** spoiler omitted **...
Did anyone stop to calculate the number of AoOs this silliness could provoke? especially in a cramped melee?
At 2nd level, 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. 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.
Please read the abilities that you are talking about. You are making yourself look foolish.
One more definition.
More often than not, any post by Raving Dork.
I'm surprised this low level fruit was left hanging for so long.
Edit: Linkified for those who don't recognize the phrase.
... i have never been so disappointed in a link in my life.
I believe things like Persistent spell and the witches sleep hex cackle combo should be termed "Spam". They're absolutely completely legal and working as intended, but the intent is to give a dull, flavorless , uniform slab of bleh that robs the entire meal of any taste.
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.
Entirely incorrect. Spell Combat lets you make attacks with your MH weapon AND cast a single spell. That's all. It's a full round action. Spellstrike lets you, whenever you cast a spell, make an attack with your weapon to do it. It absolutely positively works like that. That's not the controversial bit. Everyone agrees on this, except you, even though the relevant abilities have been quoted and highlighted for you. The thing is that Arcane Mark was never meant to be an offensive spell, like Shocking Grasp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I define cheese? Simple: I don't.
Cheese is a ridiculous term for a concept that's worse than useless. It's never had a clear, universally acceptable definition, leading to countless arguments at cross purposes. It's an aggressive, loaded term when it really doesn't need to be. It's used to dismiss or stigmatise practises that do no harm, just as much as practises that genuinely cross a line.
Calling something cheese is like calling a person a turd. It solves nothing, means nothing and enlightens nobody.
So far in this thread, cheese has been variously defined as following RAW over RAI, creatively interpreting rules to gain an advantage, uncreatively taking the dullest route to power, using certain options regarded by some as too powerful, marginalising your group, or using any kind of "cheap tactic". There's quite a range of stuff covered there.
The only connection is "This person has used some power I think he shouldn't have, so he is wrong and ought to stop." That's the only all-inclusive meaning I can come up with and I think it really highlights the problem. There's nothing inherently bad about being effective and successful, but when anybody objects, for literally any reason at all, good or bad, the source of that power is magically transmuted into "cheese".
Besides, who am I to judge my group? What makes my own standard of acceptable builds and tactics better than theirs'? This kind of problem needs an agreement to be reached if it's ever to be solved fairly. It needs somebody to say "I think we'd all have more fun if you did something else because... ...What do you think?", not "You can't do that. It's cheese.".
An aside about cheap tactics: This reminds me of people complaining of cheese when playing fighting videogames. The specific meaning there was "Using the same move again and again until I die."
My response is always "That's not cheap. It's the most obvious thing to do and it's working. It's not even very good. If you don't like it, make me do something else." They always learn to beat it.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you can't beat an enemy who closes their eyes and only ever does the same obvious thing, your enemy is not the problem. Either you don't know how to play the game or the game itself is seriously flawed. Don't fix the opponent. He's not in the wrong and his tactics are only a symptom of something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheese/CHēz/
Noun:
1. AM BARBARIAN
2. Any other character concept whose first name is AM or AMY.
3. Anything designed to kill AM BARBARIAN or a related build.
Cheese/CHēz/
Noun:1. AM BARBARIAN
2. Any other character concept whose first name is AM or AMY.
2. Anything designed to kill AM BARBARIAN or a related build.
Close enough.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you can't beat an enemy who closes their eyes and only ever does the same obvious thing, your enemy is not the problem. Either you don't know how to play the game or the game itself is seriously flawed. Don't fix the opponent. He's not in the wrong and his tactics are only a symptom of something else.
Which works in a video game where there is clear, objective programming that is equally available to all players. If someone can keep spamming that flying uppercut over and over and over to win thats a problem with the game- thats why i called it spam.
Cheese on the other hand, by the offered definition from the OP, is essentially hacking the English language and the rules in order to give yourself an advantage. That's a problem with the DM and with the player.
That wasn't my personal idea of cheese; it was just something several people have called cheese in the past. It's also equivalent to spamming colour spray, which some people in this thread have already called cheese. That's part of my larger point: Cheese is used to mean so many completely different things that saying it is never helpful and often counter-productive, because it irritates people, leads to pointless discussions about what cheese really means and doesn't actually communicate your problem.
That wasn't my personal idea of cheese; it was just something several people have called cheese in the past. It's also equivalent to spamming colour spray, which some people in this thread have already called cheese. That's part of my larger point: Cheese is used to mean so many completely different things that saying it is never helpful and often counter-productive, because it irritates people, leads to pointless discussions about what cheese really means and doesn't actually communicate your problem.
That poster clarified later that the examples he gave were ones he thought others would say I think.
Part of the reason for this thread is to get that elusive definition somewhat nailed down.
And quite frankly if saying that your fighter never sleeps because there are no rules saying there's a penalty for not sleeping isn't cheese, I don't know what is.
That wasn't my personal idea of cheese; it was just something several people have called cheese in the past. It's also equivalent to spamming colour spray, which some people in this thread have already called cheese. That's part of my larger point: Cheese is used to mean so many completely different things that saying it is never helpful and often counter-productive, because it irritates people, leads to pointless discussions about what cheese really means and doesn't actually communicate your problem.That poster clarified later that the examples he gave were ones he thought others would say I think.
Part of the reason for this thread is to get that elusive definition somewhat nailed down.
And quite frankly if saying that your fighter never sleeps because there are no rules saying there's a penalty for not sleeping isn't cheese, I don't know what is.
There is one option but then you will be called a dick gm for after he does it for few days when he starts going crazy which is realisitic.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mastery/sanityAndMadness.html
Lowering ability scores to 7 for extra points at character creation.
Please read the abilities that you are talking about. You are making yourself look foolish.At 2nd level, 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. 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.
This ability was certainly NOT play tested that way. I didn't actually reread the rule in the UM book, because no one had really talked about changing that ability. but as it was originally written in Beta/play testing, is expressedly said the exact opposite, I'm sure because the Dev's wanted to make sure something like this did NOT happen.
Now that the final version is written that way (which wasn't play tested) I wonder why then? Why change that at the last minute?
Originally there werent any touch attacks in the zero level range (arcane mark being an obvious oversight as it causes no damage)
however the arcanna has always existed allowing you to use ranged touch attack with spell combat. So... as i said before, had it been playtested, someone would have come up with this and it's silliness would have been revealed.
I imagine, Dev's intended the extra attacks to work in concert with limited resources, and it's likely an oversight, but it's clear they literally reversed the wording from the beta.
So, using that as logic, the extra attacks from the spell combat/spellstrike is clearly deliberate, but I would call arcane mark cheese, but the aracanna ranged touch attack ability is good to go. albeit I dont think it was really meant to give a 3rd level magus unlimited extra attacks and probably is RAI, but an oversight.
The problem with this thread, is the definition of cheese isn't ellusive, it's varied. Everyone defines cheese a little different. It's like beauty. A lot of people think Pam Anderson is attractive, I think she would make a great medusa.
As for the arcane mark issue...I think it's laughable you can say it wasn't playtested Pendagast, as you don't know every single playtest that happened. I happen to agree that the thought of someone tattooing out the alphabet on each opponent is silly, I just don't understand any other complaint against the tactic. It's like saying power attack is broken, because it doesn't use up any resources. You have to make a concentration check to get the extra attack, and it gives you a penalty to all of your attacks for the round. I'm playing a magus in Carrion Crown, and haven't even brought the idea up to my GM, as I haven't been in a situation where the penalty has really been worth it.
The problem with this thread, is the definition of cheese isn't ellusive, it's varied. Everyone defines cheese a little different. It's like beauty. A lot of people think Pam Anderson is attractive, I think she would make a great medusa.
As for the arcane mark issue...I think it's laughable you can say it wasn't playtested Pendagast, as you don't know every single playtest that happened. I happen to agree that the thought of someone tattooing out the alphabet on each opponent is silly, I just don't understand any other complaint against the tactic. It's like saying power attack is broken, because it doesn't use up any resources. You have to make a concentration check to get the extra attack, and it gives you a penalty to all of your attacks for the round. I'm playing a magus in Carrion Crown, and haven't even brought the idea up to my GM, as I haven't been in a situation where the penalty has really been worth it.
SO they decided to privately play test it on the side while allowing the rest of us to play test another version of the rules? I doubt that. I've had a magus ever since beta, just never looked farther down spellstrike to see the change. Everytime you use spell combat at all you get those penalties and possible provoke AoO, this just basically does it again.
defensive casting is huge for a magus, I have seen however, in the playtest a situation where you could attack, 5 foot step and cast, but i can't recall the situation but it some how (theoretically) allowed you to avoid AoO... I cant remember how they were doing it now tho.
Turns out the final magus is not the same as the playtest one. Just like most other ones that went through playtests. Please do not use the playtest version of a class as the basis for your argument, especially when you are railing against other people for misunderstanding the rules they are using or misinterpreting the rules.
Fraust, I am starting to see that might be the case. However, I saw (about a year ago) a study that showed what the average beautiful person would look like. So, if perhaps the definition varies, there's at least some sort of underlying indicators towards what beauty / cheese is.
And I think one of the bigger indicators is "Not using RAI, for fun and profit."
Turns out the final magus is not the same as the playtest one. Just like most other ones that went through playtests. Please do not use the playtest version of a class as the basis for your argument, especially when you are railing against other people for misunderstanding the rules they are using or misinterpreting the rules.
Fraust, I am starting to see that might be the case. However, I saw (about a year ago) a study that showed what the average beautiful person would look like. So, if perhaps the definition varies, there's at least some sort of underlying indicators towards what beauty / cheese is.
And I think one of the bigger indicators is "Not using RAI, for fun and profit."
Cheapy, I said I made a mistake, I never looked down to see that change in UM. It was clearly outlawed in Beta. And as I stated I find it odd they changed it (maybe because they didnt like the fact spell strike and spell combat didnt synergize)
However, the arcane mark "cheese" hardly ramps of the mega damage from an extra sword attack as most of the "loop hole" rules lawyers usually do. Im curious though that change, changes the image/concept of the magus as a twf sword with one hand spell with the other into: attacks alot with a sword, some times with spells.... curious as to whether that wording was deliberate or not.
Anyone ever heard from a dev on the arcane mark thingie?
I think the "average" beautiful person is going to end up like taking the average of a car, an orange, an octopus, and a fire, all super imposed over eachother. You might find something that is considered cheese by the majority of people, but I'm not sure that's what you're going for (and I'm not sure what that would help if it were, I'm of the mind set that the majority of people are unintelligent and their opinion is irrelivent). If you're just interested in what different people think is cheesy, I'm sure you'll get people to answer. Folks in these parts love pointing the finger at anything they don't like and calling cheese.
Pendagast...my point is you say you know, when you don't. Maybe it's semantics, and maybe I only pointed it out because I was in a mood to be argumentative. Either way, yes, maybe they did do some inhouse playtesting while the public playtest was up. I've met Jason in person, and talked to him a little in email/on here, he's not an idiot, and I don't think it's something he missed, though I could be wrong. Smart people make mistakes. I think if they thought it was important they would have said something about it, as there are numerous posts on the topic. Being that it's not exactly game breaking ('cept for the folk who took half a glance and threw their book up in the air and began screaming the sky is falling) I imagine if there was an oversight they've either decided to ignore it, or get to it once the four hundred and eight billion other more important issues have been taken care of.
I think the "average" beautiful person is going to end up like taking the average of a car, an orange, an octopus, and a fire, all super imposed over eachother. You might find something that is considered cheese by the majority of people, but I'm not sure that's what you're going for (and I'm not sure what that would help if it were, I'm of the mind set that the majority of people are unintelligent and their opinion is irrelivent). If you're just interested in what different people think is cheesy, I'm sure you'll get people to answer. Folks in these parts love pointing the finger at anything they don't like and calling cheese.
Pendagast...my point is you say you know, when you don't. Maybe it's semantics, and maybe I only pointed it out because I was in a mood to be argumentative. Either way, yes, maybe they did do some inhouse playtesting while the public playtest was up. I've met Jason in person, and talked to him a little in email/on here, he's not an idiot, and I don't think it's something he missed, though I could be wrong. Smart people make mistakes. I think if they thought it was important they would have said something about it, as there are numerous posts on the topic. Being that it's not exactly game breaking ('cept for the folk who took half a glance and threw their book up in the air and began screaming the sky is falling) I imagine if there was an oversight they've either decided to ignore it, or get to it once the four hundred and eight billion other more important issues have been taken care of.
Like i said, it's hardly causing mega damage. Ive been play testing stuff since before Pathfinder was even in print. And Ive never seen them do a full on rule reversal of a rile without trying the other way in a play test first. Ive never seen them, and it would be self defeating to, go ahead and play test something privately, after going through the the pain and effort to play test it publicly. So your 'maybe' is a 'probably' not.
As you pointed out, smart people don't do dumb things. It wouldn't make any sense to go through all the effort of play testing something and the n go, "nah" ima gonna do it disa way.
I was just thinking about this and here comes this thread! I write to suggest a guideline. If you are asked and you point to a rule reference with no narrative, it's cheese; if instead you picture or narrate it, it's burger.
Cheapy's example of spellstrike/other feat/Arcane Mark - like Cheapy said, it's the abuse of Arcane Mark. What if instead of Mark you used True Strike? 'My magically-enhanced precision makes getting in another attack easy.' That is burger. Arcane Mark is chosen w/o narrative, it is zero level, no save - it's chosen for benefits in the rules, not in the narrative. That's cheese.
Infinite combo - cheeZe. An infinite combo has no narrative, as infinite is undefined.
Narrative logic is important because RPGs started as simulations. While some rules are for balance or playability, we still simulate and narrate (or depict). Oh, and it's fun!
Power-hungry is not cheesey. Most of us are power-hungry, i.e., we want our characters to be effective and cool. Cheese involves lotsa rules references - RAI or RAW - because you neglect the narrative.
Someone says 'that is subjective.' I say: it's impressive how consistently it lines up. Examples above. See Roleplay v Min/Maxing. Min/Max starts OK, becomes cheese when the narrative is left behind. Subjective, yet often identifiable.
People will say, 'but i can come up with a narrative to justify x numbers of y.' I say, tell the DM how it will be fun to have this power, to describe how it works, how it could fail, and how it fits the world. If need be, accept 'no.' That's meat, not cheese.
I found you post very interesting kricothebarbarian, a very unique interpretation of cheese. I have a few questions that I hope that you will answer for me.
Kricothebarbarian: “I write to suggest a guideline.”Is the guideline that you are suggesting a guideline to character creation, or a litmus test for cheese, both, or something else entirely?
Kricothebarbarian: “If you are asked and you point to a rule reference with no narrative, it's cheese; if instead you picture or narrate it, it's burger.”
I’m not sure what the theoretical player here is being asked. Are they being asked a rules question about their character, then I don’t see why pointing to a rule would be a cheese move. Additionally are you suggesting that nothing is cheesy as long as an adequate amount of fluff is added? As a side note, even though I’m pretty sure that by “burger” you mean “acceptable” your reference to “burger” made it more difficult for me to understand what you where saying.
Kricothebarbarian: “Cheese involves lotsa rules references - RAI or RAW - because you neglect the narrative.”
I believe that all characters involve lots of rules references, because characters are made using the rules of the game. Although I believe that your post as intended referred to sacrificing character concept for optimal rule implementation, which I don’t 100% disagree with.
Kricothebarbarian: “People will say, 'but i can come up with a narrative to justify x numbers of y.' I say, tell the DM how it will be fun to have this power, to describe how it works, how it could fail, and how it fits the world. If need be, accept 'no.' That's meat, not cheese.”
In this example are you suggesting that you have the authority as a fellow player to say that another player’s character is unacceptable and cannot be played by them? Maybe you mean that you’re the DM in this scenario? When you mention meat, do you mean that if they satisfy your request for additional information that you will accept their character and if not they’re cheese?
Pendagast, actually, what I said is smart people make mistakes. I know some scary smart people, and I've seen them do some amazingly dumb things before.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to have an open playtest active and also run things through in office games. If I have an idea, and I ask you what you think of it, I don't stop thinking about it.
I don't pay much attention to the play tests, as I don't have the patients to listen to all the whining and complaining the vast hord of armchair game designers that hang out here do. Wouldn't surprise me if there's been an example of them going back on something, but even if there isn't, does it change anything? This being the first time, does it matter? My point (beyond the fact that it isn't an over powered tactic, which I'm gathering you agree with) is that this has been talked about (to death in my opinion) for a while, and there has been no (to my knowledge) official word, so calling it intended or unintended is a massive waste of time.
Pendagast, actually, what I said is smart people make mistakes. I know some scary smart people, and I've seen them do some amazingly dumb things before.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to have an open playtest active and also run things through in office games. If I have an idea, and I ask you what you think of it, I don't stop thinking about it.
I don't pay much attention to the play tests, as I don't have the patients to listen to all the whining and complaining the vast hord of armchair game designers that hang out here do. Wouldn't surprise me if there's been an example of them going back on something, but even if there isn't, does it change anything? This being the first time, does it matter? My point (beyond the fact that it isn't an over powered tactic, which I'm gathering you agree with) is that this has been talked about (to death in my opinion) for a while, and there has been no (to my knowledge) official word, so calling it intended or unintended is a massive waste of time.
Ive been busy for months. I havent been on here in a while, so 1) I was merely theorizing out loud, the reasoning for the full rule reversal,in direct reference to the cheese. 1) it COULD be one of those editor got a hold of the final wording of said paragraph and it was made to say something unintended (doubt it) 2) There MUST be a reason for the full reversal (most likely, although not play testing it was weird to me) and 3) Assuming, they did deliberately change the rule 180, it was thus meant deliberately to get more attacks ( I assume because the arm chair designers you mention were whining about how bad a dex based rapier magus was at lower levels ) BUT I doubt they meant in an RAI way for arcane mark to do what it's doing (however while eating dinner, i mused it would be an amusing way to "Zorro" your initials on an enemy)
However you are right, because it takes more negatives to do so (AoOs and -2 to all attacks) and normally (without the arcane mark bug) would need to spend an arcanna to exploit, it's likely not "broken" or worth 'fixing'. It all more or less balances out.
I just dont like how it makes the sword and spell class a sword and then some more sword class.... leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
However back to the original point, that does infact make arcane mark....cheese.
So, getting back on track.
We seem to have two definition, unless I'm missing something. Cheesy is either intentionally misinterpreting RAI to achieve an effect that either outshines other players or distinctly breaks verisimilitude. That sound good?
The other one, the one I brought up, are things that in a fighting game would be considered cheap. Something that is far too effective for the resource used to create it. Spam. In 3.5 spiked chain trip fighters were this I think. They were just to versatile and efficient. It was a pretty clear winner in optimization, well...along with the supercharger and you can totally be both. They were so ubiquitous that they became an in joke at WotC.
So yeah, the similar qualities are many, though these two things are distinct. The goal of both is to make a character more effective, this is clear, but subjectively DMs may cry foul at them being "too" effective.
Is there anything people consider cheese that doesn't fall into these categories? I'd move to declare from here on in only category A is cheese, while category B is just cheap-a term already in place for this sort of sort of thing.
Not that there's anything wrong with being cheap <_< >_>
And before TOZ shows up:
a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey
This.
I use the word "overpowered" for things that fit your initial definition Cheapy. I also reserve the word "broken" for things that simply do not work within the system.
These "professionals", if they were real, would be looking for just such cheap tricks to gain advantage and give them the edge and keep their skins intact. Their lives would depend on such dirty tricks and tweaks to overcome the unpredictable circumstances and varied enemies they face.
This isn't real life. It is a game. One where you can walk up to a tree, touch it, and turn it into its weight in clubs but couldn't cut it down with anything less than an adamantine axe. One where anyone who can try to cough out some last words can also be made right as rain with a DC15 Heal check. One where sleep is only recommended, not required.
Obviously, sometimes the rules fail. We smooth over these failings because, hey, it is a game and we want it to be fun and make at least a bit of sense. "Cheese," depending on definition and instance, can cause interfere with either the fun or the sense. A build that, through esoteric (but legal) rules interactions, is far more powerful than anyone else can hurt the "fun" for other players. Optimum combat technique requiring magically writing all over your opponent makes anything but sense and can ruin all those vague feelings like "immersion" and "verisimilitude."
If it doesn't ruin anything for anyone, let it fly. Some people don't fret over power levels or a combination that dominates all challenges. A game where people in the world understood and dealt with things in-world, like by turning trees into clubs then sundering them, could actually be pretty funny. But for a normal game, it is entirely within the right of the GM to remove any "cheese" they feel is stinking up the place.
Okay, now that that is all through, I'd like to second the motion that from now on, we all just use more precise terms (Blue Star's cover most situations quite well, I think) and leave cheese where it belongs: on delicious sandwiches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brie = cheese
|
So, getting back on track.
We seem to have two definition, unless I'm missing something. Cheesy is either intentionally misinterpreting RAI to achieve an effect that either outshines other players or distinctly breaks verisimilitude. That sound good?The other one, the one I brought up, are things that in a fighting game would be considered cheap. Something that is far too effective for the resource used to create it. Spam. In 3.5 spiked chain trip fighters were this I think. They were just to versatile and efficient. It was a pretty clear winner in optimization, well...along with the supercharger and you can totally be both. They were so ubiquitous that they became an in joke at WotC.
So yeah, the similar qualities are many, though these two things are distinct. The goal of both is to make a character more effective, this is clear, but subjectively DMs may cry foul at them being "too" effective.
Is there anything people consider cheese that doesn't fall into these categories? I'd move to declare from here on in only category A is cheese, while category B is just cheap-a term already in place for this sort of sort of thing.
Another definition I saw sometimes is mixing traits/classes/equipment... to find the greatest synergies with no regard to verisimilitude.
Be aware though that verisimilitude is always based on the GM's point of view (and will definitely change from one GM to the next) and may contain such artificial notions as "a character should not have more than 2 base classes".
Also, note that the aforementioned synergies do not need to result in a powerful character. Even an average character may be deemed "cheesy". It is just that the GMs are feeling dizzy from the accumulation of ingredients that went in its making.
An extreme example of this is the classic "dead is not a condition" crowd.
That also reminds me of the unconscious, helpless, and dying creature still gets to take advantage of the Evasion ability...