homebrew VS spack

As a long-time play-by-poster of D&D, yes, it still dominates the TTRPG crowd. I branch out to other game systems myself, but always have at least two or three D&D games going. The game itself is not hated, just the company, and there are enough free resources available online that anyone can play the game without giving WotC a single dime. As far as we're concerned, the game belongs to the players and WotC are nothing more than Interlopers.

Check out https://5e.tools/ for an example of a good free, self-hostable resource.

Please let me know if there are any issues and I'll fix them. The json files for 5e.tools are a little bit irregular so you may run into some errors. Also let me know if there is anything I should change about the conversion method. I'm new to GURPS so some thing may be a little bit unbalanced. This is supposed to be a rough conversion, not a perfect conversion.

I used to love using 5e.tools's Homebrew Builder to enter the details of whatever statblock I was working on, then port the Markdown over to Homebrewery. It was so easy! But it looks like 5e.tools still uses the old Markdown code and hasn't updated to match Homebrewery's changes. This makes statblock format just a bit wonky. Is anyone aware of a website that offers a similar function and is also up to date with Homebrewery?

For planning to multiclass, I would recommend this website https://5e.tools which is a great free resource for all kinds of 5e tabletop mechanics. You will be able to see what abilities your main class is going to get at higher levels, allowing you to plan a multiclass where you don’t miss out on them. Now it’s possible that Larian will make some of the high level abilities available sooner, they aren’t sticking to tabletop rules 100% but have been pretty faithful to them overall.

5e.tools - All 5e D&D official content can be found there. Pair it with the Plutonium Importer for FoundryVTT, and you got yourself all books for free.

You might take a look through 5e.tools and maybe keep it to common or uncommon items. It might even give you a baseline to create your own items and riff off "real" items.

Well, there's some videos on Youtube with tutorials, but the Player's Handbook is always an option. I recommend too the 5e tools website, there you can find almost every information about the game. If you have any specific question, you can always send it here on r/dnd and someone should help you.

I have been using many homebrews on Homebrewery, and I have been using 5e.tools when DMing, but I can't find a way to put the monsters from homebrews on Homebrewery into 5etool's bestiary. Does anyone have a solution I can use?

> Are we talking about the same autotools?

Yes. Instead of figuring out how to do something particular with every single software package, I can do a --with-foo or --without-bar or --prefix=/opt/baz-1.2.3, and be fairly confident that it will work the way I want.

Certainly with package managers or (FreeBSD) Ports a lot is taken care of behind the scenes, but the above would also help the package/port maintainers as well. Lately I've been using Spack for special-needs compiles, but maintainer ease also helps there, but there are still cases one a 'fully manual' compile is still done.

> Suffice it to say, I prefer to work with handwritten makefiles.

Having everyone 'roll their own' system would probably be worse, because any "mysteriously failure" then has to be debugged specially for each project.

Have you tried Spack?

* https://spack.io

* https://spack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Well, good luck with that, cause it's broken.

Previous release miscompiled Python [1]

Current release miscompiles bison [2]

[1] https://github.com/spack/spack/issues/38724

[2] https://github.com/spack/spack/issues/37172#issuecomment-181...

gh is available via Homebrew, MacPorts, Conda, Spack, Webi, and as a…

> I can't count the number of times I've seen people say "md5 is fine for use case xyz" where in some counterintuitive way it wasn't fine.

I can count many more times that people told me that md5 was "broken" for file verification when, in fact, it never has been.

My main gripe with the article is that it portrays the entire legal profession as "backwards" and "deeply negligent" when they're not actually doing anything unsafe -- or even likely to be unsafe. And "tech" knows better. Much of tech, it would seem, has no idea about the use cases and why one might be safe or not. They just know something's "broken" -- so, clearly, we should update.

> Just use a safe one, even if you think you "don't need it".

Here's me switching 5,700 or so hashes from md5 to sha256 in 2019: https://github.com/spack/spack/pull/13185

Did I need it? No. Am I "compliant"? Yes.

Really, though, the main tangible benefit was that it saved me having to respond to questions and uninformed criticism from people unnecessarily worried about md5 checksums.

[1] https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/var/spack/repos/...

In Spack [1] we can express all these constraints for the dependency solver, and we also try to always re-cythonize sources. The latter is because bundled cythonized files are sometimes forward incompatible with Python, so it's better to just regenerate those with an up to date cython.

[1] https://github.com/spack/spack/

You want to look at the tools used for HPC systems, these are generally very well tried and tested and can be setup for single machine usage. Remote access - we use ssh, but web interfaces such as Open On Demand exist - https://openondemand.org/. For managing Jobs, Slurm is currently the most popular option - https://slurm.schedmd.com/documentation.html. For a module system (to load software and libraries per user), Spack is a great - https://spack.io/. You might also want to consider containerisation options, https://apptainer.org/ is a good option.

git clone https://github.com/spack/spack.git ./spack/bin/spack install gcc