dnd 5e – When specifically stated “this weapon is magical for overcoming resistances” does that mean it does full damage against a character in rage

Generally speaking, such a feature would not overcome the barbarian’s resistances from their Rage feature.

First, for an example of such a feature, let’s refer to the (NPC) archdruid’s Wild Shape feature, which states:

The new form’s attacks count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances and immunity to nonmagical attacks.

Most of the features I’m aware of are phrased similarly enough to not make much of a difference.

The resistances that are part of the barbarian’s rage are described as the following:

You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

This resistance does not care about the magical or non-magical status of the damage dealt to the barbarian, so “magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances” doesn’t apply here. In the same vein, magical ‘physical’ damage from a spell like catapult, or from weapon attacks with a magical weapon would be halved against a raging barbarian as well (see this Q&A for a more thorough breakdown on this).

This is in contrast to things like air elementals’ resistances, which are phrased as the following:

Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks

Such a set of resistances would be overcome by a feature like the archdruid’s, as the attacks counting as magical means that those resistances are inapplicable. Similarly, those resistances would be ineffective against magical attacks causing ‘physical’ damage, such as thorn whip, or weapon attacks with magical weapons.

For another point of comparison, effects that intend to bypass general resistances that normally would apply seem to be more direct about it- for an example, see the vorpal sword:

In addition, the weapon ignores resistance to slashing damage.

This would bypass the resistances from Rage.

Why isn’t "maximum zoom" consistently stated for compact cameras?

Why can’t maximum zoom (ie the change in size of an object on screen) consistently be stated on compact cameras? I am aware of the complications with focal length and lens size but I am only interested in how much the camera can magnify.

algorithms – Can the two optimal subproblems of the recurence formula below be reduced to one subproblem given the assumtions stated in the description below

In CLRS (Intro to algorithms 3rd Edition) on page 362, it says eqn(1) :
enter image description here
Lets Assume that you are given the cost of matrix multiplication for $A_{i}..A_{j}$ is $C(i,j)$ .
$C(i,j)$ is the Number of scalar multiplications of $A_{i}..A_{j}$.
$C(i,j)$ is not necessarily the optimal Number of scalar multiplications but obtained from this paranthesisation.
i.e $C(i,j)$ is derived from => $(A_{i}(A_{i+1}(A_{i+2}dots(A_{j-2}(A_{j-1}A_{j}))…)$
Given that $C(i,j)$ has been provided to us. Can $m(i,j)$ be reduced the equation below.

m(i,j) = begin{cases}
0 & text{if } i = j, \
displaystylemin_{ile kle j} {C(i,k)+m(k+1,j) + p_{i-1}p_{k}p_{j}} & text{if } i leq j.

Note $C(i,j)$ could be any parenthesizations so far as we are consistent.
I truly appreciate any help.

Where did Staoshi Nakamoto stated that bitcoin is gold or digital gold?

Where did Staoshi Nakamoto stated that bitcoin is gold or digital gold?

He didn’t.

Not in any of his public writings.

an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.

In his original whitepaper, Satoshi Nakamoto was very clear that they saw Bitcoin as a means of payment.

What is needed is an electronic payment system

The whitepaper does not mention the phrase “store of value”. Since they were undoubtedly aware of this property of currencies, we must infer it was not of primary importance in the motivation for the design of Bitcoin.

So it would be surprising if there is any evidence available that would conclusively prove that Nakomoto completely changed their mind about this.

See also Breakdown of all Satoshi’s Writings Proves Bitcoin not Built Primarily as Store of Value

Did Satoshi build Bitcoin to serve primarily as a store of value, or did he build it for making payments?

To answer this question, I went straight to the source. Thanks to the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute’s archives I was able to read every single thing Satoshi ever posted publicly. Comments from 260 forum threads, 63 emails, and his original source code.

After reviewing all of Satoshi’s writings, I can confidently state that Bitcoin was not purpose-built to first be a store of value. It was built for payments.

I thought Wm. In his confirmation hearing, Barr stated that he would submit to Congress all the Mueller report authorized by law.

Report abuse

Additional details