Calling out, "systems mastery"

[Nezkrul]

This is a new thread I chose to start in response to Cyclone_Joker calling everyone out that responded on the original thread saying we don't know the rules or have "systems mastery") The original thread is here: 3.5 Tumble too powerful? Others are welcome to post as well; because I respect opinions when they are stated as such; and healthy debate, when it stays civil.

Try it or concede.

/sigh, ok, my opinion differs from yours, so somehow you are better than me and I need to try to prove you aren't? No, I don't need to prove that, all I need to do is show my work on why I'm correct.

Sorry, not how it works. You're making an assertion, you back it up.

You're assertions are: Tumble is worthless, Grey Elf Domain Generalists cast Shapechange at level 1, That you can use any number of immediate and swift actions all the time, and that everyone on this board isn't playing by the rules, yet you haven't backed any of those up with any verifiable or posted or linked PROOF - you know that stuff we need to believe an ounce of the bile you have spewed at us. Here's my proof of why your super initiative guy doesn't work, and why versatile spell caster doesn't do what you say, and why super initiative guy can't even exist anyways.

During a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform an immediate action or a swift action, and as many free actions as your DM allows. (emphasis mine)

and

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but it represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can take a swift action any time during your turn, but you can perform only one swift action per turn. (emphasis mine)

then

An immediate action consumes a tiny amount of time. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time during a round, even when it isn’t your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn counts as your swift action for that turn. If you use an immediate action when it isn’t your turn, you can’t use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn. You can’t use an immediate action when you’re flat-footed. (emphasis mine, the last sentence blatantly tells us you can't cast such spells during a surprise round where you are unaware of your opponents, something that is up to the DM)

Celerity's casting time is Immediate Action; Nerveskitter's casting time is Immediate Action; The rules don't say you can ever cast immediate action spells as standard actions instead; ANYWHERE, I looked, you can't RAW, this requires DM fiat. (<- that's also called a houserule, or an opinion, not to be confused with truth, or with RAW; see also "personal interpretation")

Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (emphasis mine)

This means that the ONLY time you get to "reset" your actions for a combat round is at the start of your initiative sequence in the combat round. Celerity does not change your initiative count, nor does it tell you to roll initiative. It only gives you the ability to take a standard action in the time it takes you to spend an immediate action. And, due to what I have quoted above, normally the only time you get to take immediate actions is after you have determined your sequence in initiative, with nerveskitter being the only spell that would really be useless in this situation due to its effects, and so would require intelligent rewording because of intent. If you cast nerveskitter, you have used up your immediate/swift action for your first turn in the initiative sequence. You must wait until after the end of your next turn (which would be your first turn, not action, there is clearly a difference) to cast an immediate action, or until the beginning of the turn after the one in which you have no immediate or swift action in order to be able to use a swift action again. You only get 1 immediate OR swift action during your turn. The only way to get more is to have a special effect that says you get more than 1 immediate or swift action during your turn. From the rules posted nerveskitter prevents you from using celerity on your turn. Celerity, likewise, makes it so you can't use the immediate (mental) action required to activate Third Eye: Clarity's effect. So, we see that you CAN'T cast celerity until after you have rolled for initiative, and you don't get to roll for initiative if you are surprised.

A spell that takes 1 immediate action to cast can be cast at any time, even when it isn’t your turn. Such casting follows all the rules for immediate actions. (emphasis mine)

You don't have a turn in initiative sequence until you have rolled for initiative. Therefore, just because you take an immediate action to get a standard action does not mean it is your turn. Turn is clearly defined by rolling initiative, and/or initiative count, not by actions taken.
The rules for immediate actions clearly state "You can’t use an immediate action when you’re flat-footed."
and the rules governing when you are flat-footed state "At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed" (bolding added).
A Surprise round is defined as "Any combatants aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round." - Notice how it strictly NEVER mentions "turn" during the surprise round? Nor does it say you can use swift or immediate actions. So, no celerity during the surprise round if you get to act, and no celerity if you are flat-footed. Why? Because the rules clearly state you can't, as shown.

Now, on to the debacle that is this "i get to cast shapechange at 1st level without having it in my spellbook and without even having 8th nor 9th level spell slots, with versatile spellcaster" nonsense.

First off, the WHAMHAMMER of why it doesn't work

Prerequisite: Ability to spontaneously cast spells

Tell me again how wizards cast spells spontaneously? As in the class feature, because that is exactly what the prerequisite not only says, but INTENDS (its in Races of the Dragon, a book that screams "play a sorcerer!")
Oh, you're rebuttal is Uncanny Forethought feat? Hmm, a game changing feat that totally says it changes how a wizard prepares and casts his spells class feature? Let's take a look at it in Exemplars of Evil...

When preparing...blah blah blah

nope, not a single use of the word "spontaneously" in the whole feat, but it does still mention prepping spells and the spell mastery feat (which requires a spell be in your spellbook (ie a spell known for a wizard)). So, no game changing, class feature changing ability in the whole thing. Just because YOU think it does something similar to what a sorcerer does all day, does NOT = ability to spontaneously cast spells. That is THE class feature of sorcerers, bards, duskblades, etc...
Now lets assume your DM rules differently (ie HOUSERULE, DM FIAT, etc.)
Versatile Spellcaster says you can use 2 spell slots of one level to cast one spell you know that is one level higher than the spell slots. One ability. It doesn't do anything else than what it exactly says.

A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below)....She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare....A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook....A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice.

So, we see that a wizard must prepare spells from a spellbook, either her own or another wizard's, AND her spellbook only begins play with 0 an 1st level spells in it. So, a normal wizard NEVER starts at 1st level with any 9th level spells in her spellbook, and with a - for spells per day in the 2nd through 9th level spell slots.

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard...((so can't also be Elf Generalist, we'll get to why in a bit))....The domain wizard has all the standard wizard class features, except as noted ((so no mysterious spontaneous spell casting ability))...A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it ((you're probably thinking THERE, RIGHT THERE HE KNOWS SHAPECHANGE, wrong, see bolded text, you can't cast a spell you don't know with versatile spellcaster, the feat doesn't give you the knowledge, nor can you cast a spell from a spell level you have a "-" in for spells/day specifically because you are UNABLE to cast it))...A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard ((which means they can't prepare spells they don't know, and they can't cast spells for which they have a "-" for the spells/day))...a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level ((since they follow all rules for casting spells as a normal wizard, all the "-"'s do NOT suddenly become 1's))

and Elf Generalist wizard sub level

...she may prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day ((so this class feature is ONLY relevant when she prepares her spells, not casts them, once she prepares that ONE extra spell, the class feature stops right there because that is all it says it does))...This feature replaces the standard wizard's ability to specialize in a school of magic ((so its either Domain wizard OR generalist, can't have both because they both remove the same class feature))

So now, you have to somehow prove how all of this works together by ignoring all of these RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. The burden is on you now, Joker. NO ONE on this board will accept one-liners and opinions as proof of your assertions. You need to do as I have done, or you LOSE this debate. So, try it, or concede now.


Cyclone_Joker, I will concede and agree with you that you are correct that you don't need line of sight to be able to shoot a fireball into an area. You do still need an unblocked line of effect to do so. So other factors you don't see could make such a spell as fireball not go off where you wanted it, like a wall in the fog or darkness. But you already knew that didn't ya?

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

You're assertions are: Tumble is worthless, Grey Elf Domain Generalists cast Shapechange at level 1, That you can use any number of immediate and swift actions all the time, and that everyone on this board isn't playing by the rules, yet you haven't backed any of those up with any verifiable

Except for, you know, the fact that I repeatedly have.

or posted or linked PROOF - you know that stuff we need to believe an ounce of the bile you have spewed at us. Here's my proof of why your super initiative guy doesn't work, and why versatile spell caster doesn't do what you say, and why super initiative guy can't even exist anyways.

Except none of it works.
and

Celerity, likewise, makes it so you can't use the immediate (mental) action required to activate Third Eye: Clarity's effect.

Wrong. But, hey, nice try.

So, we see that you CAN'T cast celerity until after you have rolled for initiative, and you don't get to roll for initiative if you are surprised.

Then it's a good thing casting it at the start of combat is for chumps.

You don't have a turn in initiative sequence until you have rolled for initiative. Therefore, just because you take an immediate action to get a standard action does not mean it is your turn. Turn is clearly defined by rolling initiative, and/or initiative count, not by actions taken.

Are you done posting meaningless drivel yet? I'm curious as to actually see when your so-called proof comes up.

The rules for immediate actions clearly state "You can’t use an immediate action when you’re flat-footed."
and the rules governing when you are flat-footed state "At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed" (bolding added).
A Surprise round is defined as "Any combatants aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round." - Notice how it strictly NEVER mentions "turn" during the surprise round? Nor does it say you can use swift or immediate actions. So, no celerity during the surprise round if you get to act, and no celerity if you are flat-footed. Why? Because the rules clearly state you can't, as shown.

You really don't get it, do you?

First off, the WHAMHAMMER of why it doesn't work
Tell me again how wizards cast spells spontaneously? As in the class feature, because that is exactly what the prerequisite not only says, but INTENDS (its in Races of the Dragon, a book that screams "play a sorcerer!")
Oh, you're rebuttal is Uncanny Forethought feat?

If you were willing to read my posts, rather than disagree with anything I say because I say it, then you'd know Alacritous Cognition is my preferred way of qualifying.

Versatile Spellcaster says you can use 2 spell slots of one level to cast one spell you know that is one level higher than the spell slots. One ability. It doesn't do anything else than what it exactly says.
So, we see that a wizard must prepare spells from a spellbook, either her own or another wizard's, AND her spellbook only begins play with 0 an 1st level spells in it. So, a normal wizard NEVER starts at 1st level with any 9th level spells in her spellbook, and with a - for spells per day in the 2nd through 9th level spell slots.

Again, you're stating things that have no relevance to the argument. The wizard is capable of casting second level spells, and therefore it learns second level spells. If you'd prefer it, one could spend WBL to scribe pointless spells, but that's unnecessary by even the most basic understanding of the rules.

and Elf Generalist wizard sub level
So now, you have to somehow prove how all of this works together by ignoring all of these RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

Or by using the rules as written, rather than by some bizarre arguments you pulled out of your ass.

The burden is on you now, Joker.

No, it's still squarely on you. You see, I've used these wondrous things known as "facts." All you've done is plug your ears and yell "NU-UH IT DOESN'T WORK LALALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!"

So, try it, or concede now.

lol.

Seriously, you've yet to rebut anything I've said except to fabricate claims I've never made and argue against them. It may have worked in the past, but that crap isn't flying with me. Refute my arguments or concede. Of course, you actually can't refute my arguments, what with them being right and all, but have fun trying.

 

[delericho]

This is a new thread I chose to start in response to Cyclone_Joker calling everyone out that responded on the original thread saying we don't know the rules or have "systems mastery") The original thread is here: 3.5 Tumble too powerful? Others are welcome to post as well; because I respect opinions when they are stated as such; and healthy debate, when it stays civil.

Okay. My opinion? You're wasting your time.

3.5e has many thousands of options. Most of these were added in supplements, written by designers who didn't have time to sort out exactly what the consequences were of every possible combination - indeed, often by designers who simply didn't know about many of the other options. Remember, a lot of the edition was created by freelancers, and several projects were running in parallel.

So it should be no surprise that there are broken combinations out there. And those options are, of course, much more common if you simply read the text as it sits, interpret everything in the most 'generous' manner possible, and allow everything in. (I've put the quote-marks around 'generous' because it has been my experience that most so-called 'optimisers' actually go beyond merely generous interpretations of the rules and outright ignore anything they don't like.)

Very often, it will be possible to prove an 'optimiser' wrong, for one reason or another. However, actually doing so will require you to dig through all the worst bits of 3.5e to find the loopholes, the bits they've missed, or the strict text that prevents what they're doing.

(I really need to note here that Cyclone_Joker, as far as I can tell, doesn't appear to fall into this category. As far as I can see, the rules he cites are badly written, but they do actually say what he claims.)

Far better, IMO, to treat all talk of optimising as a somewhat-interesting but purely theoretical discussion. Disallow any combination that doesn't feel right from your game. (And, in my case, any player who self-identifies as an optimiser will find himself invited to leave my table. Conversely, I will likewise absent myself from a table including such a player. That's not One True Wayism, merely a conflict of styles - I'm not going to play a game I just don't enjoy.)

Oh, and that sort of high-end optimisation isn't "system mastery", any more than Obfuscated C is in any way software engineering. Actually, it's the opposite - it's taking very powerful and flexible tools, and using them to destroy rather than create.

(Actually, a better example could be the people who hacked ENWorld - as I recall, they claimed to be helping, by exposing flaws in the security. They were, of course, full of it - if they'd really been sincere, they would have highlighted the flaws in an email to Morrus and let him sort it out. You know, constructive instead of destructive.)

Celerity's casting time is Immediate Action; Nerveskitter's casting time is Immediate Action; The rules don't say you can ever cast immediate action spells as standard actions instead; ANYWHERE, I looked, you can't RAW, this requires DM fiat. (<- that's also called a houserule, or an opinion, not to be confused with truth, or with RAW; see also "personal interpretation")

As I understand it, Cyclone_Joker's approach was to cast contingency - "when I roll initiative or am surprised, cast celerity". This gives him a standard action right away. After which, he is no longer flat-footed (having acted in combat), and so can use Immediate actions - and so he can trigger his Third Eye: Clarity to remove the dazed condition.

That's not, strictly speaking, the same as winning initiative, since the player should then roll initiative, and act in turn the same as everyone else. (Indeed, in theory the player could roll a 20, win initiative, and get a full round of actions.)

It took a long time for me to sort that out, since Cyclone_Joker has a habit of revealing his 'arguments' in a very piecemeal fashion, but I can't see any holes in that argument.

and the rules governing when you are flat-footed state "At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed" (bolding added).
A Surprise round is defined as "Any combatants aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round."

That would, indeed, do it. However, are you really going to assert that characters who act in the surprise round remain flat-footed after they've taken that action? 'cos that's a new one on me!

Now, on to the debacle that is this "i get to cast shapechange at 1st level without having it in my spellbook and without even having 8th nor 9th level spell slots, with versatile spellcaster" nonsense.

First off, the WHAMHAMMER of why it doesn't work
Tell me again how wizards cast spells spontaneously? As in the class feature, because that is exactly what the prerequisite not only says, but INTENDS (its in Races of the Dragon, a book that screams "play a sorcerer!")

Here he's using Alacritous Cogitation to give him the ability to "You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell." (There is at least one other feat/alternate class feature/something that allows the Wizard to spontaneously cast some spells, or else I'd point out that Versatile Spellcaster requires the ability to spontaneously cast spells.)

Now lets assume your DM rules differently (ie HOUSERULE, DM FIAT, etc.)
Versatile Spellcaster says you can use 2 spell slots of one level to cast one spell you know that is one level higher than the spell slots. One ability. It doesn't do anything else than what it exactly says.

The argument here is that this feat allows the caster to cast a single 2nd level spell. Since he can now cast 2nd level spells, his two 'specialisation' abilities (Elven Generalist and Domain Specialist) each give him one 2nd level spell slot. The character can then combine those two to give a single 3rd level spell, so now he can cast 3rd level spells, so his two specialisation abilities each give him one 3rd level spell slot. And so on.

(And Domain Specialist also grants knowledge of all the domain spells as soon as he's able to cast them; hence why he can 'know' those spells.)

Put bluntly, I don't even consider that interpretation worth addressing. It was clearly not the intent of the designers that 1st level casters should have access to 9th level spells. It's also pretty clear that Elven Generalist and Domain Specialist should be either/or abilities - each removes the ability to specialise; they just use slightly different wording to do it. Versatile Spellcaster clearly wasn't intended to be a "rinse and repeat" ability. And it's also a huge stretch to allow the caster to claim the 'knowledge' class feature from Domain Specialist before applying VS and then claiming the 'extra slot' feature after doing so - without which the whole edifice falls down.

One more thing: I noted a few paragraphs above that CJ has a "a habit of revealing his 'arguments' in a very piecemeal fashion". On the thread in question, he was repeatedly asked to provide a complete build of his super-wizard, and repeatedly provided only a partial build, adding bits as his arguments were rebutted. I would strongly suggest not engaging in that sort of argument - it's just bad for stress levels, it's bad for the board, and it doesn't serve any good purpose. When faced with an argument of that sort, demand complete builds, full citations of books and page numbers, and any relevant errata. And if they're not supplied, treat it as the unsupported argument it is. Trust me, you'll feel better as a result.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

(I really need to note here that Cyclone_Joker, as far as I can tell, doesn't appear to fall into this category. As far as I can see, the rules he cites are badly written, but they do actually say what he claims.)

Uh... Thanks, I think?

Oh, and that sort of high-end optimisation isn't "system mastery", any more than Obfuscated C is in any way software engineering. Actually, it's the opposite - it's taking very powerful and flexible tools, and using them to destroy rather than create.

I beg to differ. It's knowledge of the system. Advanced knowledge of the system allows one to build exactly what they want at exactly what level they want. It also lends itself to funny little flaws in the system like the above. The same awareness of the system that leads to this kind of hilarious abomination also allows for truly wonderful things like the Horizon Tripper, allowing melee to be relevant despite rather absurd common restrictions, or the numerous imaginative works of Tempest_Stormwind and friends.

It took a long time for me to sort that out, since Cyclone_Joker has a nasty habit of revealing his 'arguments' in a very piecemeal fashion, but I can't see any holes in that argument.

In my defense, I'm used to discussing with those who have general knowledge of the entire system. You know, the ones who don't think the word "optimization" holds a level of profanity up there with slurs and the F-bomb.

That would, indeed, do it. However, are you really going to assert that characters who act in the surprise round remain flat-footed after they've taken that action? 'cos that's a new one on me!

It's also flatly wrong.

Put bluntly, I don't even consider that interpretation worth addressing. It was clearly not the intent of the designers that 1st level casters should have access to 9th level spells. It's also pretty clear that Elven Generalist and Domain Specialist should be either/or abilities - each removes the ability to specialise; they just use slightly different wording to do it. Versatile Spellcaster clearly wasn't intended to be a "rinse and repeat" ability. And it's also a huge stretch to allow the caster to claim the 'knowledge' class feature from Domain Specialist before applying VS and then claiming the 'extra slot' feature after doing so - without which the whole edifice falls down.

Put bluntly, I don't think there's any other interpretation worth considering. That said, personally? There's no way in hell I'd allow anything like this in my games. I, like many others, find tier three play the most enjoyable.

One more thing: I noted a few paragraphs above that CJ has a "a nasty habit of revealing his 'arguments' in a very piecemeal fashion".

I disagree. I give my arguments precisely when they need to be addressed for someone with reasonable knowledge of the system.

On the thread in question, he was repeatedly asked to provide a complete build of his super-wizard, and repeatedly provided only a partial build, adding bits as his arguments were rebutted.

That's a bit of a dishonest representation of facts there. I responded to each point independently, and then revealed this abomination in response to the honestly absurd, nay laughable, request of a standardized spell list.

And if they're not supplied, treat it as the unsupported argument it is.

We appear to have very different definitions of "unsupported." See, where I come from "unsupported" means, you know, "unsupported," not "I don't like it."

 

[delericho]

I beg to differ. It's knowledge of the system.

Knowledge is not the same as mastery. The difference lies in how you use it.

We appear to have very different definitions of "unsupported." See, where I come from "unsupported" means, you know, "unsupported," not "I don't like it."

"Unsupported" as in you did not support it. Once we're into optimisation territory, we're talking about a mathematical construct. And, in math, you show your working.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Knowledge is not the same as mastery. The difference lies in how you use it.

...No, it really isn't.

"Unsupported" as in you did not support it. Once we're into optimisation territory, we're talking about a mathematical construct. And, in math, you show your working.

No, I did support it. I said what was needed. I answered the question. Plus, we appear to have different definitions of "math," given how when I think of math, I think of, you know, actual mathematics occurring.

But, really, if you want to make that argument, do you show your work when asked what 4 + 4 is? I sure as hell don't.

 

[Ragmon]

Could you guys sum up whats this all about? Cause I don't want to go trough the Tumble Thread.
And if you guys want us to judge your argument then make your statements clear (im looking at you Joker, try not to use "Nuh-uh" replies (ie: Wrong. But, hey, nice try.), please make it clear whats going on and so on, so we onlookers have a clear idea whats going on OR take it to PM.

Oh and if you 2 just want to argue take it to PM.

 

[Ragmon]

But, really, if you want to make that argument, do you show your work when asked what 4 + 4 is? I sure as hell don't.

Yes, people tend to bring up details, proof and well anything their helps their argument. In a court people they don't just go, "I did not kill that person, no I don't have proof", or in class, "no teacher I did not cheat on the exam", "then how did you reach this result?". So be it a trivial math problem, character build or game rule, your gonna have to point out why it is like that.
Simply put: "Picture or it did not happen."

Side comment: I guess you never had a hard-ass math teacher who required every detail in his math exams from his students.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Could you guys sum up whats this all about? Cause I don't want to go trough the Tumble Thread.

The Tumble thread got sidetracked into why wizards automatically win. The opposition, those under the rather bizarre impression that full casters are not vastly more powerful than everything else in the game, kept moving goalposts to the point, and, once they started asking for a list of what a wizard would have prepped, I just said "screw it, I'm not putting up with that bullcrap" and threw together a 9s-at-level-1 build.

There were also some people challenging basic rules. They were, of course, wrong, but my mention of systems mastery and my grasp of basic optimization appears to have rubbed some people the wrong way.

And if you guys want us to judge your argument then make your statements clear (im looking at you Joker, try not to use "Nuh-uh" replies (ie: Wrong. But, hey, nice try.), please make it clear whats going on and so on, so we onlookers have a clear idea whats going on OR take it to PM.

This was one of the things covered in the previous thread, in this case, among other things, the OP's poor grasp of the action economy and interactions between spells and items, and he somehow got the bizarre impression that you actually cast celerity at the beginning of each encounter. This was already addressed and corrected, so I felt no need to go further.

Yes, people tend to bring up details, proof and well anything their helps their argument. In a court people they don't just go, "I did not kill that person, no I don't have proof", or in class, "no teacher I did not cheat on the exam", "then how did you reach this result?".

In both those cases, the other side requires proof. I also did, in fact, provide proof by naming various feats and class features.

Also, I've never ran into any problems with accusations of cheating, so I honestly have no idea where you're going with that.

Side comment: I guess you never had a hard-ass math teacher who required every detail in his math exams from his students.

Well, I had a hard-assed teacher in middle school who gave up when I got fed up and started correcting him in the middle of class. Sure it was a dick move, but, hey, I won.

 

[Ragmon]

Also, I've never ran into any problems with accusations of cheating, so I honestly have no idea where you're going with that.

Here I have to explain myself, I wanted to word it in a different manner, but that would have been too long imo, so I opted for that sentence (something like: "I know that you know the answer, but your still gonna have to write down the whole equation process so I can see that you did not just copy the answer from Timmy."-teacher)

Main comment: The "9s-at-level-1 build" thing, could I get a link to this (only if its not part of THE pun-pun)?

Oh and Diplomancer (not necessarily a diplomancer, but a descent roll on a rushed diplo-check) wins over wizard, dat static target DC... "hey wanna be my friend?" *roll* or *take 10 "Sure you seem like a nice guy".