## For games with controllers (ps4, xbox) for fighter games was it intended to use the d-pad to move and do combos or the joystick?

I have been told to ask my question on this site instead. Recently I have many people telling me for Mortal Kombat that I should always use the d-pad to move, while I have always been using the joystick.

(for own curiosity) Was the original intention to use the d-pad, and do most people use it as well?

## Can a readied range attack provoke an attack from the intended target?

Pathfinder 1e rules question…

A and B are medium sized creatures. A is a ranged character, B is a melee character.

Lets say A readies a ranged attack at anyone that comes into visibility. No enemies are visible nor within range at the moment.

Lets say B (an enemy of A) appears to A as part of their move + attack turn. B appears by moving adjacent to A — perhaps because B is in fog/stinking cloud and comes within 5 feet, or perhaps the room is in darkness and A only has a candle illuminating 5 feet.

So A gets to use their readied action — they see B, and they shoot (with appropriate miss chances and such). Does B get an AOO in addition to their planned attack?

I would guess that no, B does not get an AOO, for at least 1 of 2 reasons:

• B becomes visible to A as B is entering the adjacent square, and thus I believe A’s attack would interrupt B’s movement and B is technically not in melee range when the ranged attack is made.

• I’m not even sure you can make an attack of opportunity when it is your turn, or, if you can AoO when you are triggering the readied action on your turn. (Can B even take AoOs on their turn in PF1e?)

There is a similar question for 4e supporting my guess, but I’m not familiar with 4e and am unaware of the rules differences. That question is here: If a readied ranged attack action is used against the appearance of a burrowing creature, does the attack provoke an attack of opportunity?

However, I couldn’t find a discussion/ruling for PF1e — either my google skills failed me or it hasn’t been asked.

## Casting Somatic Spells while handless (rules as intended) [duplicate]

This question hasn’t popped up in any of my games, whether as DM or player, but I thought of it while coming up with character concepts and wondered how it should be ruled.

If a caster does not have hands, can they perform the somatic components of their spells?

For example, if a player has the idea to have a caster born without arms who uses somatic components using their "ghost limbs" should they be able to since the restriction that they’re not wielding weapons or a shield isn’t being infringed?

Alternatively, if the above is true, does that mean players couldn’t disable an enemy caster they captured by Skywalker-ing their hands so they don’t have a free hand to cast the spell with?

The Player’s handbook describes somatic components as:

Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

But I don’t know how I’d interpret this.

I guess the main question is do somatic component rules emphasize having a (free) hand or do they emphasize not wielding an item/weapon? Are there any official rules for these edge cases or is there a way to interpret the rules on somatic components that answers these questions?

## Is the armor artificer intended to add strength to thunder gauntlet attacks

From Tasha’s Guide to Everything

Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit.

Is this supposed to deal 1d8+STR damage?

## Is an arrow (bolt, bullet) considered a weapon if used as intended?

As stated in the title: is an arrow, bolt, or other object that is generally used as ammunition, count as a weapon when determining bonus effects from other feats/abilities? For example:

Dreadful Strikes – 1d4 psychic damage – TCoE, pg. 58

When you hit a creature with a weapon, you can deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage to the target, which can take this extra damage only once per turn.

It seems clear that hitting a creature with a sword via melee, or even a thrown weapon, like a dart or dagger, would benefit from this feature. But since Arrows and Bolts are “considered” ammunition, they would not (unless used in some other improvised way).

## Godot / GDscript label text not updating every frame like intended

I am very new to Godot and coding in general, so I apologize in advance for any simple mistakes. I am trying to have my text display the variable "ammodisplay" on my object "Marine." When I launch the game, the text sets to 7 (the correct value) but as I play the game and the variable changes, the text does not update with it. Any insight as to how I can fix this? Thanks in advance!

extends Label  var NODE = load("Marine.tscn") var ammo = NODE.instance() var ammod = ammo.ammodisplay   func _process(delta):     text = (str(ammod)) $$$$ `

## In general, how does a DFA know how to successfully process a string the intended way?

Suppose we have:

$$A\text{ }\colon=\{x, y, z\}$$

$$M\text{ }\colon=\text{some DFA using A}$$

$$S\text{ }\colon=xyzxyzxyz$$

Intuitively, one might say $$S$$ is fed to $$M$$ on a per-character basis.

This means that somehow we have an undisclosed mechanism that can tell where a symbol starts and ends.

One might say, simply use the maximum valid substring similar to how Lexers tokenise plaintext. To that I say, suppose instead that we defined $$A$$ as: $$A\text{}\colon= \{x, xx, xxx\}$$

Now we have 3 unique symbols, that, as it so happens, using the maximum valid substring will yield in a restriction to what our our $$M$$ can actually process, because any string longer than 2 characters will always be assumed to start with $$xxx$$ rather than perhaps, $$x$$ and $$xx$$.

One way I see around this is to actually have a character synonymous to a symbol. That is, $$x$$ and $$xxx$$ (from $$A$$) are both a single character each.

Thoughts?

## Who (Designer or User) Should be Resposible for the Correct/Secure Usage of a Tool Intended for Developers/Admins?

There is a healthy debate around a series of stack overflow posts that refer to the "RunAs" command. Specifically the discussion is in reference to design decision that the folks at Microsoft made a long time ago, to users of this command to enter the users password in one specific way, Raymond Chen accurately summarizes one side of the argument quite clearly:

The RunAs program demands that you type the password manually. Why doesn’t it accept a password on the command line?

This was a conscious decision. If it were possible to pass the password on the command line, people would start embedding passwords into batch files and logon scripts, which is laughably insecure.

In other words, the feature is missing to remove the temptation to use the feature insecurely.

If this offends you and you want to be insecure and pass the password on the command line anyway (for everyone to see in the command window title bar), you can write your own program that calls the CreateProcessWithLogonW function.

I’m doing exactly what is being suggested in the last line of Raymond’s comment, implementing my own (C#) version of this application that complete circumvents this restriction. There are also many others who have done this as well. I find this all quite irritating and agree with sentiment expressed by @AndrejaDjokovic who states:

Which is completely defeating. It is a really tiresome that idea of "security" is invoked by software designers who are trying to be smarter than the user. If the user wants to embed the password, then that is their prerogative. Instead all of us coming across this link are going to go and search other ways to utilize SUDO equivalent in windows through other unsavory means, bending the rules and wasting times. Instead of having one batch file vulnerable, i am going to sendup reducing overall security on the machine to get "sudo" to work. Design should never smarter than the user. You fail!

Now while I agree with the sentiment expressed by Microsoft and their concern with "embedding passwords into batch files" (I personally have seen poor practice myself way too many times), it really does strike me as wrong what Microsoft has done here. In my specific example I’m still following best practices and my script won’t store credentials, however I’m forced to resort to a workaround like everybody else.

This decision really follows a common pattern at Microsoft of applications acting in ways that are contrary to the needs of the specific users with the intention of "helping" the users by preventing them from completing a action that is viewed as unfavorable. Then obfuscating or purposely making the implementation of workarounds more difficult.

This leads us to a broader question, extremely relevant to this issue, who is the true responsible party when it comes to security around credentials, the user of the software or the designer of the software? Obviously both parties hold some responsibility, but where is the dividing line?

When you create tools for other developers should you seek to the best of your ability to prevent them from using your application in an insecure manner, or do you only need to be concerned about the application itself and whether it’s secure internally (irregardless to how the user invokes it)? If you are concerned about "how" they are using your application, to what extent do you need validate their usage (example: should "RunAs" fail if the system is not fully "up to date" i.e. insecure in another way), if that example seems far fetched, then define that line, in the case of "RunAs" the intention is quite clear, the developers who created it are not only concerned about managing credentials securely internally with their application but also care deeply about the security implications of how you use it. Was their decision correct in validating the usage in this case, and if so/or not where should that dividing line be for the applications that are created in the future?

## Is it a bug or intended that Unarmored defense from barbarian and monk overwrite each other?

For science I made a level 1 monk and level 1 barbarian character. Set all the stats to 18. So according to monks unarmored defense your ac = 10 + dex + wis. Then with the barbarian it adds con. Yet the ac was still only 18. Is this intended or is this a bug with dndbeyond?

## Can a spell be readied to trigger when its intended target comes into view?

Can I ready witch bolt, for instance, with the condition of attacking “the first goblin to come out of the cave” if I cannot see the goblin at the time of my (Ready) action? To be perfectly clear: at the time of the Ready action, the goblin is around a corner, in darkness: not targetable by witch bolt.

On the one hand: the Ready action states that (PHB p.193)

when you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy….”

Part of casting a spell is targeting (inferred from “Targeting” as a sub-heading under “Casting a Spell”, PHB pp.202-204).

You can’t target something that you can’t see, so it would seem that since you can’t target the goblin at the time of the Ready action you can’t cast the spell in the first place.

On the other hand: isn’t this use of “Ready” the same as the “I’ll attack the first goblin to come out of the cave” that is the classic use-case for Ready? Picking a target is part of the Attack action, after all.