Right, so I was messing with the computer “name” on a Windows 7 Embedded OS. Curious, I clicked on the Network ID button and went through the prompts seeing what it did. I was SURE to click cancel before exiting cause I did not want to do anything I was just curious. Well, when I did it said I have to restart my computer. I tried this on another computer and it turns out if you click “my company uses a network without a domain” it will want to make changes no matter what even if you hit cancel. Now the problem, when I restarted it wants me to login as Administrator should be no problem cause I have the password. Wrong. I can’t log in period no matter what I try. Please help.
It’s only a wizard cantrip if you learned it as a wizard
Cantrip formulas says (emphasis added):
(…) you can replace one wizard cantrip you know with another cantrip from the wizard spell list.
Knowing a spell that happens to be on the wizard spell list doesn’t necessarily make it a wizard spell for you. For example, if you are a multi-class wizard/sorcerer, you could learn Fire Bolt as one of your sorcerer cantrips. If you do so, then you always use your charisma modifier when attacking with Fire Bolt, because for you it is a sorcerer spell, not a wizard spell.
In some cases, a feature will let you learn a spell and have it count as being associated with a certain class even if it isn’t on the standard spell list for that class. If so, it will explicitly tell you so. For example, the a cleric’s Domain Spells feature says:
If you have a domain spell that doesn’t appear on the cleric spell list, the spell is nonetheless a cleric spell for you.
The psionic spells of the gith subraces don’t say anything about counting as spells of a specific class, so you can’t treat them as wizard spells.
In terms of lore, your wizard cantrips are spells that you have learned through your focused study as a wizard, while your gith racial spells represent innate psionic abilities, so it makes sense that they are not interchangeable in this way.
The wizard in my campaign has just been petrified after his first encounter with a cockatrice. He had his familiar ‘out’ at the time of his petrification.
I’m sure that the intent of the rules is that this wizard can not communicate with his familiar whilst petrified (although I welcome suggestions to the contrary). However, I can’t find anything in the rules which explicitly forbids it. The petrified condition imposes the following limitations (ignoring those with no bearing on this ruling):
- A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone).
- The creature is incapacitated
- The creature can’t move or speak
- The creature is unaware of its surroundings.
The incapacitated condition means only that the target can’t take actions or reactions.
Communicating telepathically with the familiar conjured by the Find Familiar only requires that the familiar is within 100 feet of you. It does not:
- Require an action
- (Explicitly) require awareness of surroundings
- Require movement or speech
Is it therefore possible (according to RAW) for a wizard to communicate telepathically with their familiar whilst petrified?
Wizard is Possessed, How do I describe what a Paladin senses when casting Divine Sense?
Should it sense the Undead that is in control of the wizard or that there is undead in the area?
The damage die would be a d6
The two-hand trait changes a weapon’s default damage when wielded with two hands.
This weapon can be wielded with two hands. Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value. (…)
This clearly means this isn’t normally the weapon’s damage. A staff only uses a d8 when wielded with two hands.
So is the character wielding it with two hands? About wielding, the rules say the following:
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it.
Yet the spell says this:
You hurl a held melee weapon with which you are trained at the target. (…)
The staff is not even in the character’s possession, so they are not wielding it with two hands.
Even if the staff remained in their possession, they wouldn’t be wielding it with two hands.
As you said, the spell has a somatic component.
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.
It’s not possible to gesture freely when holding a 5′ pole with two hands. This is very different than “holding something in your hand” that the somatic component accommodates.
The belief that a character busy performing gestures as part of casting a spell is still considered ready to use a staff they are holding (a requirement for the staff to be considered wielded) is questionable. But even if you believe that, they would not be able to complete the somatic component of the spell while also meeting the conditions for increasing the staff’s damage.
A side note.
the weapon flies back to you and returns to your hand.
A very literal reading of that implies the caster would be holding the weapon with one hand after it returns. The Interact action would be needed to change one’s grip to hold it with two hands (as per the Changing Equipment table).
I assume you’re referring to this feature of the School of Scribes:
If necessary, you can replace the book over the course of a short rest by using your Wizardly Quill to write arcane sigils in a blank book or a magic spellbook to which you’re attuned. At the end of the rest, your spellbook’s consciousness is summoned into the new book, which the consciousness transforms into your spellbook, along with all its spells. If the previous book still existed somewhere, all the spells vanish from its pages.
That definitely makes it sound like Wall of Force will be copied over to the new spellbook, even though you still can’t cast it.
You’ll need to be attuned to the Grimoire at the time of switching spellbooks but, apart from that, there is nothing that would stop it from working.
Note that you wouldn’t be able to copy the spell yourself, if you didn’t have the Awakened Spellbook do it for you, if you were not of the the correct caster level.
It’s how real-world alchemists did things
Which is likely something that Gygax—and Vance, assuming Vance’s novels also including writing spells down—would have known.
There are famous alchemists. Plato is arguably the father of “Western” alchemy, and he’s one of the most-published authors of all time. Jābir ibn Ḥayyān is the first person in recorded history to write down many different chemical properties and processes. In Europe, alchemists sometimes rose to prominence in the courts of kings and queens—John Dee, Nicholas Flamel, and the like. Even Isaac Newton took some interest (though he took much more interest in astrology).
But most alchemists didn’t publish and become famous. Most alchemists, it seems, didn’t want to. They invented arcane writing styles all their own to encode their processes—and jealously guarded those secrets. Many truly believed that they were working on achieving grandiose supernatural power—and didn’t want to share. Many, even, felt strongly that deciphering these codes they used was a security measure, not for themselves, but for the world. That only those who proved their wisdom by figuring out their writing could be trusted with the knowledge contained therein. Some of those codes, therefore, were meant to be cracked—but only by the “wise,” who were presumed to be trustworthy.
And even the better-known codes are still extremely arcane to us. Take a look at the Unicode page for alchemical symbols, for example:
Codepoint Symbol Description 1F700 🜀 Alchemical Symbol For Quintessence 1F701 🜁 Alchemical Symbol For Air 1F702 🜂 Alchemical Symbol For Fire 1F703 🜃 Alchemical Symbol For Earth 1F704 🜄 Alchemical Symbol For Water 1F708 🜈 Alchemical Symbol For Aqua Vitae 1F70C 🜌 Alchemical Symbol For Vinegar-3 1F714 🜔 Alchemical Symbol For Salt 1F717 🜗 Alchemical Symbol For Vitriol-2 1F762 🝢 Alchemical Symbol For Dissolve-2 1F773 🝳 Alchemical Symbol For Half Ounce
You’d find entire books written in these symbols, with minimal actual language around them. And worse, you’d find books written using the author’s own personal set of symbols, and maybe their page layout and organization is encoding more information not found in the symbols themselves, and so on.
I mean, for that matter, you can even look at modern chemical equations and can easily imagine how impossible they can be to understand: even the straightforward “2H(g) + O(g) → H₂O(ℓ)” should immediately raise eyebrows for anyone who doesn’t remember chemistry class, and that’s a really famous one. Chemists standardize things heavily so that it can be taught in chemistry class, but that’s a relatively modern effort, pushed by modern sensibilities and enabled by modern technology.
But without a press, without regular international communication, with information that can literally burn down buildings or gate in demons? Yes, it is entirely plausible that wizards all come up with their own system. It’s certainly what the people who were trying to become wizards here did.
Also, just to bring this back to the lore a bit more…
One of the things with Vancian magic is that the level of memorization involved in casting a spell is absurd. It’s way, way beyond anything you are familiar with—in Vance’s works, if I’m not mistaken, the mere ability to learn magic was itself a magic ability, impossible for a regular human to perform.
There is much, much more information to encode than you’d expect, apparently, in writing down a spell. Moreover, one has to encode things that are extremely difficult to describe—precise movements and utterances, yes, but also magical attunement and mental patterns and so on. And that encoding has to resonate with your own magical ability to memorize that spell so thoroughly that the act of keeping it in your mind is magic itself. A prepared spell is an actual, existing “thing” in the world of D&D. It’s not physical, of course, but it is tangible, for those with the right senses. It can even be stolen, in certain cases. And once used, it’s entirely erased—no matter how thoroughly you memorized it (and it had to be very thoroughly), and no matter how many times you’ve done it before, the actual act of casting a spell is enough to scour that magical thought-construct that was your prepared, memorized spell, entirely from your mind.
Which is to say that your system of encoding has to interact with your own personal magic. Other people’s encodings don’t necessarily work for you—or yours for them. You can, with enough effort, decipher someone else’s encoding well enough to get it into your head, to prepare the spell. But replicating their style, particularly with a spell you have never seen them encode? There’s no hope. So you can’t copy their encoding perfectly anyway, even if you wanted to.
Tangent about alchemy
It’s important to bear in mind that “chemistry” didn’t exist at the time. “Alchemy” was the name of the serious pursuit of trying to learn more about what makes up the materials around us and how they can be manipulated. Plato… honestly, Plato wasn’t right about much. But Jābir is the first recorded discoverer of many chemical substances and techniques. And he wasn’t alone in making real discoveries. But it was still also, ya know, “alchemy,” as we think of it—turn lead into gold, achieve immortal life, etc. How much a given alchemist focused on those things varied widely, of course, but the split between material and spiritual concerns that we have in the modern world didn’t exist then. They were both equally “alchemy,” and both equally serious.
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Anybody can ask a question
Anybody can answer
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
So lets say I am playing a level 12 Wizard, and I am in a dungeon when I find a spell book. So something similar happened in a quest I was playing and then the my DM said something along the lines of “So you can copy the spells in the book to your own book and you will have to buy…”. So this made me think must I copy these spells to use them or can carry around both spells and cast from them whenever I want? Am I limited to spells from my book or can I use all spell books for spells
I’m currently designing a flow where users are to link an bank. The scenario is the user wants to add another account from a bank, but while on the wizard, he sees that the bank has already been link.
- The first step of the wizard is to search and select a bank from the list which would open a modal.
- Let’s say the user searched for “ABC” and it came back with multiple results
- He then saw that the bank he wanted to add has already been linked to the app.
- Below the bank name, it says “Bank already linked. Go to manage account to add another account.” – but the problem is it will link out and leave the wizard. It will ask the user to confirm to disregard any changes and be directed to the link he clicked, but is this flow really okay?
The concern with having a link is it may be seen as disrupting the directed flow. I’m thinking that having a link is offering a shortcut to the user, but some thinks it’s better to not have it because the question is more of “how can they go back?”. My assumption is, if they need to add an account to an already linked bank, then they wouldn’t need to go back.
What are your thoughts on this?
We don’t have user testing at the moment so this is a bit challenging. Also due to tech constraints we are stuck with this flow – we couldn’t allow users select a linked bank on this wizard and thus we can only suggest for them to go to their manage account settings to add another account under that bank.
I want to do horizontal partitioning in my SQL. Some of the tutorials say I need to click the table -> Storage -> Click Partition. something like below.
Though, for my case, I am only seeing “Manage compression”. I am not seeing “Create partition”, In addition, I am not able to see “FileGroups” at the database level.
I am using Azure SQL