dnd 5e – Can a Changeling with the actor feat have permanent advantage and performance and Deception checks?


You already got to that in your question:

Or is the meaning of the Actor feat that they only have advantage when they are trying to prove that they are a different person not in other situations?

That’s exactly it. Actor gives you advantage on deception and performance checks that you incur from trying to pretend that you’re a different person. It doesn’t apply to other things you happen to be doing while passing yourself off as another person.

This paragraph from the question also isn’t quite correct:

So basically, as long as the person you are changing into is/ was a real person, you are always passing yourself off as a different person.

Not necessarily. You’re just changing your appearance to look like that person. But you might not necessarily actually pretend to be that person. Maybe you’re just showing off your shapeshifting ability as a party trick. Also, Actor doesn’t require that you pass yourself off as a different real person at all; It’s perfectly within the bounds of it to try to pretend to be some made up person like a traveling noble or what not, although of course with shapeshifting and incredible acting skills it’ll be quite beneficial to you if you can find a real person to imitate.

Really curious if this is kinda broken because a bard or rogue with expertise and advantage on all deception checks could be a crazy good liar.

I’d also like to address this point: Advantage or not, a Bard or Rogue – especially the Rogue, because of Reliable Talent – with Expertise in Deception are crazy good liars. So good in fact that they’ll rarely ever fail a deception check for anything that isn’t a completely outlandish claim, advantage or not. This isn’t a problem. They built their characters to be good at something, so they get to be good at that thing.

hard drive – corrupted files, fail checksum but , disk and FS checks with disk utility

a couple of files appear corrupted on the SSD drive in my sons MBP , updated to catalina.

They are wav files which refuse to play and if from a shell I run:

$ sum -r

I get “Input/output error” on the two offending files, instead of a checksum.

$ sum -r *
23188 45843 01 Bombtrack.wav
58127 58913 02 Killing In The Name.wav
40298 63213 03 Take The Power Back.wav
64550 54096 04 Settle For Nothing.wav
47065 58063 05 Bullet In The Head.wav
38280 55418 06 Know Your Enemy.wav
11798 68313 07 Wake Up.wav
sum: 08 Fistful Of Steel.wav: Input/output error
sum: 09 Township Rebellion.wav: Input/output error
17779 68693 10 Freedom.wav

I have run disk utility first aid on both the logical and physical volumes. Is there anything else I can do ? The disk utility doesn’t find anything wrong with the filesystem or underlying disk ? is that normal ? I’m assuming these two files are sat on a corrupted part of the SSD. OK fine but how do I repair or prevent it from being used ?

My concern is that macos can find nothing wrong with it, and the SMART data checks out. this SSD was a replacement for the original hdd and was fitted at the apple store.


shadowrun sr5 – A sustained spell should require multiples drain resistance checks?

We are playing a Shadowrun 5 campaign. When a mage cast a spell, it should roll a Drain resistance check. The GM is requiring multiple drain checks, one for each turn the mage sustain the spell (in case of sustained spells). But I don’t think that a spell requires multiples checks, just one right after casting the spell. What’s the correct rule?

architecture – Product subscription checks in a Microservice API’s

We’re in the middle of architecture a SaaS web app which will operate on a subscription basis. Each user is associated with a merchant by means of a claim on their identity and the subscription exists at the merchant level.

We have a number of separate microservice API’s and we’d like to prevent anyone without a valid subscription from successfully calling these API’s. So far we’ve come up with a couple of potential options:

  1. Add a policy to the API gateway which fronts all of the API’s. The policy would check for an active subscription by calling an endpoint on our subscription API. If no valid subscription is found a 402 payment required response would be returned for our front end to handle
  2. Replicate active subscriptions into each Microservice by messaging. Each API would hold a complete list of all active subscriptions and would perform a check before executing the requested API method. Again a 402 would be returned where there is no valid subscription.

Option 1 seems the simpler but has a single point of failure, if the subscription API goes down nothing will work. Option 2 seems more robust but requires more effort and could result in data becoming out of sync.

Are there any thoughts on whether these are suitable ways to achieve our goal and if so which one might be best? We’re very much open to other ideas as well if anyone has any.

The solution will be written in .NET core and will be deployed to Azure so we’re open to PaaS solutions if there are any.

Many thanks in advance.

dnd 5e – Can the Echo Knight’s Echo make Skill Checks

In the Echo Knight subclass it states that the Echo “uses your saving throw bonus for (saving throws)”, but says nothing about being able to make skill checks with the Echo. I’m primarily concerned about skill checks like stealth and acrobatics/athletics, things you might want to make in the course of combat or while using the Echo as a scout before combat (like with the Echo Avatar feature); I don’t plan on letting the Echo make separate knowledge checks to recall information.

So, does the Echo have the ability to make skill checks, and if it does, what bonuses does it have to those skills?

python – I want to one Goal to have different Dates and Checks, how should i structure the relationships?

This is the models.py file

from django.db import models

This are the choices i want to have

# Create your models here.
('Done', 'Done'),
("Didn't do", "Didn't do"),

this is the Check model

class Check(models.Model):
    Check=models.CharField( max_length=50, choices=DISPLAY, default='some')

    def __str__(self):
        return  str(self.Check)

this is the date model

class Date(models.Model):
    Check=models.ForeignKey(Check, on_delete=models.CASCADE)

    def __str__(self):
        return  str(self.Date)

this is the Goals model

class Goals(models.Model):
    Date=models.ForeignKey(Date, on_delete=models.CASCADE)

    def __str__(self):
        return  str(self.Goal)

I’m a newbie, how should i structure the relationships?

Encounter-crafting and NPC vs. NPC checks

I’m planning out an upcoming encounter for my players and I would like some input for how to handle the inciting scenario…

At the end of the last story arc, they came into possession of a couple artifacts from an ostensibly-defeated foe. One of these artifacts, however, is kind of a horcrux-type object which is capable of temporarily overpowering and directing minds. In the setup of the scenario, I’m going to use a pre-generated, nameless NPC as a target for this power in a bid to escape the PCs’ possession, as someone they have to chase down, presumably without harming them.

My question boils down to this: do I give this PC-allied NPC a chance to resist this power, or am I justified in summarily saying that they’re possessed from the jump and playing the encounter out from there?

Quick content checks, can this be done?

Content reviews are immensely boring, but they are crucial for understanding the content of an existing website. Content checks for larger websites, where you capture every page and analyze the content page by page, are obviously very time consuming. I wonder if there is a "lean" approach to testing / a quick way to understand the content of a website without going through the entire website.

One example that I thought of was creating a site sitemap. This gives you an indication of the shape and size of the site. In terms of content capture, you would only capture the pages that you think are unique content types. Instead of going through the whole page. I think you might still have to click through the entire website to determine the content types, but it would save time not having to capture all the URLs and describe each page.

Views – How do I implement access checks based on referring nodes in the grant system?

After a suggestion in another thread here, I'm trying to rewrite the access restrictions that I helped develop hook_node_access (and so far works well) in Drupal's grant system (i.e. using hook_node_access_records and hook_node_grants). I want to do this for two reasons:

  1. I'm concerned that the current access checks could become a performance bottleneck as the number of users increases.
  2. I need to use the results of access checks as a filter in views.

Here is a truncated version of my current access checks:

function mymodule_node_access(DrupalnodeNodeInterface $node, $op, DrupalCoreSessionAccountInterface $account){
  $type = $node->bundle();
  $user = $account->getAccount();
  $uid = $user->id();

  // only handle the lesson content type
  if ($type === 'lesson') {

    // ...

    // check the user's access to the referring courses
    $courseaccess = FALSE;
    if ($node->hasField('reverse_entity_reference')) {
      $parentcourses = $node->get('reverse_entity_reference')->getValue();
      foreach ($parentcourses as $course) {
        $coursenode = DrupalnodeEntityNode::load($course('target_id'));
        // perform access checks for the referring course
        $courseaccess = $courseaccess || ...

    // ...

    // return the result
    if ($courseaccess) {
      return AccessResult::allowed();
    } else {
      return AccessResult::forbidden();

  // ...


Note that I essentially have to Check that the current user has access to one of the nodes (Courses) related to the node displayed (Lessons): This determines whether the user can access them lesson. I use References to reverse entities for this.

In my view (I am open to suggestions) there are basically two ways to achieve this. Unfortunately, I have not been able to solve the problems associated with this so far. I understand that I could …

  1. Use (more or less) the full access logic hook_node_grants: That would mean that I have to have access to the currently displayed node (lesson) in the hook_node_grants to be able to follow his reverse references to check if the user has access to one of the referring nodes. Is that possible? There is no $node Variable…
  2. Use (more or less) the full access logic hook_node_access_records: In this case the problem is that the hook is only called (and thus the lesson is updated) whenever the node is saved. As a result, access restrictions are out of date once a lesson is included in another course.

I am not sure how to proceed at this point. Is it even possible to rewrite this in the grant system? Any other ideas?