (even forcefully/manually), with the difference that the components should be initially locked, not unlocked.

dnd 5e – The descriptions of the Swashbuckler rogue’s Rakish Audacity feature in XGTE and SCAG disagree. Which is correct?

In the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide (p. 136), the second paragraph of the Swashbuckler rogue’s Rakish Audacity feature description reads:

In addition, you don’t need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

However, in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything (p. 47), which reprints the Swashbuckler rogue subclass, the description of the Rakish Audacity feature reads:

You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don’t need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

I can’t find any acknowledgement of the text change either; I’d imagine that one or the other would have been subject to errata that makes them have the same wording.

Which wording is correct? I’m assuming SCAG since it was printed later, but would like a source.

Additionally, does the SCAG wording mean that the ability can be used with range attacks? I assume that RAI it should not, but I’m having a hard time interpreting “if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet” as meaning that the target must be within 5 feet.