NekoKnight

>tfw you didn't notice the enemy has effective weaponry and they miss their attack >tfw the enemy triggers a skill/crit but you have 10 shield icons >tfw dad keeps trying to kill you but eventually gets bored and leaves you alone

Is there a way to get a Nosferatu tome in Birthright without Museum Melee or rank bonuses?

A lot of people are talking about not using prepromotes as their biggest mistake but I still rarely use them. I generally prefer my home-grown units just out of principle. *shrugs*

Are you sure you posted this on the right website? All of the information in your 'review' is common knowledge for anyone on this website and offers nothing in the way of a deeper understanding, appreciation or critique of the game. Not much to discuss here.

Maybe the 7 class thing would be a perk of the Avatar. I was thinking of a flaw in the system in that characters sharing a faction wouldn't have any any classes to give each other, but you could 'solve' that by limiting their classes further, like you suggested. Alternatively, for characters who don't offer any new classes, maybe instead you would get a permanent stat boost for a A+/S support rank. I don't want eugenics back, but if someone was canonically the child of parents from two nations, I could see them having a mix of class options. Still, I'd prefer characters generally be a part of one faction, otherwise the idea of classes linked to factions will become hollow.

Class sets wouldn't have to be completely unique. For example, you might have two nations that use Mercenary as their sword guy, but their other classes would be different. I wouldn't advocate new classes unless they brought something interesting to the table. Besides, I wouldn't say the new Hoshidan classes were "superfluous". Even for classes that shared weapon types (say Hero and Blacksmith) had different skills and weapon rank caps. Even if two classes were similar, just the visual differences would give each faction more flavor.

One thing I've enjoyed in several Fire Emblem games is the character of the nation shown in what classes they use. Sacae and Etruria in Elibe are notable for their nomads/swordmasters and magic users, respectively. Fates took this to a whole new level with completely different classes depending on the faction (granted, there were only two major factions). So it got me thinking, what if characters (enemy generics included) had a "nationality" attribute that determined their class-sets, rather than each character having unique class-sets? Let's say that each faction in the game would have access to 1 unpromoted class of each weapon type: sword, axe, lance, magic, bow, dagger and staff. Any character of that nationality would be able to change to any class in that set. Perhaps some would dislike this because it would make the reclassing options identical for characters sharing a faction, but you could still get additional 'foreign' classes through Friendship/Marriage Seals. I think this could be viable for gameplay as well as be used for subtle storytelling/world-building. Imagine you are fighting a nation that employs a lot of knights and wyvern riders, but some of enemies include mercenaries and pegasus riders which informs you that Nation A is allied with/hired mercenaries from Nation B, without a single line of dialogue needed. What do you think?

OP here, friendly reminder that this is a thread about "nice guys" and not the existence of a patriarchy. Thank you. And if you disregard my friendly reminder, despite all the kind posts I made JUST FOR YOU, then FUCK YOU. You never deserved my friendship. Bitches, man. This is a pretty good description, even if exaggerated for comedy. I wonder if the number of 'nice guys' exceeding 'nice girls' is in part responsible because of the expectation that guys make the first move. Some guys just aren't confident enough to make overt romantic gestures, but society still tells them it's their responsibility to initiate. So you have these people making half-measure attempts (being nice) to suggest romantic interest.

Thanks for your perspective. Not to devalue the struggles of the expectant mother (MVP!) but my greatest fear is the child having birth defects as a consequence of a later-life pregnancy. Being a parent is already a great responsibility but taking after a disabled child would be even harder, particularly for first time parents.

What could be more reassuring that getting health advice from a man who's profile picture includes a human skull?

Phillius, you fool! I wanted a comforting fantasy, not a hard truth! Informative link though, thanks. Such is life that we are terrified of getting pregnancies when we are young and terrified of not getting them when we grow older. It's a cruel irony that humans are most fertile when they are least prepared to handle parenthood. My girlfriend is currently between jobs and she needs to work for at least a year before she can earn maternity leave. So even if we got married tomorrow, she probably wouldn't be able to have a child until she was 35. :/

I have quite the predicament. My girlfriend is 33 now and while it seems likely that we'll get married in the next couple years, her age is a little concerning. I don't want to have children immediately but at the same time, her biological clock is ticking and I wouldn't want to risk her health or the health of a potential child. Anyone have any family experience with later life (as in mid-late 30s) pregnancies?

Promoting as soon as a unit hit level 10. "Isn't this awesome? My Swordmaster can dodge all of these bandits!" Low benchmark, past me... I blame Wallace for my foolishness.

Well that settles it, I must rename my My Castle the Strategy Shack. 500g entry fee, no promise of strategy, no refunds.

He was a seriously disturbed individual. Someone doesn't write a 100k word manifesto about how they hate all of humanity (but especially women) just because they got rejected a few times. Nah, you're good fam. Your story is actually pretty common for young men, growing up and figuring themselves out. Part of getting out of the 'nice guy' rut is to stop being a people-pleaser and focus on the people you can actually relate to. People will like you more if you are self-reliant and confident, as opposed to sycophantic and clingy.

A common element, particularly in 'harem' anime is an unremarkable protagonist winning girls by helping them through their insecurities and problems in the most baseline way possible. "As the class president, people have such high expectations of me and I feel like I'll crack from the pressure!" "It's okay, you don't need to be perfect." "Wow, your simple advice and basic concern for my happiness has filled me with desire. I'll now tag along with you despite us having no common interests" That's...how real life works...right? I used to be a "nice guy" because of low self-esteem and passive-aggressive behavior. I would desire friends and relationships while simultaneously believing I wasn't worthy of them. Using 'niceness' as my selling point was a crutch and it was a long and gradual process to grow out of that. I had to forge a stronger identity and accept that if some people didn't like me back, I had to let it go. Based on my personal experiences, I do think that some people are capable of realizing their faults and growing out of them. For every creep, jerk and psycho out there, there is also a lonely and awkward child trying to understand people. Obviously, it's not easy for the people they have to interact with, but I sympathize with them.

Hm, yeah, I could see class synergy becoming a thing future Fire Emblem titles. Currently, unit sub-types are only used to give them additional weakness but they could be given additional types (such as a 'soldier' type) to promote different class combinations. The only thing I didn't like about OP's suggestion is that the class be weak without the assistance of other classes.

I think it would lead to restrictive gameplay. For starters, you're going to need multiple characters of the same class when people generally like to make more balanced teams. Also, because they only fight well together, you won't be able to use them for any other style or tactics. I wouldn't mind class skills that boost adjacent/paired allies (ex. "Def/Res +1 for each adjacent ally"), but to make them weak without that just makes them inferior to other units. On a related note, I think they should rename Knight to something else. Centurion, hoplite, legionaire...something not 'knight' because several other classes use that affix and all of them are mounted.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

Don't you know? The less of your body your armor covers, the more protection it grants* *Women only Also this:

Ego is definitely a part of why some people define themselves as nice. This especially ties into how the "nice guy" views other people. Romantic rivals are all assholes who couldn't possibly have traits a rational girl would like. A girl who takes interest in someone not you is a bitch or a slut. The "nice guy" himself needs nothing other than his niceness to deserve the girl. He doesn't need to improve himself or be interesting. Real life? More like gg no re. There are two kinds of "nice guys". There are the manipulative type that are more consciously self-serving and there are the type that don't even realize that what they are doing isn't nice. My opening post is to theorize how people can justify their own behavior and frustration when it comes to rejection. I think the number of people who empathize with the protagonist of Watamote really emphasizes just how many people want to be socially capable, but can't due to their awkwardness or other vices.

I'm only up to episode 13 (no spoilers pls). But yes, the answer is Subaru. From the beginning of the series, Subaru becomes attracted to Emilia and tries to save her. While keeping everyone alive is one of his goals, he's also constantly trying to find ways to earn Emilia's affection. This culminates in episode 13 where he goes against Emilia's explicit wishes and accompanies her to an important event, where he proceeds to make an ass of himself and Emilia. When Emilia criticizes him, saying that all of his actions he did for himself, not for her, he shouts back that she has no right to complain because she "owes him more than she could ever repay." No, this is actually on point. Works of fiction often treat romance as a predetermined thing. This guy is the male lead and this girl is the female lead. They'll spend time together and provided he's not mean to her, they should fall in love right? This is especially common in anime where anime protagonists can get lots of beautiful girls simply for being kind and friendly. It's easy to see how a socially inept individual would see all of that and deduce that the secret to romance is persistence and being nice. Hah, I edited my post so it is now YOU who looks silly! Thanks for the correction. I should stop making these posts late at night when I need to be sleeping.

Although many people feign niceness/kindness (even if by now, self-defining as "nice" has been thoroughly discredited) for ulterior motives, I think there are as many if not more who genuinely believe themselves to be kind, when their behavior is in-fact selfish and passive aggressive. The other value of "nice guys" that I forgot to mention is that they believe "kindness" is the singular defining element in what makes someone attractive, for want of all other positive qualities.

Recently I was watching an anime (Re: Zero, for those curious) which tackled a phenomenon rather common in real life society, that is, "nice guys". As a reformed "nice guy" myself, I'd like to discuss this topic with you guys. Sorry for the mini-essay. For starters, the definition. A "nice guy" is someone (frequently male) who is 'nice' to another in the hopes of these positive feelings being reciprocated. What separates "nice" and true kindness is the entitled belief that the other person owes you for your 'gifts', and if they don't respond with equal or greater affection, they are in the wrong (which leads to other terms like "friend-zone"). While "nice guys" are rightfully scorned, I think we need to take a look at where they come from. I believe the origin of this phenomenon is actually one of humanity's greatest and simplest principles on empathy; the Golden Rule (treat others as you wish to be treated). Sounds pretty straightforward right? Be kind to people because you want them to be kind to you. But here's where it get corrupted. I think many people, myself included heard this principle and translated it into "be kind to people, and it's in their social contract to pay you back". This behavior is often spurned by the consuming desire for romantic feelings being reciprocated. For many people who lack emotional maturity and social experience, being 'kind' is the only way they know how to get into another person's heart. The obvious problem with this mentality is entitlement. You don't respect the other person's autonomy and force them (in your mind) into a social contract they never agreed to. No matter how much you want someone to like you, you can't force them to reciprocate your feelings. Part of this is not respecting others as people, but another part is not respecting yourself. If, for example, you thought the other person wasn't being as good a friend as you think you deserve, the mature thing to do is walk away. But "nice guys" can't walk away, they want to keep at their behavior until they get their "dues". It's easy to say "don't be an entitled ass-hat" in order to combat this mental-pitfall, but I feel that this topic (the basics of human interaction) needs to be better taught to the youth. I had plenty of people tell me to be kind but I didn't understand the real meaning of kindness or respect of others' feelings, so those moral lessons were misappropriated. What do you think? What's the cause and solution to this social phenomenon?

I don't think people are literally unaware of the physical and mental differences between 10 and 15 year olds, just that they believe adults who are attracted to either group are same kind of people. It's like saying people who smoke marijuana are on the same level as heroin addicts and should be equally scorned. The issue is that people often conflate morality to what the law is, or what they think the law is (most people probably don't know or care that age 16+ is the age of consent for MOST of the USA as well as Canada). It just becomes dogmatic and people want to ruin other people's lives using generalizations and baseless assumptions. People will think you a predator for dating a 17 year old but 18 is totes legit, as if the difference of one year, or even one day makes someone transform from a larva into a butterfly. Plenty of post puberty (15-17) people are mature enough to have sex, and plenty of people older than that have a lot of growing up to do. How can such people even justify the double-standard that two 16 year olds are old enough to have sex but a 16 year old and a 20 year old is wrong? Indeed, we do need general rules in order to protect those who are vulnerable, but as people we need to take greater care in analyzing what is truly abuse and what is merely two people who love each other. The desire to protect children shouldn't be used to permanently brand people who may have no evil intentions at all.