conflicts – Can you add dice from Traits when you make a defense roll (and didn’t do Active Defense)?

For example, if you labeled a trait ‘shield fighter’ and are currently using a shield, could you add a die for that trait when defending against a physical attack, even if you declared an attack action?

Other examples would be ‘renown’ when defending in a social conflict or ‘stalwart’ when defending against some mental attacks.

algorithms – Searching for similar character traits form different texts (Searching for similar gods in different mythologies) NLP Text classification

I am looking for some help with finding methods to implement finding similar gods in different mythologies. For example, I need to find someone like Zeus in Ancient Roman mythology. I start with analyzing Greek myths text, finding most common attributes(words) in paragraphs where Zeus is mentioned. Then I need to analyze Ancient Roman myths and find there a person, very similar by his attributes to Zeus (it should be Jupiter). Currently I am looking towards LSA, but maybe you can give some ideas of how to implement this thing? Any algorithms you could recommend?

dnd 5e – Do the Fire Elemental’s Fire Form trait’s and Touch attack’s ongoing fire damage stack with each other?

They do technically stack, but a GM can always rule otherwise

Yes, the effects do have different names, and as such, the rules on stacking effects do not apply to these features. Thus a Fire Elemental could enter a creature’s space, catching them on fire and causing them to take 1d10 fire damage at the start of their turns and then perform a Touch attack, igniting them again and causing them to take another, separate 1d10 fire damage at the start of their turns.

That is what the rules seem to lay out; however, you may not think this makes perfect sense. After all, the creature was lit on fire twice and a GM could certainly argue that this simply cannot happen and thus the second effect cannot actually occur, but that would be their own ruling. Furthermore, if a GM said that they did stack, they would want to determine how one can go about dousing the fires; does it require one action or two?

dnd 5e – What do I do about a prescriptive GM/player who argues that gender and sexuality aren’t personality traits?

Start by assuming the best in others.

This is a helpful attitude to maintain when you want to make peace out of conflict. The first step in resolving this conflict should not be “How do I convince them they are wrong?”. Rather, we should first try to see if we are misunderstanding them when they are actually trying to help.

Allow me to explain a possible, positive motivation behind this ruling.

Sexual and gender identity transcend what the game calls “Personality Traits”.

Up front, I must affirm: make the character you want to make. As a GM, my goal is to facilitate fun at the table, and I’m not going to tell you who your character is. That isn’t my job. It is the GM’s job to tell you who the NPCs are. Characters uniquely belong to their players.

That said, gender and sexuality are things that are fundamental to the identity of the character. They are a large part of who the character is. These things influence how your character relates to and interacts with the rest of the game world, all of the time.

But these things will not necessarily make your character unique.

If I am the DM helping you work through character creation, by all means, make the character you want. But I would suggest that you are losing out on a way to set your character apart by writing your gender identity and sexual orientation in the Personality Traits section of your character sheet. These things are as fundamental to your character as your character’s name, yet you wouldn’t write, “My name is Bardic Wizard” in the personality traits box. The Personality and Background section of the Player’s Handbook says this about personality traits:

Personality traits are small, simple ways to help you set your character apart from every other character. Your personality traits should tell you something interesting and fun about your character. They should be self-descriptions that are specific about what makes your character stand out. “I’m smart” is not a good trait, because it describes a lot of characters. “I’ve read every book in Candlekeep” tells you something specific about your character’s interests and disposition.

Personality traits might describe the things your character likes, his or her past accomplishments, things your character dislikes or fears, your character’s self-attitude or mannerisms, or the influence of his or her ability scores.

The things described here are not fundamental to the identity of your character. They make your character unique in relation to other characters, but these things are not your characters fundamental identity. As a DM, I would encourage you not to reduce your character’s identity to what is described here in the Personality Traits section. Sexual and gender identity transcend this box. Use this box for something else.

This is probably intentional. Sex and gender are addressed in a separate section of the character development chapter. In particular, the Player’s Handbook has this to say:

Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture’s expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.

You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide.

So in a strictly rules as written sense, you can be whoever you want.

Even if this is not Lemon’s motivation, I hope this can give you a positive outlook on how to digest the situation.

Have a conversation with Lemon: character sheets are not characters.

Maybe Lemon’s motivation is less positive than what I described above. Either way, we need to have a conversation with Lemon.

Lemon needs to understand something fundamentally important. Character sheets are not characters. Character sheets are a tool used by player’s to help them interact with the game. The character is the person that you bring to life at the table.

It doesn’t matter what your write on your character sheet. The Personality Traits section of one of my characters only has two words: fire and sarcasm. These are just little things that set my character apart and hep me inform my roleplaying in little ways every now and then. This is how the character sheet should be viewed. It’s just a tool for the player to use to relate to their character and the world.

You may have to just show Lemon what maturity looks like.

If Lemon refuses to budge, and insists on not being allowed to put your sexual or gender identity in that box, just move on. It’s just ink on paper. At this point, Lemon has not told you your character cannot be who you want them to be. They’re just trying to micromanage words on a page. Is it stupid? You betcha. Is it worth getting upset over when you can otherwise create the character you want to create? Probably not. Maturity will see a peaceful compromise in picking out some other personality traits and being the person you want to be at the table.

And if this is the route you take, don’t announce it to Lemon. You don’t have to say, “I’m going to be the mature one and move on.” Your graciousness and humility will say everything that needs to be said, and hopefully, fun will be had by everyone.

racial traits – When a ysoki is holding items in his cheek pouches, can others tell if they have something in there?

There are no further rules on this

A search of available material suggests that this ability seems to be largely up to GM interpretation, beyond the Bulk limit. There are no further mention of it in the Ysoki material nor any of the search results for cheek pouch(s) on Nethys.

Real-world rodents with cheek storage are very obvious

As you can see in this Youtube Video, even a single significant sized object is quite apparent.

dnd 5e – Are your default racial traits suppressed when choosing the Doppelganger Character Secret?

No. You have a race and its attendant traits, but present as a different race.

You have emphasized the relevant text. You have a race, so you use those traits, but you imitate another race, and don’t use those traits.

It should be obvious that your player character is a member of some race: this is step 1 of character creation in the Player’s Handbook. Further, this is assumed when the feature uses the phrase true form. The doppleganger character secret explains that you are imitating another race but don’t have any of the racial traits of that race, so naturally, you retain the racial traits of your true form.

I’ll use an example to explain the feature description.

I am Jimothy, a lawful-neutral Halfling barbarian with the Far Traveller background. This is what the other characters at the table know my character to be.

The secret is this: I am actually a Goliath. My character sheet would read like a Lawful-Neutral Goliath Barbarian Far Traveller, but I present to the party as a Lawful-Neutral Halfling Barbarian Far Traveller.

api design – What to consider when designing a collection of traits (C++)

I’m weighing several different designs for a low-level raster graphics manipulation library. In particular, ways to represent the multitude of pixel formats. I have several approaches, but two of them would rely on traits to select or tweak various algorithms at compile time.

I’ve never designed a collection of traits, so I looked at the C++ standard library which has (at least) three sets: <type_traits>, std::char_traits, and std::numeric_limits.

The latter two bundle up their functionality into a single class with methods to support the queries. But the traits in <type_traits> are not coupled like this. Instead, it’s mostly just a collection of independent queries–at least from the perspective of the client.

What should someone consider when choosing between these choices? Is there something fundamentally different about the type traits domain that makes the loosely coupled collection more attractive than it would for the others? Is it a style choice that has evolved? Are their inherent limitations of the bundled type traits schemes that type traits were trying to avoid? Do some of the newer C++ features, like constexpr, change the tradeoffs?

To be clear, I’m not looking for a “Use $X” answer. I’m interested in what factors should be considered when selecting between the two and any insight onto why the C++ standard library favors different styles for different domains. I feel like there may be trade offs involved that aren’t readily apparent to me.

ct.category theory – Are bad traits really bad?

I've had this question for a moment now, so I think it's time to sort it out.

I got into category theory and homotopy type theory at the same time and have always read and learned that one should pay attention to "evil" properties, i. H. Properties that are not invariant under category equivalence. To try to disambiguate the terminology, what I call "categories" is to equivalence, and I will call the objects a pre-category up to isomorphism. In other words, categories are objects of the category $ operatorname {Ho} ( operatorname {Cat}) $, for the folk model structure of $ operatorname {Cat} $, and the subcategories are the objects of $ operatorname {Cat} $,

As I understand it, category theory is in fact categories and not pre-categories, and it makes sense because category theory is about giving isomorphisms the right meaning. The intuition I always have in mind is that it shouldn't matter if I see the same object many times as long as I know it's the same. To really talk about these categories, people started looking for the appropriate language in which bad property makes no sense or cannot be expressed. This is a way to get to the theory of categories or their inner language (I'm not sure how exactly to refer to this term).

However, there are many designs that are used for pre-categories. The two most important ones I keep an eye on are the Reedy categories and the context categories (also known as C-systems). Some results are proven by intensive use of these designs.

My understanding of the situation

The pre-categories can be seen as a kind of "presentation" of a certain category. It is of course not clear, since many non-isomorphic elements can be equivalent, but that's okay, I'm used to it in groups or vector spaces: A group can have different presentations. Well, using an "evil" term would mean working in a given representation of a group. Whatever type of reedy you demonstrate as non-evil property is in fact a property of the category represented by my pre-category, namely Reedy. In group theory would be analogous to a sentence of the form

"When a group has a finite presentation, it is satisfactory $ P $"

And I can say that freely $ mathbb {Z} $ satisfied $ P $, since it is finally presented as $ langle x rangle $ , although I might as well give the (other) representation $ langle x_1, x_2, ldots | x_1 = x_2, x_1 = x_3, ldots rangle $what is not finite. It is a kind of selection of a representative in an equivalence class to prove a property that passes through the quotient. This is something we do a lot and there is perfectly valid evidence. So here I can very easily convert the "be a reedy category" trait into "be a reedy category" and I have changed my evil trait to a non-evil one. Any non-nasty trait that I can demonstrate for reedy categories is actually detectable for all pre-categories that are categorically equivalent to a reedy category

Possible restrictions

There are two "main problems" that I can see when I use bad terms to not prove bad

  • First, the construction I get may not be "canonical" or "natural" (again, I'm not sure what the correct terminology should be here). If I take the example of a Reedy model structure, there may be many equivalent pre-categories that have the same category and are Reedy. The Reedy model structure I use may not match the Reedy model structure I use – even to the point of equivalence between the two. This is similar to my intuition, like the fact that every finite dimensional vector space is isomorphic to its dual, but there has to be a choice of basis that leads to really different isomorphisms. Here the selection of a base is a given representation. This is also useful in my previous correction of Reedy, so as not to be angry: The property "Equivalent to a Reedy pre-category" gives an equivalence of categories and then a specific selection of a presentation, and there can be many ways to be " "equivalent to a Reedy pre-category," which leads to different constructions for the model structure. But again, it's not that big of a deal to construct something non-canonical if we do the constructions everywhere. After it's true that everyone is finite dimensional vector space is equivalent to its dual, even if there is no canonical method – why not present properties in non-evil properties in categories that are true but never "non-evily" true (ie never canonically true)?

  • The evidence we get is not in the language of the categories (and I think that basically says the same thing). It is proof in the language of the pre-categories. But it sounds good to me again, with finite dimensional vector spaces we usually say "take a base", which cannot be expressed in their inner language. It doesn't make the fact true, it just doesn't make it canonical.

My question
First of all I want to know if my intuition is correct. If so, the "bad" traits don't seem too bad to me, and we can use them freely as long as we don't claim canonicity. I've seen examples in different areas of mathematics, so why not in category theory? If my intuition is wrong, am I missing something that would really make these concepts evil?

Then a related question that I have (assuming my understanding is correct), are there any known examples of a property that is always true in category theory but is never canonical? What I mean by that is a sentence that we can prove about categories using pre-categories and that is not provable in the internal language of categories? If for some reason we know that there is no such thing, then I would be convinced to avoid bad qualities as they are unnecessary, but how else can you know that we will not miss anything by avoiding them?