Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

Pixels · Post by **Pixels** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:30 pm

A Man In Black wrote:Why are people arguing with this lunatic?

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:30 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Oh oh, how about when Gandalf and the Balor hit the weapons out of each others' hands, tripped each other, and then went right to sweaty nut punching?

To be fair, I'm in support of this scenario because of hilarity.

edit: DAMMIT, codeglaze

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:39 pm

Pixels wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:Why are people arguing with this lunatic?
a simply hilarious xkcd

It's a lot easier to deal with this kind of person, though. Just reply to any post he makes with, "Whatever, jackoff."

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:48 pm

Zak S wrote:
name_here wrote: We hold that a higher level should intrinsically mean harder to defeat, or why even have levels?.
Did you get the news about hit points, or has that news not reached The Gaming Den yet? Anyway: even if they're equally easy to disarm,the master will have more hit points than the student. That's one example.

Which gets us needlessly long and boring grinds, exemplified by 4e. HP is a very poor mechanism by which to adjust encounter difficulty.
Weak sauce, dude.

Zak S wrote:
virgil wrote:
Zak S wrote:3. Make a Charisma roll--which is often just as hard as a save
No it's not. Your Charisma roll has no maximum bonus, while saving throws functionally do.
Max bonus is +10 to your charisma on a roll-under. Already said that. Fake argument.

Requesting that they be your best buddy forever circumvents this restriction, and your rule doesn't prevent this.
Bonuses always come with time limits, that's in the rule as written in the OP. Plus that assumes that there are no other competing interests who would be affected by "best buddy"status ( a limitation not in Charm). Already said that. Fake argument.

Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just say that your "+10 max bonus" was indeed part of the base assumptions (as you're trying to claim).
It's still an arbitrary limit. How did you come to that #?
What happens if the PC is able to utilize the narrative of the particular situation to rationally and logically justify a larger bonus? Do you simply say "fuck you, because fuck you"? How much immersion are you willing to sacrifice to satisfy/protect your completely arbitrary bonus cap? How much mind caulk do you expect your players to accept?
These are all real questions.

One of the key things that everyone has been trying to drive the point in on (but to which you seem oblivious) is the issue of "strict mechanical assessment". One of the goto "points" that you keep going back to is that of GM adjudication -- which is something that is entirely subjective, with way too many influences to be considered "consistent". When you write a rule, you want to leave GM adjudication out of it, because you already have that. The point of having a rule is to reduce the need for GM fiat.
You can't sit there and cry about "you guys just don't get it", when your rule can't withstand that "strict mechanical assessment".
When the Den gets a hold of a rule, what it cares about is that "strict mechanical assessment" -- that's some First Principles and Best Practices shit.

Zak S wrote:
virgil wrote:
Zak S wrote:Max bonus is +10 to your charisma on a roll-under. Already said that. Fake argument.
No it's not. We are talking about the rule you presented, not a different rule where you add restrictions and modifiers.
Even if you were too stupid to ask for a clarification, the max functional bonus on a roll-under is +19 with 1 always being failure. False argument.

Fuck the fuck off. If your rule needs continuous clarification (which it evidently does), it is flat-out a bad rule.

You really need to re-read and PFA to what Ancient History is laying down for you. I think it's the last bridge you have left here.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:56 pm

A Man In Black wrote:Why are people arguing with this lunatic?

I asked the same question about Shadzar once. Turns out the answer is that Zak, Shadzar, etc. etc. are basically intellectual freak shows. Everyone lines up to watch their bizarre and crippled arguments and feel better about themselves because every single person in the audience is basically guaranteed to never have been even close to being as wrong as the trainwreck on display. The instinctive purpose of arguments is to increase prestige by winning them rather than to actually arrive at a correct conclusion, and Zak S. is both clearly wrong and very unpopular, which makes him an easy opponent. At this point, Zak S. has committed himself to so many bad positions, and refuses to give even an inch on any of them regardless of evidence presented, that he is an easier fight than most strawmen. Seriously: I've seen lots of strawmanning on this forum, and most of the strawman arguments are easier to defend than things Zak S is actually saying right now.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:59 pm

The fact you translated this...

Zak S wrote:all kinds of good swordfights in movies work.

...into this...

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: All the good swordfights in movies are…?

...is stupid. Pick one of these two responses, Pseudo Stupidity:

[] I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

[] I did that because I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm a shitty person. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:05 pm

Zak S wrote: [] I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

[] I did that because I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm a shitty person. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

infected slut princess · Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:10 pm

You are all goddamn retarded assholes turning this board into a pathetic piece of shit.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:14 pm

infected slut princess wrote:You are all goddamn retarded assholes turning this board into a pathetic piece of shit.

We love you too, ISP.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:21 pm

ISP, you're wrong. Think of this thread as a honeypot and enjoy the rest of the forum.

I was impressed that this thread grew so fast and it was delightful to skim with Zak S on ignore.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:25 pm

Allow me to demonstrate.

Zak S wrote:The fact you translated this...
Zak S wrote:all kinds of good swordfights in movies work.
...into this...
Pseudo Stupidity wrote: All the good swordfights in movies are…?
...is stupid. Pick one of these two responses, Pseudo Stupidity:

[] I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

[] I did that because I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm a shitty person. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

Whatever, jackoff.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:33 pm

Ancient History wrote: The fact that the gamemaster determines a bonus based on their own judgment with no guidelines according to their understanding of the situation - or the phase of the moon, the tightness of their underwear, or any other factor - is not a recommendation for this rule; indeed, it is undistinguishable from not having a stated rule at all, where the gamemaster applies whatever modification they feel appropriate to any roll based on the circumstances at the table.

Incorrect. If there were no rule, then the bonus would not be static with a specific expiration time for all requests.

False argument.

I would agree that consistency is a highly desirable, even necessary trait in a good gamemaster. This gets back to the heart of the issue however - people play by rules to add consistency to the game, so that their actions can be arbitrated (at least partially) by an unbiased system. It's a large part on why people use published rules instead of homebrewing all of their own material; it's why homebrew material and gamemaster rulings should be - as you pointed out some time ago - consistent. The desire for consistency is often one of the driving points in arguments about rules, and it's part of the underlying issue with this one. We've mentioned before that a table to at least provide guidelines for what constitutes a bonus would have been beneficial, simply because it would help increase GM consistency - players would have a better idea how effective their individual actions might be.

NONE of that is an argument about the rule I wrote. If you want (in the theoretical imaginary published version of this rule) examples of what different kinds of people would consider a significant gift, that's a whole separate request.

3.5 has lists of sample DCs for different situations (climbing, etc)--it doesn't mean the rules were bad before someone decided to help people by doing that--just less clear for inexperienced GMs. It's an aid, not a necessity to make those rules unshitty.

So don't pretend that what you just said is an argument or creates a problem with what is written.

it is possible to accrue an overwhelming bonus.
No, it is possible to get, at best, a successful Charm roll. Against one guy.
Your original rule, as mentioned and we can quote it again as necessary, did not specify an upper limit. At your table, in your system, you have said that you cap bonuses at +10; that may well be sufficient in your game to prevent abuse. However, in the original rule you gave no such bonus, so you left the door open to the potential of an overwhelming bonus.

Against one guy, sure. But think of the mouse that took the thorn from the lion's paw: sometimes one is enough.

You're repeatedly missing the point: that "overwhelming bonus" has no more effect on the game than if someone cast Charm and the other guy failed their save. So even if the bonus is GIGANTIC--the worst you can do with your gigantic bonus is something you could already do with Charm.

As to how often it would come up compared to Charm--as you just said, it's variable--sometimes it's a better move than Charm and sometimes it's worse depending on situation. That's one reason it's good.

For example, if you have two 1st level fighters identical in every respect except that one has a Hackmaster +12 sword, then obviously that fighter has an uncharacteristic and overwhelming advantage to hit (and damage, but that comes later).

Therefore….what? In that example, the worst the guy can do is kill the other guy. In my example, the worst a guy can do is…get one thing they ask for (just like Charm only less). So you're missing the forest for the trees.

And again, it's beside the point - the whole reason to have a soak roll or saving throw is to give a character the chance to mitigate their fate and not be at the mercy of a single roll initiated by another character in which that character might have a huge advantage.

answered….

#2 "Competing interests" covers this functionally. If the NPC target sees competing interests, those mitigate. Already said that.
#3 If there are no competing interests (the only time there'd be no mitigation) then why wouldn't the NPC grant the request?

I'm not going to pick apart your example,

So you're not arguing just giving up. If you're too stupid to make your arguments don't start them. This is moronic--you start a thread, poke holes that aren't there, then when you get called on it you claim you won't address the huge mistake you made?

because frankly (and again) "competing interests" is a strictly subjective argument. It's not part of the mechanics, and it relies solely on the whims of the gamemaster as to when and if it applies.

So a GM making up 6 stats and a class and a race and associates for an NPC is normal, but a GM making up a 7th stat is somehow outside your ability to consider?

And sure, the gamemaster should be consistent about it - but that can just mean that they're a consistent asshole,

An argument that assumes no competent GM is as stupid as assuming no dice. It is invalid, we already went over this.

If you ask them to give up anything, that's got to conflict with their interest in not giving it up.

Yes. And you put a number on that. Taking 3 chips ahoy from me would get a low number. Taking my gecko would get a higher number.

you've essentially left the hard work of determining every such interaction up to the gamemaster to adjudicate on their own, with no reference or guide that GMs can maybe base their decisions on or PCs can expect to deal with.

If you haven't noticed: D&D also leaves building whole imaginary worlds with underground complexes in them to the GM and parsing through lists of monsters so long they constitute one of the literally longest Wikipedia articles and deciding which to use to the GM.

Saying my rule decides some but not all possible decisions the GM has to make is not a valid criticism since it applies to all rules.

For you in your game, it's +0 to +10; for someone else it might be -100 to +100. We can only say, based on the original rule, that the potential for abuse exists.

You keep getting stuck on this. Again: even if the player gets the maximum bonus…then what? A thing of no more consequence than a failed Suggestion save.

So while you might go to the Hall Of Words Strung Together That Piss Off Gaming Den People and find "overwhelming bonus" you're rather failing to consider that the consequence of the decision that that bonus gives a bonus to is (while not small) a consequence already accepted by the system for contests which (sometimes) are more difficult to win and (sometimes) easier to win.

It's like you're saying "You can't allow someone to get a potential +1000000 to finding a horse in a town that's an overwhelming bonus!!!!!!!" It sure is an overwhelming bonus. And if the player gets it then what? They find leather armor in a town. Which they could do anyway in a million other ways.

"Overwhelming bonus" is not a worst case scenario--the worst case scenario is the consequence of that bonus. And what are they….

If going "king, release the prisoner" and then the king releases them is game-breaking then Charm is game breaking.

Here's what you'd actually have to prove it's more abusable than Charm: not type the word "overwhelming bonus" but rather prove the mechanic would result in granted requests more often than Charm with nothing interesting or challenging happening when the players go around trying to fulfill the requirements of acquiring the gifts.

And here's your line:

"But what a king might consider a meaningful gift or mitigation is subjective and up to the GM"
"So? So is everything else about the King. Race, class, eye color."
"But then what's the rule do?"
"Establish at the time of the gift that you gotta record the gift, bonus and expiration date for future requests, mostly. That's the thing it does."
"But that's not what phonelobster asked for. He asked for more."
"Go read the OP. It's not there."
"But he meant…something else about apples or altruism or training wheels rules, not just what he wrote"
"Oh well, I didn't know that. Apparently a bunch of people who all hang out together online and have an internal culture interpreted it as including stuff not textually there. Not my fault."
"But it's abusable!"
"No more than Charm--all the bad outcomes you're describing are already in play with Charm…"

And then the argument goes right back where it started.

And now I get to repeat myself:

So you're totally wrong on all points. Again: unless you are admitting to arguing in bad faith--address all this stuff.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:37 pm

Zak S wrote:the max functional bonus on a roll-under is +19 with 1 always being failure. False argument.

No it's not. You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

Someone makes a request to be their best buddy. The request expires.

No it doesn't. The request lasts forever, and you can easily ask them to never allow someone the chance to change their mind.

And if you go "Oh but you didn't clarify this nitpick until you asked" well: you could say that about the original AD&D charm.

We're not trying to discuss the merits & flaws of Charm, that was your original attempt to direct the conversation. We are discussing your rule as given. If it requires clarification on something as fundamental as maximum bonus, then the rule you presented from the beginning fails to be a functional rule.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:41 pm

virgil wrote:You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

Someone makes a request to be their best buddy. The request expires.
No it doesn't. The request lasts forever, and you can easily ask them to never allow someone the chance to change their mind.

And that ceases to be a binding agreement as soon as someone persuades them otherwise. They, after all, might easily have an "overwhelming bonus"...

And if you go "Oh but you didn't clarify this nitpick until you asked" well: you could say that about the original AD&D charm.
We're not trying to discuss the merits & flaws of Charm, that was your original attempt to direct the conversation. We are discussing your rule as given. If it requires clarification on something as fundamental as maximum bonus, then the rule you presented from the beginning fails to be a functional rule.

Incorrect: when writing a system-agnostic rule you can't describe a maximum bonus.

So either:

[]It's system-agnostic so I can't tell you the max bonus, since that's system dependent
or
[] It's not system-dependent and it's for the system I use and 1 is always a failure (or 20 if it's a roll-under check) and +10 is the max bonus.

Pick one dumb troll.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:42 pm

Zak S wrote:No, it is possible to get, at best, a successful Charm roll. Against one guy.

No, it is possible to get better results than a Charm spell. You gave no restriction on the benefits/requests of a successful Charisma check, so therefore you can ask for things that the Charm spell wouldn't get out of them; including killing themselves or sacrificing their children in your name, with a 95% success rate if we include your post-hoc rule about natural 1s.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:44 pm

virgil wrote:
Zak S wrote:No, it is possible to get, at best, a successful Charm roll. Against one guy.
No, it is possible to get better results than a Charm spell. You gave no restriction on the benefits/requests of a successful Charisma check, so therefore you can ask for things that the Charm spell wouldn't get out of them; including killing themselves or sacrificing their children in your name, with a 95% success rate if we include your post-hoc rule about natural 1s.

Nit-pick. Pretending a rule's broken because a GM can't be expected to role-play an NPC has got to be the Gaming Dennest thing I ever heard.

That's as stupid as whoever was like "Well what if the player asks the mayor to declare them King of the World?" then the mayor does everything in his power to make the player king of the world. Which is fuck-all because he's just a mayor.

It's like you guys don't have any ideas attached to these words "horse" "mayor""dragon". Like you think if I don't write "horses are usually quadrupeds" then you think you can go "Your rule doesn't say what happens if the horse successfully impersonates Stockard Channing!" No, it doesn't. And aren't we all glad we don't have to read that rulebook. I figure we can all assume horses have 4 legs.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:47 pm

Zak, fix your tags.

Zak S wrote:
virgil wrote:You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.
I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

Not every roll works this way, and as someone who plays D&D you should know this.

Incorrect: when writing a system-agnostic rule you can't describe a maximum bonus.

As you described a maximum bonus, this means it's not system agnostic rule and you told nobody what system your rule was under; and for something as fundamental as that, is a significant failure to communicate on your part.

And if it is a system agnostic rule, telling the reader to choose their own maximum means your rule is literally "[insert rule here]". That is not a rule. That is reminding people to make a rule, and is demonstrably not what was asked of you or what you declared yourself to have done.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:48 pm

Disclaimer: I'm talking at Zak S, I know this is dumb and he's never going to be convinced how terrible any rule he's ever made is. It's just too easy to make fun of this rule.

Zak S wrote:The fact you translated this...
Zak S wrote:all kinds of good swordfights in movies work.
...into this...
Pseudo Stupidity wrote: All the good swordfights in movies are…?
...is stupid. Pick one of these two responses, Pseudo Stupidity:

[] I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

[] I did that because I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm a shitty person. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

The problem is NO good swordfight in a movie works using your clearly horrible rule. Your rule is shitty and is obviously shitty at that. Your rule suggests that people can't hold onto their weapons against fucking mooks, let alone actual threats. It ruins both climactic fights and run-of-the-mill mob beatdowns.

Name one swordfight in a movie that consists of the combatants disarming each other every time somebody draws a weapon. One that isn't in a comedy, because I'm sure that shit has happened at least once as a joke.

You are really standing by a rule that suggests this awesome fight (Spanish version because fuck yeah) should be them both disarming each other and then catfighting. I get that you're slightly less self-aware than the computer I'm typing this on, but come the fuck on. Hell, the rule you're defending suggests The Bride vs The Crazy 88 should have been them running up to her, disarming her, and then her getting fucking dogpiled.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:55 pm

Zak S wrote:
virgil wrote:
Zak S wrote:No, it is possible to get, at best, a successful Charm roll. Against one guy.
No, it is possible to get better results than a Charm spell. You gave no restriction on the benefits/requests of a successful Charisma check, so therefore you can ask for things that the Charm spell wouldn't get out of them; including killing themselves or sacrificing their children in your name, with a 95% success rate if we include your post-hoc rule about natural 1s.
Nit-pick. Pretending a rule's broken because a GM can't be expected to role-play an NPC has got to be the Gaming Dennest thing I ever heard.

The issue is that roleplaying the NPC is BETTER than the rule. As such, it wasn't necessary to write it in the first place.

The entire premise of the original challenge was things that were notably HARDER than roleplaying a single NPC. Like simulating the weight a party's reputation carries. A level 0 peasant can attempt to roll under their Charisma. What they can't do is quell large populations with mere stories of the death and razed settlements they've left in their wake.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:00 am

You did it again:

Zak S wrote:The fact you translated this...
Zak S wrote:all kinds of good swordfights in movies work.
...into this...
Pseudo Stupidity wrote: All the good swordfights in movies are…?
...is stupid. Pick one of these two responses, Pseudo Stupidity:

[] I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

[] I did that because I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm a shitty person. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

Now you changed it into:

disarming each other every time somebody draws a weapon.

1. you did the bad faith mistranslation thing again and should stop

2. If you disarm you miss the chance to do damage. It would only be "every time" if that were always the best option. It clearly isn't. In order for your silly scenario to be correct you'd have to prove, right now, that in all possible cases ever it would be best for both combatants to use their turns to disarm the other. Obvious counterexample: a situation where engaging the enemy and not killing them on this turn would likely result in one-shot death (which is a pretty common scenario). Since you can't prove it, you're wrong.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:01 am

So let's look carefully at what's happened here: Zak S claimed that his mechanic was consistent with some subset of cinematic swordfights (I suspect that's a small subset most people would describe as "comedic" rather than "cinematic" - would love to hear an example, but whatever).

Pseudo Stupidity correctly pointed out that his mechanic does not produce a subset of swordfights that contain the occasional successful disarming, and instead causes all swordfights to devolve into slapfights because lolbutterfingers it's impossible to hold onto a weapon near a medium-level fighter. He gave examples of cinematic swordfights that Zak S's mechanic would fail to produce, and what they actually look like under Zak S's mechanic.

And then Zak S seriously cut Pseudo Stupidity off mid-paragraph* in order to claim Pseudo Stupidity was strawmanning him as opposed to describing the results of his mechanics. Now whether Zak S is just stupid and fails at reading or deliberately found a piece of ambiguity to prey on in order to discredit a position without addressing it doesn't really matter. The important part is that he needs to check one of these boxes:

[] I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

[] I did that because I'm not arguing in good faith. I'm a shitty person. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

*The full paragraph reads: "All the good swordfights in movies are the characters whacking the swords out of each other's hands and then having a slapfest? No they fucking aren't. Picking up your weapon is not a free action, if disarming is optimal and against a static number you'll have Inigo and Roberts slap the swords out of each others' hands and then they'd just wrestle around for a while until somebody punched the other one hard enough. That's stupid as hell." Pseudo Stupidity is very clearly describing the consequences of Zak's mechanic, not strawmanning the weak-ass claim "that there exists a swordfight somewhere that matches my mechanic! For reals!" no one cares about because it's a non-defense against the levied criticisms.

Zak S wrote:I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

3rd edition and later got rid of nat 1's and nat 20's on ability checks and skill checks. You could have been playing D&D for fourteen years at this point and not have ever played a game in which, by the rules, charisma checks had nat 1's. Now, I can understand why you made the mistake, since you to seem to prefer older editions. But it's a mistake nonetheless. Perhaps you should be more precise or less conceited?

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:02 am

Sakuya Izayoi wrote: The entire premise of the original challenge was things that were notably HARDER than roleplaying a single NPC.

Gee whoever wrote it should've been better at communicating then. Because they sure didn't say that.

Like simulating the weight a party's reputation carries. A level 0 peasant can attempt to roll under their Charisma. What they can't do is quell large populations with mere stories of the death and razed settlements they've left in their wake.

And so…the party gets a bonus and the peasant doesn't. So my system makes sense.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:09 am

Zak S wrote:
virgil wrote:
Zak S wrote:Max bonus is +10 to your charisma on a roll-under. Already said that. Fake argument.
No it's not. We are talking about the rule you presented, not a different rule where you add restrictions and modifiers.
Even if you were too stupid to ask for a clarification, the max functional bonus on a roll-under is +19 with 1 always being failure. False argument.

Natural 1 is an auto-miss... in attacks only.

Page 63:
"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

Ability checks and skill checks don't qualify.

So yet another house rule.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:25 am

Zak S wrote: 2. If you disarm you miss the chance to do damage. It would only be "every time" if that were always the best option. It clearly isn't. In order for your silly scenario to be correct you'd have to prove, right now, that in all possible cases ever it would be best for both combatants to use their turns to disarm the other. Obvious counterexample: a situation where engaging the enemy and not killing them on this turn would likely result in one-shot death (which is a pretty common scenario). Since you can't prove it, you're wrong.

Moving the goalposts. We're talking about weapon masters, not people who one-shot people without weapons. Disarming a master swordsman is clearly the best use of your action if you can't instakill them, and anyone you can instakill isn't a real threat.

The weird thing is you're clearly trolling (I don't believe anyone can actually be as stupid as you are, I really don't), but since you talk about your blog and shit and use your real name this is pretty public. Your internet reputation actually means something to you and yet you're arguing the most ridiculous positions possible.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:27 am

Zak S wrote:So even if the bonus is GIGANTIC--the worst you can do with your gigantic bonus is something you could already do with Charm.

No, the worst you could do is ask a god to give you all his Divine Powers and stop being a god, something you cannot do with Charm person. Because after all, people always do what you ask and you never just arbitrarily short them on their request.