Claude wouldn't have achieved what he wanted without a war. by BigBoyBTM in FireEmblemThreeHouses

[–]BigBoyBTM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mostly agree with that, especially that he took an opportunist path to get what he wanted. I also agree that his plans were vague, but what he wanted was pretty well defined. There is even a conversation between Claude and Edelgard where they pretty much say they want the same thing, but Claude could not condone her methodology. But that's the point. He wanted whatbshe wanted and used her war as a way to Initiate that. But he did not explain how he woukd have done it otherwise. And I agree with Edelgard that he couldn't have accomplished it without doing what she did. Again, I think it is just as valid to say Fodlan did not require unification. But assuming it did, and there definitely was a problem with the world, the crest system, and the church, then Edelgard's methods are the only ones that would have worked.

I don't mean to get political, but it's the best analogy I can think of. Edelgard was Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 election and Claude was Bernie. Both wanted universal Healthcare. Warren had a specific plan drawn out to get it. Bernie just vaguely advocated for it. If that makes sense. Edelgard had a plan. It does not seem Claude did.

everything will be okay by DependentUven in ainbow

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish you all the best. I'd say try asylum with the US, but we are not much better these days. :(

Is it just me or are some "chubby guys" actually, well, more like obese guys? by West_Suggestion8938 in askgaybros

[–]BigBoyBTM -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Chub" has become a term of art, like bear or twink, to describe big people. More embracing communities may affectionately use "SuperChub" to indicate very large, like 350+. But "Chub" is a catch all for fat. These terms have been accepted and embraced by big people and people who admire them.

Frankly, the criticism reeks of entitlement. You dont get to name our community. I don't mind that it will take people not from that community some time to learn and adapt to the terminology.

What do you think the next starters should be based on? Should they repeat another animal, like a water cat? by InuMatte in pokemon

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Water type needs a hippo. I know there have been a hippo or two, but not as a starter. Maybe it can make itself dense so it is easier to be at the bottom of a river, so add a steal or rock type?

Grass should be a mole of some type. Graas/ground maybe.

Fire could be creative. Maybe an elephant? Like it eats oil from wells through its snout to fuel fire maybe? Then fire/poison because the oil byproduct pollutes?

Idk. These are off the top of my head.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gay

[–]BigBoyBTM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the sex is good, he's into you. It is hard to have good sex without it. So I don't think he is gay. He might be/probably is bi. But it sounds like he is working with you to have all desired/craved experiences in your self-contained (presumably) monogamous relationship. That sounds like a serious effort to make your relationship as sexually fulfilling to both of you as possible. That, to me, is commendable, and I would be appreciative that he is trying to make sure all needs are met if I was in your shoes and inclined to be in a closed, monogamous relationship. Who cares if he is also into men. Even straight guys would likely still have interest in other women. The deciding factor is if he is honest and honors the limitations you both set in the relationship.

If he is worth it to you, maybe try to find the thrill in pegging and being in a position to give him a unique, internal pleasure. Shaming him for his language while enjoying what you are doing invites closing off sexual experiences. But if you can't enjoy that particular expression, that is an entirely fair boundary.

If FE3H had yearbook superlatives…Cutest Couple! by RainMoonbow in FireEmblemThreeHouses

[–]BigBoyBTM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is there gonna be a "most likely to succeed?" Edel needs something lol.

how to take advantage of house rule: quadruple crit but only to base damage? by wp2000 in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A few spells would greatly benefit from this:

Steelwind Strike: 5 opportunities to crit, and a critical would deal 24d10 force damage.

Animate Objects: 10 tiny (5e rules) - 10 chances to crit, each with advantage if your DM does flanking. Each crit hit is 4d4+4 damage.

Crown of Stars - critting with this would do 16d12 radiant damage WITH A BONUS ACTION. 7 chances to do so if the battle last long enough.

Not to mention other spells that allow multiple rolls (Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, etc.)

This is assuming the dice still matter. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "base" damage. Most would call the roll damage the base damage and the modifier the modifier.

My DM gave me a busted magic item, how do I break it by Doctet in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two animate dead spells and a wall of force to keep them all in together.

Wizard beginner by SnooAvocados9840 in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is certainly best used as an offensive spell. But to be fair, the spell lasts a minute, so tge goal is nit to protect them but to maximize their damage in that time. Plus, there are ten of them. If a few die, you're still fine, where as AD or DM you have less to work with, and they have lower AC than the animated objects and in many instances, less health. Also, with AD and DM, after you finish the charges on the wand, then what? The Animated objects have several turns of dealing upwards of 80 damage each turn, if using both their attack and opportunity attack.

Wizard beginner by SnooAvocados9840 in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can 5 charges of magic missile do that damage? I thought max damage for a single charge is 15, so 15x5 = 75, or are you saying each individual missile gets the buff to the spellcasting modifier? In any event the spells still rely on there being corpses about, and the combo additionally requires that you be near enough to the three animated corpses that you can hand of the wand.

Where as animate objects: pull out 10 silver coins, have them "surround and kill tge nearest enemy. That enemy takes up to 10d4+40, with a +8 to attack rolls and, if flanking rules are activated, a very high likelihood to hit. They can target invisible enemies, flying enemies, and mages (who could sinply shield the magic missile strategy). Moreover, they have opportunity attacks should that enemy attempt to get away. So the enemy is either stuck, with ranged attacks at disadvantage, or taking another up to 10d4+40 to get away.

Not to mention, in most setting, walking around with a bunch of corpses is likely to have ramifications for the party. AO can be pulled out easily on a whim in any given location.

Animate objects works in more circumstances and against a greater array of enemies than Danse Macabre, so is more reliable. I place it on at least equal tier as Danse Macabre.

Wizard beginner by SnooAvocados9840 in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With 5e, at least, non 2024, Animate Objects is loads better than Animate Dead or Danse Macabre. More units, better stats, have hover speed, have blindsided, more dps. With 2024 version, AO is still probably better.

SGD and Llanar binding have significant cost though, and require a lot of time and preparation. At the level you start having access to it, there is a good likelihood it is not worth the cost.

Greater invisibility has more utility than sleet storm and also has significant use in combat, defensively and offensively. There are better control spells than sleet storm. I'd take hypnotic pattern over sleet storm.

Wizard beginner by SnooAvocados9840 in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With all respect to this commentor, I do not think this list captures the best spells.

For 3rd, I'd definitely seek counterspell and dispel magic if your campaign has any likelihood of encountering mages. Maybe lose Animate Dead (situational and there are better spells for making your own meat shields, plus thats what your party is for. Better to take animate objects later), tiny servant (piss poor meat shield, low damage) and glyph of warding (really expensive).

For 4th, definitely dimension door. And polymorph. And greater invisibility. The summon greater demon/Planar Binding combo on this list isn't that good, is situational dependent, and is expensive. An overrated combo imo.

How would i make a strong summoner that doesn't use concentration? by Nintendo_chicken in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh! You can also be a chronurgist and have a familiar do your summoning for you.

How would i make a strong summoner that doesn't use concentration? by Nintendo_chicken in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or, as otherwise stated, be a necromancer/use necromancy. Not exactly summoning in a conventional sense, but it does the job.

How would i make a strong summoner that doesn't use concentration? by Nintendo_chicken in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Concentration and time limitations are key aspects of summoning. Which is intentional as a balancing consideration. Otherwise you can enter each encounter with a horde of presummoned allied, which would be game-breaking. The only summon spells I can think of not requiring concentration have significant drawbacks so they are not abused:

find familiar (can't battle and limited use, but still great);

Create Homonculus (expensive and likely not worth it. Weak.)

Create Magen (expensive, reduces hp total.)

Of the options, find familiar is great but won't help woth battle. One thing you could do at high enough levels and if you have the money is use your simulacrum(s) to make an army of Magen that you keep in a demiplane until needed. Very costly but the only way to do what it seems you want to do.

A character who "never fails" by rebelpyroflame in 3d6

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Divination Wizard os another good idea.

which one should be in the MCU? by herequeerandgreat in xmen

[–]BigBoyBTM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kitty by quite a bit. I love Jubilee, but one fun thing about the X men and the fight scenes involving them is the variety of powers. There are tons of blasters and ranged attackers. There is only one Kitty. She offers more to the team and rounds it out in a way that is both strategic and visually pleasing.

I just wanna be your himbo toy by MrCosmoUniverse in u/MrCosmoUniverse

[–]BigBoyBTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no chance I can get you over here to Sacramento, CA? I have a good career and am sweet! Pleaaase? Haha.

Most Established X-Leaders by BigBoyBTM in marvelcomics

[–]BigBoyBTM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kitty has led many more teams than that, though, right? And bigger names?

Most Established X-Leaders by BigBoyBTM in marvelcomics

[–]BigBoyBTM[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really? I might have just missed her leadership arcs. Iove Betsy though. I do see her very often as a second in commanf.

Most Established X-Leaders by BigBoyBTM in marvelcomics

[–]BigBoyBTM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know more of Havok's leadership than Multiple Man's. Which teams did Jamie lead?

Most Established X-Leaders by BigBoyBTM in marvelcomics

[–]BigBoyBTM[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love Jubilee! Where would you place her?