Why Beat ’em Ups don’t allow players to face toward or away from the screen

Most Beat ’em Ups don’t allow players to face away or towards the screen: example, in Streets of Rage, when you press up, the character moves up but still facing either left or right and same goes when you press down. Even in modern Beat ’em Ups, this is the case. What is the reason for this? I used to think this is because the graphics are 2D so its harder or more work to get characters to face towards or away from the screen. But even in Beat ’em Ups that uses 3D graphics, this is still the case, like Double Dragon Neon.

One more thing, if you know any Beat ’em Ups that does do this, can you post the name of the game here. I am interested on how that behaves.

Implicitly allow requests in IIS from valid hostname

I have a few publicly accessible IIS servers and sites (personal and corporate), these hosts have own domains/subdomains, and all legit access to these https sites happen through domains.

Almost all HTTP app vulnerability scans from bots/rooted servers happen to the servers through IP, without valid hostname, and if there is hostname it is the default reverse DNS host, not the actual domain of the site.

Is there a way in IIS to implicitly only allow requests with proper hostname? The site root app only has bindings to the hostname, but IIS still accepts requests, and responds with 404. The best thing would be to timeout the request similar fashion as if the site doesn’t have HTTP open.

I of course understand that this does not guarantee anything in security wise, the scanner can still figure out the proper hostname in many ways, but it would still filter out 90% of dummy scans.

IPS in firewall can probably do some things, but in some cases I do not have that luxury. Is there way in IIS? Redirect the http request to oblivion? (this would probably just change the error to proxy gateway http errors?)

Is there a RAW way to allow the PCs to recover only some of their spell slots etc?

My party were rather foolhardy and have got themselves knocked out and captured. Their captors want to keep them alive for a bit to question and then to sacrifice.

The party expended pretty much all their resources in the battle and so without a long rest are not going to have much chance of escape. However, it also feels wrong to say "you spend the night tied up in a stable and now you have all your spells and HP back". Which would make escape probably quite easy and anticlimactic.

Is there a way to reflect that they got some rest, but not a good night’s sleep?

Why does my stencil buffer allow pixels through?

I’m rendering a scene using OpenGL. The scene consists of a grassy environment and a small lake (visible as two surfaces). To achieve water surface transparency, I’m using a stencil buffer to render water surfaces separately from other geometry. For context, here’s a screenshot of the scene without water surfaces:

Scene without water surfaces rendered.

Here’s the same scene, but with water surfaces stenciled out (the black portions of the screen):

Water surfaces stenciled out, but not rendered.

Here’s the fragment shader I’m using (where fSource is fullscreen UV coordinates). As you can see, it simply samples from a previously-used frame buffer and outputs the pixel directly to the screen. With stenciling enabled, only pixels not covered by a water surface are rendered.

#version 440 core  in vec2 fSource;  out vec4 outColor;  uniform sampler2D image;  void main() {     outColor = texture(image, fSource); } 

Here’s the problem. When I change this fragment shader to output a solid color, those underwater pixels are suddenly visible (the stencil buffer and stencil settings have not changed). What I’d expect here is non-submerged pixels to be purple, but the water surface pixels (previously black) to remain black (since they should still be rejected through stenciling). Instead, everything is purple, including the water surface.

#version 440 core  out vec4 outColor;  void main() {     outColor = vec4(1, 0, 1, 1); } 

Direct color output (purple) causing pixels to not be rejected through stenciling.

As an additional test, I tried rendering only pixels under the water surfaces with a solid color. These pixels should be rejected via stenciling (appearing black, just like before), but for some reason, they’re visible.

#version 440 core  in vec2 fSource;  out vec4 outColor;  uniform sampler2D image; uniform sampler2D positions;  void main() {     vec3 position = texture(positions, fSource).xyz;      // The water surfaces happen to sit at Y value 7.85.     if (p.y < 7.85)     {         outColor = vec4(1, 1, 0, 1);     }     else     {         outColor = texture(image, fSource);     } } 

Submerged pixels showing up, seemingly ignoring the stencil buffer.

I confirmed the problem by instead sampling with shifted UV coordinates (rather than outputting solid yellow). Again, pixels are showing up on the water surfaces, seemingly ignoring the stencil buffer.

#version 440 core  in vec2 fSource;  out vec4 outColor;  uniform sampler2D image; uniform sampler2D positions;  void main() {     vec3 position = texture(positions, fSource).xyz;      // The water surfaces happen to sit at Y value 7.85.     if (p.y < 7.85)     {         outColor = texture(image, fSource + vec2(0.1, 0));     }     else     {         outColor = texture(image, fSource);     } } 

Shifted UV pixels still showing up through the stencil buffer.

My understanding of stenciling is that it prevents the fragment shader from running at all on certain portions of the screen (i.e. fragments pass or fail based on stencil settings). If that were true, then no matter what the fragment shader outputs, that pixel should remain black (in this context). Clearly, the fragment shader is still being run for pixels that should be rejected due to stenciling, which means I must be misunderstanding how the stencil buffer works.

Why is the fragment shader still running on pixels that should be rejected through stenciling?

Update 1: here are my stencil settings. No other objects (apart from water surfaces) write to the stencil buffer.

// Render water surfaces. 0x10 represents water. glEnable(GL_STENCIL_TEST); glStencilMask(0xFF); glStencilFunc(GL_ALWAYS, 0x10, 0xFF); glStencilOp(GL_KEEP, GL_KEEP, GL_REPLACE);  BindWaterFrameBuffer(); BindWaterShader(); DrawWaterSurfaces();  // Render the scene. Due to the stencil settings, only non-surface pixels should be rendered. glStencilMask(0x00); glStencilFunc(GL_EQUAL, 0x00, 0xFF); glStencilOp(GL_KEEP, GL_KEEP, GL_KEEP);  BindDefaultFrameBuffer(); BindSceneShader(); DrawFullscreenQuad(); 

Update 2: here’s another screenshot showing the submerged solid color test, but with a lower Y threshold (three meters below the water). What appears to be happening, then, is that pixels sampled using the GLSL texture function correctly honor the stencil buffer, while direct color outputs don’t. However, even that can’t quite be true since, as shown above, sampling pixels outside the stenciled portion of the screen still results in those pixels showing up.

#version 440 core  in vec2 fSource;  out vec4 outColor;  uniform sampler2D image; uniform sampler2D positions;  void main() {     vec3 position = texture(positions, fSource).xyz;      // The water surfaces happen to sit at Y value 7.85, but here, I'm using a threshold three meters below that.     if (p.y < 4.85)     {         outColor = vec4(1, 1, 0, 1);     }     else     {         outColor = texture(image, fSource);     } } 

Submerged pixels rendered using a solid color, but a few meters below the water surface.

How to allow certain role to view Customer list

I have custom user role called Salesman. Whenever a Customer create order, a salesman was assigned to that Customer.

I need to allow user role Salesman to access WooCommerce -> Customer page.

I’ve search all available capabilities using User Role Editor plugin but none about list customer. list_users display User list page, but not the WooCommerce -> Customer page.

(5e) Are there any magic items that allow a user to bypass fire resistance with a magical weapon?

A bit of a specific request I know, but for an upcoming battle my DM is throwing at us, I’ll be using a magical weapon that deals fire damage and we know the creature has fire resistance. So I was wondering if there were any options to ignore the opponent’s fire resistance. I know of the Elemental Bane spell already, but if there were any other spells that had this effect as well that would be helpful to know as well.

Would it be unbalanced to allow the Darkvision spell to see through magical darkness?

Darkvision is so prevalent among races that the spell Darkvision rarely sees use. Even with casters who do not have darkvision, it still seems unlikely to be taken, as a cantrip is able to provide light, and the situations where the caster without darkvision cannot use light sources are rare enough that it does not justify the spell slot or even having the spell prepared/on their spell list. To add more value to the spell, I’d propose the following changes (bolded below):

2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (either a pinch of dried carrot or an agate)
Duration: 1 hour
You touch a willing creature to grant it the ability to see in the dark. For the duration, that creature has darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. This darkvision is able to see through magical darkness.

There are 2 changes present:

  1. Duration: With the other proposed changes, if this spell remained an 8 hour spell it would become a must have, basically ensuring multiple allies (Through multiple castings) can see through any darkness for a full adventuring day. Keeping this down to 1 hour puts pressure on using it at the right time, and the spell will not remain active through a short rest.
  2. Magical Darkness: This is the big change, that I think gives the spell appeal. If you are expecting magical darkness you can be prepared, or if you are planning on using magical darkness you can ensure you and maybe some allies are still able to function within it.

Does this appear balanced as a second level spell? Would it be better suited at a higher level? I think second level is still viable, as the other methods of obtaining darkvision in magical darkness are available to the Warlock at 2nd level (Devil’s Sight), and the Sorcerer at 3rd level (though only through their own Darkness spell).

Does casting spells thru mizzium armor allow for upcasting?

Mizzium Apparatus lets a caster cast a spell on their spell list for which they have a spell slot of the spells level to cast a spell that they don’t know, assuming a successful arcana check.. Per dmg pp141 "some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn’t expend the users spell slots,and requires no components, unless the items description says otherwise".

This pretty clearly says that if i do not know the spell scorching ray, and i successfully use the Apparatus to cast it, it will cast as its native level.

Is this correct?

Do the rules allow you to Backstab with a bow or ranged weapon?

Backstab is the starting ability received by Rogues at level 1 in Dragon Age RPG. The full explanation of the ability is outlined below. Highlighting the key section in bold

You can inflict extra damage with an attack if you can strike an opponent from an unexpected direction or catch them unawares. You must approach your opponent with a move action If attacking with a melee weapon. Then you must win an opposed test of your Dexterity (Stealth) vs. your target’s Perception (Seeing). If you win the test, you can use your major action this round to Backstab him. This is an attack with a +2 bonus to the attack roll that inflicts +1d6 extra damage. You cannot Backstab an enemy that you begin your turn adjacent to (but see the Bluff power at level 4.

This section differs between the printed book and the PDF edition.

The same highlighted sentence in the printed book reads:

You must approach your opponent with a move action

We are struggling to figure out whether this means that the move action is only required for melee weapons (and ranged surprise attacks are possible) or backstab is only possible with a melee weapon, the 2 books appear to imply different answers and we can’t figure out which is which.