| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's have this discussion. Be civil.
My current definition of cheese:
Deliberately interpreting ambiguous rules as meaning the side with the weaker argument, which when interpreted that way gives a greater mechanical advantage over when interpreted otherwise, such that it marginalizes or helps to marginalize the other members of your party.
In essence, it is sophistry. Taking the weaker argument and making it the stronger for vastly superior mechanical benefit.
Somewhat related, taking 2 or more one or two level dips such that it helps you marginalize the contributions of other members of your party is cheese as well. Fighter class doesn't count against the limit, since it's extremely general, flavorless, and represents better combat training. I just haven't thought how to codify this more generally yet. It's possible I will later on.
And before TOZ shows up:
a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey
Sounds pretty good.
Cheese is another word for a "cheap" move as well. A good example of this is sleep hex witches or color spray oracles. It is not in doubt whether that is how those abilities were meant to be used. It is, however, super effective and not particularly creative. It's not necessarily overpowered, because you can achieve the same ends (incapacitate enemies with a SoD) at any level, but it's cheesy because it relies on one move repeated over and over.
I petition that that definition to go into the next edition of the rules as rule .5.
How is this different from "I hit it with an axe", save in that it's more effective?
It's not. And it's not really 'more effective' either.
I think it's only cheeeeze because the accepted practice is hitting it with an axe, and so you 'aren't doing it right' and therefore it MUST follow that it's cheezy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deliberately interpreting ambiguous rules as meaning the side with the weaker argument, which when interpreted that way gives a greater mechanical advantage over when interpreted otherwise, such that it marginalizes or helps to marginalize the other members of your party.
I agree with your definition, but would put it a little more simply and a little more generally as, "Deliberately misinterpreting rules to make a character more powerful." As to the second part, I think that marginalizing other members of your party is rude, bad gaming, and is the primary negative effect of cheesy power-gaming.
A good example of this is sleep hex witches or color spray oracles. It is not in doubt whether that is how those abilities were meant to be used. It is, however, super effective and not particularly creative. It's not necessarily overpowered, because you can achieve the same ends (incapacitate enemies with a SoD) at any level, but it's cheesy because it relies on one move repeated over and over.
I don't see how a witch who uses the Slumber hex regularly is any different than a Fighter who uses Power Attack regularly. Both seem to be exactly what was intended by the game designers.
Sounds pretty good.
Cheese is another word for a "cheap" move as well. A good example of this is sleep hex witches or color spray oracles. It is not in doubt whether that is how those abilities were meant to be used. It is, however, super effective and not particularly creative. It's not necessarily overpowered, because you can achieve the same ends (incapacitate enemies with a SoD) at any level, but it's cheesy because it relies on one move repeated over and over.
I thought about stuff like that. In particular, I thought of choosing Archery as your combat style. With a bunch of obvious choices, you are suddenly one of the best fighters in the game.
I did not include that sort of thing in my personal definition because, well...I don't think it's cheese.
I think there's an element of "non-obviousness" in "cheese". That's not to say that non-obvious combinations are cheese. Just that, if it's cheese, it's probably non-obvious.
Both being a one-trick pony and being overpowered are different from being cheesy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the interest of friendly discussion, I dissagree with the sleep/color spray "tactic" being defined as cheese. To me cheese is taking advantage of a rule loop hole, which is highly subjective I know. An example of cheese to me...years ago we got a misprinted shadowrun rulebook, where the second to highest priority in money was one million neuyen, and the highest priorety was six hundred thousand. We all took priority B in resources and started off with one million bucks (we were all thirteen...)
To me, the sleep/color spray thing is boring (as boring as "I hit it with my axe" which is why I normally don't play fighter types, and when I do they're switch hitters).
An example of cheese in Pathfinder? I honestly can't come up with one off the top of my head. Not that I think the game is perfectly balanced, I just haven't come accross anything yet that I see as overly cheesey.
Deliberately interpreting ambiguous rules as meaning the side with the weaker argument, which when interpreted that way gives a greater mechanical advantage over when interpreted otherwise, such that it marginalizes or helps to marginalize the other members of your party.I agree with your definition, but would put it a little more simply and a little more generally as, "Deliberately misinterpreting rules to make a character more powerful." As to the second part, I think that marginalizing other members of your party is rude, bad gaming, and is the primary negative effect of cheesy power-gaming.
That's what my definition was originally. I added the bit about marginalization because I believe there could be cases where people do something, but it doesn't really marginalize the rest of the party. Imagine a new player who thinks he found a super powerful combination that works when you interpret the rules one way, but due to your experience with the game, you know that it's still pretty tame. I wouldn't count that as cheese.
Maybe that'd be proto-cheese, but I won't call that cheese.
Also, I prefer "take the weaker argument and try to make it the stronger" rather than "misinterpreting". Misinterpreting requires knowing what it should be and ignoring it. Taking the weaker argument applies to places where the ruling isn't so clear, and you just have to try to divine the intent.
It is, however, super effective and not particularly creative. It's not necessarily overpowered, because you can achieve the same ends (incapacitate enemies with a SoD) at any level, but it's cheesy because it relies on one move repeated over and over.How is this different from "I hit it with an axe", save in that it's more effective?
That's precisely the differentiation. It's too effective for its simplicity. Hence being called cheesy. It's not an opinion I hold, mind you, I'm all about that s#!@. I'm just trying to expound on the mindset of those that would use the terms cheesy and/or cheap.
I've heard both the examples I gave described as cheesy, might be even on these very boards though I'm too lazy to check. Can anyone give me specific examples in PF of what they think is cheesy?
Another example of cheese I can think of is using Arcane Mark to get a second attack with a Magus.
Again though, I don't really describe things as cheesy just as effective or optimal or not. The rules are the rules. So I can only really speak to what I think others/have heard others call cheese.
Oh yea, Magus and Arcane Mark. That could be an example. It's not too ambiguous, since it's clearly RAW. I just can't help but think that it's not 100% intended.
Player Cheese: "But, but my concept is an elf wizard. I've got 15 points to spend, and I don't need those other ability scores anyway!"
DM: "I don't care if it is legal, you are not playing a character with Str 7, Dex 17, Con 11, Int 20, Wis 7, and Cha 7. Not in my game."
Player Cheese: "The book says I can do it! You just don't want me to have nice things!"
or
Player Cheese: "All right, nothing below 8, before we start. He's an 361 year old . . . "
DM: "He's what?"
Player Cheese: "361. He still has nearly four centuries of life left, so he decided to start a new career as a wizard. I get the aging bonuses, right?"
DM: " . . . "
Examples of cheese in play.
Master Arminas
Sounds pretty good.
Cheese is another word for a "cheap" move as well. A good example of this is sleep hex witches or color spray oracles. It is not in doubt whether that is how those abilities were meant to be used. It is, however, super effective and not particularly creative. It's not necessarily overpowered, because you can achieve the same ends (incapacitate enemies with a SoD) at any level, but it's cheesy because it relies on one move repeated over and over.I thought about stuff like that. In particular, I thought of choosing Archery as your combat style. With a bunch of obvious choices, you are suddenly one of the best fighters in the game.
I did not include that sort of thing in my personal definition because, well...I don't think it's cheese.
I think there's an element of "non-obviousness" in "cheese". That's not to say that non-obvious combinations are cheese. Just that, if it's cheese, it's probably non-obvious.
Both being a one-trick pony and being overpowered are different from being cheesy.
Here's a perfect example of what we/I were/was discussing in another thread... "the best fighter in the game/god archer".
There are certainly situations where this would not be true, depending on what level/feats we are talking about, there are spells that mess up ,projectiles, underwater combat, wind/rain/visibility blah blah blah.
Sure archers are great, in theory craft, but twfers and monks can be nasty too... everyone has a strong point, if you want to make an optimized, one trick pony type character, accept the fact there will be situations and times that said character isn't going to be the best, and another character in the group might actually do better.
As far as cheesy goes? I'm not sure, I haven't played with someone like that in a long time, but it probably would have something to do with one trick pony behavior, i guess boring comes to mind rather than cheesy tho.
Maybe if EVERY character you make ALWAYS exploits a certain rule, like multiple natural attacks for example, then the 9th time youve made the character and he mystically always has awesome stats (and if he doesnt you refuse to play him and re roll until he does have awesome stats) then id say that's cheese.
Our current barbarian ha way less than optimum stats for a barb. (like 14 str and 13 con) but heck thats what he rolled. On the other thsn the inquisitor has redonkulous stats (nothing under 14) and she didn't even roll the dice, the barb players 7 year old son did while we all watched. Does that make the barb a lesser barbarian, or worse than the inquisitor, no. Infact he's a pretty decent character.
He wanted to multiclass into alchemist (for story purposes) and I suggested hed make a really cool master chymist, but he needed 3rd level extracts (requiring a 13 int for) and he only had an 11.
I let him have a 12 int (there by giving him extra skills too) so he could do what he wanted with the character (by the time he levels to MC he will get an ability point to make it 13)
That's the opposite of cheese.
uber stats or i refuse to play, coupled with rules-lawyering, id say is cheese.
Sorry for thinking out loud, i just don't think ive seen it since.... well high school? It's been a really long time. I actually see (at least a certain player) make retarded gimp builds more often (that are entirely hilarious), any time he makes a serious attempt at a useful build, it somehow manages to die the same game session....but gnome barbarian/bard duel wielding a pair of silver flutes? yea that character will make it through an entire ap..... go figure.
I think you're underestimating the power of the mythical Bardbarian. :D
By common usage, I have to say both definitions are right. In that, both are ways that people commonly use the word. However, the "deliberate rules misinterpretation" angle is more interesting to talk about.
An extreme example of this is the classic "dead is not a condition" crowd. Then there is "lowering the duration in Words of Power makes things permanent." I once saw someone claim that two swords, a barbezu beard, armor spikes, and two boot blades could all be used together for 6 attacks at -2. I would argue that adding claws to feet is also pretty cheesy, but I think I might be outnumbered on that one. I'd also agree that using arcane mark is cheesy, and I believe it has been stated by a developer that it is an oversight.
By common usage, I have to say both definitions are right. In that, both are ways that people commonly use the word. However, the "deliberate rules misinterpretation" angle is more interesting to talk about.
An extreme example of this is the classic "dead is not a condition" crowd. Then there is "lowering the duration in Words of Power makes things permanent." I once saw someone claim that two swords, a barbezu beard, armor spikes, and two boot blades could all be used together for 6 attacks at -2. I would argue that adding claws to feet is also pretty cheesy, but I think I might be outnumbered on that one. I'd also agree that using arcane mark is cheesy, and I believe it has been stated by a developer that it is an oversight.
wait? arcane mark? I don't know this cheese, what is it?
wait? arcane mark? I don't know this cheese, what is it?By common usage, I have to say both definitions are right. In that, both are ways that people commonly use the word. However, the "deliberate rules misinterpretation" angle is more interesting to talk about.
An extreme example of this is the classic "dead is not a condition" crowd. Then there is "lowering the duration in Words of Power makes things permanent." I once saw someone claim that two swords, a barbezu beard, armor spikes, and two boot blades could all be used together for 6 attacks at -2. I would argue that adding claws to feet is also pretty cheesy, but I think I might be outnumbered on that one. I'd also agree that using arcane mark is cheesy, and I believe it has been stated by a developer that it is an oversight.
Probably a reference to being able to get an extra attack as a magus by casting arcane mark (a touch spell) without needing to expend a spell slot.
wait? arcane mark? I don't know this cheese, what is it?By common usage, I have to say both definitions are right. In that, both are ways that people commonly use the word. However, the "deliberate rules misinterpretation" angle is more interesting to talk about.
An extreme example of this is the classic "dead is not a condition" crowd. Then there is "lowering the duration in Words of Power makes things permanent." I once saw someone claim that two swords, a barbezu beard, armor spikes, and two boot blades could all be used together for 6 attacks at -2. I would argue that adding claws to feet is also pretty cheesy, but I think I might be outnumbered on that one. I'd also agree that using arcane mark is cheesy, and I believe it has been stated by a developer that it is an oversight.
This ability works with their ability spellcombat, which lets you cast a spell as a part of full-attacking.
The spell Arcane Mark is on the Magus spell list as a cantrip. Since it's a cantrip, it'll never be used up.
Arcane Mark is a touch-range spell.
RAW, you can use Spellstrike to cast Arcane Mark, and then use Spellcombat to get an extra attack on your full attack to deliver Arcane Mark. So basically, you have an infinite use extra attack.
Since Spellstrike is clearly meant to be for offensive purposes, it would seem that the RAI is that it shouldn't work with Arcane Mark.
Touch of Fatigue, picked up through the Two-Worlds Magic trait, also allows you an infinite extra attack, but requires spending a limited resource. There is a magus arcana that lets you deliver ranged touch attacks through Spellstrike as well, in which case Acid Splash and Ray of Frost qualify.
Both of these methods require spending a limited resource though.
Pornography is delicious?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I must say your comment isn't anything like what I'd intended to suggest, but it is somewhat disturbingly accurate.
Edit: now I picture this disturbed person in a tiny room with rules clippings posted all over the walls where they can obsess over them over and over.... Ooo look at this beautify little loophole they left me ooooo. And another book comes out next month, I'll have to clear a spot on my wall.
|
To me Cheese is misinterpreting the rules grossly so that you have an advantage, abusing loop holes that are clearly not RAI to get an advantage or optimizing you character to the point that the build doesn't actually make sense anymore(in relation to the character), i'm talking about dipping into classes, for mechanic reasons, that you character would have no reason for taking. like taking a two level dip in paladin just for Divine Grace, or even worse, taking a level dip in synthesist summoner so you can dump your physical stats
hmmmm, I dont see how this arcane mark helps. "I get an extra attack" to do what? Mark someone?
Spellcombat is attacking with sword in one hand, and casting touch spell with other. It is not attacking with sword, then casting spell and attacking with that sword again.
You must have a free hand to spell combat, so you can't have another weapon in the free hand. You can specifically RAW and RAI cast a touch spell (or ranged spell with proper arcanna) and attack with main hand sword.
Lets say you were a monk/magus. Could you spell combat and make an unarmed attack? No. you are specifically casting and delivering the touch spell, not punching, if you were punching, it would not be a touch attack, it would be a regular attack, resolved normally against normal ac, not touch ac.
So the only thing this poorly exploited loophole allows you to do, is, cast arcane mark for free while chopping someone with a sword. It does not allow you to use your sword an extra time.
this is precisely what I meant in the other thread, use of misinterpreted/poorly understood rules, to create a loophole that doesn't exist.
Besides, if you spent your arcanna on say the ranged touch attack arcanna, to be able to spellcombat infintely, its not really that huge of an exploit. #1 you spent a limited "upgrade" (not really a feat but it kinda is) to do it, #2 acid splash isnt that impressive damage #3) not anything a normal twf character with a dagger int he off hand couldnt do.
The only real bonus, is, that the acid splash is a touch attack instead of a regular attack.
And lastly, the spellcombat/acid splash thingie with the right arcanna is totally with in the bounds of what the creators/writers meant for the class to be able to do, that is TWF with sword and spell.
There is no where in the rules that says it allows you to attack a second time with your on hand sword.
The main problem with the original poster's definition is that in his mind someone may be using the weaker of 2 interpretations, but who is to say it is the weaker or less reasonable? If you define the weaker position as the one you dont like or the one that lets someone be more powerful or do something that you personally find irritating, then sure. :)
That said, I always end up playing super weak characters, so what do I know?
Animation, yes, I did consider that issue. But hey, it's my personal (and current until someone has one I like better!) definition, so I know what I believe to be the weaker argument. And that's the one with less evidence for it, imo. There are some issues with no evidence either way, and during those... Yeah the definition ducks.. Pendagest, spellstrike lets you deliver a spell through your weapon.
This is normally a standard action, and it allows you to cast the spell, and as a part of the standard action (whack someone.
Spellcombat let's you cast a spell as part of your full round attack. So you cast arcane mark.
Now at this point, you could reach out and touch them. Or, you can use spellstrike to deliver it through a new attack that's tied to the casting of the spell. You do not use one of the other attacks you have. You get an extra to do it.
If you used it as a part of one of your normal attacks, spellstrike would be a useless ability to use by itself. You wouldn't have any attacks to attach it to! It has to grant an extra attack.
Just to clarify, spellstrike and spellcombat being used together to get that extra attack is not the cheesy thing. It's wholly the use of Arcane Mark to get that extra attack with no limited resources spent.
Compare the use here to the real world object. There are many diverse kinds of cheese, made from different milks, with different recipes and definitions. You could discuss for a long time what it means to be cheese but it is much more effective to identify cheese by the taste and the smell.
|
The examples given of differences in character abilities based on using dice to roll said ability scores are why I have come to prefer point buy systems for generating characters. Granted point buy systems have their own potential problems too, but if one is obnoxious enough as a DM then those can be kept to a dull roar. Two methods present themselves:
(1) "Either accept no starting ability score below 8 or find another game to play in."
(2) Getting real creative about making the character suffer for the low ability scores that he took. I mean sure, Stephen Hawking is an incredibly intelligent person but he's not representative of the sort of ability scores I'd look for in a playable wizard character. And if somebody comes forward with a wizard character whose ability scores resemble that, then make him pay for it.
However, sometimes the system itself can get cheesy. As an example of this I offer the "Crossbow Mastery" feat on page 157 of the Advanced Player's Guide.
"Benefit: The time required for you to reload any type of crossbow is reduced to a free action, regardless of the type of crossbow used. You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow. Reloading a crossbow for the type of crossbow you chose when you took Rapid Reload no longer provokes attacks of opportunity."
Thus, a character with this feat could take a standard heavy crossbow (1 shot only, normally takes a full round to load, rapid reload feat for this crossbow reduces that to a move action) and fire it as many times during a full attack action as a regular bow. IMHO that's cheese. And it's pure RAW with no "misinterpretation".
If I were to do a "non-cheesy" version of that feat it would look something like:
"Benefit: The time required for you to reload crossbows is reduced. Hand crossbows and light crossbows can be reloaded as a free action. Heavy crossbows can be reloaded as a move action. Repeating crossbows can be reloaded with 5 round bolt cases as a move action." [Thus if you get this version of the feat you effectively get "rapid reload" for all types of crossbows, but not in such a manner as to "break" the basic game mechanics.] "Reloading a crossbow for the type of crossbow you chose when you took Rapid Reload no longer provokes attacks of opportunity."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, sometimes the system itself can get cheesy. As an example of this I offer the "Crossbow Mastery" feat on page 157 of the Advanced Player's Guide.
Uh... I'm going to disagree. Spending an extra feat so you can full-attack with your 1d10 heavy crossbow instead of a 1d8 light crossbow (which you already spent a feat to full-attack with) is not cheesy. It isn't even a good use of a feat most of the time. That it makes repeating crossbows obsolete has more to do with the fact that repeating crossbows are terrible for anyone who doesn't get the proficiency for free than with "cheese."
It's the use of three class abilities together. Any class ability which synergize with another is cheese. A bard using inspire courage and hitting things at the same time is cheese.
If inspire courage worked better when it left enemies covered in pointless marks, then yes. Yes it would.
I'll bold the parts that allow this combination. I'm not sure that you fully read both abilities.
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this in concert with spell combat, this takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
So:
1) We can cast a spell that meets the requirements listed in Spell Combat while doing that full-round action.
2) We explicitly do not need to use the hand we cast the spell to deliver the spell through a weapon.
3) We explicitly get a free melee attack as a part of casting the spell.
4) We can use Spellstrike to cast the spell that's being cast with spell combat.
So, we get a free attack that uses up no resources when casting arcane mark as a part of spell combat. We start out Spell Combat with casting Arcane Mark, whack someone, then use our attacks from BAB. Or maybe we use our attacks from BAB, and then cast arcane mark, whacking someone in the process.
|
|
However, sometimes the system itself can get cheesy. As an example of this I offer the "Crossbow Mastery" feat on page 157 of the Advanced Player's Guide.
"Benefit: The time required for you to reload any type of crossbow is reduced to a free action, regardless of the type of crossbow used. You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow. Reloading a crossbow for the type of crossbow you chose when you took Rapid Reload no longer provokes attacks of opportunity."
Thus, a character with this feat could take a standard heavy crossbow (1 shot only, normally takes a full round to load, rapid reload feat for this crossbow reduces that to a move action) and fire it as many times during a full attack action as a regular bow. IMHO that's cheese. And it's pure RAW with no "misinterpretation".
it's really not that cheesy at all, it's really hard to add damage modifiers to crossbows and you're still not threatening, you're basically burning two feats to make your crossbow less effective than a bow rather than a 'I'm out of spells and don't want to get into melee' weapon. where as you only really need to use one feat to do that with a bow (Point Blank Master)
the only two ways i can see a crossbow being better than a bow for a character is, a) you're not proficient with bows or b) you have less than 10 strength therefore will take penalties using a bow
Let's have this discussion. Be civil.
My current definition of cheese:
Deliberately interpreting ambiguous rules as meaning the side with the weaker argument, which when interpreted that way gives a greater mechanical advantage over when interpreted otherwise, such that it marginalizes or helps to marginalize the other members of your party.
How does MarkStrike follow this definition? There isn't even an argument involved.
Arcane mark is a level 0 touch spell you can cast on an enemy. The effect on an enemy is described. Either it's RAI, either the designer is stupid.
Spell combat allows you to full attack while casting a spell; the procedure is clearly described. Either it's RAI, either the designer is stupid.
Spellstrike clearly states it can be used with Spell combat, and it grants an additional attack with your weapon. Either it's RAI, either the designer is stupid.
RAI + RAI + RAI = cheese? OK, but you should change the definition of cheese. "Cheese is a synergy that Cheapy doesn't like for some reason."
I'm a scientific, and definitions are important for me. You can't begin a discussion by pretending your definition is A while using definition B during the discussion.
Did you not see the part about how the quoted definition was my current definition? And how later on in that very post, I posted something else I considered cheese that didn't follow that definition?
It should be clear, especially to someone who is "scientific", that I am working to get a better definition and that the quoted definition in the original post is only one aspect of my full definition.
Cheese also varies by table and GM.
Some GMs would consider my infinite-rage Destroyer's Blessing combo cheese because it takes advantage of the fact that objects don't take nonlethal damage to get extra rage rounds.
Others (including my own) laugh, say 'that's freaking epic,' and allow it with no problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that the intend of inspire courage is to buff the party, but it also allows a bard without party to be more efficient in melee than a rogue. Is it cheese or not?
This is the crossbow again. That the rogue is the repeating crossbow of classes does not make bard using inspire courage cheese.
And for hexcrafters, is BrandStrike cheese or not? (it's the same as MarkStrike, but with Brand).
Le sigh. Looks, its not cheese under the "deliberate misinterpretation" definition, and I shouldn't have included it with the others. It is cheese due to the fact is is unintended and silly. I mean, your enemies end up covered from head to toe in six character marks because to do otherwise would make you a worse combatant. That is silly and lame, and I really wish they would either use errata to fix the hole or just make "Strikespell," a cantrip that lets you spellstrike without having to leave dumb logos.
The ability is intended to let you use your weapon to fire off your "Shocking Grasps," allowing Gishes to be cool and worthwile. Not to give you fake semi-flurry because they forgot about a couple of spells. Frankly, I'm not even sure if the developers realized that close arcana would let you do infinite spellstrikes. It is a big game, and stuff gets through. This isn't the worst case, and it isn't deliberate stupidity like "dead isn't a condition," but I still reserve the right to call it "cheese."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In absolutely every case that I've seen on these forums where something other than a dairy product was called cheese, the word has been synonymous with "use of strategy". Some people my disagree with it meaning this, but nevertheless that is how I've seen it used. I've started to read 'cheese' as 'good job on finding a good tactical use of resources'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say cheese is willfully ignoring RAI in favor of RAW. When you know a rule is supposed to mean X, but doesn't specifically exclude Y, so you ignore X and play with Y (especially if X and Y are mutually exclusive or nearly so).
When you're playing for cheese, you're not looking to play the game the way it was meant to be played, you're looking for a way to break it in your favor. The cheese players know who they are deep down.
So, since there's apparently confusion of what my definition is, I'll reiterate what it is.
These all assume a party of average power level. Clearly if everyone is trying to be as super powerful as possible, then whether something is cheese or not doesn't matter as much.
That is to say, what is cheese is highly subjective, and depends on many circumstances, not the least of which are your other party mates. In general though, I think the following are good indicators of how cheesy something is.
* Deliberately interpreting ambiguous or questionable rules as meaning the side with the weaker argument, which when interpreted that way gives a greater mechanical advantage over when interpreted otherwise, such that it marginalizes or helps to marginalize the other members of your party. The weaker argument is determined by viewing the evidence the support the various sides.
* Taking 2 or more one or two level dips solely so that it helps you marginalize the contributions of other members of your party is cheese. Fighter class doesn't count against the limit, since it's extremely general, flavorless, and represents better combat training. In general (and not always), this can be phrased as "Putting optimization ahead of roleplaying."
* Pun Pun.
If you've been on the boards longer than a week, you know what I mean by the second point. If you either somehow don't know, or you want to claim you don't know when you really do, please go search for the 3.5 CharOp boards.
Related to the first point is that if there are substantial questions as to the RAI with how interactions between various abilities work, "RAW" is not enough to determine the intention. The developers are only human; Unintentional synergies occur. Using an unintentional synergy is not in and of itself cheese. It depends on the synergy, and how/if it marginalizes the contributions of other party members. See point #3 for why RAW does not mean RAI.
I encourage people to post their own definitions, especially if they disagree with my current definition. I am highly interested in refining my definition, since it is by no means perfect, so seeing a multitude of definitions would be awesome.
I define it by smell.
If it stinks like Limburger than it's cheese.
My feet are definitely not cheese.
regarding arcane mark thing If you take hexcrafter archtype you get brand as a spell so then you can use that as it actually does one point of damage as it is less cheesy.
Animation, yes, I did consider that issue. But hey, it's my personal (and current until someone has one I like better!) definition, so I know what I believe to be the weaker argument. And that's the one with less evidence for it, imo. There are some issues with no evidence either way, and during those... Yeah the definition ducks.. Pendagest, spellstrike lets you deliver a spell through your weapon.
This is normally a standard action, and it allows you to cast the spell, and as a part of the standard action (whack someone.
Spellcombat let's you cast a spell as part of your full round attack. So you cast arcane mark.
Now at this point, you could reach out and touch them. Or, you can use spellstrike to deliver it through a new attack that's tied to the casting of the spell. You do not use one of the other attacks you have. You get an extra to do it.
If you used it as a part of one of your normal attacks, spellstrike would be a useless ability to use by itself. You wouldn't have any attacks to attach it to! It has to grant an extra attack.
Just to clarify, spellstrike and spellcombat being used together to get that extra attack is not the cheesy thing. It's wholly the use of Arcane Mark to get that extra attack with no limited resources spent.
Misinterpretation. Spellstrike lets you cast a spell through your on hand weapons in the same action as your main on hand attack. You cannot spellstrike and spell combat, this is using more actions than you have, that was clearly laid out during the beta.
Or order to spellstrike, you are casting a spell (this uses your attack action) so you can spellstrike and move 5 feet the attack with the sword is part of the the spellstrike. So by spellstriking, you have used your action, just like say if you cast web.Spell combat is twf spells. They don't go together in the same round. It's a simple case of using more actions than you have.