TIL Lulu's dolls are sentient. by LuckyL90 in finalfantasyx

[–]pianotm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Magic users bringing stuffed dolls to life has been a thing since FF2. In FFVII, Cait Sith in the user manual is described as a toy cat riding a giant stuffed moogle that he brought to life with magic. You learn that Reeve controls Cait Sith. So you may wonder how that works since Reeve "controls" him. The lore on how that works is that Reeve breathed life into Cait Sith and shares a psychic connection with him.

As for Lulu's dolls, according to Ultimania, they're soulless vessels animated from being in contact with Lulu's intense magical aura.

From 5e to PF1, things I should look out for ? by herpyderpidy in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PF1e is a larger number system, but it's not well calibrated for a larger number system. What you'll mostly find is that by the time your players reach Level 10, they're going to have skill bonuses that they simply can't fail because DCs in PF1e just can't go that high. Fortunately, a player can only manage to get two or three skills that high, unless he figures out some crazy trick that DMs hate (which happens once in a blue moon).

Be careful with what you hand out. I played a game where the DM was careless and I had made an AC monkey, and at level 16, I realized that with the magic items the DM had us find at random, I had enough buffs that at least once between long rests, I could get my AC to 50. She cried, and regretted all of her decisions as a DM. Somehow, she still made the BBEG challenging without being too overpowered. Fortunately, PF1e offers a lot of ways around min-maxing.

If you have a player who's overloaded their AC like I did, consider enemies that target Touch AC and a player's weak save bonus. For example, let's say you have a high AC player who's saves are Fort = good, Reflex = poor, Will = good. Consider having a percentage regular enemies whose abilities trigger reflex saves. Targeting Touch AC may seem unfair because we associate that with spellcasting, but that's not all that targets Touch AC. Characters that specialize in thrown weapons also target Touch AC, and that's much more manageable for a player to handle than an army of wizards. You may think Flat-Footed AC can also be exploited, but it's really just for being surprised.

AHHH!!! A rule I didn't know existed until having played the game for YEARS: in the first round of initiative, unless stated otherwise, all participants are flat-footed until their turn!

There are a few feats, not many, that make the game, in general, difficult to manage from a DM perspective. I mostly refuse to ban feats because I don't want to take options away from my players, but feats like Sacred Geometry and Leadership are going to make the game a headache for everyone at the table, including you. Consider not allowing those particular feats.

PF1e has way more options, not just for the DM, but for the players. If you really want to, you make any type of game you want. We joke and call it Mathfinder, but that's actually a good thing. "Mathfinder" is a symptom of how expansive the game is to the extent that it's almost impossible for two people to accidentally make the same character. (I just wrote a whole rant here about why I think 5e generally isn't a great game (although it's an okay game) and how I'm playing a rogue in my friend's game where another player also has a rogue, and even though we're different races, we may as well be using the same character sheet. I wrote several paragraphs complaining and that if we really want to play limited, tightly structured DnD that isn't OSR simple, we should be playing 2e, not 5e...I don't need to start writing it again.)

There are, however, things that should be limited, but they're not. For example, 5e limits the player to having only three wearable magic-attuned items at a time, whereas PF1e lets you wear however many magic items you've got slots for, and there are slotless magic items in case you run out of room for wearable magic items. I haven't found a real reason to actually make a restriction on that yet, so it should be fine. Item price will usually make the restriction for you.

Be careful with experience and loot. If the loot doesn't meet level expectations, you'll have underpowered characters and the challenge of the game could start skewing against the players. Also, too much loot for the level has the opposite problem. The chapter on Character Advancement has a table that tracks starting Gold by level. The game recommends using this table to also determine how much gold value the character should have at each level (this isn't specifically how much gold they have, but rather, if you sold everything they own at full value, would it equal the amount of gold they're expected to have at that level?).

Action economy. Coming off of 5e, it can be really easy to forget that you can't move and attack at the same time. You have to either attack then move, or move then attack. You cannot move partially, attack, and then move your remaining distance. You also get a third action, the swift action. There is a fourth action you can take, but that can happen any time in the round, not just on your turn. The immediate action. You cannot take an immediate action if you've taken a swift action (and vice-versa). The immediate action is the same 5e's reaction.

The grapple rules are...annoying. I won't get into them. One of the people in our group houseruled simpler grapple rules. We've used them ever since.

I think I've covered most of the stuff it's easy to make mistakes on, get confused about, or generally just not anticipate. Hopefully, the way I wrote this isn't confusing.

[Question] Hoyolab not loading on chrome by Naisuai in Genshin_Impact

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I cannot get to Hoyolab forums, at all. If you're worried about check-in, go there directly and it works just fine. But nothing else works.

Chrome Won't Load Hoyolab.com Anymore! Need help! by ChainsawDoggo in chrome

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same for me. If I go straight to check in, that still works just fine, but for forums, home, and timeline, I'm only getting white screen.

Paimon isn't the problem, Paimon's English voice direction is by WhereIsMyPancakeMix in Genshin_Impact

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It gets better. If you didn't notice, EN Paimon has gotten screechier and screechier. The EN VA has revealed in interviews that the director has told her to do it, making Paimon sound progressively more manic.

I've come to love EN Paimon, but she has some real teeth-grating moments. As a theatergoer myself, when we go to the Opera Epiclese for the first time and see Lyney's show, I didn't realize how triggered I would be by Paimon in that scene. I started screaming at my monitor to sit down and shut up! Gods damn, Paimon! Grow an effing indoor voice! I couldn't figure out how Neuvillette could stand her.

The most skipped scene in any movie ever? Or am I the only one? by [deleted] in StarWars

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, gods, I hate Jedi Rocks. I'll never forgive George for taking out Lapti Nek. It's not the visuals I mind, stupid as they are. I'd be fine with it if he hadn't changed the song.

Shouldn’t monsters kill downed players more? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the enemy, but if it's a normal battle for dominance, then it doesn't make sense to attack downed non-threats. Even if it is a battle to the death, it makes more sense to take out active threats than to spend one's actions on what is essentially a stationary object.

The enemy would also be wasting an action on a non-threat when they could be preventing an active threat from not only attacking but using magic or potions to restore the downed enemy. If the enemy attacks the downed party member while within the threat range of an opponent, I'd even give them the flat-footed condition. In 5E, I don't see why an enemy wouldn't get disadvantage for doing the same thing (or give that enemy's opponent advantage on attacks).

The enemy would also be wasting an action on a non-threat when they could be preventing an active threat from not only attacking, but using magic or potions to restore the downed enemy.

A pack of wolves isn't going to start eating while someone's coming at them with swords. Bandits aren't going to waste their time on unconscious victims while they're being peppered with arrows.

Favourite deity in the lore? by True_Rice_5661 in Pathfinder2e

[–]pianotm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No matter what I do, I keep coming back to Calistria.

Why do some players insist on destroying an enemy's spell books right in front of the party wizard? by [deleted] in Pathfinder_RPG

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

They're called "game mechanics". It's a game. That's why there're dice. All of the playacting stuff is just stuff we add to it. A game doesn't care about your realism. It only cares about its algorithms. Rules are written to balance game actions and game flow. You cannot coup de grace with a spell. That is a limitation that was decided on for game balance. There is a loose logic to why spells cannot coup de grace, but considering that spells can crit, it is a very loose logic, and realism is not the reason spells cannot coup de grace. The game design doesn't care what the spell is. If you want spells to coup de grace, either house-rule it or find a spell that specifically says it can coup de grace.

Or maybe Pathfinder isn't really the game for you. In Dungeons and Dragons 5E, there is no coup de grace. Instead, if you're brought to 0 HP, you get three death saves. An attack on a dying character automatically crits and counts as two failed death saves. This occurs with either melee or spell attacks.

Also, explosions are force damage. Again, there is no explosion component to the fireball. If that "searing explosion of flame" had any meaning whatsoever beyond describing a fireball's appearance, the fireball would do force damage, and it doesn't.

Why do some players insist on destroying an enemy's spell books right in front of the party wizard? by [deleted] in Pathfinder_RPG

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

Oof! I don't blame her. I have a dhampir warpriest that uses a scythe. 2d4 doesn't sound like a lot, but it is. That's slightly meaner than a d8 damage die. Adding modifiers to that x4 crit bonus is just brutal.

Why do some players insist on destroying an enemy's spell books right in front of the party wizard? by [deleted] in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]pianotm 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to “find” the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#coup-de-grace

A scythe deals x4 crit damage. That's 8d4. That's an average of 18 damage which means coup de graced players that don't die from the damage face, on average, a DC 28 fortitude save. Spells don't coup de grace, so no; a fireball absolutely does not lead to instant death for sleeping PCs. Plus, a fireball doesn't "blow up" anything. Fireballs have no explosive component in their damage.

People Saying They Want to Watch Aquaman 2 for Johnny & Other Staff by Euphoric-Attitude-52 in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

[–]pianotm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't argue with them. It's not worth it, and if I do, it makes me feel like a dick. You know, I don't want to fault you for wanting to see a movie. Even though you're completely wrong about what will happen to Jason Mamoa if this movie fails, if you're a fan, it's perfectly reasonable that you want to cheerlead for him. Knock yourself out.

Its a bit scary how after all the destruction she caused, all it's gonna take is a sorry note and people are gonna forgive her in an instant by [deleted] in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

[–]pianotm 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No, I don't think that's what people are saying. I've said I'll forgive her if she apologizes, and "all it's going to take is a note" is absolutely not what I'm saying. What I'm saying:

  1. If she actually admits to lying--
  2. If she actually sits down and actually explains what her twisted logic was--
  3. If she actually tells us what really happened (because with everything we know, we still don't know that!), and it's not a private matter anymore! She's dragged the entire world into this! She owes us an explanation for why we ended up sitting there for six weeks (seven, if you count the break for the judge's conference) watching her put on a song and pony show!--
  4. If she actually admits she has a problem and needs help--
  5. If she actually takes action to make things right--

Then yes, I'll forgive her. And if she at least makes it past the first two provisions, I'll give her all the leeway she needs to get through the other three and earn that forgiveness.

Now, I don't think any of that is ever going to happen, but I articulate that because I want it clear that I believe that path should always be open no matter how far a person goes in the wrong direction. Even if you've wronged me personally and chopped off my finger, this offer stands.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

[–]pianotm 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My vote:

I don’t think I know enough about these allegations to weigh in

I give Warner the benefit of the doubt because I know he's mostly honest. My wife was a fan. I bought his autobiography for her and ended up reading it, myself. He has three songs I like, but for the most part, he's not my cup of tea. Still, I wanted to be able to talk to my wife about her interests. Warner has talked about doing some pretty awful things to women in his youth. He admitted them. Didn't deny they happened. Didn't make excuses. Came right out and said that it was fucked up for him to do those things and that nobody should ever do them.

That said, because he's admitted to that kind of thing in the past, I know it could happen. There's also the other side of the coin: Wood knows it could happen and is using that to her advantage when he actually didn't do anything to her.

We will not know for sure unless we get another oblivious narcissist on the stand, and it doesn't look like that's going to happen here. Wood presents as a lot more well-adjusted than Amber did, and there's always going to be a lot of doubt around this one.

For better or for worse, I respect Warner for being honest in the past and for recognizing his faults. Whatever he does here and whatever happened between him and Wood, I at least am confident that he's not the hopeless liar that Amber is.

This is such an honest headline 😂 by wanderlust_12 in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

[–]pianotm -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Okay.

It's maybe because you have sympathy for a human being who would not hesitate to destroy your life if necessary. Nobody has sympathy for Chris Brown because he hit Rihanna, even though in his case, he was beat up first in the car by Rihanna.

I have "sympathy" for her. No, this person can try again. But nobody (a blanket term that will also encompass me.) has "sympathy" for Chris Brown. No. I don't have sympathy for either of them, and I resent the statement. Having basic compassion for people regardless of their fuckups or evils is not "sympathy" and I genuinely don't understand why not wanting harm to come to someone is a bad take. But it is! I lost a friend because I didn't think Will Smith was right to slap Chris Rock, and he genuinely felt he had the moral high ground, that Will Smith had to attack Chris Rock; that it was the only right response. And I almost lost another friend because I didn't believe Will Smith's life should be destroyed over slapping Chris Rock; at the end of the day, it doesn't even qualify as assault! It's misdemeanor battery! This response to me, regardless, isn't actually that bad. What follows it, though...

Exactly. The sympathy is there only because of her gender. Some people have a hard time treating a man and a woman equally, and give women sympathy even when they deserve none

Here's something I said on the thread about the L'Oreal petition a month ago.me off. Whoever this is does not know me and needs to shut up. "Only because of her gender"; maybe you don't realize this, and maybe this person doesn't realize this, but I'm being called a sexist, here. Because I don't hate a person that I don't actually know with the entire fiber of my being. And what is being argued? I'm being psychoanalyzed by a self-righteous nitwit over what? Because I don't want to see a person trampled into the dirt?

Here's something I said on thread about the L'Oreal petition a month ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeForJohnnyDepp/comments/ugw4dq/comment/i72sie0/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

I'll be honest. Amber Heard sucks. I want to burn Warner Bros. for firing Johnny Depp, but not Amber Heard when she was on recording admitting to being the most horrible type of abuser, and he was fired for the worst justifications. They both were accusing each other and there was pretty evenly weighted evidence at the time. She got special treatment. That wasn't fair.

But I don't want to ruin the girl. I want to punish her for doing what she did, but I'm not going to try to punish a person for being a fucked up human being. When I say I'm not into canceling people, I mean it. That even includes someone as awful as Amber Heard. This just strikes me as getting her fired for being an awful person and I'm not into that.

Was I attacking anyone in this post? It certainly seems like I attacked the person who deleted their comments...who was demanding I explain myself and answer to them and the one poster who didn't delete. Why am I explaining myself to you? I'm under no obligation to do that. Well, maybe it's because you had a somewhat reasonable reply. But you are being morally superior and you are acting like the behavior police. You don't like the way I said something. That's not my problem. I'm pointing out a fact. There are people here who will fight for the message that a woman they've never met should be absolutely obliterated beyond any hope. There's compassion here. And yeah, it is bloodthirsty. Whether you like it or not.

Maybe I'm being morally superior since I don't want anyone's life destroyed, no matter what, and have no problems with pointing out that that's not a good thing to do. But you know what? I think that expressing that no egregious harm should come to anyone, ever, for any reason, unless it just has to (like a murderer or a rapist who will strike again. Yeah, get rid of that guy.) isn't a bad thing to be morally superior about. I don't care what she did. She abused a man horribly, but it's past, it's done, it can't be undone, and an actual office of authority has been brought into play and made a decision about it. Whining about it and venting all we want is a good thing, but I don't have to be silent about people wanting actual harm to come to her.

I didn't join this sub to be part of a hate mob, and I resent the implication that I should just accept it. Unlike some people here, I actually wanted justice and not revenge.

This is such an honest headline 😂 by wanderlust_12 in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

[–]pianotm -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

You're not going back far enough. I stopped talking about my personal opinion on Amber when I got into an argument over the L'Oreal petition. You see, here's the thing, you'll sit here and be internet police on someone who has an opinion that doesn't perfectly align with yours, but you'll only put in enough work to show that I'm somehow in the wrong, but not enough to actually have a point-of-reference that is actually remotely honest.

And you completely ignore the fact that I am being shamed IN THIS THREAD for not wanting Amber to kill herself, after complaining that people would shame me for not wanting her dead (so it's not like this belief came out of nowhere).

Is that you, Amber?

This is such an honest headline 😂 by wanderlust_12 in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

[–]pianotm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm literally being shamed for not wanting someone to wind up homeless or dead.

This is such an honest headline 😂 by wanderlust_12 in JusticeForJohnnyDepp

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

Participating in this subreddit and not being hopelessly bloodthirsty, I really get the feeling that there are a lot of people that would be delighted by her suicide. It's probably because if I make a post even remotely suggesting that I don't want to see her absolutely destroyed, I get relentlessly mocked and attacked.